English
The maxim of nidarsana allows of describing anything after the analogy of other things. Thus it may be said that, just as fire in a room grows bigger and bigger with wind, so does a boil grow with vata, pitta and kapha. Niyoga means a direction (e.g. ‘‘only what is good to the system is to be taken’’). Samuccaya means the taking of two or more things together as having equal value. Vikalpa is the method of giving alternative or optional directions. Uhya is the maxim by which things which are apparent from the context can be understood. It is easy to see that of these thirty-two maxims some are ways of interpreting ideas, others are ways of interpreting the arrange- ment and manner of textual words and their connections, while there are others which are but descriptions of specific peculiarities of style. The redactor (Nagarjuna) says that he has collected all these maxims as general principles of textual understanding, and he calls them sabda-nyayartha, i.e. the meaning of the maxims of verbal interpretation. Did Logic Originate in the Discussions of Ayur-veda Physicians? Dr Mahamahopadhyaya Satish Chandra Vidyabhusan in his History of Indian Logic supposes without adducing any reason that the Caraka-samhita gives a summary of the principal doctrines of Anviksiki, possibly as propounded by Medhatithi Gautama.- He further says that the doctrines of Anviksiki evidently did not con- XIII] Identification of Gautama 393 stitute a part of the original Ayur-veda of Punarvasu Atreya, and that these doctrines seem to have been incorporated into the Caraka-samhita by the redactor Caraka, in whose time they were widely known and studied. Dr Vidyabhusan’s theory is that both Caraka and Aksapada borrowed the Nyaya doctrines from Medha- tithi Gautama, but, while Caraka accepted them in their crude forms, Aksapada pruned them thoroughly before they were assimi- lated in the Nydya-sitra}. But Dr Vidyabhusan’s Medhatithi Gautama is more or less a mythical person, and there is no proof that he ever wrote anything, or that Caraka borrowed anything from a Medhatithi Gautama, or that the Nyaya doctrines found in the Caraka-samhita were not contained in the original treatise of Agnivesa, now lost. Dr Vidya- bhusan refers to the evidence of a number of works, such as the Kusumafijali, Naisadha-carita and Nydya-sitra-vrtti, which refer to Gautama as being the founder of Anviksiki. But none of these authorities are earlier than the tenth century. He refers also to the authority of the Padma-purana, Skanda-purana and Gandharva- tantra, none of which can be regarded as a work of any considerable antiquity. Vatsyayana himself refers to Aksapada as the person to whom Nyaya (the science of Logic) revealed itself?. Uddyotakara also refers to Aksapada as the utterer of the Nyd@ya-sastra, and so also does Vacaspati?. There is therefore absolutely no reason why the original authorship of Nyaya should be attributed to a Gautama, as against Aksapada, on evidence which cannot be traced to any period earlier than the tenth century and which is collected from Purana sources directly contradicted by the earliest Nydya au- thorities. The Nydya-sastra, therefore, cannot be traced on the evidence of the earliest Nyaya authorities to any earlier Gautama; for, had this been so, it would certainly have been mentioned 1 History of Indian Logic, pp. 25 and 26, by Mahamahopadhyaya Satish Chandra Vidyabhusan. Calcutta University, 1921. Yo *ksapadam rsim nydyah pratyabhad vadatam varam tasya Vatsyayana idam bhdsya-jatam avartayat. Vatsyadyana-bhasya, 2. 24, A.D. 400. Dr Vidyabhusan’s translation of it as “The Nyaya philosophy manifested itself (in a regular form) before Aksapada”’ is inexact. yad Aksapadah pravaro muninadm s$amaya sastram jagato jagada. Nydya-varttika of Uddyotakara (A.D. 600). Opening lines. atha bhagavata Aksapadena nihsreyasa-hetau sastre pranite. Nydya-varttika-tat- parya-ftka of Vacaspati. Dr Vidyabhusan’s translation of the Nydya-varttika word sastra as “‘ Nydyaéastra in a systematic way” is again inexact. 394 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. by either Vatsyayana, Uddyotakara or Vacaspati. Jayanta also - attributes the elaborate Nyaya work to Aksapada and does not seem to know that this elaborate treatise, the Nyaya-sittra, was based on the teachings of an earlier authority’. If any such authorities were known, they would certainly have been men- tioned for the dignity and the prestige of the Sastra. Gautama is an old name, and we find it attached to one of the Rsis of the Rg-veda (1. 62. 78. 85; 1V. 4); he is mentioned in the Satapatha- brahmana (1.4. 1.10} 11.3.4. 19, etc.); in the Taittiriya-pratisakhya (1. 5), in the Asvalayana-srauta-sitra (1. 3; 11. 6, etc.) and in other similar older works; but nowhere is he spoken of as being the author of the Nydya-sastra. Gautama is also mentioned in the Maha-bharata several times, but nowhere is he referred to as the author of the Ny@ya-sastra. The passage of the Maha-bharata on which Dr Vidyabhusan bases his theory of a Medhatithi Gautama does not say that Medhatithi was the author of Anviksiki or Nyaya, nor does it say that Medhatithi and Gautama were identical persons?. The name Gautama is a patronymic, and the passage of the Maha-bharata referred to by Dr Vidyabhusan clearly means that the highly wise Medhatithi of the Gautama race was engaged in asceticism. This is corroborated by the fact that the passage of Bhasa referred to by Dr Vidyabhusan mentions Medhatithi as a teacher of Nya@ya-sastra and does not call him Gautama, nor does it say that Medhatithi was the originator of Nyaya’. Dr Vidya- bhusan’s theory, therefore, of Medhatithi Gautama being the originator of the Nydya-sastra falls down like a house of cards. His identification of Medhatithi Gautama’s birthplace as Mithila, his ascertainment of his date, his identification of Persian references to Medhatithi Gautama and his so-styled references to Medhatithi Gautama in the Avguttara-nikaya and the Brahma-jala-sutta are no less fictitious?. The Gautama tradition of Nyaya need not be followed; but it may incidentally be mentioned that an Atreya Gautama, who is described as being Samkhya (probably in the sense of wise, philosopher, or learned), is counted in the list of the x Aksapada-praniio hi vitato Nyaya-padapah. Opening lines of the Nydya-mafijari of Jayantabhatta (a.p. 880). Medhatithir mahd-prajno Gautamas tapasi sthitah vimrsya tena kdlena patnyah samsthya-vyatikramam. Mahda-bharata, Santi-parva, 265.45, Vangavasi edition. ° Medhatither Nyaya-sastram (having learnt Nydya-sastra from Medhatithi). Bhiasa’s Pratima-nataka, Act v, p.'79. M.M. Ganapati Sastri’s edition. * History of Indian Logic, by Dr Satish Chandra Vidyabhusan, pp. 17-21. 9 xm] Ayur-veda a Science of Causes 395 sages who assembled together to discover the causes and remedies of diseases; side by side with this Atreya, another Atreya is also mentioned as bhiksu Atreya!. A number of sages are mentioned in the Caraka-samhita as persons who discussed the problem of the rise of diseases and how they could be removed. Among’ these Bharadvaja volunteered to proceed to Indra to learn from him the science of healing. Indra instructed him in the subject, being learned in the three subjects of the (hetw) causes (of diseases), knowledge of the (Higa) signs (of diseases) and the knowledge of medicines. Bharadvaja, having learnt this elaborate science in three divisions, repeated it to the sages in exactly the same manner in which he learnt it. After this it is said that Punarvasu taught Ayur-veda to his six disciples, Agnivesa, Bhela and others. Cakra- pani, the commentator, says that Punarvasu was the disciple of Bharadvaja, and quotes as his authority a statement of Harita. But on this point Caraka himself is silent. But one thing emerges from this half-mythical account of the origin of Ayur-veda, viz. that the Ayur-veda was occupied from the beginning with the investigation of the nature of causes (hetu) and reasons (liga) for legitimate inferences in connection with the enquiry into the causes of diseases and the apprehension of signs or indications of the same. In the Nidana-sthana of Caraka eight synonyms for reason (hetu) are given, viz. hetu, nimitta, ayatana, kartr, karana, pratyaya, samutthana and nidana. It is curious enough that the words pratyaya and dyatana are used, which are presumably Buddhistic. The word pratyaya, in the sense of cause, is hardly found in Indian philosophy, except in Buddhism. The use of so many terms to denote cause evidently suggests that before Caraka’s redaction there must have been an extensive literature which had used these words to denote cause. As a matter of fact, the word pratyaya is hardly ever used in the Caraka-samhita to signify cause, though it is counted here as one of the synonyms of hetu, or cause. The natural implication of this is that the word pratyaya was used for hetu in some earlier literature, from which Caraka collected it; so with other words, such as samutthana, d@yatana, which are counted in the list as synonyms for hetu, but are not actually used in the body of the text. This may lead us to think that the discussion of hetu under 1 Atreyo Gautamah samkhyah. In this passage Atreya may, however, be taken as a man separate from the wise. Gautama. 396 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. various names is an old subject in Ayur-veda literature existing before Caraka, from which Caraka collected them. We know that Ayur-veda was primarily concerned with three questions, viz. how diseases originated, how they were known, and what were their cures. It was in this connection that the principle of causality was first from a practical necessity applied in Ayur-veda.