Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s19.2

v2.c24.s19.2

The logic of the Vaiśeṣika differs only slightly from the Nyāya logic. Knowledge, which is the problem of logic, assumes various forms, since its objects are endless.⁶ Four kinds of valid knowledge are admitted, which are perception (pratyakṣa), inference (laiṅgika), remembrance (smṛti), and intuitive knowledge (ārṣajñāna). Perception enables us to apprehend substances, qualities, actions and generalities. Gross substances, which are made up of parts, are within the reach of perception, while atoms and diads are not. The Vaiśeṣika admits yogic perception, by which the perceptual cognition of the soul (ātmapratyakṣa) arises.¹ The Vaiśeṣika brings comparison (upamāna), tradition (aitihya), and verbal knowledge (śabda) under inference.² The validity of scriptural statements is an inference from the authoritative character of the speakers.³ Like the Nyāya, the Vaiśeṣika repudiates the Mīmāṃsā theory of the eternity of sound and the absolute authoritativeness of the Vedas.⁴ While the Nyāya bases the validity of the Vedas on the ground of the direct communication from seers who had realised the eternal truths and laws, the Vaiśeṣika infers it from the unimpeachable veracity of the inspired seers. The scriptures give us real knowledge and not mere speculation. It is knowledge of things as they are, and in this sense has no beginning, though it is always directly known and realised by some beings in its entirety and by others in part. Abler minds realised the truths and communicated them to us. The Vedas, as collections of sentences, presuppose intelligent authors; and they must be possessors of complete and accurate knowledge of heaven and unseen destiny (adṛṣṭam). Gradually this authorship was assigned to God. "The authoritativeness of the Veda follows from its being the word of God."⁵ The meanings of words and sentences must be understood before they give us knowledge. Since the understanding of meanings depends on the recognition of universal concomitance, verbal knowledge is a case of inference.⁶ Ceṣṭā or gesture,⁷ arthāpatti or implication,⁸ sambhava or inclusion,⁹ and abhāva or negation,¹⁰ are all brought under inference. Smṛti, or remembrance, is given an independent place.¹¹ Ārṣajñāna is the insight of seers. If remembrance is ignored, since it only reproduces what has already been experienced, and if intuitive wisdom is brought under perception, we have, according to the Vaiśeṣika, only two sources of knowledge, intuition and inference.¹²