Miszellen Zur Erkenntnistheoretisch Logischen Schule Des Buddhismus

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, focusing on the discussion of Candragomin and the Nyāyasiddhyāloka:

The article, "Miszellen zur erkenntnistheoretisch-logischen Schule des Buddhismus" by Ernst Steinkellner, delves into the identification of a Buddhist figure named Candragomin and his connection to a text within the epistemological-logical school of Buddhism.

Candragomin, the Grammarian and Dramatist: The author first establishes that Michael Hahn has convincingly proven that the grammarian, playwright, and author of the Śiśyalekha, Candragomin, was active in the second half of the 5th century CE. Hahn addresses the issue raised by the remark of I-Ching, who stated Candragomin was still alive when he arrived in India in 673 CE. Hahn resolves this by assuming I-Ching's information was based on hearsay and therefore inaccurate. Hahn also compiles a list of texts attributed to Candragomin in Tibetan translation from the Peking edition, organizing them into groups. Among these is the Nyāyasiddhyāloka, which belongs to the epistemological-logical tradition.

The Nyāyasiddhyāloka and its Author: The article then presents an argument suggesting that the author of the Nyāyasiddhyāloka is a different Candragomin from the famous grammarian. This is based on the fact that the grammarian Candragomin predates Bhartṛhari, who in turn is dependent on Dignāga, the founder of the epistemological-logical tradition. This temporal discrepancy suggests the author of the Nyāyasiddhyāloka must be a different individual with the same name.

Further evidence for this distinction comes from an analysis of the Nyāyasiddhyāloka itself, which is a short work of only 18 verses plus a dedication verse. The author notes that verses 13 onwards (f. 198 a 8ff.) presuppose the doctrines of svabhāva-hetu and kārya-hetu, as well as causality as a sambandha (connection), concepts that were only developed by Dharmakīrti. This indicates that the author of these verses worked after Dharmakīrti. The article clarifies that for the purpose of this study, the precise dating of Dharmakīrti (whether 600-660 CE as proposed by Frauwallner or even earlier in the 6th century as suggested by Lindtner) is not critical. However, it is clear that the Nyāyasiddhyāloka's author lived after Dharmakīrti.

Dating the Nyāyasiddhyāloka: The only other available criterion for dating is the period of its translation into Tibetan. This translation was performed by the Pandita Śrīsiṃhaprabha and the Lotsava Vairocana. Both were prolific translators, and Śrīsiṃhaprabha is otherwise only known as Śrīsiṃha. The article suggests that the Lotsava Vairocana in question is likely the famous Vairocana, who played a significant role in religious history towards the end of the 8th century.

However, the Nyāyasiddhyāloka is not listed in the catalog of IDan kar. The author posits that a concise and summarizing text might have been considered more valuable as a contemporary translation. Therefore, within the given constraints (after Dharmakīrti and before the early 9th century), the text's origin is best placed no earlier than the era of Śāntarakṣita. This leads to the estimation that Candragomin, the author of the Nyāyasiddhyāloka, was active around the mid-8th century CE.

Title Interpretation: Finally, the article discusses the title of the work. The Tibetan title is reconstructed in various ways in different catalogs (Nyāyasiddhaloka and Nyāyasiddhyāloka). The Sanskrit title in the introductory passage is given as Nayālokasiddha (Peking edition) and Nayālokasiddhi (Dharani edition). The author concludes that the title most likely signifies "the light that exists through the proof led with the help of logical arguments." Vidyābhūṣaṇa's similar interpretation of "a lamp of logical reasoning" supports this understanding, making Nyāyasiddhyāloka the presumed correct title.