is'e@sika believe jati, gu@na
and kriya to be different from substance and therefore the predicating
of them of substance as different categories related to it
at the determinate stage of perception cannot be regarded as
erroneous. As to the fourth objection Vacaspati replies that the
memory of the name of the thing roused by its sight cannot make
the perception erroneous. The fact that memory operates cannot
in any way vitiate perception. The fact that name is not associated
until the second stage through the joint action of memory
is easily explained, for the operation of memory was necessary in
order to bring about the association. But so long as it is borne in
mind that the name is not identical with the thing but is only associated
with it as being the same as was previously acquired, there
cannot be any objection to the association of the name. But the
Buddhists further object that there is no reason why one should
identify a thing seen at the present moment as being that which
was seen before, for this identity is never the object of visual
perception. To this Vacaspati says that through the help of
memory or past impressions (_sa@mskara_) this can be considered
as being directly the object of perception, for whatever may be
the concomitant causes when the main cause of sense-contact is

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Nyayamanjari_, pp. 93-100, "_Panca caite kalpana bhavanti
jatikalpana, gu@nakalpana, kriyakalpana, namakalpana dravyakalpana ceti,
tas'ca kvacidabhede'pi bhedakalpanat kvacicca bhede'pyabhedakalpanat
kalpana ucyante._" See Dharmakirtti's theory of Perception, pp. 151-4.
See also pp. 409-410 of this book.]

341

present, this perception of identity should be regarded as an
effect of it. But the Buddhists still emphasize the point that an
object of past experience refers to a past time and place and
is not experienced now and cannot therefore be identified with
an object which is experienced at the present moment. It
has to be admitted that Vacaspati's answer is not very satisfactory
for it leads ultimately to the testimony of direct perception
which was challenged by the Buddhists [Footnote ref 1]. It is easy to see
that early Nyaya-Vais'e@sika could not dismiss the savikalpa perception
as invalid for it was the same as the nirvikalpa and
differed from it only in this, that a name was associated with
the thing of perception at this stage. As