Vidyananda And Patrakesari Are They Identical

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Vidyananda And Patrakesari Are They Identical?" by H. R. Rangaswami Iyengar:

The article critically examines the assertion made by Mr. Pathak that Vidyananda, the author of the Tattvartha Slokavartika, is identical with Patrakesari, a prominent Jain teacher renowned for his work Trilakshanakadarthana which refutes the Buddhist doctrine of Trilakshanahetu. Mr. Pathak based his conclusion on two pieces of evidence:

1. A statement in Samyaktvaprakasha: This work is quoted as stating that the author is writing down what was said by "Patrakesari, also known as Vidyananda, in his Slokavartika." This implies that Patrakesari authored the Slokavartika and also went by the name Vidyananda.
2. A note in a palm-leaf manuscript of Adipurana: This manuscript, owned by a Pandit in Sravanabelgola, allegedly records that Patrakesari also had the name Vidyananda.

The author, H. R. Rangaswami Iyengar, argues against this identification, presenting new evidence to refute Mr. Pathak's conclusions.

Arguments against the identification:

• Lack of corroboration in Slokavartika: Iyengar states that despite the claim in Samyaktvaprakasha, there is no mention of the name Patrakesari within the Slokavartika itself. Furthermore, neither Vidyananda's works nor known works attributed to Patrakesari refer to Vidyananda as Patrakesari or vice versa. Works like Ashtasahasri, Pramana Pariksha, Yuktyanushasana, and Apta pariksha are attributed to Vidyananda, and none mention him being known as Patrakesari.
• Unreliability of manuscript notes: The note in the Adipurana manuscript is considered by Iyengar to be a marginal annotation by a scribe or owner, whose authenticity is questionable. Even if authentic, it only suggests Patrakesari might have had the title "Vidyananda," not that they are the same person.
• Vidyānanda's reference to "Vārtikakāra": The author points to a crucial detail in Vidyananda's own works. When quoting a verse that refutes the Buddhist doctrine (the anyathānupapannatvam verse), Vidyananda prefaces it with "tathoktam" in Pramana Pariksha and "vārtikakāreņa uktam" (stated by the Vartikakara) in Slokavartika. This clearly indicates that Vidyananda was quoting someone else, the "Vartikakara," implying Patrakesari is distinct from Vidyananda.
• Historical context of the refuting verse: The verse in question, "anyathānupapannatvam," is attributed to Patrakesari and is also found in the Tattvasangraha by the Buddhist writer Shantarakshita. Shantarakshita, while discussing the views of Patrasvamin, quotes this verse. Iyengar suggests that "Patrasvamin" is likely a shortened form of "Patrakesari."
• Dating and Scholarly Traditions:
  • Patrakesari (or Patrasvamin) is considered to have lived sometime after Dignaga (a prominent Buddhist logician) and before Dharmakirti.
  • The Tattvasangraha was written around the beginning of the 8th century AD. This places Patrakesari before this period.
  • Vidyananda, the author of Slokavartika, is assigned to the 9th century AD and, importantly, quotes from the works of Dharmakirti.
  • The temporal gap and the fact that Vidyananda quotes Dharmakirti while Patrakesari is believed to have lived before Dharmakirti further strengthens the argument that they are not the same person.
• "Ahrika" and "Patrasvamin" connection: The article also notes that Jinendrabuddhi, in his commentary on Dignaga's Pramana-samuccaya, mentions a teacher named "Ahrika" whose verses, when restored from Tibetan, are identical to those found in Tattvasangraha and Kamalashila's commentary, which discuss Patrakesari. This suggests that Patrasvamin (and therefore Patrakesari) might have also been known as "Ahrika." The author speculates that "Ahrika" might have been a derogatory nickname given by rival philosophical schools (possibly Buddhist schools or even Digambara Jains referring to other Jain schools) to Patrasvamin/Patrakesari, meaning "shameless."

Conclusion:

Based on the lack of direct evidence in Vidyananda's writings, the questionable nature of manuscript notes, and the historical and textual evidence suggesting distinct individuals with different periods of activity, H. R. Rangaswami Iyengar concludes that Patrakesari is not identical with Vidyananda, the author of Slokavartika. He asserts that Vidyananda was a later scholar who engaged with and commented upon the philosophical contributions of earlier figures like Patrakesari.