Apropos Of Lindtners Two New Works Of Dharmakirti

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, focusing on the academic discussion regarding Dharmakirti's works:

The paper, "Apropos Of Lindtner's Two New Works Of Dharmakirti" by Ernst Steinkellner (1987), critically examines the findings of Christian Lindtner concerning previously untraced quotations from the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti. Lindtner's research suggests the existence of two new, now lost, works by Dharmakirti: the Tattvaniṣkarṣa and the Laukikapramāṇaparīkṣā. Steinkellner's paper primarily focuses on the latter, questioning Lindtner's attribution and interpretation.

Key Points and Arguments:

• Lindtner's Thesis: Lindtner identified quotations from Dharmakirti in later philosophical texts (like Bhavya's Madhyamakaratanapradipa, Śāntarakṣita's Tattvasiddhi, and Jñānaśrīmitra's works) that could not be found in Dharmakirti's extant treatises. He proposed these came from two new works: Tattvaniṣkarṣa (based on its mention in Madhyamakaratanapradipa and Sakārasiddhiśāstra) and Laukikapramāṇaparīkṣā (based on its mention in Tattvasiddhi).
• Steinkellner's Focus on Laukikapramāṇaparīkṣā: Steinkellner expresses interest in the broader implication of Lindtner's findings – that Dharmakirti's philosophical output might have been more extensive than currently preserved. However, he concentrates on dissecting the evidence for Laukikapramāṇaparīkṣā.
• The Fragment in Śāntarakṣita's Tattvasiddhi: Lindtner found a fragment and the title Laukikapramāṇaparīkṣā within Śāntarakṣita's Tattvasiddhi. He interpreted a specific passage in the Tibetan translation as a direct quotation from this new work.
• Critique of Lindtner's Interpretation of the Tibetan Translation:
  • Absence of "iti": Steinkellner argues that the absence of a Tibetan word translating "iti" (a common marker for quotations) at the end of the passage is not a decisive factor. He suggests that translators might have omitted it, or the original text might not have had it, or they might have considered the passage a paraphrase rather than a literal quote.
  • Frame of the Quotation: He proposes an alternative interpretation of the introductory phrase. Instead of seeing "Laukikapramāṇaparīkṣāyām" as strictly the title of a work, he suggests it might be the first word of a statement, functioning as a systematic frame for the following discussion: "an examination of worldly valid cognitions."
  • Dharmakirti's Terminology: Steinkellner highlights that Dharmakirti distinguished between empirical (samvyavahārika) and transcendental (paramārthika) cognition. He questions why Dharmakirti would use the term laukikapramāṇa if he could have used samvyavahārika. He suggests that laukikapramāṇa might have been a term used by Śāntarakṣita himself, synonymously but with a potentially different nuance intended by Dharmakirti.
• Alternative Interpretation: Śāntarakṣita's Paraphrase: Steinkellner proposes that the entire passage, including the fragment and the phrase "Laukikapramāṇaparīkṣāyām," might not be a direct quotation from a lost Dharmakirti work but rather a paraphrase formulated by Śāntarakṣita himself, summarizing Dharmakirti's and Dignāga's positions. In this view, the final "iti" could be a concluding marker or a scribe's addition, explaining its absence in the Tibetan translation.
• Significance of "iti": Steinkellner points out that many prose quotations in the Tattvasiddhi do not end with "iti," reducing its significance as a sole indicator of a direct quotation.
• Thematic Cohesion: If treated as a quotation, the theme aligns with other materials potentially attributable to the Tattvaniṣkarṣa. If it's a paraphrase, then its sources in Dharmakirti and Dignāga need to be identified in detail.
• Textual Analysis and Emendations: Steinkellner expresses his belief that Lindtner's edition and interpretation of the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts can be improved. He details his use of various manuscripts and editions and suggests emendations to the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts and their translations, often differing from Lindtner's proposals.
• Focus on "Distinct Appearance" (spaṣṭābha): A significant part of Steinkellner's analysis concerns the concept of "distinct appearance" in cognition, particularly how it relates to conceptual construction and perception. He connects the passage to Dharmakirti's arguments in the Pramāṇaviniścaya and Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya, suggesting Śāntarakṣita might be equating Dignāga's concept of perception (pratyakṣa) with Dharmakirti's idea of distinct appearance.

In essence, Steinkellner's paper acts as a scholarly critique of Lindtner's assertion of a new Dharmakirti work, Laukikapramāṇaparīkṣā. While acknowledging the importance of finding untraced quotations, he offers a more nuanced interpretation of the evidence, leaning towards the possibility that the passage in Tattvasiddhi is a skillful paraphrase by Śāntarakṣita rather than a direct quote from a lost text. His detailed textual analysis and suggestions for alternative readings highlight the complexities involved in reconstructing lost Buddhist philosophical traditions.