Abstract

In Taber's work, "A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology," Kumārila tackles the concept of perception in MS 1.1.4 and asserts that perception cannot serve as a means to comprehend Dharma. His argument revolves around the idea that perception apprehends objects in the present, while Dharma's outcomes lie in the future. This distinction holds significance because, according to Kumārila, only the Veda can be a valid means of understanding Dharma. However, I contend that the definition of perception presented in MS 1.1.4 can be a viable method for comprehending Dharma. Kumārila defends the Veda's eternality, resulting in a unique Vedic concept of time that amalgamates past, present, and future into an ever-existing present. Given this perspective, when perception, as defined in MS 1.1.4, apprehends an object in the present, it extends the possibility of grasping the outcomes of Dharma in the future. This is possible because the Vedic conception of time posits an eternal continuum where past, present, and future coexist. Consequently, the proposed definition of perception in MS 1.1.4 can be a legitimate means of gaining knowledge about Dharma.