Indologica Taurinensia

Author(s): Colette Caillat, Siegfried Lienhard, Irma Piovano, Saverio Sani
Publisher: Comitato AIT

Page 27

On the Relationship of the Nyāyâvatāra and the Sammati-tarka-prakarāņa
55
scriptures and the authority: 'But because what the Venerable One (the Jina) distinguished and expounded to Gautama and other [disciples) in those sūtras is the notion of mode (paryāya), hence (we have] modal (viewpoints). Even though it is understood that "mode" and "quality" in many ways have the same meaning, nevertheless (we) do not say quality (viz., qualitative viewpoint), because [there is) the designation “modal viewpoint” 78.
7.1. Now, I would like to devote some space to recent arguments brought forward by Bansidhar BHATT (2000), who asserts that: 'we arrive at a certain conclusion that the author of NV (= Nyāyâvatara - P.B.) lived after Prajñākara / Dharmottara (both: 700-750 A.D.) - terminus a quo...' (p. 77). This 'certain conclusion' has, however, a
asis. In the first place, BHATT practically treats NB and · NBT jointly throughout his paper, from the very moment these two works are first mentioned (p. 70), and whenever he refers to the Nyāya-bindu, he consistently writes ‘NB/NBT', without making much distinction as regards the contents of NB and NBȚ. It is not surprising that via this petitio principii device one has to finally arrive at the con clusion that Siddhasena Mahāmati lived after Dharmottara.
Secondly, from the fact that NA follows the Buddhist texts on logic, e.g. Pramānasamuccaya, Nyāyapraveśa 79 etc. of Dignāga..., Pramāņavārttika, Nyāyabindu (NB) of Dharmakirti..., Prajñākaraguptabhyāsya..., but more often Dharmottara's commentary on Nyāyabindu (NBC)...', BHATT (2000: 71) comes to conclusion that NA must be posterior to all these works! Clearly, Prajñākaragupta in his PVA or Dharmottara in his NBT had to follow the pattern of the works which they decided to comment on, viz. Dharmakirti's PV and NB respectively. But there is nothing that would logically compel us
78. STP 3.11-12: jam ca puna arihayā tesu tesu suttesu goyamāiņam/
pajjava-sannā niyayā vāgariyā tena pajjāyā // parigamanam pajjāo anega-karanam guna tti tullatthā /
taha vi na guna tti bannai pajjava-naya-desaņā jamhā // 79. Wrongly ascribed by BHATT (2000: 71, 72 n. 16) to Dinnāga, instead to Sankarasvāmin, see MIRONOV (1927), Tucci, DHRUVA (1930: V-XIII), FRAUWALLNER (1961: 140), cf. also HATTORI (1968: 4) and STEINKELLNER-MUCH (1995: 16).