Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi, today class we will be discussing Upamana. Upamana is a third Pramana according to Nyaya
philosophy. As you know that Nyaya philosophy believes in four Pramanas. Pramanas means
the sources of valid knowledge and today class we will be discussing the third Pramana known
as Upamana or comparison. What they mean here in case of third Pramana is that you compare
these two things, with their similarity or dissimilarity or peculiar quality. The knowledge
that you gain that will be known as the valid knowledge or Pramana.
For example, to identify a particular object somebody has given some opinion and based
on that opinion if you compare the object, which you have not seen earlier and the knowledge
that you gain after comparing that object is known as Upamana. The all the discussions
in details, we will be doing in this class today.
Upamana is divided into two words, Upa and Mana. Upa is similarity and Mana is cognition.
So, the similarity what we cognize towards an object is known as Upamana. I will give
an example, which helps you to understand what really Upamana is, and based on that
example, we will be moving further. Consider a case, a person does not know an animal known
as Gavagai but he knows only the word Gavagai. Now, he as a person or as a cognizer wishes
to know about what this word stands for or the Gavagai is the word what it stands for
and what it refers to. Now, for searching for that object or knowledge,
he takes the suggestion or receives some kind of authoritarian statements from the forest
person who knows which animal is known as Gavagai. Then whenever the cognizer ask the
person could you explain who is Gavagai and how I will be identify that animal or object
is Gavagai, then the forest person will be explaining to that cognizer saying that Gavagai
will having them so and so many features are look like a country cow.
Here, he is saying that there are two things are important. Here, the first thing is that
the forest person or the forester. The forester knows that the cognizer understands the word
cow and what it denotes for and what are the features of the cow. Now, based on this understanding
the forester explains to that cognizer saying that Gavagai is an animal similar to the cow.
However, in Gavagai you find some kind of other features which is not found in case
of a cow. So, after listening to all the description
from the forester, the cognizer in the later period come across an animal look like a cow.
However, that animal all the features of that animal may not be similar with the cow. In
addition to that he confirms with the description made by the forester on the term Gavagai.
Now, as a cognizer he brings all the information through his memory and imposes all these description
towards an object which is presented before him or her.
So, as a cognizer if he finds that all the description made by the authoritative person
or the forester is finding in that object or an animal which is presented before him,
then his knowledge will be turns into valid. That means he or she can say that now I cognize
an animal known as Gavagai and hence forth, you find that three features of a valid knowledge
will be satisfying here. One is Asamdigdha. Your cognition is decisible;
you are confirmed to your cognition. Then Yatharta that means truthfulness. Here, truthfulness
means all the descriptions made by the forester you will find the same kind of features to
that animal which is presented before you. In other words, all the features described
by the forester confirm it to the object which is presented before you known as Gavagai.
Then a third Naiyayikas is Anubhava. Anubhava is a presentational in character. Here, the
cognizer able to identify that object with a particular name with so and so description
made by the forester because as a cognizer, he finds the object is presented before him
or her and the last if the cognizer able to examine that or find that all the features
described by the forester or a term Gavagai and he finds all the features on that animal
which is presented before him or her, then only his knowledge will be turns into a valid
knowledge or pramana. So, now you can understand that how upamana stands as a pramana to achieve
a valid knowledge is known as pramana. So, this is the example. Whenever we will
discuss further and further, I will refer to this example so that based on this example
you can understand the Naiyayikas stands on Pramana and how they really consider upamana
as a valid Pramana to have a pramana.
Now, according to them, according to Nyaya philosophy they said that Upamana is the third
method of valid knowledge or the third Pramana. It is derived from two words, one is Upa and
another is mana. These two words if you put together in Sanskrit, then you will get the
word Upamana. He is saying that Upa means similarity and
Mana means cognition and because of the similarity, whatever the cognizer is able to cognize in
object is nothing but called Upamana. Because of the similarity, the cognizer is able to
find that the Gavagai is appears to be cow. However, it is not same as cow.
So, because of here the similarity, the cognizer is able to get a new idea on a particular
object or identify an object which he did not know about that object earlier. So, therefore
here you find that knowledge will be turned into a valid or your identification on a particular
object will be turned into valid by the help of similarity, by the help of comparison.
Therefore, in this case Naiyayikas considers comparison as a valid source of knowledge.
Further, I said it is the source of our knowledge about the relation between a word and its
denotation. That means first the Gavagai. He knows the word but he does not know what
it refers to but after the cognition is over, the cognizer finds that all the description
made by the forester is finding in case of the Gavagai. Henceforth, the knowledge he
accumulate on the term Gavagai will be valid one. That means now he realizes that Gavagai
is a word denotes to an object with having so and so features and it is satisfying Asamdigdha,
yathartha and anubhava on over these three conditions to have a valid knowledge.
So, in this way they consider upamana like perception and inference is an independent
Pramana for having a pramana or valid knowledge. The explanation they have given by the writing
a shloka you find in Nyayasutra that is they have written Prasidha Sadharmyat Sadhya Sadhanam
Upamanam. Prasidha means as you know that which you have know already earlier.
Now, we will see in the next slide how they have explained this shloka which is fine in
the case of Nyaya sutra. NS means Nyaya sutra 1.1.6.
What they said is that Prasidha Sadharmyat, what they mean? So, similarity to a known
object Prasidha means which we have already experienced, which we have already know it.
Then Sadharmyat means through similarity. Here, if I refer to my example then I will
say that you are familiar to an object or an animal known as cow. You know all the features
of the cow and you can identify Gavagai as a different animal similar to cow because
you have a previous knowledge of cow which some of the features of the cow certainly
find in case of a Gavagai and because of your previous knowledge and similar to the unknown
object you could able to identify that object with its true nature.
Second point, they said Sadhya Sadhanam that means the making known of the things posited.
That means the object which is presented before you cognize it which is a particular name
having a particular word because of the description made by the forester. In addition to that
you had a previous experience on the similar kind of object, though it is not exactly the
same object. Therefore, they said that it is because of
your previous knowledge and the explanation who knows about that name Gavagai with his
or her description and your previous knowledge, you compare to an object which is presented
before you and because of the similarity of your previous knowledge, you could identify
a particular object or particular animal which is presented before you having a different
name. So, they say that any knowledge, a cognizer
will get certainly it is a new knowledge for him or her. Therefore, Upamana is an independent
source of valid knowledge. They said a comparison, Upamana is another name, is a comparison because
you compare your previous knowledge cow towards another object which is presented before you
are not known to you. You will be knowing that object is a by the
help of two things. First, by the help of the similar object, similar kind of object
you had experience in the past. The second thing is that about that new object, an authoritative
person made certain kind of description on that object.
So, because of these two things you could able to identify as a cognizer towards a new
object. So, this is called Upamana according to Nyaya philosophy. They said comparison
is knowledge of a thing, so its similarity to another thing previously well known.
I repeat, further they said comparison is knowledge of a thing or an animal or an object
through similarity to another thing previously well known. What they mean is if at all we
identify an object having a name or if at all we are identifying an animal having a
name Gavagai; it is because of our previous knowledge about the cow because the Gavagai
is an animal similar to the cow. Then they made the statement saying that the consequence
of distinct knowledge is called Upamana. What are that consequences? The first, the
cognizer have an urge to know about certain object, about certain animal which denotes
in a particular word. The second thing, the second point as he is
a cognizer, as he wish to cognize a new object wants to know something new, then he finds
out some authoritative person who is familiar to that kind of object or that kind of animal
agreed to describe about that animal to the cognizer and the cognizer certainly do not
have any kind of disputes or enmity to the person who knows the new object.
After listening to the description from the person who knows about that object or an animal,
he finds that the person who makes a description said that this object, the object you are
searching for certainly it has a similarity towards some other object which is known to
you or which you had known in you previous experiences.
Now, as a cognizer you listen from him. Now, you accumulate all the expression, you understand
the expression made by the authoritative person, then all this information you store in your
mind. In a later period when you encounter the similar kind of animal which is described
by the authoritative person, you retrieve all the information what the person describes
and also your previous knowledge of that similar kind of animal cow. All the information you
impose on an object which is presented before you known as Gavagai because here you find
that Gavagai is a new knowledge and this is to be attained or achieved because of your
previous knowledge which is similar to cow, in addition to that the new description on
a new object made by the authoritative person. So, the consequence will depend on the cognizer.
If the cognizer could not able to retrieve all the information made by the authoritative
person on a particular unknown object for the cognizer and in addition to that, if at
all the cognizer may not able to find out some of the similarity features like a cow
what he had experience in the past, then it is very difficult for him to cognize a new
object known as Gavagai. Thus, they said technically speaking comparison
means relation between a word and its meaning because whenever we say Gavagai, it denote
an animal similar to cow. However, all the features of cow you may not find on that animal
known as Gavagai. So, this is the way Naiyayikas defines what is Upamana.
Now, if you remember the example I have given, how a cogniser cognises a new object known
as Gavagai by the help of his or her previous knowledge on cow because the authoritative
person describes that Gavagai is similar to cow. However, some or other unique features
you find in case of Gavagai.
So, now we will see that what are the steps involved for having a correct Upamana for
having a valid Pramana or valid Upamana. The first step would be we have authoritative
statement that a word or a name denotes object of a certain description. Here, the forester
would like to describe on the animal Gavagai on which the cognizer wishes to know about
that object. The second, when one observes any such object
he has the knowledge that it answers to the given description. That means, the cognizer
after listening from the forester in the later period or in say after some time, if the cognizer
find an animal satisfying all the description made by the forester, then the cognizer now
finds that this is certainly a new object for him or her.
Therefore, in the third step as a cognizer he has to recollect all the description statement
received from the authority. The last step, it is depending on the cognizer. There is
a resulting knowledge that this kind of objects is denoted by the word is same. I repeat,
so that you can have a clarification of the four steps.
The first step saying that a person, a cognizer wish to know on certain object which is not
known to him or her because he has a urge to know, he find out some reliable person
or a authoritative person who is familiar to that object and can explain to him about
that object. Here, the authoritative person while explaining about that object he said
that, that object is similar to some other object which is already known to the cognizer.
Now, in a later period the cognizer whenever he perceive finds that some kind of object
fetch or match to the description made by the authoritative person and in the past experience
he had similar kind of object, then he immediately recollects all the information, both in past
as well as the authoritative person described on that object.
Recollecting all the information imposed on that object which is presented before him
or her, therefore the resulted cognition will be known as valid cognition. If all the information
imposed on that object find in that object, then the knowledge that generates or the knowledge
that accumulates by the individual will be judged as Upamana or will be known as Upamana
but if it does not find any kind of similarity over there, then he cannot attain the true
knowledge of the term Gavagai. If he cannot do that the Asamdigdha, yathartha and anubhava
the three condition would not be satisfied to have valid Pramana.
Now, we will see what are the Pramanas and what are the sources involved for having Upamana
to be a valid knowledge. A statement made by the trustworthy or reliable person, it
is a Sabda. Whenever the person describes about that fact,
the cognizer hears that. As you know that perception is not limited to visual organs
only, he is saying that perception will be known through our six sense organs and most
specifically five sense organs. If you hear something that means it is a perception for
us, it is a hearing perception. If you smell something that is also a perception
because after smelling if you cognize an object, this will be according to Naiyayikas you can
treat this knowledge as a perceptual knowledge because sense organs is involved here for
cognizing an object. Therefore, they said in case of Upamana, you find a statement made
by the trustworthy person is known as Sabda but the cognizer hears the sounds utterances
from the authoritative person. The second step, the cognition of similarity
is a perceptual. That means in a later period the cognizer encounter the similar kind of
object which is made in conformation to the description made by the authoritative or trustworthy
person. So, it is a kind of perceptual, here it is a visual perception if you see that.
If you take in a true spirit, the cognizer having everything all with him is a healthy
being and all the sense organs functions well, then you find that here the cognizer perceive
that object which is presented before him or her in confirmation to the description
made by the trustworthy person. The third point, recollecting the description.
Now, he is consciously recollecting all the description made by the trustworthy person
and it is because of the Smruti, it is a memory. The resulted cognition generated through the
individual himself and herself. If you find that or if she finds that all the information
given by or all the description made by the trustworthy person are found in case of that
animal which is presented before him or her, then any knowledge that a cognizer will gain
is known through the Upamana which will be considered as a valid Pramana.
Hope now it is clear, what is Upamana according to Naiyayikas stand point. Now, therefore
they said that if these are the steps involved. If there are four steps involved for having
Upamana knowledge, then which step will be more important in case of Naiyayikas? That
means if you ruled out that step, we cannot consider the knowledge that the cognizer will
gain will be turned into Pramana or a source of valid knowledge.
I repeat the question arises here. If there are steps involved for having an Upamana,
then which steps will be more important without that, we cannot consider the knowledge, that
we gain will be known through Upamana.
In other words, I put in this way. Which steps will be known as the proximate cause or very
important without that we cannot gain any kind of valid knowledge through the upamana?
Here, there are two views you find, one is Prachina nyaya and another is Navya nyaya.
Prachina nyaya said it is the first step where as the Navya nyaya said it is the second step.
Prachina Nyaya said it is the first step. What is the first step? That the authoritative
person or the trustworthy person describes about an unknown object to the cognizer by
explaining that this object is similar to some object which is known to the cognizer.
So, here the description is important. They said that if the trustworthy person is unable
to describe or if the trustworthy person does not wish to describe on that unknown object,
the cognizer that cognizer at any situation or any conditions could not able to recognize
that object even in later period. So, therefore for them the first step where
the trustworthy person describes about the unknown object is much more important and
without that any knowledge that cognizer will gain cannot be considered as Upamana.
Counteracting to this view, you find that the Navya nyaya they said that it is a second
step. What they mean is that, that it is the cognizer when he recollects all the information
and perceives that object and imposing all the features on that object and finding the
confirmative. So, the similarity this will be termed as the essential steps for having
an Upamana. By counteracting to the old Naiyayikas view
they said that although, the trustworthy person make a description effort on an object. If
the cognizer not able to perceive the similar kind of object in confirmative to the description
made by the trustworthy person, then the cognizer even cannot have a valid knowledge about that
object which stands for Gavagai. Therefore, they said that it is not the first step rather
the second step is involved or it is a proximity call.
It is the Karana or it is the important cause without that Upamana cannot be considered
as a valid Pramana or any knowledge. The cognizer will get cannot be turns into Pramana or valid
knowledge. So, therefore you find that there are two views in Naiyayikas itself one is
Prachina nyaya view, another is Navya Naiyayikas view.
Now, classifications of Upamana, now we will see that Upamana which talked about similarity
and there are steps we have discussed. Now, we will say that how many kinds of similarity
we have or how many types of Upamana we have. As a result, we can have valid Upamana to
have a Pramana. They said that Upamana need not be always
based on similarity. Upamana is of three kinds. Now, we have understanding what is similarity
made by Naiyayikas. Now, how they are explaining more and more on Upamana and what are the
things they are incorporating in that domain Upamana to have a valid knowledge.
They said that Upamana need not be always based on similarity. Upamana is of three kinds
that means to have a Upamana, to have a comparison, to have a knowledge a valid knowledge through
Upamana we need not to talk about all this similarity or it need not to depend on only
similarity. So, it will depend on similarity, in this
similarity and in peculiar quality. So, therefore, they said that Upamana is of three kinds.
Now, similarity I have described to you. Now, you know how a cognizer cognize an object
or an animal known as Gavagai which is not known to him or her.
This is a similarity. Because of the similarity, we cognize an object Gavagai in a relation
to the cow because some sort of features in cow, we find in case of a Gavagai. Now, this
is understood to you. Now, we will be talking about dissimilarity
and peculiar quality. How dissimilarity and peculiar qualities, both are to be considered
under the Upamana? In case of dissimilarity, you find that the
description made by the trustworthy person will be very clear enough. The trustworthy
person will say that unlike lion and dogs, elephant have a trunk. Unlike lions and dogs,
elephants have trunk. That means whenever you enter to a forest in a later period, you
find that there is an animal which will be more bigger than the lion and tiger. However,
the animal has a trunk. So, because of here the dissimilarity feature you could be able
to identify the object with its true nature. In case of peculiar quality, what they said
is that it is sometimes also because of the peculiar quality, the cognizer able to cognize
that object which is a part of similarity. An example I will give so that it will help
you to understand. For example, if I say that you do not know what squirrel is or what the
word squirrel stands for. Now, as I am familiar with that object you come to me and ask.
Therefore, I will say as a trustworthy person or reliable person to you, I will say that
squirrel like mouse. However, the peculiar feature of the squirrel is that you find strips
on his body. So, then you in the in a later period or after sometime you find some kind
of animal like a mouse. However, there are some stripes on his body.
Then because of my description of a peculiar quality towards that animal, towards that
object you immediately know that, that object which is not known to you, now you have know
with a particular name known as squirrel and having them so and so features which is confirmative
to the trustworthy person as well. So, therefore they said that Upamana is of
three kinds. One is based on similarity, another second one is based on dissimilarity and third
one is based on peculiar quality. I will explain further. In case of similarity, they say that
Sadhyarmyopamana that means, something similar to that object which you want to cognize further
with a different name. Now, I will give an example of similarity
deviating from Gavagai and cow. I say the crow and jackdaw. You know what crow means.
Crow is a bird with so and so features but certainly as an administration you do not
know what the word jackdaw stands for, what the word jackdaw refers to. Therefore, you
came to me and believing me as trustworthy person you listen to me.
Then I say that you will find some kind of bird which is having big feather but look
like a crow having black in color. You find also the feather sometimes red in the corner
side. So, now in your later period you find there
is a bird appears to be crow. However, it is not look like a crow because its shape
is huge and also you find some red color in its feather in some corner. Then you conclude
that because of your similarity feature, what I have said in relation to crow, you could
able to identify that object with a particular name.
Here, your knowledge about that jackdaw will be a valid one because the knowledge you have
gained it is because through the Upamana. The explanation I have given here in this
case, we start from the description of an unknown object given in terms of its similarity
to a well known object by some authoritative person.
Now coming to the second point, dissimilarity. As I said to you, the dissimilarity unlike
lions and dog’s, elephants have trunk. Now, what Naiyayikas defines here is that in this
case, in case of dissimilarity, the objects denoted by a word described in terms of their
contrast or dissimilarity to some well known object of experience. The trustworthy person
explains to that cognizer saying that you find there is an animal not exactly similar,
not even similar to lion and tiger. However, that animal will be very big and having a
features strong. So, in this case because of the dissimilarity,
you can able to identify or cognize that object with that particular name and you will be
confirmed to that because it satisfy all the description made by the trustworthy person
and relates in addition to your previous experiences.
What they said Naiyayikas that the example they have given saying that unlike tiger and
lion, elephants have trunk. The example I have given further they said unlike dog, fox
have no bend tail. So, in this way because of the dissimilarity,
the cognizer is able to cognize that object with a particular name. In the third point
they said that Dharma Matropamana, it is a peculiar property. Dharma means quality, peculiar
quality. Therefore, they said that because of the peculiar quality also we could able
to identify an object which comes under Upamana. What they have explained here is that in this
case, the objects denoted by a name are described in terms of their peculiar attributes or any
combination of attributes which is peculiar to them. The example I have given that that
a cognizer wishes to know about the squirrel. Here, believing as a trustworthy person to
someone, ask what is squirrel and how I can identify that animal squirrel.
The trustworthy person simply says that the squirrel is an animal appears to be or look
like as a mouse. However, you find the unique feature of the squirrel is the stripe on his
or her whole body because he has the peculiar quality which is not known to the cognizer
earlier. Therefore, they said that this description enables us to discriminate the things denoted
by a name from all other things and consequently, apply the name to just that class of things.
So, this is the three ways we gain the knowledge of a new object and all these things come
under Upamana. Therefore, they say that to have a knowledge on Upamana, it is not limited
to only similarity rather it includes dissimilarity as well as peculiar quality and because of
this similarity, dissimilarity and peculiar qualities, we could able to cognize an object
which is not known to you. However, we could able to do that because of some kind of similar
objects or similar known facts known to the cognizer.
Hope this is clear to you. Now, the example that I have given also the same thing I have
written here. Squirrel is a creature which is different from other creatures because
its body is filled with strips. Upamana does not correspond to the analogical argument.
The point here is very crucial. He is saying that Upamana is not same as analogy. The knowledge
we gain through Upamana, the same thing we cannot gain through the analogy because they
make a distinction between what is Upamana and how it is different from analogy.
In case of analogy, you find two things are similar. If two things are similar, then you
can have an analogy corresponds with each other, then you find that whether these two
things are similar or not. If I say as the analogy of A and B that means, the features
of the A and the features of the B certainly both to be similar, then only say that you
can have a analogy of these two things but in case of Upamana, it is not only similarity
but also it includes dissimilarity as well as peculiar qualities. However, if you notice
it that in Upamana certainly the object, the cognizer will be cognized, not necessarily
it will be similar. Certainly some of the other features, it will
be unique for the cognizer though majority of the features will be similar to his or
her previous experience on the object. However, you find that it is not truly a similar object
the person is cognizing. The person is cognizing something on familiar object which is not
known to him or her earlier, even in his or her earlier experiences.
Therefore, you find in case of analogy, it is because of the similarity feature one person
can have say that A and B can have a analogy with each other and you can get a knowledge
of that object but in case of Upamana, it is the similarity, dissimilarity and peculiar
qualities a cognizer will cognize an object. Henceforth, the knowledge that he or she attain
or achieve is known as the valid knowledge. The same thing I have written in slide. If
you see that in comparison, we argue as much as from resemblance as from the contrast and
peculiarity. However, in analogy we infer one resemblance
from the other resemblance. The page of a book number say 35 and the page of a book
number 36, you say that whether all the lines of page number 35 will be fine in case of
page number 36 or not, this is a kind of resemblance exactly look like the same.
Twin sister, twin brother in that case you shall have analogy. That means, if the twin
brother name is Hari and Rama, you say that you identify Hari and the same features you
find in case of Rama. Therefore, you can have an analogy between these two persons Hari
and Rama but in case of Upamana, you find that Hari is not same with Rama because Rama
has some other features. In case of twins, you cannot have Upamana knowledge.
If you want to know say let us say Hari’s elder brother or Hari’s cousin, you say
that Hari’s cousin looks like Hari. However, some of the other features you find in case
of Hari’s cousin which is not in find in case of a Hari. Now, I hope this is clear
to you, how Naiyayikas make a distinction between Upamana or comparison in analogy.
They said that in case of analogy, we infer one resemblance from the other resemblance.
In case of comparison, we argue as much from the resemblances as from the contrast and
peculiarity. Further, they say Upamana does not lead to the resemblance between two things
or two objects but to the denotation of a word to a class of objects. Here in case of
Upamana, we are not certainly saying that. In all the cases similarity, dissimilarity,
peculiar, quality in all the cases whenever we are identifying an object, this is limited
to that object rather we are saying this is a class of objects. I will give the example.
If I say that the jackdaw is appears to be a crow. However, it is big in shape and some
kind of red color, you find in the corner of the feather. Here, we are saying that if
any kind of jackdaw you find it is a class of jackdaw, you are not identifying one jackdaw.
It is a class of jackdaw you are finding but in case of analogy, you find a particular
object Hari and Rama is a particular object page number 35, 36 of a particular book.
So, therefore he is saying that the two particular objects involved in case of an analogy. However,
in case of Upamana it denotes to a class of object. In case of dissimilarity also you
find the class of elephants. In case of peculiar qualities, you find in class of all animals
known as squirrel. It is not saying that squirrel 1 or squirrel 2 or squirrel 3 but it is saying
that unlike a mouse, a squirrel has stripes on his or her body.
He is saying that any kind of animal appears to these features, you immediately say squirrel.
That means, you are not identifying a particular object, you are identifying the whole class
as such. So, in this way you find the difference between analogy and Upamana.
Now, the question arises. Can Upamana give us a valid knowledge? Now, you know what Upamana
is and how Naiyayikas explain Upamana and how Upamana based on these three features
similarity, dissimilarity and peculiar quality. Now, question arises can Upamana gives us
any valid knowledge. Carvaka as you know that Carvaka are. They said that perception is
the only source of knowledge. If you cannot perceive the particular object, then any knowledge
you gain it about that object would not be valid knowledge for the cognizing.
Therefore, they said that Carvaka rejects the nyaya views of Upamana under three grounds
because according to Carvaka, perception is the only valid source of knowledge. Whatever
you perceive, this is the only valid knowledge for the cognizer and whatever you cannot perceive
through your five sense organs, it cannot be turned to the valid knowledge according
to Carvaka. Based on this ground, Carvaka rejects Upamana
knowledge as a valid knowledge. What Carvaka is saying that if Nyaya at all consider it,
Upamana in case of only similarity then why at all there is a two different names altogether?
Under the first ground, Carvaka rejects Nyaya Upamana saying that if Naiyayikas means that
that to have Upamana knowledge, we must have a two objects which is similar to each other.
If this is so, then why at all there is a two different name for two different objects.
We can give one particular name. We can say crow is similar to crow. Why we
are saying that crow is not similar to jackdaw? So, therefore under the first ground, similarity
ground Carvaka criticizes Nyaya Upamana. Second ground they say that semi-similarity
if Naiyayikas at all mean by semi-similarity through which we can have Upamana knowledge,
then there are every chances that the cognizer unable to cognize the object which is described
by the trustworthy person. There is every chance that the cognizer may fail to cognize
that object not in true spirit, the cognizer unable to cognize the Gavagai in many of the
cases. There are every chances that the cognizer
able to cognize the buffalo as a Gavagai. So, under the semi-similarity concept or the
say semi-perfect similarity concept Carvaka rejects Nyaya.
The third point they said that imperfect similarity. Carvaka said that if Naiyayikas mean that
because of the imperfect similarity, we have Upamana knowledge, then it is completely wrong.
If cow has nothing to do with the Gavagai, if crow has nothing to do with jackdaw, then
how we can cognize, how a cognizer will cognize jackdaw saying that jackdaw has some kind
of similarity to the crow of having the previous experiences of that cognizer.
So, therefore under these three grounds similarity, semi-similarity and imperfect similarity,
based on these three grounds Carvaka criticize Nyaya Upamana. Now, Nyaya defines that they
said that it is the misunderstanding of the exact or real nature of Upamana as a method
of valid knowledge. What Naiyayikas is saying that Carvaka fails
to understand what we want to speak about the Upamana knowledge because they are not
taking about the degree of Upamana as mentioned by Carvaka. He is saying that we are not really
mentioning the degree of Upamana through which one should get the knowledge known as Upamana.
Then Carvaka said that there are still possible situations arises where the cognizer may not
be able to cognize the objects in its true form because it neither confirms to the similarity
nor semi-perfect similarity nor dissimilarity. That means in Upamana knowledge, there are
every possibility that the cognizer will cognize a different object but by having the same
name, a cognizer can cognize a buffalo by having a name Gavagai which may not be the
valid knowledge.
Now, Nyaya defines this. Nyaya said that we are not denying that. What Nyaya said that
we are not denying that in Upamana there are possibility where the cognizer not able to
cognize the object, not able to cognize the exact object based on the description made
by the trustworthy person. What they said is that in Upamana, we are
not arguing that a cognizer may not fail to cognize an object in its true nature. However,
Naiyayikas imposed on Carvaka saying that in perception also we cognize snake as a rope.
Then how it is the case that you accept perception as a valid knowledge where there is every
chance that the cognizer fails to cognize an object which is not that object. Still,
you accept perception is a valid knowledge, then if this is so then what is wrong with
accepting Upamana as an independent source of valid knowledge as well. So, this is the
way Naiyayikas defends Carvaka. They said that Naiyayikas now saying we are
not denying that Upamana sometimes lead to wrong judgement for an example, the judgement
of a buffalo as a Gavagai but this difficulty is not peculiar to Upamana alone. What they
said even in case of perceptual knowledge, we found the same thing because we perceive
snake instead of rope, yet we are claiming perception is a valid method of knowledge.
Further, they said if there is no reason for this, then why we should deny Upamana as a
valid Pramana. Now, whatever Carvaka made against Naiyayikas that Upamana cannot be
considered as an independent source of valid knowledge Naiyayikas defends that.
Now, the question may remain stating that can Upamana be reduced to any other Pramana.
Buddhist said that buddhism is a school of thought. They said that Upamana is knowledge
can be reduced to perception and verbal testimony. Verbal testimony because the trustworthy person
describes about that unknown object to the cognizer and perception means the cognizer
perceive the same kind of object in confirmative to the trustworthy person’s description
in the later period of his life. So, therefore they said that Upamana can be
reduced to two kinds of Pramana. One is verbal testimony, another is perception. Naiyayikas
rejects Buddhist argument by saying that Buddhist as a reductionist, their view cannot be accepted
because it is the cognizer who is responsible to cognize that new object based on that description
and his earlier experience on a similar kind of object.
If the cognizer may not be able to recollect all the information on exact time and may
not able to impose all the features on a particular object which is presented before him or her,
then in any case the cognizer may not able to cognize the object. Though, he has an understanding
of the description made by the trustworthy person or experience of the similar kind of
object in his or her past life. So, therefore they say that it is the individual
who is responsible to cognize that object. It is not because of the just because of the
verbal testimony and the perception. It is his own decision to find out whether he cognize
the object which is true nature or not. Therefore, it cannot be reduced to perception as well
as verbal testimony. Further, you find that Samkhya and Vaisesikas
there are two schools. They said that Upamana or a comparison as an independent valid Pramana,
according to Naiyayikas can be reduced to inference because they have argued in this
way. They said that if we will put all animals resembling the cow or Gavagai, this is an
animal resembling the cow and therefore, this is Gavagai. Here, it is an inference or Anumana
where you find that the middle term and the major term, both are having a Vyapti relation.
So, he is saying that here we find essential component of inference is known as Vyapti
relation and all the features of the inference is satisfying. Therefore, there we can reduce
the Upamana to gain inferential knowledge but here Nyaya said that to have an inference,
we need a few propositions, three propositions or sometimes five propositions.
However, if in case of Upamana you find more than these propositions because whenever the
trustworthy person describes to a cognizer to an unknown object for the cognizer, he
describes so much thing about that unknown object. Further, also being some kind of similarity,
dissimilarity and peculiar qualities in reference to his or her previous experience on similar
kind of object. Therefore, it cannot be reduced to inferential knowledge and whenever the
person describes towards an unknown object to the cognizer, certainly it does not satisfy
the Vyapti relation whatever the statement he made it. Therefore, Naiyayikas said that
in Upamana we are considering many propositions denoted to an object.
Here, we are comparing the objects, but not infer. Whenever we have knowledge in Upamana,
we are comparing whether through similarity, whether through dissimilarity or whether through
peculiar quality but we are not inferring to a situation or we are not inferring to
object. So, I hope now it is understood to you how Naiyayikas explain and defend other
schools saying that Upamana or comparison as an independent source of valid knowledge
is like perception or Pakhya, inference or Anumana.
In the next class, we will be discussing verbal testimony as an independent source of valid
knowledge according to Nyaya philosophy. Thank you.