Pramāṇa-samuccaya

Pramāṇa-samuccaya

The seminal work on Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa) composed in verse by Dignāga. It comprises six chapters:

(1) Direct Perception (pratyakṣa);

(2) Inference for One's Own Benefit (svārtha-anumāṇa);

(3) Inference for Another's Benefit (parārtha-anumāṇa);

(4) Examination of Examples (dṛṣṭānta-parīkṣa);

(5) Examination of Exclusion of the Other (anya-apoha-parīkṣā); (

6) Examination of Universals (jāti-parīkṣā).

This work was extremely influential throughout India, both within the Buddhist world and beyond, and its contents set the agenda for philosophical debate for many centuries after it was written. Unfortunately, only a few fragments survive of the original Sanskrit although a complete translation is available in Tibetan. The text was widely studied in Tibet until the translation of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇa-vārttika superseded it in influence, except perhaps among the Nyingma school. "Following Dharmakīrti's interpretation, Pramāṇasamuccaya I 9ab has been understood as stating a view common to both Sautrāntikas and Yogācāras, i.e. a view that self-awareness (svasaṃvitti) is the result (phala) of a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa). It has also been understood that Dignāga (in I 8cd and I 9) accepts two different views attributed to Sautrāntikas with regard to pramāṇaphala: in PS(V) ad I 8cd he regards the understanding of an external object (arthādhigati) as the result; in PS(V) ad I he alternatively presents another view that self-awareness is the result. Dignāga's text, however, does not support these interpretations. Rather it contradicts them. In fact Dignāga (in I 8cd and I 9cd) presupposes a single view, and not two, attributed to Sautrāntikas, a view that the understanding of an external object (arthādhigati) is the result.

In (svasaṃvittiḥ phalaṃ vātra) he is presenting an alternative view that is attributed only to Yogācāras, i.e. a view that is not common to Sautrāntikas. Althogh the Sautrāntika sākāravāda essentially has an internal structure, Dignāga presupposes that an external object can be regarded as the object of cognition because it is similar to the (essentially internal) image of object. He assumes that the objects of pramāṇa and phala, both being an external object, are identical. Criticizing Dignāga’s claim that bāhyārthajñāna (not svasaṃvitti) is the phala, Kumārila (ŚV pratyakṣa 79cd) points out that there is a serious gap between the objects of pramāṇa and phala.

Consequently Dharmakīrti has to admit that even in the Sautrāntika view an external object is not directly cognized (PV III 348b: arthātmā na dṛśyate) and instead proposes as the second view of Sautrāntikas that svasaṃvitti (and not bāhyārthajñāna) is the phala. At the same time he reinterprets Dignāga and defends from Kumārila’s criticism by introducing the two different levels.

When investigating the real nature (PV III 350c: svabhāvacintāyām), i.e. in the so-called paramārtha level, svasaṃvitti is the phala, whereas in the upacāra level, bāhyārthajñāna or bāhyārthaniścaya is the phala. Thus Dharmakīrti avoids Kumārila’s criticism of Dignāga. Kumārila triggers Dharmakīrti’s new introduction of the second view of Santrāntikas that svasaṃvitti is the phala."

Source

dictionary.buddhistdoor.com