The Buddhist offers an inference from the Nyaya standpoint to prove that universals are not positive entities but are differences from others: Cow-ness is difference from non-cows because it has both positive and negative features. Whatever has both positive and negative features is nothing but difference from others. Thus, not being measurable has the positive feature of being related to time and the negative feature of not being prior absence and is nothing but difference from being measurable. Cow-ness too has the positive feature (in the Nyaya view) of being, say, eternal and the negative feature, say, of not being horse-ness. So, cow-ness is nothing but difference from non-cows and so on, mutatis mutandis, for other universals. Udayana objects that this inference is unsound from the Buddhist standpoint: Self-differentiating unique particulars that alone are real for the Buddhists are not measurable; but these are not taken to be mere difference from others that is a non-entity for these are taken to be real.

This article explains precisely in what sense the Nyaya philosophers promote a correspondence theory regarding the nature of truth. It also explains how truth may be inferred from successful effort and argues that successful effort can be produced only by true awareness. While successful effort is the major test of truth, other tests of truth in the Nyaya view should be recognized as and when appropriate. Thus, that if the pervaded belongs to something, the pervader too belongs to that thing may be known to be true by the mind alone without reference to the inferential test of truth. Truth is in most cases extrinsic in the sense that truth of an awareness is determined with reference to another awareness. This does not lead to a vicious infinite regress; in some cases, as in the pervaded-pevader case or in the case there is cognition where there can be no cognition that there is cognition unless there is cognition, truth is intrinsic and may be determined without reference to another awareness.

It is argued that efforts by Plato, Bradley, Cook Wilson, Bergson, Russell, Prabhakara, etc. to reduce negation to affirmation or negative predicates to positive predicates fail: the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of negative entities deserves serious consideration. Important evidence for negative entities comes from perception such as that there is no book on the table: this testifies to the existence of absence of the book (the negatum or what is negated) on the table (the locus of negation) as an indispensable negative entity. Such perception is not set aside by compelling counterevidence, is reliable and justifies admitting negative entities on grounds of simplicity. A negative entity presupposes awareness of the negatum and differs as the negata differ but may be the same in different loci, e.g. the same absence of the book may be on the table and the floor. Negative entities are of four kinds: prior absence (absence of a thing before origin), posterior absence (absence of a thing after cessation), absolute absence (of something in something such as absence of color in air that is forever) and difference of one thing from another thing.

This paper has three parts. The first part explains the similarities and differences between Frege’s distinction between sense and reference needed for the possibility of true and informative identity statements and the distinction between the reference and the limitor or specifier of reference of a linguistic expression in Navya Nyaya. The second part compares Frege’s definition of number to the Navya Nyaya definition of number. The third part shows how restrictive conditions for universals in Navya Nyaya anticipates some developments in modern set theory. Thus, the condition that two universals having neither more nor less members are the same is analogous to the thesis of extensionality. Again, the condition that no universal is admissible if there is a vicious infinite regress that rules out universal-ness as a universal would also rule out the so-called Russell set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

In the Nyaya-Vaisesika view universals are eternal and objectively real often perceptible common characters that are independent of the particulars and inseparably inherent in the latter in the sense that the latter as long as they exist remain related to the universal. Such common characters should not be confused with Platonic Ideas that are perfect exemplars graspable only by reason. It is argued that without objective common characters it is hard to account for the distinction between natural classes such as man, horse, etc. that are independent of human convention and conventional classes such as lawyers, cooks, etc. Universals are also needed to provide objective basis for causal connections whereby only things of a certain kind produce other things of a specific kind. There are universals for generic terms such as man or horse, for qualities such as color or smell, for relations such as spatial proximity, for motion such as contraction, etc. But no universal is admissible if any restrictive condition such as not leading to a vici11ous infinite regress is violated.

The concept of svabhavahetu is a major contribution of Dharmakirti to Buddhist logic. In such a case the invariable relation of pervasion between the probans and the probandum is based on identity or non-difference. This implies, according to our interpretation, that some general statements are true by virtue of meaning but are not devoid of content. This disagrees with the view of many recent philosophers who hold that statements true by virtue of meaning are devoid of content. We explain that svabhava general statements are true by virtue of meaning in the sense that the grounds for calling something by the name of the probandum are the same as some or all of those for calling something by the name of the probans. We explain how such general statements differ from general statements based on causation as also the threefold classification of svabhava general statements.

In the Nyaya view a causal condition is a non-superfluous invariable antecedent of the effect. Does this mean that causality for the Nyaya is a necessary connection as some scholars suggest? No. Invariable antecedence means that a causal condition is not the negatum of any absolute absence in the locus of the effect immediately before the latter’s origin (a causal condition is not absent where the effect arises immediately before origin). Non-superfluity means fulfilling requirements of economy three main kinds of which are economy in constitution (non-inclusion of anything redundant), economy in relation (something related directly is preferable to something related indirectly) and economy in cognitive order (being knowable in fewer steps). None of the above jointly or severally involve necessity.

This paper deals with psycho-physical dualism as developed by Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers. It is argued that internal states like pleasure, desire, etc. that are directly observable only by one’s own self and not by others and thus are private are not bodily states that are directly observable by one’s own self and others and thus are public. Common experiences such as I am happy, I want this, etc. testify, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, that desire, etc. belong to the self. The self is not only non-physical but also a permanent substance contrary to the Buddhist-Humean view that there are only fleeting internal states and no abiding self. Desire, etc. presuppose that the person who experienced something in the past remembers it now and desires it so that the agent of previous experience and later remembrance is the same continuant person.

Indian logic is mainly devoted to the study of nyaya the logical structure of which is analogous to that of a categorical syllogism. In a nyaya it is inferred that since the probans (similar to the middle term) is pervaded by or never exists without the probandum (similar to the major term) and since the probans belongs to the inferential subject (similar to the minor term), the probandum belongs to the inferential subject. Many modern scholars hold that in early Indian logic a nyaya was an analogical argument from particular to particular. We disagree. Early Nyaya works say explicitly that what deviates is a pseudo-probans; this implies that a probans is non-deviant or pervaded by the probandum and thus that a universal premise stating the pervasion of the probans by the probandum is needed. Such a universal premise is also found in articulated arguments. Further, a counterargument based on mere analogy to a nyaya based on a universal connection is viewed as a pseudo-refutation.

Our aim is to give an idea of the Nyaya and Advaita theories of perception and to note metaphysical or ontological elements in them. We shall consider whether it is possible to sieve out features of the theories without such elements with a view to formulating a commonly acceptable platform for dialogue regarding a theory of perception. In recent times scholars have attempted to pick up common elements in the two theories. In our account we may, however, be allowed to use Sanskrit philosophical words in original. This is perhaps useful for philosophizing freely in a comparative setting.

Largely unnoticed in textbook accounts of classical Indian philosophic schools is Nyāya's advocacy of yoga and its alliance with teachings of the Yoga-sūtra. Yoga and Nyāya differ sharply in how nature is viewed, its components and causal laws. But on the side of subjectivity, purusa and atman, there is more convergence than difference. The two world views have distinct theories of action, cognition, and the body, but concerning the subject or self himself or herself, including God or the īsvara (and argumentation so directed), the conceptions advanced are surprisingly similar. Moreover, the traditions converge in the commen taries of the tenth-century philosopher Vācaspati Miśra who often shows influence from one or the other direction in his Yoga-sūtra and Nyāya-sūtra commentaries. The key bridge ideas are expressed in the Nyāya-sūtra literature under a substantial and remarkable stretch of sutras in the fourth chapter devoted to yoga practice and liberating self knowledge: NyS 4.2.38-51. Among other jewels, here we find an implicit assimilation of philosophic debate as a yoga practice.

The aim of this article is to provide an epistemological account of the concept of a point of view. To clear the ground for such an account, the following questions must be addressed: What are points of view? What roles or functions do points of view play in human thinking and information acquisition? Why do points of view have such roles or functions? The distinction between the different components of points of view helps us to identify, diagnose, and understand ways in which various points of view direct and define human thinking. The second part of the article tests the credibility and functionality of the concept of a point of view developed in the first part. The testing takes place by applying the concept in question to the analysis of a classical Indian text, The Law Code of Manu.

This article deals with the pros and cons of the Mādhva-Vaiṣṇava tradition of Hinduism. On the pros sideMadhva’s interpretations of the 3rd question of Naciketas to Yama in the KaṭhaUpaniṣad as well as his interpretation of the statement tattvamasi as atattvamasi in the ChāndogyaUpaniṣad are unique. On the cons side flaws are pointed out on the much marveled concept of viśeṣa the doctrine of the gradation of the gods and the Viṣṇusahasranāma.

This paper will analyze a specific stylistic issue in the Śrautasūtras, namely, the mark of quotation vijñāyate. In literature, a quotation is often introduced with a specific mark that shifts the attention of the reader to a specific work or paper from which the quotation originates. In the ancient manuals about ritual in Vedic culture we find a verb - vijñāyate. The ancient composers seem to use this verb to stress a connection to another text, i.e. to the maxima auctorictas in the Vedic world, the śruti. Our contention is that the link between the verb and what is being introduced by the verb is not always clear. Our survey covers a restricted selection of data; however, we believe that it may provide some interesting insights into one of the most important elements which served to build the concept of the Vedic and Hindū tradition.

This paper brings together two bodies of scholarly literature.It is a study in the nature and development of moral thought, but it is also an inquiry into the interpretation of the Mahabharata. The two subjects come together when we ask the question, “Do works like the Mahabharata contain within them the history of our ethical coming to awareness?”A philosophical archeology of the Mahabharata indicates that it was originally a war story or group of war stories that evolved over time into a moral and religious text. The Mahabharata is an excellent candidate for this kind of moral archaeology since it is a text that has developed over a long period of time, a long enough period of time to see the reenactment of different stages of ethical awareness.

In the Buddhist view there can be no affirmation without negation and positive universals that in the Nyaya view are independent and eternal common characters shared by all members of a natural class should be replaced by difference from others that is a negative entity and a non-entity, e.g. what is meant by a cow is not that it is possessed of cow-ness but that it is not a non-cow. Udayana points out that cognition of a negative entity presupposes cognition of what is negated, the negatum. Thus, cognition of cow if the same as not-not cow presupposes cognition of not-cow, but cognition of not-cow presupposes cognition of cow; hence the Buddhist view is open to the charge of mutual dependence. This difficulty does not arise in the Nyaya view. Even if there is no affirmation without negation, negation is not necessarily the content of affirmation. So far as common experience goes, cognition of positive entities does not always require cognition of negative entities, e.g. a cow may be recognized as a cow and possessed of cow-ness without reference to non-cows.

Our aim Is to give an idea of the Nyaya and Advaita tlieories of perception and to note metapliysicai or ontological elements In them. We shall consider whether it is possible to sieve out features of the theories without such elements with a view to formulating a commonly acceptable platform for dialogue regarding a theory of perception. In recent times scholars have attempted to pick up common elements in the two theories. In our account we may, however, be allowed to use Sanskrit philosophical words in original. This is perhaps useful for philosophizing freely in a comparative setting.

The paper proposes to deal with the basic issues pertaining to consciousness and cognition as expounded in the original sources of Vaiśeşika, the Nyāya perspective will also be referred to wherever relevant.