[Advaita-l] 'nyAya' and 'tarka'
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Sat Jul 9 04:26:09 CDT 2011
Thank you for the detailed note and apologies for not responding
promptly. As you know, Sankritists interpret words based on overall context
and particular construct. The etymology of the words nyaya and tarka are
obviously different. So, it takes proper grammatical analysis to
understand Sankara's usage in each context. I have an appointment with a
grammarian and if he is willing to help me analyze this usage - will present
it to the group. I am not inclined to go with superficial analysis based on
translations and without reference to grammar. I hope you understand my
position. I am not being offensive when I say "superficial". What I mean is
that it is not based on etymology.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:07 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> I thank Shyam and especially Shiva Senani for the fine piece in response to
> this thread.
> While I recognize that 'tarka', as the 'Tarka Sangraha' does, is more on
> 'padArtha's, yet in shastraic parlance the two terms 'tarka' and 'nyaya'
> synonymously used and generally nowhere their distinction is sought to be
> made. Here is just one instance:
> In the Gaudapada kArika there is a verse 2.3:
> *अभावश्च* *रथादीनां* श्रूयते *न्यायपूर्वकम्* ।
> वैतथ्यं तेन वै प्राप्तं स्वप्न आहुः प्रकाशितम् ॥ 3
> // Scripture, on *rational grounds*, declares the non-existence of the
> chariots etc. perceived in dreams. Therefore the wise say that the
> *established by reason *is proclaimed by scripture. //
> Shankaracharya's commentary on the above is:
> इतश्च स्वप्नदृश्या भावा वितथाः, यतः अभावश्च *रथादीनां* स्वप्नदृश्यानां
> श्रूयते, *न्यायपूर्वकं युक्तितः* श्रुतौ ‘न तत्र रथाः‘ इत्यत्र। तेन
> अन्तस्थानसंवृतत्वादिहेतुना प्राप्तं वैतथ्यं तदनुवादिन्या श्रुत्या
> //For this reason too, non-existence of chariots etc. is heard of in the
> Upanishad, in the text 'There are no chariots....' from the *standpoint of
> logic*. They, the knowers of Brahman say that the unreality arrived at
> through such reasons as existence inside the body, smallness of the space,
> etc. is revealed by the Upanishad....//
> For the word 'nyAya...' Shankara comments: 'yuktitaH'. Now in the next
> chapter, Advaita prakaraNam (3.1), while introducing the chapter Shankara
> recalls what was primarily achieved in the previous, second, chapter:
> तत्र द्वैताभावस्तु वैतथ्यप्रकरणेन
> Note here that Shankara is dealing with the 'same' topic: the establishment
> of the unreality/non-existence of duality with the help of logic/reasoning.
> In the second chapter the word 'nyAya' was used to convey this and in the
> third the word 'tarka' is used to convey the same thing. There is
> no difference between the meanings these two terms carry in these two
> There are several instances where the term 'tarka' is used by Shankara.
> is in the sutra bhashya 188.8.131.52 (tattu samanvayaat): ...(न हि....) एकः
> कूटस्थनित्यः पुरुषो विधिकाण्डे *तर्कसमये* वा केनचिदधिगतः...such a Self is
> not known as the Self of all by anyone in the section of the Vedas dealing
> with virtuous deeds, or in the *scriptures of the logicians*. [This could
> refer to all the schools that base their system primarily on tarka -
> In the Kathopanishad 1.2.9 there is the mantra:
> नैषा तर्केण मतिरापनेया...where for this occurrence Shankara writes:
> स्वबुद्ध्यभ्यूहमात्रेण..by a mere argumentation (not vAda with an opponent)
> called up merely by one's own intellect. (this means the operation of the
> intellect without the essential backing of the shruti). Later Shankara
> remarks: *तार्किको* हि अनात्मज्ञः स्वबुद्धिपरिकल्पितं यत्किञ्चिदेव कथयति ।
> [For, a *logician* who is not versed in the Vedas, talks of all sorts of
> things that can be called up by his own intellect.]
> One can see that the term 'tArkikaH' is translated as 'a logician'.
> In this same bhashya Shankara refers to a VedAntic AchArya too as a
> 'tArkika'. For someone versed in the vedAnta can deliver the teaching
> effectively only if it is aided by the necessary tarka, reasoning.
> In this quote from vAchaspati mishra's
> न्यायवार्त्तिकतात्पर्यटीका, '*नैयायिकः* सांख्यं दूषयति' ['the logician
> criticizes the sAnkhya'] we can easily see that the term naiyAyikaH is not
> at all distinguished from a tArkika.
> Thus, a tArkika is not different from a naiyAyika. A student of
> nyAyashAstra is a student of tarkashAstra as well. A 'tarka-chUDAmaNi' is
> the same as a 'a nyAya-shiromaNi'. The two terms are synonymously used.
> In the brahmasutra bhashya 2.1.11 तर्काप्रतिष्ठानात्....Shankara quotes a
> manu smrti: ...वेदशास्त्रेण अव्रिरोधिना तर्केण.[with the help of reasoning
> that does not run counter to vedic literature..] .and says: अयमेव तर्कस्य
> अलंकारो यदप्रतिष्टितत्वं नाम । एवं हि सावद्यतर्कपरित्यागेन निरवद्यस्तर्कः
> पतिपत्तव्यो भवति । [This in fact constitutes a 'recommendation' for
> reasoning, tarka, that it is thought to be inconclusive, for it is thus
> one has to discard faulty reasoning and resort to the faultless one]
> ...प्रधानवादी तर्कविदामुत्तमः.[The follower of the theory of Pradhana
> (saankhya) is not accepted by all logicians as the best among adepts in
> reasoning) ...सर्वैस्तार्किकैः..[by *all *the logicians]
> We can see that the term 'taarkika' is used here by Shankara to refer to
> those who base their system on logic rather than the Shruti (aided by
> logic). In this case even the saankhya comes under the banner of a
> taarkika. In any case the purport of the foregoing is that the terms
> and 'nyAya' are interchangeably used by the shAstrakAra-s.
> Having said this, I shall address a few observations of Rajaram who says:
> 1. The whole discussion was using loose terms, which one of the members
> admitted to in a private exchange. But loose terms can only give general
> understanding and not particular understanding. I was trying to control
> loose terms and realize I might have hurt people - apologies.
> VS: I am not the one who admitted so :)
> We have seen in the foregoing that the usage of terms 'tarka' and 'nyAya'
> are in no way 'loose' (if this adjective is meant to say: indiscriminate).
> It is only because the two terms have no unique meaning attached to them
> that Shankara uses them interchangeably. And it seldom has lead to any
> compromise in understanding what He wanted to put across.
> 2. There was a ridicule of nyaya system with the elephant example to say
> that nyaya complicates simple things. I do not know the context of the joke
> or the intent of the speaker of the joke.
> VS: It is definitely a joke just to caricature the penchant of the tArkika
> to engage in tough/terse arguments. In fact the Brahmasutra itself is said
> to be 'nyAyaprasthAnam' where the purport of the various passages of the
> shruti is determined by a detailed analysis. One can see that several
> sutras themselves having the structure of an anumAna with the pratijnA,
> and dRShTAnata.
> 3. The member said that nyaya is minimally used and mainly in polemic.
> I disagreed with that because our acharyas interpret texts according to
> valid system of logic.
> VS: What I hinted at was only this: the use of tarka is so conspicuous in
> the Madhva system, for instance, that it has earned them an 'epithet':
> प्रच्छन्नतार्किकाः (’tArkika-s in disguise') or sophists (= One skilled in
> elaborate and devious argumentation.) Dr.BNK Sharma has written in defense
> of this 'allegation'. One of श्रीव्यासतीर्थ's works is '*तर्क*ताण्डवः’
> from the popular *न्यायामृ*तम्.
> It is only recently that I had posted a short series of quotes from
> Shankara's use of the method of the nyAya consisting of the anumAnaprayoga
> (pancha avayava vAkya).
> Terms like उपपत्तिः, युक्तिः, अनुमानम्, are some of the others used in
> connection with tarka/nyAya, sometimes even as synonyms. युक्तिकोविदः,
> अनुमानकुशलः are two names to denote one who is well versed in logic. For
> instance 'mananam' is said to be involving reasoning. This is expressed
> मन्तव्यश्च उपपत्तिभिः, तर्कतश्च मननम्.
> Also, in Shankara's bhashyas we find even the bauddha to be included in the
> category of 'tArkika-s'. Often He has taken up the naiyAyika and the
> bauddha for a common mode of refutation. Thus, the term 'tArkika' can
> include the naiyAyika, the sAnkhya and the bauddha for all of them are
> तर्कप्रधान in their doctrines.
> There is at least one mention in the Br.sutra bhashya (3.4.22):
> तथाच *न्यायविदां* स्मरणम् -
> कुर्यात्क्रियेत कर्तव्यं भवेतस्यादिति पञ्चमम् ।
> एतत्स्यात्सर्ववेदेषु नियतं विधिलक्षणम् ॥
> इति लिङ्गाद्यर्थो विधिरिति मन्यमानास्त एवं स्मरन्ति ।
> [Thus also runs a Smriti text of *those who are adepts in reasoning*: 'In
> all the Vedas these (verbal moods) are the invariable signs of injunction,
> viz 'should do, should be done, must be done, may become, should be.']
> It appears that the Acharya is referring to the pUrvamimamsaka here. In
> any case the terms 'tarka' and 'nyaya' are used interchangeably to convey
> the same meaning: reasoning/reason.
> When we say 'Madhusudana understood Vyasatirtha's 'nyAya', it does not make
> any different sense than the expression: 'Madhusudana responded effectively
> to Vyasatirtha's 'tarka'.
> > Regards,
> > subrahmanian.v
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list