Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
VIDYANANDA AND PĂTRAKÉSARI
ARE THEY IDENTICAL?
By H. R, Rangaswami Iyengar In a lengthy article entitled, Bhartshari and Kumārila, contributed to the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol. XVIII pp. 213-38, Mr. Pathak has tried to establish that Vidyānanda, author of the Tattvārtha ślokavārtika is identical with Pātrakesari, a great teacher of the Jains, who is said to have written a work probably known as Trilaksanakadarthana in refutation of the Buddhist doctrine of Trilakṣaṇahetu,' accor. ding to which the hetu or reason is defined to have three laksaņas or characteristics, i. e. fulfil three essential conditions, viz, that it should be in the pakşa, that it should be found in similar instances (Sapaksa ) and absent in dissimilar instances (Vipaksa). He has based his conclusions on two statements one, occurring in a work known as Samyaktvaprakaśa and the other, in a palmleaf manuscript of Adipuräna owned by a Pandit at Sravanabelgola. The statement in the Samyaktvaprakāśa, according to Mr. Pathak is as follows (P. 222). :
1. (a) Cf. Nyāyabindu :
Anumānam dvidhā svārtham parārthām ceti/ tatra svārtham trirūpāllingadyadanumeye jñānam tadanumānam. / trairūpyam punah lingasyanumeye satyameva, sapakşe satvameva / asapakşe asatvameva niscitam /
(b) Pramāņ#amuccaya 11-1: (i) Rjes dpag rnam gñis rān don ni
Tshul gsum rtags las don mthon pa'o
, bras bu snar bz'iu 'di gñis kyi / This may be restored to Sanskrit as,
Anumanam dvidhā svārtham Trirūpallingato rtha drk/
Phalam pūrvavadanayoh (ii) Ibid II 5b:
Rjes dpag bya dan d de mtshuns la Yod dan med la med pa'o / which, when restored into Sanskrit, will be anumêyeths
tattulye sadbhāvo năstitãsati (c) Tattvärthaślokavārtika. Nirnayasagara Edition. p. 203
verse 178.
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
H. R. R. IYENGAR
[P. O. Vol. XIII
Tathă Slokavārtikel-Vidyānandāpara PătrakesariSvāminā Yaduktam tacca likhyate tattvārthaśraddhānam samyagdarśanam/
According to it, the author of the work declares that he is writing down what has been said by Pātrakesari, known also as Vidyānanda, in his Slokavārtika. It amounts to saying that Pātrakesari had written the work Slokavārtika and had the other name Vidyānanda. The Slokavārtika, which is now available in print and ascribed to Vidyānanda, contains the passage quoted by the author of Samyaktvaprakāśa. It is, therefore, to be concluded that Pātrakesari is identical with Vidyānanda.
This identification, Mr. Pathak argues, is confirmed by the note in the manuscript copy of Adipurāņa owned by the Jaina Pandit at Śravanabelgola. It is recorded in the manuscript that Pātrakesari had also the name, Vidyānanda. It leads us to conclude that Pātrakesari is no other than Vidyānanda, the author of Slokavārtika.
But, on a critical examination of the arguments advanced by Mr. Pathak in support of his conclusion, in the light of the new evidences, literary and inscriptional, that are now available, it becomes clear that the view held by Mr. Pathak is unacceptable.
The Samyaktvaprākāśa from which Mr. Pathak has quoted to support this identification is, unfortunately, not available with us either in print or in manuscript to verify the statement and to examine critically the context in which the passage appears. It ascribes the Slokavārtika to Pātrakesari. But we have not met with a single reference to this name in any part of the Slokavārtika, nor do we find mentioned either in the works of Vidyānanda or of Pātrakesari that Vidyānanda was also known as Pātrakesari or that Pătrakesari had also the name, Vidyānanda. Besides the • Slok avārtika, works such as Aștasähasri, Pramāņa Parikşa, Yuk
tyanuśāsana and Apta parīkņā are ascribed to Vidyānanda. He has been known to be a great thinker and a versatile writer. But neither any one of his works nor any work of others which has
2. Ibid--P. 83, ( I. ii 2)
Atha, samyagdarśana vipratipatti nivstyartham Aha tattvārtha sraddhānam samyagdarśanamiti
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Nos. 3 & 4 )
VIDYANANDA AND PÁTRAKESARI
occasion to refer to him contains any reference to his othername, Pātrakesari. All these make us doubt the veracity of the statement in the Samyaktvaprakāśa.
The note in the manuscript of Adipurāņa under reference does not take us too far. It is a note made either by the scribe or by the owner of the manuscript. It is unsafe to draw conclusions depending on such a note, the authenticity of which itself is questionable. Even granting that it is authentic, it does not prove the identity of the author of the Slokavārtika and Patrakesari. The note only suggests that Pātrakesari had another name Vidyānanda. It may be that Pātrakesari had the title “ Vidyānanda". But this is not enough to prove that Pätrakesari was identical with Vidyānanda, the author of Slokavārtika.
We know from inscriptions as well as from Buddhist and Jaina literatures that Pātrakesari was a great teacher who contributed largely to the development and systematization of Jaina Logic and Philosophy. According to the story in the Kathākośa, which Mr. Pathak has quoted in full in his article, “Dharmakirti's Trilakṣaṇahetu”, Pātrakesari, assisted by Goddess Paạmāvatī refuted the Trilakṣaṇa doctrine in the well-known verse,
Anyathānu papannatvam yatra tatra trayeņa kim /
Nānyathānupapannatvam yatra tatra trayeņa kim/ This story is further alluded to in the Śravaņabe !go la inscriptions“ dated S. S. 1050 as follows
Mahimā sa Pátrakesari guroh param bhavati yasya bhaktyā. sit:Padmāvatisahāyā trilakşana kadarthanam kartum /
"Exceedingly great indeed is the glory of Pātrakesari, who owing to his devotion, was assisted by Goddess Padmāvati in refuting the doctrtne of Trilakşapa." The verse, beginning with "anyathānupapannatyam” which is considered to express the refutation of the Buddhist doctrine by Pātrakesari is found quot. ed in the Pramāņa-parikşā and Ślokavartika of Vidyānanda while criticising in detail the doctrine of Trilakşaņa defended by Dharmakirti in his Nyāyabindu and the Pramāņavārtika, which is
3. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. XII part I pp. 71-80.
4. Sravanbelgola Inscriptions-No. 67. . .
3
Page #4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
60
H. R. R. IYENGAR
(P. O. Vol. XIII
a gloss on the Pramāņa-samuccaya of Dinnāgā. In quoting this verse, Vidyānanda prefaces it with “tathoktam5" in the Pramā. ņa-parikşā and with“ vārtikakāreņoktam " in the Slokavārtika. If Pātrakesari was Vidyānanda there was no need for Vidyānanda to preface the verse attributed to Pātrakesari with “ Vartikakāreņa etc.” Evidently Vidyānanda is referring to a 'Vartikakāra' who is different from him. The view that Pātrakesari is Vidyānanda, the author of Slokavārtika, is not maintainable.
The fact that the verse, anyathānupapannatvam etc., was by Pātrakesari is further corroborated by its mention in the Tattvasangraha? of the Buddhist writer, Sāntarakṣita while criticising the view of Pātrasvāmin in the chapter on “Anumāna.” Santarakşita begins with a statement of the definition and division of Anumâna or inference according to Buddhist Logicians like Dinnāga and Dharmakīrti. The two opening verses of the chapter appear to be more or less identical with the relevent Kārikas in the Pramāna-samuccaya of Dinnāga® which is still extant only in Tibetan translations. Sāntarakṣita seems to refer, therefore, to the writings of Dinnāga. This is confirmed by the comments of Kamalasila ; for Kamalasila has repeated the very words of Dinnāga's texts and quoted the words relating to the fallacies which is found in the Pramāņa-samuccaya and the Hetucakra of
5. Pramānaparikså p. 72 ( Kasi Edition ).
6. Slokavārtika p. 205 :-Hétu lakşaņam Vārtikakāreņa evamuktam, anyathānupapannatvam yatra tatra trayeņa kim iti. 7. Tattavasangraha (Gocs ) pp. 405 ff:- .
anyathétyādinā pātrāsvāmi matamāśankate 8. Tattvasangraha p. 404.
Svārtham trirupatolingādanumeyarthā darśanam Trirūpalingavacanam parārtham punarucyate |
Ekaikadvidvirûportho lingābhāsastato mataḥ Cf Pramāṇasamuccaya
(1) rjes dpag rnam gñis ran don ni
Tshul gsum rtags laş dan mthon pão, II (1) (2) gz'an gyi, don. gyi rjes dpag ni
ran gis mthon dan gsal byed yin // III (1) ts hul ni ro ro 'am gñis gñis. kyi rtags ni don. gyi dan byed min. // II (6cd)
Page #5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Nos. 3 & 4)
VIDYANANDA AND PĀTRAKESARI
61
Dinnaga. Sānta rakṣita expounds next, the views of a teacher of a rival school, who according to Kamalaśīla, is Pätraswāmin. Here also, Saptarakṣita quotes the verse "anyathānupapannatvam' ” etc., which, we know, is the Vārtika of Pātrakesari. Hence, Patraswamin must be regarded as the shortened form of Pātrakesari." Dr. Bhattacharya, the general editor of the series in which the Tattvasangraha has been published, has assigned Santarakṣita, to the beginning of the 8th century A. D.12 Pátrakesari should, therefore, be considered to have lived long before Sāntrakşita. He cannot be identical with Vidyānanda, the author of the Slokavārtika, who is assigned to the 9th century A. D.
It is interesting to note, in this connection, that Jinendrabuddhi in his tikā, Viśālāmalavati, on the Pramāna-samuccayaVritti of Dinnāga states the views of a teacher by name,' Abrika while offering his comments on the definition of Svārthānumāna or “ Inference for oneself” by Dinnāga. In this context are found two Kārikas attributed to “ Abrika " which when restored into Sanskrit from Tibetan, will be found to be identical with a verse found" in the Tattvasangraha of Sāntirakşita and another
9. Cf the Pañjikā of Kamalaśīla :
Anúmānam svārtha parārtha bhedena dividham / Tatra svartham yatri Tüpållingăț pakşdharmatvam sapakşe satvam vipakşacca sarvato vyāvstti rityevam laksanādanumeyārtha vişayam jñānam ta dātmakam boddhavyam/ parārtham tu yathokta trirūpa lingaprakāšaka vacanātmakam drastavyam/ taduktam :
Krtākatvāt dhvanirnityo mūrtatvādprameyataḥ / amūrtāśrāvaṇatvābhyāmanityam cākşuş atvataḥ cf. Pramāṇasamccaya II. 7.
byas, phyir sgra na rtag pa dan lus. can phyir dan gz'an min phyir,
lus min phyir dan mñam bya las .. ni rtag mig gis gzun byai phyir //
This Kārika is repeated in the Hetucakra 10. Cf, Tattvasangraha. p. 405
"11. Cf. Annals of the Bhandarbar Oriental Research Institute XII i p. 76.
12. Cf, Introduction to Tattvasangraha ppuci. (Gaekwad Oriental Series) 13. Visālāmalatikā. Mdo, re, folio 94ff :tshul geum ma yin pa. yin'ga zig, rtags lu 'dod del des na dei logss
5
Page #6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
· 62
H. R. R. IYENGAR
(P. O. Vol. XIII
with the one in the Pañjikā of Kamalāśila in the very context in: which the views of Pātrakesari are stated and criticised in those works. This will prove that Pātrasvāmin was also known as "Ahrika" 15 But no one, with a sense of self-respect, will agree to call himself “ Ahrika or shameless”. It appears, therefore, to be a nickname given to a person or to a school by those be
pài rtogs pa bzlog, pài ched du gsum pa smos, so / de la dzem med pas. smas palos
ganz'ig. gi. snam pa gz'as du min thad pa ñid di gtan tshigs, su. 'dod. de / mshan ñid gcig pa, can, kho, na yin pa des ni don
mtshan ñid z'i can kho não z'es te rnam par, gz'an, du. y'es pa besgrur par. bya ba med par z'es pài .don to
Tiruntharellem s faecorrido ( Sanskrit restoration :--Viņā trirūpam kvacillingam işyate / tanmjhtyadrstinivstyvartham trirūpamiti 7 tatra ahri kena uktam :* Anyathā nupapannatvam yasyāsau heturiaşyate
Ekalakşanakh sortha scaturlaksanakothava //
Anyatha sadhyena vina ityarthah / 14. Cf. Panjika 409.
Atha sādhyadharminyeva sadhyāvinābhāvitvam.hetoryattadeva hetulaksanam Yathāha .--
Vinā sādhyādad;ştasya Dțştānte hetutesyate
Parairmayā punardharminyasambhuşnervināmunā | . . Cf. Viśālamalaţikā. Mdo, folio 94ff.
O‘. na. 'di med na. mi byun ba kho. na 'gyur. z'e. na. 'ma. yin. no, z'es, 'dzem med pa. ste / med na mi 'byun ba. ñid nibsgrub par. bya ba. las. phyirol du 'dod | rnam pa. gz'an, du mi thad la ñid ni chos can kho, na, la bsgrub par bya bào z'es pào tshigs bcad pa. yan smras pa /
dpe la bsgrubs bya, med pai an rtags ñid ma mthon gz'an. gyis 'dad bdag. gis 'di. ni. med. par. yan
chos can, la. ni mi, srid páo / Tarhi avinābhāva eva syāditi cennetya hrikah / avinābhā
a hrikah lavinābhāvohi sādhyabahirbhutah. | anyathānupapannatvam tu sādhya dharminyeva | kärikā coktā :
Vinā sādhyādadpstāsya df$tānte hetuteşyate Parāir mayā / punardharminyasambhusạner vināmuna
Santarakṣita refers to the views of Ahrikā in another connection, See, Tattvasangraha P. 486.--tādatra ahrikādayscodayanti Yathākramam ahrikah prayogadvayamāha
Page #7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ Nos. 3 & 4] VIDYANANDA AND PATRAKESARI longing to a rival school of thought, which is quite common in the philosophical literature of India. By " Abrika" other Buddhist writers may here refer to the Digambara school. The identification of the Karikas found in the Visalamalavati tika with those found in the works of Santa raksita and Kamalasila suggests that Patrasvamia or Patrakesari was a teacher of the Digambara school of the Jains who attained glory by the refutation of the Trilaksana doctrine of Hetu, known to have been well established by Dinnaga. This pushes the date of Patrakesari further back and suggests that Patrakesari must have lived sometime after Dinnaga and before Dharmakirti. It is far from truth to say that Patrakesari is identical with Vidyananda, the author of Slokavartika, who actually quotes from the works of Dharmakirti and is assigned to 9th Century A.D.