Nyayachakra Lekh

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269259/1

Page #1
Dvadadaram Nayacakram of Acarya Sri Mallavadi Ksamasramana With the commentary Nyayagamanusarini of Sri Simhasuri Gani Vadi Ksumasramuna. Part I (1-4 Aras). Edited with critical notes by Muni Jambuvijayaji ( - Sri Amanand Jain Granthamala, Serial. No. 92). Bhavnagar, Sri Jain Atmanand Sabha, 1966. 8+4 + 6 +98 +375 + 166 pp. Rs. 25.00 Mallavadin's Nayacakra is one of the most important of the older Jaina philosophical works. It is of very great interest not only for the light it throws on Jaina philosophy, but also for the information on other philosophical schools which can be obtained from it. It is regrettable that the Nayacakra itself has not been preserved. However, the Nyayagumanusarini, a commentary on the Nayacakra by Simhasuri, has been handed down. Fditors of this text have tried to reconstruct the text of the Nayacakra. An edition of the first four ura-s (the Nayacakra consists of three marga-s; each marga ceniprises four ara-s) appeared in the Gaek wad Oriental Seried in 19521 Another edition has teen published in the Shri Labdhisurishwar Jain Granthamala. E. Frauwallner, has pointed out the shortcomings of both editions. In the same article Frauyallner annouriced a new edition by Muni Jambuvijayaji. The first volume, comprising the first four ara-s, has now appeared as volume 92 of the Sri Atmanand Jdin Granthamnla. The first part contains an English introduction by E. Frauwallner (pp. 1-6), a Sanskrit introduction (prakkathana) by the editor (pp. 7-43) and a Gujarati introduction (prastavana) by the same (pp. 44-89). The Sanskrit and Gujarati introductions are not identical, which is clear from the fact that the first refers to the second. However, my ignorance of Gujarati prevents me from indicating which additional information can be found in the prastavana. The prakkathana discusses not only many important problems, but it also relates in detail the rather complicated history of this edition and the methods employed by the editor in overcoming the difficulties which confronted him. In Vikrama 2001 * Muni Jambuvijayaji planned to edit Jinabhadra's Visesavas yakamahabhasya, but at the request of his Guru Sri Bhuvanavijayaji Maharaja, he abandoned this plan and undertook to edit the Nyayagmanusarini and to reconstruct the original text of the Nayacakra. Although six manuscripts were at his disposal, he soon recognized that a correct text could not be established without studying the many works quoted by Simhasuri. Of special importance for this purpose were Buddhist works which had been preserved in Tibetan translation. In order to be able to read these works Muni Jambuvijayaji undertook the study of Tibetan. The discovery of an older manuscript of Simhasuri's commentary also greatly facilitated the establishment of a correct text. After having finished preliminary studies the editor prepared his edition of the text and commentary for the press. First the text of ara-s 1-7 (pp. 1-552) was printed after delays due to several causes. The printing of this part of the text was completed before the death of his guru and father on 16th February 1959. Subsequently the eighth ara 1 Dvadasarui.ayacakra of Srinallavadisuri, with the commentary Nyayagamanusarini of Sti Sinihusi ri, ed. by the late Muni Caturvijayaji and Lalcandra B. Gandhi ( = GOS, No. CXVI) (Baroda, 1952). * The Dvadasharanayachakram of Sri Mallavadi Kshamasramana with the Nyayagamanusarini Commentary by Sri Sinhasurigani Vadi Kshamastamana, ed. by Acharya Vijayalabdhisuri (=Shri Lubdhisurishwar Jain Granthamala, No. 20 & 26) (Chhani, 1948 & 1951) (see WZKSO, I, 1957, p. 147 n. 1). Part III was published in 1957 (see W ZKSO, DI, 1959, p. 100 n. 33). I have not been able to consult this edition. "The Editions of Mallavadi's Dvadasaranayacakram", WZKSO, I, 1957, pp. 147151. * Muni Jambuvijayaji quotes all dates according to the Vikrama era.

Page #2
(pp. 553-737) was printed. In the introduction and appendices references are given to the pages of the printed text of the first eight ara-s, although the present volume only comprises the first four. On n. 11. n. 1, the editor lists the sources which inform us on the life of Mallavadin. 1. Bhadresvarasuri's Kahavali (Vikrama second half of the twelfth century); 2. Prabhavacandrasuri's Prabhavakacarita (Vikr. 1334); 3. Merutunga's Prabandhucintamani (Vikr. 1361); 4. Rajasekharasuri's Prabandhakosa (Vikr. 1405); 5. Sanghatilakacarya's Samy akivasuriati (Vikr. 1422). In the same note the editor reproduces the text of the life of Mallavadin in the Kahavali and in Amradevasuri's commentary on Nemicandrasuri's akhyanorranikosa (Vikr. 1190). The text of the Kahavali is also reproduced in the introduction of GCS vol. 116. This introduction quotes passages from many texts relating to Mallavadin (pp. 9-29). It also refers to a manascript, written in Vikr. 1291, and containing a life of Mallavadin in Prakrit (cf. GOS, vol. 76. pp. 194-195). Ecwever, the manuscript itself was not available to the editor. According to the Prabhavakacarita, Mallavadin conquered the Bauddhas (i.e. Fuddhanarda) in Vira 884 (= Vikr. 414). The Nayacakra discusses the doctrines of n'any philosophers such as Varsaganya, Vasurata, Bhartshari, Vasubandhu (the author of the Kosa!) and Dignaga. According to the editor, the date mentioned by Prabha. vacar.dra does not conflict with the dates of these philosophers who accordingly must have lived before Mallavadin or in the same period (ca. 350 A.D.). If this is the case, the traditionally assumed dates of many Indian philosophers would have to be revised. However, such a late text as the Prabhavakacarita is not an authoritative source for the date of Mallavadin. More evidence is certainly needed before this date can be allowed. In the second place, the names of the above-mentioned philosophers seem to occur crly in Sinhasuri's commentary. In the case of each of them it must be proved beyond all dcutt that Mallavadin really refers to the philosophers mentioned by Simhasuri. Cremust not te misled by the fact that the editor has printed in bold type in the text of the con n entary not only the quotations from the Nayacakra, but also proper names which are atsent from it. Only after the publication of the second volume of this edition will it te possible to corsider the available evidence and to examine the reliability of Simhasuri's ir.dications. Muni Jambuvijayaji has already published several articles on the dates of Mallavadir, Bharthari and Dignaga. According to the passages of Simhasuri's commentary quoted by him (pages 15 and 16, notes 2 and 3) Vasurata was the teacher of Bhartshari. As is pointed out by the editor, the same tradition is found in Punyaraja's commer tary on Bhartrhari's Vakyapadi ya II, 486, 489 and 490. Several scholars agree also that, according to Punyaraja's commentary on Vakyapadiya II, 489, Candracarya = Cardragc min was the master of Vasurata. The dates of Candragomin and Ehartshari have been discussed by many scholars.? Of great importance for deter This date is given by Anantalal Thakur in his Introduction to Muni Jambuvijayajl's edition of the Vaisesikasutra of Kanada with the Commentary of Candrananda (= GOS, No. 136) (1961). The date, indicated by Muni Jambuvijayaji (prakkathana p. 7 n.1), is Vikrama 2015, the eighth day of the white half of the month Magha. * "Mallavadi ane Bhartharino samay", Jaina Satyaprakasa, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Nov. 1951)/pp. 26-30; Buddhiprakasa, vol. 98, No.11 (Nov. 1951), pp. 332-335; "Bhartshari aur Dinnaga ka samay", Nagari pracarin Patrikd, Vol. 60, Nos. 3-4 (Samvat 2012), pp. 227-233; "Bharthari ane Dinnaga", Jaink Atmananda Prakasa, Vol. 50, No. 2 (15 Sept. 1952), pp. 22-27 (see prakkathana pp. 15 and 16 notes 2 and 3). I have been unable to consult these articles. ? See the references given by Sadhu Ram, "Bharthari's Date", Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute, Vol. IX (1952), pp. 135-151. See also David Seyfort Ruege, Contributions a l'histoire de la philosophie linguistique indienne (Paris, 1959), pp. 57-64 and the literature quoted by him.

Page #3
mining the date of Bhartrhari is the recent discovery of two verses from the Vakyapadiya (II, 160 and 157) in the fifth chapter of Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya. This discovery seems to have been made simultaneously by H.R. Rangaswamy Iyengar and Muni Jambuvijayaji. Frauwallner has recently shown that Dignaga's Traikalyapariksa is based upon the Vakyapadiya. If one combines Simhasuri's indications and the fact that Bharthari is quoted by Dignaga, the following chronological sequence can be established: Vasurata Bhartrhari- Dignaga Mallavadin. Even if Mallavadin cannot be dated in the fourth century A.D., there is no doubt that Bhartrhari must have lived long before the first half of the seventh century as had been generally agreed in the past on the strength of I-ching's testimony. 10 Moreover, if Punyaraja's commentary is understood to mean that Candragomin was the teacher of Vasurata, he must have lived in a period much earlier than any one of those proposed previously. However, the text of Punyaraja's commentary is not unambiguously clear. Even if the abovementioned interpretation is correct, how much credit has to be given to the testimony of an author who probably lived many centuries after Candragomin?11 According to Simhasari's commentary Dignaga attacked his guru Vasubandhu (the author of the Vadavadhi). This tradition was already known from Taranatha's History. Frauwallner has pointed out that this alleged pupilship hails from the late and unsatisfactory Tibetan tradition. 13 Taranatha's work was written in 1608 and is not always a reliable source. However, it is clear from Simhasuri's commentary that the tradition of Dignaga's pupilship goes back to a much earlier period. Finally, the editor draws our attention to the fact that Dignaga's doctrines have been refuted by the Jain author Samantabhadra in his Aptamimamsa. The Frabhavakacarita attributes to Mallavadin the authorship of a Ramayana, called Padmacarita. According to the same text, the Nayacakra comprises ten thousand slokas (i.e. 320.000 syllables). Both indications do not seem very reliable. The second is inadmissable, because Simphasuri's commentary comprises eighteen thousand slokas and is several times longer than the text commented upon. More credible is the tradition H. R. Rangaswamy Iyengar, "Bhartrhari and Dinnaga", Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series, Vol. 26 (1951), pp. 147-149. According to Sadhu Ram (op.cit., p. 142 n. 25) the same verses have been traced by Muni Jambuvijayaji in the first two articles mentioned in note 6. Sadhu Ram and Muni Jambuvijayaji (prakkathana p. 16 n. 3) refer to Vakyapadiya II, 156 and 157, Rangaswamy Iyengar (op.cit., p. 149 n. 12), Nakamura Hajime ("Tibetan Citations of Bhartrharis Verses and the Problem of his Date", Studies in Indology and Buddhology. Presented in Honour of Professor Susumu Yamaguchi, Kyoto, 1955, p. 134) and Frauwallner (WZKSO, V, 1961, p. 13) to Vakyapadiya II, 160 and 157. I have not been able to verify in the edition of the Benares Sanskrit Series which of the two indications is correct. Muni Jambuvijayai points out that Dignaga has also quoted another verse of Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiva (1. 14,8) in his vrtti on the second verse of the fifth chapter of the Framanash uccaya (prakkathana p. 16 n. 3). Quotations from Bharthari's Vayapadiya in other works have been studied by Nakamura (op.cit., pp. 122-136). 9 8 WZKSO, III (1959), pp. 107-116, 145-152. See e.g. Louis Renou, La Durghatavrtti de Saranadeva, Vol. I, Fasc. 1 (Paris, 1940), p. 37: "Bhartrhari est l'un des rares noms de la litterature grammaticale exactement datable, depuis que Max Muller a eu reconnu en lui le grammairien mentionne par Itsing comme etant mort en 651." 11 See L. de La Vallee Poussin, Dynasties et Histoire de l'Inde depuis Kanishka (Paris, 1935), p. 64 n. 2; D. Seyfort Ruegg, op.cit., pp. 58-59. 12 For the date of Punyaraja see D. Seyfort Ruegg, op. cit., p. 63 n.1. Cf. On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu (Roma, 1951), p. 63. 10 7

Page #4
which attributes to Maavadin the authorship of a commentary upon Siddhasena Divakara's Sammati. The Nayacakra and its commentary are of great importance for the study of Indian philosophical systems, as is pointed out by the editor in his introduction (prakkathana, pp. 19-23). Simhasuri's commentary is of special interest for the information which it gives on the older Samkhya and Vaisesika literature and on Buddhist logic. One of the most important texts of the older Samkhya literature is the Sastitantra by Vrsagana or Varsaganya. Quotations from it are to be found in the third chapter of Simhasuri's commentary. Simhasuri's commentary on the sixth and seventh ara-s is of very great interest for the study of the older Vaisepika literature and of the text of the Vaisesika sutras. The text of the Sutrapatha quoted by Simhasuri is different from the one in Sankaramitra's Upaskara but agrees with the Sutrapatha which has been transmitted together with a commentary by Candrananda. When the text of the first five ara-s of the Nayacakra had already been printed, the editor obtained a manuscript containing both a separate text of the Vaisesikasutras and the Sutras together with Candrananda's vrtti (MS. PS/P, cf. GOS, No. 136, Baroda, 1961, Introduction, p. 1). This manuscript has been used by him for reproducing the complete text of the Sutras and the commentary in the notes of this edition (see p. 141: "Vaisesikasutrasambandhi parisistam" for a list of the relevant notes). Subsequently, the editor obtained a copy of another manuscript, written in Sarada script (MS. O). 15 On the basis of these two manuscripts/PS/P and O) he has edited the Vaisesikasutra of Kanada with the Commentary of Candrananda (GOS, No. 136, Baroda, 1961).1 This edition contains appendices comparing the Sutrapatha with those found in the Upaskara and in an anonymous commentary, edited by Anantalal Thakur." Another appendix examines in detail the readings of the Sutrapatha according to the two manuscripts and quotations from the Sutras in other texts (pp. 227234: Vrddhipatrakam). Simhasuri quotes several Vaisesika works which have not been handed down to us. These quotations have been brought together by the editor in an appendix to has edition of the Vaisesikasutras (pp. 146-152). The problems relating to these works have been dealt with by him in his prastavana (pp. 6-8) to the same edition. Simhasuri gives several references to Aryadeva's Catuhsataka an to Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa but his main contribution to the study of Buddhist philosophy is to be found in his discussion of Dignaga's philosophy in the first and eight ara-s. In order to enable the reader to understand better Dignaga's doctrines, the editor has translated into Sanskrit large sections from the Pranianasamaccaya, Dignaga's vrtti and Jinendrabuddhi's lika (cf. Bhotaparipistam, pp. 95-140). Other sections of these works have been translated in notes to the eighth ara (cf. prakkathana, p. 39 n. 8 for a list of references). The editor had already used the same works for the study of Vaisesika and Nyaya doctrines (cf. GOS, nr. 136, pp. 153-129). I 18 14 Cf. E. Frauwallner, "Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Samkhya-Systems", WZKSO, II (1958), pp. 84-139; G. Oberhammer, "The Authorship of the Sastitantram", WZKSO, IV (1960), pp. 71-91. Important for the date of Varsaganya is the discovery of a reference to him in Asanga's Yogacarabhumi, cf. D. Seyfort Ruegg, "Note on Varsaganya and the Yogacarabhumi", IIJ, VI (1962), pp. 137-140. As this manuscript was not at the disposal of the editor for the establishment of the text: the Sutras and the vrtti in the notes of his edition of the Nayacakra, a list of better readings to be found in MS. O is given in a special appendix (pp. 158-161). 16 Cf. E. Frauwallner's review, WZKSO, VI (1962), pp. 184-185. Vaise ikadarsana of Kanada with an anonymous commentary, ed. by Anantalal Thakur (Darbhanga, 1957). GOS, No 136 reproduces the Tibetan text in Tibetan characters (cf. p 1-1 D. In 17

Page #5
The editor points out that in the eighth ara Mallavadin discusses the apohavada, but does not seem to refer to the fifth chapter of the Pramanasamuccaya. He advances the hypothesis that Mallavadin has taken the purvapak$a from Dignaga's Samayaparik sa mentioned on pages 627-628 of the text. l-ching has translated a short work by Dignaga 07. nr. 1623), of wich the Sanskrit title has been reconstructed as Samanyalak sanapariksa by Frauwallner (WZKSO, II, 1959, p. 139). In a letter to Muni Jambuvivajaji, Frauuallrer gives some information about this text (cf. GOS, No. 136, p. 153, n. 2). It is possible that Digraga had written a commentary upon this text which corsists of eleven verses. Probably he had studied the apohavada in this commentary. It seems difficult to imagine that Dignaga would have written both a Samanyalak sanapariksa and a San antararik a. Simhasuri refers also to a commentator of a work by Dignaga. According to the editor, the commentator is not Dignaga himself nor Dharmakirt for Jinendrabuddhi who both telong to a later period. Isvarasena is known to have written a commentary on the Praniunasamuccaya, but his work is lost." According to Frauwallner, he was probably the teacher of Dharmakirti.* The identity of the commentator to whom Simhasuri refers, is a problem the solution of which must be left to future research. Obviously, Simhasuri's work quotes many Jain texts. The editor points out that the quctations from the Agamas often give a text different from the one established in Vira 980(- Vikr. 510). He admits that both Mallavadin and Simhasuri must have lived before that date. Further he remarks that the quotations from the Nandisutra in the eighth ara prove that originally this work consisted of two parts, sutra and bhasya, which were later amalgamated into one work. Little is known about Simhasuri. A verse from another work by him is quoted by Kostarya in his commentary upon the Visesavasyakabhasya. Koffarya quotes Dignaga, the Avas yakacurni and Simhasuri's commentary, but not Kumarila and Dharmakirti. Simhasuri quotes three verses which also occur in the Visesuvasyakabhasya, but according to the editor the source of this quotation is a different work. He supposes that Simhasuri lived shortly after Mallavadin, because he refers to Dignaga as a "contemporary Bauddha" (adyatanabuuddha) and quotes the Agamas according to a tradition different from the one established in Vikrama 510. As mentioned above, the editor first used six manuscripts. All these manuscripts go back directly or indirectly to a manuscript written by Yabovijayaya (MS. YA) in Vikrama 1710. Only when the first seven ara-s had been printed, did this manuscript come to the notice of the editor. In establishing the text of these ara-s, the editor gives the variant readings of these six manuscripts. In an appendix he lists the reading of MS. YA for those places where the six manuscripts have not the same readings (pp. 142-146). In editing the text of the last five ara-s, the editor does not give the variant readings of the six manuscripts, but only refers to MS. YA. As mentioned earlier, the discovery of an older manuscript was of great help to the editor. This manuscript, referred to by the editor as Ms. bhA, was written by Puna at the order of Dharmamurti who lived from Vikrana 1585 to 1670. It gives many correct reading not to be found in the six manuscripts derived from MS. YA. The editor assumes that it has been written about Vikrama 1650 and consequently is sixty years older than MS. YA. MS. YA seems to be more correct than MS. BHA, but both share several incorrect readings. For this reason the editor believes ihat both manuscripts descend from a common archetype. "1 the Bhotaparisista Tibetan texts are transliterated in devanagari. Would it not have Leon possible to use romanization? " (1. Linst sicikeliner, 'enerkungen zu Isvarasenas Lehre vom Grund", W ZKSO, (1966), pp. 73-85. 24 Cf. WZKSO, V (1961), p. 141. 21 The edition of the Nayacakra published in GOS is based upon two

Page #6
The editor does not provide us with a palaeographic description of the manuscripts. tut gives a useful list of aksara-s which have been misread by the scribes (prakkathana, p. 37). The numbers in the margin of the text refer to MS. BHA (e.g. recto and verso of f. 4 are indicated by 4-1 and 4-2). In quoting the text of the Navacakravrtii in his notes at the tettom of the pages, the editor always refers to the folios of this manuscript. The recrsincted text of the Nayacakru is printed at the top of each page in bold type. The commentary is printed below and is separated from the reconstructed text by a linc. Cuotations from the Navacakra in the commentary also printed in bold type. The retail.chettoni of the page record variant reading and quotations which are helpful for the establishment of the text. Extensive notes and quotations from many texts are to te found in a separate appendix (pp. 1-94). It will probably be useful for the reader to indicate briefly the contents of the threo which constitute this volume. Partl. Introduction by F. Frauwallner: pp. 1-6; Sanskrit introduction (prakkathana) by the editor: pp. 7-43; Gujarati introduction (prastavana) by the editor: pp. 44-89; detailed table of contents of parts II and III: pp. 90-98. Part !). Text of the first four ara-s: pp. 1-375. Tant !II. A. ? ippananu: pp. 1-94; B. Bhotapartisistam: pp. 95-140; C. Vaisesikasutrasamtarchi parisistam: p. 141; D. YA pratipathaparisistam; pp. 142-146; E. Mayacahre vsttau va catursv are$ullikhitanam vada-vadi-grantha-granthaksnnamnam sucih: rp. 147-148; F. Sampadanopayukta granthasucih sanketadivivaranam ca: pp. 149-157; G. Candranandaracitavsttiyutasya Vaicesikasutrasya adhyaakramena 0. pustake suddhapalhah: pp. 158-161; H. Nayacakraprathamavibhagasya suddhipatrakam: pp. 162-166. The editor announces that the second volume, containing the remaining eight ara-s, will be published in the near future. This edition will be of the greatest importance for the study of the older period of Indian philosophy which is relatively unknown because many works have not been preserved. It would be difficult to mention another edition of an Indian philosophical text which has been edited with so much care. Already from the long list of tooks, consulted by the editor (cf. Part III F), it is obvious that he has spared no pains in preparing this edition. How many works, some only existing in manuscript from, have been consulted by him in order to trace the quotations in the text! The translation of complicated logical texts from Tibetan into Sanskrit must have demanded great efforts as the editor states in his introduction: anekavarsani bhrsarh parisramyanubhih sankalitam idam bhofaparififtam (p: 40). The reconstruction of the Aayacakra was perhaps even more difficult. In the first place the pratiku-s have to be traced in the commentary. In many places the commentator quotes only the first and last words of a passage. Sometimes no explanation is given by the commentator who, in such cases, contents himself with stating that the text is spaham or sugamam. An entirely correct reconstruction of the original is perhaps impossible, as long as no other materials are available. As Frauwallner remarks in his preface, the reconstruction has teen carefully considered and deserves our full attention. We are looking forward to the second volume of this magnum opus which does great honour to the scholarship of Muni Jambuvijayaji. Australian National University J. W. de Jong manuscripts, MS. PA (one of the six manuscripts based upon YA) and MS. BHA (MS. BI!A of Muni Jamibuvijayaji's edition. These two manuscripts seem to have been used only by the second editor Laiacandra B. Gandhi (cf. prastavana, pp. 37-38). In the first of the text references are given to MSS. KA, KHA, GA and GHA, but no information is given about these manuscripts. A few reading from PA and BHA are quoled om pages 1-10. Probably they were added later by the second editor.