supposition which does not require serious refutation, at least so far as Dr Vidyabhu@sa@na has proved it.  Thus after all this discussion we have not advanced a step towards the ascertainment of the date of the original part of the Nyaya.  Goldstuecker says that both Patanjali (140 B.C.) and Katyayana (fourth century B.C.) knew the Nyaya sutras [Footnote ref 1].  We know that Kau@tilya knew the Nyaya in some form as Anvik@siki in 300 B.C., and on the strength of this we may venture to say that the Nyaya existed in some form as early as the fourth century B.C.  But there are other reasons which lead me to think that at least some of the present sutras were written some time in the second century A.D.  Bodas points out that Badaraya@na’s sutras make allusions to the Vais’e@sika doctrines and not to Nyaya.  On this ground he thinks that Vais’e@sika sutras were written before Badarayana’s Brahma-sutras, whereas the Nyaya sutras were written later.  Candrakanta Tarkala@mkara also contends in his

_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  Goldstuecker’s Pa@nini, p. 157.]

280

edition of Vais’e@sika that the Vais’e@sika sutras were earlier than the Nyaya.  It seems to me to be perfectly certain that the Vais’e@sika sutras were written before Caraka (80 A.D.); for he not only quotes one of the Vais’e@sika sutras, but the whole foundation of his medical physics is based on the Vais`e@sika physics [Footnote ref 1].  The La@nkavatara sutra (which as it was quoted by As’vagho@sa is earlier than 80 A.D.) also makes allusions to the atomic doctrine.  There are other weightier grounds, as we shall see later on, for supposing that the Vais’e@sika sutras are probably pre-Buddhistic [Footnote ref 2].

It is certain that even the logical part of the present Nyaya sutras was preceded by previous speculations on the subject by thinkers of other schools.  Thus in commenting on I.i. 32 in which the sutra states that a syllogism consists of five premisses (avayava) Vatsyayana says that this sutra was written to refute the views of those who held that there should be ten premisses [Footnote ref 3].  The Vais’e@sika sutras also give us some of the earliest types of inference, which do not show any acquaintance with the technic of the Nyaya doctrine of inference [Footnote ref 4].

Does Vais’e@sika represent an Old School of Mima@msa?

The Vais’e@sika is so much associated with Nyaya by tradition that it seems at first sight quite unlikely that it could be supposed to represent an old school of Mima@msa, older than that represented in the Mima@msa sutras. But a closer inspection of the Vais’e@sika sutras seems to confirm such a supposition in a very remarkable way.  We have seen in the previous section that Caraka quotes a Vais’e@sika sutra. An examination of Caraka’s Sutrasthana