On The Date Of The Nnyayavatara

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 16

PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
ON THE DATE OF THE NYAYAVATARA
predecessors and Säntaraksita mentions only Pätrasvamin, it must have been the latter who was responsible for the idea of anyathdrupaparnava." Had it been Siddhasena who introduced the idea, Santaraksita would not, in all probability, have missed the opportunity to mention this. Certainly Pätrasyimin is post-Dinagan, for his Tri-laksana kadarthana was conceived to refute the latter, but his dating is quite uncertain. It is surprising, nonetheless, that Santaraksita seems nowhere to allude to the NA. or its author. Consequently, the widespread opinion assuming that NA. is the first Jaina treatise on epistemology per se loses its weight, inasmuch we can safely assume that Siddhasena had his predecessor in the person of Pātrasvamin.
As regards the terminus ante quem, in view of the fact that the verse no. 4 of the Nyayavatara is incorporated into SDSa as verse no. 56, it should be assigned to the date of Haribhadrasüri. A supposition that it is SDSa 56 that was the source which NA.4 was borrowed from and that NA.4 is merely an interpolation seems inadmissible to me. NA.4 fits ideally the argumentative structure of the text: (1) NA.I states the definition of pramana, as well as the types and a general criterion of such a division, (2) NA.2 is polemical concerning the meaninglessness of formulating a definition for a well-known term/idea of pramana, (3) NA.3 is a rejoinder to the objection, (4) NA.4 defines the two main divisions of pramana along with a specific reason for such a division, (5) NA.5 opens a section dealing
with erroneousness of pramanas, etc. The use of vocabulary in NA.4 is not unusual for NA. Coincidentally, two adjacent verses, viz. NA.4 and NA.5, are stylistically and structurally quite akin pada a-b: reason (aparoksataya, sadhyavina-bhuno Magdt) + 'object+ verbal derivative in the meaning of a present participle Cartharya grähakant, sadhya-niscayakan) + ... + pada e subject (pratyaksam, anumanan) ... Admittedly, the similarity is not a crucial argument in favour of the same authorship of the two verses, however, there is nothing that could speak against a common authorship. The argument gains on strength in view of the fact that Haribhadrasüri quotes the verse no. 2 of NA. in his Asaka" and refers to its author as Mahamati
In view of the above, DHAKY'S (1995: 44) claim"-to handle the discomfort that Haribhadra himself ascribes one of the verses to a Mahimati—that both NA.2 and 4 were taken from lost dvitrinsikas of Siddhasena Divikara is highly debatable to me. Not only NA.4 seems to represent an original karika of NA., but the same holds good in the case of karika 2. We could not make head or tail of NA.2 (the objection) if we did not have NA.1. Moreover, NA 3 (the rejoinder) would be pointless without NA 2 All the lost dvitrinsikas of Siddhasena Divakara as a reference source in
propounded the theory that valid reason is that the existence of which cannot be maintained unless it is invariably concomitant with the major term ... cir. 700 A.D.'.
"Cf. MUKTHAR (1948) [according to UPADHYE (1971:"30)]: '7) The Nyayavatára is composed centuries later than the Sanmari-sútra, because it shows the influence of Pātrasvami (later than Samantabhadra) as well as Dharmakirti and Dharmottara'; and V.P. Johrapurkar ("Introduction to VTP., pp. 41 ff.) quoted in n. 5 above. See also DHAKY (1995: 42-3): ...the first foot of the karika 22 concerning the hetu-laksana (character of probans) reflects sense agreement, even partial verbal concordance with the verses from Patrasvămi's (Pätrakesari's) Trilaksanakadarthana cited by the Buddhist scholiast Santaraksita in his Tattvasangraha (c. 2 quarter of the 8 century A. D.)" SHASTRI (1990: 31) is a bit more reserved and does not take for granted that Patrasvamin was anterior to Siddhasena: "Nyayavatāra also defines hetu in the same manner.'
"Both NA.1 and 4 go against the prevalent Jaina tradition to subsume cases of sensory cognition, inference and verbal testimony under paroksa, whereas pratyaka was taken to denote extra-sensory and extra-mental acts of cognition (viz. avadhi, manah-paryaya and kevala). For Siddhasena the criterion of directness (akra) was not the cognising subject, or the soul (akşaajivaatman), but like in the general pramana tradition--the senses (aka indriya).
The work is not available to me. I am forced to rely here on Pl. Dalsukhbhai MALVANIA (1979: 287-288). Cf. also UPADHYE (1971: xxiv) and DHAKY (1995: 44).
UPADHYE (1971: xxiv) is right to point out that Haribhadra, in his Asaka, quotes the Mydyavatara 2, by referring to its author as Mahlmati. Elsewhere, however Haribhadra speaks plainly about the author of the Sanmatias Divakars and Srutakevalin. This enforces the supposition against the authorship of Siddhasena Divakara of NA
*A formidable objection, however, to the above-postulated identification (Siddharsi was the author of both NA. and NAV.-P.B.) as well as the period determination (ninth tenth century for NA.-P.B.) can be raised on the grounds of the ascription of a verse, which appears as the karika 2 of the Nydydatára, to Mahamati (Siddhasena Divakara) by Yakinis nu Haribhadra sûri (active c. A. D. 745-785) in his Astaka". And the karid 4 figures as a part of the Saddarsana-famcaya of the same Haribhadra suri". Since Haribhadra suri ascribed the particular verse (karika 2) to Siddhasena Divlikara, it must be so. However, this karika could be originally from some dwitrindika, one of the lost 11 of Siddhasena Divakars, perhaps the Pramanadvatrindika, from which Gandhahasti Siddhasena quotes in his sa-bhâsyaTattvarthadhigama-sútra v The karika 4 in the Sad-darsana amcaya may likewise have been taken from one of the unavailable datrimfika of Siddhasena Divikara. Alternatively, if that verse is Haribhadra's own, Siddharsi must have borrowed it from the Saddarsana, In any case, Haribhadra and Siddharsi could have common sources from which they apparently may have drawn.'