A vital point of dispute within both classical Indian thought and contemporary analytic ontology is the following: which facts are brute so that they are, so to speak, beyond any need of civilizing through logical transformations, conceptual revisions, or linguistic reformulations? In this article, we discuss certain strands of the debate in these fields with two central purposes in mind. Firstly, we shall argue that metaphysical debates are seemingly interminable partly because disputing parties carve up the ontological landscape in such (...) a manner that what one party views as primitive, basic, or fundamental is regarded by an opponent as derivative, imagined, or constructed and vice versa. Second, unlike debates over these themes in contemporary analytic ontology, the classical Indian counterparts were usually located within a soteriological context, where it was claimed that an individual should develop meditative praxis on the way towards the goal of ultimate liberation. While it might seem that one could appeal to “experience” in this manner to settle the debate over whether universals were fundamental ingredients of the fabric of reality or merely conceptual artefacts, we shall argue that this approach is complicated by the fact that aspirants in these traditions would interpret their experiences in accordance with their doctrinal schemes. Therefore, the question of whether or not this appeal succeeds leads us to an ongoing dispute in religious epistemology over whether experiences are completely “constructed” by doctrinal context. (shrink)

It has become commonplace in introductions to Indian philosophy to construe Plato’s discussion of forms (εἶδος/ἰδέα) and the treatment in Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika of universals ( sāmānya/jāti ) as addressing the same philosophical issue, albeit in somewhat different ways. While such a comparison of the similarities and differences has interest and value as an initial reconnaissance of what each says about common properties, an examination of the roles that universals play in the rest of their philosophical enquiries vitiates this commonplace. (...) This paper draws upon the primary texts to identify the following metaphysical, epistemological, semantic and soteriological roles that universals play in the philosophy of Plato and of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika: Metaphysical: causal of the existence of x Metaphysical: constitutive of the identity/essence of x Epistemological: cognitively causal (i.e. of the cognition of one over many) Epistemological: epistemically causal (i.e. of knowledge of x) Semantic: necessary condition of speech and reason Epistemological: vindicatory of induction (Nyāya only) Metaphysical: explanatory of causation (Nyāya only) Soteriological: cathartic contemplation (Plato only) These roles provide us with motivations or reasons to believe that universals exist. As we examine these motivations, we find pressures mounting against our assimilating Platonic forms and the universals of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika in the discourse about common properties. It is especially when we appreciate the utterly different contribution that universals make in securing our highest welfare that we realize how Plato and the two sister schools are not so much talking somewhat differently about the same thing, but talking somewhat similarly about different things. This better understanding of this difference in these philosophies opens a route for our better understanding of their unique contributions in the ongoing dialogue of philosophy. (shrink)

The Article is concerned with the investigation of interpretation of the concept "pratyakṣa" in the first chapter of the first part of "Nyāya Sūtras", which became the determining ground for the entire subsequent history of the development of this concept in the teachings of the adherents of this philosophical school and their polemics with opponents. The methods of etymological and contextual analysis are applied, the key meaningful connotations of "pratyakṣa" are outlined, and the main issues of its interpretation and translation (...) are revealed. The first chapter of the first part of "Nyāya Sūtras" is the systemic core of the work as a whole, therefore its thorough study is of primary importance, both for the reconstruction of the teachings of Nyāya darshan, and for clarifying the specifics of the actualization of the lexemes presented in this part of the text and in the philosophical discourse of India as a whole. However, the brevity of the text chosen for analysis in this article opens a rather comprehensive perspective of different interpretations and creates a number of open questions. The duration of the tradition of comments dedicated to "Nyāya Sūtras" is an evidence of the importance of this work and the difficulty of reconstructing its content. The open questions actualized in the process of this study should not only become the basis for further investigations, but also reveal the specifics of the problematization of "pratyakṣa" in the philosophical discourse of India. The article reveals that the study of the concept of "pratyakṣa" in the teaching of Nyaya darshan, first of all, requires the analysis of the following concepts: prama̅ṇa, indriya, manas, artha, jñāna, buddhi. The article also suggests that "pramana pratyakṣa" is rather a "situation" of acquiring knowledge that meets the criteria of truth, rather than a simple "tool of knowledge" or "ability to know", so its simple translation as "perception" seems insufficiently substantiated. The article declares that the issue whether every contact between indriya and artha necessarily leads to the formation of a jñāna that meets the criteria of avyapadeśyam ("that which precedes definition and expression"), avyatirekavyabhicārin ("that which is clear, distinct, uncontroversial and steady'), vyavasāyātmaka ('that which is intense, bright and full of energy') is open and urgent for further research. It also states that the issues whether it is possible to talk about the contact of indriya, in the sense of a simple list of empirical senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), with artha without the mediation of manas; and how to interpret the possible role of the Western concept of "consciousness" in this process are also important. (shrink)

Original in content and approach, Philosophy in Classical India focuses on the rational principles of Indian philosophical theory, rather than the mysticism usually associated with it. Ganeri explores the philosophical projects of a number of major Indian philosophers and looks into the methods of rational inquiry deployed within these projects. In so doing, he illuminates a network of mutual reference and criticism, influence and response, in which reason is simultaneously used constructively and to call itself into question.