Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 59
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JULY, 1930
BHÅMAHA AND DINNAGA.
BY PROFESSOR GIUSEPPE TUCCI, PH.D. The date of Bhâmaha has been the subject of long discussions among scholars, which have been recently summarized by Professors Batuk Náth Sarma and Baladeva Upadhyâya in their learned and diligent introduction to the new edition of the Kavyalaikira. It is not my purpose to study here all the various questions connected with the solution of this problem, but only to point out some facts, which have, I think, their weight.
As it has clearly been seen by Professor Jacobi and the Benares Professors, in the fifth chapter of Kávydlaikara, containing a brief allusion to logical theories, we are confronted with some data, the value of which cannot be sufficiently emphasized when we want to fix the approximate time of the completion of the book.
The views held by scholars are two : according to Jacobi, followed by Professor S. K. De, Bhâmaha was influenced by Dharmakirti, and therefore must come after him. But Professors Sarma and Upadhyâya are against this theory and try to show that no influence of Dharmakîrti can be traced in the Kavyalankdra. I quite agree with their views. But since this is a fundament. al point for fixing the chronology of our text it is worth while to examine thoroughly the logical theories as expounded by Bhamaha, and then to find, if possible, their exact correlation in the Buddhist Nyaya-sástras. We shall then be able to ascertain whether this view can be accepted as a well established fact rather than as a probable hypothesis.
(a) Pramanas.-According to our author they are only two, that is : pratyaksa, direct perception, and anumâna. inference. So far as our present knowledge goes, we can safely assume that the doctrine maintaining the existence of two pramánus only represents an innovation due to Dinnaga ; though it was not accepted by all Buddhist schools, as is generally believed. The followers of the ancient Yogâcâra system, as expounded by Maitreya and Asanga, insisted upon maintaining three pramanas, viz., pratyaksa, anumana and agama. Such a view was accepted by Sthiramati and continued oven by relatively later authors, such as Haribhadra (ninth century A.D.), the commentator of the Asfasdhasrika-prajña-páramita. 4 On the other hand, the Madhyamikas prasangikas) were ready to accept the four traditional pramaras, but of course in the mere plan of contingent experience, samortisatya ; because paramárthatch pramanas, as well as any other notion, or dharma (prameya) are antinomical, contradictory, and therefore súnya, as was expounded in great detail by Nagarjuna in his Vigrchavyavartani.
But according to Diunaga and his followers, such as Sankarasvâmin, Dharmakirti, Dhar. mottara, etc., the pramanas are certainly two.
Now the definition of these two praminas, as given by Bhamaha," agadhâraņasámánya. visayatvam tayoh leila" (v. 5), though finding its parallel even in the Nyayabindu, is really that already given by Ditnaga in his Prama na samuccain as well as in his Nyâyamukha,
1 Kisi Sanskrit Series, n. 61, 1928. Cl. also the article of Mr. Diwekar in JR.19., 1929, p. 825, where rolation between Bhanaha and Nyayapraveia is stated.
2 Sitz. d. Prense. Akad. Wisk, XXIV, 1922, p. 211. 3 History of Sanskrit Poclics, vol. I, p. 50.
* So also by his master Vimuktisena in his Abhisamayalankdrakarikávyakhyd. Both works are being edited by me. For the various theories on pramanas before Dinnagn I must refer to my Buddhist Logic before Dinnaga," JRAS., 1929, p. 451, and to the Introduction of my bool, Pre-Diineja Buddhist Logic. (Geekwad's Oriental Series.)
And not Nyáyadvära. See JRAS., 1928, P. 8. This book has been translated into English by me and will appear shortly in Heidelberg in the Bulletin published by the Buddhist Institute of Prof. Walleser.
