Tattvopaplavasinha

SR No.: 008434
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jayrasi Bhatt, Sukhlal Sanghavi, Rasiklal C Parikh
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1940
Total Pages: 190
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Philosophy
File Size: 4 MB

Page 11

supposed to be founded by Brhaspati who is also supposed to be the founder of the Science of Polity3 (nra) seems to have developed at Icast in two branches, as becomes clear, from the reference to go aftans in the Syadvädalatikā off Yasovijaya+ (1608–84 A. D.) a commentary on the SVS A Haribhadra and the commentary of Sankara on Khandanakha ndaklādya (about 1450 A. D.)6, We are here concerned only with the reference of Sankara,
Sri Harsa in the KKK refers to Charvakas, Madhyamikas and Sankarīcharya as those who do not accept any Pramanas. He says:
तदनभ्युपगच्छतोऽपि चार्वाकमाध्यमिकादेर्वा विस्तराणां प्रतीयमानत्वात् । सोऽयमपूर्वः प्रमाणादिसत्तानभ्युपगमात्मा वारस्तम्ममन्त्रो भवताभ्यूहितो नूनं यस्य प्रभावाद भगवता सुरगुरुणा लोकायतकानि सूत्राणि न प्रणीतानि , तथागतेन वा मध्यमागमा नोपदिष्टाः , भगवत्पादेन वा alerianag atèg He alwa i pp. 25-27 CSS No. 445.
Now all the different commentators who seem to be familiar only with that branch of Chārvakas which recognizes the validity of Pratyakşa and the existence of four eleincnts are at grcat pains to explain this passage by saying that because Chārvakas do not recognize the validity of Anumāna and as Prāmāṇya can only be proved through Anumāna only they are said to recognize no Pramāna. But surely this explanation is far-fetched. Only Sankara after giving the above explanation gives the other explanation and an ai aath: 17 According to him this particular division of Chāryākas do not recognize any Pramāṇas. This, as far as we know, can apply either only to TPS or a similar work, which docs away with each and every Pramāņa known to Indian Schools of Philosoply.
It is also very likely that Sri Harsa has also TP or a similar work in inind when he refers to Chārvāka as not recognizing any Pramāņa; for it is not possible that such an accurate and learnied Pandit as Sri Harșa would not distinguish between Chāryākas who recognized Pratyaksa and others who did not. If this assumption is correct, as there is reason to belicve, we may say that tativopaplava vāda was familiar to
3. See: Scherbatsky: Buddhist Logic, p. 15 fn. 5. 4. BE Gita: etc. p. 30, Seth Devachand Laibhai Series. 5. H. I. L. p. 217 6. H. I. L. p. 458 7. See: Erzarsaraa p. 26, CSS. No. 445.