Scientific Nyaya Philosophy vs Unscientific Advaita

by Guest Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:04 pm

Vatsyayana's introduction to his commentary to the Nyaya Sutra is as follows:

"Successful activity results when the object is cognised by the 'instrument of valid knowledge' (pramana). Hence the instrument of valid knowledge is invariably connected to the object.

There is no cognition of object without the instrument of valid knowledge; without cognition of object there is no successful activity. On being aware of the object with the help of the instrument of knowledge, the knower wants either to get it or avoid it. His specific effort prompted by the desire of either getting or avoiding the object is called activity, whose success, again, lies in its invariable connection with the result (phala). "One who thus exerts", being desirous of getting or avoiding the object, either gets it or avoids it. By object is meant pleasure and its cause as well as suffering and its cause. Those objects of pramana are innumerable because the species of living beings are innumerable.

Since pramana is invariably related to the object, pramatr, prameya and pramiti too, become invariably related to the object. How is it so? Because in the absence of the formeost of these (viz. pramana) the right knowledge of the object is not possible. Of these, pramatr means one who being guided by the desire to seek or shun objects is led to activity. Pramana is the instrument by which the knower rightly knows the object. Prameya is the object rightly known. Pramiti is the right knowledge of the object. With these four, tattva reaches its fulfilment.

What, then, is tattva? It means the positivety of the positive (sat or bhava) and the negativety of the negative (asat or abhava). When a positive object is known as positive i.e. as it actually is rather than as its contradictory, it becomes the tattva (of sat or bhava). Again when a negative object is known as negative i.e. in its actual nature rather than as its contradictory, it becomes the tattva (of asat or abhava).

But how can the latter (i.e. the negative or asat) be known by a pramana? Because, when with the help of a lamp the object which exists is known, so also the object that does not exist is also known (i.e. is known as not existing or nasti). Just as with the help of lamp, the visible object is seen by the observer, similarly that which is not perceived is known as not existent; it would have been known like that (i.e. the visible object) if it were there; it is known as not existent because there is no perception of it. Thus, when a positive object is known by a pramana, that which at that time is is not known is known as not existent.If it were there, it would have been known just like that (i.e. the positive object or sat). It is known as not existent because it is not perceived.

Therefore, in this way, the pramana which reveals the existent reveals also the non-existent."

-----
Given below are part of Sankara's introduction to his commentary to the Vedanta Sutra(its too long to be quoted in full, but i quote the relevant part). Sankara's commentary is popularly known as Vedanta bhasya, and his introduction to this commentary is popularly known as Adhyasa bhasya--Adhyasa meaning "superimposition" i.e. the imaginary projection of something on something else e.g. seeing a snake in a rope, or seeing water in a mirage, or seeing a man in a post when seeing from a distance, etc.

According to the essence of Upanisadic wisdom, as interpreted by Sankara, the ultimate reality is the pure self, or the "subject" or "knower" in an absolute sense--so absolute that anything belonging to the category of "object" ceases to have a reality of its own. Any superimpostion of the object on the subject or of the subject on the object is due to ignorance ( avidya ) according to Sankara. However, everything understood as pramana (valid sources of knowledge like perception, inference, and verbal testimony) presupposes such a superimposition. The solution--as Sankara proposes--is thus to scrap all talk of pramana itself. I quote from the adhyasa bhasya :

"The mutual superimposition (adhyasa) of the self and not-self, which is termed ignorance (avidya) is the presupposition on which there is base all practical distinctions--those made in the ordinarly life as well as laid down by the Veda--between instrument of right knowledge (pramana), object of right knowledge (prameya) and all scriptural texts, whether they are concerned with injunctions, prohibitions or liberations--But (it will be objected) how can the instruments of right knowledge, such as perception, inference, etc. and scriptural texts have for their object that which is dependedent on ignorance (avidya)? --Because, we reply, the instrument of right knowledge cannot operate unless there be a knowing personality, and because the existence of the latter depends on the erroneous notion of the body, the senses, and so on, are identical with or belong to the self of the knowing person. For without the employment of the senses, perception and other instruments of right knowledge, cannot operate. And without a basis (i.e. the body) the senses cannot act. Nor does anybody act by means of a body on which the nature of the self is not superimposed. Nor can, in the absence of that, the self which, in its own nature is free from all contact, become a knowing agent. And if there is no knowing agent, the instrument of right knowledge cannot operate. Hence perception and the other instruments of right knowledge, and the Vedic texts, have for their object that which is dependent on ignorance (avidya)."

One thing about this rather sweeping condemnation of all valid sources of knowledge should immediately be noted--Sankar is even denying validity to scriptural knowledge (since he claims a knowledge of the scriptures is also based on ignorance). Now it so happens that this kind of talk is self-contradictory because his own view has ultimately one sanction--and that is the scriptures themselves, as he himself states elsewhere in his commentary to the Vedanta sutra (ii.1.11). How this contradiction is resolved by his followers is a different matter. What is important to note is that the pramanas are summarily dismissed by him due to their being based ultimately on ignorance.

http://creative.sulekha.com/nyaya-vs-advaita-science-vs-nonsense_325374_blog