About the Authors

In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions.In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions

Acknowledgements

In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions.In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions

Index

In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions.In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions

The Theory of Apoha in Kuiji’s "Cheng weishi lun Shuji"

In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions.In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions

Dharmakīrti's Santānāntarasiddhi : Japanese Translation & Synopsis

The problem of whether there are other beings beside oneself who possess thoughts, emotions, etc., is a philosophical issue of perennial interest. It is especially important for Yogācāravijñānav̄adins of Indian Buddhism to take a clear position on this issue, for they deny the existence of the external world, claiming that it is merely our mental representation. Dharmakīrti's Santānāntarasiddhi is one of the first independent treatises on this topic among the vast number of Buddhist philosophical texts. The present article presents a Japanese translation of the Santānāntarasiddhi together with its synopsis as a preliminary study of the Other Minds Problem in Buddhist Philosophy, which I intend to write on in future. The text is now available only in its Tibetan translation, which has been edited by Th. Stcherbatsky (Bibliotheca Buddhica XIX, 1916). I have compared the printed edition with the Peking and Derge versions, which sometimes provide better readings. The treatise has been translated into Russian by its editor and then retranslated into English by H. Ch. Gupta (Papers of Th. Stcherbatsky, 1969, Calcutta). H. Kitagawa has published the summary (Bunka 18-3, 1954) and an English translation (J. of the Greater India Society, XIV-1, 2, 1955). Despite these earlier efforts, I have chosen to publish my own translation because I feel that recent work on Dharmakīrti and other Buddhist logicians has considerably improved our understanding of this text

A Study of the Nyāyamukha (VII)

-Synopsis- 10.14. Prāptyaprāptisama & ahetusama explained / 5a7-5a18 (Verse 24) 10.15. Prāptyaprāptisama & ahetusama refuted / 5a18-5a27 10.16. *Anukti-,anutpatti- & kārya-sama enumerated / 5a28-5b2 (Verse 25 & 26) 10.17 *Anuktisama explained / 5b3-5b6 10.18. Anutpattisama explained / 5b7-5b13 10.19. Kāryasama explained / 5b13-5b16 10.20. The three jātis refuted / 5b17-5c3 10.21. Prasangasama explained & refuted / 5c4-5c9 (Verse 27) 10.22. Nityasama explained & refuted / 5c10-5c18 (Verse 28) 11. Concluding remarks on jātis / 5c19-5c26 12. Nigrahasthānas & other logical categories / 5c26-6a6 (Concluding verse 29) This is the final portion of my study of the Nyāyamukha. It took me ten years to finish editing and translating this small but difficult work. On this occasion I would like to thank those who have sent me their comments on and corrections of my translations and notes. I promise to publish a revised English version in the future. Meanwhile, I would like to work on what Prof. M. Hahn calls 'working edition' of the Pramāṇasamuccaya-vṛtti and Ṭīkā, as well as to translate the portions of the Pramāṇasamuccaya-vṛtti which have not been touched by Profs. Hattori and Kitagawa. I originally intended to evaluate Dignāga's logical system by using modern symbolic logic. However, my interest on that area has somehow decreased and I will expect someone to take over that task

A Study of the Nyāyamukha (VI)

-Synopsis- 10. Seven types of dūṣaṇābhāsa enumerated / 3c29-4a5 (Verses 20, 21, 22) 10.1. Sādharmyasama explained / 4a6-18 10.2. Vaidharmyasama explained / 4a19-21 10.3. Vikalpasama explained / 4a22-27 10.4. Aviśeṣasama explained / 4a27-b12 10.5. Upalabdhisama explained / 4b13-19 10.6. Saṁśayasama explained / 4b20-26 10.7. Arthāpattisama explained / 4b27-c2 10.8. A common characteristic of the seven / 4c2-8 (Verse 23ab) 10.9. Sādharmyasama (, vaidharmya-, vikalpa- & aviśeṣa-sama) refuted / 4c8-19 10.10. The second and the third aviśeṣasama refuted / 4c19-24 10.11. Upalabdhisama refuted / 4c24-28 10.12. Saṁśayasama refuted / 4c26-5a4 10.13. Arthāpattisama refuted / 5a4-6 (to be continued

Karṇakagomin's Ṭīkā on Pramāṇavārttika, Chapter I (2)

The following is a synopsis of the text translated in this paper: 3.0.0. Introducing Dharmakīrti' s own introductory remark on PV 1.3. 3.0.1. Comments on 'arthānartha-vivecana'. 3.0.1.1. 'artha /anartha' = 'beneficial/ unbeneficial' (hita / ahita) 3.0.1.2. Śākyabuddhi' s criticism against the above interpretation. 3.0.1.2.1. A criticism by means of the restrictive particle 'eva'. 3.0.1.2.2. Beneficial / unbeneficial can be determined by perception, too. 3.0.1.2.3. Justification by means of Dharmakīrti' s own words. 3.0.1.2.4. Śākyabuddhi' s own interpretation : 'artha / anartha' = 'reasonable / unreasonable' (yukta / ayukta). 3.0.1.3. Karṇakagomin' s criticism against Śākyabuddhi. 3.0.1.3.1. Reasonable / unreasonable can be determined by perception, too. 3.0.1.3.2. Some rejoinder answered by Karṇakagomin. 3.0.1.3.3. Another rejoinder answered by Karṇakagomin. 3.0.1.4. Dharmottara' s position refuted. 3.0.1.4.1. The object of a human action is not santāna but sāmānya. 3.0.1.4.2. Some rejoinder answered by Karnakagomin. 3.0.1.4.3. Another rejoinder answered by Karṇakagomin. 3.0.1.5. The third interpretation : 'artha / anartha' = 'something to be obtained / abandoned' (upādeya / heya). 3.0.1.6. Karṇakagomin' s own interpretation : 'artha / anartha' = 'the ultimate / conventional truth' (paramārthasatya / saṁvṛtisatya) 3.0.2. Comments on 'anumāna'. 3.0.2.1. Inference is a reliable means of knowledge (pramāṇa) due to its connection with reality. 3.0.2.2. An objection answered. 3.0.2.3. 'anumana' = 'an image of cognition' (ākāra=pramāṇa). 3.0.2.4. Karṇakagomin' s interpretation : 'anumana' = 'a logical mark' (liṅga) 3.0.3. An introduction to PV I.3. (To be continued

A STUDY OF THE NYĀYAMUKHA (II)

-Synopsis- 2.5. dharma does not prove dharmin. / 1b27-c4 2.6. dharmin does not prove another dharmin, nor dharma. (sādhana) dharma proves (sādhya) dharma. / 1c4-12 Verse 3. 2.7. Pseudo-hetu examined. (1) / 1c13-16 2.8. Pseudo-hetu examined. (2) / 1c16-23 Vevse 4. 2.9. avīta-prayoga examined. / 1c24-27 3. 3 divisions of pakṣadharma. / 1c28-29 (restatement of Verse 2) 3.1. Def. of sapakṣa and asapakṣa. / 1c29 - 2a3 3.2. A hetu may prove more than one sādhya-dharma. / 2a3-9 3.3. Relationship among pakṣadharma(=hetu), sapakṣa and pakṣa. / 2a9-14 3.4. 9 types of pakṣadharma. asapakṣa can be zero. / 2a14-1

A STUDY OF THE NYĀYAMUKHA (I)

The aim of this paper is to present a new Japanese translation of the N(yāya)M(ukha) of Dignāga together with its Sanskrit and Tibetan fragments/parallels so far discovered; a brief exposition of my own follows the translation of each passage. It is almost a half century ago that H. Ui and G. Tucci published a translation of the NM one after another. Since then various studies of Dignāga have appeared, including important works on the Pramāṇasamuccaya done by H. Kitagawa and M. Hattori, which now enable us to produce a completely new study of the NM. The following is a synapsis of the portions of the NM translated and studied in this paper. / Taisho Vol. 32 0. Introduction / 1a5 1. Def. of sādhana & Def. of paksa. (Verse 1) / 1a6-7 1.1. Def. of sādhana explained. / 1a8-11 1.2. Def. of pakṣa explained (1). / 1a11-16 1.3. Def. of pakṣa explained (2): 4 pakṣābhāsas. / 1a16-22 1.4. The Naiyāyika's 'pratijñāvirodha' criticized. / 1a22-b3 2. pakṣadharma: 9 types. (Verse 2) / 1b4-7 2.1. Three meanings of the word 'pakṣa'. / 1b8-10 2.2. pakṣadharma must be recognized by both parties of a debate; jñāpakahetu & utpādaka-/kāraṇahetu. / 1b11-17 2.3. 4 (asiddha) hetvābhāsas. / 1b17-22 2.4. Again, hetu(=pakṣadharma) must be recognized by both parties of a debate. / 1b22-2