POST SANKARA DIALOGUE BETWEEN ADVAITINS AND NAIYYAYIKAS:SOME ISSUES

The influence of sankara was great in the period that followed him. No philosopher could propose his arguments neglecting the views of sankara. His own followers also developing advaitavedanta, contributed to Indian thought. Old philosophical questions were reconsidered and answered. The style of presentation and method of argumentation were adjusted to suit the need of time.

The period that immediately followed sankara saw the reaction from vedantins- theist vedantins. At first Visishtadvaitins attacked advaitavedanta. Dvaitins and other systems followed the same later. Bhaskaracharya, the well-known, bhedabheda vadin, provided weapons – a set of arguments against some key concepts of advaitavedanta - for this attack. Certainly this was not enough to counter position of advaitins. This situation produced the most creative period in the history of Indian philosophy. Post sankara philosophers, especially other vedantins, developed their arguments to counter the ‘nirvisesha advaita vada’ of advaitavedanta and the epistemology developed by advaitins.

Countering the epistemology of advaitavedanta was not an easy task. The epistemology of advaitavedanta had rejected the idealist as well as realist views of Buddhism and the realist epistemology of Naiyayikas. At the same time they maintained realist and idealist features in their epistemology. Advaitin’s adherence to the pramanasastra of Bhatta School of mimamsa is well known. This suggests that the epistemology of advaitavedanta is a clever fusion. To counter this well formulated system another combination or fusion of ideas was necessary. Though bhaskara and Yadavaprakasa tried to counter the system they could not succeed much. The visishtadvaitins, especially Yamunacharya, Ramanuja and vedantadesika were the first ones who successfully challenged the system of Vedanta. Yamunacharya provided the hermeneutical tools through the agamapramanya and siddhitraya. Ramanuja in his srebhashya on brahmasutras examined the pros and cones of advaitavedanta and rejected them. The authors up to Vimuktatman were criticised in this text. Next was vedantadesika, whose Satadushani expanded ramanuja’s criticism. This work was the model to vyasatirtha for composing Nyayamrta.

An interesting thing was that no prominent advaitin up to 19^th century tried to reply the arguments of visishtadvaitins. Why? Without replying the visishtadvaitins Advaitins attacked the nyaya system, especially the epistemology. Until the emergence of Dvaita system as the main opponent of advaita, they concentrated on nyaya. The endeavour started with Sri Harsha, the author of khandana khanda Khadya. Chitsukhacharya carried forward the task in his tatvapradipika while anandabodha in his nyayamakaranda did the same. What was the cause of this concentration?

By concentrating in examining and refuting the nyaya system advaitins were trying to abolish newly generated fusion of ideas especially in epistemology. The epistemology of visishtadvaita was founded on the following principles: 1. ज्ञानाधिकरणम् आत्मा, 2. सर्वं ज्ञानं सत्यं, 3. सर्वं ज्ञानं विशिष्टम्।. The first one was followed by nyaya while the next two were taken from prabhakara mimamsa. Not attending the prabhakara’s views advaitins challenged the validity of pramanas and the nyaya system, which gave them their desired result- the nirdharmaka Brahman which is not the abode of Knowledge but knowledge itself and the mutability and unreliability of worldly knowledge produced through sense object contact.

This dialogue between advaitins and nayyayikas produced vast literature. This dialogue discussed many issues but the advent of dvaita Vedanta the emphasis had been shifted to Bheda, which is an element having epistemological and ontological importance in dvaitavedanta.  The problem of difference was dealt in detail in the works of dvaita and advaita. Dr.Rajaram sukla , who edited bhedaratnam of Sankaramisra, says that the polemic  over ‘difference’ was going on for past seven hundred years. He also considers Madhvas as ‘adhunika tarkika’.

We have many texts discussing this issue, directly countering and refuting each other. Bheda ratnam of Sankaramisra, Bhedasiddhi of visvanathapanchanana, advaitaratna of Mallanaradhyacharya, Bhedadhikkara and advaitadipika of Nrsimhacharya, and advaitaratnarakshanam of Madhusoodanasarasvati are few books in this series.

To establish the validity of ‘bhedapaksha’  madhvas had developed their own tools for exegesis. Two books are well known in this connection Upakaramaparakramam of appayadikshita and upasamharavijaya of  Vijayindratirtha.

The nyaya system also exploited the scripture to establish the reality of difference. Bheda is an important problem of philosophy, ontologically and epistemologically.

[Paper presented in the National Seminar on 'the Development of Nyaya through ages' organised by Department of Nyaya, Sree Sankaracharya university of Sanskrit, Regional Centre, Thiruvananthapuram in march 2013 ]

     

Language in Indian Philosophy 

and 

Modern Linguistics

Indian philosophy has some opinion on some features of language and the same share some close resemblance with the views of modern linguistics. Indians have a long tradition of language analysis and study commencing from pratiśākhyas. The phonetics, etymology and grammar were studied deeply in ancient and medieval India.  A limitation of these studies is that all of them are on Sanskrit languge and no universal theory about language and language phenomenon absent. This particular aspect was attended by philosophers. All systems of thought said their views on the functioning of language and the acquisition of language.

Before entering into a discussion on the topic one should note the difference in the approach and method of philosopher and linguist in the analysis of language. As philosophy being the study of reality a philosopher is always preoccupied with the metaphysics, epistemology and ontology of the system. His attempts were to describe and prove how the real can be known? As among many means to learn, understand and experience the real, language also included. In Indian context it was termed as śabda and śābdajñāna.  Opponents put these concepts for severe scrutiny and we have many theories about ‘śābdajñāna’.  These ideas are not limited to Sanskrit language. They are universal to an extent.  There are many. But here this paper considers just two of them- language acquisition and the relation between word and object. The first was discussed from the time of Greek philosophy, become a hot topic of debate after the intervention of Chomsky and his ideas of ‘universal grammar’ and ‘competence and performance’.  The second is a comprehensive topic as it tries to explain the language as a whole. It is connected with Saussure who described language as system of systems and explained how various parts of language and individuals in the society are connected.

Language acquisition according to Indian philosophers

When, where the language originated? Vaidikas identified it with ‘vāk’. They associated magical powers with language which resulted in the deification of language and few Gods Vāk, brahmaṇaspati etc were placed as the authority of language. Daṇḍi’s salutation to language clarifies this position. Generally Indians accepted it as ‘apauruṣeya’.  But how a human being acquires his language? They described it through an example – quoting the translation of Kunjunni Raja-

“Hearing the utterance of a sentence by A to B and observing the consequent activity on the part of listener B, an onlooker C gets the idea that the activity of B is based on his understanding the meaning of the sentence. At this time the whole action of B is understood as the meaning of the whole utterance of A. From several such observations of various utterances and their meanings, C is able to understand the meaning of single words through a process of assimilation and elimination”[Indian theories of meaning, p 26-27]

This shows that a person learns his first language from his society. He learns the conventions of that particular language – vocabulary, rules and the contextual usages- gradually from the members of his society.  This description is accepted by all the ancient philosophers. But at the same time they have differences about ‘what learns from the process’.  

As in the case of many Indian sciences our ‘philosopher linguist’ stops a step behind. As pointed earlier, the philosophers mind took them away or distracted them away from the natural genuine question – how this happens. Chomsky, the linguist, starting from this point has concluded – based only on reasoning and speculation – that every infant baby (fault less) has the ability to internalise language, which he called LAD- Language acquisition Device. The brain of the child is programmed, as a computer programme to execute certain tasks, to acquire language. To Chomsky this programme residing in the brain of child is ‘Universal Grammar’ and the ability of the child is ‘competence’.  He receives the language and the conventions of the language community with the aid of the LAD.

Here we should remember that Indian philosophers were very close to this idea. The definition of ‘bālaka’ is  श्रवणधारणापटुः।.  They also agree that the child uses his ability of reasoning to learn vocabulary, the relation between word and object, the contextual connotations etc. The reason that prevented Indian thinkers from reaching to this conclusion was their adherence to metaphysics.

The relation between word and object

The second topic that Indian philosophy and modern linguistics share some similarities is the discussion about the relation between word and its meaning. Here too the approach of Indian thinkers is not of linguists. The view of each philosopher is conditioned by their philosophical position. In philosophy we have many schemes such as materialism, idealism etc. Indian philosophers too have such orientations.

Generally language is a means of communication. It communicates concrete objects and abstract ideas. That is, the stock of vocabulary comprises words that have concrete objects as their substratum and ideas that are mental constructs. Modern linguists were prepared to accept the situation as it is. But the philosopher tried to explain according to their system. For example yoga philosophy considers knowledge as the transformation of mind. Consider the definition of vikalpa- शब्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्पः – when there is no object corresponding to a word it is called vikalpa and such knowledge have no validity. At the same time the word have its role in language and its use is granted by grammar. That is the correspondence theory of the philosopher is not compatible with language. Language can build a world with infinite images, where it departs from the realism of philosopher. 

The philosopher is concerned with the exact knowledge of the object with mathematical precision. But language flees from there. The Indian philosopher’s emphasis was on how the word and object related? They give many answers, 1. The relation is natural and permanent, 2. It is conventional, 3. There are both conventional as well as permanent relations. They agree that word have a meaning and it is called potency. But they disagree on whether this potency rests in the actual object or in the abstract concept.

Saussure considered these aspects in detail and illustrated the complex relation of various factors of language. He says that language have two vital components- langue and parole. Langue is the property of the language community, the vocabulary, rules and conventions shared by all the members of the community in which the individual have no absolute control. Parole is the individual’s actual use of langue in his life. Parole is infinite while langue is finite. He sums up his observations as ‘language is a system of systems’.  

According to him langue is a ‘sign’ system. Each word is a sign of some object or concept that the community has agreed on. And this sign – concept/ object agreement is arbitrary as another language community can use a different sign for the same concept / object.

Here too the philosopher failed to rise up to the mark. They were successful in analysing the problem. They had the answers – the best ones. But they could not provide a conclusive theory. Here the contribution of naiyāyikas cannot be neglected. They were true linguists in their spirit. From sutras to their latest works they modified their definitions and approaches. Yet their adherence to metaphysics and realist epistemology restricted them from producing a comprehensive universal theory applicable to all languages. Still their ideas are very close to that of Saussure.

To conclude, though Indian philosophers successfully analysed the ‘phenomenon language’, and the ‘conditions that control language’ they could not formulate a comprehensive theory of language. They stopped just a step behind as in the case of mathematics and other sciences. The reason is their overwhelming adherence to metaphysics and its epistemology. The grammarians perfectly analysed Sanskrit language. The pattern was accepted all over the world and even Chomsky accepted Pāṇini’s grammar as perfect grammar. But some unknown reasons restricted its further development to ‘General Linguistics’.   

[Paper presented in the seminar 'Verbal cognition in Indian thought'  organised by Government Sanskrit college, Thiruvananthapuram on  25& 26 October 2013]

The Upanishads

Chandogyopanishad is a theistic Upanishad