365bet娱乐

The Nyaya philosophy is primarily concerned with the conditions of valid thought and the means of acquiring a truc knowledge of objects. Nyaya as a science lays down the rules and methods that are essentially necessary for a clear and precise understanding of all the materials of our knowledge as these are derived from observation and authority. With this end in view, the science of Nyaya deals with all the processes and methods that are involved, either directly or indirectly, in the right and consistent knowledge of reality. That this is so appears clearly from the common use of the word anviksiki as a synonym for the Nyayasastra. The name anviksiki means the science of the processes and methods of a reasoned and systematic knowledge of objects, supervening on a vague understanding of them on the basis of mere perception and uncriticised testimony. In other words, it is the science of an analytic and reflective knowledge of objects in continuation of and as an advance on the unreflective general knowledge in which we are more receptive than critical. It is the mediated knowledge of the contents of faith, feeling and intuition. Accordingly, Nyaya (literally meaning methodical study) may be described as the science of the methods and conditions of valid thought and true knowledge of objects. In a narrow sense, however, nyaya is taken to mean the syllogistic type of inference, consisting of five propositions called its members cr constituents.' It should, however, be remarked here that the epistemological problem as to the methods and conditions of valid knowledge is neither the sole nor the ultimate concern of the 1 Pratijnadipancakasamudayatvam nyayatvam, Didhiti on Tattvachintamani, II, Chapter on Nyaya and Avayava.

Nyaya philosophy. Its ultimate end, like that of the other systems of Indian philosophy, is liberation, which is the summum bonum of our life. This highest good is conceived by the Nyaya as a state of pure existence which is free from both pleasure and pain. For the attainment of the highest end of our life, a true knowledge of objects is the sure and indispensable means. Hence it is that the problem of knowledge finds an important place in the Nyaya philosophy. But an enquiry into the conditions of valid thought and the methods of valid knowledge presupposes an account of the nature and forms of cognition or knowledge in general. It requires us also to consider the nature and method of valid knowledge in general and the nature and test of truth or validity in particular. Hence the preliminary questions that arise in the Nyaya theory of knowledge are: What is cognition or knowledge as such? What are its different forms? What is valid knowledge? What is meant by a method of valid knowledge in general? What do we mean by truth or validity? What is the test of truth, the measure of true knowledge, the standard of validity? What are the constituents or factors of valid knowledge? It is a matter of historical interest to note here that, among other things, the problems of knowledge in general and those of the methods of valid knowledge in particular were brought home to the Naiyayikas by the Buddhists and other sceptical thinkers of ancient India in the course of their scathing criticism of the realistic philosophy of Gautama.' They set at naught almost the whole of the Nyaya philosophy as an edifice built on sand. The Nyaya teaches that the highest good is attainable only through the highest knowledge. But the theory of 1 This is clear from the opening verse of Uddyotakara's Nyayavarttika in which it is stated that the object of the Varilika is to remove the misconceptions of the critics of Gautama's teaching even though it was well explained by the great commentator Vatsyayana. In explaining this verse Vacaspati mentions the name of Dignaga, the great Buddhist logician, as one of the hard critics of Gautama's philosophy. In the Nyayavarttikatatparyatika he has given a clear account of some of the difficulties raised by the Buddhists in connection with the question of pramana.

INTRODUCTION 3 knowledge in it is a vicious circle. It takes upon itself the futile task of Kant's first Critique where he examines reason in order to prove the validity of thought and reason. "If it is the business of Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason to show how mathematics is possible, whose business is it to show how the Critique of Pure Reason itself is possible?"" With regard to the Nyaya theory of knowledge a similar question is asked by the Bauddha critics. It is pointed out by them that a criticism of knowledge must be made by the instrument under criticism and thereby presupposes the very thing in question. Thus the validity of knowledge is made to rest on the validity of the methods of knowledge. To maintain that our knowledge is true we must prove that it is really so, that it is derived from a valid method of knowledge which always gives us true knowledge and never leads to a false result. But, then, how are we to know the validity of that method of knowledge? From the nature of the case, the task is an impossible intellectual feat. With regard to the knowledge of validity there are two possible alternatives. The validity of knowledge may be cognised by itself, i.c. be self-cognised. Or, the validity of one knowledge may be cognised by some other knowledge. The first alternative that knowledge cognises its own validity is inadmissible. Knowledge, according to the Nyaya, cognises objects that are distinct from and outside of itself. It cannot turn back on itself and cognise its own existence, far less its own validity. Hence no knowledge can be the test of its own truth. The second alternative, that the validity of any knowledge is tested by some other knowledge, is not less objectionable. The second knowledge can at best cognise the first as an object to itself, i.e. as a particular existent. It cannot go beyond its object, namely, the first knowledge, and see if it truly corresponds with its own object. An act of knowledge having another for its object cognises the mere existence of the other as a cognitive fact. It cannot know the further fact of its truth or falsity. Moreover, of the two cases of knowledge, 1 The New Realism, p. 61.

the second, which knows the first, is as helpless as the first in the matter of its own validity. It cannot, ex hypothesi, be the evidence of its own validity. Hence so long as the validity of the second knowledge is not proved, it cannot be taken to validate any other knowledge. It cannot be said that the second has self-evident validity, so that we do not want any proof of it. This means that one knowledge, of which the validity is self-evident, is the evidence for the validity of another. But if the truth of one knowledge can be self-evident, why not that of another? Hence if the second knowledge has selfevident validity, there is nothing to prevent the first from having the same sort of self-evidence. As a matter of fact, however, all knowledge has validity only in so far as it is tested and proved by independent grounds. Truth cannot, therefore, be self-evident in any knowledge. If, by such arguments, the validity of knowledge itself is made incomprehensible, there can be no possibility of assuring ourselves of the validity of the methods of knowledge, such as perception, inference and the rest. The value and accuracy of a method of knowledge are to be known from the validity of the knowledge derived from it. It follows from this that if the validity of knowledge is unknowable, that of its method is far more unknowable. Hence we are involved in a vicious circle; the validity of knowledge depends on the validity of the method of acquiring such knowledge, while the validity of the methods is to be tested by the knowledge derived from them. As Hobhouse puts the matter: Our methods create and test our knowledge, while it is only attained knowledge that can test them." It is the contention of the Bauddha critics that the Nyaya theory of knowledge is involved in such circular reasoning in the attempt to prove the validity of knowledge. This contention, if admitted, renders the Nyaya philosophy utterly worthless. It becomes a hopeless attempt to realise the highest good by means of the highest knowledge which is impossible. 1 Cf. Nyaya-varttika-tatparya-tika, PP. 4-5. 2 Hobhouse, Theory of Knowledge, p. 487. 2 1

INTRODUCTION 5 It was with the object of meeting the difficulties raised by its critics that the old Nyaya entered on a critical study of the problems of knowledge in its relation to reality. After Vatsyayana's first elaborate exposition of Gautama's Nyaya-Sutra, his worthy successors had to defend the Nyaya against renewed attacks. They discussed both the logical and metaphysical problems more fully and also many other questions of general philosophical interest. The result is a fully developed and complete system of philosophy.' The modern school of the Nyaya, beginning with Gangesa, attempts to give greater precision to the thoughts of the old school. It lays almost exclusive emphasis on its theory of knowledge. The forms and concepts invented by it give the Nyaya the appearance of a symbolic logic. The old theory of knowledge is a criticism of thought as related to the real world of things. It is more empirical and practical, and it tries to discover the relations between reals. The modern theory becomes more formal or conceptual. It tries to find out the relations of meanings and concepts. It develops into a formal logic of relations between concepts and their determinants. The old Nyaya gives us what may be called philosophical logic, while the modern Nyaya is formal logic and dialectic. The Syncretist school develops the Nyaya further by incorporating the Vaisesika theory within it. The categories of the Vaisesika become a part of the objects of knowledge (prameya) in the Nyaya. But this synthesis of the Nyaya and the Vaisesika does not ignore their differences with regard to the theory of knowledge. One is as severe as the other in its criticism of the opposed logical theories. The Nyaya theory of knowledge is the cumulative body of the logical studies and their results in the different schools of the Nyaya. It may be said to have three aspects: the psychological, the logical and the philosophical. The first is concerned 1 An account of the controversy between the Naiyayikas and the Bauddha logicians is given in Dr. S. C. Vidyabhusana's History of Indian Logic, Bk. !I, Ch. II.

with the descriptive analysis of the facts of knowledge. The second is interested especially in the criticism of the forms and methods of knowledge. The third is an attempt to determine the final validity of knowledge as an understanding of reality. These aspects of the Nyaya epistemology, however, are not to be found in abstract separation from one another. In the next chapter we shall have to discuss the mainly psychological questions as to the nature and forms of knowledge.