It is difficult to ascertain definitely the date of the Vaisheshika sutras by Kanada, also called Aulukya the son of Uluka, though there is every reason to suppose it to be pre-Buddhistic. It appears from the Vayu purana that he was born in Prabhasa near Dvaraka, and was the disciple of Somasharma. The time of Prashastapada who wrote a bhashya (commentary) of the Vaisheshika sutras cannot also unfortunately be ascertained.

The peculiarity of Prashastapada’s bhashya is this that unlike other bhashyas (which first give brief explanations of the text of the sutras and then continue to elaborate independent explanations by explaining the first brief comments), it does not follow the sutras but is an independent dissertation based on their main contents (1). There were two other bhashyas on the Vaisheshika sutras, namely Ravana-bhashya and Bharadvaja-vritti, but these are now probably lost. References to the former are found in Kiranavalibhaskara of Padmanabha Mishra and also in Ratnaprabha 2. 2. II. Four commentaries were written on this bhashya, namely Vyomavati by Vyomashekharacarya, Nyayakandali by Shridhara, Kiranavali by Udayana (984 A.D.) and Lilavati Shrivatsacarya. In addition to these Jagadisha Bhattacarya of Navadvipa and Shankara Mishra wrote two other commentaries on the Prashastapada-bhasya, namely Bhasyasukti and Kanada-rahasya. Shankara Mishra (1425 A.D.) also wrote a commentary on the Vaisheshika sutras called the Upaskara. Of these Nyaya-kandali of Shridhara on account of its simplicity of style and elaborate nature of exposition is probably the best for a modern student of Vaisheshika. Its author was a native of the village of Bhurisrishti in Bengal (Radha). His father’s name was Baladeva and mother’s name was Acchoka and he wrote his work in 913 Shaka era (990 A.D.) as he himself writes at the end of his work.

The Nyaya sutra was written by Akshapada or Gautama, and the earliest commentary on it written by Vatsyayana is known as the Vatsyayana-bhashya. The date of Vatsyayana has not been definitely settled, but there is reason to believe that he lived some time in the beginning of the fourth century A.D. Jacobi places him in 300 A.D. Udyotakara (about 635 A.D.) wrote a Varttika on Vatsyayana’s bhashya to establish the Nyaya views and to refute the criticisms of the Buddhist logician Dinnaga (about 500 A.D.) in his Pramanasamuccaya. Vacaspatimishra (840 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on the Nyayavarttika of Udyotakara called Nyayavarttikatatparyatika in order to make clear the right meanings of Udyotakara’s Varttika which was sinking in the mud as it were through numerous other bad writings (dustarakunibandhapankamagnanam). Udayana (984 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on the Tatparyatika called Tatparyatikaparishuddhi. Varddhamana (1225 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on that called the Nyayanibandhaprakasha. Padmanabha wrote a sub-commentary on that called Varddhamanendu and Shankara Mishra (1425 A.D.) wrote a sub-commentary on that called the Nyayatatparyamandana. In the seventeenth century Vishvanatha wrote an independent short commentary known as Vishvanathavritti, on the Nyaya sutra, and Radhamohana wrote a separate commentary on the Nyaya sutras known as Nyayasutravivarana. In addition to these works on the Nyaya sutras many other independent works of great philosophical value have been written on the Nyaya system. The most important of these in medieval times is the Nyayamanjari of Jayanta (880 A.D.), who flourished shortly after Vacaspatimishra. Jayanta chooses some of the Nyaya sutras for interpretation, but he discusses the Nyaya views quite independently, and criticizes the views of other systems of Indian thought of his time. It is far more comprehensive than Vacaspati’s Tatparyatika, and its style is most delightfully lucid. Another important work is Udayana’s Kusumanjali in which he tries to prove the existence of Ishvara (God). This work ought to be read with its commentary Prakasha by Varddhamana (1225 A.D.) and its sub-commentary Makaranda by Rucidatta (1275 A.D.). Udayana’s Atmatattvaviveka is a polemical work against the Buddhists, in which he tries to establish the Nyaya doctrine of soul. In addition to these we have a number of useful works on Nyaya in later times. Of these the following deserve special mention in connection with the present work. Bhashapariccheda by Vishvanatha with its commentaries Muktavali, Dinakari and Ramarudri, Tarkasamgraha with Nyayanirnaya, Tarkabkasha of Keshava Mishra with the commentary Nyayapradipa, Saptapadarthi of Shivaditya, Tarkikaraksha of Varadaraja with the commentary Nishkantaka of Mallinatha, Nyayasara of Madhava Deva of the city of Dhara and Nyayasiddhantamanjari of Janakinatha Bhattacarya with the Nyayamanjarisara by Yadavacarya, and Nyayasiddhantadipa of Shashadhara with Prabha by Sheshanantacarya.

The new school of Nyaya philosophy known as Navya-Nyaya began with Gangesha Upadhyaya of Mithila, about 1200 A.D. Gangesha wrote only on the four pramanas admitted by the Nyaya, viz. pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, and shabda, and not on any of the topics of Nyaya metaphysics. But it so happened that his discussions on anumana (inference) attracted unusually great attention in Navadvipa (Bengal), and large numbers of commentaries and commentaries of commentaries were written on the anumana portion of his work Tattvacintamani, and many independent treatises on sabda and anumana were also written by the scholars of Bengal, which became thenceforth for some centuries the home of Nyaya studies. The commentaries of Raghunatha Shiromani (1500 A.D.), Mathura Bhattacarya (1580 A.D.), Gadadhara Bhattacarya (1650 A.D.) and Jagadisa Bhattacarya (1590 A.D.), commentaries on Shiromani’s commentary on Tattvacintamani, had been very widely read in Bengal. The new school of Nyaya became the most important study in Navadvipa and there appeared a series of thinkers who produced an extensive literature on the subject [Footnote ref l].The contribution was not in the direction of metaphysics, theology, ethics, or religion, but consisted mainly in developing a system of linguistic notations to specify accurately and precisely any concept or its relation with other concepts (2). Thus for example when they wished to define precisely the nature of the concomitance of one concept with another (e.g. smoke and fire), they would so specify the relation that the exact nature of the concomitance should be clearly expressed, and that there should be no confusion or ambiguity. Close subtle analytic thinking and the development of a system of highly technical expressions mark the development of this literature. The technical expressions invented by this school were thus generally accepted even by other systems of thought, wherever the need of accurate and subtle thinking was felt. But from the time that Sanskrit ceased to be the vehicle of philosophical thinking in India the importance of this literature has gradually lost ground, and it can hardly be hoped that it will ever regain its old position by attracting enthusiastic students in large numbers.

I cannot close this chapter without mentioning the fact that so far as the logical portion of the Nyaya system is concerned, though Akshapada was the first to write a comprehensive account of it, the Jains and Buddhists in medieval times had independently worked at this subject and had criticized the Nyaya account of logic and made valuable contributions. In Jaina logic Dashavaikalikaniryukti of Bhadrabahu (357 B.C.), Umasvati’s Tattvarthadhigama sutra, Nyayavatara of Siddhasena Divakara (533 A.D.) Manikya Nandi’s (800 A.D.) Parikshamukha sutra, and Pramananayatattvalokalamkara of Deva Suri (1159 A.D.) and Prameyakamalamartanda of Prabhacandra deserve special notice. Pramanasamuccaya and Nyayapravesha of Dinnaga (500 A.D.), Pramanayarttika karika and Nyayabindu of Dharmakirtti (650 A.D.) with the commentary of Dharmottara are the most interesting of the Buddhist works on systematic logic (3). The diverse points of difference between the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist logic require to be dealt with in a separate work on Indian logic and can hardly be treated within the compass of the present volume (4).

It is interesting to notice that between the Vatsyayana bhashya and the Udyotakara’s Varttika no Hindu work on logic of importance seems to have been written: it appears that the science of logic in this period was in the hands of the Jains and the Buddhists; and it was Dinnaga’s criticism of Hindu Nyaya that roused Udyotakara to write the Varttika. The Buddhist and the Jain method of treating logic separately from metaphysics as an independent study was not accepted by the Hindus till we come to Gangesha, and there is probably only one Hindu work of importance on Nyaya in the Buddhist style namely Nyayasara of Bhasarvajna. Other older Hindu works generally treated of inference only along with metaphysical and other points of Nyaya interest (5).

1: The bhashya of Prashastapada can hardly he called a bhashya (elaborate commentary). He himself makes no such claim and calls his work a compendium of the properties of the categories (Padarthadharmasamgraha). He takes the categories of dravya, guna, karma, samanya, vishesha and samavaya in order and without raising any discussions plainly narrates what he has got to say on them. Some of the doctrines which are important in later Nyaya-Vaisheshika discussions, such as the doctrine of creation and dissolution, doctrine of number, the theory that the number of atoms contributes to the atomic measure of the molecules, the doctrine of pilupaka in connection with the transformation of colours by heat occur in his narration for the first time as the Vaisheshika sutras are silent on these points. It is difficult to ascertain his date definitely; he is the earliest writer on Vaisheshika available to us after Kanada and it is not improbable that he lived in the 5th or 6th century A.D.
2: From the latter half of the twelfth century to the third quarter of the sixteenth century the new school of Nyaya was started in Mithila (Behar); but from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century Bengal became pre-eminently the home of Nyaya studies. See Mr Cakravartti’s paper, J. A.S.B. 1915. I am indebted to it for some of the dates mentioned in this section.
3: Ishvaranumana of Raghunatha as well as his Padarthatattvanirupana are, however, notable exceptions.
4: See Indian Logic Medieval School, by Dr S.C. Vidyabhushana, for a bibliography of Jain and Buddhist Logic.
5: Almost all the books on Nyaya and Vaisheshika referred to have been consulted in the writing of this chapter. Those who want to be acquainted with a fuller bibliography of the new school of logic should refer to the paper called “The History of Navya Nyaya in Bengal,” by Mr. Cakravartti in J.A.S.B. 1915.

commentaries, disciple, dissertation, exposition, gautama, kanada, purana, radha, ravana, shaka, shankara, sutras, udayana, vatsyayana