ELI FRANCO

A NEW ERA IN THE STUDY OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY

Review of:Ernst Steinkellner, Helmut Krasser and Horst Lasic, Jinendrabuddhi’sVi�s�al�amalavat�� Pram�an:asamuccayat:��k�a Chapter I.Part I: Critical Edition. lx+209. Part II: Diplomatic Edition.xxxviii+161. With a Manuscript Description by Anne MacDonald.Sanskrit Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region 1/I+1/II.China Tibetology Publishing House/Austrian Academy of SciencesPress. Beijing - Vienna 2005 (39.00 Euro for both volumes).

The publication of the first chapter of Jinendrabuddhi’sVi�s�al�amalavat�� Pram�an:asamuccayat:��k�a marks a new era in Buddhistphilosophical studies, comparable in its importance to the one thatbegan with the sensational discoveries of Buddhist manuscripts byRahula Sankrityayana and Giuseppe Tucci in the 1930s and 40s.

It has been known for some time that a large number of rareSanskrit manuscripts of works belonging to the Buddhist epistemo-logical tradition are preserved in Lhasa. Already in 1995 Steinkellnerand Much mention the following works:1

In the Norbulingka palace: Pram�an:asamuccayat:��k�a, V�adany�ayat:��k�aof S�antaraks: ita and a certain Pram�an:agrantha; in the Potala:Ny�ayamukha, Pram�an:asamuccaya, Ny�ayaprave�saka, Ny�ayabindu,Pram�an:avini�scaya (four manuscripts), Hetubindu, V�adany�aya,Sambandhapar��ks: �ak�arik�a, Sant�an�antarasiddhi, Hetubindut:��k�a ofArcat:a, Pram�an:avini�scayat:��k�a of Dharmottara, Pram�an:av�arttik�al-a _nk�ara, Sahopalambhaniyamasamarthana (two manuscripts), Vy�ap-ticarc�a, Apohasiddhi (two manuscripts) and Ks:an:abha _ngasiddhi (twomanuscripts) of Jn�ana�sr��mitra, J�ativ�ada (two manuscripts), Bha-vik�aran:av�ada, Dvij�atid�us:an:a, Srutikartr: siddhi, Nair�atmyasiddhi ofJit�ari, Pram�an:av�arttik�ala _nk�arat:��k�a of Yam�ari, Ny�ayahr:dayak�arik�a ofManoratha, and several other works of unknown authors.

1 Cf. E. Steinkellner and M.T. Much, Texte der erkenntnistheoretischen Schule desBuddhismus. Goettingen 1995: xix–xx.

Journal of Indian Philosophy (2006) 34: 221–227 � Springer 2006DOI 10.1007/s10781-005-5019-3

When the Tibetan Research Center, now called the China Tibe-tology Research Center, was established in 1986, its first director,Professor Dorje Cedan, recognized the importance of Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts preserved in various monasteries in Lhasa, andarranged for a large number of them to be photographed andphotocopied. Most of the above mentioned works and many otherswere photocopied. The sheer quantity of the manuscripts and thecomplexity of their contents – the texts range from Vinaya,Mah�ay�anas�utras, Tantric works and Pram�an:a texts to Indian gram-mar, poetics, etc. – proved to be a vast challenge for the ChinaTibetology Center and the directors of the Center wisely decided toexpand their resources by way of an international cooperation. OnJanuary 9, 2004, a ‘‘General Agreement on Cooperative Studies onthe Copies of Sanskrit texts and Joint Publication’’ was signed be-tween The China Tibetology Research Center and the AustrianAcademy of Sciences.2 The research on the manuscripts is planned tobe carried out by the Institute for Religious Studies of the ChinaTibetology Research Center and the Institute for the Cultural andIntellectual History of Asia of the Austrain Academy of Sciences. Theauthorities of The China Tibetology Center are to be warmly con-gratulated for their judicial choice. In view of the large number ofmanuscripts pertaining to the Buddhist epistemological tradition, theAustrian Institute, currently headed by Ernst Steinkellner andcounting among its research fellows a considerable number of out-standing scholars specializing in this area of studies, is the idealcooperation-partner for this joint venture.

In addition to the remaining chapters of the Pram�an:asamuc-cayat:��k�a, some of the most important works mentioned above arecurrently being edited by members and associates of the ViennaInstitute, including Dharmak��rti’s Pram�an:avini�scaya (by ErnstSteinkellner and Tom Tillemans), Hetubindu (by Helmut Krasser),and a collective manuscript of Sa _nkaranandana’s works (by VincentEltschinger), and one eagerly awaits their publication in the seriesinaugurated by the publication of the present volumes. It is obviousthat over the next 10 – 20 years, a number of seminal philosophicaltexts – some that until now were not even known to exist, others merenames, still others only available in Tibetan translations – will

2 One can hardly say that this agreement was easy to bring about; it took anumber of abortive attempts and almost 20 years of delicate negotiations before itcould be reached. Cf. E. Steinkellner, A Tale of Leaves. On Sanskrit Manuscripts inTibet, their Past and their Future. 2003 Gonda Lecture. Amsterdam 2004.

ELI FRANCO222

become accessible for the first time in the original Sanskrit and inmasterfully edited critical editions; they will form a new philologicalfoundation for the study of Indian and Buddhist philosophy.

The volumes under review here are the first fruit of the successfulcooperation between the two institutions. Jinendrabuddhi’sPram�an:asamuccayat:��k�a is the only extant commentary on Dign�aga’sPram�an:asamuccaya, the foundational work of the Buddhist episte-mological tradition.3 It is of crucial importance not only as an eluci-dation of Dign�aga’s terse statements, but also as the most importantsource for the reconstruction of the m�ula text, which does not seem tohave survived in the original Sanskrit (in spite of its mention in theabove list) and is only available in two late and rather mediocreTibetan translations by Vasudhararaks: ita and Kanakavarman.4 (TheChinese translation of the Pram�an:asamuccaya seems also to be irre-trievably lost.) Indeed, large portions of Pram�an:asamuccaya chapter 1(on perception) have already been reconstructed – and the rest of thetext re-translated into Sanskrit – by Ernst Steinkellner and can bedownloaded, free of charge, from www.oeaw.ac.at/iasMat/dignaga_PS_1.pdf. When one compares Steinkellner’s reconstructions withprevious attempts, such as those by Hattori and Jambuvijayaji,5 itbecomes immediately clear what a giant leap forward has beenachieved with the help of Jinendrabuddhis’s text. The remainingchapters of the Pram�an:asamuccaya are currently being reconstructedby Horst Lasic and Shoryu Katsura, and thus one hopes that a morecomplete and reliable text of the Pram�an:asamuccaya will becomeavailable before long. Professors Jun Takashima, Motoi Ono andMasamichi Sakai have produced a KWIC (Key Word In Context)index of the critical edition which will soon be available online atwww.aa.tufs.ac.jp/?tjun/.

Part I of the publication under review contains a very learned andinformative introduction by Steinkellner and a critical edition of thetext (by all three editors) in Devan�agar�� script, which will facilitate its

3 Cf. E. Steinkellner and T. Much, op. cit.: 78–79.4 The first chapter of both translations was edited by Hattori in Dign�aga, On

Perception. Cambridge 1968. A new edition of the translation preserved in the sKu-‘bum edition, which differs considerably from the canonical translation, was recentlypublished in H. Yaita, ‘‘Tibetan Text of Dign�aga’s Pram�an:asamuccaya, sKu-‘bumEdition.’’ Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies 27 (2004): 77–114.

5 Cf. Jambuvijaya, The Vai�ses: ikas�utra of Kan: �ada with the Commentary ofCandr�ananda. Baroda 1961, and Dv�ada�s�aram: Nayacakram of �Ac�arya Sr�� Mallav�adiKs:am�a�sraman:a with the Commentary Ny�ay�agam�anus�arin:�� of Sr�� Sim: has�uri Gan: i V�adiKs:am�a�sraman:a. Part II. Bhavanagar 1976.

A NEW ERA IN THE STUDY OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY 223

use in India. The edition contains not only references to thecorresponding passages in Dign�aga’s basic text, but also a largenumber of references to quotations and paraphrases from variousworks transmitted both in Sanskrit and Tibetan. The largest numberof references, as could be expected, are to Dharmak��rti’s works andthose of his commentators, mostly Devendrabuddhi, but there arealso many references to Brahminical literature. A bibliography andvery useful indices (which unfortunately do not cover the introduc-tion) of modern authors, of names of persons, schools and texts, andan index locorum conclude this exciting volume. Part II, in Romantransliteration, consists of a diplomatic edition of the codex unicus,preceded by a detailed manuscript description and palaeographicalnotes by Anne MacDonald (pp. vii–xxxiv). Both volumes have beenmeticulously edited, and the editors deserve the admiration andlasting gratitude of anyone interested in the Buddhist epistemologicaltradition.

Although one may speak of a codex unicus, the edition is based, infact, on two manuscripts, named A and B by the editors. ManuscriptA is in Newari script, while manuscript B, which is obviously of alater date, is written in Proto-Bengali script. Anne MacDonald datesboth manuscripts to the late 12th or 13th century. Manuscript Bbegins where manuscript A breaks off, and was obviously added tomanuscript A in order to create a complete version of the text. Theend of manuscript B reproduces the colophon of one of its ancestorswritten by a scribe named Gahana in the 14th year of KingR�amap�ala, i.e., 1089 or 1101 (cf. Part I, p. xxxvi and notes 47–48). Atthe end of his colophon, Gahana mentions that he salvaged the workthat had fallen out of use by retrieving it from an old rat-damagedmanuscript (…�akhuks:un:n:apur�an:apustakagat�am abhyuddharann �apta-v�an). It is clear from the colophon that Gahana identified the authorof the T: ��k�a with Jinendrabuddhi the grammarian, the author ofNy�asa. After discussing the previous conjectures and argumentsabout the identity of the two authors, brought forth already byHayes,6 Funayama7 and others, Steinkellner concludes (p. xlii) that

6 Cf. R. Hayes, ‘‘Jinendrabuddhi.’’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 103(1983): 709–717.

7 Cf. T. Funayama, ‘‘Kamala�s��la’s Interpretation of ‘Non-Erroneous’ in theDefinition of Direct Perception and Related Problems.’’ In: S. Katsura (ed.),Dharmak��rti’s Thought and its Impact on Indian and Tibetan Philosophy. Proceedingsof the Third International Dharmak��rti Conference. Hiroshima, November 4 – 6, 1977.Wien 1999: 73–99.

ELI FRANCO224

the identity of the two authors is very likely and supportsFunayama’s hypothesis that Jinendrabuddhi was an elder contem-porary of S�antaraks: ita, who may be assigned to ca. 710–770.

Jinendrabuddhi’s style of explanation is thorough and compre-hensive. He indicates the purpose of Dign�aga’s statements, offersetymologies for and synonyms to the words used, analysescompounds, and in less obvious cases quotes the P�an: inian rules.Whenever possible, he draws heavily on Dharmak��rti’s and Deven-drabuddhi’s statements, often repeating them verbatim. Further,Jinendrabuddhi quotes and paraphrases extensively from pre-Dharmak��rtian sources on the Brahminical philosophies criticized byDign�aga, and thus enriches our knowledge about S�am: khya, Ny�aya,Vai�ses: ika and M��m�am: s�a in the little-known period of the fourth andfifth centuries. Groundwork on the lost work of the S�am: khya masterV�ars:agan:ya has already been accomplished by Steinkellner in hiscollection of new fragments from the S: as: t:itantra quoted in Jinen-drabuddhi’s text.8 However, Steinkellner argues convincingly(p. xlvii) that Jinendrabuddhi did not have direct access to the worksof Dign�aga’s Brahminical opponents, but rather used Dign�aga’s ownpolemical treatises, such as the Ny�ayapar��ks: �a, Vai�sses: ikapar��ks: �a andS�am: khyapar��ks: �a, for this purpose.

Philosophically speaking, the most important innovation that canbe attributed to Jinendrabuddhi9 is the theory of partial validity,termed am: �sasam: v�adav�ada by Durvekami�sra.10 As is well known, inhis Pram�an:avini�scaya and subsequent works Dharmak��rti modifiedDign�aga’s definition of perception (pratyaks:am: kalpan�apod:ham) byadding the word abhr�antam to it in order to exclude errors that resultfrom the senses and are free from conceptual construction from therealm of the definition. Jinendrabuddhi, however, rejected Dhar-mak��rti’s modification and maintained that the word abhr�antashould be dropped from the definition and that one should revert toDign�aga’s original definition. This is the only case in this volumewhere he argues directly against Dharmak��rti. His reasons for con-sidering the word abhr�anta to be superfluous in the definition,however, are not faithful to Dign�aga’s thought. Dign�aga saw noneed to include a word such as abhr�anta or avyabhic�arin in his

8 Cf. E. Steinkellner, ‘‘The S: as: t:itantra on Perception. A Collection of Fragments.’’Asiatische Studien 53 (1999): 667–677.

9 Cf. T. Funayama 1999 as in n. 7 above.10 Cf. Pan:d: ita Durvekami�sra’s Dharmottaraprad��pa. Ed. D Malvania. Patna 1971:

35.22f., 45.20f.

A NEW ERA IN THE STUDY OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY 225

definition because, in all probability, he attributed all errors to themind, and none to the senses.11 For Jinendrabuddhi, on the otherhand, the definition of perception should cover awarenesses that arepartially false. For instance, he argued, the awareness of a yellowconch-shell by a person who suffers from jaundice is perception, eventhough the conch-shell is really white. Such an awareness is a meansof knowledge (pram�an:a), Jinendrabuddhi says, because it is trust-worthy; it does not belie its promise (avisam: v�adin): A person whowould act upon that awareness would obtain a conch-shell, albeitnot of the perceived colour. According to Jinendrabuddhi, it isprecisely for this reason that Dign�aga did not use the word abhr�antain his definition. Thus, Dharmak��rti’s understanding of the wordsataimira in Pram�an:asamuccaya 1.8ab is mistaken because here theword taimira does not refer to an awareness of someone who isaffected by the timira disorder. The word timira rather means‘ignorance’ (ajn�ana), just as in the statement ‘and destroying theignorance of the dull-minded.’12 taimira is then explained assomething occurring only in ignorance (timira eva bhavah: ), and isidentified with belying one’s promise or untrustworthiness(visam: v�ada). Unfortunately, this potentially interesting theory wascriticized by Dharmottara,13 S�antaraks: ita and Kamala�s��la, and thatwas the end of it.

I will not discuss here technical details such as variants readingsand emendations, nor dwell on the complex philological and philo-sophical considerations behind them. This short review merely aimsto draw attention to a major publication which has come about byway of a fruitful cooperation between the Chinese and the Austrianscholarly institutions mentioned above, and which – together with thesubsequent volumes now under preparation – will truly revolutionizethe study of Indian philosophy in general and of Buddhist philosophyin particular.

11 Cf. M. Hattori [as in n. 4]: 97, n. 1.53; E. Franco, ‘‘Once Again on Dhar-mak��rti’s Deviation from Dign�aga on Pratyaks: �abh�asa.’’ Journal of Indian Philosophy14 (1986): 79–97.

12 Cf. p. 64.8–9: timira�sabdo ‘yam ajn�anavacano yath�a timiraghnam: ca mand�an�amity�adau v�akye. For more details cf. the extensive discussion in J. Chu, ‘‘A Study ofSataimira in Dign�aga’s Definition of Pseudo-Perception (PS I.7cd-8ab).’’ WienerZeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens XLVIII (2004): 113–150.

13 Cf. H. Krasser, Dharmottaras kurze Untersuchung der Gultigkeit einer Erke-nntnis. Laghupr�am�an:yapar��ks: �a. Vol. 2: 73f., and further references in n. 140 thereon.

ELI FRANCO226

Institut fur Indologie und ZentralasienwissenschaftenUniversitat LeipzigBurgstrasse 2104109 Leipzig, GermanyE-mail: franco@uni-leipzig.de

A NEW ERA IN THE STUDY OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY 227