On The Date Of The Nnyayavatara

This document, "On the Date of the Nyāyāvatāra" by Piotr Balcerowicz, is a scholarly analysis aiming to establish the chronological placement of the Nyāyāvatāra, a significant work in Jaina epistemology attributed to Siddhasena Divākara.

Here's a breakdown of the key points:

• Significance of the Nyāyāvatāra: The work is considered pivotal in the development of Jaina epistemology, marking a new era, though it may not be entirely original when viewed within the broader context of Indian logic and epistemology.

• Authorship Question: Balcerowicz emphasizes that the dating of the Nyāyāvatāra should be independent of definitively settling the authorship debate concerning Siddhasena Divākara. He notes that the Nyāyāvatāra and Siddhasena Divākara's other major work, the Sanmati-tarka-prakaraṇa, exhibit differences in their approach to the Jaina Canon, vocabulary, and philosophical ideas, suggesting they were likely written by different individuals.

• Dating Frameworks: The author outlines the existing scholarly opinions on the date of Siddhasena Divākara (as the author of the Nyāyāvatāra) and the work itself, categorizing them into four groups:

  1. Pre-Dignāga
  2. Soon after Dignāga, before Dharmakīrti
  3. Post-Dharmakīrtian
  4. Still an open question

• Arguments for Post-Dharmakīrti Dating: Balcerowicz meticulously examines several verses of the Nyāyāvatāra and compares them with works of key Buddhist logicians, particularly Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, to establish its chronological position. His analysis highlights numerous influences and similarities, leading him to conclude that the Nyāyāvatāra is likely posterior to Dharmakīrti, with a proposed dating terminus post quem around 620 or 660 CE.

  • Key Arguments:
    • Use of abhrānta: Siddhasena's use of the term abhrānta (non-erroneous) for perception, which Dharmakīrti was the first to significantly employ in this context, suggests a chronological dependence. Balcerowicz argues against a coincidental use.
    • Distinction of svārtha and parārtha: The extension of the distinction between self-interest (svārtha) and for-others (parārtha) to perception (pratyakṣa) in the Nyāyāvatāra, mirroring Dharmakīrti's work, is a strong indicator.
    • Metaphorical Transference (upacāra): The use of upacāra in introducing the discussion of parārtha-anumāna in both the Nyāyāvatāra and Dharmakīrti's Nyāya-bindu is a significant point of similarity.
    • Definition of Pramāṇa: The Nyāyāvatāra's attempt at a descriptive definition of pramāṇa, which is seen as an advancement not present in earlier Jaina or Buddhist works prior to Dharmakīrti, points to Dharmakīrti's influence.
    • Classification of Fallacies (hetv-ābhāsa): The enumeration and classification of logical fallacies in the Nyāyāvatāra show close parallels with Dharmakīrti's Nyāya-bindu, particularly in the sequence and conceptualization of these fallacies.
    • Structural Similarities: Balcerowicz points out that the structure of the Nyāyāvatāra, especially the sequence of topics and the discussion of fallacies, closely mirrors the Nyāya-bindu.
    • Critique of Buddhist Ideas: Some verses in the Nyāyāvatāra appear to be critical of Buddhist idealist views (like the illusory character of worldly appearance), which were prevalent during Dharmakīrti's time.
    • Silence on Earlier Jaina Works: Balcerowicz notes that while Siddhasena's work shows considerable influence from Buddhist logic, particularly Dharmakīrti, there's a lack of explicit engagement with earlier Jaina thinkers who might have held similar views, suggesting a later composition.

• Potential Buddhist Sources: The primary source of influence identified is Dharmakīrti, especially his Nyāya-bindu. However, influences from Dignāga and Śankarasvāmin are also considered, though the arguments often lean more strongly towards Dharmakīrti.

• Rejection of Siddhasena Preceding Dharmakīrti: The author refutes the possibility of Siddhasena influencing Dharmakīrti. He argues that if Siddhasena had preceded Dharmakīrti, Dharmakīrti would have likely reacted to Siddhasena's distinct interpretations and novel ideas.

• The Role of Pātrasvāmin: The text also discusses the contribution of Pātrasvāmin, a less known figure who seems to have been the source of the concept of anyathānupapannatva (inexplicability otherwise) for the definition of a logical reason. This suggests that while Nyāyāvatāra is likely post-Dharmakīrti, it also drew from earlier, though less documented, Jaina logical traditions.

• Terminus Ante Quem: The inclusion of a verse from the Nyāyāvatāra in Haribhadrasūri's Aṣṭaka (dated around 745-785 CE) provides a terminus ante quem for the Nyāyāvatāra.

• Authorship of the Nyāyāvatāra: The author also addresses the identity of the author. While Haribhadrasūri refers to the author as "Mahāmati," the Nyāyāvatāra-vivṛti by Śiddharṣi identifies the author as Siddhasena. However, Balcerowicz argues that Śiddharṣi refers to the author of the Nyāyāvatāra as "ācārya" or "sūtra-kāra," suggesting Śiddharṣi (the commentator) is distinct from Siddhasena (the author). He tentatively suggests calling the author "Siddhasena Mahāmati" to distinguish him from other Siddhasenas.

In summary, Balcerowicz's extensive analysis of the textual evidence strongly suggests that the Nyāyāvatāra was composed after Dharmakīrti, likely in the seventh or early eighth century CE, and that it demonstrates a significant engagement with and influence from Dharmakīrti's logical system, particularly the Nyāya-bindu.