Chapter 2.9 - Pramanas in Nyaya Philosophy

Every system of Indian philosophy considered epistemological and logical problems to provide methodological explanations for metaphysical investigation. Epistemology is correct understanding of the metaphysical experiences that were handed down to the next generation. The study of epistemological and logical problems of Indian philosophies aims at discussing the process of knowing and argumentation. The works on various systems of Indian philosophy discuss problems related to epistemology. The results of discussions give extension of metaphysical problems. It is admitted that the true knowledge of the objects is the source and indispensable means of the attainment of the highest end of life, liberation or moksha. Therefore the means of knowledge gives the path for correct understanding of the worldly objects as well as metaphysical investigations.^[1] The Nyaya School was founded by the sage Gautama. Sixteen categories were discussed in this system, the most important of which is pramana, the source of valid knowledge. Knowledge, according to Nyaya is derived from the results of contact of the sense with the object. Valid knowledge is called prama and, is defined as the right apprehension of an object. Actually, Nyaya is a school of logic, and all other schools of Indian philosophy use the Nyaya system of logic, in whole or in part, as a foundation for philosophical reasoning and debate. Nyaya accepts four valid means of knowledge viz. perception, inference, verbal testimony and comparison.

Pratyaksha (Perception):

Pratyaksha (Perception) is the first kind of pramana. In Nyaya philosophy perception has been considered as fundamental source of knowledge. Inference, comparison and verbal testimony depends upon perception. Pratyaksha is of two types according to Nyaya i.e., laukika (ordinary) and alaukika (extraordinary). Laukika perception occurs when the sense-organs come into contact with the object present to them in the usual way. Whereas Alaukika perception happens, if the contact of the sense -organs with the objects is in an unusual way, i.e., if the objects are not ordinarily present to the senses but are conveyed to them through an extraordinary medium.^[2]

In the Nyaya system, Perception takes place through six senses according to which perception has been classified into two -Internal and External. In internal perception, manas (the mind) which is the internal organ comes into contact with the psychical states and processes like cognition, affection, desire, pain, pleasure, aversion etc.

External perception, on the other hand, takes place when the five sense organs of sight, sound, touch, taste and smell come into contact with the external objects. Thus Nyaya recognized mind as a sense organ. This characteristic feature leads the Naiyayikas to accept mind as an atomic substance which is conjoined with the sense organ when knowledge is produced. Accordingly, the application of mind has a significant role in perception.

The contact of sense and object is the most required cause of Perception.

This contact takes place in six ways:

1. samyoga when jar is perceived through its conjunction with eye
2. samyukta samavaya (conjoined inherence) when the color of a jar is perceived by eye which is already in conjunction with the jar
3. samyukta samaveda samvaya (conjoined inherent inference) when the nature of the color is perceived by the eye which has already perceived the jar with color;
4. samavaya (Inherence) perception of sound which inheres in the ear cavity;
5. samaveda samavaya (Inherent inference) perceiving the generic nature of sound through the perception of sound inherent in the ear cavity;
6. visheshana visheshya bhava (Particularity) the perception of the non-existence of a thing through the particularization of the spot where the thing could occupy on earth.

The first type of sense object contact is exemplified in the perception or quality of an action. The third one is the perception of the generic nature of a quality or an action. The fourth kind sense objects contact is the perception of sound. The fifth is the auditory perception of soundhood;the sixth is illustrated in the perception of non-existence. ^[3]

Ordinary perception in Nyaya is gained through sense-object contact. Based on the sense organ relationship the perception or knowledge has been categorized as:

1. The visual perception also called eye-knowledge or color knowledge.
2. The auditory perception also called ear-knowledge or sound knowledge.
3. The olfactory perception also called nose-knowledge or smell knowledge.
4. The gustatory perception also called tongue-knowledge or taste knowledge.
5. The textual perception also called skin-knowledge or touch knowledge.^[4]

Naiyayikas further divide perception into two namely nirvikalpaka (indeterminate) and savikalpaka (determinate).^[5] Bare sensation or simple apprehension is nirvikalpaka perception; while the perceptual judgment or relational apprehension is savikalpaka perception. The differences between indeterminate and determinate perception is well known in the field of Indian epistemology. Indeterminate perception refers to the awareness of an object which is non-relational and nonjudgmental; whereas determinate perception is the awareness of an object with its quality (genes). This distinction of perception is accepted by all orthodox schools.

Extra-ordinary perception is classified into three: samanyalakshana, jnanalakshana and yogaja. The perception of generic character comes under samanyalakshana. For example seeing a cow, one immediately becomes aware of the samanya (class essence) of it i.e., the gotva (the cowness). Jnanalakshana is that type of knowledge of a thing previously experienced. E.g., Fragrance of jasmine. Yogaja is the intuitive perception of all objectspast, distant and future due to some super normal powers generated in the mind by meditation. Thus, perception is the most important pramana in Indian philosophy, without which others would prove unfit.

Upamana (Comparison):

This is the third kind of valid means of knowledge accepted in Nyaya. Gautama in his Nyayasutras defines it as prasidha sadharmyat sadhya sadhanam upamanam.^[6] It mainly refers to the knowledge of the relationship between a name and the object named. In Tarkasamgraha, the definition of upamana is upamiti karana. It is produced by the knowledge of resemblance or similarity. It roughly corresponds to comparison. A man who has never seen a gavaya (a wild cow) comes across one in the forest and recognizes it remembering the words of the forester as ‘go sadrso gavayah’-a wild cow resembles a domestic cow. This knowledge he derives from upamana. Therefore comparison is different from verbal testimony and perception.

Verbal Testimony:

As in all other systems of Indian philosophy excepting Carvakas, Shabda (speech) is considered as a valid source of knowledge in Nyaya. It is the statement of a trustworthy person and consists in understanding its meaning. As for Gautama a man with good character and has deep knowledge of the moral law is worth to be believed and his words will come under the purview of the verbal testimony. The definition of verbal testimony is aptopadeshah shabda-a word is a word when it is told by a trustworthy person. The word apta means trust worthy. It means a person who perceives objects in their real nature, and communicates the right knowledge to others without looking for his own benefits. The trustworthy people help others to avoid evils and attain good.

Some argue that the verbal testimony and the inference are same. But the difference can be explicitly seen while analyzing the content. Inference gives the knowledge of an unperceived object through that which is perceived; whereas in the verbal testimony, the knowledge of an unperceived object is derived through the word which is once heard. In the inference the connection is between a sign and the object signified by it, while in the case of Verbal testimony the connection is postulated between a word and the object signified by it. Therefore the verbal testimony is clearly different from inference.

The ancient Naiyayikas believed that a word conveys a certain meaning, sense and it is entitled to do so by the will of God. But the modern ones see this happening owing to long established convention. There are two kinds of testimonies-laukika and alaukika.^[7] The authors of the Vedas are considered aptas (reliable). The cause of the verbal knowledge is akamksha yogyata sannidhi and tatparyajnana. These are essential for understanding the meaning of a sentence. The Naiyayikas believe that all forms of knowledge are comprehended by the first four pramanas. The others like arthapathi, anupalabdhi, sambhava, aithya etc., are pramana overruled by the Naiyayikas. These are found included in perception and inference. Aitihya sets an inclusion in verbal testimony. The knowledge of pramanas is inevitable for attaining an error free knowledge. The pramanas further assist a person to lead a good life so as to attain the desired end.

Anumana:

Anumana is the second significant source of knowledge in Nyaya philosophy. It is both a source of cognition and a way of reasoning. As a source of cognition, it produces inferential knowledge. It creates awareness of an object through the consideration of some mark, which is invariably connected with the object of the knowledge. Gautama in his Nyayasutra simply mentions inference as a source of knowledge following perception. This will be discussed in the next chapter in a detailed manner.

Upamana:

Upamana is the third source of knowledge indicated by Gautama. He classifies anumana into purvavat (as seen earlier), sheshavat (as seen later) and samanyatodrishta (commonly seen). The first two are based on the simple law of causation, while the last one preoccupies coexistence.

Purvavat:

Purvavat stands for the inference of an unperceived object from a perceived one. In this type of inference one can infer the effect from a cause preceding it. For instance, seeing a dense of clouds one can infer future rainfall.^[8] Sheshavat stands for the inferences of an unperceived cause from a perceived effect. The inference of an abundant rainfall from the overflow of water in the lakes can be taken as an example for it.^[9] Samanyatodrishta is that type of inference derived of imperceptible object from its percept bale marks. The movement of sun inferred from different position in the sky is taken an example.^[10]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Upamana in Indian philosophy, p.2

[2]:

History of Indian Logic, p.93

[3]:

Jadunath Sinha, Indian Philosophy, p.499

[4]:

Upamana in Indian Philosophy, pp.92-93

[5]:

Jadunath Sinha, Indian Philosophy, p.499

[6]:

Vatsyana, Nyayabhasya, p.24

[7]:

Jadunath Sinha, Indian Philosophy, p.499

[8]:

Vatsyayana, Nyayabhashya, p.24

[9]:

ibid, p.25

[10]:

ibid, p.25