are but the feeling-experiences of the soul, and with what impudence could Sa@mkhya think of these as material substances?  Again their cosmology of a mahat, aha@mkara, the tanmatras, is all a series of assumptions never testified by experience nor by reason.  They are all a series of hopeless and foolish blunders.  The phenomena of experience thus call for a new careful reconstruction in the light of reason and experience such as cannot be found in other systems. (See Nyayamanjari, pp. 452-466 and 490-496.)

Nyaya and Vais’e@sika sutras.

It is very probable that the earliest beginnings of Nyaya are to be found in the disputations and debates amongst scholars trying to find out the right meanings of the Vedic texts for use in sacrifices and also in those disputations which took place between the adherents of different schools of thought trying to defeat one another.  I suppose that such disputations occurred in the days of the Upani@sads, and the art of disputation was regarded even then as a subject of study, and it probably passed then by the name vakovakya.  Mr Bodas has pointed out that Apastamba who according to Buehler lived before the third century B.C. used the word Nyaya in the sense of Mima@msa [Footnote ref 1].  The word Nyaya derived

_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1 Apastamba, trans. by Buehler, Introduction, p.  XXVII., and Bodas’s article on the Historical Survey of Indian Logic in the Bombay Branch of J.R.A.S., vol.  XIX.]

277

from the root ni is sometimes explained as that by which sentences and words could be interpreted as having one particular meaning and not another, and on the strength of this even Vedic accents of words (which indicate the meaning of compound words by pointing out the particular kind of compound in which the words entered into combination) were called Nyaya [Footnote ref 1].  Prof.  Jacobi on the strength of Kau@tilya’s enumeration of the vidya (sciences) as Anvik@siki (the science of testing the perceptual and scriptural knowledge by further scrutiny), trayi (the three Vedas), vartta (the sciences of agriculture, cattle keeping etc.), and da@n@daniti (polity), and the enumeration of the philosophies as Sa@mkhya, Yoga, Lokayata and Anvik@siki, supposes that the Nyaya sutra was not in existence in Kau@tilya’s time 300 B.C.) [Footnote ref 2].  Kau@tilya’s reference to Nyaya as Anvik@siki only suggests that the word Nyaya was not a familiar name for Anvik@siki in Kau@tilya’s time.  He seems to misunderstand Vatsyayana in thinking that Vatsyayana distinguishes Nyaya from the Anvik@siki in holding that while the latter only means the science of logic the former means logic as well as metaphysics.  What appears from Vatsyayana’s statement in Nyaya sutra I.i. 1 is this that he points out that the science which was known in his