civilizational ardour

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>
>My text on NyAya has the SUtrAs together with the bhAshyam and vArtikam.
>Having read the Vaiseshika first I was of the opinion the same followed
>with
>NyAya. Let me check it up. Or if you can clarify, all the better.

Although the two systems are extremely close to each other in content and in
history of development, nyAya is not parasitic upon vai;se.sika. It has
certain independent themes and foci of discussion.

Check nyAyasUtras 4. 1. 19-21, and vAtsyAyana's corresponding bhAshya, where
there is a discussion of causality, bringing in the notion of I;svara. It
has been said that it is difficult to identify what is the pUrvapak.sa and
what is the siddhAnta in this portion of the sUtras, but vAtsyAyana offers
one plausible interpretation. It is also often forgotten that the sUtras
themselves have a history of philosophical argumentation behind them.
Whether it is the objector or the author of the sUtras who argues for
I;svara, the fact remains that in its very beginnings, nyAya thought
discusses this issue. Of course, one should not expect an argument for
monotheism, as such an expectation is quite prejudicial to a fair
description of early nyAya. In later times, it is udayana, the naiyyAyika,
who provides some of the most extensive arguments for the existence of
I;svara.

See also sUtras 4. 1. 59-60, where the age-old concept of .r.na-traya is
discussed, in the context of mok.sa.

Vidyasankar

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com