Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/371

VIII] Upamana and Sabda 355 on the strength of the experience of the similarity of the un- known animal to a known one. The naiyayikas are thorough realists, and as such they do not regard the observation of similarity as being due to any subjective process of the mind. Similarity is indeed perceived by the visual sense but yet the association of the name in accordance with the perception of similarity and the instruction received is a separate act and is called upamalla 1 . Sabda-pramarya or testimony is the right knowledge which we derive from the utterances of infallible and absolutely truthful persons. All knowledge derived from the Vedas is valid, for the Vedas were uttered by Isvara himse1( The Vedas give us right knowledge not of itself, but because they came out as the utterances of the infallible Isvara. The Vaisc!?ikas did not admit sabda as a separate pramarya, but they sought to establish the validity of testimony (Sabda) on the strength of inference (anu- miti) on the ground of its being the utterance of an infallible person. But as I have said before, this explanation is hardly corroborated by the Vaise!?ika sutras, which tacitly admit the validity of the scriptures on its own authority. But anyhow this was how Vaise!?ika was interpreted in later times. Negation in Nyaya-Vaiseika. The problem of negation or non-existence (abluiva) is of great interest in Indian philosophy. In this section we can describe its nature only from the point of view of perceptibility. Kumarila 2 1 See Nyiiyamaiijarf on upamana. The oldest N yaya view was that the instruction given by the forester by virtue of which the association of the name "wild ox" to the strange animal was possible was itself" upamana." "'Then Prasastapiida held that upa mana should be treated as a case of testimony (iiPtavacana), he had probably this inter- pretation in view. But Udyotakara and Vacaspati hold that it was not by the instruction alone of the forester that the association of the name " wild ox" was made, but there was the perception of similarity, and the memory of the instruction of the forester too. So it is the perception of similarity with the other two factors as accessories that lead us to this association called upamana. Vhat Vatsyayal).a meant is not very clear, but Diimaga supposes that according to him the result of upamana was the knowledge of similarity or the knowledge of a thing having similarity. Vacaspati of course holds that he has correctly interpreted Vatsyayal).a's intention. It is however definite that upamana means the associating of a name to a new object (samiikhyiisambandhapratiPattirupamii- 1ziirtha!z, Vatsyayal)a). Jayanta points out that it is the preception of similarity which directly leads to the association of the name and hence the instruction of the forester cannot be regarded as the direct cause and consequently it cannot be classed under testimony (fabda). See Prasastapada and Nyiiyakandali, pp. 220-22, Vatsyayal).a, Udyotakara, Vacaspati and Jayanta on Upamiina. 2 See Kumarila's treatment of abhava in the Slokaviirttika, pp. 473-491.