Page images

way different from them. But Vatsyayana is not so liberal. He would not name the Buddhists.

We glean one historicical information from the Brahminical sources, namely that Dinnaga severally criticized the Bhashyakara, Vatsyayana and the Varttikakara, who comments upon the Bhashya, defends Vatsyayana's work against Dinnaga.

The modern Hindu idea is that the Buddhists believed in two of the Pramāṇas only, namely, Pratyaksha and Anumāna that is, perception and inference. But this is not a fact, so far as early Buddhism and even early Mahayanism are concerned. For we know distinctly from Chinese and Japanese sources that Analogy and Authority were great polemical instruments in the hands of the early Buddhists. i. e,, all early Buddhists from Buddha to Vasubandhu were indebted to Akshapada for their Pramăņas or polemical instruments of right knowledge. Maitreya discarded Analogy, and Dinnaga discarded Authority, and made Nyaya pure logic, in the English sense of the term.

The followers of Akshapada are sometimes called yogins, and yaugas, and the Buddbist tradition is that Mirok (Maitreya) introdu. ced yoga in the system of discriminating true knowledge from false ( i. e. the system of Akshapada), some form of yoga. And we find that at the second lecture fourth chapter, of the Nyaya-sutras there is a long section devoted to yoga, and that yoga is of a peculiar character. How the section on yoga was adopted into the Nyayasa tra, it is difficult to say, because yoga does not belong to the sixteen topics, which Aksapada in the first sutra promises to expatiate upon Whether properly or improperly introduced it forms a part of Hindu Nyayasastra and also of Buddhist Nyayasastra. The Buddhists say that Mirok introduced it, but the Hindus cannot say who introduced it.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


If you ask a Pandit when were the Gautama-sutras written, he would immediately say, it is A pādi, without a beginning or that it was written by Gautama who lived in some remote age. Tho Chinese people think that he existed from the beginning of this Kalpa nieaning, 43,20,000-71-14 years before; but really it is a very late production. It is not mentioned as a System of Philosophy by Kauţilya in the 4th, century B. C. Kautilya knew only three systems,

[ocr errors]



Eāmkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata." One may argue that this does not prove that the Nyaya system did not exist in Kautilya’s time. For he may not have known it, and so did not mention it. But Kaatilya

man of phenomenal learning and he was the primeminister of a great empire. If he knew it he certainly would have mentioned it. This is also a negative proof but there is a positive proof that it did not exist at the time; for, in Gautama's system inference from the known to the unknown is called by the term anumāna, while Kautilya makes the inference from the known to the unknown, upināni. If Gautami did not use the word upımāna this argument would have some weight. But Gautama uses the word, upamāna but not in the sense of inference but in the sense of Analogy, or inference from similarity.

There is a verse in Kautilya which is to be found in the earliest commentary on Gautama. The verse runs thus:

Pradipıḥ sarvvividyānām upāyaḥ sarvvkarm iņām,
Āśrayaḥ survvadhırmānām śašva'lānvikshiki natā.
But Vātsyāyana the commentary of Gautama quotes it:
Pradipiḥ sarvvavidyānām upay ih survva karmiņām,

Āśray ih sirvvadharmánáin Viddyoddlese prikirtitá, and Viddyod. dess or Vidyāsamuddeśa is the name of the chapter of Kautilya in which it is to be found. So Vatsyayana is quoting it from the Vidyoddeśa chapter of Kautilya and so he is subsequent to Kautilya. But that gives us no clue as to the chronology of the

. Gautama sutras. But I mention this because some people think that Vatsyayana and Kautilya is one and the same person, because Hemchandra, the Jaina Lexicographer of the 12th century makes these two terms synonymous.

But this is absolutely wrong; for, Kautilya is the name of a Gotra and Vatsyayana the name of another Gotra. So these two cannot be one and the same person.

Patanjali, the commentator on Panini mentions the Sámkhya, the Yoga, the Lokāyata and the Mimāmsaka. He does not mention Nyaya as a system, and he flourished about the middle of the 2nd century B, C. Nagarjuna in the 2nd century A. D, does not speak of Nyaya though he speaks of other systems. His disciple Aryadeva does not speak of Nyuya as a system. The first Buddhist author who refers to Nyaya and the sixteen topics is Harivarman in the 3rd century A. D. So the Sutras must have been compiled in the 3rd century between Aryadeva and Harivarman. Vatsyayana commented on it, and he is severely criticised by Dinnaga late in the 5th century A. D., aud Uddyotakara, a commentator of Vatsyayana defends him against the attacks of Dinnāga. Vācaspati Migra in the 9th or iCth century writes a criticism on Uddyotakara's work defending the orthodox writers Gautama, Vatsyayana and Uddyotakara against the attacks of the beretical Buddhist, Dinnaga and his followers.

Vatsyayana, the first commentator found the Sutras in their present shape and so he becomes the most important person in the history of the Nyaya System of Philosophy, and the present day Nyaya Philosophy is based not so much on the Sutras of Gautama hut on the Bhashya of Vatsyayana. The first Sutras of the Nyayasutra postulates a work on the art of Controversy by considering sixteen topics. The second Sutra makes it a system of Philosophy, and Vatsyayana says, without much reasoning though, that the second Sutra simply defines and clears the object of the first. This attempted reconciliation of the two Sutras is very bold but is far-fetched.

His commentator Uddyotakara, however, gives the true meaning of the first Satra and says that the word 'niņśrey is' in that Sutra means 'the highest good' in any department of life and that therefore, the Sastra should be studied by all people secular and religious and he adds 'religious' in order to take in the 2nd Sutra, which has no secular but only spiritual import.


The Nyayasastra is agnostic ; Adrshţa in the matter of creation is supreme and not Isvara

But Vatsyayana says fśvara is the creator and the moral governor of the world but he does so with the help and under the guidance of Adrshta, and this Isvara appears to be Siva, and he writes an eloquent thesis on Ih vara and makes the Sastra a Saiva Sastra,--a character which it still retains.

It seems that there was a non-sectarian work on the Art of Controversy used by the people of India. The Hindus were not much in favour of the work in the later centuries B. C., for Manu and others discouraged its use. The Buddhists, however, studied the work and improved upon it. But it was taken from them by the Saivas, who interpolated Sutras here and there and put in chapters controverting Buddhist ideas. But the Buddhists did not take any notice of the additions and interpolations. They went on developing the art in their own way. Nagarjuna, Aryadeva Harivarman and other Buddhist writers wrote on the art of controversy differing more or less from the Nyayasutras. Maitreya in the 3rd century discarded upamāna and made the pramāṇas threeand Dinnaga discarded even Sabda or 'authority' and believed only in two primāņas, perception and inference. Dinnaga's work is not available. Recently we hear that there is a Tibetan translation of the work with a number of commentaries and snb.commentaries. But the few Nyaya works of the Buddhists that are available give us only two y ramān.18, one of them was published by the late Prof. Peterson. Its name is Vyāyabindu. It has three chapters, one on pratyaksh", and two on Anumánı, one on Svárthanumána and the other on Parárthānumāni. Other books on the subject will be shortly published giving us an opportunity to see how the Bud. dhists developed the art of Conrtoversy of ancient India. One book on Jaina Logic has been published. All these Jaina and Buddhist works are devoted exclusively to Logic and the Art of Controversy, and there is no philosophy in them.

That the Gautamasutras are not very old is proved by the faco that Kautilya does not mention it. But there are other reasons alst in support of the statement. There is a book named Kathāvatthu or “The points of Controversy" written by a number of Buddhist sages at Pataliputra on the occasion of the Third Samgiti or Council held there under the auspices of Tissa Joggaliputta, the Guru of Asoka in the 17th year of his reign. The method of Controversy there is quite different from that advocated in the Gautamasutras. The Mimamsa way of controversy also is quite different. The Mimamsakas divided their work into adhikar kņas or sections each section consisting of five elements:

Vishayo visayas caiva purvrapakshas tuthottarah
Nirnayasceti pancangam sastredhikaranam smrtam.

nieans, doubt, statement of the thesis, statement on one side, statement on the other and conclusion. This also is not the Nyaya method advocated in the Gautamasutras. Ancient Buddhists, as a rule, have another method of arriving at the truth by applying the rule asti. násti-tadubhayā-nubhayı and the Jainas by applying the saptabhatginyāya or syādrāda. The method advocated in the Sutras is far in advance. Every controversy has five elements or aviyavas : (1) Patijñā statement of the object to be proved, (2) Hetu the object by which it is to be proved, (3) Udaharan, the object by which it is to be proved, (4) Nigamana application of the example to the object, and (5) Upasamhāra conclusion. If we omit the first two, the last three is the ordinary European method of syllogism. As the European method was started by Aristotle, some scholars think that Gautama is indebted to him for these avayavas or elements. That does not seem to be correct, because in that case Gautama would rot have incorporated the first two elements and made it five, and we kuow from Vatsyayana that the elements were, at one time, ten. Gautama reduced them to five. That shows that India had different and independent development from that of Aristotle, though they came nearly to the same truth at the end.

To sum up, Dinnāga attributed to Akshapāda the Nine Reasons and the Fourteen Fallacies but these are not found in the Nyåyasūtras, instead of it a much more developed system of the art of Controversy. The inference is therefore, probable that the old Gautama's system was developed in two different ways,the Brahmins made it an art of Controversy, plus a system of philosophy, which is Theistic and Saivaite in essence; and the Buddhists and the Jainas, who has a philosophy of their own developed it only as a treatise of Logic.

As regards Chronology, the extant body of the Nyayasutras though shadowed in Nāgārjuna and Aryadeva, both belonging to, the 2nd century A. D. is expressly mentioned by Harivarman at the end of the 3rd century, that is, between 200 and 260 A. D. Vatsyayana, the commentator must come after Harivarman and before Dinnāga (c. 450 A. D.). About the date of Vatsyayana I have another datum. Bāņa, the court pandit of Harsha in the beginning of the 7th century was a Vatsyayana. He has given a history of the family for three generations before him. But among them there is no Bhashyakara on Nyaya. So he must have flourished before Bana's great-grandfather that is, long before 450. Uddyotakara severely criticised Dinnāga and he was ą

« PreviousContinue »