Maṇimēkhalai in its Historical Setting

Appendix. The Authorship of the Nyāyapravēśa

by Monsieur Tubianski

In an excellent note in the Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences, 1926, Russia, Monsieur Tubianski attacks the problem of the authorship of the treatise, Nyāyapravēśa, and gives his vote in favour of the Nyāyapravēśa known to the Chinese and regarded by them as the principal treatise on Buddhist logic being the work of Śaṁkarasvāmin, and not of Dignāga. I am obliged to Professor Jacobi of Bonn for a copy of the note, and am merely giving a summary of the arguments in favour of this position as presenting the other side of the question, the more readily as Professor Jacobi writes to intimate that he is in full agreement with Monsieur Tubianski. For a full statement of the opposite position reference may be made to the newly published volume in the Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, Baroda, volume No. XIX (Introd.). There are four works bearing names though slightly different but near enough for any one of them to be confounded with another. Two of these are in Chinese, two in Tibetan. The first of the Chinese works is Nyāyapravēśa ascribed to Śaṁkarasvāmin.

2. The Nyāyadvāra in two translations by Ywan-Chwang [Xuan Zang] and I’Tsing [Yi Jing] respectively, and attributed to Dignāga.

3. Similarly there are two works in Tibetan (a) Nyāyapravēśadvāra and (b) Nyāyapravēśa, both of them ascribed to Dignāga.

Both Murakami and Sugiura, on an examination of the Chinese texts, but without any knowledge of Tibetan sources, came to the conclusion that the two Chinese works, Nyāyapravēśa and Nyāyadvāra were different. S. C. Vidyabhushan working from the Tibetan side alone and relying chiefly upon an examination of one of the two works, Nyāyadvāra, reduced these to three, the two Tibetan works being regarded by him as one. [109] Mironov was able since to compare the Tibetan Nyāyadvāra with the Sanskrit Nyāyapravēśa and found the two to be the same work, the Tibetan apparently being a translation from the Sanskrit. Mironov also considered the Nyāyapravēśa as also identical with the two works relying on the remark of Haribhadra, the Jain commentator. According to Tubianski, Haribhadra’s comment cannot bear the inference drawn from it that the Nyāyapravēśa was a work of Dignāga.

H. Ui in his Vaiśēṣika philosophy (1917) was in a position to compare the two Chinese texts, Nyāyapravēśa and Nyāyadvāra, and the Tibetan work Nyāyadvāra. His conclusion was that the Tibetan Nyāyadvāra or Nyāyapravēśadvāra was quite different from the Chinese Nyāyadvāra, but is the same as the Chinese Nyāyapravēśa. This reduces the position of there being only two works, the Tibetan Nyāyapravēśadvāra being a translation of the Chinese Nyāyapravēś, the two constitute but one work, and the Chinese Nyāyadvāra stands distinct.

S. C. Vidyabhushan in his latest work on the History of Indian Logic was able to prove that the Tibetan Nyāyapravēśa was identical with the Tibetan Nyāyadvāra. So the two Tibetan versions come to be versions of the same work and get to be the equivalent of the Chinese work Nyāyapravēśa, the Chinese Nyāyadvāra standing distinct. The question to decide therefore is who is the author of the Nyāyapravēśa, and who of the Nyāyadvāra. The latter is correctly attributed, according to Tubianski, to Dignāga, as this figures among the works of Dignāga according to I’Tsing [Yi Jing] under the slightly different names Hētu-Vidya-Nyāya-dvāra Śāstra abbreviated into Nyāyadvāra. In this form it is also mentioned by Dignāga himself in his Pramāṇa Samucchaya Vtti. Further the Chinese Nyāyadvāra contains ślokas quoted by Vācaspati Miśra as from Dignāga, although they have been found to be in the Pramāṇasamucchaya of Dignāga. The Nyāyadvāra therefore becomes a work of Dignāga. Did he write the Nyāyapravēśa also? Here it would be much better to quote Tubianski textually:–

‘But if it is true that Nyāyadvāra was written by Dignāga, it is impossible that Nyāyapravēśa should be also written by him. For this we have inner and outer grounds. The inner ground is, that both works are not only different, but so different that they [110] could not be produced by the same author. Sugiura pointed out already that in Nyāyapravēśa there are added some types of fallacies of the thesis which are not mentioned in Nyāyadvāra and that the fourteen types of fallacies of refutation (dūṣaṇābhāsa) of Nyāyadvāra are omitted in Nyāyapravēśa. But the absence of these fourteen dūṣaṇābhāsas signifies a radical reform of the whole logical doctrine inside Dignāga’s school, of course. These dūṣaṇābhāsas fill almost half of the whole text of Nyāyadvāra, and represent a hardly justifiable remainder of the ancient brahmanical Nyāya. Dignāga himself ascribes their origin to Akṣapāda and though the question is not as yet cleared historically, it seems that they correspond indeed to the twenty-four varieties of jāti, expounded in the first chapter of the fifth book of the Nyāyasūtras. They were reduced probably by Dignāga to fourteen, and incorporated not only into his Nyāyadvāra, but even in the Pramāṇasamucchaya, which must have been written considerably later. That they are useless as such and that all their logical and even eristical import can be safely represented by the ordinary hētvābhāsas, treated under the topic of sādhanābhāsa, was clearly shown by the disposition of Nyāyapravēśa, as well as by Dharmakīrti in his Nyāyabindu. If we add the extreme lucidity of the terminology and of the whole manner of exposition which characterizes Nyāyapravēśa in contradistinction to Nyāyadvāra, their belonging to different authors will be beyond doubt.’

The following are the external evidence:–

1. Chinese information must be reliable as the Nyāyapravēśa has remained their basal text for logical studies.

2. Among the list of works of Dignāga in I’Tsing [Yi Jing], none of the names could be regarded as corresponding to the name Nyāyapravēśa according to Tubianski.

3. The Tibetans apparently made an error in equating the Nyāyapravēśa and Nyāyadvāra as the Tibetans did not possess a translation of the Nyāyadvāra.

4. The Tibetans seem almost aware of their error when they say in one of their catalogues that the Nyāyapravēśa should not be confounded with the Nyāyadvāra.