Sanskrit Manuscript Of Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya

This article, "The Sanskrit Manuscript of Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya," by Kazunobu Matsuda and Ernst Steinkellner, reports on the identification and preliminary analysis of a single folio fragment from a Sanskrit manuscript of Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya. This fragment was part of a larger collection of Buddhist Sanskrit manuscript fragments housed in the National Archives of Nepal in Kathmandu.

Here's a comprehensive summary:

1. Introduction and Context:

• The paper is the result of ongoing work by Kazunobu Matsuda to identify Buddhist Sanskrit manuscript fragments in Nepal.
• These fragments were initially examined by Cecil Bendall around a century prior to this publication and later by Louis de La Vallée Poussin.
• Despite previous studies, many folios remained unidentified.
• Matsuda identified a manuscript set containing a single folio from eight different original manuscripts, many written in ancient scripts (Gilgit/Bāmiyān Type II or Early Nepālī), indicating their antiquity.
• This specific paper focuses on one of these identified folios: a fragment of Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya.

2. Identification of the Fragment:

• The identified folio is a fragment of Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya, written in Early Nepālī script.
• It is identified as folio "87" on its verso side.
• This folio belongs to the latter part of the third chapter of the Pramāņaviniscaya, specifically dealing with Parārthānumāna (inference for the sake of others).
• In the Tibetan translation, this corresponds to specific folio ranges in the Peking and Sde dge editions.
• The original Sanskrit manuscript of the Pramāņaviniscaya is believed to be lost, making this fragment significant. There are rumors of a complete manuscript existing in China, but no concrete evidence is available.

3. Transcription and Textual Constitution:

• The paper provides a transcription of the Sanskrit text on the folio, prepared by Matsuda.
• Steinkellner then analyzes and constitutes the text, explaining its content and its place within Dharmakīrti's work.
• The fragment discusses the theory of hetvābhāsa (fallacious reasons).
• Specifically, it addresses Dharmakīrti's refutation of the Naiyāyika philosopher Uddyotakara's concept of kevalavyatirekin hetu (a reason valid only by its absence in dissimilar instances).
• Dharmakīrti argues against the idea that a reason can be valid solely based on its contrapositive pervasion (absence in dissimilar instances) without also having a positive pervasion (presence in similar instances).
• The text touches upon concepts like asiddha (unproved), anaikāntika (indecisive), and viruddha (contradictory) reasons.
• A key argument revolves around the inference of a self (ātman) in living beings from characteristics like having breath (prāṇādimattva). Dharmakīrti contends that if the Naiyāyika insists on the non-occurrence of "having breath etc." only in dissimilar instances (non-existence of self), it would necessitate a positive pervasion, contradicting their own doctrine.
• The fragment also includes a brief summary of Dharmakīrti's explanation of affirmation (vidhi) and negation (pratiṣedha) and addresses the Buddhist denial of an enduring self (ātman).
• The folio concludes with Dharmakīrti classifying the reason "having breath etc." as an "indecisive uncommon" (asādhāraṇānaikāntika) reason.
• The authors note that the content is presented in a highly concentrated form, drawing from more elaborate discussions in Dharmakīrti's Pramāņavārttika (PV) and other parts of the Pramāņaviniscaya (PVin).

4. Parallel Texts and Translation:

• The paper includes references to parallel passages from Dharmakīrti's Pramāņavārttika (PV IV and PVin II) to aid in understanding and confirming the text.
• A detailed English translation of the Sanskrit fragment is provided to further clarify its meaning.

5. Historical Postscript:

• In a postscript, K. Matsuda reveals that he discovered a photograph of this very folio among Cecil Bendall's collection, now housed in Göttingen.
• Crucially, the photograph had the correct attribution "Pramanaviniscaya" on its back, in what appeared to be the handwriting of de La Vallée Poussin, along with references to the Tibetan translation.
• This indicates that de La Vallée Poussin was the first to identify the folio, though his discovery remained unpublished and unknown until Matsuda's research.

Overall Significance:

This article is significant for several reasons:

• Rediscovery of Lost Text: It brings to light a fragment of a work by Dharmakīrti, a foundational figure in Buddhist epistemology and logic, whose original Sanskrit texts are often lost or fragmentary.
• Paleographical and Textual Study: It demonstrates meticulous scholarship in identifying ancient manuscript fragments and in meticulously transcribing and analyzing the Sanskrit text.
• Insight into Buddhist Philosophy: It provides a glimpse into a key debate in Indian Buddhist philosophy concerning the validity of logical inferences and the nature of the self, as presented by Dharmakīrti.
• Archival Importance: It highlights the critical importance of archival collections of ancient manuscripts for the reconstruction of lost philosophical traditions.
• Scholarly Collaboration: It exemplifies a collaborative effort between scholars to advance the understanding of Buddhist texts.