Advertisement

Journal of Indian Philosophy

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 419–436 | Cite as

On Dharmakīrti’s Notion of Contingency/Dependence, with a Special Focus on vināśa

Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

The concept of contingency is very much debated. In this paper, I’ll offer a novel interpretation of it in Dharmakīrti’s ontology, focusing on his treatment and understanding of vināśa (translation: perishing) which is, according to Dharmakīrti, not contingent and thus occurs necessarily to everything. I will do so by clarifying some important terms, motivating and explaining Dharmakīrti’s position, and analyzing firsthand some Dharmakīrtian debate excerpts with Nyāya and/or Vaiśeṣika philosophers as the main opponents. In the course of this, I will show that basically, for Dharmakīrti, contingency is tantamount to dependency, whereas Nyāya and/or Vaiśeṣika authors, e.g., Śrīdhara and Bhāsarvajña, claim that something can be dependent on something else and still be necessary.

Keywords

Contingency Dependence Necessity vināśa Dharmakīrti Śrīdhara Bhāsarvajña 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The basis of the present article is a paper read at the workshop on Buddhist Philosophy themed “Chance and Contingency” held at Yale University on May 13–14, 2017. My cordial gratitude goes at first to Prof. Phyllis Granoff (Yale University), the convener of the workshop, for giving me many valuable comments and suggestions during and after the workshop, which enabled me to polish up this article as a whole. I would also like to thank Prof. Kei Kataoka (Kyūshū University) who helped me with reading several difficult passages of Dharmakīrti. Last but not least, I would like to thank Dr. Elisa Freschi (Austrian Academy of Sciences) for reading the first version of the paper and giving me many insightful remarks. Of course, all shortcomings are my own. The writing of this article was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K18249.

References

Primary Sources

  1. PDhS    Padārthadharmasaṃgraha (Praśastapāda): see NyKan.Google Scholar
  2. PVSV    Pramāṇavārttikasvavr̥tti (Dharmakīrti), ed. R. Gnoli, Rome 1960.Google Scholar
  3. PVSVM    Pramāṇavārttikasvavr̥tti (Dharmakīrti), ed. D. Malvania, Varanasi 1959.Google Scholar
  4. PVSVt    Pramāṇavārttikasvavr̥tti (Dharmakīrti) (Tibetan): Peking No. 5717; Derge No. 4216.Google Scholar
  5. PVṬ Ms    Manuscript of Pramāṇavārttikaṭīkā (Śākyabuddhi)—A Study of the Pramāṇavārttikaṭīkā by Śākyabuddhi. From the National Archives Collection, Kathmandu. Part I Sanskrit Fragments Transcribed. M. Inami, K. Matsuda and T. Tani. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. PVṬt    Pramāṇavārttikaṭikā (Śākyabuddhi) (Tibetan): Peking No. 5718; Derge No. 4217.Google Scholar
  7. PVSVṬ    Pramāṇavārttikasvavr̥ttiṭīkā (Karṇakagomin), ed. R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana. repr. Kyoto 1982.Google Scholar
  8. PVin 2    The second chapter of the Pramāṇaviniścaya (Dharmakīrti), ed. E. Steinkellner, Beijing–Vienna 2007: 45–101.Google Scholar
  9. PVin 3    The third chapter of the Pramāṇaviniścaya (Dharmakīrti), eds. P. Hugon, T. Tomabechi, Beijing–Vienna 2011.Google Scholar
  10. HB    Hetubindu (Dharmakīrti), ed. E. Steinkellner, Beijing–Vienna 2016.Google Scholar
  11. NyBhūṣ Ms    Manuscript of Nyāyabhūṣaṇa (Bhāsarvajña) – “Nyāya Bhūṣaṇa Sāra Saṃgraha Vārttika,” Śrī Hemacandrācārya Jaina Jñāna Maṃdira, Pāṭaṇa (Patan), Box No. 229, Ms. No. 10717.Google Scholar
  12. NyBhūṣ    Nyāyabhūṣaṇa (Bhāsarvajña), ed. S. Yogīndrānanda, Varanasi 1968.Google Scholar
  13. NyKan    Nyāyakandalī (Śrīdhara), eds. J. S. Jetly, G. Parikh, Vadodara 1991.Google Scholar
  14. NyKanD    Nyāyakandalī (Śrīdhara), ed. V.P. Dvivedin, Delhi 1984.Google Scholar

Secondaty Sources

  1. Faddegon, B. (1918). The Vaiçeṣika-System, described with the help of the oldest texts. Amsterdam: Johannes Mάler.Google Scholar
  2. Frauwallner, E. (2010). Die Philosophie des Buddhismus. Fünfte Auflage. Mit einem Vorwort von Eli Franco und Karin Preisendanz. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Halbfass, W. (1991). Tradition and reflection. Explorations in Indian Thought. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  4. Jhā, G. (1982). Padārthadharmasaṅgraha of Praśastapāda. With the Nyāyakandalī of Śrīdhara. Translated into English. repr. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia.Google Scholar
  5. Sakai, M. (2012). Dharmakīrti’s interpretation of the causelessness of destruction. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, Band LIV, 187–202.Google Scholar
  6. Shastri, D. N. (1976). The philosophy of Nyāya-Vaiśesika and its conflict with the Buddhist Dignāga School (Critique of Indian Realism). repr. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.Google Scholar
  7. Steinkellner, E. (1979). Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇaviniścayaḥ. Zweites Kapitel: Svārthānumānam. Teil II Übersetzung und Anmerkungen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  8. Steinkellner, E. (1991). Dharmakīrti on the inference of effect (kārya). In L. Zheng et al. (Eds.), Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. Ji Xianlin on the occasion of his 80th birthday (II). Jiangxi: Nanchang Shi Jiangxi Renmin Chubanshe (pp. 711–736).Google Scholar
  9. Steinkellner, E. (2013a). Dharmakīrtis frühe Logik. Annotierte Übersetzung der logischen Teile von Pramāṇavārttika 1 mit der Vṛtti: 1. Introduction, Übersetzung, Analyse. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
  10. Steinkellner, E. (2013b). Corrigenda 3 et addenda to Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇaviniścaya. Chapters 1 and 2. Critically edited by E. Steinkellner. Beijing–Vienna 2001 (2.1.2013).” Published online: http://www.ikga.oeaw.ac.at/Mat/steinkellner07_corrigenda.pdf.
  11. Tani, T. (1994). The problem of interpretation on Pramāṇaviniścaya III AD VV.51–59. Bulletin of Koch National College of Technology, 38, 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. Yoshimizu, Ch. (2011). What makes all that is produced impermanent? The proof of impermanence and the theory of causality. In H. Krasser, H. Lasic, E. Franco, & B. Kellner (Eds.), Religion and logic in Buddhist philosophical analysis. Proceedings of the fourth international Dharmakīrti conference, Vienna, August 23–27, 2005. Vienna: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (pp. 491–506).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of the History of Religions, Faculty of LettersKansai UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations