Indian Logic Part 01

Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti Granthmala

Page 19

10
INDIAN LOGIC
Jayanta's solution of his problem lies in suggesting that the four "learnings included theological as well as secular disciplines (alongwith anvikșikī) while the fourteen vidyasthānas included. only theological disciplines (along with Nyāya)'. Even then it is noteworthy that the ancient authors thought it worthwhile to contend that ānvikșiki acts as handmaid to theological as well as secular disciplines while Jayanta that Nyāya acts as handmaid to theological disciplines alone.'
Then Jayanta raises the somewhat ticklish question of the relationship of his school with the Mimāṁsā school. Thus the medieval Purāņist Brahmin would declare from the house top that Vedas are his ultimate source of authority but his real source of authority were Purānas; nevertheless, he represented the dominent trend of the Brāhmaṇical theology of the time and the Nyāya authors were the philosophical spokesmen of this trend. However, there also then existed a minority trend of Brahmaṇical theology whose preoccupation with the problems of Vedic ritualism was all-absorbing, and the Mimāmsa authors were the philosophical spokesmen of this trend. So the question before Jayanta was as to why the task of vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony should be entrusted to his Nyaya school and not to the Mimāṁsā school. 10 Jayanta first seeks to dismiss the question by submitting that the primary concern of the Mimāṁsa school is to conduct an investigation with the meaning of Vedas and not to vindicate the validity of Vedic testimony -- the latter being the primary concern of the Nyaya school.1 As a matter of fact, originally neither the Mimāṁsā school nor the Nyāya school was primarily interested in vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony--not the former because it was not at all interested in the problems of logic, not the latter because its interest in the problems of logic was of a general nature and not specially directed towards vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony. It was only in due course that the Mimāṁsā school developed a serious interest in the problems of logic and by that time the different schools of logic were passionately defending their respective cherished theologies. And since now both a Mimāṁsā philosophy and a Nyāya philo