An Examination Into the View of Perception (Pratyaksa)...

Perception as a pramana or method of knowledge has not been discussed at length in Western logic. In so far as it has been discussed, it has created a divide amongst the realists, the idealists and the empiricists. Many schools of Indian philosophy have taken up a critical examination of perception as a means of gaining valid knowledge. The Nyaya is one of them. According to the Nyaya school of philosophy, valid knowledge or prama can be gained through four different means namely; perception (Pratyaksa), inference (Anumana), verbal testimony (Sabda) and comparison (Upmana). Of these, the Naiyayika considers perception to be fundamental. This is true in the sense that although perception may not be the only method of knowledge, it forms a†¦show more content†¦The Naiyayika would agree that when in doubt of the truth of perceptual knowledge, we must investigate as thoroughly as we would while investigating knowledge arising from other sources. Perception- Its definition according to the Naiyayikas: The definitions of perception have varied over time within the Nyaya school of thought. While the old school of Nyaya defines perception to sense-object contact, the newer Naiyayikas take quite a difference stance. The old school of Nyaya relies heavily on the etymological meaning of the word Pratyaksa (perception) which means the functioning of the sense organs in relation to its particular object (aksï€ ¤asyÄ ksï€ ¤Ã¯â‚¬ ¤asya prativisayam urttih pratyaksam). They lay utmost emphasis to the idea of perception as being the knowledge arising due to sense-organ contact. They believe that this is fundamentally implied in the definition of the word pratyaksa. Thus, it follows that the sense may function in two ways in relation to a particular object. It may either bring itself in contact with the particular object, hence bringing about cognition of the object, or it may operate in a way that it brings about cognition of the object. In both cases the result is a judgement of the object. The modern Naiyayikas on the other hand attack the old definition on several grounds. Instead of defining it in terms of sense-organ contact, the modern Naiyayika chooses to do so in terms of type of knowledge. Gangesa, the