Book Title: Indologica Taurinensia
Author(s): Colette Caillat, Siegfried Lienhard, Irma Piovano, Saverio Sani
Publisher: Comitato AIT
View full book text
________________
74
Piotr Balcerowicz
the inventor of this new notion of the logical reason 110. Furthermore, Pātrasvāmin's use of examples of invalidating Dharmakirti's trairūpya-hetu, which partly overlap with those used by Kumārila, shows that Pātrasvāmin was posterior to Kumārila as well 111. In his turn, Pātrasvāmin influenced Siddhasena Mahāmati, who uses the idea of anyathānupapatti as some-thing already well known"12.
11. To recapitulate, there are some points that speak in favour of the separate authorship of STP and NA, namely (1) the peculiar use of the concepts sāmānya and viseșa and their application to the terms darśana and jñāna that indicates STP was composed before Dinnāga and Dharmakirti (8$ 1.1, 2.1-2.2), whereas NA was definitely con
110. For instance, Vādirāja-süri (NVIV 2.160, II: p. 186.24-26: sa prasiddhah sa vā pātrakesarisvāminā nirāpitaḥ avinâbhāva eva sambandho hetu-sādhyayor na tādātmyâdis tasyâvyāpakatvāt) confirms that it was Patrasvāmin who introduced the notions of 'inexplicability otherwise' (anyathânupapatti) as the definition of valid logical reason and of relation of inseparable connection (avinâbhāva) as the single logical relation between the logical reason and the inferable property (sādhya). This is further corroborated by Vādideva-sūri in SVR (ad 3.13, p. 521.5-6: tad uktam patrasvāminā), see also NViV 2.171ab (II: p. 198.30-31). The same information is also supplied by Santarakṣita, who mentions Pātrasvāmin as the source of the idea, see TSal 1364 (p. 405.1: anyathêty-ādinā pātrasvāmi-matam āśankate...), and quotes a number of verses from the lost Tri-laksana-kadarthana in TSa 1364-1379. As regards the correct reading. of the verses, TSa 1365cd should be emended to: eka-laksanaka - so 'rthät caturlaksanako na vā II, instead of 'rthas, see STEINKELLNER (forthcoming).
Furthermore, Kamalasila quotes two more verses (TSaPad TSa 1386 (p. 409.1214)), which I believe (see BALCEROWICZ (2003: 359)) to stem from the same work of Pātrasvāmin:
vinā sādhyād adsstasya drstānte hetutê syate / parair mayā punar dharminy asambhāsnor vinâmună // arthâpatteś ca śābaryā bhaiksavāca cânumānatah/
anyad evânumānam no nara-simhavad isyate // [a TS1: bhaikṣavāś. For the emendation cf. PATHAK (1930: 156-7) and KUNST (1939: 26, n. 3).]
My ascription of these two verses to Pātrasvāmin is corroborated by Jinendrabuddhi's Pramāna-samuccaya-ţikā, as confirmed by Ernst Steinkellner in private communication: ‘PST B(i.e. the second manuscript) folio 54a2 says (after first quoting the stanza of TS 1365, and explaining anupapannatvam as aklptir asambhavah): ślokam apy āha: vinā sādhyād ...' = Tibetan translation of the verse ( 5766, 92a8f.): dpe la bsgrub bya med pa las/rtags ñid ma mthong gêan gyis 'dod / bdag gis 'di ni med par yang /chos can la ni mi srid pa'o/
111. For instance MŚV 5.4.64cd-65ab= TSa 1372, MŚV 5.7.46 = TSa 1377, MSV 5.4.67d = TSa 1378. See BALCEROWICZ (2003: 343 ff.)..
112. See BALCEROWICZ (2003: 343).
199 My aschis Pramana sai.e. the se
