Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s2.28

v2.c24.s2.28

Vātsyāyana's Nyāya Bhāṣya is the classic commentary on the Nyāya Sūtra. Evidently, Vātsyāyana is not the immediate successor of Gautama, since his work contains passages of the character of vārttikas, which state in a condensed form the results of discussions that some of the cosmological views refuted in the N.S. are as old as early Buddhism, Jacobi's date, which is supported by Suali, who refers the N.S. to A.D. 300 or 350, seems to be much too late (see also Ui: Vaiśeṣika Philosophy, p. 16). Garbe inclines to the view that the N.S. belongs to the first century A.D., since they were known to Pañcaśikha, whom he believes to have been a contemporary of Śabara, who lived some time between A.D. 100 and 300. Gautama is familiar with the terminology of the B.S. (cp. N.S., iii. 2. 14-16, with B.S., ii. 1. 24) and the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā of Jaimini (see N.S., ii. 1. 67; BODAS: Introduction to Tarkasaṃgraha). Bodas believes that the V.S., iv. 1. 4-5, have in view Bādarāyaṇa's criticism of the theory of atoms, and V.S., iii. 2. 9 (cp. also N.S., iii. 1. 28-30), is aimed at the Vedānta view that the self is known only through the śruti. Similarly, V.S., iv. 2. 2-3, controvert the view of B.S., ii. 2. 21-22, that the body is the result of the union of five or three elements. Gautama propounds views very similar to those of Bādarāyaṇa in several places. See N.S., iv. 1. 64, and iii. 2. 14-16. The absence of any direct reference to the Nyāya in the B.S. and the M.S. is sometimes emphasised. It may be that Vyāsa, reputed to be a disciple of Gautama, did not care to criticise the Nyāya view, especially as it was agreeable to the admission of Īśvara. Again, it is sometimes held that the B.S., ii. 1 11-13, attempt to disprove the Nyāya view of establishing God by reasoning. The doctrines of atomism and asatkāryavāda are examined in B.S., ii. 2. 10-16, and ii. 1. 15-20. Early Buddhist works do not contain information for assigning the date of the N.S. Kātyāyana (fourth century B.C.) and Patañjali (whose great work was written about 140 B.C.) knew the Nyāya system. See Goldstucker's Pāṇini. Śabara's quotations from Bhagavān Upavarṣa, who is said to have written commentaries on both the Mīmāṃsās, indicate Upavarṣa's familiarity with the Nyāya views. Harivarman (A.D. 260) knows about the sixteen topics of the Nyāya. Aśvaghoṣa uses the five-membered syllogism. See Ui: Vaiśeṣika Philosophy, pp. 56 and 81. We may therefore conclude that the N.S. existed in the fourth century B.C., though not in the present form. M. M. Haraprasād Śāstri says: "I am not sure if the work N.S. had not gone through several redactions before it assumed its present shape" (J.A.S. of Bengal, 1905, p. 178; see also pp. 245 ff.). Vācaspati made two attempts to collect the Sūtras in his Nyāyasūcī and Nyāyasūtroddhāra, thus suggesting doubts about the authenticity of the N.S. Dr. Vidyābhūṣaṇ believes that Gautama wrote only the first chapter of the work, and he was a contemporary of the Buddha, the same as the author of the Dharma Sūtra, who lived in Mithilā in the sixth century B.C. (see S.B.H: N.S., pp. v-viii, and Bhāndārkar Commemoration volume, pp. 161-162) He suggests that Gautama's original views are those contained in the Caraka Saṃhitā (Vimānasthāna, viii). The N.S. and Caraka Saṃhitā have much in common; but it is said, "Caraka's references to the Nyāya principles and the Vaiśeṣika categories are of little value in fixing the date of the N.S., since the work has suffered considerable re-fashioning, and its date is also uncertain" (I.L.A., p. 13).