________________
238
Karin Preisendarz
Debate and independent Reasoning vs. Tradition
239
distinguishes Kautilya's investigative science (anviksiki) (cf. above, p. 228), thus opening the way for Våtsyayana's explicit identification of the Nyaya with the anvi kşiki while stressing at the same time its aspect as an adhyatmavidyd.
ized in the first book of the Myayasūtra in the following manner:
"Reasoning consists in deliberation (üha) with regard to a thing/event whose true nature is not (yet) known, aiming at [its) adequate knowl
edge on the basis of the appropriateness of reason(ing)s. *** The distinctive feature of reasoning as described here and further explained in Våtsyāyana's commentary on this sūtra is its hypothetical aspect implied in the phrase "deliberation on the basis of the appropriateness of reasoning)s (karanopaparritah... ahah) - thus the familiar translation of tarka in the Nyaya context as "hypothetical reasoning." That is, the reasoning person tries to find out if the individual reason(ing)s kårana)" which could be adduced under the assumption of certai tradictory, still to be proven properties of the thing or event in question, are ap propriate or suitable in the light of their conformity with other basic assumptions. Reasoning thus examines reason(ing)s and in the course of this examination itself operates with reasons, in this way preparing the ground for the application of the means of valid cognition which alone effect the definitive ascertainment of the true nature of a thing or event.
As another important element of debate one can isolate the most crucial component of proof among its five "limbs," namely, the reason (hetu).
The central component tarka, together with the five parts of proof, is also assumed for the remaining two types of debate as characterized in the Mydyasútra." This means that if the early Naiyayikas found at work at the end of book four of the Nydyasútra claim that debate as such is a meaningful and important activity in company with other practices and objectives to be connected with an adhydmavidyd, this claim certainly includes the activity of examination with reasons - which again
The position which I have attempted to uncover above for early Nyaya prior to Vatsyayana can be compared to the attitude displayed in a group of chapters called Vårsneyadhyatma in the Mokşadharma section of the Mahabharata" which simply presuppose that examination with reasons is not in contradiction with the concern about the Self, and thus with an adhyamavidyd. The chapters present a path charac terized by examination and consideration leading to the elimination of faults as the cause for the liberation of the Self. Among the keywords in this context one first notices "understanding" (buddhi),"clearly preferred to "knowledge" (vidyd). Further more, there occur a number of verbal derivatives of pari-Vikş which evoke one of the three ways of the proceeding of the teaching" (fdstrapravstri) evidenced according to Vatsyayana in the Mydyasutra, namely, the third one which is called "examina tion" (parlkşd)". Even if the term parīksä itself in this specific methodological sense is not used in the Nyäyasútra, other derivations of parliks figure in the characterization of two relevant topics in the first chapter of the first book and testify to the fact that the notion of examination belongs to the older strata of the Nyaya school. This is corroborated by the frequent employment of derivatives of parliks in the section on debate in the Carakasamhita, Vimanasthana chapter 8, which, as already mentioned above (cf. p. 232.), reflects an older tradition of debate in whose environ
2 Cf. NS 1.1.40: avindratattverthe kdranopapatitas tatuajdndotham has tarkah
On the usage of drana (cause") in the sense of reasoning), which is rather unusual in philosophical texts of the classical period, d. Vaisesikasara (VS) 9.20 heur apadeso lingam nimiftam pramdam kdranam iry anathintaram
. The pramina "inference" functions with reasons according to the classical Nylya after the time of the compilation of the Mydyasdera. In the Nydyardtraitself, however, there is insufficient evidence as to whether reasons are employed in inferences. Thus, the usage of inference, as a pramdna, in debate as characterized in NS 1.2.1 does not necessarily constitute another instance of the application of reasons in debate.
Cf. yathoksopaparnah in NS 1.2.2 (characterizing jalpa), also to be applied to 1.2.3 (vitanda).
"On Vasudeva's affiliation to the Vrsni tribe belonging to the Yadava clan cf. BHANDARKAR 1982, 5; 11-12, and for a more extensive discussion MATSUBARA 1994, 60-61; 121-122.
1 Chapters 203-210 are translated on the basis of the Bombay edition (B) (chapters 210-217) in DEUSSEN 1906, 244-270.
cr. Mahabharata (MBA) 12.205.3, 26a (quoted in n. 88): 256.
Cf. MBH 12.205.33d.
NCY, MRh 12.205.18ab... samyak parikseta dosdn afnasambhaydn: 24: dogdndmevam dindim parlkya guruld ghavam/virded dumasamushdndmekalkamansaniatam Il. 206.20: indtydndrajayeva prabhavapralaydy bha / parlky scared vididayathvac characaktusdil.
On examination as a fastapravrtic. PRESENDANZ 1994. 202-203; 692-693.
C NS 1.1.25 (on illustration"); pariksaka, and 1.1.31 (on a sel tenet): aparika, pariksana