How Knowledge Is Acquired in Nyaya and Samkhya - Literature review Example

Introduction Quest for ‘knowledge’ of the ‘Self’ has been the central point of focus for ancient Indian philosophers. Indeed, the Vedas and the Upanishads - the sacred texts from which Hinduism in its present form has evolved, includes lengthy analyses of the ‘Self’ of the ‘Ultimate Reality’ (Radhakrsihnan 1951). Traditionally, six systems of philosophy, those that accept the authority of the Vedas have been followed in India; these are different from the systems of thought which repudiate the authority of the Vedas, such as Buddhism, and Jainism. The six schools of Indian philosophy Visheshika, Nyaya, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva Mimasa, and the Utthara Mimamsa were perceived by six rishis, Kanada, Gauthama, Kapila, Pathanjali, Jaimini and Vyasa respectively, are collectively known as the “Shad Dharshanas.”(Shah, 2004) The six schools share some similarities like accepting the presence of an ‘Ultimate Reality’, the concept of “Samsara” or rebirth, and that “karma” or deed, both good and bad, cause rebirth until the soul attains “moksha” or realization (Shah, 2004) (change reference here, if necessary). There are differences too, however; in the way they perceive the relationships between the human consciousness and attainment of knowledge, and the nature in which the ‘Ultimate Reality’ interacts in the balance of the universe, the seen and the unseen. This essay shall compare and contrast the way knowledge is acquired in Nyaya and Samkhya, two important systems of Indian philosophy. It shall also discuss the reasons for the rationale of their different ways of acquisition of knowledge. In the process, a deeper understanding of the treatises and their intrinsic value to philosophy in present day contexts is envisaged. Nyaya Vaishesika – Brief Background The term “Nyaya” means that ‘by which the mind is led to a conclusion’ (Waggle, 2006), and acquiring true knowledge as explicated by the Vedas, through logical arguments and constructions is the purpose of the Nyaya school, according to Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi (Ganapathi 1978, p. 642). The Visheshika-school predates Nyaya, and is not dissimilar to the latter; but engages on a spiritual quest rather than scientific questionings into matters of the perceived universe, as does Nyaya. According to Sanderson Beck (), Vaishesika Sutra starts with the insistence that ‘dharma’ or righteousness is the path by which happiness and salvation are attained; however it acknowledges the ‘Veda Vaak’ or the words of Vedas as the ultimate authority. Because of the similarities between the two schools of logical and analytical thinking, and also because of the fact that Gauthama accepted the theories of Visheshika, the two schools of thought are generally coupled in philosophical discussions. Together, they explicate the logical, analytical understanding of the universe with atoms as its basic constituent. Nyaya, upholds that ‘Moksha’ or liberty is attained through right knowledge, which is the only way to liberate oneself from pain and pleasure – and the very purpose of involving in logical analyses is to understand and arrive at the attainment of right knowledge, which leads one to liberation. ‘Pramana’ or the means to valid or right knowledge are four in number, which shall be discussed in detail, later in this essay. Samkhya and Yoga – A Brief Background Samkhya formed by Kapila who is also known as the ‘father of Indian philosophy,’ (Shah) is one of the oldest schools of thought. It holds the concept that the ‘purusha – prakriti’ or the ‘Self’ and the ‘matter’ - dualism is the causal realities of the world. This treatise is an accurate, as it is logical and rational in its analysis, and hence it holds that the concept of ‘God’ is not absolutely necessary to the creation of the universe which consists of both the individual self and the objective universe (Shah, 2004). However, Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswathi contends that, the concept of ‘God’ refuted here is not to be confused with the modern atheist notion of Godlessness; rather, it is the refutation of “Saguna Brhman” or the Godhead manifestation by Samkhya here, and not the existence of the Ultimate Reality as the “Nirguna Brhaman” or the formless, nameless, Truth (Ganapathy, 1978 p. 661). This school of thought particularly deals with the basic nature and number (Samkhya means number in Sanskrit, the language of the ancient India) and the basic characteristics of the ultimate constituents of the universe. The Samkhya philosophy is coupled with the doctrine of Yoga by Pathanjali. It it is generally accepted that, while the Samkhya constitutes the theoretical side, the Yoga Sutra brings out the practical aspects of the doctrine. The Samkhya and Yoga also finds mention in the Bhagavad Gita instructed by Sri Krishna to Arjuna in the battlefield, as ‘purusha’ being the immutable, and ‘prakriti’ being the causal factor of all ‘gunas’ or basic traits, and manifestations of all forms of the universe (Gita, XIII:19-20). Samkhya also holds that pain and pleasure are a part of material world. While Samkhya will help the mind discern the causal reasons, it is only through constant ‘abhyasa’ or practice of discipline, of both the body and the mind, that one can gain true knowledge of the Self. It is very pertinent to note that Samkhya rejected the practice of animal sacrifice to appease Gods, and insisted on discipline, purity of mind, and compassion to all creatures as imperative for ‘self-realization’. The disciplined and calm mind, constantly set in meditation, attains perfection in knowledge and ultimately attains “Moksha” or liberation (Beck 1999). It can be noted from the above that both while Samkhya-Yoga hold that knowledge is an integral part of the soul to attain salvation. Therefore it is also, like Nyaya involved in imparting knowledge of reality (Indian Philosophy, 2006). Knowledge alone was not sufficient, and it was only through constant practice that one can hope to be liberated from the ‘Karmic’ chain of birth and re-birth. Nyaya and Samkhya – Dealing with Knowledge In the Nyaya school, right knowledge or correct knowledge is the knowledge that leads to elevation acquired through the four ‘pramana’, and leads towards liberation, and is termed ‘prama’ and knowledge that is acquired through other means is termed as ‘aprama’. Knowledge of the Universe itself, is divided into sixteen categories viz. ‘pramana’ or the tools of right knowledge; ‘prameya’ or objects of valid knowledge; ‘samashaya’ or doubt ‘prayojana’ or intent or purpose; ‘drstanta’ or example; ‘siddhanta’ or the logical conclusion; ‘avayava’ the parts or constructs of argument; ‘tarka’ or the deliberations; ‘nirnaya’ or confirmation; ‘vada’ or counter-argument; ‘jalpa’ or disputes; ‘vitanda-vada’ or negetive/destructive arguments; ‘hetvabhasa’ or falsitude; ‘chala’ or irrelvant; ‘jaati’ or non-acceptance/refute; ‘nigrahasthana’ the point of defeat of the oppostion (Reference needed here). Nyaya initiates the idea of the truth through a series of arguments which leads form one reason to another and finally arrive on a logical conclusion based on the strength of the previously stated reasons/arguments. The reliable sources of correct knowledge, known as ‘pramanas’ are four in number viz. ‘prathyaksha’ or the personal perception by the sensory organs is taken to be the most fundamental of the four tools of knowledge. The second one is the ‘anumaana’ or the inference, which uses the intellect of the subject to understand something. The third one is the ‘upamaana’ or using the method of comparisons or analogy to understand something. The fourth one is ‘sabda’ or the reliable testimony to prove something. Nyaya holds that much of the knowledge that we gain is through inference. In order to verify the validity of the inference, arguments are used. Herein one comes across syllogism – a form placing arguments in sequence and inferring something from the place arguments. There are three constructs in this a) ‘sadhya’ or the inference; b) the ‘paksha’ or the one who infers and c) ‘linga’ or the external symbol through which the inference is arrived at. This can be better understood with an example that has been elucidated by Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswathi: a) the forest on the hill is burning (sadhya); b) the person who sees (paksha); c) the smoke atop the hill (linga). In the stated example it is pertinent to note that, though the perceiver does not see the fire on the hill because of rocks obstructing the vision, it is still inferred that the forest in the hill is on fire because of the presence of smoke. And how does one understand fire in the presence of smoke? It is because of the knowledge gained by previous experiences wherein one has seen smoke wherever there was fire (Ganapathy, 1978 p. 643). Thus, one can see that Nyaya insisted on arrival of the right knowledge through a series of logical arguments based on inference gained from “application of inductive reasoning” which is “at the root of empirical science” (Raman, 2005). This is completely different from the way knowledge is dealt with in the Samkhya Sutra. While Nyaya accepted four ‘pramana’ or means of knowledge, Samkhya accepts three means of valid knowledge as viz. ‘pratyaksha’ or perception, ‘anumaana’ or inference and and ‘sabda’ or testimony. Furthermore, it has already been stated that Samkhya philosophy rests on the concept of the ‘purusha’ and ‘prakriti’. While the ‘purusha’ is the ‘Ultimate Reality’ in its immutable, inactive, infinite, and eternal form, the ‘prakriti’ is the active form of the same reality, which becomes the causal factor of all the objects of the universe. ‘Prakriti’ consists of the ‘tri guna’ or the three characteristic traits. They exist in all beings in different proportions and are known as the ‘sattva’ or the level-headed and calm, of good substance; the rajas or the brighter and nobler substance; and ‘tamas’ or the darker and undesirable substances. These ‘gunas’ are not merely the qualities, but the very constituent parts of ‘prakriti’, and give particular color and complexity to the ‘mula prakriti’ or the Original One (Shah 2004). Samkhya theory holds that ‘knowledge’ is the interaction of three elements 1) the ‘manas’ or the individual mind, 2) the Mahat or the intellect/mind and the ‘purusha’. When an object is perceived by the ‘panchedriya’ or the five sensory organs, the impulses and impressions transmitted by them are received by the ‘manas’ or the mind wherein they are processed and the impressions get converted into appropriate forms. Such processed percepts are carried to the ‘Mahat’ which is the collective embodiment of these impressions. Since it is constantly being interacted with, ‘Mahat’ changes from time to time, experience to experience. Vritti is the modification or the change that occurs in the process of transformation of ‘Mahat’. However, the transformation is not complete. ‘Mahat’ by itself does not have consciousness, and is still cannot generate knowledge on its own. When it is evolved, it can reflect on the consciousness of the ‘Purusha’ (self). Thereby, the latent consciousness of ‘Mahat’ becomes conscious of the form into which it is modified (i.e. of the form of the object), when it is mad to shine by the consciousness of the reflected self (Indian Philosophy, 2006). An example would serve to better elucidate this posit. The water in darkness cannot reflect any image on its own. It needs the light or the brightness of the lamp to reflect and produce light and thereby reflect the original glowing object. So too, the ‘Mahat’ cannot become pure consciousness on its own, and it needs the ‘light’ of the ‘Ultimate Reality’ or the ‘True Consciousness’ of the ‘purusha’ to produce knowledge. Furthermore, in the Samkhya system, ‘purusha’ is the sentient being or the eternal one; therefore it is the very principle of awareness (Shah, 2004). Though it is immutable in its actual form, through ‘prakiti’in the form of the ‘indriyas’ it may accumulate experience. Though the sensory organs are responsible for bringing sensory stimuli to the mind, without the existence of the ‘purusha’ which is the light, one cannot profit; because it is only due to the existence of the ‘purusha’ to the internal organ –‘antahkarana’- that one understands the meaning of the experience brought to the intellect (Shah, 2004). A further refinement of knowledge is elucidated by the Samakhya system, which involves two different kinds of perceptions namely 1) Nirvikalpa or the original impressions in their purest form and do not indicate any knowledge of the form or the name of the perceived object. In other words, on can cognize something, but there is no recognition, very similar to the sensations experienced by a child which is sensing the world around it for the first time. There is cognition there, but no recognition, no differentiation or no distinguishing possible. 2) Savikalpa on the other hand, is a state of ripe, and mature perception, in which all sensations have been properly experienced, processed and understood, and classified to be inferred appropriately. They enable the mind to distinguish between objects, states and thereby generate knowledge. There is yet another basic point in which their arguments differ. That is the theory of the theory of causation. In Indian philosophy there are two principle views that are said to be the cause of the universe. The first view or ‘vada’ is the ‘Satkaryavada’; according to this view, the effect already lay hidden in the cause. It states that ‘karya’ or the consequence is sat or visible or real. It is present in the ‘karana’ or the cause, in a potential form, even before it is made to manifest itself. Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswathi explains this with a very easily understandable illustration. Clay and mud are there. When shaped on the potter’s wheel appropriately, the clay lent itself to reveal the pot that was already there in the mud. The potter could make a pot only of clay. Only sesame seeds could be put in the extractor to yield oil. Clay will not yield oil, nor will sesame seeds lend themselves to take the shape of a pot. Hence, the effect of shaping a pot from clay was already inherent in the cause of the clay itself. The Samkhya philosophy belongs to this group of causal argument (Ganapathy, 1978 p 661). This also leads to posit that liberation, then, is inherent the soul itself. The second view is the ‘Asatkaryavada’; as per this view, the effect is non-existent in the cause. The ‘karya’ or the consequence is ‘asat’ or invisible, or unreal until it is made to exist. Therefore, every effect is as good as a new beginning. To illustrate taking the earlier example – the clay and mud existed as just that. When the potter applied the clay on to the wheel he brought out a pot, where there was none before. He brought out the new object of a pot which was not perceived before, form the earlier perceived clay. Similarly, it is with the perceivable atoms that the Ultimate Reality creates new forms and the various manifestations of the universe. And from the perceived universe, it is inferred that there is creator, just as there has to be a potter who is capable of creating the new object of pot where there was none before, form the clay (Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswathi, cited in Ganapathi, 1978 p 662). Nyaya-Vaisheshika systems are followers of this view the ‘asatkaryavada’. Rationale of Gaining Knowledge – Liberation Though both systems Nyaya and Samkhya believe in liberation and salvation, the point liberation itself differs in both. While both agree that meditation of the self is the right way to proceed towards liberation, Nyaya holds that right knowledge is capable of liberating the self from the karmic cycle of birth and re-birth. However, Samkhya holds that liberation is not ‘reaching’ God, but rather illuminating or enlightening the intellect that ‘purusha’ is the Ultimate Reality, and the object is but a reflection of that ‘Self.’ Here is duality that forms the basis of liberation, while Nyaya holds that liberation is to merge with the Supreme Self. Conclusion There are six schools of thought in Indian philosophy, of which Nyaya and Samkhya are two of the foremost. With logical analysis and atomicity of the universe as the basis of its quest, Nyaya points to the various modes of acquisition of right knowledge. This leads to liberation, according this system, whereas, according to the Samkhya-school knowledge is necessary as much as practice or ‘abhyasa’ of discipline of both mind and body to attain ‘nirvana’ or enlightenment. Both have pointed to liberation of the soul from the endless cycle of birth-death-re-birth according to one’s ‘karma’ or deeds. The comparative study has revealed new insights to the eastern wisdom in epistemology and their analytical prowess. It has also provided abundant material for future research, on some seemingly subtle contradictions found within the systems. It has kindled one’s interest to delve deep into the recesses of Indian philosophy again, in search of answers. Bibliography Beck, Sanderson (1999). “Hindu Philosophy” Retrieved on December 12, 2006. Dr Waggle's Website (2003). “Samkhya and Yoga” Retrieved on December 12, 2006. Garanpathi, R. (1978). “Devathin Kural” Transcripts of His Holiness Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswathi Swamigal, the Head of Kanchi Kamakot Mutt, Kanchipuram. Volume II. Tranlated into English as “Hindu Dharma.” Vanathi Press. Chennai. Pp. 646-67. Indian Philosophy Simplified (undated). “Samkhya.” Retrieved on December 12, 2006. Raman, V. Varadaraja (2005). “Indic Visions in an Age of Science, V: Epistemology in the Hindu World” in www.metanexus.net. Retrieved on December 12, 2006. Shah. C.S. (2004). “The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy: 1”. In geocities.com website. Retrieved on December 12, 2006. http://indianphilosophy.50webs.com/samkhya.htm Read More