Abstract

The Buddhist argues that when two cognitive states are different, their objects are also different. For example, awareness of a pot is different from awareness of a cloth and their objects are different as well. Based on the pervasion that no two different cognitive states have the same object the Buddhist claims that the objects of inference and testimony on the one hand are different from the objects of (indeterminate) perception on the other. That is, what is perceived is never the same as what is inferred or learnt from testimony. This lends support to the Buddhist position that only unique particulars that are grasped in (indeterminate) perception are real; what are grasped in inference or testimony are not unique particulars and, accordingly, are not real. Udayana’s critique of the above position is explained and analyzed.