On The Date Of The Nnyayavatara

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 14

PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
ON THE DATE OF THE NYAYAYATĀRA
question goes back to Dinnaga, e.g. PS.(1).1.8cd-10. In these verses Dinnaga asserts that the result of pramāna is pramana itself, or introspective cognition which consists in the determining of an object (sva-samvitti, artha-riscaya). Precisely the same idea (āmánubhāva, artha-viniscaya) is echoed in PV.2.306-307ab, 3390 Generally, the idea is discussed at length by Dharmakirti both in his PVin.(1).78.12-100.26 and in PV.2.301-366, 388-391. Accordingly, NA.28 might be taken to be a rejoinder of both Dinnāga and Dharmakirti, and there seems to nothing decisive to be found in NA 28 that would exclude any of the two authors.
On the other hand, any attempt to look for inspiration of NA.28 in works of either Dinnaga or Dharmakirti seems to me to be a result of misapprehension of the true import of the aphorism. In it, Siddhasena does not discuss the problem whether pramana-phala can or cannot be equated with pramana itself, which is the major concern of Dinnaga and Dharmakirti. What is intended in the verse are rather extraepistemological issues of both soteriological (kevala) and mundane (sesa) character, viz. the result of pramana is the cessation of nescience' (afna vinivartana), whereas the result of specific kinds of cognition is two-fold. The first category subsumes happiness and indifference (sukhôpekse) in case of the perfect knowledge (kevala), being a prerequisite of liberation (moksa) and commonly taken by the
lainas to be tantamount to the destruction of nescience. Since it results from the destruction of karman" it is necessarily associated with innate happiness, etc. that are inhibited by karman. The other-pragmatic, as it were category of results refers to the faculty of appropriation and avoidance' (ädäna-hana-dhi) in case all the remaining kinds of (mundane) cognition. Consequently, what really the verse is reminiscent of is rather NBh.1.1.3. yadā jānant tada hanópádanopekabuddhayah phalam, with all the three elements of hana, upadana / adana and apeksā, as a result (phala) of cognition (ñana).
What is important to remember is that there are numerous similarities, more and less conspicuous, and not all of them are decisive when taken alone. Some of these similarities indicated on the preceding pages may equally well point to a tradition or author prior to Dharmakirti, viz. to Dinaga or Sankarasvamin. Some of such similarities may be due to the general style of writing, of arranging a philosophical treatise, of structuring a philosophical discourse, etc. We should remember that both the Nydya-bindu and the Nyayavatāra were primarily handbooks of logic and their purpose was predominantly didactic. Nonetheless, the accumulation of evidence only enforces those of them that are quite conclusive and convincing. To sum up. my impression is that in all dubious cases, when both NP. and NB. seem relevant as possible sources of Siddhasena's ideas, Siddhasena probably took recourse to Dharmakirti rather than to Sankarasvamin, inasmuch as in all those rare cases when there are clear similarities to be found between NA. and NP., they are also traceable in NB. However, not all cases of similarities between NA. and NB. can be shown with regard to NA. and NP. In other words, the development of certain ideas that had taken place in the period connecting Sankarasvamin and Dharmakirti, was reflected in the contents of NA. and some ideas still absent from NP. that were later either introduced or modified by Dharmakirti, found their way into NA. Similarly, certain influences to be found in NA. point both to Dinnaga and to Dharmakirti. However, Siddhasena seems to be acquainted with certain new developments or ideas that first developed with Dharmakirti (not necessarily only in NB.) and are not found in Dinnaga's works.
Paradoxically as it were, would it not be thinkable to claim that it was Siddhasena who influenced Dharmakirti and who was the intermediary stage between Dinnaga and Dharmakirti? For at least three reasons we should dismiss such a possibility.
savyipara-pratitivar pramānam phalam eva sat // swa-sant with phalar vatra tadnipo hy artha-niscayah / visaykaratdivdsya pramanam tena mlyate Il yad-dbhdsam prameyan tar pramäņa-phalate punah / grähakákara-yanvilli trayari ndtah prthakkrtam Il. For the Sanskrit text, see HATTOKI (1968: 97, n. 1.55-107, n. 1.67). Tibetan text reads as follows: Vasudhararakṣita/Sen-rgyal 15a.5-15b.4: Kanakavarman/Dad-pahi fes-rab 956.5-96.5:
bya dan beas par togs pahi phyir bya dan boas par togs pahi phyir tshad mahi hbras bu nid du ndod || horas bu id du yod shadma || rah rig layari hdir hbras bu
yai na ranrig hdir hbras bu de y no bo las dones
de y no bo las dones yul gyi shanba hdi Rid hdi
yal gisan ba nid de hdipi Ishad made yis hjal bar byed
tshad made yis hjal bar bya gan she shanba de gsal bya
gan Itar snan ba de gral bya Ishad ma dan dehi hbras buni tshad ma dari dehi hbras bu ni hdsin ram rig pa de vi phyir! hdsin ram rig paho de yi phyir de gsume tha dad du ma byas il de gsum tha dad du ma byas
tasmát prameyddhigateh sadhanan meya-rüpata / sadhane yatra tal-karmasambandho na prasiddhyati Il si ca fasyarma-bhutiwa tena ndrthantaran phalam/ yadd savisayari Manar Adnanse 'rtha-vyavasthiteh/ tadd ya dimnubhavah sa evártha-viniscayah //
"Cf. TS.10.1: moha-ksayaj jana-darfandvaranántaraya-kayic ca kevalam.
Cf, e.g. TBh10.7 (p. 231) v.23 fl. (samsara-visayatitam muktanamavyayant sukham).
"Cf. also FRANCO (1997:65).