egarded as sufficient.
The _Vais'e@sika sutras_ do not mention the name of "Is'vara," whereas
the _Nyaya sutras_ try to prove his existence on eschatological
grounds. The reasons given in support of the existence of self
in the _Nyaya sutras_ are mainly on the ground of the unity of
sense-cognitions and the phenomenon of recognition, whereas the

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The only old authority which knows these prama@nas is Caraka.
But he also gives an interpretation of sambhava which is different from
Nyaya and calls _arthapatti arthaprapti_ (_Caraka_ III. viii.).]

[Footnote 2: The details of this example are taken from Vatsyayana's
commentary.]

[Footnote 3: The _Nyaya sutra_ no doubt incidentally gives a definition of
jati as "_samanaprasavatmika jati@h_" (II. ii. 71).]

305

Vaisesika lays its main emphasis on self-consciousness as a fact
of knowledge. Both the Nyaya and the _Vais'e@sika sutras_ admit
the existence of atoms, but all the details of the doctrine of
atomic structure in later Nyaya-Vais'e@sika are absent there. The
Vai'se@sika calls salvation _ni@hs'reyasa_ or _mok@sa_ and the Nyaya
_apavarga_. Mok@sa with Vais'e@sika is the permanent cessation of
connection with body; the apavarga with Nyaya is cessation of
pain [Footnote ref l]. In later times the main points of difference between
the Vais'e@sika and Nyaya are said to lie with regard to theory of the
notion of number, changes of colour in the molecules by heat, etc.
Thus the former admitted a special procedure of the mind by which
cognitions of number arose in the mind (e.g. at the first moment
there is the sense contact with an object, then the notion of oneness,
then from a sense of relativeness--apek@sabuddhi--notion
of two, then a notion of two-ness, and then the notion of two
things); again, the doctrine of pilupaka (changes of qualities by
heat are produced in atoms and not in molecules as Nyaya held)
was held by Vais'e@sika, which the Naiyayikas did not admit [Footnote ref
2]. But as the _Nyaya sutras_ are silent on these points, it is not
possible to say that such were really the differences between early
Nyaya and early Vaise@sika. These differences may be said to hold between
the later interpreters of Vais'e@sika and the later interpreters of
Nyaya. The Vais'e@sika as we find it in the commentary of
Pras'astapada (probably sixth century A.D.), and the Nyaya from
the time of U