What are your first thoughts when you read these words - universals, intra-sensory, intuition, and precognition.
Fantasy and science-fiction lovers will likely imagine a being with superhuman capabilities akin to Doctor Manhattan. Contemporary philosophers will ponder over their next paper in metaphysics or philosophy of mind. However, Gaṅgeśa, a Nyāya philosopher, will think of extraordinary perception(अलौकिक) as a means to knowledge.
An eminent teacher from Mithila, Gaṅgeśa is known for establishing the Navya-Nyāya school with his seminal work, Tattvacintāmaṇi (तत्त्वचिन्तामणि)(‘Thought-Jewel of Reality’).
In our last issue, we understood how the Naiyāyikas categorized sense-object contact (इन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्ष) and defined the various modes of perception. But the nature of philosophy is such that explanations lead to more questions until they are objective enough to be conclusively answered by science. It’s no surprise that the extensive work of the Nyāya school led to even more unanswered questions that take us beyond the external senses.
The Naiyāyikas told us that we could perceive the universal property inherited in an object with sense-object contact - संयुक्त समवेत समवाय(Sanyukta - Samveta - Samvāya)
But how do we know about these universals in the first place?
What makes us perceive the properties of an object without direct sense-object contact? For example, knowing that a block of ice is cold without touching it.
How can we account for intuition and precognition (yogic abilities)?
In Gaṅgeśa’s Tattvacintāmaṇi, we find answers to these questions with a clear distinction between ordinary (लौकिक) and extraordinary (अलौकिक) perception. But we cannot understand this division unless we redefine perception. Remember that Gautama defined perception as sense-object contact. This definition is inadequate for answering our questions. Gaṅgeśa, well aware of the limited scope of Gautama’s definition, redefined perception as immediate or direct apprehension with or without the dependency on external senses.
Equipped with this definition, Gaṅgeśa classified extraordinary perception into three categories to widen the horizon of knowing through perception.
अलौकिकः सन्निकर्शस्त्रिविधह्: परिकीर्तितः सामन्यलक्षणा ज्ञानलक्षणा योगजस्तथा ।।
Sāmānyalakṣaṇa (सामान्यलक्षण)
Sāmānyalakṣaṇa (सामान्यलक्षण) is the perception of universals (सामान्य/ जाति) . A universal is a general property or quality inherited in objects—for example, the quality of “redness” in strawberries.
In Tarkasangraha (तर्कसंग्रह), a universal is defined as something eternal, unitary and located in a plurality of things. (परमपरं सामान्यं)
It’s a distinctive quality of an object without which it loses its essence.
An object belongs to a particular class because the universal of that class inheres in it. 1
In Western philosophy, the metaphysical theory of realism ascribes objective existence to objects and properties. Plato thought that universals have transcendental existence as Forms. There are many chairs in the world, but the Form of chairness is at the core that defines the essence of all chairs. This is an example of extreme realism. The Naiyāyikas don’t believe in the independent existence of universals but roughly hold an Aristotelian view that universals are in space and time and belong to particulars/objects.
Universals are distinct realities having spatial manifestations at different places at the same time. In this sense, they are different from particulars, things that cannot exist in two different discontinuous places, wholly, at the same time.2
According to Nyāya scholars, the existence of universals is presupposed in inference. We know that whatever smokes is fiery because there’s a universal invariable relation (Vyāpti (व्याप्ति)) between smoke and fire. According to Nyāya, one can only know this universal relation through Sāmānyalakṣaṇa, which is an extraordinary perception.
Candramati, a Nyāya philosopher, posits that we perceive universals through our inner sense, the mind in contact with the self.
Gaṅgeśa holds the view that universals are given as objects in indeterminate perception - (Nirvikalpaka (निर्विकल्पक)). We first perceive the “universal cowness” through indeterminate perception before perceiving the particular cow with determinate perception - Savikalpaka (सविकल्पक). Note that there’s still no linguistic distinction in the Nirvikalpaka stage. It’s just the extraordinary perception of the universal.
According to Monima Chadha, The Nyāya view is a version of direct realism - the world consists of properties and objects readily available as objects of indeterminate perception.
It’s always tricky and often incorrect to correlate Indian philosophy with its western counterpart. Nonetheless, it’s interesting how universals were a key philosophical theme in both Indian and Western philosophy.
Jñānalakṣaṇā (ज्ञानलक्षणा)
When you see sandalwood at a distance, you know about its smell without smelling it. We can see that ice is cold and silk is smooth. The knowledge due to previous experience of the properties of an object is classified as Jñānalakṣaṇā(ज्ञानलक्षणा) by Gaṅgeśa.
It is the perception of the features of a thing which was known previously or elsewhere as here and now presented.
But isn’t this just inference? The Navya-Nyāya school disagrees. Perception is the immediate consciousness of an object, whereas inference is multiple-mediated consciousness - You arrive at knowledge taking perception as antecedent and concluding with a deductive argument.
But Jñānalakṣaṇā is immediate and hence taken as an extraordinary perception.
Yogaja (योगज)
We now come to the last category of extraordinary perception known as Yogaja or intuitive perception. It considers both intuition and precognition. Fans of Game of Thrones will likely recall Bran Stark, the three-eyed raven, as the master of precognition who was an anachronic medium in George Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire.
But Yogaja is not a matter of fantasy for the Nyāya school. It is the intuitive and immediate perception of all objects, past, present, and future, gained through the practice of meditation (योगाभ्यासजनितो धर्मविषेसः). As mentioned in Yogasūtra, we gain knowledge and ultimately liberation by controlling the fluctuations of the mind. Radhakrishnan defines intuition as direct knowledge culminating in the highest kind of immediacy.
The function of the intellect is analysis, but there must be something to be analyzed, and that something must be a ‘whole.’ The whole as a whole can be grasped by intuition alone. That gives intuition its primacy. 3
Our external senses bound to the material cannot take us beyond the mental (intellect). Thus, the Naiyāyikas consider Yogaj as an extraordinary perception.
The Naiyāyikas, true to their objective of removing suffering through knowledge, deliberated and debated many epistemological and metaphysical topics. Some of the best-known Indian philosophers, including Gaṅgeśa and Jayant, belong to the Nyāya school. We will cover a lot more in Nyāya philosophy in future issues.
In our next edition, however, we will move to a different terrain of Indian philosophy that unites the individual with the formless. It was led by a dynamic, young philosopher who made a huge impact in the philosophical tradition of India in just three decades of his life. A few have studied his detailed expositions outside philosophy courses, but many know his name - Adi Shankaracharya.
Critical survey of Indian Philosophy - Chandradhar Sharma
On knowing universals: The Nyāya way - Monima Chadha (Published in Philosophy East & West, Volume 64, Number 2)
Indian Philosophy Volume 2 - S. Radhakrishnan