Pramāna) in Indian and Buddhist Logic (Based on Tarka Sangraha and Nyāya Bindu

Home , Kalpana (imagination), Pratyaksha

Comparative study of ‘source of knowledge’ (Pramāna) in Indian and Buddhist Logic (Based on Tarka Sangraha and Nyāya Bindu)

By Buddama Vimala

Content

1. Introduction 2. Pramāna (Source of knowledge) 2.1. Perception 2.2. Inference 2.3. Comparison 2.4. Testimony 3. Conclusion 4. Reference

1. Introduction

According to Oxford Dictionary Origin of term ‘Logic’ is derived such as (old French) ‘logique’, (Latin) ‘logica’ form (Greek) ‘Logike’ - art of reason, or ‘logos’ - the word reason. It means that reason, judgment, logical thought, rationality, wisdom and sense etc. All together Its defined that reasoning conducted, assessed according to strict principles of validity. The position of Aristolian logic says that a particular system or condition of the principles of proof and inference. In Sanskrit named ‘Tarka’ is systematic study of informal inference - patterns are called logic (vyāpārena vyāpakāropah tarkah- ‘Tarka sangrah’ by Annambatta 17th A.D.)1 Pāli word “Takka” in pāli Language explains that thoughtful thinking or thinking method (takka vitakkane ) in grammar book, ‘Dhātumanjusa’. Finally, it can be explained as logical or rational thinking method is called logic.

Indian logic, it can be classified to main two groups that Vedic and Non- Vedic, and again Vedic tradition is divided six categories named ‘Nyāya’, ‘vaisesika’, ‘sānkya’, ‘yoga’, ‘pūrva mīmansā’ and ‘Uttara mīmansā’. and Buddhist, Jain, Carvaka teachings are included into the Non- vedic tradition. Both traditions emphasis the way of having knowledge through

1 Indian philosophy, radha krisana, vol.2, 41p. Indian logic and atoinism, b.keet, 39 p. 1 their pramānavāda or theory of source of knowledge. In this thesis, mainly we are going to explain about pramāna in both text called Tarka Sangraha and Nyaya Bindu which belong to Hindu and Buddhist tradition. And also, Tarka Sangraha belongs to Vasesika and Nyāya tradition. Nyaya Bindu contains to theory of Buddhist logic in Northern Buddhism. 2. Pramāna (source of knowldge)

‘Pramā’ literally means knowledge or wisdom and ‘prmā+na’ refers proof, source or means of knowledge. Corrected source of accurate knowledge can be considered as pramāna. According to Indian philosophy and logic, there are mainly four ‘pramānās’ or sources of correct knowledge. They are mentioned as follows.

1. pratyaksa - perception - Acquiring knowledge from experience. 2. anumāna - inference - gaining right knowledge from logical conclusion. 3. upamāna - comparison - learning by observing similarities. 4. sābda - testimony - gaining authentic knowledge from spoken and written words. According to Buddhist logic, the text Nyāya Bindu composed by Dharmakirthi, it says that only two source of knowledge (pramāna) which consider as correct method of knowledge. Here, comparison and testimony are not accepted as pramāna because low trustworthy facts. However, Buddhist logic tries to explain widely and deeply both of perception and inference in itself method.

2.1. perception (pratyaksha)

It appears the perception (pratyaksa) or perceptual experience as primary means of knowledge (pramāna) in classical Indian philosophy. Perception is etymologically rooted in the sense - faculty or the sense - organ (prati + aksa) and can be translated as sensory awareness. Indian logical text, ‘Tarka sangraha’ explains the perception such as “indriyārtha sannikarsa janyan gnānam pratyaksam” 2 cognition arising through the contact six faculty with six objects is interpreted as ‘pratyaksa’. Nyāya Bindu explains the perception as “kalpana prodamabhrantam pratyaksham” 3 its meaning is that sensation of without reminding or thinking and non- confusion or non-faint is known as perception.

faculty object perception

eye - cakkhu form - rupa perception of eye ear - sota sound - sabda perception of ear Nose - Ghāna smell - ghanda perception of Norse tongue - jivhā taste - rasa perception of tongue body - kāya touch - sparsa perception of body mind - manas thought - dharma perception of mind

2 Tarka Sangraha, 130 p. 3 Nyāya Bindi, 09 p. 2

There are two types of perception such as: - 1. external perception (bahira pratyksa) - (From external organs that eye, ear, nose, tongue and body getting perceptual experience is called external perception) 2. internal perception (abhyantara pratyaksa) - (internal organ named mind gets sense of thoughts is introduced as internal perception)

Above mentioned Non- Buddhist Indian logical conceptualist position of perception shows that soul or spirit (ātmn) is the main role of consciousness, and without soul, it’s impossible to get the sense form faculties - Objects systematic process. The Naiyāyikas and Vaisesikas generally take perception to be a two - staged process. first there arises a Non- conceptual perception of the object (Nirvikalpa) and then a conceptual perception (savikalpaka), both being valid cognitions. Nir+vikalpa means that just knowing about something like “this is a person, animal or thing”. Sa+vikalpa represents the knowing about something in details just like (1.) person > (not just person) > father, teacher, friend etc. (2.) a. friend (kind and cool one) b. friend (shameful and silent one) c. friend (shorter or taller one). Here we can understand the difference of both perceptions.

In Nyāya Bindu, it explains the two kinds of target of perception called Svalakshana and sāmānyalakshana. Sva+lakshana represents the its own character or nature and Sāmānya+lakshna means here common features of things. what are own character of matters such as earth>hardness, water> fluid, fire> energetic, forceful power, air> moving, grow or expand etc. and also in water has got various character each other just like

water - fluid cool water - cool cold water - cold warm water - warm hot water - hot boiling hot water - boiling hot

Understanding or knowing about special nature of matter or mind is one type of perception accordance with N.B. The both explanation in both text about types of perception or target of perception are almost similar.

According to Annambatta’s Tarka sangraha, it explains the essence facts which should be completed to occur correct knowledge. 1. non- disabled faculty (avikalatva) 2. faculty with power and energy (shaktimatbhāva) 3. not too closeness (natyāsanna) 4. not too far (nātidūra) 5. non - coved area (avyavahīnathā)4 when we turn round to Nyāya bindu, we can see four fact called bhrānti, or obstacles that obstruct to having correct knowledge. darkness (thimira) rotating (āshubhramana) moving (nauyāna) and illness (sankshobha)5

The obstacles of getting knowledge which are explained in both tradition Buddhist and Hindu, there are some similarities as well as differences too. Non- disabled organ (avikalatva) and working organ (shaktimatbhāva) which related to faculty (감관) are similar to non- illness (sankshobha) that refers in Nyāya Bindu. But other facts connected to target (대상) which explain in both tradition are not similar any other. However, both tradition pay their attention

4 Tarka Sangraha, 136 p. 5 Nyaya Bindu, 09 p. 3 to emphasize about obstacles in organ and object which are barriers for getting correct knowledge.

Now we are going to study comparatively the types of perception in both text and find out itself characters appearing in there. In Tarka sangraha, it mentions three types of perception of internal perception (alaukika pratyaksha) called sāmānya sannikarsha (normal perception), gnāna sannikarsha (perception occurring in poet’s mind), yogaja dharma sannikarsha (perception occurring in sage’s mind). In Nyaya Bindu, there are four types of perception named indriya pratyaksha (perception relating to five organs), mānasa pratyaksha (perception belonging to mind), svasanvedana pratyaksh (perception related to feeling), and yogī pratyaksha (perception occurred in sage’s mind).

The relative proximity of a sense and its object, which is the cause of perception, is of six kinds. Conjunction or intimate union between organ and target arises sensation is called perception. In the perception of fact generally recognizes only colour and shape of object. it’s the basic cognition of target. external perception (bāhira) and sāmānya sannikarsha (normal perception) in Tarka sangraha and indriya, mānasa pratyakshas in Nyaya Bindu, indicate basic knowledge of sensation.

Through contact with faculty and object, it arises normal perception and then because of that perception someone is beginning to think about that sense and he creates many thoughts and feelings which is not exist in front of him. as example spoken tree, walking light, flying rock, smiling flower. Always poet sees the world through third eye and he creates many things in imagination world based on general perception. gnāna sannikarasha and svasanvedana pratyaksha (perception occurring in poet’s mind) in both theories of logical interpretation are very similar.

The last one, yogī pratyaksha means that getting perceptual experience through contemplation or meditation. based on some object liked suffering, Non- soullessness, transitioness or hardness, heated etc., sage or ascetic thinks deeply and make his mind in one pointedness then he can see or understand characteristic of world and life clearly. At that time, it arises wisdom or knowledge called yogi perception. That perception in both school are similar but the basic concept of perception is difference. it’s meaning that Hinduism explains about perception through ātmavāda or Vedic concept. Buddhism refers about that by anātmavāda or concept of non-soul, soullessness. However, both theories accept that perception is the main source or means of knowledge or wisdom. 2.2. Inference (anumāna)

‘Anumāna’ is a Sanskrit word that means inference or right knowledge from logical conclusion. it’s the second method that gaining knowledge in Asian logic. Inference is used to observe the fact or truth which is not direct experienced form right reason (hetu) to reach a new conclusion and truth. 6 A simple example is observing smoke and inferring that there must

6 Tarka Sangraha, 156 p. ‘anumīyate gnāyate indriya gocaro vahnyadi rantoti anumitih tat karanamunumānam’ 4 be fire. Inference consists of five steps that hypothesis (pratijnā), reason (hetu), example (udāharana), neat formation (upanaya) and conclusion (nigamana).

(A) Pratignā - proposition - there is a fire in the mountain. (parvato vahnimaat) (B) Hetu, (linga) - ground, reason - because of smoke is there. (dhumavatvat) (C) Udāharana, (drustānta) - example- if somewhere is smoke and definitely there must be fire just like kitchen. (yo yo dhuvaan sasa vahnimaan. ythaa mahaanasah) (D) Upanaya - application - there is also smoke in that mountain. (tathaacaayam) (E) Nigmana - conclusion - therefore, it must be fire there. (tasmaat tatha)7

In both Buddhist and Indian logic, it can be seen two types of inference that svarthānumāna (direct inference) and parārthānumāna (indirect inference). a person who have inference through the reason or mark directly, it’s called direct inference. and getting inference from others indirectly, it’s mentioned as indirect inference.

anumati karana manumānam parāmarsha janyam gnānam anumatih (T.S.)8 thathra svārtham thrirupallingād yadanumeye ghānam tadanumānam (N.B.)9

According to the Nyāa Bindu, there are three factors which must include in the having inference are paksha, sapaksha and vipaksha. The reason must have been in the statement or paksha what should be proved is called anumeya or dharmī. The statement that “there has fire in the mountain”, here “in the mountain” can be identified as paksha. And spaksha means the example that use to make sure the statement. “there has a fire in the mountain” “just like kitchen”. Here kitchen indicates the sapaksha. opposite statement is mentioned as vipaksha that “there has fire in the mountain just like kitchen”. “But fire is not in the lake”.

In Tarka sangraha, mainly it can be seen five factors or steps of getting inference namely proposition, reason, example, application and conclusion. When we compare both steps of inference mostly there are many similarities of them. But the fact that vipaksha mentioned in Nyāya Bindu is not clear. and my opinion is without that step of inference, it can be had the right inference through other steps. as an example,

7 Tarka Sangraha,08 p. 8 Tarka Sangraha, 7 p. 9 Nyāya Bindu, 10p. 5

“it was raining in that mountain. Because of water in the river which begins from that mountain is muddy. just like (Past experience) other river with muddy water

Here, someone gets knowledge of inference about statement “raining” which couldn’t see, through muddy water of river. just showing the muddy water, one can guess about raining by mark or reason as well as past experience which he or she had saw. Here past experience can be identifying as example (Udāharana). The raining is not only reason for becoming muddy water. there are many reason, water becomes muddy. Therefore, steps of inference or vipaksha of Dharmakeerthi is not essential context of knowledge of inference.

2.3. Comparison (upamāna)

The comparison has not been explained in N.B. as a one type of Pramāna and it has been added to Inference. Therefore, there is no special explanation about it in Buddhist tradition but T.S. discusses about comparison in details. Because, here I would like to describe in shortly the comparison including in T.S. The Sanskrit term ‘upamāna’ or ‘upamati buddhi’ means comparison or resemblance. it is also considered as one of pramāna or sources of correct knowledge in Indian philosophy. some scholars of Indian philosophical schools don’t accept upamāna as pramāna. but Nyāya- Vedanta and Mīmansa traditions all accept ‘upmāna’ as a ‘praman’. well known school named vaisesika and Samkhya interpret comparison as a form of inference. while Jainism considers ‘upamāna’ as part of perception. Yoga school accepts other three ‘pramans’ without ‘upmāna’.

‘upamāna’ implies that getting knowledge of thing or fact which previously unknown by virtue of its similarity (sādrushya) to something is known.

Example: - Someone who has never seen a wild ox (gavaya) is told that it resembles a cow (go). when a person sees the wild ox, then he/she observes that its similar to a cow and, thus believes it to be a wild ox.

‘tathahi kascit havaya sabda vacya padartham janat kutascidaaranyaka purusaat, go sadrusa gavaya iti srutvaa, vanam gato vakyaartham smaran go go sadrusa pindam pashyati.’

Four forms of ‘upmāna’ are mentioned as follows.

1. artha pratyaksha - direct experience or perception about term ‘go’ (a cow) which interprets as an animal or living being.

2. sadrusya gnana - comparison of similarity of cow’s character which was experienced past and present.

3. atidesa vakyārtha smarana - recalling the similarities of both cow and wild ox that was interpreted.

4. sabdārtha sambanda gnāna - knowledge of connection between root and interpretation.

2.4. Testimony (Sābda)

Sanskrit word ‘sābda’ or verbal/written testimony is considered as a means of obtaining knowledge in Indian logic. literal meaning of sābda is relying on word or testimony of past or present reliable experts. and it is explained as the statement of a trustworthy person ‘áptavākya’ and consists in understanding its meaning. it can be divided to two types such as

1. vaidika (vedic), which are the words of the four sacred Vedas, and are described as the word of god or brahma, having been composed by god.

2. Laukika, that are words or writings of trustworthy human beings.

‘sābda’ is of particular importance to the exegetic Mīmamsa school. Mīmamsa tradition defines the authoritativeness as applying bindingly only to scriptural statements that exhort to purposive action and whose efficacy, would not know by any other means of right knowledge. Furthermore, the Vedanta school explains that authoritativeness to super sensual objects, for an example, to ‘Brahman’ the ultimate reality. the description of Nyāyās about sābda is that verbal testimony of both human and divine as a valid means of knowledge, but notes that only the divine knowledge of the Vedas is infallible. The system of Buddhism and Jainism rejects the authoritativeness of the Vedic teachings; therefore, they haven’t included the ‘sābda’ as a means of knowledge in their system of logical theories.

Though Testimony is not accepted as pramāna in N.B., the teaching of the Buddha is accepted by Buddhists as trustworthy. But the Buddha advised always to not believe the teaching without investigation deeply. 3. Conclusion

Finally, I would like to summarize above discussed topic and introduce the own opinion. under the both Buddhist and Indian theory of logic, mainly, there are four source of knowledge in Tarka Sangraha that perception, inference, comparison and testimony. And in Nyāya Bindu, it can be seen only two means of knowledge such as perception and inference.

when we pay our attention carefully for Indian Pamānavāda, it can be recognized the similarities and differences of both traditions. especially perception and inference that explained in both text, are mostly same. But in Indian tradition declares their concept accordance with theory of soul (ātmavāda) or endless, permanent spirit exists in beings (paramātma) as well as nature (jagadātma). Therefore, they believe four means of knowledge including the testimony (words by God or God Brahman or trustworthy person).

However, influence of Indian epistemology for Buddhist logic is not a secret. But Buddhist scholars always tried to create own explanation in Buddhist way. Therefore, they focussed deeply their investigation for perception than inference. Because, although first step of understanding the truth in the world or reality of life is inference, finally without perception anyone couldn’t gain the wisdom or enlightenment regard with Buddhist teaching.

Comparison and Testimony are not accepted as Pramāna in Nyāya Bindu because lack of trustfulness as theory of knowledge. But Comparison, we can include into Inference as a statement of reason while comparing with statement and reason. 4. Reference

1. Nyāya Bindu ed. by Ven.M.Vijithadhamma, Sri lanka, 2007. 2. Nyāya Bindu and Nyāya Bindu tīka ed. by p.Peterson, India. 3. Tarka Sangraha Vivaranaya ed. by Ven.W.Seelarathana, Sri lanka, 1987

4. Buddhist Logic, volⅱ, by Stcherbatsky Th, Leningrad, 1930.

5. Indian Buddhism, Nakmura, Hajime, India, 1996. 6. Indian Buddhism, Wader, A.K., India, 1970.

7. 고전인도 논리철학, B.K. 마티랄, Korea, 1993.

8. A History of Indian Logic, Vidya Bhusan, S.C., Delhi, 1921. 9. The oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, New edition. 10. Encyclopaedia in Internet.