Hetubindu Tika

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

Page 36

XXix
in his own way.1 Udayana has referred, in all his works, to a number of works of Dharmakirtti and their commentaries mainly for the purpose of animadversion. It is, of course, not possible to apportion the influence of the Helu bindu and its commentary on him. But it seems probable that he must have seen the commentary of Arcața. Whatever might have been the fact, if we are required to show more definitely the influence of the Hetubindu on the non-Buddhist systems, we should turn to the logical literature of the Jainas. The Jaina logicians, both Digambara and Svetambara, have refu'ed Arcaţa and sometimes also have absorbed his views in their individual ways. Akalanka? and his commentator Anantavirya,4 Vidyānanda, the author of the Astasahasrz, 5 Prabhacandra, the author of the Prameyakamala-mārtānda and Vădirāja6 , the author of the Alankara on Akalanka's Nyāyaviniscayaall these authors have profusely utilized the Hetubindu through Arcata. Among the Svetāmbara Acāryas the utilization of the Hetubindu begins from the famous A.carya Haribhadra, the Yākinisūnu,7 and in later times its influence becomes so great through Arcata that the great Jaina logicians like Siddharşi , Abhayadeva', the commentator of the Sanınati, Säntisūri10, the author of the Tarkavārttika, Vādi-Devasūri, 11 the author of the Syādvādaratnākara, and Hemacandra12 made Arcata a special subject, as it were, of their study. The versatile author Malayagiri13 has recorded a thorough refutation of Arcata's criticism of the Jaina Doctrine of Syadvāda. In the same way Sricandra, 14 in his Utpădădi-siddhi-traya, bas done the same thing. In this way, the commentary of Arcața occupied an important place among the works studied by the Jaina thinkers. It is, perhaps, because of this that although this comincntary of Arcata could not be found up till now from anywhere, a single old palmleaf. manuscript of it could be found from an old city like Patan which possesses so many Jaina Bhandaras of manuscripts. It is very probable that in future another copy of it from some other Jaina Bhandara will be available.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Under this head I must acknowledge my indebtedness to a number of scholars and friends. I am thankful to the then authorities of the Bhandara from which I got the MS. for their absoluto unhesitation in lending it to me. In the absence of the enthusiastic cooperation of
1 Tātparyaţikā pp, 2, 3, 387 etc. 2 Nyāyakusumāñjali (Vrtti) 6. Ātmatattvaviveka. 3 Siddhivinis caya (Auto-comm), p. 507 a; Laghîyastraya-Nyāyaku. p. 174 4 Siddhivinis cayaţikā, p. 20 5 Tattvärthas lokavārtika pp. 4, 212 6 Nyåyavinis cayatikā pp. (I) 55, 355; 446, Hetubindus tadvivaranam p. 449 (1);
Hotubiadu-vyacaksā nenārcatena 155 p. (11) Taduktam Arcatena 197 (II) 7 Anekantajayapatākā. see index. 8 Nyāyāvalära-vivrti p. 3 9 Sanmati-tikä pp. 171, 556, 568 10 Nyäyävatāravārttikavrtti, p. 12 11 Syādvädar atnākara p. 16, 12 Pramāņa-mimasā p. 38, Tippaņa p. 78 13 Dharmasam grahani-Tikā pp. 147 ff. 14 Utpådādisiddhi, pp. 4, 15, 37, 92, 45, 76, 140, 142, etc.