A History of Sanskrit Literature c3.73

Language: English

c3.73.1

On the early development of logic an interesting light has been thrown by Professor O. Strauss's demonstration from the *Mahābhāṣya*⁵ that Patañjali was well acquainted with the doctrine of the causes familiar from the *Sāṁkhyakārikā*⁶ why things in themselves visible are sometimes not seen, and also had some knowledge of the theory of the syllogism—how much, is not altogether certain. The evidence, however, is useful as supporting the view that our philosophical Sūtras are essentially the outcome of a long period of development, and, whatever their date as we have them, contain doctrines much earlier in point of time. The effort to distinguish strata, though energetically pursued, leads to little that is certain. For instance, while we may readily believe that the *Pūrvamīmāṅsā* and the *Vedānta Sūtras* represent a long period of working over, it is by no means clear that we can deduce¹ from a remark of so late a writer as Sureçvara that Jaimini, the author of the *Pūrvamīmāṅsā*, also wrote a more philosophical *Çārīraka Sūtra*, the first two Sūtras of which correspond with those of the extant *Vedānta Sūtra*.

c3.73.2

The fact that in these two *Sūtras*, *Pūrvamīmāṅsā* and *Vedānta*, references are made both to Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa is best explained, not by assuming a number of Jaiminis and Bādarāyaṇas, but simply by recognizing that each text represents a long scholastic development and that the use of the names may not represent the views of the authors in question any more accurately than do, for instance, those of the Christian Fathers or the Scholastics the doctrines of Aristotle, or those of the neo-Platonists those of Plato. Nothing, of course, conclusive can be adduced against the belief in many Jaiminis or Bādarāyaṇas, and recourse has recently been had² to the same device to explain the fact that Prabhākara sometimes appears in tradition as later than Kumārila, while his work as known to us shows no certain trace of such a relation. In this case the suggestion is probably needless. The much discussed question of Dinnāga's place in the history of Indian logic, in special his relation to Praçastapāda, has been furthered by Dr. Randle's edition of Dinnāga's fragments³; it appears to me that Dinnāga's priority is still the more probable view, but this issue, as well as the important contributions to our knowledge of Indian philosophy by Professor M. Walleser, Th. Stcherbatsky, Louis de la Vallée Poussin, S. Radhakrishnan, Das Gupta, O. Strauss, Masson Oursel, J. W. Hauer, Ryukan Kimura, Kokileswar Sastri, Mahendranath Sircar, and others, must be reserved for discussion elsewhere.

c3.73.3

Y. Kanakura⁴ has shown that the alleged interpolations in Çan̄kara's Bhāṣya are known to Vācaspati Miçra, while the date adopted by me⁵ for Çan̄kara is supported by Jinavijaya's proof that Haribhadra, whom Çan̄kara used, falls in the period A. D. 700-770. Mention, however, should be made of the controversy which has raged over the authorship of the *Nyāyapraveça*, which is ascribed with equal confidence to Dignāga¹ and to Çaṅkarasvāmin²; a final judgement is difficult, and the matter has been dealt with by me at length in an article to appear elsewhere.³ It should also be noted that Professor Jacobi⁴ has now admitted that the *Nyāya Sūtra* knows the Vijñānavāda system, on the ground that the *Sūtra* in iv. 2. 26 deals with a Vijñānavāda tenet found in the *Laṅkāvatāra*; I have already dealt with this suggestion,⁵ and pointed out that it possesses no cogency. Professor Jacobi's further suggestion that Vātsyāyana knew Vasubandhu and may be placed *c.* 400 accords with the results adopted by me⁶ on the score of other evidence. He criticizes the well-known attempt of S. C. Vidyabhusana to prove that Uddyotakara and Dharmakīrti were contemporaries, on the ground that (1) Uddyotakara must have flourished a generation before Bāṇa since he was known to Subandhu, and (2) Dharmakīrti cannot have attained literary fame before Hiuen Tsang's stay in India, since he ignores him as an author of standing.

c3.73.4

These arguments are not conclusive, and it is quite possible that Subandhu, Bāṇa, Uddyotakara, and Dharmakīrti were more or less contemporaries; this issue also will be dealt with elsewhere. But Professor Jacobi renders it very probable that Dignāga, perhaps even Dharmakīrti, was known to the well-known *Maṇimēkhalai* in Tamil.⁷