Sincere thanks to Aleksandar, Matthew, Victor, Eli and Nagaraj for this very helpful and very swift help! Your generosity is much appreciated.
Howard > On Jun 4, 2024, at 5:46 AM, Matthew Kapstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Howard, > > The questions you ask are large ones and a thorough answer would require > reference to large swathes of work on the Indian logical and epistemological > systems. For some broad indications that others may wish to fill in: > > The Nyāyakos'a, p. 29, has a short entry on anavasthā, which is usually > treated as the technical designation for the regress. But in fact the problem > is very frequently invoked in philosophical works of the Vedānta and Buddhist > Madhyamaka traditions and elsewhere as well. > > The issue of foundations has been central to recent discussions of Madhyamaka > critques of the nyāya schools, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist. But it has > been raised explicitly using the term "foundationalism" primarily in work on > Tibetan Madhyamaka. For a survey see here: > https://www.academia.edu/109324532/Knowing_Illusion_Bringing_a_Tibetan_Debate_into_Contemporary_Discourse_Volume_I_A_Philosophical_History_of_the_Debate_and_Volume_II_Translations > > Finally, the issue of svataḥ pramāṇa has figured prominently in recent work > on Mīmāṃsā, above all on Kumārila. I don't know what Caitanya's sources may > have been, but he and his disciples were no doubt drawing on well-established > philosophical currents. > > hope this is at least a start, > Matthew > >> Dear Scholars, >> >> Does the nyāya system speak about the problem of an infinite regress of >> proofs? Aristotle famously identifies and then avoids this problem through >> the notion of a self-evident foundation or starting point of knowledge. In >> Western epistemology, this strategy is often called foundationalism. >> >> Is there anything at all similar or analagous in nyāya or other Indian >> schools? The Caitanya-caritāmṛta several times affirms that the Veda is >> ’self-evident’, svataḥ pramāṇa, but the term is not used there as a general >> or secular epistemic strategy. Is the CC simply repeating a well-known >> epistemic principle? >> >> All help will be greatly appreciated. >> >> Thanks! >> Howard >> >> _______________________________________________ >> INDOLOGY mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology > > _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
