Nearly two years ago I picked up a book titled Seven Systems of Indian Philosophy by
Pandit Rajmani Tigunait, spiritual head of the Himalayan Institute and disciple
of Swami Rama. Till then I had always associated Vedanta with Indian philosophy
and was pleasantly surprised to know that in
http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Six-Systems-of-Indian-Philosophy-1.aspx
Nyaya—Valid Knowledge
through Logical Criticism
The founder of the Nyaya system was Gotama. It is also
known as Nyaya Vidya or Tarka Shastra—the Science of Logic and Reasoning.
Because Nyaya analyses the nature and source of knowledge, its validity and
invalidity, it is also known as Anvikshiki which means the Science of Critical Study.
Nyaya asserts that obtaining valid knowledge of the
external world and its relationship with the mind and self is the only way to
attain liberation. If one masters the logical techniques of reasoning and
dutifully applies these to daily life, he will rid himself of all suffering.
The ultimate aim of Nyaya philosophy like other systems of Indian philosophy is
liberation—the complete cessation of pain and suffering. Although concerned
with the study of logic and epistemology Nyaya is a philosophy of life.
The common aims of all the six orthodox schools of
Indian philosophy are to describe the nature of the external world and its
relationship to the individual, to discuss the metaphysical aspects of the
ultimate Reality, and to state the goal of life and means for attaining this
goal. In this attempt, all Indian systems divide their course of study into two
categories, the study of the unmanifested reality and manifest reality. In Nyaya,
both these aspects are studied under 16 major divisions called Padarthas.
16 Major Divisions
of Nyaya called Padarthas
The sixteen divisions are pramāņa—the source of knowledge, prameya—object of knowledge, samshaya—doubt,
prayojana—the aim, dŗshtānta—example, siddhānta—doctrine, avayava—the
constituents of inference, tarka—hypothetical
argument, nirnaya—conclusion, vāda—discussion, jalpa—wrangling, vitanda—irrational
argument, hetvābhāsa—specious
reasoning, chāla—unfair reply, jāti—generality based on a false analogy
and, nigrahasthāna—the grounds for
defeat. The subjects discussed under pramana, the source of knowledge are the
most important and are discussed last.
1. Prameya—the
Object of Knowledge
Prameya for short may be translated as ‘that which is
knowable’ or ‘the object of true knowledge’. The word Prameya is derived from
the Sanskrit word prama meaning
buddhi or cognition. That which is the object of cognition is prameya and
whatever is comprehended or cognized by buddhi is categorized into twelve
objects of cognition known as the Prameyas. These 12 divisions are:
·
Atman the Self
·
Sarira the body
that experiences pleasure and pain, the seat of all organic activities
·
Indriyas the five
senses i.e. smell, taste, sight, touch and hearing that contact external
objects and transmit the experience to the mind
·
Artha the objects
of the senses
·
Buddhi cognition
·
Manas or the mind
that is concerned with the perception of pleasure and pain and according to Nyaya
limits cognition to time and space. The mind is compared to an atom because it
is minute, everlasting, individual and all pervading
·
Pravriti is
activity—vocal, mental and physical
·
Dosha—mental
defects that include attachment (rāga),
hatred (dvesha), and delusion (moha)
·
Pretyabhava—rebirth
or life after death
·
Phala—the fruits
or results of action experienced as pleasure and pain
·
Duhkha—suffering,
and
·
Apavarga—liberation
or complete cessation of all suffering without the possibility of its
reappearance.
According to Nyaya philosophy, the goal of life is to
understand these 12 aspects of reality as they actually are. Bondage is born of
the misunderstanding of these 12 knowable objects and one obtains freedom when
he attains the correct knowledge of these 12 aspects of reality.
2. Samshaya
or Doubt
Samshaya or Doubt is a state of mind where the mind
wavers between conflicting views regarding a single object, is a product of a
confused state of mind that is not able to perceive with clarity.
3. Prayojana
or Aim
Prayojana or Aim Without an aim or target no one can
perform any action. One acts to achieve desirable objects or to get rid of
undesirable ones, these objects that motivate one’s activities are known as prayojana.
4. Dŗshtānta
or Example
Dŗshtānta or Example is the use of an example to
illustrate a common fact and establish an argument. This is a very important
aspect of reasoning for frequently an example can be accepted by both parties
to resolve a difference of opinion.
5. Siddhānta
or Doctrine
Siddhānta or Doctrine is a postulate that is
accepted as the undisputed truth and that serves as the foundation for the
entire theory of a particular system of philosophy. This accepted truth might
be derived from direct experience or from reasoning and logic. For example, it
is the doctrine of Nyaya philosophy that there is a God who is the efficient
cause of the universe and who organizes / regulates the atoms.
6. Avayava or
Constituents of Inference
Avayava or Constituents of Inference the term literally
means constituents or parts and in this context it refers to the constituents
of inference. This is an important part in Nyaya philosophy because Nyaya
strongly emphasizes describing the minute complexities of the pramanas, the
sources or methods of receiving correct knowledge. Among these methods
inference is the most important source of correct knowledge and Nyaya provides
a technical method to test the validity of the inference. If an inference
contains the following five constituents, then it can give correct knowledge.
These are pratijnā (statements), hetu (reason), udāharana (example), upanaya
(universal proposition) and nigamana
(conclusion), discussed in more detail later.
7.
Hypothetical Argument or Tarka
Hypothetical Argument or Tarka All the systems of
Indian philosophy agree that it is the mind’s jabbering that creates confusion
within and without. Thus it is important to clear the confusions of the mind
before trying to understand something through the mind. For this purpose Nyaya
philosophy discussed the possible problems of the mind and clarifies its
confusions, using such processes as tarka.
It is the process of questioning and cross-questioning that leads to a
particular conclusion. Tarka can become a great instrument for analyzing a
common statement and discriminating between valid and invalid knowledge.
8. Conclusion
or Nirņaya
Conclusion or Nirņaya Is certain knowledge that is
attained by using legitimate means. If the mind has doubts then tarka can be
used to resolve those doubts. But it is not always necessary to pass through a
doubtful state. Nirņaya is the ascertainment of assured truth about something
that is attained by means of recognized and legitimate sources of knowledge.
9. Discussion
or Vāda
Discussion or Vāda is a kind of debate between two
parties each one trying to convince the other of his point of view. This is an
effective and efficient way to reach valid knowledge provided both parties are
honest and free from prejudices.
10. Wrangling
or Jalpa
Wrangling or Jalpa is the process by both parties try to
attain victory without making an honest attempt to come to the truth, there is
an involvement of ego instead of a search for knowledge. It is a type of
discussion where each party has a prejudice for his own view and thus tries to
gather all possible arguments in his favor.
11.
Irrational Reasoning or Vitanda
Irrational reasoning or Vitanda specifically it is
argumentation that is aimed at refuting or destroying an antagonist’s position
and that is not at all concerned with establishing or defending one’s position.
Where as in wrangling both sides seek to establish their own position, in
Vitanda either or both sides tries to refute the other’s position instead of
establishing one’s own.
12. Specious Reasoning
or Hetabhasa
Specious reasoning or Hetabhasa means irrational
argument. This specious reasoning is a fallacy of inference and it is discussed
later in this chapter section on inferences.
13. Unfair Reply
or Chāla
Unfair reply or Chāla here it is used to designate
a statement that is meant to cheat or fool someone. Here one takes a word or
phrase that has been used in a particular sense, pretends to understand it in a
sense other than that which was intended, and then denies the truth of this
deliberate misinterpretation of the original speaker’s words.
14. False Analogy
or Jāti
Generality based on a false analogy or Jāti—as is used
here it is a technical term used to describe a debate in which an unfair reply
or conclusion is based on a false analogy.
15. Grounds
for Defeat or Nigrahasthāna
Grounds for defeat or Nigrahasthāna may be translated
as the grounds on which a person is defeated in his argument. When a proponent
misunderstands his own or his opponent’s premises and their implications, then
he becomes helpless and must eventually admit his defeat in the debate.
16. Pramana
or the Sources of Valid Knowledge
Pramana for short is that through or by which the prama—valid knowledge is received. There
are four distinct fountains of correct knowledge. These are perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumāna), comparison (upamāna) and testimony (śabda). Before discussing these sources
of knowledge, we must first examine the definition of knowledge and the method
of distinguishing correct from false knowledge.
In Nyaya philosophy, knowledge is divided into two
categories namely anubhava or
experiential knowledge and smriti or
memory. The former is received from the four Pramanas referred to above and the
latter which is based on memory is derived from the storehouse of one’s mind
which in turn is also based on anubhava
only as you cannot remember something that you have not experienced. These two
categories can be divided into valid and invalid knowledge. In the language of
Nyaya philosophy, valid experiential knowledge is called prama and nonvalid is called aprama.
Prama can be received through perception, inference, comparison and
testimony. Aprama is divided into doubt (samshaya),
faulty cognition (bhrama) and
hypothetical argument (tarka).
According to Nyaya philosophy, true knowledge is that
which corresponds to the nature of its object, otherwise the knowledge is
false. To perceive a thing in its true nature is true knowledge. Nyaya
philosophy says that validity or invalidity of knowledge depends on its
correspondence or noncorrespondence to the facts. Example it one wants to have
correct knowledge of sugar one tastes it. True knowledge leads a person to
successful practical activity, while false knowledge makes one helpless and
leads to failure / disappointment.
[1] Perception—is knowledge produced by the contacts of
senses with the objects of the world. Nyaya philosophy has several different
systems of classification of perception. There are two kinds of perceptions: laukika (ordinary) and alaukika (extraordinary). If it is the
former then perception is derived from direct contact with a sense object and
the latter when the object is conveyed to the senses through unusual modes—not
directly present to the senses. Modes of perception are either external or
internal. The former are faculties of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell
are involved in bringing the object to the mind. The latter is the Mind that
perceives the quality of the soul like desire, pleasure and pain.
In Nyaya philosophy ordinary perception is divided into
indeterminate (nirvikalpa) or
determinate (savikalpa). The former
is the primary cognition of a thing before a judgment is used to specify
different characteristics. Example when one sees a table; one perceives the
mere existence of the table without comprehending its color or shape. Only upon
further inspection does one recognize that it is round etc. Determinate
perception always precedes indeterminate perception and is always valid
knowledge because it is explicit and definite.
There are three kinds of extraordinary (alaukika) perceptions: perception of
classes (sāmānya lakshana),
perception based on association (jnāna
lakshana) and intuitive perception (yogaja).
The realization that all people are mortal is an instance of the external
perception of classes. A different type of extraordinary perception—association—is
involved when one says something looks delicious or that stone looks hard.
These assertions imply that the taste of food or hardness of stone can be
perceived by the eyes. Nyaya says that the past appearance of touch and taste
are so closely associated with the visual appearance of the causative agents
that whenever the eyes see food the past appearance of taste and touch come
alive. This present perception of taste and touch due to the revival of past
knowledge of the colour of the food is perception based on association. The
third kind of extraordinary perception is called yogaja, the knowledge born of yoga practices. Intuitive knowledge
comes after the mind is cleansed through yogic practices. Those who have
achieved spiritual perfection and perceive intuitive knowledge instantly are
called Yukta yogins. Those who are on the path of the spiritual journey, need
concentration to attain intuitive knowledge are called Yunjan yogins.
[2] Inference—is the process of knowing something
through the medium of a sign or linga that is invariably related to it.
Inference involves the process of analyzing memories, correlations and
uncontaminated arguments. There is a systematic method of testing the validity
of inferential knowledge, for there are always some inseparable constituents to
an inference, and if any of these parts are missing or if there is any defect
in the parts, then the knowledge inferred is invalid.
The Sanskrit word for inference is anumāna that may be defined as ‘the cognition or knowledge that
follows from some other knowledge’. An eg is ‘the hill is on fire because there
is smoke on the hill, and where there is smoke there is fire’. In this case we
perceive smoke on the hill and arrive at the knowledge of the existence of fire
on the hill on the basis of our previous knowledge of the universal
relationship between smoke and fire. Thus, it is apparent that inference is a
process of reasoning in which one passes through certain necessary stages to
reach a conclusion, which is called inferential knowledge. In the process of
inference, one reaches a conclusion regarding a particular fact through the
knowledge of a sign and of the sign’s universal relationship to the conclusion.
In this case the smoke is linga or sign, the relationship between smoke and
fire is known as vyāpti. As a result
of this relationship, knowledge of the fire on the hill arises that is known as
Nirnaya or conclusion.
Three parts of inference: Thus, an inference
contains three parts, the minor term (paksha),
the major term (sādhya) and the
middle term (hetu or linga). In the process of inference, the
first step is the apprehension of smoke (hetu)
on the hill, the second step is the recollection of the universal relationship
between smoke and fire, and the third step is the cognition of fire (sādhya). When used as a formal statement
or verbal expression designed to convince others, however the structure of
inference is changed. The first step will be the predication of the major term
in relation to the minor term. There is fire on the hill. The second step will
be the formation of the middle term in relation to the minor term. There is
visible smoke on the hill. The third step will be the formation of the middle
term in its universal or invariable relationship with the major term. Where
there is smoke, there is fire.
Thus inference may be said to be a syllogism consisting
of atleast three categorical premises. But when one is analyzing the whole
process of an inference, it is necessary to state the inference in a systematic
and comprehensive chain of arguments. One must then state a syllogism in the
form of five premises (avayavas) that
constitute a valid inference—are pratijnā
(fact), hetu (reason), udāharana (example), upanaya (application) and nigamana (conclusion).
To gain a proper understanding of the workings of
logic, it is necessary to examine more closely how a systematic syllogism
functions.
The fallacies of inference are called hetvābhāsa. This term means, a reason (hetu) that appears to be valid but is
not really so. There are five kinds of fallacies namely savyābhichāra, viruddha, satpratipaksha, asiddha and bādhita. The
first means ‘irregular middle’. In a correct inference, the middle term is
uniformly related to the major term. An irregular middle term can lead to a
wrong conclusion. Eg, All Himalayan beings are saints, tigers are Himalayan
beings, and thus tigers are saints. Here there is no relation between the
middle term Himalayan beings and the major term saints, thus the inference is
incorrect.
viruddha, the second kind of fallacy means contradictory
middle. A contradictory middle is one that dismissed the very proposition it is
meant to prove. The third term satpratipaksha
means ‘inferentially contradictory middle’. This type of fallacy arises when
the middle term of an inference is contradicted by the middle term of another
inference that proves a completely opposite fact about the major term. The
fourth type of fallacy is asiddha, an
unproved middle. In this type of fallacy, the middle term is not an established
fact but is an unproved assumption. The fifth is bādhita, a noninferentially contradicted middle. Here the middle is
contradicted by some other source of knowledge.
[3] Comparison—According to Nyaya, comparison is the
third valid source of experiential knowledge. This kind of knowledge comes when
one perceives the similarity between the description of an unfamiliar object
and its actual appearance before one’s senses. For example, suppose that a
trustworthy person has told you that there is such a thing as a crabapple that
looks like a regular red apple but is smaller and has a longer stem. One day in
the woods you come across upon a tree bearing fruit that you have never seen
before but reminds you of apples. You remember your friend’s description of
crabapple tree, and you come to the conclusion that this must be a crabapple
tree.
This source of knowledge, upamāna, is not recognized as valid in many other systems of
philosophy. The Charvaka system of philosophy, for instance does not accept
this as a source of knowledge, because this system maintains that perception is
the sole source of valid knowledge. The Buddhist system of philosophy
recognizes Upamana as a valid source of knowledge but regards it as a mere
compound of perception and testimony. The Vaisheshika and Samkhya systems
explain upamāna as simply a form of
inference, and the Jaina system maintains that it merely a kind of recognition.
The Mimamsa and Vedanta systems agree with Nyaya in considering upamāna as an independent source of
knowledge, but they explain it in a different way, which will be discussed
later.
[4] Testimony—or śabda
means ‘word’, it is the knowledge of objects derived from words and sentences,
and according to Nyaya, the fourth and final source of valid experiential
knowledge. Not all-verbal knowledge is valid. In Nyaya philosophy, śabda is defined as the statement of an āpta, a person who speaks and acts the
way he thinks. Such a person’s mind, action and speech are in perfect harmony,
and he is therefore accepted as an authority. Thus his verbal or written
statement is considered to be a valid source of knowledge. The Veda is
considered to be the expression of certain venerable aptas, great sages who
realized the truth within and who transmitted their experiences into words.
The validity of verbal knowledge depends upon two
conditions, one the meaning of the statement must be clearly understood and two
the statement must be the expression of a trustworthy person ie an āpta.
The Nyaya system gives a detailed description of the
nature of śabda because testimony is
considered to be a valid source of knowledge and should thus be analyzed
thoroughly. In a testimony words and sentences are used—but what is a sentence,
what is a word, what is the nature of their construction. A sentence is a group
of words arranged in a certain manner and word as a group of letters arranged
in a specific order. The essential nature of any word lied in its meaning, and
there must be specific rules governing the arrangement of words in the
formation of sentences. Without rules the words of a trustworthy person could
be misconstrued.
The Potency of Words—the Nyaya system states that all
words are significant symbols and that all words have the capacity to designate
their respective objects. This capacity of words is called sakti or potency and
in the N system, potency is said to be the will of God. The ordering of words
in a sentence is very important. Further Nyaya maintains that there are four factors
that are essential in the proper functioning of sentences and without which
they cannot express the intended meaning. These are ākāmkshā (expectancy), yogyatā
(fitness), sannidhi (proximity) and tātparya (intention).
ākāmksa means expectancy, is the quality by which all the
words in a sentence imply or expect one another, it is the need that each word
has for the other words in a sentence. Expectancy is the interdependence of the
words in a sentence for expressing a complete meaning.
Yogyata means fitness, refers to the appropriateness of
words in a sentence, to the absence of contradiction in its terms. Although
sentences may be grammatically correct, they do not express valid knowledge.
Sannidhi means proximity is very important words to be
used within the limits of an appropriate time and space.
tātparya means intention and it refers to the meaning one
intends a sentence to convey. A word may have various meanings depending on its
context, so one has to be careful to determine the real intention of the person
who uses the word. Because of the unique nature of Sanskrit language and its
symbolic usages, the Veda and related ancient religio-philosophical scriptures
are full of this kind of complexity and in determinability of intention. In
order to clarify this and understand the Vedic testimony properly, Nyaya
recommends that one study Mimamsa philosophy because it provides systematized
rules and interpretations for understanding the real meaning of the Veda.
The Concept
of an Individual Soul
There are different concepts of the soul among the
various schools of Indian philosophy. The Charvaka system states that the soul
consists of the living physical body and its attributes. According to the
Buddhists, there is no soul. Buddhism teaches that the stream of ever changing
thoughts and feelings is the ultimate reality. This may be termed as soul, but
it is not considered to be a permanent entity, as is maintained by other
philosophies.
According to the concept of soul held by Nyaya and Vaisheshika
systems, the soul is a unique substance, of which all desires, aversions,
pleasures, pains and cognitions are qualities. The soul is indestructible and
its attribute is consciousness. Because it is not limited by time and space,
the soul is also seen as infinite or pervading. There are many souls, because
one person’s experience does not overlap those of another person, one’s
experience is completely distinct from any others.
Nyaya gave various arguments to prove the existence of
the soul. It first argues that the body is not soul because immaterial
consciousness cannot be said to be an attribute of the material body, which in
itself in unconscious and unintelligent. Neither can the functioning of the
senses explain the process of imagination, memory and ideation. The mind cannot
be the soul because the mind is considered to be an imperceptible substance.
Nor can the soul, as the Buddhists maintain, be identified as the ever-changing
series of cognitions. In sum, the soul is not consciousness, but is a substance
having consciousness as its attribute.
The soul experiences the external world through the
mind and senses. All the cognitions and conscious states arise in the soul,
when the soul is related to the mind, the mind to the senses, and the senses to
the external objects. It is because of this sequential contact that the whole
process actuates. How can one know whether there is such a thing as an
individual soul? The Nyaya system answers that the soul is not known by sensory
perception but rather by inference or testimony. The existence of the soul in
inferred from the functions of desire, aversion and volition, from the
sensations of pain and pleasure, and from memories of these. These memories
cannot be explained unless one admits a permanent soul that has experienced
pain and pleasure in relation to certain objects in the past. One’s own soul
can be known through mental perception, but someone’s soul in another body can
only be inferred.
The Concept
of Liberation
Like other systems of Indian philosophy, the Nyaya
system maintains that the ultimate goal of human life is to attain liberation
which means ‘absolute freedom from all pain and misery’. This means a state
where the soul is completely released from all bondage and from its connection
with the body.
To attain the state of liberation, one has to acquire
true knowledge of the soul and of all the objects of experience. This knowledge
is called tattvajnāna, that means, to
‘know reality as completely distinct from unreality’. Nyaya systems prescribe a
threefold path for reaching the goal of liberating knowledge. One is sravana, the study of scriptures.
Besides studying the scriptures one has to listen to authoritative persons and
saints. Following this, one must use his own reasoning powers to ponder over
what he has learnt. This process of rumination is called manana. Finally, one must contemplate on the soul, confirm his
knowledge and practice that truth in life. This is called nididhyāsana. Through this a person realizes that the true nature
of the soul is totally different from the body, mind, senses and all other
objects of the world. The truth realized within dispels the darkness of
self-identification and misunderstanding considering ‘I-ness and Thy-ness’.
When this happens a person begins to perform his duties
selflessly without having any desire to reap the fruits of action. The fire of
knowledge roasts one’s past karmas like seeds, thereby making them unable to
germinate. Thus, true knowledge leads a person to the state where there is no
cycle of birth and death. This state is called liberation.
The Concept
of God
According to Nyaya, God is considered to be the
efficient cause of creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe. God
does not create the world out of nothing or out of himself but rather out of
eternal atoms of space, time, mind and soul. The creation of the universe
refers to the ordering of these central entities, which are in coexistence with
God, into a mortal world. Thus, God as the first efficient cause of the
universal forces is the creator of the world. And God is also the preserver, as
he causes the atoms to hold together and continue their existence in a
particular order that maintains the physical universe. God is also called the
destroyer, because he lets loose the forces of destruction when the energies of
the mortal world require it. God is one, infinite and eternal, and the universe
of space, time, of mind and soul, does not limit him. God is said to possess
six perfections, infinite glory, absolute sovereignty, unqualified virtue,
supreme beauty, perfect knowledge and complete detachment.
Nyaya provides a few arguments to establish the theory
of God. The first is the causal argument. According to this line of reasoning,
the entire universe is formed by the combination of atoms. Mountains, fields,
rivers, etc must have a cause, for they are made up of parts, have limited
dimensions and are not intelligent. This being so, they cannot be the cause
themselves and require the guidance of an intelligent cause. That cause must
have direct knowledge of all matter and of the atoms that underline all matter.
He must be omnipresent and omniscient. This entity cannot be the soul because
it does not have the knowledge of other souls. Therefore, there must be an
ultimate intelligent entity, which is termed as God.
The second argument is based on adŗshta, that means, ‘the unseen or the unknown’ and may be
translated as providence of fate. Nyaya system inquires as to why some people
are happy while others unhappy. It is the law of karma, which governs the life
of every individual soul, requires that every human being must reap the fruits
of his own actions. There is often a long interval of time between an actions
and its effect, however, and many pleasures cannot be traced to any action
performed in this life. Likewise many actions performed in this life do not
produce fruits immediately. The sum total of all the puņya (good deeds) and pāpa
(bad deeds) are collected in the soul is called adŗshta or fate and this produces present pain and pleasure. Adrsta
is not an intelligent principle and must be guided by some intelligent agent to
the proper consequences. That intelligent agent, who guides, directs adŗshta through proper channels to
produce proper consequences is called God.
A third argument for God is based on scriptural
testimony. According to this reasoning, the Veda—Upanishads and all other
authoraritive scriptures state the existence of God. These scriptures were
written by great sages who had experienced the truth within. Thus, the
authority of testimony depends on direct experience, which is the only source
of knowledge about any and all facts. The Veda is the expressions of such
direct experiences of God. Therefore, God exists.