Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Naiyāyika school, a major branch of Hindu philosophy, is renowned for its rigorous logical analysis and its commitment to realism. A central tenet of Naiyāyika thought is the existence of the self (Atman), a permanent, unchanging entity distinct from the body, mind, and senses. To establish this, the Naiyāyikas offer six distinct reasons, each attempting to demonstrate the necessity of positing a self to account for certain experiential phenomena. These reasons are not merely assertions but are carefully constructed arguments based on their epistemological framework, primarily perception (pratyaksha) and inference (anumana). Understanding these reasons is crucial to grasping the Naiyāyika conception of the person and their place in the universe.
The Six Reasons for the Existence of the Self (According to Naiyāyikas)
The Naiyāyikas present six arguments to prove the existence of the self. These are:
1. The Argument from Experience of ‘I’ (Pratyakānumana)
This is the foundational argument. We constantly have the direct experience of ‘I’ – I am knowing, I am feeling, I am willing. This ‘I’ is not merely the body or the senses, as these are objects of knowledge, not the knower. The Naiyāyikas argue that this continuous experience necessitates a subject of experience, a permanent self that underlies all our conscious states. The ‘I’ is perceived directly, and its permanence is inferred.
2. The Argument from Memory (Smṛti)
We remember past experiences. But memory requires a remembering self and a remembered experience. If there were no permanent self, how could past experiences be recalled? The Naiyāyikas argue that the continuity of memory implies the continuity of a self that persists through time, holding onto these experiences. Without a self, each moment would be a completely new beginning, devoid of any connection to the past.
3. The Argument from Recognition (Pratyabhijñā)
Similar to memory, recognition involves identifying something as previously known. When we recognize a friend, for example, we are not experiencing them as entirely new. This recognition presupposes a self that had the original experience and is now re-experiencing it. The Naiyāyikas contend that recognition is impossible without a permanent self to maintain the link between past and present perceptions.
4. The Argument from the Incongruity of ‘I’ and Body-Sense Complex (Svarūpa-bheda)
The body and senses are constantly changing – growing, decaying, being injured. Yet, the ‘I’ remains relatively stable. The Naiyāyikas argue that if the ‘I’ were identical to the body-sense complex, it too would be subject to constant change and impermanence. Since the ‘I’ experiences itself as enduring, it cannot be equated with the transient body-sense complex. This difference in inherent nature (svarūpa) points to a distinct self.
5. The Argument from Ethical Responsibility (Abhiprāya)
We hold ourselves and others morally responsible for actions. This presupposes a self that is the agent of those actions and can be justly praised or blamed. If there were no self, actions would be merely random occurrences, and moral responsibility would be meaningless. The Naiyāyikas believe that the very structure of our ethical life demands the existence of a self that is the author of our deeds.
6. The Argument from the Transcendental Subject (Kartṛtva)
This argument focuses on the notion of agency. All actions require an agent. The Naiyāyikas argue that the agent cannot be merely the body or the senses, as these are instruments. There must be a transcendental subject – the self – that controls and directs these instruments to perform actions. This self is the ultimate source of volition and intentionality.
These six reasons, taken together, form a comprehensive Naiyāyika argument for the existence of the self. They are not independent proofs but rather mutually reinforcing lines of reasoning, all converging on the conclusion that a permanent, unchanging self is necessary to account for our experience.
Conclusion
The Naiyāyika arguments for the existence of the self are a testament to their commitment to logical rigor and their attempt to provide a coherent account of human experience. While these arguments have been subject to criticism from other schools of Indian philosophy, they remain a significant contribution to the debate about the nature of the self and its place in the universe. The emphasis on direct experience and inference as epistemological tools continues to be relevant in contemporary philosophical discussions.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.