The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

140 - Other Views on the Philosophical Systems
The professor’s further point of criticism is in regard to the omission
of all references to Mahāyāna. Here is the professor’s position:–
‘Śāttaṉār in his exposition of Buddhism nowhere, as you say, refers to
Mahāyānistic ideas. It may, therefore, be assumed that in his time the
Mahāyāna was not yet in existence, and accordingly Śāttaṉār must be
earlier than Nāgārjuna; but this conclusion can easily be shown to be
wrong. For Śāttaṉār refers to Akṣapāda and Nyāya, and as in the
Nyāyasūtra, the Śūnyavāda is discussed and refuted, there can be no
doubt that in Śāttaṉār’s time, the Mahāyāna was already established
long since.’
In this point again, I am sorry that the professor’s argument
overshoots the mark. There is no reference to Mahāyāna in the
exposition of Buddhism in the Maṇimēkhalai, and the conclusion
cannot be that Śāttaṉār did not know the Mahāyāna either to accept it
as an orthodox system, or to condemn it as a heretical system. That
may be due to Śāttaṉār being anterior to Nāgārjuna and therefore of
Śūnyavāda, or of his not knowing it, the teaching not having had
sufficient time to have become well known, and reach the Tamil
country. The latter is the view that I have taken, and not exactly the
former, guided here again by the governing historical considerations.
The learned professor, on the contrary, bases himself on the position
that the teaching of Akṣapāda [102] and the Nyāyasūtra are identical
in every particular.
In regard to the Śūnyavāda that is discussed and refuted there again,
there is not that agreement in regard to what exactly the teachings of
Akṣapāda were and what additions were made to the Nyāyasūtras
since the time of Akṣapāda. This would mean that the discussion of
the Śūnyavāda must be proved to be in part ascribable to Akṣapāda, as