10

The Agama Pramanya is a work by the famous Sri Vaishnava Acharya Yamunacharya arguing that the Pancharatra texts, which are foundational to mainstream Vaishnavism as I discuss here, are legitimate Hindu scriptures. (He also composed another work on a related subject which I discuss here.) In the course of doing so, he presents the views of various schools of Hindu philosophy on this issue, and in this excerpt he presents the views of a follower of the Nyaya school, an ancient school of Hindu philosophy which used logical reasoning to try to prove the validity of the Vedas and the existence of a supreme being.

The Nyaya philosopher says that the Vedas are authored by the supreme being (Vishnu), so another text composed by that same being, i.e. the Pancharatra texts, would be equally valid. But the Purva Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy, which I discuss here, says that the Vedas are authorless, in the sense of not even originating from a divine source. So in the excerpt I linked to, someone from the Purva Mimamsa school raises the objection that the Pancharatra texts talk about Dharma and Adharma (good and evil), but Vishnu can't know what is right and wrong (!), because that knowledge can only be found in an authorless text. The Nyaya philosopher responds to this objection by saying that Vishnu has to know about Dharma and Adharma because he needs that information in order to create the Universe:

OBJECTION. But does [Bhagavan's] intuition or perception also encompass dharma and adharma?

REPLY. Certainly. How else would the Bhagavan be able to give rise to such effects as body, world etc.? For the maker of such effects must be one who is capable of perceiving their material and instrumental causes. Now, dharma and adharma are the instrumental causes of the world; this is also the consensus of the Mimamsakas. Consequently we must postulate a certain person who has this perceptual knowledge, and that person must also be the one who created the Veda at the beginning.

If one contends that such entities as mountains, earth and the like are not effects, the answer is as follows: The entities in question, earth etc., are effects, because they have a complex construction, like a king’s palace....

It being thus established that earth etc. are indeed effects, on the grounds adduced above, it follows that the Bhagavan has knowledge of dharma and adharma which are the instrumental causes of origination and annihilation.

The logical structure of the argument seems to be as follows:

  1. The Earth and other objects are complex constructions.
  2. Thus these objects must be effects.
  3. The instrumental causes of all effects in the Universe are Dharma and Adharma.
  4. A being who produces an effect must know about the instrumental causes of the effect.
  5. Thus Vishnu, who produces the Earth and other objects, must know about Dharma and Adharma

The follower of Purva Mimamsa subsequently criticizes steps 2 and 4, but I'm interested in step 3 of the argument. The Nyaya philosopher says "Now, dharma and adharma are the instrumental causes of the world; this is also the consensus of the Mimamsakas." The footnotes explain what this means:

This envisages the world as the sum-total of the fruits (phala) brought about by the observance or non-observance of dharma, which is thus instrumental to world-creation.... This is the Mimamsa view which holds that the dharma and adharma as instruments in creation are always the dharma and adharma of a particular intelligent being[.]

The idea seems to be that everything that happens in the Universe, including the formation of the Earth and mountains and so on, is a product of the law of Karma, being the phala or fruit of some good deed or bad deed that some person committed in the past. (In the case of the Earth's creation it would have to be someone living in an earlier age on a previous planet Earth.)

My question is, what is the justification for this assertion? It seems like such a controversial point, yet the Nyaya philosopher takes it for granted, such that he casually goes from "The Earth is an effect" to "The instrumental causes of the Earth are Dharma and Adharma." The whole point of the Nyaya school is to use logical arguments to prove the beliefs of Hinduism. So what is the Nyaya school's argument for Dharma and Adharma being the instrumental cause of everything in the Universe? Do any Nyaya works address this?

Community
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
  • I think we need to get to the definitions of dharma and adharma in order to get justification how could Nayaya Philosophers take it for granted. – Yogi Apr 01 '15 at 18:04
  • @Creator I don't think the nature of Dharma and Adharma is the key issue. I think the key issue is the idea that everything in the Universe is the phala or fruit of the past action of some being. Whether that action is good or bad is secondary. The main point is, as the footnotes say, "all entities presuppose former acts that have brought them about." That's what needs to be justified: that the instruments of creation are derived from past acts of intelligent beings. – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 01 '15 at 21:35
  • Does the Nyaya school of thought have anything to do with Nyaya Shastra by Rishi Gautama? – Naveen Apr 22 '15 at 12:21
  • @Naveen Yes, Gautama's Nyaya Sutras are the foundational text of the Nyaya school. – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 22 '15 at 15:23
  • "all entities have former acts that have brought them about." that's quite interesting question :). so that implies that you basically want to know the Nyaya reasoning for the existence of karma? – Sai May 18 '15 at 22:08
  • As per this book (keyword search 'karma belief in Nyaya') "https://books.google.com/books?id=8dRZ4E-qgz8C&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=karma+belief+in+nyaya&source=bl&ots=DwVnnNsFsB&sig=-j_k60Sak6ZQvyDbp84gAaLqpoo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gGNaVc8UiYSwBYycgagG&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=karma%20belief%20in%20nyaya&f=false" the causality of universe was something accepted as self evident – Sai May 18 '15 at 22:19
  • "The causal relation between things is something that Nyaya believed we know intuitively and accept as self-evident in the world in which we live. The fact that certain causes produce certain effects is born out by experience and, conversely, the absence of a cause means the absence of the effect: there cannot be effects without their causes. And it is this cause-effect principle that is at the same time the principle of all the change that happens in existence." – Sai May 18 '15 at 22:19
  • @Sai "so that implies that you basically want to know the Nyaya reasoning for the existence of karma?" Yeah, that's the core of my question. But I don't think your cause and effect quote is relevant. That's just about the principle that every effect must have something that causes it. My question is about the notion that every effect (including the Earth and mountains and so on!) must be the reward or punishment of some past act of an intelligent being. – Keshav Srinivasan May 18 '15 at 22:40
  • @Sai Here's another book that does a good job of stating the Nyaya school's views on Karma: https://books.google.com/books?id=_Bi6FWX1NOgC&lpg=PA151&ots=tRUsx5Hagc&dq=nyaya%20%22instrumental%20cause%22&pg=PA149#v=onepage&q&f=false For instance, it says "dharma and adharma are the root causes of the Universe", that adhrishta (the unseen force that makes karma have consequences) "brings about the combination of atoms", and that adrishta "is an upakaranam (instrumental cause)". But again, it doesn't provide the argument that justifies this position. – Keshav Srinivasan May 19 '15 at 03:47
  • I agree with you how is the first karma defined then who did the first karma in order for this material world to create itself? The answer might be bramhan or soul our true self so that it creates the first kamabeej to get this samsara as a result of that 'first karma' – Yogi Oct 01 '15 at 10:04
  • @Yogi Well, I don't think that's really an issue. There were infinitely many Kalpas and Mahakalpas before this one, so the creation of the Earth and mountains and so on might be a reward for something someone did in an earlier age. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 01 '15 at 13:16
  • 1
    The footnote in the link is different from what you have quoted. Moreover, it only espouses the Mimasaka position and not the Nyaya position. Still, it is clear from the arguments that the Nyayas held the belief in universality of causation. – SMJoe Jan 26 '18 at 15:25
  • @SMJoe I quoted footnotes 43 and 46. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 26 '18 at 15:27
  • 1
    However, such position is necessary for any determinate and certain philosophy to be possible. Though Nyaya school is a logical one, even logic has to build up from some "givens". Such a belief is held by all other Indian schools except Carvaks, and even all rationalist Western philosophers. To question this would be to question the possibility of certain knowledge and thus enter scepticism. – SMJoe Jan 26 '18 at 15:32
  • 1
    The Carvakas critized Nyayaikas exactly on this point. The Nyayikas always considered Vyapti as an universal and invariable condition, and once established, never questioned its universality. – SMJoe Jan 26 '18 at 15:40

0 Answers0