Was The Buddha A Buddha

This article is a review of Tilmann Vetter's book, "Der Buddha und seine Lehre in Dharmakirtis Pramanavirttika." The reviewer, Eli Franco, focuses on Vetter's interpretation of Dharmakirti's views on the Buddha and the Four Noble Truths, particularly in relation to the Buddhist epistemological tradition (pramana).

Here's a breakdown of the key points:

• The Problem of Epistemology and Buddhist Tradition: The review begins by highlighting a common scholarly debate: how the epistemological (pramana) and logical traditions within Buddhism relate to its core spiritual and practical teachings. Many scholars either see epistemology as a distortion of Buddhism or as an un-Buddhist development. Steinkellner, mentioned in the introduction, points out that previous scholarship has often failed to consider the tradition's own self-understanding.

• Dignaga and the Epithets of the Buddha: Dignaga, the founder of the pramana school, linked five epithets of the Buddha in a causal chain, starting with "pramanabhūta" (means of valid cognition or authority). These epithets are: pramanabhūta, hetusampat (perfection in cause), phalasampat (perfection in effect), jagaddhitaisita (seeking the benefit of all living beings), śāstṛtva (being a teacher), sugata (having gone well), and trātṛtva (being a protector).

• Dharmakirti's Interpretation and Vetter's Thesis: The core of the review revolves around Dharmakirti's (and Vetter's interpretation of Dharmakirti's) understanding of these epithets and the Buddha's path.

  • Dharmakirti proposes causal relationships between these epithets, with jagaddhitaisita being a necessary condition for the next, and so on.
  • Vetter's controversial claim: Vetter argues that Dharmakirti presents a Buddha who did not discover the Four Noble Truths or liberation for the first time. Instead, the Buddha primarily relied on existing "tradition" (agama) and reasoning (yukti) to confirm what was already known. According to Vetter, the Buddha practiced different methods for a long time to find the best way and to perfect his teaching, but the fundamental discovery was not solely his own. This is based on Vetter's interpretation of a verse where Dharmakirti states the Buddha examines the cause of suffering with the help of reason and tradition (yuktyāgamābhyāṃ vimṛśya duḥkhe hetuṃ parīkṣate).
  • Franco's critique of Vetter: Franco finds Vetter's interpretation problematic and lacking conclusive evidence.
    • He questions Vetter's translation of "parīkṣate" as "determines" rather than "examines," arguing it elevates the role of tradition too much.
    • He points out that if the Four Noble Truths were common knowledge, it contradicts Dharmakirti's criterion for pramana being the revelation of something previously unknown (ajñātārthaprakāśana).
    • Franco argues that Vetter's interpretation would diminish the Buddha's originality, making him merely an approver of a pre-existing path.
    • He notes that Vetter's reliance on the single word "agama" in a verse is insufficient for such far-reaching conclusions.
    • Franco also highlights that this interpretation clashes with a key characteristic of a Buddha: gaining enlightenment without instruction (anupadiṣṭajñāna).

• Alternative Interpretations of Dharmakirti: Franco presents alternative interpretations from Dharmakirti's commentators (Devendrabuddhi and Manorathanandin) who suggest that "agama" was used by the Buddha during his Bodhisattva past lives, not for the actual enlightenment itself. This, Franco argues, is a simpler and more plausible explanation that doesn't undermine the Buddha's originality. Prajñākaragupta's interpretation is also discussed, which sometimes aligns with Vetter's but also offers different possibilities.

• Vetter's Interpretations of Other Aspects:

  • Reductionism: Franco sees Dharmakirti, as interpreted by Vetter, as a "reductionist," simplifying complex Buddhist doctrines into their essential components (e.g., reducing perfections to compassion, faults to ignorance, desires to the desire for existence, the Eightfold Path to right view).
  • Epistemological Realism: Vetter suggests that for the final stages of the path to Nirvana, Dharmakirti adopted a realistic theory of knowledge, not an idealistic one, as is common in later Yogacara. Franco finds this argument also weak, based on a questionable interpretation of the "vastubalotpatti" (arising from the power of the thing) and an argument from omission (Dharmakirti not mentioning the unreality of elements). Franco points out that Dharmakirti's school (Sautrantika-Yogacara) generally considers mental elements as the final reality, and the term dharmanairatmya has a different meaning in this context.

• Critique of the Translation and Commentary: Franco also critiques Vetter's translation of Dharmakirti's Sanskrit text. While acknowledging its overall quality, he points out specific errors and, more importantly, Vetter's tendency to offer extensive bracketed interpretations that sometimes distort Dharmakirti's arguments. He criticizes Vetter for deviating from the traditional commentators without adequate explanation, especially when all three major commentators agree.

• Conclusion: Despite his criticisms, Franco acknowledges that Vetter's book is a "veritable tour de force" and an "important contribution" to understanding Dharmakirti's Buddhism. He praises its stimulating nature and its potential to occupy a central position in future studies, even while cautioning against some of Vetter's speculative interpretations, particularly those based on arguments from silence or omissions. He suggests that a more cautious approach, more engagement with the commentators, and clearer explanations for deviations would have strengthened the work.