Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian philosophical school of Mīmāmsā, primarily concerned with the interpretation of the Vedas and the performance of rituals, developed a sophisticated theory of knowledge. Central to this is the concept of *prāmānyavāda*, the theory of validity of knowledge. Unlike other schools, Mīmāmsakas posited that knowledge is inherently valid (*svataḥ prāmāṇya*), meaning it doesn’t require external confirmation. This stands in direct contrast to the Nyāya school, which advocates for *parataḥ prāmāṇya*, where validity is determined by external factors like correspondence to reality. Understanding this fundamental difference is crucial to grasping the Mīmāmsaka critique of Nyāya’s epistemology.
Mīmāmsaka Theory of Validity (Prāmānyavāda)
The Mīmāmsakas, particularly Kumarila Bhatta, argued that all knowledge arising from valid sources (like perception and inference) is inherently valid. This self-validity (*svataḥ prāmāṇya*) stems from the very nature of the cognitive act itself. They rejected the idea that knowledge needs to be ‘proven’ or verified by something external. Their reasoning is rooted in the practical necessity of action. If we constantly doubted the validity of our knowledge, action would become impossible.
- Inherent Validity: Knowledge is valid because of its very nature, not because of external correspondence.
- Practical Necessity: Doubt about knowledge’s validity paralyzes action, which is essential for life.
- Source of Validity: Valid sources of knowledge (pramāṇas) like perception (pratyakṣa) and inference (anumāna) inherently generate valid knowledge.
- Error as a Separate Act: Mīmāmsakas don’t deny the existence of errors. However, they argue that error is not a flaw in the knowledge itself, but a separate, distinct cognitive act (bhrama) that arises alongside valid knowledge.
Nyāya Theory of Validity
The Nyāya school, founded by Gautama, proposes that knowledge is valid only if it corresponds to reality (*parataḥ prāmāṇya*). This means that the truth of a proposition is determined by its agreement with the external world. Nyāya emphasizes the importance of logical reasoning and empirical verification to establish the validity of knowledge. They believe that knowledge can be fallible and requires external confirmation to be considered true.
- Correspondence Theory: Validity is based on correspondence between knowledge and reality.
- External Verification: Knowledge requires external confirmation through perception, inference, or testimony.
- Fallibility of Knowledge: Knowledge can be incorrect and needs to be constantly scrutinized.
Mīmāmsaka Critique of the Nyāya Theory
The Mīmāmsakas launched a strong critique against the Nyāya theory of validity, primarily focusing on the infinite regress it entails. They argued that if validity requires external confirmation, then the knowledge confirming the original knowledge also needs confirmation, and so on, leading to an endless loop. This regress makes knowledge impossible.
- Infinite Regress: If validity requires external confirmation, it leads to an infinite regress of confirmations.
- Impossibility of Action: The constant need for verification paralyzes practical action.
- Self-Contradiction: Nyāya’s reliance on perception for verification is problematic, as perception itself needs to be validated according to their own theory.
- The Problem of the ‘Judge’: Who judges the validity of the judge? If a separate judge is required, this again leads to an infinite regress.
Kumarila Bhatta famously used the analogy of a tortoise to illustrate this point. Just as a tortoise needs another tortoise to support its shell, and that tortoise needs another, and so on, the Nyāya theory requires an endless chain of validators, making knowledge ultimately unsustainable.
| Feature | Mīmāmsā | Nyāya |
|---|---|---|
| Validity | Self-validity (Svataḥ prāmāṇya) | Externally validated (Parataḥ prāmāṇya) |
| Source of Validity | Inherent in the cognitive act | Correspondence to reality |
| Error | A separate cognitive act (Bhrama) | A flaw in knowledge |
| Action | Possible due to inherent validity | Hindered by the need for constant verification |
Conclusion
The Mīmāmsaka theory of validity, with its emphasis on *svataḥ prāmāṇya*, represents a unique and compelling approach to epistemology. Their critique of the Nyāya theory, centered on the problem of infinite regress, highlights the practical difficulties inherent in demanding external validation for all knowledge. While the Nyāya school offers a rigorous framework for logical analysis, the Mīmāmsaka perspective underscores the importance of inherent certainty for effective action and a meaningful engagement with the world. The debate between these two schools continues to be relevant in contemporary discussions about the nature of knowledge and justification.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.