9058009351

DINNAGA ON TRKALAPARIK$A : AN EXPLORATION INTO SOME AVENUES... 119

thcre.⁴ As a result, we succumb to the tcmplation to hołd that whatevcr is said by a commentator/s is nothing else but clarification and ełaboration of the contenlion of the original and commentaries cannot transcend the limits of the basie lexts.⁵ If, therefore, one is interested in studying a particular tradition, the argument continues, it is enough to concentrate upon the source, holding later, inlermediary or grown-up stages of it to be irrelevant. The fountain-head of this kind may be guaged in the form of a work or a thinker.

Unfortunately, study of Dińn3ga’s philosophy is not an exceplion to this tcndcncy. DińnSga is sometimes read, understood and evaluated in the light of his eminent predecessors like Vasubandhu or occasionally NSgSrjuna.⁶ Such a contenlion does not altogether seem to be a figment of imaginalion, especially sińce Dińnaga wrole such works as AbhidharmakośavrttimarmapradTpa, ⁷ given to drawing altention of the conccmed to what is held to be the quintessence of the Abhidharmakośa. Or, altemalively, DińnSga*s commentary on the Prajń&p&ramilS-sutras⁸ known as the PrajńśpSramitSpind&rtha -saitigraha, seems to make him to be heavily indebled to NSgSrjuna. However, while ovcremphasising the former seems to take DińnSga to be merely a link in the thread of development of Buddhist Philosophy in generał, and Vijńina-vSda in particular, the latter amounts merely to drown him in the well of Mah&y&na. Eilher way amounts to neglecting originality and independent contributions of DińnSga, thus doing gross injuslice to his lhought and philosophy. It is quite obvious that such a modę can hardly enable anyone to discover and propcrly articulate conceplual framework of DińnSga and its contribution to the growth of Philosophical Ideas of Indian origin.

(B) Through the Spectacle of the Successor/s :

It need not be denied outright that commcntators and successors may provide a clue to understand the philosophy of a particular philosopher. While interpreting and understanding a text, one may come across difficultics at a number of places. Nuances and clarilicalions provided by commentators may be helpful and hence a plea to take recourse to them. And thcre is nothing wrong in doing so as far as it goes. However, when we estimate the contributions of the original work, we need not interpret and characterise it on the basis of the insighls providcd by commentators. Rather, we should understand and adjudge it on its own merits to the extent feasible. Unfortunately, this has not been given enough altention to.

Moreover, in the case of historical studies, thcre are certain conslraints, viz., availabilily of relevant informalion. One is under pressure of non-availability of appropriate informalion and required to be vigilant about proper interpretation to be articulated with commcnsurale ralionale. Under such circumstances, one has oflcn to proceed on the basis of whatcver is available and viable. In the case of DińnSga, unfortunately, unlil rccently, very few works of his