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 (b): Vatsyayana

Warning! Page nr. 19 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

The earliest commentary available on the Nyaya-Sutra is the Nyaya-Bhasya by Vatsyayana also known as Paksilsvamine Ho closely followed Gautama in interpreting his aphorisms. He has given a flood of light to the sutras. In our view, Vatsyayana's Bhasya is more important and necessary for the clear understanding of Nyaya system, then the sutras, because Bhasya gives more clearly the distinctive features of the sutras. Without a Bhasya, the sutras remain in darke No body with the low knowledge of the subject can perfectly and completely understand the meaning of the sutras as desired by the author of the sutras. Any bhasyakara has to understand the mind of the sutrakara very closely. Vatsyayana closely followed Gautama while writing his bhasya. Vatsyayana's bhasya works like a key to the look of the sutra, where these sutres are not clear. Vatsyayana neither criticized nor 1. Ibid., 4.1.19.21. 2. The name Paksilsvamin has been used by Vacaspati Misra in the introductory remarks of the Nyaya Vartikatatparystika, Page 1, and also in the Sarva Darsana Sangraha by Madhvacarya.

Warning! Page nr. 20 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

47 2 1 appreciated the philosophy of Gautama, but removed the darkness spread over the sutras. For instance, Gautama has divided inference into three parts, viz., Purvavat, Sesavat, and Samanyatodrsta, but he has not defined them. Vatsyayana has defined them as he thought that Gautama wanted to say this or that about these forms of inferences But we can say that of all the works on Pracina Nyaya, Vatsyayana's Nyaya Bhasya is the most difficult one. Its style is very obscure, so at many places it becomes difficult to connect the bhagya with the sutras. This again is due to the distortion of the texts by the scholars of the opposite views. Besides, the Bhasyakara following the sutrakara, has introduced so many old theories in his work and in such a way, that it has become much more difficult to trace them to their sources. Evidently, Vatsyayena is not the immediate successor of Gautama, since his work contains passages of the character of Vartikes, which state in a condensed form the results of discussions carried on in the school of Gautama. Vetsyayana offers different explanations of some sutras indicating thereby that there were earlier commentators who did not all agree on the interpretations 1. Gautama, Nyaya-Sutra, l●1.5. 2. Vatsyayana, Nyaya Bhasya, l.1.5.

Warning! Page nr. 21 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

of the sutras. Dr. S.C.Vidyabhusana believes that Vatsyayena was a native of South India and flourished about fourth century A.D. According to him," The earliest limit of his age is 300 A.D., when the Madhyamika-sutra and Lankavatara-sutra are supposed to have been composed. As Dignaga lived about 500 A.D. and Vasubandhu about 480 A.D., Vatsyayana who preceded them could not have lived after the latter date." Taking the mean between the earliest and latest dates we may approximately fix the date of Vatsyayana at about 400 A.D❤ Keith and Bodas agree with this view. According to Dr. Radha Krishman, "Nagarjuns, the author of Upayakausalya and Vigrahavyavartani, is certainly earlier than Vatsyayana, who attempts to combat the views of Nagarjuna. Dignaga criticized Vatsyayana's interpretations from the Buddhist point of view. From all this, we may infer that Vatsyayan lived some time before 400 A.D.' 5 Jacobi and Suali are inclined to place him about the beginning of the sixth century A.D., or a little earlier. 48 1. Vatsyayana, Nyaya-Bhasya, 1.1.5, 1.2.9. Vatsyayana refers to other interpreters in 1.1.22 in the usual style: eke, some, kecit, certain, anye, etc. 2. S.C.Vidyabhusan, History of Indian Logic, Page 116. 3. A.B.Keith, Indian Logic and Atomism, Page 28. 4. M.R.Bodas, Introduction to Tarka Sangraha. 5. Dr. Radha Krishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, Page 38.

Warning! Page nr. 22 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

49 G Haraprased Sastri makes Vatsyayana a successor of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, since he is familiar with the Mahayanist doctrines of momentariness, sunyavada, individuality, etc. We would like to take side of Harprasad Sastri because Vatsyayano criticizes the Madhyamika School of sunyavada and Vijnanavada of Lankevataresutra. It is not earlier than 200 A.D. or 300 A.D. Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamika School of Sunyavada, flourished in 200 2 3 A.D. H.Ui end Winternita have fixed the date Nagarjuna in the middle or at the close of the second century A.D. So Vatsyayana must have been flourished after 200 4.D. Again, Vatsyayana must have flourished before Dignaga (500 A.D.), as the latter criticizes him in connection with his explanation to the mind (manas) as a sense-organ, and positively also before Vasubandhu (450 A.D.) whose theory of syllogism, so antagonistic to that of Gautama, has not been controverted, nay even referred to, by Vatsyayana in his Nyaya-Bhasya. So he must be earlier then Dignage and Vasubendhu. From all this, we can place Vatsyayana some time before 400 A.D. 1. J.AS. of Bengal 1906, Pages 178-79. 2. H.Ui, Vaisesika Philosophy, Page 43. Sophy 3. Winternitz, A History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, Page 304.

Warning! Page nr. 23 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

There is no doubt that Vatsyayana has stressed on logical part of the sutres. He has given high light to the pramanas. However, the main features of his bhasya may be mentioned here as follows:- 1. Vatsyayana believes that through the peculiar type of contact between the Atma and the manas, the 1 former can be directly perceived. 2 2. Vatsyayana asserts that manas is also a senseorgan and that it has been separately mentioned apart from other sense-organs simply because its peculiar nature, that is, its being a non-bhautika element. This might have been due to the fact that Vatsyayana needed sense-organ for the perception of the Atman. So he recognized manas, like the Vaisesikas. 3. For the first time, Vatsyayana introduced the six positive categories of the Vaisesika, namely, substance, quality, action, generality, visesa and inherence into the Nyaye sastra and also implied that these categories were in vogue even before the Nyaya Sastra of Gautame. 3 4. While explaining the three terms indicating the 1. Vatsyayana, Nyaya-Bhasya, l.1.3. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid., I.1.9, 2.1.35. 50

Warning! Page nr. 24 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

51 types of inference Vatsyayana has given first his own interpretation. But perhaps he is himself not satisfied with it, so he gives other alternative interpretations 1 and begins with 'athva'. In fact the types of inference Purvavat, etc., are the technical terms which haw been used by Samkhya, Purva-Mima sa and other systems also. All the authors of the different systems appear to be quite doubtful about their correct meaning. It seems that long before these authors flourished, the correct meanings of the terms were lost and later on, the scholars have attempted to give the meaning which are confusings and not very satisfactory. 5. Vatayayana holds that the four types of pramana which are used by human beings, are equally used by whl ch shining ones (devas) and those beings which do not move straight (tiryak) for their activities. 3 6. He gives in detail the process of cooking rice for food. This indicates that Vatsyayana lived in that part of the century where cooking of rice was common. 7. While dealing with the examination and verification aspect of the categories, Vatsyayana has 2. 1.1.7. 3. II.1.43.

Warning! Page nr. 25 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

: 52 clearly shown how the propounders of the opposite view used the various wrong methods of reasoning, namely, disputation (jalpa), wrangling (vitenada), cesuistry (chala), futile rejoinder (jati), and clinchers (nigrahasthana) against the Nyaya views. 1 8. Vatsyayana has not only commented upon the Sutras but has also added his own original views in many places with a view to elucidate the Hyaya stand-pointe 9. There are many points where Vatsyayana apparently differs from the author of the Sutras. Nyaya. 3 After Vatsyayana, there flourished many writers on They belonged not only to the orthodox systems, but also were amongst the Jainas and the Buddhists. There was a great difference between Astikas and Nestikos regarding the interpretations on the Wyaya_Sutra of Gautama. Both the parties had different method of treatment of the scope of Nyaya darsana, Astikas dealt with epistemology as well as metaphysics and allied problems. The followers of the Buddha, on the other hand, confined themselves exclusively to inference (anumane) and other aspects connected with it. Orthodox scholars did not 1. Ibid. II, 1.11. II, 2.2.35; 1.1.4, etc. 3. Thide, 2.2.36.

Warning! Page nr. 26 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

53 Like to disconnect the science of reasoning from metaphysics, ethics, etc., because in their view the only object of pramana is to explain the prameyas representing all other espects. But the followers of the Buddha separated the science of reasoning from the rest of the sciences and thos confined it to its own limited scope as if it has nothing to do with the prameyes. The Buddhistic logicians like Negarjuna (2nd century A.D.), Asanga and Vasubandhu (4th century A.D.) and Dignaga (450 A.D.) criticized the Nyaya Sutras and Nyaya Bhasya. Dignaga in his work 'Pramana-smuccaya' laid the foundation of his realist-idealistic epistemology, and threw a challenge to the realism of the orthodox schools and thus added fuel to fire. From this it is evident that there was a good deal of cleavage between Astika and Nastika logicians. There was a mutual intellectual difference between the two parties in which many scholars from both the sides took active parts

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: