On Dates And Works Of Sankaranandana

Author(s): Helmut Krasser
Publisher: Helmut Krasser

Page 7

sankṣepa and in the Pramāṇavärttikaṭīkā39 is incompatible with Saivism. From this it then follows that it was only after the completion of Abhinavagupta's IPVV, which according to an oral communication by Prof. Raffaele Torella (November 18, 1994) was probably his last philosophical work, and which gives the year 1014/15 in the colophon as the time of completion, that he must have made the break with Šaivism, and written a number of works setting out his Buddhist point of view. It cannot be stated with certainty which of his works are to be located in the period after his renunciation of Saivism. For, as the example of the Anyapohasiddhi shows, neither the title nor the fact that a work was translated into Tibetan are conclusive criteria for determining the time of writing. Nevertheless, his works refuting the proof of God and his Pramanavārttikaṭīkā can certainly be placed in the time after the completion of the IPVV as can probably be his commentary on Dharmakirti's Sam
39 Cf. S.'s explanation of arthanartha' (PVSV 1,8); don ni don dam par yod pa'i no bo'o Il don ma yin pa ni de las bzlog pa ste I gzugs la sogs pa kun rdzob tu yod pa'am I giso bo dan dban phyug dan ri bon gi rwa la sogs pa med pa ñid do II PVTT 4a5f="artha is the absolutely really existing thing. Anartha is what is different from that. It is either the conventionally existing such as material (ripa) or it is something completely (*eva) nonexisting such as primordial matter (*pradhana). God (*isvara) or a hare's horn." In addition: 'gro ba mtha' dag byed pa po'i dban phyug gcig ni mi srid do II PVTI 95b6= "... a unique God, who is the creator of all being, is not possible."
The identification of artha and anartha with paramartha and samvṛti was already known to Karnakagomin, who considered this interpretation as the last of six possibilities: yadvärthaḥ paramarthasaryam anarthaḥ samvṛtisatyam ... (PVSVT 7,276). The various possibilities of interpretation are dealt with in the translation of the logical sections in Dharmakirti's PVSV, prepared by Ernst Steinkellner (note on artha and anartha).
In any event the IPVV is the last of the works containing references to S.; these include also the Tantraloka and the Malinlvijayavärttika (see Gnoli 1960: xxiiif3: Bühnemann 1980). For the Isvarapratyabhijñāvimarsini contains a reference to the Tantraloka (yathokte mayeva... tantraloke IPVV 1 33,23), while the latter knows the Mālinīvijayavärttika (... malinislokavärttike TA 37th chapter k. 30 in TAV VIII 3691,17: Pandey 1963: 30 refers to this passage).
40
*The Tantraloka contains no direct references to S., but for instance TA. 2nd chapter. k. 54, according to Jayaratha's Commentary, presupposes statements of the Prajñālan
kärakärikä:
nijadharmaprahanena pararüpanukărită
pratibimbatmată sokta khangadarśataládovar ||
iti prajñālamkarakärikärthagarbhikarena lakṣaṇam āha [... k. 54] TĀV II 414,13-15 (cf. Gnoli 1960: xxiif: Bühnemann 1980: 196).
500
bandhaparikṣā and Vadanyaya". The last three were translated into Tibetan, although the Commentary to the Vädanyaya, as already mentioned, has not survived. Of the other two works available in Tibetan translation, the Anyapohasiddhi must be assigned to the period before Abhinavagupta's IPVV, since the latter cites it. The same applies to the placing of the Pratibandhasiddhikarikā, if we follow the above-mentioned (p. 8) colophon. Likewise, the Laghupratibandhasiddhikarika is also probably to be assigned to this period. With the exception of the Bṛhatprämäṇyaparikṣa and the Prajñālankārakārikā, both quoted by Abhinavagupta2, and the Dharmalankärakärikä and commentary, which according to Jayaratha's commentary Tantralokaviveka is presupposed by Abhinavagupta in his Tantraloka13, his other known works cannot be ascribed to either of the two periods.
A further fact that must be taken into account when narrowing down S.'s period of activity is that according to the testimony of Abhinavagupta, Utpaladeva, in his Isvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti, criticises a statement made by S. The reference in the IPVV, the source of which is not identified++, reads: yad aha bhattah
kāryaucityāt prāk svasamvidasamvitsmaraṇäntare
iti | etan na sahate tadetad iti IPVV II 369,12-1445
The relative chronology of the works of Utpaladeva, Abhinavagupta and Ś. determined in the above discussion is set out in the Table on p. 15 for greater clarity. Concerning S.'s period of activity, it follows that at least one of his works must have been written before Utpaladeva's Isvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti, and that several were written after Abhinavagupta's IPVV (completed in 1014/15). The year in which the Isvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti was written is not known. However, it is certainly a late work by Utpaladeva. whose dates are given as 900/25-950/7546. According to Torella (1994:
4 His commentaries on these works by Dharmakirti cannot be ascribed with certainty since S. could have written these before his final break with Saivism. For the Anyapohasiddhi is also a Buddhist work. In addition, other cases are known in which nonBuddhists have written commentaries to Buddhist works (see Funayama 1994: 372f).
42 See Gnoli 1960: xxiiif' and Bühnemann 1980: 1936.
43Cf. below, note 60:... yad dharmalamkarah... ity asankhyaha...
44 Since the earliest of $.'s works quoted by Abhinavagupta is the Prajñdlankārakārikā, this must also be assumed to be the source of the passage against which the Utpaladeva is directed. However, the quotation cannot be identified in the manuscript of the Prajñālankára as a result of illegibility.
45 See Gnoli 1960: xxiiif' and Bühnemann 1980: 197. 46 Torella 1994: xx.
501