Hindu logic and reasoning

[niranjan]

Vaada: discussion; a kind of debate between two parties -- the exponent and the opponent -- on a particular subject. Each party tries to establish its own position and to refute that of the other, arguing against any theory propounded by the other. Both, however, are trying to arrive at the truth by applying the methods of reasoning and logic. This is an effective and efficient way to reach valid knowledge if both parties are honest and free from prejudices.

[niranjan]

Vaada, Jalpa and Vitandaa
A Very Short Introduction to the Three Types of Kathaa

The second chapter of the first book of the Nyaaya Sutras discusses the various kinds of kathaa or dialogue as well as the different types of argumentation that can arise during them. I present a partial summary of the contents of that chapter below.

Vaada (discussion) is that kind of dialogue in which a thesis (paksha) and an anti-thesis (prati-paksha) regarding the same subject are advanced by opposing sides. Each side seeks to support their position and defeat that of their opponent by means of taking recourse to proofs (pramaana) and syllogistic reasoning (avayavaa). The overall purpose of Vaada for both parties is to discover the truth – whether they ‘win’ or ‘lose’ the argument is of little to no importance. For this reason, Vaada is traditionally associated with the quality of sattva or purity.

By ‘proofs’, something very specific is meant, and this is directly related to how syllogistic reasoning is to be employed. The system of Nyaaya recognizes four primary means of acquiring right knowledge, also referred to as ‘proof’ or ‘pramaanas’. These are:

1. Perception: This is that knowledge which arises from the contact of a power of perception (indriya) with its object (artha). The qualifications of a perception are:

(a) It must be determinate.
(b) It must not be prefigured by linguistic constructs imposed by the mind.
(c) It must not be based on an illusion or deception of any kind.2. Inference: This is that knowledge gained of a thing through reasoning based on a prior perception. The kinds of inference are:

(a) From cause to effect: We see dark clouds and infer that there will be rain.
(b) From effect to cause: We see a swollen river and infer that there was rain.
(c) From concomitance: We see smoke and infer that there is also fire.3. Comparison: This is that knowledge gained of a thing through its similarity or dissimilarity to a thing previously known.

4. Verbal Testimony: This is that knowledge gained through the declaration of a reliable person. It can refer to two types of thing:

(a) To that which is seen, i.e. that which can be directly verified through personal observation.
(b) To that which is unseen, i.e. that which cannot be directly verified through personal observation.Nyaaya also accepts the existence of other means of acquiring right knowledge, but sees them as being included under the four above-mentioned categories. These four, however, have been chosen for their role in how the syllogism is formed.

The logically correct syllogism consists of five members (avayavaa). They are:

1. Proposition: This is the statement of that which is to be proven. In traditional discussions, the proposition is typically one derived from a scriptural statement of which the meaning is not clear and which is to be clarified through dialogue with the learned. For this reason, it is aligned with Verbal Testimony.

2. Reason: This is the grounds upon which the Proposition is based, usually formulated as a general rule. The Reason is directly connected with Inference.

3. Example: This is a familiar instance which demonstrates the reliability of the Reason and which (usually) anyone can verify for themselves. The Example, therefore, is based upon Perception.

4. Application: This is the demonstration of the way in which the Reason pertains to the case in the Proposition. The Application is the result of Comparison.

5. Conclusion: This is the restatement of the Proposition in light of the Reason, Example and Application. It is the summary of the entire syllogism, and is therefore connected to all the means of acquiring right knowledge.

Example 1:

Proposition: There is fire on the hill.
Reason: For there is smoke coming from the hill, and wherever there is smoke, there is fire.
Example: That wherever there is smoke, there is fire can be seen in the case of a kitchen.
Application: Now, just as in the case of a kitchen, there is smoke coming from the hill.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is fire on the hill.

Example 2:

Proposition: Sound is non-eternal.
Reason: For sound is produced, and whatever is produced is non-eternal.
Example: That whatever is produced is non-eternal can be seen in the case of a pot.
Application: Now, just as in the case of a pot, sound is something which is produced.
Conclusion: Therefore, sound is non-eternal.

Jalpa (wrangling) is that kind of dialogue in which one or both of the parties involved is primarily interested in victory rather than establishing the truth. For this reason, it is traditionally associated with the quality of rajas or passion. It is similar to Vaada in that both sides are advancing a thesis which is supported by proof and syllogistic reasoning. In Jalpa, however, one or both of the opponents resorts to the use of less-than-honourable tactics to defeat the argument of the opposition. These are:

1. Quibbling: This is intentionally misinterpreting something the other party has said. It has three primary forms:

(a) Verbal Quibble: To take a word or phrase as indicating something that the speaker clearly did not intend but which he technically did not exclude.
(b) Generalising Quibble: To argue against a general rule based on a rare or freak exception.
(c) Figurative Quibble: To take something the speaker said literally when it was intended figuratively or metaphorically and vice versa.2. Futile Rejoinder: This is to oppose an argument which is clearly formally correct on the grounds that its Reason does not warrant the Conclusion due to some extraneous or exaggerated defect.

Vitandaa (cavil) is that kind of dialogue in which the only interest of one of the parties involved is to attack and defame the other. For this reason, it is traditionally associated with the quality of tamas or ignorance. It is formally similar to Jalpa, except one side, rather than setting up and defending an anti-thesis, simply resorts to attacking the thesis of his opponent by any means available, honourable or dishonourable.

[niranjan]

The Nyaaya Sutras are said to have been composed by Gotama (also sometimes referred to as Akshapaada or Gautama Akshapaada) sometime around 550 B.C.E., and is one of the Shad Darshana or Six Branches of Vedic Philosophy (the others being Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa a.k.a. Vedanta). Although it has been greatly overshadowed by the presently popular schools of Yoga and Vedanta, scholars understand that Nyaaya is the foundation of all the other Darshanas, for it expounds the means whereby one may determine the truth in regards to any particular subject matter. Therefore, it is not uncommon to find many references to Nyaaya principles in all the other Darshana Sutras, and many of the arguments put forth in those Sutras rely upon Nyaaya-style reasoning. Thus, for example, when we read in the Brahma Sutras (Vedanta) short, almost cryptic phrases like: "On account of uniformity of teaching" (I:10), we can only correctly understand it if we have a solid background knowledge in the techniques of Nyaaya, for the statement is actually a condensed part of a syllogism, namely, a Reason (as described above). It is my personal opinion that if people spent more time on Nyaaya as a preparation, then the time later spent on Scriptural Study, Yoga and Meditation would be much more fruitful.

[niranjan]

Vasishta to Prince Rama

Yoga Vasishta Ramayan (II-18) says:
Though human in origin, an exposition of truth is to be accepted; otherwise even what is regarded as divine revelation is to be rejected. Even a young boy's words are to be accepted if they are words of wisdom; else reject it like straw even if uttered by Brahma the creator."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sri Sankara, the famous Advaita philosopher, makes this point in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita 18.66:

" ...... The appeal to the infallibility of the Vedic injunction is misconceived. The infallibility in question refers only to the unseen force or apurva, and is admissable only in regard to matters not confined to the sphere of direct perceptions etc. ..... Even a hundred statements of sruti to the effect that fire is cold and non-luminous won't prove valid. If it does make such a statement, its import will have to be interpreted differently. Otherwise , validity won't attach to it. Nothing in conflict with the means of valid cognition or with its own statement may be imputed to sruti."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vacaspati Misra, the author of Vamati, says, "Even one thousand scriptural statements cannot transform a jar into a piece of cloth".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We must take up the study of the superconscious state just as any other science. On reason we must have to lay our foundation, we must follow reason as far as it leads, and when reason fails, reason itself will show us the way to the highest plane. When you hear a man say, “I am inspired” , and then talk irrationally, reject it. Why? Because these three states-instinct, reason, and superconsciousness , or the unconscious, conscious, and superconscious states-belong to one and the same mind. There are not three minds in one man, but one state of it develops into the others. Instinct develops into reason, and reason into the transcendental consciousness; therefore, not one of the states contradicts the others. Real inspiration never contradicts reason, but fulfils it. Just as you find the great prophets saying, “ I come not to destroy but to fulfil” , so inspiration always comes to fulfil reason, and is in harmony with it.
---Swami Vivekananda

Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries of reason, through which every other concrete science justifies itself? Are the same methods of investigation which we apply to sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of Religion ? In my opinion, this must be so, and I am also of opinion that the sooner it is done the better. If a religion is destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be the best thing that could happen. All that is dross will be taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Not only will it be made scientific, as scientific, at least, as any of the conclusions of physics or chemistry, but will have greater strength, because physics or chemistry has no internal mandate to vouch for its truth, which religion has.
---Swami Vivekananda

-----------------------------------------------------------------


“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

--- Buddha


“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

---Buddha

[niranjan]

Any questions anyone, I am eager to debate and discuss this.

[niranjan]

Of the disputants and debaters, I am Vaada ( logic and reasoning) .

---Krishna ( Bhagavad Gita).

[niranjan]

Logic as an explicit analysis of the methods of reasoning received sustained development originally in India before the other civilizations , the chinese and the greek , which are the only civilizations along with India that developed the systems of logic in a clear, detailed and unambigous manner.

So India was the first nation and civilization that studied and emphasized logic as the study of principles and criteria of valid inference and the method of reasoning.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Logic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya)

[Oblio]

Thanks niranjan, interesting topic. I also try and approach discussions with the Vaadic (is that a valid term!?) attitude.

Vaada seems to be the "enlightened" approach, and is consistent with western academic/rational ideals - but it requires a strong degree of non-attachment to work properly. I think that there's probably a much greater proportion of people who would verbally adhere to Vaada, but then when it comes down to it, more accurately embody Jalpa (in defending a beloved theory/belief).

One thing has always nagged me: by virtue of our physicality and upbringing, there is often a host of prejudices that we are not aware of. When we come up against such boundaries (most commonly the self-imposed ones), we have the opportunity to expand our conceptualisation of ... well everything.

However, in developing self-concept and understanding the character of reality, it is difficult to speak of facts and truths that extend beyond one's own experiences. So, when one person's "logic" is not necessarily relevant to the other's, I think that Vaada can easily become Jalpa..

Perhaps an alternative approach in such cases is one of mutual inquiry. As such, I realise that I am likely only partly correct (and probably largely incorrect) - but more importantly, the paths of thought that other people's inquiry take me on have the potential to show me barriers that I had previously not been privy to.

Hope some of this makes sense O_o

[niranjan]

Thanks niranjan, interesting topic. I also try and approach discussions with the Vaadic (is that a valid term!?) attitude.

No problem at all, we are not pedants.

Vaada seems to be the "enlightened" approach, and is consistent with western academic/rational ideals - but it requires a strong degree of non-attachment to work properly. I think that there's probably a much greater proportion of people who would verbally adhere to Vaada, but then when it comes down to it, more accurately embody Jalpa (in defending a beloved theory/belief)..

Yup, I just encountered one in an another forum .

And when these guys get pissed off, they digress to vitaanda.







One thing has always nagged me: by virtue of our physicality and upbringing, there is often a host of prejudices that we are not aware of. When we come up against such boundaries (most commonly the self-imposed ones), we have the opportunity to expand our conceptualisation of ... well everything.

However, in developing self-concept and understanding the character of reality, it is difficult to speak of facts and truths that extend beyond one's own experiences. So, when one person's "logic" is not necessarily relevant to the other's, I think that Vaada can easily become Jalpa..

You are right. For that I believe you need a lot of broadmindedness and you should try to eradicate all your prejudices and be led only by reason.

When the Indian numeral system and mathematics came to Europe, the pope condemned it as the' devils numbers', out of sheer prejudice, because it was so foreign to them,so mysterious, and hence they did not trust it.

But broadminded scholars and savants quickly understood the value of Indian mathematics and adopted it.

Now the Indian numeral system is the base of modern science and technology.

As Albert Einstein said, "We have to be grateful to the Indians for teaching us how to count without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made. "


And I think it is highly probable that if Indian mathematics had not reached Europe, Europe would still have been in the dark ages.

It is Indian mathematics that powered western science and technology, which promoted rationalism , logic and scientific thinking, which eventually lifted Europe out of the fog and darkness of the Dark Ages.


The same thing happened in America when yoga came over there. The christian fundamentalists termed it as the' devils exercises'.

Now yoga is a rage in America and the whole world, and millions of Americans themselves study and practice yoga, because of its tangible benefits physically, mentally, intellectually, emotionally, socially, all of which has been confirmed by scientific research.

As a result of all this, Christian centres themselves have now adopted yoga, and has termed it as christian yoga, which includes practicing the yogic exercises along with chanting the christian scriptures.

So you can very well see that the 'devils exercises ' , 'the devils numbers' , all which was considered to be heretical by prejudiced minds, have actually changed mankind for the better.

If people had sticked to their prejudices , none of this would have happened.

[Kain]

Very interesting topic niranjan, thanks for posting this!

Kain

[niranjan]

Very interesting topic niranjan, thanks for posting this!

Kain

Pleasure, friend. Nice to see u again. :)

If possible check my thread on Thomas Paine in the Casual Conversation forum. I am quite proud of it. :D :yes:

It is my humble tribute to a rational humanist, who has influenced the whole world, but tragically , his own people has forgotten him, and who ironically was their greatest countryman.

I guess, it takes a descendant of Krishna, Buddha, Vivekananda and Gandhi, to present him again before his countrymen and to the whole world. ;)

[niranjan]

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
--- Buddha (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)





Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

--- Buddha

[Oblio]

Niranjan, there is of course wisdom to be found in ancient statements, but endless quotes do not promote any discussion or thought.

[niranjan]

Niranjan, there is of course wisdom to be found in ancient statements, but endless quotes do not promote any discussion or thought.

But I have indeed invited people for debate in this and other threads as well. What can I do , if none is coming .

[Oblio]

What can I do , if none is coming?

Rephrase the question, pose a different question, perhaps wonder if anyone is interested in that particular question.

I find that having random quotes in a discussion thread don't encourage people to make an appearance...

[niranjan]

Rephrase the question, pose a different question, perhaps wonder if anyone is interested in that particular question.

Thanks for the info, pal. I will implement what u said.




I find that having random quotes in a discussion thread don't encourage people to make an appearance...

Well two other guys did. And you too came. It definetely was not completey bad , and was important for the context of the thread.

Anyway, I will put some interesting questions here. Let me think..... :p

[niranjan]

Lets analyse this verse from the yoga vasistha, which is a part of the ramayana, a sacred and important scripture of the hindus ...


Vasishta to Prince Rama.


Yoga Vasishta Ramayan (II-18) says:
Though human in origin, an exposition of truth is to be accepted; otherwise even what is regarded as divine revelation is to be rejected. Even a young boy's words are to be accepted if they are words of wisdom; else reject it like straw even if uttered by Brahma the creator."


Here we find the sage vashista exhorting us to reject that which is irrational and illogical , even if it comes from the divine itself, and to accept that which is rational and logical, even if it comes from a young boy.

And I believe this great teaching of the sage Vasishta , is very important for this world, which is plagued in religious fundamentalism and religious wars, which has created great bloodshed and suffering on earth.

As Voltaire himself said , "As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities. "

[niranjan]

Here is an interesting teaching by Swami Vivekananda, the Hindu prophet...


Why religions should claim that they are not bound to abide by the standpoint of reason, no one knows. If one does not take the standard of reason there cannot be any true judgement, even in the case of religions.One religion may ordain something very hideous.For instance, the Mohammedan religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in the Koran, "Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans." They must be put to fire and sword. Now if we tell a Mohammedan that this is wrong, he will naturally ask : "How do you know that ? How do you know it is not good ? My book says it is." If you say your book is older, there will come the Buddhist, and say, his book is much older still. Then will come the Hindu, and say, his books are the oldest of all. Therefore referring to books will not do. Where is the standard by which you can compare ? You will say, look at the Sermon on the Mount, and the Mohammedan will reply, look at the Ethics of the Koran. The Mohammedan will say, who is the arbiter as to which is the better of the two? Neither the New Testament nor the Koran can be the arbiter in a quarrel between them. There must be some independent authority , and that cannot be any book, but something which is universal ; and what is more universal than reason ? It has been said that reason is not strong enough; it does not always help us to get the Truth; many times it makes mistakes , and therefore the conclusion is that we must believe in the authority of a church! That was said to me by a Roman Catholic, but I could not see the logic of it. On the other hand I should say, if reason be so weak, a body of priests would be weaker, and I am not going to accept their verdict but I will abide by my reason, because with all its weakness there is some chance of my getting at truth through it; while by the other means, there is no such hope at all.

---Swami Vivekananda




Would like your comments.... :cool:

[Ci Celli Ddu]

It is clearly stated in the Koran, "Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans."

Er, no it isn't

[niranjan]

Er, no it isn't




Check out this thread...

http://forums.abrahadabra.com/showthread.php?t=1192

And if you want, I can start a very interesting debate in this thread as well.

[Ci Celli Ddu]

All conveniently taken out of context, where they are no worse than anything the Old Testament has to offer. I have read three different translations of the Quran, and the worse criticism I can make about that book is that it is very repetative and therefore quite dull.

[Anibis]

What I would like to see, niranjan, is an actual verse citation of where the Quran says that In fact, from what I understand the Muslims where (at least during their initial expansive period) very much about tolerating other religions within their Empire. They of course taxed them, but did not on principle kill them. There is, however if I am not mistaken a charge to destroy the Enemies of the faith, but I know for a fact that the People of the Book: Jews Christians (and aslo Hindus and Buddhists) were not exterminated on that point alone. All this being said, it is indeed a conquerer's religion, owing to it's founder, and it's early history. Please don't just keep refering us to quotes or massive hunks of text to justify your assertions, though.... It's much better to deal with this directly.... Thanks;
-Anibis

[niranjan]

What I would like to see, niranjan, is an actual verse citation of where the Quran says that.


I believe that the verses are there in my thread "The real cause of Islamic terrorism. And that was just a sample.




In fact, from what I understand the Muslims where (at least during their initial expansive period) very much about tolerating other religions within their Empire..


Must say that you are highly mistaken . Since this is out of topic with this thread, with respect to 'hindu reasoning and logic ', I believe I will answer these queries of yours in the thread "The real cause of islamic terrorism ", where I believe it is more appropriate, and will not divert this thread off topic.

Thanking you,

Niranjan.

[niranjan]

When vice assumes the aspects of virtue and virtue itself wholly seems as vice, and virtue, again, appears in its native form, they that are learned should discriminate it by means of their reason.

--- Mahabharatha


Which means that there are times when virtue seems as vice or evil, and there are times when vice appears as virtue or goodness, it then is necessary to exercise ones reason and logic, and find out which is truly virtue and which is truly vice , and follow the path of wisdom and virtue.:)