Place of Rational Inquiry in Dharmic Worldviews

[Osal]

I would like to know how it answers my question.
You should stop insinuating that I don't really want to know. You have no basis to make such a claim and this is a DIR forum. If you know the answer, please explain it.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect someone to research things they want toknow about. It's also reasonable to think that if someone won't take the time to research ideas they're not that intrested in the subject in the first place. And that's ok.

I'm not inclined to hold your hand on this matter. If you won't research the topic for yourself, I'm not inclined to explain it to you or anyone, really.

 

[sayak83]

Sayak, perhaps you have access to this essay from elsewhere, I do not know. In any case, if possible, look up Arindam Chakrabarti's article "I touch what I saw" which appeared in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. He does a great job outlining various views (including Buddhist views) and defending the Nyaya POV. You may know that already.

Perhaps our Buddhist posters may like to read this article as well.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2107746

Thanks for the link. i had not read this article, though I have read other works of Dr. Chakraborti. A great scholar.

 

[sayak83]

I don't think its unreasonable to expect someone to research things they want toknow about. It's also reasonable to think that if someone won't take the time to research ideas they're not that intrested in the subject in the first place. And that's ok.

I'm not inclined to hold your hand on this matter. If you won't research the topic for yourself, I'm not inclined to explain it to you or anyone, really.

Ok. i won't belabor the point. I will switch back to Nyaya for now, and maybe we can pick up the topic at a later stage if you are willing.

 

[Osal]

Ok. i won't belabor the point. I will switch back to Nyaya for now, and maybe we can pick up the topic at a later stage if you are willing.

Sure, no problem. After you've researched a bit, come on back. Its nearly impossible to discuss this, lacking a common frame of reference.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

This is a brilliant thread. It inspired me to join this forum. I wanted to actually add something to this thread, but it is going to be a long post as I want to cover a lot of information. I think Nyaya does not get enough credit and I want more people to know about its contributions to what we call the scientific method today. The Nyaya logic is what we today call the 'scientific method' but not many actually realise this, because well most people do not know of Nyaya's existence and those do know, consider it to be "logic" It is a bit deceptive to call it is logic, because it is not logic in how we understand logic in the Western sense and this is why even Hegel did not consider Indian(Nyaya) logic in the true sense. In the Western sense logic is deductive like mathematics, it is about arranging statements so that the conclusion is entailed by the premises. The standard stock example:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal

However, deductive logic has no power to lead to new knowledge. This was why Aristotle's logic was a huge stumbling block in the development of the scientific method and why Francis Bacon hated it and came up with the Novus Organnon(the new logic) a set of aphorisms on how to obtain valid knowledge. Ironically, it reads just like the Nyaya Sutras, and it makes me suspicious whether Bacon actually knew of the Nyaya sutras.

Science is inductive(some try to say it is hypothetio-deductive to overcome Hume's problem of induction, but it does not in fact overcome it and remains induction) meaning you observe particular things in relationship with one another, and then you make a universal generalisation. Aristotle did not like induction and did not try to come up with a valid inductive method, he was very deeply suspicious about knowledge from the senses(empiricism) because he thought knowledge by reasoning was superior. When he did try to use induction, he come up with very wrong conclusions. I do find Aristotle to be a very over-hyped figure in Philosophy and I think his importance in History of Science has been exaggerated.

Now the Indian syllogism you already mentioned uses the standard stock example

1. There is fire on the hill(statement to be proven)
2. Because there is smoke on the hill(reason)
3. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire, such as in the kitchen(example)
4. Here too there is smoke on the hill(application)
5. Therefore, there is fire on the hill(conclusion)

This syllogism is known in Nyaya as "proving for others" If you want to prove a statement to another, you need to formulate it in this way. If you want to "Prove to oneself" you just need 3 steps

1. I observe smoke on the hill
2. Smoke is the sign of fire
3. Therefore there is fire on the hill

In other words it is very clearly induction. But just because it is induction does not mean it is the scientific method. Inductions can often be wrong(like with Aristotle) After Bacon's insistence on using experimental observation and induction to do science, it took a few more centuries for modern philosophers of science to come up with a proper inductive method which is scientific. How can you be certain that your induction is fact right? Well you cannot be 100% certain, and that is what history of science shows us, new observations can falsify previous theories. However, you can have high confidence or corroboration that an induction is correct. Like if you repeat an experiment thousands of times and you get the same result. It was not until John Stuart Mills that a proper Inductive scientific method was developed in the West. He came up with the method of agreement and disagreement, which is basically what is today called a controlled scientific experiment.

If A is present than B happens(agreement)
If A is not present then B does not happen(disagreement)
Therefore A causes B

If there are more variables you can still apply the same method:

A B C D occur together with w x y z
A E F G occur together with w t u b
Therefore A is the cause, or the effect, of w.

This can only be accepted as a true law if A always causes B and not just in certain conditions. It has to be unconditional for it to be true. This is why we now consider Newton's laws to be not true(though we still use them in everyday mechanics) because they are not true in certain conditions like with particles or in space, for those we use Einstein laws. But even Einstein laws fail in certain conditions like in quantum physics. According to Einstein nothing can go faster than the speed light. It is an absolute speed limit of physics. In quantum physics though we routinely send quantum states thousands of times the speed of light(although we don't know how to use it to send information)

Continued in next post.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Now, the reason I shared all this information is to show that Nyaya was having exactly the same discussions and coming up with nearly almost exactly the same solutions that Modern Philosophy of Science has, and they were doing this nearly 2000 years before. Long before Hume came up with the "problem of induction" the Charvaka philosophers who were skeptics, challenged Nyaya's method of induction by pointing out the same problem with induction. The Charvakas only accepted sensory perception as a valid means of knowing, what cannot be seen, heard, smelled and tasted to them was nonsense. As you only observe particulars, and not universals, stating universals is nonsense. If it is argued, well there is never a case where there is smoke and there isn't fire, we always observe them together(induction by enumeration) they replied you cannot observe all periods of time(past present and fire) all places in the world, it could be possible there might be an instance where there is smoke and there is no fire. That smoke and fire appear together all the time could just be an accident. They also gave examples of previous inductions that have been proven to be wrong e.g. saying a certain material is uncuttable because nothing has ever cut it, but then showing that in fact can be cut with a diamond.

So the Nyaya had to answer the problems of induction raised by Charvaka and they came up with the same answers as Mills did and this is why it can be justifiably called not just an inductive method, but a scientific method. The Nyaya came up with rules on what counts as a valid induction and an invalid induction which we will all agree with today is the scientific method

1. The observation must be be current, clear and distinct and unwavering e.g. it really is smoke, and not mistaken mist
2. The observation must be non-controversial, based on repeated observations, such that even if the layman and expert agree e.g. smoke is always seen with fire, such as in the kitchen
3. The observation must be true in all conditions e.g. fire causes smoke only in some conditions, but smoke is preceded by fire in all conditions
4. There must be no negative examples
5. There must be no examples in opposing conditions e.g. There should not be smoke in water

The Nyaya also came up with what are called 5 formal logical fallacies(hetubashas) but really it is just bad science. I will show by giving scientific examples for each fallacy:

1. Irregular, such as too wide, too narrow or non-exclusive e.g. Too wide, when there are several explanations that can explain the same thing or abduction e.g. There is water on the ground, therefore it must have rained. There are other explanations possible too a dam broke, somebody poured water. Too narrow, the reason has no relationship with the statement to be proven e.g. The Earth spins on its axis, because of the sun light. There is no relationship between the Earth spinning on its axis and sun light. Non-exclusive, the statement cannot be falsified because it is too general e.g. This man is psychic, because he said that I will meet a person with a name beginning with M today
2. Unproven. The reason given as much in need of proof as the statement to be proven e.g. Things fall, because of invisible particles called gravitons
3. Disproven. The reason given is disproven by other evidence e.g. The Earth is flat, because if it was spherical we would fall off(this was actually an argument put forth by critics of Aryabhatta) This is disproven by evidence like astronomy
4. Contradictory. The reason actually establishes the opposite conclusion e.g. Einstein's EPR paradox to disprove quantum "spooky action" actually ended up proving it
5. Counter-balanced. The reason is opposed by equal force by a counter-reason e.g. The universe was created once at the big bang is opposed by equal force by a theory of cyclic universe(constantly created and destroyed)


Now let me show you how we can frame even the most advanced scientific discoveries like the existence of the nucleus using the Nyaya method

1. The atom must have a hard nucleus
2. Because the alpha particles were scattered when they hit the gold foil
3. Scattering is evidence that something hard was hit, like when a ball bounces of a wall
4. Here too the alpha particles were scarttered when they hit the gold foil
5. Therefore, the atom must have a hard nucleus

Now, here is the most startling feature of the Nyaya, the Nyaya came up with exactly the same method of comparison, of agreement and disagreement that Mills did, and what is most striking it has exactly the same name 'anavaya-vyatireka' literally translated to method of agreement and disagreement. They also came up with exactly the same rule that the two particulars must be invariable concomitant and used the same terms. I certainly don't think this a coincidence. The fact that John Stuart Mill lived a long time in India, was a philosopher himself and no doubt would have had contacts with Nyaya philosophers of India. If so, and I certainly suspect this is the case, it is a clear and cut case of plagiarism. Such instances of plagiarism where philosophical and scientific innovations were made in the West during the time of colonialism of India, are starting to come to light in modern research. We now know that in probability Hume's skepticism, including his cluster-theory of Self was plagiarised from Buddhism, as it has only recently been revealed the university Hume studied at was one of the early pioneer centres of Buddhist studies in Europe(this would have included Buddhist logic and the answers to problem of induction) and contained a vast library of Buddhist texts brought by Jesuit missionaries. Similar research in the field of Mathematics has also uncovered that Calculus which had already been developed by Indian mathematicians and astronomers, including how to find the differential of the instantaneous motion of a planet(through the equation ds/dt) in all probability travelled to Europe via the Jesuit missionaries.

In conclusion the Nyaya were very clearly doing science and because India had developed a valid scientific method it had made significant scientific discoveries and hence why India was leading in science before the modern age and the scientific revolution in Europe, after which Europe took the lead. However, the scientific revolution that took place in Europe had very clear Indian seeds. It is now being revealed just how much of the knowledge that was thought to be Arab was in fact Indian. There are many examples of this, not just the zero and decimal system, but what is relevant to this discussion is science. It is well known to historians of science that the Arabs developed the first proto-type of the experimental scientific method, such as Alhazan's 'book of optics' who experimentally was able to disprove the Greek emission theory of light, and show that it travels in straight lines. He was also able to calculate the refraction index of air, used it to estimate the refraction index of the atmosphere and built the first camera obscura. The very first philosopher of science in Europe Roger Bacon, considered the father of the scientific method, read Alhazan and referenced him in his work. The Arabs would most certainly have known about Nyaya, because the Arabs were patrons of science and launched the massive translation movement, where they translated into Arabic all scientific literature existing in the world, including Greek, Chinese, Egyptian and Indian. A lot of emphasis is paid on the Greek texts they translated and a narrative is constructed which basically portrays the Arabs as transmitters of Greek knowledge back to Europe, but curiously they omit the Indian texts that had far more impact on Arabic science, and which use the Nyaya method. The Aryabhattia, the Charaka Samhita and Susrutha Samhita, explicitly mention the Nyaya method. They were later translated into Latin.

I think Nyaya deserves its place in the annals of History of Science for its massive contribution to the development of our modern scientific method. It is so unfortunate so few people know about Nyaya and it more unfortunate that the Greeks are given credit for developing science, when in fact they failed to come up with a valid scientific method and had come up with wrong conclusions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Good, the thread needed some new blood. Oh Warrior, you are an a b c or x y z philosopher. I have not read philosophy 101. But I like your post. Yes, Indians were philosophy champs.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Thank you Aupmanyav. Indeed, Indians excelled in philosophy, and some later Western philosophers even admitted to their excellence, I recall a quote by one Western philosopher but the name evades me right now, "The philosophers of India makes European philosophers look like school children" The Greeks were also very impressed with Indian philosophy, and made similar praises, "India is the the first place where philosophy was born" Modern research has revealed just how much Greek philosophy was influenced by Indian philosophy, both in the preosocratic and post-socratic phase. The later Christians were very aware that Greek philosophy was deeply inspired by Indian philosophy, and they bemoaned it as pagan, as Hinduism was seen as the mothership of all paganism.

It is again unfortunate that this knowledge is not so well known. India's role in shaping the development of philosophy not just in India, but all over the world is very central. Basically it is the origins of philosophy and the oldest philosophical writings in the world are indeed acknowledged to be Indian. I think the reason why India developed philosophy has got nothing to do with some inherent cultural superiority, but rather with with the fact that India entered the urban civilisation stage first(as early as 3000BCE) and because there was an abundance of material wealth and resources, it allowed for people to pursue higher things like philosophy. The superiority of Indian philosophy over Western philosophy is perhaps more by virtue of the fact that it had more time to develop. You can definitely see this if you compare pre-systematic philosophy of the early Upanishads with the 6+ systematic schools, the latter is far more scientific. That is because the early Upanishads were composed at the end of the Vedic age when society was still mostly rural, henceforth the earliest Upanishads were "Aranyakas" meaning forest treatises. The systematic phase of Indian philosophy is far more advanced and sophisticated, and far ahead of all of Greek philosophy even in its most mature phase; it is more comparable with modern philosophy e.g. Panini's grammar is the worlds first formal system and first work on mathematical linguistics, more than 2000 years before the works of Gottlob Frege, De Morgan, Babbage and Boole, and even at that point Panini's logic was still ahead. It is considered still ahead even today, hence its current application in AI research. Ironically, still, Frege et al were aware of Panini. Modern linguistics is actually based on Panini's works. Frits Staal calls Panini, "The Euclid of India"

 

[Aupmanyav]

"The philosophers of India makes European philosophers look like school children"

It was T. S. Elliot.
Indian philosophy - Wikipedia

 

[ajay0]

[QUOTE="sayak83, post: 4775850, member: 37415"

What do you guys think? Do you agree with this idea of dharmic practice through intellectual sadhana? Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Hi Sayak83,

I find your thread very interesting and insightful. Thank you for putting this over here. I would be making a detailed study of it.

Pranams.

 

[ajay0]

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of the Art of Living Foundation, has also underliined the importance of logic in Hinduism.

As per him, logic, music and silence is that which results in expansion of consciousness.

Saraswati , the goddess of wisdom, has a text called Tarka in one of her arms, which means Logic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What do you guys think? Do you agree with this idea of dharmic practice through intellectual sadhana?

[/QUOTE]Sure, Jnana Yoga. Krishna said it is the best.

 

[Chakra]

Really wish that this thread continues...

 

[sayak83]

So far, the discussion (by me and @Spirit_Warrior ) has focused on the work of early Nyaya philosophers like Gautama and Vatsayana. However a significant improvement on the metaphysics of the world was made by Bhasarvajna (950 CE), Udayana (1000 CE) and Raghunatha (1500 CE). The first two united Nyaya epistemology with Vaisesika metaphysics and the latter created the new-Nyaya system of philosophy.

From the time of early Buddhist philosophers, especially championed by Nagarjuna, people argued that the observable world cannot be described consistently and hence it must be "unreal" in some sense. (This argument will be taken up later by Sankara as well). Contrary to Bauddhic or Advaitic philosophers Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers believed that the observable world is also fundamentally real and hence a consistent metaphysics can be built and described about it. This goal united the agnostic Vaisesikans with the more theistic Nyaya philosophers, unifying the two schools into one by 950 CE. Note today science is still grappling with the same problem. Given Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, is it possible to describe the observable world in a consistent metaphysical scheme or is that effort futile? So it is instructive (at least many philsophers today are finding it so) to look at how the realist philosphers of medieval India tackled some of the same problems over a thousand years ago.

I will state the basic Nyaya thesis set forth by Udayana in Lakshanavali in brief before explicating it:-

The world is self-consistently structured as a directed graph that connect seven elementary categories of existents that can be uniquely defined by the structure of the world-graph itself.

To see how he gets there, let me first describe the original Vaisesika metaphysics on which Udayana develops his thesis.

Classical Vaisesika lists seven kinds of things that exist:-

1) Substance:- Atoms are the uncreatable, indestructible, non-compound substances. Atoms can coalesce into compound substances which are distinguishable by the type and organization of their atomic parts. The compound substance, thus constituted, is an autonomous whole composed out of, and inhering simultaneously in each of its parts. (A strong case for emergence and against reduction is made here. The composite whole is an emergent entity in its own right, which while composed of atomic parts, is not a mere heap of these atoms and exists and has autonomous irreducible properties in its own right. The Buddhists went the reductionist route here and there is a very interesting philosophical debate that I will skirt for now).

2) Qualities :- these are particulars (like that specific color red, shape, mass etc.) inhere (i.e. exist permanently and intrinsically in) in particular atomic or compound substances and in nothing but substances.

3) Motions :- (like that specific Velocity, acceleration, rotation etc.) are the dynamical quality particulars that also inhere in particular substances and in nothing but substances.

4) Universals :- (roundness, redness, wetness, hotness) inhere in substances, qualities or motions.

5) Individuator:- While compound substances can be distinguished by their difference in atomic arrangement, how are the vast number of identical atoms of various classes distinguished from one another by the universe? (If this question seems silly to you, you should look at modern physics. The fact that all protons and all electrons are identical to each other has a significant role in how Quantum Field Theory has been constructed.) Vaisesika philosophers argued there there must be an individuating particular inhering in each atom of given class that makes it possible for the world to distinguish them from each other. This is the individuator (visesa).

6) Inherence:- The relation by which qualities and motions and individuators can intrinsically bind to substances and by which universals intrinsically bind to substances, qualities or motions.

7) Absence :- This is the absence or negation of X, where X can be any of the above six types. Uniquely Vaisesika philosophers argued that absences exist in their own right and can be combined with presences to create "zero".


Already we are seeing a very rich metaphysical structure here. But as with much of philsophy and science, defining these terms unambiguously so that logical paradoxes could be avoided proved difficult. Buddhists pointed to such paradoxes to argue for the essential artificiality of the entire structure and hence the unreality of the world it was supposed to describe.

In the next post I will try to describe how Udayana used an early (and so far the earliest known) form of mathematical graph theory to properly define these categories and reduce the ambiguities of the Vaisesika system.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Excellent, Sayak, please continue.

 

[sayak83]

So far, the discussion (by me and @Spirit_Warrior ) has focused on the work of early Nyaya philosophers like Gautama and Vatsayana. However a significant improvement on the metaphysics of the world was made by Bhasarvajna (950 CE), Udayana (1000 CE) and Raghunatha (1500 CE). The first two united Nyaya epistemology with Vaisesika metaphysics and the latter created the new-Nyaya system of philosophy.

From the time of early Buddhist philosophers, especially championed by Nagarjuna, people argued that the observable world cannot be described consistently and hence it must be "unreal" in some sense. (This argument will be taken up later by Sankara as well). Contrary to Bauddhic or Advaitic philosophers Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers believed that the observable world is also fundamentally real and hence a consistent metaphysics can be built and described about it. This goal united the agnostic Vaisesikans with the more theistic Nyaya philosophers, unifying the two schools into one by 950 CE. Note today science is still grappling with the same problem. Given Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, is it possible to describe the observable world in a consistent metaphysical scheme or is that effort futile? So it is instructive (at least many philsophers today are finding it so) to look at how the realist philosphers of medieval India tackled some of the same problems over a thousand years ago.

I will state the basic Nyaya thesis set forth by Udayana in Lakshanavali in brief before explicating it:-

The world is self-consistently structured as a directed graph that connect seven elementary categories of existents that can be uniquely defined by the structure of the world-graph itself.

To see how he gets there, let me first describe the original Vaisesika metaphysics on which Udayana develops his thesis.

Classical Vaisesika lists seven kinds of things that exist:-

1) Substance:- Atoms are the uncreatable, indestructible, non-compound substances. Atoms can coalesce into compound substances which are distinguishable by the type and organization of their atomic parts. The compound substance, thus constituted, is an autonomous whole composed out of, and inhering simultaneously in each of its parts. (A strong case for emergence and against reduction is made here. The composite whole is an emergent entity in its own right, which while composed of atomic parts, is not a mere heap of these atoms and exists and has autonomous irreducible properties in its own right. The Buddhists went the reductionist route here and there is a very interesting philosophical debate that I will skirt for now).

2) Qualities :- these are particulars (like that specific color red, shape, mass etc.) inhere (i.e. exist permanently and intrinsically in) in particular atomic or compound substances and in nothing but substances.

3) Motions :- (like that specific Velocity, acceleration, rotation etc.) are the dynamical quality particulars that also inhere in particular substances and in nothing but substances.

4) Universals :- (roundness, redness, wetness, hotness) inhere in substances, qualities or motions.

5) Individuator:- While compound substances can be distinguished by their difference in atomic arrangement, how are the vast number of identical atoms of various classes distinguished from one another by the universe? (If this question seems silly to you, you should look at modern physics. The fact that all protons and all electrons are identical to each other has a significant role in how Quantum Field Theory has been constructed.) Vaisesika philosophers argued there there must be an individuating particular inhering in each atom of given class that makes it possible for the world to distinguish them from each other. This is the individuator (visesa).

6) Inherence:- The relation by which qualities and motions and individuators can intrinsically bind to substances and by which universals intrinsically bind to substances, qualities or motions.

7) Absence :- This is the absence or negation of X, where X can be any of the above six types. Uniquely Vaisesika philosophers argued that absences exist in their own right and can be combined with presences to create "zero".


Already we are seeing a very rich metaphysical structure here. But as with much of philsophy and science, defining these terms unambiguously so that logical paradoxes could be avoided proved difficult. Buddhists pointed to such paradoxes to argue for the essential artificiality of the entire structure and hence the unreality of the world it was supposed to describe.

In the next post I will try to describe how Udayana used an early (and so far the earliest known) form of mathematical graph theory to properly define these categories and reduce the ambiguities of the Vaisesika system.

In my previous post, I have outlined the classical Vaisesika system of metaphysics and had also noted that that Udayana united Nyaya logic and epistemology with Vaisesika metaphysics into a new and improved system of describing reality. In Udayana's thesis,

The world is self-consistently structured as a directed graph that connect seven elementary categories of existents that can be uniquely defined by the structure of the world-graph itself.

A graph is a relational structure, consisting of a set of nodes or vertices that are connected by a set of edges. A directed graph is one where the edges have direction (i.e. have arrows, like vectors) . Below is a random image, but directed graphs and graph theory in general is a widely used mathematical and logical tool in the modern world. LINK

The key understanding Udayana had was that the inherence relationships are like these arrows of the directed graphs that connects the various categories of existents in a specific order.

Consider a specific case of a "Red Rose." We have a universal color "Redness" that is inhering in that specific paticular manifested shade of the color property Red which in turn is inhering in the compound substance Rose. The compound substance rose is in turn a "whole" which is inhering in the atoms that are making up the flower Rose. So we can explicate the metaphysics of "Red Rose" as

Redness➔Specific Red Shade➔Rose➔Atoms of Rose

or more generally
Universal (U)➔Specific Property Attribute (P)➔Compound Object (O)➔Atomic Constituents (A)

where the symbol ➔ denotes the "inheres in" relationship.

Note that the above is a linear graph without branches. But this is not necessarily true. For example a rose will have other specific properties, like smell, shape, texture etc. each with their own universals. Hence multiple property (and motion) particulars will converge upon a compound object. Furthermore a compound object itself will have multiple subcomponents which can be further divided into simpler constituents all the way down to atoms. Hence multiple inherence arrows will also diverge from a compound substance down to its simpler constituents. Lets look at a modern example:-

Universal wetness or liquidity inheres in the specific watery properties of a water molecule which is a compound whole that inheres in the three atomic fundamentals H,H,O.

Universal Heat inheres in the specific temperature property of the same water molecule which is a compound whole that inheres in the three atomic fundametals H,H,O

etc.

Wetness ➔ Watery ➔ Water ➔ H,H,O

Heat ➔ Temperature➔Water➔ H,H,O

I have tried (badly) to show how two properties converge into the compound substance water in the graph network above.

Udayana realized that events, objects and observables in the world can be consistently described through such a network of directed graph between categories of existents with as much or as little detail as needed.

Consider the decay or uranium to thorium:-

Law of Radioactive Decay (universal) ➔ Specific Decay Event (a motion)➔ Uranium and Thorium (compound substance) ➔ Protons, Neutrons, Alpha Particles (subcomponents/atoms)

Remember that ➔ denotes the inherence relation. Note that laws of nature find a natural home in such a schema devised by Udayana. They are very general universals that are manifested through many motions/events or property particulars observed in the world in which they inhere.

Thus it is clear (to me at least) that many (and probably all) things one sees in the world can be structured in this format.

But Udayana went further. He noted that the various nodes in such a graph network can be uniquely identified.
Every such graph

has nodes from which arrows are going out or coming in. So each node can be assigned a coordinate (N,M) where N denotes the number of arrows coming into the node and M denotes the number of arrows going out of the node.

Now here are very simple rules:-
1) For nodes where atoms are, arrows only come in but do not go out. They are, after all, the most fundamental constituents and hence inhere in nothing further. So atomic nodes can be identified by all the nodes with (N,0) with N>=1.
2) Arrows always go out of nodes with universals but never come in. Universals are the most general laws or generalized categories of property-ness or substance-hood and they inhere in specific instantiations, but are not inhered by some even more general categories. So nodes with Universals are categorized by (0,M). Also if a universal is truly a universal, there would be multiple instantiations of it in the world where it is manifested as a inhered regularity. Thus redness is manifested by multiple observations of red throughout the world etc. So a universal node is characterized by (0,M) with M>1 always.
3) Compound substance, Quality, Motion ...these all have both converging and diverging nodes. So they are characterized by (N,M) where both are non zero.
4) However substances cannot inhere a universal directly. Substances (atomic or compound) inhere specific properties/qualities/motions which in turn inhere universals. Thus substances (compound or atomic) are defined as the nodes that are separated from a universal node by at least one extra node (denoting a property, a quality or a motion).

These 4 axioms completely and uniquely define all the basic categories of "reals" in terms of their nodal coordinates ensuring that a consistent graphical structure of a real observable or event can indeed be built.

What is the payoff? We have moved decisively from a world of woolly and verbose definitions with ambiguities into a precise and abstract mathematical structure into which the interconnected parts of reality can be easily cast and carefully analyzed. If the task of metaphysics and epistemology is to produce a clear and comprehensive scheme in which the basic furniture of reality (explained in detail by the sciences) can be cast for better understanding, analysis and conceptual clarity...then Udayana surely has succeeded. Currently the work of the Nyaya philsophers from 900 CE to 1600 CE is generating quite a bit of interest in modern philosophy as their work is being deciphered and understood . As more analysis is made and presented, I would hope people in general and Hindus in particular would take note of it and move their work in the philosophy of science, metaphysics and epistemology forward again.

Philosophy in Classical India

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is 'Visesa', Energy, to which no arrows come in but all go out. That is Brahman.

But thereafter the situation gets muddled when we want to analyze it further. Energy is a factor of space, and space is a factor of tim, and time again is a factor of energy. That is the last frontier.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I must say @sayak83 what a brilliant and informative thread you have created, and thank you for continuing it! I am learning more as well. I just wanted to ask you, do you have an educational background in Indian philosophy? I have studied Philosophy only to undergraduate level, but I am now considering graduate studies in Philosophy, but I want to specialise in Indian philosophy? Can you recommend any good institutes where I could study it in India, the UK or across Europe?

I am glad you mentioned Vaiseshika of Kananda. Vaiseshika makes sense to me as an empirical account of the universe and it is extremely scientific in its analysis. If we model all empirical objects as substances, then we can explain substances in terms of their properties and actions/motions -- that accounts for the first three categories(substance, properties/qualities and actions) and remaining four categories(universal, difference/individuator, inherence and absence) are logical categories to relate substances to properties and actions. Only substances have real existence, properties etc do not have independent existence. e.g. In the substance sugar, the property sweetness inheres and sugar is distinct from the substance bitter melon because the property of bitterness is absent in sugar but sugar belongs to the universal sugary things which act on the body.

This brilliant analysis of substances and their properties has been used ingeniously in Ayurveda in dravaya-guna-vijnana(substance-properties knowledge) to basically arrange into groups all medicines in terms of their medicinal properties. In Ayurveda several properties are measures of a drug, the chief ones being 1)Its taste(7 possible tastes) its potency(hot or cold) 3)its digestive effect 4)Its post digestive effects. It is then organised into universals known as groups(ganas) There are many ways to arrange these groups into the effects they produce e.g. purgative, emetics, mass buildings, mass reducers, anti-germal or into the doshas vatta, pitta or kapa or by which element is predominant(earth etc)

Thus the Vaiseshika system was not some abstract metaphysical system, but actually used practically in real sciences like Ayurveda to classify drugs and their properties. What is amazing here, that like in modern times, in ancient India they were using Vaiseshika principles to clinically trial drugs. They would test new drugs and their properties in much the same way we do today and approve them based on a body of research.

See more here: Basics Of Ayurvedic Pharmacology (Dravya Guna Vignana) « Ayurveda in Nepal

The fact that they were doing in 600-800BCE is simply mind blowing.

 

[sayak83]

I must say @sayak83 what a brilliant and informative thread you have created, and thank you for continuing it! I am learning more as well. I just wanted to ask you, do you have an educational background in Indian philosophy? I have studied Philosophy only to undergraduate level, but I am now considering graduate studies in Philosophy, but I want to specialise in Indian philosophy? Can you recommend any good institutes where I could study it in India, the UK or across Europe?

Unfortunately I have not studied philosophy in school. I am a practicing scientist and reading philosophy is more of a passion. You are more well versed than me with your undergraduate study.
In UK, you can check out the Oxford Center for Hindu studies and their online courses.
The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies

I am glad you mentioned Vaiseshika of Kananda. Vaiseshika makes sense to me as an empirical account of the universe and it is extremely scientific in its analysis. If we model all empirical objects as substances, then we can explain substances in terms of their properties and actions/motions -- that accounts for the first three categories(substance, properties/qualities and actions) and remaining four categories(universal, difference/individuator, inherence and absence) are logical categories to relate substances to properties and actions. Only substances have real existence, properties etc do not have independent existence. e.g. In the substance sugar, the property sweetness inheres and sugar is distinct from the substance bitter melon because the property of bitterness is absent in sugar but sugar belongs to the universal sugary things which act on the body.

This brilliant analysis of substances and their properties has been used ingeniously in Ayurveda in dravaya-guna-vijnana(substance-properties knowledge) to basically arrange into groups all medicines in terms of their medicinal properties. In Ayurveda several properties are measures of a drug, the chief ones being 1)Its taste(7 possible tastes) its potency(hot or cold) 3)its digestive effect 4)Its post digestive effects. It is then organised into universals known as groups(ganas) There are many ways to arrange these groups into the effects they produce e.g. purgative, emetics, mass buildings, mass reducers, anti-germal or into the doshas vatta, pitta or kapa or by which element is predominant(earth etc)

Thus the Vaiseshika system was not some abstract metaphysical system, but actually used practically in real sciences like Ayurveda to classify drugs and their properties. What is amazing here, that like in modern times, in ancient India they were using Vaiseshika principles to clinically trial drugs. They would test new drugs and their properties in much the same way we do today and approve them based on a body of research.

See more here: Basics Of Ayurvedic Pharmacology (Dravya Guna Vignana) « Ayurveda in Nepal

The fact that they were doing in 600-800BCE is simply mind blowing.

I agree.

 

[sayak83]

In my previous post, I have outlined the classical Vaisesika system of metaphysics and had also noted that that Udayana united Nyaya logic and epistemology with Vaisesika metaphysics into a new and improved system of describing reality. In Udayana's thesis,

The world is self-consistently structured as a directed graph that connect seven elementary categories of existents that can be uniquely defined by the structure of the world-graph itself.

A graph is a relational structure, consisting of a set of nodes or vertices that are connected by a set of edges. A directed graph is one where the edges have direction (i.e. have arrows, like vectors) . Below is a random image, but directed graphs and graph theory in general is a widely used mathematical and logical tool in the modern world. LINK

The key understanding Udayana had was that the inherence relationships are like these arrows of the directed graphs that connects the various categories of existents in a specific order.

Consider a specific case of a "Red Rose." We have a universal color "Redness" that is inhering in that specific paticular manifested shade of the color property Red which in turn is inhering in the compound substance Rose. The compound substance rose is in turn a "whole" which is inhering in the atoms that are making up the flower Rose. So we can explicate the metaphysics of "Red Rose" as

Redness➔Specific Red Shade➔Rose➔Atoms of Rose

or more generally
Universal (U)➔Specific Property Attribute (P)➔Compound Object (O)➔Atomic Constituents (A)

where the symbol ➔ denotes the "inheres in" relationship.

Note that the above is a linear graph without branches. But this is not necessarily true. For example a rose will have other specific properties, like smell, shape, texture etc. each with their own universals. Hence multiple property (and motion) particulars will converge upon a compound object. Furthermore a compound object itself will have multiple subcomponents which can be further divided into simpler constituents all the way down to atoms. Hence multiple inherence arrows will also diverge from a compound substance down to its simpler constituents. Lets look at a modern example:-

Universal wetness or liquidity inheres in the specific watery properties of a water molecule which is a compound whole that inheres in the three atomic fundamentals H,H,O.

Universal Heat inheres in the specific temperature property of the same water molecule which is a compound whole that inheres in the three atomic fundametals H,H,O

etc.

Wetness ➔ Watery ➔ Water ➔ H,H,O

Heat ➔ Temperature➔Water➔ H,H,O

I have tried (badly) to show how two properties converge into the compound substance water in the graph network above.

Udayana realized that events, objects and observables in the world can be consistently described through such a network of directed graph between categories of existents with as much or as little detail as needed.

Consider the decay or uranium to thorium:-

Law of Radioactive Decay (universal) ➔ Specific Decay Event (a motion)➔ Uranium and Thorium (compound substance) ➔ Protons, Neutrons, Alpha Particles (subcomponents/atoms)

Remember that ➔ denotes the inherence relation. Note that laws of nature find a natural home in such a schema devised by Udayana. They are very general universals that are manifested through many motions/events or property particulars observed in the world in which they inhere.

Thus it is clear (to me at least) that many (and probably all) things one sees in the world can be structured in this format.

But Udayana went further. He noted that the various nodes in such a graph network can be uniquely identified.
Every such graph

has nodes from which arrows are going out or coming in. So each node can be assigned a coordinate (N,M) where N denotes the number of arrows coming into the node and M denotes the number of arrows going out of the node.

Now here are very simple rules:-
1) For nodes where atoms are, arrows only come in but do not go out. They are, after all, the most fundamental constituents and hence inhere in nothing further. So atomic nodes can be identified by all the nodes with (N,0) with N>=1.
2) Arrows always go out of nodes with universals but never come in. Universals are the most general laws or generalized categories of property-ness or substance-hood and they inhere in specific instantiations, but are not inhered by some even more general categories. So nodes with Universals are categorized by (0,M). Also if a universal is truly a universal, there would be multiple instantiations of it in the world where it is manifested as a inhered regularity. Thus redness is manifested by multiple observations of red throughout the world etc. So a universal node is characterized by (0,M) with M>1 always.
3) Compound substance, Quality, Motion ...these all have both converging and diverging nodes. So they are characterized by (N,M) where both are non zero.
4) However substances cannot inhere a universal directly. Substances (atomic or compound) inhere specific properties/qualities/motions which in turn inhere universals. Thus substances (compound or atomic) are defined as the nodes that are separated from a universal node by at least one extra node (denoting a property, a quality or a motion).

These 4 axioms completely and uniquely define all the basic categories of "reals" in terms of their nodal coordinates ensuring that a consistent graphical structure of a real observable or event can indeed be built.

What is the payoff? We have moved decisively from a world of woolly and verbose definitions with ambiguities into a precise and abstract mathematical structure into which the interconnected parts of reality can be easily cast and carefully analyzed. If the task of metaphysics and epistemology is to produce a clear and comprehensive scheme in which the basic furniture of reality (explained in detail by the sciences) can be cast for better understanding, analysis and conceptual clarity...then Udayana surely has succeeded. Currently the work of the Nyaya philsophers from 900 CE to 1600 CE is generating quite a bit of interest in modern philosophy as their work is being deciphered and understood . As more analysis is made and presented, I would hope people in general and Hindus in particular would take note of it and move their work in the philosophy of science, metaphysics and epistemology forward again.

Philosophy in Classical India

Further properties of universals and relevance to philosophy of science.

We have seen that a generic ontology of the world can represented as a hierarchical branching graph starting at the level of universals and ending at the level of atoms.

Universal (Mass-ness) ➔ Quality Particular (Mass of a Lump of Iron) ➔Substance (Iron Lump) ➔ Iron Atoms

Of course a universal, for it to be an universal will inhere in multiple instantiations of that property/quality/state and hence a bigger picture will see a ontological tree rooted in a few universals from which many many inherence arrows branch out into the various instantiations of the universals in the world which in turn inhere in substances that in turn inhere in their atoms.
What this means that several properties of a good reality preserving graph can be deduced.

1) Circular graphs are not allowed. All graphs begin with universal nodes with valency (0,n). Universals inhere in nothing else, so inherence arrows to their specific instantiations in the world diverge from universal nodes. Similarly all graphs end at atoms which inhere in nothing further and are represented by (m,0). Since things, events, states ..everything can be represented by such a directed graph...the graph structure ensures that there is no circular explanatory loop happening. Correctly describing the universals, the instantiations of these universals in qualities or activities and how they inhere in the compound and the atomic substances is sufficient to ensure explanatory closure.

2) Occam's razor.
Let us assume that U is one universal and {u} is the set of things in which U inhere. Let is also assume that V is another universal and {v} the set of things (qualities/events/actions) in which V inhere. Then one of Udayana's rule (that is equivalent to Occam's razor) set forth in Kiranavali is:-
No two Universals should inhere in an identical set of objects. So, as U and V are two distinct universals, the inhering sets {u} and {v} cannot be identical. If they are identical, you have done something wrong, and you need to combine or reconfigure U and V into one universal.

3) Hierarchy of Universals
Let us assume that U is one universal and {u} is the set of things in which U inhere. Let is also assume that V is another universal and {v} the set of things (qualities/events/actions) in which V inhere. Then
a) {u} and {v} can be mutually exclusive. So {u}&{v} = 0 is allowed.

So universal rednesss and universal wetness refer to distinct qualities and are exclusive. (Things can be red and wet of course..but the property instantiations wet and property instantiations red have nothing to do with each other.)

b) {u} can be a proper subset of {v}. In this case the more widely inhering universal V is said to be hierarchically higher than the narrower universal U. And vice-versa.

So, for example the applicability of the Kinetic laws of Newtonian mechanics is a proper subset of the applicability of Kinetic Laws of Quantum Mechanics, and hence Newtonian Laws universals are hierarchically lower than Quantum Law Universals.

A simpler example is liquidity (applicable to instances of liquid phase) is hierarchically lower than fluidity (applicable to instantiations of both gas and liquid phase).

3) No Crosscutting
The case where {u} and {v} have some members on common but not all is disallowed.

If such a thing happens, then the world graph is inconsistent and needs to reconfigured. For example Quantum mechanics usually deals with subatomic particles and General Relativity usually deals with space-time. But they intersect when it comes to the properties of gravity...thus QM talks about gravity in terms of gravitons and GR talks about it in terms of bending of space-time. This, by Udayana's rule, creates an inconsistent world graph and hence one needs to reconfigure these universal into a new one (Quantum Gravity anyone?) so that one becomes a subset of the other or vice-versa.

I think the above rules and examples makes it clear how well organized the system really is and how easy is it to cast the modern scientific ideas into this philosophical format to make sense of them.