Part 52 (2/2)

357

there is a jug on the ground) is. Both the knowledge of the ground as well as the knowledge of the non-existence of the jug arise there by the same kind of action of the visual organ, and there is therefore no reason why the knowledge of the ground should be said to be due to perception, whereas the knowledge of the negation of the jug on the ground should be said to be due to a separate process of knowledge. The non-existence of the jug is taken in the same act as the ground is perceived. The principle that in order to perceive a thing one should have sense-contact with it, applies only to positive existents and not to negation or non-existence. Negation or non-existence can be cognized even without any sense-contact. Non-existence is not a positive substance, and hence there cannot be any question here of sense-contact.

It may be urged that if no sense-contact is required in apprehending negation, one could as well apprehend negation or non-existence of other places which are far away from him.

To this the reply is that to apprehend negation it is necessary that the place where it exists must be perceived. We know a thing and its quality to be different, and yet the quality can only be taken in a.s.sociation with the thing and it is so in this case as well. We can apprehend non-existence only through the apprehension of its locus. In the case when non-existence is said to be apprehended later on it is really no later apprehension of non-existence but a memory of non-existence (e.g. of jug) perceived before along with the perception of the locus of non-existence (e.g. ground). Negation or non-existence (_abhava_) can thus, according to Nyaya, generate its cognition just as any positive existence can do. Negation is not mere negativity or mere vacuous absence, but is what generates the cognition ”is not,”

as position (_bhava_) is what generates the cognition ”it is.”

The Buddhists deny the existence of negation. They hold that when a negation is apprehended, it is apprehended with specific time and s.p.a.ce conditions (e.g. this is not here now); but in spite of such an apprehension, we could never think that negation could thus be a.s.sociated with them in any relation. There is also no relation between the negation and its _pratiyogi_ (thing negated--e.g. jug in the negation of jug), for when there is the pratiyogi there is no negation, and when there is the negation there is no pratiyogi. There is not even the relation of opposition (_virodha_), for we could have admitted it, if

358

the negation of the jug existed before and opposed the jug, for how can the negation of the jug oppose the jug, without effecting anything at all? Again, it may be asked whether negation is to be regarded as a positive being or becoming or of the nature of not becoming or non-being. In the first alternative it will be like any other positive existents, and in the second case it will be permanent and eternal, and it cannot be related to this or that particular negation. There are however many kinds of non-perception, e.g. (1) svabhavanupalabdhi (natural non-perception--there is no jug because none is perceived); (2) [email protected] (non-perception of cause--there is no smoke here, since there is no fire); (3) vyapakanupalabdhi (non-perception of the species--there is no pine here, since there is no tree); (4) karyanupalabdhi (non-perception of effects--there are not the causes of smoke here, since there is no smoke); (5) svabhavaviruddhopalabdhi (perception of contradictory natures--there is no cold touch here because of fire); (6) viruddhakaryopalabdhi (perception of contradictory effects--there is no cold touch here because of smoke); (7) virudhavyaptopalabdhi (opposite concomitance--past is not of necessity destructible, since it depends on other causes); (8) karyyaviruddhopalabdhi (opposition of effects--there is not here the causes which can give cold since there is fire); (9) vyapakaviruddhopalabdhi (opposite concomitants--there is no touch of snow here, because of fire); (10) [email protected] (opposite causes--there is no s.h.i.+vering through cold here, since he is near the fire); (11) [email protected] (effects of opposite causes--this place is not occupied by men of s.h.i.+vering sensations for it is full of smoke [Footnote ref 1]).

There is no doubt that in the above ways we speak of negation, but that does not prove that there is any reason for the cognition of negation ([email protected]_). All that we can say is this that there are certain situations which justify the use (_yogyata_) of negative appellations. But this situation or yogyata is positive in character. What we all speak of in ordinary usage as non-perception is of the nature of perception of some sort.

Perception of negation thus does not prove the existence of negation, but only shows that there are certain positive perceptions which are only interpreted in that way. It is the positive perception of the ground where the visible jug is absent that

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyayabindu_, p. 11, and _Nyayamanjari_, pp. 53-7.]

359

leads us to speak of having perceived the negation of the jug ([email protected] [email protected] vyavaharayati_) [Footnote ref 1].

The Nyaya reply against this is that the perception of positive existents is as much a fact as the perception of negation, and we have no right to say that the former alone is valid. It is said that the non-perception of jug on the ground is but the perception of the ground without the jug. But is this being without the jug identical with the ground or different? If identical then it is the same as the ground, and we shall expect to have it even when the jug is there. If different then the quarrel is only over the name, for whatever you may call it, it is admitted to be a distinct category. If some difference is noted between the ground with the jug, and the ground without it, then call it ”ground, without the jugness” or ”the negation of jug,” it does not matter much, for a distinct category has anyhow been admitted. Negation is apprehended by perception as much as any positive existent is; the nature of the objects of perception only are different; just as even in the perception of positive sense-objects there are such diversities as colour, taste, etc. The relation of negation with s.p.a.ce and time with which it appears a.s.sociated is the relation that subsists between the qualified and the quality ([email protected] [email protected]@na_). The relation between the negation and its pratiyogi is one of opposition, in the sense that where the one is the other is not. The [email protected] sutra_ (IX. i. 6) seems to take abhava in a similar way as k.u.marila the [email protected] does, though the commentators have tried to explain it away [Footnote ref 2]. In [email protected] the four kinds of negation are enumerated as (1) _pragabhava_ (the negation preceding the production of an object--e.g. of the jug before it is made by the potter); (2) [email protected]_ (the negation following the destruction of an object--as of the jug after it is destroyed by the stroke of a stick); (3) _anyonyabhava_ (mutual negation--e.g. in the cow there is the negation of the horse and

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See [email protected]_, pp. 34 ff., and also _Nyayamanjari_, pp. 48-63.]

[Footnote 2 Pras'astapada says that as the production of an effect is the sign of the existence of the cause, so the non-production of it is the sign of its non-existence, S'ridbara in commenting upon it says that the non-preception of a sensible object is the sign ([email protected]_) of its non-existence. But evidently he is not satisfied with the view for he says that non-existence is also directly perceived by the senses (_bhavavad [email protected]_) and that there is an actual sense-contact with non-existence which is the collocating cause of the preception of non-existence ([email protected]'pi [email protected]_), Nyayakandali_, pp. 225-30.]

360

in the horse that of the cow); (4) _atyantabhava_ (a negation which always exists--e.g. even when there is a jug here, its negation in other places is not destroyed) [Footnote ref 1].

The necessity of the Acquirement of debating devices for the seeker of Salvation.

It is probable that the Nyaya philosophy arose in an atmosphere of continued disputes and debates; as a consequence of this we find here many terms related to debates which we do not notice in any other system of Indian philosophy. These are _tarka_, [email protected]_, _vada_, _jalpa_, [email protected]@da_, _hetvabhasa_, _chala_, _jati_ and _nigrahasthana_.

Tarka means deliberation on an unknown thing to discern its real nature; it thus consists of seeking reasons in favour of some supposition to the exclusion of other suppositions; it is not inference, but merely an oscillation of the mind to come to a right conclusion. When there is doubt ([email protected]'aya_) about the specific nature of anything we have to take to tarka. [email protected] means the conclusion to which we arrive as a result of tarka. When two opposite parties dispute over their respective theses, such as the doctrines that there is or is not an atman, in which each of them tries to prove his own thesis with reasons, each of the theses is called a _vada_. Jalpa means a dispute in which the disputants give wrangling rejoinders in order to defeat their respective opponents.

A jalpa is called a [email protected]@da_ when it is only a destructive criticism which seeks to refute the opponent's doctrine without seeking to establish or formulate any new doctrine. Hetvabhasas are those which appear as hetus but are really not so. _Nyaya_ sutras enumerate five fallacies (_hetvabhasas_) of the middle (hetu): _savyabhicara_ (erratic), _viruddha_ (contradictory), [email protected]_ (tautology), _saddhyasama_ (unproved reason) and _kalat.i.ta _(inopportune).

Savyabhicara is that where the same reason may prove opposite conclusions (e.g. sound is eternal because it is intangible like the atoms which are eternal, and sound is non-eternal because it is intangible like cognitions which are non-eternal); viruddha is that where the reason opposes the premiss to be proved (e.g. a jug is eternal, because it is produced); [email protected] is that

<script>