Canonical Niksepa

Author(s): Bansidhar Bhatt
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan

Page 64

CHAPTER
4
THE ANALYSIS
(a) GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The first western scholar who interpreted the niksepa was 1. ALSDORF. His article on this subject was published in the Journal of the Oriental institute (Baroda) in 1973 and republished in Germany in 1974 ("Kleine Schriften"). ALSDORF does not claim to have surveyed the whole field in a systematic manner. Even then he has introduced to his readers the two patterns which constitute the "post-canonical niksepa" (see our Introduction). In our scheme (p. 148) they are designated as "S..." (ALSDORF, pp.458-60) and "classical niksepa" (ALSDORF, pp. 461-62) respectively. The abbreviation "S..." stands for barira" and "ägama", two terms which play an important part in the terminological set-up of this pattem. Here it is not possible to explain the difference between the "classical niksepa" and "S...". It is also not possible to demonstrate that they are more developed than their canonical predecessors. A comparison of our monograph with ALSDORF's article will, however, enable the reader to form an idea of the situation.
"Post-canonical" is a convenient designation, but it should not be taken verbatim. One of the two patterns - "S..." - is peculiar to Anuyogadvära, a canonical work. However, Anuyogadvāra is amongst the latest canonical works, and the S.A. pattern is structurally more advanced than any of the "canonical" niksepas. It would also appear that its influence is greater in the later than in the earlier post-canonical literature. Possibly it developed at the same time as the classical nikṣepa (or even earlier), but became popular only at a comparatively late date. Our term "classical" nikṣepa derives from the observation that this pattern is more flexible and free from orthodox conceptualizations as they are typical of the S... patter.
The post-canonical niksepa has a name - "niksepa" - and the ancient authorities have discussed this niksepa as a dialectical technique in its own right (just as the nayas were not only employed, but also discussed: see inter alia "Kundakunda" and "Tattvārtha" I-III). The terms and phrases used in these discussions call for separate investigations. A comparable nomenclature and "meta-language" is, however, missing almost completely in the case of the canonical niksepa (and related dialectical structures in the canon).