3)
Nyāya is traditionally paired with the Vaiśeṣika school, because the two focus respectively on the subject and object of knowledge, with the former therefore being more dominantly epistemological and the latter ontological in nature.
Modern scholarship on Nyāya can largely be divided into two camps. The first provides an apologetic for its metaphysical orientation and prefers to emphasize the technical detail of logic in an attempt to relocate Nyāya within a positivist framework. The historian of Indian philosophy S. N. Dasgupta and more recently Bimal Krishna Matilal belong to this category. The second approach is represented by those like Dharmendra Nath Shastri, Jitendranath Mohanty, and Karl Potter, who argue that the relation to metaphysics is not "added on" but intrinsic to the discourse of Nyāya. This difference in approach has not, however, affected the selection of topics or emphases among authors from either group, as the focus in both cases remains mainly on exegesis with occasional critical analysis. A sustained, conscious, and systematic consideration of Nyāya's method, which consists in the non-dualism of fact and value and theory and practice, pre-supposing a belief in the unity of epistemology (science), ethics, and metaphysics (or religion), has yet to be made.
This is a free page. This page contains 197 words. This
article contains 1,714 words (approx. 6 pages at 300
words per page).
Read the rest of this Article with our Nyāya Access Pass.
