A Three-Way Dialogue: Nyāya, Buddhism and Modern Philosophy of Mind

Research record

Map of Triangular Dialogue Justice — Permanent Soul • Evidence Analysis • Subtlety of Relationships Buddhist — Non-Soul • Process Continuity • Self-Perception Controversy The basic assertion of this chapter is that the most fruitful dialogue between justice, Buddhism, and modern philosophy of mind will be based on problem commonality. Consciousness, cognition, error, memory, self-awareness, intentionality and evidence may become shared questions; But ontology, soteriology, methodology and historical terminology must be kept separate. The parallel method is not a project to prove a genealogy. It does not say that modern philosophy of mind emerged from Nyaya or Buddhist philosophy, nor does it claim that the classical Indian cohorts already knew the findings of modern neuroscience. The claim is simply that independently developed philosophical traditions provide different conceptual means on some of the same difficult questions. The major force of justice is subtle distinctions. In the analysis of the relationship between soul, mind, senses, meaning, knowledge, memory, desire, effort, pleasure, pain, lack and error Justice makes a very fine distinction. Navya-nyaya makes this relationship language even more subtle. The significance of this tradition for modern philosophy of mind lies not in declaring a “retrospective analytic philosophy,” but in its conceptual discipline.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

The first presupposition: Nyaya assumes permanent souls and Buddhists non-souls; So real communication is not possible. The answer is that disagreement is not a barrier to dialogue, but a basis for it. Competing answers on common explanations such as memory, doership, error and continuity are comparable. The second premise: classical Indian systems are religious or salvation-oriented, modern philosophy scientific; Therefore, the comparison is a category mistake. Part of the objection is valid—the historical targets are different. But the classical philosophical claims on directness, inference, memory, language, self-awareness and reasoning are comparable at the problem-level. Third premise: After modern neuroscience, the soul–non-soul controversy became irrelevant. Neuroscience clarifies many questions of dependence, mode of action, and correlation; But the metaphysics of individual identity, subjectivity, first-person authenticity, normativity and consciousness would not automatically disappear. Fourth premise: Buddhist non-self was proved by modern cognition. This is an exaggeration. Cognitive science can undermine many paradigms of the stable inner self, but Buddhist The moral and salvation mythological presentation of the non-self-view is not a single scientific conclusion. Fifth premise: Justice is an ancient form of high-level theory. There are similarities at the problem-level, but they differ in conceptual roles, metaphysics, causation, terminology, and goals. It is not appropriate to say “precedent” without historical evidence.

Uttarapakṣa

First answer—comparison is not equality, it is relationship. Similarities, differences, translation-difficulties and interpretive consequences between two concepts should be recorded separately. Second Answer—Let three questions be essential to every comparative claim: What are the historical sources? What is the original definitional meaning? On what specific problem-axis is modern comparison? This three-level criterion reduces temporal confusion. Third Answer—Do not conclude that justice is merely a “substance-theory”. The extensive tradition of knowledge classification, error, word-proof, inference, memory, desire, effort and linguistic analysis is important for philosophy of mind. Fourth Answer—Do not limit Buddhist philosophy to the “Anatma” slogan. There is considerable plurality within the mental component of Abhidharma, the enlightenment of uxnaga–dharmakirti, the secondary criticism, the practice of yoga and the self-perception-controversy. Fifth Answer—Modern philosophy of mind is not one voice. physicalism, functionalism, representationalism, enactivism, higher-order theory, narrative self-understanding, phenomenology, anticipatory processing and eliminativism among themselves They disagree.

Parallel conclusion

The main achievement of the triangular dialogue of Nyaya, Buddhist and modern philosophies of mind is not to pick a winner, but to make the question more nuanced. Judgment gives nuances of subjectivity, relationship, knowledge, error and evidence. Buddhist philosophy challenges process, impermanence, non-self, dependent continuity and self-perception. Modern philosophy and science add carnality, brain-dependence, computation, medical evidence, artificial intelligence and experimental limits. To declare all three equal would be to the detriment of philosophical history; Assuming completely unrelated Loss of comparative opportunity. The parallel method chooses the rigorous path between—preserve historical differences, ask questions on common problem-axes, separate levels of evidence, acknowledge the limitations of translation, present counterarguments fairly, and keep conclusions error-proof. Chapter 81's formula: "Like questions do not make like theories; but true comparisons may show the hidden presuppositions of their respective theories."

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 14 source passages
2. Central thesis · 5 source passages
3. Major arguments · 20 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 8 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 8 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 5 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 8 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 9 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 3 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 47 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “A Three-Way Dialogue: Nyāya, Buddhism and Modern Philosophy of Mind.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-81/