On The Date Of The Nnyayavatara

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 13

PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
As for another possible source of insipration, also NP.(2).3.3 distinguished-in accord with the prevalent tradition of those days-two general categories: similar and dissimilar fallacious examples (drstäntäbhäso dvividhaḥ: sädharmyena vaidharmyena ca //). However, a closer look at Sankarasvamin's varieties reveals essential differences, apart from the terminological ones. Accordingly, I see no way how the formulations of fallacies of examples based on similarity found in Nyayapravesa could be interpreted to have influenced Siddhasena's sädhyadivikalâdayah. As regards Nyaya-pravesa on fallacies of examples based on dissimilarity, the influence might have been restricted to (V1), (V2) and (V3) only.
40
[18] Also NA.26, where criticism refutation (düşana) and its fallacy (düṣaṇabhasa) are discussed, might have partly been inspired by Dharmakirti's NB.(2).3.137-140. Thus, NA.26a-c: vädy-ukte sädhane prokta-doṣānām udbhavanam düşanam, reveals a certain similarity-in terms of both formulations and ideas to the duşaṇa-section of NB.(2).3.137-8: /137/ düşaṇā nyünatády-uktiḥ. /138/ ye purvam nyunatâdayaḥ sadhana-dosa uktās teşām udbhavanam düşanaṁ. tena parestartha-siddhi-pratibandhät. Less conspicuous, though, is the remaining portion of the second hemistich of NA.26: niravadye tu düsanabhāsa-nämakam ||
commentators which we encounter in the case of NA.8: drstêstävyähatäd väkyät paramarthabhidhayinaḥ I tattva-grähitayotpannaṁ mānam sabdam prakirtitam // The aphorism is explained differently by the commentators, viz. (1) NAV. ad loc.: drstena pramanavalokitenestaḥ pratipadayisito 'vyähato 'nirākṛtaḥ samarthyad artho yasmin väkye tat-tatha; and (2) NAT. ad loc.: drstenêty-ädi. ayam bhinnadhikaranas tri-pado bahu-vrihiḥ yadi va isto vyahato 'rtho yatra tad iştávyahatam vakyam, tadanu drstena pramana-nirņitena istävyähatam iti tat-puruşah (cf. BALCEROWICZ (1999: 4, n. 8)). Definitely, such an unnatural interpretation-i.e. to take anivrtteś to refer to all elements of the triad sadhya-sadhana-yugmānām, while limiting the scope of samsayat to selected element(s) of the compound sädhya-sadhana-yugmānām-would be a mere guesswork, and one would rather, as a rule, construe sädhya-sädhana-yugmanām with both anivṛttes and samsayat, and obtain six varieties of dissimilar drstântábhāsas. One would not, in any case, obtain any further varieties mentioned by Dharmakirti in NB.(2).3.133-135: (V7) avyatireka, (V8) apradarsita-vyatireka and (V9) viparitavyatireka. Thus, Siddhasena apparently does not accept without reservation the Buddhist typology by rejecting (V7), (V8) and (V9).
NP.(2).3.3.1: tatra sädharmyeṇa tavad drstántábhäsaḥ pañca-prakāraḥ, tad yatha: (1) sadhana-dharmasiddhaḥ, (2) sädhya-dharmasiddhaḥ, (3) ubhaya-dharmasiddhaḥ, (4) ananvayah, (5) viparitánvayas cêtill tatra....
61
6 NP.(2).3.3.2. vaidharmyenapi drstântabhasaḥ pañca-prakāraḥ, tad yatha: (1) sädhydvyävrttaḥ, (2) sädhanävyävrttaḥ, (3) ubhayävyävrttaḥ, (4) avyatirekaḥ, (5) viparita-vyatirekaś céti Il tatra...
ON THE DATE OF THE NYAYAVATARA
The
corresponding duṣaṇabhasa-section of NB.(2).3.139-140 reads: /139/ düsanabhäsäs tu jätayaḥ. /140/ abhūta-dosódbhāvanāni jäty-uttaraniti. The reoccurring element duṣaṇabhasa is not decisive at all, whereas Siddhasena's niravadye could be a vague echo of Dharmakirti's abhūta-dosa.
As a matter of fact, NA.26c-d (niravadye tu düşanābhāsa-namakam) betrays more affinity to the closing section of NP.(2).7: abhūta-sadhana-dosôdbhāvanāni dusanabhäsäni ... etāni düşaṇabhāṣāni, na hy ebhiḥ para-pakso düşyate, niravadyatvat tasya Il ity uparamyate // It is this section, in all probability, that influenced both Dharmakirti's NB.(2).3.139–140 (düṣaṇābhāsās tu jätayaḥ, abhūtadosódbhāvanāni jäty-uttaraniti.) and the portion of NA.26c-d in question.
[19] The twenty-sixth aphorism (the exposition of dusana) is the last section of the Nyayavatāra, where possible influences from Dharmakirti's side-in terms of Siddhasena's direct use of Dharmakirti vocabulary or his response to Dharmakirti's ideas are easily detectable. Strangely enough, the topic dealt with in NA.26 closely corresponds to the final issue discussed by Dharmakirti in NB. Thus, the conspicuous absence of further possible Dharmakirtian traces in NA.-theoretically derivable from other works of Dharmakirti-points, in my opinion, to the fact that Siddhasena-while composing NA.-closely followed the structure and the contents of NB., up to NA.26.
In the remaining aphorisms (28-32) Siddhasena discusses issues peculiar to Jainism (viz. corollaries of kevala-jñāna and syad-vada) and there could hardly have been any Buddhist influence to be noticed in any case: [27] the character of absolute cognition (kevala-jñāna); [28] the result of valid cognition in general; the results of absolute cognition (kevala-jñāna); the results of valid cognitive procedures other than kevala-jñāna; [29] the multiplex character of reality; the domain of cognitive acts; the domain of viewpoints (naya); [30] the character of viewpoints (naya); the description of the doctrine of seven-fold modal description (syad-väda); [31] the character of the cognitive subject, the soul (jiva); [32] the eternal character of Jaina epistemology.
[20] The phrase pramaṇa-phala occurring in NA.28 is occasionally taken to be a proof of its dependence on Dinnaga. It is commonly assumed that the phrase in
62 Cf., c.g. QVARNSTRÖM (1999: 178): 'Furthermore, the Nyāyāvatära (28) uses the signature element of Dignaga, namely "pramaņaphala"; in his note 61, he further draws the reader's attention to the work of G. Dreyfus and Chr. Lindtner: 'The Yogācāra Philosophy of Dignaga and Dharmakirti". Studies in Central & East Asian Religions. Vol. 2, Ed. by Per K. Sørensen et al. Copenhagen 1989: 27-52.