지넨드라붓디의 ‘니야야 학파의 직접지각 정의’에 대한 검증

Abstract

Nyāyasūtra 1.1.4 defines perception(pratykṣa) as ①knowledge produced from the contact of sense and object(indriyārthasannikarṣotpannaṃ jñānam), ②inexpressable(avyapadeśya), ③non-erroneous(avyabhicārin), and ④a determinate nature(vyavasāyātmaka). Dignāga, however, completely denies the definition of perception from the Nyāya school while verifying each terminology and compounds to demonstrate the contradiction in Pramāṇasamuccaya & his own Vṛtti(PSV) Ⅰ. But it is hard to find out his real intention in the context of his examination, so there is a reason that Jinendrabuddhi’s commentary(tīkā, PSṬ) is indispensable to the study on PSV. The paper translates and analyzes PSṬ Ⅰ pp. 96.3-105.7 ad. PSV Ⅰ p. 7.6-23(2.1221-2.1222113). One of the features of Jinendrabuddhi within the range of PSṬ in the paper is that, firstly, he criticizes the compound of the ② and the ③ by analyzing them with Bahuvṛīhi and Tatpuruṣa, the former makes to relate with object, while the latter makes to relate with knowledge. His conclusion is that both of the cases are unsuitable. On the ④ case, he proves that the two words, determination(vyavasāya) and nature(ātma), are incorrect in the context of the sūtra. ‘Determination’ is not only duplication of the ③, but also the term cannot be the result of perception insisted by Naiyāyika, because the result of cognition is a type of ascertainment combined with name and genus, which is expressed by words and is at odds with the ②. On the other hand, if Naiyāyika asserts ‘nature’ in the sūtra means nature of knowledge, the opinion is also part of the issue as sūtra is on the knowledge, not on the perception. This could cause the misunderstanding that there are no words in order to the definition of perception, even though the topic of the sentence is on the definition of perception. As mentioned above, Jinendrabuddhi examines Naiyāyika’s position using grammatical analysis and Buddhist traditional logic in both Nyāyabhāṣya of Vātsyāyana and Nyāyavārttika of Uddyotakara, which have criticized the PSV of Dignāga. Moreover, Jinendrabuddhi may allude to his own opinion on the term, non-erroneous(abhārata), through the Buddhist definition of direct perception(pratyakṣa) in Pramāṇaviniścaya(PVin) and Nyāyabindu(NB) of Dharmakīrti. In other words, Jinendrabuddhi’s criticism against “avyabhicārin” could apply to “abhrānta” as well even though he does not directly refer on it.