contradictory, as are Nyaya-Vaisheshika distinction and distinctive identity.
Chitsukha does not shrink from solipsism: his negative dialectics destroys every
item of metaphysics except the self; without plurality or differentiation, this
can only be solipsism. Chitsukha is one of the few philosophers in world
history frankly to embrace this conclusion.^65
As Advaita went to the anti-conceptual extreme in its battle with Nyaya
realism, it opened up room for philosophies in the Vedanta camp to occupy a
more commonsensical pluralist position. The dance of position and counter-
position went on. In the next round the space vacated by the Advaitins was
exploited by Vaishnava sectarians, who developed a variety of positions which
qualified monism in varying degrees. During these generations of debate, both
Advaita and its Vaishnava critics absorbed Nyaya logic even as they rejected
its ontological realism. This takeover of Nyaya turf led to one last surge of
Nyaya independence, the movement of Neo-Nyaya formalism. With this,
Indian philosophy reached a showdown of extremes.
Ontological Turf Wars in Vedanta Monotheism
and the Climax of Indian Metaphysics
Later Hindu philosophy came in the guise of sectarian religious battles. As
elsewhere in the world, theism emerged later in the philosophical networks
than the development of impersonal cosmologies and ontologies. Proponents
of rationalistic secularism tend to regard this as a backtracking or “failure of
nerve,” but theism is also a philosophical development from deep troubles
within transcendent ontologies. Ramanuja in the 1000s to 1100s, Madhva in
the 1200s, Nimbarka who launched the Krishna movement in the 1300s,
Chaitanya and Vallabha with the bhakti devotionalism of the late 1400s or
early 1500s: these are so many leaders of religious movements, their successors
much like anointed “pontiffs” of their “churches.” All these were Vaishnavas—
followers of Vishnu, of whom Krishna was regarded as one name or manifes-
tation—and much of intellectual as well as political life was taken up by their
quarrels with the Shaivas. Particularly in south India, communities were di-
vided and kings supported one faction while persecuting the other, sometimes
destroying their temples and killing or mutilating their priests (Dasgupta,
1922–1955: 3:303, 113; 4:52–54). Nevertheless, under this surface of religious
argument was developed the highest level of sophistication in metaphysical and
epistemological argument in Indian history. Logical tools sharpened over the
centuries became widespread in debate. Although the wider intellectual sig-
nificance is obscured by the sectarian context, the climax of Hindu philosophy
produced positions comparable to those of the Cartesians, Hume, and the
logical positivists, as well as the more predictable parallels to Spinoza, Berkeley,
and Kant.262 • (^) Intellectual Communities: Asian Paths