Indian Antiquary Vol 47

SR No.: 032539
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 386
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 108

104
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
APRIL, 1918
(3) He expressly designates it as an Adhyatma Vidyâ, i.e., as a Philosophy which recognises the atman and would help it to its redemption.
Now as regards the second point the claim of the Nyaya Philosophy to be the true Anvikșiki is, as a matter of fact, thoroughly justified; as it, together with the Vaišeşika, fulfils the conditions demanded by Kautilya in a higher degree than other philosophical systems. And this is recognised also by others. The commentator to Kâmandaki's Nitisdra 2, 7 (ânvikşiky atmavijñânam) says that Anviksiki is anumânavidya Nyayadarianavaise ikadikd; and Madhusudana Sarasvati explains ânvikşikî to be Nyâya (nyâya ânviksiki pañcâdhyâyi Gautamena pranità). All the more it is therefore of importance that Kautilya does not mention by name Vyâya and Vaišeşika, while enumerating the systems recognized by him as Anviksiki. From this we can draw the inference with certainty that at his time, i.e., 300 B.C., Nyâya and Vaibeşika had not yet received the recognition as philosophical systems, not to speak of the existence of the søtras of Gautama and Kanada in the form in which they are now before us.
In his enumeration of the philosophical systems recognised by him as Anviksilei Kautilya mentions after Sâûkhya and Yoga the Lokâyata (Sâmkhyam Yogo Lokayatam cety 'ânvikṣiki). The Lokayata system is known to us only from references to it in Brahmanical, Buddhistic and Jaina Philosophies, all of which are agreed in their abhorrence of this infidel philosophy. Madhava in his Sarvadarśanasamgraha devotes the first chapter to it and calls its founder, Cårvåka as nástika siromani, "an arch-heretic.” The Lokayata doctrine is a gross materialism -The senses alone give correct knowledge, the material things alone (the four elements Earth, Water, Fire, and Wind) are real; there 28 no immaterial soul but the spirit arises from a certain mixture of these elements just as the intoxicating effect of a drink is produced by the fermenting ingredients of the game: the Vedas are a fraud just as everything they teach. These are the fundamental principles of the system and on this point all the records are in complete agreement.
Now it is difficult to believe that Kautilya, who acknowledges the entire social order founder on the Vedas, meant this grossly materialistic system by that Lokayata which he puts on the same line together with Sankbya and Yoga as a representative of Anvikșiki. And still there is no doubt about it, because the Lokayata doctrine is ascribed to Brihaspati, the teacher of the gods, and many of the verses handed down to us are put in his mouth. There was also a Niti-şdstra which was likewise ascribed to Brihaspati. Kautilya refers to his teaching in the second adhyaya : vârttá dandanitis ceti Barhaspatyâh ; samvaranamâtram hi trayî lokayâtrávida iti. "The followers of Brihaspati recognise only two sciences: the science of Industries and the science of State-craft, while Theology is seen to be only a fraud 11 by him who understands life." Here we
20 Gautama is, of course, not the founder of the Nyâya system, but he only helped one school of the Neivayikas to obtain general recognition. Thus Vateyayans mentions in I. 1. 32 that some Naiyayikas maintain that the inference consisted of ten parts instead of five as taught in the nitra. Pahare also the true explanation of the three kinds of inference, which VÁtayyans gives in I. 1. 5 did not arise for the first time after the composition of the sutra but had existed before. It is worth noticing that Caraka, III., 8, 24 ff. gives for the use of physicians a short compendium of Nyâya which in part entirely agrees with our Nykya ; but in details differs considerably from it. Have we perhaps here to trace a collateral school of Nyaya which existed by the side of that of Gautama?
11 Here Sam varana must have the same meaning as the Mahayanistio sath viti which corresponde to Mdyd of the Vedantins. It will be to the purpose to compare the saying (dbhanaka) quoted by MAdhava (loc. cit. p. 2) agnihotram trayo vedâs tridandam bhas jivike'ti Brihaspatih. This verse has been quoted in Prabodhacandrodaya II., 26.-Kautilya mentions the Barhaspatyas several times, e. 9., pp. 29, 63, 177, 192. The Niti-teachings of Brihaspati, which Draupadi expounds in Mahabharata Ill. 32, are at any rate as orthodox as one can wish!