A critical study of Ānandajñāna’s Tarkasaṅgraha
by Satyan Sharma | 2022 | 96,182 words
This page relates ‘refutation of Samanya’ of the study on the Tarkasangraha by Anandajnana (also, Anandagiri), a Sanskrit text from the 12th century which, supporting Advaita Vedanta, refutes the Vaisheshika branch—both schools of orthodox Hindu philosophy. This essay advocates for detachment from logic, aligning with the Advaita Vedantic path to liberation.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Part 1.1 - The refutation of Sāmānya
[Full title: Primary Refutations (1) Sāmānya]
As indicated by T. M. Tripathi, after the refutation of śabda, some part of the manuscript is missing. This is further evident from the fact that the refutation of sāmānya which is available in the text begins with the refutation of one particular meaning of the 'anekasamavetatvam' (residing in multiple entities through samavāya), which is a part of a lakṣaṇa of sāmānya.[1] It is hence inferred that before the available portion of this part, Ānandajñāna seems to have refuted the words 'nitya' and one particular interpretation of 'anekasamavetatvam'.[2]
The lakṣaṇa of sāmānya which has been refuted here seems to be; the cause of the knowledge of genericity, which is one, eternal and resides in multiple entities through samavāya, resides everywhere.[3]
The refutation is as follows.
Refutation of 'anekasamaveta'.—Ānandajñāna takes one interpretation of 'anekasamavetatva' ('being inherent in multiple entities'), which is 'being inherent in that which is specified by anekatva saṅkhyā'.[4] Saṅkhyā being a guṇa, is said to reside in dravyas only. So there would be no room for the jātis like guṇatva and so forth.[5] Also, in the absence of saṅkhyā, there can be no svarūpabheda in them, as is in the case of ākāśa and so forth.[6]
Refutation of 'svaviṣayasarvagatatva'.—Sāmānya is taken to be residing in all of its viṣayas (substrata). Ānandajñāna says that not only sāmānya, but guṇas like rūpa and so forth also reside in the whole of their dravyas.[7]
Refutation of 'anuvṛttabuddhinimittatva'.—Sāmānya is taken to be the nimitta (cause) of the knowledge of anuvṛtti (genericity). Ānandajñāna says that adṛṣṭa and so forth, also being categorised as nimitta causes, would become nimittas of anuvṛttabuddhi, and adds that uniqueness has been refuted.[8]
Refutation of the idea that sattva is sāmānya alone.—It cannot be strictly said that sattva is sāmānya alone, which is, it is only anuvṛtta (generic) in entities, because although it is anuvṛtta in the former three padārthas namely, dravya, guṇa and karman, it is vyāvṛtta (excluded) from the latter three padārthas namely, sāmānya, viśeṣa and samavāya.[9] If sattva is sāmānya just because of anuvṛtti, then for example, in all those which are guṇavat (possessors of guṇas), just because there is anuvṛtti of dravyatva, dravyatva too would become sāmānya (instead of just one of the many sāmānyas).[10]
Refutation of the difference between sattva and viśeṣa like dravyatva and so forth.—Sāmānya like dravyatva is anuvṛtta in pṛthivī and so forth, but vyāvṛtta from guṇa and so forth.[11] Similarly, sattva is anuvṛtta in dravya and so forth (guṇa and karman), while it is vyāvṛtta from sāmānya and so forth (viśeṣa and samavāya).[12]
Refutation of the idea that sattva is known through sāmānya.—Such a distinction between sattva and sāmānya is itself not agreed upon.[13]
Refutation of singularity of sāmānya due to singularity of lakṣaṇa.—Same could be with dravya and so forth also.[14]
Refutation of omnipresence of sāmānya.—There is no pramāṇa for the omnipresence of sāmānya.[15]
Refutation of dravyatva and so forth being separate entities.—Ānandajñāna suggests that a real 'sanmātra' (that which is 'existence alone') should be accepted, which is anuvṛtta (commonly existent) in all.[16] He says that everything other than that entity, is only superimposed on it.[17] He refutes the lakṣaṇa of pṛthivītva jāti (which has dravyatva as a component in it) by stating that dravyatva has been previously refuted.[18]
Refutation of pṛthivītva jāti being different from gandhavattva.—'Being a possessor of gandha' is not a vyañjaka of pṛthivītva, because there's no niyāmaka.[19] On the basis of the absence of a cause, one cannot say that pṛthivītva is nitya, whereas gandha is anitya.[20]
Analysis.
Ānandajñāna ends this refutation by saying—
"etena abādikaṃ api prativaktavyam /
pṛthivyadhikāre ca pṛthivītvaṃ pratyuktam /"[21]
Here he has said that pṛthivītva has been refuted during the refutation of pṛthivī dravya. In the said refutation, he has already refuted pṛthivītva, the relation between gandhavattva and pṛthivītva, and also the pramāṇa (anumāna) for pṛthivītva.[22] During the refutation of the nitya and anitya division of pṛthivī, he himself claims that pṛthivītva has been refuted.[23] In fact he has refuted a lakṣaṇa of pṛthivītva jāti during the refutation of pṛthivī, which is synonymous to the one refuted here.[24] It is clear that there was no need to again start a discussion on pṛthivītva when both dravyatva and pṛthivītva have been refuted earlier.
In a metric verse before the beginning of the refutation of ap dravya, he says:
"apāmaptvaṃ na vaidharmyaṃ lakṣaṇaṃ vā prakalpate /
pṛthivītvena tulyatvāt na cānyadapi yujyate //"[25]
Here Ānandajñāna has clearly equated aptva and pṛthivītva, indicating that aptva is refutable like pṛthivītva. Hence, to again say here that in this way aptva and other such sāmānyas are to be refuted, when they already have been refuted, is unnecessary. Also, there was no need to separately refute sāmānya. Along with this, as he has cited the refutation of dravyatva during the refutation of lakṣaṇa of pṛthivītva jāti, he could have cited the same at the very outset of this refutation which could have shortened it. It can also be seen that along with dravya, guṇa has been mentioned many a time. Even after saying that in the absence of sāmānya, its types cannot be established, he still sets out to discuss about them.[26] He even begins to refute the omnipresence of sāmānya, of which there was no need, because when the dharmin is yet to be established, discussing and refuting its dharma is an avoidable route of argumentation.[27]
Ānandajñāna's suggestion about the one sanmātra, which is anuvṛtta in all entities, which are merely superimposed on it, is similar to the idea of sāmānya which he has given just before the refutation of dravya.[28] This sanmātra is basically the one Brahman.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
nityatve satyanekasamavetaṃ This is found in MM (Sāmānyaprakaraṇa, Jātinirūpaṇa), p. 126
[2]:
Citsukha mentions some: kimanekatvasaṃkhyāviśiṣṭeṣu samavetatvam anekasamavetatvam, utāśrayapratiyogikānyonyābhāvavatsamavetatvam, āhosvit svāśrayapratiyogikānyonyābhāvavatsamavetatvam -Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 487
[3]:
anuvṛttapratyayakāraṇam nityamekam sarvagatam anekasamavetam
[4]:
anekatvasaṅkhyāviśiṣṭe samavetatvam -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 121
[6]:
na khalu anekatvābhāve svarūpabhedavattvaṃ ākāśādau adarśanāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 121 The text reads 'svarūpabhedatvaṃ', which should be 'svarūpabhedavattvaṃ'.
[7]:
na ca svaviṣayasarvagatatvaṃ rūpādāvapi tulyatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 121
[8]:
na ca anuvṛttibuddhinimittatvaṃ adṛṣṭāderapi tathātvāt asādhāraṇyasya nirastatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 121 The text reads 'vyāvṛtteśca' before 'anuvṛttibuddhinimittatvaṃ', which seems to be an erroneous addition by the scribe. In the next verse, Ānandajñāna says 'nānuvṛttadhiyo heturadṛṣṭādāvapīṣṭataḥ', which implies that he did not talk about vyāvṛtti here.
[9]:
na hi sattvaṃ sāmānyameva iti niyantuṃ śakyaṃ tasya pūrvatrikeṇa anuvṛttatve'pi itaratrike vyāvṛttatvasya aviśiṣṭatvena dṛṣṭatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 121 Its vyāvṛttatva from sāmānya, viśeṣa and samavāya is implied in Padārthadharmasaṅgraha (Praśastapāda)'s Sādharmyavaidharmyaprakaraṇa, which says; 'sāmānyādīnāṃ trayāṇāṃ... asāmānyaviśeṣavattvaṃ' (Padārthadharmasaṅgraha (Praśastapāda), p. 9).
[10]:
sāmānyavatsu anuvṛttimātreṇa tanniyame guṇavatsu anuvṛttimātreṇa dravyatvasyāpi tanniyamaḥ syāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 121
[11]:
dravyatvaṃ hi guṇādibhyo vyāvartate pṛthivyādiṣu ca anuvartate -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 121
[12]:
sattvamapi sāmānyādeḥ vyāvṛttameva dravyādau anuvṛttaṃ iṣyate -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 121
[13]:
na hi pratyāyakapratyāyyabhedāt parāparasāmānyayoḥ anyonyaṃ bhinnatvaṃ tadbhedasyaiva asaṃpratipannatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 122
[14]:
[15]:
na ca aparicchinnadeśatvaṃ sāmānyasya saṅgacchate pramāṇābhāvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 122
[16]:
sarvatrānuvṛttaṃ sanmātrameva vastubhūtaṃ abhyupetavyaṃ sadvyavahārānugateḥ sārvatrikatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 122
[17]:
[18]:
[19]:
gandhavattvavyaṅgyaṃ pṛthivītvaṃ na tu tadeva iti cet na niyāmakānupalambhāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 123
[20]:
pṛthivītvasya nityatvāt itarasya ca atathātvāt na aikyaṃ iti cet na tatrāpi kāraṇābhāvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 123
[21]:
Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 123. Instead of 'abādikam', it seems that it should be 'aptvādikam' because it is a refutation of sāmānya.
[22]:
Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), pp. 27-28
[23]:
pṛthivītvasya ca nirastatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 29
[24]:
dravyatvanyūnavṛttitve sati ghaṭapaṭavṛttijātiḥ. -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 27 cf. dravyatvavyāpyatve sati ghaṭapaṭavṛttiḥ jātiḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 122
[25]:
Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 36
[26]:
na hi sāmānyābhāve parāparabhāvena dvaividhyaṃ sidhyati -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p.121
[27]:
na ca aparicchinnadeśatvaṃ sāmānyasya saṅgacchate -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 122