On The Date Of The Nnyayavatara

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 10

PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
ON THE DATE OF THE NYAYAVATĀRA
integral part of the logical reason (hetu), indispensable to authenticate the general principle by taking recourse to its instantiations (relevant portions underlined): NB.(2).3.122: hetoh sapaksa eva sattvam asapaksac ca sarvato vyavarti rūpam uktam abhedena, punar višesena karya-svabhāvayor wkta-laksanayor janma-lanmatranubandhau darsaniyayuktau. tac ca darśayat-yatra dhūmas atrágnir, asaty agnaw na kvacid dhumo yatha mahanasetarayor, yatra kytakarvan tatranityavam.anityarvabhavo krtakarvasambhavo yatha ghadkasayoriti darsaniyam, na hy anyatha sapaksa-vipaksayoh sad-asatte yathokta-prakāre sakye darsavitum, tar-käryata-niyamah karya-lingasya, swabhāva-lingasya ca svabhävena vyaptih asmins carthe darsite eva drstånto bhavati, etāvan-matra-rüpatvat tasyatl. Dharmakirti expressed a similar idea already in his PV.3.27: tad-bhava-hetu-bhavau hi drstante tad-avedinah / khyāpyete, viduşam vācyo hetur ewahi kevalah/). Siddhasena, however, has to his credit that he clearly states the conditions of internal formal validity of the proof and dismisses the need to quote any instantiation: the proof is valid because the premisses are valid and the relation between them is universally binding.
[12] Siddhasena states explicitly five conditions that invalidate paksa-and adds that there are, in fact, several varieties of paksabhasa-in NA.21:
pratipadyasya yah siddhah paksabhäso 'ksa-lingarah/
loka-sva-vacanābhyāṁ ca badhito 'nekadha mataḥ // These five pakşdbhåsas are in concord with the list exemplified by Siddharsi in NAV.: (1) pratipadya-siddha, (2) pratyakşa-badhita, (3) anumana-badhita, (4) loka-badhita, (5) Sva-vacana-bädhita. Having enumerated five varieties of paksåbhāsa, it would be redundant and pointless on Siddhasena's part to say by way of recapitulation in a succinct kariká that these varieties are numerous: anekadha matah, unless he had other varieties, not mentioned already by name, in mind. That being the case, he probably referred to other enumerations well-known from other sources.
In fact, Siddhasena's enumeration overlaps with Dharmakirti's list of fallacies of the thesis, enumerated in NB.(2).49-53. Interestingly, Dharmakirti subsequently (NB(2).3.54%) adds a few more conditions and the failure to meet them would
render the paksa defective as well. Thus, Siddhasena by anekadha matah-may have referred to Dharmakirti's catalogue of defective paksas. But not necessarily to Dharmakirti's. He may have as well referred, e.g. to NP.(2).3.1".
In any case, NA.21 can in no way attest that Siddhasena was posterior or prior to Dharmakirti. It merely points to certain similarities between Siddhasena's list and the Buddhist tradition. Probably, it was the tradition of Sankarasvamin and Dharmakirti that Siddhasena alluded to by anekadha matah.
[13] In Siddhasena's subsequent aphorism, we find further similarities with NB., though they are less of linguistic nature (similarities in formulations) but rather of methodological character. Analogously to the structure of NB, Siddhasena-after describing fallacious theses-proceeds to discuss fallacious logical reasons (herabhasa). However, both the authors first look back to their previous definitions of a correct, not defective hetu: NA.22: anyathanupapannatvam hetor laksanam iritam /
tad-apratiti-sandeha-viparāsais tad-abhata // NB.(2).3.55-56: tri-ripa-lingákhyānam pararthanumanam i ty uktam fatra frayanan rūpanām ekasyapi rūpasyanuktau sadhanabhasah.uktāv apy asiddhau sandehe vi pratipadya
pratipādakayoh. Incidentally, it is the only case in both works that the authors first remind the render/hearer of the definition of a correct syllogistic member/term, and only then deal with its particular fallacies.
Likewise incidentally, both the authors first state general factors that invalidate a correct heru, either singly or jointly, and subsequently enumerate resulting fallacies one by one. There are two such general invalidating factors for Dharmakirti, viz. asiddhi and sandeha (NB.3.56,109): various combinations (with regard to
** /49/ (2) tatra pratyaksa-niräkyo yatha: afrāvanah sabda iti. /50/ (3) anumangnirakato yatha: nityah sabda it. /51/(47) pratiti-nirākoto yatha: acandrah sasiti. /52/ (5) sva-vacana-nirakato yatha: nanumanam pramānam./53/ Il calvärah pakşábhāsa niräktā bhavanti.
"evan siddhasya, asiddhasyapi sādhanatvenábhimatasya, svayam vidina tada sadhayirum anisasya, ukta-matrasya nirāktasya ca paryayena sadhyah tendiva
svarūpendbhimato vadina isto iniräktah paksa id paksa-laksanam anavadyan darsitant bhavati.
sådhayirum isto 'pi pratyaksadi-viruddhah paksabhāsaḥ, tad yatha: (1) pratyaksawiruddhah, (2) anumāna-Viruddhah, (3) agama-viruddhah. (4) loka-vinuddhah (5) sva vacana-viruddhah. (6) prasiddha-visesanah (7) aprasiddha-visesyah, (8) aprasiddhóbhayah. (9) prasiddha-sambandhas céti // tatra...
sl Either in NA.(according to Siddharsi) or in NA.17 (hetos tathópapatya va syāt prayogo nyathapi vå,sce NAV. ad loc: anyathapi vety anenavayave samudayopacárad anyathanupaparti laksayari).
NB.3.1: tri-rūpa-lingakhyanam parárthánumanam; cf. also NB.(2).2.5.11-12.