Given below are two statements:Statement I: Buddhism accepts Upamana a...
Statement I: Buddhism accepts Upamana as an independent source of valid knowledge: False
- Buddhism (Buddhist philosophy) does not accept comparison as an independent source of valid knowledge.
- On their account, comparison can be reduced to perception and testimony.
- The Sāmkhya and the Vaisesika Philosophy believe that comparison can be reduced to inference.
- Upamana is a pramana recognized by the Mimansikas as similar to Nyayikas’ views.
Statement II: In Upamana, knowledge of an object is determined by perception and testimony: False
- In upamana, knowledge of an object is determined by comparing it to other similar kinds of objects.
- Thus roughly it is treated as an analogy.
- For example, assume a situation where a man has not seen a wild cow and doesn’t know what it is.
- A forester told him that a wild cow is an animal like a country cow, but she is more furious and has a big horn on her forehead.
- In a later period, he comes across a wild cow in a forest and recognizes it as the wild cow by comparing the descriptions made by the forester.
- This knowledge is possible due to the upamana or comparison.
- Thus, upamana is the knowledge of the relation between a name and the object it denotes by that name.
Thus, Both Statement I and Statement II are false.
View all questions of this test
Given below are two statements:Statement I: Buddhism accepts Upamana a...
Understanding the Statements
The two statements provided relate to the concept of Upamana in Buddhist philosophy and its acceptance as a source of knowledge.
Statement I: Buddhism and Upamana
- Upamana, or analogy, is indeed recognized in various Indian philosophical traditions, including Buddhism, as a means of acquiring knowledge.
- However, Buddhism does not treat Upamana as an independent source of valid knowledge. Instead, it is considered supplementary, often relying on other means like perception (Pratyaksha) and inference (Anumana).
Statement II: Nature of Upamana
- Upamana involves knowledge gained through analogy and comparison rather than direct perception or testimony.
- It does not fundamentally derive knowledge from perception and testimony; rather, it uses existing knowledge to make inferences about unfamiliar objects.
Conclusion on the Correctness of the Statements
- Statement I is false: Buddhism does not accept Upamana as an independent source of valid knowledge.
- Statement II is also false: Upamana does not primarily rely on perception and testimony but on analogy.
Given this analysis, the correct answer is indeed option B: Both Statement I and Statement II are false.
Given below are two statements:Statement I: Buddhism accepts Upamana a...
Statement I: Buddhism accepts Upamana as an independent source of valid knowledge: False
- Buddhism (Buddhist philosophy) does not accept comparison as an independent source of valid knowledge.
- On their account, comparison can be reduced to perception and testimony.
- The Sāmkhya and the Vaisesika Philosophy believe that comparison can be reduced to inference.
- Upamana is a pramana recognized by the Mimansikas as similar to Nyayikas’ views.
Statement II: In Upamana, knowledge of an object is determined by perception and testimony: False
- In upamana, knowledge of an object is determined by comparing it to other similar kinds of objects.
- Thus roughly it is treated as an analogy.
- For example, assume a situation where a man has not seen a wild cow and doesn’t know what it is.
- A forester told him that a wild cow is an animal like a country cow, but she is more furious and has a big horn on her forehead.
- In a later period, he comes across a wild cow in a forest and recognizes it as the wild cow by comparing the descriptions made by the forester.
- This knowledge is possible due to the upamana or comparison.
- Thus, upamana is the knowledge of the relation between a name and the object it denotes by that name.
Thus, Both Statement I and Statement II are false.