________________
The Lokāyata, Nāstika and Cārvāka 517 revision of an earlier text (Agniveśa-samhitā), which suggests the existence of such a discussion in the first or the second century B.C. if not earlier. The treatment of this art of disputation and sophistry in the Nyāya-sūtras is well known. Both in the Ayur-veda and in the Nyāya people made it a point to learn the sophistical modes of disputation to protect themselves from the attacks of their opponents. In the Kathā-vatthu also we find the practical use of this art of disputation. We hear it also spoken of as hetu-vāda and copious reference to it can be found in the Mahābhāratal. In the Aśvamedha-parvan of the Mahābhārata we hear of hetu-vādins (sophists or logicians) who were trying to defeat one another in logical disputes. Perhaps the word vākovākya in the Chāndogya Upanişad, vii. 1. 2, VII. 2. 1, VII. 7. 1, also meant some art of disputation. Thus it seems almost certain that the practice of the art of disputation is very old. One other point suggested in this connection is that it is possible that the doctrine of the orthodox Hindu philosophy, that the ultimate truth can be ascertained only by an appeal to the scriptural texts, since no finality can be reached by arguments or inferences, because what may be proved by one logician may be controverted by another logician and that disproved by yet another logician, can be traced to the negative influence of the sophists or logicians who succeeded in proving theses which were disproved by others, whose findings were further contradicted by more expert logicians. There were people who tried to refute by arguments the Vedic doctrines of the immortality of souls, the existence of a future world either as rebirth or as the pity-yāna or the deva-yāna, the efficacy of the Vedic sacrifices and the like, and these logicians or sophists (haituka) who reviled the Vedas were called nästikas. Thus, Manu says that the Brahmin who through a greater confidence in the science of logic (hetu-śāstra) disregards the authority of the Vedas and the smrti are but nāstikas who should be driven out by good
Mahābhārata, II. 13034, v. 1983; XIII. 789, etc. 2 Ibid. xiv. 85. 27.
3 Compare Brahma-sūtra "tarkā-pratişthānād apy anyathā-numānam iti ced eram api avimokşa-prasargaḥ." II. I. II.
Sankara also says: yasmān nirāgamāḥ puruso-preksă-mătra-nibandhanah tarkāh a pratişthitā bhavanti utpreksāyāḥ nirankuśatvät kair apy utprekşitäh santaḥ tato'nyair ābhāsyante iti na pratisthitatvam tarkānam sakyam aśrayitum.
Vācaspati, commenting on the commentary of Sankara, quotes from Vākyapadiya: yatnenā' numito' py arthah kusalair anumāțrbhiḥ abhiyuktatarair anyair anyathai'vo'papādyate.
