________________
132
INDIAN LOGIC
a view to attaining mokya. Really, this way of talking about knowledge-of-soul and moksa was foreign to the Nyāya tradition which in this connection actually said something essentially unVedic. For the Naiyāyika's basic contention was that knowledge of the sixteen padārthas posited by his school is what leads to mokşa; and even granting that according to him a knowledge of twelve prameyas is what leads to mokṣa the fact remains that soul is just one of those twelve prameyas. Nay, even granting that according to the Naiyāyika a knowledge of soul is what leads to moksa the fact remains that he never appealed to the authority of Vedas while making this assertion and not at all while working out the details of the point thus asserted. So, Jayanta is in fact twisting matters. when he says that according to the author of Nyāyasūtra the knowledge of soul leads to moksa and that this position has been maintained in deference to the Upanișadic injunction 'One ought to know soul.' Of course, Jayanta himself offers an account of soul and mokṣa that was traditional with the Naiyāyikas since ever, but the question arises as to why he talks the way he presently does. As a matter of fact, this way of talking was characteristic of the Vedāntists and since ever. For it was the Vedāntist's claim that his school in conformity to the Upanişadic tradition attaches central importance to the knowledge of soul, a knowledge exclusively conducive to moksa, while offering an account of soul and moksa which in all details tallied with what Upanişads taught. Not only that, even while discussing the question as to whether right understanding or religious ritual is the proper means for attaining mokşa Jayanta was adopting a procedure that was foreign to the tradition of his Nyāya school but was in line with the tradition of the Vedānta school. For when the Naiyāyika said that right understanding is the means for attaining moksa he only meant that one not in possession of right understanding would not attain mokşa. Thus the idea would never occur to him that mere right understanding, that is, right understanding untranslated into practice, leads to mokşa. Jayanta himself submits that right understanding enables one to undertake a constant reflection about the harmful consequences of indulgence in passions, a reflection which puts one in a position to resist passions and hence to act in a fashion that no fresh karmas are accumulated; and in making this submission he was being faithful to the tradition of his school. There might be two
