Classical Indic Logic: Tarka Sastra

Introduction

Kaanaadam Paanineeyam cha sarva saastra upakaarakam

“Logic and grammar are indispensable aids for every branch of Knowledge.” [2, 11]

Classical Indic Logic, or Tarka Saastra, is alternatively referred to as “the science of ratiocination“. [2, 11] It is also described as Pramaana Saastra since it is premised on logically deducing the truth or untruth via valid bases of knowledge (i.e. pramaana). Pronounced “Tharka”, Tarka has additionally been described as “dialectics”, and thus, forms the essential principles for civilised debate in Ancient India. The more common spelling (despite phonological issues) has been retained to avoid reducing Hindi speaking audiences to laughter every time someone is described as “tarki“.

Unlike today, where the untrammeled & whimsical tyranny of the ‘Argumentative Indian’ holds sway, Classical Indic Civilization ably distinguished genuine debaters from time-wasting poseurs and irrationally immature disputants. Discussion and debate are for grownups, and thus, egomaniacs must be shown the door rather than waste everybody’s time. And so, to make the most of your time, this article on Tarka Saastra proceeds.

Terminology

Jnaanavaadha—Epistemology
Nyaaya—Logic. Vedic Darsana of Logic
Aanveekshiki—Philosophy of Logic
Tarka—Logical Reasoning/Dialectics
Hethu—Reason/Cause
Meemaamsa—Exegesis
Vidhya—Study/Knowledge
Vijnaana—Science
Siddhaantha—Doctrine
Pramaana—Valid Source of Knowledge
Praamaanavith—Philosopher
Sabdha—Authoritative Verbal Testimony (i.e. Veda)
Prathyaksha—Perception
Anumaana/Uhaa—Inference
Upamaana—Comparison
Upapatthi—Evidence
Arthapatthi—Intuition/Presumption
Upalabdhi—Apprehension/Understanding
Karana—Special Cause
Kaarana—General Cause
Kaarya—Effect

Naiyaayika—Adherent of Nyaaya
Hethuvaadhi—One giving logic against Veda
Tarki—One Skilled in Logic
Taarkika—Logician/Dialectician
Poorva Paksha—Opposite Instance (Thesis)
Apara Paksha—Critical Instance (Anti-Thesis)
Uttara Paksha—Response (Synthesis)
Nirnaya—Decision/Ascertainment
Saadhya—To be Produced
Saadhyasama—Unproved/Reciprocal
Manana/Yukthi—Reason
Nidhidhyaasana—Contemplation
Jalpa—Wrangling/Argument for sake of Argument
Vithanda—Obscurantism/Cavil
Jaathi—Futile Response
Nigrahasthaana—Occasion for Rebuke/Vulnerabilities
Samshaya—Doubt
Parakrthi—Warning
Puraakalpa—Prescription
Punaruktha—Tautology
Ethihya—Rumour
Ninda—Blame

Chhala—Quibble
Viruddha—Contradictory
Hethvaabhaasa—Fallacy of Reason
Kalaha—Dispute
Vaadhana—Disputation
Vaadha—Argument/Doctrine/Ideology
Samvaadha—Dialogue/Deliberation
Vivaadha/Vitharka—Debate
Uddesa—Enumeration
Vibhaaga—Classification
Lakshana—Definition
Pareeksha—Examination
Padhaartha—Treatment of Topics
Tantrayukthi—Interpretation
Apoha—Logical Processing
Prajna—Intelligence

Pratijna—Proposition
Udhaaharana—Example
Upanaya—Application
Nigamana—Conclusion
Chakra—Circular Argument
Arthaprasanga—Reductio ad Absurdum
Anavastha—Regressio Ad Infinitum
Itharethaashraya—Mutual Substratum
Atmaashraya— Ignoratio Elenchi. Dissonant from Substratum
Anyonaashraya—Dilemma
Sambhava—Probability
Savyabhichaara—Non sequitur
Vyaapthi—Universal Concomittance
Abhaava—Non-existence
Anyathva—Otherness
Aakrthi—Form
Jaathi—Genus
Siddhaantha—Doctrine/Tenet

Philosophy of Tarka

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O49tmYX_qH8

“The story of India’s philosophical systems is a story of India’s quest for Truth and of attempts to construct suitable ways and approaches to Truth. Also on careful scrutiny, we can discern in all this quest and attempts, almost from the beginning, two tendencies, the intuitionistic and the rationalistic, and two chief aims – the achievement of Dharma and the realisation of Brahman.” [2, 12]

Nyaaya Darsana is a “philosophical system of which methodical reasoning or investigation of knowledge got through observation or perception and trustworthy verbal testimony forms the central theme.” [2, 11] This Philosophical Tradition is credited to Acharya Akshapaadha Gauthama. The tradition is often joined with Vaiseshika (the Darsana of Atomistic Pluralism). Nyaaya Darsana is alternatively known as Aanveekshiki—which refers more generally to Vedic and Non-Vedic Philosophies of Logic. Tarka, or logical reasoning, is simply an application of apoha (logical processing) for right or wrong, rational or irrational purpose. Theories of logical reasoning from other traditions or civilizations should be referred to as Tarka. Nyaaya itself refers to the Vedic conception of logic, as the purpose of Nyaaya, in the ultimate, is to attain moksha.

Paanini “derives the word ‘Nyaya” from the root ‘i’ which conveys the same meaning as ‘gam’ – to go. ‘Nyaya’ as signifying logic is therefore etymologically identical with ‘nigama’ the conclusion of a syllogism.” [1, xii]

To give one an idea of the actually antiquity of Paanini as well as Nyaaya Darsana, “Panini is said to have been a disciple of Upavarsa, minister of a king of the Nanda dynasty about 350 BC“. [1, xii] However, we know from Pandith Kota Venkatachalam that the much-maligned Nandas actually date back to 1500 BCE, and in fact gave assent and acclaim to Paanini’s Ashtaadhyaayi grammar over Kaatyaayana‘s. Therefore, Akshapaadha Gauthama’s Nyaaya Darsana is that much more ancient.

“The final cessation of all miseries (apavarga) is the goal of the Vaisesika and the Nyaya. The Vaisesika stressed the analytical side of reasoning and furnishes the metaphysical background and the inductive basis of the Nyaya system. With the Vaisesika material, suitably modified in minor details, the Nyaya builds up a complete system of epistemology and logic, combined to some extent with psychology, ethics, ontology and religion.” [2, 16]

Confirmation of the truth in Vedic statements using various means of logic is done by Nyaya Sastra, as written by Gouthama Rishi.#Periyava

— Sage of Kanchi (@haraharasankara) November 14, 2016

The linkage of the two darsanas is particularly interesting. They are conjoined as the Nyaaya Soothra specifically discusses the “anu” (atom). [1, 146] The “Vaisesika school was interested in questions of physics, with the belief that the entire physical world consists of atoms (anu), as distinct from four other elements—time, space, the soul, and the mind. Each element has individual characteristics, or visesas, hence the name of the school, Vaisesika, which talk about the duality of the soul and matter.” [5, 92-93]

“Vatsyayana indicates in the very first sentence of his Bhasya how valid thinking (pramaa) and fruitful doing (arthakriyaa) serve as each other’s axle in each other’s wheels and how they constitute ‘real living’ with all its complexity in the pluralistic universe of the Nyaya Vaisesika realism”. [2, 17]

Given the plurality in terminology, some measure of clarification is in order. Hethu-vidhya or Hethu-saastra refers to the study of causes, and Aanveekshikee is the study of inquiry, Pramaana Saastra the study of correct knowledge (literal philosophy), Tattva-Saastra the scripture of categories, Vaadhaartha is the study of discussion, and Phakkikaa-Saastra the aptly named scripture on sophistry. Relevant to us is Tarka Saastra, which is the scripture of logical reasoning. [1, xii]

“The English equivalent for ‘tarka is variously given as ‘confu-tation’, ‘argumentation‘” and hypothetical reasoning. [1, 1] Annambhatta terms Tarka as exposition or elucidation. [2, 27] Perhaps the most lucid description for Tarka would be logical reasoning. This would make Tarka Saastra the scripture of logical reasoning, Aanveekshiki the Philosophy of Logic, and Nyaaya the Darsana of Logic or simply, Logic.

The authority of Nyaaya in general & Tarka Saastra in particular, cannot be gainsaid. “Smrtikaras like Manu and Yajnavalkya emphatically recognised the importance and value of logical reasoning for a correct comprehension of Dharma as taught by the Vedas.” [2, 13-14]

“Whoever knows Nyaya, knows the pramaana; he is a pramaanavith, a philosopher in the strict sense, according to Indian tradition.” [2, 24]

History of Tarka Saastra

They talk of reasoning &absolute logic. We have it all in Hindu religion & will be able to give them some more, beyond their comprehension.

— Sage of Kanchi (@haraharasankara) June 25, 2017

The history of Tarka Saastra is no doubt antediluvian. Although the present Western historical paradigm dates Nyaaya-Vaiseshika to the 4th Century BCE, it is very likely far more ancient. There were, nevertheless, numerous Rishis and Acharyas by the name of Gauthama. This Gauthama certainly predates Paanini (dated to 1500 BCE or 350 BCE), but the question remains, whether he was identical to Maharishi Gothama, who is a saptharishi and credited with one of the earliest Dharmasoothras. By tradition, the latter is the son of Rahugana (purohith to Kurusrnjaya) and the father of Maharishi Shathanandha (purohith of Raajarishi Seeradhvaja Janaka). While there were other Akshapaadhas (such as Maharishi Bhrgu), the Vaayu Puraana likely clears up the confusion:

“The Vayupurana describes a sage named Aksapada as the disciple of a Brahmana named Soma Sarma who was Siva incarnate and well-known for his practice of austerities at the shrine of Prabhasa during the time of Jatukarnya Vyasa. This Aksapada mentioned along with kanada is evidently no other person than Gotama or Gautama who founded the Nyaya philosophy.” [xvii]

Therefore Maharishi Gothama is distinct from Acharya Akshapaadha Gauthama, who is likely a descendant of his, with Gauthama being his gothra.

“The author of Nyaya sutras is known as Gautama and of Vaisesika Sutras as Kanada. Gautama is otherwise known as Akshapaadhah and Kanada as Ulookah and Kaasyapah | Akshapaadhah was the personal name and Gauthama the gotra name of the author of the Nyaya-Sutras and Kanaada and Ulooka are the personal names and Kaashyapa the gotra name of the author of the Vaisesika Sutras” [2, 15]

There were countless commentaries on the Nyaaya-Soothra, such is its standing. With Acharya Akshapaadha dated to 550 BCE, the earliest extant commentary is Vaathsyaayana dated to 450 A.D. [1, xxv]

He was then followed by the robust Buddhist riposte led by scholars such as Dharmakeerthi and Dignaaga. In the 6th century CE, Udyotkara wrote the Nyaaya-Vaarthika, which was a commentary on Nyaaya Soothra. It defended Nyaaya Darsana against the Buddhist critique.

Udyotakara was followed by logicians such as Vaachaspathi Mishra, Jayantha Bhatta, Bhaasarvajna and Udayanacharya. Vaachaspathi Mishra was an eminence grise and polymath. His tutor in Nyaaya Soothra was Trilochana, and his contribution to Nyaaya is considered to be “monumental”. [2, 18]

Atma-tattva-viveka is Udayanacharya’s refutation of buddhist doctrines. In particular, it is a prominent deconstruction of atheistic strains from various streams of philosophy. His work was succeeded by later Naiyayikas like Gangesa Upaadhyaaya from Mithila. [2, 19] He systematised all prior Nyaaya works and provided organisation for his paksha. Vardhamaanopaadhyaaya was the only son of Gangesa, and he would carry the torch of the Naiyayikas through several works (called Prakaasas) on Nyaaya.

Vaasudeva Sarvabhauma was considered the most illustrious Naiyaayika of the 15th century. He taught Nyaaya to four prominent personalities of the era: Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Raghunaatha Taarkikashiromani, Raghunandan (Bengali lawyer), and the Shakta Krishnananda, who was an authority on Tantra. Raghunaatha’s top pupil was Mathuranaatha, and he would go on to write various commentaries on Nyaaya.

The South would make its mark with a dazzling Tarkacharya by the name of Annambhatta.

“Annambhatta, the writer of Tarkasangraha was an Andhra scholar who flourished in the latter part of the 17th century. He was a reputed scholar and a polymath.” [2, 22] He composed the Ranakojjeevanee on Bhatta Someshevara’s Nyaayasudhaa (a.k.a Ranakadha) and a commentary on Brahma Soothras, marking his contribution to Poorva Meemaamsa and Vedantha. He is credited with a commentaries on Ashtaadhyaayi and Kaiyata’s Pradheepa. The latter is called Uddyotana. He also wrote a commentary on Jayadeva’s Manyaaloka, called Siddhaanjana . True to his elucidating nature, Annambhatta wrote a Deepika to elucidate his own Tarka Samgraha. “Annambhatta has written this treatise called tarkasamgraha with the object of introducting beginners to a study of the Nyaya and Vaisesika systems of Gautama and Kanada.” [2, 23]

“While the Tarka-samgraha is meant primarily to unlock the doors of the twin-darsana of Nyaya-Vaisheshika, it is also the master key that has been used by the Acharyas of the other darsanas—the Sankhya and Yoga, Mimamsa and Vedanta.” [2, 4]

Given the antiquity and breadth of Classical Indic Logic, only an historical snapshot has been provided here. Of more sizeable import is the breadth and depth of Tarka Saastra.

Schools of Tarka Saastra

In a civilization as vast as Bharatavarsha, it is unsurprising that a number of competing schools would rise over time. While the Vedic Darsana of Nyaaya is undoubtedly the original thread, Buddhist and Jain schools would soon arise to provide Dharmic alternatives. The Chaarvaakas were not Dharmic, but were nevertheless Indic and notable for their involvement in philosophical debates relying on logic.

Nyaaya Darsana

The Shaddarsanas are the 6 Astika or orthodox Vedic Philosophical Systems. These were deemed as valid reflective mechanisms through which understanding of the Veda, and in turn existence, could be undertaken. The term Darsana has varyingly, and contestably, been used to denote Philosophy. In fact, according to some, Aanveekshiki was the original name of the Philosophy of Logic known as Nyaaya Darsana. Nyaaya itself is used to denote Logic, making Aanveekshiki the philosophy of Logic (called Nyaaya Darsana), and Tarka the process of Logical Reasoning.

“The Naiyaayikas at first, as for instance, prove the Divine existence with the help of several argu-ments and a[t] last quote the vedic text in support of their concl-usions arrived at through logical analysis. That is w[h]y, it is known as [Aanveekshiki]” [3, x]

As discussed above, Nyaaya Darsana originates with Akshapaadha Gauthama. This muni seamlessly united both the process of ratiocination with existential questions. He states the following in the second sloka of the first aahnika:

“Dukha-janma-pravrtthi-dosha-mithya-ajnaanaanaam-uktharotthara-apaaye-thada-janthara-apaayaadh-apavargah ||1|1|2||

2.Pain, birth, activity, faults and misapprehension-on the successive annihilation of these in the reverse order, there follows release.” [1, 2]

Furthermore, Akshapaadha himself goes on to describe Tarka, to remove all confusion:

“Avijnaatha-thatthve’rthe kaaranopapathithas-thatthva-jnaana-arthamoohah tharkah ||1|1|40||

40.Confutation, which is carried on for ascertaining the real character of a thing of which the character is not known, is reasoning which reveals the character by showing the absurdity of all contrary characters.” [1, 5]

Anuveekshaa refers to “Methodical reasoning, involving a critical investigation of knowledge got through perceptual experience and verbal testimony.” [2, 16] This is done with the assistance of the five-membered framework of ‘syllogistic expression’. For this reason, the Philosophy of Logic is called Aanveekshiki, and Nyaaya Darsana is also called Panchaavaya vaakya. [2, 16] Despite the robustness of the system, it nevertheless was subject to rhetorical and analytical deconstruction by rival non-Vedic traditions.

Udyotakara famously defended Nyaya Darsana against the Bauddha Dignaaga’s dissection of Vaathsyaayana’s Bhaashya. “The Atma-Tattwa Viveka is a brilliant exposition of the Nyaya metaphysics with a particular reference to the Nyaya conception of the self (jiva) and contains a forcible refutation of the Buddhistic doctrines of momentariness (kshana bhanga) and voidness (shoonyathaa). The Kusumaanjali is Udayana’s masterpiece. It is devoted to refutation of the anti-theistic theories maintained by the Vedistic, Sankya, nihilistic and naturalistic schools of of his age, and to the amplification and vindication of the Nyaya theism“. [2, 19]

Bauddha

Photo: Buddhism.net

It was inevitable that Bauddha Dharma, which does not recognise Veda as pramaana, would establish its own approach to logic. Dharmakeerthi, Dharmottara, and Ratnaakara are some of the most prominent Buddhist logicians.

A Paali work, from the Abhidhammapitaka, notably mentions numerous concepts of Tarka, such as pratijna, upanaya, and nigraha. Called the Kathaavathuppakarana, it was composed by Moggaliputta Tissa during the time of Emperor Ashoka Maurya. This was thought to have taken place at the Third Buddhist Council. [1, xxiii]

A Sanskrit work, called the Lankaavathara-Soothra, was on the Yogachaara Buddhist Philosophy stemming from the Maadhyamika Soothra of Naagaarjuna and the Satakam of Aarya Deva. It contains many concepts pertaining to the theory of logic and logical reasoning.

Dignaaga was the most eminent of this tradition of tarka. He critiqued the Nyaaya Darsana, and composed a deconstruction of Vaathsyaayana’s Commentary on Nyaaya. However, Dignaaga was later given a riposte by Udyotakara, in defense of Nyaaya Darsana. “After Udyotakara the philosophical contest between the anti-vedic and pro-vedic sides of the Nyaya thought were keenly carried on by great Buddhistic logicians like Dharma Kirti, Dharmootara, and Ratnakirti”. [2, 17]

Jina

Photo: soham-jainism

The Jainas famously propounded a complex system of logical analysis known as syaadhvaadha. This doctrine contained seven elements: 1) syaadhasti, 2) syaannaasthi, 3) syasaadastinaasthi, 4) syaadhavaktavya, 5) syaadhastyavaktavya, 6) syaannaastyavaktavya, and 7) syaadhastinaastyavaktyavya. Here is a simplified explanation of the Jina system of logic:

“No treatment of Indian thought is complete without a brief reference to the remarkable epistemological relativity of Jainism. Jaina thinkers, and some other heterodox teachers also, explicitly rejected what in classical logic is called the law of the excluded middle. For the Jaina there were not merely the possibilities of existence and non-existence, but seven. Thus we may affirm (1) that an object, say a knife, exists as a knife. We may further say (2) that it is not something else, say a fork. But it exists as a knife and does not exist as a fork, and so we may declare it (3) that in one aspect it is and in another it is not. From another point of view (4) it is indescribable; its ultimate essence is unknown to us and we cannot posit anything final about it—it is inexpressible. By combining this fourth possiblity with the three former ones we obtain three further possibilities of predication—(5) it is, but its nature is otherwise indescribable, (6) it is not, but its nature is indescribable, and (7) it is both is and is not, but its nature is indescribable. This system of seven aspects of predication is known as syadvada (‘the doctrine of maybe’), or saptabhangi (‘the sevenfold division’).” [4, 502]

In addition, the Jainas developed another seven-limb system called nayavaadha (theory of standpoints). These are methods of approaching the object of study. Three are classed as dravyaarthika (connected to the object) and four are classed as paryaayaarthika (modified). [4, 502] In Sanskrit, there nayas are termed 1) naigama, 2) sangraha, 3) vyava-haara, 4) rjusoothra, 5) sabdha, 6) samabhirooda, 7) evambhootha. [4, 503]

Prabhaakara School of Logic

“The followers of Prabhakara say that all knowledges are valid (prama) and that there is nothing like erroneous knowledge (bhrama).” [2, 135]

Poorva Meemaamsa (prior investigation) has in the past millennium or two been at odds with Uttara Meemaamsa (higher investigation). The latter is known today as Vedanta, which asserts the spiritual and unitary nature of reality. Poorva Meemaamsa, in contrast, has come to be aligned with Dvaitha philosophy, and asserts difference. In fact, the core of Poorva Meemaamsa asserts that Vedic Ritual alone is all that is required, and logic is applied for its defence.

The Prabhaakara School of Logic takes its name from the Poorva Meemaamsa exponent Prabhaakara. His school is said to have been rebutted by the Navya Nyaaya scholars, especially Mathuranaatha, Jagadeesa, and Gadhaadhhara Bhattacharya. [3, viii]

Navya Nyaaya

Navya Nyaaya represents a more regimented revival of the ancient tradition. Gangesa and Mathuranaatha are two eminent philosophers of this school of logic. They provided rebuttals to the Prabhaakara school of Poorva Meemaamsakins.

“While other systems are speculative, Navya Nyaya represents an analytic and strictly logical type of philosophy. Without mak-ing a logical enquiry the philosophers of the Navya Nyaya-school do not arrive at their conclusion. For them, all the objects of this world are subject to logical enquiry.” [3, ix]

Rather than dogmatism, it is logical rigour that characterises this school, which represents a significant resurgence in the tradition of Nyaya. “The merits of Navya Nyaya speculations pre-emi-nently lie in their method of analysis of concepts and their formu-lations in exact terminology.” [3, x]

Chaarvaaka

If Lokaayatha is the theist school of materialism, then Chaarvaaka is the atheist school of materialism. The atheists hold that only 1 pramaana (perception) is valid. Their philosophy is best summarised by the axiom: Yavath Jeeveth Sukham Jeeveth, Rnam Krthva Ghrtham Pibeth. It means Live Happily as long as you can, go into debt and drink ghee [i.e., enjoy life irresponsibly].

“The Carvakas also do not admit the nature of salvation as accepted by logicians. According to them, the destruction of this body i.e. death is the salvation. All the systems of Indian P[h]ilosophy prescribe the means of attaining freedom from sorrows and sufferings in life.” [3, ix]

What is notable is that both the theist and atheist schools of phiosophy are concerned with attaining release from the suffering of human existence.

Key Concepts of Tarka

The concepts of Tarka Saastra a myriad and many-faceted. Indeed, a series, rather than a singular article, is required to do justice to them. Nonetheless, within the confines of this introductory post, are some prominent concepts that catch the eye.

Pramaana

“Prathyaksha-anumaan-opamaana-sabdhaah ‘pramaanaani ||1|1|3||

3. Perception, inference, comparison and word (verbal testimony) —these are the means of right knowledge.” [1, 2]

Pramaanas are fundamental to Classical Indic Epistemology. The word pramaana comes from the term prama, meaning “valid thinking”. Therefore, valid knowledge comes from valid thinking. Indeed, the literal translation of pramaanavith would be philosopher. Without agreement over valid sources of knowledge, confusion and casuistry rules the day (not unlike the present time). While Nyaaya pronounces 4 pramaanas, Uttara Meemaamsa (i.e. Vedanta) propounds the existence of 6. The additional two are Arthapatthi (intuition) and Anupalabdhi (non-perception).

Bauddhas attested to the existence of prathyaksha and anumaana, Jinas included upamaana, while Chaarvaakas (materialists) supported the existence of only prathyaksa. “It was probably in the study of the process of inference that schools of true logic arose. From the necessities of metaphysical discussion false arguments were analysed and classified; of these logicians recognized the chief fallacies of classical logic, such as reductio ad absurdum (arthaprasanga), circular argument (cakra), infinite regression (anavastha), dilemma (anyonyasraya), and ignoratio elenchi (atmasraya).” [4, 501]

Akshapaadha Gauthama asserts the following in the opening Sloka of Nyaya Soothra:

“Pramaana-prameya-samsaya-prayojana-drshtaantha-siddhaantha-avayava-tharka-nirnaya-vaadha-jalpa-vithandaa-hethvaabhaasa-chhala-jaathi-nigrahasthaanaanaam- thathvajnaanaan-nisshreya-saadhi-gama ||1|1|1||

1.Supreme felicity is attained by the knowledge about the true nature of sixteen categories, viz., means of right knowledge (pramana), object of right knowledge (prameya), doubt (samsaya), purpose (prayojana), familiar instance (drstanta), established tenet (siddhanta), members (avayava), confutation (tarka), ascertainment (nirnaya), discussion (vada), wrangling (jalpa), cavil (vitanda), fallacy (hetvabhasa), quibble (chala), futility (jati), and occasion for rebuke (nigrahasthana).” [1,1]

“A correct inference was established by syllogism, of which the Indian form (pancavayava) was somewhat more cumbrous than the Aristotelian. Its five members were known as proposition (pratijna), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), application (upanaya) and conclusion (nigamana). ” [4, 501]

Although prathyaksha, anumaana, and upamaana are all self-explanatory, sabdha-pramaana is often a matter of controversy. Though literally meaning “verbal testimony”, this phraseology comes with some qualification.

It should be noted that the verbal testimony so proferred must be reliable, or specifically from a reliable person (aaptha). This is because”we rely on unseen matter not simply because it is signified by words but because they are spoken by a reliable person.” [1, 43]

Indeed, per astikas, Veda itself is pramaana, and requires no other to confirm it.

“Manthra-ayurvedha-praamaanya-vaccha thath-praamaanyam-aaptha-praamaanyaath ||2|1|69||

130.The Veda is reliable like the spell and medical science,because of the reliability of their authors.”[1, 48]

As such, per adherents of Vedic Dharma, the Veda itself is pramaana. Reliability is what makes authority authoritative.

Futility

Perhaps the most necessary of concepts to consider in Tarka Saastra is that of futility. Interestingly, futility is termed ‘jaathi’, and 24 jaathis of jaathi are provided to prove the futility of futile arguments.

A reply is considered futile “because it overlooks the universal connection between the middle term and the major term which is existent in the arguments of the disputant, but wanting in the arguments of the opponent.” [1, 24]

Rebuke

“Viprathipattiraprathipattischa nigrahasthaanam ||1|2|19||

60.An occasion for rebuke arises when one misunderstands or does not understand at all.” [1, 24]

Contrary to modern debates, where occlusion and dissimulation rule the day, proper Indic debate very much called balls-and-strikes. An opponent who betrayed his misunderstanding would be rebuked, even disqualified. Nigrahasthaana was the term for rebuke. Like, Jaathi, there are numerous types of rebukes too numerous to list here. However, this concept is most needed in contemporary vaadhana.

“If a person begins to argue in a way which betrays his utter ignorance, or wilfully misunderstands yet persists in showing that he understands well, it is of no avail to employ counter arguments. He is quite unfit to be argued with, and there is nothing left for his opponent to turn him out or quit his company, rebuking him as a blockhead or a knave.” [1, 25]

Classical Indic Debate

Photo: baps — Gargi Vachaknavi defeats Maharishi Yajnavalkya in Debate

Contrary to the present-time where bombastic debate to oblivion is the calling card of the krypto-traditionalist koopastha-manduka, Classical India had high standards for debate. The modern day, self-proclaimed ‘high iq’ dimwit would be dismissed with disgust if such antics corrupted the august sabhas of yore. Akshapaadha Muni himself asserts as follows:

“Pramaana-tharkka-saadhan-opaalambhas-siddhaantha-viruddha panchaa-vayavopa-panthah paksha-prathipaksha-parigraho vaadhah’ ||1|2|1||

1.Discussion is the adoption of one or two opposing sides. What is adopted is analysed in the form of five members and defended by the aid of any of the means of right knowledge, while its opposite is assailed by confutation, without deviation from the established tenets.” [1, 17]

Vadam, in reality, is an exchange of thoughts and not an one sided presumptuousness. That is known as 'Jalpam' not 'Vadam'.#Periyava

— Sage of Kanchi (@haraharasankara) October 12, 2016

To elaborate, vaadham is an argument or discussion. It “is the adoption of a side by a disputation and its opposite by his opponent. It is of three kinds, viz., discussion which aims at ascertaining the truth, wrangling which aims at gaining victory, and cavil which aims at finding mere faults. A discutient is one who engages himself in a disputation as a means of seeking the truth.” [1, 17]

Therefore, rather than a no holds barred, machine-gun burst of buffoonery, discussion was dignified and focused on finding out the truth of a matter, instead of merely running out the clock to win. Vaadham is contrasted with Jalpam, known as wrangling.

“A wrangler is one who, engaged in a disputation, aims only at victory, being indifferent whether the arguments which he employs support his own contention or that of his opponent, provided that he can make out a pret[e]xt for bragging that he has taken an active part in the disputation.” [1, 18]

Then there is the even more exasperating caviller, or vithandin.

Exchange of thoughts is Vadam. To be presumptuous & stubborn of one's opinion is Jalpam. No own view, nor accept other's is Vidanda Vadam.

— Sage of Kanchi (@haraharasankara) October 13, 2016

“A caviller does not endeavour to establish anything, but confines himself to mere carping at the arguments of his opponent“. [1, 18] If there is a precise definition of the ‘Argumentative Indian” imbecile today, it is this. This ahankaari shikhandi of argument boasts of virility in veracity whence only verbosity marks his curriculum vitae. He (if this phenomenon can be described so gendered) has no ideas of his own, no solutions of his own, and no relevant accomplishments of his own to boast of—but he absolutely cannot stand that another does, and dedicates his life to carping and cavilling in supreme crab mentality. This is the vithandin, so despised in ancient and modern India alike.

Savyabhichaara (non-sequitur) is this erratic eccentric’s speciality, along with, undoubtedly, abhichaara, since pavithratha and sathya have no sanctity for this twit. If there is a scourge in Bharatavarsha today, it is the vithandin. Can’t lead the way, and won’t get out of the way. He must be called out and castigated as such, post-haste.

Poorva Paksha

As per Acharya Akshapaadha, Paksha refers to subject. “Subject is that on which the thing to proved is suspected“. [2, 103] Sapaksha refers to similar instance, and vipaksha refers to contrary instance. [2, 104]

Therefore, poorva paksha refers to previous instance, and finds its ultimate origin in the Nyaaya Soothra. It would later be made famous in the great debates between Adi Sankaracharya and Mandana Mishra.

Our tradition requires us to do purva paksha of western Indology & give uttara paksha. I am doing. It. What abt GOI? https://t.co/Toy4lCX7ld

— Rajiv Malhotra (@RajivMessage) November 3, 2015

If poorva paksha refers to prior instance, then apara paksha, or khandana refers to the critique. Finally, uttara paksha, refers to the later instance or answer (i.e. one’s own position or siddhaantha). Apara Paksha is the deconstruction of the opinion through the use of tarka (logical reasoning). Ultimately, the purpose of debate is best embodied by this exhortation from the Rg Veda:

“Sangacchadhvam samvadadhvam sam vo manaamsi jaanaathaam

Meet one another, discuss and understand your minds’ (Rg. V.-x, 191-2)”

Personalities

Akshapaadha Gauthama (6th century BCE or earlier)

Pakhilasvaamin Vaathsyaayana (5th Century CE or earlier)

Dignaaga (6th Century or earlier)

Udyotakara (6th Century)

Dharmakeerthi (7th Century)

Dharmottara

Rathnakeerthi

Vaachaspathi Mishra (841 CE)

Jayanta Bhatta

Keshava Mishra

Hemachandra

Yashovijaya

Bhaasarvajna (10th Century)

Udayanacharya (10th Century )

Varadharaaja (11th Century )

Jayadeva

Ruchidatta

Vaasudeva Sarvabhauma (16th Century )

Gangesa

Raghunaatha Shiromani

Mathuranaatha Tarkavaageesa

Gadhaadhhara Bhattacharya

Jagadheesa (17th Century)

Annambhatta

Samkara Mishra

Vishvanaatha Panchaanana

Important Texts

Nyaaya Soothras of Gauthama

Nyaaya Bhaashya of Vatsyaayana

Nyaaya Vaarttika of Udyotakara

Nyaaya-soochi-nibandha, Nyaaya-varttika-thaathparya-teeka, Brahmatattva Sameeksha, Bhaamathi, Tattva kaumudhi & Vaisaaradhi of Vaachaspathi Mishra

Nyaaya-vaarttika-thaathparya-teeka-parishuddhi by Udayanacharya

Parishuddhi-prakaasa of Vardhamaana

Tarkakaraksha of Varadharaaja

Vardhamaanendu of Padmanaabha Mishra

Nyaayaalankaara of Shreekantha

Nyaayalankaara Vrtti & Nyaaya Manjari of Jayanta Bhatta

Nyaaya Vrtti of Abhayatilakopaadhyaaya

Nyaaya Vrtti of Vishvanaatha

Mithaabhaashini Vrtti of Mahaadeva Vedaanti

Nyaaya Bodhini of Govardhana

Tarka Bhaasha & Nyaaya Prakaasa of Keshava Mishra

Tarka Samgraha & Deepika of Annamabhatta

Dinakari

Raamarudri

Kiranaavali of Krishnavallabha Acharya

Bhaashaapariccheda

Siddhaantha-mukthaavali

Tattva Chinthaamani & Mani of Gangesa

Nyaaya Vyaakhyaaya & Rahasya of Mathuranaatha

Deedhithi of Raghunaatha

Conclusion

“Samaadhi-vishesha-abhyaasaath ||4|2|38||

106.The knowledge of truth is rendered habitual by a special practice of meditation.” [1, 153]

The centrality of logic to Indic Civilization cannot be minimised. It was stipulated as one of the 14 Principles Branches of Study in the Matsya Puraana. “Manu says that dharma or duty is to be ascertained by logical reasoning not opposed to the injunctions of the Vedas. He recommends Logic (Nyaya) as a necessary study for a King and a logician to be an indispensable member of a legal assembly“. [1, xxx] Taarkikaas are distinguished from Hethuvaadhins, who gave logic against the Vedas. Chaarvaaka hethuvaadhins frequently masqueraded as taarkikas, and Dharmaraajas were advised to keep such dushtabrahmanas at a distance, differentiating them from sishtabrahmanas and proper Dharmacharyas, deserving respect.

Today, there are many posing as Sishtas, Vipras, and Vedacharyas nevertheless engaging in hetuvaadha citing Jayanta Bhatta and numerous logicians. They should bear in mind the cautionary tale from Maharishi Baadharaayana. “Vyasa in the Mahabharata, [Shaanthi Parva], relates the doleful story of a repentant Bhrahmana who, addicted to Tarkavidya (logic) carried on debates divorced from all faith in the Vedas and was on that account, turned into a jackal in his next birth as penalty.” [1, xxviii].

Be that as it may, it is best to end on a positive note. “Nyaya was regarded as an approved branch of learning. Thus the Gautama-Dharma-soothra, prescribes a course of training in logic (Nyaya) for the King and acknowledges the utility of Tarka [logical reasoning] in the administration of justice“. [1, xxix]

Is it any wonder, therefore, that “nyaaya” is the word in the Andhra bhaasha for both logic and justice? One begets the other—that is the importance not only of Nyaaya Darsana, but also Tarka Saastra.