The
Argument
for
of God
Ishitobi
It has been tried to prove the existence
cosmological,
is formed
was mainly
existence
the argument
inference.
of God, whether
being an inductive
who developed
of God (i vara) by
is a deductive
of God not only in Europe but also in
for the existence
by analogy,
the Naiyayika-s
Existence
in Nyaya
Michiko
India. In Europe,
the
inference.
such arguments.
a five-membered
syllogism'
The form of such arguments
teleological
or
In India,
They proved
(pancavayava),
it
the
which
looks to be quite different
from that in Europe.
Commentators
on Nyayasutra
have endeavored
tradict the system of Nyaya philosophy.
to prove
to establish
For this purpose,
with the form of a five-membered
syllogism'
cause of the world. It is, so to speak, the cosmological
As far as we know
argument
at present,
first. His work
they actually
that
who made
with us1). We can point out that the both of them
thought
of Samkhya.
explaining
In his first argument,
of the effect (karya)
the variety
in place of cetana,
in Samkhya,
Moreover,
as the argument
argument
that material
when being
by God.
directed
and so on' (rupadimat),
omym of 'being-an-effect'.
the basis for the existence
causes bring
As its reason
to prevent
As has been pointed
used buddhimat
his argument
of purusa
of Nyaya,
from
in Samkhya.
i. e. arambha-
forth their effects by themselves,
(hetu),
based on asatkarya-vada.
- 1001-
by the
was also used as the word
for the existence
of God, because
are influenced
Aviddhakarna
was based on the cosmology
vada. He maintained
of
sanni vega-vi. ista which was often used
which was used in Samkhya,
being misunderstood
His second
of the world.
this kind
all been lost and only his two arguments
remain
in the definition
intended
God is the efficient
argument.
it was Aviddhakarna
has almost
God not to con-
he described
having
This is considered
out in another
we cannot
color
as the syn-
place2), it is not
find any vyapti
there.
It
(21)
The Argument for the Existence of God in Nyaya
seems in his argument
effects directly.
that it is not
On the
other
hand,
wanted
to prove God the creator
decided
which
conclude
that
bring
considering
it
of the universe.
his arguments
are,
included
the Supreme
argued
intelligence
on Nyaya-sutra,
succeed in completing
he intended
the world
to prove
which
or a phrase
of argument
in paksa and because there
is the word
It is clear that he inherited
and tried
to develop
ment after all, for we cannot
that
he
that he has not yet
However
like purusa
we should
arguments
in Samkhya.
God the efficient
cause.
We may say that
material
the one
in paksa,
it is used in its reason.
And, the
because it has the word
'karya'
or a phrase
of argument
to prove
'effect' (karya)
expressing
he failed to perfect
find any reason
But, he
cause'
the karya-type
it. However,
In his com-
argument.
has the word
expressing
other will be the karya-type
their
who lets the world be as it is. In his argu-
his cosmological
of argument
acetana
seems
in teleological
are chiefly classified into two types.
is the acetana-type
about
basically in the same way as Aviddhakarna.
couldn't
His arguments
in fact,
create but only directs
mentary
karna
We think
or teleological.
Uddyotakara
reason.
his reason,
cosmological
God doesn't
for the word
God but the atoms that
way to choose,
which postulate
ments,
(M. Ishitobi)
it in its
from
Aviddha-
this type
the existence
of argu-
of God in
his arguments.
He may have realized
long as the argument
istence
that it was impossible
of God by the acetana-type
atom and karma
act only when
they are non-spiritual.
ligent
wood-cutter,
being
non-spiritual,
to prove the existence
was built on the arambhaof argument.
vada.
act only
they are directed
This is the teleological
when
argument.
by an intelligent
primordial
they are directed
matter,
and
The basis of this argument
(cetana). It purely
shows
the relation
existence
We can see that,
at any rate,
of God by his ingenious
his contribution
atom
to the Nyaya theory
arguments.
of God.
-1000-
karma,
by an intelligent
(acetana) do, they are all directed
khya system.
cause because
by an intel-
things
purusa
matter,
it is directed
ever non-spiritual
between
the ex-
It runs3):"Primordial
Just as an axe acts only when
in the same manner
of God, as
He established
is as follows:
what-
by a spiritual
being
and prakrti
Uddyotakara
proved
In this sense,
cause. "
in the Samformally
we must
the
estimate
The Argument
for the Existence of God in Nyaya (M. Ishitobi)
(22)
These arguments were severely criticized by the Mimamsaka-s and the Buddhists. As a result, Vacaspatimisra entirely converted from the teleological argument to the cosmological one in order to respond to them. Even so he didn't
build up proof for himself at all. It looks that he gathered
the fragments
from his predecessors' arguments to prove the existence of God. His argument
is as follows4): "Trees, mountains
and so on which are in question, have an
agent who knows their material causes well. Because they have originated or
because their material causes are non-spiritual, just as palaces and so on have an
agent who knows their material causes well, because they have originated or
because their material causes are non-spiritual. " It is mentioned
that the state-
ment to be proved (pratijna) is under the influence of Aviddhakarna's argument
and Prasastamati's. We can point out that in this case, the word agent' (kartr)
charcaterizes God as the cause of the creation of the universe. Moreover, God is
defined to be the Omniscient by the expression
'knowing-the-material-causes-
well' (upadanabhijna). And based on it, he refused the objection that his argument would have the fault of proving
what is already proved as it meant the
proof of the existence of karma or ksetrajna. The expression in the first reason
was used in the arguments of Narasimha and Trilocana. The second one was
derived from Uddyotakara.
Vacaspatimisra established the cosmological argu-
ment in the Nyaya theory of God at first. Therefore, although his argument was
not original, we cannot but acknowledge
that he is very important
for the
Nyaya theism.
As we inquired above, all these arguments in Nyaya are in the form of 'a fivemembered syllogism'. They are formulated as deduction, however, in fact, they
are the inductive inference that is called analogy just as the arguments for the
existence of God in Europe.
Uddyotakara
induced with the analogy of an axe or a wood-cutter that the
material causes act only when they are superintended
by God who is an intelli-
gent being. There is the teleological argument with an analogy of clocks wellknown in Europe. That is to say, the Supreme intelligence is postulated as the
planner of nature which consists of such a complex mechanism as that of
clocks. On the other hand, Vacaspatimisra induced with the analogy of palaces
- 999-
(23)
The Argument for the Existence of God in Nyaya (M. Ishitobi)
that the universe is caused by God being the agent who knows the material
causes. In Europe, the cosmological argument
of Thomas
Aquinas is well-
known.
The other schools attacked these arguments of Nyaya. First, regarding them
as deductive
Dharmakirti
inferences, the opponents
exposed their logical defects. It was
who at first argued against the Naiyayika from this viewpoint.
Though, subsequently,
many fallacies were pointed
identical to his. Next, the opponents
out, they were logically
attacked the potency of analogy, admit-
ting them as inductive inferences.
In the former case, Dharmakirti discussed as follows5); If you want to prove
one eternal and omniscient being as the cause of the world, your argument will
be fallacious on account of the non-existence of sadhya in the example (drstanta),
for, in the example, it is not one eternal and omniscient God but only a noneternal wood-cutter who directs the axe. Therefore, there isn't God to be proved
in the example. It means that a wood-cutter is implied in the premise, that is, all
non-spiritual
things act only when they are directed by a spiritual being, but
God isn't. In the deduction, it is impossible to deduce things which are not implied to the premise, as the consequence.
cious.
Therefore,
the arguments are falla-
In the latter case, Santaraksita argued against Prasastamati's Theory of God as
follows6); Even though we recognize an agent as the cause of everything,
we
do not need to accept that the agent is only one. This is similar to Hume's criticism in Europe.
Thus we know that the argument for the existence of God remains unfinished
in India.
1)
2)
Tattvasaiigraha 47-9.
Michiko Ishitobi, "The Nyaya Theory of isvara," Journal of Religious Studies,
No. 269, 1986, pp. 1-24.
3) Nyayavarttika (Nyayadarsanam, Vol. II, Rinsen Skt. Text Series, 1-2), p. 945.
4) Nyayavarttika-tatparya-tikes (Nyayadarganam), p. 953.
5)
6)
Pramanavarttika, pramanasiddhi
Tattvasangraha 92-3.
12.
(Lecturer, Hokkaido Komazawa University)
-998-