| Part ofa series on | |
| Hindu philosophy | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Orthodox | |
| Heterodox | |
Sub-schools | |
| |
Pramana (Sanskrit:प्रमाण;IAST: Pramāṇa) literally means "proof" and "means of knowledge".[1][2] One of the core concepts in Indianepistemology, pramanas are one or more reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge.[2] The focus of pramana is how correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows, how one does not know, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.[3][4]
While the number of pramanas varies widely from system to system, many ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six[a] pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and attaining to the truth. Three of these are almost universally accepted:perception (pratyakṣa),inference (anumāna), and "word" (śabda), meaning thetestimony of past or present reliable experts. The other three pramanas are more contentious: comparison and analogy (upamāna); postulation or derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti); and non-perception, or proof from absence (anupalabdhi).[4][5][6] Each of these are further categorized in terms of conditionality, completeness, confidence, and possibility of error.
The various schools of Indian philosophies vary on how many of these sixpramanas are epistemically reliable and valid means to knowledge.[7] For example, theCarvaka school of theŚramaṇa tradition holds that only one (perception) is a reliable source of knowledge,[8] Buddhism holds that two (perception, inference) are valid means,[9][10] Jainism holds three (perception, inference and testimony) as valid,[10] and theMimamsa andAdvaita Vedanta schools of Hinduism hold that all sixpramanas are useful and can be reliable means to knowledge.[11] The various schools of Indian philosophy have debated whether one of the six forms ofpramana can be derived from another and the relative uniqueness of each. For example, Buddhism considers Buddha and other "valid persons", "valid scriptures" and "valid minds" as indisputable, but that such testimony is a form of perception and inferencepramanas.[12]
Pramāṇa literally means "proof," based on the wordpramā. The Sanskrit rootpra (Sanskrit:प्र), is a preposition meaning "outward" or "forth", andmā (Sanskrit:मा) means "measurement."Pramā means "correct notion, true knowledge, basis, foundation, understand."Pramāṇa being a nominalization of the word,[13][14] means that which is a "means of acquiringpramā or certain, correct, true knowledge".[1]
Pramāṇa forms one part of a trio of concepts, which describe the ancient Indian view on how knowledge is gained. The other two concepts arepramātŗ, (Sanskrit:प्रमातृ, the subject, the knower) andprameya (Sanskrit:प्रमेय, the object, the knowable). They each influence the knowledge, by their own characteristic and the process of knowing.[15][16]
In Buddhist literature,pramāṇa is referred to aspramāṇavāda.[17]Pramāṇa is also related to the Indian concept ofyukti (Sanskrit:युक्ति) which means active application of epistemology or what one already knows, innovation, clever expedients or connections, methodological or reasoning trick, joining together, application of contrivance, means, method, novelty or device to more efficiently achieve a purpose.[18][19]yukti andpramāṇa are discussed together in some Indian texts, withyukti described as active process of gaining knowledge in contrast to passive process of gaining knowledge through observation/perception.[20][21] The texts onpramana, particularly bySamkhya,Yoga,Mimamsa andAdvaita Vedanta schools of Hinduism, often include in their scope what might be termed "theories of errors"; that is, philosophies regarding the reason for human error, how one may know if one is wrong, and—if so—how one can discover whether one's epistemic method or conclusion was flawed, as well what one ought then do in order to correct it.[22][23][24]
Hinduism identifies sixpramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths:Pratyakṣa (evidence/ perception),Anumāna (inference),Upamāna (comparison and analogy),Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances),Anupalabdhi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) andŚabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).[4][5][11]
In verse 1.2.1 of theTaittirīya Āraṇyaka (c. 9th–6th centuries BCE), "four means of attaining correct knowledge" are listed:smṛti ("scripture, tradition"),pratyakṣa ("perception"),aitihya ("expert testimony, historical tradition"), andanumāna ("inference").[25][26]
In some texts such as by Vedvyasa, tenpramanas are discussed, Krtakoti discusses eight epistemically reliable means to correct knowledge.[27] The most widely discussedpramanas are:[11][28][29]
Pratyakṣa (प्रत्यक्ष) means perception. It is of two types in Hindu texts: external and internal. External perception is described as that arising from the interaction of five senses and worldly objects, while internal perception is described by this school as that of inner sense, the mind.[8][30] According to Matt Stefan, the distinction is between direct perception (anubhava) and remembered perception (smriti).[31]
The ancient and medieval Indian texts identify four requirements for correct perception:[32]
Some ancient scholars proposed "unusual perception" aspramana and called it internal perception, a proposal contested by other Indian scholars. The internal perception concepts includedpratibha (intuition),samanyalaksanapratyaksa (a form of induction from perceived specifics to a universal), andjnanalaksanapratyaksa (a form of perception of prior processes and previous states of a 'topic of study' by observing its current state).[33] Further, some schools of Hinduism considered and refined rules of accepting uncertain knowledge fromPratyakṣa-pranama, so as to contrastnirnaya (definite judgment, conclusion) fromanadhyavasaya (indefinite judgment).[34]
Anumāna (अनुमान) means ‘inference’ in Sanskrit, though it often is used to mean ‘guess’ in modern Indian languages. In the context of classical philosophy, it is described as reaching a new conclusion and truth from one or more observations and previous truths by applying reason.[35] Observing smoke and inferring fire is an example ofAnumana.[8] In all except one Hindu philosophies,[36] this is a valid and useful means to knowledge. The method of inference is explained by Indian texts as consisting of three parts:pratijna (hypothesis),hetu (a reason), anddrshtanta (examples).[37] The hypothesis must further be broken down into two parts, state the ancient Indian scholars:sadhya (that idea which needs to proven or disproven) andpaksha (the object on which thesadhya is predicated). The inference is conditionally true ifsapaksha (positive examples as evidence) are present, and ifvipaksha (negative examples as counter-evidence) are absent. For rigor, the Indian philosophies also state further epistemic steps. For example, they demandVyapti—the requirement that thehetu (reason) must necessarily and separately account for the inference in "all" cases, in bothsapaksha andvipaksha.[37][38] A conditionally proven hypothesis is called anigamana (conclusion).[39]
Upamāna (उपमान) means comparison and analogy.[4][5] Some Hindu schools consider it as a proper means of knowledge.[40]Upamana, states Lochtefeld,[41] may be explained with the example of a traveller who has never visited lands or islands with endemic population of wildlife. He or she is told, by someone who has been there, that in those lands you see an animal that sort of looks like a cow, grazes like cow but is different from a cow in such and such way. Such use of analogy and comparison is, state the Indian epistemologists, a valid means of conditional knowledge, as it helps the traveller identify the new animal later.[41] The subject of comparison is formally calledupameyam, the object of comparison is calledupamanam, while the attribute(s) are identified assamanya.[42] Thus, explainsMonier Williams, if a boy says "her face is like the moon in charmingness", "her face" isupameyam, the moon isupamanam, and charmingness issamanya. The 7th-century textBhaṭṭikāvya in verses 10.28 through 10.63 discusses many types of comparisons and analogies, identifying when this epistemic method is more useful and reliable, and when it is not.[42] In various ancient and medieval texts of Hinduism, 32 types ofUpamāna and their value in epistemology are debated.
Arthāpatti (अर्थापत्ति) means postulation, derivation from circumstances.[4][5] In contemporary logic, thispramana is similar to circumstantialimplication.[43] As example, if a person left in a boat on river earlier, and the time is now past the expected time of arrival, then the circumstances support the truth postulate that the person has arrived. Many Indian scholars considered thispramana as invalid or at best weak, because the boat may have gotten delayed or diverted.[44] However, in cases such as deriving the time of a future sunrise or sunset, this method was asserted by the proponents to be reliable. Another common example forarthapatti in ancient Hindu texts is, that if "Devadatta is fat" and "Devadatta does not eat in day", then the following must be true: "Devadatta eats in the night". This form of postulation and deriving from circumstances is, claim the Indian scholars, a means to discovery, proper insight and knowledge.[45] The Hindu schools that accept this means of knowledge state that this method is a valid means to conditional knowledge and truths about a subject and object in original premises or different premises. The schools that do not accept this method, state that postulation, extrapolation and circumstantial implication is either derivable from otherpramanas or flawed means to correct knowledge, instead one must rely on direct perception or proper inference.[46]
Anupalabdhi (अनुपलब्धि) means non-perception, negative/cognitive proof.[11]Anupalabdhi pramana suggests that knowing a negative, such as "there is no jug in this room" is a form of valid knowledge. If something can be observed or inferred or proven as non-existent or impossible, then one knows more than what one did without such means.[47] In the two schools of Hinduism that considerAnupalabdhi as epistemically valuable, a valid conclusion is eithersadrupa (positive) orasadrupa (negative) relation—both correct and valuable. Like otherpramana, Indian scholars refinedAnupalabdi to four types: non-perception of the cause, non-perception of the effect, non-perception of object, and non-perception of contradiction. Only two schools of Hinduism accepted and developed the concept "non-perception" as apramana. The schools that endorsedAnupalabdi affirmed that it as valid and useful when the other fivepramanas fail in one's pursuit of knowledge and truth.[9]
Abhava (अभाव) means non-existence. Some scholars considerAnupalabdi to be same asAbhava,[4] while others considerAnupalabdi andAbhava as different.[9][48]Abhava-pramana has been discussed in ancient Hindu texts in the context ofPadārtha (पदार्थ, referent of a term). APadartha is defined as that which is simultaneouslyAstitva (existent),Jneyatva (knowable) andAbhidheyatva (nameable).[49] Specific examples ofpadartha, states Bartley, includedravya (substance),guna (quality),karma (activity/motion),samanya/jati (universal/class property),samavaya (inherence) andvishesha (individuality).Abhava is then explained as "referents of negative expression" in contrast to "referents of positive expression" inPadartha.[49] An absence, state the ancient scholars, is also "existent, knowable and nameable", giving the example of negative numbers, silence as a form of testimony,asatkaryavada theory of causation, and analysis of deficit as real and valuable.Abhava was further refined in four types, by the schools of Hinduism that accepted it as a useful method of epistemology:dhvamsa (termination of what existed),atyanta-abhava (impossibility, absolute non-existence, contradiction),anyonya-abhava (mutual negation, reciprocal absence) andpragavasa (prior, antecedent non-existence).[49][50]
Śabda (शब्द) means relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts,[4][11] specifically theshruti,Vedas.[51] Hiriyanna explainsSabda-pramana as a concept which means reliable expert testimony. The schools of Hinduism which consider it epistemically valid suggest that a human being needs to know numerous facts, and with the limited time and energy available, he can learn only a fraction of those facts and truths directly.[52] He must rely on others, his parent, family, friends, teachers, ancestors and kindred members of society to rapidly acquire and share knowledge and thereby enrich each other's lives. This means of gaining proper knowledge is either spoken or written, but throughSabda (words).[52] The reliability of the source is important, and legitimate knowledge can only come from theSabda of reliable sources.[11][52] The disagreement between the schools of Hinduism has been on how to establish reliability. Some schools, such asCarvaka, state that this is never possible, and thereforeSabda is not a proper pramana. Other schools debate means to establish reliability.[53]
Different schools ofHindu philosophy accept one or more of thesepramanas as valid epistemology.[5]
Carvaka school accepted only one valid source of knowledge—perception.[10] It held all remaining methods as outright invalid or prone to error and therefore invalid.[8][54]
Epistemologically, theVaiśeṣika school considered the following as the only proper means of knowledge:[10]
According to theSankhya,Yoga, and two sub-schools of Vedanta, the proper means of knowledge must rely on these three pramanas:[10][55]
These are enumerated in sutra I.7 of theYoga Sutras. The mode of Pramana itself in sutra I.6 is distinguished among 5 classes of vritti/mental modification, the others including indiscrimination, verbal delusion, sleep, and memory.
Nyaya literally means the science and study ofpramanas .[3]
TheNyāya school accepts four[10] means of obtaining knowledge (pramāṇa), viz., Perception, Inference, Comparison and Word.[55]
In Mimamsa school of Hinduism linked to Prabhakara considered the following pramanas as proper:[10]
InAdvaita Vedānta, and Mimamsa school linked toKumārila Bhaṭṭa, the following pramanas are accepted:[10][56]
Nearly all Vedantins, except Neo-Vedantins for example, acceptśabdapramāṇa as a more importantpramāṇa thananumāna.[57]
| Part ofa series on |
| Buddhism |
|---|
 |
According to thePadmākara Translation Group, in a 2005 translation ofŚāntarakṣita'sThe Adornment of the Middle Way:
Strictly speaking, pramana (tshad ma) means "valid cognition." In [Buddhist] practice, it refers to the tradition, principally associated with Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, of logic (rtags rigs) and epistemology (blo rigs).[58]
Buddhism accepts only twopramana (tshad ma) as valid means to knowledge: Pratyaksha (mngon sum tshad ma, perception) and Anumāṇa (rjes dpag tshad ma, inference).[12] Rinbochay adds that Buddhism also considers scriptures as third validpramana, such as from Buddha and other "valid minds" and "valid persons". This third source of valid knowledge is a form of perception and inference in Buddhist thought. Valid scriptures, valid minds and valid persons are considered in Buddhism asAvisamvadin (mi slu ba, incontrovertible, indisputable).[12][59] Means of cognition and knowledge, other than perception and inference, are considered invalid in Buddhism.[9][10]
In Buddhism, the two most important scholars of pramāṇa areDignāga andDharmakīrti.[60]
Dignāga and Dharmakīrti are usually categorized as expounding the view of theSautrāntika tenets, though one can make a distinction between the "Sautrāntikas Following Scripture" (Tibetan:ལུང་གི་རྗེས་འབྲང་གི་མདོ་སྡེ་པ,Wylie:lung gi rjes 'brang gi mdo sde pa) and the "Sautrāntikas Following Reason" (Tibetan:རིགས་པ་རྗེས་འབྲང་གི་མདོ་སྡེ་པ,Wylie:rigs pa rjes 'brang gi mdo sde pa) and both these masters are described as establishing the latter.[61] Dignāga's main text on this topic is thePramāṇa-samuccaya. Dignāga'sPramāṇa-samuccaya played a crucial role in shaping the discipline of epistemology (pramāṇaśāstra), blending it with logical discourse. Dharmakīrti, influenced by Dignāga, further developed these ideas in hisPramanavarttika.[62]
These two rejected the complexAbhidharma-based description of how in theVaibhāṣika school and the Sautrāntika Following Scripture approach connected an external world with mental objects, and instead posited that the mental domain never connects directly with the external world but instead only perceives an aspect based upon the sense organs and the sense consciousnesses. Further, the sense consciousnesses assume the form of the aspect (Sanskrit: Sākāravāda) of the external object and what is perceived is actually the sense consciousness which has taken on the form of the external object. By starting with aspects, a logical argument about the external world as discussed by the Hindu schools was possible. Otherwise their views would be so different as to be impossible to begin a debate. Then a logical discussion could follow.[61]
This approach attempts to solve how the material world connects with the mental world, but not completely explaining it. When pushed on this point, Dharmakīrti then drops a presupposition of the Sautrāntrika position and shifts to a kind ofYogācāra position that extramental objects never really occur but arise from the habitual tendencies of mind. So he begins a debate with Hindu schools positing external objects then later to migrate the discussion to how that is logically untenable.[61]
Note there are two differing interpretations of Dharmakīrti's approach later in Tibet, due to differing translations and interpretations. One is held by theGelug school leaning to a moderaterealism with some accommodation of universals and the other held by the other schools who held that Dharmakīrti was distinctly antirealist.[63]
A key feature of Dignāga's logic is in how he treats generalities versus specific objects of knowledge. The Nyāya Hindu school made assertions about the existence of general principles, and in refutation Dignāga asserted that generalities were mere mental features and not truly existent. To do this he introduced the idea ofApoha, that the way the mind recognizes is by comparing and negating known objects from the perception. In that way, the general idea or categories of objects has to do with differences from known objects, not from identification with universal truths. So one knows that a perceived chariot is a chariot not because it is in accord with a universal form of a chariot, but because it is perceived as different from things that are not chariots. This approach became an essential feature of Buddhist epistemology.[64]
The contemporary of Dignāga but before Dharmakīrti,Bhāvaviveka, incorporated a logical approach when commenting uponNāgārjuna. He also started with a Sautrāntika approach when discussing the way appearances appear, to debate with realists, but then took aMiddle Way view of the ultimate nature of phenomenon. But he used logical assertions and arguments about the nature of that ultimate nature.[61]
His incorporation of logic into the Middle Way system was later critiqued byCandrakīrti, who felt that the establishment of the ultimate way of abiding since it was beyond thought and concept was not the domain of logic. He used simplelogical consequence arguments to refute the views of other tenet systems, but generally he thought a more developed use of logic and epistemology in describing the Middle Way was problematic. Bhāvaviveka's use of autonomous logical arguments was later described as theSvātantrika approach.[61]
Modern Buddhist schools employ the 'three spheres' (Sanskrit: trimaṇḍala; Tibetan: 'khor gsum):
When Madhyamaka first migrated to Tibet,Śāntarakṣita established a view of Madhyamaka more consistent with Bhāvaviveka while further evolving logical assertions as a way of contemplating and developing one's viewpoint of the ultimate truth.[61]
In the 14th centuryJe Tsongkhapa presented a new commentary and approach to Madhyamaka, which became the normative form in Tibet. In this variant, the Madhyamaka approach of Candrakīrti was elevated instead of Bhāvaviveka's yet Tsongkhapa rejected Candrakirti's disdain of logic and instead incorporated logic further.[61]
The exact role of logic in Tibetan Buddhist practice and study may still be a topic of debate,[63] but it is definitely established in the tradition.Ju Mipham remarked in his 19th-century commentary on Śāntarakṣita'sMadhyamakālaṅkāra:
The Buddha's doctrine, from the exposition of the two truths onward, unerroneously sets forth the mode of being of things as they are. And the followers of the Buddha must establish this accordingly, through the use of reasoning. Such is the unerring tradition of Śakyamuni. On the other hand, to claim that analytical investigation in general and the inner science of pramana, or logic, in particular are unnecessary is a terrible and evil spell, the aim of which is to prevent the perfect assimilation, through valid reasoning, of the Buddha's words[66]
.svg)