Chapter IX: MÎMÂ@MSÂ PHILOSOPHY Footnote ref 1 (1)

A Comparative Review.

The Nyâya-Vais'e@sika philosophy looked at experience from a purely common sense point of view and did not work with any such monistic tendency that the ultimate conceptions of our common sense experience should be considered as coming out of an original universal (e.g. prak@rti of the Sâm@khya). Space, time, the four elements, soul, etc. convey the impression that they are substantive entities or substances. What is perceived of the material things as qualities such as colour, taste, etc. is regarded as so many entities which have distinct and separate existence but which manifest themselves in connection with the substances. So also karma or action is supposed to be a separate entity, and even the class notions are perceived as separate entities inhering in substances. Knowledge (_jñâna_) which illuminates all things is regarded only as a quality belonging to soul, just as there are other qualities of material objects. Causation is viewed merely as the collocation of conditions. The genesis of knowledge is also viewed as similar in nature to the production of any other physical event. Thus just as by the collocation of certain physical circumstances a jug and its qualities are produced, so by the combination and respective contacts of the soul, mind, sense, and the objects of sense, knowledge (_jñâna_) is produced. Soul with Nyâya is an inert unconscious entity in which knowledge, etc. inhere. The relation between a substance and its quality, action, class notion, etc. has also to be admitted as a separate entity, as without it the different entities being without any principle of relation would naturally fail to give us a philosophic construction.

Sâ@mkhya had conceived of a principle which consisted of an infinite number of reals of three different types, which by their combination were conceived to be able to produce all substances, qualities, actions, etc. No difference was acknowledged to exist between substances, qualities and actions, and it was conceived

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: On the meanirg of the word Mîmâ@msâ see Chapter IV.]

368

that these were but so many aspects of a combination of the three types of reals in different proportions. The reals contained within them the rudiments of all developments of matter, knowledge, willing, feelings, etc. As combinations of reals changed incessantly and new phenomena of matter and mind were manifested, collocations did not bring about any new thing but brought about a phenomenon which was already there in its causes in another form. What we call knowledge or thought ordinarily, is with them merely a form of subtle illuminating matter stuff. Sâ@mkhya holds however that there is a transcendent entity as pure consciousness and that by some kind of transcendent reflection or contact this pure consciousness transforms the bare translucent thought-matter into conscious thought or experience of a person.

But this hypothesis of a pure self, as essentially distinct and separate from knowledge as ordinarily understood, can hardly be demonstrated in our common sense experience; and this has been pointed out by the Nyâya school in a very strong and emphatic manner. Even Sâ@mkhya did not try to prove that the existence of its transcendent puru@sa could be demonstrated in experience, and it had to attempt to support its hypothesis of the existence of a transcendent self on the ground of the need of a permanent entity as a fixed object, to which the passing states of knowledge could cling, and on grounds of moral struggle towards virtue and emancipation. Sâ@mkhya had first supposed knowledge to be merely a combination of changing reals, and then had as a matter of necessity to admit a fixed principle as puru@sa (pure transcendent consciousness). The self is thus here in some sense an object of inference to fill up the gap left by the inadequate analysis of consciousness (_buddhi_) as being non-intelligent and incessantly changing.

Nyâya fared no better, for it also had to demonstrate self on the ground that since knowledge existed it was a quality, and therefore must inhere in some substance. This hypothesis is again based upon another uncritical assumption that substances and attributes were entirely separate, and that it was the nature of the latter to inhere in the former, and also that knowledge was a quality requiring (similarly with other attributes) a substance in which to inhere. None of them could take their stand upon the self-conscious nature of our ordinary thought and draw their conclusions on the strength of the direct evidence of this self-conscious

369

thought. Of course it is true that Sâ@mkhya had approached nearer to this view than Nyâya, but it had separated the content of knowledge and its essence so irrevocably that it threatened to break the integrity of thought in a manner quite unwarranted by common sense experience, which does not seem to reveal this dual element in thought. Anyhow the unification of the content of thought and its essence had to be made, and this could not be done except by what may be regarded as a makeshift--a transcendent illusion running on from beginningless time. These difficulties occurred because Sâ@mkhya soared to a region which was not directly illuminated by the light of common sense experience. The Nyâya position is of course much worse as a metaphysical solution, for it did not indeed try to solve anything, but only gave us a schedule of inferential results which could not be tested by experience, and which were based ultimately on a one-sided and uncritical assumption. It is an uncritical common sense experience that substances are different from qualities and actions, and that the latter inhere in the former. To base the whole of metaphysics on such a tender and fragile experience is, to say the least, building on a weak foundation. It was necessary that the importance of the self-revealing thought must be brought to the forefront, its evidence should be collected and trusted, and an account of experience should be given according to its verdict. No construction of metaphysics can ever satisfy us which ignores the direct immediate convictions of self-conscious thought. It is a relief to find that a movement of philosophy in this direction is ushered in by the Mîmâ@msâ system. The _Mîmâ@msâ sûtras_ were written by Jaimini and the commentary (_bhâ@sya_) on it was written by S'abara. But the systematic elaboration of it was made by Kumârila, who preceded the great S'a@nkarâcârya, and a disciple of Kumârila, Prabhâkara.

The Mîmâ@msâ Literature.

It is difficult to say how the sacrificial system of worship grew in India in the Brâhma@nas. This system once set up gradually began to develop into a net-work of elaborate rituals, the details of which were probably taken note of by the priests. As some generations passed and the sacrifices spread over larger tracts of India and grew up into more and more elaborate details, the old rules and regulations began to be collected probably as tradition

370

had it, and this it seems gave rise to the sm@rti literature. Discussions and doubts became more common about the many intricacies of the sacrificial rituals, and regular rational enquiries into them were begun in different circles by different scholars and priests. These represent the beginnings of Mîmâ@msâ (lit. attempts at rational enquiry), and it is probable that there were different schools of this thought. That Jaimini's _Mîmâ@msâ sûtras_ (which are with us the foundations of Mîmâ@msâ) are only a comprehensive and systematic compilation of one school is evident from the references he gives to the views in different matters of other preceding writers who dealt with the subject. These works are not available now, and we cannot say how much of what Jaimini has written is his original work and how much of it borrowed. But it may be said with some degree of confidence that it was deemed so masterly a work at least of one school that it has survived all other attempts that were made before him. Jaimini's _Mîmâ@msâ sûtras_ were probably written about 200 B.C. and are now the ground work of the Mîmâ@msâ system. Commentaries were written on it by various persons such as Bhart@rmitra (alluded to in _Nyâyaratnâkara_ verse 10 of _S'lokavârttika_), Bhavadâsa {_Pratijñasûtra_ 63}, Hari and Upavar@sa (mentioned in _S'âstradîpikâ_). It is probable that at least some of these preceded S'abara, the writer of the famous commentary known as the _S'abara-bhâ@sya_. It is difficult to say anything about the time in which he flourished. Dr Ga@ngânâtha Jhâ would have him about 57 B.C. on the evidence of a current verse which speaks of King Vikramâditya as being the son of S'abarasvâmin by a K@sattriya wife. This bhâ@sya of S'abara is the basis of the later Mîmâ@msâ works. It was commented upon by an unknown person alluded to as Vârttikakâra by Prabhâkara and merely referred to as "yathâhu@h" (as they say) by Kumârila. Dr Ga@nganâtha Jhâ says that Prabhâkara's commentary _B@rhatî_ on the _S'abara-bhâ@sya_ was based upon the work of this Vârttikakâra. This _B@rhatî_ of Prabhâkara had another commentary on it--_@Rjuvimâlâ_ by S'alikanâtha Mis'ra, who also wrote a compendium on the Prabhâkara interpretation of Mîmâ@msâ called _Prakara@napañcikâ_. Tradition says that Prabhâkara (often referred to as Nibandhakâra), whose views are often alluded to as "gurumata," was a pupil of Kumârila. Kumârila Bha@t@ta, who is traditionally believed to be the senior contemporary of S'a@nkara (788 A.D.), wrote his celebrated independent

371

exposition of S'abara's bhâ@sya in three parts known as _S'lokavârttika_ (dealing only with the philosophical portion of S'abara's work as contained in the first chapter of the first book known as Tarkapâda), _Tantravârttika_ (dealing with the remaining three chapters of the first book, the second and the third book) and _@Tup@tîkâ_ (containing brief notes on the remaining nine books) [Footnote ref 1]. Kumârila is referred to by his later followers as Bha@t@ta, Bha@t@tapâda, and Vârttikakâra. The next great Mîmâ@msâ scholar and follower of Kumârila was Ma@n@dana Mis'ra, the author of _Vidhiviveka, Mîmâ@msânukrama@nî_ and the commentator of _Tantravârttika,_ who became later on converted by S'a@nkara to Vedantism. Pârthasârathi Mis'ra (about ninth century A.D.) wrote his _S'âstradîpikâ, Tantraratna,_ and _Nyâyaratnamâlâ_ following the footprints of Kumârila. Amongst the numerous other followers of Kumârila, the names of Sucarita Mis'ra the author of _Kâs'ikâ_ and Somes'vara the author of _Nyâyasudhâ_ deserve special notice. Râmak@r@s@na Bha@t@ta wrote an excellent commentary on the _Tarkapâda_ of _S'âstradîpikâ_ called the _Yuktisnehapûra@nî-siddhânta-candrikâ_ and Somanâtha wrote his _Mayûkhamâlikâ_ on the remaining chapters of _S'âstradîpikâ_. Other important current Mîmâ@msâ works which deserve notice are such as _Nyâyamâlâvistara_ of Mâdhava, _Subodhinî, Mîmâ@msâbâlaprakâs'a_ of S'a@nkara Bha@t@ta, _Nyâyaka@nikâ_ of Vâcaspati Mis'ra, _Mîmâ@msâparibhâ@sa_ by K@r@s@nayajvan, _Mîmâ@msânyâyaprakâs'a_ by Anantadeva, Gâgâ Bha@t@ta's _Bha@t@tacintâma@ni,_ etc. Most of the books mentioned here have been consulted in the writing of this chapter. The importance of the Mîmâ@msâ literature for a Hindu is indeed great. For not only are all Vedic duties to be performed according to its maxims, but even the sm@rti literatures which regulate the daily duties, ceremonials and rituals of Hindus even at the present day are all guided and explained by them. The legal side of the sm@rtis consisting of inheritance, proprietory rights, adoption, etc. which guide Hindu civil life even under the British administration is explained according to the Mîmâ@msâ maxims. Its relations to the Vedânta philosophy will be briefly indicated in the next chapter. Its relations with Nyâya-Vais'e@sika have also been pointed out in various places of this chapter. The views of the two schools of Mîmâ@msâ as propounded by Prabhâkara and Kumârila on all the important topics have

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Mahâmahopadhyâya Haraprasâda S'âstrî says, in his introduction to _Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts_, that "Kumârila preceded Sa@nkara by two generations."]

372

also been pointed out. Prabhâkara's views however could not win many followers in later times, but while living it is said that he was regarded by Kumârila as a very strong rival [Footnote ref 1]. Hardly any new contribution has been made to the Mîmâ@msâ philosophy after Kumârila and Prabhâkara. The _Mîmâ@msâ sûtras_ deal mostly with the principles of the interpretation of the Vedic texts in connection with sacrifices, and very little of philosophy can be gleaned out of them. S'abara's contributions are also slight and vague. Vârttikakâra's views also can only be gathered from the references to them by Kumârila and Prabhâkara. What we know of Mîmâ@msâ philosophy consists of their views and theirs alone. It did not develop any further after them. Works written on the subject in later times were but of a purely expository nature. I do not know of any work on Mîmâ@msâ written in English except the excellent one by Dr Ga@ngânâtha Jhâ on the Prabhâkara Mîmâ@msâ to which I have frequently referred.

The Parata@h-prâmâ@nya doctrine of Nyâya and the Svata@h-prâmâ@nya doctrine of Mîmâ@msâ.

The doctrine of the self-validity of knowledge (_svata@h-prâmâ@nya_) forms the cornerstone on which the whole structure of the Mîmâ@msâ philosophy is based. Validity means the certitude of truth. The Mîmâ@msâ philosophy asserts that all knowledge excepting the action of remembering (_sm@rti_) or memory is valid in itself, for it itself certifies its own truth, and neither depends on any other extraneous condition nor on any other knowledge for its validity. But Nyâya holds that this self-validity of knowledge is a question which requires an explanation. It is true that under certain conditions a piece of knowledge is produced in us, but what is meant by saying that this knowledge is a proof of its own truth? When we perceive anything as blue, it is the direct result of visual contact, and this visual contact cannot certify that the knowledge generated is true, as the visual contact is not in any touch with the knowledge

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: There is a story that Kumârila, not being able to convert Prabhâkara, his own pupil, to his views, attempted a trick and pretended that he was dead. His disciples then asked Prabhâkara whether his burial rites should be performed according to Kumârila's views or Prabhâkara's. Prabhâkara said that his own views were erroneous, but these were held by him only to rouse up Kumârila's pointed attacks, whereas Kumârila's views were the right ones. Kumârila then rose up and said that Prabhâkara was defeated, but the latter said he was not defeated so long as he was alive. But this has of course no historic value.]

373

it has conditioned. Moreover, knowledge is a mental affair and how can it certify the objective truth of its representation? In other words, how can my perception "a blue thing" guarantee that what is subjectively perceived as blue is really so objectively as well? After my perception of anything as blue we do not have any such perception that what I have perceived as blue is really so. So this so-called self-validity of knowledge cannot be testified or justified by any perception. We can only be certain that knowledge has been produced by the perceptual act, but there is nothing in this knowledge or its revelation of its object from which we can infer that the perception is also objectively valid or true. If the production of any knowledge should certify its validity then there would be no invalidity, no illusory knowledge, and following our perception of even a mirage we should never come to grief. But we are disappointed often in our perceptions, and this proves that when we practically follow the directions of our perception we are undecided as to its validity, which can only be ascertained by the correspondence of the perception with what we find later on in practical experience. Again, every piece of knowledge is the result of certain causal collocations, and as such depends upon them for its production, and hence cannot be said to rise without depending on anything else. It is meaningless to speak of the validity of knowledge, for validity always refers to objective realization of our desires and attempts proceeding in accordance with our knowledge. People only declare their knowledge invalid when proceeding practically in accordance with it they are disappointed. The perception of a mirage is called invalid when proceeding in accordance with our perception we do not find anything that can serve the purposes of water (e.g. drinking, bathing). The validity or truth of knowledge is thus the attainment by practical experience of the object and the fulfilment of all our purposes from it (_arthakriyâjñâna_ or _phalajñâna_) just as perception or knowledge represented them to the perceiver. There is thus no self-validity of knowledge (_svata@h-prâmâ@nya_), but validity is ascertained by _sa@mvâda_ or agreement with the objective facts of experience [Footnote ref l].

It is easy to see that this Nyâya objection is based on the supposition that knowledge is generated by certain objective collocations of conditions, and that knowledge so produced can

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyamañjarî_, pp. 160-173.]

374

only be tested by its agreement with objective facts. But this theory of knowledge is merely an hypothesis; for it can never be experienced that knowledge is the product of any collocations; we have a perception and immediately we become aware of certain objective things; knowledge reveals to us the facts of the objective world and this is experienced by us always. But that the objective world generates knowledge in us is only an hypothesis which can hardly be demonstrated by experience. It is the supreme prerogative of knowledge that it reveals all other things. It is not a phenomenon like any other phenomenon of the world. When we say that knowledge has been produced in us by the external collocations, we just take a perverse point of view which is unwarranted by experience; knowledge only photographs the objective phenomena for us; but there is nothing to show that knowledge has been generated by these phenomena. This is only a theory which applies the ordinary conceptions of causation to knowledge and this is evidently unwarrantable. Knowledge is not like any other phenomena for it stands above them and interprets or illumines them all. There can be no validity in things, for truth applies to knowledge and knowledge alone. What we call agreement with facts by practical experience is but the agreement of previous knowledge with later knowledge; for objective facts never come to us directly, they are always taken on the evidence of knowledge, and they have no other certainty than what is bestowed on them by knowledge. There arise indeed different kinds of knowledge revealing different things, but these latter do not on that account generate the former, for this is never experienced; we are never aware of any objective fact before it is revealed by knowledge. Why knowledge makes different kinds of revelations is indeed more than we can say, for experience only shows that knowledge reveals objective facts and not why it does so. The rise of knowledge is never perceived by us to be dependent on any objective fact, for all objective facts are dependent on it for its revelation or illumination. This is what is said to be the self-validity (_svata@h-prâmâ@ya_) of knowledge in its production (_utpatti_). As soon as knowledge is produced, objects are revealed to us; there is no intermediate link between the rise of knowledge and the revelation of objects on which knowledge depends for producing its action of revealing or illuminating them. Thus knowledge is not only independent

375

of anything else in its own rise but in its own action as well (_svakâryakara@ne svata@h prâmâ@nya@m jñânasya_). Whenever there is any knowledge it carries with it the impression that it is certain and valid, and we are naturally thus prompted to work (_prav@rtti_} according to its direction. There is no indecision in our mind at the time of the rise of knowledge as to the correctness of knowledge; but just as knowledge rises, it carries with it the certainty of its revelation, presence, or action. But in cases of illusory perception other perceptions or cognitions dawn which carry with them the notion that our original knowledge was not valid. Thus though the invalidity of any knowledge may appear to us by later experience, and in accordance with which we reject our former knowledge, yet when the knowledge first revealed itself to us it carried with it the conviction of certainty which goaded us on to work according to its indication. Whenever a man works according to his knowledge, he does so with the conviction that his knowledge is valid, and not in a passive or uncertain temper of mind. This is what Mîmâ@msa means when it says that the validity of knowledge appears immediately with its rise, though its invalidity may be derived from later experience or some other data (_jñânasya prâ@mâ@nyam svata@h aprâmâ@nya@m parata@h_). Knowledge attained is proved invalid when later on a contradictory experience (_bâdhakajñâna_) comes in or when our organs etc. are known to be faulty and defective (_kara@nado@sajñâna). It is from these that knowledge appearing as valid is invalidated; when we take all necessary care to look for these and yet find them not, we must think that they do not exist. Thus the validity of knowledge certified at the moment of its production need not be doubted unnecessarily when even after enquiry we do not find any defect in sense or any contradiction in later experience. All knowledge except memory is thus regarded as valid independently by itself as a general rule, unless it is invalidated later on. Memory is excluded because the phenomenon of memory depends upon a previous experience, and its existing latent impressions, and cannot thus be regarded as arising independently by itself.

The place of sense organs in perception.

We have just said that knowledge arises by itself and that it could not have been generated by sense-contact. If this be so, the diversity of perceptions is however left unexplained. But in

376

face of the Nyâya philosophy explaining all perceptions on the ground of diverse sense-contact the Mîmâ@msâ probably could not afford to remain silent on such an important point. It therefore accepted the Nyâya view of sense-contact as a condition of knowledge with slight modifications, and yet held their doctrine of svata@h-prâmâ@nya. It does not appear to have been conscious of a conflict between these two different principles of the production of knowledge. Evidently the point of view from which it looked at it was that the fact that there were the senses and contacts of them with the objects, or such special capacities in them by virtue of which the things could be perceived, was with us a matter of inference. Their actions in producing the knowledge are never experienced at the time of the rise of knowledge, but when the knowledge arises we argue that such and such senses must have acted. The only case where knowledge is found to be dependent on anything else seems to be the case where one knowledge is found to depend on a previous experience or knowledge as in the case of memory. In other cases the dependence of the rise of knowledge on anything else cannot be felt, for the physical collocations conditioning knowledge are not felt to be operating before the rise of knowledge, and these are only inferred later on in accordance with the nature and characteristic of knowledge. We always have our first start in knowledge which is directly experienced from which we may proceed later on to the operation and nature of objective facts in relation to it. Thus it is that though contact of the senses with the objects may later on be imagined to be the conditioning factor, yet the rise of knowledge as well as our notion of its validity strikes us as original, underived, immediate, and first-hand.

Prabhâkara gives us a sketch as to how the existence of the senses may be inferred. Thus our cognitions of objects are phenomena which are not all the same, and do not happen always in the same manner, for these vary differently at different moments; the cognitions of course take place in the soul which may thus be regarded as the material cause (_samavâyikâra@na_); but there must be some such movements or other specific associations (_asamavâyikâra@na_) which render the production of this or that specific cognition possible. The immaterial causes subsist either in the cause of the material cause (e.g. in the case of the colouring of a white piece of cloth, the colour of the yarns which

377

is the cause of the colour in the cloth subsists in the yarns which form the material cause of the cloth) or in the material cause itself (e.g. in the case of a new form of smell being produced in a substance by fire-contact, this contact, which is the immaterial cause of the smell, subsists in that substance itself which is put in the fire and in which the smell is produced). The soul is eternal and has no other cause, and it has to be assumed that the immaterial cause required for the rise of a cognition must inhere in the soul, and hence must be a quality. Then again accepting the Nyâya conclusions we know that the rise of qualities in an eternal thing can only take place by contact with some other substances. Now cognition being a quality which the soul acquires would naturally require the contact of such substances. Since there is nothing to show that such substances inhere in other substances they are also to be taken as eternal. There are three eternal substances, time, space, and atoms. But time and space being all-pervasive the soul is always in contact with them. Contact with these therefore cannot explain the occasional rise of different cognitions. This contact must then be of some kind of atom which resides in the body ensouled by the cognizing soul. This atom may be called _manas_ (mind). This manas alone by itself brings about cognitions, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, etc. The manas however by itself is found to be devoid of any such qualities as colour, smell, etc., and as such cannot lead the soul to experience or cognize these qualities; hence it stands in need of such other organs as may be characterized by these qualities; for the cognition of colour, the mind will need the aid of an organ of which colour is the characteristic quality; for the cognition of smell, an organ having the odorous characteristic and so on with touch, taste, vision. Now we know that the organ which has colour for its distinctive feature must be one composed of tejas or light, as colour is a feature of light, and this proves the existence of the organ, the eye--for the cognition of colour; in a similar manner the existence of the earthly organ (organ of smell), the aqueous organ (organ of taste), the âkâs'ic organ (organ of sound) and the airy organ (organ of touch) may be demonstrated. But without manas none of these organs is found to be effective. Four necessary contacts have to be admitted, (1) of the sense organs with the object, (2) of the sense organs with the qualities of the object, (3) of the manas

378

with the sense organs, and (4) of the manas with the soul. The objects of perception are of three kinds,(1) substances, (2) qualities, (3) jâti or class. The material substances are tangible objects of earth, fire, water, air in large dimensions (for in their fine atomic states they cannot be perceived). The qualities are colour, taste, smell, touch, number, dimension, separateness, conjunction, disjunction, priority, posteriority, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, and effort [Footnote ref l].

It may not be out of place here to mention in conclusion that Kumârila Bha@t@ta was rather undecided as to the nature of the senses or of their contact with the objects. Thus he says that the senses may be conceived either as certain functions or activities, or as entities having the capacity of revealing things without coming into actual contact with them, or that they might be entities which actually come in contact with their objects [Footnote ref 2], and he prefers this last view as being more satisfactory.

Indeterminate and determinate perception.

There are two kinds of perception in two stages, the first stage is called _nirvikalpa_ (indeterminate) and the second _savikalpa_ (determinate). The nirvikalpa perception of a thing is its perception at the first moment of the association of the senses and their objects. Thus Kumârila says that the cognition that appears first is a mere _âlocana_ or simple perception, called non-determinate pertaining to the object itself pure and simple, and resembling the cognitions that the new-born infant has of things around himself. In this cognition neither the genus nor the differentia is presented to consciousness; all that is present there is the individual wherein these two subsist. This view of indeterminate perception may seem in some sense to resemble the Buddhist view which defines it as being merely the specific individuality (_svalak@sa@na_} and regards it as being the only valid element in perception, whereas all the rest are conceived as being imaginary

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Prakara@napañcikâ_, pp. 53 etc., and Dr Ga@ngânâtha Jhâ's _Prabhâkaramimâ@msâ_, pp. 35 etc.]

[Footnote 2: _S'lokavârttika_, see _Pratyak@sasûtra_, 40 etc., and _Nyâyaratnâkara_ on it. It may be noted in this connection that Sâ@mkhya-Yoga did not think like Nyâya that the senses actually went out to meet the objects (_prâpyakâritva_) but held that there was a special kind of functioning (_v@rtti_) by virtue of which the senses could grasp even such distant objects as the sun and the stars. It is the functioning of the sense that reached the objects. The nature of the v@rtti is not further clearly explained and Pârthasârathi objects to it as being almost a different category (_tattvântara_).]

379

impositions. But both Kumârila and Prabhâkara think that both the genus and the differentia are perceived in the indeterminate stage, but these do not manifest themselves to us only because we do not remember the other things in relation to which, or in contrast to which, the percept has to show its character as genus or differentia; a thing can be cognized as an "individual" only in comparison with other things from which it differs in certain well-defined characters; and it can be apprehended as belonging to a class only when it is found to possess certain characteristic features in common with some other things; so we see that as other things are not presented to consciousness through memory, the percept at the indeterminate stage cannot be fully apprehended as an individual belonging to a class, though the data constituting the characteristic of the thing as a genus and its differentia are perceived at the indeterminate stage [Footnote ref 1]. So long as other things are not remembered these data cannot manifest themselves properly, and hence the perception of the thing remains indeterminate at the first stage of perception. At the second stage the self by its past impressions brings the present perception in relation to past ones and realizes its character as involving universal and particular. It is thus apparent that the difference between the indeterminate and the determinate perception is this, that in the latter case memory of other things creeps in, but this association of memory in the determinate perception refers to those other objects of memory and not to the percept. It is also held that though the determinate perception is based upon the indeterminate one, yet since the former also apprehends certain such factors as did not enter into the indeterminate perception, it is to be regarded as a valid cognition. Kumârila also agrees with Prabhâkara in holding both the indeterminate and the determinate perception valid [Footnote ref 2].

Some Ontological Problems connected with the Doctrine of Perception.

The perception of the class (_jâti_) of a percept in relation to other things may thus be regarded in the main as a difference between determinate and indeterminate perceptions. The problems of jâti and avayavâvayavî (part and whole notion) were

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Compare this with the Vais'e@sika view as interpreted by S'rîdhara.]

[Footnote 2: See _Prakara@napañcikâ_ and _S'âstradîpikâ_.]

380

the subjects of hot dispute in Indian philosophy. Before entering into discussion about jâti, Prabhâkara first introduced the problem of _avayava_ (part) and _avayavî_ (whole). He argues as an exponent of svata@h-prâmâ@nyavâda that the proof of the true existence of anything must ultimately rest on our own consciousness, and what is distinctly recognized in consciousness must be admitted to have its existence established. Following this canon Prabhâkara says that gross objects as a whole exist, since they are so perceived. The subtle atoms are the material cause and their connection (_sa@myoga_) is the immaterial cause (_asamavâyikâra@na_), and it is the latter which renders the whole altogether different from the parts of which it is composed; and it is not necessary that all the parts should be perceived before the whole is perceived. Kumârila holds that it is due to the point of view from which we look at a thing that we call it a separate whole or only a conglomeration of parts. In reality they are identical, but when we lay stress on the notion of parts, the thing appears to be a conglomeration of them, and when we look at it from the point of view of the unity appearing as a whole, the thing appears to be a whole of which there are parts (see _S'lokavârttika, Vanavâda_) [Footnote ref 1].

Jâti, though incorporating the idea of having many units within one, is different from the conception of whole in this, that it resides in its entirety in each individual constituting that jâti (_vyâs'ajyav@rtti_),

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: According to Sâ@mkhya-Yoga a thing is regarded as the unity of the universal and the particular (_sâmânyavis'esasamudâyo dravyam, Vyâsabhâsya_, III. 44), for there is no other separate entity which is different from them both in which they would inhere as Nyaya holds. Conglomerations can be of two kinds, namely those in which the parts exist at a distance from one another (e.g. a forest), and those in which they exist close together (_mrantarâ hi tadavayavâh_), and it is this latter combination (_ayutasiddhâvayava_) which is called a dravya, but here also there is no separate whole distinct from the parts; it is the parts connected in a particular way and having no perceptible space between them that is called a thing or a whole. The Buddhists as Panditâs'oka has shown did not believe in any whole (_avayavi_), it is the atoms which in connection with one another appeared as a whole occupying space (_paramânava eva hi pararûpades'aparihârenotpannâh parasparasahitâ avabhâsamânâ desavitânavanto bhavanti_). The whole is thus a mere appearance and not a reality (see _Avayavinirâkarana, Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts_). Nyaya however held that the atoms were partless _(niravayava}_ and hence it would be wrong to say that when we see an object we see the atoms. The existence of a whole as different from the parts which belong to it is directly experienced and there is no valid reason against it:

"_adustakaranodbhûtamanâvirbhûtabâdhakam
asandigdañca vijñânam katham mithyeti kathyate._"

_Nyâyamañjarî_, pp. 550 ff.]

381

but the establishment of the existence of wholes refutes the argument that jâti should be denied, because it involves the conception of a whole (class) consisting of many parts (individuals). The class character or jâti exists because it is distinctly perceived by us in the individuals included in any particular class. It is eternal in the sense that it continues to exist in other individuals, even when one of the individuals ceases to exist. When a new individual of that class (e g. cow class) comes into being, a new relation of inherence is generated by which the individual is brought into relation with the class-character existing in other individuals, for inherence (_samavâya_) according to Prabhâkara is not an eternal entity but an entity which is both produced and not produced according as the thing in which it exists is non-eternal or eternal, and it is not regarded as one as Nyâya holds, but as many, according as there is the infinite number of things in which it exists. When any individual is destroyed, the class-character does not go elsewhere, nor subsist in that individual, nor is itself destroyed, but it is only the inherence of class-character with that individual that ceases to exist. With the destruction of an individual or its production it is a new relation of inherence that is destroyed or produced. But the class-character or jâti has no separate existence apart from the individuals as Nyâya supposes. Apprehension of jâti is essentially the apprehension of the class-character of a thing in relation to other similar things of that class by the perception of the common characteristics. But Prabhâkara would not admit the existence of a highest genus sattâ (being) as acknowledged by Nyâya. He argues that the existence of class-character is apprehended because we find that the individuals of a class possess some common characteristic possessed by all the heterogeneous and disparate things of the world as can give rise to the conception of a separate jâti as sattâ, as demanded by the naiyâyikas. That all things are said to be _sat_ (existing) is more or less a word or a name without the corresponding apprehension of a common quality. Our experience always gives us concrete existing individuals, but we can never experience such a highest genus as pure existence or being, as it has no concrete form which may be perceived. When we speak of a thing as _sat_, we do not mean that it is possessed of any such class-characters as sattâ (being); what we mean is simply that the individual has its specific existence or svarûpasattâ.

382

Thus the Nyâya view of perception as taking only the thing in its pure being apart from qualities, etc, (_sanmâtra-vi@sayam pratyak@sa@m_) is made untenable by Prabhâkara, as according to him the thing is perceived direct with all its qualities. According to Kumârila however jâti is not something different from the individuals comprehended by it and it is directly perceived. Kumârila's view of jâti is thus similar to that held by Sâ@mkhya, namely that when we look at an individual from one point of view (jâti as identical with the individual), it is the individual that lays its stress upon our consciousness and the notion of jâti becomes latent, but when we look at it from another point of view (the individual as identical with jâti) it is the jâti which presents itself to consciousness, and the aspect as individual becomes latent. The apprehension as jâti or as individual is thus only a matter of different points of view or angles of vision from which we look at a thing. Quite in harmony with the conception of jâti, Kumârila holds that the relation of inherence is not anything which is distinct from the things themselves in which it is supposed to exist, but only a particular aspect or phase of the things themselves (_S'lokavârttika, Pratyak@sasûtra_, 149, 150, _abhedât samavâyo'stu svarûpam dharmadharmi@no@h_), Kumârila agrees with Prabhâkara that jâti is perceived by the senses (_tatraikabuddhinirgrâhyâ jâtirindriyagocarâ_).

It is not out of place to mention that on the evidence of Prabhâkara we find that the category of vis'e@sa admitted by the Ka@nâda school is not accepted as a separate category by the Mîmâ@msâ on the ground that the differentiation of eternal things from one another, for which the category of vis'e@sa is admitted, may very well be effected on the basis of the ordinary qualities of these things. The quality of p@rthaktva or specific differences in atoms, as inferred by the difference of things they constitute, can very well serve the purposes of vis'e@sa.

The nature of knowledge.

All knowledge involves the knower, the known object, and the knowledge at the same identical moment. All knowledge whether perceptual, inferential or of any other kind must necessarily reveal the self or the knower directly. Thus as in all knowledge the self is directly and immediately perceived, all knowledge may be regarded as perception from the point of view of self. The division

383

of the pramâ@nas as pratyak@sa (perception), anumâna (inference), etc. is from the point of view of the objects of knowledge with reference to the varying modes in which they are brought within the purview of knowledge. The self itself however has no illumining or revealing powers, for then even in deep sleep we could have knowledge, for the self is present even then, as is proved by the remembrance of dreams. It is knowledge (_sa@mvid_) that reveals by its very appearance both the self, the knower, and the objects. It is generally argued against the self-illuminative character of knowledge that all cognitions are of the forms of the objects they are said to reveal; and if they have the same form we may rather say that they have the same identical reality too. The Mîmâ@msâ answer to these objections is this, that if the cognition and the cognized were not different from one another, they could not have been felt as such, and we could not have felt that it is by cognition that we apprehend the cognized objects. The cognition (_sa@mvedana_) of a person simply means that such a special kind of quality (_dharma_) has been manifested in the self by virtue of which his active operation with reference to a certain object is favoured or determined, and the object of cognition is that with reference to which the active operation of the self has been induced. Cognitions are not indeed absolutely formless, for they have the cognitional character by which things are illumined and manifested. Cognition has no other character than this, that it illumines and reveals objects. The things only are believed to have forms and only such forms as knowledge reveal to us about them. Even the dream cognition is with reference to objects that were perceived previously, and of which the impressions were left in the mind and were aroused by the unseen agency (_ad@r@s@ta_). Dream cognition is thus only a kind of remembrance of that which was previously experienced. Only such of the impressions of cognized objects are roused in dreams as can beget just that amount of pleasurable or painful experience, in accordance with the operation of ad@r@s@ta, as the person deserves to have in accordance with his previous merit or demerit.

The Prabhâkara Mîmâ@msâ, in refuting the arguments of those who hold that our cognitions of objects are themselves cognized by some other cognition, says that this is not possible, since we do not experience any such double cognition and also because it would lead us to a _regressus ad infinitum,_ for if a second cognition

384

is necessary to interpret the first, then that would require a third and so on. If a cognition could be the object of another cognition, then it could not be self-valid. The cognition is not of course unknown to us, but that is of course because it is self-cognized, and reveals itself to us the moment it reveals its objects. From the illumination of objects also we can infer the presence of this self-cognizing knowledge. But it is only its presence that is inferred and not the cognition itself, for inference can only indicate the presence of an object and not in the form in which it can be apprehended by perception (_pratyak@sa_). Prabhâkara draws a subtle distinction between perceptuality (_sa@mvedyatva_) and being object of knowledge (_prameyatva_). A thing can only be apprehended (_sa@mvedyate_) by perception, whereas inference can only indicate the presence of an object without apprehending the object itself. Our cognition cannot be apprehended by any other cognition. Inference can only indicate the presence or existence of knowledge but cannot apprehend the cognition itself [Footnote ref 1].

Kumârila also agrees with Prabhâkara in holding that perception is never the object of another perception and that it ends in the direct apprehensibility of the object of perception. But he says that every perception involves a relationship between the perceiver and the perceived, wherein the perceiver behaves as the agent whose activity in grasping the object is known as cognition. This is indeed different from the Prabhâkara view, that in one manifestation of knowledge the knower, the known, and the knowledge, are simultaneously illuminated (the doctrine of _tripu@tîpratyak@sa_) [Footnote ref 2].

The Psychology of Illusion.

The question however arises that if all apprehensions are valid, how are we to account for illusory perceptions which cannot be regarded as valid? The problem of illusory perception and its psychology is a very favourite topic of discussion in Indian philosophy. Omitting the theory of illusion of the Jains called _satkhyâti_ which we have described before, and of the Vedântists, which we shall describe in the next chapter, there are three different theories of illusion, viz. (1) _âtmakhyâti_, (2) _viparîtakhyâtî_ or _anyathâkhyâti_, and (3) _akhyâti_ of the Mîmâ@msâ school. The

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Prabhâkaramîmâ@msâ,_ by Dr Ga@nganâtha Jhâ.]

[Footnote 2: _loc. cit._ pp. 26-28.]

385

viparîtâkhyâti or anyathâkhyâti theory of illusion is accepted by the Nyâya, Vais'e@sika and the Yoga, the âkhyâti theory by Mîmâ@msâ and Sâ@mkhya and the âtmakhyâti by the Buddhists.

The commonest example of illusion in Indian philosophy is the illusory appearance of a piece of broken conch-shell as a piece of silver. That such an illusion occurs is a fact which is experienced by all and agreed to by all. The differences of view are with regard to its cause or its psychology. The idealistic Buddhists who deny the existence of the external world and think that there are only the forms of knowledge, generated by the accumulated karma of past lives, hold that just as in the case of a correct perception, so also in the case of illusory perception it is the flow of knowledge which must be held responsible. The flow of knowledge on account of the peculiarities of its own collocating conditions generates sometimes what we call right perception and sometimes wrong perception or illusion. On this view nothing depends upon the so-called external data. For they do not exist, and even if they did exist, why should the same data sometimes bring about the right perception and sometimes the illusion? The flow of knowledge creates both the percept and the perceiver and unites them. This is true both in the case of correct perception and illusory perception. Nyâya objects to the above view, and says that, if knowledge irrespective of any external condition imposes upon itself the knower and the illusory percept, then the perception ought to be of the form "I am silver" and not "this is silver." Moreover this theory stands refuted, as it is based upon a false hypothesis that it is the inner knowledge which appears as coming from outside and that the external as such does not exist.

The viparîtakhyâti or the anyathâkhyâti theory supposes that the illusion takes place because on account of malobservation we do not note the peculiar traits of the conch-shell as distinguished from the silver, and at the same time by the glow etc. of the conch-shell unconsciously the silver which I had seen elsewhere is remembered and the object before me is taken as silver. In illusion the object before us with which our eye is associated is not conch-shell, for the traits peculiar to it not being grasped, it is merely an object. The silver is not utterly non-existent, for it exists elsewhere and it is the memory of it as experienced before that creates confusion and leads us to think of the conch-shell as silver. This school agrees with the akhyâti school that the fact

386

that I remember silver is not taken note of at the time of illusion. But it holds that the mere non-distinction is not enough to account for the phenomenon of illusion, for there is a definite positive aspect associated with it, viz. the false identification of silver (seen elsewhere) with the conch-shell before us.

The âkhyâti theory of Mîmâ@msâ holds that since the special peculiarities of the conch-shell are not noticed, it is erroneous to say that we identify or cognize positively the conch-shell as the silver (perceived elsewhere), for the conch-shell is not cognized at all. What happens here is simply this, that only the features common to conch-shell and silver being noticed, the perceiver fails to apprehend the difference between these two things, and this gives rise to the cognition of silver. Owing to a certain weakness of the mind the remembrance of silver roused by the common features of the conch-shell and silver is not apprehended, and the fact that it is only a memory of silver seen in some past time that has appeared before him is not perceived; and it is as a result of this non-apprehension of the difference between the silver remembered and the present conch-shell that the illusion takes place. Thus, though the illusory perception partakes of a dual character of remembrance and apprehension, and as such is different from the ordinary valid perception (which is wholly a matter of direct apprehension) of real silver before us, yet as the difference between the remembrance of silver and the sight of the present object is not apprehended, the illusory perception appears at the moment of its production to be as valid as a real valid perception. Both give rise to the same kind of activity on the part of the agent, for in illusory perception the perceiver would be as eager to stoop and pick up the thing as in the case of a real perception. Kumârila agrees with this view as expounded by Prabhâkara, and further says that the illusory judgment is as valid to the cognizor at the time that he has the cognition as any real judgment could be. If subsequent experience rejects it, that does not matter, for it is admitted in Mîmâ@msâ that when later experience finds out the defects of any perception it can invalidate the original perception which was self-valid at the time of its production [Footnote Ref. 1]. It is easy to see that the Mîmâ@msâ had to adopt this view of illusion to maintain the doctrine that all cognition at the moment of its production is valid. The âkhyâti theory

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Prakara@napañcikâ, S'âstradîpikâ_, and _S'lokavârttika_, sûtra 2.]

387

tries to establish the view that the illusion is not due to any positive wrong knowledge, but to a mere negative factor of non-apprehension due to certain weakness of mind. So it is that though illusion is the result, yet the cognition so far as it is cognition, is made up of two elements, the present perception and memory, both of which are true so far as they are individually present to us, and the cognition itself has all the characteristics of any other valid knowledge, for the mark of the validity of a cognition is its power to prompt us to action. In doubtful cognitions also, as in the case "Is this a post or a man?" what is actually perceived is some tall object and thus far it is valid too. But when this perception gives rise to two different kinds of remembrance (of the pillar and the man), doubt comes in. So the element of apprehension involved in doubtful cognitions should be regarded as self-valid as any other cognition.

Inference.

S'abara says that when a certain fixed or permanent relation has been known to exist between two things, we can have the idea of one thing when the other one is perceived, and this kind of knowledge is called inference. Kumârila on the basis of this tries to show that inference is only possible when we notice that in a large number of cases two things (e.g. smoke and fire) subsist together in a third thing (e.g. kitchen, etc.) in some independent relation, i.e. when their coexistence does not depend upon any other eliminable condition or factor. It is also necessary that the two things (smoke and fire) coexisting in a third thing should be so experienced that all cases of the existence of one thing should also be cases involving the existence of the other, but the cases of the existence of one thing (e.g. fire), though including all the cases of the existence of the other (smoke), may have yet a more extensive sphere where the latter (smoke) may not exist. When once a permanent relation, whether it be a case of coexistence (as in the case of the contiguity of the constellation of K@rttikâ with Rohi@nî, where, by the rise of the former the early rise of the latter may be inferred), or a case of identity (as in the relation between a genus and its species), or a case of cause and effect or otherwise between two things and a third thing which had been apprehended in a large number of cases, is perceived, they fuse together in the mind as forming

388