________________
CONCEPTION OF ISVARA
221
(worlds or dwelling-places) for the living beings to dwell in and Brahmā. Brahınā creates all the living beings of all the classes and it is Brahmā only who allots jñāna, dharma, vairāgya, aišvarya, bhoga and āyus to these living beings according to their past karmas. That is why Brahmā is called sarvalokapitāmaha. After a definite period of time Brahmā attains moksa. Thus Brahmā is different with different Creation (sarga), while Maheśvara is one and nitya and hence common to all the Creations. Maheśvara possesses will only, while Brahmā possesses knowledge (of the necessary relation obtaining between actions and their respective fruits), non-attachment and miraculous powers. Maheśvara does nothing during the long existence of Creation. Brahmā governs the creation so long as it exists. In pralaya (Dissolution), the activity. of giving fruits to living beings according to their past karmas stops. Hence there is no need of Brahmā in pralaya. Neither Brahmā nor Maheśvara is described as upadeștā or as Vedakartā.
Later Nyāya-Vaiseșika thinkers having removed Brahmā, allot Brahma's task also to kvara (God). Again, they maintain that it is Isvara (God) only who gives fruits to living beings in accordance with their past karmas. Moreover, in later Nyāya-Vaiseșika works it is established that Isvara (God) possesses will and knowledge both.
From the above discussion we conclude that upto Prasastapāda, Nyāya-Vaiseșika school was atheist and the term 'Isvara' was used in the sense of jivanmukta only and not in the sense of God. It is Prasastapāda who for the first time introduced the concept of God into the Nyāya-Vaiseșika school. There are scholars who agree with us on this point.' Perhaps to distinguish God from iśvara (=jīvanmukta) of the early Nyāya-Vaiseșika school, Prasastapāda employed the term 'mahesvära'for God, that is, for him jivanmuktas are iśvaras while God is Maheśvara.
REFERENCES
1. We possess the old aphorisms of the school : The Vaiseșikasūtras
of Kanāda. Their text or wording is not testified by any old commentary. Numerous quotations in the older philosophical literature testify to a good old kernel. But much old is lost and is also variously changed, new things have also been interpolated.' History of Indian Philosophy, Erich Frauwallner, Delhi, 1984, Part II, p. 4.
