Indologica Taurinensia

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

Page 45

On the Relationship of the Nyāyâvatāra and the Sammati-tarka-prakarāna
73
miśra to speak of this kind of perception, see: ŚVVTT (p. 317-318) 105. That may be a hint (not a decisive proof!) that Siddhasena Mahāmati composed NA either after Umveka Bhatta or at the same time, but NA and the ideas contained in it did not reach any prominence outside Jaina circles by the time of Umveka. Alternatively, in case the idea of parâtha-pratyakṣa was not Siddhasena's own invention, but he borrowed it from some earlier Jaina source, one may likewise suppose that the inventor of the idea of parâtha-pratyaksa, who inspired Siddhasena, lived either after of contemporaneously with Umveka Bhatta. The date of Umveka Bhatta is uncertain, but can be roughly assigned to the first half of the gth century 106. That might mean that Nyāyâvatāra was not composed before 700.
10.2. We can be quite certain that NA was composed also after Pātrasvāmin (alias Pātrakesarin / Pātrakesarisvāmin), the author of the Tri-laksana-kadarthana. In his lost work Tri-laksana-kadarthana 107, Pātrasvāmin criticises Dharmakirti's concept of triple-formed logical reason (trairūpya) and the three restriction criteria of validity imposed on it (traividhya-niyama 108), and offers instead his own definition of valid hetu, viz. the relation of the inexplicability otherwise' (anyathânupapatti), which was meant to replace Dharmakīrti's definition. That clearly indicates that Pātrasvāmin was posterior to Dharmakirti 109. Both Jaina and Buddhist traditions regard him to be
105. On this discussion compare also Govardhan P. BHATT (1989: 248-249).
106. Either c. 700-750 (according to K. Kunjunni Raja in his 'Preface' (p. x] to ŚVVTT) or c. 710 (according to EIPHIL I: 8 371).
107. Anantavirya in SVIT (ad Svi 6.1, p. 371.19-372.6) mentions the title of Pātrasvāmin's (= Pārrakesarin's) work: Tri-laksana-kadarthana, and quotes a verse from it:
nânyathānupapannatvam yatra tatra trayena kim /
anyathânupapannatvam yatra tatra trayeņa kim // The verse is also quoted also in: TSa 1369 and SVR ad 3.13 (p. 521.5-6). Importantly, it is incorporated by Akalanka in his NVil 323 (p. 74.1-2) = NVil 2.154 (II: p. 177.22-23), and the fact that the verse was not a later insertion of the commentator Vadirāja-sūri is confirmed by the fact that Vadirāja-sūri comments on the verse in his NViV exactly in the same manner as he does in the case of other Akalanka's verses.
108. Cf. SHIGA (2003: 489).
109. Cf. also SHIGA (2003: 489): 'Patrasvāmin knew and criticised Dharmakirti as well as Dinnāga'.