Influence Of Buddhist Logic On Alamkara Shastra - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "Influence Of Buddhist Logic On Alamkara Shastra" by Anantlal Thakur:

The text argues that Buddhist logic has had a significant and demonstrable influence on the development of Alamkara Shastra (the science of poetics and rhetoric) in India, often to a greater extent than the orthodox Brahmanical logic of the Akṣapāda school. Despite most rhetoricians being Brahmins, they frequently incorporated and cited Buddhist philosophical concepts, definitions, and terminology into their own works on aesthetics.

The author, Anantlal Thakur, presents several concrete examples to support this thesis, highlighting specific rhetoricians and their works:

Bhāmaha: In his Kāvyālamkāra, Bhāmaha discusses logical fallacies (dosa) in arguments, specifically in the context of pratijñā (thesis), hetu (reason), and dṛṣṭānta (example). Thakur asserts that Bhāmaha's treatment of these topics, including the number and definitions of pramāṇas (means of valid knowledge) and the varieties of logical arguments, is indebted to the school of Dinnāga, a prominent Buddhist logician. Modern scholars have also noted this connection.
Dandin: In his Kāvyādarśa, Dandin's examples of nyāyavirodha (logical contradiction) reference Buddhist philosophy and the "way of the Tathāgata" (Jinayāna). Notably, commentators on Dandin's work, such as Vādi Janghāla (who was seemingly a Brahmin) and Ratnaśri (a Buddhist), cite Dharmakīrtti's Pramāṇavārttika.
Anandavardhana: His Dhvanyaloka reveals a close familiarity with Dharmakīrtti's works. A specific verse cited by Anandavardhana (Dhvanyaloka I. 17) is shown to have a parallel in Dharmakīrtti's Pramāṇavārttika. Anandavardhana also refers to "scholars who accept a conventional relation between words and their senses" (kṛtrimasambandhavādinaḥ), which likely includes Buddhist thinkers. His commentator, Abhinava, directly quotes from Dharmakīrtti. Anandavardhana also uses terminology common among Buddhist logicians, like "vyapti," and is even reported to have written a commentary on Dharmakīrtti's Pramāṇaviniscaya.
Jaina Hemacandra: His Kavyanuśāsanaviveka also quotes from Dharmakīrtti's Pramāṇavārttika.
Dhanika: The commentator on Dhananjaya's Daśarūpaka, Dhanika, uses several terms (anvāpoha, svasamvedana, vipratipatti, nāntariyaka, avinābhava) that are characteristic of Buddhist logic.
Mahima Bhatta: The author of Vyaktiviveka, Mahima Bhatta, who was also a logician, demonstrates an even closer connection with Buddhist logic. He quotes several verses from Dharmakīrtti's Pramāṇavārttika as authoritative. His definitions of inference and syllogistic reasoning in Vyaktiviveka are clearly borrowed from Dharmakīrtti's Nyāyabindu. He also references the Buddhist view of two types of cognitive organs and uses terms prevalent in Buddhist logic.
Ruyyaka: This commentator identifies a quotation in Mahima Bhatta's Vyaktiviveka with a passage from Dharmakīrtti's Vādanyāya.
Bhoja: His Śrṛngāraprakāśa quotes a verse from Dharmakīrtti's Pramāṇavārttika.
Mammata: His definition of inference in Kāvyaprakāśa shows Buddhist influence.
Ruyyaka (again): In his Alaṁkārasarvasva, Ruyyaka discusses the Buddhist concepts of invariable concomitance (vyāpti) arising from identity (tādātmya) and causation (tadutpatti) when refuting Mahimabhatta's ideas.
Mallinātha: His commentary Tarala on Vidyadhara's Ekāvalī also critiques Mahimabhatta on similar points related to causation.
Viśvanātha: His Sāhityadarpaņa defines savikalpakajñāna (discriminative knowledge) in line with Buddhist logicians and uses the term apoha (exclusion), another key Buddhist concept.

Thakur addresses the potential misconception that Buddhist philosophers directly contributed to rhetoric. While some rhetoricians like Bhāmaha have been speculated to be Buddhist, and figures like Sauddhodani and Rahula are mentioned, there's insufficient proof to suggest direct creative contributions from Buddhist philosophers to the field of rhetoric itself.

Instead, Thakur proposes that the influence was indirect but strong. He posits that the school of Dinnāga revolutionized various Indian speculative systems, including the emphasis on reason over blind faith. Consequently, orthodox philosophers were compelled to adapt their own systems. The Alamkara Shastra, like other disciplines, absorbed these changes.

Key factors contributing to this influence include:

The Buddhist emphasis on precise definitions and rich terminology.
The shared intellectual milieu of Kashmir, where both Buddhist logic and philosophy flourished and were part of the academic curriculum.

Thakur concludes that Brahmanical logic was temporarily overshadowed by its Buddhist counterpart, but the Buddhistic elements left a permanent mark on the Alamkara Shastra during its formative years, continuing to exert influence even after the decline of Buddhism in India. He notes a parallel work by Professor Sivaprasad Bhattacharya on the same subject, viewing his own contribution as supplementary.