Indian Logic and Atomism: An Exposition of the Nyaya and Vaiceshika Systems c19.s1.3

c19.s1.3

It is of interest also that there is clear evidence in the fourteenth century of the very definitely religious tinge of the votaries who professed one or other of the systems. Rājaçekhara, in his *Ṣaḍdarçanasamuccaya* ² expressly applies the term Yoga to the Nyāya and makes the followers of the Vaiçeṣika also in their religious aspect similar to those of the Nyāya; the only difference between the two on his view is that the adherents of the Nyāya are called, Çaivas, those of the Vaiçeṣika Pāçupatas. He described the ascetic practices of these sectarians, which equate them to the ordinary votaries of Çiva. His evidence is supported by that of Guṇaratna in his commentary on Haribhadra’s Ṣaḍdarçanasamuccaya¹ of slightly later date, though it is possible that he draws from the same source as Rājaçekhara; he gives four main divisions of the Nyāya-Vaiçeṣika sectaries, the Çaivas, Pāçupatas, Mahāvratadharas, and Kālamukhas, with various subdivisions, including the Bharaṭas, who are mentioned also by Rājaçekhara, and whose characteristic trait was the fact that they accepted a man of any caste, provided he was a devotee of Çiva. Jinadatta in his *Vivekavilāsa*,² about the middle of the thirteenth century, states that the texts of the Nyāya and Vaiçeṣika were used in the Çaiva system, and that these systems had Çiva for their deity. It is impossible to discredit the value of this testimony, which is the more valuable in that the normal source whence to seek the inspiration of the Çaiva systems is the Sāṃkhya which has admittedly close relations with the development of Çaiva philosophy. The antiquity of the connexion is attested by the tradition which is preserved by Praçastapāda³ that it was Çiva in the shape of an owl who revealed to Kaṇāda the Vaiçeṣika system. Praçastapāda⁴ also in his exposition of creation uses as the name of the creator Maheçvara, a choice in which we can hardly fail to see a deliberate preference for the view that the true God is Çiva. Of Uddyotakara we have the express evidence of the *Nyāyavārttika* that he was a Pāçupata, and it is interesting to note that in his *Nyāyavārttika*¹ he adopts theism and quotes a verse which is given by Mādhava in the *Sarvadarçanasaṃgraha*² as one in which the supporters of the Çaiva system maintain the existence of God. Theism in the Nyāya is shown to be recognized by Vātsyāyana³ not so much because he declares that the self sees all, feels all, knows all, and perceives all, a description which would hardly be true if he did not in the term self include God as the self *par excellence* as because of his defence of the activity of God in the fruition of deeds. An express proof of the connexion of Nyāya with Çaivism is seen in Bhāsarvajña’s *Nyāyasāra*,⁴ which may date before Udayana and in which it is expressly said that final release is produced in the Çaiva system, and stress is laid on the necessity of the practice of the recognized kinds of mental concentration which at last will yield the direct vision of Maheçvara. Similarly Udayana,⁵ who is the classical exponent of the theism of the two systems treats the God whom he demonstrates as equivalent to Çiva.