Nyaya-Vaisheshika (critical and historical study)
by Aruna Rani | 1973 | 97,110 words
This essay studies Nyaya-Vaisheshika—A combination of two of the six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy. The study also discusses in detail the authors of various works and critically analyzes key concepts of Nyaya-Vaisesika. Such Indian philosophies seek the direct realization of the Atman (the self) to attain ultimate freedom and bliss....
4. Authors of Nyaya (a): Gautama
Undoubtedly the science of reasoning in India is very old and as we have seen, it was a full-fledged science before Gautama. But it is very difficult to say mything definite about the nature of that science. It is totally dependent on the present Nyaya-Sutra of Gautama. Gautama, though not the founder of Nyaya but is its chief exponent who first gave an elaborate and systematic account of the already existing branch of knowledge, called 'Nyaya', and codified it in the form of the Sutras or aphorisms. Gautama, the author of 'Nyaya-Sutra' holds that the trus knowledge of the sixteen categories, beginning with pramana, will enable one to achieve the highest and according to the particular angle of vision represented by the Maya-system. He believes that by acquiring the 1. For the detailed list of the authors of this system see Appendix (a). 2. Gautama, Nyaya-Sutra, lelel.
knowledge of the objects of the gross universe in its various aspects, the ultimate end will be realized. outlook is wide. He visualizes the objects of the universe from an ordinary common-gense stand-point. His Of the sixteen categories, the first, namely, prsmana (means of knowledge) is required for acquiring the correct knowledge of the Atma. In fact, Gautama aims only at the true knowledge of the Atma, but has mentioned twelve varieties of knowables (prmeyas), namely, Atma, sarira, sense-organ, the objects of senseorgans (artha), intellect (Buddhi), manas (mind), sarira, has activity (prawrtti), defect (dosa), existence after death (pretyabhava), fruition (phala), pain (dukhha), and freedom from all miseries (apavarga). But the last prameyas are meant to elucidate the true nature of the Atma itself. Here the question arises that after all what was the necessity to mention the last fourteen categories separately when all these can easily be included under the first or second categories namely, pramana and prameya alone? But we may answer that Nyaya Sutra was really composed, not only for discussing the nature of the Atma and other knowables of the physical world from 1. Ibid., 1.1.9. 38
39 common sense view point, but also for defeating the arguments of the Buddhists who were, antagonistic to the non-Buddhist ideas. It was, therefore, that Gautama had to include even in his philosophical work, Veda (discussion in order to arrive at the truth), Jalpa (disputation wherein there is assertion of one's own stand-point and denial of other's stand-point by means of casuistry, wrong rejoinder and clinchers), Vitanda (wrangling wherein there is no establishing on one's own point), Hetvabhasa (fallacious arguments), Chala (casuistry which consists in opposing a proposition by assigning to it a meaning other than that which is intended), Jati (false rejoinder which is either incapable of putting aside the opposite view, or which involves self-contradictions), and Nigrahasthana (clinchers, that is, a wrong position taken up by a party which prevents it to proceed further in argumentation), as essential factors in order to establish a valid argument. The very nature of these categories shows that there was some peculiar opposition for the refutation of which all the above mentioned categories were found very essential to be included even in a philosophical work, the ultimate end of which was to realize the nature of the Atma. With the help of the various forms of disputations discussed in
40 Nyaya Sutra," the wrong arguments of the Buddhists were refuted and the position of the non-Buddhists was 2 defended. Vatsyayana himself apprehended this very question when he says--"The mention of doubt and the rest is superfluous because, all these being included either among the means of cognition or among the knowables, cannot be regarded as different from these. To this object the answer has been given that even then these are separately mentioned simply to distinguish the scope of the science of reasoning from that of other systems." It, therefore, becomes quite clear that the last fourtem categories are the specific topics dealt with exclusively in this system alone. Scholars have different views about the period of Gantama. Dr. S.C.Vidya Bhusana has fixed 6th century B<> for the composition of the first chapter of the work, the later chapters, according to him, being subsequent additions from different sources. He is of the opinion that the author of the Nyaya Sutra is identical with the author of the Gautmanadharmasutra and the Pitrmedh Sutra. But then again, Dr. Vidya Bhunana says in his 'History of Indian Logie'--"The Nyaya Sutra, which was criticized by 1. Gantama, Nyaya Sutra, l.l.1. 2. Vatsyayana, Nyaya-Bhasya, l●lol. ta 3. Introduction to the Nyaya Sutra of Gautama, S.B❤H., Pages V-VIII.
41 Nagarjuna referred perhaps to the Caraka-Samhita under the name of Ayurveda. Aksapada seems, therefore, to have flourished before Nagarjuna (Circa 250-320 A.D.) who employs many logical terms presumably from the Nyaya-Sutra, and after Caraka whose samhita compiled about 78 A.D., embodies logical doctrines of a cruder form than those of the Nyaya Sutra. The date of Aksapada may, therefore, be approximately fixed at about 150 A.D." From this it 1 appears that Dr. Vidya Bhusana changed his views from 600-B.C. to 150 A.D. as the date of the Aksapada. M.R.Bodas in his introduction to Tarkasamgraha holds that Gautama's work should be assigned to the end of the 5th century or the beginning of the 4th century 2 B.C. Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasada Shastri has shown on Chinese evidence, that Aksapada, the founder of Nyaya was a pre-Buddhistic teacher. But he thinks that the sutras as we have them are comparatively modern, being probably past-Mahayanic. A.D. 3 So he places Gautama in the 2nd Century 1. S.C. Vidya Bhusana, History of Indian Logic, Page 50. 2. Bombay Sanskrit Series Edition, Page 33. 3. J.A.S.B., 1905, Pages 177-80.
Professor Jacobi holds that the sutres and the Bhasya are later than the origin of Sunyavada, that is, the end of the 2nd century A.D. and earlier than that of 1 Vijnamavada, that is the end of the 5th century A.D. Professor Garbe believes that the Nyaya-darsana as such was known to Pancasikha, the sankhya teacher, who must have lived between 100 and 300 A❤D. Hance, Cautema must have been his contemporary and cannot be placed before the Christian era. 2 Professor Luigi Sanli mainly accepts the views of Jacobi but places the composition of the aitra work between 300 and 350 Professor Steherbatskoi finds references to Vijnamavade in the Wyaya Sutres and so he places the work posterior to 500 A.Do We have seen the different views by different scholars. But, in fact, we can say, that Gautama's em Nyaya Sutra mentions and criticises the Madhyamika doctrine of sunyavada end vijnanavada of Lenkavatere. sutra. Nagarjuns, the founder of the Madhyamika school 1. J.AO.S., xxx 1, 1911, Pages 2, 13. A 20 2. Die Samkhya philosople, Page 33. 3. Introduzione allo studio della Filosofia Indiena, Page 14. 4. J.A.0.S., 1911, Pages 4-5. 42.
43 of sunyavada, flourished in 200 A.D. The original lankavatarasutra is assigned to 300 A.D. Kautilya (300 B.C.) mentions Anviksiki and includes samkhya, yoga and lokayata in it in Arthasastra. Probably 'yoga' here means the Nyaya. Anvikisiki is described as the lemp of all branches of learning. It is mentioned in the Ramayana, the Mahabharta and the Manusamhita. The Mahabharata refers to the Nyaya, Terkasastra and the five-members inference. The Marmsamhite mentions Hetusastra. So the original Nyaya Sutra was not later than 200 B.C. The Sutra work is divided into five chapters, each sub-divided into two Ahnikas'. According to the Nyaya Sucinibandha of Vecaspati Misra, the work contains 84 sections, 528 sutras, 196 padas and 8385 letters. pointed out by Vatsyayana, the Nyaya-Sutra treats of its categories through the process of enunciation (uddosya), definition (laksana), and examination (pariksa). Enunciation is the mere mention of the categories by name; definition consists in setting forth that charecter of a category which differentiates it from other categories; and examination is the settlement, by 1. Anusasanaparva, Ch. 37, 12, Sabhaparva, Ch. 5.5. 2. Manu Samhita, ch. 11, 11, Ch. VII, 43. 3. Vatsyayana, Nyaya-Bhasya, l●1.2.
44 reasoning, of the question whether the definition of a certain category is really applicable to it. Book I of the Myaya Sutra deals with the enunciation and definition of the sixteen categories, while the remaining four books are concerned with a critical examination of the categories. Here are some important points from the sutras:- 1. Gautama says that the existence of the Atman is provided through inference. It cannot be en object of direct perception through Manas. It is, therefore, 1 due to this reason that he has not mentioned manas as a sense-organ in his work. 2. Gautama believes that there are only five senseorgans, namely, olfactory, gustatory, visual, tactile and auditory. He obviously mentions the sense organs of cognition above and omits the five sense-organs of action Vacaspati Misra says that hands, feet, etc., are not the probans for the existence of the Atman, hence these are not regarded as sense-organs. Jayanta Bhatta holds the same view. 3 3. Gautama does not mention anywhere in his work that 1. Gautama, Nyaya Sutra, I,1.10. 2. Ibid., I.1.12. 3. Vacaspati Misra, Tatparyatika on the Nyayasutra, III, 1, 61. 4. Jayanta, Nyayamanjari, Pages 482-84.
45 'manas' is a sense organ. Vatsyayana and others have discussed this matter at great length and have come to the conclusion that Gautama has recognized manas as a sense-organ, though not directly. It seems that 1 Gautama takes a very ordinary common sense view of indriya according to which the five sense organs of cognition alone are thogasadhana and so he did not recognize manas as a sense-organ● tan tradhikarana', 4. From the use of the words 'tan trad 'Sarvatantra', 'Pratitantra' in the Sutra, it seems that Gautama had before him several systematized schools of Indian philosophy at the time when he composed his Sutra-work, otherwise how could he mention them as different 'tantras'7 5. Gautama is of the opinion that there is only one visual sense-organ which is divided by a nose-bone and so it looks as if it were two. This view of the Sutrakara has been interpreted in a different way by the Bhasyakara who thinks that there are two distinct visual sense-organs. Vartikakara, however, supports the Sutrakara. 1. Vatsyayana, Nyaya-Bhasya, 3.1.61. 2. Gautama, Nyaya -Sutra,`1.1.26-29. 3. Ibid., 3.1.7.
46 6. The Sutrakara believes that Isvara depending upon the actions of the Jivas, is the instrumental cause of the universe. 1