________________
240
Karin Preisendanz
Debate and Independent Reasoning vs. Tradition
241
ment the Nyaya tradition may have developed. The affinity of the medical tradition with this older tradition of debate finds its expression in the strikingly copious usage of these derivatives also in those parts of the relevant chapter of the Vimanasthana which surround the sections relating to debate proper.
Of terminological interest in the Vårşneyadhyatma chapters are also the verbal derivates of vimpson - consideration (vimarsa) functions essentially in the characterization of the relevant topic "doubt" in the first chapter of the Mydyasútra, and is also referred to in this very section as preceding the decision, another relevant topic. Moreover, the employment of reasons (het) appears in a decidedly positive light according to one Vårşneyadhyatma half-verse which concludes that "due to intellectual vision (indnacakşus) so much (ie, the preceding teaching) can be proclaimed as being endowed with reasons (hetumat)." The use of the term jrianacakşus, which I understand literally as "faculty of vision which is nothing but knowlodge," implies that knowledge which provides matters with reasons is acknowledged to have the same status as the most powerful sensory perception. The following question of the disciple, asked of his instructing teacher, is related to the statement just translated; it carries with it strong associations with the characterization of the dnvikşikl's procedure I have already adduced from the Arthasästra (cf. above, p. 228) because the disciple asks: "The strength and weakness of which [faults] should the wise consider with (their) understanding by means of reasons?"" The anviksiki for its part investigates the strength and weakness of the other three sciences) with reasons (heru)."
established sciences or branches of knowledge including the sacred tradition". At the beginning of the yuga the great sages received the Veda-s together with the traditional narratives frihasa) which had been hidden at the end of the previous yuga. The Bhagavat knew the Veda-s, Bphaspati pronounced the "limbs of the Veda (vedânga) and Bhargava the teachings relating to government and politics (nitifdstra), Narada the science of music (gandharvaveda), Bharadvaja archery (dhanurgraha) Gargya the deeds of gods and sages (devarsicarita) and Krspitreya medicine (cikitsita). After this enumeration, the text continues:
"By all these (sages) individually, when engaged in debate (vadin), many basic models/rules of methodical thinking (nyayatantrani) have been taught. What has been taught with reasons (hetu), tradition
(agama) and good conduct (sadācāra), that is resorted to. ** Taken in this way, that is considering its immediate context, the verse thus implies that methodical thinking or reasoning on the part of the great sages accompanies the various sciences mentioned, being voiced or expressed specifically in the context of
In the first chapter of the Varsneyadhyatma we even encounter, in a macrocosmic context, methodical thinking (rydya) on an equal standing with a group of well
To my knowledge, the classification presented here has not yet been included in studies of the brahmanical vidydistdna-s and related concepts.
Cf. MBh 12.203.17-20.
The Kumbhakonam edition of the Mahabharata adds a verse in which Gautama, as the authority on the Nyayatantra, Dvaipayana, as having scized or apprehended Vedanta and Karmayoga, and Bhrgu, responsible for the Silpalastra, are mentioned. This is certainly an interpolation as the association of the name Gotama/Gautama with the Nykya and Its Sotra occurs, to my knowledge, in the preserved Nyaya literature itself first in the Mydyabhasana (referring to the gaudamamata), that is, only from the tenth century onwards; the name is connected implicitly with the Nyaya in the wellknown satirical verse quoted e.g., NBR p. 594,18-19, Mydyadtrikardtparyapar buddhi (NVTP) p. 90,22-23 and SKT P.1584. Explicit, maybe earlier associations are found at a few places in the Puranic literature.
C. MBh 12.203.20: Hydyata trdny anekdini rais sair wadni ddibhin/herdgamasaddcd. rair yad kam tad updrale II. This verse (corresponding to B 12.210.22) is quoted also in VIDYA BHUSANA 1920, 39, and referred to ibid., p. 7(as proof for VIDYABHUSANA's claim that the Anviksi I was called Hetuškstra or Hetuvidyd) and p. 42 (used by VIDYABUSANA as evidence for the use of gydya in the sense of logic in the Mahabharata); cf. also VIDYABHUSANA's introduction p. xviii, to his translation of the Mydyasira as published in VIDYABHUSANA 1930 (original introduction p. xv). Further references to this verse have been made in MISHRA 1966, 9, and THAKUR 1974, 404 (as evidence for the existence of different Nyaya schools and treatises; cf. also THAKUR 1975. 39 and 43 [with wrong reference in n. 8D. All authors mentioned follow readings not adopted in the critical edstion; most relevant for differences in their interpretations are hendgamasamdarah and yad yuram in the second part of the verse. HALBFASS obviously sees a continuation of the classification of
orthodox sciences in the reference to the various systems of logic, as he interprets nydyatantramy anekani (cf. HALBFASS 1988, 539 [n. 60); cf. also DAHLMANN 1895, 225).
... do bid...
cf. in the initial exposition concerning the practice of debate (sambhdavidhi) $ 18 (5 instances), and in the treatment of the topics (pada) relevant for debate $$ 37 (on the settenets, 3 instances), 46 on inquisitiveness, instances, the topic Add itself is determined as pariksd), 52 (on critical inquiry. I instance), and 67 (concluding remarks, 1 instance)
wa MBH 12.205,24cd: impied dimasanuddin eksikam arsantatam (for the full verse cf. L. 80). cf. also 26b, quoted in n. 88
CL, NS 1.1.23
CE. NS 1.1.41 "CrMBA 12.209.20ab: hetume chakyam Akhydum etdva Adnacakud.
MBA 12.20526ab: ked scil. dardnom baldbalam buddhyd hetubhir vinted
used by VIDVABITUSANA'S IBU stroduction p
budhah