Works of Udayana

According to scholars, Udayana was the author of at least seven works of which some are commentaries and some are independent works. Most of his works are very elaborate and scholarly, but two of them are very brief almost like sūtra works. One is Lakṣaṇāvali and the other is Lakṣaṇamālā. In the first the basic tenets of the Vaiśeṣika have been presented very briefly. This work has been published from Varanasi with a commentary called Nyāyamuktāvalī.^[1] In the same manner Udayana wrote the second work which deals with the Nyaya system. Varadarāja in his Tārkikarakṣā has quoted from this work. But the work is not yet available to us.^[2] These two works are rarely studied now.

Of the Independent works written by Udayana a very important position is occupied by the Ātmatatvaviveka. In this work Udayana has exclusively discussed and refuted Buddhist views and hence it is also known as Bauddhādhikāra. From the title of the work it is generally understood that here Udayana has discussed the nature of the self following the Nyāya position. The general rule followed by Indian philosophers is that when one tries to establish a particular view one should, on the one hand, offer arguments establishing the view, and on the other, one should also refute the arguments presented against it. Both the Naiyāyikas and the Bauddhas admit self as a distinct entity, but there are differences of opinion between them regarding the actual nature of the self. The Buddhists propound the doctrine of momentariness and therefore, according to them, even the self is not permanent. Like all the other ordinary things also the self goes on changing every moment. In fact, the self is nothing but a stream of momentary consciousness. But the Naiyāyikas admit the self to be eternal and it is never produced or destroyed or changes in any way. Secondly, in the Bauddha view the self is of the nature of consciousness, there is identity between self and consciousness. But in the Nyāya view, cognition and self are two different entities, cognition belongs to the category of quality (guṇa) and self to that of substance (dravya). There is no identity between the two and cognition resides in the self through the relation of inherence. Thus even though there is general agreement on the point that the self is distinct from body, senses etc. There is a lot of differences in respect of various details. If the opponent’s view is not refuted, one’s own view cannot be properly established and hence in this work Udayana has refuted the Buddhist view.

This work is divided into four chapters. In the first chapter, one of the most important doctrines of the Buddhist, namely, the doctrine of momentariness has been refuted. Some other allied problems also have been discussed and criticised from the Nyāya viewpoint. Of the four principal schools of the Buddhist, one is the Yogācāra, according to which the external world has no real existence. The only real thing is consciousness (Vijñana) and all the external objects are really ideas or states of consciousness. Thus the Yogācāra is an idealist.

But the Naiyāyikas are staunch realists and they admit the reality of the external world. In the second chapter of the work the Yogācāra view has been dealt with. Here also some allied problems have been taken care of. In the third chapter the existence of an eternal self has been established with arguments very elaborately. It may be considered as an introduction to the fourth chapter. The fourth chapter which is the last one is very elaborate. It has been shown that for the existence of the self we have two pramāṇas namely, perception and inference. A momentary stream of consciousness cannot represent the self, because on the evidence of recognition (pratyābhijñāna) it is proved that the self must be something permanent. Here Udayana has also incidentally discussed the Cārvāka view that the self is identical with the body and consciousness is a product of material elements. Lastly, there is brief, discussion on two important conclusions of the Nyaya. The first one is that the validity of the Veda is proved because they are statements of īśvara. The Mīmāṃsakas argue that the Veda has no speaker and its validity is proved intrinsically. But this position is rejected by the Naiyāyika. However, this topic has been discussed in greater details in the Nyāyakusumāñjali The existence of God, the nature of liberation etc. have been discussed briefly according to the demand of the context.

We have already noted that Udayana had great mastery over both the Nyāya and the Vaiśeṣika and wrote learned commentaries on works of both the systems. In Nyāya he wrote a commentary called Pariśuddhi. Actually, a series of commentaries and sub-commentaries were written in different periods on the basis of Gautama’s Nyāyasūtra. Thus the Nyāyasūtra is commented upon by Vātsyāyana. This commentary is followed by Uddyotakara’s commentary which again is commented upon by Vācaspati. The Pariśuddi of Udayana is a commentary on Vācaspati’s work. He wrote another commentary on the basis of the Nyāyasūtra, namely the Prabodhasiddhi. It elaborately discussed the last two categories mentioned in the first sūtra of the Nyāyasūtra namely, jati and nigrahasthāna.

Although the Vaiśeṣikasūtra Kaṇāda is considered the earliest basic work of the Vaiśeṣika, perhaps the most wellknown and authoritative work is the Praśastapādabhāṣya. This work was commented upon by different scholars. In the field of Vaiśeṣika Udayana wrote a very learned and elaborate commentary on this work which is known as Kiraṇāvalī. In Indian philosophical literature in general this work is acclaimed as an important contribution. In fact, subtle and deeper and deeper analyses which later became the special feature Navyanyāya may be said to be first introduced in the writings of Udayana.

In the following chapters we shall analyses and discuss the contents of the five chapters of the Nyāyakusumāñjali For the present we shall confine ourselves to some very general remarks. It is generally said that Udayana wrote this work with the specific purpose of establishing the existence of God. It is difficult to conclude with certainty whether Gautama had admitted God or not. In the first āhnika of the fourth chapter of his work some references to God are found.^[3] In this section there are only three brief sūtras. There is controversy among scholars about the implications of these. According to some here Gautama definitely admits God, but others do not think so. That there was difference of opinion about what actually Gautama tries to prove here is easily understood by the controversy regarding the title of the section. Generally this section is known as the section on the refutation of the view that God alone is the cause. God alone is the cause of the world and neither the individual self nor his actions are responsible for the production of the world. Such a view is criticized here by Gautama. Commentators also differ as to which one of them represents the opponent’s view and which one the conclusion. Thus though Gautama’s position may be doubtful, there is no doubt that so far as later commentators like Vātsyāyana and others are concerned, they definitely admitted the existence of God.^[4] For examples, if God is admitted, one may ask, in which of the categories should it be included? Like the Vaiśeṣika the Nyāya also admits the seven categories of substance etc. God should also belong to any one of them, if God is to be a real entity. Vātsyāyana has categorically stated that God is of the nature of the substance called self or ātman. But still God is unique, because He has some specific qualities which are not present in any individual self. While commenting upon this section Uddyotakara and Vācaspati quite elaborately discuss the proofs for the existences of God. They have also answered the different objections raised against admission of God by the atheists.

It is interesting to note that the majority of the Indian philosophical systems do not believe in the existence of God. In this respect there is a kind of agreement among the philosophers belonging to both the orthodox and heterodox systems. That among the latter the Cārvāka should be opposed to God is easily understood. It does not admit any other Source of valid knowledge except perception.If an entity is not proved by perception it does not exist. Even those who admit God never claim that it is possible to perceive God. Thus in the Cārvāka view the question of admitting God does not arise at all. Bauddhas and Jainas admit inference as a source of valid knowledge which is generally offered as the proof for the existence of God. But they also argue strongly against God in all their authoritative works. Of the orthodox systems only the Yoga admits god clearly.^[5] In the Yogasūtra we find clear statements about the nature of God and his role in the attainment of liberation. Such clear references are not found in any other ancient Sutra work. The Mīmāṃsakas believe in the supremacy of Karman. Through the performance of Karman alone one may attain the highest good. In the performance of actions, the fruit produced by them and liberation God has no role to play. Therefore, there is no necessity of admitting God. There is doubt about the importance and position of God in Vedānta philosophy. In this system ultimate reality belongs to Brahman and everything else is illusory. Even if God is admitted in the practical level God has nothing to do with the realization of the true nature of Brahman which leads to liberation. In fact, very little information about God is to be found in Advaita works. Though the Sāṃkhya and the Yoga are friendly to each other they do not agree about God. In most of the available works of the Sāṃkhya God has either been discarded or not been mentioned at all. But some scholars try to show that God was admitted by some followers of the Sāṃkhya and hence, the system may be divided into two schools, one theist and the other atheist. But it is doubtful whether sufficient arguments are available for the claim that the Sāṃkhya admitted God. From the internal evidences of Udayana’s works it is clear that personally Udayana was a great devotee of God.^[6] Thus his personal belief might have been affected by the refutation of God by the other systems. That is why he wanted to oppose the atheists and wrote a work to establish the existence of God. Some scholars think that in this case also Udayana’s strong opposition to the Buddhist was responsible. We have already noted that Udayana was a great critic of the Buddhist doctrines and in almost all his works he has taken up the important

Buddhist theories and strongly criticized them. In the earlier part of the ninth century, a Buddhist author, Kalyāṇaraksita by name, wrote a work called Īśvarabhaṅga-kārikā. The very title of the work indicates that it deals with the refutation of God. It has been claimed that Udayana wrote the Nyāyakusumāñjali specially to answer the objections raised in this work.^[7] However, it is difficult to come to any definite conclusion in this regard. In his work Udayana never refers to the Buddhist author by name and he also does not quote any passage from this work as he has sometimes done in the case of other Buddhist authors.

The fact that Udayana is the author of the Nyāyakusumāñjali is accepted by all and it is beyond doubt. Still, in this context we would like to draw attention to one point. It is generally observed that the author of a work offers salutation to some God or his preceptor at the outset and also mentions his own name and the name of the proposed work. This may be done through a single verse or a number of verses. In the Nyāyakusumāñjali, in the first verse, Udayana declares that this work is like a handful of flowers offered at the feet of God. Commentators have explained that this verse apparently shows his great respect for and devotion to God, but it has also got a deeper meaning. He has also indicated through expressions which signify double meaning the main subject matter of the work, is presenting inferential proof for the existence of God which are free from any logical defect. But it is interesting to note that here Udayana does not mention the name Nyāyakusumāñjali by which the work is known and accepted. But the term he uses is Nyāyaprasunāñjali. Both the names may be synonymous, because the words kusuma and prasūna are so, but generally in a preliminary verse the exact name of a work is mentioned. It may be argued that Udayana uses the word prasuna instead of kusuma because of the compulsion to maintain the meter. But it is doubtful how far it would be logical. Generally the name of a work is specifically stated and it is difficult to assume that Udayana could not maintain the meter by using the word kusuma. Again in some cases it is found that the author mentions the name of the work and some personal information at the end of the work through one or more verses. At the end of the Nyāyakusumāñjali, Udayana expresses his great reverence for God in three verses. However, there also to indicate his work he has used the expression Nītikusumāñjali. The word kusuma is there but the word nyāya is replaced by the word nīti. We do not get the wellknown name. Some argue that the words nīti and nyāya are synonymous and there should be no difficulty. But it is clear that by nyāya is meant what is technically called parārthānumāna. The word nīti can hardly be accepted to express such a meaning. Thus, one may ask, how is it ascertained that the author of both Ātmatattvaviveka and Nyāyakusumāñjali are the same person, namely, Udayana? In answer, it has been pointed out that Udayana was the author of Lakṣaṇāvali is beyond doubt, because in its preliminary verse the name of the author, the name of the work and the date of the work are all mentioned. Again, in the Nyāyavārttika-tātparyaṭīkā-pariśuddhi, Udayana himself remarks that the subject under consideration has been discussed in the Nyāyakusumāñjali In his wellknown commentary of the Vaiśeṣika, the Kiraṇāvalī, he mentions both the works, Ātmatattvaviveka and Nyāyakusumāñjali, and says that details are available there. Moreover, the well-known verses offering salutation to God which are found in the Kiraṇāvalī are also found in the Lakṣaṇāvalī and Nyāyavārttika-tātparyaṭīkā-pariśuddhi Thus it can be logically concluded that Udayana and nobody else was the author of all these works.^[8]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ibid. p.1.

[2]:

Ibid. p.2.

[3]:

Nyāyasūtra 4/1/19-21.

[4]:

Vātsyāyana on Nyāyasūtra 4/1/21.

[5]:

Yogasūtra 1/23-24.

[6]:

For example, See the verses at the end of each stavaka of Nyāyakusumāñjali

[7]:

S.C. Vidyabhusana, ibid.p.143.

[8]:

Ātmatattvaviveka, (ed.) intro.p.18.See also, Kiranāvalī, p.383.