Nyaya Pravesha Part 1

SR No.: 008423
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Anandshankar B Dhruva
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1968
Total Pages: 228
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Philosophy
File Size: 5 MB

Page 11

As regards (d) it is given by Pārthasārathi as an illustration of spital ha and consequently it is certain that it is not taken from the Nyāyapraves'a where SMART is illustrated quite differently, and the example under discussion is called me to Lastly, (e) is a well-known argument of the Särnkhya. In regard to this Dr. Tucci says: “The example was not invented by Dinnaga, who rather took it from the Sāmkhya-Kārikā 17." He has, however, missed the point. In the Sâmkhya-Kārikā it is not given as a fallacy, but as a valid argument. As a fallacy it is given in the Nyāyapraves'a, and so also in the S'lokavārtika. Pandit Vidhusekbara could therefore argue that the latter had borrowed it from the Nyāprave'sa and not from the Sankhyakārikā. The argument however, cannot establish the main thesis. For, agruming for a moment that the author of the Slokavārtike has borrowed the illustration from the Nyāyapravea'a, how does it follow that Dinnäga is the author of the Nyāyapravas'a ? As a matter of fact the assumption too is unwarranted. For, on a subject like the existence and nature of BRI the Buddhist could not have been the only critic of the Samkhyes, and consequently the Sāmkhya-Kārikā under consideration must have been criticised in several non-Buddhist as well as Buddhist works.
To sum up. Two conditions would be necessary to justify the conclusion that Dinnāga is the author of the Nyāyapraves'a; 1st, that a certain passage occurs in the Nyāyapraves's only; and 2ndly, that it has been attributed to Diónāge. The only passage which has been connected with Diónāga by Pārthasarathimis'ra is No 2 (a), but it occurs also in the Nyāyadvāra (=Nyāyamukha) and thus breaks down as an argument to prove Dionāga's authorship of the Nyāyapraves'a.
Against this, the Chinese school stands for S'ankarasvamin's Authorship of the Nyāyapraves'a, wbich according to Sugiura was "intended to be an introduction to Dióda' (Diināga's) work.” Prof. Ui. after laying bare the confusion in Dr. Vidyābhūsana's treatment of certain numbers in Nanjio's Catalogue concludes: “The escription of the Nyāyapraves'a to Dignāga is not correct." But the most detailed criticism of the Dinnaga theory has beon put forward by Mr. Tubianski, who contends that "the Ngāyapraves's was not the work of Dinnāga." He compares the Nyāyapraves'a with the Nyāyadvāra wbich is unquestionably a work of Dionāga's, and as a result be finds :
(1) That the Nyāyapraves'a has some fallacies in the list of 9810****
which are not found in the Nyāyadvära.