THE NYAYA-VAIS’E@SIKA PHILOSOPHY
Criticism of Buddhism and Sa@mkhya from the Nyaya standpoint.
The Buddhists had upset all common sense convictions of substance and attribute, cause and effect, and permanence of things, on the ground that all collocations are momentary; each group of collocations exhausts itself in giving rise to another group and that to another and so on. But if a collocation representing milk generates the collocation of curd it is said to be due to a joint action of the elements forming the cause-collocation and the _modus operandi_ is unintelligible; the elements composing the cause-collocation cannot separately generate the elements composing the effect-collocation, for on such a supposition it becomes hard to maintain the doctrine of momentariness as the individual and separate exercise of influence on the part of the cause-elements and their coordination and manifestation as effect cannot but take more than one moment. The supposition that the whole of the effect-collocation is the result of the joint action of the elements of cause-collocation is against our universal uncontradicted experience that specific elements constituting the cause (e.g. the whiteness of milk) are the cause of other corresponding elements of the effect (e.g. the whiteness of the curd); and we could not say that the hardness, blackness, and other properties of the atoms of iron in a lump state should not be regarded as the cause of similar qualities in the iron ball, for this is against the testimony of experience. Moreover there would be no difference between material (_upadana_, e.g. clay of the jug), instrumental and concomitant causes (_nimitta_ and _sahakari_, such as the potter, and the wheel, the stick etc. in forming the jug), for the causes jointly produce the effect, and there was no room for distinguishing the material and the instrumental causes, as such.
Again at the very moment in which a cause-collocation is brought into being, it cannot exert its influence to produce its
275
effect-collocation. Thus after coming into being it would take the cause-collocation at least another moment to exercise its influence to produce the effect. How can the thing which is destroyed the moment after it is born produce any effect? The truth is that causal elements remain and when they are properly collocated the effect is produced. Ordinary experience also shows that we perceive things as existing from a past time. The past time is perceived by us as past, the present as present and the future as future and things are perceived as existing from a past time onwards.
The Sa@mkhya assumption that effects are but the actualized states of the potential cause, and that the causal entity holds within it all the future series of effects, and that thus the effect is already existent even before the causal movement for the production of the effect, is also baseless. Sa@mkhya says that the oil was already existent in the sesamum and not in the stone, and that it is thus that oil can be got from sesamum and not from the stone. The action of the instrumental cause with them consists only in actualizing or manifesting what was already existent in a potential form in the cause. This is all nonsense. A lump of clay is called the cause and the jug the effect; of what good is it to say that the jug exists in the clay since with clay we can never carry water? A jug is made out of clay, but clay is not a jug. What is meant by saying that the jug was unmanifested or was in a potential state before, and that it has now become manifest or actual? What does potential state mean? The potential state of the jug is not the same as its actual state; thus the actual state of the jug must be admitted as non-existent before. If it is meant that the jug is made up of the same parts (the atoms) of which the clay is made up, of course we admit it, but this does not mean that the jug was existent in the atoms of the lump of clay. The potency inherent in the clay by virtue of which it can expose itself to the influence of other agents, such as the potter, for being transformed into a jug is not the same as the effect, the jug. Had it been so, then we should rather have said that the jug came out of the jug. The assumption of Sa@mkhya that the substance and attribute have the same reality is also against all experience, for we all perceive that movement and attribute belong to substance and not to attribute. Again Sa@mkhya holds a preposterous doctrine that buddhi is different
276
from intelligence. It is absolutely unmeaning to call buddhi non-intelligent. Again what is the good of all this fictitious fuss that the qualities of buddhi are reflected on puru@sa and then again on buddhi. Evidently in all our experience we find that the soul (_atman_) knows, feels and wills, and it is difficult to understand why Sa@mkhya does not accept this patent fact and declare that knowledge, feeling, and willing, all belonged to buddhi. Then again in order to explain experience it brought forth a theory of double reflection. Again Sa@mkhya prak@rti is non-intelligent, and where is the guarantee that she (prak@rti) will not bind the wise again and will emancipate him once for all? Why did the puru@sa become bound down? Prak@rti is being utilized for enjoyment by the infinite number of puru@sas, and she is no delicate girl (as Sa@mkhya supposes) who will leave the presence of the puru@sa ashamed as soon as her real nature is discovered. Again pleasure (_sukha_), sorrow (_du@hkha_) and a blinding feeling through ignorance (_moha_) are but the feeling-experiences of the soul, and with what impudence could Sa@mkhya think of these as material substances? Again their cosmology of a mahat, aha@mkara, the tanmatras, is all a series of assumptions never testified by experience nor by reason. They are all a series of hopeless and foolish blunders. The phenomena of experience thus call for a new careful reconstruction in the light of reason and experience such as cannot be found in other systems. (See _Nyayamanjari,_ pp. 452-466 and 490-496.)
Nyaya and Vais’e@sika sutras.
It is very probable that the earliest beginnings of Nyaya are to be found in the disputations and debates amongst scholars trying to find out the right meanings of the Vedic texts for use in sacrifices and also in those disputations which took place between the adherents of different schools of thought trying to defeat one another. I suppose that such disputations occurred in the days of the Upani@sads, and the art of disputation was regarded even then as a subject of study, and it probably passed then by the name _vakovakya_. Mr Bodas has pointed out that Apastamba who according to Buehler lived before the third century B.C. used the word Nyaya in the sense of Mima@msa [Footnote ref 1]. The word Nyaya derived
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1 _Apastamba,_ trans. by Buehler, Introduction, p. XXVII., and Bodas’s article on the _Historical Survey of Indian Logic_ in the Bombay Branch of J.R.A.S., vol. XIX.]
277
from the root _ni_ is sometimes explained as that by which sentences and words could be interpreted as having one particular meaning and not another, and on the strength of this even Vedic accents of words (which indicate the meaning of compound words by pointing out the particular kind of compound in which the words entered into combination) were called Nyaya [Footnote ref 1]. Prof. Jacobi on the strength of Kau@tilya’s enumeration of the _vidya_ (sciences) as Anvik@siki (the science of testing the perceptual and scriptural knowledge by further scrutiny), _trayi_ (the three Vedas), _vartta_ (the sciences of agriculture, cattle keeping etc.), and _da@n@daniti_ (polity), and the enumeration of the philosophies as Sa@mkhya, Yoga, Lokayata and Anvik@siki, supposes that the _Nyaya sutra_ was not in existence in Kau@tilya’s time 300 B.C.) [Footnote ref 2]. Kau@tilya’s reference to Nyaya as Anvik@siki only suggests that the word Nyaya was not a familiar name for Anvik@siki in Kau@tilya’s time. He seems to misunderstand Vatsyayana in thinking that Vatsyayana distinguishes Nyaya from the Anvik@siki in holding that while the latter only means the science of logic the former means logic as well as metaphysics. What appears from Vatsyayana’s statement in _Nyaya sutra_ I.i. 1 is this that he points out that the science which was known in his time as Nyaya was the same as was referred to as Anvik@siki by Kau@tilya. He distinctly identifies Nyayavidya with Anvik@siki, but justifies the separate enumeration of certain logical categories such as _sa@ms’aya_ (doubt) etc., though these were already contained within the first two terms _prama@na_ (means of cognition) and _prameya_ (objects of cognition), by holding that unless these its special and separate branches (_p@rthakprasthana_) were treated, Nyayavidya would simply become metaphysics (_adhyatmavidya_) like the Upani@sads. The old meaning of Nyaya as the means of determining the right meaning or the right thing is also agreed upon by Vatsyayana and is sanctioned by Vacaspati in his _Nyayavarttikatatparya@tika_ I.i. 1). He compares the meaning of the word Nyaya (_prama@nairarthaparik@sa@nam_–to scrutinize an object by means of logical proof) with the etymological meaning of the word anvik@siki (to scrutinize anything after it has been known by perception and scriptures). Vatsyayana of course points out that so far as this logical side of Nyaya is concerned it has the widest scope for
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Kalidasa’s _Kumarasambhava “Udghato pra@navayasam nyayaistribhirudira@nam_,” also Mallinatha’s gloss on it.]
[Footnote 2: Prof. Jacobi’s “_The early history of Indian Philosophy,” Indian Antiquary_, 1918.]
278
itself as it includes all beings, all their actions, and all the sciences [Footnote ref 1]. He quotes Kau@tilya to show that in this capacity Nyaya is like light illumining all sciences and is the means of all works. In its capacity as dealing with the truths of metaphysics it may show the way to salvation. I do not dispute Prof. Jacobi’s main point that the metaphysical portion of the work was a later addition, for this seems to me to be a very probable view. In fact Vatsyayana himself designates the logical portion as a p@rthakprasthana (separate branch). But I do not find that any statement of Vatsyayana or Kau@tilya can justify us in concluding that this addition was made after Kau@tilya. Vatsyayana has no doubt put more stress on the importance of the logical side of the work, but the reason of that seems to be quite obvious, for the importance of metaphysics or _adhyatmavidya_ was acknowledged by all. But the importance of the mere logical side would not appeal to most people. None of the dharmas’astras (religious scriptures) or the Vedas would lend any support to it, and Vatsyayana had to seek the support of Kau@tilya in the matter as the last resource. The fact that Kau@tilya was not satisfied by counting Anvik@siki as one of the four vidyas but also named it as one of the philosophies side by side with Sa@mkhya seems to lead to the presumption that probably even in Kau@tilya’s time Nyaya was composed of two branches, one as adhyatmavidya and another as a science of logic or rather of debate. This combination is on the face of it loose and external, and it is not improbable that the metaphysical portion was added to increase the popularity of the logical part, which by itself might not attract sufficient attention. Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasada S’astri in an article in the _Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society_ 1905 says that as Vacaspati made two attempts to collect the _Nyaya sutras_, one as _Nyayasuci_ and the other as _Nyayasutroddhara_, it seems that even in Vacaspati’s time he was not certain as to the authenticity of many of the _Nyaya sutras_. He further points out that there are unmistakable signs that many of the sutras were interpolated, and relates the Buddhist tradition from China and Japan that Mirok mingled Nyaya and Yoga. He also
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Yena prayukta@h pravarttate tat prayojanam_ (that by which one is led to act is called _prayojanam_); _yamartham abhipsan jihasan va karma arabhate tenanena sarve pra@nina@h sarva@ni karma@ni sarvas’ca vidya@h vyapta@h tadas’rayas’ca nyaya@h pravarttate_ (all those which one tries to have or to fly from are called prayojana, therefore all beings, all their actions, and all sciences, are included within prayojana, and all these depend on Nyaya). _Vatsyayana bhas’ya_, I.i. 1.]
279
thinks that the sutras underwent two additions, one at the hands of some Buddhists and another at the hands of some Hindu who put in Hindu arguments against the Buddhist ones. These suggestions of this learned scholar seem to be very probable, but we have no clue by which we can ascertain the time when such additions were made. The fact that there are unmistakable proofs of the interpolation of many of the sutras makes the fixing of the date of the original part of the _Nyaya sutras_ still more difficult, for the Buddhist references can hardly be of any help, and Prof. Jacobi’s attempt to fix the date of the _Nyaya sutras_ on the basis of references to S’unyavada naturally loses its value, except on the supposition that all references to S’unyavada must be later than Nagarjuna, which is not correct, since the _Mahayana sutras_ written before Nagarjuna also held the S’unyavada doctrine.
The late Dr S.C. Vidyabhu@sa@na in _J.R.A.S._ 1918 thinks that the earlier part of Nyaya was written by Gautama about 550 B.C. whereas the _Nyaya sutras_ of Ak@sapada were written about 150 A.D. and says that the use of the word Nyaya in the sense of logic in _Mahabharata_ I.I. 67, I. 70. 42-51, must be regarded as interpolations. He, however, does not give any reasons in support of his assumption. It appears from his treatment of the subject that the fixing of the date of Ak@sapada was made to fit in somehow with his idea that Ak@sapada wrote his _Nyaya sutras_ under the influence of Aristotle–a supposition which does not require serious refutation, at least so far as Dr Vidyabhu@sa@na has proved it. Thus after all this discussion we have not advanced a step towards the ascertainment of the date of the original part of the Nyaya. Goldstuecker says that both Patanjali (140 B.C.) and Katyayana (fourth century B.C.) knew the _Nyaya sutras_ [Footnote ref 1]. We know that Kau@tilya knew the Nyaya in some form as Anvik@siki in 300 B.C., and on the strength of this we may venture to say that the Nyaya existed in some form as early as the fourth century B.C. But there are other reasons which lead me to think that at least some of the present sutras were written some time in the second century A.D. Bodas points out that Badaraya@na’s sutras make allusions to the Vais’e@sika doctrines and not to Nyaya. On this ground he thinks that _Vais’e@sika sutras_ were written before Badarayana’s _Brahma-sutras_, whereas the Nyaya sutras were written later. Candrakanta Tarkala@mkara also contends in his
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Goldstuecker’s _Pa@nini_, p. 157.]
280
edition of Vais’e@sika that the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ were earlier than the Nyaya. It seems to me to be perfectly certain that the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ were written before Caraka (80 A.D.); for he not only quotes one of the _Vais’e@sika sutras_, but the whole foundation of his medical physics is based on the Vais`e@sika physics [Footnote ref 1]. The _La@nkavatara sutra_ (which as it was quoted by As’vagho@sa is earlier than 80 A.D.) also makes allusions to the atomic doctrine. There are other weightier grounds, as we shall see later on, for supposing that the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ are probably pre-Buddhistic [Footnote ref 2].
It is certain that even the logical part of the present _Nyaya sutras_ was preceded by previous speculations on the subject by thinkers of other schools. Thus in commenting on I.i. 32 in which the sutra states that a syllogism consists of five premisses (_avayava_) Vatsyayana says that this sutra was written to refute the views of those who held that there should be ten premisses [Footnote ref 3]. The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ also give us some of the earliest types of inference, which do not show any acquaintance with the technic of the Nyaya doctrine of inference [Footnote ref 4].
Does Vais’e@sika represent an Old School of Mima@msa?
The Vais’e@sika is so much associated with Nyaya by tradition that it seems at first sight quite unlikely that it could be supposed to represent an old school of Mima@msa, older than that represented in the _Mima@msa sutras._ But a closer inspection of the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ seems to confirm such a supposition in a very remarkable way. We have seen in the previous section that Caraka quotes a _Vais’e@sika sutra._ An examination of Caraka’s _Sutrasthana_ (I.35-38) leaves us convinced that the writer of the verses had some compendium of Vais’e@sika such as that of the _Bha@sapariccheda_ before him. _Caraka sutra_ or _karika_ (I.i. 36) says that the gu@nas are those which have been enumerated such as heaviness, etc., cognition, and those which begin with the gu@na “_para_” (universality) and end with “_prayatna_” (effort) together with the sense-qualities (_sartha_). It seems that this is a reference to some well-known enumeration. But this enumeration is not to be found in the _Vais’e@sika sutra_ (I.i. 6) which leaves out the six gu@nas,
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Caraka, S’arira_, 39.]
[Footnote 2: See the next section.]
[Footnote 3: Vatsyayana’s Bha@sya on the _Nyaya sutras,_ I.i.32. This is undoubtedly a reference to the Jaina view as found in _Das’avaikalikaniryukti_ as noted before.]
[Footnote 4: _Nyaya sutra_ I.i. 5, and _Vais’e@sika sutras_ IX. ii. 1-2, 4-5, and III. i. 8-17.]
281
heaviness (_gurutva_), liquidity (_dravatva_), oiliness(_sneha_), elasticity (_sa@mskara_), merit (_dharma_) and demerit (_adharma_); in one part of the sutra the enumeration begins with “para” (universality) and ends in “prayatna,” but buddhi (cognition) comes within the enumeration beginning from para and ending in prayatna, whereas in Caraka buddhi does not form part of the list and is separately enumerated. This leads me to suppose that Caraka’s sutra was written at a time when the six gu@nas left out in the Vais’e@sika enumeration had come to be counted as gu@nas, and compendiums had been made in which these were enumerated. _Bha@sapariccheda_ (a later Vais’e@sika compendium), is a compilation from some very old karikas which are referred to by Vis’vanatha as being collected from “_atisa@mk@siptacirantanoktibhi@h_”–(from very ancient aphorisms [Footnote ref 1]); Caraka’s definition of samanya and vis’e@sa shows that they had not then been counted as separate categories as in later Nyaya-Vais’e@sika doctrines; but though slightly different it is quite in keeping with the sort of definition one finds in the _Vais’e@sika sutra_ that samanya (generality) and vi’se@sa are relative to each other [Footnote ref 2]. Caraka’s sutras were therefore probably written at a time when the Vais’e@sika doctrines were undergoing changes, and well-known compendiums were beginning to be written on them.
The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ seem to be ignorant of the Buddhist doctrines. In their discussions on the existence of soul, there is no reference to any view as to non-existence of soul, but the argument turned on the point as to whether the self is to be an object of inference or revealed to us by our notion of “I.” There is also no other reference to any other systems except to some Mima@msa doctrines and occasionally to Sa@mkhya. There is no reason to suppose that the Mima@msa doctrines referred to allude to the _Mima@msa sutras_ of Jaimini. The manner in which the nature of inference has been treated shows that the Nyaya phraseology of “_purvavat_” and “_s’e@savat_” was not known. _Vais’e@sika sutras_ in more than one place refer to time as the ultimate cause [Footnote ref 3]. We know that the S’vetas’vatara Upani@sad refers to those who regard time as the cause of all things, but in none of the
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Professor Vanamali Vedantatirtha’s article in _J.A.S.B._, 1908.]
[Footnote 2: Caraka (I.i. 33) says that samanya is that which produces unity and vis’e@sa is that which separates. V.S. II. ii. 7. Samanya and vis’e@sa depend upon our mode of thinking (as united or as separate).]
[Footnote 3: _Vais’e@sika sutra_ (II. ii. 9 and V. ii. 26).]
282
systems that we have can we trace any upholding of this ancient view [Footnote ref 1]. These considerations as well as the general style of the work and the methods of discussion lead me to think that these sutras are probably the oldest that we have and in all probability are pre-Buddhistic.
The _Vais’e@sika sutra_ begins with the statement that its object is to explain virtue, “dharma” This is we know the manifest duty of Mima@msa and we know that unlike any other system Jaimini begins his _Mima@msa sutras_ by defining “dharma”. This at first seems irrelevant to the main purpose of Vais’e@sika, viz, the description of the nature of padartha [Footnote ref 2]. He then defines dharma as that which gives prosperity and ultimate good (_nihsreyasa_) and says that the Veda must be regarded as valid, since it can dictate this. He ends his book with the remarks that those injunctions (of Vedic deeds) which are performed for ordinary human motives bestow prosperity even though their efficacy is not known to us through our ordinary experience, and in this matter the Veda must be regarded as the authority which dictates those acts [Footnote ref 3]. The fact that the Vais’e@sika begins with a promise to describe dharma and after describing the nature of substances, qualities and actions and also the _ad@r@s@ta_ (unknown virtue) due to dharma (merit accruing from the performance of Vedic deeds) by which many of our unexplained experiences may be explained, ends his book by saying that those Vedic works which are not seen to produce any direct effect, will produce prosperity through adrsta, shows that Ka@nada’s method of explaining dharma has been by showing that physical phenomena involving substances, qualities, and actions can only be explained up to a certain extent while a good number cannot be explained at all except on the assumption of ad@r@s@ta (unseen virtue) produced by dharma. The
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: S’vetas’vatara I.i.2]
[Footnote 2: I remember a verse quoted in an old commentary of the _Kalapa Vyakara@na_, in which it is said that the description of the six categories by Ka@nada in his _Vais’e@sika sutras_, after having proposed to describe the nature of dharma, is as irrelevant as to proceed towards the sea while intending to go to the mountain Himavat (Himalaya).
“_Dnarma@m vyakhyatukamasya @sa@tpadarthopavar@nana@m Himavadgantukamasya sagaragamanopamam_.”]
[Footnote 3: The sutra “_Tadvacanad amnayasya prama@nyam_ (I.i.3 and X.ii.9) has been explained by _Upaskara_ as meaning “The Veda being the word of Is’vara (God) must be regarded as valid,” but since there is no mention of Is’vara anywhere in the text this is simply reading the later Nyaya ideas into the Vais’e@sika. Sutra X.ii.8 is only a repetition of VI.ii.1.]
283
description of the categories of substance is not irrelevant, but is the means of proving that our ordinary experience of these cannot explain many facts which are only to be explained on the supposition of ad@r@s@ta proceeding out of the performance of Vedic deeds. In V.i. 15 the movement of needles towards magnets, in V. ii. 7 the circulation of water in plant bodies, V. ii. 13 and IV. ii. 7 the upward motion of fire, the side motion of air, the combining movement of atoms (by which all combinations have taken place), and the original movement of the mind are said to be due to ad@r@s@ta. In V. ii. 17 the movement of the soul after death, its taking hold of other bodies, the assimilation of food and drink and other kinds of contact (the movement and development of the foetus as enumerated in _Upaskara_) are said to be due to ad@r@s@ta. Salvation (moksa) is said to be produced by the annihilation of ad@r@s@ta leading to the annihilation of all contacts and non production of rebirths Vais’esika marks the distinction between the drsta (experienced) and the ad@r@s@ta. All the categories that he describes are founded on drsta (experience) and those unexplained by known experience are due to ad@r@s@ta These are the acts on which depend all life-process of animals and plants, the continuation of atoms or the construction of the worlds, natural motion of fire and air, death and rebirth (VI. ii. 15) and even the physical phenomena by which our fortunes are affected in some way or other (V. ii. 2), in fact all with which we are vitally interested in philosophy. Ka@nada’s philosophy gives only some facts of experience regarding substances, qualities and actions, leaving all the graver issues of metaphysics to ad@r@s@ta But what leads to ad@r@s@ta? In answer to this, Ka@nada does not speak of good or bad or virtuous or sinful deeds, but of Vedic works, such as holy ablutions (_snana_), fasting, holy student life (_brahmacarya_), remaining at the house of the teacher (_gurukulavasa_), retired forest life (_vanaprastha_), sacrifice (_yajna_), gifts (_dana_), certain kinds of sacrificial sprinkling and rules of performing sacrificial works according to the prescribed time of the stars, the prescribed hymns (mantras) (VI. ii. 2).
He described what is pure and what is impure food, pure food being that which is sacrificially purified (VI. ii. 5) the contrary being impure, and he says that the taking of pure food leads to prosperity through ad@r@s@ta. He also described how
284
feelings of attachment to things are also generated by ad@r@s@ta. Throughout almost the whole of VI. i Ka@nada is busy in showing the special conditions of making gifts and receiving them. A reference to our chapter on Mima@msa will show that the later Mima@msa writers agreed with the Nyaya-Vais`e@sika doctrines in most of their views regarding substance, qualities, etc. Some of the main points in which Mima@msa differs from Nyaya-Vais`e@sika are (1) self-validity of the Vedas, (2) the eternality of the Vedas, (3) disbelief in any creator or god, (4) eternality of sound (s’abda), (5) (according to Kumarila) direct perception of self in the notion of the ego. Of these the first and the second points do not form any subject of discussion in the Vais’e@sika. But as no Is’vara is mentioned, and as all ad@r@s@ta depends upon the authority of the Vedas, we may assume that Vais’e@sika had no dispute with Mima@msa. The fact that there is no reference to any dissension is probably due to the fact that really none had taken place at the time of the _Vais`e@sika sutras._ It is probable that Ka@nada believed that the Vedas were written by some persons superior to us (II. i. 18, VI. i. 1-2). But the fact that there is no reference to any conflict with Mima@msa suggests that the doctrine that the Vedas were never written by anyone was formulated at a later period, whereas in the days of the _Vais’e@sika sutras,_ the view was probably what is represented in the _Vais’e@sika sutras._ As there is no reference to Is`vara and as ad@r@s@ta proceeding out of the performance of actions in accordance with Vedic injunctions is made the cause of all atomic movements, we can very well assume that Vais’e@sika was as atheistic or non-theistic as the later Mima@msa philosophers. As regards the eternality of sound, which in later days was one of the main points of quarrel between the Nyaya-Vais’e@sika and the Mima@msa, we find that in II. ii. 25-32, Ka@nada gives reasons in favour of the non-eternality of sound, but after that from II. ii. 33 till the end of the chapter he closes the argument in favour of the eternality of sound, which is the distinctive Mima@msa view as we know from the later Mima@msa writers [Footnote ref 1]. Next comes the question of the proof of the existence of self. The traditional Nyaya view is
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The last two concluding sutras II. ii. 36 and 37 are in my opinion wrongly interpreted by S’a@nkara Mis’ra in his _Upaskara_ (II. ii. 36 by adding an “_api_” to the sutra and thereby changing the issue, and II. ii. 37 by misreading the phonetic combination “samkhyabhava” as sa@mkhya and bhava instead of sa@mkhya and abhava, which in my opinion is the right combination here) in favour of the non-eternality of sound as we find in the later Nyaya Vais’e@sika view.]
285
that the self is supposed to exist because it must be inferred as the seat of the qualities of pleasure, pain, cognition, etc. Traditionally this is regarded as the Vais’e@sika view as well. But in Vais’e@sika III. ii. 4 the existence of soul is first inferred by reason of its activity and the existence of pleasure, pain, etc., in III. ii. 6-7 this inference is challenged by saying that we do not perceive that the activity, etc. belongs to the soul and not to the body and so no certainty can be arrived at by inference, and in III. ii. 8 it is suggested that therefore the existence of soul is to be accepted on the authority of the scriptures (_agama_). To this the final Vais’e@sika conclusion is given that we can directly perceive the self in our feeling as “I” (_aham_), and we have therefore not to depend on the scriptures for the proof of the existence of the self, and thus the inference of the existence of the self is only an additional proof of what we already find in perception as “I” (_aham_) (III. ii. 10-18, also IX. i. 11).
These considerations lead me to think that the Vais’e@sika represented a school of Mima@msa thought which supplemented a metaphysics to strengthen the grounds of the Vedas.
Philosophy in the Vais’e@sika sutras.
The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ begin with the ostensible purpose of explaining virtue (_dharma_) (I.i. 1) and dharma according to it is that by which prosperity (_abhyudaya_) and salvation (_ni@hs’reyasa_) are attained. Then it goes on to say that the validity of the Vedas depends on the fact that it leads us to prosperity and salvation. Then it turns back to the second sutra and says that salvation comes as the result of real knowledge, produced by special excellence of dharma, of the characteristic features of the categories of substance (_dravya_), quality (_gu@na_), class concept (_samdanya_), particularity (_vis’e@sa_), and inherence (_samavayay_) [Footnote ref 1]. The dravyas are earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind. The gu@nas are colour, taste, odour, touch, number, measure, separations, contact, disjoining, quality of belonging to high genus or to species [Footnote ref 2]. Action (_karma_) means upward movement
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Upaskara_ notes that vis’e@sa here refers to the ultimate differences of things and not to species. A special doctrine of this system is this, that each of the indivisible atoms of even the same element has specific features of difference.]
[Footnote 2: Here the well known qualities of heaviness (_gurutva_), liquidity (_dravatva_), oiliness (_sneha_), elasticity (_sa@mskara_), merit (_dharma_), and demerit (_adharma_) have been altogether omitted. These are all counted in later Vais’e@sika commentaries and compendiums. It must be noted that “_gu@na_” in Vas’e@sika means qualities and not subtle reals or substances as in Sa@mkhya Yoga. Gu@na in Vas’e@sika would be akin to what Yoga would call _dharma_.]
286
downward movement, contraction, expansion and horizontal movement. The three common qualities of dravya, gu@na and karma are that they are existent, non-eternal, substantive, effect, cause, and possess generality and particularity. Dravya produces other dravyas and the gu@nas other gu@nas. But karma is not necessarily produced by karma. Dravya does not destroy either its cause or its effect but the gu@nas are destroyed both by the cause and by the effect. Karma is destroyed by karma. Dravya possesses karma and gu@na and is regarded as the material (_samavayi_) cause. Gu@nas inhere in dravya, cannot possess further gu@nas, and are not by themselves the cause of contact or disjoining. Karma is devoid of gu@na, cannot remain at one time in more than one object, inheres in dravya alone, and is an independent cause of contact or disjoining. Dravya is the material cause (samavayi) of (derivative) dravyas, gu@na, and karma, gu@na is also the non-material cause (_asamavayi_) of dravya, gu@na and karma. Karma is the general cause of contact, disjoining, and inertia in motion (_vega_). Karma is not the cause of dravya. For dravya may be produced even without karma [Footnote ref 1]. Dravya is the general effect of dravya. Karma is dissimilar to gu@na in this that it does not produce karma. The numbers two, three, etc, separateness, contact and disjoining are effected by more than one dravya. Each karma not being connected with more than one thing is not produced by more than one thing [Footnote ref 2]. A dravya is the result of many contacts (of the atoms). One colour may be the result of many colours. Upward movement is the result of heaviness, effort and contact. Contact and disjoining are also the result of karma. In denying the causality of karma it is meant that karma is not the cause of dravya and karma [Footnote ref 3].
In the second chapter of the first book Ka@nada first says that if there is no cause, there is no effect, but there may be the cause even though there may not be the effect. He next says that genus (_samanya_) and species (_visesa_) are relative to the understanding;
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: It is only when the karya ceases that dravya is produced. See _Upaskara_ I.i. 22.]
[Footnote 2: If karma is related to more than one thing, then with the movement of one we should have felt that two or more things were moving.]
[Footnote 3: It must be noted that karma in this sense is quite different from the more extensive use of karma as meritorious or vicious action which is the cause of rebirth.]
287
being (_bhava_) indicates continuity only and is hence only a genus. The universals of substance, quality and action maybe both genus and species, but visesa as constituting the ultimate differences (of atoms) exists (independent of any percipient). In connection with this he says that the ultimate genus is being (_satta_) in virtue of which things appear as existent, all other genera may only relatively be regarded as relative genera or species. Being must be regarded as a separate category, since it is different from dravya, gu@na and karma, and yet exists in them, and has no genus or species. It gives us the notion that something is and must be regarded as a category existing as one identical entity in all dravya, gu@na, and karma, for in its universal nature as being it has no special characteristics in the different objects in which it inheres. The specific universals of thingness (_dravyatva_) qualitiness (_gu@natva_) or actionness (_karmatva_) are also categories which are separate from universal being (_bhava_ or _satta_) for they also have no separate genus or species and yet may be distinguished from one another, but bhava or being was the same in all.
In the first chapter of the second book Ka@nada deals with substances. Earth possesses colour, taste, smell, and touch, water, colour, taste, touch, liquidity, and smoothness (_snigdha_), fire, colour and touch, air, touch, but none of these qualities can be found in ether (_akas’a_). Liquidity is a special quality of water because butter, lac, wax, lead, iron, silver, gold, become liquids only when they are heated, while water is naturally liquid itself [Footnote ref 1]. Though air cannot be seen, yet its existence can be inferred by touch, just as the existence of the genus of cows may be inferred from the characteristics of horns, tails, etc. Since this thing inferred from touch possesses motion and quality, and does not itself inhere in any other substance, it is a substance (dravya) and is eternal [Footnote ref 2]. The inference of air is of the type of inference of imperceptible things from certain known characteristics called _samanyato d@r@s@ta_. The name of air “_vayu_” is derived from the scriptures. The existence of others different from us has (_asmadvis’i@s@tana@m_) to be admitted for accounting for the
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: It should be noted that mercury is not mentioned. This is important for mercury was known at a time later than Caraka.]
[Footnote 2: Substance is that which possesses quality and motion. It should be noted that the word “_adravyatvena_” in II. i. 13 has been interpreted by me as “_adravyavattvena_.”]
288
giving of names to things (_sa@mjnakarma_). Because we find that the giving of names is already in usage (and not invented by us) [Footnote ref 1]. On account of the fact that movements rest only in one thing, the phenomenon that a thing can enter into any unoccupied space, would not lead us to infer the existence of akas’a (ether). Akas’a has to be admitted as the hypothetical substance in which the quality of sound inheres, because, since sound (a quality) is not the characteristic of things which can be touched, there must be some substance of which it is a quality. And this substance is akas’a. It is a substance and eternal like air. As being is one so akas’a is one [Footnote ref 2].
In the second chapter of the second book Ka@nada tries to prove that smell is a special characteristic of earth, heat of fire, and coldness of water. Time is defined as that which gives the notion of youth in the young, simultaneity, and quickness. It is one like being. Time is the cause of all non-eternal things, because the notion of time is absent in eternal things. Space supplies the notion that this is so far away from this or so much nearer to this. Like being it is one. One space appears to have diverse inter-space relations in connection with the motion of the sun. As a preliminary to discussing the problem whether sound is eternal or not, he discusses the notion of doubt, which arises when a thing is seen in a general way, but the particular features coming under it are not seen, either when these are only remembered, or when some such attribute is seen which resembles some other attribute seen before, or when a thing is seen in one way but appears in another, or when what is seen is not definitely grasped, whether rightly seen or not. He then discusses the question whether sound is eternal or non-eternal and gives his reasons to show that it is non-eternal, but concludes the discussion with a number of other reasons proving that it is eternal.
The first chapter of the third book is entirely devoted to the inference of the existence of soul from the fact that there must be some substance in which knowledge produced by the contact of the senses and their object inheres.
The knowledge of sense-objects (_indriyartha_) is the reason by
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: I have differed from _Upaskara_ in interpreting “_sa@mjnakarma_” in II. i. 18, 19 as a genitive compound while _Upaskara_ makes it a _dvandva_ compound. Upaskara’s interpretation seems to be far-fetched. He wants to twist it into an argument for the existence of God.]
[Footnote 2: This interpretation is according to S’a@nkara Mis’ra’s _Upaskara._]
289
which we can infer the existence of something different from the senses and the objects which appear in connection with them. The types of inferences referred to are (1) inference of non-existence of some things from the existence of some things, (2) of the existence of some things from the non-existence of some things, (3) of the existence of some things from the existence of others. In all these cases inference is possible only when the two are known to be connected with each other (_prasiddhipurvakatvat apades’asya_) [Footnote ref 1]. When such a connection does not exist or is doubtful, we have _anapades’a_ (fallacious middle) and _sandigdha_ (doubtful middle); thus, it is a horse because it has a horn, or it is a cow because it has a horn are examples of fallacious reason. The inference of soul from the cognition produced by the contact of soul, senses and objects is not fallacious in the above way. The inference of the existence of the soul in others may be made in a similar way in which the existence of one’s own soul is inferred [Footnote ref 2], i.e. by virtue of the existence of movement and cessation of movement. In the second chapter it is said that the fact that there is cognition only when there is contact between the self, the senses and the objects proves that there is manas (mind), and this manas is a substance and eternal, and this can be proved because there is no simultaneity of production of efforts and various kinds of cognition; it may also be inferred that this manas is one (with each person).
The soul may be inferred from inhalation, exhalation, twinkling of the eye, life, the movement of the mind, the sense-affections pleasure, pain, will, antipathy, and effort. That it is a substance and eternal can be proved after the manner of vayu. An objector is supposed to say that since when I see a man I do not see his soul, the inference of the soul is of the type of _samanyatod@r@s@ta_ inference, i.e., from the perceived signs of pleasure, pain, cognition to infer an unknown entity to which they belong, but that this was the self could not be affirmed. So the existence of soul has to be admitted on the strength of the scriptures. But the Vais’e@sika reply is that since there is nothing else but self to which the expression “I” may be applied, there is no need of falling back on the scriptures for the existence of the soul. But
_________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: In connection with this there is a short reference to the methods of fallacy in which Gautama’s terminology does not appear. There is no generalised statement, but specific types of inference are only pointed out as the basis.]
[Footnote 2: The forms of inference used show that Ka@nada was probably not aware of Gautama’s terminology.]
290
then it is said that if the self is directly perceived in such experiences as “I am Yajnadatta” or “I am Devadatta,” what is the good of turning to inference? The reply to this is that inference lending its aid to the same existence only strengthens the conviction. When we say that Devadatta goes or Yajnadatta goes, there comes the doubt whether by Devadatta or Yajnadatta the body alone is meant; but the doubt is removed when we think that the notion of “I” refers to the self and not to anything else. As there is no difference regarding the production of pleasure, pain, and cognition, the soul is one in all. But yet it is many by special limitations as individuals and this is also proved on the strength of the scriptures [Footnote ref 1].
In the first chapter of the fourth book it is said that that which is existent, but yet has no cause, should be considered eternal (_nitya_). It can be inferred by its effect, for the effect can only take place because of the cause. When we speak of anything as non-eternal, it is only a negation of the eternal, so that also proves that there is something eternal. The non-eternal is ignorance (_avidya_) [Footnote ref 2]. Colour is visible in a thing which is great (_mahat_) and compounded. Air (_vayu_) is not perceived to have colour, though it is great and made up of parts, because it has not the actuality of colour (_rupasamskara_–i.e. in air there is only colour in its unmanifested form) in it. Colour is thus visible only when there is colour with special qualifications and conditions [Footnote ref 3]. In this way the cognition of taste, smell, and touch is also explained. Number, measure, separateness, contact, and disjoining, the quality of belonging to a higher or lower class, action, all these as they abide in things possessing colour are visible to the eye. The number etc. of those which have no colour are not perceived by the eye. But the notion of being and also of genus of quality (gunatva)
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: I have differed here from the meaning given in _Upaskara_. I think the three sutras “_Sukhaduhkhajnananispattyavis’esadekatmyam,” “vyavasthato nana,”_ and _”vastrasamarthyat ca”_ originally meant that the self was one, though for the sake of many limitations, and also because of the need of the performance of acts enjoined by the scriptures, they are regarded as many.]
[Footnote 2: I have differed here also in my meaning from the _Upaskara,_ which regards this sutra “_avidya_” to mean that we do not know of any reasons which lead to the non-eternality of the atoms.]
[Footnote 3: This is what is meant in the later distinctions of _udbhutarupavattva_ and _anudbhutarupavattva_. The word _samskara_ in Vais’e@sika has many senses. It means inertia, elasticity, collection (_samavaya_), production (_udbhava_) and not being overcome (_anabhibhava_). For the last three senses see _Upaskara_ IV. i. 7.]
291
are perceived by all the senses (just as colour, taste, smell, touch, and sound are perceived by one sense, cognition, pleasure, pain, etc. by the manas and number etc. by the visual and the tactile sense) [Footnote ref 1].
In the second chapter of the fourth book it is said that the earth, etc. exist in three forms, body, sense, and objects. There cannot be any compounding of the five elements or even of the three, but the atoms of different elements may combine when one of them acts as the central radicle (_upa@s@tambhaka_). Bodies are of two kinds, those produced from ovaries and those which are otherwise produced by the combination of the atoms in accordance with special kinds of dharma. All combinations of atoms are due to special kinds of dharmas. Such super-mundane bodies are to be admitted for explaining the fact that things must have been given names by beings having such super-mundane bodies, and also on account of the authority of the Vedas.
In the first chapter of the fifth book action (_karma_) is discussed. Taking the example of threshing the corn, it is said that the movement of the hand is due to its contact with the soul in a state of effort, and the movement of the flail is due to its contact with the hand. But in the case of the uprising of the flail in the threshing pot due to impact the movement is not due to contact with the hands, and so the uplifting of the hand in touch with the flail is not due to its contact with the soul; for it is due to the impact of the flail. On account of heaviness (_gurutva_) the flail will fall when not held by the hand. Things may have an upward or side motion by specially directed motions (_nodanavis’e@sa_) which are generated by special kinds of efforts. Even without effort the body may move during sleep. The movement of needles towards magnets is due to an unknown cause (_adr@s@takaranaka_). The arrow first acquires motion by specially directed movement, and then on account of its inertia (_vegasamskara_) keeps on moving and when that ceases it falls down through heaviness.
The second chapter abounds with extremely crude explanations
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: This portion has been taken from the _Upaskara_ of S’ankara Mis’ra on the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ of Ka@nada. It must be noted here that the notion of number according to Vais’e@sika is due to mental relativity or oscillation (_apeksabuddhijanya_). But this mental relativity can only start when the thing having number is either seen or touched; and it is in this sense that notion of number is said to depend on the visual or the tactual sense.]
292
of certain physical phenomena which have no philosophical importance. All the special phenomena of nature are explained as being due to unknown cause (_ad@r@s@takaritam_) and no explanation is given as to the nature of this unknown (_ad@r@s@ta_). It is however said that with the absence of _ad@r@s@ta_ there is no contact of body with soul, and thus there is no rebirth, and therefore mok@sa (salvation); pleasure and pain are due to contact of the self, manas, senses and objects. Yoga is that in which the mind is in contact with the self alone, by which the former becomes steady and there is no pain in the body. Time, space, akas’a are regarded as inactive.
The whole of the sixth book is devoted to showing that gifts are made to proper persons not through sympathy but on account of the injunction of the scriptures, the enumeration of certain Vedic performances, which brings in ad@r@s@ta, purification and impurities of things, how passions are often generated by ad@r@s@ta, how dharma and adharma lead to birth and death and how mok@sa takes place as a result of the work of the soul.
In the seventh book it is said that the qualities in eternal things are eternal and in non-eternal things non-eternal. The change of qualities produced by heat in earth has its beginning in the cause (the atoms). Atomic size is invisible while great size is visible. Visibility is due to a thing’s being made up of many causes [Footnote ref 1], but the atom is therefore different from those that have great size. The same thing may be called great and small relatively at the same time. In accordance with a@nutva (atomic) and mahattva (great) there are also the notions of small and big. The eternal size of _parima@n@dala_ (round) belongs to the atoms. Akas’a and atman are called _mahan_ or _paramamahan_ (the supremely great or all-pervasive); since manas is not of the great measure it is of atomic size. Space and time are also considered as being of the measure “supremely great” (paramamahat), Atomic size (parima@n@dala) belonging to the atoms and the mind (manas) and the supremely great size belonging to space, time, soul and ether (akas’a) are regarded as eternal.
In the second chapter of the seventh book it is said that unity and separateness are to be admitted as entities distinct from other qualities. There is no number in movement and quality; the appearance of number in them is false. Cause and effect are
_________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: I have differed from the _Upaskara_ in the interpretation of this sutra.]
293
neither one, nor have they distinctive separateness (_ekap@rthaktva_). The notion of unity is the cause of the notion of duality, etc. Contact may be due to the action of one or two things, or the effect of another contact and so is disjoining. There is neither contact nor disjoining in cause and effect since they do not exist independently (_yutasiddhyabhavat_). In the eighth book it is said that soul and manas are not perceptible, and that in the apprehension of qualities, action, generality, and particularity perception is due to their contact with the thing. Earth is the cause of perception of smell, and water, fire, and air are the cause of taste, colour and touch[Footnote ref 1]. In the ninth book negation is described; non-existence (_asat_) is defined as that to which neither action nor quality can be attributed. Even existent things may become non-existent and that which is existent in one way may be non-existent in another; but there is another kind of non-existence which is different from the above kinds of existence and non-existence [Footnote ref 2]. All negation can be directly perceived through the help of the memory which keeps before the mind the thing to which the negation applies. Allusion is also made in this connection to the special perceptual powers of the yogins (sages attaining mystical powers through Yoga practices).
In the second chapter the nature of hetu (reason) or the middle term is described. It is said that anything connected with any other thing, as effect, cause, as in contact, or as contrary or as inseparably connected, will serve as li@nga (reason). The main point is the notion “this is associated with this,” or “these two are related as cause and effect,” and since this may also be produced through premisses, there may be a formal syllogism from propositions fulfilling the above condition. Verbal cognition comes without inference. False knowledge (_avidya_) is due to the defect of the senses or non-observation and mal-observation due to wrong expectant impressions. The opposite of this is true knowledge (_vidya_). In the tenth it is said that pleasure and pain are not cognitions, since they are not related to doubt and certainty.
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Upaskara_ here explains that it is intended that the senses are produced by those specific elements, but this cannot be found in the sutras.]
[Footnote 2: In the previous three kinds of non-existence, _pragabhava_ (negation before production), _dhvamsabhava_ (negation after destruction), and _anyonyabhava_ (mutual negation of each other in each other), have been described. The fourth one is _samanyabhava_ (general negation).]
294
A dravya may be caused by the inhering of the effect in it, for because of its contact with another thing the effect is produced. Karma (motion) is also a cause since it inheres in the cause. Contact is also a cause since it inheres in the cause. A contact which inheres in the cause of the cause and thereby helps the production of the effect is also a cause. The special quality of the heat of fire is also a cause.
Works according to the injunctions of the scriptures since they have no visible effect are the cause of prosperity, and because the Vedas direct them, they have validity.
Philosophy in the Nyaya sutras [Footnote ref 1].
The _Nyaya sutras_ begin with an enumeration of the sixteen subjects, viz. means of right knowledge (_prama@na_), object of right knowledge (_prameya_), doubt (_sa@ms’aya_), purpose (_prayojana_), illustrative instances (_d@r@s@tanta_), accepted conclusions (_siddhanta_), premisses (_avayava_), argumentation (_tarka_), ascertainment (_nir@naya_), debates (_vada_), disputations (_jalpa_), destructive criticisms (_vita@n@da_), fallacy (_hetvabhasa_), quibble (_chala_), refutations (_jati_), points of opponent’s defeat (_nigrahasthana_), and hold that by a thorough knowledge of these the highest good (_nihs’reyasa_), is attained. In the second sutra it is said that salvation (_apavarga_) is attained by the successive disappearance of false knowledge (_mithyajnana_), defects (_do@sa_), endeavours (_prav@rtti_, birth (_janma_), and ultimately of sorrow. Then the means of proof are said to be of four kinds, perception (_pratyak@sa_), inference (_anumana_), analogy (_upamana_), and testimony (_s’abda_). Perception is defined as uncontradicted determinate knowledge unassociated with names proceeding out of sense contact with objects. Inference is of three kinds, from cause to effect (_purvavat_), effect to cause (_s’e@savat_), and inference from common characteristics (_samanyato d@r@s@ta_). Upamana is the knowing of anything by similarity with any well-known thing.
S’abda is defined as the testimony of reliable authority (apta) [Footnote ref 2].
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: This is a brief summary of the doctrines found in _Nyaya sutras_, supplemented here and there with the views of Vatsyayana, the commentator. This follows the order of the sutras, and tries to present their ideas with as little additions from those of later day Nyaya as possible. The general treatment of Nyaya-Vais’e@sika expounds the two systems in the light of later writers and commentators.]
[Footnote 2: It is curious to notice that Vatsyayana says that an arya, a @r@si or a mleccha (foreigner), may be an apta (reliable authority).]
295
Such a testimony may tell us about things which may be experienced and which are beyond experience. Objects of knowledge are said to be self (_atman_), body, senses, sense-objects, understanding (_buddhi_), mind (_manas_}, endeavour (prav@rtti), rebirths, enjoyment of pleasure and suffering of pain, sorrow and salvation. Desire, antipathy, effort (_prayatna_), pleasure, pain, and knowledge indicate the existence of the self. Body is that which upholds movement, the senses and the rise of pleasure and pain as arising out of the contact of sense with sense-objects [Footnote ref l]; the five senses are derived from the five elements, such as prthivi, ap, tejas, vayu and akas’a; smell, taste, colour, touch, and sound are the qualities of the above five elements, and these are also the objects of the senses. The fact that many cognitions cannot occur at any one moment indicates the existence of mind (_manas_). Endeavour means what is done by speech, understanding, and body. Do@sas (attachment, antipathy, etc) are those which lead men to virtue and vice. Pain is that which causes suffering [Footnote ref 2]. Ultimate cessation from pain is called _apavarga_ [Footnote ref 3]. Doubt arises when through confusion of similar qualities or conflicting opinions etc., one wants to settle one of the two alternatives. That for attaining which, or for giving up which one sets himself to work is called _prayojana_.
Illustrative example (_d@r@s@tanta_) is that on which both the common man and the expert (_parik@saka_) hold the same opinion. Established texts or conclusions (_siddhanta_) are of four kinds, viz (1) those which are accepted by all schools of thought called the _sarvatantrasiddhanta_; (2) those which are held by one school or similar schools but opposed by others called the _pratitantrasiddhanta_; (3) those which being accepted other conclusions will also naturally follow called _adhikara@nasiddhanta_; (4) those of the opponent’s views which are uncritically granted by a debater, who proceeds then to refute the consequences that follow and thereby show his own special skill and bring the opponent’s intellect to disrepute (_abhyupagamasiddhanta_) [Footnote ref 4]. The premisses are five:
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Here I have followed Vatsyayana’s meaning.]
[Footnote 2: Vatsyayana comments here that when one finds all things full of misery, he wishes to avoid misery, and finding birth to be associated with pain becomes unattached and thus is emancipated.]
[Footnote 3: Vatsyayana wants to emphasise that there is no bliss in salvation, but only cessation from pain.]
[Footnote 4: I have followed Vatsyayana’s interpretation here.]
296
(1) _pratijna_ (the first enunciation of the thing to be proved); (2) _hetu_ (the reason which establishes the conclusion on the strength of the similarity of the case in hand with known examples or negative instances); (3) _udahara@na_ (positive or negative illustrative instances); (4) _upanaya_ (corroboration by the instance); (5) _nigamana_ (to reach the conclusion which has been proved). Then come the definitions of tarka, nir@naya, vada, jalpa, vita@n@da, the fallacies (hetvabhasa), chala, jati, and nigrahasthana, which have been enumerated in the first sutra.
The second book deals with the refutations of objections against the means of right knowledge (pramana). In refutation of certain objections against the possibility of the happening of doubt, which held that doubt could not happen, since there was always a difference between the two things regarding which doubt arose, it is held that doubt arises when the special differentiating characteristics between the two things are not noted. Certain objectors, probably the Buddhists, are supposed to object to the validity of the prama@na in general and particularly of perceptions on the ground that if they were generated before the sense-object contact, they could not be due to the latter, and if they are produced after the sense-object contact, they could not establish the nature of the objects, and if the two happened together then there would be no notion of succession in our cognitions. To this the Nyaya reply is that if there were no means of right knowledge, then there would be no means of knowledge by means of which the objector would refute all means of right knowledge; if the objector presumes to have any means of valid knowledge then he cannot say that there are no means of valid knowledge at all. Just as from the diverse kinds of sounds of different musical instruments, one can infer the previous existence of those different kinds of musical instruments, so from our knowledge of objects we can infer the previous existence of those objects of knowledge [Footnote ref 1].
The same things (e.g. the senses, etc.) which are regarded as instruments of right knowledge with reference to the right cognition of other things may themselves be the objects of right
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Yathapas’catsiddhena s’abdena purvasiddham atodyamanumiyate sadhyam ca atodyam sadhanam ca s’abda@h antarhite hyatodye svanata@h anumanam bhavatiti, vi@na vadyate ve@nu@h puryyate iti svanavis’e@se@na atodyavis’e@sam pratipadyate tatha purvasiddham upalabdhivi@sayam pas’catsiddhena upalabdhihetuna pratipadyate. Vatsyayana bha@sya,_ II. i. 15.]
297
knowledge. There are no hard and fast limits that those which are instruments of knowledge should always be treated as mere instruments, for they themselves may be objects of right knowledge. The means of right knowledge (prama@na) do not require other sets of means for revealing them, for they like the light of a lamp in revealing the objects of right knowledge reveal themselves as well.
Coming to the question of the correctness of the definition of perception, it is held that the definition includes the contact of the soul with the mind [Footnote ref 1]. Then it is said that though we perceive only parts of things, yet since there is a whole, the perception of the part will naturally refer to the whole. Since we can pull and draw things wholes exist, and the whole is not merely the parts collected together, for were it so one could say that we perceived the ultimate parts or the atoms [Footnote ref 2]. Some objectors hold that since there may be a plurality of causes it is wrong to infer particular causes from particular effects. To this the Nyaya answer is that there is always such a difference in the specific nature of each effect that if properly observed each particular effect will lead us to a correct inference of its own particular cause [Footnote ref 3]. In refuting those who object to the existence of time on the ground of relativity, it is said that if the present time did not exist, then no perception of it would have been possible. The past and future also exist, for otherwise we should not have perceived things as being done in the past or as going to be done in the future. The validity of analogy (upamana) as a means of knowledge and the validity of the Vedas is then proved. The four prama@nas of perception, inference, analogy, and scripture
_________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Here the sutras, II. i. 20-28, are probably later interpolations to answer criticisms, not against the Nyaya doctrine of perception, but against the wording of the definition of perception as given in the,_Nyaya sutra_, II. i. 4.]
[Footnote 2: This is a refutation of the doctrines of the Buddhists, who rejected the existence of wholes (avayavi). On this subject a later Buddhist monograph by Pandita As’oka (9th century A.D.), _Avayavinirakara@na_ in _Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts_, may be referred to.]
[Footnote 3: _Purvodakavis’i@s@tam khalu var@sodakan s’ighrataram srotasa bahutaraphenaphalapar@nakas@thadivahanancopalabhamana@h pur@natvena, nadya upari v@r@sto deva ityanuminoti nodakab@rddhimatre@na. V@atsyayana bha@sya_, II. i. 38. The inference that there has been rain up the river is not made merely from seeing the rise of water, but from the rainwater augmenting the previous water of the river and carrying with its current large quantities of foam, fruits, leaves, wood, etc. These characteristics, associated with the rise of water, mark it as a special kind of rise of water, which can only be due to the happening of rain up the river].
298
are quite sufficient and it is needless to accept arthapatti (implication), aitihya (tradition), sambhava (when a thing is understood in terms of higher measure the lower measure contained in it is also understood–if we know that there is a bushel of corn anywhere we understand that the same contains eight gallons of corn as well) and abhava (non-existence) as separate prama@nas for the tradition is included in verbal testimony and arthapatti, sambhava and abhava are included within inference.
The validity of these as prama@nas is recognized, but they are said to be included in the four prama@nas mentioned before. The theory of the eternity of sound is then refuted and the non-eternity proved in great detail. The meaning of words is said to refer to class-notions (_jati_), individuals (_vyakti_), and the specific position of the limbs (_ak@rti_), by which the class notion is manifested. Class (_jati_} is defined as that which produces the notion of sameness (_samanaprasavatmika jati@h_).
The third book begins with the proofs for the existence of the self or atman. It is said that each of the senses is associated with its own specific object, but there must exist some other entity in us which gathered together the different sense-cognitions and produced the perception of the total object as distinguished from the separate sense-perceptions. If there were no self then there would be no sin in injuring the bodies of men: again if there were no permanent self, no one would be able to recognize things as having seen them before; the two images produced by the eyes in visual perception could not also have been united together as one visual perception of the things [Footnote ref 1]; moreover if there were no permanent cognizer then by the sight of a sour fruit one could not be reminded of its sour taste. If consciousness belonged to the senses only, then there would be no recognition, for the experience of one could not be recognized by another. If it is said that the unity of sensations could as well be effected by manas (mind), then the manas would serve the same purpose as self and it would only be a quarrel over a name, for this entity the knower would require some instrument by which it would co-ordinate the sensations and cognize; unless manas is admitted as a separate instrument of the soul, then though the sense perceptions could be explained as being the work of the
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: According to Vatsyayana, in the two eyes we have two different senses. Udyotakara, however, thinks that there is one visual sense which works in both eyes.]
299
senses, yet imagining, thinking, etc., could not be explained. Another argument for the admission of soul is this, that infants show signs of pleasure and pain in quite early stages of infancy and this could not be due to anything but similar experiences in previous lives. Moreover every creature is born with some desires, and no one is seen to be born without desires. All attachments and desires are due to previous experiences, and therefore it is argued that desires in infants are due to their experience in previous existences.
The body is made up of the k@siti element. The visual sense is material and so also are all other senses [Footnote ref l]. Incidentally the view held by some that the skin is the only organ of sensation is also refuted. The earth possesses four qualities, water three, fire two, air one, and ether one, but the sense of smell, taste, eye, and touch which are made respectively by the four elements of earth, etc., can only grasp the distinctive features of the elements of which they are made. Thus though the organ of smell is made by earth which contains four qualities, it can only grasp the distinctive quality of earth, viz. smell.
Against the Sa@mkhya distinction of _buddhi_ (cognition) and _cit_ (pure intelligence) it is said that there is no difference between the _buddhi_ and _cit_. We do not find in our consciousness two elements of a phenomenal and a non-phenomenal consciousness, but only one, by whichever name it may be called. The Sa@mkhya epistemology that the anta@hkara@na assumes diverse forms in cognitive acts is also denied, and these are explained on the supposition of contacts of manas with the senses, atman and external objects. The Buddhist objection against the Sa@mkhya explanation that the anta@hkara@nas catch reflection from the external world just as a crystal does from the coloured objects that may lie near it, that there were really momentary productions of crystals and no permanent crystal catching different reflections at different times is refuted by Nyaya; for it says that it cannot be said that all creations are momentary, but it can only be agreed to in those cases where momentariness was actually experienced. In the case of the transformation of milk into curd there is no coming in of new qualities and disappearance of old ones, but
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: It is well to remember that Sa@mkhya did not believe that the senses were constituted of the gross elements. But the Sa@mkhya-Yoga view represented in _Atreya-sa@mhita_ (Caraka) regarded the senses as bhautika or constituted of the gross elements.]
300
the old milk is destroyed and the curd originates anew. The contact of manas with soul (_atman_) takes place within the body and not in that part of atman which is outside the body; knowledge belongs to the self and not to the senses or the object for even when they are destroyed knowledge remains. New cognitions destroy the old ones. No two recollections can be simultaneous. Desire and antipathy also belong to the soul. None of these can belong either to the body or to the mind (manas). Manas cannot be conscious for it is dependent upon self. Again if it was conscious then the actions done by it would have to be borne by the self and one cannot reap the fruits of the actions of another. The causes of recollection on the part of self are given as follows: (1) attention, (2) context, (3) repetition, (4) sign, (5) association, (6) likeness, (7) association of the possessor and the possessed or master and servant, or things which are generally seen to follow each other, (8) separation (as of husband and wife), (9) simpler employment, (10) opposition, (11) excess, (12) that from which anything can be got, (13) cover and covered, (14) pleasure and pain causing memory of that which caused them, (15) fear, (16) entreaty, (17) action such as that of the chariot reminding the charioteer, (18) affection, (19) merit and demerit [Footnote ref 1]. It is said that knowledge does not belong to body, and then the question of the production of the body as due to ad@r@s@ta is described. Salvation (_apavarga_) is effected by the manas being permanently separated from the soul (atman) through the destruction of karma.
In the fourth book in course of the examination of do@sa (defects), it is said that moha (ignorance), is at the root of all other defects such as raga (attachment) and dve@sa (antipathy). As against the Buddhist view that a thing could be produced by destruction, it is said that destruction is only a stage in the process of origination. Is’vara is regarded as the cause of the production of effects of deeds performed by men’s efforts, for man is not always found to attain success according to his efforts. A reference is made to the doctrine of those who say that all things have come into being by no-cause (_animitta_), for then no-cause would be the cause, which is impossible.
The doctrine of some that all things are eternal is next refuted on the ground that we always see things produced and destroyed.
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Nyaya sutra_ III. ii. 44.]
301
The doctrine of the nihilistic Buddhists (s’unyavadin Bauddhas) that all things are what they are by virtue of their relations to other things, and that of other Buddhists who hold that there are merely the qualities and parts but no substances or wholes, are then refuted. The fruits of karmas are regarded as being like the fruits of trees which take some time before they can ripen. Even though there may be pleasures here and there, birth means sorrow for men, for even the man who enjoys pleasure is tormented by many sorrows, and sometimes one mistakes pains for pleasures. As there is no sorrow in the man who is in deep dreamless sleep, so there is no affliction (_kles’a_) in the man who attains apavarga (salvation) [Footnote ref 1]. When once this state is attained all efforts (_prav@rtti_) cease for ever, for though efforts were beginningless with us they were all due to attachment, antipathy, etc. Then there are short discussions regarding the way in which egoism (_aha@mkara_) ceases with the knowledge of the true causes of defects (_do@sa_); about the nature of whole and parts and about the nature of atoms (_a@nus_) which cannot further be divided. A discussion is then introduced against the doctrine of the Vijnanavadins that nothing can be regarded as having any reality when separated from thoughts. Incidentally Yoga is mentioned as leading to right knowledge.
The whole of the fifth book which seems to be a later addition is devoted to the enumeration of different kinds of refutations (_nigrahasthana_) and futilities (_jati_).
Caraka, Nyaya sutras and Vais’e@sika sutras.
When we compare the _Nyaya sutras_ with the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ we find that in the former two or three differentstreams of purposes have met, whereas the latter is much more homogeneous. The large amount of materials relating to debates treated as a practical art for defeating an opponent would lead one to suppose that it was probably originally compiled from some other existing treatises which were used by Hindus and Buddhists alike for rendering themselves fit to hold their own in debates with their opponents [Footnote ref 2]. This assumption is justified when
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Vatsyayana notes that this is the salvation of him who has known Brahman, IV. i. 63.]
[Footnote 2: A reference to the _Suvar@naprabhasa sutra_ shows that the Buddhist missionaries used to get certain preparations for improving their voice in order to be able to argue with force, and they took to the worship of Sarasvati (goddess of learning), who they supposed would help them in bringing readily before their mind all the information and ideas of which they stood so much in need at the time of debates.]
302
we compare the futilities (jati) quibbles (chala), etc., relating to disputations as found in the _Nyaya sutra_ with those that are found in the medical work of Caraka (78 A.D.), III. viii. There are no other works in early Sanskrit literature, excepting the _Nyaya sutra_ and _Caraka-sa@mhita_ which have treated of these matters. Caraka’s description of some of the categories (e.g. d@r@s@tanta, prayojana, pratijna and vita@n@da) follows very closely the definitions given of those in the _Nyaya sutras_. There are others such as the definitions of jalpa, chala, nigrahasthana, etc., where the definitions of two authorities differ more. There are some other logical categories mentioned in Caraka (e.g. _prati@s@thapana, jijnasa, vyavasaya, vakyado@sa, vakyapras’a@msa, upalambha, parihara, abhyanujna_, etc.) which are not found in the _Nyaya sutra_ [Footnote ref 1]. Again, the various types of futilities (jati) and points of opponent’s refutation (nigrahasthana) mentioned in the _Nyaya sutra_ are not found in _Caraka_. There are some terms which are found in slightly variant forms in the two works, e.g. _aupamya_ in _Caraka, upamana_ in _Nyaya sutra, arthapatti_ in _Nyaya sutra_ and _arthaprapti_ in _Caraka_. Caraka does not seem to know anything about the Nyaya work on this subject, and it is plain that the treatment of these terms of disputations in the _Caraka_ is much simpler and less technical than what we find in the _Nyaya sutras_. If we leave out the varieties of jati and nigrahasthana of the fifth book, there is on the whole a great agreement between the treatment of Caraka and that of the _Nyaya sutras_. It seems therefore in a high degree probable that both Caraka and the _Nyaya sutras_ were indebted for their treatment of these terms of disputation to some other earlier work. Of these, Caraka’s compilation was earlier, whereas the compilation of the _Nyaya sutras_ represents a later work when a hotter atmosphere of disputations had necessitated the use of more technical terms which are embodied in this work, but which were not contained in the earlier work. It does not seem therefore that this part of the work could have been earlier than the second century A.D. Another stream flowing through the _Nyaya sutras_ is that of a polemic against the doctrines which could be attributed to the Sautrantika Buddhists, the Vijnanavada Buddhists, the nihilists, the Sa@mkhya, the Carvaka, and some other unknown schools of thought to which we find no
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Like Vais’e@sika, Caraka does not know the threefold division of inference (_anumana_) as _purvavat, s’e@savat and samanyatod@r@s@ta_.]
303
further allusion elsewhere. The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ as we have already seen had argued only against the Mima@msa, and ultimately agreed with them on most points. The dispute with Mima@msa in the _Nyaya sutras_ is the same as in the Vais’e@sika over the question of the doctrine of the eternality of sound. The question of the self-validity of knowledge (_svata@h prama@nyavada_)and the akhyati doctrine of illusion of the Mima@msists, which form the two chief points of discussion between later Mima@msa and later Nyaya, are never alluded to in the _Nyaya sutras_. The advocacy of Yoga methods (_Nyaya sutras_, IV.ii.38-42 and 46) seems also to be an alien element; these are not found in Vais’e@sika and are not in keeping with the general tendency of the _Nyaya sutras_, and the Japanese tradition that Mirok added them later on as Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasada S’astri has pointed out [Footnote ref l] is not improbable.
The _Vais’e@sika sutras_, III.i.18 and III.ii.1, describe perceptional knowledge as produced by the close proximity of the self (atman), the senses and the objects of sense, and they also adhere to the doctrine, that colour can only be perceived under special conditions of sa@mskara (conglomeration etc.). The reason for inferring the existence of manas from the non-simultaneity (_ayaugapadya_) of knowledge and efforts is almost the same with Vais’e@sika as with Nyaya. The _Nyaya sutras_ give a more technical definition of perception, but do not bring in the questions of sa@mskara or udbhutarupavattva which Vais’e@sika does. On the question of inference Nyaya gives three classifications as purvavat, s’e@savat and samanyatod@r@s@ta, but no definition. The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ do not know of these classifications, and give only particular types or instances of inference (V.S. III. i. 7-17, IX. ii. 1-2, 4-5). Inference is said to be made when a thing is in contact with another, or when it is in a relation of inherence in it, or when it inheres in a third thing; one kind of effect may lead to the inference of another kind of effect, and so on. These are but mere collections of specific instances of inference without reaching a general theory. The doctrine of vyapti (concomitance of _hetu_ (reason) and _sadhya_ (probandum)) which became so important in later Nyaya has never been properly formulated either in the _Nyaya sutras_ or in the Vais’e@sika. _Vais’e@sika sutra_, III. i. 24, no doubt assumes the knowledge of concomitance between hetu and sadhya (_prasiddhipurvakatvat apades’asya_),
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _J.A.S.B._ 1905.]
304
but the technical vyapti is not known, and the connotation of the term _prasiddhipurvakatva_ of Vais’e@sika seems to be more loose than the term _vyapti_ as we know it in the later Nyaya. The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ do not count scriptures (_s’abda_) as a separate prama@na, but they tacitly admit the great validity of the Vedas. With _Nyaya sutras_ s’abda as a prama@na applies not only to the Vedas, but to the testimony of any trustworthy person, and Vatsyayana says that trustworthy persons may be of three kinds _@r@si, arya_ and _mleccha_ (foreigners). Upamana which is regarded as a means of right cognition in Nyaya is not even referred to in the _Vais’e@sika sutras_. The _Nyaya sutras_ know of other prama@nas, such as _arthapatti, sambhava_ and _aitihya_, but include them within the prama@nas admitted by them, but the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ do not seem to know them at all [Footnote ref 1]. The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ believe in the perception of negation (abhava) through the perception of the locus to which such negation refers (IX. i. 1-10). The _Nyaya sutras_ (II. ii. 1, 2, 7-12) consider that abhava as non-existence or negation can be perceived; when one asks another to “bring the clothes which are not marked,” he finds that marks are absent in some clothes and brings them; so it is argued that absence or non-existence can be directly perceived [Footnote ref 2]. Though there is thus an agreement between the Nyaya and the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ about the acceptance of abhava as being due to perception, yet their method of handling the matter is different. The _Nyaya sutras_ say nothing about the categories of _dravya, gu@na, karma, vis’e@sa_ and _samavaya_ which form the main subjects of Vais’e@ska discussions [Footnote ref 3]. The _Nyaya sutras_ take much pains to prove the materiality of the senses. But this question does not seem to have been important with Vais’e@sika. The slight reference to this question in VIII. ii. 5-6 can hardly be regarded as sufficient. The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ do not mention the name of “Is’vara,” whereas the _Nyaya sutras_ try to prove his existence on eschatological grounds. The reasons given in support of the existence of self in the _Nyaya sutras_ are mainly on the ground of the unity of sense-cognitions and the phenomenon of recognition, whereas the
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The only old authority which knows these prama@nas is Caraka. But he also gives an interpretation of sambhava which is different from Nyaya and calls _arthapatti arthaprapti_ (_Caraka_ III. viii.).]
[Footnote 2: The details of this example are taken from Vatsyayana’s commentary.]
[Footnote 3: The _Nyaya sutra_ no doubt incidentally gives a definition of jati as “_samanaprasavatmika jati@h_” (II. ii. 71).]
305
Vaisesika lays its main emphasis on self-consciousness as a fact of knowledge. Both the Nyaya and the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ admit the existence of atoms, but all the details of the doctrine of atomic structure in later Nyaya-Vais’e@sika are absent there. The Vai’se@sika calls salvation _ni@hs’reyasa_ or _mok@sa_ and the Nyaya _apavarga_. Mok@sa with Vais’e@sika is the permanent cessation of connection with body; the apavarga with Nyaya is cessation of pain [Footnote ref l]. In later times the main points of difference between the Vais’e@sika and Nyaya are said to lie with regard to theory of the notion of number, changes of colour in the molecules by heat, etc. Thus the former admitted a special procedure of the mind by which cognitions of number arose in the mind (e.g. at the first moment there is the sense contact with an object, then the notion of oneness, then from a sense of relativeness–apek@sabuddhi–notion of two, then a notion of two-ness, and then the notion of two things); again, the doctrine of pilupaka (changes of qualities by heat are produced in atoms and not in molecules as Nyaya held) was held by Vais’e@sika, which the Naiyayikas did not admit [Footnote ref 2]. But as the _Nyaya sutras_ are silent on these points, it is not possible to say that such were really the differences between early Nyaya and early Vaise@sika. These differences may be said to hold between the later interpreters of Vais’e@sika and the later interpreters of Nyaya. The Vais’e@sika as we find it in the commentary of Pras’astapada (probably sixth century A.D.), and the Nyaya from the time of Udyotakara have come to be treated as almost the same system with slight variations only. I have therefore preferred to treat them together. The main presentation of the Nyaya-Vais’e@sika philosophy in this chapter is that which is found from the sixth century onwards.
The Vais’e@sika and Nyaya Literature.
It is difficult to ascertain definitely the date of the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ by Ka@nada, also called Aulukya the son of Uluka, though there is every reason to suppose it to be pre-Buddhistic. It
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Professor Vanamali Vedantatirtha quotes a passage from _Sa@mk@sepas’a@nkarajaya_, XVI. 68-69 in _J.A.S.B._, 1905, and another passage from a Nyaya writer Bhasarvajna, pp. 39-41, in _J.A.S.B._, 1914, to show that the old Naiyayikas considered that there was an element of happiness (_sukha_) in the state of mukti (salvation) which the Vais’e@sikas denied. No evidence in support of this opinion is found in the Nyaya or the _Vais’e@sika sutras_, unless the cessation of pain with Nyaya is interpreted as meaning the resence of some sort of bliss or happiness.]
[Footnote 2: See Madhava’s _Sarvadars’anasa@mgraha-Aulukyadars’ana_.]
306
appears from the _Vayu purana_ that he was born in Prabhasa near Dvaraka, and was the disciple of Somas’arma. The time of Pras’astapada who wrote a bha@sya (commentary) of the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ cannot also unfortunately be ascertained. The peculiarity of Pras’astapada’s bha@sya is this that unlike other bha@syas (which first give brief explanations of the text of the sutras and then continue to elaborate independent explanations by explaining the first brief comments), it does not follow the sutras but is an independent dissertation based on their main contents [Footnote ref 1]. There were two other bha@syas on the _Vais’e@sika sutras_, namely _Rava@na-bha@sya_ and _Bharadvaja-v@rtti_, but these are now probably lost. References to the former are found in _Kira@navalibhaskara_ of Padmanabha Mis’ra and also in _Ratnaprabha_ 2. 2. II. Four commentaries were written on this bha@sya, namely _Vyomavati_ by Vyomas’ekharacarya, _Nyayakandali_ by S’ridhara, _Kira@navali_ by Udayana (984 A.D.) and _Lilavati_ S’rivatsacarya. In addition to these Jagadis’a Bha@t@tacarya of Navadvipa and S’a@nkara Mis’ra wrote two other commentaries on the _Pras’astapada-bhasya_, namely _Bhasyasukti_ and _Ka@nada-rahasya_. S’a@nkara Mis’ra (1425 A.D.) also wrote a commentary on the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ called the _Upaskara_. Of these _Nyaya-kandali_ of S’ridhara on account of its simplicity of style and elaborate nature of exposition is probably the best for a modern student of Vais’e@sika. Its author was a native of the village of Bhuris@r@s@ti in Bengal (Ra@dha). His father’s name was Baladeva and mother’s name was Acchoka and he wrote his work in 913 S’aka era (990 A.D.) as he himself writes at the end of his work.
The _Nyaya sutra_ was written by Ak@sapada or Gautama, and the earliest commentary on it written by Vatsyayana is known as the _Vatsyayana-bha@sya_. The date of Vatsyayana has not
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The bha@sya of Pras’astapada can hardly he called a bha@sya (elaborate commentary). He himself makes no such claim and calls his work a compendium of the properties of the categories (_Padarthadharmasa@mgraha_). He takes the categories of _dravya, gu@na, karma, samanya, vis’e@sa_ and _samavaya_ in order and without raising any discussions plainly narrates what he has got to say on them. Some of the doctrines which are important in later Nyaya-Vais’e@sika discussions, such as the doctrine of creation and dissolution, doctrine of number, the theory that the number of atoms contributes to the atomic measure of the molecules, the doctrine of pilupaka in connection with the transformation of colours by heat occur in his narration for the first time as the _Vais’e@sika sutras_ are silent on these points. It is difficult to ascertain his date definitely; he is the earliest writer on Vais’e@sika available to us after Ka@nada and it is not improbable that he lived in the 5th or 6th century A.D.]
307
been definitely settled, but there is reason to believe that he lived some time in the beginning of the fourth century A.D. Jacobi places him in 300 A.D. Udyotakara (about 635 A.D.) wrote a _Varttika_ on Vatsyayana’s bha@sya to establish the Nyaya views and to refute the criticisms of the Buddhist logician Di@nnaga (about 500 A.D.) in his _Prama@nasamuccaya_. Vacaspatimis’ra (840 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on the _Nyayavarttika_ of Udyotakara called _Nyayavarttikatatparya@tika_ in order to make clear the right meanings of Udyotakara’s _Varttika_ which was sinking in the mud as it were through numerous other bad writings (_dustarakunibandhapa@nkamagnanam_). Udayana (984 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on the _Tatparya@tika_ called _Tatparya@tikaparis’uddhi_. Varddhamana (1225 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on that called the _Nyayanibandhaprakas’a_. Padmanabha wrote a sub-commentary on that called _Varddhamanendu_ and S’a@nkara Mis’ra (1425 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on that called the _Nyayatatparyama@n@dana_. In the seventeenth century Vis’vanatha wrote an independent short commentary known as _Vis’vanathav@rtti_, on the _Nyaya sutra_, and Radhamohana wrote a separate commentary on the _Nyaya sutras_ known as _Nyayasutravivara@na_. In addition to these works on the _Nyaya sutras_ many other independent works of great philosophical value have been written on the Nyaya system. The most important of these in medieval times is the _Nyayamanjari_ of Jayanta (880 A.D.), who flourished shortly after Vacaspatimis’ra. Jayanta chooses some of the _Nyaya sutras_ for interpretation, but he discusses the Nyaya views quite independently, and criticizes the views of other systems of Indian thought of his time. It is far more comprehensive than Vacaspati’s _Tatparya@tika_, and its style is most delightfully lucid. Another important work is Udayana’s _Kusumanjali_ in which he tries to prove the existence of Is’vara (God). This work ought to be read with its commentary _Prakas’a_ by Varddhamana (1225 A.D.) and its sub-commentary _Makaranda_ by Rucidatta (1275 A.D.). Udayana’s _Atmatattvaviveka_ is a polemical work against the Buddhists, in which he tries to establish the Nyaya doctrine of soul. In addition to these we have a number of useful works on Nyaya in later times. Of these the following deserve special mention in connection with the present work. _Bha@sapariccheda_ by Vis’vanatha with its commentaries _Muktavali, Dinakari_ and _Ramarudri, Tarkasamgraha_ with _Nyayanir@naya, Tarkabka@sa_ of Kes’ava Mis’ra with
308
the commentary _Nyayapradipa, Saptapadarthi_ of S’ivaditya, _Tarkikarak@sa_ of Varadaraja with the commentary _Ni@ska@n@taka_ of Mallinatha, _Nyayasara_ of Madhava Deva of the city of Dhara and _Nyayasiddhantamanjari_ of Janakinatha Bha@t@tacarya with the _Nyayamanjarisara_ by Yadavacarya, and _Nyayasiddhantadipa_ of S’a@sadhara with _Prabha_ by S’e@sanantacarya.
The new school of Nyaya philosophy known as Navya-Nyaya began with Ga@nges’a Upadhyaya of Mithila, about 1200 A.D. Ga@nges’a wrote only on the four prama@nas admitted by the Nyaya, viz. pratyak@sa, anumana, upamana, and s’abda, and not on any of the topics of Nyaya metaphysics. But it so happened that his discussions on anumana (inference) attracted unusually great attention in Navadvipa (Bengal), and large numbers of commentaries and commentaries of commentaries were written on the anumana portion of his work _Tattvacintama@ni, and many independent treatises on sabda and anumana were also written by the scholars of Bengal, which became thenceforth for some centuries the home of Nyaya studies. The commentaries of Raghunatha S’iroma@ni (1500 A.D.), Mathura Bha@t@tacarya (1580 A.D.), Gadadhara Bha@t@tacarya (1650 A.D.) and Jagadisa Bha@t@tacarya (1590 A.D.), commentaries on S’iroma@ni’s commentary on _Tattvacintamani, had been very widely read in Bengal. The new school of Nyaya became the most important study in Navadvipa and there appeared a series of thinkers who produced an extensive literature on the subject [Footnote ref l].The contribution was not in the direction of metaphysics, theology, ethics, or religion, but consisted mainly in developing a system of linguistic notations to specify accurately and precisely any concept or its relation with other concepts [Footnote ref 2]. Thus for example when they wished to define precisely the nature of the concomitance of one concept with another (e.g. smoke and fire), they would so specify the relation that the exact nature of the concomitance should be clearly expressed, and that there should be no confusion or ambiguity. Close subtle analytic thinking and the development of a system of highly technical
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: From the latter half of the twelfth century to the third quarter of the sixteenth century the new school of Nyaya was started in Mithila (Behar); but from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century Bengal became pre-eminently the home of Nyaya studies. See Mr Cakravartti’s paper, _J. A.S.B._ 1915. I am indebted to it for some of the dates mentioned in this section.]
[Footnote 2: _Is’varanumana_ of Raghunatha as well as his _Padarthatattvanirupa@na_ are, however, notable exceptions.]
309
expressions mark the development of this literature. The technical expressions invented by this school were thus generally accepted even by other systems of thought, wherever the need of accurate and subtle thinking was felt. But from the time that Sanskrit ceased to be the vehicle of philosophical thinking in India the importance of this literature has gradually lost ground, and it can hardly be hoped that it will ever regain its old position by attracting enthusiastic students in large numbers.
I cannot close this chapter without mentioning the fact that so far as the logical portion of the Nyaya system is concerned, though Ak@sapada was the first to write a comprehensive account of it, the Jains and Buddhists in medieval times had independently worked at this subject and had criticized the Nyaya account of logic and made valuable contributions. In Jaina logic _Das’avaikalikaniryukti_ of Bhadrabahu (357 B.C.), Umasvati’s _Tattvarthadhigama sutra_, _Nyayavatara_ of Siddhasena Divakara (533 A.D.) Ma@nikya Nandi’s (800 A.D.) _Parik@samukha sutra_, and _Prama@nanayatattvalokala@mkara_ of Deva Suri (1159 A.D.) and _Prameyakamalamarta@n@da_ of Prabhacandra deserve special notice. _Prama@nasamuccaya_ and _Nyayapraves’a_ of Di@nnaga (500 A.D.), _Prama@nayarttika karika_ and _Nyayabindu_ of Dharmakirtti (650 A.D.) with the commentary of Dharmottara are the most interesting of the Buddhist works on systematic logic [Footnote ref l]. The diverse points of difference between the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist logic require to be dealt with in a separate work on Indian logic and can hardly be treated within the compass of the present volume.
It is interesting to notice that between the _Vatsyayana bha@sya_ and the Udyotakara’s _Varttika_ no Hindu work on logic of importance seems to have been written: it appears that the science of logic in this period was in the hands of the Jains and the Buddhists; and it was Di@nnaga’s criticism of Hindu Nyaya that roused Udyotakara to write the _Varttika_. The Buddhist and the Jain method of treating logic separately from metaphysics as an independent study was not accepted by the Hindus till we come to Ga@nges’a, and there is probably only one Hindu work of importance on Nyaya in the Buddhist style namely _Nyayasara_ of Bhasarvajna. Other older Hindu works generally treated of
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See _Indian Logic Medieval School_, by Dr S.C. Vidyabhu@sa@na, for a bibliography of Jain and Buddhist Logic.]
310
inference only along with metaphysical and other points of Nyaya interest [Footnote ref 1].
The main doctrine of the Nyaya-Vais’e@sika Philosophy [Footnote ref 2].
The Nyaya-Vais’e@sika having dismissed the doctrine of momentariness took a common-sense view of things, and held that things remain permanent until suitable collocations so arrange themselves that the thing can be destroyed. Thus the jug continues to remain a jug unless or until it is broken to pieces by the stroke of a stick. Things exist not because they can produce an impression on us, or serve my purposes either directly or through knowledge, as the Buddhists suppose, but because existence is one of their characteristics. If I or you or any other perceiver did not exist, the things would continue to exist all the same. Whether they produce any effect on us or on their surrounding environments is immaterial. Existence is the most general characteristic of things, and it is on account of this that things are testified by experience to be existing.
As the Nyaya-Vais’e@sikas depended solely on experience and on valid reasons, they dismissed the Sa@mkhya cosmology, but accepted the atomic doctrine of the four elements (_bhutas_), earth (_k@siti_), water (_ap_), fire (_tejas_), and air (_marut_). These atoms are eternal; the fifth substance (_akas’a_) is all pervasive and eternal. It is regarded as the cause of propagating sound; though all-pervading and thus in touch with the ears of all persons, it manifests sound only in the ear-drum, as it is only there that it shows itself as a sense-organ and manifests such sounds as the man deserves to hear by reason of his merit and demerit. Thus a deaf man though he has the akas’a as his sense of hearing, cannot hear on account of his demerit which impedes the faculty of that sense organ [Footnote ref 3]. In addition to these they admitted the existence of time (_kala_) as extending from the past through the present to the
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Almost all the books on Nyaya and Vais’e@sika referred to have been consulted in the writing of this chapter. Those who want to be acquainted with a fuller bibliography of the new school of logic should refer to the paper called “The History of Navya Nyaya in Bengal,” by Mr. Cakravartti in _J.A.S.B._ 1915.]
[Footnote 2: I have treated Nyaya and Vais’e@sika as the same system. Whatever may have been their original differences, they are regarded since about 600 A.D. as being in complete agreement except in some minor points. The views of one system are often supplemented by those of the other. The original character of the two systems has already been treated.]
[Footnote 3: See _Nyayakandali_, pp. 59-64.]
311
endless futurity before us. Had there been no time we could have no knowledge of it and there would be nothing to account for our time-notions associated with all changes. The Sa@mkhya did not admit the existence of any real time; to them the unit of kala is regarded as the time taken by an atom to traverse its own unit of space. It has no existence separate from the atoms and their movements. The appearance of kala as a separate entity is a creation of our buddhi _(buddhinirma@na) as it represents the order or mode in which the buddhi records its perceptions. But kala in Nyaya-Vais’e@sika is regarded as a substance existing by itself. In accordance with the changes of things it reveals itself as past, present, and future. Sa@mkhya regarded it as past, present, and future, as being the modes of the constitution of the things in its different manifesting stages of evolution _(adhvan)_. The astronomers regarded it as being clue to the motion of the planets. These must all be contrasted with the Nyaya-Vais’e@sika conception of kala which is regarded as an all-pervading, partless substance which appears as many in association with the changes related to it [Footnote ref l].
The seventh substance is relative space _(dik)_. It is that substance by virtue of which things are perceived as being on the right, left, east, west, upwards and downwards; kala like dik is also one. But yet tradition has given us varieties of it in the eight directions and in the upper and lower [Footnote ref 2]. The eighth substance is the soul _(atman)_ which is all-pervading. There are separate atmans for each person; the qualities of knowledge, feelings of pleasure and pain, desire, etc. belong to _atman_. Manas (mind) is the ninth substance. It is atomic in size and the vehicle of memory; all affections of the soul such as knowing, feeling, and willing, are generated by the connection of manas with soul, the senses and the objects. It is the intermediate link which connects the soul with the senses, and thereby produces the affections of knowledge, feeling, or willing. With each single connection of soul with manas we have a separate affection of the soul, and thus our intellectual experience is conducted in a series, one coming after another and not simultaneously. Over and above all these we have Isvara. The definition
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See _Nyayakandali,_ pp. 64-66, and _Nyayamanjari_, pp. 136-139. The _Vais’e@sika sutras_ regarded time as the cause of things which suffer change but denied it of things which are eternal.]
[Footnote 2: See _Nyayakandali,_ pp. 66-69, and _Nyayamanjari_, p. 140.]
312
of substance consists in this, that it is independent by itself, whereas the other things such as quality (_gu@na_), action (_karma_), sameness or generality (_samanya_), speciality or specific individuality (_vis’e@sa_) and the relation of inherence (_samavaya_) cannot show themselves without the help of substance (_dravya_). Dravya is thus the place of rest (_as’raya_) on which all the others depend (_as’@rta_). Dravya, gu@na, karma, samanya, vis’e@sa, and samavaya are the six original entities of which all things in the world are made up [Footnote ref 1]. When a man through some special merit, by the cultivation of reason and a thorough knowledge of the fallacies and pitfalls in the way of right thinking, comes to know the respective characteristics and differences of the above entities, he ceases to have any passions and to work in accordance with their promptings and attains a conviction of the nature of self, and is liberated [Footnote ref 2]. The Nyaya-Vais’e@sika is a pluralistic system which neither tries to reduce the diversity of experience to any universal principle, nor dismisses patent facts of experience on the strength of the demands of the logical coherence of mere abstract thought. The entities it admits are taken directly from experience. The underlying principle is that at the root of each kind of perception there must be something to which the perception is due. It classified the percepts and concepts of experience into several ultimate types or categories (_padartha_), and held that the notion of each type was due to the presence of that entity. These types are six in number–dravya, gu@na, etc. If we take a percept “I see a red book,” the book appears to be an independent entity on which rests the concept of “redness” and “oneness,” and we thus call the book a substance (_dravya_); dravya is thus defined as that which has the characteristic of a dravya (_dravyatva_). So also gu@na and karma. In the subdivision of different kinds of dravya also the same principle of classification is followed. In contrasting it with Sa@mkhya or Buddhism we see that for each unit of sensation (say
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Abhava_ (negation) as dependent on bhava (position) is mentioned in the _Vais’e@sika sutras_. Later Nyaya writers such as Udayana include _abhava_ as a separate category, but S’ridhara a contemporary of Udayana rightly remarks that abhava was not counted by Pras’astapada as it was dependent on bhava–“_abhavasya prthaganupades’a@h bhavaparatantryat na tvabhavat_.” _Nyayakandali_, p. 6, and _Lak@sa@navali_, p. 2.]
[Footnote 2: “_Tattvato jnate@su bahyadhyatmike@su vi@saye@su do@sadars’anat viraktasya samihaniv@rttau atmajnasya tadarthani karmanyakurvatah tatparityagasadhanani s’rutism@rtyuditani asa@nkalpitaphalani upadadanasya atmajnanamabhyasyata@h prak@r@s@tanivarttakadharmopacaye sati
paripakvatmajnanasyatyantikas’ariraviyogasya bhavat._” _Ibid._ p. 7.]
313
whiteness) the latter would admit a corresponding real, but Nyaya-Vais’e@sika would collect “all whiteness” under the name of “the quality of white colour” which the atom possessed [Footnote ref l]. They only regarded as a separate entity what represented an ultimate mode of thought. They did not enquire whether such notions could be regarded as the modification of some other notion or not; but whenever they found that there were some experiences which were similar and universal, they classed them as separate entities or categories.
The six Padarthas: Dravya, Gu@na, Karma, Samanya, Vis’e@sa, Samavaya.
Of the six classes of entities or categories (_padartha_) we have already given some account of dravya [Footnote ref 2]. Let us now turn to the others. Of the qualities (_gu@na_) the first one called _rupa_ (colour) is that which can be apprehended by the eye alone and not by any other sense. The colours are white, blue, yellow, red, green, brown and variegated (_citra_). Colours are found only in k@siti, ap and tejas. The colours of ap and tejas are permanent (_nitya_}, but the colour of k@siti changes when heat is applied, and this, S’ridhara holds, is due to the fact that heat changes the atomic structure of k@siti (earth) and thus the old constitution of the substance being destroyed, its old colour is also destroyed, and a new one is generated. Rupa is the general name for the specific individual colours. There is the genus _rupatva_ (colourness), and the rupa gu@na (quality) is that on which rests this genus; rupa is not itself a genus and can be apprehended by the eye.
The second is _rasa_ (taste), that quality of things which can be apprehended only by the tongue; these are sweet, sour, pungent (_ka@tu_), astringent (ka@saya) and bitter (tikta). Only k@siti and ap have taste. The natural taste of ap is sweetness. Rasa like rupa also denotes the genus rasatva, and rasa as quality must be distinguished from rasa as genus, though both of them are apprehended by the tongue.
The third is _gandha_ (odour), that quality which can be apprehended by the nose alone. It belongs to k@siti alone. Water
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The reference is to Sautrantika Buddhism, “yo yo vruddhadhyasavan nasaveka@h.” See Pa@n@ditas’oka’s _Avayavinirakarana, Six Buddhist Nyaya tracts_.
[Footnote 2: The word “padartha” literally means denotations of words.]
314
or air is apprehended as having odour on account of the presence