Being and Being Known

Cognitive Act – Jnana Kriya: The confusion between Buddhist and Naiyayikas. Problems
relating to Knowledge.

The Writer, Mr.Pradyot Kumar Mukhopadhyay in his article titled, “BEING AND BEING
KNOW” makes an extraordinary effort to clarify the issues or problems in relation to cognitive
act – Jnana Kriya, in terms of Indian Philosophical perspective. He also attempts to find out what
might lead out many of the contemporary western philosophers to deny cognitive acts or the acts
of consciousness or the act of knowing.

The denial of cognitive act exposes the contemporary western philosophers to the same difficulty
in epistemology to which the Buddhists exposed themselves. The problems with regard to
knowledge has created some confusions among the realists and the idealist philosophers. Some
claim that the issues are pertaining to metaphysical and some say it is epistemological. Though
the idealist metaphysicians accept certain issues they also deny certain factors of knowledge.
According to Metaphysics the distinctions of questions have no reality and hence the issue has
no existence for idealists. But realists philosophers claim the problem exists.

Distinctions among the factors of knowledge.

1. In a sentence subject stands for the state of possession rather than action. For example, – “I
know the table” the word “know” can be replaced by “have knowledge of” the word ‘know’
stands for possessing something in ideal rather than action.

2. Subject is attributed with the cognitive activity (Jnana-kriya) rather than merely in a state of
cognition (Jnana) – Naiyayikas call it guna.

3. The distinction between knowing activity and the instrument employed in bringing about the
action. The instrument is called Jnana-sadhana or pramana. The result of the pramana is called
pramana-phala. In addition to this there are two more factors, - The subject of knowledge or
janata or pramata and oject or visaya or prameya. One can clearly see understand there two
distinction – one is, the distinction between pramana and its phala. And the other is, between
pramata and prameya or visaya. These two distinctions are very closely related with each other.
The understanding of pramana and phala has much to do with the concept of pramana that is the
instrument(the senses) which is used to get the knowledge. Though it is related to epistemology
western philosophers have ignored it.

General assumption – Normally, Philosophers out of commonsense are aware of distinction

between knowledge and its object or Jnana and its visaya. The relation between and knowledge
and object is external. In other words objects may exist without knowledge.
But in epistemology, the distinction between knowledge and its object or between being and
being known is ones responsibility to show how a being becomes a being know. Being becomes
being for known. The question remains is how the act of knowing turn an existent(being) into
object. A thing becomes known when a knowledge relation is established. A relation requires an
activity on the part of subject to be established. Just like, to fell a tree it requires a relationship
between axe and tree by the cutter, so also in the language of Indian philosophy, the subjects of
knowledge must use some pramana through the agency of which the knowledge can be
established. And nothing more is required to turn a being into an object other than establishing a
relation. Therefore pramana is necessary for a mere being to become an object. Mere pramana
can not be termed as intelligible unless the help of subject.

Pramana - Instrument
Buddhist View of Knowledge:
Buddhist have eliminated the distinction between pramana and phala. According to Buddhist
pramana is true knowledge or avisamvadakam jnanam. This is to effect the definition that
pramana is an instrument which brings cognition or knowledge. The instruments like five senses
are pramanas other than these they ignore any material object as pramana. Exaple – we see by
means of eyes with the help of lamp. Here they consider only eyes are pramana and lamp is not.
Buddhist identify Pramana with cognition or pramana phala. As a result the definition of
pramana for Buddhist is cognition.

Naiyayikas View of Knowledge:

According to Naiyayikas, anything can be a pramana if it helps in bringing about or producing
the knowledge – whether that is piece of idea (cognition), of any instrumental that doesn’t
matter. Example – we see by means of eyes with the help of lamp. Here they consider both eyes
and lamp are as pramana.

Conclusion:
In general understanding Knowledge is not pramana but its phala which we get from the use of
senses, ration and any other instruments in the process through the subject. i.e. is jnana or
cognition or knowledge.