Chapter VIII: The Nyâya-Vais'e@sika Philosophy (1)

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].