Upamana (Comparison)

 Upamana (Comparison) 

Upamana pramana refers to the knowledge gained with the help of resemblances. We use upamana pramana when we come to know a new i.e. previously unknown object on the basis of the way it resembles some other already known object. 

What is important here is not the number of aspects that resemble each-other but whether the existing resemblance is significant or not. ‘Upamiti’, that is the knowledge attained through upamana is based on comparison. According to the Nyaya understanding, upmana is a comparison between a term or a word and the object that it refers to. Do you remember the description of the giant squirrel that you have read in the previous year? When a person who knows that a giant squirrel is an animal which is like a squirrel but is bigger than the squirrel, see the giant squirrel for the first time, that person will know that the animal being percieved is a giant squirrel. 

That person will have this knowledge through the coming together of various factors such as the description of a 45 giant squirrel by a knowledgeable person, the animal perceived, recollection of that description and the comparison based on all these. It is not possible to have such knowledge merely on the basis of perception or memory. That is why Naiyayikas consider upmana to be an independent pramana. Collect different examples of upamana like the one of gaint squirrel and classify them into groups. Let’s write! Shabda (Testimony) We constantly use words while speaking and writing. But have you ever thought what exactly is a ‘word’? 

We all know that a word is made from letters. But, is the word merely a group of letters? Is the word the sound that the ears hear when it is pronounced or the marks/figures that are seen on the paper while reading? Of course not. If, somebody starts speaking to us in a language not known to us, we do ‘hear’ the words, but say that we have not ‘understood a word’. You must have ‘seen’ the pictorial script of the Chinese language, but can you ‘read’ it? Not really, right? 

This is so because a word is not just a sound or a mark. Word is that important element of language, which is meaningful. Mere sound or a mark is not a word - word has meaning. A sentence is generated when many meaningful words come together in a specific manner. A great part of our knowledge consists of the knowledge ac giant squirrel by a knowledgeable person, the animal perceived, recollection of that description and the comparison based on all these. It is not possible to have such knowledge merely on the basis of perception or memory. That is why Naiyayikas consider upmana to be an independent pramana.

knowledge consists of the knowledge acquired by way of the words that are heard and read. However it must be remembered that we do not attain prama through every sentence that we have read or heard. We have already seen that prama is true knowledge.

 Shabda (Testimony) We constantly use words while speaking and writing. But have you ever thought what exactly is a ‘word’? We all know that a word is made from letters. But, is the word merely a group of letters? Is the word the sound that the ears hear when it is pronounced or the marks/figures that are seen on the paper while reading? Of course not. If, somebody starts speaking to us in a language not known to us, we do ‘hear’ the words, but say that we have not ‘understood a word’. You must have ‘seen’ the pictorial script of the Chinese language, but can you ‘read’ it? Not really, right? This is so because a word is not just a sound or a mark. Word is that important element of language, which is meaningful. Mere sound or a mark is not a word - word has meaning. A sentence is generated when many meaningful words come together in a specific manner. 

A great part of our knowledge consists of the knowledge acquired by way of the words that are heard and read. However it must be remembered that we do not attain prama through every sentence that we have read or heard. We have already seen that prama is true knowledge. Collect the examples of the incorrect or false news or information given by the media and discuss the bad consequences that it has on the society. Let’s do! Obviously, if the words that present falsehoods to us, cannot be called ‘pramana’, i.e. means of prama. It is for this reason that Nyaya darshana has propounded that shabda is the statement of an ‘Apta’. The word apta here does not mean a relative as it ordinarily means in Marathi or Hindi, but it means a reliable person. ‘Apta’ is a person who is knowledgeable and trustworthy. 

Such person is neither ignorant nor a liar. That is why this person is reliable. One can attain prama on the basis of the words of such a person. In this era of the tremendous influence of media, especially social media, it is extremely important to remember the definition of the term ‘apta’. It is necessary to check whether whatever reaches us through the media is trustworthy or not and it is equally necessary to think whether we ourselves are reliable and knowledgeable as users of media. We would learn to use the media responsibly if we keep these points in mind.

Naiyayikas have also offered some classifications of shabda. The words that give us knowledge of the perceptible objects are called ‘Drushtartha’. The words that give us knowledge of that which cannot be seen are called ‘Adrushtartha’. According to another classification, words are classified into two kinds, namely, ‘Vaidika’ and ‘Laukika’. According to Nyaya darshana, the words in the vaidika literature are ‘Apaurusheya’. They are not written by any human being. They are true and infallible. Laukika words are the words of the human beings and they can be either true or false. That is why all words cannot be treated as pramanas. Only the words in the Veda and the laukika words of apta are called pramana.

In the previous year, we had noted the fact that every darshana accepts different number of pramanas. Let us briefly get acquainted with the two more pramanas that Mimamsa darshana accepts apart from the four accepted by Nyaya. Postulation (Arthapatti) Sometimes there is an inconsistency between two known things. For example, we may have never seen one of our friends studying during the entire day. We think that she is going to score very low marks in the examination. Actually, she gets very good marks. There is apparently an inconsistency between not studying and scoring high marks. But, this apparent inconsistency can be explained  by saying that she must have been studying regularly in the night. After knowing this, the inconsistency is removed. 

The knowledge that we attain by way of removing the inconsistency between two known things, thus, is the way of ‘Arthapatti’ as a means of knowledge. Non-perception (Anupalabdhi) All the pramanas seen so far give us the knowledge of the existing things or about the existence of certain things. However, the pramana known as Anupalabdhi gives us the knowledge of the non-existence or the absence of some object. For example, we go in the college canteen to meet a friend, but after reaching there realize that he is not there. If he would have been there, we would have seen him. But, we cannot ‘see’ his not being there or his absence. Yet, we know it because of the pramana known as anupalabdhi.

The discussion of pramanas is at the center of Indian epistemology. Considering the fact that the prameya, can be known through pramanas, it is important to reflect over pramanas even in order to know what does the universe consist of. We can see here the inter-relation between epistemology and metaphysics. We find that there is inter-dependence between how many and which pramanas a particular darshana accepts and its metaphysical position. Epistemology in the Western Tradition The complex inter-relationship between epistemology and metaphysics can be seen in the Western tradition too! The metaphysical question ‘what is’ was central in this tradition at the beginning. However, in order to know what is or what is not, one has to inevitably 

turn to the question how do we know it? In the course of the development of Western Philosophy, it was only in the period of modern Philosophy that epistemology occupied a central place. However, the reflection over the sources of knowledge had begun in the pre-Socratic era. Parmenides propounded that ‘the universe is permanent and eternal and that change is an illusion’, while Heraclitus insisted that ‘impermanence is the nature of the universe and permanence is an illusion’. However, both of them agreed on one point : the knowledge based on sense-perception is illusory, reality can be known only by way of reason. In that period philosophers presented mutually inconsistant views about the nature of reality. On this background the sophists advocated scepticism. The sophists did not believe in the potential of human capacities to gain knowledge. 

That is why they propounded scepticism, which is a theory that doubtes the very possibility of objective knowledge. The argument of the sceptic is that due to the inherent limitations of human perception and reason, the nature of what is real cannot be known as it is. They not only believed that human beings can know the world only within the limits of their capacities but also that every individual can know the world within the limits of his or her own individual capacities. For this reason, they also accepted relativism which says that ‘knowledge is relative to the individual who knows’. It is in this context that Protagoras’ quote “Man is the measure of all things” is famous. It should be remembered that Western epistemology is by and large constituted in and through the attempts to refute scepticism and relativism.  

position about knowledge. Knowledge must be true i.e. it must be of ‘what is’. Plato firmly believed that knowledge has to be objective, infallible, universal and true at all times. His epistemological position is closely connected with his metaphysical theory of the world of forms. Plato’s awareness of the fact that unless the objects of knowledge are unchangeable and eternal, knowledge cannot be true for all times, is at the root of this theory. 

The definition of ‘knowledge as justified true belief’ was established through Plato’s scrutiny of knowledge in which he asserted that knowledge is not just perception, nor an opinion or a mere belief. The Concept of Knowledge When a person claims to know something, that claim should be examined before being accepted. 

The definition of knowledge mentioned above provides the criteria with which such a claim needs to be examined. Knowledge is expressed through propositions. A proposition is a sentence which has truth value. The sentences that can be either true or false are said to have truth value. The criteria that the definition of knowledge includes are applied to a proposition that expresses knowledge. If the proposition fulfils those criteria, then, it gets the status of knowledge, otherwise, it is treated as a mere belief or conviction.