Some Remarks on Indian Theories of Truth

Abstract

Whether truth (prdmdnya) is svatah or paratah is one of the perennial pro blems of Indian philosophy. The controversy has raged unabated from pre Christian times down to the present with hundreds of philosophers belonging to different schools developing and subscribing to a bewildering variety of view points on the subject. It is both an honour and a privilege to have this opportunity to say a few words on this age old controversy alongside two highly eminent panelists. Professor Karl H. Potter has pointed out that it is possible to find a common explicandum to which all major parties in the svatah-paratah con troversy could address themselves. This common explicandum is the notion of satisfaction of need or workability. The notion of satisfaction of need may be derived from the concept of ydthdrthya by taking the word art ha to mean need or purpose. There can be no doubt that this sense of ydthdrthya has crept into the discussion of truth-related issues by all parties. This is one notion where philosophers of such diverse pursuits as a Buddhist idealist and a realist Naiyâyika have taken a common stand. Thus we find that both Uddyotakara and Dharmottara have explained the meaning of artha in virtually the same language, viz., arthyate iti artha. Vâtsyayana, though an uncompromising realist, still held that artha means sukha (pleasure), sukhahetu (source of pleasure), duhkha (suffering) and duhkhahetu (source of suffering). Another meaning of ydthdrthya, viz., as is the object or cor respondence, cannot provide a common explicandum for both the Buddhist and the Naiyâyika, for some Buddhists hold that there is no external reality to which knowledge could correspond. However, that truth satisfies our need is accepted by the Naiyâyika as well. He too, holds that tattvajndna is a means to the realisation of the supreme end of life, viz., liberation. Similarly, all major schools of Indian philosophy have allowed tattvajndna to play some role in the attainment of liberation. Though Indian philosophers do regard philosophy as the pursuit of ultimate truths, they have never held a very high opinion, it may be asserted at the risk of misunderstanding, of what Aristotle has eulogised as 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge'.