9058009363

DKŃNACA ON TREKALA-PARlK$A : AN EXPLORATION INTO SOME AYENUES... 131

For, he might have done violence to thc views of Dińnaga while presenting or crilicising them.

12.    Radhika Herzberger seems to be entertaining this aigument while interpreting Dińnaga and his views on a parlicular concept, viz., Apoha. She holds a view that Dińnaga is impressed and influenced by Bhartrhari and the doctrine of Apoha is not an original contribution of Dińnaga. Ralher, credit of it should go to Bhartjhari. The earlier controversies betwecn Vyadi and Vy2japy&yana were later on followed by Dińnaga and Bhartrhari, respeclively. Dińnaga seems to be an upholder of K2ty2yana tradition, developed by Vya<Ji, while Bhartrhari is a follower of Vyajapyiyana, who belongs to the P&ninian tradition. Even though they were, thus, opponents, Dińnaga borrowed, so Radhika Hcrzbcrger seems to argue, the doctrine of Apoha from Bhartrhari. It is also held that Dińnaga has borrowed a fuli treatise, viz., TrikaJa -panksa from Bhartrhari^ Vakyapadiya₉ Sambandha-samuddcśa of trtiya-k&nda. Although we are doubtful about maintainability of such a thesis without running into serious diftlculties, we relrain from discussing it here.

13.    Until rccenlly, people uscd to undersland the vicws of the eminent Buddhist scholars like Dińnaga and Dharmaklrli from the works of Nyaya, especiaily when they used to claim that although Buddhist logie is not unimportant, it could be studied from the way it is presented in thc Nyaya texts.

14.    The Nyaya texts are quite considerably rcplete with this fact.

15.    Frauwallner attempted to show the similarity betwecn Bhartrharfs some karikśs from Sambandha - samuddeśa of Vakyapadiya and Tri kala -panksa of Dińnaga, in order to impress upon the concemed that Bhartrhari is prior to Dińnaga. H.R.R. Iyenger also attempted to claim that Dińnaga could at thc most be junior contemporary of Bhartrhari. Jambuvijayaji also acccptcd the same view. Further, this view, without examining its serious tenability, was presupposcd and is acccpled by Herzberger and Ilayes. Kitagawa, moreover, attempted to locale some views borrowed from Bhartrhari by Dińnaga in his Pramana-samuccaya as well.

Here I would like to point out that reliability of their argument seems to be questionable. For, if similarity together with chronology is going to be the sole basis of arguments of this kind, then can we say that Bhartrhari borrowed the First stanza of his Vakyapadfya from Aryadeva ? Bccause, the first stanza of Aryadeva’s Cittaviśuddhi prakarana and BhartrharTs Vakyapadfya (lst kirika, lst kanda ) is almost the same and former is certainly prior to the latter. Further, while BhartrharTs primary concem in the Vakyapadfya is philosophy of ianguage, that of Dińnaga in the T.P. seems to be whether naturę of the real could be said to be determined by either spatio - tcmporalily or even by Ianguage. Bhartrhari affirms determination of the real by Ianguage, while Dińnaga rejects such a move. Instead of getting entangled into the controversy who borrowed from whom, it seems better, instead, to study conceptual framework of a given philosopher and the sort of philosophical illuminalion it is likely to bring forth.

16.    R.S.Y. Chi creates an impression that Dińnaga is a formalist on the basis of his interpretation of Hetu-cakra, whereas on the basis of Hasta vala-prakarana, Yogavatara, etc. Steinkellner and Vetter seem to be holding a view that Dińnaga is a skeptic.

17.    For example H. N. Randle, H. R. R. Iyenger.