Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/318

3 02 The Nyiiya- Vaifeika Philosophy [CH. we compare the futilities (jati) quibbles (chala), etc., relating to disputations as found in the N)lil)la szUra with those that are found in the medical work of Caraka (78 A.D.), III. viii. There are no other works in early Sanskrit literature, excepting the Nyii)la siUra and Caraka-Sa1!lltitii which have treated of these matters. Caraka's description of some of the categories (e.g. drtanta, prayojana, pratijfta and vital:H;la) follows very dosely the definitions given of those in the Nyaya szttras. There are others such as the definitions of jalpa, chala, nigrahasthana, etc., where the definitions of two authorities differ more. There are some other logical categories mentioned in Caraka (e.g. pra- tiftltapanii, jijfuisa, 'l')lavasii)'a, viikyadofa, viikyapraSa1!lSii, upa- lal1lblla, pari/lara, abltya1lItjfiii, etc.) which are not found in the NyiiJ1a sittra l . Again, the various types of futilities (jati) and points of opponent's refutation (lligrahasthiilla) mentioned in the Nya)la szj.tra are not found in Caraka. There are some terms which are found in slightly variant forms in the two works, e.g. aupamya in Caraka, upamiina in Nyaya slUra, artltiiPatti in Nyaya szUra and artllapriipti in Caraka. Caraka does not seem to know anything about the Nyaya work on this subject, and it is plain that the treatment of these terms of disputations in the Caraka is much simpler and less technical than what we find in the Nyaya szj.tras. If we leave out the varieties of jati and nigrahasthana of the fifth book, there is on the whole a great agreement between the treatment of Caraka and that of the Nyilya siitras. It seems there- fore in a high degree probable that both Caraka and the Nyaya slltras were indebted for their treatment of these terms of dispu- tation to some other earlier work. Of these, Caraka's compilation was earlier, whereas the compilation of the Nyaya siUras repre- sents a later work when a hotter atmosphere of disputations had necessitated the use of more technical terms which are embodied in this work, but which were not contained in the earlier work. I t does not seem therefore that this part of the work could have been earlier than the second century A.D. Another stream flowing through the Nyil)la siUras is that of a polemic against the doctrines which could be attributed to the Sautrantika Buddhists, the Vijiianavada Buddhists, the nihilists, the Saq1khya, the Carvaka, and some other unknown schools of thought to which we find no J Like Vaiseika, Caraka does not know the threefold division of inference (ame- 1I11111tl) as piirva'llat, fe!il"i'at and Sllll/llll)'atodr!la.