On The Date Of The Nnyayavatara

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 15

PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
ON THE DATE OF THE NYÀYAVATĀRA
There is, in the first place, a continuous tradition in epistemic concepts referred to by both Dharmakirti and Siddhasena that go back to Dinnaga. Dharmakirti himself refers to Dinnaga so explicitly that would seem highly implausible to believe that he had availed himself of the Jaina epistemological tradition with respect to the number of points mentioned above in 99 1-20, without even a single mention of it one would expect Dharmakirti embarking on at least an accidental discussion of a few issues he had supposedly taken over from the Jainas. Secondly, Satkari MOOKERJEE, who believed Siddhasena to flourish in the sixth century and to precede Dharmakirti," puzzled over what was in his opinion Dharmakirti's lack of reaction as regards Siddhasena's interpretation of the intrinsic invariable concomitance (antar-vypl) and the superfluous character of the example as an exemplification (hahir-udähti) external to the most elementary constituents of the proof formula, as well as the definition of the logical reason as 'inexplicability otherwise. This becomes no longer a query when we assume that Siddhasena was postDharmakirtian. Moreover, it is for precisely the same reason that also Patrasvamin should be taken to flourish after Dharmakirti. Thirdly, the concepts of svartha-vákya and pardrtha-vákya (NA.10) as well as svártha-pratyakpa and parartha-pratyaksa (NA.11) would have with certainty evoked a refutal from the side of Dharmakirti, had he known about it. Likewise, Dharmakirti would have certainly commented upon the idea of non-erroneousness of inference (anumanam ... abhrantan) proven by its being a cognitive criterion alone (pramanarvat), found in NA.5. The same holds true for the idea of inexplicability otherwise' (anyathanupapannata). Thus, any supposition that Siddhasena preceded Dharmakirti can safely be dismissed.
Accordingly, depending on whether we follow the widely accepted dating of Dharmakirti, viz. c. 600-660 or the results of latest research by KIMURA (1999) who assigns the years 550-620 for Dharmakirti, we would have for the terminus post quem Siddhasena as the author of the Nyayavatara circa 620 or 660, respectively,
There is still another factor to be taken account of, viz. the question of the defining characteristic of the logical reason (hetu) characterised as the fact of being otherwise inexplicable' or 'inexplicability otherwise' (anyathanupapannata,
avathinupapatti) in NA 22: anyathupapannarvan hetor laksanam iritam. The author clearly refers to an earlier source and the idea did not originate with him in his NA. Independently, we find the idea reported and criticised by Santaraksita in TSA (1).1364 ff. (p. 405 r.) in the context of the validity of inference (anumana)." The most famous and relatively often quoted verse is TSa. 1369:
anyathanupapannalar yatra tatra trayena kim
nanyathanupapannatvaniyatra tatra trayena kim // . Significantly enough, Santarakṣita TSa.(1).1364, p. 405.1) mentions Patrasvamin as the source of the idea: anyathey-adina patrasvami-matam asankate..., and the treatise in question is the lost Tri-laksana kadarthana by Patrasvamin, identified occasionally with Pätrakesarin / Pátrakesarisvamin - Vidyananda. For obvious reasons this Patrasvamin cannot be Vidyananda (c. 850), the author of the Slokavårttika on Umisvati's Tattvartha-sútra- SUKHLAL-DOSHI (1928) and CHATTERJEE (1978: 331) would have it-but some else who preceded Santaraksita (6 725-788)", the teacher of Kamalaśīla. Since the author of NA. alludes to his
"The relevant section is edited and translated in KUNST (1939: 11-53). See also PATHAK (1930-31) 71-83
Strangely enough, Santarakṣita in TSa. interchanges the pádas ab with cd. The verse is also found in (1) TSVA. p. 203 [the discussion of anyathamupapafil and the refutation of tri-lakrana is found there on pp. 198-217). (2) TBV. Vol. II, p. 569.28-29. (3) PMI 2.1.
9 33 (p. 45.17-18). Hemacandra's criticism against the Buddhist idea of trairūpya in PMI 2.1.9 933 (p. 45.1-16) closely follows the exposition of Patrasvåmin's aphorisms quoted in TSa attesting to the authenticity of the quotation. Hemacandra, instead of the terms anyathanupapatti, uses the expression avina-bhava, cf. PMI 2.1.9 (p. 43.34-35): svarthan swa-niscita-sadhyavina-bhavalka-laksanat sadhanát addhya Janam. The formulation addhydvind-bhāvaika-laksanat resembles both Patrasvamin's Tri-laksana-kadarthana (tendika-laksano hetu pradhanyad gamako ste nah/ - TSa. 1379) as well as NA.Sac: sadhyavina-bhuno lingar sadhya-niscayakan smptam! anumanam.
A reference to the work is found in DHAKY (1995: 43), who refers to Jugal Kishor Mukhtar: 'Sammatisütra aur Siddhasena' (Hindi), Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa par Vilada Prakåsa, Calcutta 1956: 538-543 [the work was not available to me).
CR. UPADHYE (1971: 14-15), PATHAK (1930: passim) and PATHAK (1930-31: passim), who refers to him as Pitrakesari Vidyananda or as Pátrakesarisvämi.
CE. STEINKELLNER-MUCH (1995: 56). ** CC. BHATTACHARYYA (1926: ixvi-ixvii): 'In that case Patrasvamin must be an earlier author than both Santarakṣita and Vidyananda, and he must have first
See: MOOKERJEE (1935: 398), * See: MOOKERJEE (1935:4-5): 'What however strikes us is the intriguing situation created by Siddhasena's reference to antarvyāpti and the definition of her (probans) as anyathamupapanna in the verse 20 and 22 respectively. It is nothing short of enigma that this innovation of the Jaina logicians did not evoke a reply from Dharmakirti.
See: FRAUWALLNER (1961). Cf. also STEINKELLNER-MUCH (1995: 23).