tivity. Whenever the Nyaya declare that some point is under dispute and therefore not admissible in the debate, the materialist retorts that if people did not make inductive examples, they would not know anything. The materialist has a point here, but the Nyaya could state that under the flaw of uniqueness, one can not make an inference on anything about the human body that pertains only to the human body and nothing else because it does not make sense for one to make an inference based on an unique example.It seems unfair that the burden of proof lies with the materialist and that the Nyaya can further complicate matters for the materialist by discrediting every materialist response using GAIE. The Nyaya, however, do not need to cite an immaterial cause because there has been no doubt cast on the continuation of consciousness in the immaterial self. The Nyaya has achieved his goal of proving that conscious states are part of the immaterial self because the materialist has not been able to prove that conscious states are part of the material body. Unless the materialist can come up with an answer that does not violate GAIE and the flaw of uniqueness, the Nyaya has clearly won the debate. Western thinkers are quick to side with the materialists, but they should not be too quick to disregard the Nyaya because many moral problems that have up to this time not been attached to any causes in the material world might to be found in the immaterial realm. ...
