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):||1 December 2018|
|PDF File Size:||6.97 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
He then questions his opponent “What would ensue from this?
These multiple ways exhibit no intrinsic properties in common that would explain why they all work to produce a desired common effect. We have followed MiY. That [goal of the reason] is what it shows.
The four chapters deal, respectively, with inference for oneself svarthanumana dharmxkirti, valid knowledge pramanasiddhisense perception pratyaksaand inference for others pararthanumana. Skip to main content.
Dharmakīrti (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
It is “for the other” in that it is destined for the opponent so that he will come to actually infer the truth of the proposition in question.
But the clear upshot of the Buddhist’s nominalist position about universals is that there pramahavarttika no such natural kinds, and that the usage of terms is not explicable by matching up terms with them. Taking into account the commentarial explanations on k. Passages from other works of Dharmakirti are also given when helpful.
In the case of an entity which does not rely upon a treatise, stating something in contradiction with a scripture does not constitute invalidation by scripture. Thus the treatise which they accept pramanavarttik invariably be the one they wanted to accept: Not being an utpala is the paksadharma.
Because, due to contradiction with that, i. Indeed there is no [cow-]universal in the absence of cow-instantiations. Similarly, unless one relies pfamanavarttika a treatise, i. We can summarize the logic of the argument in k.
Therefore, although there is invalidation of this unrelated kevala [subject], there is [in fact] no fault. Why [is there such doubt]? This is, in a nutshell, k. Sign in Create an account. Dharmaklrti’s initial reply in k. Dharmaklrti’s first line of attack i. Therefore, what concerns dharmkirti intention with regard to a time which is not the present would also be the thesis, just prananavarttika ‘Devadatta is to be seen coming back’ means that when he comes back, then he will be seen.
Pramanavarttika – Wikipedia
Thus, it was asserted that there was a difference between the two [i. Part of a series on. And this agreement depends solely on the intentions of people, for there is nothing to be depended upon beyond that [intention].
Oramanavarttika, svayam was needed to eliminate various seductive misconceptions. Not surprisingly, the idea that provers are apoha -properties rather than words has its philosophical complexities.
It is certainly not an implausible interpretation. Then we would have to translate: Thus, the statements of the thesis and reason have no power with regard to the state of affairs [in question, i. The point needs analysis. To arrive at sufficient conditions, Isvarasena was compelled to introduce three further requirements: Here pramanavargtika two of the main ones. As soon as it is understood that the subject is not a commonly recognized real entity, the debate will cease.
Therefore, a treatise is no different from one’s own words]. A bahuvrihi agreeing with svapratitir. Thus if svayam is destined to guarantee that the treatise is the one which the proponent chose according to his own wishes, it fulfils no needed role whatsoever.
Indeed, when the opponent’s subject is invalidated it is not so that this property [i. Jinendrabuddhi also discusses this example; see p. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften — Intelligent people act after analysis—[this is] the dharmairti rank.
Finally, for the NM’s fivefold scheme, see NM ad k. Materialen zur Kunde des Buddhismus So how would the moon be unique? Science Logic and Mathematics.
And the Vaisesika supposedly retorts that the nonexistence of the subject would imply that the thesis would be faulty. The variant bstenpa is not found here in P. Is it then an essential pramanavarytika an accidental feature of a thing x that it will produce y under the appropriate conditions, and is it essential or accidental to y that it is caused by x? Briefly said, the negative existential proof would turn out to be self-refuting.
The activities and capabilities, on pra,anavarttika other hand, are presented in causal terms, e. What is the upshot if things are explained in this way?
Bibliography and Abbreviations Note: