Response To Claus Obteks Paper

This document is Eli Franco's response to a paper by Claus Oetke concerning the interpretation of Dharmakirti's Pramānasiddhi chapter. Franco's primary aim is to clarify his own position and argue that Oetke misrepresents it.

Here's a breakdown of Franco's main points:

• Misrepresentation of Franco's Argument: Franco states that Oetke incorrectly claims his position relies solely on interpreting specific verses (Pramānasiddhi 1a and 5c) as referring only to necessary conditions. Franco clarifies that his core argument is whether Dharmakirti intended to define pramāṇa in general, or if he was specifically aiming to establish the Buddha as a pramāṇa. Franco argues that even if Oetke is correct about 1a and 5c referring to sufficient or necessary and sufficient conditions, it doesn't necessitate that Dharmakirti intended a general definition.

• Absence of General Definition in Other Works: Franco bolsters his hypothesis by pointing to the absence of a general definition of pramāṇa in Dharmakirti's Pramāṇaviniscaya and Nyāyabindu. He argues that if Dharmakirti intended such a definition, he would likely have repeated it in these more systematic works. Franco also notes the historical context, stating that defining pramāṇa in general only became a central issue after Dharmakirti, with Dharmottara being a key figure in this development.

• Critique of Oetke's Ahistorical Approach: Franco accuses Oetke of being ahistorical and anachronistic in his analysis, by ignoring the broader historical context and corroborative points that support Franco's hypothesis. He dismisses Oetke's explanation for Dharmakirti's supposed omission of a general definition as "mildly amusing" and insufficient.

• Disagreement on the Interpretation of "vā": Franco addresses Oetke's criticisms regarding the logical properties of the particle "vā" (or). While agreeing that the inclusive/exclusive debate is secondary to establishing whether the conditions are necessary or sufficient, Franco defends his right to examine both possibilities in his introductory remarks. He also disputes Oetke's emphasis on the distinction between connecting verbal phrases and whole sentences, arguing it's unwarranted by the grammar and that Franco's own phrasing made his interpretation clear.

• Oetke's Tone and Distortions: Franco expresses concern about Oetke's "strong words" and "sharpness of expression," suggesting they lead to unintentional but unfair distortions. He disputes Oetke's characterization of his own interpretation as "linguistically eccentric" and argues that Oetke misrepresents Lindtner's paper by criticizing points not raised by Lindtner.

• Critique of Oetke's Analogies and Interpretations: Franco rejects Oetke's analogy of the "featherless biped" Eskimo, arguing that typical characteristics can be used to identify someone even if they aren't necessary and sufficient conditions. He believes this is how Dharmakirti might have presented characteristics of pramāṇa without intending a formal definition. Franco then systematically critiques Oetke's various proposed interpretations of the Pramānasiddhi verses, finding them improbable, speculative, or not well-supported by the text or historical context. He particularly questions Oetke's attempts to derive sufficient conditions from necessary ones through implication or by connecting later verses to earlier ones in complex ways.

• Re-evaluation of Verse 5d-6d: Franco expresses doubts about the usual interpretation of verses 5d-6d, which he previously followed. He proposes an alternative reading that challenges the commentator-based division into objection and reply, suggesting the passage might be a single statement about what qualifies as a pramāṇa. He connects this to Dharmakirti's Pramānavārttika III 53-54, though he acknowledges the laconic nature of the text makes definitive interpretation difficult.

• Concluding Remarks and Agreement with Halbfass: Franco concludes by questioning Oetke's multiple, often contradictory, answers to whether Dharmakirti proposed one or two definitions. He reiterates his belief that Oetke's approach is overly focused on logical-analytical aspects, driven by modern logic's ideals rather than Dharmakirti's historical and conceptual context. He quotes W. Halbfass to support his critique, stating that Oetke's "free exploration of intellectual possibilities" prioritizes what Dharmakirti "could have or should have thought" over what he "really has thought," leading to "analytical overkill."

In essence, Franco argues that Oetke's interpretation of Dharmakirti's Pramānasiddhi is flawed due to a misunderstanding of Franco's own argument, an ahistorical approach, and a tendency to impose modern logical frameworks onto ancient Buddhist philosophy without sufficient regard for textual and historical evidence.