Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika : An introduction

Since someone asked me to write a post on this subject in another thread, I thought why not? This will be exploring the concepts of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika as complementary systems, with a primary focus on theology. I am considering both of these darśanas to be complementary since they essentially follow the same conclusions with the exception of epistemology where they are differentiated in the pramanas they subscribe to. In fact, by the 13th century CE, both of these darśanas are considered to have merged into a continuation known as Navya-Nyāya.



So, Nyaya-Vaisheshika. What about it? Some historical background first, I would think, is necessary. Vaisheshika is generally considered to have developed before Nyaya, with the latter fully developing at about the time of the seminal Buddhist philosopher and theologian (although he would rage at hearing this!) Nagarjuna. The former's set of aphorisms known as the Vaisheshikasutras was written by a probably fictitious character known as Kanada (atom-eater), or Uluka (owl). The latter's sutras, the Nyayasutras was written by Aksapada (eyes in his feet, what a name!) Gautama. Now, both of these authorial attributions are subject to intense speculation, and it seems most likely (especially among Indologists, this seems to be the prevalent view) that both of these texts were written and finalized over centuries by various different personages. Now, I am not exactly sure what the Vaisheshikas (who were primarily ontologists) were concerned with, although I assume they were refuting both Samkhya philosophers and Buddhist ones, in the same way as Nyaya was. Both follow a robust direct realism in ontology, and this informs their concepts, including the theological ones.



Now, I am sure a lot of us here are concerned about the existence of maya or illusion, and will ask from an Advaitin point of view inspired by Shankaracharya, "But Notthedarkweb, what about this world being an illusion! Isn't it true that none is separate from the Absolute, that is Brahman, that is Purushottama!". Now, now, I hear you. It's definitely true that the Berkleyan idealism that Advaita postulates is pretty strong. How can we possible escape this monad, this Absolute Brahman then? Let me digress for a moment and take a trip to early 20th century Britain, with an English philosopher named G.E. Moore writing a paper called "A Defence of Common Sense". Now, here is contained an exposition of a highly influential argument against idealism. Let us go first to Moore's reading of Kant. According to the latter, something must be perceived in space as well as met in space by the percipient in order for that object to be real. Now, as Moore points out, some objects can be met in space yet cannot be perceived in space by any sense of the word. See: shadows. We can touch the shadow on the wall, but can we see it exist independently in space? Now, there are objects that can be perceived in space but not met in it! For example, after-images. Stare at a light for 20 seconds, and then look at a white background. What do you see, an image imprinted on your eyes? Does it follow you as you look away? Does it seem far away from you, unreachable by hand, perhaps? Well, close your eyes now. As you might have noticed, this object that was perceived in space some time ago is still perceptible after closing your eyes, in that we are not in any way conscious of space yet the object remains.



Now, this means that something must be both perceptible in space and can be met in space in order for it to be considered a real object. That is, one must be able to see and touch both, since cognitive illusions do not fulfill either one of these two conditions. So, hold your hand up. It's perceivable in space, yet you can touch your nose with it. Now, hold up your other hand. Wow! The same applies for that! You have two hands now, and at least two objects outside your mind independently exist. A hand cannot exist detached from a body of course, and now you have a body! What next, other people are also real? Blasphemy!



Ok, ok, let's slow down a bit there, I see you say. How do we know that this is not an illusion itself? Good question, a very good question in fact. In fact, we need to resolve this tension right away. Imagine a cupcake. Someone tells you there are no blueberries on the cupcake. Yet on the top of the cupcake you can perceive them oh so very well, blueberries! You can touch them, you can see them, and you can eat them! (wouldn't suggest this one with your hands, though). If this proof can apply for blueberry cupcakes, why is it not valid for your hands? And furthermore, how many hypotheticals do you have to construct on top of the previous Cartesian demon in order to show furthermore that your idealistic doctrine is the truth? Instead, I offer to you a simple rule: blueberry cupcakes and hands!



So, proving the real existence of objects as such, let us return to Nyaya-Vaisheshika. All this discussion of the real existence of objects leads the Nyaya-Vaisheshika scholars to a radical conclusion: that God or Ishvara only created the universe through the ordering of pre-existing atoms and uhh....quarks and stuff. As one might have realized, the Nyaya weren't particularly good at the nitty-gritties of physics in 100 C.E. This doesn't tell us anything about the soul though. Ahh yes, the atman embodied in the jiva, that which strives towards moksha. Its a great thing, our atman, with both positive and negative attributes. Now, we don't really know what "denomination" our objects of study subscribed to, although they seemed closest to Shaiva worship, with some Nyayaikas being Pashupatas! Whacky, I know. I am not a Shaiv myself, but one must understand that Shiva worship and the philosophy of the early Shaivites heavily influenced the Nyaya conception of the atman, which is created from the same substance as Ishvara, yet is separate from it. Confused yet? Ok, think about it this way. Both butter and cheese are made from milk. Yet you can butter two pieces of toast and then put a slice of cheese in between those two pieces. Two things of the same substance, interconnected yet separate ( I would suggest doing this, surprisingly tasty). Now, we have decided what Ishvara is and what the atman. What is moksha, then? What about the liberated soul?



Now, we must return to two concepts that every single self-respecting, gun-slinging, Dignaga-critiquing Hindu should know: the four goals of life and the margas. The four goals of life are namely artha, kama, dharma and moksha. Moksha is in truth superior to all of these other goals, it is liberation from all the previous three goals. It also means liberation from Dharma, the law by which are universe is ordered and functions, to put it very very simply. Sort of a Hindu ubermensch, if you shall. However, even this ubermensch has some pursuits that they should take on. If you are a jivanmukti, congratulations! You have achieved enlightenment while alive, now what? Like the Buddha, you might spread your kno wledge to the world, showing others the path to enlightenment. Or you might leave all attachment and go to the Himalayas. Know this, even if you are a jivanmukti, the karmic calculus of do-good-works-get-good-results that leads to reincarnation still applies. Complete lack of action might be considered inaction. Be careful here, fellow dharmiks! Be very careful. So, the three margas (raja yoga a la Vivekanada is not considered since well….the world exists as we have seen in the Nyaya canon). Jnana yoga (the way of knowledge), bhakti yoga (the way of devotion) and karma yoga (the way of, take a guess? Yup, you guessed it. The way of action). It's not clear which one is the most important, if any is.

This is getting slightly long. So let's get to the point, eh? What do the Nyayikas and the Vaisheshiks think the mukta atman or the liberated soul is like? Well, you see, we have a problem here. Literally no one could agree on what the liberated soul was. However, the first exposition of what this could be was from Sivaditya (a definition that is primarily seen as in the Vaisheshiks tradition, and not the Nyaya one). He says that liberation is the absence of sorrow in with the posterior absence of false knowledge which is the cause of false knowledge. Technical, so very technical! Although it's very simple. Liberation is attributeless inertia, and after we achieve moksha there should be no false knowledge, ignorance or ajnana known by us.



Now, wait a minute Notthedarkweb. What is this? Who could possibly want such a state, where there nothingness is what we are trying to achieve? Seems very….pseudo-Buddhist! (It's not. Trust me on this one). Well, a few people agreed. Remember when I told you how a few of the Nyayikas were Shaivites? Now, a few of these guys got together (metaphorically, all of them lived in different eras, centuries apart) and decided that liberation meant a freedoms from sorrow as a state of bliss. Happiness in itself is the absence of bliss! One of these guys is Bhasarvajna, who might have been responding to the bigwig of early Nyaya philosophy, Vatsayana. Now, I personally believe in Vatsayana's conception of the liberated self, so let me explain it to you in a little more detail. Vatsayana describes avaparga as a condition for the attainment of bliss (stealing this one from Karl Potter's brilliant Encyclopaedia of Indian philosophies, Vol. II, since I did not know how to summarize it) and says that this condition is the Brahman. Clearly bliss is therefore associated with Ishvara, the supreme reality or whatever that means nowadays in neo-Vedantic circles. But, Vatsayana continues to say that since bliss is a positive state that men form an attachment to, and therefore get themselves bonded to, it is something that we need to be liberated from! Egads, you say, this is all too complex! Why couldn't they be more specific? I hear you, my friends, and so I bring to your rescue the twin disciplines of linguistics and philology. You see, what Vatsayana was doing was redefining what bliss was in the first case. Bliss for him was liberation from all attributes. This state of somethingness with nothingness, an inert object, was in itself a state of metaphorical bliss.



Ok, so this is all very good, you say. How do we reach this state of bliss that is at the very same time not bliss though? Glad you asked that question. Askpada Gautama postulates a causal chain with five components: wrong knowledge (mithyājñāna) to faults (doşa) to productive activity (that which accrues karma) to reincarnation to sorrow. Damn! That's kinda long. But have no fear, for Gautama is here. He suggest the classical methods of yoga, concentration and meditation, but moreover he suggest the removal of the three specific faults of delusion, attraction and aversion. We are not be doing any activity which causes us to be attracted to that action's effect, such that we are addicted to it. We are not to be averse to anything either, for that is negative action! And lastly, we need right knowledge in order to dispel of ajnana and fully understand our place within the universe. This makes knowledge an essential part of the Nyaya theory of liberation.



How can it be so that this is true? Would not that mean, Mr. Dark Web, that we are to have no action at all? Candramati worried about this as well, and so he divided actions of merit into two classes: that which have a positive effect on the world at large and the second which leads to the cessation of activity itself. See, we have reached a very innovative and original form of consequentialism, where the most moral action is that which stops the occurrence of action itself. The latter is the one required for moksha. The latter leads us to a state of perfect "bliss" without attachment.





All of that is fine, but Nyaya introduces something completely different into the mix, something our friend Madhava of the Dvaita Vedantins would be aware of. The necessity of Ishvara's grace to be liberated! Uddyotokara argues that all merits and demerits are sourced from God, and Prasastapa states that the jnana or knowledge required for liberation is sourced from God. However, this notion of divine selection reaches its peak in Bhasarvajna, who claims that God is the touchstone of all action and therefore is a judge who will...ahh, judge whether you are deserving of enlightenment! This doesn't negate the karmic mechanism of the universe, which chugs on very well.


So, that's that, my friends. The theology of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika system. There is a lot more, with respect to epistemology, metaphysical categories and ethics, so feel free to ask me questions on that matter!

Thank you so much, for responding to my request right away, and for your time also - and for a nicely elaborate "Darshan" of NyAya.
There is a big difference in reading someone practicing or deeply into a philosophy, and just reading wiki articles or even the samhitas, since it is the same old mention of nyAya-logic which overlaps other darshans (6 Indian spiritual philosophies - Shad Darshan).

Let me go through this valuable writeup, so I can come back with comments or questions if applicable.

ameyAtmA said:

Thank you so much, for responding to my request right away, and for your time also. You have really given a very thorough "Darshan" of NyAya.
There is a big difference in reading someone practicing or deeply into a philosophy, and just reading wiki articles or even the samhitas, since it is the same old mention of nyAya-logic which overlaps other darshans (6 Indian spiritual philosophies - Shad Darshan).

Let me go through this valuable writeup, so I can come back with comments or questions if applicable.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Most people who talk about Nyaya think that it's restricted to epistemology and logic which is just wrong and misguided. It's an entire philosophical system which possesses insights on everything from ethical theory to ontology. Who knows, one day we'll end up with political philosophy written by a Nyayika!

Thanks for the effort. Now I will read it.
Perhaps grouping them together does not do justice to Vaisheshika.
Lastly, I know nothing of Western philosophy, and am not interested in it. Hinduism and Buddhism are sufficient for me.
"Or you might leave all attachment and go to the Himalayas. Know this, even if you are a jivanmukti, the karmic calculus of do-good-works-get-good-results that leads to reincarnation still applies.": Going to Himalayas is not necessary. Like Krishna said, just follow your 'dharma' (fulfill your responsibilities and engage in righteous action) and that should be OK. How would that lead to reincarnation, of which (as per my view), there is none. Only a life well-lived.

"na me mṛtyuśaṅkā na me jātibhedaḥ, pitā naiva me naiva mātā na janmaḥ;
na bandhur na mitraṃ gurunaiva śişyaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham"
(I do not have fear of death, nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth. I have no father or mother, nor did I have a birth. I am not the relative, nor the friend, nor the guru, nor the disciple. I am the eternal, indeed, I am the eternal.)

Lastly, IMHO, the spelling of those who follow Nyaya would be 'Naiyayikas".

Aupmanyav said:

Thanks for the effort. Now I will read it.
Perhaps grouping them together does not do justice to Vaisheshika.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but they go hand in hand in a lot of places so I had to include them to a certain degree.

Another point to be noted is both Nyaya and Vaisheshika were originally agnostic (before the 4th Century CE). There was no role for an Ishwara in these systems. Vaisheshika only accepted Perception and Inference as valid sources of knowledge. A thousand years later, the landscape changed and they found themselves debating Buddhists and consequently, they revised these doctrines to accept the Vedas as authority to distinguish themselves from Buddhists, though the doctrines themselves had no reliance on the Veda. By the 12th Century CE, these doctrines were pretty much obsolete and gave way to Navya Nyaya.

shivsomashekhar said:

Another point to be noted is both Nyaya and Vaisheshika were originally agnostic (before the 4th Century CE). There was no role for an Ishwara in these systems. Vaisheshika only accepted Perception and Inference as valid sources of knowledge. A thousand years later, the landscape changed and they found themselves debating Buddhists and consequently, they revised these doctrines to accept the Vedas as authority to distinguish themselves from Buddhists, though the doctrines themselves had no reliance on the Veda. By the 12th Century CE, these doctrines were pretty much obsolete and gave way to Navya Nyaya.

Click to expand...

This is fairly controversial actually. Nyaya definitely developed a fair amount of time after Vaiesheshika and was heavily influenced by Buddhism (especially in metaphysics), so we can't really say what they believed in early on. Especially considering the first extant commentary on the Nyaya Sutras was by Vatsayana, who did believe in Ishvara. And uhh, Vaisheshiks did use inferential reasoning to argue for God. Mostly the same as the teleological argument Nyaya used, although I am less well aware of that. But yeah, we don t really know what these guys believed in the earliest stages. It is highly likely they were agnostic or unconcerned with the Devtas though, like the Mimamsikas. Not particularly concerned with that these days though

Aupmanyav said:

Lastly, I know nothing of Western philosophy, and am not interested in it. Hinduism and Buddhism are sufficient for me.

Click to expand...

I find a large amount of Western philosophy illuminating. If you find the time, you should read Thomas Nagel's The Absurd. I think you would like it.

Notthedarkweb said:

This is fairly controversial actually. Nyaya definitely developed a fair amount of time after Vaiesheshika and was heavily influenced by Buddhism (especially in metaphysics), so we can't really say what they believed in early on.

Click to expand...

We do know the sutras and the sutras are non-theistic - true for Sankhya, Vaisheshika, Nyaya and Mimamsa.

They changed form over time and became something else, but in their pre-Christian form, they are purely logic based (classified as Anvikshiki in the Arthashastra).

I wonder how Hindus today just miss all that. Panchayana/Shanmata and the various Vaishnava traditions.

shivsomashekhar said:

We do know the sutras and the sutras are non-theistic - true for Sankhya, Vaisheshika, Nyaya and Mimamsa.

They changed form over time and became something else, but in their pre-Christian form, they are purely logic based (classified as Anvikshiki in the Arthashastra).

Click to expand...

Again, a fairly controversial theory. The Nyaya Sutras definitely makes reference to a higher deity, and most people have translated it to mean "God" considering the sotereological nature of Ishvara in Nyaya, although a minority believes it might not have been God. So, yeah, not so sure about that.

'Higher force' does not necessarily mean 'a God'.

Notthedarkweb said:

Again, a fairly controversial theory. The Nyaya Sutras definitely makes reference to a higher deity, and most people have translated it to mean "God" considering the sotereological nature of Ishvara in Nyaya, although a minority believes it might not have been God. So, yeah, not so sure about that.

Click to expand...

Where do the Nyaya sutras mention a higher deity?

Do not confuse original/ancient Nyaya (earlier than Nagarjuna) with medieval Nyaya (Udyotakara, et al.,). The latter was clearly theistic - due to polemics with Buddhists - and quite different from the former.

"Nyayasutra verses IV.1.22 to IV.1.24, for example, examine the hypothesis that "random chance" explains the world, after these Indian scholars had rejected God as the efficient cause."
Nyaya - Wikipedia

They were sure ahead of their time by about 2,000 years (Chaos theory - Wikipedia).