Outlines of Indian Philosophy c19.87

c19.87

Though the explanations of the several kinds of error may differ in matters of detail, their underlying principle is the same. Error is lack of sufficient knowledge (akhyāti),¹ not wrong knowledge (anyathā-khyāti) as in the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika (p. 253); and the way to avoid it is to acquire more, if not complete, knowledge. The most important point in this explanation is that when the error is discovered, nothing of what was cognized before is sublated (bādhita). What is given in knowledge is always and necessarily a fact; only it may not be the whole of the fact. In other words, there is no subjective element in error. Truth does not supplant, but only supplements what is given in the so-called error. This view is what is generally found expressed in early Sāṅkhya-Yoga works.² But the Sāṅkhya-sūtra modifies it in a fundamental manner by admitting an ideal element in explaining error.³ Thus it describes the illusion of the red-crystal as involving a positive relation between the two objects—the crystal and redness, which is not given, but is fancied so that, though the relata as such are real, the relation between them is not so. That is, error shows what is given as well as what is not (sadasat-khyāti)⁴—an explanation which seems to be inconsistent with the fundamental postulates of the doctrine.¹ This later Sāṅkhya view of error, we shall see, is very much like the explanation given by Kumārila (viparīta-khyāti), while the earlier one resembles that given by Prabhākara (akhyāti).