Dharmakirti on the Duality of the Object: Pramanavarttika III (Leipziger Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte Sud- und Zentralasiens) [Eli Franco, Miyako. : Dharmakirti’s Pramanavarttika: An Annotated Translation of the Fourth Chapter (Parathanumana): 1 (Veroffentlichungen Zu Den Sprachen Und. Japan’s largest platform for academic e-journals: J-STAGE is a full text database for reviewed academic papers published by Japanese societies.
|Published (Last):||5 February 2014|
|PDF File Size:||18.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.45 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It need not mean that when one knows something inferentially one must also be aware of the justification basis, i. In the absence of causal considerations, there would be no reason as to why a certain sound existed at one time and not another. Taking into account the commentarial explanations on k. Thus thought grasps a subject S as qualified by a predicate-property P.
Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University Tibetan topical outlines generally distinguish separate opposing positions in k. First of all, who was Dharmakirti’s interlocutor? Therefore, svayam would be needless. In short, Dharmaklrti’s attack on this realism is essentially to invoke his “panfictional” theory of language the term is due to the late B. Dharmaklrti’s first line of attack i.
Appendix Cdoes not decisively justify any one of the three readings. In that case, retorts Dharmaldrti k.
This translation pramanavarttikx relatively lightly annotated as there are cross-references to the relevant PV passages where the questions of interpretation are treated. Prananavarttika this [Dharmaklrti] replies: Neixue [ f t S ]Nanjing, When explained in this way [the PSV passage] implicitly sugs kyis affirms that pratiti has as its scope different things from inference which conforms to the existence and nonexistence of real entities, and that it therefore does not occur due to real entities.
Now, when faced with the Buddhist PVV Herausgegeben von Klaus Bruhn und Albrecht Wezler.
Pramanavarttika – Wikipedia
PVVwhich glosses k. And then there would be five sorts [of invalidation of the thesis], as is the explanation in the NM. In Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. An annotated translation of the fourth chapter.
This has probably been, on the whole, a good thing, and was arguably long overdue in that for too long we did see the two in an almost interchangeable perspective and dhar,akirti disregarded virtually all historical evolution.
Note that the three kinds of inference referred to in k.
Dharmakīrti (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
There are two faults: But these, that is to say, both the presentation and the reply, ‘statement which can have fallacies’ and so forth, are a farce in their incoherence. Bib- liotheca Indica There is, however, something of a dilemma here.
Ada Orientalia 41, See Yohs ‘dzin rtags rigs, ed. Thus there is no difference whatsoever in the [object] to which they refer. The statement of the conclusion, A is Bis omitted. In short, if some treatises held properties Q, R e.
Calcutta [Reprinted by Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi ]. Now, in the case of sattva—which is the most general reason possible — its extension includes that of any and every other reason. A universal is not a real nature, and thus it is not an object of the senses. We answer as follows. This new definition of NS 2. Motilal Banar- sidass, Delhi.
Praamanavarttika should be regarded as follows: Indeed, there is not [just] one dharmakirri, for there are also fig trees plaksa and others. A more charitable exegesis is to say that his philosophy recognizes that the way we find out through a pra,anavarttika methods whether or not x and y are causally related is a quite different matter from what causality is— the latter, as we had remarked, involves causal properties of things that make them what they are.
Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Studies 5. The PVV ad k.
This rendition also corresponds to PV Tib. Now, pramanavattika the case of the thesis-statement, the object which it indicates, i. Karika and the related passage in the PVin see n.
Hence, opposition by acknowledgments would be completely useless. Probably the Carvaka’s initial strategy, depicted in k. And for precisely this reason [own words] are held to be only pratibandhaka gegs byed [and not real invalidators.
True, the theoretical possibility of having a thesis-statement does not seem to have been of great practical importance: There are no connections between qualities and quality-possessors which are due to [real] entities, but rather they only concern words. Institute of Indology, But this [can] not be so, and therefore, it is illogical [to prove] that the thesis is a sadhana in virtue of the hetu that it brings forth the statement of the reason.
Note that PV Tib. We should mention that Dharmakirti makes see also k.