Date of Udhayana

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>But again for the Miimaamsaka other kinds of knowledge are
>not intrinsically valid - like the testimony of wise men,

svataH pramANa has a flip side to it - parataH apramANa. As
I said, I was being brief, so I had to bring it down to the
rudimentary details.

>So the stress is basically on validating knowledge itself and
>does not relate to proving things by logic.

How do you validate knowledge itself, without getting into
the nature of proof?

>If what you say is true even earlier NaiyAyikas should have
>done the same thing. But we see neither Gautama nor VAtsyAyana
>or UdhyotakAra fighting for the cause. And also NyAya along

I can only say, read the nyAya sUtras, bhAshya and vArttika.
Specifically, sUtras 2. 1. 58-69, 2. 2. 13-21, and the comments
by vAtsyAyana and uddyotakara (note the spelling) thereon.

>with Vaishesika believes in adhrsta or the unseen power which
>moves the world. How can you provide logical arguments for such

Aiyo, Rama! Is it too much to expect that one who wishes to
discuss these things should first read about them? The nyAya
and vaiSeshika views of ad.r.s.ta are quite different. And
within nyAya itself, you find changes in its meaning over time.

>From ontology we move to logical method and is this where
>NyAya has influenced Advaita? This doesn't cut too much ice

Has anybody said that advaita ontology is the same as nyAya
ontology? Or should we insist that unless two schools of
thought share a similar ontology, there is no influence of
one on the other?

Vidyasankar
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com