of logic or rather of debate.  This combination is on the face of it loose and external, and it is not improbable that the metaphysical portion was added to increase the popularity of the logical part, which by itself might not attract sufficient attention.  Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasada S’astri in an article in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society 1905 says that as Vacaspati made two attempts to collect the Nyaya sutras, one as Nyayasuci and the other as Nyayasutroddhara, it seems that even in Vacaspati’s time he was not certain as to the authenticity of many of the Nyaya sutras.  He further points out that there are unmistakable signs that many of the sutras were interpolated, and relates the Buddhist tradition from China and Japan that Mirok mingled Nyaya and Yoga.  He also

_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  Yena prayukta@h pravarttate tat prayojanam (that by which one is led to act is called prayojanam); yamartham abhipsan jihasan va karma arabhate tenanena sarve pra@nina@h sarva@ni karma@ni sarvas’ca vidya@h vyapta@h tadas’rayas’ca nyaya@h pravarttate (all those which one tries to have or to fly from are called prayojana, therefore all beings, all their actions, and all sciences, are included within prayojana, and all these depend on Nyaya). Vatsyayana bhas’ya, I.i. 1.]

279

thinks that the sutras underwent two additions, one at the hands of some Buddhists and another at the hands of some Hindu who put in Hindu arguments against the Buddhist ones.  These suggestions of this learned scholar seem to be very probable, but we have no clue by which we can ascertain the time when such additions were made.  The fact that there are unmistakable proofs of the interpolation of many of the sutras makes the fixing of the date of the original part of the Nyaya sutras still more difficult, for the Buddhist references can hardly be of any help, and Prof.  Jacobi’s attempt to fix the date of the Nyaya sutras on the basis of references to S’unyavada naturally loses its value, except on the supposition that all references to S’unyavada must be later than Nagarjuna, which is not correct, since the Mahayana sutras written before Nagarjuna also held the S’unyavada doctrine.

The late Dr S.C.  Vidyabhu@sa@na in J.R.A.S. 1918 thinks that the earlier part of Nyaya was written by Gautama about 550 B.C. whereas the Nyaya sutras of Ak@sapada were written about 150 A.D. and says that the use of the word Nyaya in the sense of logic in Mahabharata I.I. 67, I. 70. 42-51, must be regarded as interpolations.  He, however, does not give any reasons in support of his assumption.  It appears from his treatment of the subject that the fixing of the date of Ak@sapada was made to fit in somehow with his idea that Ak@sapada wrote his Nyaya sutras under the influence of Aristotle—­a