Nyaya-Vaisesika: Lip Service to the Vedas

From their earliest phases, the Nyaya and Vaisesika systems were closely related and in the course of time they were actually amalgamated and came to be known as the Nyaya-Vaisesika. The source books of these systems is the Nyaya Sutra by Gotama (or Gautama) and the Vaisesika Sutra by Kanada. The distinctive features of these two systems is that they are relatively new in the Indian philosophical tradition (as compared to the Sankhya, Mimansa, and Vedanta) and presumably took shape near 300 or 200 BC. It should be noted that the special content of the Nyaya is logic and atomism, while that of Vaisesika is emperical metaphysics and also atomism i.e. these two philosophies have genuine scientific content within them. Both these philosophies make use of logic and logical thinking. So the question is, how do the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers reconcile their views with the demands of the Indian law-givers to hold logic suberservient to the Vedas.

The answer will have to be argued in some detail, but to put it in a few words: the Nyaya-Vaisesika attitude towards the Vedas (at least for the early Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers) is on par with Brahmagupta's sham show of reverence for the Manu Smriti, a point which the visiting Central Asian scientist Alberuni has drawn our attention to.

Let us begin with the Vaisesika Sutra of Kanada. It opens with the declaration that its purpose is only to explain dharma i.e. piety in the standard of Vedic orthodoxy. But does Kanada actually keep his promise? He does not. The Vaisesika Sutra mainly discusses the six padarthas or categories like substance, quality, etc. under which everything knowable and namable in the world are sought to be classified, occasionally sprinkling on this discussion the glorification of the priests and their priviliges. The anomaly is noted in an 'authentic popular verse' which says:

"The discussion of the six categories on the part of one who wants to explain dharma is like going to the Himalayas with the resolution of going to the sea."

With respect to the content of the book, its opening declaration is thus nothing but a subterfuge; but the subterfuge is necessary, otherwise the book can easily be branded as heretical. Kanada evidently wants to avoid such a possibility at any cost. Therefore, evidently not feeling fully secure with merely the opening declaration, he proclaims that the Veda is revelation in the very third sentence of his book. Even this is not enough. He makes the same declaration--word for word--in the concluding sentence of the book.

From the standpoing of Indian literary norm, Kanada's writing is extremely peculiar. As is well known, in a work like the Vaisesika Sutra which is in the form of sutras or cryptic mnemonic aphorisms, the economy of the use of words is considered so important that the successful elimination of even a single word is said to give the author the pleasure comparable of having a son.

And yet Kanada does not hesitate to repeat even an entire sentence. Can it be that he is unaware of the existing literary norm? It being absurd to imagine this, we are left with only one other alternative: he does it deliberately, because he is anxious to get away with his work uncensored. After all, how can there by any suspicion about a work from the standpoint of Vedic orthodoxy when the work pledges loyalty to Veda not only at its beginning but also at the very end?

From this viewpoint, the evidence of the Nyaya Sutra is much more interesting. I deal with the Nyaya and the attitude of the Nyaya Sutra towards the Vedas in my next blog.