A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, Surendranath Dasgupta [ebook reader with android os .txt] 📗

of effects, and that thus the effect is already existent even before the causal movement for the production of the effect, is also baseless. Sâ@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 Sâ@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 Sâ@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 (âtman) knows, feels and wills, and it is difficult to understand why Sâ@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 Sâ@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 Sâ@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 Sâ@mkhya think of these as material substances? Again their cosmology of a mahat, aha@mkâra, the tanmâtras, 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 Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 452-466 and 490-496.)

Nyâya and Vais'e@sika sûtras.

It is very probable that the earliest beginnings of Nyâya 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 vâkovâkya. Mr Bodas has pointed out that Âpastamba who according to Bühler lived before the third century B.C. used the word Nyâya in the sense of Mîmâ@msâ [Footnote ref 1]. The word Nyâya derived

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1 Âpastamba, trans. by Bühler, 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 nî 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 Nyâya [Footnote ref 1]. Prof. Jacobi on the strength of Kau@tilya's enumeration of the vidyâ (sciences) as Ânvîk@sikî (the science of testing the perceptual and scriptural knowledge by further scrutiny), trayî (the three Vedas), vârttâ (the sciences of agriculture, cattle keeping etc.), and da@n@danîti (polity), and the enumeration of the philosophies as Sâ@mkhya, Yoga, Lokâyata and Ânvîk@sikî, supposes that the Nyâya sûtra was not in existence in Kau@tilya's time 300 B.C.) [Footnote ref 2]. Kau@tilya's reference to Nyâya as Ânvîk@sikî only suggests that the word Nyâya was not a familiar name for Ânvîk@sikî in Kau@tilya's time. He seems to misunderstand Vâtsyâyana in thinking that Vâtsyâyana distinguishes Nyâya from the Ânvîk@sikî in holding that while the latter only means the science of logic the former means logic as well as metaphysics. What appears from Vâtsyâyana's statement in Nyâya sûtra I.i. 1 is this that he points out that the science which was known in his time as Nyâya was the same as was referred to as Ânvîk@sikî by Kau@tilya. He distinctly identifies Nyâyavidyâ with Ânvîk@sikî, 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 pramâ@na (means of cognition) and prameya (objects of cognition), by holding that unless these its special and separate branches (p@rthakprasthâna) were treated, Nyâyavidyâ would simply become metaphysics (adhyâtmavidyâ) like the Upani@sads. The old meaning of Nyâya as the means of determining the right meaning or the right thing is also agreed upon by Vâtsyâyana and is sanctioned by Vâcaspati in his Nyâyavârttikatâtparya@tîkâ I.i. 1). He compares the meaning of the word Nyâya (pramâ@nairarthaparîk@sa@nam—to scrutinize an object by means of logical proof) with the etymological meaning of the word ânvîk@sikî (to scrutinize anything after it has been known by perception and scriptures). Vâtsyâyana of course points out that so far as this logical side of Nyâya is concerned it has the widest scope for

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Kâlidâsa's Kumârasambhava "Udghâto pra@navayâsâm nyâyaistribhirudîra@nam," also Mallinâtha'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 Nyâya 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 Vâtsyâyana himself designates the logical portion as a p@rthakprasthâna (separate branch). But I do not find that any statement of Vâtsyâyana or Kau@tilya can justify us in concluding that this addition was made after Kau@tilya. Vâtsyâyana 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 adhyâtmavidyâ was acknowledged by all. But the importance of the mere logical side would not appeal to most people. None of the dharmas'âstras (religious scriptures) or the Vedas would lend any support to it, and Vâtsyâyana 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 Ânvîk@sikî as one of the four vidyâs but also named it as one of the philosophies side by side with Sâ@mkhya seems to lead to the presumption that probably even in Kau@tilya's time Nyâya was composed of two branches, one as adhyâtmavidyâ 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. Mahâmahopâdhyâya Haraprasâda S'âstrî in an article in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society 1905 says that as Vâcaspati made two attempts to collect the Nyâya sûtras, one as Nyâyasûci and the other as Nyâyasûtroddhâra, it seems that even in Vâcaspati's time he was not certain as to the authenticity of many of the Nyâya sûtras. He further points out that there are unmistakable signs that many of the sûtras were interpolated, and relates the Buddhist tradition from China and Japan that Mirok mingled Nyâya and Yoga. He also

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Yena prayukta@h pravarttate tat prayojanam (that by which one is led to act is called prayojanam); yamartham abhîpsan jihâsan vâ karma ârabhate tenânena sarve prâ@nina@h sarvâ@ni karmâ@ni sarvâs'ca vidyâ@h vyâptâ@h tadâs'rayâs'ca nyâya@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 Nyâya). Vâtsyâyana bhâs'ya, I.i. 1.]

279

thinks that the sûtras 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 sûtras makes the fixing of the date of the original part of the Nyâya sûtras still more difficult, for the Buddhist references can hardly be of any help, and Prof. Jacobi's attempt to fix the date of the Nyâya sûtras on the basis of references to S'ûnyavâda naturally loses its value, except on the supposition that all references to S'ûnyavâda must be later than Nâgârjuna, which is not correct, since the Mahâyâna sûtras written before Nâgârjuna also held the S'ûnyavâda doctrine.

The late Dr S.C. Vidyâbhû@sa@na in J.R.A.S. 1918 thinks that the earlier part of Nyâya was written by Gautama about 550 B.C. whereas the Nyâya sûtras of Ak@sapâda were written about 150 A.D. and says that the use of the word Nyâya in the sense of logic in Mahâbhârata 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@sapâda was made to fit in somehow with his idea that Ak@sapâda wrote his Nyâya sûtras under the influence of Aristotle—a supposition which does not require serious refutation, at least so far as Dr Vidyâbhû@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 Nyâya. Goldstücker says that both Patañjali (140 B.C.) and Kâtyâyana (fourth century B.C.) knew the Nyâya sûtras [Footnote ref 1]. We know that Kau@tilya knew the Nyâya in some form as Ânvîk@sikî in 300 B.C., and on the strength of this we may venture to say that the Nyâya 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 sûtras were written some time in the second century A.D. Bodas points out that Bâdarâya@na's sûtras make allusions to the Vais'e@sika doctrines and not to Nyâya. On this ground he thinks that Vais'e@sika sûtras were written before Bâdarâyana's Brahma-sûtras, whereas the Nyâya sûtras were written later. Candrakânta Tarkâla@mkâra also contends in his

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Goldstücker's Pâ@nini, p. 157.]

280

edition of Vais'e@sika that the Vais'e@sika sûtras were earlier than the Nyâya. It seems to me to be perfectly certain that the Vais'e@sika sûtras were written before Caraka (80 A.D.); for he not only quotes one of the Vais'e@sika sûtras, but the whole foundation of his medical physics is based on the Vais`e@sika physics [Footnote ref 1]. The La@nkâvatâra sûtra (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 sûtras are probably pre-Buddhistic [Footnote ref 2].

It is certain that even the logical part of the present Nyâya sûtras was preceded by