On Date And Works Of Naiyayika Sanskarasvamin

Author(s): Ernst Steinkellner
Publisher: Ernst Steinkellner
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269233/1

Page #1

ARCHIV FÜR INDISCHE PHILOSOPHIE
ON THE DATE AND WORKS OF THE NAIYĀYIKA
SANKARASVĀMIN
By Ernst Steinkellner, Wien
After I had dealt with Sankarasvāmin in a survey of the authors of the old Nyāya school?, I studied his fragments more closely in my dissertation. This study has brought about, besides its main object, some additional arguments for a determination of Sankarasvāmin's time and literary activity. A note on his "Sthirasiddhih" in KATSUMI MIMAKI'S recent books is the reason why I present here some new arguments for Sankarasvāmin's time and works based on my dissertation and further observations
Sankarasvāmin's fragments 5 can be divided into three groups:
1. fragments whose content covers the whole thematic range of Nyāya epistemology and natural science. These are to be found mainly in the Tattvasangrahapañjikā, f. i. on pratyakşa-, ātman-, avayavin-, sāmānya-, and in various other works, f. i. on vākya-, samavāya-, the nature of god, avayava-, etc.,
2. fragments centred around the proof of the existence of god ("iśvarasiddhi-"),
3. fragments centred around the refutation of the Buddhist proof of momentariness (“kşanabhangasiddhidūşana-”) and the proof of permanence ("sthirasiddhi-").
1 Die Literatur des älteren Nyāya. WZKS 5 (1961) 149—162. :: Augenblicklichkeitsbeweis und Gottesbeweis bei Sankarasvāmin. Dissertation (unpublished), Wien 1963.
3 La réfutation' bouddhique de la permance des choses (sthirasiddhidūşaņa) et la preuve de la momentanéité des choses (kṣaṇabhangasiddhi). Paris 1976, note 324.
- I hope to publish the main bulk of my dissertation within the larger frame-work of an edition and interpretation of the fragments of the old Nyāya in the future.
6 Since for our purpose it is not necessary to distinguish between literal and condensed quotations and reports, I consider at this time all passages which seem to convey the original meaning as "fragments". A differentiation will be necessary, of course, when we deal with the texts themselves.

Page #2

214
ERNST STEINKELLNER
The decisive difference between the fragments of the first and those of the second and third group is this: those of the first group seem to come from a work which deals with the pramānas and prameyas in the sense of the categories of the Nyāya- as well as of the Vaišeşika-system and has probably been his commentary (tikā) on the Nyāyabhāsyam, while the others come from essays, probably independent?, on the respective proofs. These fragments differ from those of the first group not only with regard to their content, but also with regard to the place, where they are to be found. They are to be found in the works of Karnakagomin, Jñānaśrimitra, Ratnakirti and Durvekamiśra, and they are, without exception, not to be found with Kamalasila. And I consider these circumstances an important and definite clue. in determining Sankarasvāmin's date more exactly than I could in my first paper 8.
I have demonstrated in my dissertation in detail with regard to those fragments which deal with the Buddhist proof of momentariness 10 that they show the structure and the character of the remains of a systematic essay. This essayll gives testimony to the fact that Sankarasvāmin was the first known Naiyāyika to examine the Buddhist arguments systematically and that by virtue of his argumentation and above all
6 A. WEZLER (Zur Identität der "ācāryāḥ" und der "vyākhyātārāh” in Jayantabhattas Nyāyamañjari. WZKS 19, 1975, note 22) points to Cakradhara's designation of Sankarasvāmin as Nyāyabhāşyaţikākst (Cakradhara's Nyāyamañjarigranthibhanga. Ed. NAGIN J. SHAH, Ahmedabad 1972, 167, 1f.).
? Because at least those of the third group are too many to be taken as fragments of an excursus.
8 WZKS 5 (1961) 156: in the later part of the period between Dharmakirti (ca. 600—660) and Santarakṣita (ca. 725—788) (cf. E. FRAUWALLNER, Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic. WZKS 5, 1961, 125–148).
9 loc. cit., 57-81.
10 Whether Sankarasvāmin's fragments of the proof of the existence of god also come from an independent essay, which is my impression, is difficult to prove because there are only a few of them. My main argument is: if it would not have been an independent treatise, the fragments could have come from his commentary on the Bhāşyam on NSū IV 1, 21, where he could have written a lengthy excursus similar to the one in Uddyotakara's Nyāyavārttikam. In that case his arguments against Dharmakirti could not have been neglected by Sāntarakṣita and Kamalaśila who knew of the Tikā. Therefore, it can be assumed that they come from a work other than the Tikā and as unknown to both as the *Kşanabhangasiddhidū. sanam. And such a work might just as well have been his *Távarasiddhiḥ.
11 Its hypothetical structure is the following (cf. loc. cit., 81): I. Against destruction without cause (ahetukavināśa-): J 131, 17-19;
134, 16-20; PSVT 515, 8-14 (PVV 387, 9-15); J 120, 142

Page #3

On the Date and Works of the Naiyāyika Sankarasvāmin
215
the logically well-arranged character of his polemics he has been the starting-point of all respective work in the last period of the old Nyāyaschool. I have hypothetically called this essay a *Kṣaṇabhangasiddhidūşaņam, because the structure and quantitative distribution of the fragments intimate that the main part of the work has been dedicated to a refutation of the Buddhist, i. e. Dharmakīrti's, proofs. Within this part we come across positive theories mainly within the theme of the co-operative causes (sahakārin-). Only a small part of the fragments which probably belong to the final section of the essay is dedicated to the positive proof of permanence (sthirasiddhi-).
In my first paper I assumed that Jñānasrimitra and Ratnakirti mention a Sthirasiddhiḥ as one of Sankarasvāmin's works12. After I had gotten access to Jñanaśrimitra's works and my examination of the respective fragments had shown the character of Sankarasvāmin's work to be basically that of negative polemics I withdrew this assumption and took sthirasiddhau (J 23, 1 and R 108, 16) simply to mean "to prove · permanence "13
I, therefore, think that we can take Sankarasvāmin today to have been the author of the following three different works: A Nyāyabhā
II. Against the inference from existence (sattvānumāna-): 1. the hetuħ is inconclusive (anaikāntika-):
a) because & vipakşa- cannot be brought about: J 87, 11-20 b) because, if the pervasion is based on the incompatibility (virodha-)
of causal efficiency and non-momentariness, the contrary, i. e. non-momentarinens exists: HBTA 370, 17-19: J 87, 1-4:
92, 9; 96, 20-22 c) because the pervasion is not absolute since there is a third kind
of efficiency: J 65, 16 2. unwarrantable consequences if momentariness is accepted: J 66,
22–67, 16 (R 65, 24-28; PVSVT 79, 27—80, 2); 79, 24–80, 1
(R 65, 28-29; 119, 28) 3. efficiency is possible with permanent things, too; theory of co
operative causes: J 18, 20-24 (R 79, 17-19; 69, 8—12); 21, 18–22;
30, 10-12; 32, 4-5; 33, 20—34, 13 III. Proving the permance of things:
1. through perception: J 11, 11; 11, 11-12 2. through inference: J 23, 1–5 (R 108, 17); 23, 849
12 This assumption was based on R 108, 16f. and remarks of A. THAKUR (Some lost Nyāya Works and Authors. 17th AIOC, Ahmedabad 1953, 390 and note 8) who had already drawn from his knowledge of Jñānasrimitra's works at that time.
13 Or "in (his) proof of permance/permanent (things).” The same is suggested by K. MIMAKI (loc. cit., note 324).

Page #4

216
ERNST STEINKELLNER
syațīkā, a *Kṣaṇabhangasiddhidūşaņam and an *Iśvarasiddhiḥ14, the last two being the first known attempt of the Nyāya-school to answer Dharmakirti's criticisms directly.
II
The evident supposition that a Buddhist author in Dharmakirti's tradition knowing the works of Sankarasvāmin would not pass over the latter's polemics against Dharmakirti in total silence helps us in this particular case to determine Sankarasvāmin's date quite precisely. Although in commenting on Sāntarakṣita's verses Kamalasila offers a large number of quotations from Sankarasvāmin which from their contents we can take as fragments of his Nyāyabhāşyaţikā, he does not quote even once, in the Isvaraparikşā or the Sthirabhāvaparīkņā or elsewhere, any of the arguments or criticisms we know from Sankarasvāmin's *Kşanabhangasiddhidūşaņam or *Távarasiddhiḥ.
The material Sāntarakşita compiles for the Pūrvapakşa of his Isvaraparikşā is from authors who predate Dharmakirti15. The signature of his refutation is completely Dharmakirti. And nowhere a hint of Sankarasvāmin's counter-attacks. The same is true of the Sthirabhāvapariksā: as far as the Nyāya is concerned there is only material from the period before Dharmakirti 16. In both cases no new, post-Dharmakirtian sources are referred to. Considering the depth and care of Šāntarakṣita's presentation and the minuteness of Kamalasila's comments I think we may safely conclude that both did not refer to these two works of Sankarasvāmin, simply because they did not know of them. That means that Sankarasvāmin must have been a contemporary of, śāntarakṣita and Kamalasīla and that his commentary on the Nyāyabhāsyam was drawn upon by both as a recent production. As the Tattvasangrahaḥ was written with a good reference-library, i. e. in all probability before śāntarakṣita left for Tibet in 76317, Sankarasvāmin's Nyāyabhāșyatīkā must have been written before 760.
The time of Kamalaśīla's finishing his commentary could serve as terminus post quem for Sankarasvāmin's *Kṣaṇabhangasiddhidūşaņam and *Išvarasiddhiḥ. For we know of at least one case where Kamalasila
14 Source of the following fragments: J234, 1—15; R46, 27–30; J 298, 19-24; J 236, 1–2 + 298, 25—26; J 298, 26—299, 1; J 239, 3—5 + 234, 16-17 + 299, 1–5; R 35, 10-16; J 278, 3; J 278, 4.
15 Aviddhakarņa, Uddyotakara, Prasastamati. 16 Uddyotakara, Bhāvivikta. 17 Cf. E. FRAUWALLNER, loc. cit., 143.

Page #5

217
On the Date and Works of the Naiyayika Sankarasvamin
refers to an author of topical interest who was not yet known to Śãntarakṣita, i. e. his appendix to the Svataḥprāmāṇyaparikṣā where he refers to Umbeka 18.
We do not know exactly when Kamalasila has finished his work. It is, however, clear that he could not possibly have written it after his departure for Tibet around 79019. The great accuracy of his commentary which interprets his teacher's text with consummate precision gives the impression that he worked on it for the most part under supervision of his teacher and only put on the finishing touch-by including some new literature-after his teacher's departure. I, therefore, think that it was written before ca. 765 and Sankarasvamin's essays would have to have been written after that time. Thus Sankarasvamin's literary activity can be determined as between 750 and 770 or 790 at the latest, and his life-time as ca. 720/730-780/790.
Only the fact that his *Kṣaṇabhangasiddhidūṣaṇam has been quoted or referred to by Karnakagomin 20 would speak against such a relatively late date. But R. GNOLI's proposition of the middle of the 7th century for Karnakagomin's life 21 cannot be maintained. His main argument that Sakyamati's commentary depends on his-is a perversion of the more reasonable historical probability that the purely philological commentary of Sakyamati was used as the basis for a commentary enlarged with digressions and appendices which are motivated by the better and later understanding of Dharmakirti's philosophical positions and problems 22. Moreover Karnakagomin, too, quotes Umbeka 23.
In spite of some as yet unanswered questions regarding the dates of important authors of Dharmakirti's tradition, f. i. Prajñākaragupta 24, I think that it is necessary to assume that Dharmakirti's
18 TSP 981, 22 ff.; cf. L. SCHMITHAUSEN, Mandanamiśra's Vibhramavivekaḥ mit einer Studie zur Entwicklung der indischen Irrtumslehre. Wien 1965, 216, note 150; K. KUNJUNNI RAJA, Preface in: Ślokavārtikavyākhyā Tātparyaṭikā. Madras 1971, VIII ff.
19 Cf. E. FRAUWALLNER, loc. cit., 143f.
20 PVSVT 515, 8-14 and 79, 27-80, 2 (which is a free report of the first part of a fragment found in J 66, 22ff.).
21 R. GNOLI, The Pramaṇavārttikam of Dharmakirti, the First Chapter with the Autocommentary. Roma 1960, Introduction, XXII; followed by E. FRAUWALLNER, loc. cit., 145f.
22 Cf. my remarks in HB II, 87, where I suggested ca. 750-810 for Karnakagomin, thus a contemporary of Dharmottara.
23 PVSVT 21, 2-13; 497, 19-25; K. KUNJUNNI RAJA, loc. cit., X f. 24 Cf. MAHENDRAKUMAR JAIN, Siddhiviniscayaṭīkā I. Benares 1959. Introduction, 43f.; R. GNOLI, loc. cit., XXII.

Page #6
218 ERNST STEINKELLNER philosophical work took considerable time to establish itself and be commented upon in its philosophical dimensions. For his immediate followers it seems sure that they were not capable of producing more than philological commentaries 25. His own tradition seems to have worked its way through to a philosophical interpretation of his thought only slowly. And the results of this effort did not begin to be fully effective until the second half of the 8th century. Under these circumstances it would not be astonishing to see that the answer to Dharmakirti from the leading opposition, the Nyaya-school, has come rather late, too 26. Abbreviations: Jnanasrimitranibandhavali, Buddhist Philosophical Works of Jnanasrimitra. Ed. A. THAKUR. Patna 1959. TSP Tattvasangrahapanjika: Tattvasangrahah I, II. Ed. DVARIKADA SASASTRI. Varanasi 1968. NSu Nyayasutram PVV Pramanavarttikavsttih: Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika with a commentary by Manorathanandin. Ed. R. SANKRTYAYANA. Patna 1938--1940. PVSVT Pramanavarttikasvavsttitika: Acarya-Dharmakirteh Pramana varttikam (Svarthanumanaparicchedah) svopajnavstty, Karna. kagomi-viracitaya tattikaya ca sahitam. Ed. R. SANKRTYAYANA. Allahabad 1943. Ratnakirti-Nibandhavali, Buddhist Nyaya Works of Ratnakirti. Ed. A. TRAKUR. Patna 1957. HB II Dharmakirti's Hetubinduh, Teil II: Ubersetzung und Anmerkun gen. Von E. STEINKELLNER. Wien 1967. HBTA Hetubindutikalokah: Hetubindutika of Bhatta Arcata with the Sub-Commentary entitled Aloka of Durveka Misra. Ed. S. SANGHAVI, Muni JINAVIJAYAJI. Baroda 1949. 25 E. FRAUWALLNER, Die Reihenfolge und Entstehung der Werke Dharmakirti's. Asiatica, Festschrift Friedrich Weller, Leipzig 1954, 153f. 26 The same would be the case with the Jaina epistemological school since the date of Akalanka (ca. 720--780) seems to be settled (cf. MAHENDRAKUMAR JAIN, loc. cit., 21-31; NAGIN J. SHAH, Akalanka's Criticism of Dharmakirti's Philosophy. Ahmedabad 1967). The many references Akalanka's commentators find in his texts to commentators of Dharmakirti, f. i. Prajnakaragupta, Dharmottara etc., have already been questioned by Pt. KAILASACANDRA (MAHENDRAKUMAR JAIN, loc. cit., 47 and Hindi Introduction 36). They definitely are in need of further consideration and seem highly doubtful.