Svabhavarat Bandha Again

This article by E. Steinkellner, titled "Svabhavapratibandha Again," critically examines Matsumoto Shiro's interpretation of the crucial Buddhist logical term svabhavapratibandha. Steinkellner argues that while Matsumoto's research is a valuable attempt to understand Dharmakirti's thought, his conclusions are ultimately unconvincing and methodologically problematic.

Here's a breakdown of Steinkellner's key arguments and findings:

1. Critique of Matsumoto's Approach:

• Methodological Concerns: Steinkellner believes Matsumoto's attempt to deduce the meaning of svabhavapratibandha solely from Dharmakirti's own statements is insufficient. He emphasizes that differing interpretations within the exegetical tradition (commentaries) cannot be dismissed without a thorough explanation of the causes for these differences and their historical development.
• Challenging Matsumoto's Deductions: Steinkellner directly refutes Matsumoto's claims about the meanings of svabhavapratibandha in relation to different types of logical reasons (svabhavahetu and kary hetu).
  • He argues that svabhavapratibandha does not have two distinct meanings based on the type of reason, as Matsumoto suggests.
  • He disputes Matsumoto's analysis of the compound as a genitive tatpuruṣa (e.g., "limitation of properties") in the case of karyahetu, finding it lacking in evidence.
  • He criticizes Matsumoto's interpretation of pratibandha as solely "limitation," arguing for a meaning of "connection" or "binding."

2. Steinkellner's Proposed Interpretation:

• Core Function of Svabhavapratibandha: Steinkellner maintains that svabhavapratibandha functions as the real basis of logical necessity (necessary concomitance or avinābhāva). It signifies a relational character in reality that guarantees logical validity.
• Meaning of Svabhava: In this context, svabhava (essence, nature) is crucial for connoting the necessary reality that grounds logical connections. It refers to the essential being of things as a totality of causal possibilities. Therefore, svabhavapratibandha essentially means "essential connection" or "connection with essence."
• Monosemantic Nature: Steinkellner argues that the term svabhavapratibandha should have a single, consistent meaning, which is the ontological one, as it underpins the logical nexus. Differentiating its meaning based on the type of reason would render the term meaningless in its theoretical function.

3. Analysis of Commentarial Traditions:

• Importance of Commentaries: Since direct deduction from Dharmakirti's own texts is insufficient, Steinkellner turns to the early commentators like Śākyamati, Karpakagomin, and Dharmottara. He provides a detailed analysis of their interpretations of svabhavapratibandha.
• Grammatical Analyses: He meticulously examines how these commentators parse the compound:
  • Locative Tatpuruṣa: Śākyamati and others interpret it as a locative tatpuruṣa (e.g., "connection with essence"), often identifying svabhava with the sādhya (the property to be proven).
  • Instrumental Tatpuruṣa: Dharmottara and Karpakagomin favor an instrumental tatpuruṣa (e.g., "connection by essence"), highlighting the causal or essential nature of the connection. Dharmottara's rationale was that this single compound could encompass both types of logical reasons.
  • Genitive Tatpuruṣa: Some passages suggest a genitive tatpuruṣa (e.g., "connection of essence"), particularly when svabhava refers to the actual essence of something in a broader ontological sense.
• Dharmottara's Innovation: Steinkellner highlights Dharmottara's influential interpretation as an instrumental tatpuruṣa, which he argues was a deliberate attempt to provide a more unified explanation for the svabhavapratibandha across different logical reasons.
• Syntactical Ambiguity: He acknowledges that the exact grammatical analysis (locative, instrumental, genitive) often depends on how svabhava is understood (as sādhya, sādhana, or the essence itself). However, he maintains that the core meaning of grounding logical necessity remains consistent.

4. Related Terms and Concepts:

• Tadātmya/Tadbhava: The article also delves into the analysis of related terms like tadatman, tadātmya, and tadbhava, which refer to the identity or real connection between the reason and the probandum. Steinkellner discusses how these are interpreted as tatpuruṣa or bahuvrīhi compounds, ultimately concluding that their meaning, "real identity," remains consistent regardless of the grammatical analysis.

Conclusion:

Steinkellner concludes that while Matsumoto's work is a commendable effort, his specific interpretations of svabhavapratibandha are not supported by the textual evidence and fail to account for the nuances of the exegetical tradition. He advocates for an understanding of svabhavapratibandha as an essential connection grounded in reality, which guarantees logical necessity, with the specific grammatical parsing of the compound being contingent on the precise meaning of svabhava in each instance. The article underscores the importance of a historically sensitive and philologically rigorous approach when interpreting complex philosophical and logical terms within Buddhist traditions.