________________
APRIL, 1918]
THE EARLY HISTORY OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
107
We have seen that according to Kautilya the number of Vidyâs is four. He lays great emphasis on this number. For he first puts forth the views of the three schools, which differ from him. Those of the Mânavas, Bârhaspatyas and Ausanasas, who maintain that the number of viydâs is respectively 3, 2 and 1; and he continues: catasra eva vidyâ iti Kautilyaḥ, tâbhir dharmârthau yad vidyât, tad vidyânâm vidyâtvam. "Kautilya teaches that there are four Vidyâs not more and not less. They are called vidyás because through them one learns (vidyât) Dharma and Artha." From these words one can gather that he was the first, who not only taught that the number of the vidyâs was four, but also recognized the Ânvîksikî as a special Vidyâ. For he says about the Mânavas that they included Ânviksikî in Theology. It is not that they denied the Anviksiki but they did not admit it to the rank of an independent Vidyâ and hence connected it with Theology. As far as two Mîmâmsâs are concerned, they were perfectly justified in doing so. Sankhya and Yoga, however, could be looked upon as different branches of Theology, because as we have seen they were considered as Smrtis. That the Mânavas knew both these philosophical systems can be seen from the circumstance that Manu, who certainly is to be considered a later offshoot of this school, makes a considerable use of Sânkhya and Yoga ideas in the theoretical part of his work. Kautilya's innovation thus consists in the fact that he recognized Philosophy to be a science by itself, inasmuch as it has its own method of treatment. And therefore he can bring in the Lokayata, the character of whose contents must exclude it from the Trayî. Had the conception of the Anviksiki, as Kautilya grasped it, been current before him, the Bârhaspatyas would have considered the number of the Vidyâs not to be two ( Vârttâ and Dandanîti) as we saw above; but would have mentioned the Ânviksikî as the third Vidya. Because they themselves were followers of Lokayatam which was recognised by Kautilya as the Anviksiki.-Hence when we find in Gautama's Dharma Sâstra (XI, 3) the statement: trayyâm ânvîkṣikyâm câ 'bhivinîtaḥ, " (The Prince) should be well schooled in Theology and Philosophy", we may presume that the passage is a later interpolation. J. Jolly classes the work with the revised Dharma Sâstra.22 The combination referred to by Gautama: of Trayi and Anvikṣiki, is not at all mentioned by Kautilya; probably it arose from the efforts of an enthusiast, who was anxious to emphasise the authority of Vedas and Brahmanas for every duty of a prince, as Gautama himself does elsewhere.23 But all other authors recognise four Vidyâs. The passage that has been translated above from the Nydya Bha ya shows that for Vâtsyayana the number four had almost canonical authority, as he bases upon it his argument to prove that the Nyaya Sastra must be called the true Anvîkşikî. I shall soon bring forward further early evidence to show that the view of Kautilya that there are four Vidyâs, received general recognition. But in one point all the later writers are agreed, as opposed to Kautilya, viz., in demanding that the Ânvikṣiki is at the same time Atma-vidyâ. We saw above that the author of the Nyâya Bhasya requires of the Anvîksiki that it should not be merely an Atma-vidya; but should have subject-matte. peculiar to itself. Nevertheless he claims towards the end of the passage translated above, that the Nyâya Sâstrâ is not only the Ânviksiki but also Adhyatma-vidyâ, a Philosophy, which
21 Trayi vartta da panitié cêti Mânavâḥ. traylviseṣo hy ânviksikî 'ti.
22" Recht und Sitte," in Grundrisz der indoar. Phil. p. 5.
23 If the tradition (SBE., II., p. XLV) according to which Gautama is supposed to be the grandson or great-grandson of Usanas, can be taken seriously, Gautama must have belonged to the school of the Ausanasas; but this recognized, according to Kautilya, only one Vidyâ; dandanîtir ekê vidyê 'ty Ausanasib
