( 8 ) Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol.42, No. 1, December 1993
The Prabhakara Theory Quoted by Raghunatha Siromani
Kazuhiko YAMAMOTO
I . Raghunatha Siromani (ca. AD 1475-1550) quoted the sentence of the Prabhakara school of Mimamsa in the sub jectness (paksata) section of the Tattvacintamanididhiti. But Gangesa (ca. AD 1325) took up this argu- ment not in the sub jectness section but in the inherence (samavaya)section , as almost all the logicians who wrote the inherence section did. Why did Raghunatha quote this sentence of the Prabhakara school in the subjectness section? I make this question clear in this paper. II. The sentence quoted by Raghunatha is as follows: prabhakarasto vinapy anumitsam kvacit paramarsanumitipravahasyaviralalagnasy- anubhavikatvatkdlabhedakalpandydm mdndbhavac ca, paksata ndnumitihetuh.pararth- anumdneto siddhasddhanamarthantaravidhaya dusanam ity ahuh.1' But the peopleof the Prahakara schoolhold that since even if there is no desire to infer, in some cases the continuousconnection between a confirmatorycognition and an inferential cognition is experienced, and since there is no ground to think of a different time, the subjectness cannot be the causeof an inferential cognition. But in the case of an inference for the other's sake, it is a defect in the division of establishing somethingdifferent from which is required to establish that to establish an established thing. The Prabhakara school holds two arguments. The first is as follows: A subjectness cannot be a cause (hetu) of an inferential cognition (anumiti), for two reasons. Even if there is no desire to infer, an inferential cogn- ition occurs in combination with a conf irmatory cognition (paramarsa). There is no ground to think of a time gap between the first inferential cognition and the second one produced by a sub jectness. The second is as follows: In an inference for the other's sake the relation between the cause and effect is a self-linking relation (svarupasambandha)when the cause
539 The Prabhakara Theory Quoted by Raghunatha Sirorani (K. YAMAMOTO)( 9 ) and effect coexist. One perceives the thing that has a self-linking relation. So the perception (pratyaksa) is established, but the theme here is to establish an inferential cognition by a subjectness . This is a defect of arthantara i.e., to establish something different from that which is requi- red. If one inferred the thing that has already been perceived, it is a defect of siddhasadhana i. e., to establish an established thing again. The first argument is suitable for the inherence section rather than the sub jectness section. We can see the same quotations in the Saravali2' by Vasudeva Sarvabhauma (ca. AD 1430-1540)and in the Tattvacintamanirah- asya3' by Mathuranatha (ca. AD 1600-75). Both are in the sub jectness section. U1. But Gangesa did not make this second argument of the Prabhakara school in the sub jectness section but rather in the inherence section. 4' Jayadeva5' (ca. AD 1430-90) and. Rucidatta6) (ca. AD 1450-1510)did the same. Moreover Visvanatha7) (AD 1634) quoted the same sentence in the inherence section as Raghunatha's quotation . Krsnavallabha made com- ment about this sentence citing Mimansa's view .8' In the inherence section, the point of the argument is that the Nyaya school belieives the thing, which exists should not be separated (ayutasiddha), has an inherence. But the Prabhakara-M2mamsa school thinks that it has a self-linking relation, and one percieves the thing that has a self-linking relation . N . The logicans who wrote the inherence section took up Prabhakara's argument not in the sub jectness section but in the inherence section . But Raghunatha did not write the inherence section') . So we can assume that the reason Raghunatha took up this Prabhakara's argument in the sub jectness section is that he did not write the inherence section. Thus, Raghunatha applied this topic, which was treated as the matter of an inherence by Gangesa, to a sub jectness as the cause of an inferential cognition.
1) Gadadhari, ChSS 42, Benares, 1912-27, p. 1175. 2) prabhakaras to ... [omit] ...napy anumitipratibandhikamanabhavat, siddhasadhanan to pararhtanumane arthantararupam nigrahasthanasan iti. (Saravali, Mss. No. 33086, Sarasvati Bhavan Library, Varanasi, 118a, 5-119, 1. )
538 ( 10 ) The Prabhakara Theory Quoted by Raghunatha Siromani (K. YAMAMOTO)
3) atra prabhakarah pratyaksadivadanumitav api paksata na hetuh gauravan mandb- havac ca, visayantarasaficaradivirahe paramarsadisattve ca dhdravahikapratyaksav- adanumitidharapy utpadyata eva. kim to pararthanumana eva siddhasadhanam arthantaravidhaya dusanam. (Anumanacintamani, Calcutta, 1884-1901, repr. Delhi, 1988, p. 436. ) 4) ucyate, gunakriydjativisistabuddhayo visesanasambandhavisaydh visistabuddhitvat, danditi buddhivat. na ca vyabhicarah. abhavadivisistabuddher api svarupasamband- havisayatvat. via caivam atrapi tenaivarthantaram, yato gunakriyajativisistabuddhi- nam paksadharmatabalena visayah sambandhah sidhyal laghavad eka eva sidhyati. sa eva samavayah, na to svarupasambandhah, tattatsvarupandm anantatvat samban- dhatvenaklrptatvdc ca. (Tattvacintamani, Tirupati, 1973, pp. 651-53, and Calcutta, 1897, pp. 645f.) 5) Tattvacintamanyaloka on the comm. of the TC, Calcutta, 1897, pp. 648f. 6) Tattvacintamaniprakasa on the comm. of the TC, Tirupati, 1973, pp. 651-654. 7) tatra pramanam to gunakriyadivisistabuddhir visesanavisesyasambandhavisayd visi- stabuddhitvdd dandi purusa iti visistabuddhivadity anumanam anena samyogadiba- dhat samavayasiddhih. na ca svarupasambandhena siddhasadhanam arthantaram vd. anantasvarupandm sambandhatvakalpane gauraval laghavad ekasamavayasiddhih. (Nyayasiddhantamuktavali, KSS 212, Varanasi, 1940, 3rd ed. 1983, pp. 54-56. ) 8) svarupasambandhavadino miimamsakah ayutasiddhayor gunadravyayoh svarupasam- bandhas to pratyaksasiddha eva tasya ca gunakriyadivisistabuddhipaksakanumdne sadhyaghatitasambandhataya dhartum sakyatvdt siddhasya tasya sadhane sati siddh- asadhanam dosah, samavayasddhanaya pravrttanaiyayikamate ca svarupasambandh- asya prakrtanupayogitvenarthantaram dosah iti samkante, tan nirasyati na ca svarupasambandhena siddhasadhanam arthantaram veti. mimdmsakamatasiddhasvar- upasambandhasya sadhanena yat siddhas dhanam nyayamate ca 'rthdntaram vd dosah sa cdtra na dsamkaniya ity arthah (Ibid., pp. 55f.) 9) See Misra, Umesh, History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 2, Allahabad, 1966, pp. 415f., and Sastri, Gaurinath, Intr. of Mangalavada, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1979, p. 16.
537