Comparative Study Of Utpadadisiddhi Tika And Hetubindu Tika

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, focusing on its core arguments and contributions:

The article, "A Comparative Study Of Utpādādisiddhi Ṭīkā And Hetubindu Ṭīkā" by Jaina Muni Jambuvijaya, highlights a significant, yet often overlooked, aspect of ancient Indian philosophical scholarship: the interconnectedness and mutual influence between different philosophical schools, particularly Jainism and Buddhism.

The central thesis is that Jaina scholars freely utilized and quoted from the works of other philosophical systems, especially Buddhist logical treatises, to both propagate their own views and critique opposing ones. This practice is seen as incredibly valuable for the study of Indian philosophy in general and for understanding Buddhist logical works in particular.

The author explains that many original Sanskrit Buddhist works are lost. While Chinese and Tibetan translations exist, the Tibetan translations are often more literal and thus of greater value for reconstructing lost Sanskrit texts. However, the richness and complexity of Sanskrit can sometimes make Tibetan translations difficult to interpret precisely, and errors in translation can occur.

The primary contribution of this article is its demonstration of how Jaina works can aid in the reconstruction and correction of lost Buddhist texts. Specifically, Muni Jambuvijaya focuses on reconstructing a lost portion of the Hetubinduṭīkā (commentary on Dharmakirti's Hetubindu). He achieves this by comparing the Utpādādisiddhiṭīkā, a Jaina logical treatise by Candrasena, with the Tibetan translation of the Hetubinduṭīkā.

The Utpādādisiddhiṭīkā is noted for containing numerous long and short verbatim excerpts from Dharmakirti's Hetubindu and its commentary by Arcata. This makes it an invaluable resource for filling in gaps in the lost Sanskrit original of the Hetubinduṭīkā. Furthermore, the presence of these excerpts in the Jaina text can help correct readings in the existing edition of the Hetubinduṭīkā, which was based on a single palm-leaf manuscript.

The article then provides a concrete example of this reconstruction process. It details a missing folio (folio no. 52) in the manuscript of the Hetubinduṭīkā and shows how a specific passage from the Utpādādisiddhiṭīkā (pages 93-95) perfectly allows for the restoration of this lost section of the Buddhist text. The author then presents a Sanskrit retranslation of the restored portion, drawing from both the Jaina text and the Tibetan version.

In conclusion, Muni Jambuvijaya emphasizes that by meticulously comparing Jaina and Buddhist literature, scholars can uncover many more instances of mutual influence and aid in the reconstruction and understanding of lost philosophical works. He expresses his motivation for writing the article, citing his respect for Professor Frauwallner and the help he received from him in his own research, making this a tribute on an auspicious occasion.

In essence, the article demonstrates the critical role of secondary Jaina literature in preserving and illuminating lost Buddhist philosophical texts, highlighting a significant avenue for scholarship in Indian philosophy.