Abstract

From this detailed analysis, comparison and study of the treatises of G. and S., we are in a position to arrivent certain conclusions. The similarity between the treatises of G. and S. is so close, both in structure and content, that we cannot explain it in any way other than to conclude that G. depends on S. for the composition of his work. It can further be concluded that, in the present state of research, there is no reason to suppose that both S. and G. depended on a third source. There is no other work on the proof for the existence of God which has come down to us and which shows any structural similarity with the work of S. In fact it can be asserted with a fair amount of certainty that the work of S. is the first treatise on the existence of God in Post-Udayana Navyanyāya which exhibits the systematic plan of first discussing the pak $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$$ a, sādhya and hetu of the syllogism proving the existence of God in the pūrvapak $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$$ a and then establishing in the uttarapak $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$$ a, the author's own pak $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$$ a, sādhya and hetu of the syllogism. Further, the similarities in the expressions and often of argument in G. to those of S. lead us to conclude with reasonable certainty that G. depends directly on S. However, this does not at all mean that both G. and S. do not belong to the long Nyāya tradition of philosophers and hence many of the concepts of these thinkers do not have long and often complicated background. We only mean to assert that in the present state of research, we seem to be justified in saying that S. is the first philosopher in the Nyāya tradition who developed the treatise on the existence of God in this systematic way of first discussing the pak $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$$ a, sādhya and hetu of the syllogism, which was brought forward to prove the existence of God. We also assert that G. depends on S. for the composition of this part of his work