Ramkrishna Bhattacharya
ABSTRACT
‘The Duologue of King/Governor Pāyāsi’ (“Long Discourses”) has long been
recognised as a source for the proto-materialism current at the time of the
Buddha. What needs to be stressed is the significance of the text as a pointer
to the development of Logic in India. Perception (observation and experiment
employing the joint method of agreement and difference), which is an accepted
method of experimental enquiry, and reasoning from analogy, which can lead at
best to a probable conclusion – these two are the only means employed to settle
the dispute concerning the existence of the other-world. The Jain version of
the same duologue-cum-parable, though varying in minor detailsregarding the
name and identity of the monk refuting the king/governor, contains the same
contrast, namely, perception versus analogical reasoning. There can be little
doubt that the original parable was conceived with a view to asserting the
existence of the other-world. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (sixth century BCE), an
earlier Brahmanical text, however, instead of argument by analogy, verbal
testimony (śabda) was invoked to settle the same point. Naciketas is assailed
by doubt about the existence of a person after his or her death. The authority
of Yama, the Pluto of Indian mythology, is invoked to convince him that the
other-world does exist. Thus, the three parables taken together exhibit three
means of knowledge in operation: verbal testimony and argument by analogy
pitted against perception.
In the sixth/fifth century BCE, India
was inundated by several new doctrines and strange ideas, unheard-of before.
They were proposed and, in turn, challenged by opposite ideas, each one
claiming to refute the doctrines of others. We hear of no fewer than sixty-two
itinerant philosophers, belonging to different strata of life, moving from one
place to another throughout the length and breadth of North India. They are
accompanied by a sizeable number of disciples. Six names are often mentioned in
Buddhist (Pali and Sanskrit) and Jain (Prakrit and Sanskrit) works. Of them
Erich Frauwallner has taken Purana Kassapa (Pūraṇa Kāśyapa in Sanskrit), Ajita
Kesakambala (Keśakambalin in Sanskrit), and Kakuda Kaccāyana (Kātyāyana in Sanskrit)
as representatives of the ‘oldest materialist doctrine’ (Frauwallner, 1971, pp.
219-221). But, even before mentioning the doctrines of these three, Frauwallner
projects King Pāyāsi (Paesi in Prakrit) as ‘the first materialist’(Frauwallner,
1971, p. 216). It is not clear whether he regards Paesi as younger or elder
than these itinerant preachers. However, he proposes Paesi to be ‘an old Indian
Materialist on the King’s throne,’ and adds in the very next sentence: ‘And Paesi
was certainly not the only one of his kind’ (Frauwallner, 1971, pp. 218- 19).
Frauwallner treats Purana, Ajita, and Kakuda as materialists because ‘the three
are unanimous in the fact that they deny continuance after death and the moral
consequences arising therefrom, and are, in this sense, genuine materialistic
doctrines’(Frauwallner, 1971, pp. 220-21). It is difficult to agree with this
view. The text of the ‘Discourse on the Fruits of Being a Monk’ (‘Sāmāñña-phala-sutta’)
in the “Long Discourses” (Dīghanikāya) reveals that among the three only
Ajita has the claim to be a materialist (to be more exact, a
proto-materialist), and the other two, Purana and Kakuda, are basically immaterialists.
However, it will be improper to
identify even Ajita or any one of the itinerant gurus as a full-fledged
materialist, for the expositions of their respective doctrines made by all the
six preachers are too brief to be considered an adequate description of their
worldviews. Frauwallner himself notes: ‘But however interesting and
characteristic such accounts are, they can rarely claim a place of the same
kind in a history of Indian philosophy. Materialism gains for it an importance
from the moment only when it emerged in the form of a regular doctrine
and took up arms against the remaining philosophical schools’ (Frauwallner,
1971, p. 221).
The genesis of materialism in India
can be traced in, besides the Upaniṣads, some tales found in both Buddhist and
Jain works. One such tale, the duologue between King/Governor Pāyāsi and a Buddhist
or a Jain monk, has often been cited as an instance of materialism.[i] The tale,
found both in Buddhist and Jain sources,[ii] however,
merely testifies to the prevalence of a non-conformist attitude that denied the
idea of the immortal soul surviving after the death of the body in which it
previously resided. That is all that is to be found in the Pāyāsi duologue. The
legend was presumably composed with a definite view of discrediting those
heretics who refused to believe in the existence of the other-world (paraloka),
and hence in the immortality of the soul. This task of converting or defeating
such a non-believer is accomplished by a Buddhist monk in the Pali Pāyāsi
duologue, and by a Jain monk in the two Prakrit versions of the same legend. A
duologue between the king and a Buddhist or a Jain monk is a well-known and oft-used
narrative device encountered in many later works.[iii]
Pāyāsi is represented as a
non-believer in the existence of the other-world, rebirth, and reward and
recrimination of one’s deeds after death, the three axioms of the Buddha’s
philosophy as recorded in the canonical Discourses. His assertion, ‘Neither is
there any other-world, nor are there beings reborn otherwise than from parents,
nor is there fruit of deeds, well done or ill done’ (natthi paro loko,
natthisattā opapātikā, natthisukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko),[iv] is quoted and
re-quoted in other Buddhist canonical texts, although his name is not
mentioned.[v] A distinction
is made between the affirmativist doctrine (atthikavāda) and the
negativist doctrine (natthikavāda) on the basis of the existence and
non-existence of the other-world.[vi]
It forms the essence of Ajita
Kesakambala’s doctrine of annihilation (ucchedavāda), the first known
formulation of the proto-materialist doctrine in India.[vii] Ajita’s
exposition of his ‘worldview’ is more elaborate than Pāyāsi’s, but the essence
of their teachings is similar, if not the same, in all respects.
Pāyāsi states his conclusion on the
basis of his own observations and experiments, whereas the Buddhist monk offers
a series of analogues, and we are told that by means of the argument by
analogy he succeeds in converting the king to a faithful believer in
after-life, rebirth, and the consequence of one’s deeds.
Here we have not only the conflict
between a non-believer and a believer (not however on the existence of god or
gods, but on that of the other-world) but also one of the earliest instances of
the inductive method in settling a dispute: actual observation and experiment
on the one side, and use of analogy on the other. Not in this duologue alone,
but in all the dialogues found in other works, the contraposition of sense
perception and argument by analogy is a notable feature in the early history of
Indian logic.
Dasgupta (1975, pp. 32-33) observes
that the Cārvākas – presumably meaning materialists of all sorts before and
after the eighth century BCE – admitted perception alone as the valid source of
knowledge; the Buddhist and the Vaiśeṣika admitted two, perception and
inference; Sāṃkhya added śabda (verbal testimony) as the third source; and
Nyāya the fourth, upamāna (comparison). This kind of statement found in
earlier sources (see ibidem) is but the enumeration of the means of
knowledge admitted by different systems of philosophy arranged in ascending
order, not in a chronological order attested by evidence. However, besides
comparison, there are no fewer than twenty four different analogues in the
Nyāya tradition (for a brief summary of these see Vidyabhusana, 1988, pp. 67 et
seq.) which qua argument are not valid, and hence regarded as
‘futile rejoinder’ (jāti) in the Nyāya tradition.[viii]
The point to be remembered is that, long
before such analogues were identified, named and included in books of Logic,
these were already current in practice. Any simile or metaphor carries within
it the rudiments of logic, in so far as comparison is meant to establish a
point in recognizing a particular aspect, common to the object of comparison (upameya)
and the otherwise dissimilar object that has been brought from outside (upamāna)
on the basis of a common point of resemblance (sādhāraṇa dharma). A
parable is but an extended simile, didactic and elucidative in nature. Such
parables are abundantly found in the whole of Vedic literature as also in the
sacred books of the Buddhists and the Jains (Gonda, 1949, pp.4-92). As Gonda
observes:
I have made a simile for you that you may understand what I mean, by means of a simile many a wise man understands the meaning of the argumentation are sayings of the Buddha…. [V]ery often these Buddhist similes are broadly elaborated and made into real parables, told in a lively and illustrative way and more than once couched in the form of dialogue. (Gonda, 1949, p. 90, emphasis added)
The ‘Pāyāsi suttanta’ is the most
appropriate instance of such a parable ‘couched in the form of dialogue’. It is
not the account of an actual argument that took place between a king/governor
and a Buddhist Master, but only an imaginary tale with a view to driving home
an article of faith of Buddhism, namely, the existence of the other-world.
In this parable Pāyāsi is posited as
a heartless and unscrupulous ruler, capable of performing diabolical
experiments in order to locate the so-called soul. One of the experiments he
undertook was to weigh a felon and then have him strangled with a bow string
and weigh him again. The purpose was to see whether there was any difference in
the weight of the body. Jayatilleke (1980, p. 105) and echoing his words Franco
and Preisendanz (1998, p. 179) refer to such experiments as ‘gruesome’, as if
such an experiment was ever actually performed. In a recent article Franco
(2011, p. 634) has refrained from using any such qualifier. Refusal to
discriminate between a fictitious narrative and an actual event, or rather
considering every fictive account to be an unimpeachable fact, is a common
blunder that both the wise and the naïve often fall prey to. Jayatilleke,
anticipated by Jacobi (1970, p. 770), himself says that “the teachings ascribed
to [Yājñavalkya] in different places in the Upaniṣads do not seem to be of a
piece, consistent with each other.…The probable explanation for this is that
several incompatible doctrines were put in the mouth of an outstanding teacher
[viz., Yājñavalkya]” (Jayatilleke, 1980, p. 40).[ix] Why then an
exception is to be made in case of Pāyāsi is not clear. The intention of the
authors of this parable in Pali and Prakrit was to portray Pāyāsi in a bad light,
which is why he is made to appear as a ruthless ruler, his motto being fiat experimentum,
‘Let the experiment be made’ (in Bacon’s words), totally a-moral and
unscrupulous.
The fact of the matter is that all
these were mere ‘thought experiments,’ Gedanken experiments, as Albert
Einstein used to call them, that is, experiments conceived in thought only,
never carried out actually. The so-called ‘gruesome experiments’ of Pāyāsi were
similarly imagined, or rather conjured up, by the author of the legend solely
to denigrate the king/governor. It is also worth noting that neither the
Buddhist monk Kassapa nor the Jain monk Kesi criticizes or censures Pāyāsi or
Paesi for undertaking such cruel experiments, nor does either of them challenge
the validity of their protocols. Kassapa himself suggests such ‘thought
experiments,’ hypothetical situations and events (Cārvāka/Lokāya, 1990,
sections 9-28, pp. 13-29). Not being able to offer the results of any
counterexperiments (actual or mental) conducted by himself, Kassapa has to
resort to analogical reasoning. He uses the word upamā (comparison, also
meaning simile and parable) and claims that by ‘by a simile some intelligent
persons will recognize the meaning of what is said’ (Cārvāka/Lokāya,
1990, p. 14 et seq.). The Buddha in the Discourses is also made to utter
these very words (see Gonda, 1949, p. 90, quoted above). Now, all arguments by
analogy can at best be probable, as any college textbook of logic would say. Of
course, some arguments or inferences by analogy are rigorous, some
non-rigorous, and some downright false (Germanova, 1989, pp. 205-08). The
analogues in the two parables belong to the third category. Yet, they prove to
be (to be exact, are told to be) more effective than empirical observations and
experiments applying the joint method of agreement and difference; Pāyāsi
decides to accept the analogical arguments and jettisons the results he had
previously obtained by empirical investigation. He is made to declare that he
was pleased with Master Kassapa’s very first simile; he was in fact charmed by
it. But just because he wished to hear more of the Master’s ready wit, he
continued to argue (Cārvāka/Lokāya, 1990, p. 29). Perception (pratyakṣa),
the Nyāya philosophers affirm unanimously, is the eldest of all instruments of cognition
(pramāṇa-jyeṣṭha). In this parable, however, analogical reasoning is made
to appear superior to perception.
More interesting is the way in which
the controversy is conducted. Pāyāsi is made to adhere strictly to perceptible
evidence, and the Buddhist monk sticks to argument by analogy. Since rebirth
and karmic retribution are two pillars of both Jain and Buddhist faiths, their
opposition to any form of protomaterialism is understandable.[x]
What is striking is the resort to analogical reasoning which was not admitted
as an instrument of cognition in later Buddhist logic. In spite of their subtle
differences, the four main Buddhist philosophical schools (Yogācāra,
Madhyamaka, Sautrāntika, and Vaibhāṣika) were unanimous in admitting only two
instruments of cognition, namely, perception and inference, and nothing else
(such as, comparison, verbal testimony, etc.). Yet in their rebuttal to the
proto-materialist dependence on perception alone, the redactor/s of the Pāyāsi
legend opted for argument by analogy, as exemplified in both the Pali and
Prakrit versions. The common origin of the story manufactured to denounce the
negativists is apparent in the use of analogues by the early redactor/s.
An earlier and parallel instance of
fabricating a story with a view to disparaging the disbelievers in the
other-world, that is, a parable, is first noticed in the Brahmanical tradition.
The Kaṭha Upaniṣad (sixth century BCE) is the Brahmanical version of the
Pāyāsi duologues. Admittedly there are several differences: the chief of which
is that, instead of a Buddhist or a Jain monk, Yama, the Pluto of Indian
mythology, and Naciketas, a young doubter (though not a denier) of the
after-world, are made to face each other in this Upaniṣad. Second, there
is no argument; Yama acts as the guru and Naciketas, the disciple. However,
word (śabda) or verbal testimony takes the place of analogy in the Kaṭha
Upaniṣad: Yama is projected as the authority (āpta) and it is his
assurance alone that convinces Naciketas that the other-world does exist. Who
but the Lord of the Land of the Dead could be a better authority to speak on
what happens to a human after his/her death? Whatever doubt (vicikitsā)
the young Brahmana boy had (Eighteen Principal Upaniṣads, 1958, Kaṭha
1.1.20) was dispelled by him for good. But in order to make his expertise
established in the mind of the listener/reader, an elaborate story starting
with a sacrifice (yajña) is introduced; Naciketas is brought step by step
in the presence of Yama. Yama is shown to be extremely reluctant to part with
‘the secret knowledge’ he carried within himself. Even the gods, he says, are
not conversant with what happened after the death of a person (Eighteen Principal
Upaniṣads, 1958, Kaṭha 1.1.21). Thus, without resorting to any argument by
analogy, Yama imparts to Naciketas the ultimate affirmativist (āstika) view –
not of any god or idea, but of the other-world.
In spite of all this, the point to be
noted is that the refusal to accept the continuance of the extra-corporeal soul
has been, from the outset, the hallmark of materialist thinking in India.[xi] It is found in a Brahmanical sacred book as well as
in the Buddhist and Jain canonical or paracanonical works.
Thus the believers in the
other-world, whether a Vedist, a Buddhist or a Jain, combat the negativist (nāstika)
view either with the help of argument by analogy or by producing the testimony
of an authoritative person. The King/Governor called Pāyāsi is as much
imaginary as Yama and Yājñavalkya in the Upaniṣads; Master Kassapa and Kesi too
are equally fictive characters like Naciketas and his father. Together they are
brought to perform only one task: defeat any sceptic or non-believer in the
actual existence of heaven and hell.
Some are of the opinion that Pāyāsi’s
experiments reveal Greek influence. Balcerowicz has convincingly shown that
experiment was as much a part of the Indian tradition as of the Greek.[xii]
He has referred to Uddālaka Āruṇi’s experiments as stated in the Chāndogya
Upaniṣad (Eighteen Principal Upaniṣads, 1958, 6.12.1-2, 13.1-2) in
support of this view. One interesting point is that, while speaking about
arche, Uddālaka too resorts to analogy: the fig fruit and its seeds (Eighteen
Principal Upaniṣads, 1958, Chāndogya 6.12.1-3). Argument by analogy is
known in the Upaniṣadic times, but in the case of the Kaṭha Upaniṣad,
verbal testimony has been considered a better form of argument than analogical
reasoning.
[i] SeeFrauwallner (1971, p. 216).
Apparently Frauwallner (and those who follow him in this regard) took it to be a
real-life account. It is a glaring example of mistaking fiction for fact. There
is no evidence of the existence of a
king or governor called Pāyāsi, who had conducted some experiments to find out
the nature of the soul. Moreover, the narrative highlights only one aspect of
materialist thought, namely, denial of the existence of any immortal soul, and
hence of the doctrine of karma and its consequence, rebirth. The most
significant aspect of any philosophical system in India is epistemology, more
particularly the instrument/s of cognition (pramāṇa) a system admits.
Nothing is stated directly regarding this vital issue in any of the canonical
works contained in The Three Baskets (Tipitaka), although the
duologue of Pāyāsi implies that only ocular proof or perception (pratyakṣa)
is what Pāyāsi was prepared to accept. Therefore, it will not be justified to
treat the Pāyāsi legend as a true exposition of the materialist doctrine as a
whole. Frauwallner (1971, p. 221) – quoted below – too admits this.
[ii] Although the names and hence the
characters in the narratives in the ‘The Discourse of King/Governor Pāyāsi’
(‘Pāyāsi(rājañña)-suttanta’) in The Long Discourses (Dīghanikāya) and
the two Jain secular works, Dialogue of King Prasenajit (Rāyapasenaijja) and
Haribhadra’s Story of Samarāditya (Samarāiccakahā), vary widely,
yet the original story (now lost) from which all the three seem to have been
derived must have been the same. Tucci (1971, p. 389) rightly observes: “The
analogies which the Pāyāsisuttanta shows to have with the Jaina Rāyapaseṇiya
and some passages of Samarāiccakahā cannot be explained as mutual borrowings
but, rather, as various derivations from real doctrines followed in ancient
times.
[iii] We may think of such works as
Āryaśūra’s The Garland of Birth Stories (Jātakamālā), Somadeva’s long poem
dealing with various religious and philosophical issues from the Jain point of
view (Yaśastilaka-campū), and the Jain scholar Hemacandra’s Lives
of Sixty-Three Eminent Persons (Triṣaṣṭi-Śalākā-Puruṣa-Carita). The
same device is found even earlier in Saṅghadāsagaṇi (sixth/seventh century
CE)’s The Wanderings of Vasudeva (Vasudevahiṃḍī). For further details
see Bhattacharya (2009, pp. 102-09).
[iv] 4 Dīghanikāya 2:10.1.2
p.23.6.
[v] 5 See, for instance, ‘Apaṇṇakasuttaṃ’
10.1.3,4, (Majjimanikāya, Part 2, pp. 78-79); ‘Sandakasuttaṃ’ 26.1.3.12-23,
(Majjimanikāya, p. 213).
[vi] 6 ‘Sandakasuttaṃ’,
Majjimanikāya, p. 213) cf. also sace kho natthi paro loko evam ayaṃ,
sace kho atthi paro loko evam ayaṃ. ‘Apaṇṇakasuttaṃ’, (Majjimanikāya,
2.10.1.4, 14-15, pp.79-80).
[vii] Ajita explained his ‘worldview’ to
king Ajātasattu as follows:
“O King, there is no (consequence
to) alms-giving, sacrifice or oblation. A good or bad action produces no result.
This world does not exist, nor does the other world. There is no mother, no
father. There is no rebirth of beings after death. In this world, there are no samanas
[Śramaṇas] or brāhmaṇas established in the Noble Path and accomplished
in good practice, who, through direct knowledge (i.e., magga insight) acquired
by their own efforts, can expound on this world and the other world. This being
is but a compound of the four great primary elements; after death, the
earth-element (or element of extension) returns and goes back to the body of
the earth, the water-element (or element of cohesion) returns and goes back to
the body of water, the fire-element (or element of thermal energy) returns and
goes back to the body of fire, and the air-element (or element of motion) returns
and goes back to the body of air, while the mental faculties pass on into
space. The four pall-bearers and the bier (constituting the fifth) carry the
corpse. The remains of the dead can be seen up to the cemetery where bare bones
lie graying like the colour of the pigeons. All almsgiving ends in ashes. Fools
prescribe alms-giving; and some assert that there is such a thing as merit in alms-giving;
but their words are empty, false and nonsensical. Both the fool and the wise
are annihilated and destroyed after death and dissolution of their bodies.
Nothing exists after death”. (‘Discourse on the Fruits of Being a Monk’,
‘Sāmañña-phala-sutta’, 2.4.21-23, Dīghanikāya, 1: p. 48-49; Ten
Suttas from Dīgha Nikāya, 1987, p.83, translation modified). Cf.
Pāyāsi’s words quoted above.
[viii] 8 Nyāyasūtra Va 1-3 in
Ruben (1928, pp. 129-31); 5.1.1-3 in Gangopadhyaya (1982, pp. 375-78).
[ix] Jayatilleke (1980, p. 40). The way
some eminent scholars (not to speak of the devotees) speak of the gods and seers
and kings, in short, the dramatis personae in the sacred books of any religion,
inevitably reminds me of what has been said of J. J. Bachofen (1815-87), author
of Das Mutterecht (1851): “This new but absolutely correct interpretation of
the Oresteia is one of the best and most beautiful passages in the whole book.
But it shows at the same time that Bachofen himself believes in the Erinyes,
Apollo and Athena at least as much as Aeschylus did in his day; he, in fact,
believes that in the Heroic Age of Greece they performed the miracle of
overthrowing mother right and replacing it by father right. Clearly such a
conception – which regards religion as the decisive lever in world history –
must finally end in sheer mysticism” (Engels, n. d., p. 15).
[x] For the views of later Buddhist
philosophers in relation to the other-world and its deniers, see, e.g., Dharmakīrti
and Prajñākaragupta (1953, pp. 52-67). For a general survey of the pramāṇavādin
tradition of ‘proving the existence of the other-world’ (paralokasādhana or
-siddhi) directed to the refutation of materialist philosophy, see Namai (1991,
pp. 227-41).
[xi] It is interesting to note that
Dante places Epicurus, not in the first circle of Hell to which many
Pre-Socratics (some of whom were proto-materialists) are assigned (Alighieri,
n. d., Inferno canto 4), but to the sixth circle, along with similar
sinners, ‘who make the soul die with the body’ (Alighieri, n. d., Inferno
10.13-14). Thus the denial of the immortality of the soul is as much an
essential part of proto-materialism (a heresy) in non-Indian cultures as in the
Indian.
[xii] 12 For details see Balcerowicz
(2005), pp. 575-76.
References
ALIGHIERI, D. “The Divine Comedy.
Carlyle-Wicksteed translation”. New York: Vintage Books, n. d.
BALCEROWICZ, P. “Monks, Monarchs
and Materialists. Review of Bollée, W. The Story of Paesi (Paesi-kahaṇayaṁ).
Soul and Body in Ancient India. A Dialogue on Materialism. Text,
Translation, Notes and Glossary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002”. Journal
of Indian Philosophy, 33, pp. 571-582, 2005.
BHATTACHARYA, R. “Pre-Cārvāka
Materialism in Vasudevahiṃḍī”. Jain Journal, 43.3, pp. 102-09, 2009.
“Cārvāka/Lokāyata”. Eds. D.
Chattopadhyaya and M. K. Gangopadhyaya. New Delhi: Indian Council of
Philosophical Research, 1990.
DASGUPTA, S. “A History of Indian
Philosophy. Vol. 1” (1922). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1975.
“Dīghanikāya, The”. General Editor
Bhikkhu J. Kashyap. Patna: Pali Publication Board, 1958. (contains Brahmajāla
Sutta, and Pāyāsirājañña-suttanta)
“Eighteen Principal Upaniṣads”.
Eds. V. P. Limaye and R. D. Vadekar. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, 1958.
(Contains Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya, Kaṭha Upaniṣads)
ENGELS, F. “The Origin of the
Family, Private Property and the State”. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, n. d.
FRANCO E. “Lokāyata”. In: Brill
Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Vol. IX. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011.
(also available online-www.brill.nl).
FRANCO, E., PREISENDANZ, K.
“Materialism, Indian School of. Edward Craig (general editor)”. In: Routledge
Enclopedia of philosophy. Vol. 6. London: Routledge, 1998.
FRAUWALLNER, E. “History of Indian
Philosophy, Vol. 2”. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.
GANGOPADHYAYA, M. “Nyāya”.
Calcutta: Indian Studies, 1982.
GERMANOVA, A. “Logic”. Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1989.
GONDA, J. “Remarks on Similes in
Sanskrit Literature”. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1949.
JACOBI, H. “The Place of Jainism in
the Development of Indian Thought” (1922). Extracted from his “Studies in
Jainism”, 1946, pp. 61-85, reprinted in: Heraus. Bernhard Kölver “Kleine
Schriften”. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1970. pp. 765-89.
JAYATILLEKE, K. N. “Early Buddhist
Theory of Knowledge” (1963). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980.
“Majjhimanikāya, The”. Editor
Mahapandita Rahula Sankrityayana. Patna: Pali Publication Board, 1958.
NAMAI, C. M. “Two Aspects of Paralokasādhana
in Dharmakīrtian Tradition. Studies in the Buddhist Epistemological Tradition”.
Proceedings of the Second International Dharmakīrti Conference, Vienna, June
11-16, 1989. Ed. Ernst Steinkellner. Wien: Verlag Österrichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1991, pp. 227-41.
PRAJÑĀKARAGUPTA. “Pramāṇavārttikabhāṣyam
or Pramāṇavārttikālaṅkāraḥ”. Ed. Tripitakacharya Rahula
Sankrityayana. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1953.
RUBEN, W. “Die Nyāyasūtra’s”.
Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1928.
“Ten Suttas from Dīgha Nikāya”.
Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1987.
TUCCI, G. “Linee di una Storia del
Materialismo Indiano” (1923). Opera Minora. Ed. Giovanni Bargi. Parte 1.
Roma: Università di Roma, 1971.
VIDYABHUSANA, S. C. “A History of
Indian Logic” (1920). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988.
Acknowledgements: Sourav Basak, Amitava Bhattacharyya, Vandana Dasgupta, Siddhatha Datta, Sunish Kumar Deb and Krishna Del Toso.
Prof Ramkrishna Bhattacharya taught
English at Unversity of Calcutta, Kolkota and was an Emeritus Fellow of
University Grants Commission. He is now Fellow of Pavlov Institute, Kolkota
