free ebooks

A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1

Footnote 2 See the next section


___________________________________________________________________

style="text-align: justify;">[Footnote 1: _Caraka, S'arira_, 39.]

[Footnote 2: See the next section.]

[Footnote 3: Vatsyayana's Bha@sya on the _Nyaya sutras,_ I.i.32. This is undoubtedly a reference to the Jaina view as found in _Das'avaikalikaniryukti_ as noted before.]

[Footnote 4: _Nyaya sutra_ I.i. 5, and _Vais'e@sika sutras_ IX. ii. 1-2, 4-5, and III. i. 8-17.]

281

heaviness (_gurutva_), liquidity (_dravatva_), oiliness(_sneha_), elasticity (_sa@mskara_), merit (_dharma_) and demerit (_adharma_); in one part of the sutra the enumeration begins with "para" (universality) and ends in "prayatna," but buddhi (cognition) comes within the enumeration beginning from para and ending in prayatna, whereas in Caraka buddhi does not form part of the list and is separately enumerated. This leads me to suppose that Caraka's sutra was written at a time when the six gu@nas left out in the Vais'e@sika enumeration had come to be counted as gu@nas, and compendiums had been made in which these were enumerated. _Bha@sapariccheda_ (a later Vais'e@sika compendium), is a compilation from some very old karikas which are referred to by Vis'vanatha as being collected from "_atisa@mk@siptacirantanoktibhi@h_"--(from very ancient aphorisms [Footnote ref 1]); Caraka's definition of samanya and vis'e@sa shows that they had not then

been counted as separate categories as in later Nyaya-Vais'e@sika doctrines; but though slightly different it is quite in keeping with the sort of definition one finds in the _Vais'e@sika sutra_ that samanya (generality) and vi'se@sa are relative to each other [Footnote ref 2]. Caraka's sutras were therefore probably written at a time when the Vais'e@sika doctrines were undergoing changes, and well-known compendiums were beginning to be written on them.

The _Vais'e@sika sutras_ seem to be ignorant of the Buddhist doctrines. In their discussions on the existence of soul, there is no reference to any view as to non-existence of soul, but the argument turned on the point as to whether the self is to be an object of inference or revealed to us by our notion of "I." There is also no other reference to any other systems except to some Mima@msa doctrines and occasionally to Sa@mkhya. There is no reason to suppose that the Mima@msa doctrines referred to allude to the _Mima@msa sutras_ of Jaimini. The manner in which the nature of inference has been treated shows that the Nyaya phraseology of "_purvavat_" and "_s'e@savat_" was not known. _Vais'e@sika sutras_ in more than one place refer to time as the ultimate cause [Footnote ref 3]. We know that the S'vetas'vatara Upani@sad refers to those who regard time as the cause of all things, but in none of the

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Professor Vanamali Vedantatirtha's article in _J.A.S.B._, 1908.]

[Footnote 2: Caraka (I.i. 33) says that samanya is that which produces unity and vis'e@sa is that which separates. V.S. II. ii. 7. Samanya and vis'e@sa depend upon our mode of thinking (as united or as separate).]


eBook Search
Social Sharing
Share Button
About us

freefictionbooks.org is a collection of free ebooks that can be read online. Ebooks are split into pages for easier reading and better bookmarking.

We have more than 35,000 free books in our collection and are adding new books daily.

We invite you to link to us, so as many people as possible can enjoy this wonderful free website.

© 2010-2013 freefictionbooks.org - All Rights Reserved.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us