Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s2.27

v2.c24.s2.27

¹ Jacobi believes that the N.S. and N.B. belong to about the same time, perhaps separated by a generation. He places them between the second century A.D., when the Śūnyavāda developed, and the fifth century A.D., when the Vijñānavāda became systematised (see J.A.O.S., xxxi. 1911, pp. 2, 13). He thinks that the Buddhist views criticised in the N.S. are those of Śūnyavāda advocated by Nāgārjuna, who is placed about the third century A.D., and not Vijñānavāda of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, who are assigned to the middle of the fourth century A.D. It is, however, difficult to accept this view. Both Vātsyāyana and Vācaspati hold that N.S., iv. 2. 26, is directed against the Vijñānavāda. We need not deny that the Śūnyavāda is attacked in the N.S. (cp. N.S., iv. 1. 40; iv. 1. 48, with the Mādhyamika Kārikā, xv. 6, and vii. 20, respectively, and also N.S., iv. 1. 34-35, with Candrakīrti's Vṛtti, pp. 64-71). But Śūnyavāda is earlier than Nāgārjuna, who is familiar with the Nyāya terminology and denies the doctrine of atoms (cp. N.S., iv. 2. 18-24, 31-32, with the Mādhyamika Kārikā, vii. 34, and N.S., iii. 2. 11 and iv. 1. 64). All that we can say is that the N.S. is of an earlier date than Nāgārjuna, though later than the Mādhyamika tradition (see also I.P., vol. i, p. 643 n.; Ui: Vaiśeṣika Philosophy, p. 85). The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra refers to Tārkikas and Naiyāyikas, and if we remember