Abstract

The present thesis titled, “PERCEPTION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN BUDDHISM AND NYĀYA” tries to establish the validity of pratyakṣa through citing its application either consciously or unconsciously in every sphere of human life. Understanding the validity and relevance of perception is pertinent as for any knowledge emerging from any means pratyakṣa will be finger point. Hence, what is attempted in this thesis is to disclose the sphere of perception in Buddhism and Nyāya system which consists of factors, processes and conditions including the path to approach pure perception. Moreover, when Buddhism and Nyāya are brought up to compare in the light of these aspects, it is revealed how differences and similarities between their ideas can be found in these aspects.

Understanding knowledge and valid source of knowledge has been a key area of inquiry of philosophers and thinkers in ancient India. Knowledge has been defined differently by various thinkers. Some philosophers define it as an act, some others regard it as relation, and according to some it is self-subsistent and for some others it is quality. The Nyāya School refuting the other school suggests that knowledge occurs as a result of a relation between soul and body and that they themselves cannot be identified with knowledge. Knowledge is gained through various means Perception (Pratyakṣa),

Inference (Anumāna), Verbal testimony (Śabda), Comparison (Upamāna), Postulation (Arthapathi), Non-apprehension (Anupalabdhi), Probability (Sambhava), Tradition (Aitihya), Indication (Cesta), and Imagination or Intuition (Pratibha). Among the above, Perception and Inference form the two major valid sources of knowledge as propagated in Indian philosophical schools. As perception is relevant for producing reliable and systematic knowledge in all domains with which one negotiated with the outside world, it is not surprising that most of the systems of Indian philosophy accept perception as a means of valid knowledge (pramāṇa).

According to Buddhism, there are only two means of knowledge, perception and inference. Buddhists call perception as direct source of knowledge while inference the indirect one. These two sources are opposed to each other. The direct thing cannot be indirect and the indirect cannot be direct. Buddhists maintain the theory of pramāṇavyavasthā which is also known as “the limitations of sources of knowledge”. The arena of one source of knowledge is completely different from the other source. There is no mutual work of the two sources of knowledge. Their processes to reach at reality are also different and exclusive. Similarly, their objects are also different. The object of perception is cannot be the object of inference and vice versa.

The theory of pramāṇa-vyavasthā is completely a unique theory which Buddhists contributed to epistemology. Even though many scholars have identified perception and inference as merely two means of knowledge, they have not identified the thing that their spheres are completely different. Some non-Buddhist philosophers could not make distinction between perception and inference as Buddhist did by their definition of perception and inference. In this respect the definition of perception has more importance as it is backbone of not only Buddhist’s theory of Pramāṇa-vyavasthā, but also of the epistemology of every school. On the other hand Nyāya School of thought maintains the theory of pramāṇa-samplava according to which the same object can be apprehended through different pramāṇas.

Perception is said to be the main source of knowledge for which most philosophers, whether western or eastern, try to come up with various ideas to establish a reasonable foundation for reflection on the process of perception systematically. Buddhism emphasizes the natural world for the sphere of perception owing that the main factor of perception is confined in this world. In the natural world, Buddhism classifies beings into living and lifeless things the bilateral relation of which leads to the process of perception. The initial step of perception is based on sensuous impression caused by the contact between sensuous organs and sensuous objects motivated by mind as its activator; it is defined as “sensory perception”. Buddhism indicates this perception as the initial process of perception but the meanings and contents of the impinged object are not exactly known in this step; it is just a step in the process of sensation. However, Buddhism assures that the object can be known thoroughly if it proceeds in mind-door because only mind can performs the cognitive function.

The Buddhist theory of knowledge is systematically developed by Diṅnāga. He is known as the father of medieval logic in India. He defines Perception as free from conceptual construction. Conceptual construction (kalpanā) is a process of associating name, etc with a thing and nothing else. Diṅnāga’s definition of perception is different from the Nyāya school of thought. For Nyāya School, Perception is “indriyārthasannikarṣopannam jñānam pratyakṣam”, it is a process where there is a contact between our sense organs with the object which is not associated with name and which is well defined. The Nyāya School admits that in the process of perception there involves a sense-object-contact. A distinctive characteristic of Nyāya theory is that it divides the process of perceptual cognition into two stages: Conception free (nirvikalpa) and Conception loaded (savikalpa). Diṅnāga, however, regard the former alone as perception. For Naiyāyikas, indeterminate perception is bare sensation of an object. It is the first stage in the process of perception while determinate perception is the perception where we give name to some objects. It includes word-elements or mental construction. For Nyāya, indeterminate perception is the perception that includes the knowledge of particular and universal. It is the basis of determinate knowledge. Every perception goes through this stage and reaches to the second stage i.e. determinate perception. Determinate perception involves attributes of a thing. Buddhist logicians regard indeterminate perception alone as perception while Naiyāyikas regard two modes/stages of perception. I have clarified several problems relating to the two stage theory of perception.

A lot of work has been done on Buddhist Epistemology but the comparative study between Buddhism and Nyāya has not been done yet which i have covered in my work.