Udayana: Personal History

The tradition of Indian philosophy is very ancient and glorious. This tradition has developed through an accumulation of various deep thoughts and views. From the ancient period of the Upanisads up to the end of nearly the sixteenth century many notable philosophers have appeared and produced a lot of philosophical literature which is invaluable. If we try to understand the development of Indian Philosophy we find that this development has taken place on the basis of systems. There is a clear distinction here from the development of western philosophy. In the western tradition generally in a particular period a particular view becomes prominent, which is explained and discussed in detail. But finally another view is propagated and the former is criticized and rejected. But in the case of Indian philosophy it is found that the philosophers born in the different ages all belong to some particular system of philosophy. Each of the philosophers belongs to only one system and explains his views strictly according to his own system and criticizes the rival theories of others.^[1] The systems of Indian philosophy are generally divided into two groups, namely, āstika, orthodox, advocating the validity of the Veda and nāstika heterodox, rejecting the validity of the Veda.^[2] The six systems, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta belong to the former and Carvaka, Bauddha and Jaina to the latter. All the philosophers flourishing in the different ages accept any one of this system and enrich the particular system by writing commentaries and independent works in which one’s own system is defended against the attack of others.Thus the system is developed with logical arguments.

Although every philosopher belongs to a particular system, still there are some philosophers who are respected by even the philosophers who belong to the rival systems. Among the names of such philosophers the name of Udayana can surely be included. Specifically he belongs to the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika system, but it is found that he is respected by many of the philosophers who are the followers of an opponent system. Some of the basic conclusions put forward by Udayana has been accepted as general principles by Indian philosophers. No doubt he has been criticized a lot, yet he has also been quoted for support.

If we consider the history of Sanskrit literature in general, we generally find that it is almost impossible to gather dependable personal information about an author of any work. We know, for example, a lot about the works of Kālidāsa, but we know nothing about his date, the country he belonged to, his education and so many other things. In the case of Udayana also not much personal information is available. According to most of the scholars Udayana was an inhabitant of Mithilā.^[3] Some think that he was born in the village Maṅroni, situated on the eastern bank of the river Kamalā, in Dārbhāṅgā. But there is no reliable evidence for this contention. A few scholars claim that he was a Vārendra Brāhmin and actually belonged to Bengal.^[4] This position also is not really supported by sufficient ground.

Some scholars again point out that there was some relation between Udayana and the father of Śrīharṣa, the well-known Advaita philosopher.^[5] Śrīharṣa’s father Śrīhīra was an honored member in the court of the king of Kānyakubja. Once Udayana came there and became engaged with him in a philosophical debate. Śrīhīra was defeated. At that time Śrīharṣa was too young and could not take revenge against Udayana. But later in his great polemical work, Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhdāya, he took up many of the views of Udayana and subjected them to strong criticism.

There are also some scholars who draw our attention to the appendix of the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa where in the thirteenth chapter the life and achievement of Udayana have been described in about one hundred verses.^[6] There he is mentioned as an inhabitant of Mithilā and equal to Gautama, the author of the Nyāyasūtra, the first propounder of the Nyāya because of his deep knowledge of the system. A legend about Udayana’s confrontation with a Buddhist is particularly mentioned there. Once Udayana started a debate with a Buddhist scholar about the existence of God. Even after a long time nobody could defeat the other and no conclusion could be reached with logical arguments. So it was decided that both of them should climb up a high palm tree nearby and jump down. The one who will remain unwounded would be declared victorious. Udayana was a theist and he jumped down with a prayer to God to save him. But the Buddhist was an atheist, did not pray to God and met his death by jumping down. Udayana was declared victorious, but it was said that he was guilty of murder. To atone for this and get rid of the sin he would have to go to Puri and ask for the mercy of lord Jagannātha. He went there and waited for three days, but lord Jagannātha did not open the door to him. So finally he committed suicide in fire. It is obvious that the value of this legend is very doubtful. It may be popular in some quarters, but there is no reliable evidence on the basis of which it may be accepted as valid. In fact, most of the scholars reject it as unfounded and unrealistic.

Most of the scholars think that there is no scope for controversy regarding the date of Udayana. Udayana was the author of a number of works. We shall presently give a brief account of them. Presenting the basic views of the Vaiśeṣika Udayana wrote a very small work, called Lakṣaṇāvalī. At the beginning of this work he himself mentions that this work was written in 906 śaka year, i.e.984 A.D. In other words, it may be concluded that the author flourished during the latter half of the tenth century. However, at least one scholar has not accepted this view, because it is against all evidences and erroneous. He argues that Udayana himself has written a commentary on the work of Praśastapāda. Another well-known commentator of the same work Śrīdhara who belonged to Bengal. He must have been a predecessor of Udayana, because some of his views are mentioned and refuted by Udayana.^[7] One of the most honoured commentators of Indian philosophy was Vācaspati Miśra. In one of his works he has mentioned the date of its composition from which it is clear that he belonged to the tenth century A.D. Vācaspati and Śrīdhara should be taken as belonging to the same period, because Śrīdhara never referred to the masterly work of Vācaspati and Śrīdhara referred to the wellknown Buddhist author Dharmottara but there is no doubt that Udayana was very much acquainted with the works of Vācaspati. He had expressed his great reverence for the commentary called Bhāmatī. In fact we know that in Nyāya Udayana wrote a commentary on Vācaspati’s Tātparyaṭīkā. Thus, if Udayana also is accepted as belonging to the tenth century, he would become a contemporary of Vācaspati, which is not at all acceptable. Rather it is to be assumed that there was a long interval between the two.

This scholar has tried to determine the time of Udayana in a different way.^[8] In his works Udayana has mentioned clearly the name of the great Buddhist scholar Jñānaśrī and refuted his views. This Buddhist scholar was when alive Dīpaṅkara Śrī Jañāna when he visited Tibet, i.e. during 1038-41A.D. Again in Nyāya Udayana’s preceptor was Śrīvatsa who approximately belonged to 1000-50 A.D. Therefore in no way Udayana can be earlier than 1050 A.D. Allowing a few years in which Udayana’s fame as a scholar spread, we cannot say that Udayana belonged to a period earlier than the twelfth century A.D. As further evidences for this conclusion, it has been pointed out that the ancient and authoritative commentator of the Naiṣadhacarita, Cāṇḍupaṇḍita clearly says that Śrīharṣa’s father was defeated by Udayana in a debate. Undoubtedly Śrīharṣa was present in the court of Govinda Chandra (1104-54A.D) and his son Vijaya Chandra who were the kings of Kānyakubja. Thus it can be inferred that most probably the debate between the two took place in 1070-80 A.D. It cannot at all be claimed that Udayana belonged to the tenth century A.D. As to the objection raised by some that in that case there arises a contradiction with the remark of Udayana himself in the Lakṣaṇāvalī, the scholar suggested that in the introductory verse of Udayana, the reading tarkāmvarāṅka should be replaced by the reading tarkāvarāṅka. If this new reading is accepted, the date of Udayana would be 976 śaka, i.e. 1054 A.D. and then there will be no problem.

Practically no information about the teacher of Udayana is available. Generally the authors of Indian philosophy mention the names of their teachers in the initial verses introducing the works. But in none of his works Udayana has followed this practice. However in his famous Nyāya commentary, the Pariśuddhi he refers to a Nyaya teacher named Śrīvatsa and quotes a passage from his work. This scholar is not mentioned in any other work, but there is definite evidence to show that Udayana was indebted to and had great reverence for Śrīvatsa. This has led some scholar to the view that in Nyāya Udayana received his training under Śrīvatsa.^[9]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Surendra Nath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, vol.i, pp.61f.

[2]:

Manusaṃhitā 2/10-11.

[3]:

S.C. Vidyabhusana, A History of Indian Logic, p.142.

[4]:

Nyāyakusumāñjali, (ed.) V.S. Siromani, intro. p.1.

[5]:

Ibid.

[6]:

Ātmatattvaviveka, intro. pp.12f.

[7]:

D.C.Bhattacharyya, Vaṅge Navyanyāyacarcā, pp.3-4.

[8]:

Ibid. pp.5-6.

[9]:

Ibid. p.2.