________________
Paurandarasūtra
161
ignorance is not enlightened, we have to stick to what we deem the more reasonable interpretation.
Now, if the interpretation given by Vādi Deva and the others is untrue, why was it repeated over and over again ?
They may have taken it from each other, or from a source unknown to us, but this is begging the question, for it arises again : Why was there at all an untrue interpretation of the sūtra ?
Frankly, I don't know; I can only suggest a hypothesis : it is due to a juxtaposition of two things which do not belong together. Someone who had DharmakTrti's discussion of the word 'paksa' in mind, concluded wrongly that Purandara was referring to it in his sūtra.
Having rejected the paksa interpretation we are still faced with the problem, which of the other two interpretations is to be accepted.
Here we cannot argue on grounds of method, because both of them make sense, and both of them are compatible with the Lokāyata position. The only way to decide between these interpretations would be to check the context. But dealing as we do with fragments, we have no context. Moreover, for what we know, it may have been both, for sūtras are sometimes deliberately formulated vaguely enough to allow different interpretations.
For the time being, I can see no way but to leave this question open.
NOTES
1. The sūtra is quoted in the following books :
Nyāyabhūşana of Bhāsarvajña, ed., S. YogIndrānanda, Varanasi 1968, p. 210.18. Nyāyamañjari of Jayanta Bhatta, ed. K. S. Varadacarya, Mysore 1969, p. 312.8-9 (Banares 1936 ed. p. 108.10). Pramānavārtikavrttiţikā of Karņakagomin, ed. R. Sāṁkstyāyāna, Allahabad 1943, p. 25.26 Prameyakamalamārtanda of Prabhācandra, ed. M. Sarraph and R. Jain. Vira Jñanodaya Granthamala 23, Delhi vi, ni. sam. 2504, p. 477. 2-3. Sarmatiarktaprakarana of Siddhasena Divākara, ed. with Abhayadevasūri's Vyākhyā by S. Sanghavi and B. Doshi, Gujarātapuratattvamandiragranthāvali, Ahmedabad 1924, pp. 70.27; 72.33; 554.23. Vyomavati of Vyomaśiva, ed. G. Kaviraj, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares 1930, p. 575.14 (which reads pramāṇasya gaunatvāt...; this is obviously wrong). The sūtra is also quoted in the Syadvādaratnakara of Vadi Devasūri, Arahatambata Prabhākara ed. p. 261 (?). I was unable to consult the book, but it is quoted by E. Solomon, "Bhatta Udbhata", Annals of the Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute, Diamond Jubilee Volume, Poona 1978, p. 985. Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
