Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE UTPĀDĀDISIDDHIȚIKĀ AND
THE HETUBINDUTIKĀ
By Jaina Muni Jambuvijaya, Bhāvnagar
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 Ācāryas of old have freely utilized the works of the Vaiseșika, the Naiyāyika 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 Sambandhapariksā of Dharmakirti (which is lost in Sanskrit) with the help of the Syädvādaratnäkara of the Jaina Acārya Vädidevasūri (Dharmakirtis Sambandhaparikşā. 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 Hetubinduţikā with the help of the Utpādādisiddhițīkā, 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. Two commentaries of it are known: one by Vinītadeva and the other by Arcaţa. 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 Durvekamiśra 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 Hetubindutikā 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. 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 Hetubindutīkā are also
2 A reconstruction of the Sanskrit text has been done recently by E. STEINKELLNER, Dharmakirti's Hetubinduḥ, Teil I and II, Wien 1967.
* Jainananda Pustakālaya, Gopipura, Surat 1936.
* At the end of the commentary the author has given the date of its composition in a stanza as follows:
dvädasavarrasatepu srivikramato gatesu muni(muni )bhih |
caitre sampannam idam sähāyyam cätra me nemeh || Up. 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 Candrasena, 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Utpadadisiddhițikā and Hetubinduṭīkā
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 tadbhāvas ca sambandha ucyate and janyatäyām vā yadi samagrāḥ svarūpata eva tam janayanti kärye ka epäm saktivyāghato 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. kāryakāraṇayos cāsahabhävitvät kuto 'sya dvisthata tasyām cāsatyām katham sambandhitä? akṣaṇikatve 'pi karyakaraṇayos tajjananat prāgapratipannatadadharabhavayo palcad api svabhāvāparāvṛtter ataddérayatvam, anāéritam ca katham tadbhavaḥ pratyayahetur vā! samavāyikāraṇasyaiva kāryasamaväyikāraṇatvam na nimittāsamavāyikäraṇayoḥ, karyasya va tatsamaväyät käryatvam, asya ca sarvatravisepät tat sarvam vastu parasparam kāryakāraṇarūpam syāt. pürvottarabhāvābhāvavideṣaṇatã cãsya tadasambandhäd ayuktā niratisayasya tadayogac ca tayor eva catadviseşanayos tallaksanata 'ste ity abhiprayavataiva dharmakirtinoktam tadbhäve 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 karyakāraṇabhāva iti. For the Sanskrit retranslation of the remaining portion I have utilized T and HBTA. 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 bu dag skyes pa las snar de rten la yod pa ma gtogs pa dag
S.
tadbhavaś ca sambandha ucyate. karyakaranayos casahabhävitvāt kuto 'syadvisthată? tasyam casatyām katham sambandhitä?
akṣaṇikalve 'pi kāryakāraṇayos tajjananāt prāgapratipannatadādhārabhāvayoḥ paścad api svabhāvāparāvṛtter
5 For the sake of convenience, HBT, HBTA, S, T and U will mean here Hetubinduțikā, Hetubinduțikä-äloka, Sanskrit, Tibetan translation of the Hetubindutika and Utpādādisiddhiṭīkā respectively.
Vide HBT p. 46, 23 p. 48, 16.
7 On page 93, 10 of U: anyo bhavan svabhavato etc. is the beginning of this. 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
phyi nas kyan ran bźin gtan la cjug pas de ma yin pa la rten pa ñid dan rten med pas de dños poti rkyen nam rgyu ma yin no ||
yan na du baci rgyu mtshan ñid kyis rgyu dan bras bur brjod pa dan ses pa dag yin | deci tshe du ba can gyi rgyu ñid kyi bras bu ni du ba las rgyu ñid du gyur | rgyu mtshan dan du ba med paci rgyu dan ma yin te bras bu ni de du baci cbras bu ñid do || de yan thams cad la bye brag med pas dños po thams cad phan tshun rgyu dan bras bui no bor gyur rosna ma dan phyi ma yod pa dan med paci bye brag gis de yan dir de ni cbrel pa med par mi rigs pas bogs dbyun du med pa la de mi rigs so || de dag kid dam dei khyad par dag dei mtshan ñid yin no źes dgons nas de yod na ni yod la de med na ni med pas rgyu dan bras buci no bo zes béad do ||
de ltar re zig mi dmigs pa dan than cig paci mnon sum dag gis rgyu dan bras bu dag yod na yod paci yul la rgyu dan bras bu yod pa yin te de yod na ni yod la de med na ni med pa mtshan Kid sgrub par byed pa béad do || res ga zig mi dmigs pacam mnon sum snon pas rgyu dan bras bu sgrub paci phyir deci yul re zig bstan pa ni | rgyu gran rnams yod kyan kes bya ba smos
te |
atadāśrayatvam. aladarayatvam.
anäéritam ca tadbhavaḥ pratyayahetur vā.
na
10
12
[atha samavāyanimittatvena käryakaraṇābhidhānapratyayau tada]11 samaviyikäraṇasyaiva ca 13 karyasamavayikāraṇatvam, na nimittäsamavāyikaranayoḥ, karyasya va tatsamavāyaḥ 13 käryatvam, tasya 14 ca sarvatrāviseşt tat sarvam vastu parasparam kāryakāraṇarupam syāt. pūrvottarabhāvābhāvaviseṣanată casya tadasambandhad ayuktā. niratiśayasya tadayogac ca. tayor eva va tadvidepanayos tallakṣaṇatā astu ity abhiprayavatoktam 15 tadbhāve bhavas tadabhāve 'bhāvaś ca kāryakāraṇabhāva iti.
evam tavad anupalambhasahāya pratyakşeņa kāryakāraṇayor bhave bhāvavisayasya kāryakāraṇabhāvasya tadbhavabhāvatadabhāvābhāvalakṣaṇasya siddhir ukta. kvacid anupalabdhyāpi pratyakapurvikaya karyakaraṇabhavasiddhes tadvişayam tavad darbayann äha satsv apy anyeşu hetusv iti.
10 katham U; cf. pratyayahetuḥ karyakaraṇabuddhihetur 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 tatsamavāyāt U.
14 asya U.
15 ity abhiprayavataiva dharmakirtinoktam U. Cf. abhiprāyavatā, vārtikakrteti prakaranāt (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 ghan 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 gyur ro ll gal te de dan Ebrel pas de la bltos pa yin no ze na ledir su zig skyed par byed pa ma yin na don g&am dam corel pas gia skged par bged na yan tshogs paci ran gi no bo kho nas skyed par byed pa yin te bras bu gcig byed pa la <