for were it so one could say that we perceived the ultimate parts or the atoms [Footnote ref 2].  Some objectors hold that since there may be a plurality of causes it is wrong to infer particular causes from particular effects.  To this the Nyaya answer is that there is always such a difference in the specific nature of each effect that if properly observed each particular effect will lead us to a correct inference of its own particular cause [Footnote ref 3].  In refuting those who object to the existence of time on the ground of relativity, it is said that if the present time did not exist, then no perception of it would have been possible.  The past and future also exist, for otherwise we should not have perceived things as being done in the past or as going to be done in the future.  The validity of analogy (upamana) as a means of knowledge and the validity of the Vedas is then proved.  The four prama@nas of perception, inference, analogy, and scripture

_______________________________________________________

__________

[Footnote 1:  Here the sutras, II. i. 20-28, are probably later interpolations to answer criticisms, not against the Nyaya doctrine of perception, but against the wording of the definition of perception as given in the,_Nyaya sutra_, II. i. 4.]

[Footnote 2:  This is a refutation of the doctrines of the Buddhists, who rejected the existence of wholes (avayavi).  On this subject a later Buddhist monograph by Pandita As’oka (9th century A.D.), Avayavinirakara@na in Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts, may be referred to.]

[Footnote 3:  Purvodakavis’i@s@tam khalu var@sodakan s’ighrataram srotasa bahutaraphenaphalapar@nakas@thadivahanancopalabhamana@h pur@natvena, nadya upari v@r@sto deva ityanuminoti nodakab@rddhimatre@na.  V@atsyayana bha@sya, II. i. 38.  The inference that there has been rain up the river is not made merely from seeing the rise of water, but from the rainwater augmenting the previous water of the river and carrying with its current large quantities of foam, fruits, leaves, wood, etc.  These characteristics, associated with the rise of water, mark it as a special kind of rise of water, which can only be due to the happening of rain up the river].

298

are quite sufficient and it is needless to accept arthapatti (implication), aitihya (tradition), sambhava (when a thing is understood in terms of higher measure the lower measure contained in it is also understood—­if we know that there is a bushel of corn anywhere we understand that the same contains eight gallons of corn as well) and abhava (non-existence) as separate prama@nas for the tradition is included in verbal testimony and arthapatti, sambhava and abhava are included within inference.

The validity of these as prama@nas is recognized, but they are said to be included in the four prama@nas mentioned before.  The theory of the eternity of sound is then refuted and the non-eternity proved in great detail.  The meaning of words is said to refer to class-notions (jati), individuals (vyakti), and the specific position of the limbs (ak@rti), by which the class notion is manifested.  Class (jati} is defined as that which produces the notion of sameness (samanaprasavatmika jati@h).