Hetubindu Tika

Author(s): Dharmakirti Mahaswami, Archatt Bhatt, Durvek Mishra Pandit, Sukhlal Sanghavi, Jinvijay, B Bhattacharya
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 21

(3)
ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT 1. Hetubindu
Before we analyse the Helubindu, it is necessary to see the nature of the thought and literature that Dharmakirti inherited and utilized as the basis of his Hetubindu as well as his other works. A complete historical analysis of the thoughts and technical terminology of the works of Dharmakirti is impossible. We therefore propose to record only a brief analysis. And for this purpose we shall concentrate mainly on these two problems : (1) the ultimate purpose of the origin and development of the thought concerning the Organ of knowledge (Pramāna) and its accessory the Science of Reasoning (Nyāya) to gether with its constituents viz. the probans (hetu) and the like : (ii) the nature of the gradual recasting and slow yet integrated progress of the literature that embodied and unfolded such thought upto the time of Dharmakirti. : Every scholar now admits that the attempts for the search of reality and truth began thousand of years ago in India. Such attempts were made in two ways. Firstly, there were a few rare souls who turned their face towards truth from the spiritual standpoint. Secondly, there were some who viewed the truth from the material and objective, that is, intellectual standpoint. Around those, among these enquiriers, who made such impressive discoveries of truth as could be considered as original contribution in some direction or other, there gathered disciples and followers-a process which finally crystallized into a particular system. On many occasions the findings of two or more thinkers on the same subject have fundamentally differed and were mutually opposed. Every original thinker advanced his own finding in a manner which appealed to the public mind and won disciples who afterwards endeavoured to give a more logical and systematic form and propagate it. The lay followers, however, served the cause mainly by cultivating implicit faith in the original discoverer and his disciples. Such findings or discoveries, whether ontological or ethical, were sedulously pre. served, nourished and unfolded. Where such manifold movements of thought were concentrated on a particular subject, it was but natural that there should be mutual opposition among the views of different thinkers. We find two kinds of such difference of views. Firstly, one limited to one's own system; and secondly, one having reference to the other systems than one's own. Whenever there were discussions relating to a subject of one's own system between the preceptor and his disciples or among the disciples themselves, they did not end in the victory or the defeat of any party but only resulted in the satis faction of the quest for knowledge. But when such discussions were held between the exponents of two different systems, oftentimes they ended in the defeat of the one and the victory of the other party, And in such cases the discussions assumed the form of a debate (kathā) for conquest instead of one conducted for the discovery of truth.
1 For particulars vide Pramanamimamsa., Hindi Tippan, pp. 108-123.