Vidyananda And Patrakesari Are They Identical

Author(s): H R Rangaswamy Iyengar
Publisher: H R Rangaswamy Iyengar
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269395/1

Page #1
VIDYANANDA AND PATRAKESARI ARE THEY IDENTICAL? By H. R, Rangaswami Iyengar In a lengthy article entitled, Bhartshari and Kumarila, 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 Vidyananda, author of the Tattvartha slokavartika is identical with Patrakesari, 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 Trilaksanahetu,' accor. ding to which the hetu or reason is defined to have three laksanas or characteristics, i. e. fulfil three essential conditions, viz, that it should be in the paksa, 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 Samyaktvaprakasa and the other, in a palmleaf manuscript of Adipurana owned by a Pandit at Sravanabelgola. The statement in the Samyaktvaprakasa, according to Mr. Pathak is as follows (P. 222). : 1. (a) Cf. Nyayabindu : Anumanam dvidha svartham parartham ceti/ tatra svartham trirupallingadyadanumeye jnanam tadanumanam. / trairupyam punah lingasyanumeye satyameva, sapakse satvameva / asapakse asatvameva niscitam / (b) Praman#amuccaya 11-1: (i) Rjes dpag rnam gnis ran don ni Tshul gsum rtags las don mthon pa'o , bras bu snar bz'iu 'di gnis kyi / This may be restored to Sanskrit as, Anumanam dvidha svartham Trirupallingato rtha drk/ Phalam purvavadanayoh (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 anumeyeths tattulye sadbhavo nastitasati (c) Tattvarthaslokavartika. Nirnayasagara Edition. p. 203 verse 178.

Page #2
H. R. R. IYENGAR [P. O. Vol. XIII Tatha Slokavartikel-Vidyanandapara PatrakesariSvamina Yaduktam tacca likhyate tattvarthasraddhanam samyagdarsanam/ According to it, the author of the work declares that he is writing down what has been said by Patrakesari, known also as Vidyananda, in his Slokavartika. It amounts to saying that Patrakesari had written the work Slokavartika and had the other name Vidyananda. The Slokavartika, which is now available in print and ascribed to Vidyananda, contains the passage quoted by the author of Samyaktvaprakasa. It is, therefore, to be concluded that Patrakesari is identical with Vidyananda. This identification, Mr. Pathak argues, is confirmed by the note in the manuscript copy of Adipurana owned by the Jaina Pandit at Sravanabelgola. It is recorded in the manuscript that Patrakesari had also the name, Vidyananda. It leads us to conclude that Patrakesari is no other than Vidyananda, the author of Slokavartika. 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 Samyaktvaprakasa 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 Slokavartika to Patrakesari. But we have not met with a single reference to this name in any part of the Slokavartika, nor do we find mentioned either in the works of Vidyananda or of Patrakesari that Vidyananda was also known as Patrakesari or that Patrakesari had also the name, Vidyananda. Besides the * Slok avartika, works such as Astasahasri, Pramana Pariksa, Yuk tyanusasana and Apta parikna are ascribed to Vidyananda. 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, samyagdarsana vipratipatti nivstyartham Aha tattvartha sraddhanam samyagdarsanamiti

Page #3
Nos. 3 & 4 ) VIDYANANDA AND PATRAKESARI occasion to refer to him contains any reference to his othername, Patrakesari. All these make us doubt the veracity of the statement in the Samyaktvaprakasa. The note in the manuscript of Adipurana 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 Slokavartika and Patrakesari. The note only suggests that Patrakesari had another name Vidyananda. It may be that Patrakesari had the title " Vidyananda". But this is not enough to prove that Patrakesari was identical with Vidyananda, the author of Slokavartika. We know from inscriptions as well as from Buddhist and Jaina literatures that Patrakesari was a great teacher who contributed largely to the development and systematization of Jaina Logic and Philosophy. According to the story in the Kathakosa, which Mr. Pathak has quoted in full in his article, "Dharmakirti's Trilaksanahetu", Patrakesari, assisted by Goddess Paamavati refuted the Trilaksana doctrine in the well-known verse, Anyathanu papannatvam yatra tatra trayena kim / Nanyathanupapannatvam yatra tatra trayena kim/ This story is further alluded to in the Sravanabe !go la inscriptions" dated S. S. 1050 as follows Mahima sa Patrakesari guroh param bhavati yasya bhaktya. sit:Padmavatisahaya trilaksana kadarthanam kartum / "Exceedingly great indeed is the glory of Patrakesari, who owing to his devotion, was assisted by Goddess Padmavati in refuting the doctrtne of Trilaksapa." The verse, beginning with "anyathanupapannatyam" which is considered to express the refutation of the Buddhist doctrine by Patrakesari is found quot. ed in the Pramana-pariksa and Slokavartika of Vidyananda while criticising in detail the doctrine of Trilaksana defended by Dharmakirti in his Nyayabindu and the Pramanavartika, 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 Pramana-samuccaya of Dinnaga. In quoting this verse, Vidyananda prefaces it with "tathoktam5" in the Prama. na-pariksa and with" vartikakarenoktam " in the Slokavartika. If Patrakesari was Vidyananda there was no need for Vidyananda to preface the verse attributed to Patrakesari with " Vartikakarena etc." Evidently Vidyananda is referring to a 'Vartikakara' who is different from him. The view that Patrakesari is Vidyananda, the author of Slokavartika, is not maintainable. The fact that the verse, anyathanupapannatvam etc., was by Patrakesari is further corroborated by its mention in the Tattvasangraha? of the Buddhist writer, Santaraksita while criticising the view of Patrasvamin in the chapter on "Anumana." Santaraksita begins with a statement of the definition and division of Anumana or inference according to Buddhist Logicians like Dinnaga and Dharmakirti. The two opening verses of the chapter appear to be more or less identical with the relevent Karikas in the Pramana-samuccaya of Dinnaga(r) which is still extant only in Tibetan translations. Santaraksita seems to refer, therefore, to the writings of Dinnaga. This is confirmed by the comments of Kamalasila ; for Kamalasila has repeated the very words of Dinnaga's texts and quoted the words relating to the fallacies which is found in the Pramana-samuccaya and the Hetucakra of 5. Pramanapariksa p. 72 ( Kasi Edition ). 6. Slokavartika p. 205 :-Hetu laksanam Vartikakarena evamuktam, anyathanupapannatvam yatra tatra trayena kim iti. 7. Tattavasangraha (Gocs ) pp. 405 ff:- . anyathetyadina patrasvami matamasankate 8. Tattvasangraha p. 404. Svartham trirupatolingadanumeyartha darsanam Trirupalingavacanam parartham punarucyate | Ekaikadvidviruportho lingabhasastato matah Cf Pramanasamuccaya (1) rjes dpag rnam gnis ran don ni Tshul gsum rtags las dan mthon pao, 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 gnis gnis. kyi rtags ni don. gyi dan byed min. // II (6cd)

Page #5
Nos. 3 & 4) VIDYANANDA AND PATRAKESARI 61 Dinnaga. Santa raksita expounds next, the views of a teacher of a rival school, who according to Kamalasila, is Patraswamin. Here also, Saptaraksita quotes the verse "anyathanupapannatvam' " etc., which, we know, is the Vartika of Patrakesari. Hence, Patraswamin must be regarded as the shortened form of Patrakesari." Dr. Bhattacharya, the general editor of the series in which the Tattvasangraha has been published, has assigned Santaraksita, to the beginning of the 8th century A. D.12 Patrakesari should, therefore, be considered to have lived long before Santraksita. He cannot be identical with Vidyananda, the author of the Slokavartika, who is assigned to the 9th century A. D. It is interesting to note, in this connection, that Jinendrabuddhi in his tika, Visalamalavati, on the Pramana-samuccayaVritti of Dinnaga states the views of a teacher by name,' Abrika while offering his comments on the definition of Svarthanumana or " Inference for oneself" by Dinnaga. In this context are found two Karikas attributed to " Abrika " which when restored into Sanskrit from Tibetan, will be found to be identical with a verse found" in the Tattvasangraha of Santiraksita and another 9. Cf the Panjika of Kamalasila : Anumanam svartha parartha bhedena dividham / Tatra svartham yatri Tupallingat paksdharmatvam sapakse satvam vipaksacca sarvato vyavstti rityevam laksanadanumeyartha visayam jnanam ta datmakam boddhavyam/ parartham tu yathokta trirupa lingaprakasaka vacanatmakam drastavyam/ taduktam : Krtakatvat dhvanirnityo murtatvadprameyatah / amurtasravanatvabhyamanityam caksus atvatah cf. Pramanasamccaya II. 7. byas, phyir sgra na rtag pa dan lus. can phyir dan gz'an min phyir, lus min phyir dan mnam bya las .. ni rtag mig gis gzun byai phyir // This Karika 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. Visalamalatika. 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 Panjika of Kamalasila in the very context in: which the views of Patrakesari are stated and criticised in those works. This will prove that Patrasvamin 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 pai rtogs pa bzlog, pai ched du gsum pa smos, so / de la dzem med pas. smas palos ganz'ig. gi. snam pa gz'as du min thad pa nid di gtan tshigs, su. 'dod. de / mshan nid gcig pa, can, kho, na yin pa des ni don mtshan nid z'i can kho nao z'es te rnam par, gz'an, du. y'es pa besgrur par. bya ba med par z'es pai .don to Tiruntharellem s faecorrido ( Sanskrit restoration :--Vina trirupam kvacillingam isyate / tanmjhtyadrstinivstyvartham trirupamiti 7 tatra ahri kena uktam :* Anyatha nupapannatvam yasyasau heturiasyate Ekalaksanakh sortha scaturlaksanakothava // Anyatha sadhyena vina ityarthah / 14. Cf. Panjika 409. Atha sadhyadharminyeva sadhyavinabhavitvam.hetoryattadeva hetulaksanam Yathaha .-- Vina sadhyadad;stasya Dtstante hetutesyate Parairmaya punardharminyasambhusnervinamuna | . . Cf. Visalamalatika. 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. nid nibsgrub par. bya ba. las. phyirol du 'dod | rnam pa. gz'an, du mi thad la nid ni chos can kho, na, la bsgrub par bya bao z'es pao tshigs bcad pa. yan smras pa / dpe la bsgrubs bya, med pai an rtags nid ma mthon gz'an. gyis 'dad bdag. gis 'di. ni. med. par. yan chos can, la. ni mi, srid pao / Tarhi avinabhava eva syaditi cennetya hrikah / avinabha a hrikah lavinabhavohi sadhyabahirbhutah. | anyathanupapannatvam tu sadhya dharminyeva | karika cokta : Vina sadhyadadpstasya df$tante hetutesyate Parair maya / punardharminyasambhusaner vinamuna Santaraksita refers to the views of Ahrika in another connection, See, Tattvasangraha P. 486.--tadatra ahrikadayscodayanti Yathakramam ahrikah prayogadvayamaha

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.