Dvadasharnaychakram Part 4

SR No.: 002587
Original Sutra Author: Mallavadi Kshamashraman
Author: Labdhisuri
Publisher: Chandulal Jamnadas Shah
Publication Year: 1960
Total Pages: 364
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Philosophy
File Size: 11 MB

Page 71

20
From this it follows that there is a 'bhasya' composed by Ravan a in the literature of the Vaiscsika system of philosophy. If all these Ravanas are identicaly, his date gets proved as posterior to that of Patanjali and anterior to that of Vasurata.
In the introduction of Vaisesika-'narsana' edited in Vikrama Samvat 1969 by Mahadev Sharma son of Gangadhar Bhatt having 'Bakre) as the surname it is said :
"पदार्थसंग्रहाभिधप्रशस्तदेवप्रणीतवैशेषिकसूत्रभाष्यस्य साक्षात् परंपरया वा व्याख्या रूपैका द्वितीया तु रावणप्रणीतभाष्यं भाराद्वाजीया वृत्तिरिति द्वे प्राचीनतरे रावणभाष्यस्य सभावः किरणावली भास्करकृतनाममात्रीनेदशादवगम्यते"
From this it is inferred that this very 'Bharadvajiya vritti may be vakya-grantha' and the bhasya grantha is Ravan's 'Katandi'. Both of them are furnished with a commentary hy 'Prasastmeti'. The name of the commentary is not known. At least this fact is certain that this Prasastmati is anterior to Mallavadin Suri the author of Naya-cakra. But it remains to be determined as to how old Prasasmati is. Prasastadeva, the author of 'Padarthadharmasangraha, is not as old as Prasastamati, and he is named as 'Prashastapada' too. This very 'Bharadvajavritti is mentioned by Sankarmisra in his 'Vaisesikasutropaskara'. Commentators of the available "Vaisesikasutra hardly mention the view of Prasastamati, That this prashastamati a Vaisesika philosopher, is anterior to Mallavadin Suri, is a settled fact.
Why does the author of 'Nayacakra refute Katandi' even when there are a good many ancient commentaries of 'Vaisesikasutra'? A reply (to this question) is that it seems that since Jainism is therein refuted' by presenting it as the 'purvapaksa' the author (Mallavadin Suri) has selected this work for counter-refutation. The study of Nayacakra easily reveals this reason.
From the refutation of 'syadvada occurring in Katandi it is inferrrd that even in those days 'syadyada' may have been expounded in a logical way. As this work of Katandi has now almost perished it is not available to us. We believe that it is baseless to conjecture that there was an ordinary exposition (of syadvada) prior to its logical treatment by only a certain scholar in the Jaina regime.
Prasastamati
He is one of the commentators of 'Vaisesikasutra'. He is mentioned many a time in the literatures of the Jainas and the Buddhists. It is not known as to which work was composed by him. Then what to say about its acquisition ? Only quotations given by mentioning his name are found in the Jaina and Buddhist works. The commentator (Simhasuri) in this Nayacakra has used the word 'ca' in Preti 191 a? (p. 620) and thereby he has enlightened us that
Jaisism is dealt with from “ Hat faren
arg: greffgharaceta (erattaqraziaci) ahalle
"