Pre-Dinnaga Buddhist Texts On Logic From Chinese Sources

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

In this Volume I have collected, translated, and commented upon the texts on logic or bearing upon the history and development of Indian logic, preserved in Chinese sources and anterior to Dinnaga. Two of these texts, viz., the Upayahrdaya and the Tarkasastra, have been translated not into English but into Sanskrit, for the following reasons. First of all it has been proved that the more a text is translated into different languages, the more it is subject to alterations. Secondly these works are very technical, since they are concerned more with rules of dialectical debates, vivada than with epitemological theories. Although their bearing upon the first development of Indian logical theories is great, their theoretical interest is not so wide as that of some of later treatises like those of Dinnaga and Dharmakirti. Moreover, the contents of these two texts are such as to appeal very much to many of the Naiyayikas of modern India who are masters of Sanskrit, but very often possess a scanty knowledge of English. When we write on Indian subjects we must try, if possible, not to forget the large mass of the Indian pandits, whose deep learning I had very often the opportunity to admire, and from whose collaboration our studies might be largely benefited. As regards my translation I must say that it has not been my purpose to give any hypothetical restoration of our texts into Sanskrit. Even though the Chinese seems very often to adhere quite strictly to the original, we cannot state that it is literal in every passage. As a rule, the Chinese translators do not reproduce their text, verbatim, as the Tibetans do; they try to render the original in such a way that it becomes intelligible to Chinese readers. It is evident therefore that my Sanscrit text is nothing else than a retranslation into Sanskrit, which is perhaps often very near to the original, but which, in no way deviating from the extant Chinese texts, cannot claim to be a restoration. It is therefore needless for me to say that my Sanscrit does not pretend either to be elegant or perfectly idiomatic. My only purpose was to render as faithfully as possible the Chinese text and to be correct.

The greatest difficulty has been found in identifying the various logical terms that occur in our treatises; but a careful comparison with the extant Sanscrit sources and the Tibetan translation of some analogous passages, as in the case of the Jati-section of the Tarkasastra, has helped me very much in finding with certainty the original Sanscrit form that was the basis of the Chinese. Since these logical terms represent some of the greatest difficulties that one meets in the Buddhist philosophical texts preserved in Chinese, they have been collected and arranged in the Index I. Considering that they may be of a wider interest, inascuch as they are not concerned with mire logic, but also other two texts, viz., the Vigrahavyavartani and the Satasastra have been translated into English.

If the Vigrahavyavartani has a great bearing upon the history of Indian logic, since it embodies the criticism of Nagarjuna relating to the theory of the Pramanas, the Satasastra, though it cannot be considered as a logical work, contains some references to the Nyayasutras, the importance of which is self-evident. Therefore, I have thought it to be useful to add here the complete translation of this work, which, though already translated by me in an Italian review, has been accessible only to a few scholars. Its importance cannot be sufficiently emphasized it is useless to say that these treatises also have been translated as literally as possible, so that the scholars who are interested with this same department of research, but do not know Chinese, may have an exact idea of the original. In defect of the Sanscrit which is lost, the Chinese is the only text at our disposal.

The "Notes" were composed when the four texts had already been printed : so, they embody also the corrections and emendations to them. They should therefore be always consulted while reading the texts.

I must apologize for my English, but I hope that it will not be forgotten that this is not my own language, while owing to my continuous travelling it has been impossible for me to request some of my English friends to undergo the painstaking task of reading my writings.

Before concluding these introductory remarks I must express my gratitude to my friend Vidhusekhara Sastri, Principal of Visvabharati, whose advice was often required and to whom I am indebted for many valuable and to whom I am indebted for many valuable suggestions; to the Pandit Herambhanatha Tarkatirtha, with whom I discussed some points of the Upayahrdaya and the Tarkasastra : to Doctor Benoytosh Bhattacharya, Director of the Gaekwad Oriental Series, and Baroda Oriental Institute, who undertook the publication of this volume in the Series that he directs with the acknowledged competence and who made all possible arrangements for its printing. Nor can I forget the greatest care shown b the Baptist Mission Press, the only one in India which can undertake this job.