Paksilasvamins Introduction To His Nyayabhasyam

SR No.: 269261
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Gerhard Oberhammer
Publisher: Gerhard Oberhammer
Total Pages: 21
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 2 MB

Page 14

PAKŞILASVĀMIN'S INTRODUCTION TO HIS NYĀYABHĀSYAM 315
he made a more or less explicit reference to the Yogabhāsyam.35 Since the Yoga term hanam was not suited for characterizing the Nyaya concept of apavargah, Paksilasvāmin endeavored to increase the concept-series of the Yoga (heyam, heyahetuḥ, hānam and hānopāyaḥ) by one more concept, adhigantavyaḥ, which, on the testimony of Paksilasvāmin himself, has to be taken in the sense of apavargaḥ.
From the foregoing inquiry, we come to an important result: Paksilasvāmin makes a conscious effort to apply to the Nyāya category of Prameya, the categories of liberation of the Yoga of Patanjali. This he does in connection with the claim that the Nyaya as Adhyātma doctrine leads to liberation through the "knowledge of the truth about the Prameyas such as Atmā, etc." Why does he do so? The only sensible answer is, that the Yoga of Patañjali was at that time held to be the model doctrine of liberation, and hence allusion to its terminology seemed best suited to strengthen Paksilasvamin's claim that his school represented a real liberationdoctrine (adhyātmavidyā). ! In this way, Paksilasvämin had certainly shown that the Nyaya as an Adhyātma doctrine, was a genuine philosophical system and not a school of mere dialectical techniques. Yet, he did not succeed in determining his science from the philosophical point of view in such a way that its difference from other philosophical systems was made clear.
35 This is textually attested to through the use of the term samyagdarsanam in this connection: etāni catvāry arthapaduni samyagbuddhvā nih. śreyasam adhigacchati. Here the agreement of the word samyagbuddhva with the world samyagdarśanam is not fully convincing, though very probable, when taken with the foregoing enumeration of the four categories from Ybh., p. 168, 4 ff., which is evidently an inexact quotation. (In Nbh., 289, 4, on the contrary, samyagdarśanam is expressly identified with tattvajñānam:
prameyam ... bhāvayatah samyagdarśanam yathābhūtāvabodhas tattva. jñānam utpadyate). To show that Paksilasvāmin (Nbh., p. 2, 17; 3, 1) really gives an inexact quotation, I would like to put forward the parallelism of hanam ātyantikam (Nbh., p. 3, 1) and samyogasyatyantiki nivrttit hanam (Ybh., p. 168, 8) as also the use of samyagbuddhvā (Nbh., 3, 1) which reminds one of hūno pāyaḥ samyagdarśanam in Ybh., 168, 8. Another important reason for it seems to be the fact that Paksilasvāmin speaks of four categories, but he really enumerates five, though by omitting hānam, which in fact did not fit properly in the Nyāya context, he would have easily got the four categories. It is true, in doing so, these four categories would no more have been the same as in the Yoga. Thus we can conclude that Paksilasvāmin did want to mention the Yoga categories and that he therefore quoted the Yogabāsyam.