sign in sign up
<<
Home , Vaisheshika

JOY BHATTACHARYYA

Consciousness in Nyàya

JOY BHATTACHARYYA

t the outset we may note that may be discussed briefly. As the or consciousness can etymological meaning suggests, padàrtha is Awell be dealt with in two different something () that is referred to by a ways, metaphysically and epistemologically. name (pada)—‘Padasya arthah padàrtha’. Here, however, we propose to consider By the name ‘consciousness’ or ‘knowledge’ consciousness as discussed in the celebrated we do mean something. The name definitely Nyàya-Vaisheshika metaphysics. Possibly, stands for something. Hence consciousness you all know that the two systems were or knowledge is a padàrtha. propounded by two great sages, namely Now the obvious question is: What is Gautama and Kanàda and that these two are knowledge or consciousness? Here we are after all allied systems having only minor certainly reminded of the list of differences. metaphysical categories in the Vaisheshika We first refer to the Nyàyasutra system. As Jagadisha in his celebrated (1.1.15) where Gautama defines Tarkàmrita points out, the Vaisheshika consciousness as ‘Buddhirupalabdhir- categories are twofold—positive (bhàva) jnànamiti anarthàntaram’. This aphorism is and negative (abhàva). Consciousness or an attempt to define consciousness by knowledge does not mean negation by any dileneating its certain synonyms—buddhi, means. It must therefore fall under the upalabdhi, jnàna, bodha, sambit, chaitanya, positive categories. According to the chetanà. These words are only synonyms Vaisheshika metaphysics, the six positive meaning one and the same thing categories are substance, quality, movement, (anarthàntaram). generality, particularity and inherence. The Now the question is: What is this thing? Vaisheshika metaphysics holds that In the Nyàya-Vaisheshika metaphysics, knowledge or consciousness is a quality anything real means a ‘padàrtha’. of among the twenty-four qualities admitted in consciousness or knowledge or cognition the system. Now the qualities must inhere in can hardly be denied. To refuse to accept some substance or substances. Qualities like consciousness as real (padàrtha) is suicidal number and magnitude inhere in all the because denial of knowledge presupposes substances without exception. Qualities like knowledge. Thus consciousness or colour (rupa) inhere in specific substances. knowledge can never be legitimately Consciousness or knowledge, however, is a discarded. So consciousness or knowledge is quality of the second kind. It inheres in self something real; consequently it is a padàrtha alone. This point needs clarification. in Nyàya-Vaisheshika system. That consciousness is a quality of the In connection with the aphorism self is not admitted by all. Several schools of mentioned above, the concept of padàrtha , Sàmkhya and Advaita

16 Bulletin of the Mission Institute of Culture  July 2017 CONSCIOUSNESS IN NYâYA METAPHYSICS equate the self with consciousness. Let us Naiyàyikas point out that in order to first take into account the Buddhist doctrine produce subsequent consciousness as its of consciousness (vijnàna). It is a firm effect, previous consciousness must have conviction of the majority of Buddhist already been there. Thus it requires at least thinkers that whatever is real must be two moments; at one moment consciousness momentary—Yat sat tat kshanikam. Hence itself is produced (utpattikshana), and at consciousness is necessarily momentary. It is another moment it exists (sthitikshana) said to be the very of self. Thus the before it produces its effect, namely, self is momentary. subsequent consciousness. It is therefore But this view is not accepted by the argued by the Naiyàyika that nothing can Naiyàyikas on several grounds. One actually be momentary in the world. important ground is that, had the self been Memory and recognition are facts and the momentary, there would have been neither same can hardly be explained with the help recognition (pratyavijnà) nor memory of the idea that self is of the of (). Recognition as a determinate momentary consciousness. (savikalpaka ) takes The Sàmkhya and place when an object already seen elsewhere systems regard the Self as Pure is seen again at another time and place. Consciousness. Consciousness, in their Recognition is thus expressed through the opinions, is pure in the sense of judgemental form—‘This is the jar I saw unintentional (nirvishaya) and also in the yesterday’ or ‘This is that Devadatta’. If we sense of being no state of consciousness. analyse the judgemental form we can be Both the systems hold that the Self is of the convinced at once that a person who has nature of eternal Consciousness, eternal by already seen the jar is now capable of of its being pure. According to both, recognizing the same. Thus self can hardly Consciousness is the essence of the Self be momentary. Recognition of an object by a which is eternal. Hence consciousness is momentary self is an impossibility. also said to be eternal, and being so, it falls The same point holds good as regards outside the scope of epistemological studies. memory also. The person experiencing an Pure Consciousness being the essence of the object is alone capable of remembering the Self can only be considered from the object in future. This also guarantees standpoint of metaphysics. permanence of self as the knower of an One point of epistemological object. Hence the Naiyàyika refuses to importance should also be mentioned here. accept the Buddhist theory of momentary Both Sàmkhya and Advaita Vedanta as self. Presentative cognition () and fullfledged systems of thought have their representative cognition (smriti) must occur respective in which ordinary in the same self. Thus the self is no doubt a knowledge, instead of Pure Consciousness, permanent entity. is obviously taken into account. To be The idea of consciousness being precise, Sàmkhya and Advaita Vedanta momentary is abandoned on another ground. actually draw a between Pure The Buddhist thinkers by and large believe Consciousness and knowledge or cognition in the causal relation. Previous in the ordinary sense. The Sàmkhya is consciousness causes subsequent dualistic and, according to the system, consciousness, as the Buddhist thinks. The ordinary knowledge or cognition is the

Bulletin of the Institute of Culture  July 2017 17 JOY BHATTACHARYYA

modification (parinàma) of buddhi, the first recognize the idea of pure knowledge. evolute of Prakriti or Pradhàna. Advaita Nyàya actually upholds the idea of ascribes ordinary cognition to antahkarana ordinary knowledge or consciousness. We or manas. When the Sàmkhya system would now conclude our discussion by acknowledges three kinds of ordinary explaining in short the metaphysical views knowledge, the Advaita Vedanta accepts six of Nyàya-Vaisheshika with regard to of its kinds. Obviously, in this connection, consciousness or knowledge. We have while the former accepts three pramànas, already mentioned that knowledge or the latter accepts six pramànas. A pramàna consciousness is a special quality in self stands for the specific source from which a alone. All other substances are devoid of veridical cognition (pramà) is derived. consciousness. But this should also be Now we are in a position to discuss the mentioned that when the self is eternal, Nyàya thought with regard to the dichotomy knowledge or consciousness is a non-eternal of knowledge. The Nyàya-Vaisheshika quality occurring in the self under suitable system does not approve such a dichotomy occasions. The self is said to be the inherent of Pure Consciousness and ordinary cause of consciousness and the contact cognition. It argues that the idea does not between the self and manas is the non- tally with our day-to-day . inherent cause of consciousness. But a point Cognition of cognition is possible in two has to be considered here seriously. Self and ways: an indeterminate cognition is inferred manas are two eternal substances and the and a determinate cognition is cognized by contact of the self and the manas in one the manas directly. This is called body is also there always. So consciousness anuvyavasàya. Cognition of cognition thus or knowledge should always be there in one. convinces us that either it is to be inferred or If so, then how can there be a deep it is to be perceived by the inner sense. But dreamless sleep when no knowledge actually Pure Consciousness being self-luminous is takes place in the self ? The thought that none of them. Nyàya further argues that there is no knowledge in this state can well nothing is actually self-luminous, everything be justified by the judgement, ‘I was in deep depends upon something else for its sleep, could not know anything’. When one manifestation (svàtiriktaprakàshaka- gets up from a deep dreamless sleep, one at prakàshya). Thus Nyàya-Vaisheshika once admits that one was not already aware discards the thought of self-luminous Pure of things or happenings. Lack of awareness Consciousness. is want of knowledge or consciousness. Had On another serious ground Nyàya does the self and its contact with manas been the not accept the idea of Pure Consciousness. only cause of consciousness, there would Consciousness is said to be pure in the sense never have been a state like dreamless sleep. of its having no object. But knowledge But the state can hardly be denied. In their without an object is inconceivable, the zeal to explain this state, the Naiyàyika has Naiyàyika points out. Whenever we talk of recourse to the of an additional knowledge, we talk of knowledge of an cause, namely the contact between manas object. When one says ‘I know’, the obvious and the sense of touch. There is one vein question is: ‘What do you know?’ Thus called ‘puritat’ in the nervous system. This knowledge is necessarily knowledge of some vein is devoid of the sense of touch object. The Naiyàyika does not therefore (Continued to page 35)

18 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  July 2017