________________
404
A. Werler
Der sarvasarvatmakatvavids
gen. Wenn dieser letztere Kritiker also ein anderer ist als derjenige, der zuvor die zentralen Theoremata des Sámkhya mit Ausnahme des sarvasarvatmakatvavada
strulert hat, dann scheint der Schluß, den Jambuvijaya aus diesen Beobachtungen gezogen hat, in der Tat unabweisbar: der erste Kritiker hat mit dem von ihm ange griffenen Samkhya immerhin soviel gemeinsam, daß auch er die These servam sarvatmakam' vertritt. Gegen ihn - und nicht gegen den bereits am Boden liegenden Vertreter des Simkhya - laßt Mallavādin den ifvaravādin sich wenden, der die Dar. legung seiner eigenen philosophisch-theologischen Anschauungen sogleich mit der entsprechenden Gegenthese eröffnet: na sarasarvatmakatvaparigraho nyayyah.
Die Widerlegung des sarvasarvatmakatvavida durch diesen Hvaruvadin ist zwar insofern fiktiv, als dabei auf die spezifische, von Mallavädin stammende Systematik des vidhyubhaye (s. o. S. 364) etc. Bezug genommen wird, und die darstellungsmaßige Entwicklung des Hvaravala in kritischer Abgrenzung gegen den sarvasar patmakatavada mag auch insgesamt insofern eine literarisch-dialektische Fiktion Mallavadins darstellen, als es eine derartige Auseinandersetzung realiter, d. h. in der historischen Wirklichkeit, soweit sie Mallavadin bekannt war. gar nicht gegeben haben muß. Daß man sich eine solche Auseinandersetzung vorstellen kann, ja daß es geradezu naheliegt, sie als Autor spielerisch in Szene zu setzen, kann kaum bestrit ten werden. Warum sollten nicht auch bzw. nicht gerade auch Theisten verschiedener Richtungen über ihre unterschiedlichen ontologischen Voraussetzungen mitein ander in Streit geraten können?
whereas Muni Jambüvijaya states that it is a sarvasar makarvavadint who does away with Samkhya metaphysics and is, thereafter, criticized in his turn by the itvaravadin.
In order to re-examine the dialectical structure of this chapter of the NC, first (8 5) that passage of the Nyayigamanuskrini is taken up for a closer study which Muni Jambüvijaya must have had in mind, i.e. NC 324.7-13 (references are always to his edition): It does, Indeed, allow of no other conclusion but that the opponent who proves Särkhya metaphysics to be unsustainable, cannot be identical with the ivaravadin. On the other hand, as he must be different also from the exponent of Samkhya, a problem remains to be solved, viz. who is the mysterious .. sarvatar parmakatvavadin".
Thus it proves necessary to inspect closely all those passages in the NC itself and in its Vrtti in which this vida is mentioned (6). In this connection the following text passages are quoted and translated: NC 38.3-4 together with NC 38.20-33 ($ 6.1), NC 107.2-108.2 together with NC 107.20-27 ( 6.2), NC 11.2-12.2 to gether with NC 11.21-12.5 (6.3). This yields the result, puzzling at first sight, that the sanusaramakatuvada forms an essential and integral part of Samkhya philosophy itself.
Regarding the last mentioned passage, I ask (56.3.1) whether Muni Jambüvijaya Is right in recognizing in the passage NC 11.26-30 a quotation from another source (which could not but be an older Samkhya work). This question, in itself sec ary, leads nevertheless to the inspection of NC 320.1-7 ($6.3.2) as well as of a part of the Bhagya on Yogasutra 3.14, including the explanations offered by Sah kara in his Vivarana (16.3.2.1); and of the Samkhyavrtti (V) to karika 15 of Isvarakrina's Samkhyasaptati.
The conclusion drawn by E. A. Solomon (cf. note 71) regarding the obvious and close correspondance between several parts of these passages, is criticized as being ill-considered, and it is stressed that in explaining them one should rather start from the heuristic assumption, well founded as it is, that not only Mallavidin and Simhasüri, but also some of the authors of commentaries on the Samkhyasaptati and the YS had access to and made use of the pre-Karika tradition of Simkhya, i.e. especially of the lost Şastitantra of Vrsagana and perhaps also works of his disciples or followers. In answering the secondary question raised by the passage NC 11.2630, I argue that there is little probability of its being a quotation, whereas NC 320. 1-7 and the Bhasya on YS 3.14 might well represent, or contain, a quotation from sich older Samkhya works.
Returning to the problem as to which school of thought the sarvasanatmakatwa vāda belongs, I quote a verse from Prajñākaragupta's Pramäņavärttikabhäsya to gether with the explanation given by Jamāri (alias Yamari) in his commentary thereon, preserved only in Tibetan translation ($ 6.4). With the help of another passage out of Prajñakaragupta's work, it is shown that both Buddhist philosophers still associated the Sāmkhya with this vada. Since Prajnakaragupta, however, refers to it in the context of different theories of error, a verse passage from Ramanuja's Sribhäsva is drawn upon where he, too, deliberates, among other theories of error. on one that is evidently based on the servasaramakatvavada. According to this
SUMMARY
The present article is the first of a series I intend to write under the common title "Studies on Mallavadin's DrädaSaranayacakra". Here I deal with the servasar patmakatvavada.
In the beginning ( 1), preliminary information is given about the state of prekrvation of this text, Le the necessity of reconstructing it totally from its commentary, the Nyayigaminusirini of Simhasūri, and about the different editions published so fur (d. notes 7, 8 and 10); among the latter, that of Muni Jambüvija yaji surpasses the previous ones in every regard (cf. E. Frauwallner's "Introduction" to the Muni's edition). The question of the testimonial value of the Nayacakra (NC) is raised (72 and 3), for some remarks of Frauwallner (cf. notes 3 and 9) are open to the misconstruction that he was, as to this, rather sceptical. On the basis of general observations on the anekantavāda, made by W. Halbfab (cf. notes 26 and 27), it is argued that, on the contrary, Mallavādin may fully be expected to furnish objective and extraordinarily valuable information about earlier and contemporary philosophical thought.
In 4 attention is drawn to a peculiar divergence between Frauwallner's and Muni Jambüvijaya's analysis of the contents of chapter III (vidhyubhayāra). According to Frauwallner, there the central tenets of Samkhya are refuted by the Isvaravadin,
