Vivekananda and Navya-Nyaya : What changed between 1895 and 1902 ?

 

 Nyaya and Indian Enlightenment

I have been studying Jonardan Ganeri's wonderful book 'The lost age of reason - Philosophy in early modern India 1450-1700' that chronicles the intellectual history of early modernity in India especially Navya-Nyaya (new reason) school and explores the alternative conception of modernity not as rejection of past but change of attitude towards it.

I have been interested in Nyaya school not only because of interest in logic and epistemology but more broadly as I believe Nyaya with its notion of 'Apta' - that doesn't discriminate among human beings and 'deistic' notion of 'God' (in udayana and later Raghunatha) may provide a 'philosophical basis' for an Indian 'Enlightenment'.

  

Neglect of Nyaya in Indian Renaissance/Freedom Movement

In this regard i am interested about how Nyaya influenced thinkers of Indian Freedom movement/Renaissance and I am surprised by the apparent neglect of it and (advaitha)vedantha-centrism - emphasis on vedantha that had continued to this day.Related to this I am also interested in influence of west on formation of Indian identity.For example in Bagavadgeetha becoming the holy book of the Hindus I guess there is influence of one holy book concept of abrahmic religions as even in the vedantha schools prasthanathrayas that are basic scriptures which comes to atleast 12 books. [1-Brahma Sutra,10- canonical Upanishads, and Bhagavadgeetha]

 

Question - For Vivekananda What changed between 1895 and 1902 ?

 What is the reason for dramatic change  Vivekananda about Navya-Nyaya between 1895 and 1992 ? and is it representative of views of other leading people in the Independence/renaissance movement ?

 

In 1895 -Vivekananda has Positive attitude about Navya-Nyaya [From Ganeri's book - The lost age of reason]

 

Vivekananda, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, evinced a continuing awareness of the power and influence of the movement:

 

Transported from the soil of Mithilā to Navadvı̄pa, nurtured and developed by the fostering genius of [Raghunātha] Śiromani, Gadādhara, Jagadı̄śa, and a host of other great names, an analysis of the laws of reasoning in some points superior to every other system in the whole world, expressed in a wonderful and precise mosaic of language, stands the Nyāya of Bengal, respected and studied throughout the length and breadth of Hindusthān. (1895: 336)

 

 

Later in 1902 - Sceptical about Nyaya and Full Praise for Advaita Vedantha 

 

A few years later he had become less complimentary about the ‘new reason’, and gives voice to what was already a standard cliché. Speaking to a Bengali student, he says:

 

Why do you not set about propagating Vedānta in your part of the country? Rouse and agitate the country with the lion-roar of Advaita-vāda. Then I shall know you to be a Vedāntist. First open a Sanskrit school there and teach the Upanishads and the Brahma-sūtras. I have heard that in your country there is much logic-chopping of the Nyāya school. What is there in it? Only vyāpti [pervasion] and anumāna [inference]—on these subjects the pandits of the Nyāya school discuss for months! What does it help towards the knowledge of the ātman[the self]?(1902:256-267] 

 

Hindu religion has now become the only thing worth studying, and ‘new reason’ philosophy is reduced to so many soteriologically irrelevant logical games.

 

 Such a drastic change in his views in such a short span of time. Reading about Daya Krishna is justifying my suspicion that neo-vedantic interpretation was inspired by west's view of spiritual east .

From Preface of the book - contrary thinking - a collection of his essays .

 

Daya Krishna’s was a much-needed iconoclastic voice, given the resurgence of

neo- Vedānta in the nineteenth century, which he saw as Hinduism’s quest for scripture analogous to the Semitic religions conditioned by the Orientalist fiction that India is a spiritual civilization, in contrast to Europe. His articles raise the question, “What is śruti? “In “The Vedic Corpus,” he highlights how each śākhā had its own Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraņyakas, and Upanişads. It is only with the Mīmāṃsāsūtra and the Brahmasūtra that the idea of a unified śruti arose.

 

The Limitations of New-Atheist Style Rationalism

 

Getting Blocked by an ‘Atheist’ Guru
Recently a self-proclaimed atheist- rationalist who previously was my FB friend blocked me. ‘The arrogant Atheist’ is a caricature of people like him.
Please note: It is not criticism of atheism but a caricature of certain atheists. I can be described as atheist myself if by ‘atheism’ you mean belief in the existence of the natural world only.
Getting Blocked in FB by a “rationalist” for asking evidence for his claims
Recently I got blocked by such a self-proclaimed atheist guru. He blocked me for asking evidence to his claims. I pointed out that his assertion is based on anecdotes and as rationalists we need to be careful about generalisation. He immediately blocked me !! He is a professor in a prestigious Business School and he encouraged his students to question him. He runs a FB for Humanism and calls for Indian Enlightenment(similar to European Enlightenment). But in that FBPage he never replies and none of my detailed comments,even the ones related to his interview are answered.He also believes that we can know the meaning of words like ‘religion’ by looking in the dictionary.

The arrogant atheist and their Fallacies
The core beliefs of the ‘The arrogant atheist’ and my criticism of such beliefs.
1.Atheism is rationalism :It confuses taking an ontological position (atheism) that there is no God or more generally believing only the physical world exists as equivalent to become rationalist. They seem to reason as follows:
Premise 1: Following the path of reason that is critically evaluating one’s beliefs lead to atheism.
Premise 2: I am an atheist
Conclusion: I am rationalist:
Even assuming premises are correct it is a classical Affirming the consequent fallacy possibly coming from confusing process and outcome.
2. Rejection of Religion as Progress : From this they come to the conclusion that for society to progress we need to reject religion.They don’t ask questions like what exactly religion is? do all cultures have religion and how certain thinkers are classified as religious. In Indian context schools of thought like Nyaya-Vaisesika, Yogachara Buddhists etc are considered as religious even though when you compared them to many western philosophers they make more sophisticated arguments.Is it possible orientalist mindset that sees East as the rationalist west’s other working here. Does rejecting the Religion is necessary or sufficient to become rationalist? Or what it means to reject religion? Just because somebody considers a particular book as infallible/religious doesn’t mean one shouldn’t read them. I can read Sankara,Kumarila,Nagarjuna in the sameway as I read Plato,Aristotle or Spinoza.There are atheist authoritarian countries and people who argue for religious majoritarianism while being non-believers in their personal life.
3. Naive view of Human Beliefs: They think people literally believe the stories underlying the rituals.They reject the possibility that people may do rituals for the experience of doing it or just do for the sake of it.
4. Moral Superiority : Considering most atheist/materialist tradition has been historically maligned( except in the 20th century) and even today prosecuted in many countries. This makes them feel superior to others especially ‘religious people’.

Atheist Guru as Inverted God Man
Some of them start to preach this kind of atheism and start to act like GodMan’s whom they despise so much. Their belief that adoption of atheism and rejection of religion as equivalent to being rationalists is a similar experience of enlightenment(Self Realisation- atmasakshatkar) described by Godman. In their moral superiority they equal the GodMan’s attitude of being superior to others' attitude. In the words of Ashish Nandy the GodMan is their intimate enemy.