ima@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@s