Indian Philosophy v2.c25.s2.13

v2.c25.s2.13

Both Prabhākara and Kumārila adopt the distinction of determinate and indeterminate perceptions, and accept them as valid. According to Kumārila, indeterminate perception apprehends the individual, which is the substrate of its generic and specific characters, though there is no apprehension of the object as having specific or generic features.¹ Indeterminate perception is said to be due to the object itself.² In determinate perception the generic and the specific qualities are distinctly noticed.³ Pārthasārathi argues further in support of this view. On the contact of an object with the sense-organs, we have the apprehension of an object devoid of all relations. We do not as yet discriminate between the qualified and the qualifications and the generic and the specific features. If there were not indeterminate perception,⁴ for determinate perception is the apprehension of the relation between the qualified object and its qualities. The apprehension of such a relation depends on the previous apprehension of the terms of the relation. Unless these are implicitly known in indeterminate perception, they cannot be explicitly known in determinate perception. In the determinate perception of an object we remember the class to which it belongs and the name which it bears, and refer them to the object perceived. If the class and the name are not perceived at all, they cannot be remembered. So, the existence of indeterminate perception, where the genus, the name and the qualifying properties are implicitly apprehended, must be admitted.