On The Date Of The Nnyayavatara

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 11

PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
ON THE DATE OF THE NYAYAVATĀRA
trairūpya) are responsible for particular varieties of herv-abhäsa. For Siddhasena, however, there are three polemically, as it were such factors: tad-apratiti, sandeha and viparvasa; thus Dharmakirti's asiddhi factor would seem to bifurcate into Siddhasena's tad-apratiti and viparyāsa. For instance, for Siddhasena the fallacies of NB.3.58 and 59. would be probably a case of viparyāsa, whereas the fallacy of NB.3.60" should rather be considered a case of tad-apratiti. One could analyse all the remaining cases of fallacious hetus (ensuing from the combination of the factors asiddhi and sandeha) found in NB. and map them onto the triple classification of Siddhasena in the same manner. Practically, it would mean to decide which of the asiddhi cases of Dharmakirti would correspond to tad-apratiti cases of Siddhasena, and which to his viparasa cases. However, we do not have any explicit statement in the far too succinct NA., nor in NAV., that would provide us any algorithm of such a mapping, and the issue is open to our conjectures only.
Interestingly, in NP., for instance, to which NA. might be thought to have occasionally referred to, we do not find any trait of such invalidating factors as asiddhi and sandeha, or anything similar
(14) Also NA.23 and the classification of particular varieties of herv-abhāsas points to secondary sources of Siddhasena's ideas. There seem to be only two such potential sources, i.e. NB. and NP.: NA 23: asiddhas tv apratito yo yo 'nyathdivopapadyate/
viruddho yo 'nyathápy atra yukto 'naikāntikah sa full NB.(2).3.109: evam eşām trayāņām rūpāņām eka kasya dvayor dvayor w rūpayor asiddhau sandehe vayatha-yogam asiddhaviruddhanaikāntikās trayo hetv-abhäsäh.
NP (2).3.2. asiddhanaikāntika-viruddha hetv.abhāsaḥ Il However, NB. is a more probable source, inasmuch as the sequence of fallacies (asiddha, viruddha, anaikāntika) listed in NA. is exactly the same as that of NB.,
not of NP., where the two last varieties are interchanged (asiddha, anaikāntika. vinuddha). Dinnaga has the aniscita (or sandigdha) variety, istead of anaikintika.
What is striking is that Siddhasena has only three varieties of hery-abhasa, like Dharmakirti and Sankarasvamin, unlike Dinnaga. Moreover, Dharmakirti outspokenly rejects Difināga's subvariety, i.e. viruddhavyabhicărin". NB.(2).3.110: viruddhávyabhicáry api samsaya-hetur uktah. sa iha kasmän noktah. We do not find any polemical trait in NA., which could even suggest that Siddhasena adopted Dharmakirti's criticism of viruddhavyabhicarin. Apparently he subscribed to the criticism unhesitatingly.
It is worth noticing that NA. diverges also from the tradition of Kumarila, whose triple classification-into asiddha, sandigdha, viruddha in MSV-is more akin to Dinnaga's: MSV.5.4.75 p. 264 mentions the classification (samsayadi-viparyayah): subsequently (1) the threefold asiddha fallacious reason is mentioned in MŚV.5.4.76-83ab; (2) sandigdha and (3) viruddha occur in MSV.5.4.83cd-107 lee in MSV.5.4.83cd: sandeha-viparitata-heti catraniräkriau)besides, (2) sandigdha is further found in MSV.5.4.84b-96b, whereas (3) viruddha is mentioned in MSV.5.4.96cd-107ab. Kumārila nowhere in the Anumana-pariccheda section uses the term anaikantika as a herv-abhäsa, he has sandigdha instead, like Dinnaga, unlike Dharmakirti, Sankarasvamin and Siddhasena. However, Parthasarathi Misra follows the general post-Dharmakirtian typology in his classification, while commenting on Kumärila (p. 264.11 ad MSV.5.4.75): samprati het-abhäsän asiddhanaikantika-viruddhan prapanicayan ...
[15] NA.24-25 reveal further similarities pointing to NB. as its possible inspiration. One of them is the phraseological affinity as regards the use of drsantadosa, instead of drsfantábhasa, in both works. Both Siddhasena and Dharmakirti use the expression paksabhasa as well as similarly tad-abha and hetv-abhasa. However, both of them deviate from the general use of derivatives of a bhas to technically denote logical fallacies, when they refer to drsanta by the term dosa, and to drstanta only:
NA 24: sadharmyenátra drstanta-dosa ..., NA.25: vaidharmyendira drstanta-dosa ..... NB(2).3.123, 128-129: /123/ etendiva drstanta-dosa api nirastā bhavanti. /128/ sadharmyena drstanta-dosah. 7129/ vaidhamyendpi: paramánuvar karmavad äkāšavad iti sadhyady-vyatirekinah.
"NB.(2).3.57-9: /57/ ekasya napasya dharml-sambandhasydsiddhau sandehe vasiddho hetv-abhasah. /58/ yatha: anityah sabda iti sadhye caksuşatvam ubhayasiddham (not proved for both parties). 759/ cetanas tarava iti sadhye sarva-tvagapaharane marana prativady-asiddham, villan endriyayur-nirodha-laksanasya maranasyanendbhyupagamåt, tasya ca tarus asambhavi (not proved for the opponent).
*NB.(2).3.60: acetanah sukhadaya iti sädhya utpattimattvam anityatva vā sāmkhyasya svayan vādino 'siddham (not proved for the proponent himself).
**Cf. also RANDLE (1926: 68-69, 79).