Abstract
Diṅnāga was an Indian Buddhist philosopher who most probably wrote in the first half of the sixth century of the Common Era and who devoted a great deal of his literary career to investigating various issues in epistemology, the science devoted to the nature of knowledge and its limits. As a specific part of this larger concern, Diṅnāga (whose name is frequently encountered in its alternative spelling of Diṅnāga) was interested in the nature and limitations of information that is gained through the interpretation of signs. The interpretation of natural signs, that is, of properties such as smoke that can be understood as signifying the presence of fire, was investigated under the general heading of inference or reasoning (anunāna), or more specifically, reasoning for oneself (svārthānumāna). The interpretation of conventional signs, that is, of the words and sentences of human language and other systems of deliberately contrived symbols whose usage is governed by human-made conventions, was investigated separately as a subject unto itself, although Diṅnāga explicitly regarded the interpretation of deliberately contrived symbols as no more than a special application of the principles of inference in general. The principal purpose of this book is to come to an understanding of Diṅnāga’s views on the interpretation of signs, both natural and conventional.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Stcherbatsky 1932:39–46.
Stcherbatsky 1932:40.
Stcherbatsky 1932:46.
Stcherbatsky 1932:46.
Stcherbatsky 1932:37.
Van der Kuijp 1979:6.
Conze 1962:264.
Conze 1962:265.
Wayman 1958:40.
Conze 1962:10.
Steinkellner 1982:11.
Hayes 1984.
Warder 1971:1.
Warder 1970:448.
A complete list of Diṅnāga’s works appears in Hattori 1968:6–11.
Malvania 1967:390.
J.W. de Jong (1986:128) argues that it is a mistake not only to rely too heavily on later sources when piecing together the history of Indian Buddhist thought, but also to try to study later Tibetan thought without a profound knowledge of its Indian antecedents. His observation is so obviously true that it is a little surprising that relatively few modern scholars have done research directly with Diṅnāga’s works in their proper historical context.
Vidyābhūṣaṇa 1905:218.
See Vidyābhūṣaṇa 1921:277–288.
Vidyābhūṣaṇa 1909:78–101.
Stcherbatsky 1932:10.
Stcherbatsky 1932:12.
Stcherbatsky 1932:24.
Stcherbatsky 1932:26–27.
Stcherbatsky describes the realm of particulars in 1932:79–118. Of especial importance are pp. 81–86 and pp. 106–108.
Stcherbatsky’s outline of the realm of judgement, concepts and other related matters is given its most precise formulation in 1932:204–220.
Stcherbatsky 1932:181–190.
Mookerjee 1935:xxxv.
Mookerjee 1935:xliv.
My position on this matter is outlined more fully in Hayes 1984.
Mookerjee 1935:xxxviii.
Mookerjee 1935:xxxvii.
Mookerjee 1935:100.
Mookerjee 1935:106.
Mookerjee 1935:108 and 109. Frauwallner (1935:101) reports that this argument was used by Dharmakīrti.
Mookerjee 1935:108.
Mookerjee 1935:116.
Mookerjee 1935:116.
Mookerjee 1935:117. 4L Dravid 1972:339.
Dravid 1972:117
These articles appeared in the following issues of Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes: Vol. 37 (1930) pp. 259–283; Vol. 39 (1932) pp. 247–285; Vol. 40 (1933) pp. 51–94; Vol. 42 (1935) pp. 93–102; Vol. 44 (1937) pp. 233–287.
The numbering of the verses in modern editions of Sanskrit texts is often problematic, and it is not unusual to find different numberings by different editors of the same text. Thus verses 42–187 in Frauwallner’s edition correspond to verses 40–185 in Gnoli’s 1960 edition of the Sanskrit text of the entire svārthānumāna chapter of Pramāṇavārttika.
Frauwallner 1930:259.
See Frauwallner 1935:93 and 101. In the latter place this doctrine is spelled out especially clearly: “…die Einzelding augenblichlich sind und sofort nach ihrem Enstehen wieder vergehen…” (Particulars are momentary and disappear again immediately after their coming into being.)
Frauwallner 1935:95–96.
Frauwallner 1959b: 135–136.
Frauwallner 1959b:107–116 and 145–152. Further discussions of Bhartrhari’s influence on Dinnâga are to be found in Hattori 1977:50–52 and R. Herzberger 1986. See section 1.2.6 below.
Frauwallner 1959b: 103.
Frauwallner 1959b:101–103.
Frauwallner 1959b: 104–105.
Frauwallner 1959b: 105.
In the Wade-Giles system of romanization, the title is Ch’ü-yin-chia-she-lun, and the translator’s name is I-chirig. So they appear in Kitagawa 1965 and in Hattori 1968.
Hattori 1968:8.
Kitagawa 1965:436.
Hattori 1968:12.
Hattori 1968:12.
Hattori 1968:12–13.
Hattori 1968:14.
Hattori 1968:15.
Hattori 1977:47.
Hattori 1978:47. According to Hattori an example of a particular for Diṅnāga would be an individual such as a particular cow, which is “an indivisible unity of various aspects.” Whether or not this observation is accurate is a question that should be left open for the time being. I shall present an alternative account of what a svalakṣaṇa might be below in chapter five.
Hattori 1977:48.
Hattori 1977:49.
Hattori 1977:50.
Hattori 1980:61–64.
Hattori 1977:52.
Katsura 1977, 1978, 1979a, 1981, 1982 and 1984.
R. Herzberger 1986:xvii.
R. Herzberger 1986:xviii.
R. Herzberger 1986:241.
R. Herzberger 1986:24. The Sanskrit for this vārttika is given, along with a translation and brief discussion, in Hayes (1983:715 n.20). The Sanskrit reads: “Yasya gunasya bhāvād dravye sabdaniveéas tadabhidhāne tvatalau.” My translation: “The suffixes -tva and -ta are used to denote that characteristic on account of the presence of which in an object a given word is applied to it.”
R. Herzberger 1986:110.
R. Herzberger 1986:110.
R. Herzberger 1986:30–31.
R. Herzberger 1986:111.
R. Herzberger 1986:112.
R. Herzberger 1986:115.
R. Herzberger 1986:213.
R. Herzberger 1986:106.
Otto 1923:38–39.
Knitter (1985:128–131) offers a neat summary of Karl Rahner’s concept of the anonymous Christian, the purpose of which is in Knitter’s words “to broaden and engender more ‘optimistic’ Christian attitudes toward other believers. In showing that other believers can be called ‘Christians without a name,’ Rahner tries to break through Christian exclusivism.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hayes, R.P. (1988). Preliminaries. In: Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs. Studies of Classical India, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2899-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2899-2_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7806-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2899-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive