Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE UTPĀDĀDISIDDHIŢĪKĀ AND THE HETUBINDUŢIKĀ
By Jaina Muni Jambuvijaya, Bhavnagar
During my study of the Jaina logical and philosophical literature I could find one remarkable thing, viz., that while propagating their own views or criticizing the views of other philosophical schools the Jaina Acaryas of old have freely utilized the works of the Vaiseṣika, the Naiyayika and the Buddhist systems. This can be said more specifically about the Buddhist logical works. The old Jaina authors have often quoted a number of long or short passages word for word from Buddhist works. We often see that in support of their own views they have even incorporated in their works many portions literally word to word from the works of other philosophical systems, more especially from the Buddhist logical works.
Generally this helps very much the study of various points in Indian philosophy. Both students and scholars interested in Buddhist logical literature or doing research work in this field will stand to gain substantially by a close study of Jaina logical works 1. Let us see how Jaina works help the study of Buddhist works.
A large number of the Buddhist works which were originally written in Sanskrit is lost in its original language. However, a great part of it is still preserved in the form of Chinese and Tibetan translations made several hundred years ago. The Chinese versions are not word to word translations. They preserve the meaning of the original texts. Moreover, very few logical works have been translated into the Chinese language while the Tibetan literature is very rich in this respect. A vast number of Buddhist logical works has been translated into Tibetan which represents almost a word to word interpretation of the original works. For this reason the Tibetan translations are of great value not only to those who are interested in Buddhist literature but also to all students of Indian philosophy since nearly all the Indian philosophical works are more or less interrelated..
There is however one great difficulty to be overcome. Sanskrit being a much more rich and systematic language than the Tibetan, though the Tibetan
1 E. g. Prof. FRAUWALLNER has restored nearly the whole of the Sambandhapariksă of Dharmakirti (which is lost in Sanskrit) with the help of the Syādvādaratnakara of the Jaina Acarya Vadidevasuri (Dharmakirtis Sambandhaparikṣā. Text und Übersetzung. WZKM 41, 1934, pp. 261-300).
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
188
JAINA MUNI JAMBUVIJAYA
translators had evolved many devices and established many rules and regulations for translating Sanskrit works into Tibetan, it is often found extremely difficult to understand the precise meaning of the Tibetan translations even independently by the learned Tibetan scholars of the present day. Moreover, there are so many places where the Tibetan interpretations are wrong either due to the incorrectness of the original ms. or to the lack of proper understanding of its real meaning on the part of the translators. In such cases if we get some help from Sanskrit works the task becomes much easier. From this point of view I have here made an effort to reconstruct a lost portion of the Hetubindutīkā with the help of the Utpādādisiddhitikā, a Jaina logical treatise, and the Tibetan version of the Hetubinduţikā.
The Hetubindu is a work of Dharmakirti, who is well-known as a great Buddhist locigian and author. It is now lost in Sanskrit and is preserved only in its Tibetan translation 2. Two commentaries of it are known: one by Vinitadeva and the other by Arcata. The former is a short one and is lost in Sanskrit, its Tibetan translation alone being available. The commentary by Arcata is much more extensive and well-known. It is already published in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series, No. CXIII, by the Oriental Institute (Baroda, 1949), from a single palm-leaf ms. preserved in an old Jaina collection of palmleaf mss. at Pātan (Gujarat State, India). The Aloka is a sub-commentary of the Hetubindutikā of Arcata. Its author is Durvekamisra who seems to have flourished during the last quarter of the 10th century and the first half of the 11th century A. D. This sub-commentary is also published along with the Hetubinduţikā in the same volume.
The Utpādādisiddhi 8 is a logical treatise by Candrasena, a Jaina Acārya who also wrote a very extensive commentary on it in the 13th century of the Vikrama era. 4 In this commentary the author has given copious 'excerpts, very long as well as short ones, from the Hetubindu and its commentary by Arcața. Surprisingly, this helps very much in reconstructing many portions of the Hetubindu, lost in Sanskrit. The extracts of the Hetubindutikā are also
? A reconstruction of the Sanskrit text has been done recently by E. STEINKELLNER, Dharmakirti's Hetubinduh, Teil I and II, Wien 1967.
3 Jainānanda Pustakālaya, Gopipura, Surat 1936.
* At the end of the commentary the author has given the date of its composition in a stanza as follows:
dvādaśavargasateşu srivikramato gateşu muni(muni)bhih
caitre sampannam idam sāhāyyam cătra me nemeh || U p. 233, 7. In this verse some letters are omitted in the ms. which are shown in bracket by the editor using his own imagination. According to him the date may be 1277. Without being sure of this proposed date we may say that it was composed in the 13th century of the Vikrama era. Perhaps the discovery of another dated ms. of this text might decide the exact date of its composition. Pradyumnasūri, the guru of Acārya Čandrasena, was a co-disciple (gurubandhu) of Acārya Hemacandra, the well-known Jaina scholar who flourished during the last half of the 12th century and the first half of the 13th century of the Vikrama era.
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Utpadadisiddhițika and Hetubinduțikā
very helpful in correcting some readings of it since, as already mentioned, its edition is based on a single palm-leaf ms.
Folio no. 52 is missing in the palm-leaf ms. of HBT 5. Therefore, we can see on p. 48 of the printed HBT, that an important portion is lost between tadbhāvaś ca sambandha ucyate and janyatāyām vā yadi samagrāḥ svarūpata eva tām janayanti karye ka esam saktivyāghāto yato 'nyatra kalpyate.
189
On pp. 93-95 U contains a very long portion from HBT. Its concluding part is as follows: tadbhavas ca sambandha ucyate. karyakaranayos cāsahabhāvitvät kuto 'sya dvisthata? tasyam casatyām katham sambandhita? akṣaṇikatve 'pi kāryakāraṇayos tajjananāt prāgapratipannatadadharabhavayoḥ paścād api svabhāvāparāvṛtter atadasrayatvam. anāśritam ca katham tadbhavaḥ pratyayahetur vā? samaväyikäraṇasyaiva kāryasamaväyikaraṇatvam na nimittäsamaväyikāraṇayoḥ, karyasya va tatsamavāyāt kāryatvam, asya ca sarvatrāviseṣāt tat sarvam vastu parasparam kāryakāraṇarupam syāt. purvottarabhāvābhāvaviseṣaṇatā casya tadasambandhad ayukta niratiśayasya tadayogac ca tayor eva catadvisesanayos tallakṣaṇata 'stv ity abhiprayavataiva dharmakirtinoktam tadbhāve bhāvas tadabhāve 'bhāvaś ca kāryakāraṇabhāva iti.
With the help of the above quotation, T and HBTA, we can easily and exactly restore the lost portion up to kāryakāraṇabhāva iti. For the Sanskrit retranslation of the remaining portion I have utilized T and HBTA 8. Thus the reconstruction of the lost portion in the missing folio no. 52, as I have made it, is as follows:
T. (f. 260b6-261b8) 9
deci dños po yan brel par brjod na rgyu dan bras bu ni than cig mi cbyun baci phyir gñis la gnas par ga la gyur de med na ji ltar brel pa yin
skad cig ma ma yin pa ñid kyan rgyu dan bras, Du dag skyes pa las snar de rten la yod pa ma gtogs pa dag
S.
tadbhāvas ca sambandha ucyate. karyakaranayoś casahabhāvitvät kuto 'sya dviṣṭhata? tasyām cāsatyām katham sambandhita?
akṣaṇikatve 'pi kāryakāraṇayos tajjananāt prāgapratipannatadadharabhāvayoḥ paścad api svabhāvāparāvṛtter
5 For the sake of convenience, HBT, HBTA, S, T and U will mean here Hetubinduțikā, Hetubinduṭīkā-aloka, Sanskrit, Tibetan translation of the Hetubindutīkā and Utpādādisiddhiṭīkā respectively.
Vide HBT p. 46, 23
p. 48, 16.
7 On page 93, 10 of U: anyo bhavan svabhävato etc. is the beginning of this. 8 The slight difference in the readings in some places seems to be due to the different mss. of HBT, utilized by the authors of the U, HBTA and T, and also the writer of the present S. ms. of HBT. We have mostly followed here T, where it is supported by HBTA.
Bstan-gyur, Mdo CXI, she. We have utilized here the Peking photographic edition published by the Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, Tokyo, Vol. 137, No. 5734, p. 250.
Page #4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
190
JAINA MUNI JAMBUVIJAYA
ca na 10
atadāsrayatvam. anāśritam tadbhāvaḥ pratyayahetur vā.
phyi nas kyan ran bzin gran la jug pas de ma yin pa la rten pa ñid dan rten med pas de dños poci rkyen nam rgyu ma yin no
yan na 'du baci rgyu mtshan ñid kyis rgyu dan Cbras bur brjod pa dan ses pa dag yin , deci tshe cdu ba can gyi rgyu ñid kyi cbras bu ni edu ba las rgyu ñid du gyur rgyu mtshan dan du ba med pa'i rgyu dan ma yin te cbras bu ni de cdu baci ebras bu ñid do 1 de yan thams cad la bye brag med pas dños po thams cad phan tshun rgyu dan cbras buci no bor 'gyur ro || sna ma dan phyi ma yod pa dan med paci bye brag gis de yan cdir de ni chrel pa med par mi rigs pas bogs dbyun du med pa la de mi rigs so || de dag ñid dam deci khyad par dag deci mtshan nid yin no kes dgons nas de yod na ni yod la de med na ni med pas rgyu dan cbras buci no bo zes bśad do ||
de Itar re zig mi dmigs pa dan than cig paci mnon sum dag gis rgyu dan 'bras bu dag yod na yod pa'i yul la rgyu dan bras bu yod pa yin te de yod na ni yod la de med na ni med pa mtshan ñid sgrub par byed pa bśad do I res egao zig mi dmigs pa'am mnon sum snon pas rgyu dan bras bu sgrub paci phyir deci yul re zig bstan pa ni rgyu gzan rnams yod kyan kes bya ba smos te
[atha samavāyanimittatvena kāryakāraṇābhidhāna pratyayau tadā]" samavāyikāraṇasyaiva ca 12 kāryasamavāyikāraṇatvam, na nimittäsamavāyikāraņayoḥ, kāryasya vā tatsamavāyaḥ13 kāryatvam. tasya 14 ca sarvatrāviseşāt tat sarvam vastu parasparam kāryakārañarūpam syāt. pūrvottarabhāvābhāvavisesanatā cāsya tadasambandhad ayuktā. niratiếayasya tadayogāc ca. tayor eva vā tadviseşanayos tallaksanatā astu ity abhiprāyavatoktam 15 tadbhāve bhāvas tadabhāve 'bhāvaś ca kāryakāranabhāva iti.
evam tāvad anupalambhasahāya pratyaksena kāryakāranayor bhāve bhāvavisayasya kāryakāraṇabhāvasya tadbhāvabhāvatadabhāvābhāvalakṣaṇasya siddhir uktā. kvacid anupalabdhyāpi pratyakşapūrvikayā kāryakāranabhāvasiddhes tadvişayam tāvad darsayann āha satsv apy anyesu hétuşv iti.
10 katham U; cf. pratyayahetuh kāryakāranabuddhihetur vā, neti vartate (HBTA p. 302, 21-22).
11 The reading in the bracket does not appear in U. The Tibetan translators seem to have added this for the easy understanding of the meaning of the next passage.
12 ca HBTA only. 13 tatsamaväyät U. 14 asya U.
15 ity abhiprāyavataiva dharmakirtinoktam U. Cf. abhiprāyavatā, vārtikakrteti prakaraņāt (HBTA p. 304, 20).
Page #5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ Utpadadisiddhitika and Hetubindutika 191 du ba la sogs paci cbras bu me dan bud sin la sogs paci tshogs pa can dag ni tshogs pa las gran ma yin te tshogs pa rnams rgyu med pa nid du thal bar gyur ro || cbras bu de la bltos pa ma yin na dnos po med par thal bar cgyur ro || gal te de dan Corel pas de la bltos pa yin no ze na edir su zig skyed par byed pa ma yin na don gzan dan cbrel pas yin skyed par byed na yan tshogs paci ran gi no bo kho nas skyed par byed pa yin te bras bu gcig byed pa la edi dag nus pa med dam gan gis na gzan zig brtag par bya | na ca 16 dhumadikaryasyagnindhanadisamagri samagrebhyo 'nya samagranam akaranatvaprasangat. karyasya tadanapeksayam avastutvaprasangat. tatsambandhat tada peksa iti cet, atrajanyatayam kasyarthantarena sambandhah. janyatayam va yadi samagrah svarupata eva tam janayanti, karye ka esam saktivyaghato yato 'nyatra kalpyate. If we try, we may discover many such portions in the Jaina and other literature, which could help us in the study of Buddhist works. . In conclusion I would like to say this. When I received an invitation from professor OBERHAMMER to contribute an article to the Festschrift for professor FRAUWALLNER in honour of his 70th birthday, I at once accepted it for two reasons. Firstly, because I am in close contact with professor FRAUWALLNER since the last ten years and I have great respect for his vast study of so many aspects of Indian philosophy. It compelled me to write something. Secondly, when I was editing the Dvadasaranayacakra and preparing a Sanskrit retranslation from the Tibetan versions of some portions of the Pramanasamuccaya and its commentaries for the appendix, I received much help from him in many ways. Therefore, I felt it as my special and sacred duty to write something on this auspicious occasion. I congratulate him wholeheartedly as a friend and as an admirer of the great services rendered by him to the cause of Indian philosophy. 16 Cf. bhinnasamagrivadino matam asankya tan nirakurvann aha na ceti. HBTA p. 304, 21-22.