Note On Concept Adrsta As Used In Vaisesika Sutra

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 11

Concept of Adrsta
Aruna Bharats inferred is taken notice of. I do not dare to decide this question, but I gather the impression that this assumption is confirmed by the criticism Dinoaga directs against the Vaiscsika theory of inference.
It was mentioned above that the kind of influence by Vraagana on VS 2.1.8-10 assuned by SCHUSTER is most unlikely. What has prompted her to make this assumption was obviously the belief that this approach has been suggested by FRAUWALLNER; for she expressly states that it is FRAUWALLNER's suggestion that the Vaigesika inference theories should be exaittined in the light of Samkhya epistemology that I am here pursu. ing". Now, when going through the two articles of FRAUWALLNER'S referred to by SCHUSTER, one fails to detect such a general suggestion; instead what is actually found are quite explicit and clear statements show ing that FRAUWALLNER himself while reckoning with specific influences exercised by Vragana on the VS, nevertheless saw them only in the first ahnika of adhyaya III; for he says: "It is here that we meet with a theory of inference that is likewise independent of dialectics and that is based on the stable connection between two things, the different types of which connection one seeks to determinc. Here, too, perception falls back on the second position behind the theory of inference; and the Vaisenika system makes tise also of inference by way of exclusion" (.er, parijera or rather avgra as called by Visagana),
A.D.". In a footnote he adds the remark that "this bipartition is met with in the Valsesikasaras only at two points (II, 1,15-17 and III, 2,6-8)", which he, however, considers to be later additions".
As regards the last three stras-2.1.15-17 are of no importance in this respect since they were modelled on 3.2.6-8-to account for the objections raised here by a Buddhist opponent, it is not necessary to assume the influence of Vrsagana or Dinnaga. The arguments brought - forward in these sutras against the Vaigesika proof for the existence of the soul (diman) can have been likewise inspired by Ch'ing-mul; that is to say, similar objections were raised already by earlier Buddhist thinkers.
On the other hand FRAUWALLNER advocates the opinion that "already the bipartition of inference" (viz., into darasamanya and adys fasāntanya was taught by him", i.e., Candramati, is a striking proof of his dependence from Samkhya". . That is to say, according to FratWALLNER a further influence of Vregana can be shown only on the Vaiścsika author Candramati whom he dates between 450 and 550
As to the Vaiseșika theory of inference as a whole, FRAUWALLNER speaks only of "beginnings of such a theory in the VS "which due to their complex stratification call for a separate discussion". Since unfortunately he could no longer deal with these in fact intricate) problems, his own interpretation of VS 2.1.8-10 is unknown. Yet, from his remark just quoted it can be inferred that he, too, was of the opinion that on the whole the Vaisesika inference theories attest to a stage in the development of reflexion on logical problems that can hardly be called advanced. In any case, this much becomes highly probale : FRAUWALLNER did not, apparently, consider even privately, as it were, an influence of Vrsagana's teaching upon VS 2.1.8-10, not to speak of indicating or asserting it.
3.1. Returning now to our starting point, viz., the term ada as used in the VS, the first result to be noted is that in VS 2.1.10 adest is used as an expression that stands in contradistinction to drsa in the same stra. Since it is not prior to 2.1.11 that an argument is brought for. ward to prove that wind is a material 'substance', adesta and perhaps also drsia in 2.1.10 have to be taken to refer to entities in general, i.e., of which, in the context, it has not yet been decided as to which category they belong. Therefore, one cannot but draw the conclusion that the VS, at least at some point of its development, makes the basic distinction between elements of reality that can in principle be perceived and others
55. L. c., fn, 1, p. 386. 56. Via, in fa. 1, p. 386, these articles are noted above in fns. 28 and 38. 57. L. c. (cf. fr. 38), p. 134. 58. For significant arguments against FRAUWALLNER's assumption that the divisions
of sambandha into different types as taught in the VS is influenced by V agana,
c. SCHUSTER, I. c., p. 368. 59. L. c. (cf. fn. 28), p. 79. 60. CM. above fo. 29. 61. L., p. 80. Note that FRAUWALLNER's hypothesis regarding the relative chrono
logy of Candramati and Praiastapada is questioned by B. K. MATILAL, Nyaya. Valserika Literature (1 History of Indian Literaturs, ed. by J. GONDA, VI.2), Wiesbaden, 1977, pp. 63 L .
62. C. the book of H. Ui (noted in fa. 28), pp. 86 ff., as well as M. WALLISER, Die
buddhistische Philosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. 3. Tell: Die mittlere
Lehre des Nagarjun... Heidelberg, 1912, p. 106 f. 63. L. c. (cf. fn. 28), fn. 30, p. 79.