ग्रन्थोवादा वलिद्रागमजतविदितो दुमेतारण्यदाहा
दापूर्वार्थतीप क्रमपरिपटित स्वाभिधा गोचरत्वम् |
तस्य श्रीराघवेन्द्र वतित्ररभवतो वायुवंशप्रसूते
रेतह्मुद्दीपने यत्तदुचितसितिमे मानसी वृत्तिरून्धे || गुरुगणस्तव - वादीन्द्रतीर्थ

The problem of Determinacy and Indeterminacy of knowledge in its two phases – origin (उत्पत्ति) and cognition (ज्ञाप्ति) has engaged the minds of the philosophers, in the east and the west, from early times. The “pure sensation” of James; “a bare apprehension of the present” of Hobhouse; “a pure manifold” of Kant – this manifold of sense arising as a result of the actions of the things – in – themselves (Ding an sich) which are different from the principle of consciousness; the “immediate experience or consciousness prior to the exercise of any discriminative activity” of Lossky, imply the existence of some form of indeterminate knowledge. In opposition to this view, it is contended that “not even the crudest, vaguest consciousness of a content can be accounted for, either psychologically or epistemologically, without calling to our aid in the exposition the notion of a discriminative activity”. (Dawes Hicks).

Some realistic thinkers like Craik (The Nature of Explanation) have gone so far as to reduce man to a machine by assuming that the processes of reasoning are not fundamentally different from the mechanism of the physical nature. “On our model theory, neural and other mechanisms can imitate or parallel the behaviour and interaction of physical objects and so supply us with the information on physical process which are not directly observable to us. Our thought, then, has objective validity because it is not fundamentally different from objective reality, but it is specially suited for imitating it” (The Nature of Explanation, p. 99). The principle of uncertainty exists, but it is a limitation not of reality itself but of our capacity for verification and observation. Still, according to this view, it does not justify the