________________
228
Karin Preisendanz
Debate and independent Reasoning vs. Tradition
as an aid for all undertakings, as the foundation of all norms. The other three sciences are, according to the Arthasastra, the Vedic science, the science of material acquisition and the science of government.In this way, the author of the Mydyabhasya equates his philosophical tradition with one of the four royal sciences of the Arthasastra, namely, the science - or rather methodology - which
"investigating the strength and weakness of these three sciences) by means of reasons (hetu), assists the sentient world, strengthens the intellect in distress and in good fortune, and causes confidence in (one's
own) understanding, speech and action." This amounts to the establishment of the Nyaya in the framework of a scheme which may not be an orthodox brahmanical scheme, but which nevertheless can be assumed to have been generally accepted in the dominant cultural milieu of Vatsyayana's time and place, and to have carried with it considerable prestige.
However, Vatsyayana adds to his modified quotation of the verse that adequate understanding stattvajlana) and the attainment of the highest good" have to be understood according to the specific science. For the science of Nyaya, inasmuch as it is
a science concerned with the Self (adhyāmmavidyd)**, adequate understanding consists in the understanding of the soteriologically relevant objects of cognition, among which the Self figures prominently, whereas the attainment of the highest good consists in the obtainment of liberation. Thus, after Våtsyāyana has first distinguished the science of Nyaya from a mere science concerned with the Self, such as the Upanişads, on the basis of its specific procedure, that is, its method, he now affirms and stresses that the Nyaya is indeed an adhyatmavidya as regards its content, as well as its final aim and purpose. Concerning the content of the science or its central objects of understanding. Vatsyayana, as already earlier on in his commentary. brushes aside the fact that there are, next to the objects of valid cognition, after all 15 additional relevant topics mentioned in the programmatic first sútra as objects of adequate understanding, an understanding which is claimed there to lead to the attainment of the highest good. Although all of these topics constitute the special method of the Nyaya and thus - according to Vätsyāyana - account for its nature as the investigative science par excellence, and although their adequate understanding is indeed of importance for the adequate understanding of the Self, etc., Våtsyayana probably does not mention them here explicitly as the content of the science because they do not have direct metaphysical and soteriological significance, and are thus devoid of the status of real objects of adequate knowledge;without them the agreement of the Nyaya with tradition in content as well as in final aim can be presented more convincingly. As regards the agreement in content, it has been referred to by Vatsyayana already in the preceding, with a brief sentence complementing his identi fication of the Nyaya with the investigative science by way of its characteristic procedure of inference; in this connection he added that an inference which stands in contradiction to sense perception and tradition just seems to be an instance of the application of the outlined method of inquisitive thinking, is only an apparent instance
Cf. NBhp. 5,14-17: seyam amiksiki pramanddibhi prawibhajyamdnd pradāpah sarvavidydnam updyah sarvakarmanám/
dfrayah sarvadharmande vidyoddese parīkşitā // iti. The text as given by THAKUR has vibhajyamana and prakirtind; cf. n. 28 and 29 for an explanation of my preference for the above readings. -The last pada reads differently in the Arthastra: savad dvikla mard
CF. AS 1.2.1: anvikraki trayi warna dandantifceti vidydh
» A$ 1.2.11: ... baldhale caitas henbhir aviksamin lokaryopokaroti, yasane "bhyudaye ca buddhim awasthapayati pravilyakrydwaidradyam ca karoni. On the pronounced neutral aspect of the al l in Kautilya's presentation, evident especially in this passage, cf. HALBFASS 1988, 278; 284; PERRY 1997, 451, with n. 16.
The reading found in NBh (CalSS), nifreyarddhigamdrtham, instead of nitreyasddhiga malca, is also found in the editions of the text in VSS, ASS and SS (vol. 10, with Sudarsankarya's Prasarvapada, ed. Dwarika Das SHASTRI, Varanasi 1986) and solves the problem that veditavam (n. nom. sg.) (cf. the text as quoted in n. 37) seemingly has to be construed with fand am (n) and insteyasddhigamah (m.). However, it is also possible to take fod idam as the subject of the sentence, veditavam as its nominal predicate, and the two problematic nouns as appositions placed after the subject: "The following, namely, ... and ... is to be understood.... The reading chosen by THAKUR, which is also accepted in the KSS edition of the Midyabhasya, is confirmed by NV p. 21,94 and NVT p. 68,9
WHN RANDL states that Vatsyayara defines the Nyaya as an ammavidyd; however, as he refers to the VSS edition of the text which reads, as all other editions available to me, ad ydmavidyd, this must have been a slip of pen (cf. RANDLE 1930, 11 (n. 2. continuing from p. 10]).
* The text of the Midyabhasya according to ASS, KSS, VSS and SS reads demdditatrvaja nam, instead of dmddidnam, which, however, is contradicted by NV p. 21, 17.
» CE NBA p. 5,18-20: tad daw tatrvalidnam nifreyasddhigamal ca yatha widyart vedita vyam, iha v adhydrmavidydydm dmddifanam tartvajnanam, nifreyasddhigamo 'pavargaprdprir in Cf. also OBERHAMMER 1964, 309, PERRY 1997, 452.
"Ct. Nhp.2.9: drmddeh khalu prameyasya tatuajtanan nitreyasadhigamah
Cf. also HALBFASS 1988, 275-276.