Marginalia To Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya I II

Here's a comprehensive summary of Christian Lindtner's "Marginalia To Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya I II" based on the provided text:

Overall Purpose and Scope:

This work by Christian Lindtner presents "marginal notes" to the first two chapters of Dharmakirti's Pramāṇaviniscaya (PVin), as edited and translated by Ernst Steinkellner and Tilmann Vetter. Lindtner's aim is to offer a modest contribution to understanding Dharmakirti's thought and the historical context of his work, approaching the subject primarily as a philologist interested in philosophical issues. He acknowledges the foundational work done by scholars like Steinkellner, Vetter, and the late Erich Frauwallner.

Methodological Approach and Intellectual Heritage:

Lindtner emphasizes the importance of historical-philological inquiry, involving linguistic interpretation, higher criticism (authenticity, dating), and hermeneutics (background, motives, meaning). He states that any philologist or philosopher engaging with Indian logic and epistemology owes a debt to the aforementioned scholars. He explicitly mentions following the methodological approach of Danish classical philologist J. N. Madvig.

Dharmakirti's Core Philosophy and Work:

• Central Task: Dharmakirti's primary concern is with samyagjñāna (valid knowledge) as a tool for successful action.
• Means of Valid Knowledge (Pramāņa): He recognizes only two valid means: pratyakṣa (perception) and anumāna (inference).
• The Nature of Objects:
  • Svalakṣaṇa (Unique Particular): Empirically perceived objects possess the power (śakti) to impress themselves clearly and directly in cognition in their unique particularity (svalakṣaṇa). This direct knowledge is free from conceptual construction (vikalpa).
  • Sāmānyalakṣaṇa (Universal Characteristic): Inferred objects are perceived indirectly through concepts, as derivatives of perception. These conceptualizations are seen as vitiated by ingrained mental impressions (vāsanā).
• Arthakriyāsāmarthya (Capacity for Action): This is presented as the ultimate criterion for the empirical reality of things. If an object cannot perform a useful action, it serves no sensible purpose.
• Relationship to Dignāga: Dharmakirti views himself as a commentator on Dignāga, inheriting his epistemological framework from Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya. Dignāga's key innovations, influenced by his Yogācāra background, are highlighted: classifying yogijñāna as pratyakṣa, distinguishing the objects of pratyakṣa and anumāna as sva- and sāmānyalakṣaṇa respectively, and not distinguishing pramāņa from pramāṇaphala (the result of cognition).
• Key Works: While Pramāṇavārttika (PV) is earlier and more detailed, Pramāṇaviniscaya (PVin) is considered Dharmakīrti's most systematic major work. Other works like Hetubindu, Vādanyāya, Sambandhaparīkṣā, and Samtānāntarasiddhi also presuppose the PVin/NB structure.

The "Idealist" Turn and its Reconciliation with Realism:

A significant focus of the text is Dharmakirti's engagement with the Yogācāra doctrine of cittamātra (consciousness-only) or vijñaptimātra (mind-only).

• Apparent Contradiction: Dharmakirti, while seemingly operating within a "realistic" pramāṇa system that presupposes external objects, later introduces the idea that there are no external objects and that "objects" are merely manifestations of mind. This creates a tension between his epistemological framework and his adherence to cittamātra.
• Difference from Vasubandhu: Lindtner contrasts Dharmakirti's approach with that of Vasubandhu, the influential Yogācāra philosopher. Vasubandhu took an "ontological approach," arguing for the unreality of external objects. Dharmakirti, on the other hand, adopted an "epistemological approach," starting with cognition and arguing that cognition is inexplicable if an absolute distinction is made between the means and the result of cognition. The "object" cannot be isolated from cognition (esse est percipi).
• Sākāravāda vs. Nirākāravāda: Dharmakirti and Dignāga are characterized as sākāravādins (advocates of form), assigning the status of paratantrasvabhāva (dependent origination) to the "object" (as a manifestation of mind). Vasubandhu is a nirākāravādin (advocate of formlessness), assigning parikalpitasvabhāva (imagined existence) to the "object." This distinction allows Dharmakirti and Dignāga to account for the "object" as a part of mind, unlike Vasubandhu who simply discards it.
• Reconciling the Two Truths: The text explores how Dharmakirti attempts to reconcile the rational realism of the Sautrāntika tradition (his starting point) with the idealism of vijñaptimātra. This is framed as a crucial problem in understanding his system.

Two Levels of Pramāņa and the Role of Bhāvanā:

Dharmakirti's response to the problem of distinguishing true from false cognition within a vijñaptimātra framework involves admitting two "levels" of pramāņa:

• Sāmvyavahārika Pramāņa (Conventional/Empirical): Correct knowledge "works" in the empirical world (saṃsāra), governed by karma. This is the everyday world where arthakriyāsāmarthya is the criterion.
• Pāramārthika Pramāņa (Ultimate/Transcendental): This represents ultimate cognition, attainable through prajñā in its three phases: śrutamayī (learned), cintāmayī (contemplative), and bhāvanāmayī (meditative). The highest form of cognition, yogijñāna, is considered pratyakṣa in this ultimate sense.
• Bhāvanā (Meditation/Cultivation): This plays a crucial role in transforming cognition. It makes things familiar and obvious, enabling clear intuition without conceptual construction. Bhāvanā is seen as the means to realize ultimate truth (tattva). Philosophical critique (yukti-cintā) is seen as ancillary to religious experience, ensuring that only "scientific facts" are presented for bhāvanā to digest.

Historical Context and Influences:

• Yogācāra Background: Dharmakirti's thought is significantly shaped by his Yogācāra background, particularly concerning the formation of his ideas.
• Contemporary Debates: His work is placed within the context of contemporary philosophical debates, including his controversies with non-Buddhist philosophers (like Kumārila) and the significant dispute between Bhavya and Dharmapāla (his purported teacher).
• Kambala: Lindtner points out specific influences and parallels with the work of Kambala, an earlier Buddhist philosopher, noting how Dharmakirti would adapt and refine Kambala's ideas, particularly concerning nirākāravāda and the nature of yogijñāna.

Textual and Philological Contributions:

The "marginalia" themselves are highly detailed and focus on specific textual issues:

• Identifying Lost Works: Lindtner proposes that several verses quoted in later commentaries but not found in Dharmakirti's extant works likely originate from a lost work called Tattvaniṣkarṣa, which appears to have discussed svasamvedana and bhāvanā.
• Verse Identification and Numbering: A significant portion of the paper is dedicated to meticulously analyzing the editions of PVin I and II by Vetter and Steinkellner. Lindtner identifies discrepancies in verse numbering, suggests corrections based on the Tibetan versions and Sanskrit fragments, and proposes reconstructions of verses that have been corrupted or lost. He highlights instances where verses appear to have been incorporated into prose or where antaraślokas (intervening verses) have been inserted, altering the original structure.
• Prose vs. Verse: He observes that translators or scribes sometimes mistakenly rendered verses into prose, or vice versa, leading to textual confusion.
• Influence of Commentaries: Lindtner suggests that Tibetan translators were sometimes influenced by later commentaries (like Dharmottara's), leading to deviations from the original Sanskrit or the intended meaning.
• Non-Buddhist Allusions: The author notes the need for future research to trace Dharmakirti's critical allusions to non-Buddhist authors, reconstructing the intellectual dialogue of his time.

Conclusion:

Lindtner's work is a scholarly exploration of Dharmakirti's epistemological system, emphasizing its historical context and the philological challenges in understanding his texts. He highlights Dharmakirti's innovative approach to reconciling Yogācāra idealism with a pragmatic epistemology, mediated by the crucial concept of bhāvanā. The paper also serves as a testament to the ongoing and meticulous work required to accurately reconstruct and interpret these foundational Buddhist philosophical texts.