________________
234
Karin Preisendanz
Debate and Independent Reasoning vs. Tradition
235
However, even if the five relevant siddhantasütra-s do not have their original place at the conclusion of book four of the Nydyasūtra, I feel justified by their very inclusion at this place to use them for my present purpose as representing the point of view of early Naiyayikas prior to Vätsyāyana and at the time when the compilation of the Nydyasútra came to its close. The first of these sūtra-s, 4.2.46,"interpreted in its present context, proclaims two more activities conducive to release in addition to the preparation of the Self (atmasamskāra) by means of yogic discipline and practices
concerning the Self, the activity mentioned in the preceding sútra. These two are (1) the continuous engagement in the grasping, that is, firm comprehension (rahana), of knowledge (Nana)," and (2) the colloquy (samvada) with experts. A type of debate is thus placed in the context of the final aim of liberation and of soteriologically relevant adequate knowledge. The following sutra, naming those persons with whom one should conduct a colloquy, evokes strong traditional connotations: it mentions disciple (sisya) and teacher (guru), fellow-students of the orthodox tradition (sabrahmacarin), learned authorities (sista)" and those who (equally?) strive for the supreme good (Sreyorthint). And although a colloquy, as a type of debate, normally would presuppose a position and a counter-position, it may - according to the next sútra - also alternatively, or even preferably(?). be conducted without a counter-position, in case one asks for it(?) for the sake of the specific aim, which presumably would be, in the present context of the surra, knowledge and the highest good resulting from it. Even the remaining two types of debate, which are classified as constituting
SCI. NS 4.2.46: jäänagrahandbhydsas tadvidyalt ca saha sartuddah.
* It is conceivable that the sentence NS 4.2.46, before the incorporation of the sequence 4650 into the Midyardera, contained a characterization of the first type of debate called Sadda: "The colloquy with experts is (i.e., constitutes) a continuous repetition/practice of grasping of knowledge." This would imply that ca, which links the two nouns and thus induces the understanding of an aw varthi of tadartham in 4.2.45, to provide for a Dominal predicate to which the juxtaposed nouns could be related as subjects, is an interpolation. This interpolation could have occurred even after 46-50 had become part of the Mydyasutra because sutra 46, at the beginning of the sequence in question, could have introduced the topic of the fifth book even without a while at the same time, even if not immediately and syntactically linked to 45, it would relate debate back to the preceding discussion on the means for obtaining adequate knowledge and their practice. In any case, the reading of cais firmly grounded in the gloss on this sätra in the Mydyabhagya (cf. also the quotation of the strain the Nudyavdtrika and the Mydyawarmikatärparyarid ad loc.). RUBEN correctly reports the lack of ca in James R. BALLANTYNE's edition of the Mydyastra accompanying his 1850 translation (with volume three published in 1854), as well as in two old editions of the satra-text together with the Madrastraveti, of which one dates from 1828 (d. also the edition heading the list appended in HALL 1897, 203, probably to be identified with the undated Calcutta edition by Nilmani VIDYALANKARA
ni) used in the mi edition in the Nydyadarsanam (Preface, p. 8, cf. NB! (CalSS)), although the editor's name appears as Nimicandra Siromani in my copy, this edition, published by the Calcutta based Education Press, is missing in POTTER 1995 which mentions as the earliest available printed text a 1821 edition by Kasinath TARKAPANCANANA in Bengali characters (cf. POTTER 1995, 101, item 48.1.1), which, however, is a Nagar and Bengali-script edition and a translation into Bengali of Visvanatha (Nykya-JPacanana (Bhattacarya)'s Bhdsdpariccheda, with the author's name appearing as Vivanatha Tarkalankana (Viswonath Turkaluncar!), supplemented by a Bengali commentary from the pen of the editor/translator and published under the English title & System of Logic written in Sunscrit by the Venerable Sage Boodh, and Explained in a Sunscrit Commentary by the very Learned Viswanath Turkaluncar by the Calcutta Mission Press) the other edition mentioned by RUBEN is from 1919 (cf. RUBEN 1928, 127). Certainly, BALLANTYNE's pioneering work was very much influenced by the Mydyaslaytl, the only commentary available in print during his time, and probably the only one current among the pandits he consulted: the text of the Mydyanita itself was then only known through two editions of the Vrti (I have not the other pre-BALLANTYNE edition from Paris (1841). mentioned by POTTER under 48.1.2). BALLANTYNE's text does therefore not constitute independent evidence next to the reading as found in the sutra-text printed in 1828 together with the Vrtti. I could not check all editions of the Vreri as recorded by POTTER, at least the editions available to me all have the reading ca. However, it is quite improbable that an original reading not known to Vitsyayana could have survived in some underground" tradition and reemerged in some mss of this late commentary, and the rather simple gloss on the two juxtaposed nouns in the Virl does not rule out that Visvanatha had a reading ca before him after all
Obviously following RUBEN 1928 (cf. also JUNANKAR 1978, 471), MEUTHRATH translates the first compound as if its final member would be a dwandva-compound ("Erfassen und Wiederholen der Lehre": "Lehre" for jāno also goes back to RUBEN's translation, probably influenced by Vitsyiyana's paraphrase with atmavidyddstra in NBh (CalSS) p. 1097,2) (cf. MEUTHRATH 1996, 200). However, the masculine nom. sg. case-ending is difficult to explain in this case.
a. NS 4.2.47 tom fisyaguriabrahmacarifvisistatreyorshibhir anaslyubhir abhyupyur. On my emendation of the text as compared to the sutra as edited by RUBEN cf. below, n. 62.
Although the sätra is quoted, as edited in RUBEN's edition, with the reading -viistein Ayurvedadipica (VD) p. 631,24-25 on Cas Vimanasthana ch.8. 18, the carefully weighed testimony of the Nydya artikararparyart on this sutra as well as the quotation in the Mydyabharana (p. 70,8-9) speak very strongly in favour of an original reading sisa, also supported by Bhattavigisvara's Gautami yasdiraprakaila (ed. Kisbor Nath JHA, Allahabad 1979; to be placed chronologically between the Tarparyard and Udayana's Parifuddhi), a reading which seems to have been replaced not only in the modern editions of the basic text, the Varrika and the Tätparyarika itself, but also in the mss. by-wisista
This tentative interpretation of api w follows Joachim Friedrich SPROCKHOFF's recent observations on the usage of apid in the ritual Sotras (cf. SPROCKHOFF 1999). The occurrences studied by SPROCKHOFF are sentence-initial, with one exception adduced from the Valkasatrautasutra. If it could be demonstrated that also in the philosophical stra-literature api vd is used in the meaning "or better - to suggest the best, preferable alternative - proposed by him, apid in NS 4.2.48 would strengthen the hypothesis that the sequence 46-50 is taken from elsewhere, more speci fically from a context where another statement preceding the sentences preserved in the Mydyasútra would declare the less preferable alternative, i.e., a colloquy in which positions and counter-positions are held.
Cf. NS 4.2.48: pratipaksahinam api wa prayojanartham arthirve.