_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  Vatsyayana notes that this is the salvation of him who has known Brahman, IV. i. 63.]

[Footnote 2:  A reference to the Suvar@naprabhasa sutra shows that the Buddhist missionaries used to get certain preparations for improving their voice in order to be able to argue with force, and they took to the worship of Sarasvati (goddess of learning), who they supposed would help them in bringing readily before their mind all the information and ideas of which they stood so much in need at the time of debates.]

302

we compare the futilities (jati) quibbles (chala), etc., relating to disputations as found in the Nyaya sutra with those that are found in the medical work of Caraka (78 A.D.), III. viii.  There are no other works in early Sanskrit literature, excepting the Nyaya sutra and Caraka-sa@mhita which have treated of these matters.  Caraka’s description of some of the categories (e.g. d@r@s@tanta, prayojana, pratijna and vita@n@da) follows very closely the definitions given of those in the Nyaya sutras.  There are others such as the definitions of jalpa, chala, nigrahasthana, etc., where the definitions of two authorities differ more.  There are some other logical categories mentioned in Caraka (e.g. prati@s@thapana, jijnasa, vyavasaya, vakyado@sa, vakyapras’a@msa, upalambha, parihara, abhyanujna, etc.) which are not found in the Nyaya sutra [Footnote ref 1].  Again, the various types of futilities (jati) and points of opponent’s refutation (nigrahasthana) mentioned in the Nyaya sutra are not found in Caraka.  There are some terms which are found in slightly variant forms in the two works, e.g. aupamya in Caraka, upamana in Nyaya sutra, arthapatti in Nyaya sutra and arthaprapti in Caraka.  Caraka does not seem to know anything about the Nyaya work on this subject, and it is plain that the treatment of these terms of disputations in the Caraka is much simpler and less technical than what we find in the Nyaya sutras.  If we leave out the varieties of jati and nigrahasthana of the fifth book, there is on the whole a great agreement between the treatment of Caraka and that of the Nyaya sutras.  It seems therefore in a high degree probable that both Caraka and the Nyaya sutras were indebted for their treatment of these terms of disputation to some other earlier work.  Of these, Caraka’s compilation was earlier, whereas the compilation of the Nyaya sutras represents a later work when a hotter atmosphere of disputations had necessitated the use of more technical terms which are embodied in this work, but which were not contained in the earlier work.  It does not seem therefore that this part of the work could have been earlier than the second century A.D.  Another stream flowing through the Nyaya sutras is that of a polemic against the doctrines which could be attributed to the Sautrantika Buddhists, the Vijnanavada Buddhists, the nihilists, the Sa@mkhya, the Carvaka, and some other unknown schools of thought to which we find no