Indian Philosophy v2.c25.s2.18

v2.c25.s2.18

Kumārila holds that the cognition of objects is independent of verbal expressions.¹ The class "cow" is not cognised always in the form of the word "cow," though we use the word in describing the object cognised.² While Kumārila thinks that indeterminate perception is non-determined perception, mere observation (ālocana) comparable to the apprehension of the new-born infant, where only the individual is presented to us, but not the generic or the specific features, Prabhākara believes that indeterminate perception apprehends both the class characters and the specific features; but, since other objects have not as yet entered into the apprehension, the object is not apprehended as actually belonging to a definite class. An object is apprehended as an individual only in comparison with other objects from which it is marked off; it is apprehended as belonging to a class when it is found to possess certain features in common with the other members of the class. Even though what is apprehended is actually an individual belonging to a class, its real nature cannot be cognised until it is compared with other objects of the same class.³ While class characters and specific features are present in indeterminate perception, they are not recognised as such in it. In determinate perception the self remembers other objects of the same class and notes their resemblances and differences. Prabhākara believes that determinate perception is of a mixed character, and includes in it the element of remembrance, since the other members of the class present themselves to the self by virtue of the impressions which it has had of them. But the element of remembrance does not pertain to the object perceived, but to the others with which it is compared, and so does not affect the validity of the cognition of the object itself.