- Scripture, Logic, Language
- Table of Contents
- Series Editor’s Preface by E. Gene Smith
- Acknowledgments and Notes on the Bibliographic Sources
- Scripturally Based Argumentation
- 1. Dharmakīrti, Āryadeva and Dharmapāla on Scriptural Authority
- 2. How Much of a Proof is Scripturally Based Inference?
- 3. Pre-Dharmakīrti Commentators on the Definition of a Thesis
- 4. On Parārthānumāna, Theses and Syllogisms
- 5. On Sapakṣa
- 6. Formal and Semantic Aspects of Tibetan Buddhist Debate Logic
- 7. Dharmakīrti and Tibetans on Adṛśyānupalabdhihetu
- 8. What is the Svadharmin in Buddhist logic?
- 9. Is Buddhist Logic Non-classical or Deviant?
- Philosophy of Language
- 10. On the So-called Difficult Point of the Apoha Theory
- 11. What Can One Reasonably Say about Nonexistence? Co-authored by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.
- About the Author
- Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism
1: Dharmakīrti, Āryadeva and Dharmapāla on Scriptural Authority
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that the epistemological school of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, in spite of its insistence on the two means of valid cognition (pramāṇa), viz., direct perception and inference, did recognize that there was a whole class of propositions which could not be directly justified by means of these two pramāṇas, but demanded recourse to scriptures (āgama) or treatises (śāstra).1 This tension between scripture and reason, which is a recurrent one amongst religious philosophers, was however approached in a novel way by the Buddhists, a way which allowed them to accept certain “propositions of faith” but nonetheless retain a rationalistic orientation and extreme parsimony with regard to acceptable means of knowledge.
The key elements in the epistemologists’ position are to be found in kārikā 5 of the Svārthānumāna chapter in Dignaga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya (i.e., in PS II, k. 5a) and are developed by Dharmakīrti in the Svārthānumāna and Parārthānumāna chapters of Pramāṇavārttika (i.e., PV I and PV IV, respectively). However, what is remarkable, as we shall see later on, is that Dharmakīrti’s presentation also bears important similarities to, and perhaps may have even been influenced by, some passages in chapter 12 of the Catuḥśataka (CS) of Āryadeva.
The Epistemological School’s Position
Let us begin with some of the relevant passages from Dignāga and Dharmakīrti:
PS II, k. 5a:2 Because authoritative words (āptavāda) are similar 28[to an inference] in not belying, they are [classified as] inference.
PV I, k. 215:3 A [treatise’s4] having no visaṃvāda (“lies”) [means that] there is no invalidation of its two [kinds of] propositions concerning empirical and unempirical things by direct perception or by the two sorts of inference either [viz., inference which functions by the force of [real] entities (vastubalapravṛtta) and inference which is based on scripture (āgamāśrita)5].
PV I, k. 216:6 As authoritative words are similar [to other inferences] in not belying, the understanding of their imperceptible (parokṣa) object is also termed an inference, for [otherwise] there would be no way [to know such objects7].
PV I, k. 217:8 Or, they do not belie with regard to the principal point [viz., the four noble truths9], for the nature of what is to be rejected and what is to be realized as well as the method is acknowledged. Therefore [the understanding arising from the Buddha’s words can properly] be an inference in the case of the other things [too, i.e., radically inaccessible objects10].
Now, first of all, the usual types of inferences which we associate with Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, such as those of sound’s impermanence and the like, are said to be vastubalapravṛttānumāna in that they derive their truth from the fact that the reason—being a product (kṛtakatva)—is in reality, or objectively, related with the property—impermanence—and qualifies the subject, sound. However, an important point which needs to be made clear is that in spite of the numerous passages in which these authors talk about one state of affairs proving another, or about natural connections (svabhāvapratibandha) between the terms in an inference, it is not the case that every inference functions by the force of [real] entities (vastubalapravṛtta).11 (Often, for convenience, we will adopt a less literal translation for this technical term, i.e., “objective inference.” The point here, very briefly, is that the usual or paradigmatic type of inference in Dharmakīrti is one which functions objectively, or “by the force of real entities,” in that it can and should be evalutated purely on the basis 29of facts and states of affairs, and not in any way because of belief, acceptance or faith in someone or his words.) Vastubalapravṛtta is certainly an unbending requirement for the normal or “straightforward” type of inferences with which we are familiar, but, as we see in PV I, k. 215, there are also inferences based on scripture; that is to say, there exist inferences in which a scriptural passage rather than a state of affairs is given as the reason. The questions then easily arises as to (a) which sorts of scriptural passages can be used in such inferences, and (b) how the admittance of scriptural proofs can be harmonized with the general tenor of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti’s thought which is, no doubt, oriented towards vastubalapravṛttānumāna.
Let us begin with (b). The epistemological school solves this problem by introducing three sorts of objects: perceptible (pratyakṣa), imperceptible (parokṣa) and radically inaccessible (atyantaparokṣa). The first sort consists of those things such as form (rūpa), vases, etc. which are accessible to direct perception, while the second consists of things (such as impermanence, selflessness, etc.) which can be proven through the usual vastubala kind of inference. The third kind, however, are objects such as the different heavens (svarga) or the details of the operation of the law of karma, which are, of course, inaccessible to direct perception, but which also cannot be proven by citing some other state of affairs as a reason. In short, we might say that these objects are beyond the limits of ordinary rationality.12 A slight complication which should be cleared up at this point is that Dharmakīrti often uses parokṣa, a term which also has an extremely important place in PV III, in the sense of atyantaparokṣa. However we see in the commentaries that what is at stake in PV I, k. 216 is indeed atyantaparokṣa, and moreover, it is clear from certain passages elsewhere (in PV IV) that Dharmakīrti himself did explicitly accept this threefold division of objects.13
So Dharmakīrti limits the scope of scripturally based inferences to cases where the object is radically inaccessible (atyantaparokṣa), and hence beyond the range of ordinary ratiocination. By means of this strict delimitation, he can preserve his theory of inferences being objectively grounded, for this will be a requirement of logical reasoning which applies to pratyakṣa and parokṣa objects. He can also at the same time distance himself from the non-Buddhist schools’ use of scripture. In effect the error which a Mīmāṃsaka or Sāṃkhya makes in citing scriptural passages as a means of proof (sādhana) is that they apply scriptural arguments to propositions, such as sound’s impermanence, etc., which can and should 30be decided by vastubalapravṛttānumāna, and which are not at all outside the bounds of ordinary ratiocination.14
As for question (a), viz., the kinds of scriptural passages which can be used, Dharmakīrti introduces what Tibetan scholastics would come to call “the threefold analysis” (dpyad pa gsum) for testing as to whether scriptures (lung = āgama) are sound bases for inference or not.15 In particular, as PV I, k. 215 makes clear, such a scripture must be (i) unrefuted by direct perception, (ii) unrefuted by vastubalapravṛttānumāna, and (iii) free from contradiction with other propositions whose truth is scripturally inferred. Put in this way it might seem that what is being said is simply that the scripture cannot be refuted by any pramāṇa, or that it cannot come into conflict with any of the other three kinds of objects. However, the point at stake, as we find it elaborated in PV I, k. 216, Dharmakīrti’s Svavṛtti or Svopajñavṛtti (PVSV) and Karṇakagomin’s Ṭīkā, is more subtle, and is essentially an inductive argument: the scripture’s assertions concerning pratyakṣa and parokṣa are seen to be trustworthy, and so, similarly, its assertions about atyantaparokṣa, if not internally inconsistent, should also be judged trustworthy. The argument is given an alternative formulation in PV I, k. 217 when Dharmakīrti says that because the (Buddhist) scriptures are trustworthy concerning the principal points, viz., the four noble truths, they should also be trustworthy on radically inaccessible matters. The four noble truths are accessible to proof by vastubalapravṛttānumāna—as we see in the second chapter of PV—and thus, as these propositions in the Buddhist scriptures are trustworthy, so the others should be, too.
In short, scriptural argumentation—when applied to atyantaparokṣa, which is its only proper domain—is an inference: there is no need to postulate an additional pramāṇa such as the śābda (“testimony”) of certain Hindu schools. It is, however, a rather special, indirect case of inference, in that it turns on an inductive generalization which presupposes the use and correctness of direct perception and vastubalapravṛttānumāna.
Āryadeva and Dharmapāla
Now, a remarkable point in this connection is that the Tibetan writer Tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419) in his Tshad ma’i brjed byang chen mo noticed that Dharmakīrti’s PV I, k. 217cd resembles k. 280 in chapter 12 of Āryadeva’s Catuḥśataka.16 Tsong kha pa was followed 31in this by rGyal tshab dar ma rin chen (1364–1432), who also remarked that CS XII, k.280 was the same reasoning as found in Dignāga and Dharmakīrti (phyogs glang yab sras). Subsequently, the Mongolian A lag sha ngag dbang bstan dar (1759–1840), in his sTon pa tshad ma’i skyes bur sgrub pa’i gtam, elaborated on the two verses, paraphrasing them into an identical formal argument (prayoga), and citing them in his proof that the Buddha is a “person of authority”’ (tshad ma’i skyes bu).17 While it seems impossible to definitively establish a direct lineage from Āryadeva to Dharmapāla to Dharmakīrti, the similarities between the verses in question do seem more then coincidental, and it is not at all impossible that Dharmakīrti was aware of Āryadeva’s thought, and that he made use of certain elements. Let us look at CS XII, k. 280 with Dharmapāla’s commentary...
BECOME A MEMBER TO READ THIS AND MANY OTHER BOOKS ONLINE, WHENEVER YOU WANTJoin Now