Zu Den Fragmenten Buddhisticher Logiker Im Nyayavarttikam - Book Summary

This document is a scholarly article by Erich Frauwallner titled "Zu Den Fragmenten Buddhisticher Logiker Im Nyayavarttikam" (On the Fragments of Buddhist Logicians in the Nyayavarttikam). The article, published by Erich Frauwallner, analyzes specific sections of the Nyayavarttikam, a commentary on the Nyayasutras by Uddyotakara, to identify and reconstruct fragments of Buddhist logical works.

Here's a summary of the key points:

1. Significance of Polemical Sections:

Frauwallner argues that the polemical sections of the Nyayavarttikam, where Uddyotakara attacks opposing doctrines, are of greater importance than sections where he merely defends his own against criticism.
This is because the original works Uddyotakara refutes are largely lost, and his polemical sections contain numerous quotations from these lost Buddhist texts, making them invaluable for understanding early Buddhist logic.
He specifically highlights sections dealing with logical and dialectical categories as particularly rich in such quotations.

2. Identified Key Sections in Nyayavarttikam: Frauwallner identifies several specific sections within the Nyayavarttikam that are crucial for his analysis:

Sections discussing pratyakṣa (perception)
Sections discussing anumāna (inference)
Sections discussing pratijñā (proposition)
Sections discussing hetu (reason)
Sections discussing udāharaṇa (example)
Sections discussing vāda (debate/argumentation)

3. Identification of Buddhist Sources:

Vasubandhu: Frauwallner establishes that Uddyotakara frequently engages with two of Vasubandhu's works: the Vādavidhiḥ and the Vādavidhānam.
- The Vādavidhiḥ is presented as a work with definitions that are concisely formulated.
- The Vādavidhānam is identified as a more substantial work consisting of a sūtra text and a vṛtti (commentary). Frauwallner provides strong evidence for this, including Uddyotakara's explicit references and the consistent treatment of the sūtra and vṛtti as a single unit.
Dignāga: Uddyotakara also engages with Dignāga's works, primarily the Nyāyamukham and the Pramāṇasamuccayaḥ.
- Frauwallner notes that Uddyotakara seems to have had Nyāyamukham more readily available or found it more relevant to his dialectical focus, using it when the Pramāṇasamuccayaḥ didn't offer directly comparable material for his critiques.

4. Reconstruction of Fragments and Their Origin:

Vādavidhānam: Frauwallner meticulously analyzes the sections related to the vāda (argumentation), pakṣaḥ (thesis), hetuḥ (reason), and drstāntaḥ (example) to extract fragments from both the Vādavidhānasūtra and its vṛtti.
- He identifies specific quoted phrases and arguments and attributes them to either the sūtra or the vṛtti of the Vādavidhānam.
- He also identifies fragments from commentaries on the Vādavidhānam, suggesting at least three distinct commentaries existed.
- He speculates that the Vādavidhānatikā might have been a work by Dignāga himself.
Vādavidhiḥ: Frauwallner also reconstructs fragments from Vasubandhu's Vādavidhiḥ, primarily focusing on definitions of core logical terms like perception, inference, proposition, reason, and example.
- He notes that the Vādavidhiḥ appears to be a unified work, unlike the Vādavidhānam which has a separate sūtra and vṛtti.
- He argues that the Vādavidhiḥ likely covered the topics of perception and inference, which he speculates were omitted from the Vādavidhānam. This leads him to suggest the Vādavidhiḥ was a more foundational work that later influenced the development of epistemology in Buddhist logic, even anticipating the distinction between svārtha-anumāna (inference for oneself) and parārtha-anumāna (inference for others).
Dignāga's Fragments: Frauwallner lists fragments from Dignāga's works, noting that most are from extant texts. He highlights one fragment concerning the definition of hetuḥ that he cannot definitively place and suggests it might be from a lost work of Dignāga, noting its similarity to Dharmakirti's definition.

5. Methodological Approach:

Frauwallner's method involves carefully comparing Uddyotakara's refutations with the extant works of Vasubandhu and Dignāga.
He pays close attention to the specific wording and arguments presented by Uddyotakara to pinpoint the source of the quoted material.
He also uses internal references and cross-references within the Nyayavarttikam to identify the relationships between different quoted fragments and their authors.

6. Key Findings on Vasubandhu's Works:

The Vādavidhānam was a dedicated treatise on vāda (argumentation), focusing on the proof (sādhana) and refutation (dūṣaṇa) of claims. It excluded other categories found in earlier vāda manuals, including the means of knowledge.
The Vādavidhiḥ, a seemingly later work, reincorporated the teaching on the means of knowledge, particularly inference, and established a connection between svārtha-anumāna and parārtha-anumāna. This marked a significant step towards the epistemological focus that would later characterize Buddhist logic.

7. Key Findings on Dignāga:

Dignāga's Nyāyamukham seems to have been a primary source for Uddyotakara when discussing dialectical categories, possibly because of its more polemical nature.
The Pramāṇasamuccayaḥ was used when Nyāyamukham didn't offer a suitable counter-argument.
Frauwallner raises questions about Dignāga's direct discipleship of Vasubandhu, citing a passage where Dignāga critiques the Vādavidhiḥ as containing flawed teachings.

In essence, Frauwallner's article provides a detailed and methodologically rigorous analysis of the Nyayavarttikam, uncovering crucial fragments of early Buddhist logical texts and shedding light on the evolution of Buddhist logic, particularly the contributions of Vasubandhu and Dignāga.