Six Philosophies of India (Sad-darsana)
The six philosophies (sad-darsana) that emerged in ancient India are the mainstream Hindu philosophy includes six systems (ṣaḍdarśana) — Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta. These are also called the Astika (orthodox) philosophical traditions and are those that accept the Vedas as authoritative, important source of knowledge (Nicholas, 2013). In this essay, I will discuss the epistemology of Nyaya and Vaisesika school. I will compare and contrast their process of gaining knowledge, including Gaudiya Vaisnavism. After discussing their epistemology we move to ontological discussion, in that, I compare their conclusions about soul’s destination, position of God and soul with that of the conclusions of Gaudiya Vainavism.
The Nyaya (logical) tradition is one of the six classical philosophies of India. This school’s most significant contributions to Indian philosophy was systematic development of the theory of logic, methodology, and its treatises on epistemology (Gupta, 2012). Aksapada Gautama is considered to be the founder of the Nyaya School (around 400 BC), who compiled the Nyaya Sutras (Raju, 2009). There is possibility of existence of logical tradition earlier, as we find some terminologies on logic in earlier text (Christian, 2011), but still Gautama seems “to have been the first one who has systemized logic and insisted that one must follow a well-fixed process of argument to avoid misunderstanding and fallacies (2009, 134)”, for gaining proper knowledge. Vātsāyana’s Nyāya Bhāṣya is a classic commentary on the Nyāya Sūtra. There are many more treatises in the Nyaya School to name but a few Udyotakara’s Nyāya Vārttika (6th century CE), Vācaspatiśra’s Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkā, Nyāyaṣūcinibandha and Nyāyasūtraddhāra (9th century CE), Udayana’s (984 CE) Nyāyatātparyapariśuddhi, Ātmatattvaviveka, Kiraṇāvali, Nyāyapariśiṣṭa and Nyāyakusumāñjali the first systematic account of theistic Nyāya, Jayanta Bhatta’s Nyāyamañjari (10th century CE) and so on (Radhakrishnan, 2006).
About the thirteenth century, Gautama’s system came to be regarded as the Old Nyaya, and a new school called New Nyaya (Nava-Nyaya) was introduced by Gangesa and Raghunath (Raju, 2009, 135). The New Nyaya differed from old on metaphysical categorization. The Metaphysics of New Nyaya became identified with that of Vaisesika and the two schools were combined and called Nyaya-Vaisesika ( Raju, 2009). The Vaisesika tradition is pluralistic, realistic and theistic; it supplied metaphysical theories to the Nyaya and adopted its epistemological and logical theories (King, 1999). Vaisheshika school is known for its atomism in natural philosophy. It postulated that all objects in the physical universe are reducible to paramāṇu (atoms), (Leaman, 1999). The earliest systematic exposition of the Vaisheshika is found in the Vaiśeṣika Sūtra of Kaṇāda (or Kaṇabhaksha) about 400 B C (King 1999). Sarvapally Radhakrishnan has listed several treatises on Vaisesika tradition like Praśastapāda’s Padārthadharm-saṁgraha (c. 4th century), Candra’s Daśapadārthaśāstra (648), Vyomaśiva’s Vyomavatī (8th century), Śridhara’s Nyāyakandalī (991), Udayana’s Kiranāvali (10th century) and Śrivatsa’s Līlāvatī (11th century) (Radhakrishnan, 2006).
The Nyaya metaphysics recognizes sixteen padarthas or categories namely pramāṇa (valid means of knowledge), prameya (objects of valid knowledge), saṁśaya (doubt), prayojana (aim), dṛṣṭānta (example), siddhānta(conclusion), avayava (members of syllogism), tarka (hypothetical reasoning), nirṇaya (settlement), vāda (discussion), jalpa (wrangling), vitaṇḍā (cavilling), hetvābhāsa (fallacy),chala (quibbling), jāti (sophisticated refutation) and nigrahasthāna (point of defeat)( Hiriyanna, 2000). However, According to the Vaisheshika school, all things which exist, which can be cognised, and which can be named are padārthas, the objects of experience. All objects of experience can be classified into six categories, dravya (substance), guṇa (quality), karma (activity), sāmānya (generality), viśeṣa (particularity) and samavāya (inherence). Later Vaiśeṣikas (Śrīdhara and Udayana and Śivāditya) added one more category abhava (non-existence)( Radhakrishnan, 2006). In the Nyaya school all the sixteen categories, except second category, prameya the object of knowledge, are concerned with method of knowing. Whereas, in vaisesikas, all the seven categories are dealing with object of knowledge. Thus we can infer that the Vaisesikas are more concerned about ontological question, that is, what does exist? Whereas, Nyayikas are concerned about epistemological question, that is, how to know what exists, the correct methods of knowing.
Just as Gautana claims that one who understands his sixteen categories of Nyaya will obtain salvation, Prasastapada announces that one who understands his seven cateroies of Vaisesika will obtain salvation. Gautama lays stress upon understanding and its methods, whereas Kanada emphesizes the objects of that understanding ( Raju, 2009). Just as word Nyaya means logic, the word Vaisisika mean particularist. Visesas are particulars. The second category of Nyana school, prameya consists of twelve objects of knowledge namely; atman, body, senses, objects of senses, consciousness, mind, action, impurity, rebirth, the fruit of action, pain and liberation (2009). This includes almost all the seven categories of vaisesika school. Although Nyaya school accepted existence of soul and self under the category of (prameya) the object of knowledge they were not engaged in discuss about existence of God. Later Nyaya scholars such as Udayana developed list of arguments for proving existence of God (Sharma, 1997). Other Nyaya scholars offered arguments to disprove the existence of God (Cloony, 2010).
Hinduism identifies six Pramāṇas as epistemically reliable means to accurate knowledge and to truths: Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāna (inference), Upamāna (comparison and analogy), Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances), Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts) (Flood, ). Of these Vaiśeṣika epistemology considered only pratyakṣa (perception) and anumāna (inference) as reliable means of valid knowledge. Whereas, the Nyaya school accepted four means of obtaining valid knowledge — perception (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), comparison (upamāna) and word/testimony of reliable sources (śabda). Although the vaisesika schoool accepts only two valid source of knowledge; perception and inference and rejects sabda (word), still it accepts the Vedas as a valid source of knowledge because they are based upon perception of wise sages. Similarly, Vedic injunctions are said to be based upon the use of logical inference (anumana) ( Richard, 2006, 105)
Nyaya tradition being more concerned with epistemology rather than ontology it is accepted by all schools of thought as the standard system for receiving correct knowledge. Because all the schools differs in their conclusion about ontological question what does exist? All schools maintain distance from one another but Nyaya being more of epistemological concern it has achieved position of acceptance by all the philosophical schools as standard system of proving correctness of valid source of knowledge. In ancient India a pupil was first required to learn grammar and Nyana or logic. Unless a student took lessons in Nyaya he was not supposed to be competent to study Purva Mimamsa or Vedanta (king, 1999).
Gaudiya Vaisnavism is founded by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534)). As we have seen that Hindu tradition has six reliable sources of knowledge out of which only four are acceptable to Nyana school and two for Vaisesika school. Gaudiya Vaisnavism accepts only one reliable sources of knowledge for gaining ultimate salvation of soul that is sabda (Vedas). Within the Vedic scriptures Gaudiya Vaisnava base their teachings solely on Bhagwad Gita and Srimad Bhagwatam. Although both Nyaya-Vaisesika and Gaudiya vaisnavism has accepted testimony of Vedas but Nyaya- vaisesika lay more stress on perception (pratyaksa) and inference (anuman). Similarly Gaudiya Vaisnavism although believe in perception and inference for practical purposes but it gives more stress on sabda for ultimate achievement of the soul ( Prabhupada, 1974). Existence of the soul is accepted by both Nyaya-Vaisesika and Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Both the schools believe that soul is eternal. According to Nyaya — Vaisesika the atman constitute an infinite plurality, and every one of them is different from the others and also from God (Raju, 2009). The same principle that soul is eternal, individual and different form God is also established in bhagwad Gita 15.7 in Gaudiya Vainavism (Prabhupada, 1989). The Naiyyayikas believe that the bondage of the world is due to false knowledge, which can be removed by constantly thinking of its opposite (pratipakshabhavana), namely, the true knowledge (Dasgupta, 1975). This is also the fact Bhagwad Gita (4.39) emphasizes in Gaudiya vaisnavism. But at advance level Bhagwad gita (11.54) again re-emphasizes bhakti (devotion) over the gyana ( knowledge. Same way nyaya stresses importance of knowledge for salvation of the soul but it also maintains that the God’s grace is essential for obtaining true knowledge (Sharma, 1997).
According to Nyaya-Vaisesika soul is beyond material object and even consciousness, consciousness is not primary quality of soul it appears only in association of body, so after liberation consciousness is not present in soul however it retains its individuality (king, 1999). In contrast to this according to Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, consciousness is not a product of matter, but is instead a symptom of the soul. The soul is (sat-chit-ananda) eternal, conscious and blissful. Because soul is eternal, its inherent (samavaya) quality (guna) of being conscious is also eternal. But according to Nyaya-vaisesika it becomes devoid of consciousness, similar to stone ( Raju, 2006). According to Gaudiya Vainavism the soul is a (chit-sphuling) conscious-spark particle, and this quality cannot be ever taken out from him. Even vaisesika believes that any (dravya) substance has its quality (guna) and inherence ( samavaya) without this the substance will lose its substantiality. Thus without consciousness soul will become like stone. It will remain no more soul. Thus it contradicts to its being eternal. Some other atheistic school believes that soul loses its identity at salvation and merges into totality (Prabhupada, 1989). However, Vaisesika school is in favor of Gaudiya vaisnavism in this regard, it says soul retains it individuality even after salvation (King, 1999). However there is a discussion in Bhagwatam about material mind and material consciousness. Which is said to be according to Gaudiya vaisnavism as contaminated mind and contaminated consciousness. Nyaya-Vaisesika believes that by freeing soul from material mind and consciousness soul will be liberated. But Gaudiya Vaisnava believes that by awaking spiritual mind and spiritual consciousness soul will be liberated. In other words by purifying mind and consciousness by process of Bhakti soul can be liberated.
God is not specially mentioned as a category in Nyaya-vaisesika, but is regarded as one of the atman, although He is the Supreme Atman ( paramatman). While for all the ordinary atmans, consciousness is only as adventitious and transient quality, for God it is an inseparable quality. The atmans obtain liberation after they are completely detached from consciousness, but God remains eternally conscious. He is omniscient, all-powerful and has all the perfections. (Raju, 2009). This understanding about the God is very similar to Gaudiya vaisnavism, as it is mentioned in Bhagwad Gita (10. 12–13) by Arjuna “You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Närada, Asita, Devala and Vyäsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me(Prabhupada, 1989).
Regarding creation of this world Nyaya-Vaisesika maintain that God does not create the world out of himself, but out of the eternal atoms, ether, time, space and the atmans that are not liberated (Raju, 2009). This concept is similar to Gaudiya vaisnavism which says that material nature impelled by time-factor (kala), desires of non-liberated souls and wish (ichaa-sakti) of God creates the material world in eternal space. In Bhagwad gita (9.10) Krishna says: This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kunté, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again (Prabhupada, 1989). Thus Nyaya-Vaisesika maintain that God is, therefore, not material cause of the world, but its efficient cause. The material cause is eternal, and does not need to be created (Raju, 2009). This material cause is eternal in the sense, according to Gaudiya vaisnavism, that it being created and annihilated again and again, as mentioned above from Bhagwad Gita. Nyaya-vaisesika states that, in creating the world, God is guided by the accumulated merits and demerits of the atmans that are not yet liberated (Raju, 2009). This is exactly the same belief of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. God is not responsible for creation of this miserable, temporary world, but he does so to give results of accumulated merits and demerits of the atmans who are not yet liberated. Krishna in Bhagwad Gita(9.9–10) says in this regard : The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end. All this work cannot bind Me. I am ever detached from all these material activities, seated as though neutral( Prabhupada, 1989).
In conclusion, Nyaya and Vaisesika traditions have very close relation in their theistic and pluralistic realism. They had a successful alliance with each other till the culmination into a New Nyaya school. Nyaya being more epistemological, accepting four sources of knowledge, was accepted by all schools as methodology for their own philosophical discourses. Whereas Vaisesika focusing on ontological question remain as a separate philosophical tradition different from all others. Because vaisesika accepted only two valid source of knowledge, rejecting most important sabda praman became very much different in its conclusion with Gaudiya Vaisnavism, Specially, in regards to soul’s destination after liberation. However it provides very similar concept about God’s position regarding creation.
List of references:
Christian, D. (2011). Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History. California : University of California Press
Clooney, F.X. (2010). Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Dasgupta, S. (1975). A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass
Flood, G. (n.d.) An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gupta, B. (2012). An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Perspectives on Reality, Knowledge and Freedom, Routledge
Hiriyanna, M. (2000). Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass
King, R. (1999). India Philosophy: an introduction to Hindu and Buddhist thought. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press
Leaman, O. (1999) Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy. Routledge
Nicholson, A. (2013), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Columbia: Columbia University Press
Prabhupada, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. (1974). Sri Isopanisad. Los Angeles, CA: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. (1989). Bhagwad Gita As It Is (2nd ed.). Bombay, India: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
Radhakrishnan, S. (2006). Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press
Raju, P. T. (2009). The Philosophical Traditions of India. 3rd edition. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publication
Sharma, C. (1997). A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass