Vācaspati Miśra II
Vācaspati Miśra II, in his Nyāyatattvāloka, says that only Brāhmaṇa has adhikāra in Nyāya śāstra.
Also interesting to note that both him and Vācaspati Miśra I, had to explain how sage Gautama taught Nyāya to even those who, as per them, had no adhikāra in it, like Śūdras. They typically ‘justify’ the sage by mentioning his power, which could destroy the pāpa incurred on account of teaching it to non-adhikārī people.
If the sage had marked it as a problem, wouldn’t he have mentioned it clearly to his disciples who were to propagate the śāstra? We might have even found an ‘apaśūdrādhikaraṇa’ in Nyāyasūtras. If the sage himself didn’t state specifications of such sort, and if they are necessary, did he miss foreseeing the ’negative repercussions’ if his disciples replicated his conduct?
Udayana
When imagination goes too far - Based on Vācaspati’s argument, Udayana cites a belief that because the anumāna of Nyāyaśāstra has to be unopposed to Vedas, and the knowledge of such non-opposition requires knowledge of Vedas, Śūdras are not eligible for studying Nyāyaśāstra. Although this is the pūrvapakṣa, but he accepts it at the end.
The flaw in this argument is twofold.
- Firstly, to know that the some idea or behaviour is unopposed to Vedas can be known even through Itihāsas, Purāṇas, and verbal testimony of Śiṣṭas.
- If not, Śūdras and others couldn’t even practise their dharma, which should be unopposed to Vedas, because of the lack of direct access to Vedas. +
- Further, if the point is valid, the hearing and understanding of Itihāsas and Purāṇas on the part of Śūdras would be a wasteful activity, because they could get it all wrong, that is, in a way which is opposed to Vedas.
- Secondly, there is no ‘apaśūdrādhikaraṇa’ type portion in the Nyāyasūtras. Both Vācaspati and Udayana accept that Gautama Muni gave it to one and all, irrespective of varṇa, etc.
Based on the argument of the ’lack of opposition with Vedas’, they think that the Muni destroyed the pāpa of teaching Nyāya to all, by the force of his tapas.+++(5)+++ Because the central argument is flawed, this idea of treating Gautama Muni as an exception and treating Śūdras as ineligible is also flawed.
Source: Nyāyavārttikatātparyapariśuddhiṭīkā, Trisūtrīprakaraṇa, Sūtra 1.
Yādavācārya
Source: TW
Yādavācārya (16th century), disciple of Rāmakṛṣṇa Cakravartī, refutes his opponent who says that teaching Nyāya philosophy to Śūdras would lead to sin. The issue is that sage Gautama is said to have created this for the benefit of ‘all’, which would include Śūdras also.
Yādavācārya specifies ’teaching’ as an act directed to a specific person. If another person listens to it, it doesn’t count as teaching. When the opponent points out that if ‘all’ includes Śūdras, it would be inevitably directed towards them also.
Yādavācārya responds by that even in the thesis of the opponent, being directed toward Ātman of a Brāhmaṇa, it is directed towards the Ātman of a Śūdra also. So the same fault could be found with opponent too.
He then quotes a sarcastic statement of Raghunātha Śiromaṇi who says that such directed-ness happens even in the case of insects and so forth.
In conclusion, there’s no sin on the teacher on account of teaching Nyāya philosophy to Śūdras.
It is rather interesting that such issues were being raised in the first place, although they were being responded to in one way or the other.
Reference: Yādavācārya’s commentary on Jānakīnātha Bhaṭṭācārya’s Nyāyasiddhāntamañjarī.