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 19

xvii
Dr. B. Faddegon (1918), controverting Stcherbatsky's earlier writing questioned the correctness of the view that the Vais'esika had borrowed from the Buddbist logician, namely, Pras'astapāda from Diónāga. His ground was one which deserves to be appreciated more than is commonly done. He wrote: "Years and years before Dinnaga and Pras'astapäda lived, there must have existed a mutual intellectual influence of Brahminiom and Buddhism. When we look for instance at the different examples of hetabhasas and other ābhāsas which Vidyabhūsana quotes from the Nyāyapraves'a, then one circumstance strikes us immediately: nearly half of the examples bave to do with the eternality or the transiency of sound." Add to this one more circumstance, and it ought to put an end to all unwarranted speculation about the originality of a particular doctrine in Brabmaņa or Bauddha logic: as is well known several Brāhmaṇas in that age, who may be presumed to have had training in Brahmanical S’astras, became Buddhists--and Dinnāga is a conspicuous example of this class----although the converse of this would appear to be very rare owing to the exclusiveness of the Brahmanical caste. Keith, however, has emphatically asserted that “Pras'astapäda was indebted for his system largely to Dinnága"; end even Randle, who has been very cautious in his committals in this matter is inclined to believe “ that Diinäga was earlier than Pras'astapada, although in some cases where similarity of logical tenets or illustrations is to be found between them, this may be due to Praa'asta pada having borrowed from a Vais'esika writer earlier than Dinnāga rather than from Dinnäge himself.” It will thus be observed that the problem of the relative chronology and indebtedness of Pras'astapāda and Diinäga is by no means simple : it ia particularly dfficult, as we know definitely that there were Vais'eșika commentators before Pras'astapāda and Buddhist logicians before Dinnāga. For example, when we see that particular doctrines which are not found in the Vais'esika Sūtras are found in the Pras'astapäde Bhāsya and are referred to by Dindāga and even his predecessors, we may be tempted to conclude that all these Buddhist writers including Dinuāga were posterior to Prasiastapāda. But, Bay! Mr. Randle, "since there were Vale’esika commentators before Pias'astapāda whose comments Pras'astapāda embodied in his Bhagya, it is these earlier commentators who are cited and referred to by Dion&ga and his Bauddba predecessors."