Indian Logic Part 01

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

Page 20

INTRODUCTION
sophy could designate their theology 'vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony' it was natural that one would dismiss as fake the other's vindilation of the validity of Vedic testimony. It was. in line with this attitude that Jayanta, even while conceding that the Mimāmsā school does undertake a vindication of the validity of Vedic testimony, declares that this vindication is nevertheless faulty.To The gravamen of his charge is that this school treats Vedas as an authorless composition while no composition can be deemed authoritative unless it is the composition of an autho; ritative person. 13 As it stands Jayanta's complaint makes sense but according to his school too Vedas are composed not by any human being but by God; and certainly the position that Vedas are composed by God is no less fantastic than the position that they are composed by nobody. But it is the contest between these two fantastic positions that is the central feature of Jayanta's treatment of verbal testimony, a treatment occupying about twothirds of the space devoted by him to the padārtha pramāņa. Thus after having investigated in the first chapter the nature of pramana in general and in the second chapter that of perception, inference and analogy--the three pramānas posited by the Nyāya school in addition to verbal testimony - Jayanta discusses in the Chapters third to sixth various questions related to verbal testimony. And this discussion on verbal testimony is so conducted that barring stray exceptions where the Buddhist or the like is the rival party the confrontation is always against some position or other maintained by the Mimāmsa school; ( the fourth Chapter is of exceptional significance inasmuch as it for the most part seeks to vindicate the authoritative character of Vedas on the basis of an actual examination of their contents, also inasmuch as it seeks to adjudge as to which other theological texts, proVedic or otherwise, are worthy of a respectful consideration). To be fair to Jayanta, let it however be conceded that barring that fourth chapter even his treatment of verbal testimony raises genuine philosophical issues from beginning till end. A perusal of the bare catalogue of these issues should suffice to convince the sceptic; taken in order they stand as follows: