Book Reviews

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 20

158
REVIEWS
of Ratnakaraśānti's Prajfäpäramitopadeśa and Madhyamálamaropadeśa have been published respectively by S. Katsura (IBK 25,1 (1976), pp. 487-484) and O. Hayashima (IBK 26, 2 (1978), pp. 1012-1008). 2 See our Théorie ..., pp. 36f., 61, 101, 139.
Heidrun Brückner, Zum Beweisverfahren Samkaras. Eine Untersuchung der Form und Funktion von drstāntas im Brhadaranyakopanisadbhāsya und im Chandogyopanişadbhāsya des Samkara Bhagavatpāda (Marburger Studien zur Afrika- und Asienkunde Serie B: Asien. Band 5). Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1979, 251 pp. DM 28,
Dr. Heidrun Brückner's careful investigation of the form and function of the drstanta in Sankara's two great commentaries not only shows the importance of the drstanta in his work but also some of the fundamental characteristics of his philosophical thought. The drstānta is one of the five members (avayava) of the syllogism in the Nyāyasūtras. Sankara quotes from the Nyāyasūtras but adopts a system of reasoning with only three members. The proposition (pratijna) must be proved by reasons (hetu) and examples (drstānta). When the proposition has been proved, it can be repeated in the form of a conclusion (upasamhara or nigamana) (cf. pp. 51-52). Sankara himself explains the conditions which must be fulfilled by the drstānta. It must be taken from ordinary experience and be generally accepted as true. There must be a correspondence between the drstanta and that which is explained by it (dārstāntika). The drstānta cannot be used to prove something which is contrary to knowledge obtained by other sources of knowledge (cf. pp. 57-58). The term drstänta occurs 52 times in the ChUBh (Chāndogyopanisadbhāsya) and 76 times in the BĂU Bh (Bịhadaranyakopanişadbhäşya). The author examines in detail twenty-two examples of the drstanta in the BAUBh. Of the conclusions formulated by her, the most important is probably the following: "Der drstanta - und ganz besonders der von der śruti verwendete drstānta - ist gültiges Erkenntnismittel für metaphysische Verhältnisse und kann somit Dinge verständlich machen, die durch andere Erkenntnismittel nicht zugänglich sind, d.h, kann das Unbekannte mit Hilfe des Bekannten beleuchten" (p. 94). The author also examines the linguistic formulation of the drstanta, and analyses two long passages of the Chu Bh (11. 23.1 and VIII. 12.1) in order to show the function of the drstanta in Sankara's reasoning. Also all the instances of the drstanta of the serpent and the rope in the ChUBh are discussed by her and compared with the use of the same drstanta by Bharthari and Dignāga. An appendix contains translated extracts (pp. 167-216) and the indices list the dystanta-s in both commentaries. In her final conclusion the author points out that drstanta is used by Sankara to eliminate all ideas of multiplicity and to emphasize the existence of a uniform substratum. The śruti teaches the unity which is demonstrated by means of reasons and examples which convey that which is unaccessible to ordinary experience.
Dr. Heidrun Brückner's book is inspired by Paul Hacker's work on Advaita Vedānta which has been influential in giving a new direction to Vedānta studies in Europe and Japan, as can be seen from publications by Sengaku Mayeda and Tilmann Vetter. It is to be hoped that in due course Hacker's work will also exercise its influence in India itself.
Dr. Brückner's book is a very useful addition to the existing literature on Sankara. It is to be hoped that she will extend her research to the Brahmasūtrabhāsya, from which she has already collected the drstānta-s, and to Sankara's other works. It will then become possible to see to what extent his use of the drstānta agrees with that of other Vedānta philosophers. For only through detailed studies of this nature can a deeper insight be obtained into the philosophy of the Advaita Vedanta.
It is obvious that the author has studied Sankara's two commentaries very carefully. In one place, for instance, she rightly points out that the existing reading is not correct (cf. p. 207,