Śrīharṣa Miśra’s Critique of Trustworthiness

Authors

  • Sudipta Munsi independent scholar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13135/1825-263X/2251

Keywords:

Advaita Vedānta, skepticism, epistemology of testimony, epistemology, Nyāya

Abstract

This paper aims at discussing the critique of the classical (prācīna) Nyāya theory of trustworthiness (āptatva) as found in the Śabdalakṣaṇakhaṇḍana section of the first chapter from the Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya of the great 12th century Advaita Vedāntin, Śrīharṣa Miśra. Śrīharṣa submitted the Nyāya definition to a full-fledged critique ranging from smaller details to main issues, thus showing that 1. āptatva cannot be a reliable criterion for deciding the validity of a  cognition, 2. even if it were so, no such speaker could ever be found. The author further extends Śrīharṣa’s criticism by noting also that 3. even if such a speaker could be found, the information she delivered could consciously or inadvertently be distorted by the listener. He then concludes by noting further possible applications of Śrīharṣa’s skeptical attacks to testimony as an instrument of knowledge.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Sudipta Munsi, independent scholar

Sudipta Munsi, M.A. (History), Dip. in Sanskrit, is an independent scholar of History, Sanskrit and Indian Philosophy, based in Calcutta, with abiding interests in ancient Indian philosophies of language, testimony, history, psychology, etc. The topics of his publications are as varied as Cārvāka philosophy, Advaita Vedānta, education in Ancient India, etc.

References

Dasgupta, Surendranath. 1922. A History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gambhirananda, Swami, trans. 2009. Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

Gambhirananda, Swami, trans. 2004. Eight Upaniṣads with the Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. Volume 1. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

Grimes, John. 1996. A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hall, Fitzedward, ed. 1852. The Ātma-bodha, with Its Commentary; also the Tattwa-bodha: Being two treatises of Indian pantheism. Mirzapore: Orphan School Press.

Matilal, Bimal Krishna and Jaysankar Lal Shaw, eds. 1985. Analytical Philosophy in Comparative Perspective. Exploratory Essays in Current Theories and Classical Indian Theories of Meaning and Reference. Synthese Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Nikhilananda, Swami, trans. 1931. Drg-Drsya Viveka. Mysore: Sri Ramakrishna Asrama.

Saraswatī, Swāmī Prajñānānanda, ed. and transl. in Bengali. 1991. Vedāntaḍiṇḍima of Śaṅkarācārya. Varanasi: Śrī Śrī Nigamānanda Vidyāniketana.

Śāstrī, Sudhāṁśuśekhara, ed. ed. and transl. in Hindī. 2010. Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya of Śrīharṣa with the Sanskrit commentaries, Śāradā and Rājahaṁsa, of Swāmī Śaṅkaracaitanya Bhāratī. Vol. 2. Varanasi.

Śāstrī, Vāsudeva Abhyaṅkara Mahāmahopādhyāya, ed. 1924. Sarvadarśanasaṁgraha of Sāyaṇa-Mādhavācārya with an original Sanskrit commentary. Poona: Prācya Vidyā Saṁśodhana Mandira.

Sen, Prabal Kumar. 2006. “Some Alternative Definitions of Śabdapramāṇa.” In Śabdapramāṇa in Indian Philosophy, edited by Manjulika Ghosh and Bhaswati Bhattacharya Chakraborti, 53-79. New Delhi: Northern Book Centre.

Shastri, J. L., ed. 1988. Brahmasūtra-Śāṅkarabhāṣyam with the commentaries Bhāṣyaratnaprabhā of Govindānanda, Bhāmatī of Vācaspatimiśra, Nyāyanirṇaya of Ānandagiri. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 1st edition 1980.

Thakur, Anantalal, ed. 1996. Nyāyavārtikatātparyaṭīkā of Vācaspati Miśra. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.

Thakur, Anantalal, ed. 1997. Gautamīyanyāyadarśana with Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.

Thankaswami, R. 1980. Advaita Vedanta Literature. A Bibliographical Survey, Madras: University of Madras.

Yogīndrānanda, Swāmī, ed. & [Hindī] trans. 2010. Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya of Śrīharṣa with the Khaṇḍanaphakkikāvibhajana of Ānandapūrṇamunīndra Vidyāsāgara. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Vidya Bhawan.

Downloads

Published

2018-11-19

Issue

Section

There in only ‘Philosophy:’ The case of Testimony