# Talk:Nyaya

## Untitled

Also see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)

## Inference example

"Wherever there is fire, there is smoke"

Shouldn't that read "Wherever there is smoke, there is fire"? The above wording does not rule out the possibility of there being smoke without fire, and therefore does not prove the Pratijñā. Pedantic, I know, but isn't that the point? --- Anon

Seems like we're missing something here. You could easily replace fire with 'acid' and end up proving 'there is acid on the hill' with the same logic. Besides, it violates Modus ponens. Surely the ancient Indians and the ancient Greeks didn't have different meanings for 'truth' [:)]. This article needs more solid examples. — Rohit Dasari
There is no violation of modus ponens. The example seems okay. The assertion simply says that "If fire then smoke". It does not exclude the possibility of smoke being there due to other factors. The assertion does not say "Only if fire, then smoke.. it says whenever there is fire.." And it also does not say what should be the truth value of "smoke" if there is no fire. I don't see how we could replace "fire" with "acid" and prove "there is acid on the hill". --- Sri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.104.166 (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction. I stand corrected as the set of five assertions collectively does indeed violate modus ponens. The example is of abductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. It needs correction. -- Sri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.104.166 (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The example given is

There is fire on the hill (called Pratijñā, required to be proved) Because there is smoke there (called Hetu, reason) Wherever there is fire, there is smoke (called Udaharana, ie, example) There is smoke on the hill (called Upanaya, reaffirmation) Therefore there is fire on the hill (called Nigamana, conclusion)

Article does not say if this is supposed to be an example of valid or invalid reasoning or something else. Article does not say if this is a traditional examle, or one given by the editor to illustrae the terms Pratijñā,Hetu etc. It is clearly not an example of invalid reasonng, but would be an example of valid reasoning if "Wherever there is fire, there is smoke" read "Wherever there is smoke, there is fire". Perhaps editor just made a typo?

Is "example" really a good translation of "Udaharana" does anybody know? It seems od to describe a general statement (Wherever there is fire, there is smoke) as an "example"--Philogo 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PS See/compare the following found in Nyāya Sūtras:-

The Nyaya Sutra supports a five-part syllogism, widely followed in the Indian tradition:

This hill is fiery (pratijna: a statement of that which is to be proved). Because it is smoky (hetu: statement of reason). Whatever is smoky is fiery, as is a kitchen (udaharana: statement of a general rule supported by an example). So is this hill (upanaya: application of the rule of this case). Therefore this hill is fiery (nigamana: drawing the conclusion).

--Philogo 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

## Cleanup

I put a cleanup notice on this article because the article does not conform to generally prevailing standards of editing: it looks rather like a cut&paste effort from elsewhere.

The inconsistent terminology causes confusion when discussing the article with others. In the overview "there are exactly four sources of knowledge (pramanas)", whilst in the Epistemology "four means("pramana") of obtaining correct knowledge". Also the fourth pramana is called testimony in the Overview, and word in the Epistemology.

I'd very much like to see this article developed: it would be useful to the logic pages to have a non-Greek-derived system of logic described. --- Charles Stewart

## Resource

[1] has a nice overview of the system of reasoning inside Nyaya, and could be used as a basis for completing this article. --- Charles Stewart 20:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## śākhā-candra-nyāya - the analogy of the moon and the branches of a tree

""No one can estimate the opulence of Kṛṣṇa. That is unlimited. However, just as one sees the moon through the branches of a tree, I wish to give a little indication." PURPORT First a child is shown the branches of a tree, and then he is shown the moon through the branches. This is called śākhā-candra-nyāya. The idea is that first one must be given a simpler example. Then the more difficult background is explained." "In this way Kṛṣṇa's transcendental forms are expanded unlimitedly. No one can count them. Whatever I have explained is simply a little glimpse. It is like showing the moon through the branches of a tree." "Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.248

ananta avatāra kṛṣṇera, nāhika gaṇana śākhā-candra-nyāya kari dig-daraśana SYNONYMS

ananta — unlimited; avatāra — incarnations; kṛṣṇera — of Lord Kṛṣṇa; nāhika gaṇana — there is no possibility of counting; śākhā-candra-nyāya — by the analogy of the moon and the branches of a tree; kari — I make; dik-daraśana — a slight indication. TRANSLATION

"There are innumerable incarnations of Kṛṣṇa, and there is no possibility of counting them. We can simply indicate them by giving the example of the moon and the branches of a tree. PURPORT Although the moon appears to be located in the branches of a tree, it is actually situated very far away. Similarly, none of the avatāras, or incarnations, of Lord Kṛṣṇa are within this material world, but they are visible by the causeless mercy of the Lord. We should not consider them to belong to this material world. As stated by Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā (Bg. 9.11): avajānanti māḿ mūḍhā mānuṣīḿ tanum āśritam paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto mama bhūta-maheśvaram "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be." Avatāras descend of their own free will, and although they may act like ordinary human beings, they do not belong to this material world. Lord Kṛṣṇa and His avatāras can be understood only by the grace of the Lord. nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūḿ svām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.23) "The Supreme Lord is not obtained by means of expert explanations, vast intelligence or even much hearing. He is obtained only by one whom He Himself chooses. To such a person, He manifests His own form." athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya- prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi jānāti tattvaḿ bhagavan-mahimno na cānya eko 'pi ciraḿ vicinvan (Bhāg. 10.14.29) "My Lord, if one is favored by even a slight trace of the mercy of Your lotus feet, he can understand the greatness of Your personality. But those who speculate to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead are unable to know You, even though they continue studying the Vedas for many years."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.128.162 (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

## ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya — the logic of accepting half of a hen

"Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 5.176

ekete viśvāsa, anye nā kara sammāna "ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya" tomāra pramāṇa SYNONYMS

ekete viśvāsa — faith in one; anye — in the other; nā — not; kara — do; sammāna — respect; ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya — the logic of accepting half of a hen; tomāra — your; pramāṇa — evidence. TRANSLATION

"If you have faith in one but disrespect the other, your logic is like the logic of accepting half a hen." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.128.162 (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

## Nyāya

Also see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) Wakari07 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Article titles are selected by a criteria which includes WP:COMMONNAME. Indic naming conventions are not applicable for selecting article titles. However, articles titles can use diacritics etc. if such usage is more common in English language sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here. You can, of course, submit comparison, references etc. to prove your point. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Where is the "established usage" here? Wouldn't you consider the closest/best/oldest sources as the most preferable? Wasn't the usage established in India/nāgarī/..., without ambiguity, for centuries? Why would Wikipedia introduce ambiguity? Wikipedia is not here only for English readers, but is set to be a reference point overall (in time as well as in space). The only point i would consider is the use or not of a capital letter for the first letter of the article title. Wakari07 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
WP-ref: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization. Wakari07 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is the most relevant policy here. Diacritics are not used in Indian English. This the established anglicization. Thus, as per Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization, Nyaya without diacritics should be used.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Redtigerxyz. Wakari please note, if you want to change most of the Sanskrit titles and terminology in English Wikpedia (this is what you are doing in lot of articles: [2],[3],[4],[5]), please take it up at a larger forum like WT:IN. Otherwise, we'll end up with lot of duplicated discussions on many talk pages. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 13:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)