________________
226
Karin Preisendanz
Debate and Independent Reasoning vs. Tradition
227
and much later the Naiyayika Bhasarvajña add here - inasmuch as it is being differentiated by its special relevant topics, pramana, etc., from all other sciences, ** "has been examined in the instruction on the sciences as the lamp of all sciences,
on sense perception and tradition which thus necessarily precede this activity in their respectively different ways. This subsequent judging" or "measuring." bowever, is an investigation, literally: "a subsequent viewing" (anviksaņa, anviks) of what has already been seen by means of sense perception and tradition. By means of this very activity proceeds the investigative science (anviksiki). Thus, Anviksiki is nothing but the science of methodical thinking (yayavidya) as, of course, represented by the Nyaya school - which has not only specifically adopted this procedure but also made it an essential concem; and it is nothing but the teaching of methodical thinking (nyayafdstra), teaching" in the sense of a doctrinal corpus, i.e., the whole of the tenets of the Nyaya school as laid down in its basic treatise.
Våtsyayana's concluding remarks to his brief exposition of the sixteen relevant topics of Nyaya make it sufficiently clear that in this context of defining the identity of his own philosophical school by way of its method and position he accommodates it within the framework of the four sciences which are mentioned in the introductory part of Kautilya's or Kautalya's Arthafästra; as is well known since JACOBI's seminal article was published, in these concluding remarks Vätsyayana also integrates a slightly modified version of a verse which occurs - probably taken from an older source - in the very same context in the Arthafastra. He states that the investigative science - that is, the science of nyaya or Nyaya, as his commentator Uddyotakara
Cf. the quotation of the introductory sentence to the verse (cf. the text given in n 31 below) in Midyabhisana (NB) p. 71,12-14. The addition of gydyavidyd, which once more clarifies Vasyiyana's identification, also occurs in the Mydydydatke on this passage (d NV p. 21.1) and may have crept, in the course of transmission, into the quote in the Mahabharana, the opposite scenario, the loss of this clarification in the course of time, is not so easily explained. Vacaspati Misra clearly understands nydyavidya as part of the explanatory sentence in the Varrika (s. NVT P 67.8). The addition is also lacking in the corresponding quotation in Cakradhara's Nydyamarjarigranthibharga (NMGBA) p. 6,3-4. - The supplement vidyd found in the Sarwadaranasangraha (SDS) p. 245.1 is in any case secondary
Here I follow the variant pravibhayamand (as opposed to vibhajyamdnd) as found in NBA p. 71.12, NMGBA p. 6,4 and SDS p. 245.2, which would exclude an interpretation of the phrase to the effect that a "division of the science by means of," i.e., "into the relevant topics was intended (cf. c.g., HACKER 1958, 71). an interpretation which seems less plausible in the present context. Also the remarks which follow the quotation of this introductory phrase in the Mydyartika point to the understanding adopted by me: the means of valid cognition, etc., are not found in the other sciences, namely, inasmuch as these sciences do not make them thelt special toples. Cf. also the corresponding interpretation by Phanibusana TARKAVAOISA as reported in CHATTOPADHYAYA and GANGOPADHYAYA 1967, 28
With some hesitation I adopt the reading partid, reported by THAKUR as preserved in m.), which is also found in a number of quotations of this verse from the Mahabhagyd, namely, in MM p. 28,14-15. NBha p. 71,13-14 and SDS p. 94,4-5; it is confirmed in AMGBH p. 6,6 and Srikantharippanska (SKT) p. 65,32.As opposed to the reading prakiritd, it would make the reference to the entire relevant section in the Arthaldsira, where anviks ki is indeed - although only briefly - examined (cf. AS p. 4.8-10), more specific, assuming that Vityayana modified the verse himself, it also would imply his superimposition of his notion of the three fástrapratis employed in the Nylya (c. the introduction of the Mydyabharya to NS 1.1.3) because in the Arthaldstraitself the sub section is designated dvijikisthapand. The reading praktita ("praised") would correspond better to the wording in the concluding verse as given in the Arthaastra by offering some kind of equivalent to safvar...mard ("always considered"). However, I think it highly implausible that the predicate "praised" would have been replaced by the less laudatory (but well attested) "examined" in the course of the tradition - In Sivaprasad BHATTACHARYYA's quotation of the verse gariyasi is to be found at this place, a variant not known to me from other sources; cf. BHATTACHARYYA 1956, 50 (n. 6). MATILAL'S translation is obviously based on Vätsyayana's version of the verse but does not take either reading into account ("It is thus enumerated in the list of the branches of learning) (MATILAL 1986, 73! Similarly, THAKUR's comment that Vatsyayana was "mentioning the fact that they (ie, the first three feet) are taken from the Vidyoddesa section of the Arthaldstra of Kautalya (cf. THAKUR 1975, 41) does not point towards a decision for either variant
In the Arshadstra, the section is called vidydsamuddela, Bot vidyoddess. This change had to be introduced here probably metri causa unless Vatsylyana did not modify the verseas found in the Arthalastra himself, but quoted it from an original context where it was connected with a vidyoddesa (cf. n. 26 above).
which could also explain Vatsyayana's praminoti. In this case, he would after all have understood pramdna and anumda as referring to a "(subsequent) measuring, as has traditionally been assumed in modern scholarship
Compare NM p. 9,9-10 praryaksdgamdbhyam kitarydvkagam anvikramdam ty arthah tadyurddakam astram dnevnik. Cl. also Ksirasvamin on Amarakola 1.6.5 as quoted in HACKER 1958, 77.
*C. NBA p. 3,5-8: kah punar ayam wydyah? prandair arthaparikanom. pratyakadamd. Iritam odundan, s viksa, praryaksdgamdbhyam ikgitary/drtharyanvianam vid. fayd pra variata ity ani wydavidya nyaya dstram. C1. on this passage, already translated in JACOBI 1911, 735, especially HALBFASS 1988, 275; cf. also OBERHAMMER 1992, 250, PERRY 1997, 451.
2 On the use of "Kautalya" instead of the equally attested "Kautilya" cf. SCHARFE 1968, 82 83. Obviously, SCHARFE could no longer take into consideration KANGLE's detailed argumentation for "Kautilya" and against "Kautalya" (cf. KANGLE 1965, 109-113).
25 Cf. Arthalstra US) 12.12. According to SCHARFE 1968, 4, both texts may quote from a third source. RUBEN, on the other hand, seems to assume that Vatsyayana himself would have quoted the verse correctly and therefore concludes that he must have taken the already changed verse from some "metrical excerpt" (cf. RUBEN 1926, 354). MATILAL has not noticed the deviation at all (cf. MATILAL 1986, 72; similarly DASGUPTA 1922, 278).