[INDOLOGY] nyaya and regress

[Howard Resnick]

Sincere thanks to Aleksandar, Matthew, Victor, Eli and Nagaraj for this very helpful and very swift help! Your generosity is much appreciated.

Howard
 
> On Jun 4, 2024, at 5:46 AM, Matthew Kapstein <mattkapstein at proton.me> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Howard,
> 
> The questions you ask are large ones and a thorough answer would require reference to large swathes of work on the Indian logical and epistemological systems. For some broad indications that others may wish to fill in:
> 
> The Nyāyakos'a, p. 29, has a short entry on anavasthā, which is usually treated as the technical designation for the regress. But in fact the problem is very frequently invoked in philosophical works of the Vedānta and Buddhist Madhyamaka traditions and elsewhere as well.
> 
> The issue of foundations has been central to recent discussions of Madhyamaka critques of the nyāya schools, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist. But it has been raised explicitly using the term "foundationalism" primarily in work on Tibetan Madhyamaka. For a survey see here:
> https://www.academia.edu/109324532/Knowing_Illusion_Bringing_a_Tibetan_Debate_into_Contemporary_Discourse_Volume_I_A_Philosophical_History_of_the_Debate_and_Volume_II_Translations
> 
> Finally, the issue of svataḥ pramāṇa has figured prominently in recent work on Mīmāṃsā, above all on Kumārila. I don't know what Caitanya's sources may have been, but he and his disciples were no doubt drawing on well-established philosophical currents.
> 
> hope this is at least a start,
> Matthew
> 
>> Dear Scholars,
>> 
>> Does the nyāya system speak about the problem of an infinite regress of proofs? Aristotle famously identifies and then avoids this problem through the notion of a self-evident foundation or starting point of knowledge. In Western epistemology, this strategy is often called foundationalism.
>> 
>> Is there anything at all similar or analagous in nyāya or other Indian schools? The Caitanya-caritāmṛta several times affirms that the Veda is ’self-evident’, svataḥ pramāṇa, but the term is not used there as a general or secular epistemic strategy. Is the CC simply repeating a well-known epistemic principle?
>> 
>> All help will be greatly appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Howard
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
> 
>