Indian Philosophy

Author(s): Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 94

86
The Nyāva-Vaiseșika View Regarding God
non-conscions elements. The aphorisms of Kanada are much old but they do not contain a clear discussion about the element God. The bhāşya (a commentary-form) which Prasastapāda wrote on it is the oldest among its available commentaries. In this bhāsya there occurs a detailed description of Maheśvara in the form of the creator and destroyer of the world8; at the same time, it is also indicated there that Mahesvara undertakes creation and destruction in conformity to the good and evil acts performed by the mass of living beings. In the Vaiseșika system Maheśvara won prestige in the form of world-creator from Prasastapāda onwards - this possibility can well be entertained. An ally of the Vaiseșika system is the Nyāya system. The Nyāya aphorist Akşapāda too has briefly discussed about God', but Vätsyāyana on Nyāya who wrote a bhāşya on Nyāya aphorisms has undertaken this discussion in a prticularly elaborate form. Among those who wrote a commentary on this bhāsya Uddyotakara and Vācaspatimiśra occupy a highly special position. Both of them argued in favour of God's independent individuality and creatorship in such a staunch fashion as if it were a philosophically and logically refined version of those very arguments and reasonings about world-creatorship that were prevalent and rooted among common people.
Vātsyāyana, Uddyotakara and Vācaspatimiśra not only argue in favour of God being the creator and controller of the world, but they made it clear on the basis of the original aphorisms themselves that God has certainly created the world though depending on the acts performed by souls and not in an independent fashion, In view of this one can say that they had before them the difference of opinion that prevailed among the Mābesvaras on the question of creatorship indepenent-of-acts-performedby-souls versus creatorship-depending-on-acts-performed-by-souls and that they lent a very strongly cogent support to the latter,
In this connection another thing too is worthy of comparison. Thus so many thinkers did consider God to be a creator of the world but they defended this position of theirs mainly depending on argumentation or inference: as against them, certain others, while defending this very position. chiefly depended on their cherished scripture and argued that this position cannot be defended in an indisputable fashion with the help of inference because in face of the competent inferences offered by the rival atheistic thinkers the pro-theistic argument cannot prove strong. Thus while defending world-creatorship on the part of God some based themselves on inf. erence and some on scripture and both made use of the other means-of valid-cognition in the form of a supplementary. The Nakulisa, Pasupata and
4
The account of world-creation and world-destruction in Prasastapädabhāsya. Ivarah karanam puruşakarmāphalyadarsanāt. Na puruşakarmábhāve phalanispatteh. Tatkâritatyäd ahetuh.
-Nyāyasūtra 4.19-21