Questions on Indian Philosophy

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Satya Upadhya <satya_upadhya at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>I have read a fairly detailed analysis of Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya,  as
>to
>why Charvaks did in fact accept inference as a pramana, and that the claim
>of them accepting only perception is incorrect.
>
>I would like to hear the views on this by other members of this forum.

Have you read the book _Carvaka/Lokayata_, by Debiprasad
Chattopadhyaya and Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya (Indian
Council of Philosophical Research, 1990)? We know very
little about the Carvaka school, and there is not much
anyone can add to the material in it.

>
>-Satya
>
>p.s. Am i right in concluding that the Mimansak philosophers, at least
>originally, were atheists? Kumarila Bhatta (and I am sure Prabhakar, and
>other Mimansaks as well) has certainly written extensively as to why he
>rejects the idea of God, and yet this fact is in fact glossed over by many
>modern writers.

If you have a monotheistic idea of a being, spelled G o d,
you won't find it. If you are prepared to think of many
beings, spelled G o d s, then the Mimamsaka has a place
for them. Specifically, the sound of the invoking mantra
is itself the form of the G o d, and for the Mimamsaka,
sound is eternal. Note also that Kumarila begins his texts
with an invocation to Siva. What he rejects is the notion
of an omniscient being as the creator of the universe.
"Theistic" and "atheistic" are wrong adjectives to use in
this context. As for modern writers, it depends on whom
you choose to read. Whom do you have in mind?

>p.p.s. Furthermore, am i correct to conclude that the Nyaya-Vaisesik
>philosophies were originally atheistic? After all, God never occurs in the
>Vaisesik Sutra, and it occurs only once in the Nyaya Sutra. And when it
>does
>occur that one time (in the Nyaya Sutra), it can be shown that the sutra
>which contains the word "God" is in the form of a "purvapaksa". What are
>your views on this?

To understand Indian philosophical texts, you need to
go at least a little beyond words, and take a look at
sentences, the logical progression of the argument etc.
A pUrvapaksha is first stated and discussed, but the
uttarapaksha/siddhAnta need not reject all aspects of
the pUrvapaksha. There may even be partial agreement,
or a small clarification of the final position.

Much has been written about this particular issue in
the nyAya sUtra. Read B. K. Matilal's books on Nyaya,
for the best discussions of it.

Vidyasankar

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

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.