INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019
All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL
ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
We are hiring!

Indian Philosophy

edited July 2012 in Philosophy
Give an account of the distinction between determinate and indeterminate perception as given by different schools of Indian Philosophy.

@Neyawn: please frame an answer to this as I am not able to distinguish properly between the ramanuja, mimamsika and nyaya in this regard

Comments

  • edited 8:46PM
    Hi, will put up an answer to this as soon as I have done some reading on these topics. Still stuck with Western Philosophy :-(
  • edited 8:46PM
    Do you mean "mediate" and "intermediate" perception?
  • edited 8:46PM
    I am putting relevant lines from C.D sharma verbatim.

    The distinction of 'mediate' (paroksa) and 'immediate' (aparoksa) Knowledge is done by jainas. Knowledge gained through perception, inference and authority are all mediate knowledge which is ordinary in nature. Immediate knowledge are of three kinds: Avadhi-jnana (at a distance of space and time), Manahparaya-jnana (about thought of others) and kevala-jnana (unlimited and absolute knowledge). These are extra-ordinary and extra-sensory perceptions.

    The Naiyayikas maintain two stages in perception: indeterminate (nirvikalpaka) and determinate (savikalpaka). Indeterminate perception forms the material out of which determinate perception but they can be distinguished only in thought and not in reality. Since, inreality, all perception is determinate. The mere apprehension of some object as something , as the 'that', is indeterminate perception, while the clear perception of it together with its attributes is determinate perception. According to Nyaya, the indeterminate perception is a stage inferred afterwards as a hypothesis to account for the determinate perception.

    The Mimamska regards Indeterminate perception as part of normal experience. Though it lacks clarity, that is to be gained when it would become determinate, it refers to a content of perception that is non-relational, and hence indeterminate. Like determinate perception, and as opposed to nyaya position, Indeterminate perception serves fruitful activity. It is the basis of activity for children and animals, and even adults who have imperfect mental growth. Page 219, CD sharma --> I do not understand the last lines of first paragraph.

    For Ramanuja, the difference between the indeterminate and determinate perception is that while in the former an object is apprehended for the first time together with its class character, yet the class character is not recognized as such, the determinate perception takes place when the object is apprehended for the second time or the third time and the class character is recognized as common to the whole class. He has reduced the differences to the level of psychological construction. He regarded discrimination as essential to any knowledge. Ramanuja clarifies, Determinate perception and recognition, both involve revival of past impression but additionally in recognition, the same object has to percieved.

  • Is Sankara's concept of adhyasa logical and psychological? Discuss.
    @Neywan
  • Correction
    Is Sankara's concept of adhyasa logical or psychological? Discuss.
  • I know have been lagging behind these 3 topics. Will be in a position to throw some light by today evening, or by tomorrow afternoon.
  • Even i am not doing well enough. But i seriously believe in the business of pushing each other though these phases
  • This one was asked in 150 words

    Adhyasa (superimposition) refers to the notion of a thing in something else. The real Brahman through the potency of Maya is superimposed by the projections of the real world. Thus the underneath real nature of Brahman is concealed to us due to Adhyasa. Adhyasa is nothing but an error that results from coupling of the real and the unreal.
    The world of appearances that is ultimately unreal is not unreal under the influence of Avidya. The fact that we can realize the unreal nature of world only after the dawn of knowledge makes the concept psychological. Since if the error is a logical one, it should appear at once as a contradictory. How can something logically become unreal at a later stage while it is completely real earlier? It is also true that a logical error can be found out at a later stage when some factual incorrectness is isolated. But the same cannot be dependent on a state of mind, as Sankara says, that which has realized Brahman and not otherwise
  • Adhyas, is the theory of error of Veantins. Will read up on this.
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google