Chapter 19

THE NYÂYA-VAIS'E@SIKA PHILOSOPHY

Criticism of Buddhism and Sâ@mkhya from the Nyâya 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 (_upâdâna_, e.g. clay of the jug), instrumental and concomitant causes (_nimitta_ and _sahakâri_, 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 Sâ@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. 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 previous speculations on the subject by thinkers of other schools. Thus in commenting on I.i. 32 in which the sûtra states that a syllogism consists of five premisses (_avayava_) Vâtsyâyana says that this sûtra was written to refute the views of those who held that there should be ten premisses [Footnote ref 3]. The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ also give us some of the earliest types of inference, which do not show any acquaintance with the technic of the Nyâya doctrine of inference [Footnote ref 4].

Does Vais'e@sika represent an Old School of Mîmâ@msâ?

The Vais'e@sika is so much associated with Nyâya by tradition that it seems at first sight quite unlikely that it could be supposed to represent an old school of Mîmâ@msâ, older than that represented in the _Mîmâ@msâ sûtras._ But a closer inspection of the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ 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 sûtra._ An examination of Caraka's _Sûtrasthâna_ (I.35-38) leaves us convinced that the writer of the verses had some compendium of Vais'e@sika such as that of the _Bhâ@sâpariccheda_ before him. _Caraka sûtra_ or _kârikâ_ (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 (_sârthâ_). 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 sûtra_ (I.i. 6) which leaves out the six gu@nas,

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Caraka, S'ârîra_, 39.]

[Footnote 2: See the next section.]

[Footnote 3: Vâtsyâyana's Bhâ@sya on the _Nyâya sûtras,_ I.i.32. This is undoubtedly a reference to the Jaina view as found in _Das'avaikâlikaniryukti_ as noted before.]

[Footnote 4: _Nyâya sûtra_ I.i. 5, and _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ IX. ii. 1-2, 4-5, and III. i. 8-17.]

281

heaviness (_gurutva_), liquidity (_dravatva_), oiliness(_sneha_), elasticity (_sa@mskâra_), merit (_dharma_) and demerit (_adharma_); in one part of the sûtra 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 sûtra 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. _Bhâ@sâpariccheda_ (a later Vais'e@sika compendium), is a compilation from some very old kârikâs which are referred to by Vis'vanâtha as being collected from "_atisa@mk@siptacirantanoktibhi@h_"--(from very ancient aphorisms [Footnote ref 1]); Caraka's definition of sâmânya and vis'e@sa shows that they had not then been counted as separate categories as in later Nyâya-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 sûtra_ that sâmânya (generality) and vi'se@sa are relative to each other [Footnote ref 2]. Caraka's sûtras 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 sûtras_ 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 Mîmâ@msâ doctrines and occasionally to Sâ@mkhya. There is no reason to suppose that the Mîmâ@msâ doctrines referred to allude to the _Mîmâ@msâ sûtras_ of Jaimini. The manner in which the nature of inference has been treated shows that the Nyâya phraseology of "_pûrvavat_" and "_s'e@savat_" was not known. _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ in more than one place refer to time as the ultimate cause [Footnote ref 3]. We know that the S'vetâs'vatara Upani@sad refers to those who regard time as the cause of all things, but in none of the

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Professor Vanamâlî Vedântatîrtha's article in _J.A.S.B._, 1908.]

[Footnote 2: Caraka (I.i. 33) says that sâmânya is that which produces unity and vis'e@sa is that which separates. V.S. II. ii. 7. Sâmânya and vis'e@sa depend upon our mode of thinking (as united or as separate).]

[Footnote 3: _Vais'e@sika sûtra_ (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 sûtras are probably the oldest that we have and in all probability are pre-Buddhistic.

The _Vais'e@sika sûtra_ begins with the statement that its object is to explain virtue, "dharma" This is we know the manifest duty of Mîmâ@msâ and we know that unlike any other system Jaimini begins his _Mîmâ@msâ sûtras_ 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@nâda'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'vetâs'vatara I.i.2]

[Footnote 2: I remember a verse quoted in an old commentary of the _Kalâpa Vyâkara@na_, in which it is said that the description of the six categories by Ka@nâda in his _Vais'e@sika sûtras_, 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 (Himâlaya).

"_Dnarma@m vyâkhyâtukâmasya @sa@tpadârthopavar@nana@m Himavadgantukâmasya sâgaragamanopamam_."]

[Footnote 3: The sutra "_Tadvacanâd âmnâyasya prâmâ@nyam_ (I.i.3 and X.ii.9) has been explained by _Upaskâra_ as meaning "The Veda being the word of Îs'vara (God) must be regarded as valid," but since there is no mention of Îs'vara anywhere in the text this is simply reading the later Nyâya ideas into the Vais'e@sika. Sûtra 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@nâda'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@nâda 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 (_yajña_), 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@nâda is busy in showing the special conditions of making gifts and receiving them. A reference to our chapter on Mîmâ@msâ will show that the later Mîmâ@msâ writers agreed with the Nyâya-Vais`e@sika doctrines in most of their views regarding substance, qualities, etc. Some of the main points in which Mîmâ@msâ differs from Nyâya-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 Kumârila) 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 Îs'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 Mîmâ@msâ. 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 sûtras._ It is probable that Ka@nâda 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 Mîmâ@msâ 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 sûtras,_ the view was probably what is represented in the _Vais'e@sika sûtras._ As there is no reference to Îs`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 Mîmâ@msâ philosophers. As regards the eternality of sound, which in later days was one of the main points of quarrel between the Nyâya-Vais'e@sika and the Mîmâ@msâ, we find that in II. ii. 25-32, Ka@nâda 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 Mîmâ@msâ view as we know from the later Mîmâ@msâ writers [Footnote ref 1]. Next comes the question of the proof of the existence of self. The traditional Nyâya view is

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The last two concluding sûtras II. ii. 36 and 37 are in my opinion wrongly interpreted by S'a@nkara Mis'ra in his _Upaskâra_ (II. ii. 36 by adding an "_api_" to the sûtra and thereby changing the issue, and II. ii. 37 by misreading the phonetic combination "samkhyabhava" as sâ@mkhya and bhava instead of sâ@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 Nyâya 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 (_âgama_). 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 Mîmâ@msâ thought which supplemented a metaphysics to strengthen the grounds of the Vedas.

Philosophy in the Vais'e@sika sûtras.

The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ 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 sûtra 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 (_sâmdânya_), particularity (_vis'e@sa_), and inherence (_samavâyay_) [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: _Upaskâra_ 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@mskâra_), 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 Sâ@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@nâda 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 (_bhâva_) 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 (_sattâ_) 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 (_bhâva_ or _sattâ_) for they also have no separate genus or species and yet may be distinguished from one another, but bhâva or being was the same in all.

In the first chapter of the second book Ka@nâda 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 (_âkâs'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 _sâmânyato d@r@s@ta_. The name of air "_vâyu_" is derived from the scriptures. The existence of others different from us has (_asmadvis'i@s@tânâ@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@mjñâkarma_). 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 âkâs'a (ether). Âkâs'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 âkâs'a. It is a substance and eternal like air. As being is one so âkâs'a is one [Footnote ref 2].

In the second chapter of the second book Ka@nâda 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 (_indriyârtha_) is the reason by

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: I have differed from _Upaskâra_ in interpreting "_sa@mjñâkarma_" in II. i. 18, 19 as a genitive compound while _Upaskâra_ makes it a _dvandva_ compound. Upaskâra'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 _Upaskâra._]

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 (_prasiddhipûrvakatvât 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 vâyu. 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 _sâmânyatod@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@nâda 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 Yajñadatta" 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 Yajñadatta goes, there comes the doubt whether by Devadatta or Yajñadatta 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 (_avidyâ_) [Footnote ref 2]. Colour is visible in a thing which is great (_mahat_) and compounded. Air (_vâyu_) is not perceived to have colour, though it is great and made up of parts, because it has not the actuality of colour (_rûpasamskâra_--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 _Upaskâra_. I think the three sûtras "_Sukhaduhkhajñananispattyavis'esadekatmyam," "vyavasthato nana,"_ and _"vastrasâmarthyat 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 _Upaskâra,_ which regards this sûtra "_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 _udbhûtarûpavattva_ and _anudbhûtarûpavattva_. The word _samskâra_ 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 _Upaskâra_ 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@takâranaka_). The arrow first acquires motion by specially directed movement, and then on account of its inertia (_vegasamskâra_) 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 _Upaskâra_ of S'ankara Mis'ra on the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ of Ka@nâda. 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@takâritam_) 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, âkâs'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. Âkâs'a and âtman are called _mahân_ or _paramamahân_ (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 (âkâs'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 _Upaskâra_ in the interpretation of this sûtra.]

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 (_yutasiddhyabhâvât_). 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 (_avidyâ_) 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 (_vidyâ_). In the tenth it is said that pleasure and pain are not cognitions, since they are not related to doubt and certainty.

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Upaskâra_ here explains that it is intended that the senses are produced by those specific elements, but this cannot be found in the sûtras.]

[Footnote 2: In the previous three kinds of non-existence, _prâgabhâva_ (negation before production), _dhvamsâbhâva_ (negation after destruction), and _anyonyabhava_ (mutual negation of each other in each other), have been described. The fourth one is _sâmânyâbhâva_ (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 Nyâya sûtras [Footnote ref 1].

The _Nyâya sûtras_ begin with an enumeration of the sixteen subjects, viz. means of right knowledge (_pramâ@na_), object of right knowledge (_prameya_), doubt (_sa@ms'aya_), purpose (_prayojana_), illustrative instances (_d@r@s@tânta_), accepted conclusions (_siddhânta_), premisses (_avayava_), argumentation (_tarka_), ascertainment (_nir@naya_), debates (_vâda_), disputations (_jalpa_), destructive criticisms (_vita@n@dâ_), fallacy (_hetvâbhâsa_), quibble (_chala_), refutations (_jâti_), points of opponent's defeat (_nigrahasthâna_), and hold that by a thorough knowledge of these the highest good (_nihs'reyasa_), is attained. In the second sûtra it is said that salvation (_apavarga_) is attained by the successive disappearance of false knowledge (_mithyâjñâna_), 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 (_anumâna_), 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 (_pûrvavat_), effect to cause (_s'e@savat_), and inference from common characteristics (_sâmânyato d@r@s@ta_). Upamâna is the knowing of anything by similarity with any well-known thing.

S'abda is defined as the testimony of reliable authority (âpta) [Footnote ref 2].

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This is a brief summary of the doctrines found in _Nyâya sûtras_, supplemented here and there with the views of Vâtsyâyana, the commentator. This follows the order of the sûtras, and tries to present their ideas with as little additions from those of later day Nyâya as possible. The general treatment of Nyâya-Vais'e@sika expounds the two systems in the light of later writers and commentators.]

[Footnote 2: It is curious to notice that Vâtsyâyana says that an ârya, a @r@si or a mleccha (foreigner), may be an âpta (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 (_âtman_), 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, vâyu and âkâs'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@tânta_) is that on which both the common man and the expert (_parîk@saka_) hold the same opinion. Established texts or conclusions (_siddhânta_) are of four kinds, viz (1) those which are accepted by all schools of thought called the _sarvatantrasiddhânta_; (2) those which are held by one school or similar schools but opposed by others called the _pratitantrasiddhânta_; (3) those which being accepted other conclusions will also naturally follow called _adhikara@nasiddhânta_; (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 (_abhyupagamasiddhânta_) [Footnote ref 4]. The premisses are five:

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Here I have followed Vâtsyâyana's meaning.]

[Footnote 2: Vâtsyâyana 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: Vâtsyâyana wants to emphasise that there is no bliss in salvation, but only cessation from pain.]

[Footnote 4: I have followed Vâtsyâyana's interpretation here.]

296

(1) _pratijñâ_ (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) _udâhara@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, vâda, jalpa, vita@n@dâ, the fallacies (hetvâbhâsa), chala, jâti, and nigrahasthâna, which have been enumerated in the first sûtra.

The second book deals with the refutations of objections against the means of right knowledge (pramâna). 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 pramâ@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 Nyâya 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: _Yathâpas'câtsiddhena s'abdena pûrvasiddham âtodyamanumîyate sâdhyam ca âtodyam sâdhanam ca s'abda@h antarhite hyâtodye svanata@h anumânam bhavatîti, vî@nâ vâdyate ve@nu@h pûryyate iti svanavis'e@se@na âtodyavis'e@sam pratipadyate tathâ pûrvasiddham upalabdhivi@sayam pas'câtsiddhena upalabdhihetunâ pratipadyate. Vâtsyâyana bhâ@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 (pramâ@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 Nyáya 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 (upamána) as a means of knowledge and the validity of the Vedas is then proved. The four pramâ@nas of perception, inference, analogy, and scripture

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Here the sûtras, II. i. 20-28, are probably later interpolations to answer criticisms, not against the Nyâya doctrine of perception, but against the wording of the definition of perception as given in the,_Nyâya sûtra_, II. i. 4.]

[Footnote 2: This is a refutation of the doctrines of the Buddhists, who rejected the existence of wholes (avayavî). On this subject a later Buddhist monograph by Pandita As'oka (9th century A.D.), _Avayavinirâkara@na_ in _Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts_, may be referred to.]

[Footnote 3: _Pûrvodakavis'i@s@tam khalu var@sodakan s'îghrataram srotasâ bahutaraphenaphalapar@nakâs@thâdivahanañcopalabhamâna@h pûr@natvena, nadya upari v@r@sto deva ityanuminoti nodakab@rddhimâtre@na. V@atsyâyana bhâ@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 arthâpatti (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 abhâva (non-existence) as separate pramâ@nas for the tradition is included in verbal testimony and arthâpatti, sambhava and abhâva are included within inference.

The validity of these as pramâ@nas is recognized, but they are said to be included in the four pramâ@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 (_jâti_), individuals (_vyakti_), and the specific position of the limbs (_âk@rti_), by which the class notion is manifested. Class (_jâti_} is defined as that which produces the notion of sameness (_samânaprasavâtmikâ jâti@h_).

The third book begins with the proofs for the existence of the self or âtman. 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 Vâtsyâyana, 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 Sâ@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 Sâ@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, âtman and external objects. The Buddhist objection against the Sâ@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 Nyâya; 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 Sâ@mkhya did not believe that the senses were constituted of the gross elements. But the Sâ@mkhya-Yoga view represented in _Âtreya-sa@mhitâ_ (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 (_âtman_) takes place within the body and not in that part of âtman 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 (âtman) 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 râga (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. Îs'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: _Nyâya sûtra_ III. ii. 44.]

301

The doctrine of the nihilistic Buddhists (s'ûnyavâdin 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@mkâra_) 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 Vijñânavâdins 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 (_nigrahasthâna_) and futilities (_jâti_).

Caraka, Nyâya sûtras and Vais'e@sika sûtras.

When we compare the _Nyâya sûtras_ with the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ 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: Vâtsyâyana notes that this is the salvation of him who has known Brahman, IV. i. 63.]

[Footnote 2: A reference to the _Suvar@naprabhâsa sûtra_ 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 Sarasvatî (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 (jâti) quibbles (chala), etc., relating to disputations as found in the _Nyâya sûtra_ 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 _Nyâya sûtra_ and _Caraka-sa@mhitâ_ which have treated of these matters. Caraka's description of some of the categories (e.g. d@r@s@tânta, prayojana, pratijñâ and vita@n@dâ) follows very closely the definitions given of those in the _Nyâya sûtras_. There are others such as the definitions of jalpa, chala, nigrahasthâna, etc., where the definitions of two authorities differ more. There are some other logical categories mentioned in Caraka (e.g. _prati@s@thâpanâ, jijñâsâ, vyavasâya, vâkyado@sa, vâkyapras'a@msâ, upalambha, parihâra, abhyanujñâ_, etc.) which are not found in the _Nyâya sûtra_ [Footnote ref 1]. Again, the various types of futilities (jâti) and points of opponent's refutation (nigrahasthâna) mentioned in the _Nyâya sûtra_ 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, upamâna_ in _Nyâya sûtra, arthâpatti_ in _Nyâya sûtra_ and _arthaprâpti_ in _Caraka_. Caraka does not seem to know anything about the Nyâya 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 _Nyâya sûtras_. If we leave out the varieties of jâti and nigrahasthâna of the fifth book, there is on the whole a great agreement between the treatment of Caraka and that of the _Nyâya sûtras_. It seems therefore in a high degree probable that both Caraka and the _Nyâya sûtras_ 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 _Nyâya sûtras_ 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 _Nyâya sûtras_ is that of a polemic against the doctrines which could be attributed to the Sautrântika Buddhists, the Vijñânavâda Buddhists, the nihilists, the Sâ@mkhya, the Cârvâka, 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 (_anumâna_) as _pûrvavat, s'e@savat and sâmânyatod@r@s@ta_.]

303

further allusion elsewhere. The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ as we have already seen had argued only against the Mîmâ@msâ, and ultimately agreed with them on most points. The dispute with Mîmâ@msâ in the _Nyâya sûtras_ 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 prâmâ@nyavâda_)and the akhyâti doctrine of illusion of the Mîmâ@msists, which form the two chief points of discussion between later Mîmâ@msâ and later Nyâya, are never alluded to in the _Nyâya sûtras_. The advocacy of Yoga methods (_Nyâya sûtras_, 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 _Nyâya sûtras_, and the Japanese tradition that Mirok added them later on as Mahâmahopâdhyâya Haraprasâda S'astri has pointed out [Footnote ref l] is not improbable.

The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_, III.i.18 and III.ii.1, describe perceptional knowledge as produced by the close proximity of the self (âtman), 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@mskâra (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 Nyâya. The _Nyâya sûtras_ give a more technical definition of perception, but do not bring in the questions of sa@mskâra or udbhûtarûpavattva which Vais'e@sika does. On the question of inference Nyâya gives three classifications as pûrvavat, s'e@savat and samânyatod@r@s@ta, but no definition. The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ 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 vyâpti (concomitance of _hetu_ (reason) and _sâdhya_ (probandum)) which became so important in later Nyâya has never been properly formulated either in the _Nyâya sûtras_ or in the Vais'e@sika. _Vais'e@sika sutra_, III. i. 24, no doubt assumes the knowledge of concomitance between hetu and sadhya (_prasiddhipûrvakatvât apades'asya_),

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _J.A.S.B._ 1905.]

304

but the technical vyâpti is not known, and the connotation of the term _prasiddhipûrvakatva_ of Vais'e@sika seems to be more loose than the term _vyâpti_ as we know it in the later Nyâya. The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ do not count scriptures (_s'abda_) as a separate pramâ@na, but they tacitly admit the great validity of the Vedas. With _Nyâya sûtras_ s'abda as a pramâ@na applies not only to the Vedas, but to the testimony of any trustworthy person, and Vâtsyâyana says that trustworthy persons may be of three kinds _@r@si, ârya_ and _mleccha_ (foreigners). Upamâna which is regarded as a means of right cognition in Nyâya is not even referred to in the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_. The _Nyâya sûtras_ know of other pramâ@nas, such as _arthâpatti, sambhava_ and _aitihya_, but include them within the pramâ@nas admitted by them, but the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ do not seem to know them at all [Footnote ref 1]. The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ believe in the perception of negation (abhâva) through the perception of the locus to which such negation refers (IX. i. 1-10). The _Nyâya sûtras_ (II. ii. 1, 2, 7-12) consider that abhâva 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 Nyâya and the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ about the acceptance of abhâva as being due to perception, yet their method of handling the matter is different. The _Nyâya sûtras_ say nothing about the categories of _dravya, gu@na, karma, vis'e@sa_ and _samavâya_ which form the main subjects of Vais'e@ska discussions [Footnote ref 3]. The _Nyâya sûtras_ 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 sûtras_ do not mention the name of "Îs'vara," whereas the _Nyâya sûtras_ try to prove his existence on eschatological grounds. The reasons given in support of the existence of self in the _Nyâya sûtras_ 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 pramâ@nas is Caraka. But he also gives an interpretation of sambhava which is different from Nyâya and calls _arthâpatti arthaprâpti_ (_Caraka_ III. viii.).]

[Footnote 2: The details of this example are taken from Vâtsyâyana's commentary.]

[Footnote 3: The _Nyâya sûtra_ no doubt incidentally gives a definition of jâti as "_samânaprasavâtmikâ jâti@h_" (II. ii. 71).]

305

Vaisesika lays its main emphasis on self-consciousness as a fact of knowledge. Both the Nyâya and the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ admit the existence of atoms, but all the details of the doctrine of atomic structure in later Nyâya-Vais'e@sika are absent there. The Vai'se@sika calls salvation _ni@hs'reyasa_ or _mok@sa_ and the Nyâya _apavarga_. Mok@sa with Vais'e@sika is the permanent cessation of connection with body; the apavarga with Nyâya is cessation of pain [Footnote ref l]. In later times the main points of difference between the Vais'e@sika and Nyâya 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@sâbuddhi--notion of two, then a notion of two-ness, and then the notion of two things); again, the doctrine of pilupâka (changes of qualities by heat are produced in atoms and not in molecules as Nyâya held) was held by Vais'e@sika, which the Naiyâyikas did not admit [Footnote ref 2]. But as the _Nyâya sûtras_ are silent on these points, it is not possible to say that such were really the differences between early Nyâya and early Vaise@sika. These differences may be said to hold between the later interpreters of Vais'e@sika and the later interpreters of Nyâya. The Vais'e@sika as we find it in the commentary of Pras'astapâda (probably sixth century A.D.), and the Nyâya 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 Nyâya-Vais'e@sika philosophy in this chapter is that which is found from the sixth century onwards.

The Vais'e@sika and Nyâya Literature.

It is difficult to ascertain definitely the date of the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ by Ka@nâda, also called Aulûkya the son of Ulûka, though there is every reason to suppose it to be pre-Buddhistic. It

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Professor Vanamâlî Vedântatîrtha quotes a passage from _Sa@mk@sepas'a@nkarajaya_, XVI. 68-69 in _J.A.S.B._, 1905, and another passage from a Nyâya writer Bhâsarvajña, pp. 39-41, in _J.A.S.B._, 1914, to show that the old Naiyâyikas 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 Nyâya or the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_, unless the cessation of pain with Nyâya is interpreted as meaning the resence of some sort of bliss or happiness.]

[Footnote 2: See Mâdhava's _Sarvadars'anasa@mgraha-Aulûkyadars'ana_.]

306

appears from the _Vâyu purâna_ that he was born in Prabhâsa near Dvârakâ, and was the disciple of Somas'armâ. The time of Pras'astapâda who wrote a bhâ@sya (commentary) of the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ cannot also unfortunately be ascertained. The peculiarity of Pras'astapâda's bhâ@sya is this that unlike other bhâ@syas (which first give brief explanations of the text of the sûtras and then continue to elaborate independent explanations by explaining the first brief comments), it does not follow the sûtras but is an independent dissertation based on their main contents [Footnote ref 1]. There were two other bhâ@syas on the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_, namely _Râva@na-bhâ@sya_ and _Bharâdvâja-v@rtti_, but these are now probably lost. References to the former are found in _Kira@nâvalîbhâskara_ of Padmanâbha Mis'ra and also in _Ratnaprabhâ_ 2. 2. II. Four commentaries were written on this bhâ@sya, namely _Vyomavatî_ by Vyomas'ekharâcârya, _Nyâyakandalî_ by S'ridhara, _Kira@nâvalî_ by Udayana (984 A.D.) and _Lîlâvatî_ S'rîvatsâcârya. In addition to these Jagadîs'a Bha@t@tâcârya of Navadvîpa and S'a@nkara Mis'ra wrote two other commentaries on the _Pras'astapâda-bhâsya_, namely _Bhâsyasûkti_ and _Ka@nâda-rahasya_. S'a@nkara Mis'ra (1425 A.D.) also wrote a commentary on the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ called the _Upaskâra_. Of these _Nyâya-kandalî_ of S'rîdhara 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 Bhûris@r@s@ti in Bengal (Râ@dha). His father's name was Baladeva and mother's name was Acchokâ and he wrote his work in 913 S'aka era (990 A.D.) as he himself writes at the end of his work.

The _Nyâya sûtra_ was written by Ak@sapâda or Gautama, and the earliest commentary on it written by Vâtsyâyana is known as the _Vâtsyâyana-bhâ@sya_. The date of Vâtsyâyana has not

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The bhâ@sya of Pras'astapâda can hardly he called a bhâ@sya (elaborate commentary). He himself makes no such claim and calls his work a compendium of the properties of the categories (_Padârthadharmasa@mgraha_). He takes the categories of _dravya, gu@na, karma, sâmânya, vis'e@sa_ and _samavâya_ 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 Nyâya-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 pilupâka in connection with the transformation of colours by heat occur in his narration for the first time as the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ 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@nâda 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 _Vârttika_ on Vâtsyâyana's bhâ@sya to establish the Nyâya views and to refute the criticisms of the Buddhist logician Di@nnâga (about 500 A.D.) in his _Pramâ@nasamuccaya_. Vâcaspatimis'ra (840 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on the _Nyâyavârttika_ of Udyotakara called _Nyâyavârttikatâtparya@tîkâ_ in order to make clear the right meanings of Udyotakara's _Vârttika_ which was sinking in the mud as it were through numerous other bad writings (_dustarakunibandhapa@nkamagnânâm_). Udayana (984 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on the _Tâtparya@tîkâ_ called _Tâtparya@tîkâparis'uddhi_. Varddhamâna (1225 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on that called the _Nyâyanibandhaprakâs'a_. Padmanâbha wrote a sub-commentary on that called _Varddhamânendu_ and S'a@nkara Mis'ra (1425 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on that called the _Nyâyatâtparyama@n@dana_. In the seventeenth century Vis'vanâtha wrote an independent short commentary known as _Vis'vanâthav@rtti_, on the _Nyâya sûtra_, and Râdhâmohana wrote a separate commentary on the _Nyâya sûtras_ known as _Nyâyasûtravivara@na_. In addition to these works on the _Nyâya sûtras_ many other independent works of great philosophical value have been written on the Nyâya system. The most important of these in medieval times is the _Nyâyamañjari_ of Jayanta (880 A.D.), who flourished shortly after Vâcaspatimis'ra. Jayanta chooses some of the _Nyâya sûtras_ for interpretation, but he discusses the Nyâya views quite independently, and criticizes the views of other systems of Indian thought of his time. It is far more comprehensive than Vâcaspati's _Tâtparya@tîkâ_, and its style is most delightfully lucid. Another important work is Udayana's _Kusumâñjali_ in which he tries to prove the existence of Îs'vara (God). This work ought to be read with its commentary _Prakâs'a_ by Varddhamâna (1225 A.D.) and its sub-commentary _Makaranda_ by Rucidatta (1275 A.D.). Udayana's _Âtmatattvaviveka_ is a polemical work against the Buddhists, in which he tries to establish the Nyâya doctrine of soul. In addition to these we have a number of useful works on Nyâya in later times. Of these the following deserve special mention in connection with the present work. _Bhâ@sâpariccheda_ by Vis'vanâtha with its commentaries _Muktâvalî, Dinakarî_ and _Râmarudrî, Tarkasamgraha_ with _Nyâyanir@naya, Tarkabkâ@sâ_ of Kes'ava Mis'ra with

308

the commentary _Nyâyapradîpa, Saptapadârthî_ of S'ivâditya, _Târkikarak@sâ_ of Varadarâja with the commentary _Ni@ska@n@taka_ of Mallinâtha, _Nyâyasâra_ of Mâdhava Deva of the city of Dhâra and _Nyâyasiddhântamañjarî_ of Jânakinâtha Bha@t@tâcarya with the _Nyâyamanjarisara_ by Yâdavâcârya, and _Nyâyasiddhântadîpa_ of S'a@sadhara with _Prabhâ_ by S'e@sânantâcârya.

The new school of Nyâya philosophy known as Navya-Nyâya began with Ga@nges'a Upâdhyâya of Mithilâ, about 1200 A.D. Ga@nges'a wrote only on the four pramâ@nas admitted by the Nyâya, viz. pratyak@sa, anumâna, upamâna, and s'abda, and not on any of the topics of Nyâya metaphysics. But it so happened that his discussions on anumâna (inference) attracted unusually great attention in Navadvîpa (Bengal), and large numbers of commentaries and commentaries of commentaries were written on the anumâna portion of his work _Tattvacintâma@ni, and many independent treatises on sabda and anumâna were also written by the scholars of Bengal, which became thenceforth for some centuries the home of Nyâya studies. The commentaries of Raghunâtha S'iroma@ni (1500 A.D.), Mathurâ Bha@t@tâcârya (1580 A.D.), Gadâdhara Bha@t@tâcârya (1650 A.D.) and Jagadîsa Bha@t@tâcârya (1590 A.D.), commentaries on S'iroma@ni's commentary on _Tattvacintâmani, had been very widely read in Bengal. The new school of Nyâya became the most important study in Navadvîpa 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 Nyâya was started in Mithilâ (Behar); but from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century Bengal became pre-eminently the home of Nyâya studies. See Mr Cakravarttî's paper, _J. A.S.B._ 1915. I am indebted to it for some of the dates mentioned in this section.]

[Footnote 2: _Îs'varânumâna_ of Raghunatha as well as his _Padârthatattvanirûpa@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 Nyâya system is concerned, though Ak@sapâda 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 Nyâya account of logic and made valuable contributions. In Jaina logic _Das'avaikâlikaniryukti_ of Bhadrabâhu (357 B.C.), Umâsvâti's _Tattvârthâdhigama sûtra_, _Nyâyâvatâra_ of Siddhasena Divâkara (533 A.D.) Mâ@nikya Nandi's (800 A.D.) _Parîk@sâmukha sûtra_, and _Pramâ@nanayatattvâlokâla@mkâra_ of Deva Sûri (1159 A.D.) and _Prameyakamalamârta@n@da_ of Prabhâcandra deserve special notice. _Pramâ@nasamuccaya_ and _Nyâyapraves'a_ of Di@nnâga (500 A.D.), _Pramâ@nayârttika kârikâ_ and _Nyâyabindu_ of Dharmakîrtti (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 _Vâtsyâyana bhâ@sya_ and the Udyotakara's _Vârttika_ 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@nnâga's criticism of Hindu Nyâya that roused Udyotakara to write the _Vârttika_. 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 Nyâya in the Buddhist style namely _Nyâyasâra_ of Bhâsarvajña. Other older Hindu works generally treated of

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Indian Logic Medieval School_, by Dr S.C. Vidyâbhû@sa@na, for a bibliography of Jain and Buddhist Logic.]

310

inference only along with metaphysical and other points of Nyâya interest [Footnote ref 1].

The main doctrine of the Nyâya-Vais'e@sika Philosophy [Footnote ref 2].

The Nyâya-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 Nyâya-Vais'e@sikas depended solely on experience and on valid reasons, they dismissed the Sâ@mkhya cosmology, but accepted the atomic doctrine of the four elements (_bhûtas_), earth (_k@siti_), water (_ap_), fire (_tejas_), and air (_marut_). These atoms are eternal; the fifth substance (_âkâs'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 âkâs'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 (_kâla_) as extending from the past through the present to the

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Almost all the books on Nyâya 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 Nyâya in Bengal," by Mr. Cakravarttî in _J.A.S.B._ 1915.]

[Footnote 2: I have treated Nyâya 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 _Nyâyakandalî_, 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 Sâ@mkhya did not admit the existence of any real time; to them the unit of kâla 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 kâla as a separate entity is a creation of our buddhi _(buddhinirmâ@na) as it represents the order or mode in which the buddhi records its perceptions. But kâla in Nyâya-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. Sâ@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 Nyâya-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; kâla 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 _(âtman)_ which is all-pervading. There are separate âtmans for each person; the qualities of knowledge, feelings of pleasure and pain, desire, etc. belong to _âtman_. 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 _Nyâyakandalî,_ pp. 64-66, and _Nyâyamañjarî_, pp. 136-139. The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ regarded time as the cause of things which suffer change but denied it of things which are eternal.]

[Footnote 2: See _Nyâyakandalî,_ pp. 66-69, and _Nyayamañjarî_, 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 (_sâmânya_), speciality or specific individuality (_vis'e@sa_) and the relation of inherence (_samavâya_) cannot show themselves without the help of substance (_dravya_). Dravya is thus the place of rest (_âs'rayâ_) on which all the others depend (_âs'@rta_). Dravya, gu@na, karma, sâmânya, vis'e@sa, and samavâya 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 Nyâya-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 (_padârtha_), 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 Sâ@mkhya or Buddhism we see that for each unit of sensation (say

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Abhâva_ (negation) as dependent on bhâva (position) is mentioned in the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_. Later Nyâya writers such as Udayana include _abhâva_ as a separate category, but S'rîdhara a contemporary of Udayana rightly remarks that abhâva was not counted by Pras'astapâda as it was dependent on bhâva--"_abhâvasya prthaganupades'a@h bhâvapâratantryât na tvabhâvât_." _Nyâyakandalî_, p. 6, and _Lak@sa@nâvalî_, p. 2.]

[Footnote 2: "_Tattvato jñâte@su bâhyâdhyâtmike@su vi@saye@su do@sadars'anât viraktasya samîhâniv@rttau âtmajñasya tadarthâni karmânyakurvatah tatparityâgasâdhanâni s'rutism@rtyuditâni asa@nkalpitaphalâni upâdadânasya âtmajñânamabhyasyata@h prak@r@s@tanivarttakadharmopacaye sati paripakvâtmajñânasyâtyantikas'arîraviyogasya bhâvât._" _Ibid._ p. 7.]

313

whiteness) the latter would admit a corresponding real, but Nyâya-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 Padârthas: Dravya, Gu@na, Karma, Sâmânya, Vis'e@sa, Samavâya.

Of the six classes of entities or categories (_padârtha_) 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 _rûpa_ (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'rîdhara 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. Rûpa is the general name for the specific individual colours. There is the genus _rûpatva_ (colourness), and the rûpa gu@na (quality) is that on which rests this genus; rûpa 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@sâya) and bitter (tikta). Only k@siti and ap have taste. The natural taste of ap is sweetness. Rasa like rûpa 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 Sautrântika Buddhism, "yo yo vruddhâdhyâsavân nâsâveka@h." See Pa@n@ditâs'oka's _Avayavinirâkarana, Six Buddhist Nyâya tracts_.

[Footnote 2: The word "padârtha" literally means denotations of words.]

314

or air is apprehended as having odour on account of the presence of earth materials.

The fourth is _spars'a_ (touch), that quality which can be apprehended only by the skin. There are three kinds of touch, cold, hot, neither hot nor cold. Spars'a belongs to k@siti; ap, tejas, and vâyu. The fifth _s'abda_ (sound) is an attribute of âkâs'a. Had there been no âkâs'a there would have been no sound.

The sixth is sa@mkhyâ (number), that entity of quality belonging to things by virtue of which we can count them as one, two, three, etc. The conception of numbers two, three, etc. is due to a relative oscillatory state of the mind (_apek@sâbuddhi_); thus when there are two jugs before my eyes, I have the notion--This is one jug and that is another jug. This is called apek@sâbuddhi; then in the two jugs there arises the quality of twoness (_dvitva_) and then an indeterminate perception (_nirvikalpa-dvitva-gu@na_) of dvitva in us and then the determinate perceptions that there are the two jugs. The conceptions of other numbers as well as of many arise in a similar manner [Footnote ref 1].

The seventh is _parimiti_ (measure), that entity of quality in things by virtue of which we perceive them as great or small and speak of them as such. The measure of the partless atoms is called _parima@n@dala parimâ@na_; it is eternal, and it cannot generate the measure of any other thing. Its measure is its own absolutely; when two atoms generate a dyad (_dvya@nuka_) it is not the measure of the atom that generates the a@nu (atomic) and the _hrasva_ (small) measure of the dyad molecule (_dvya@nuka_), for then the size (_parimâ@na_) of it would have been still smaller than the measure of the atom (_parima@n@dala_), whereas the measure of the dya@nuka is of a different kind, namely the small (_hrasva_) [Footnote ref 2]. Of course two atoms generate a dyad, but then the number (sa@mkhyâ) of the atom should be regarded as bringing forth a new kind of measure, namely the small (_hrasva_) measure in the dyads. So again when three dyads (dya@nuka) compose a trya@nuka the number and not the measure "small"

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This is distinctively a Vais'e@sika view introduced by Pras'astapâda. Nyâya seems to be silent on this matter. See S'a@nkara Mis'ra's _Upaskâra_, VII. ii. 8.]

[Footnote 2 It should be noted that the atomic measure appears in two forms as eternal as in "paramâ@nus" and non-eternal as in the dvya@nuka. The parima@n@dala parimâ@na is thus a variety of a@nuparimâ@na. The a@nuparimâ@na and the hrasvaparimâ@na represent the two dimensions of the measure of dvya@nukas as mahat and dîrgha are with reference to trya@nukas. See _Nyâyakandalî_, p. 133.]

315

(_hrasva_) of the dyad is the cause of the measure "great" (_mahat_) of the trya@nuka. But when we come to the region of these gross trya@nukas we find that the "great" measure of the trya@nukas is the cause of the measure of other grosser bodies composed by them. For as many trya@nukas constitute a gross body, so much bigger does the thing become. Thus the cumulation of the trya@nukas of mahat parimâ@na makes things of still more mahat parimâ@na. The measure of trya@nukas is not only regarded as mahat but also as dîrgha (long) and this dîrgha parimâ@na has to be admitted as coexisting with mahat parimâ@na but not identical, for things not only appear as great but also as long (_dîrgha_). Here we find that the accumulation of trya@nukas means the accumulation of "great" (_mahat_) and "long" (_dîrgha_) parimâ@na, and hence the thing generated happens to possess a measure which is greater and longer than the individual atoms which composed them. Now the hrasva parimâ@na of the dyads is not regarded as having a lower degree of greatness or length but as a separate and distinct type of measure which is called small (_hrasva_). As accumulation of grossness, greatness or length, generates still more greatness, grossness and length in its effect, so an accumulation of the hrasva (small) parim_a@na ought to generate still more hrasva parim_a@na, and we should expect that if the hrasva measure of the dyads was the cause of the measure of the trya@nukas, the trya@nukas should be even smaller than the dya@nukas. So also if the atomic and circular (_parima@n@dala_) size of the atoms is regarded as generating by their measure the measure of the dya@nukas, then the measure of the dya@nukas ought to be more atomic than the atoms. The atomic, small, and great measures should not be regarded as representing successively bigger measures produced by the mere cumulation of measures, but each should be regarded as a measure absolutely distinct, different from or foreign to the other measure. It is therefore held that if grossness in the cause generates still more greatness in the effect, the smallness and the parima@n@dala measure of the dyads and atoms ought to generate still more smallness and subtleness in their effect. But since the dyads and the trya@nuka molecules are seen to be constituted of atoms and dyads respectively, and yet are not found to share the measure of their causes, it is to be argued that the measures of the atoms and dyads do not generate the measure of their effects, but it is their _number_ which is the cause

316

of the measure of the latter. This explains a@nuparimâ@na, hrasva parimâ@na, mahat parimâ@na, and dîrgha parimâ@na. The parimâ@na of âkâs'a, kâla, dik and âtman which are regarded as all-pervasive, is said to be paramamahat (absolutely large). The parimâ@nas of the atoms, âkâs'a, kâla, dik, manas, and âtman are regarded as eternal (nitya). All other kinds of parimâ@nas as belonging to non-eternal things are regarded as non-eternal.

The eighth is _p@rthaktva_ (mutual difference or separateness of things), that entity or quality in things by virtue of which things appear as different (e.g. this is different from that). Difference is perceived by us as a positive notion and not as a mere negation such as this jug is not this pot.

The ninth is _sa@myoga_ (connection), that entity of gu@na by virtue of which things appear to us as connected.

The tenth is _vibhâga_ (separation), that entity of gu@na which destroys the connection or contact of things.

The eleventh and twelfth gu@nas, _paratva_ and _aparatva_, give rise in us to the perceptions of long time and short time, remote and near.

The other gu@nas such as _buddhi_(knowledge),_sukha_ (happiness), _du@hkha_ (sorrow), _icchâ_ (will), _dve@sa_ (antipathy or hatred) and _yatna_ (effort) can occur only with reference to soul.

The characteristic of _gurutva_ (heaviness) is that by virtue of which things fall to the ground. The gu@na of _sneha_ (oiliness) belongs to water. The gu@na of _sa@mskâra_ is of three kinds, (i) _vega_ (velocity) which keeps a thing moving in different directions, (2) _sthiti-sthâpaka_ (elasticity) on account of which a gross thing tries to get back its old state even though disturbed, (3) _bhâvanâ_ is that quality of âtman by which things are constantly practised or by which things experienced are remembered and recognized [Footnote ref l]. _Dharma_ is the quality the presence of which enables the soul to enjoy happiness or to attain salvation [Footnote ref 2]. _Adharma_ is

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Pras'astapâda says that bhâvanâ is a special characteristic of the soul, contrary to intoxication, sorrow and knowledge, by which things seen, heard and felt are remembered and recognized. Through unexpectedness (as the sight of a camel for a man of South India), repetition (as in studies, art etc.) and intensity of interest, the sa@mskâra becomes particularly strong. See _Nyâyakandalî_, p. 167. Ka@nâda however is silent on these points. He only says that by a special kind of contact of the mind with soul and also by the sa@mskâra, memory (sm@rti) is produced (ix. 2. 6).]

[Footnote 2: Pras'astapâda speaks of _dharma_ (merit) as being a quality of the soul. Thereupon S'ridhara points out that this view does not admit that dharma is a power of karma (_nakarmasâmarthyam_). Sacrifice etc. cannot be dharma for these actions being momentary they cannot generate the effects which are only to be reaped at a future time. If the action is destroyed its power (_sâmarthya_) cannot last. So dharma is to be admitted as a quality generated in the self by certain courses of conduct which produce happiness for him when helped by certain other conditions of time, place, etc. Faith (_s'raddhâ_), non-injury, doing good to all beings, truthfulness, non-stealing, sex-control, sincerity, control of anger, ablutions, taking of pure food, devotion to particular gods, fasting, strict adherence to scriptural duties, and the performance of duties assigned to each caste and stage of life, are enumerated by Pras'astapâda as producing dharma. The person who strictly adheres to these duties and the _yamas_ and _niyamas_ (cf. Patañjali's Yoga) and attains Yoga by a meditation on the six padârthas attains a dharma which brings liberation (_mok@sa_). S'rîdhara refers to the Sâ@mkhya-Yoga account of the method of attaining salvation (_Nyâyakandalî_, pp. 272-280). See also Vallabha's _Nyâyalilâvatî_, pp. 74-75. (Bombay, 1915.)]

317

the opposite quality, the presence of which in the soul leads a man to suffer. _Ad@r@s@ta_ or destiny is that unknown quality of things and of the soul which brings about the cosmic order, and arranges it for the experience of the souls in accordance with their merits or demerits.

_Karma_ means movement; it is the third thing which must be held to be as irreducible a reality as dravya or gu@na. There are five kinds of movement, (1) upward, (2) downward, (3) contraction, (4) expansion, (5) movement in general. All kinds of karmas rest on substances just, as the gu@nas do, and cause the things to which they belong to move.

_Sâmânya_ is the fourth category. It means the genus, or aspect of generality or sameness that we notice in things. Thus in spite of the difference of colour between one cow and another, both of them are found to have such a sameness that we call them cows. In spite of all diversity in all objects around us, they are all perceived as _sat_ or existing. This sat or existence is thus a sameness, which is found to exist in all the three things, dravya, gu@na, and karma. This sameness is called _sâmânya_ or _jâti_, and it is regarded as a separate thing which rests on dravya, gu@na, or karma. This highest genus _sattâ_ (being) is called _parajâti_ (highest universal), the other intermediate jâtis are called aparajâti (lower universals), such as the genus of dravya, of karma, or of gu@na, or still more intermediate jâtis such as _gotvâjâti_ (the genus cow), _nîlatvajâti_ (the genus blue). The intermediate jâtis or genera sometimes appear to have a special aspect as a species, such as _pas'utva_ (animal jâti) and _gotva_ (the cow jâti); here however gotva appears as a species, yet it is in reality nothing but a jâti. The aspect as species has no separate existence. It is jâti which from one aspect appears as genus and from another as species.

318

This jâti or _sâmânya_ thus must be regarded as having a separate independent reality though it is existent in dravya, gu@na and karma. The Buddhists denied the existence of any independent reality of sâmânya, but said that the sameness as cow was really but the negation of all non-cows (_apoha_). The perception of cow realizes the negation of all non-cows and this is represented in consciousness as the sameness as cow. He who should regard this sameness to be a separate and independent reality perceived in experience might also discover two horns on his own head [Footnote ref 1]. The Nyâya-Vais'e@sika said that negation of non-cows is a negative perception, whereas the sameness perceived as cow is a positive perception, which cannot be explained by the aforesaid negation theory of the Buddhists. Sâmânya has thus to be admitted to have a separate reality. All perception as sameness of a thing is due to the presence of this thing in that object [Footnote ref l]. This jâti is eternal or non-destructible, for even with the destruction of individuals comprehended within the jâti, the latter is not destroyed [Footnote ref 2].

Through _vis'e@sa_ things are perceived as diverse. No single sensation that we receive from the external world probably agrees with any other sensation, and this difference must be due to the existence of some specific differences amongst the atoms themselves. The, specific difference existing in the atoms, emancipated souls and minds must be regarded as eternally existing, and it

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The Buddhist Panditâs'oka says that there is no single thing running through different individuals (e.g. cooks) by virtue of which the sâmânya could be established, for if it did exist then we could have known it simply by seeing any cook without any reference to his action of cooking by virtue of which the notion of generality is formed. If there is a similarity between the action of cooks that cannot establish jâti in the cooks, for the similarity applies to other things, viz. the action of the cooks. If the specific individualities of a cow should require one common factor to hold them together, then these should require another and that another, and we have a regressus ad infinitum. Whatever being perceptible is not perceived is non-existent (_yadyadupalabdhilaksanapraptam sannopalabhyate tattadasat_). Sâmânya is such, therefore sâmânya is non existent. No sâmânya can be admitted to exist as an entity. But it is only as a result of the impressions of past experiences of existence and non existence that this notion is formed and transferred erroneously to external objects. Apart from this no sâmânya can be pointed out as being externally perceptible --_Sâmânyadûsanadikprasaritâ_--in _Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts_. The Vedanta also does not think that either by perception or by inference we can know jâti as a separate substance. So it discards jâti. See _Vedântaparibhâsâ_, _Sikhamani_ and _Mamprabhâ_, pp. 69-71. See also Sriharsa's _Khan@danakhandakhadya, pp 1079-1086.]

[Footnote 2: Similarity (sâdrs'ya_) is not regarded as a separate category, for it is defined as identity in difference (_tadbhinnatve sati tadgatabhûyodharmavattvam_).]

319

is on account of its presence that atoms appear as different to the yogins who can perceive them.

_Samavâya_, the inseparable relation of inherence, is a relation by virtue of which two different things such as substance and attribute, substance and karma, substance and sâmânya, karana (cause) and kârya (effect), atoms and vis'e@sa, appear so unified that they represent one whole, or one identical inseparable reality. This peculiar relation of inseparable inherence is the cause why substance, action, and attribute, cause and effect, and jâti in substance and attribute appear as indissolubly connected as if they are one and the same thing Samyoga or contact may take place between two things of the same nature which exist as disconnected and may later on be connected (_yutasiddha_), such as when I put my pen on the table. The pen and the table are both substances and were disconnected, the samynga relation is the gu@na by virtue of which they appear to be connected for a while. Samavâya however makes absolutely difficient things such as dravya and gu@na and karma or karana and karya (clay and jug) appear as one inseparable whole (_ayutasiddha_). This relation is thus a separate and independent category. This is not regarded as many like sa@myogas (contact) but as one and eternal because it has no cause. This or that object (eg. jug) may be destroyed but the samavâya relation which was never brought into being by anybody always remains [Footnote ref 1].

These six things are called the six padârthas or independent realities experienced in perception and expressed in language.

The Theory of Causation.

The Nyâya-Vais'e@sika in most of its speculations took that view of things which finds expression in our language, and which we tacitly assume as true in all our ordinary experience. Thus

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The Vedânta does not admit the existence of the relation of samavâya as subsisting between two different entities (e.g. substance and qualities). Thus S'a@nkara says (_Brahma-sûtrabhâ@sya II. ii. 13_) that if a samavâya relation is to be admitted to connect two different things, then another samavâya would be necessary to connect it with either of the two entities that it intended to connect, and that another, and so there will be a vicious infinite (_anavasthâ_). Nyâya, however, would not regard it as vicious at all. It is well to remember that the Indian systems acknowledge two kinds of _anavasthâ_--_prâmâ@nikî_ (valid infinite, as in case of the question of the seed and the tree, or of the avidyâ and the passions), and another _aprâmâ@nikî anavasthâ_ (vicious infinite) as when the admission of anything invokes an infinite chain before it can be completed.]

320

they admitted dravya, gu@na, karma and sâmânya, Vis'e@sa they had to admit as the ultimate peculiarities of atoms, for they did not admit that things were continually changing their qualities, and that everything could be produced out of everything by a change of the collocation or arrangement of the constituting atoms. In the production of the effect too they did not admit that the effect was potentially pre-existent in the cause. They held that the material cause (e.g. clay) had some power within it, and the accessory and other instrumental causes (such as the stick, the wheel etc.) had other powers; the collocation of these two destroyed the cause, and produced the effect which was not existent before but was newly produced. This is what is called the doctrine of _asatkâryavâda_. This is just the opposite of the Sâ@mkhya axiom, that what is existent cannot be destroyed _nâbhâvo vidyate sata@h_) and that the non-existent could never be produced (_nâsato vidyate bhâvah_). The objection to this view is that if what is non-existent is produced, then even such impossible things as the hare's horn could also be produced. The Nyâya-Vais'e@sika answer is that the view is not that anything that is non-existent can be produced, but that which is produced was non-existent [Footnote ref 1].

It is held by Mîmâ@msâ that an unseen power resides in the cause which produces the effect. To this Nyâya objects that this is neither a matter of observation nor of legitimate hypothesis, for there is no reason to suppose that there is any transcendental operation in causal movement as this can be satisfactorily explained by molecular movement (_parispanda_). There is nothing except the invariable time relation (antecedence and sequence) between the cause and the effect, but the mere invariableness of an antecedent does not suffice to make it the cause of what succeeds; it must be an unconditional antecedent as well (_anyathâsiddhis'ûnyasya niyatâpûrvavarttitâ_). Unconditionality and invariability are indispensable for _kâryakâra@na-bhâva_ or cause and effect relation. For example, the non-essential or adventitious accompaniments of an invariable antecedent may also be invariable antecedents; but they are not unconditional, only collateral or indirect. In other words their antecedence is conditional upon something else (_na svâtantrye@na_). The potter's stick is an unconditional invariable antecedent of the jar; but the colour

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Nyâyamuñjari_, p. 494.]

321

of a stick or its texture or size, or any other accompaniment or accident which does not contribute to the work done, is not an unconditional antecedent, and must not therefore be regarded as a cause. Similarly the co-effects of the invariable antecedents or what enters into the production of their co-effects may themselves be invariable antecedents; but they are not unconditional, being themselves conditioned by those of the antecedents of which they are effects. For example, the sound produced by the stick or by the potter's wheel invariably precedes the jar but it is a co-effect; and âkâs'a (ether) as the substrate and vâyu (air) as the vehicle of the sound enter into the production of this co-effect, but these are no unconditional antecedents, and must therefore be rejected in an enumeration of conditions or causes of the jar. The conditions of the conditions should also be rejected; the invariable antecedent of the potter (who is an invariable antecedent of the jar), the potter's father, does not stand in a causal relation to the potter's handiwork. In fact the antecedence must not only be unconditionally invariable, but must also be immediate. Finally all seemingly invariable antecedents which may be dispensed with or left out are not unconditional and cannot therefore be regarded as causal conditions. Thus Dr. Seal in describing it rightly remarks, "In the end, the discrimination of what is necessary to complete the sum of causes from what is dependent, collateral, secondary, superfluous, or inert (i.e. of the relevant from the irrelevant factors), must depend on the test of expenditure of energy. This test the Nyâya would accept only in the sense of an operation analysable into molar or molecular motion (_parispanda eva bhautiko vyâpâra@h karotyartha@h atîndriyastu vyâparo nâsti._ Jayanta's Mañjari Âhnika I), but would emphatically reject, if it is advanced in support of the notion of a mysterious causal power or efficiency (_s'akti_) [Footnote ref 1]." With Nyâya all energy is necessarily kinetic. This is a peculiarity of Nyâya--its insisting that the effect is only the sum or resultant of the operations of the different causal conditions--that these operations are of the nature of motion or kinetic, in other words it firmly holds to the view that causation is a case of expenditure of energy, i.e. a redistribution of motion, but at the same time absolutely repudiates the Sâ@mkhya conception of power or productive

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Dr P.C. Ray's _Hindu Chemistry_, 1909, pp. 249-250.]

322

efficiency as metaphysical or transcendental (_atîndriya_) and finds nothing in the cause other than unconditional invariable complements of operative conditions (_kâra@na-sâmagrî_), and nothing in the effect other than the consequent phenomenon which results from the joint operations of the antecedent conditions [Footnote ref 1]. Certain general conditions such as relative space (_dik_), time (_kâla_), the will of Îs'vara, destiny (_ad@r@s@ta_) are regarded as the common cause of all effects (_kâryatva-prayojaka_). Those are called _sâdhâra@na-kâra@na_ (common cause) as distinguished from the specific causes which determine the specific effects which are called _sâdhâra@na kâra@na_. It may not be out of place here to notice that Nyâya while repudiating transcendental power (_s'akti_) in the mechanism of nature and natural causation, does not deny the existence of metaphysical conditions like merit (_dharma_), which constitutes a system of moral ends that fulfil themselves through the mechanical systems and order of nature.

The causal relation then like the relation of genus to species, is a natural relation of concomitance, which can be ascertained only by the uniform and uninterrupted experience of agreement in presence and agreement in absence, and not by a deduction from a certain _a priori_ principle like that of causality or identity of essence [Footnote ref 2].

The material cause such as the clay is technically called the _samavâyi-kâra@na_ of the jug. _Samavâya_ means as we have seen an intimate, inseparable relation of inherence. A kâra@na is called _samavâyi_ when its materials are found inseparably connected with the materials of the effect. Asamavâyi-kâra@na is that which produces its characteristics in the effect through the medium of the samavâyi or material cause, e.g. the clay is not the cause of the colour of the jug but the colour of the clay is the cause of the colour of the jug. The colour of the clay which exists in the clay in inseparable relation is the cause of the colour of the jug. This colour of the clay is thus called the asamavâyi cause of the jug. Any quality (_gu@na_) or movement which existing in the samavâya cause in the samavâya relation determines the characteristics of the effect is called the asamavâyi-kâra@na. The instrumental

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Dr P.C. Ray's _Hindu Chemistry_, 1909, pp. 249-250.]

[Footnote 2: See for this portion Dr B.N. Seal's _Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus_, pp. 263-266. _Sarvadars'anasa@mgraha_ on Buddhism. _Nyâyamañjarî Bhâ@sâ-pariccheda_, with _Muktâvalî_ and _Dinakarî_, and _Tarkas@mgraha_. The doctrine of Anyathâsiddhi was systematically developed from the time of Ga@nges'a.]

323

_nimitta_ and accessory (_sahakâri_) causes are those which help the material cause to produce the effect. Thus the potter, the wheel and the stick may be regarded as the nimitta and the sahakãri causes of the effect.

We know that the Nyâya-Vais'e@sika regards the effect as nonexistent, before the operation of the cause in producing it, but it holds that the gu@nas in the cause are the causes of the gu@nas in the effect, e.g. the black colour of the clay is the cause of the black colour of the effect, except in cases where heat comes as an extraneous cause to generate other qualities; thus when a clay jug is burnt, on account of the heat we get red colour, though the colour of the original clay and the jug was black. Another important exception is to be found in the case of the production of the parimâ@nas of dvya@nukas and trasare@nus which are not produced by the parimâ@nas of an a@nu or a dya@nuka, but by their number as we have already seen.

Dissolution (Pralaya) and Creation (S@r@s@ti).

The doctrine of pralaya is accepted by all the Hindu systems except the Mîmâ@msâ [Footnote ref 1]. According to the Nyâya-Vais'e@sika view Îs'vara wishing to give some respite or rest to all living beings desires to bring about dissolution (_sa@mhâreccho bhavati_). Simultaneously with it the ad@r@s@ta force residing in all the souls and forming bodies, senses, and the gross elements, ceases to act (_s'akti-pratibandha_). As a result of this no further bodies, senses, or other products come into being. Then for the bringing about of the dissolution of all produced things (by the desire of Îs'vara) the separation of the atoms commences and thus all combinations as bodies or senses are disintegrated; so all earth is reduced to the disintegrated atomic state, then all ap, then all tejas and then all vâyu. These disintegrated atoms and the souls associated with dharma, adharma and past impressions (_sa@mskâra_) remain suspended in their own inanimate condition. For we know that souls in their natural condition are lifeless and knowledgeless, non-intelligent entities. It is only when these are connected with bodies that they possess knowledge through the activity of manas. In the state of pralaya owing to the ad@r@s@ta of souls the

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The doctrine of pralaya and s@r@s@ti is found only in later Nyâya-Vais'e@sika works, but the sûtras of both the systems seem to be silent on the matter.]

324

atoms do not conglomerate. It is not an act of cruelty on the part of Îs'vara that he brings about dissolution, for he does it to give some rest to the sufferings of the living beings.

At the time of creation, Îs'vara wishes to create and this desire of Îs'vara works in all the souls as ad@r@s@ta. This one eternal desire of Îs'vara under certain conditions of time (e.g. of pralaya) as accessory causes (_sahakâri_) helps the disintegration of atoms and at other times (e.g. that of creation) the constructive process of integration and unification of atoms for the world-creation. When it acts in a specific capacity in the diverse souls it is called ad@r@s@ta. At the time of dissolution the creative function of this ad@r@s@ta is suspended and at the time of creation it finds full play. At the time of creation action first begins in the vâyu atoms by the kinetic function of this ad@r@s@ta, by the contact of the souls with the atoms. By such action the air atoms come in contact with one another and the dvya@nukas are formed and then in a similar way the trya@nukas are formed, and thus vâyu originates. After vâyu, the ap is formed by the conglomeration of water atoms, and then the tejas atoms conglomerate and then the earth atoms. When the four elements are thus conglomerated in the gross form, the god Brahmâ and all the worlds are created by Îs'vara and Brahmâ is directed by Îs'vara to do the rest of the work. Brahmâ thus arranges for the enjoyment and suffering of the fruits of diverse kinds of karma, good or bad. Îs'vara brings about this creation not for any selfish purpose but for the good of all beings. Even here sorrows have their place that they may lead men to turn from worldly attachment and try for the attainment of the highest good, mukti. Moreover Îs'vara arranges for the enjoyment of pleasures and the suffering of pains according to the merits and demerits of men, just as in our ordinary experience we find that a master awards prizes or punishments according to good or bad deeds [Footnote ref 1]. Many Nyâya books do not speak of the appointment of a Brahmâ as deputy for supervision of the due disposal of the fruits of karma according to merit or demerit. It is also held that pralaya and creation were brought about in accordance with the karma of men, or that it may be due to a mere play (_lîlâ_) of Îs'vara. Îs'vara is one, for if there were many Îs'varas they might quarrel. The will of Îs'vara not only brings about dissolution and creation,

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyakandalî_, pp. 48-54.]

325

but also acts always among us in a general way, for without it our karmas could not ripen, and the consequent disposal of pleasures and sorrows to us and a corresponding change in the exterior world in the form of order or harmony could not happen. The exterior world is in perfect harmony with men's actions. Their merits and demerits and all its changes and modifications take place in accordance with merits and demerits. This desire (_icchâ_) of Îs'vara may thus be compared with the _icchâ_ of Îs'vara as we find it in the Yoga system.

Proof of the Existence of Îs'vara.

Sâ@mkhya asserts that the teleology of the prak@rti is sufficient to explain all order and arrangement of the cosmos. The Mîmâ@msakas, the Cârvâkas, the Buddhists and the Jains all deny the existence of Îs'vara (God). Nyâya believes that Îs'vara has fashioned this universe by his will out of the ever-existing atoms. For every effect (e.g. a jug) must have its cause. If this be so, then this world with all its order and arrangement must also be due to the agency of some cause, and this cause is Îs'vara. This world is not momentary as the Buddhists suppose, but is permanent as atoms, is also an effect so far as it is a collocation of atoms and is made up of parts like all other individual objects (e.g. jug, etc.), which we call effects. The world being an effect like any other effect must have a cause like any other effect. The objection made against this view is that such effects as we ordinarily perceive may be said to have agents as their causes but this manifest world with mountains, rivers, oceans etc. is so utterly different in form from ordinary effects that we notice every day, that the law that every effect must have a cause cannot be said to hold good in the present case. The answer that Nyâya gives is that the concomitance between two things must be taken in its general aspect neglecting the specific peculiarities of each case of observed concomitance. Thus I had seen many cases of the concomitance of smoke with fire, and had thence formed the notion that "wherever there is smoke there is fire"; but if I had only observed small puffs of smoke and small fires, could I say that only small quantities of smoke could lead us to the inference of fire, and could I hold that therefore large volumes of smoke from the burning of a forest should not be sufficient reason for us to infer the existence of fire in the forest?

326

Thus our conclusion should not be that only smaller effects are preceded by their causes, but that all effects are invariably and unconditionally preceded by causes. This world therefore being an effect must be preceded by a cause, and this cause is Îs'vara. This cause we cannot see, because Îs'vara has no visible body, not because he does not exist. It is sometimes said that we see every day that shoots come out of seeds and they are not produced by any agent. To such an objection the Nyâya answer is that even they are created by God, for they are also effects. That we do not see any one to fashion them is not because there is no maker of them, but because the creator cannot be seen. If the objector could distinctly prove that there was no invisible maker shaping these shoots, then only could he point to it as a case of contradiction. But so long as this is not done it is still only a doubtful case of enquiry and it is therefore legitimate for us to infer that since all effects have a cause, the shoots as well as the manifest world being effects must have a cause. This cause is Îs'vara. He has infinite knowledge and is all merciful. At the beginning of creation He created the Vedas. He is like our father who is always engaged in doing us good [Footnote ref 1].

Tht Nyâya-Vais'e@sika Physics.

The four kinds of atoms are earth, water, fire, and air atoms. These have mass, number, weight, fluidity (or hardness), viscosity (or its opposite), velocity, characteristic potential colour, taste, smell, or touch, not produced by the chemical operation of heat. Âkâs'a (space) is absolutely inert and structure-less being only as the substratum of sound, which is supposed to travel wave-like in the manifesting medium of air. Atomic combination is only possible with the four elements. Atoms cannot exist in an uncombined condition in the creation stage; atmospheric air however consists of atoms in an uncombined state.

Two atoms combine to form a binary molecule (_dvya@nuka_). Two, three, four, or five dvya@nukas form themselves into grosser molecules of trya@nuka, catura@nuka, etc. [Footnote ref 2]. Though this was the generally current view, there was also another view as has been pointed out by Dr B.N. Seal in his _Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus_, that the "atoms have also an inherent tendency to unite," and that

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Jayanta's _Nyâyamañjarî,_ pp. 190-204, and Udayana's _Kusumâñjali_ with _Prakâs'a_ and _Îs'varânumâna_ of Raghunâtha.]

[Footnote 2: _Kadâcit tribhirârabhyate iti trya@nukamityucyate, kadâcit caturbhirârabhyate kadâcit pañcabhiriti yathe@s@ta@m kalpanâ. Nyâyakandalî_, p. 32.]

327

they do so in twos, threes, or fours, "either by the atoms falling into groups of threes, fours, etc., directly, or by the successive addition of one atom to each preceding aggregate [Footnote ref l]." Of course the atoms are regarded as possessed of an incessant vibratory motion. It must however be noted in this connection that behind this physical explanation of the union of atoms there is the ad@r@s@ta, the will of Îs'vara, which gives the direction of all such unions in harmony with the principle of a "moral government of the universe," so that only such things are produced as can be arranged for the due disposal of the effects of karma. "An elementary substance thus produced by primary atomic combination may however suffer qualitative changes under the influence of heat (_pâkajotpatti_)" The impact of heat corpuscles decomposes a dvya@nuka into the atoms and transforms the characters of the atoms determining them all in the same way. The heat particles continuing to impinge reunite the atoms so transformed to form binary or other molecules in different orders or arrangements, which account for the specific characters or qualities finally produced. The Vais'e@sika holds that there is first a disintegration into simple atoms, then change of atomic qualities, and then the final re-combination, under the influence of heat. This doctrine is called the doctrine of _pîlupâka_ (heating of atoms). Nyâya on the other hand thinks that no disintegration into atoms is necessary for change of qualities, but it is the molecules which assume new characters under the influence of heat. Heat thus according to Nyâya directly affects the characters of the molecules and changes their qualities without effecting a change in the atoms. Nyâya holds that the heat-corpuscles penetrate into the porous body of the object and thereby produce the change of colour. The object as a whole is not disintegrated into atoms and then reconstituted again, for such a procedure is never experienced by observation. This is called the doctrine of _pi@tharapâka_ (heating of molecules). This is one of the few points of difference between the later Nyâya and Vais'e@sika systems [Footnote ref 2].

Chemical compounds of atoms may take place between the

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Utpala's commentary on _Brhatsamh@itâ_ I. 7.]

[Footnote 2: See Dr B.N. Seal in P.C. Ray's _Hindu Chemistry_, pp. 190-191, _Nyâyamañjarî_, p 438, and Udyotakara's _Vârttika_. There is very little indication in the Nyâya and _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ that they had any of those differences indicated here. Though there are slight indications of these matters in the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ (VII. 1), the _Nyâya sûtras_ are almost silent upon the matter. A systematic development of the theory of creation and atomic combinations appear to have taken place after Vâtsyâyana.]

328

atoms of the same bhûta or of many bhûtas. According to the Nyâya view there are no differences in the atoms of the same bhûta, and all differences of quality and characteristics of the compound of the same bhûta are due only to diverse collocations of those atoms. Thus Udyotakara says (III. i. 4) that there is no difference between the atom of a barley seed and paddy seed, since these are all but atoms of earth. Under the continued impact of heat particles the atoms take new characters. It is heat and heat alone that can cause the transformations of colours, tastes etc. in the original bhûta atoms. The change of these physical characters depends on the colours etc. of the constituent substances in contact, on the intensity or degree of heat and also on the species of tejas corpuscles that impinge on the atoms. Heat breaks bodies in contact into atoms, transforms their qualities, and forms separate bodies with them.

Pras'astapâda (the commentator of Vais'e@sika) holds that in the higher compounds of the same bhûta the transformation takes place (under internal heat) in the constituent atoms of the compound molecules, atoms specially determined as the compound and not in the original atoms of the bhûta entering into the composition of the compound. Thus when milk is turned into curd, the transformation as curd takes place in the atoms determined as milk in the milk molecule, and it is not necessary that the milk molecule should be disintegrated into the atoms of the original bhûta of which the milk is a modification. The change as curd thus takes place in the milk atom, and the milk molecule has not to be disintegrated into k@siti or ap atoms. So again in the fertilized ovum, the germ and the ovum substances, which in the Vais'e@sika view are both isomeric modes of earth (with accompaniments of other bhûtas) are broken up into homogeneous earth atoms, and it is these that chemically combine under the animal heat and biomotor force vâyu to form the germ (_kalala_). But when the germ plasm develops, deriving its nutrition from the blood of the mother, the animal heat breaks up the molecules of the germ plasm into its constituent atoms, i.e. atoms specifically determined which by their grouping formed the germ plasm. These germ-plasm atoms chemically combine with the atoms of the food constituents and thus produce cells and tissues [Footnote ref 1]. This atomic contact is called _ârambhaka-sa@myoga_.

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Dr B.N. Seal's _Positive Sciences,_ pp. 104-108, and _Nyâyakandalî_, pp. 33-34, "_S'arîrârambhe paramânava eva kâra@nam na s'ukra-s'onitasannipâta@h kriyâvibhâgâdinyâyena tayorvinâs'e sati utpannapâkajai@h paramâ@nubhirârambhât, na ca s'ukras'onitaparamâ@nûnâ@m kas'cidvis'e@sa@h pârthivatvâvis'e@sât....Pitu@h s'ukra@m mâtuh s'onita@m tayos sannipâtânantara@m ja@tharânalasambandhât s'ukra-s'onitârambhake@su paramâ@nu@su pûrvarûpâdivinâs'e samâ@nagu@nântarotpattau dvya@nukâdikrame@na kalalas'arirotpatti@h tatrântahkara@napraves'o...tatra mâturâhâraraso mâtrayâ sa@mkrâmate, ad@r@s@tavas'âttatra punarja@tharânalasambandhât kalalârambhakaparamâ@nu@su kriyâvibhâgadinyâyena kalalas'arîre na@s@te samutpannapâkajai@h kalalârambhakaparamâ@nubhirad@r@s@tavas'âd upajâtakriyairâhâraparamâ@nitbhi@h saha sambhûya s'arîrântaramârakkyate."_.]

329

In the case of poly-bhautik or bi-bhautik compounds there is another kind of contact called _upa@s@tambha_. Thus in the case of such compounds as oils, fats, and fruit juices, the earth atoms cannot combine with one another unless they are surrounded by the water atoms which congregate round the former, and by the infra-atomic forces thus set up the earth atoms take peculiar qualities under the impact of heat corpuscles. Other compounds are also possible where the ap, tejas, or the vâyu atoms form the inner radicle and earth atoms dynamically surround them (e.g. gold, which is the tejas atom with the earth atoms as the surrounding upa@s@tambhaka). Solutions (of earth substances in ap) are regarded as physical mixtures.

Udayana points out that the solar heat is the source of all the stores of heat required for chemical change. But there are differences in the modes of the action of heat; and the kind of contact with heat-corpuscles, or the kind of heat with chemical action which transforms colours, is supposed to differ from what transforms flavour or taste.

Heat and light rays are supposed to consist of indefinitely small particles which dart forth or radiate in all directions rectilineally with inconceivable velocity. Heat may penetrate through the interatomic space as in the case of the conduction of heat, as when water boils in a pot put on the fire; in cases of transparency light rays penetrate through the inter-atomic spaces with _parispanda_ of the nature of deflection or refraction (_tiryag-gamana_). In other cases heat rays may impinge on the atoms and rebound back--which explains reflection. Lastly heat may strike the atoms in a peculiar way, so as to break up their grouping, transform the physico-chemical characters of the atoms, and again recombine them, all by means of continual impact with inconceivable velocity, an operation which explains all cases of chemical combination [Footnote ref l]. Govardhana a later Nyâya writer says that pâka means the combination of different kinds of heat. The heat that

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Dr Seal's _Positive Sciences of the Hindus_.]

330

changes the colour of a fruit is different from that which generates or changes the taste. Even when the colour and taste remain the same a particular kind of heat may change the smell. When grass eaten by cows is broken up into atoms special kinds of heat-light rays change its old taste, colour, touch and smell into such forms as those that belong to milk [Footnote ref 1].

In the Nyâya-Vais`e@sika system all action of matter on matter is thus resolved into motion. Conscious activity (_prayatna_) is distinguished from all forms of motion as against the Sâ@mkhya doctrine which considered everything other than puru@sa (intelligence) to arise in the course of cosmic evolution and therefore to be subject to vibratory motion.

The Origin of Knowledge (Pramâ@na).

The manner in which knowledge originates is one of the most favourite topics of discussion in Indian philosophy. We have already seen that Sâ@mkhya-Yoga explained it by supposing that the buddhi (place of consciousness) assumed the form of the object of perception, and that the buddhi so transformed was then intelligized by the reflection of the pure intelligence or puru@sa. The Jains regarded the origin of any knowledge as being due to a withdrawal of a veil of karma which was covering the all-intelligence of the self.

Nyâya-Vais`e@sika regarded all effects as being due to the assemblage of certain collocations which unconditionally, invariably, and immediately preceded these effects. That collocation (_sâmagrî_) which produced knowledge involved certain non-intelligent as well as intelligent elements and through their conjoint action uncontradicted and determinate knowledge was produced, and this collocation is thus called pramâ@na or the determining cause of the origin of knowledge [Footnote ref 2]. None of the separate elements composing

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Govardhana's _Nyâyabodhinî_ on _Tarkasa@mgraha_, pp. 9, 10.]

[Footnote 2: "_Avyabhicârinîmasandigdhârthopalabdhi@m vidadhatî bodhâbodhasvabhâvâ sâmagrî pramâ@nam._" _Nyâyamañjarî_, p. 12. Udyotakara however defined "pramâ@na" as upalabdhihetu (cause of knowledge). This view does not go against Jayanta's view which I have followed, but it emphasizes the side of vyâpâra or movement of the senses, etc. by virtue of which the objects come in contact with them and knowledge is produced. Thus Vâcaspati says: "_siddhamindriyâdi, asiddhañca tatsannikar@sâdi vyâpârayannutpâdayan kara@na eva caritârtha@h kar@na@m tvindriyâdi tatsannikar@sâdi vâ nânyatra caritarthamiti sâk@sâdupalabdhâveva phale vyâprîyate._" _Tâtparya@tîkâ_, p. 15. Thus it is the action of the senses as pramâ@na which is the direct cause of the production of knowledge, but as this production could not have taken place without the subject and the object, they also are to be regarded as causes in some sense. _"Pramât@rprameyayo@h. pramâne caritarthatvamacaritarthatvam pramanasya tasmat tadeva phalahetu@h. Pramât@rprameye tu phaloddes'ena prav@rtte iti taddhetû kathañcit." Ibid._ p. 16.]

331

the causal collocation can be called the primary cause; it is only their joint collocation that can be said to determine the effect, for sometimes the absence of a single element composing the causal collocation is sufficient to stop the production of the effect. Of course the collocation or combination is not an entity separated from the collocated or combined things. But in any case it is the preceding collocations that combine to produce the effect jointly. These involve not only intellectual elements (e.g. indeterminate cognition as qualification (vis'e@sa@na) in determinate perceptions, the knowledge of li@nga in inference, the seeing of similar things in upamâna, the hearing of sound in s'abda) but also the assemblage of such physical things (e.g. proximity of the object of perception, capacity of the sense, light, etc.), which are all indispensable for the origin of knowledge. The cognitive and physical elements all co-operate in the same plane, combine together and produce further determinate knowledge. It is this capacity of the collocations that is called pramâ@na.

Nyâya argues that in the Sâ@mkhya view knowledge originates by the transcendent influence of puru@sa on a particular state of buddhi; this is quite unintelligible, for knowledge does not belong to buddhi as it is non-intelligent, though it contains within it the content and the form of the concept or the percept (knowledge). The puru@sa to whom the knowledge belongs, however, neither knows, nor feels, neither conceives nor perceives, as it always remains in its own transcendental purity. If the transcendental contact of the puru@sa with buddhi is but a mere semblance or appearance or illusion, then the Sâ@mkhya has to admit that there is no real knowledge according to them. All knowledge is false. And since all knowledge is false, the Sâ@mkhyists have precious little wherewith to explain the origin of right knowledge.

There are again some Buddhists who advocate the doctrine that simultaneously with the generation of an object there is the knowledge corresponding to it, and that corresponding to the rise of any knowledge there is the rise of the object of it. Neither is the knowledge generated by the object nor the object by the knowledge; but there is a sort of simultaneous parallelism. It is evident that this view does not explain why knowledge should

332

express or manifest its object. If knowledge and the object are both but corresponding points in a parallel series, whence comes this correspondence? Why should knowledge illuminate the object. The doctrine of the Vijñâna vâdins, that it is knowledge alone that shows itself both as knowledge and as its object, is also irrational, for how can knowledge divide itself as subject and object in such a manner that knowledge as object should require the knowledge as subject to illuminate it? If this be the case we might again expect that knowledge as knowledge should also require another knowledge to manifest it and this another, and so on _ad infinitum_. Again if pramâ@na be defined as _prâpa@na_ (capacity of being realized) then also it would not hold, for all things being momentary according to the Buddhists, the thing known cannot be realized, so there would be nothing which could be called pramâ@na. These views moreover do not explain the origin of knowledge. Knowledge is thus to be regarded as an effect like any other effect, and its origin or production occurs in the same way as any other effect, namely by the joint collocation of causes intellectual and physical [Footnote ref 1]. There is no transcendent element involved in the production of knowledge, but it is a production on the same plane as that in which many physical phenomena are produced [Footnote ref 2].

The four Pramâ@nas of Nyâya.

We know that the Carvâkas admitted perception (_pratyak@sa_) alone as the valid source of knowledge. The Buddhists and the Vais'e@sika admitted two sources, pratyak@sa and inference (_anumâna_); Sâ@mkhya added _s'abda_ (testimony) as the third source;

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyamañjarî_, pp. 12-26.]

[Footnote 2: Discussing the question of the validity of knowledge Gañges'a, a later naiyâyika of great fame, says that it is derived as a result of our inference from the correspondence of the perception of a thing with the activity which prompted us to realize it. That which leads us to successful activity is valid and the opposite invalid. When I am sure that if I work in accordance with the perception of an object I shall be successful, I call it valid knowledge. _Tattvacintâma@ni_, K. Tarkavâgîs'a's edition, _Prâmâ@nyavâda_.

"The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ tacitly admit the Vedas as a pramâ@na. The view that Vais'e@sika only admitted two pramâ@nas, perception and inference, is traditionally accepted, _"pratyak@sameka@mcârvâkâ@h ka@nâdasugatau puna@h anumânañca taccâpi,_ etc." Pras'astapâda divides all cognition (_buddhi_) as _vidyâ_ (right knowledge) and _avidyâ_ (ignorance). Under _avidyâ_ he counts _sa@ms'aya_ (doubt or uncertainty), _viparyaya_ (illusion or error), _anadhyavasâya_ (want of definite knowledge, thus when a man who had never seen a mango, sees it for the first time, he wonders what it may be) and _svapna_ (dream). Right knowledge (_vidyâ_) is of four kinds, perception, inference, memory and the supernatural knowledge of the sages (_âr@sa_). Interpreting the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ I.i. 3, VI. i. 1, and VI.