Darshanam vs Philosophy
It is important to understand the difference between the term DARSHANAM (दर्शनम्) and Philosophy. Literally, DARSHANAM (दर्शनम्) means the instrument for perception (the root DRHSH, which stands for observation – दृ॒शिँर् प्रेक्ष॑णे + the suffix LYUT, which stands for the instrumentation – करणेल्युट्). The word philosophy, which comes from the Greek roots philo – meaning “love” and Sophos – meaning “wisdom” – the love for wisdom – is the study of proper behavior of things. Though apparently, both seem to imply the same thing, there is a subtle difference between the two. In DARSHANAM, the root is not qualified. According to tradition, it implies total observation of everything – not just love for some specific knowledge. Thus, the ancient authority PANCHASHIKHA (पञ्चशिख) is quoted by PATANJALI (पतञ्जलि) and VYAASA (व्यास) to have said “there is only one Darshanam. It is by which the absolute character of everything is known (EKAMEVA DARSHANAM. KHYAATIREVA DARSHANAM – एकमेव दर्शनम् । ख्यातिरेव दर्शनम्).
Whenever we talk of knowledge (JNAANAM – ज्ञानम्), two other factors come in automatically: the knower (JNAATAA – ज्ञाता) and the knowable (JNEYA -ज्ञेय). Without these two, there can be no knowledge. Knowing about totality of these two factors is knowledge (ज्ञानम्). Knowing about the last one only – knowable – is science (विज्ञानम्). From science we can go to knowledge. From knowledge, we can derive science. The word Darshanam includes science.
Indian philosophy
Indian philosophy has six theist or Aastika (आस्तिक) branches: (Saankhya – सांख्य, Poorva Meemaamsaa – पूर्वमीमांसा, Uttara Meemaamsaa – उत्तरमीमांसा or Vedaanta – वेदान्त, Nyaaya – न्याय, Vaisheshika – वैशेषिक and Yoga – योग), which subscribe to the Vedas. There are six atheist or Naastika (नास्तिक) branches of Indian Philosophy also, which include the four major branches of Buddhism (Soutaantrika – सौतान्त्रिक, VaibhaAshika – वैभाषिक, Maadhyamika – माध्यमिक and Yogaachaara – योगाचार), Jaina (जैन) and Lokaayata (लोकायत) or Chaarvaak (चार्वाक). All other philosophies are included in these divisions. The six atheist philosophies do not accept the authority of the Vedas.
Some condense these philosophies into two groups of three each: Saankhya, Vaisheshika, Meemaamsaa, and Bouddha, Jaina, Chaarvaak. This is because Saankhya, Vaisheshika, Meemaamsaa, discuss the universe from the perspective of energy (AKSHARA – अक्षर), matter (KSHARA – क्षर) and consciousness (AVYAYA – अव्यय) respectively. Nyaya is the text of universal research methodology applicable to all branches. Since, it helps in finding the true nature of everything, but does not discuss any universal aspect by itself, it is used by all, but is not considered as a separate branch of Darshanam. Yoga discusses the process of gaining knowledge, but by itself does not discuss any knowledge. Hence, it does not qualify to be called a separate Darshanam. Both the branches of Meemaamsaa deal with the same subject from two different perspectives: BRAHMA (ब्रह्म) – the immutable background that becomes everything, and KARMA (कर्म) – the action proper that changes objects with time – the time evolution. Hence, they are treated as one.
Western Philosophy
But Western Philosophy is thinking about thinking. It is a systematic and critical thinking of rational minds about the general nature of the world, the justification of belief and the conduct of life. There is no clear cut division among Western Philosophies. Though they appear collaborative in nature, they are really competitive. The arguments are meant to pursue a specific line of thought and counter conflicting thoughts. Thus, it leads to diverse aspects like metaphysics or the theory of existence, epistemology or the theory of knowledge, ethics or the theory of values, etc.
Nyaya
Since, Nyaya is the text of universal logic, it covers all branches – including the atheist philosophies. Thus, it covers all possible explanations or standards of proof. It begins with the definition of proof. Whenever we use any standard of proof to know the true nature of something, we come to a conclusion about it based on our observation and its interpretation based on our past experience (प्रमाणतोऽर्थप्रतिपत्तौ). Based on this knowledge, we decide our further course of action – whether to accept it (ग्राह्य) or reject it (त्याज्य). Since our observation and past experience play an important role in determining the outcome of our response, it can vary from person to person and case to case. When such outcomes become universal by long observation and experience (प्रवृत्तिसामर्थ्यात्), the response becomes invariant to persons or instances (अर्थवत्), the instrumentalities for arriving at such invariant conclusion is known as proof (प्रमाणम्). Nyaya goes on to classify different possible standards of proof and its application (विद्योद्देशे प्रकीर्त्तिता). These are selectively used by different branches of philosophy.
For all standards of proof, perception (PRATYAKSHYAM – प्रत्यक्षम्) is the starting point. Without perception of something, we cannot apply logic to find the nature of something. This is accepted by all. Based on our observation, we draw some inferences (अनुमानम्) depending upon our past experience. However, such observation and inferences may be misleading because of defects in our sensory agencies and insufficient experience. Hence, some accept inference as a standard of proof, while others reject it. In specific cases, comparison or analogy with generally known objects (उपमानम्) can also be a standard of proof. When in doubt, we often look for precedents, references or authorities. After analyzing those and comparing it with our observation, our perception of the object may change. Such changed perception based on reference or testimony, is also treated as a standard of proof. It is called testimony of past or present reliable experts (शव्दप्रमाणम् or आप्तवचनम्). These are the four basic standards of proof. Nyaya goes on to sub-classify each of these standards of proof and fallacies concerning each. It discusses their corollaries also.
Every branch of philosophy differs in its approach to logic based on its context. The Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna, in his book Upaya Hridaya, has accepted these four standards of proof. However, later philosophers have either added to or deleted from these list. For example, later Buddhist Philosopher Vasuvandhu and Diunnaga, accept only perception and inference. Some add postulation and presumption (arthāpatti – अर्थापत्ति) and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi – अनुपलब्धिः), exclusion or theory of meaning (apoha – अपोहः), knowledge born out of direct perception through senses (अधोक्षजः), etc., other standards of proof. Each of the basic standards of proof are further categorized in terms of conditionality, completeness, confidence and possibility of error, by different philosophers. But Nyaya treats these as included in the four basic standards of proof.
The Charvaak school, which is elementary materialism, treats only the present as real (भस्मीभूतस्य देहस्य पुनरागमनं कुतः). It accepts only perception as the standard of proof. Jainism accepts perception, inference and testimony as the standards of proof. Buddhism varies from all four to two, as described above. Buddhism considers Buddha and other “valid persons”, “valid scriptures” and “valid minds” as indisputable. Thus, this is testimony. From the theory of impermanence (ANATTA – अनित्य), which refutes transmigration of the soul, it moves to PRATITYASAMUTPAADA (प्रतित्यसमुत्पाद) – causation or the law of dependent origination. In essence, it says: when “this” is present, “that” comes into being; from the arising of “this”, “that” arises; when “this” is absent, “that” does not come into being; on the cessation of “this” “that” ceases. This flip-flop, the confusion regarding the standard of proof also arises. In fact Tripitaka says, Buddha was advised by two of his disciples to write his speeches in Chhandas – the language of the Vedas – to avoid misinterpretation, which he rejected. During the life time of Buddha, his speeches were interpreted in not less than 18 different ways. It must be remembered that Buddha belonged to a clan that was disciples of Gautama, the author of Nyaya Sootram. Hence, his views are limited versions from Nyaya.