Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

we

happiness seems to have been included in the old prameyasutra,
Sukha finds no place in that Sutra now and in chapter IV, Āhnika
I the Section 13 on the examination of duḥkra, reduces sukha
into duḥkha, and is not prepared to admit sukha as a separate
sub-division of prameyr, But from Haribhadra's statement
find that sukha was there at some early time. Now the question
is, who changed the Sutra and why? The answer is not far to
seek. In a work on Logic, prameya as a topic must come in. But
Logic does not require a long enumeration of prameyas and an
laborate examination of their details, which are essential in
philosophy. So the author who wanted to convert the logical
treatise into a system of philosophy, and who is responsible for
the interpolation of the second sutra is also responsible for the
alteration in the prameyasūtra. The logical treatise was an ancient
Hindu treatise, and Hindus never took an ultra-pessimistic view
of the world Sukha is the ultimate goal of the Mimansakas, of the
Vedantins, the two really orthodox systems of Hindu Philosophy
Why should Nyaya be so pessimistic ? There is no reasons for it
and it has been shown that the word sukha did at one time occur in
the prameyasutra. The Buddhists are downright pessimists. To
them everything is duḥkha, and it is they who believed that sukha
was, if properly analyzed duḥkha. It seems that the Hindu logi-
,

. cal treatise underwent the first stage of its philosophical transfor mation in the hands of some Buddhist philosopher, and became a gloomy and pessimistic science. The second Sutra of the first chapter, destroying so many things successively and reaching to apavargı, has the appearance of Buddhistic teaching. They enume rate a long series of effects from false knowledge, and teach us that as we destroy effects, we perceive the causes, that these causes are also effects; we destory them and gradually we come to the original cause of all these, namely, false knowledge; when that is destroyed we come to Nirvāņa. This is precisely the teaching of the second Eutra though the enumeration is not so long The Buddhist tradition, as we know it from China and Japan distinctly says that the Logic of Akshapāda was their handbook in logic, and that they added to and subtracted from it. The tradition is positive that Mirok mixed up Nyaya and yoga, and we find in the present Nyayasutra a long section on yoga in IV. 2, and one is puzled to know why it has been introduced. The grouuds

advanced by Hinda commentators for its introduction are of the Aimsiest kind. But the fact comes from China that Mirok mixed the two ap. So some other Buddhist philosophers might have introduced the second Sutra and changed the Prameyasūtra so as to to suit his purpose.

That the science of Aksha pāda was, for a long time, in the hands of the Buddhists, and therefore, not in great favour with the Brahminist, will appear from the following considerations The Rāmāyaṇa, the Mahābhārata, the Purāṇas, and even the Dharmaśāstras disliked those who studied the Tarkaśāstra. The Vedantasutras distinctly say that this science was not accepted by the orthodox. They are known as little removed from the Buddhists—the Buddhists are Nihilists, and they are half Nihilist (ardhavaināśika.) That there was an unholy alliance between the Nyāya and the Buddhists in the early centuries of Buddhism, is not open to grave doubts. The introduction of the second sutra, the alterations in the prameyasutra, and the definitions of misery, birth or re-birth, activity, faults, and emancipation in the first chapter appear to be the work of Budhists. The examination of these definitions occupy the whole of the first Lecture of the fourth chapter.

The work underwent another transformation in the hands of a later Hindu sect who vigorously assailed some of the prominent Buddbist doctrines, both Mahāyānist and Hinayānist. These assailed Sarvasünyatáráda on the one hand, and Sarrāstivada on the others To kuow who they were not, one has simply to cast his eyes on the various theories that have been assailed in connection with the examination of re-birth. These are Sunyatopádāna, Iéraropādāna, Ākas

mikatva, Sarrānityatoa, Sarvanityatra, Sarcaprthaktra, Sarabüny. ată, Samkhyai kāntavāda. But this gives us no clue to the identification of the sect, save and except that they were pon-Budhists. Haribhadra however, tells us that these were Saiyas and Haribhadra belonged to the 5th century A. D.

Haribhadra's statement is borne out by two facts. Sutra 8, Chapter I, seems to be out of place. The Pramáņas are defined in the four previous Sutras, and all of a sudden, comes a Sutra subdividing Sabda ; sub-divisions of Sabda are unknown in other systems of philosophy. It is generally translated by the word "Dogma." The distinction between the Revealed word and the Ordinary Word is peculiar to the Nyayasutras. It is not Budhistic, because they did not know of this sub-division. And in the fifth century they discarded Dogma altogether. Moreover the introduction of this Sutra explains the introduction of the section on the authority of the Vedas, and along with it, of a quarrel with the Mimāmsakas on the eternity of sound.

All this seems to be the work of a Hindu sect which we take to be the Saivas at the instance of Haribhadra. These are a promise between the Hindus and the Buddhists. So the present Nyāyasūtras consists of three treatises on Logic. And the bit of Hinda systems of Philosophy that it contained has been mixed up with two other systems of Philosophy, which have been latterly interpolated into the book.

com

The Bibliography of Nyayasastra of the Orthodox Hindus is very short oue. It consists of :

1. The Sutras attributed to Gautama or Aksha pāda,
2. Bhās hya attributed to Vātsyāyana.
3. Värttika by Uddyotakara.
4. Tātparyaţikā by Vacaspati.
5. Parisuddhi by Ulayını.

But the Bibliography of the Buddhist Nyāyaśāstra as known in China and Japan is a long list. It attributes the first inception of the Nyayasastra to Shok-Mok or Mok-Shok which, transliterated into Sanskrit would be Akshapāda.

The second auther who treated of Nyaya is said to be Buddha himself. The third is Ryuju, who is said to have preached the Mahayana doctrines of Buddhism with great success, His Hohben-shin-ron is one of the polemical works against heretics. It contains one volume on logic. The fourth is Mirok (Maitreya), the fifth Muchak (Asanga), Mirok's disciple. Muchak's younger brother Seish (Vasubandhu) wrote three books on logic, Ron-ki, Ron-shi-ki, and Ron-shin. After Vasubandhu came Mahā-Dinnāga and his disciple, Sankarasvāmin, whose work were translated into Chinese, by the great Hieuen Tsang. Hieuen Tsang had two great disciples Kwei-ke in China, and Doh-Soh in Japan, Kwei-ke's “Great Commentary" is the standard work on Nyāya in China and Doh-Soh is the first promulgator of Buddhist doctrines and Nyāya Sāstra in Japan. Since then there had been many distinguished teachers of Nyaya both in China and Japan, and up to the present day Dinnāga has a firm hold on the learned people both in China and Japan. The European system of logic is a very recent introduction in Japan. where Dihnaga is still studied.

In the two paragraphs given above, I have tried to give the Bibliography of Brahminic and Buddhistic Logic of ancient India, Both attribute the invention of the science to one person, namely, Akshapāda. The only clue given about this personage's chronology is that it was before Buddha. But no clue of his time can be found in Brahminical works. Mr. Justice Pargiter tells me that there is no sach person as Akshapada mentioned in the Mahabharta, which was in a nascent condition about the time of Buddha's birth. The Chinese attribute to him two things, namely, "Nine Reasons” and Fourteen Fallacies”, while the Hindus attribute to him the entire body of Sutras divided into five adhyayas, ten lectures, eighty-four topics, five hundred and twenty-eight, seventeen hundred-and-ninetysix words, eight-thousand three-hundred and eighty-five letters. It may be said in passing, that the Chinese people are doubtful about the "Nine Reasons" being attributed to Akshapada. It may also be remarked that in the whole body of Sutras, there is nothing which corresponds to the “Nine Reasons” and “Fourteen Fallacies”, which we know from Chinese sources, and which even Dinnaga is said to have attributed to Soc-mock. An examination of the "Nine Reasons” reveals the fact that it is historically prior to the invention of syllogism. It means an effort of the human mind to exhaust all possible forms of the relation between, what is now called the Major Term and the middle Terni of a syllogism. And such an examination must precede the formulation of syllogism. In what light the later writers have seen this examination and what conclusions may be drawn from it, need not trouble us here. Suffice it for a historical student to know that this early effort is attributed to Soc-mock, universally known as the first writer on Nyaya. The theory of "Fourteen Fallacies" too, in their crude and undeveloped shape, shows signs of greater antiquity than the Nyayasutras,

These two theories of Akshapāda seem to have been the common property of Indian Pandits before Buddha's time, as Budha did not scruple to take advantage of these.

The “ Nyåya Sūtras” as we have them, seems to be a much later production. Haribhadra says that it is a sectarian work; that the sect which either composed it or adhered to it, was a Saiva sect. Now a Saiva or Mahesver sect existed long before Buddha. Soc-mock and the eighteen gurus of the sect, Nakulisa and others, might have belong. ed to this sect. That the Sutras were not composed by Akshapada appears to be almost certain. But it bears his name. How to explain this fact? The only explanation is that it belonged to that sect, of which he was thought to be one of the earliest representatives. I am not sure if the work “Nyayasutra” had not gone through several redactions before it assumed its present shape. But it is pretty sure that from the time of Soc-mock to the period when the Nyayasutras were reduced to their present form, India was full of polemical writings much of which has perished.

Though we know nothing from Brahminical sources of the process of the development of Nyaya, we know some stages of this development from the Buddhists. Nāgārjuna and Maitreya wrote on Nyaya. In fact one of the volumes, I believe, the 15th of the great polemical work by Nāgārjuna on Upāyakausalya is devoted to the exposition of Nyaya. Maitreya, the disciple of Asanga and Vasubandhu-all wrote on Nyaya. Then came the great Dinnaga the disiciple of Asanga, whom the Japanese place between 400 to 500 A. D., and Kern between 520 and 600.

But in the meanwhile on the Brahminical side the Sutra has been reduced to its present shape and a Bhāshya has been composed when, nobody cau say. If I am permitted to hazard a conjecture, both the Sutra and Bhashya came after the development of the Mahāyāna School, i. e, both came after Nāgārjuna and Aryadeva, say in the second century A. D. The Bhashyakara Vatsyayana though he does not even mention the Buddhists or even any Buddhist writers pointedly refutes all the Mahayanist doctrines of Transitoriness, of void, of Individuality, and so on. Savara, the Bhashyakara of Mimamsa, was liberal enough to speak of refuting the Mahayanic theory that the whole is merely a collection of parts and not in any

« PreviousContinue »