Abstract

The apologetic method of the Nyāya is inductive. The subject is distilled from the scripture and the Nyāya investigates it through logical argument. Through this procedure of partial verification, the reliability of the composer is established, and consequently the authority of the entire scripture is justified. The domains of thescripture and rational investigation overlap in significant issues such as the reality of the Self, and therefore, they can cooperate to establish the common truth. In Mīmāṃsā apologetics, the domain of the scripture and that of rational argument are mutually exclusive. Their apologetic program is basically accomplished as a process of purely rational investigation without referring to the content of the scripture. But at the same time, the authority of the Veda is regarded as innate and has no external basis. Working autonomously, the rational investigation imposes its own limitation from within and thereby secures the scriptural domain that is free from the intervention of any other kind of knowledge. The overlap between the domains of the scripture and the ordinary experience including rational investigation constitutes a necessary condition for the Nyāya apologetics, whereas in Mīmāṃsā apologetics, it is the absence of the overlapping domain that assures the unique authority of the Veda. This difference is supposed to be rooted in their disagreement on whether a man is able, or qualified, to examine the content of the scripture or not.