Nyaya sutra 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. I have difficulty copy pasting.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Place of Rational Inquiry in Dharmic Worldviews
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
Nyaya sutra 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. I have difficulty copy pasting.
1947 comes immediately to mind
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. However, on the morning of the 16th armed Muslim gangs gathered at the Ochterlony Monument in Calcutta to hear Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the League's Chief Minister of Bengal, who, in the words of historian Yasmin Khan, "if he did not explicitly incite violence certainly gave the crowd the impression that they could act with impunity, that neither the police nor the military would be called out and that the ministry would turn a blind eye to any action they unleashed in the city." That very evening, in Calcutta, Hindus were attacked by returning Muslim celebrants, who carried pamphlets distributed earlier showing a clear connection between violence and the demand for Pakistan, and implicating the celebration of Direct Action day directly with the outbreak of the cycle of violence that would be later called the "Great Calcutta Killing of August 1946".
--
Vallabhbhai Patel was one of the first Congress leaders to accept the partition of India as a solution to the rising Muslim separatist movement led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He had been outraged by Jinnah's Direct Action campaign, which had provoked communal violence across India and by the viceroy's vetoes of his home department's plans to stop the violence on the grounds of constitutionality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti...ar_II.2C_Lahore_Resolution:_1930.E2.80.931945
--
Vallabhbhai Patel was one of the first Congress leaders to accept the partition of India as a solution to the rising Muslim separatist movement led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He had been outraged by Jinnah's Direct Action campaign, which had provoked communal violence across India and by the viceroy's vetoes of his home department's plans to stop the violence on the grounds of constitutionality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti...ar_II.2C_Lahore_Resolution:_1930.E2.80.931945
Last edited:
My understanding is that the Hindus gave as good as they got.
Last edited:
I would greatly appreciate it if this thread on the philosophy of Nyaya does not get derailed by a 1947 partition debate. I am writing posts slowly here as I want them to be of good quality and that takes time. Thank you
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Atanu, are you familiar with Sankhya and Nyaya? There are three distinct phases of Nyaya -
1. Gautama/Akshapada's Nyaya sutras and the earliest extant commentary by Vatsyayana (unknown date) have no role for Ishwara in the doctrine.
2. The next celebrated commentator Nyaya commentator (7th Century CE) was Uddyotakara who authored the Nyaya Vartika. He is also known as the "rescuer of Nyaya". During this phase, Nyaya scholars were engaged in polemics with Buddhists and began to write more about Ishwara. He was followed by Jayanta and others.
3. The newer phase of Nyaya started with Bha-Sarvajna around the 10th Century CE. The number of categories were reduced and other changes were introduced to the doctrine. Later Gangesha created Navya Nyaya (new age Nyaya), by which time, Nyaya was considerably different from that of Vatsyayana.
Returning to #1,
Nyaya definition of emancipation - Emancipation is a condition of felicity, tranquility - untainted by any defilement. True knowledge of the sixteen categories causes emancipation after which the individual is no longer subject to activity and is free from transmigration. According to Vatsyayana, emancipation is about cessation of pain and not about producing bliss. So, when he speaks of felicity, he means "perfect freedom from pain'.
The sixteen categories to be known -
1. Pramana
2. Prameya
3. Samshaya
4. Prayojana
5. Drshtanta
6. Siddhanta
7. Avayava
8. Tarka
9. Nirnaya
10. Vaada
11. Jalpa
12. Vitanda
13. Hetvaabhaasa
14. Chala
15. Jaati
16. Nigrahastaana
And that is pretty much it. The Sutras and the commentary *never* rely on Vedic authority and there is no prayer, meditation, divine grace required - which is why there is no role for Ishvara. There is a single mention of Ishvara in Sutra 4.1.19, which - regardless of the various interpretations - has no consequence on the doctrine.
My main source is Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana's "A History of Indian Logic".
Thank you for your very detailed post. I do not need details of categories etc.
I am asking you to kindly show us a statement of Gotama that indicates that Gotama did not accept Ishwara.
Nyaya is quite famous, in the Indian context, of having their own version of the cosmological argument to prove the existence of God.
A good source on Nyaya ontological categories and their philosophy of mind where various cosmological arguments are compared against the Nyaya version is Kisor Kumar Chakraborty's
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2974-classical-indian-philosophy-of-.aspx
Parimal Patil's "Against a Hindu God" is a great book that discusses how the Nyaya countered Buddhist arguments against the existence of Ishwara. Despite the title, this is a deeply analytical and philosophical book. Excellent reading for those seeking to gain a deeper understading of Indian philosophy.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/pati14222
A good source on Nyaya ontological categories and their philosophy of mind where various cosmological arguments are compared against the Nyaya version is Kisor Kumar Chakraborty's
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2974-classical-indian-philosophy-of-.aspx
Parimal Patil's "Against a Hindu God" is a great book that discusses how the Nyaya countered Buddhist arguments against the existence of Ishwara. Despite the title, this is a deeply analytical and philosophical book. Excellent reading for those seeking to gain a deeper understading of Indian philosophy.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/pati14222
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
IMHO, that is not 'nyaya'. That is application of 'nyaya', one way or the other.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
Namaskaram Shivsomashekhar ji
interestingly enough , and in the context of this post and its relating to the question of rational inquiry , ......
we will never know what Buddha knew or accepted untill we lay down false conceptions and follow that process of inquiry , as the path the Buddha taught was that of liberation , that is liberation both from the samsaric realm and also from ignorance , ....that means liberation from holding false veiws , ....and what is False Veiw ? .... it is that which is unproven , untested , ...in this respect it is fruitless to simply repeat what one has heard , or what one has been taught , one must gain experience of it , one must make it their own , ...so to do this we must make rational unbiased inquiry , ....The Buddha simply led the way , thus his teachings are often lovingly refered to as being a ''Lamp on the Path''
personaly I am not happy to assume atheism from the Buddha's 'Non Theistic' approach , there seems to be a some what unwise assumption about what the Buddha thought , beleived , knew or understood , ...based wholely upon the later writings of his close deciples or their decendants , when in actuality they only codified the teachings that all present could agree upon , ..again I refer to thease teachings as being like a lamp upon the path , ....not tretises upon the nature of ultimate reality , ...this Buddha wanted you to discover for your self , ....
and in the context of this conversation , may I remind all of the Buddhas parting words to venerable Ananda , ....."Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation." ...........simmilarly this is translated as ''be a lamp unto your selves'' ,, ....as only at the point of salvation or liberation is one fit to understand what lay beyond the state of compound or ''component things''......
I think in our ignorance we do not give the Buddha full credit for the skillfullness of his teachings , ...rather in our foolishness we try to impute our own imperfect beleifs and conceptions upon his words , ....were we to be more fearless we would no doubt discover the true reality to which he elluded .
Lord Buddha Ki Jai
interestingly enough , and in the context of this post and its relating to the question of rational inquiry , ......
we will never know what Buddha knew or accepted untill we lay down false conceptions and follow that process of inquiry , as the path the Buddha taught was that of liberation , that is liberation both from the samsaric realm and also from ignorance , ....that means liberation from holding false veiws , ....and what is False Veiw ? .... it is that which is unproven , untested , ...in this respect it is fruitless to simply repeat what one has heard , or what one has been taught , one must gain experience of it , one must make it their own , ...so to do this we must make rational unbiased inquiry , ....The Buddha simply led the way , thus his teachings are often lovingly refered to as being a ''Lamp on the Path''
personaly I am not happy to assume atheism from the Buddha's 'Non Theistic' approach , there seems to be a some what unwise assumption about what the Buddha thought , beleived , knew or understood , ...based wholely upon the later writings of his close deciples or their decendants , when in actuality they only codified the teachings that all present could agree upon , ..again I refer to thease teachings as being like a lamp upon the path , ....not tretises upon the nature of ultimate reality , ...this Buddha wanted you to discover for your self , ....
and in the context of this conversation , may I remind all of the Buddhas parting words to venerable Ananda , ....."Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation." ...........simmilarly this is translated as ''be a lamp unto your selves'' ,, ....as only at the point of salvation or liberation is one fit to understand what lay beyond the state of compound or ''component things''......
I think in our ignorance we do not give the Buddha full credit for the skillfullness of his teachings , ...rather in our foolishness we try to impute our own imperfect beleifs and conceptions upon his words , ....were we to be more fearless we would no doubt discover the true reality to which he elluded .
Lord Buddha Ki Jai
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I do not see any reason why they should not.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
How do you prove a negative?
But I see now why my statement can lead to this question. Let me rephrase - Gautama's doctrine does not include Ishwara. That is, Ishwara has no role to play in the Nyaya-Sutras and in Vatsyayana's commentary - which is the earliest available commentary on the Sutras. I have explained how and why in my earlier post.
This has been covered already in my earlier post. These arguments came much later, starting with Udyotakara. The subject is completely absent in the earlier Nyaya texts - including the sutras. As @Aupmanyav said, the arguments in favor of God are based on the Nyaya dialectic method and not on the sutras themselves.
Thanks.
I am pasting 1,2, and 3 below. I earlier indicated that 'Nyaya Sutra' takes repeated birth as 'Given', as an axiom.
"1. Supreme felicity is attained by the knowledge about the true nature of sixteen categories, viz., means of right knowledge (prarnana), object of right knowledge (pra-meya), doubt (samsaya), purpose (prayojana), familiar instance (drstanta), established tenet (siddhanta), members (avayava), confutation (tarka*), ascertainment (nirnaya), discussion (vada), wrangling (jalpa), cavil (vitanda), fallacy ”
“2. Pain, birth, activity, faults and “misapprehension— on the successive annihilation of these in the reverse order, there follows release.”
“3. Perception, inference, comparison and word (verbal testimony)—these are the means of right knowledge.”
“2. Pain, birth, activity, faults and “misapprehension— on the successive annihilation of these in the reverse order, there follows release.”
“3. Perception, inference, comparison and word (verbal testimony)—these are the means of right knowledge.”
Additionally, the following three verses, in my opinion, indicate that Rishi Gautama Aksapada is not merely talking about the 'Tangible'/'Measurable'.
“7. Word (verbal testimony) is the instructive assertion of a reliable person.”
“8. It is of two kinds, viz., that which refers to matter which is seen and that which refers to matter which is not seen.”
“9. Soul, body, senses, objects of sense, intellect, mind, activity, fault, transmigration, fruit, pain and release-— are the objects of right knowledge.”
Further, the following indicates that the Iswara of Veda is also an axiom for the Nyaya.
BOOK IV, CHAPTER 1”
“21. Since fruits are awarded by God, man's acts, we conclude, are not the sole cause thereof.
Last edited:
You asserted "Gautama did not accept an Ishvara". So, I asked for a proof.
That is a better statement yet wrong. Please see above post. God and Soul are axiomatic for Nyaya .. God by the Word of Veda and Soul as self evident seat of consciousness.
BOOK IV, CHAPTER 1”
“21. Since fruits are awarded by God, man's acts, we conclude, are not the sole cause thereof.
.......
Nyaya condemns the absolute negativity of Buddhism in very certain terms. It clearly says if there is no truth in world the Buddhist sayings hold no truth.
Last edited:
In Book IV, Nyaya concludes what most of us already agree to.
“69. Through knowledge about the true nature of the causes of faults, there is cessation of egotism—1.
70. The colour and other objects, when regarded as good, become the causes of faults—2.
71. The faults are caused through a conception of the whole apart from its parts. —3.”
“72. Owing to the apprehension and non-apprehension being each of two kinds, there arises a doubt as to the existence of a whole apart from its parts. —4.
73. There is no room for doubt with regard to the existence of a whole already established through arguments. —5.”
Some Buddhists (Madhyamika-s) then start negating the whole, employing confusing arguments regarding location of whole wrt many. Buddhists argue against atman, the whole and unborn eternal, using confusion of terms employing 'many' and 'whole'. The main Buddhist contention is:
Book IV “77. Owing to the lack of residence, affirms the objector, there is no whole apart from its parts.—9.”
(Basically Madhyamika is saying that the whole cannot reside in parts. Madhyamika example is of a horse drawn cart which according to Madhyamika is just an aggregate of parts).
Nyaya states:
Book IV “79. There is, we reply, no room for the question owing to the impropriety in the use of the term " variety " in reference to what is one.
........
Nyaya, essentially says that seeing diversity in what is ONE is an error. Then using that error to delete the ONE is just RIDICULOUS. It is like our seeing the brain and then saying that brain is the generator of our power of seeing. Or it is like accepting the image on the mirror as true and rejecting the source of the image as a chimera.
Excerpt From: Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana. “The Nyaya Sutras of Gotama.” iBooks.
“69. Through knowledge about the true nature of the causes of faults, there is cessation of egotism—1.
70. The colour and other objects, when regarded as good, become the causes of faults—2.
71. The faults are caused through a conception of the whole apart from its parts. —3.”
“72. Owing to the apprehension and non-apprehension being each of two kinds, there arises a doubt as to the existence of a whole apart from its parts. —4.
73. There is no room for doubt with regard to the existence of a whole already established through arguments. —5.”
Some Buddhists (Madhyamika-s) then start negating the whole, employing confusing arguments regarding location of whole wrt many. Buddhists argue against atman, the whole and unborn eternal, using confusion of terms employing 'many' and 'whole'. The main Buddhist contention is:
Book IV “77. Owing to the lack of residence, affirms the objector, there is no whole apart from its parts.—9.”
(Basically Madhyamika is saying that the whole cannot reside in parts. Madhyamika example is of a horse drawn cart which according to Madhyamika is just an aggregate of parts).
Nyaya states:
Book IV “79. There is, we reply, no room for the question owing to the impropriety in the use of the term " variety " in reference to what is one.
........
Nyaya, essentially says that seeing diversity in what is ONE is an error. Then using that error to delete the ONE is just RIDICULOUS. It is like our seeing the brain and then saying that brain is the generator of our power of seeing. Or it is like accepting the image on the mirror as true and rejecting the source of the image as a chimera.
Excerpt From: Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana. “The Nyaya Sutras of Gotama.” iBooks.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
If it is acceptance of an axiom, then it is not 'nyaya'. Buddha said ".. nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), ..".
shivsomashekhar said:
I mentioned in one of my earlier posts to you that the Nyayasutras are not a theological treatise. They seek to establish rules of argumentation and technical terminology that was indeed adopted by many of their opponents themselves. Proving the existence of God is not the Nyayasutras' concern. The Nyaya was and continues to this day to be a living tradition and the purpose of the philosophical enterprise is to harmonize later developments with the Nyayasutras. This is not anything special to Nyaya. Every commentator in Indian philosophy is careful to state that he/she is not introducing a new philosophy but only explaining in greater details the implications of the original foundational texts.
I know this from having interacted with a contemporary Nyaya scholar.
So, if Uddyotakara or Udayana or Jagadeesa or Gangesa come up with a Nyaya text and call themselves Nyaya, a priori, there is no reason to suspect that they are not true to Nyaya.
Uddyotakara/Udayana/Gangesa: We are Naiyayikas and our text is in conformace with Askapada Gotama's Nyayasutra
Shivsomasekhar: You are wrong Uddyotakara/Udayana/Gangesa.
Unseen things can be part of empirical inquiry as well. Indeed they regularly are, and can be inferred from what is observable. Nyaya believed that the soul/self can be inferred from the observable properties of consciousness. That is where their disputation with Buddhists were.
Expert testimony is accepted in science and any branch of empirical inquiry as well. What makes someone an expert is under contention though. You are confusing empirical inquiry with atheism for some reason. Atheism may be or may not be the conclusion from empirical inquiry, its the methodology of inquiry that makes it empirical, not the conclusion. Nyaya philosophy follows an empirical and rational mode of inquiry in the same sense as Aristotle does in his philosophy and epistemology even though both schools do believe in God/Gods based on reasoning and inference.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
This has already been covered. I am re-posting my line from post #66
There is a single mention of Ishvara in Sutra 4.1.19, which - regardless of the various interpretations - has no consequence on the doctrine.
As also explained in the same post, Nyaya's idea of emancipation is understanding the sixteen categories. None of these categories have anything to do with Ishwara nor is Ishwara relevant to the practice/Sadhana of getting to emancipation.
Please read my posts again. I will repeat this one last time.
1. Unlike Vedanta, Sankhya and Nyaya do not have any role for Ishvara - both in getting to emancipation and also thereafter. I will also repeat one more time that I am talking about early Sankhy (upto Ishvara-Krishna) and early Nyaya (upto Vatsyayana) only. Enough material has been posted to demonstrate this.
2. I have also clearly stated that both Sankhya and Nyaya transformed in later times to include Ishvara and made other changes as well. You cannot take later age Nyaya tenets and beliefs and try to create the appearance that original Nyaya shared the same beliefs.