There is no doubt that in the Nyaya Sutra (ii.1.57), Gotama gives the impression of defending with great zeal the validity of the Veda. He mentions the general grounds for questioning this validity in the form of a possible objection: 'It (Veda) has no validity, because it is vitiated by falsehood, self-contradiction, and repetition.' Gotama gives the impression of answering these objections elaborately. He argues that Veda does not have any of these alleged defects: there is no falsehood, no self-contradiction, and no repetition. But if we read between the lines of what Gotama actually says, we are sure to be amazed by some of his arguments which cunningly hint that the authority of the Veda is not to be taken seriously at all.

 

The strongest charge against the validity of Veda is of course the allegation that it contains falsehood (anrta). Such a charge, argue Gotama and Vatsyayana, is baseless. But how do they argue this? Vatsyayana (commenting on Nyaya Sutra ii.1.58) mentions the typical argument of the opponents of the Vedas as follows : The Vedas prescribe a ritual called putresti by performing which one is supposed to get a son; but the fact is that in spite of its performance many people do not get a son. As Vatsyayana puts the point of the heretics:

 

"Because there is the defect of falsehood in the case for the rite for having a son. In spite of the Vedic injunction that a person desirous of having a son should perform the prescribed rite for having a son and in spite of the performance of the rite, the birth of a son is not observed. From the falsehood of the injunction, the result of which is emperically verifiable, it follows that injuctions like 'One desirous of heaven should perform the Agnihotra rite'--the result of which is also emperically verifiable--must also
be false."

 

Using a lot of ritual jargons, Vatsyayana goes on to give an apparent impression of answering this objection. But what is his answer? He does not argue that the performance of the prescribed ritual necessarily results in getting a son. He admits that one may not get a son in spite of its performance. But that is easily explained. A son is not born in spite of the performance of the Putresti ritual when there is male sterility, female disease, or perverse coition. Is this a defence of Vedic ritual or really a defence of the prevailing emperical knowledge, made to appear as a defence of scriptural injunction?

 

More peculiar is the final argument offered by Gotama in defence of the authoritativeness of the Vedas (Nyaya Sutra ii.1.68). The Vedas are authoritative, he argues, because all the marks of authoritativeness are to be found characterising these. But what are these marks of authoritativeness? These are to be found in Ayurveda or the Medical Science. Let us quote Gotama (ii.1.68):

 

"Like the validity of the mantra and ayurveda, its (i.e. of the Veda) validity is proved because of the trustworthiness of the person uttering it."

 

The word mantra cannot mean the mantra part of the Veda for in that case the statement as a whole does not make any sense.  Later interpreters of this sutra are inclined to interpret the word 'mantra' in this sutra as referring to the the charms and spells used for removing poisons, etc. from the body since in ancient India these are viewed as part of the medical technique. Ayurveda simply means medical science (literally it implies 'knowledge of life'; the word Veda forming part of it is taken to mean knowledge in its secular sense). As Vatsyayana observes:

 

"The validity of Veda is also inferred from the identity of the seers and speakers. The trustworthy persons, who are the seers and speakers of the Veda, are themselves [the seers and speakers] of Ayurveda, etc. Therefore the validity of the Veda is to be inferred like [the inference of] the validity of the Ayurveda."

 

The argument, in short, amounts to the assertion that the model of authoritativeness is to be found in Ayurveda and only by answering to this model the Vedas too have claim to authoritativeness. Is this a defence of the scriptures?

 

As if to leave nothing vague about the point, Vatsyayana observes (on Nyaya Sutra iv.1.59):

 

"The scriptural statements (vaidika-vakya) are not essentially different from the statements in ordinary discourse (laukika-vakya) , because both are composed by persons who are guided by critical judgement. [na bhidyate ca laukikat-vakyat-vaidikam vakyam preksapurvakari-purusa pranitatvena]"

Is this a real defence of the scriptural authority of the Veda or a mockery of the belief?

 

Still the fact remains that that Gotama and Vatsyayana make great fuss to show their own veneration for the Veda and even offer proofs for it. Why do they do this? Presumably for the same reason as Kanada pads his treatise on atomism and the six categories with faith in the Veda, and Brahmagupta, one of the greatest astronomers of India--with full awareness of the natural cause of an eclipse--opens his great astronomical work with a vigorous defence of the Manu Smriti myth about the eclipse and also of assorted rituals based on this myth.

 

Thus, for Gotama and Vatsyayana, the pledge to Vedic authority is only a technique to save their science (of anviksiki), prevent any persecution, and save themselves from being branded, and denounced, as heretics.

 

As the first systematic exponent of Indian logic, Gotama evidently knows that he is going to play a dangerous game since the stern measures against logic and logicians  prescribed by the law givers--the spokesmen of the orthodoxy--are surely known to him. What can he do but seek safety in verbal veneration for the Veda? Only his rationalist conscience is evidently too strong to allow him not to hint at the same time that this veneration is to be taken as a matter of formality i.e. without any philosophical significance.