Zu Den Fragmenten Buddhisticher Autoren In Haribhadras Anekanta Jayapataka

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text by Erich Frauwallner, focusing on its content and significance:

Book Title: Zu Den Fragmenten Buddhisticher Autoren In Haribhadras Anekanta Jayapataka (On the Fragments of Buddhist Authors in Haribhadra's Anekanta Jayapataka) Author: Erich Frauwallner

Core Argument: The central thesis of Erich Frauwallner's article is that Haribhadra's Anekāntajayapatākā, a significant Jain text, not only contains valuable fragments from Buddhist authors, particularly Dharmakīrti, but also demonstrates Haribhadra's engagement with and reliance on Buddhist commentaries to explain these Buddhist passages. While Haribhadra doesn't explicitly cite these commentaries, Frauwallner presents a concrete example to prove their usage.

Key Points and Evidence:

1. Haribhadra's Use of Buddhist Texts: The article begins by acknowledging the known fact that Haribhadra's Anekāntajayapatākā includes fragments from Buddhist authors, especially Dharmakīrti.

2. Haribhadra's Use of Buddhist Commentaries: Frauwallner highlights a less obvious point: Haribhadra also consults corresponding Buddhist commentaries when explaining these Buddhist sections in his own ṭikā (commentary). He argues that this usage can be unequivocally demonstrated, even without explicit citations.

3. The Specific Example: Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttikam:

   • Frauwallner focuses on a section from the first chapter of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttikam where Dharmakīrti refutes the Jain concept of anekāntavāda (the doctrine of manifold aspects).
   • Haribhadra quotes three out of four verses from Dharmakīrti on this topic. Crucially, unlike other Jain authors who merely quote the verses, Haribhadra also reproduces Dharmakīrti's accompanying vrttiḥ (auto-commentary).
   • This preserved Sanskrit original, coupled with a few sentences from the Tibetan translation, allows for a comprehensive reconstruction of this specific Buddhist passage.

4. Analysis of the Buddhist Argument (Dharmakīrti):

   • Dharmakīrti's argument, as presented, critiques the anekāntavāda by posing a logical problem regarding the attribution of properties. For instance, if something can be both "milk" and "yak" (using the article's examples of dadhi and uṣṭra), then if it's identified as "milk," it cannot be "yak," and vice-versa.
   • He argues that if there were a distinguishing characteristic (atiśaya) that truly made something "milk" and not "yak," then that characteristic itself becomes the defining essence of "milk." This essence, when absent in "yak," means "yak" is not "milk," and vice versa.
   • Dharmakīrti contends that without such distinct essential characteristics, "milk" and "yak" are indistinguishable, leading to a breakdown in valid distinctions and communication. He calls the anekāntavāda a "false doctrine" (mithyāvāda) because it fails to account for these necessary distinctions and the unity of essence.

5. Haribhadra's Ṭīkā and its Relationship to Buddhist Commentaries:

   • Frauwallner meticulously analyzes Haribhadra's explanations of Dharmakīrti's verses.
   • He demonstrates that Haribhadra's ṭīkā often follows the structure and reasoning of Buddhist commentaries on the Pramāṇavārttikam.
   • The article provides a comparison with the commentary of Sakyamati, showing striking similarities in the explanation of Dharmakīrti's arguments. Frauwallner even attempts to reconstruct the Sanskrit text of Sakyamati's commentary based on the Tibetan translation.

6. Significance of the Findings:

   • The study confirms that Haribhadra was not just aware of major Buddhist philosophical works but also their associated commentaries.
   • It suggests that when Haribhadra engages with Buddhist arguments, we can sometimes find authentic Buddhist explanations within his own writings, even if he doesn't explicitly attribute them.
   • Frauwallner concludes that Haribhadra must have used Sakyamati's Pramāṇavārttikaṭīkā or a similar sub-commentary when composing this specific section of the Anekāntajayapatākā.
   • He notes that this is a recurring pattern, similar to other fragments he has studied, indicating a tradition of authors quoting and building upon each other's work, sometimes without direct access to the primary source.

In essence, Frauwallner's article is a philological investigation that uncovers a direct and demonstrable scholarly connection between a key Jain commentator (Haribhadra) and a significant Buddhist author (Dharmakīrti) through the medium of their respective commentaries. It illuminates the intellectual exchanges and reliance on sources that occurred between these traditions.