Print Friendly, PDF & Email

30 MAY, 2017 (MAINS)

TODAYS ANSWER WRITING CHALLENGE FROM PHILOSOPHY PAPER – 1 – PART B

 

Q1. Elaborate Nyaya-Mimamsa debate on Pramanyavada. (2015/20/200 words)

 

Please write the answer in comments section

  • Ashish

    Mimamsa’s view on Pramanyavada-
    Mimamsa School defined valid knowledge as apprehension of the object, which is produced by the cause free from defects and which is not contradicted by subsequent knowledge.
    Mimamsa upholds Svatah-pramanyavada i.e. intrinsic validity of knowledge. According to it, all knowledge is valid by itself. Validity is inherent in knowledge but invalidity is inferred on account of some defects or contradictions in the causes of knowledge. Ex- A rope is mistaken as a snake is invalidated by the subsequent knowledge of rope.
    However, invalidity of knowledge is inferred i.e. Paratah Aparmanyavada. But knowledge is itself intrinsically presumed to be valid; its validity is not subject to inference.

    Nyaya’s view on Pramanyavada-
    Nyaya upholds Paratha Pramanyavada i.e. extrinsic validity of knowledge. According to it, knowledge is neither valid nor invalid in itself. It is neutral. Its validity or invalidity arises only after knowledge is arisen by subsequent experience.
    Along with knowledge an impulse or tendency to act arises, if the activity followed by knowledge is successful then knowledge is valid otherwise not. The test of truth is fruitful activity, thus validity is established by extraneous condition and it doesn’t arise simultaneously with knowledge.

    This view is criticised by Mimamsa, they argued that so called neutral knowledge is not possible. We always experience either valid or invalid knowledge. However they admit Nyaya’s view that invalidity of knowledge is due to extraneous conditions i.e. Paratha Aparmanyavada.

    Further, Mimamsa asked –“Is subsequent knowledge by which previous knowledge is validated, self contradictory or does it also require further verification like the previous knowledge?” Therefore, if first alternative is accepted then it would simply imply the acceptance of Svatah-Pramanyavada or if second alternative is accepted then it would lead to fallacy of infinite regression.

    Nyaya School asked if both knowledge and validity are simultaneous then why there is error or illusion i.e. how does false knowledge occurs? Ex- perception of rope as snake. Mimamsa replies that illusion is not false knowledge but non-discrimination b/w perceived element and remembered object. This is in fact Akhyati i.e. no knowledge situation.