Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s7.t13: Nyaya
Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s7.t13
- Language
- English
Nyaya
v1.c7.s7.t13.1
Nyaya (Nyāya) is one of the main factions of Brahmanism philosophy in ancient Indian and also the earliest ideological faction who systematically discussed about logic and debate rules. It emerged roughly around the 1st century CE. After it was introduced to China, it had an important influence on the development and prevalence of hetuvidya of Chinese Han and Tibetan.
v1.c7.s7.t13.2
**Historical development and primary literature** - The ideological origins of Nyaya faction could be traced back to the debate and reasoning specified for early Brahmanism sacrifice in ancient India. In some of the ancient codes and records of the early times of Mimamsa, Buddhism, Jainism and the epic *Mahabharata*, there were contents discussing the debate methods, inference rules and other aspects related with Nyaya ideology.
v1.c7.s7.t13.3
The Sanskrit word for “Nyaya” is “Nyāya”. Its original meaning was “a conclusion could be conducted with the aid of its ideology”, and later became a faction name specialised in research on reasoning and debate in Indian philosophy.
v1.c7.s7.t13.4
According to legend, the founder of this faction was Gautama or Gotama, around the 1st century CE. Regarding the life experience of Gotama, considerable components of the available materials people now can see have legend features, so generally it is not very clear. There are many viewpoints about his era. The academic world often compares the contents of his writings with contents of writings of other factions in order to speculate the approximate period of Gotama.
v1.c7.s7.t13.5
The first fundamental classic of Nyaya was Gotama’s *Nyaya Sutra* (Nyāya-sūtra). Today’s *Nyaya Sutra* people can see contains the added ingredients by descendants; it was completed in its form around 3rd and 4th century CE. After *Nyaya Sutra*, the major ancient codes and records of Nyaya faction were the annotation and re-annotation on *Nyaya Sutra* and so on. Among which, they mainly include: Vatsyqyana’s (around 4th-5th century) “Nyayasutra-bhasya”, Uddyotakara’s (in 6th century CE) “Nyaya-varthika”, Vacaspati misra’s (in 9th century CE) “N.-v.-tatparya-tika”, Udayana’s (in 10th century CE) “N.-v.-tatparay-parisuddhi” and “N.-kusumanjali” and so on.
v1.c7.s7.t13.6
Around the 12th century CE, the new Nyaya was formed. Meanwhile, Nyaya also gradually mixed with Vaisheshika. The main representative of New Nyaya was Gangesa (12th century CE), he wrote the book of *Tattvacintamani*. After Nyaya was mixed with Vaisheshika, the important figures and their works include: Varadaraja's (12th century CE) *Tarkikaraksa*, Kesava misra's (13th century CE) *Tarkabhasa* and Annam Bhatta's (16th century CE) *Tarkasamgraha* and so on.
v1.c7.s7.t13.7
The Nyaya Sutra of Gotama (front cover)
v1.c7.s7.t13.8
**Ideological system and logical debate doctrine -** The basic ideology of Nyaya faction is the theoretical framework of its "Sodasa-tattva". In this framework, Nyaya faction discussed in details their doctrines about logical theories, debates rules and other aspects.
v1.c7.s7.t13.9
Sodasa-tattva
v1.c7.s7.t13.10
According to *Nyaya Sutra* and its ancient annotation, Nyaya regarded "Sodasa-tattva" as the basic system of its doctrine. The so-called "tattva" refers to reality. Nyaya proposed 16 basic concepts or categories while exploring logic, debate and other issues, these concepts or categories and related explanation appear to be real and correct for this faction, therefore called "tattva".
v1.c7.s7.t13.11
Sodasa-tattva includes: pramana, prameya, samsaya, prayojana, drstanta, siddhanta, avayava, tarka, nirnaya, vada, jalpa, vitanda, hetvabhasa, chala, jati and nigrahasthana.
v1.c7.s7.t13.12
Pramana refers to the way or method of obtaining a correct understanding. "Nyaya Sutra" divided it into four categories: pratyaksa, anumana, upamana and Zabda.
v1.c7.s7.t13.13
Prameya refers to the object to be comprehended. It is divided specifically into 12 kinds: I, body, root, condition, feeling, mind, karma, negligence, rebirth, retribution, bitterness and liberation.
v1.c7.s7.t13.14
Samsaya is a judgment conflicting with the exact nature of matter, that is, a confused state of mind. Only with confusion, people would seek for reasoning or start debates.
v1.c7.s7.t13.15
Prayojana refers to the purpose of taking an action, that is, the purpose of reasoning or debate.
v1.c7.s7.t13.16
Drstanta is the case towards which the common people and authority share the same understanding, that is, the fact or truth recognised by everyone. This plays a very important role in reasoning.
v1.c7.s7.t13.17
Siddhanta refers to the proposals established according to the authority, assumptions, etc of one faction, which is the main idea or arguments of the side that put forward the proposals.
v1.c7.s7.t13.18
Avayava refers to the syllogism of pañca-avayava-vākya, which consists of pratijñā (proposition), hetu (cause), udāharana (illustration), upanaya (application) and nigamana (conclusion). It is the rightful inferential mode praised by Nyaya faction.
v1.c7.s7.t13.19
Tarka refers to when the true nature of matter is not known, the consideration of knowing the truth by assuming. This is a thinking process during reasoning.
v1.c7.s7.t13.20
Nirnaya refers to considering the arguments of both sides and make a decision on an issue.
v1.c7.s7.t13.21
Vada refers to adopting correct ways of understanding or pañca-avayava-vākya during debate, and requiring it not contradictory with siddhanta.
v1.c7.s7.t13.22
Jalpa means though in the debate, setting up the above syllogistic, however winning by using of sophistry and other improper means.
v1.c7.s7.t13.23
Vitanda refers to the debate action that only destroying the opponent's arguments, not establish argument on own side.
v1.c7.s7.t13.24
Hetvabhasa refers to the specious basis or reasons used in reasoning process.
v1.c7.s7.t13.25
Chala refers to the improper selection of the meaning not meant by the opposite side from the words said.
v1.c7.s7.t13.26
Jati refers to raising objections against the opposite side solely according to similarities and differences of matters ie false criticism.
v1.c7.s7.t13.27
Nigrahasthana refers to the various realities of debates failure of misunderstanding or not understanding, etc.
v1.c7.s7.t13.28
In Nyaya faction's theoretical system of "Sodasa-tattva", it dealt with many problems, which mainly include: classification of four kinds of quantity, basic syllogism of pañca-avayava-vākya, performance and reasons of reasoning failure and debate failure, etc.
v1.c7.s7.t13.29
Four kinds of quantity
v1.c7.s7.t13.30
Similar to many ancient Indian philosophical factions, Nyaya faction had great concern of how to obtain correct understanding. This faction believed that the so-called "quantity" (the way or method to get a correct understanding), mainly included four kinds, namely pratyaksa, anumana, upamana and zabda.
v1.c7.s7.t13.31
Pratyaksa refers to the consciousness arising from the contact of sensory organs with the objects. While defining pratyaksa, *Nyaya Sutra* said: "pratyaksa is the cognition generated while the root and condition are consistent, which are ineffable, correct and definite.” This definition indicates Nyaya faction’s viewpoints about several basic characteristics of Pratyaksa: first, pratyaksa comes from the contact between sensory organs and external objects; second, it should be ineffable, that is the consciousness produced by is not mixed with concept and analysis; third, pratyaksa should be correct, that is, it is generated really after contact with objects; finally, pratyaksa must be definite, without any doubt or hallucinations.
v1.c7.s7.t13.32
Anumana refers to reasoning; Nyaya faction divided it into three kinds: “Pūrv-avat”, “Cesavat” and “Samanyatsdrstam”. Pūrv-avat means to infer results from causes, like when seeing dark clouds we infer it would rain; “Cesavat” means to infer causes from results, like when seeing the river is full of turbidity, we infer there’s rain in the river’s upstream; Samanyatsdrstam refers to analogy, like when a kind of tree blossoms in one country, we infer the same tree in another country would blossom as well.
v1.c7.s7.t13.33
Upamana refers to understanding the unknown things according to the similarity between the unknown and the known. While discussing upamana, *Nyaya Sutra* said: “upamana is to get knowledge of the unknown based on the similarity between the unknown and matters previously known.”
v1.c7.s7.t13.34
Zabda, also known as Sabha, āgama or Śabda, refers to the teachings of trustworthy persons. While discussing zabda, “Nyaya Sutra” said: “zabda is the teachings of trustworthy person, it has two kinds: zabda made according to the visible matter and zabda made according to invisible matter.” Here, the so-called “visible matter” refers to common things that could be felt; the so-called “invisible matter” refers to sacrifices, going to heaven and other things.
v1.c7.s7.t13.35
Among the four quantities discussed by Nyaya faction, most discussions or the richest part of content were for its anumana theory, because the syllogistic part and analysis part of reasoning failure and debate failure in the theoretical system of Nyaya faction were all further in-depth discussion of anumana. The logic theory of this faction is mainly reflected in its viewpoints about anumana.
v1.c7.s7.t13.36
Pañca-avayava-vākya
v1.c7.s7.t13.37
The characteristic feature of Nyaya faction in logical deduction is its syllogistic method of “pañca-avayava-vākya”. This faction believes that the correct syllogism should be composed of five parts, namely: pratijñā (proposition), hetu (cause), udāharana (case or illustration, divided in two kinds: sādharmya and vaidharmya), upanaya (application) and nigamana (conclusion). Specific application cases were recorded in “Nyaya Sutra” and its annotations. Examples of pañca-avayava-vākya containing sādharmya:
v1.c7.s7.t13.38
Pratijñā: sound is impermanent. Hetu: because it is produced. Sādharmya: all those produced matters are impermanent, like plate, tray and so on, Upanaya: sound is in this way, and is produced. Nigamana: so the sound is impermanent.
v1.c7.s7.t13.39
Examples of pañca-avayava-vākya containing vaidharmya:
v1.c7.s7.t13.40
Pratijñā: sound is impermanent. Hetu: because it is produced. Vaidharmya: all those not produced are permanent, like ātman, etc. Upanaya: sound is not in this way, not belong to be not-produced matter. Nigamana: so the sound is impermanent.
v1.c7.s7.t13.41
There are substantial similarities between Nyaya faction’s pañca-avayava-vākya and general formal logic syllogism. Although there are five parts in this syllogism, among which only three components play the major roles in the practical reasoning, namely minor terms, middle terms and major terms. In the above example of pañca-avayava-vākya containing sādharmya, the “sound” is a minor term, “impermanent” is a major term, and ”produced” is a middle term. Reasoning process is through the middle term to connect the minor term with the major term. As “all those produced matters are impermanent” is a universally acknowledged fact, therefore just say “the sound is produced” and the conclusion could be launched “sound is impermanent”.
v1.c7.s7.t13.42
If seen simply from the point of view to reach the reasoning target, there’re obvious repeated elements in pañca-avayava-vākya. But pañca-avayava-vākya was founded by Nyaya faction from the debate across the country in ancient India. The purpose for Nyaya faction’s using this syllogism was not only for general reasoning, it also needed to demonstrate the correctness of their own viewpoints to the people during the debate, to most effectively win the debate and win over followers. Though the five main components in the syllogism were repetitive, however repetition was an important technique to emphasise the correctness of their own viewpoints. This was the important reason for Nyaya to put forward this pañca-avayava-vākya.
v1.c7.s7.t13.43
Performance and reasons of reasoning failure and debate failure
v1.c7.s7.t13.44
When Nyaya faction discussed about the issues of reasoning and debate, it analysed in detailed of the various performances and causes of faults and debate failure. These analyses generally could be summarised into: five hetvabhasas, three chalas, 24 jatis and 22 nigrahasthanas.
v1.c7.s7.t13.45
Five hetvabhasa refer to indefinite reason, contradictory reason, proposition alike reason, unproved reason and outdated reason.
v1.c7.s7.t13.46
“Indefinite reason” refers to the given reason may lead to more than one conclusion. For example: “the sound is permanent, as it is could not be touched.” Here, matters could not be touched might be permanent, might be impermanent. Therefore, this “reason” could not lead to conclusion doubtlessly, therefore the reasoning fails.
v1.c7.s7.t13.47
“Contradictory reason” refers to the reason contradictory with the proposition. For example say: “The pottery pot is produced, because it is eternal.” Here, the mentioned reason is in contradiction with the proposition, because eternal things could not be produced. Thus this reason could not prove the correctness of the pratijñā.
v1.c7.s7.t13.48
“Proposition alike reason” refers to the given reason is similar to the proposition, which is the case of tautology, and not adding new content to specifically prove the proposition. For example say: “Sound is non-eternal, because it does not have eternal nature.” Such reasons cannot achieve the purpose of reasoning.
v1.c7.s7.t13.49
“Un-proved reason” refers to the proposed reason itself needs to be proved like the proposition. For example say: “The shadow is an entity, because it has movement.” Here, whether there is movement of shadow needs to be proved itself, thus could not be used as reason to justify the pratijñā. The inference could not be established.
v1.c7.s7.t13.50
“Outdated reason” also known as wrong time reason, means the given reasons is not applicable in terms of time, thus could not prove the proposition. For example say: “Sound is persistent, because like the colour it could be displayed through combining.” Here, the reason proposed is not applicable in time, because the colour of an object exists no matter before or after it contacts with light source (such as a lamp). Therefore colour is persistent. But the sound is showing up after the object striking (like wood hammer beat drums), that is, the mentioned reason is wrong in time and could not prove the pratijñā. Therefore the inference fails.
v1.c7.s7.t13.51
These five hetvabhasa are the typical cases of reasoning failure due to wrong reasons.
v1.c7.s7.t13.52
Three chalas refer to the three cases of distorting opponent’s meaning in debate, that is, misinterpretation of words, misinterpretation of category and misinterpretation of metaphor.
v1.c7.s7.t13.53
“Misinterpretation of words” refers to when the word used by the opponent have two or more different meanings, interpret the word differently from what the opponent means. Such as Sanskrit “nava” has the two meanings of “new” and “nine”. When the opposite side said: “This boy has a new blanket”, in the debate the one who misinterpreted would say: “This boy does not have nine blankets, he has only one.” In this way, the meaning of “new” was misinterpreted to be “nine”.
v1.c7.s7.t13.54
“Misinterpretation of category” refers to extending the specific meaning of something to be the meaning of a category in debate, by doing this judge the possible thing to be impossible. For example one person says: “This Brahmins is learned and virtuous,” while the one who misinterprets would say: “how could this person be inferred to be learned and virtuous because he is Brahman? Some boys are Brahmins, but not knowledgeable nor virtuous.” Here, the misinterpreting person extends a special meaning of Brahmins to the entire meaning of Brahmin (category).
v1.c7.s7.t13.55
“Misinterpretation of metaphor” means in the debate when the opposite side uses metaphor words, the one who misinterprets would deny the correctness of the opponent’s words according to the words’ literal meaning. For example one person says: “The platform is calling,” but the one who misinterprets would say: “Platform could not call because it is not biological.” Here, the former so-called “platform” actually means “people on the platform,” but the latter misinterprets this rhetoric (metaphor).
v1.c7.s7.t13.56
All these three misinterpretation used in debate were improper practices, and according to Nyaya faction’s view, need to be denied.
v1.c7.s7.t13.57
Twenty-four jatis include same method similarity, different method similarity, increase similarity, decrease similarity, primary evidence similarity, non-primary evidence similarity, difference similarity, proposition similarity, arrival similarity, non-arrival similarity, infinite similarity, anti-metaphor similarity, no-life similarity, doubt similarity, question similarity, no-cause similarity, arthapatti similarity, no difference similarity, possibility similarity, attainable similarity, non-attainable similarity, impermanent similarity, permanent similarity, conclusion similarity. Though there’s a multitude of names of these jatis, the basic contents are the various situations or instances in the debate of opponent’s wrong approval of the part who establishes the proposition.
v1.c7.s7.t13.58
For example, among them the “same method similarity” refers to when opposing the opponent’s proposition (pratijñā), use the case in opponent’s “different metaphor”, but the “cause” proposed could not prove his own proposition. For example, the party who set up the proposition says: “Sound is impermanent, because it is produced; all those produced are impermanent, like pot.” The opponent said: “The sound is permanent, because it is invisible. All invisible things are permanent, like the sky.” Here, the “cause” and “metaphor” mentioned by the opponent could not prove the proposition (pratijñā). Because intangible things can be both permanent and impermanent, this could not lead to an inevitable conclusion.
v1.c7.s7.t13.59
Again, among them the “infinite similarity” refers to while opposing the opponent, take the opponent’s “metaphor” (cited thing) not proved by a series of “cause” as basis. For example the party who set up the proposition says: “Sound is impermanent, because it is produced, like pot.” The opponent would say: “If the impermanent of sound is demonstrated by the impermanent of pot, then what would prove the impermanent of the pot? If the impermanent of the pot is proved by the other thing, then the impermanent of this thing needs to be proved by another impermanent thing, it would be an endless process.” This situation is one of error disapprovals in reasoning debate.
v1.c7.s7.t13.60
The specific contents of these jatis are extremely in big volume, they are essentially all incorrect reasoning performances. Nyaya believed that if these jatis appeared, we could know the relative reasoning was wrong, it should be considered the relevant argument or debate as unsuccessful.
v1.c7.s7.t13.61
The 22 nigrahasthanas refer to various failure situations in debate, specifically including destroying proposition, different from proposition, contradictory with proposition, abandoning proposition, different cause, different meaning, no meaning, non-understandable meaning, missing of meaning, not arriving time, decrease, increase, repetition, could not be cited, not knowing, not skillful, avoiding and escaping, admit the opponent’s jati, neglecting the points to blame, disapproval of the non-claimable, away from the proposition meaning and hetvabhasa. Though there are a lot of nigrahasthana names, they are all description of the unsuccessful or failure situation in debate.
v1.c7.s7.t13.62
For example, among which the “abandoning proposition” means when the proposition of one party is denied, the party would withdraw the viewpoints narrated before. Among which the “different meaning” refers to during the reasoning, introduce the meaning which has nothing to do with the original meaning of the proposition. The “non-understandable meaning” refers to if being said three times, it is still could not be understood by the audience and debate opponents. The “avoiding and escaping” means in the process of debating, one party terminates the argumentation with an excuse of being engaged in other things. When these cases appear, according to Nyaya faction, the relative party could be directly judged as failing in the debate.
v1.c7.s7.t13.63
View of nature and religious ideas
v1.c7.s7.t13.64
Nyaya views of natural phenomena are consistent with Vaisheshika faction. They believed the variety of tangible objects in the world is constituted by paramanu, which is the smallest unit of matter. The contents of twelve items in prameya of Nyaya faction not only include body and mind, but also the outside world environment, and also all status of life phenomena of human. Although Nyaya made analysis of natural phenomena, it did not make detailed distinction like Vaisheshika faction, who in detail analysed with sentence meaning theory. This faction focuses on logic, debate and other aspects. This is the important difference of it from Vaisheshika faction.
v1.c7.s7.t13.65
In religious ideas, same as most philosophical factions of Brahmanism, Nyaya faction also adopts the content of reincarnation and liberation, and also believes there is a subject “me” in life phenomenon. In reincarnation, man is full of pain. The reason why man enters into the reincarnation cycle is because he could not understand the essence of matters. If man wants to get out of reincarnation cycle and get rid of the pain, he must gain the highest
v1.c7.s7.t13.66
The Tripitaka Holy Doctrine of the Great Tang, Zhao Cheng Jin edition
v1.c7.s7.t13.67
wisdom. That is, to hold the idea of achieving liberation through wisdom. And for Nyaya faction, the so-called wisdom, mainly refers to this faction’s “Sodasa-tattva” In Nyaya Sutra, it said: “Perfection comes from the knowledge of 16 truths of pramana, prameya, samsaya, prayojana, drstanta, siddhanta, avayava, tarka, nirnaya, vada, jalpa, vitanda, hetvabhasa, chala, jati and nigrahasthana. When the understanding of bitterness, life, behaviour, fault and mistake were eliminated one by one, liberation would be obtained due to the continuing eradication of these ideas. Vatsyayana, the commentator of *Nyaya Sutra* said: “When the true knowledge is gained, the wrong understanding would disappear, when the wrong understanding disappears, the fault would disappear, when the fault disappears, the behaviour would disappear, when there is no behaviour, life would not exist. When there is no life, the bitterness would end. With the bitterness disappearing, the final liberation would be attained, this is the perfection.” In addition, although Nyaya faction explains the formation of matters in the world with paramanu, however there’s concept of divinity in its system, using divinity to explain the origin of matters. But this kind of religious component takes small proportion in “Nyaya Sutra”. The core idea of Nyaya faction is in epistemology.
v1.c7.s7.t13.68
Nyaya theory occupies an important position in the development history of Indian philosophy. It’s a relatively complete doctrine system of logic and debate, originally formed in ancient India. Nyaya faction’s logic and debate theory raised the concerns from other Indian factions on issues of this aspect. Among which the most prominent was Buddhism. Buddhism was inspired by Nyaya faction’s doctrine, made further theoretical innovation and established its grand ideological system of Hetuvidya.
v1.c7.s7.t13.69
Nyaya doctrine is still having an important influence in modern India. Some modern Indian thinkers once compared and analysed Nyaya faction’s reasoning and debate ideology with Western logistics. The ideology of this faction, as a typical representative of ideas with Indian characteristics, has gained people’s attention in the world.
v1.c7.s7.t13.70
Dissemination and influence in China
v1.c7.s7.t13.71
Nyaya theory was also introduced to China in ancient times. This dissemination was realised with the development of Buddhist Hetuvidyā in China. When Buddhism emerged, it did not have significant concerns about logic and debate issues. But along with the stronger and stronger ideological fighting between different ideological factions in ancient India, logical reasoning and argumentation skills gradually become an important means for various factions to win over followers and expand their influences. Nyaya’s theoretical specialty in this area gained Buddhist concern. Thus Buddhism began to attach importance to studying logic and debating skills. Buddhist Hetuvidya was set up under this background. Buddhism had developed its own logical and debated skills theory by taking reference of Nyaya’s relevant ideas.
v1.c7.s7.t13.72
Buddhism Hetuvidya is divided into ancient and new Hetuvidya. The theory of ancient Hetuvidya is set up based on the absorption and transformation of the logical reasoning and debate rules of Nyaya faction’s theory. The dissemination of Nyaya theory in China was originally attached to the Buddhism ancient Hetuvidya theories.
v1.c7.s7.t13.73
Among Buddhist writings of ancient Hetuvidya, the typical literature absorbing Nyaya’s ideologies are “Upāya-Kauśalya-hṛdaya śāstra”, “Āryavācāprakaraṇa-śāstra” and “Reality Theory” and other works.
v1.c7.s7.t13.74
“Four knowledge and visions” discussed in *Upāya-Kauśalya-hṛdaya śāstra* are actually the four quantities mentioned in *Nyaya Sutra*. There are many contents in “hetvabhasa” discussed in *Upāya-Kauśalya-hṛdaya śāstra* identical with “hetvabhasa” mentioned in *Nyaya Sutra*. Many contents of the twenty “jatis” discussed in *Upāya-Kauśalya-hṛdaya śāstra* are similar with “jatis” in *Nyaya Sutra*. There are also many contents about “nigrahasthana” in *Upāya-Kauśalya-hṛdaya śāstra*, though not identical with the 22 nigrahasthanas in “Nyaya Sutra”, the basic contents are the same, they are all the expressions of the failure condition in debate.
v1.c7.s7.t13.75
In *Āryavācāprakaraṇa-śāstra*, there are many contents about Hetuvidya, similar with the ideology of *Nyaya Sutra*. Such as in *Āryavācāprakaraṇa-śāstra*, it mentioned eight kinds of “success method” - establishment of pratijñā, differentiation of reasons, allusions, same category, different category, pratyaksa, anumana, Zabda. Among which establishing pratijñā, differentiating reasons, allusions, same category, different category correspond with the main components of pañca-avayava-vākya in Nyaya faction. Pratyaksa, anumana and Zabda are also the main contents of Nyaya faction’s pramana.
v1.c7.s7.t13.76
*Reality Theory* is most close to *Nyaya Sutra* in reasoning and debate ideology. The discussions about syllogism and errors in debate are basically the same as the related discussion in *Nyaya Sutra*. *Reality Theory* proposed “five divisions” syllogism. Among the five divisions, the establishment of proposition word, reason word, metaphor word, conforming metaphor word, conclusion word is basically the “Five divisions” of *Nyaya Sutra*. The sixteen kinds of error disapproval proposed in “Reality Theory” are similar to the “jati” in *Nyaya Sutra*. The 22 “nigrahasthanas” proposed in “Reality Theory” are basically the same as the 22 nigrahasthanas” in “Nyaya Sutra”.
v1.c7.s7.t13.77
After these works were translated into Chinese, the logic and debate ideas proposed in *Nyaya Sutra* witnessed an important dissemination in Chinese ideological realms.
v1.c7.s7.t13.78
In addition to the writings in Chinese language, the writings of Indian Buddhist Hetuvidya were also translated into Tibetan in large volumes. The ideas of Nyaya faction contained in these writings were also circulated in Chinese Tibet.
v1.c7.s7.t13.79
In modern China, the academia also attaches great importance to the study of Nyaya ideology. The complete *Nyaya Sutra* in Sanskrit version has been translated into Chinese language. Special discussions on ideology of *Nyaya Sutra* have been actively carried out in Chinese academic circles. The related research papers are published in Chinese academic journals. In Chinese colleges and universities, there are post graduate student’s papers set *Nyaya Sutra* as the subject. In the courses on Eastern philosophy opened by China’s teaching and research institutions, there are contents of *Nyaya Sutra* or Nyaya faction. In some Chinese Symposium there’s also academic exchange about Nyaya ideology.
Cites (7)
- Tattvacintāmaṇi — Sanskrit
- Nyāyasūtra — Akṣapāda Gautama, Sanskrit
- Nyāyakusumāñjali — Udayana, Sanskrit
- Tarkasaṅgraha — Annaṃbhaṭṭa 1550, Sanskrit
- Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
- Tārkikarakṣā — Varadarāja, Sanskrit
- Tarkabhāṣā — Keśava Miśra, Sanskrit