[INDOLOGY] nyaya and regress

[Amba Kulkarni]

Ana Asthana => anavasthaa

Sorry for auto correction.

— Amba

Sent from Gmail Mobile


On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 10:18 AM, Amba Kulkarni <ambapradeep at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ana Asthana is considered to be one of the 6 conditions mentioned as
> jaati-baadhaka in the Nyaaya text. Jati baadhakas are the conditions for
> considering a property to be an universal.
>
> Best
> Amba Kulkarni
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 1:43 AM, Brendan S. Gillon, Prof. via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I am travelling now and so cannot check this, however, I have a note to
>> the effect that `anavasthaa' is mentioned as a fault in Pata~njali's
>> Mahaabhaa.sya to A 2.1.1. My source is Esther Solomon's Indian
>> Dialectics 1976 p. 29. (I failed to note whether the page is in the
>> first volume or in the second.)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Brendan
>>
>>
>> On 2024-06-04 06:18, Franco via INDOLOGY wrote:
>> > Dear Howard,
>> > The earliest surviving example is probably in the Vigrahavyavartani,
>> where the possibility of pramanas being proved by other pramanas is
>> rejected because this would lead to an infinite regress. Most scholars
>> think that Nagarjuna argues there agains the Nyaya, but I take the opponent
>> to be an Abhidharmika.
>> > Best wishes,
>> > Eli
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> >> On 04.06.2024, at 11:05, Howard Resnick via INDOLOGY <
>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > INDOLOGY mailing list
>> > INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Brendan S. Gillon                       email: brendan.gillon at mcgill.ca
>> Department of Linguistics
>> McGill University                       tel.:  001 514 398 4868
>> 1085, Avenue Docteur-Penfield
>> Montreal, Quebec                        fax.:  001 514 398 7088
>> H3A 1A7  CANADA
>>
>> webpage: http://webpages.mcgill.ca/staff/group3/bgillo/web/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20240607/23fc4ee1/attachment.htm>