[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Shri Harsha's Khandana Khanda Khadya (English)

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l wrote:

> Given that the nyAya school is the main pUrvapaxI for Sri Harsha, were
> there any post-Shankara nyAya texts which particularly analyse and dismiss
> advaitic assertions. I am aware of pre-Shankara texts of nyAya but not
> after him.

Not really because modern Nyaya mainly focuses on pramanas and Advaita 
Vedanta doesn't have much to say on pramanas beyond what the Mimamsakas 
say.  The latter are extensively criticised in Tattvachintamani etc.


On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l wrote:

> I gather that the pre-Shankara naiyAyikas were not theologically sectarian
> Vaishnavas. This is as one would expect.

In fact many were Shaivas.  Unfortunately I read this once but can't find 
the source but there was a saying in ancient times that "Vaisheshikas are 
Shaivas [i.e. Siddhanti Shaivas] and Nayayikas are Pashupatas"  That's 
probably an exaggeration but for example Uddyotakara, the varttikakara on 
Nyaya Sutras is called a Pashupata acharya in colophons.


> So I was wondering who if any inherited the mantle of the earlier
> non-sectarian naiyAyikas. Then I later came across the fact that Gangesha
> Upadhyaya, the great acharya of navya-nyAya begins his work,
> tattvacintaamaNi, with a salutation to Lord Shiva. And a critic of
> khanDanakhanDakhAdya viz., Shankara Mishra was also not known to be of the
> vaiShNava school.

Shankara Mishra was also a Shaiva.  According to his entry in the 
Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies, he is even considered to be an 
avatara of Shiva Bhagavan in his native Mithila.  (Can anyone confirm or 
deny?)  On the other hand, he has also written a tika on Gita Govinda.

It is interesting that several Nyaya authors have written tikas on 
Khandanakhandakhadya - possibly more than Advaitins themselves!

>
> And yes I understand it's quite apt to note the closeness between
> pre-Shankara bhedAbhedavAda (which Sri Shankara has refuted in bhAShyas)
> and later vaiShNava dvaita (the gauDiya vaiShNavas are not apologetic to
> label themselves acintya-bhedAbheda). It certainly  does invite the charge
> of pracchana-tArkika (crypto-logicians) upon later dvaita schools.
>

I read an article about how Navya Nyaya came to South India.  It starts 
with the celebrated Bengali Nayayika Vasudeva Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya who 
was instrumental in bringing the study of Navya Nyaya from Mithila where 
it originated to Bengal.  Vasudeva taught four famous pupils including 
Raghunatha Tarka Shiromani Bhattacharya the greatest of the Navyas and 
Chaitanya the founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.  Later on in his life he 
"converted" to Advaita Vedanta and went to live in Puri where he was a 
court Pandit of the Gajapati king Prataparudra.

At the time, the Gajapatis kingdom in Orissa and the Vijayanagar kingdom 
were the two premier Hindu realms and there was a "cold war" between them. 
One of the ways the rivalry was expressed was with Sanskrit debates. 
Vasudeva sent a challenge proclaiming the supremacy of Advaita to Vyas 
Tirth, his counterpart in Vijayanagara.   The latter was unable to respond 
due to the novel style of argumentation employed by Vasudeva.  Intrigued 
he learned Navya Nyaya (though not from Vasudeva) and employed in in his 
nyayamrta etc.  Advaitins who responded also took note of this new 
approach and it quickly spread to all parts of the Pandit community.

Later, Vasudeva met up once again in Puri with his former pupil Chaitanya 
and switched once again to Gaudiya Vaishnavism so stories say.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l wrote:

>
> Wouldn't it be more the other way around, considering that naiyAyikas  were
> already Dvaitins? Dvaitavedantins seem to have switched allegiance to
> nyAya, being pracchanna-naiyAyikas!

Yes Nyaya was dualistic from the beginning but as I mentioned before it 
was predominantly Shaiva dvaita at first and only Vaishnava dvaita later 
on.

However it should not be thought thay Nyaya demands only a dualistic 
interpretation.  Annam Bhatta, the author of the most popular introductory 
work on Nyaya throughout India, the Tarka Samgraha was an Advaitin.  He 
describes his father one Tirumala as "Advaitavidyacharya".  He himself 
also wrote a vrtti on Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya called mitakshara which 
has been published I think.

At the end of his own commentary, dipika on Tarkasangraha, Annambhatta 
says:


पदार्थज्ञानस्य परमं प्रयोजनं मोक्षः । तथाहि । आत्मावाऽरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो 
निदिध्यासितव्यः इति श्रुत्या१ श्रवणादीनामात्मसाक्षात्कारहेतुत्वबोधनात् ।

"The purpose of the knowledge of categories[1] is moksha.  Because the 
Shruti says, "The Atma is to be heard about, thought about, and 
contemplated upon."; this should be understood as hearing etc. is the 
cause of witness of the Atma.

श्रुत्या
देहादिविलक्षणात्मज्ञाने सत्यप्यसंभवानाऽनिवृत्तेर्युक्त्यनुसन्धानरूपमननसाध्यत्वात् 
मननोपयोगिपदार्थनिरूपणद्वारा शास्त्रस्यापि मोक्षोपयोगः ।

"Having heard that Atman is something other than the body, in order to 
ascertain the truth, it must be thought about with the goal of motiveless 
research via the method of distinguishing between the categories.  In 
this way this shastra is useful as a means to moksha."[2]

[1] The modern tarkashastra is a fusion between the old nyaya and 
vaisheshika darshans.  The seven fundamental categories (padarthas) come 
from vaisheshika.  So padarthajnana "knowledge of the categories" is a 
synonym for tarkashastra.

[2] in other words, logical manana on what has been heard in shruti 
will lead to the ability to contemplate and apprehend the Atma by helping 
you understand what is true and false.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>