The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

31 - Supplement
Sadajiro Sugiura,
Satiśchandra Vidyābhūṣana. 4
3
and the [xxxiii] Tibetan translation by
The Sanskrit original has been already under print for some time for
the Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, but has not come out till now. As
Mironow 5 shows it is the original of the Tibetan translation which
Vidyābhūṣana has analysed. The agreement of the theories of logic in
the 29 th chapter of the Maṇimēkhalai with that of the Nyāyapravēśa
rises to almost complete similarity in the passage on the ‘fallacious
pakṣa, hētu, and ṣṭānta. There are found the same nine pakṣābhāsas,
fourteen hētvābhāsas and ten ṣṭāntābhāsas in the same
arrangement and almost through the same series 6 in the
Maṇimēkhalai as in the Nyāyapravēśa. Even the examples instanced
for the purposes of explanation agree in most cases in both. It is thus
established without any doubt that the author of the Maṇimēkhalai
has made use of the Nyāyapravēśa in a most evident manner.
The author of the Nyāyapravēśa is, according to the Chinese tradition
which Sugiura follows, Śaṁkarasvāmin, a pupil of Dignāga, but
according to the Tibetan tradition, which does not know
Śaṁkarasvāmin at all, it is Dignāga, hence Vidyābhūṣana also names
him as the author. But that is an error as M. Tubianski 7 has shown.
Dignāga is the author of the Nyāyadvāra (preserved in the Chinese
translation), a small and very terse work. Śaṁkarasvāmin has stated
in an extremely clear way the system of logic contained therein, in
3 Hindu Logic as preserved in China, Japan, Philadelphia, 1900,Chapter iv
4 History of the Mediæval School of Indian Logic, Calcutta, 1909, pp. 89 ff.
5 See Garbe-Festschifte, p. 38 ff
6 Thus the 3 and 4 pakṣābhāsas are transposed.