Some key ideas in Hindu ethics are: 1. One should do one’s duty regardless of consequences. 2. One should follow the path of the sage king Janaka who acted ceaselessly, selflessly and wisely for the welfare of the subjects. 3. One should act for the common good. 4. All that one does, eats, sacrifices, donates or purifies one should offer to God. One should build the character to look at a confidant, a friend, an enemy, an indifferent person, an impartial (...) person, a harmful person, a benefactor, an honest person and an evil person in the same way. One should build the character to see everyone in oneself and oneself in everyone. One should build the character to take victory and defeat, pleasure and pain and praise and insult in the same way. It is argued in the paper that these ideas may provide the foundations of a comprehensive and cohesive ethical theory that may offer solutions to some of the serious problems in the classical ethical theories of Aristotle, Kant and Mill. (shrink)

It is argued that efforts by Plato, Bradley, Cook Wilson, Bergson, Russell, Prabhakara, etc. to reduce negation to affirmation or negative predicates to positive predicates fail: the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of negative entities deserves serious consideration. Important evidence for negative entities comes from perception such as that there is no book on the table: this testifies to the existence of absence of the book on the table as an indispensable negative entity. Such perception is not set aside by compelling counterevidence, is (...) reliable and justifies admitting negative entities on grounds of simplicity. A negative entity presupposes awareness of the negatum and differs as the negata differ but may be the same in different loci, e.g. the same absence of the book may be on the table and the floor. Negative entities are of four kinds: prior absence, posterior absence, absolute absence and difference of one thing from another thing. (shrink)

The concept of svabhavahetu is a major contribution of Dharmakirti to Buddhist logic. In such a case the invariable relation of pervasion between the probans and the probandum is based on identity or non-difference. This implies, according to our interpretation, that some general statements are true by virtue of meaning but are not devoid of content. This disagrees with the view of many recent philosophers who hold that statements true by virtue of meaning are devoid of content. We explain that (...) svabhava general statements are true by virtue of meaning in the sense that the grounds for calling something by the name of the probandum are the same as some or all of those for calling something by the name of the probans. We explain how such general statements differ from general statements based on causation as also the threefold classification of svabhava general statements. (shrink)

Definition is an important scientific and philosophical method. In all kinds of scientific and philosophical inquiries definition is provided to make clear the characteristics of the things under investigation. Definition in this sense, sometimes called real definition, should state the essence of the thing defined, according to Aristotle. In another (currently popular) sense, sometimes called nominal definition, definition explicates the meaning of a term already in use in an ordinary language or the scientific discourse or specifies the meaning of a (...) new term introduced in an ordinary language of the scientific discourse. Definition combines the purposes of both real and nominal definition and is promoted by the Nyaya philosophers of India. Another important method of science and philosophy is induction. In a narrow sense induction is a method of generalization to all cases from the observation of particular cases. In a broad sense induction is a method for reasoning from some observed fact to a different fact not involved in the former. We understand induction in the broad sense though more often we shall actually be concerned with induction in the narrow sense. How can our limited experience of nature provide the rational basis for making knowlege claims about unobserved phenomena? (shrink)

The classical Indian school called Nyāya (literally “logic” or “right reasoning”), is arguably the leading anti-skeptical tradition within all of Indian philosophy. Defending a realist metaphysics and an epistemology of “knowledge sources” (pramāṇa), its responses to skepticism are often appropriated by other schools of thought. This paper examines its responses to skeptical arguments from dreams, from “the three times,” from justificatory regress, and over the problem of induction.

The concept of svabhavahetu is a major contribution of Dharmakirti to Buddhist logic. In such a case the invariable relation of pervasion between the probans and the probandum is based on identity or non-difference. This implies, according to our interpretation, that some general statements are true by virtue of meaning but are not devoid of content. This disagrees with the view of many recent philosophers who hold that statements true by virtue of meaning are devoid of content. We explain that (...) svabhava general statements are true by virtue of meaning in the sense that the grounds for calling something by the name of the probandum are the same as some or all of those for calling something by the name of the probans. We explain how such general statements differ from general statements based on causation as also the threefold classification of svabhava general statements. (shrink)

The problem of induction : East and West -- The later Nyaya solution -- The method of generalization : Vyaptigrahopayah -- Counterfactual reasoning : Tarkah -- Universal based extraordinary perception : Samanyalaksanapratyaksa -- Earlier views of adjuncts : Upadhivadah -- The accepted view of adjuncts : Upadhivadasiddhantah -- Classification of adjuncts : Upadhivibhagah -- Sriharsa's Khandanakhandakhadyam on pervasion -- Selected passages from Prabhacandra's Prameyakamalamartanda on critique of pervasion and inference -- Selections from Dharmakirti's Nyayabindu on non-perception as a probans.

One approaching a thing from a distance may perceive it as existent, then as a substance, then as a tree and, finally, as a fig tree. Thus, the same fig tree can be the object of all these different perceptions. This shows, Udayana argues, that difference in cognitive states does not necessarily prove that their objects are different. This argument is in response to the Buddhist claim that since perceptual cognitive states and non-perceptual cognitive states are different, their respective objects (...) are also different; unique particulars that alone are real, are grasped in perception; general features that are not real are grasped in non-perceptual cognitive states. The Buddhist objects: when the same thing appears to be the object of different cognitive states, only that cognitive state which leads to useful result is reliable. Udayana replies: More than one cognitive state in the above situation may lead to useful result; it is not justified to accept only one of them as reliable and reject the others. The Buddhist objects again: perceptual awareness is direct but non-perceptual awareness is indirect: hence their objects are different. Udayana replies: The same thing may be perceived when there is sensory connection with it and then inferred from an invariably connected sign when there is no sensory connection. Thus, the same thing may be the object of both direct and indirect cognitive states depending on different causal conditions. (shrink)

The paper has two main parts. The first part is devoted to the traditional Hindu viewpoint on the existence and permanence of the self as an immaterial substance. Various arguments offered by Hindu philosophers against the materialist view that the body is the self as well as arguments against the Buddhist view of the self as a stream of constantly changing states are discussed critically with reference to recent philosophical perspectives. The second part is devoted to the doctrine of karma (...) and rebirth. A number of traditional arguments for the doctrine are studied analytically and critically as well as relevance of the doctrine for addressing the problem of evil that for many is a serious issue facing the creationist position. Finally, the major arguments of Plato who also held that the self is eternal and goes through reincarnation are critiqued from a comparative standpoint. (shrink)

Some key ideas in Hindu ethics are: 1. One should do one’s duty regardless of consequences. 2. One should follow the path of the sage king Janaka who acted ceaselessly, selflessly and wisely for the welfare of the subjects. 3. One should act for the common good. 4. All that one does, eats, sacrifices, donates or purifies one should offer to God. One should build the character to look at a confidant, a friend, an enemy, an indifferent person, an impartial (...) person, a harmful person, a benefactor, an honest person and an evil person in the same way. One should build the character to see everyone in oneself and oneself in everyone. One should build the character to take victory and defeat, pleasure and pain and praise and insult in the same way. It is argued in the paper that these ideas may provide the foundations of a comprehensive and cohesive ethical theory that may offer solutions to some of the serious problems in the classical ethical theories of Aristotle, Kant and Mill. (shrink)

In an episode in the Bhagavadgita Arjuna refuses to fight that would involve killing his teachers, elders, relatives and friends. Krishna argues that he should fight because it is the special duty of a soldier to fight in a just war, one should do one’s duty regardless of the consequences, one should act for the common good, one should build an unwavering character taking victory and defeat, pleasure and pain, friend and foe in the same way, etc. Some of these (...) reasons may be taken to promote deontology, others utilitarianism, yet others virtue ethics that are often viewed contemporarily as incompatible ethical theories. We argue that these three theories are not necessarily incompatible and may be linked to three sides of human nature: deontology to cognitivity, utilitarianism to dynamism and virtue ethics to affectivity. We also argue that Krishna may be taken to promote ethical pluralism just as he may be taken to promote religious pluralism by recommending the path of knowledge, the path of action and the path of devotion from an inclusive perspective. (shrink)

The Buddhist offers an inference from the Nyaya standpoint to prove that universals are not positive entities but are differences from others: Cow-ness is difference from non-cows because it has both positive and negative features. Whatever has both positive and negative features is nothing but difference from others. Thus, not being measurable has the positive feature of being related to time and the negative feature of not being prior absence and is nothing but difference from being measurable. Cow-ness too has (...) the positive feature of being, say, eternal and the negative feature, say, of not being horse-ness. So, cow-ness is nothing but difference from non-cows and so on, mutatis mutandis, for other universals. Udayana objects that this inference is unsound from the Buddhist standpoint: Self-differentiating unique particulars that alone are real for the Buddhists are not measurable; but these are not taken to be mere difference from others that is a non-entity for these are taken to be real. (shrink)

It is argued that efforts by Plato, Bradley, Cook Wilson, Bergson, Russell, Prabhakara, etc. to reduce negation to affirmation or negative predicates to positive predicates fail: the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of negative entities deserves serious consideration. Important evidence for negative entities comes from perception such as that there is no book on the table: this testifies to the existence of absence of the book on the table as an indispensable negative entity. Such perception is not set aside by compelling counterevidence, is (...) reliable and justifies admitting negative entities on grounds of simplicity. A negative entity presupposes awareness of the negatum and differs as the negata differ but may be the same in different loci, e.g. the same absence of the book may be on the table and the floor. Negative entities are of four kinds: prior absence, posterior absence, absolute absence and difference of one thing from another thing. (shrink)

Grammarian philosophers in India hold that although there is much in language that is conventional and at the surface level languages are different, there is a deep structure that is common to the languages, independent of human convention and eternal. It is argued that if there is objective knowledge that is universal and necessary, it must be independent of human authorship that can only provide subjective and fallible opinion; similarly, language as the vehicle of universal and necessary knowledge must also (...) be independent of human agency and eternal. Further, meanings cannot be identified with forms or individuals and can only be universals that are changeless and eternal without which, again, universal and necessary knowledge is impossible. It is also argued that both language and consciousness are unnegatable and all pervasive, are ultimately non-different and constitute the essence of the self that too is unnegatable, all pervasive and eternal. (shrink)

This article explains precisely in what sense the Nyaya philosophers promote a correspondence theory regarding the nature of truth. It also explains how truth may be inferred from successful effort and argues that successful effort can be produced only by true awareness. While successful effort is the major test of truth, other tests of truth in the Nyaya view should be recognized as and when appropriate. Thus, that if the pervaded belongs to something, the pervader too belongs to that thing (...) may be known to be true by the mind alone without reference to the inferential test of truth. Truth is in most cases extrinsic in the sense that truth of an awareness is determined with reference to another awareness. This does not lead to a vicious infinite regress; in some cases, as in the pervaded-pevader case or in the case there is cognition where there can be no cognition that there is cognition unless there is cognition, truth is intrinsic and may be determined without reference to another awareness. (shrink)

Counterinference is one of five kinds of pseudo-prover recognized in the Nyaaya school. Typically in counterinference while one side seeks to prove the thesis that a probandum belongs to an inferential subject because an inferential mark pervaded by the probandum belongs to that subject, an opponent challenges that by arguing that the probandum does not belong to the inferential subject because another inferential mark pervaded by absence of the probandum belongs to that subject. A common example is: sound is eternal, (...) since it is audible and audibility is pervaded by eternality ; but sound is non-eternal, since it is originated and all that is originated is non-eternal, like a pot, etc. Critics from other philosophical schools have objected that counterinference is not an additional kind of pseudo-prover. Since it is impossible for an inferential subject both to have and not to have a probandum, either at least one of the inferential marks does not belong to the inferential subject or at least one of the inferential marks lacks pervasion and, accordingly, counterinference should be subsumed under those fallacies. Nyaaya philosophers have responded by pointing out that the formal structure of counterinference is different from that of the other fallacies: in counterinference we have two different inferential marks but not in the other candidates. The epistemic result of counterinference is also different from that of the other fallacies mentioned, it is argued further. Moreover, it is contended that the epistemic result is not doubt as specifically understood in Nyaaya but desire to know the truth about the chosen inferential mark and the probandum. Accordingly, counterinference may be explained as that which provides the ground for inquiring what is the truth about the original inferential mark and its probandum due to presentation of an inferential assimilation that contradicts the original inferential assimilation. The discussion yields also a broader normative principle that contradiction or counterproof provides the epistemic ground for further inquiry even if there is proof. The selection is from the Tattva-cintaa-maNi, the canonical Navya-Nyaaya work of GaMgesha. The selection is from a large work and presupposes some things explained elsewhere in the text. Further, though written with great precision the work paradoxically belongs to the old Indian philosophical oral tradition in which a beginner is expected to read it with the help of additional information supplied by an expert. Hence paying close attention to what is implied in the context and supplementing certain ideas is necessary for interpretation and understanding. (shrink)

In an episode in the Bhagavadgita Arjuna refuses to fight that would involve killing his teachers, elders, relatives and friends. Krishna argues that he should fight because it is the special duty of a soldier to fight in a just war, one should do one’s duty regardless of the consequences, one should act for the common good, one should build an unwavering character taking victory and defeat, pleasure and pain, friend and foe in the same way, etc. Some of these (...) reasons may be taken to promote deontology, others utilitarianism, yet others virtue ethics that are often viewed contemporarily as incompatible ethical theories. We argue that these three theories are not necessarily incompatible and may be linked to three sides of human nature: deontology to cognitivity, utilitarianism to dynamism and virtue ethics to affectivity. We also argue that Krishna may be taken to promote ethical pluralism just as he may be taken to promote religious pluralism by recommending the path of knowledge, the path of action and the path of devotion from an inclusive perspective. (shrink)

This paper deals with psycho-physical dualism as developed by Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers. It is argued that internal states like pleasure, desire, etc. that are directly observable only by one’s own self and not by others and thus are private are not bodily states that are directly observable by one’s own self and others and thus are public. Common experiences such as I am happy, I want this, etc. testify, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, that desire, etc. belong (...) to the self. The self is not only non-physical but also a permanent substance contrary to the Buddhist-Humean view that there are only fleeting internal states and no abiding self. Desire, etc. presuppose that the person who experienced something in the past remembers it now and desires it so that the agent of previous experience and later remembrance is the same continuant person. (shrink)

In an episode in the Bhagavadgita Arjuna refuses to fight that would involve killing his teachers, elders, relatives and friends. Krishna argues that he should fight because it is the special duty of a soldier to fight in a just war, one should do one’s duty regardless of the consequences, one should act for the common good, one should build an unwavering character taking victory and defeat, pleasure and pain, friend and foe in the same way, etc. Some of these (...) reasons may be taken to promote deontology, others utilitarianism, yet others virtue ethics that are often viewed contemporarily as incompatible ethical theories. We argue that these three theories are not necessarily incompatible and may be linked to three sides of human nature: deontology to cognitivity, utilitarianism to dynamism and virtue ethics to affectivity. We also argue that Krishna may be taken to promote ethical pluralism just as he may be taken to promote religious pluralism by recommending the path of knowledge, the path of action and the path of devotion from an inclusive perspective. (shrink)

The Buddhist argues that when two cognitive states are different, their objects are also different. For example, awareness of a pot is different from awareness of a cloth and their objects are different as well. Based on the pervasion that no two different cognitive states have the same object the Buddhist claims that the objects of inference and testimony on the one hand are different from the objects of perception on the other. That is, what is perceived is never the (...) same as what is inferred or learnt from testimony. This lends support to the Buddhist position that only unique particulars that are grasped in perception are real; what are grasped in inference or testimony are not unique particulars and, accordingly, are not real. Udayana’s critique of the above position is explained and analyzed. (shrink)

In the Nyaya view a causal condition is a non-superfluous invariable antecedent of the effect. Does this mean that causality for the Nyaya is a necessary connection as some scholars suggest? No. Invariable antecedence means that a causal condition is not the negatum of any absolute absence in the locus of the effect immediately before the latter’s origin. Non-superfluity means fulfilling requirements of economy three main kinds of which are economy in constitution, economy in relation and economy in cognitive order. (...) None of the above jointly or severally involve necessity. (shrink)

It is argued that efforts by Plato, Bradley, Cook Wilson, Bergson, Russell, Prabhakara, etc. to reduce negation to affirmation or negative predicates to positive predicates fail: the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of negative entities deserves serious consideration. Important evidence for negative entities comes from perception such as that there is no book on the table: this testifies to the existence of absence of the book on the table as an indispensable negative entity. Such perception is not set aside by compelling counterevidence, is (...) reliable and justifies admitting negative entities on grounds of simplicity. A negative entity presupposes awareness of the negatum and differs as the negata differ but may be the same in different loci, e.g. the same absence of the book may be on the table and the floor. Negative entities are of four kinds: prior absence, posterior absence, absolute absence and difference of one thing from another thing. (shrink)

Some key ideas in Hindu ethics are: 1. One should do one’s duty regardless of consequences. 2. One should follow the path of the sage king Janaka who acted ceaselessly, selflessly and wisely for the welfare of the subjects. 3. One should act for the common good. 4. All that one does, eats, sacrifices, donates or purifies one should offer to God. One should build the character to look at a confidant, a friend, an enemy, an indifferent person, an impartial (...) person, a harmful person, a benefactor, an honest person and an evil person in the same way. One should build the character to see everyone in oneself and oneself in everyone. One should build the character to take victory and defeat, pleasure and pain and praise and insult in the same way. It is argued in the paper that these ideas may provide the foundations of a comprehensive and cohesive ethical theory that may offer solutions to some of the serious problems in the classical ethical theories of Aristotle, Kant and Mill. (shrink)

Some key ideas in Hindu ethics are: 1. One should do one’s duty regardless of consequences. 2. One should follow the path of the sage king Janaka who acted ceaselessly, selflessly and wisely for the welfare of the subjects. 3. One should act for the common good. 4. All that one does, eats, sacrifices, donates or purifies one should offer to God. One should build the character to look at a confidant, a friend, an enemy, an indifferent person, an impartial (...) person, a harmful person, a benefactor, an honest person and an evil person in the same way. One should build the character to see everyone in oneself and oneself in everyone. One should build the character to take victory and defeat, pleasure and pain and praise and insult in the same way. It is argued in the paper that these ideas may provide the foundations of a comprehensive and cohesive ethical theory that may offer solutions to some of the serious problems in the classical ethical theories of Aristotle, Kant and Mill. (shrink)