Candramati Und Sein Dasapadarthasastram

This document is a scholarly article by Erich Frauwallner titled "Candramati und sein Daśapadārthasāstram: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Vaiśeṣika" (Candramati and his Daśapadārthasāstra: A Contribution to the History of Vaiśeṣika). The article, published in Studia Indologica, re-examines the historical placement and significance of Candramati's Daśapadārthasāstra within the Vaiśeṣika school of Indian philosophy.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the key arguments and findings presented in the article:

1. Challenging Previous Scholarship (H. Ui):

• Frauwallner begins by noting that the Daśapadārthasāstra of Candramati is one of only three surviving foundational works of the Vaiśeṣika system (along with the Vaiśeṣika Sūtras and Prasastapāda's Padārthadharmasamgrahaḥ). Its translation into Chinese by the renowned Xuanzang makes it particularly important.
• He criticizes the assessment of the Japanese scholar H. Ui, who considered Candramati's work to be late and entirely dependent on Prasastapāda. Ui's reasoning, based on Dharmapāla's critique of a six-category system, is deemed flawed by Frauwallner. Frauwallner argues that Dharmapāla could have been reacting to the orthodox six categories without needing to be aware of Candramati's ten categories.
• This leads Frauwallner to question the established chronological order and the assumption of Prasastapāda's primacy.

2. Structural Analysis: Candramati vs. Prasastapāda:

• Frauwallner analyzes the structural organization of both works. He disputes Ui's claim of structural similarity.
• Prasastapāda: Organizes his work by first discussing the common properties of categories and then their individual properties, moving from general to specific.
• Candramati: Presents a different structure. He first discusses each category individually and then proceeds to list various properties of substances, qualities, etc., often in a question-and-answer format (e.g., "Which substances are movable and which are not?").
• Frauwallner highlights that Candramati's structure is similar to that found in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośaḥ, suggesting an alternative and perhaps older organizational principle. He concludes that Candramati's structure is independent of Prasastapāda's and is simpler and more archaic.

3. Content Analysis: Dependence and Divergence:

• Frauwallner examines the content of Candramati's work, finding it generally simpler and more concise than Prasastapāda's.
• He notes that Candramati often relies directly on the Vaiśeṣika Sūtras.
• Where both Candramati and Prasastapāda innovate beyond the Sūtras, their agreements are often imperfect, not necessarily indicating Candramati's dependence on Prasastapāda. In some cases, Candramati deviates from the Sūtras in ways that Prasastapāda does not, and vice-versa.
• Examples:
  • Substances (Elements): Candramati's brief enumeration of characteristic properties contrasts with Prasastapāda's extensive treatment, suggesting Candramati's closer adherence to the Sūtras.
  • Time and Space: Both modify the Sūtras, but Prasastapāda offers a more detailed explanation, emphasizing a fixed point for space.
  • Soul and Mind: Candramati presents an independent explanation, unlike Prasastapāda's elaborate discussion.
  • Expansion (Parimāṇam): Candramati's clear distinction of five types of expansion, drawing inspiration from a specific Sūtra, differs from Prasastapāda's four types. Frauwallner argues this indicates Candramati's closer connection to the Sūtras.

4. Epistemology and the Theory of Inference:

• This section is crucial for establishing the chronology.
• Prasastapāda: Frauwallner asserts that Prasastapāda's theory of inference aligns significantly with Buddhist logicians like Vasubandhu and Dignāga. He argues against the idea that Prasastapāda influenced them, citing the lack of significant impact from Prasastapāda's logical doctrines and Dignāga's direct engagement with the Vaiśeṣika Sūtras rather than Prasastapāda. This leads him to conclude that Prasastapāda is dependent on Buddhist logic, particularly Dignāga, and therefore can be dated no earlier than the mid-6th century CE.
• Candramati: Frauwallner analyzes Candramati's theory of inference. He identifies a twofold division of inference: "inference based on the perception of a commonality" and "inference without the perception of a commonality."
• He traces this division to the Sāṁkhya school, specifically to the teachings of the Sāṁkhya teacher Vṛṣagana and his followers between 300 and 450 CE. The Sāṁkhya system developed this division to justify its metaphysical claims about imperceptible entities.
• Frauwallner argues that Candramati's adoption of this Sāṁkhya-influenced twofold division of inference, which he then adapted to Vaiśeṣika terminology and concepts, proves his dependence on Sāṁkhya and his earlier placement relative to Prasastapāda. This Sāṁkhya teaching was influential in other schools like Mīmāṁsā (Sabarasvāmin's Mīmāṁsābhāṣyam) before being superseded by Buddhist logic.

5. Chronological Implications and the History of Vaiśeṣika:

• Based on his analysis of the inference theories, Frauwallner proposes the following chronology:
  • Candramati: Influenced by Sāṁkhya's twofold inference, which was current from the mid-5th century CE, and predating Dignāga's influence (c. 480-540 CE), Candramati's work is placed between 450 and 550 CE.
  • Prasastapāda: His dependence on Dignāga places him after the mid-6th century CE, likely in the second half of the 6th century CE.
• This revised chronology helps explain several historical puzzles:
  • Xuanzang's Translation: It makes sense that Xuanzang would translate Candramati's work if it was an established and significant text, even if less polished than Prasastapāda's. His student K'uei-chi mentions Candramati but not Prasastapāda, which aligns with Candramati's earlier prominence.
  • The Nature of the Sūtras: The Vaiśeṣika Sūtras are seen as reflecting a complex history, with earlier natural philosophy sections and later additions incorporating the developing categories doctrine. This made them difficult to navigate.
  • Candramati's Contribution: Candramati's Daśapadārthasāstra is presented as a revolutionary work that provided a much-needed systematic and coherent exposition of the categories doctrine, the central element of the evolving Vaiśeṣika system. This groundbreaking reorientation, despite its relative sparseness compared to Prasastapāda, explains its fame.
  • Prasastapāda's Role: Prasastapāda's Padārthadharmasamgrahaḥ is interpreted as the orthodox response to Candramati. Prasastapāda aimed to restore the neglected aspects of the earlier natural philosophy and, crucially, to re-establish the orthodox six categories against Candramati's ten. He achieved this by systematically integrating the traditional material, referencing the Sūtras for legitimacy, and improving the organization and language, thereby creating a comprehensive and authoritative exposition that marked the culmination of the classical Vaiśeṣika period and the beginning of its scholastic phase.

Conclusion:

Frauwallner's article fundamentally shifts the understanding of the relationship between Candramati and Prasastapāda. It argues convincingly that Candramati is the older of the two, a significant innovator who provided the first systematic treatment of the Vaiśeṣika categories, influenced by Sāṁkhya logic. Prasastapāda, in turn, built upon Candramati's work, correcting its perceived shortcomings and re-establishing orthodox doctrines, thereby creating the classic synthesis of the Vaiśeṣika system. This re-evaluation offers a more coherent narrative of the development of Vaiśeṣika philosophy in its formative period.