Implications Of Buddhist Jaina Dispute Over Fallacious Example In Nyaya Bindu And Nyayavatara Vivrti

SR No.: 269215
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz
Total Pages: 18
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 3 MB

Page 6

IMPLICATIONS OF THE BUDDHIST-JAINA DISPUTE
Nyawi vatra-vivrti (on NA 25) is filled with compassion, offered bits of their own Nesh to the abodes of compassion compassion), like Bodhisattvas. (sc. to hungry beings who deserved vakiwa yah punar Vila-ragona 20 wakia, Avitardah kaloid vivaksilah purus (sc, talks), whoever is dispassionate, however, dispassionate, because he is a speaker A particular person in question is not of Siddharsigani is not a speaker (sc. does not talk). yarhópala-khandah Speech element is impermanent, because like a bit of stong. anityah fabdah kakavad, akalavar randoyah fahdah. Irakatd. wad akrakant fan
it is produced, like space. Speech clement is impermanent, because it is alovat bhavari. whakatom. produced, whatever is not produced is permanent, like space.
in whom there is avtla-ragu yam waktrat: vairavifa-rågar vam ndalen vakia, yarpala-khandayani (NB 3.133) This person) is not dispassionate, because he is & speaker (sc. talks). [a person no dispassionateoss, is a speaker (se, talks). like a hit of stone.
vad akrakam fan anitvah sahdah krtakahvind akalavar (NB 3.734), Speech element is impermanent, because it is nityant bhavadi. 1 akatawa ') (NB 3.135). landiyah Labdah. Irakarvad produced, like space Speech element is impermanent, because it is produced whatever is not produced is permanent, flike space.)
As far similarities in wording in both texts are concerned, the exceptions, that is, passages where Siddharsigani does not follow in his illustrations those of Dharinakirti at all, can easily be seen in the tables: (SI) sadhya-vikala-drstantábhasa, (S2) sadhana-vikala-drstantábhasa, (VI) sadhyavyatireld-drsfántabhasa and (V2) sadhanavyatireki-drstantábhasa.
In some other cases Siddharsigani's classification follows Dharmakirti's typology in general, but varies in wording so insignificantly that the differences can be altogether discarded. Thus (S7) in the ananvaya type of fallacious example and in Siddharsigani's expression vivaksitah purasah is tantamount to Dharmakirti's ayam. That is also the case in (V7] the avyatireka type of fallacious example (ayam kaścid vivaksitah purusah), whereas the invariable concomitance is expressed in quite a similar way, barring different position of the negative clause (yatrávita-rågatvami násti sa vakia, yah punar vita-rågo, na sa vakta). In [V4) sandigdha-sadhya-vyatireka-drstantábhasa the second predicate anapta va is interchanged with the subject kapiladayah; the verb forms upadistavan (Dharmakirti) and pratyapipadat (Siddharsigani) are identical in meaning, likewise the pronouns sa (Dharmakirti) and asau (Siddharsigani); the significant difference being the logical reason, that is the realm of superatural teaching in the invariable concomitance and the example respectively: avidyamanasarva-jatáptald-linga-bhuta-pramānátisaya-sasanalvdeyotir. Aanádikam, vardhamanadih (Dharmakirti) and arya-satya-carustaydpratyaptpadakarvar, sauddhodanih (Siddharsigani). In (VS) sandigdha-sādhana-Vyatire hasa the negation in the statement of the thesis is expressed either by the particle na (Dharmakirti) or by the alpha-privativum a. (Siddharsigani), while the compounds grāhya-vacanah (Dharmakirti) and -adeya-vākyah (Siddharsigani) are identical in meaning, the only difference in the expression of the invariable concomitance is the number, namely plural ye...te (Dharmakirti) and singular yah...sa (Siddharsigani); Siddharşigani does omit the phrase traylvida brahmanena; the only significant difference being the example gautamadayo dharma-sastrana pranetàrah (Dharmakirti) and sugatah (Siddharsigani). In [V9] the viparita-vyarireka type the example is indicated either by the suffix-war (Dharmakirti) or by relative indeclinable yatha (Siddharsigani).
In two instances the similarities in Dharmakirti's and Siddharsigani's formulations are partial, thus in (S3) sãdhya-sõdhana-vikala-drstantábhasa and in [54] sandigdha-sadhya-dharma-drstantábhasa only the example is identical, namely ghatavat and rathya-puruşavar, respectively, and the compound clement-raga. and pronoun ayam in (S4). In (V3) sadhya-sadhanavyatireki-drstantábhasa the subject of the thesis fabdah is the same, whereas the predicate nitya (or nitya) partly overlaps. In (V6) sandigdha-sādhya-sādhana-vyatireka-drstántábhasa only the theses of Dharmakirti and Siddharsigani are identical, the negations being expressed either by the alpha-privativum a-(Dharmakirti) or by the particle na (Siddharsigani).
The large number of similarities or identical formulations alone is so ample that it leaves no doubt as regards the indebtedness of Siddharsigani to Dharmakirti in this respect. That is the first point I wished to make: Dharmakirti's
Naya-hindi
without negative concomitance
Dyanac
apradarita-vyotireka with unindicated negative
concomitance vipartia-vyatireka with inverted negative concomitance
Variety Table 6.2 Continued
[17]
[V]
ton)
127