Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī
by SASAKI Ryō
1. Introduction
The Nyāyasūtra (NS) systematically arranged the theory of debate – including “the condition of defeat” (nigrahasthāna)1, which is the rule to determine victory or defeat in a debate – for the first time in the history of Indian thought.2 The Nyāyabhāṣya (NBh), Vātsyāyana's commentary on NS, and the
Nyāyavārttika (NV), Uddyotakara's commentary on NBh, cultivated the thought of debate. On the other hand, the Vādanyāya (VN), a philosophical work by Dharmakīrti, criticized the definition of “the condition of defeat” presented in the Nyāya school (NS, NBh, NV) and uniquely redefined the term from the
position of the theory of Buddhist logic.3 VN was translated and critically edited by M. T. Much in 1991 (Much [1991]); he presented the comprehensive results of VN research up until that point, marking a significant contribution to research on the text. However, very few attempts have been made to examine the Nyāya school's criticism or acceptance of the theory in VN. In this paper, I will consider the way of accepting Dharmakīrti's theory found in the Nyāyamañjarī (NM), which is Bhaṭṭa Jayanta's commentary on NS.
2. The Theory of Nigrahasthāna in the Vādanyāya
2.1. The Definition of Nigrahasthāna
Dharmakīrti defined “the condition of defeat” at the beginning of VN as follows:
VN 1,4–5: asādhanāṅgavacanam adoṣodbhāvanaṃ dvayoḥ / nigrahasthānam anyat tu na yuktam iti neṣyate //1//
This paper was partly read at the 17th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (IABS), August, 18–23, 2014, University of Vienna, Austria.
1 See Ono [2006], Todeschini [2010] etc.. 2 See Kajiyama [1984], Katsura [2000], Preisendanz [2000] etc.. 3 See Much [1986, 1991], Chinchore [1988], Gokhale [1993], Sasaki [2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014] etc..
Asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana4 are the conditions of defeat (nigrahasthāna) for the two (debaters, i.e., a proponent and an opponent, respectively)5. However, other [[[conditions]] of defeat that the Nyāya school and the like explain]6 are not correct, hence [they are] not accepted7.
Here Dharmakīrti presents his original idea of dividing “the condition of defeat” into asādhanāṅgavacana (the condition of defeat for a proponent) and adoṣodbhāvana (the condition of defeat for an opponent). These two terms are core concepts in the theory of debate constructed in VN. In the first half of VN (pp. 1–24), many issues related to the interpretations of these two concepts are considered. Ultimately, the former is shown to have five types of interpretations and the latter two types of interpretations. On the other hand, the twenty-two types of “the condition of defeat” established by the Nyāya school are criticized individually in the latter half of VN (pp. 25–68), with consideration given to the interpretations presented earlier in the first half .
2.2. Nigrahasthāna by Dharmakīrti in the First Half of VN
First, Dharmakīrti provided five interpretations of asādhanāṅgavacana in the first half of VN. These five interpretations are arranged in Table 1 below. See Sasaki [2012b] for more details.
4 It is difficult to accurately translate the technical terms “asādhanāṅgavacana” and “adoṣodbhāvana” without a certain context because Dharmakīrti intended to present grammatically and semantically diverse interpretations of these two compound words in order to define the condition of defeat from diversified perspectives. In this paper, I will provide a suitable translation of these words when the meaning of them can be determined by their actual use in a sentence. However, if their meaning is difficult to determine, I will use the
original Sanskrit word as it is. 5 See VA 3,5–6: asādhanāṅgavacanam adoṣodbhāvanaṃ ca dvayor vādiprativādinor yathākramaṃ nigrahasthānaṃ parājayādhikaraṇam. (Asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana are the conditions of defeat, namely the grounds for defeat for the two [[[debaters]],] i.e., a
proponent and an opponent, respectively.) 6 See VA 3,6–8: anyat tv ity etaddvayavyatiriktam(1) akṣapādaparikalpitaṃ pratijñāsaṃnyāsādikaṃ vakṣyamāṇaṃ nigrahasthānaṃ na yuktam iti kṛtvā neṣyate. nigrahasthānam iti vartate ((1) etaddvaya° VAMS. em. [P1 23a8, P2 73a1, D 52b4: gnyis po de dag las] :
etaddheya° VA.) (“However, other ...” is [annotated as below]. The conditions of defeat – which are distinct from these two [[[asādhanāṅgavacana]] and adoṣodbhāvana], are made by Akṣapāda, are [constituted by] “abandonment of a thesis” and the like, and are to be mentioned [in the latter half of VN] – are
not accepted because they are considered not to be correct. [Thus] “conditions of defeat” are supplemented.) 7 At the beginning of the latter half of VN (VN 25,1), after mentioning line c and d of this verse, it is stated as below. VN 25,2–3: yatredaṃ yathoktaṃ nigrahasthānalakṣaṇaṃ nāsti, tasya
nigrahasthānatvam ayuktam iti noktam asmābhiḥ. (When something does not have this definition of the condition of defeat mentioned above, we do not mention [the thing] because it is not correct that it is the condition of defeat.) Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
Table 1 Dharmakīrti's interpretations of asādhanāṅgavacana Resolution Interpretation Translation and Definition
sādhanāṅgasya avacanam
1st interpretation
tr. : not stating the factor of proof def. : (1) not stating any logical reasons (2) not stating a justified logical reason (svabhāvahetu, kāryahetu, anupalabdhihetu)
2nd interpretation tr. : not stating the element of the means of proof def. : (1) in regard to the three conditions of the logical reason, not stating either the first or second conditions (2) not stating either the first or third conditions
3rd interpretation
tr. : stating what is not the element of the means of proof def. : (1) stating a thesis, an application, or a conclusion (2) stating a second positive concomitance or a second negative concomitance
asādhanāṅgasya vacanam
4th interpretation tr. : stating what is not the factor of proof def. : (1) stating a fallacious logical reason (2) stating a fallacious example
5th interpretation
tr. : stating what does not have proof as the factor def. : stating what is not the topic
Secondly, Dharmakīrti showed two interpretations of adoṣodbhāvana. These two interpretations are arranged in Table 2 below. See Sasaki [2013a] for more details.
Table 2
Dharmakīrti's interpretations of adoṣodbhāvana Resolution Interpretation Translation and Definition
doṣasya anudbhāvanam
1st interpretation
tr. : not pointing out the fault def. : (1) not pointing out “insufficient” (nyūna) (2) not pointing out an unproved reason, an inconclusive reason, a contradictory reason, and so forth
adoṣasya udbhāvanam
2nd interpretation
tr. : pointing out the non-fault def. : making an incorrect response (jātyuttara) and so forth
After the condition of defeat was defined as indicated by the tables in the first half of VN, Dharmakīrti critically considered the Nyāya school's twenty-two different conditions of defeat in the
latter half of VN. In the latter half of VN, although the majority of the Nyāya school's conditions of defeat were not accepted as correct conditions of defeat, some of their conditions of defeat were admitted to be correct. It is expected that the conditions of defeat defined by Dharmakīrti in the first
half of VN correspond with the Nyāya school's conditions of defeat that Dharmakīrti admitted to be correct in the latter half of VN. However, Dharmakīrti did not expressly explain the concrete content of the relationship between these two sets of conditions of defeat in VN. Therefore, we ourselves have to analyze the relationship in accordance with the context of VN.
2.3. Comparison between the First Half of VN and the Latter Half of VN
I compared the first half of VN with the latter half and demonstrated the correspondence relationship between Dharmakīrti's conditions of defeat and the Nyāya school's conditions of defeat in Sasaki [2013b, 2014]. First, the correspondence relationship between the conditions of defeat defined by Dharmakīrti himself and the Nyāya school's conditions of defeat that Dharmakīrti admitted to be correct are arranged in Table 3 below.8
Table 3 Dharmakīrti's interpretation of the Nyāya school's nigrahasthāna (1) Nyāya school's nigrahasthāna which Dharmakīrti admits to be correct
Nigrahasthāna defined by Dharmakīrti 6Different affair (arthāntara) 5th interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana 2nd interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana
Insufficient (nyūna)
1st interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana
2nd interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana Surplus (adhika)
3rd interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana
Lack of an idea (apratibhā) 1st interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana �22�Fallacious logical reason (hetvābhāsa) 4th interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana
8 The condition of defeat is established against a background of specific theories of logic; furthermore, Dharmakīrti and the Nyāya school depend on two different theories of logic. Therefore, even if the conditions of defeat accord for both of them, we cannot anticipate that their conditions of defeat are consistent with each other in every detail.
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
On the other hand, Dharmakīrti rejected the majority of the Nyāya school's conditions of defeat because he thought that most of them should not be classified as different types of conditions of defeat separate from other conditions of defeat. This is arranged below in Table 4.
Table 4
Dharmakīrti's interpretation of the Nyāya school's nigrahasthāna (2)
Nyāya schools's nigrahasthāna which Dharmakīrti rejects
Nyāya school's nigrahasthāna which should not be classified as different types (according to a certain interpretation)
1 pratijñāhāni
2 pratijñāntara 5 3 pratijñāvirodha 22 4 pratijñāsaṃnyāsa 22 5 hetvantara 22 7 nirarthaka 6 12 22 8 avijñātārtha 7 9 apārthaka 7 10 aprāptakāla 9 13 punarukta 12 14 ananubhāṣaṇa 16 15 ajñāna 16 17 vikṣepa 6 7 9 16 22 18 matānujñā 16 19 paryanuyojyopekṣaṇa 16 20 niranuyojyānuyoga 16 22 21 apasiddhānta 22
3. Mutual Acceptance between Dharmakīrti and the Nyāya School
The question we have to ask here is how the Nyāya school responded to Dharmakīrti's opinion. I will confirm Dharmakīrti's way of accepting the Nyāya school's conditions of defeat and pick up Jayanta's response to Dharmakīrti's assertion as an example of the Nyāya school's answer.
Kuwon: Research Papers Vol. 5, Young Buddhist Association of Waseda University, March 2014
3.1. Consideration of “Different Affair” (arthāntara)
The sixth condition of defeat defined in NS is “different affair” (arthāntara).
NS 5.2.7 (Ci'e VN 40,9): prakṛtād arthād apratisaṃbaddhārtham arthāntaram // “Different affair” is an affair which is not related with the affair under discussion.
“Different affair” can be explained as follows9: One debater states, “Sound is permanent because it is not an object of a tactile organ. And the reason (hetu) is the word with the kṛt-suffix when the tu- is added to the root hi-. And the word (pada) is the noun, the verb, the prefix, and the copula. And
the noun (nāman) is ….” Here the explanation of “the reason,” “the word,” and “the noun” is irrelevant to the affair under discussion. Therefore, the debater stating such an irrelevant affair is to be defeated because of the condition of “different affair,” the sixth condition of defeat. In regard to this thought of the Nyāya school, Dharmakīrti wholly admitted the “different affair” to be a correct condition of defeat.
VN 40,16–41,4: nyāyyam etan nigrahasthānaṃ pūrvottarapakṣavādinoḥ, pratipādite doṣe prakṛtaṃ parityajyāsādhanāṅgavacanam adoṣodbhāvanaṃ ca. sādhanavādino hy upanyastasādhanasya samarthane kartavye tad akṛtvāparasya prasaṅgenāprasaṅgena vātannāntarīyakasyāpy abhidhānaṃ parājayasthānam, uttaravādino 'pi
doṣodbhāvanamātrād aparasyopakṣepa iti. This (= “different affair”) is a correct condition of defeat for both a former debater (= a proponent) and a latter debater (= an opponent). [In this case, the correct condition of defeat is] “stating what doesn't have proof as the factor” (asādhanāṅgavacana) and “pointing out the non-fault” (adoṣodbhāvana)10 after leaving the affair under discussion11 when a fault is [mutually] stated [by
9 See VN 40,9–15. 10 The interpretation of the meaning of this word is not found in VN and VA, but Much [1991: 78] translated adoṣodbhāvana into “Nichtaufzeigen eines (begangenen) Fehlers;” furthermore, VN 21, 9– 23,6 is cited in the Much [1991: 78, Anm. 342]. That is to say, Much adopted the first interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana, namely “not pointing out the fault.” However, here it seems to be natural for me to consider the case that an opponent
states something because Dharmakīrti showed the expression “to mention something which is different from the mere comment on a fault” (doṣodbhāvanamātrād aparasyopakṣepaḥ) for the explanation of adoṣodbhāvana. Therefore, I will adopt the second interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana, i.e., “pointing out the non-fault” in this paper. 11 See VA 99,15: prakṛtam atra sādhyasādhanahetvabhidhānam. (Here the affair under discussion is the expression of the probandum and probans, namley the logical reason.) See Much [1991: 77, Anm. 338].
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
a proponent and an opponent]12. The reason is that it is the condition of defeat [for a proponent] to state a different [affair from the affair under discussion], i.e., even [the affair which has] no inseparability with it whether [the affair] has a connection [with it] or not without doing so (= proving his proof), although the debater of proof (= the proponent) has to establish the proof suggested [by himself]. For the latter debater (= the opponent) too, [it is the condition of defeat] to mention something which is different from the mere comment on a fault.
“Different affair” is explained by Dharmakīrti as “stating a different affair.” Therefore, it is appropriate that asādhanāṅgavacana in this case is resolved into asādhanāṅgasya vacanam (the third, fourth, and fifth interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana). Based on the meaning of “different affair” for a proponent, we should conclude that it corresponds with the fifth interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana; namely, “stating what does not have proof as the factor,” i.e., “stating what is not the topic.” In the same way, adoṣodbhāvana in this case should be resolved into adoṣasya udbhāvanam. Therefore, “different affair” for an opponent corresponds with the second interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana, which is “pointing out the non-fault,” i.e., “making an incorrect response (jātyuttara) and so forth.”
NM 2.693.4–8: tad etad arthāntaraṃ nigrahasthānam asādhanāṅgavacanam iti. kīrtināpy anumoditam dvayor api ca vādiprativādinoḥ prakṛtānanuguṇam abhidadhatoḥ bhavaty ado nigrahasthānam. yathākramam ekasya sādhanam anavadyam apaśyato dvitīyasya dūṣaṇam iti. This “different affair” is the condition of defeat, namely asādhanāṅgavacana. Dharmakīrti also welcomed that this condition of defeat occurs to both a proponent and an opponent who state what is not suitable to [the affair] under discussion. [“To both a proponent and an opponent”] means, respectively, “To one [debater] who does not offer an unblamable proof and the second [debater who does not offer any] refutation.”
Jayanta welcomed Dharmakīrti's acceptance of the Nyāya school's thought. In the same way as Dharmakīrti, Jayanta considered the “different affair” as asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana.13
12 See VA 98,26–27: pratipādite doṣe sati vādiprativādibhyām(1) anyonyam …. ((1) vādiprativādi° VA. : vādiprativādi° VAMS.) (when a fault is mutually stated by a proponent and an opponent, ….) 13 It seems that Jayanta considered asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana in the case of “different affair” as sādhanāṅgasya avacanam and doṣasya anudbhāvanam. Therefore, to be accurate, Jayanta's comprehension is supposed to be inaccurate based on the above-mentioned analysis of Dharmakīrti's thought.
Consideration of “Insufficient” (nyūna)
The eleventh condition of defeat defined in NS is “insufficient” (nyūna).
NS 5.2.12 (Ci' VN 49,6): hīnam anyatamenāpy avayavena nyūnam // “Insufficient” (nyūna) is [an inferential statement] which lacks even a single component [of the five component parts].
“Insufficient” can be explained as follows14: The Nyāya school defines “insufficient” as the lack of any one of the five following component parts that comprise an inferential statement: a thesis (pratijñā), a logical reason (hetu), an example (udāharaṇa), an application (upanaya), and a conclusion (nigamana). This definition is based on the perspective that all five parts are means of proof (sādhana) that are indispensable for establishing what is to
be proven (sādhya)15. Therefore, if a proponent sets up an inferential statement without including even one of these components he will be defeated based on the condition of “insufficient,” the eleventh condition of defeat. In regard to this thought of the Nyāya school, Dharmakīrti constructed partial criticism as presented in the following text.
VN 49,9–14: na pratijñānyūnaṃ hīnam, tadabhāve pratītibhāvād iti pratipāditam. hīnam eva tat, nyūnatāyām api nigrahād ity aparaḥ. yaḥ pratīyamānārtham anarthakaṃ śabdaṃ prayuṅkte, sa nigraham arhet, nārthopasaṃhitasyābhidhātety asamīkṣitābhidhānam etat. ata eva ca pratijñāyā na sādhanāṅgabhāva iti. It has been already explained16 that [an inferential statement for which] a thesis17 is insufficient is not lacking [in a means of proof] because apprehension takes place [even] when it (= a thesis) does not exist [in an inferential statement]. [On the other hand], another person (Uddyotakara)18 [insists that] it (= an inferential statement for which a thesis is insufficient) is certainly lacking [in a means
14 See VN 49,6–8. 15 See NV 1185, 6–7 (Ci'e VN 49, 6–8). 16 See VN 17,9–11; 17,16–18,7. 17 See VA 109,16: pratijñāgrahaṇam upalakṣaṇārthaṃ tenopanayanigamanayor api parigrahaḥ. (the expression of the “thesis” is [used] for the purpose of synecdoche. Even the “application” and the “conclusion” are also included by this (= the “thesis”).) 18 As to who is the “another person” (apara), suggesting the possibility of Uddyotakara, Much [1991: 89, Anm. 382] does not abandon other possibilities and avoided affirmation. It is difficult to decide who is he but I will temporarily regard him as Uddyotakara in this paper.
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
of proof] because defeat takes place even when [a thesis] is insufficient19. A person who makes a useless speech which is already known is to be defeated20 and is not a speaker of meaningful things. Therefore, this is a thoughtless remark [by Uddyotakara]21. From this very reason, the thesis is not the element of the means of proof.
Dharmakīrti did not admit a thesis (pratijñā), an application (upanaya), and a conclusion (nigamana) to be the element of the means of proof. Therefore, even if an inferential statement lacks these three component parts, it is not insufficient in essential component parts according to his Buddhist logic.22 However, Dharmakīrti's logic also considers a logical reason (hetu) and an example (udāharaṇa / dṛṣṭānta) to be means of proof, which accords with the Nyāya school's logic. Actually, according to the first and second interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana, i.e., sādhanāṅgasya avacanam, “not stating any logical reasons or three conditions of the logical reason”23 is defined as the condition of defeat. Additionally, the “example” is included in the “logical reason” concept in Dharmakīrti's logic.24
19 See VA 109,16–18 udyotakarasya matam upanyasyati, hīnam eva tat pratijñānyūnam, tasyāḥ pratijñāyā nyūnatāyām api nigrahād iti. (The [following] opinion of Uddyotakara is mentioned; the [inferential statement for which] a thesis is insufficient is certainly lacking [in a means of proof] because defeat takes place even when the thesis is insufficient.) 20 See VA 109,18–19: yaḥ sādhanasāmarthyāt pratīyamānārtham anarthakaṃ śabdaṃ sādhyābhidhāyinaṃ sādhane
prayuṅkte, sa nigraham arhet. (In [the statement of] proof, a person who makes a useless speech which is expressing what should be proven (= a thesis) and is already known through indirect implication of the proof is to be defeated.) Furthermore, See the following explanation in HB. HB 5*,23f.: atra sāmarthyād eva pratijñārthasya pratīter na pratijñāyāḥ prayogaḥ.ΒHere (= in the logical formulation of similarity and dissimilarity), the meaning of a
thesis is [fully] comprehended only through indirect implication. Therefore, the thesis [needs] not be used.) As to the translation of HB, See Steinkellner [1967: 40], Gokhale [1997: 17], Harada [1999: 2]. 21 See VA 109,21–23: nārthopasaṃhitasyayuktiyuktasya pakṣadharmasaṃbandhamātrasyābhidhātety(1) asamīkṣitābhidhānam etad vārtikakārasya. ((1) °ābhidhātety em. : °ābhidhānety VA; °ābhidhābhidhānety VAMS.) ([The person] is not a speaker of meaningful,
i.e., reasonable things which is just “the property of the subject [as the logical reason]” and “the connection [between the probans and the probandum]” (= the logical concomitance). Therefore, this is a thoughtless remark by the author of Nyāyavārttika (=Uddyotakara).) 22 Not only that, Dharmakīrti thought that if a proponent states a thesis, an application, or a conclusion, he is to be defeated. See the third interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana. 23 Dharmakīrti mentioned that “not stating three conditions of the logical reason” is the definition of “insufficiency” (nyūnatā) in Pramāṇavārttika. PV IV
23: anuktāv api pakṣasya siddher apratibandhataḥ / triṣv anyatamarūpasyaivānuktir nyūnatoditā // (Even if a thesis is not stated, establishment [of probandum] is not prevented. Therefore, it is said that “not speaking of any one condition of three [[[conditions]] of the logical reason]” is “insufficiency” (nyūnatā).) See Much [1991: 89, Anm. 383]. 24 See NB III 121: trirūpo hetur uktaḥ / tāvatā cārthapratītir iti na pṛthag dṛṣṭānto nāma sādhanāvayavaḥ kaścit / tena nāsya lakṣaṇaṃ pṛthag ucyate gatārthatvāt // (The logical reason which has three conditions
Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that “insufficient” in the case of the logical reason and the example corresponds with the first and second interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana.
NM 2.699.6–15: atrāha pratijñādyavayavajātam asādhanāṅgavacanam ity ataḥ tad anabhidadhato na nigrahaḥ, pratyuta vadato nigraho yukta iti atrocyate anantaram evaitat parihṛtam, vistarataś cāvayavalakṣaṇe. tathā hi śrotur ākāṅkṣānivṛttaye 'numānavākyaṃ prayujyata iti prathamaṃ tadākāṅkṣāviṣayaḥ
sādhyadharmaviśiṣṭo dharmo pradarśyate. tataḥ kāraṇākāṅkṣāyāṃ hetuvacanam abhidhīyate. kvāsya pratibandho dṛṣṭa iti bubhutsāyāṃ udāharaṇam upapādyate. ittham eṣa siddhapratibandho hetuḥ dharmiṇi bhavet, na veti śaṅkāyām upanayavacanam uccāryate. tadanantaraṃ sarvāvayavānām ekatropasaṃhārāya nigamanaṃ prayujyata ity anyatamasyāprayogāt nigrahārhatā bhavaty evety alam atraiva vastuni pade pade kalahaprastāvaneneti. (Dharmakīrti's assertion:) Here
[[[Dharmakīrti]]] said, “According to [the fact] that asādhanāṅgavacana occurs from the component part, namely a thesis and the like, it is correct that [a debater] who does not state it (= a thesis and the like) is not defeated, and on the contrary [a debater] who states [it] is defeated.” (Jayanta's assertion:) This [[[Dharmakīrti's]] criticism] is answered [as follows]. This is abandoned immediately and [abandoned] in detail in the definition of the
[five] component parts. That is to say, an inferential statement is used in order to stop the requirement of an audience. Therefore, to begin with, a property qualified by probandum that is an object of the [audience's] requirement is presented. Hence, when a ground is required, an expression of a logical reason (hetu) is stated. When [someone] desires to know what is empirically observed to have a relationship with this (= the logical reason), an
example (udāharaṇa) is provided. When there is doubt as to whether this logical reason of which relationship [with probandum] is proven in this manner may exist in the subject or not, an expression of an application (upanaya) is given. Immediately after it (= an expression of an application), in order to put all component parts together into one place, a conclusion (nigamana) is used. Because any one of [all the component parts mentioned above] is not used [by the debater], [he] is to be worthy of defeat. Therefore, in regard to the above matter, stop starting controversy on every occasion!
Jayanta flatly objected to Dharmakīrti's assertion because all five component parts are essential to an inferential statement based on the Nyāya school's logic. However, as to the logical reason and the
was already stated. And the affair [which should be proven] is comprehended only by it (= the logical reason which has the definition mentioned above). Therefore, the example does not exist separately [from the logical reason] as a certain part of the means of proof. Hence, the definition of it (= the example) is not stated separately [from the definition of the logical reason] because the meaning [of the definition of the example] is obtained [from the definition of the logical reason].)
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
example, Dharmakīrti's comprehension is similar to Jayanta's opinion. Therefore, Jayanta's objection seems to be excessive.
3.3. Consideration of “Surplus” (adhika)
The twelfth condition of defeat defined in NS is “surplus” (adhika).
NS 5.2.13 (Ci' VN 49,15): hetūdāharaṇādhikam adhikam // “Surplus” (adhika) is [an inferential statement] which has a surplus logical reason and example.
“Surplus” can be explained as follows25: Even if a debater states an inferential statement which has a surplus logical reason and example, the surplus component parts are useless because proof of probandum can be established by only one logical reason and example. Therefore, the debater stating such an inferential statement is to be defeated because of “surplus,” the twelfth condition of defeat. In regard to this assertion of the Nyāya school, Dharmakīrti conditionally admitted the “surplus” to be a correct condition of defeat.
VN 49,18–20: yatraikasādhanavākyaprayogapūrvako vicāraḥ, tatrādhikābhidhānam anarthakam iti nigrahasthānam. prapañcakathāyāṃ tu na kaścid doṣo niyamābhāvād iti. When consideration postulates usage of an inferential statement, [“surplus” is] the condition of defeat because it is useless to state the surplus [component parts]. But there is not any fault because there is no restriction26 in the expansive discussion (prapañcakathā).
“Surplus” (adhika) evidently should be identified with the condition of defeat for a proponent in VN. Furthermore, it is appropriate that asādhanāṅgavacana in this case is resolved into asādhanāṅgasya vacanam (the third, fourth, and fifth interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana) because “surplus” is explained as “stating the surplus logical reason and example.” Especially, “surplus” is not different from the third interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana, i.e., “stating a second positive concomitance or a second negative concomitance,” in the sense that both of these two mean “stating what is not the element of a means of proof.” Therefore, we should conclude that “surplus” corresponds
25 See VN 49,15–17. 26 The expansive discussion (prapañcakathā) has no restriction which makes the debater employ only one inferential statement. Kuwon: Research Papers Vol. 5, Young Buddhist Association of Waseda University, March 2014
with the third interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana, except in the case of the expansive discussion (prapañcakathā).
NM 2.700.5: etac ca kīrtināpy evam eva kathitam prapaṃcakathāyāṃ tu na doṣaḥ iti. And as to this (= “surplus”), Dharmakīrti also said “but there is no fault in the expansive discussion” in the same way.
Jayanta welcomed Dharmakīrti's acceptance of the Nyāya school's thought.
3.4. Consideration of “Lack of an Idea” (apratibhā)
The sixteenth condition of defeat defined in NS is “lack of an idea” (apratibhā).
NS 5.2.18 (Ci' VN 58,15): uttarasyāpratipattir apratibhā // “Lack of an idea” means “not hitting on any idea of an answer.”
“Lack of an idea” can be explained as follows27: When an opponent is unable to formulate an answer in response to the assertion of a proponent, he cannot negate the proponent's position. Therefore, such an opponent is to be defeated because of “lack of an idea,” the sixteenth condition of defeat. In regard to this assertion of the Nyāya school, Dharmakīrti wholly admitted the “lack of an idea” to be a correct condition of defeat.
VN 58,17–20: sādhanavacanānantaraṃ prativiṣayam uttare vyarthaṃ tadajñānakramaghoṣaṇaślokapāṭhādinā kālaṃ gamayan kartavyāpratipattyā nigrahārha iti nyāyyaṃ nigrahasthānam iti. Immediately after [a proponent] states a piece of proof28, [an opponent] spending useless time [searching] for the answer to each topic through [[[actions]]] such as repeating [the whole assertion of the proponent] in [correct] sequence29 or reciting verse without any idea for it (= an answer) is
27 See VN 58,15–16. 28 See VA 123,15: sādhanavacanānantaraṃ(1) prativādinā dūṣaṇaṃ vaktavyam. ((1) sādhanavacanā° em. : sādhana vacanā° VA.) (Immediately after [a proponent] states a piece of proof, an opponent has to state an objection.) 29 See VA 123,15–16: sarvānukramānubhāṣaṇena. (by repeating the whole [[[assertion]] of a proponent] in correct sequence.) Dharmakīrti denied it to be necessary that the opponent repeats the whole assertion of the proponent in correct sequence when “lack of repetition” (ananubhāṣaṇa), i.e., the fourteenth condition of defeat defined by the Nyāya shcool, is considered at VN 53,17–
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
worthy of defeat because he does not perform that which he should (= refutation of the proponent's proof). Therefore, [“lack of an idea” is] the correct condition of defeat.
According to the system of debate in VN, “lack of an idea” is adoṣodbhāvana, i.e., the condition of defeat for an opponent. And the first interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana, “not pointing out the fault,” is appropriate in this case because “lack of an idea” means “not hitting on any idea of an answer.” That is to say, we should conclude that “lack of an idea” corresponds with the first interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana.30
NM 2.707.13–14: kīrtir api caitad anumanyata eva nigrahasthānam. And Dharmakīrti also indeed approves this (= “lack of an idea”) as a condition of defeat.
Jayanta welcomed Dharmakīrti's acceptance of the Nyāya school's thought.
3.5. Consideration of “Fallacious Logical Reason” (hetvābhāsa)
The twenty-second condition of defeat defined in NS is “fallacious logical reason” (hetvābhāsa).
NS 5.2.24 (Ci' VN 68,1): hetvābhāsāś ca yathoktāḥ // And “fallacious logical reasons” are [the same] as previously stated.
“Fallacious logical reason” is defined in the previous section of the Nyāyasūtra, i.e., NS 1.2.4–9. Vātsyāyana, Uddyotakara, and Dharmakīrti also31 did not explain or examine this term in detail when considering the condition of defeat. However, according to the Nyāya school's definition, “fallacious logical reason” is regarded as a condition of defeat. In regard to this assertion of the Nyāya school, Dharmakīrti admits that “fallacious logical reason” is a correct condition of defeat.
VN 68,6–9: atrāpi yathoktaṃ kṛtvā cintyam eva, kiṃ te yathālakṣitaprabhedās tathaiva, āhosvid
30 Śāntarakṣita also considered the “lack of an idea” to be adoṣodbhāvana. See VA 123,13–14: sādhv etan nigrahasthānam. ata evāsmābhir apīdam adoṣodbhāvanaṃ ity atroktam ity etat matvā 'bhyanujānāti. (This is a right condition of defeat. For this very reason, we also state that this is adoṣodbhāvana. After thinking thus, [we] approve [it].) See Much [1991: 99, Anm. 405]. 31 Cf. VN 68,1–5. Kuwon: Research Papers Vol. 5, Young Buddhist Association of Waseda University, March 2014
anyatheti. tat tu cintyamānam ihātiprasajyata iti na pratanyate. hetvābhāsāś ca yath ānyāyaṃ nigrahasthānam ity etāvanmātram iṣṭam iti. In this case also, according to the remark “as previously stated,” whether they (= “fallacious logical reasons”) are the same as divisions defined [by the Nyāya school] or not has to be considered. But if it is considered here, [we will] fall into the occasion of [making] too [detailed consideration]. Therefore, [we will] not amplify [this topic]. [Instead we] just mean that “fallacious logical reasons” are conditions of defeat in accordance with logic.
Without the need for consideration, we can conclude that “fallacious logical reason” corresponds with the fourth interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana, in which the meaning of “stating the fallacious logical reason” is included.
NM 2.717.12: eteṣāṃ dharmakīrter api ca na vimatiḥ nigrahasthānatāyām. And Dharmakīrti also has no disagreement [with us] as to [the notion that] these (= “fallacious logical reasons”) are conditions of defeat.
Jayanta welcomed Dharmakīrti's acceptance of the Nyāya school's thought.
4. Jayanta's Comprehension of Nigrahasthāna put forth by Dharmakīrti
Overall, Jayanta interpreted Dharmakīrti's definition of the condition of defeat as stated below.
NM 2.680.17–2.681.9: doṣānudbhāvanam apratipattiḥ, viparītadoṣodbhāvanaṃ vipratipattiḥ. evam asādhanāṅgavacanam api vikalpanīyam. prasajyapratiṣedhavṛttyā s ādhanāṅgasyāvacanaṃ cet, seyam apratipattiḥ. paryudāsavṛttyā sādhanāṅgād anyac cet vacanam, seyaṃ vipratipattiḥ. ataḥ śabdāntareṇākṣapādapādebhya eva śiśikṣitvā, tad eva nigrahasthānadvayam anena śloke dvayena nibaddham, na punar abhinavam alpam api kiṃcid utprekṣitam iti. na ca yathāsaṃkhyaniyamena
dvayor dve nigrahasthāne varṇanīye, api tu yathāsaṃbhavam ubhayor api yathāvasaraṃ tat tan nigrahasthānam ādeṣṭavyam. dvāviṃśatibhedatvaṃ ca nigrahasthānānām asaṅkīrṇodāharaṇavivakṣayā kathyate, na niyam āyety uktam eva. parasparavisadṛśaṃ ca lakṣaṇam eṣāṃ idānīm upadiśyata eva. tatraiva cāyuktatvam eṣām, bāliśapralāpakalpatvaṃ vā par ākriyata evety alam atiprasaṅgena. “Non-understanding” (apratipatti) is “not pointing out a fault,” [and] “misunderstanding”
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
(vipratipatti) is “pointing out a wrong fault.” Asādhanāṅgavacana also has to be sorted out in this way. If [[[asādhanāṅgavacana]] means] “not stating sādhanāṅga” by a function of direct negation (prasajyapratiṣedha), this [corresponds with] “non-understanding.” [On the other hand], if [[[asādhanāṅgavacana]] means] “stating a different thing from sādhanāṅga” by a function of indirect negation (paryudāsa), this [corresponds with] “misunderstanding.” Therefore,
in the hope of studying [them] through the expression which is different from Akṣapāda's lines, these very two conditions of defeat (= “non-understanding” and “misunderstanding”) are connected with these two [[[conditions]] of defeat] (= asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana) in the verse. However, any new [[[information]]], even if it is a trifling matter, is not expected [in the verse about asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana]. Furthermore, it is not needed to
describe the two conditions of defeat (= asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana) [[[corresponding]]] with the two [[[conditions]] of defeat] (= “non-understanding” and “misunderstanding”) on the basis of the restriction of numbers (= the first to the first and the second to the second). If anything, depending on the situation, this and that condition of defeat (=asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana) should be [respectively] specified in accordance with the possibility
as to both [“non-understanding” and “misunderstanding”]. And it was indeed stated that the conditions of defeat were conveyed as twenty-two kinds of divisions because of the desire to express examples without [mutual] confusion but were not [conveyed] in terms of the limitation [of numbers of twenty-two kinds]. At that moment it is necessarily instructed that the definitions of these [[[conditions]] of defeat] are mutually different. In that very case it is also necessarily rejected that these [[[conditions]] of defeat] are not correct or are foolish small talk. Therefore, stop falling into [saying] too much.
Jayanta's purpose here is to reinterpret asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana, which are concepts established by Dharmakīrti, by a function of direct negation (prasajyapratiṣedha) and indirect negation (paryudāsa).32 He intended to have these two concepts included into “non-understanding” (apratipatti) and “misunderstanding” (vipratipatti), which are defined in NS. The way of his
32 As for adoṣodbhāvana, Prameyakamalamārtaṇḍa and Pramāṇamīmāṃsā also interprets this term by a function of prasajyapratiṣedha and paryudāsa. PKM 674,16–19 (= PM 82,18–20): yac cedam, adoṣodbhāvanam ity asya vyākhyānam. prasajyapratiṣedhe doṣodbhāvanābhāvamātram adoṣodbhāvanam, paryudāse tu doṣābhāsānām
anyadoṣāṇāṃ codbhāvanaṃ prativādino nigrahasthānam itiΒFurethermore, one says as follows: this [term], namely, adoṣodbhāvana is explained. [When this term
nterpreted by] indirect negation, “pointing out the pseudo-faults and other faults” is [[[adoṣodbhāvana]]]. [Thus explained adoṣodbhāvana is] the condition of defeat of an opponent.) Kuwon: Research Papers Vol. 5, Young Buddhist Association of Waseda University, March 2014 55 interpretation is arranged below in Table 5.
Table 5
Jayanta's reinterpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana Nyāya's nigrahasthāna Dharmakīrti's nigrahasthāna
apratipatti
sādhanāṅgasya avacanam (asādhanāṅgavacana interpreted by means of prasajyapratiṣedha)
doṣasya anudbhāvanam (adoṣodbhāvana interpreted by means of prasajyapratiṣedha)
vipratipatti
asādhanāṅgasya vacanam (asādhanāṅgavacana interpreted by means of paryudāsa)
adoṣasya udbhāvanam (adoṣodbhāvana interpreted by means of paryudāsa)
According to Jayanta, asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana are created not for the purpose of adding some new information to apratipatti and vipratipatti, but for the purpose of a different approach through putting apratipatti and vipratipatti in another way. Dharmakīrti criticized the Nyāya school's “conditions of defeat” for mutual overlaps and rejected many conditions. However, Jayanta cleverly avoided this criticism by explaining that the twenty-two conditions of defeat defined in NS are not intended for the limitation of numbers but for expressing them clearly and without confusion.
5. Concluding Remarks
The main points from Tables 1 through 5 are collected and arranged in Table 6 on the next page. This table helps to show how Jayanta interpreted the correspondence relationship of “the conditions of defeat” (nigrahasthāna) between NS and VN. In the position of VN, “insufficient” (nyūna) corresponds with the first and second interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana (sādhanāṅgasya avacanam), and according to NM, sādhanāṅgasya avacanam corresponds with “non-understanding” (apratipatti). However, as long as the first and second interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana are considered to correspond with “insufficient,” “insufficient” cannot be listed in this table because Jayanta flatly objected to Dharmakīrti's assertion regarding “insufficient”. Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
Table 6 Jayanta's comprehension of the correspondence relationship of nigrahasthāna between NS and VN Jayanta's interpretation in NM Dharmakīrti's interpretation in VN agreed by Jayanta NS's terms VN's terms VN's terms NS's terms sādhanāṅgasya 1st interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana
11“Insufficient” apratipatti
avacanam 2nd interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana
(nyūna) doṣasya anudbhāvanam
1st interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana 16“lack of an idea” (apratibhā) 3rd interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana
12“surplus” (adhika)
vipratipatti
asādhanāṅgasya vacanam
4th interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana
22“fallacious logical reason” (hetvābhāsa)
5th interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana
“different affair”
adoṣasya udbhāvanam
2nd interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana
(arthāntara)33
Traditionally, the Nyāya school classified the twenty-two conditions of defeat into apratipatti and vipratipatti in its own way. However, isn't the traditional way of classification contrary to Table 6? We have to consider this problem through the following text.
NM 2.679.09–10 (Ce'e NBh 404,5–6)34: atrānanubhāṣaṇam ajñānam apratibhā vik ṣepaḥ paryanuyojyopekṣaṇam iti apratipattyā saṃgṛhītāni; śeṣāṇi vipratipattyā. Among these [twenty-two conditions of defeat], “lack of repetition” (ananubhāṣaṇa), “lack of
33 To be more accurate, when considering Jayanta's miscomprehension in NM 2.693.4–8, it is problematic to list the correspondence relationship between “different affair” and the 5th interpretation of asādhanāṅgavacana or the 2nd interpretation of adoṣodbhāvana in Table 6. See footnote 13 for details. 34 NBh 404,5–6: tatrānanubhāṣaṇam ajñānam apratibhā vikṣepo matānujñā paryanuyojyopekṣaṇam ity apratipattir nigrahasthānam, śeṣas tu vipratipattir iti. (Among
these [twenty-two conditions of defeat], “lack of repetition” (ananubhāṣaṇa), “lack of comprehension” (ajñāna), “lack of an idea” (apratibhā), “throw-out” (vikṣepa), “Admitting the opinion” (matānujñā), and “overlooking what is blamable” (paryanuyojyopekṣaṇa) are [collected into] “non-understanding” (apratipatti), which is the condition of defeat; on the other hand, the rest are [collected into] “misunderstanding” (vipratipatti).)
Kuwon: Research Papers Vol. 5, Young Buddhist Association of Waseda University, March 2014
comprehension” (ajñāna), “lack of an idea” (apratibhā), “throw-out” (vikṣepa), and “overlooking what is blamable” (paryanuyojyopekṣaṇa) are collected into “non-understanding” (apratipatti) and the rest are [collected into] “misunderstanding” (vipratipatti).
According to the explanation by NM which parallels NBh's sentence, among the conditions of defeat shown in Table 6, the sixteenth, “lack of an idea” (apratibhā), corresponds with “non-understanding” (apratipatti). The rest, namely the sixth, “different affair,” (arthāntara), the eleventh, “insufficient” (nyūna), the twelfth, “surplus” (adhika), and the twenty-second, “fallacious logical reason” (hetvābhāsa), correspond with “misunderstanding”
(vipratipatti). The point to observe here is that this traditional way classifies “insufficient” into the “misunderstanding.” This classification, however, does not lead to an inconsistency in Table 6 because Jayanta objected to Dharmakīrti's interpretation of the “insufficient” as stated above, and hence Dharmakīrti's interpretation of the “insufficient” should not be listed in Table 6, which shows Jayanta's comprehension of the correspondence relationship of “the conditions of defeat” between NS and VN. Therefore, the result clearly shows that Jayanta consistently reimported Dharmakīrti's interpretation of
the Nyāya school's doctrine into the traditional Nyāya school's theory, except for the condition “insufficient.” Jayanta resolved asādhanāṅgavacana and adoṣodbhāvana, which were concepts first devised by Dharmakīrti in VN, into "non-understanding" (apratipatti) and “misunderstanding” (vipratipatti), i.e., the traditional concepts in the doctrine of the Nyāya school. Furthermore, he welcomed and reimported Dharmakīrti's assertion in which some of the twenty-two conditions of defeat are admitted to be correct. By cleverly accepting Dharmakīrti's opinion, Jayanta showed the superiority of the Nyāya school’s theory over Dharmakīrti's position in VN through the statement that the latter has no new point of view compared to the former.
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
===Abbreviations and Bibliography===
1. Sigla Ci'e citatum in alio usus secundarii modo edendi / citation in another text used secondarily, that is, not marked by an author as being a citation, with redactional changes. Ci' citatum in alio usus secundarii / citation in another text used secondarily, that is, a passage not marked by an author as being a citation. Ce'e citatum ex alio usus secundarii modo edendi / citation from another text used secondarily, that is not marked by the author as being a citation, with redactional changes.
2. Primary Sources D Derge edition of Tibetan Tripitaka: eds. J. Takasaki, Z. Yamaguchi and Y. Ejima, Sde Dge Tibetan Tripiṭaka Bstan Ḥgyur, preserved at the Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo, Sekai-Seiten-Kankō-Kyōkai, Tokyo, 1977–1989. HB Hetubindu (Dharmakīrti): ed. Ernst Steinkellner, Dharmakīrti's Hetubinduḥ, Teil I, tibetischer Text und rekonstruierter Sanskrit-Text, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historischen Klasse,
Sitzungsberichte, 252. Band, 1. Abhandlung, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen und Kulturen Süd- und Ostasiens, Heft 4, Herman Böhlaus Nachf., Wien, 1967. NB Nyāyabindu (Dharmakīrti): ed. Dalsukhbhai Malvania, Paṇḍita Durveka Miśra's Dharmottarapradīpa: Being a sub-commentary on Dharmottara's Nyāyabinduṭīkā, a commentary on Dharmakīrti's Nyāyabindu, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series Vol. 2, Kashiprasad Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1955. NBh
Nyāyabhāṣya (Vātsyāyana): See NV. NM Nyāyamañjarī (Bhaṭṭa Jayanta): ed. K. S. Varadācārya, Nyāyamañjarī of Jayantabhaṭṭa with Ṭippaṇi − Nyāyasaurabha, 2 vols. Oriental Research Institute, Mysore, 1969, 1983. NS Nyāyasūtra (Gautama): See NV. NV Nyāyavārttika (Uddyotakara): eds. Tāranātha Nyāya-Tarkatīrtha
and Amarendramohan Tarkatīrtha, Nyāyadarśana with Vātsyāyana's Bhāṣya, Uddyotakara's Vārttika, Vācaspati Miśra's Tātparyaṭīkā and Viṣvanātha's Vṛtti, Calcutta Sanskrit Series Nos. 18 & 29, Calcutta, 1936–44, rep. Rinsen Book, Kyoto, 1982. P Peking edition of Tibetan Tripitaka: ed. Daisetz T. Suzuki, The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking edition, Kept in the Library of the Otani University, Kyoto, Reprinted under the supervision
Kuwon: Research Papers Vol. 5, Young Buddhist Association of Waseda University, March 2014
of the Otani University, Kyoto, 168 vols., Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, Tokyo - Kyoto, 1955–1961. PKM Prameyakamalamārtaṇḍa (Prabhācandra): ed. Mahendra kumāra Śāstri, Prameya-kamalamārtaṇḍa by Shri Prabha Chandra (A Commentary on Shri Manik Nandi's Pareeksha Mukh Sutra), Sri Garib Dass Oriental
Series No. 94, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi, 1991, rep. D.K. Fine Art Press, Delhi, 1990 (3rd edition). PM Pramāṇamīmāṃsā (Hemacandra): eds. Satkari Mookerjee and Nathmal Tatia, Hemacandra's Pramāṇa-mīmāṃsā, Text and Translation with Critical Notes, Prachya Bharati Series 11, Tara Publications,
Varanasi, 1970. PV IV The fourth chapter of the Pramāṇavārttika (Dharmakīrti): ed. Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana, Ācārya-Dharmakīrteḥ Pramāṇavārttikam ācārya-Manorathanandikṛtayā vṛttyā saṃvalitam (Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika with a commentary by Manorathanandin), Appendix to J.B.O.R.S. Vols. 24–26, Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Patna, 1938–1940. VA Vipañcitārthā (Śāntarakṣita): ed. Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana, Dharmakīrti's Vādanyāya with the Comentary of
Śāntarakṣita, Appendix to J.B.O.R.S. Vols. 21 & 22, Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Patna, 1935–36 (Tib. D No. 4239, P1 No. 5725, P2 No. 5738). VAD Vipañcitārthā (Śāntarakṣita): ed. Svāmi Dvārikādās Śāstrī, Vādanyāyaprakaraṇa of Āchārya Dharmakīrti with the commentary Vipañcitārthā of Āchārya Śāntarakṣita and Sambandhaparīkṣā with the commentary of Āchārya Prabhācandra, Bauddha Bharati Sereies Vol. 8, Varanasi, 1972. VAMS Vipañcitārthā
(Śāntarakṣita): Photostat copy of the Sanskrit manuscript in the library of Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (The color photostat copies of the same manuscript: 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a are included in ƀɶǽōˑΔ˗ƒȠĎɲ˲Ǵɩ̹͏Δń˲ŦéɦʙΔ 2011)Ε VN Vādanyāya (Dharmakīrti): ed. Michael Torsten Much, Dharmakīrtis Vādanyāyaḥ, Teil I, Sanskrit-Text, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 581. Band,
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen und Kulturen Südasiens Nr. 25, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 1991 (Tib. D No. 4218, P No. 5715). VND Vādanyāya (Dharmakīrti): See VAD. VNMS Vādanyāya (Dharmakīrti): Photostat copy of the Sanskrit manuscript in the National Archives. VNR Vādanyāya (Dharmakīrti): See VA.
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
3. Secondary Sources Chinchore, Mangala R. [1988] Vādanyāya: A Glimpse of Nyāya-Buddhist Controversy, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi. Gangopadhyaya, Mrinalkanti [1982] Nyāya: Gautama's Nyāya-sūtra with Vātsyāyana's Commentary, Sambhunath Pundit Street, Calcutta. Gokhale, Pradeep P. [1993] Vādanyāya
of Dharmakīrti: The Logic of Debate, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi. [1997] Hetubindu of Dharmakīrti: A Point of Probans, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi. Harada, WasoΒĒɺ ĭūΓ [1999] ɱΒ HetubinduΓʲ II . 1–15. Β“Ronkyo no shizukudama (Hetubindu) dai II setsu shiyaku,” Mikyō bunka 202, pp. 1–15.Γ“A Japanese Translation of the Hetubindu, §II,” The Mikkyo Bunka (Journal of Esoteric Buddhism) Vol. 202, pp. 1–15.Σ Jhā, Gaṅgānātha
[1915–19] The Nyāyasūtras of Gautama with Vātsyāyana's Bhāṣya and Uddyotakara's Vārttika, 4 vols., Indian Thought Series No. 7, rep. Rinsen Book, Kyoto, 1983. Katsura, ShoryuΒȦ ˅ͯΓ [2000] “Indian Tradition of Debate,” Proceedings of the 1st Tokyo Conference on Argumentation, pp. 1–12. Kajiyama, YuichiΒȪƄ ͳΓ [1984] ǯʓ̤̟<Ʀdž, Ɵœǯ 10 ──̤̟̕6̟ɴŦΔȝ§Δpp. 1–101. Β“Bukkyō chishikiron no keisei,” Kōza daijō bukkyō 9: Ninshikiron to ronrigaku, Shunjūsha, Tokyo, pp.
1–101.Γ Much, Michael Torsten [1986] “Dharmakīrti's Definition of “Points of Defeat” (Nigrahasthāna),” Buddhist Logic and Epistemology, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht / Boston / Lancaster / Tokyo, pp. 133–142. [1991] Dharmakīrtis Vādanyāyaḥ, Teil II, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 581. Band, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen
und Kulturen Südasiens Nr. 25, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. Ono, TakuyaΒŽ͜ ĉΓ
Kuwon: Research Papers Vol. 5, Young Buddhist Association of Waseda University, March 2014
[2006] Nyāyapariśiṣṭa 924Β3Γ─̟̊<ȥɰ─Ȑɋūʔʫįʔʫˀ˾ 36Δpp. 101– 121. Β“Nyāyapariśiṣṭa ni tsuite (3): Indo koten tōronjutsu no dentō,” Sōtō shū kenkyūin kiyō, Vol. 36, pp. 101–121. Γ “On Nyāyapariśiṣṭa (3): some Rules of Philosophical Argumentation,” Journal of Sōtō Shū Research Fellows, Vol. 36, pp. 101–121.Σ Preisendanz, Karin [2000] “Debate and Independent Reasoning vs. Tradition: On the Precarious Position of Early Nyāya,” Festschrift Minoru Hara, pp. 221–251. Ruben, Walter [1928] Die Nyāyasūtra's : Text, Übersetzung, Erläuterung und Glossar, Deutschen Morgenländische Gesellschaft, Leipzig, Kraus Reprint, Liechtenstein, 1966. Sasaki, RyoΒ»
ȗ ¨Γ [2012a] Vādanyāya 9 NėNj̏Ǖǵ̤̕njȽ──h}^lV9KNŤņƷ9ň 3ô͓ɚ̟̏──ΔȝɊ<ƶƽ6ūǯ 29Δpp. 1–22. Β“Vādanyāya ni okeru han-shoshō-kyoseki-ninshiki-shudan: Dhamrakīrti ni yoru sonzaisēni motozuku Setsunametsu-ronshō,” Tōyō no shisō to shūkyō, Vol. 29, pp. 1–22.Γ“Sādhyaviparyaye bādhakapramāṇam in the Vādanyāya: Dharmakīrti's Proof of Momentariness from Existence,” Thought and Religion of Asia, Vol. 29, pp. 1–22.Σ [2012b] h}^lV< nigrahasthāna ͚̅
Β1Γ──asādhanāṅgavacana 924──Δ ͍─ʔʫ̟Ǵʹ─3Δpp. 69–90. Β“Dharmakīrti no nigrahasthāna kaishaku (1): asādhanāṅgavacana ni tsuite,” Kuwon: kenkyū ronbun shū, Vol. 3, pp. 69–90.Γ “Dharmakīrti's interpretation of nigrahasthāna (1): On asādhanāṅgavacana,” Kuwon: Rsearch papers, Vol. 3, pp. 69–90.Σ [2013a] h}^lV< nigrahasthāna ͚̅Β2Γ──adoṣodbhāvana 924──Δ ͍─ʔʫ̟Ǵʹ─4Δpp. 55–75. Β“Dharmakīrti no nigrahasthāna kaishaku (2): adoṣodbhāvana ni tsuite,” Kuwon:
kenkyū ronbun shū, Vol. 4, pp. 55–75.Γ “Dharmakīrti's interpretation of nigrahasthāna (2): On adoṣodbhāvana,” Kuwon: Rsearch papers, Vol. 4, pp. 55–75.Σ [2013b] “Nigrahasthāna in the Vādanyāya: Controversy between Dharmakīrti and the Nyāya School,” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 178–182. [2014] h}^lV9KN̟̊ƶƽ<¼ʿă──Vādanyāya 9 NqŦɌ ̚<Ǐï6ĚŲ──Δ ċUcUĜãŦ9Δpp. 319–370. Β“Dharmakīrti ni yoru tōron-shisō no taikeika: Vādanyāya
ni okeru Nyāya-gakuha no hihan to juyō,” Minami Ajia Kotengaku, Vol. 9, pp. 319–370.Γ“Systematization of the Thought of Debate by Dharmakīrti: Criticism and Acceptance of the Nyāya School's Theory in the Vādanyāya,”
Acceptance and interpretation of Dharmakīrti's theory of nigrahasthāna in the Nyāyamañjarī (SASAKI Ryō)
South Asian Classical Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 319–370.Σ Steinkellner, Ernst [1967] Dharmakīrti’s Hetubinduḥ, Teil II, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 252. Band, 2. Abhandlung, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen und Kulturen Süd- und Ostasiens, Heft 5, Herman Böhlaus Nachf., Wien. [2014] The Edition of Śāntarakṣita's Vādanyāyaṭīkā Collated with the Kundeling Manuscript , Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde Heft 82, Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, Wien. Todeschini, Alberto [2010] “Twenty-Two Ways to Lose a Debate: A Gricean Look at the Nyāyasūtra's Point of Defeat,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 38–1, pp. 49–74.
ΒSASAKI Ryō – Graduate Student, Waseda UniversityΓ
Kuwon: Research Papers Vol. 5, Young Buddhist Association of Waseda University, March 2014
