He described what is pure and what is impure food, pure food being that which is sacrificially purified (VI. ii. 5) the contrary being impure, and he says that the taking of pure food leads to prosperity through ad@r@s@ta.  He also described how

284

feelings of attachment to things are also generated by ad@r@s@ta.  Throughout almost the whole of VI. i Ka@nada is busy in showing the special conditions of making gifts and receiving them.  A reference to our chapter on Mima@msa will show that the later Mima@msa writers agreed with the Nyaya-Vais`e@sika doctrines in most of their views regarding substance, qualities, etc.  Some of the main points in which Mima@msa differs from Nyaya-Vais`e@sika are (1) self-validity of the Vedas, (2) the eternality of the Vedas, (3) disbelief in any creator or god, (4) eternality of sound (s’abda), (5) (according to Kumarila) direct perception of self in the notion of the ego.  Of these the first and the second points do not form any subject of discussion in the Vais’e@sika.  But as no Is’vara is mentioned, and as all ad@r@s@ta depends upon the authority of the Vedas, we may assume that Vais’e@sika had no dispute with Mima@msa.  The fact that there is no reference to any dissension is probably due to the fact that really none had taken place at the time of the Vais`e@sika sutras. It is probable that Ka@nada believed that the Vedas were written by some persons superior to us (II. i. 18, VI. i. 1-2).  But the fact that there is no reference to any conflict with Mima@msa suggests that the doctrine that the Vedas were never written by anyone was formulated at a later period, whereas in the days of the Vais’e@sika sutras, the view was probably what is represented in the Vais’e@sika sutras. As there is no reference to Is`vara and as ad@r@s@ta proceeding out of the performance of actions in accordance with Vedic injunctions is made the cause of all atomic movements, we can very well assume that Vais’e@sika was as atheistic or non-theistic as the later Mima@msa philosophers.  As regards the eternality of sound, which in later days was one of the main points of quarrel between the Nyaya-Vais’e@sika and the Mima@msa, we find that in II. ii. 25-32, Ka@nada gives reasons in favour of the non-eternality of sound, but after that from II. ii. 33 till the end of the chapter he closes the argument in favour of the eternality of sound, which is the distinctive Mima@msa view as we know from the later Mima@msa writers [Footnote ref 1].  Next comes the question of the proof of the existence of self.  The traditional Nyaya view is

_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  The last two concluding sutras II. ii. 36 and 37 are in my opinion wrongly interpreted by S’a@nkara Mis’ra in his Upaskara (II. ii. 36 by adding an “api” to the sutra and thereby changing the issue, and II. ii. 37 by misreading the phonetic combination “samkhyabhava” as sa@mkhya and bhava instead of sa@mkhya and abhava, which in my opinion is the right combination here) in favour of the non-eternality of sound as we find in the later Nyaya Vais’e@sika view.]