Advertisement

Journal of Indian Philosophy

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 335–404 | Cite as

Dharmakīrti on the role of causation in inference as presented in Pramāṇavārttika Svopajñavṛtti 11–38

  • Brendan S. Gillon
  • Richard P. Hayes
Article

Abstract

In the svārthānumāna chapter of his Pramāṇavārttika, the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakīrti presented a defense of his claim that legitimate inference must rest on a metaphysical basis if it is to be immune from the risks ordinarily involved in inducing general principles from a finite number of observations. Even if one repeatedly observes that x occurs with y and never observes y in the absence of x, there is no guarantee, on the basis of observation alone, that one will never observe y in the absence of x at some point in the future. To provide such a guarantee, claims Dharmakīrti, one must know that there is a causal connection between x and y such that there is no possibility of y occurring in the absence of x. In the course of defending this central claim, Dharmakīrti ponders how one can know that there is a causal relationship of the kind necessary to guarantee a proposition of the form “Every y occurs with an x.” He also dismisses an interpretation of his predecessor Dignāga whereby Dignāga would be claiming non-observation of y in the absence of x is sufficient to warrant to the claim that no y occurs without x. The present article consists of a translation of kārikās 11–38 of Pramānavārttikam, svārthānumānaparicchedaḥ along with Dharmakīrti’s own prose commentary. The translators have also provided an English commentary, which includes a detailed introduction to the central issues in the translated text and their history in the literature before Dharmakīrti.

Keywords

Inference Causation Natural relation Absence Non-apprehension Induction Dharmakīrti Dignāga Īśvarasena Karṇakagomin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cardona, G. (1967–1968). Anvaya and vyatireka in Indian grammar. Adyar Library Bulletin, 31–32; 313–352Google Scholar
  2. Dunne J. (1996). Thoughtless Buddha, Passionate Buddha. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 64, 525–556Google Scholar
  3. Dunne, J. D. (2004). Foundations of Dharmakīrti’s philosophy, Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Gillon, B. S. (2007). Dharmakīrti on inference from effect: A discussion of verse 12 and the svavṛtti of the Svārthānumāna chapter of the Pramāṇavārttika. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Dharmakīrti Conference, Vienna, August 23–27, 2005. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  5. Hayes R.P. (1980). Diṅnāga’s views on reasoning (svārthānumāna). Journal of Indian Philosophy, 8, 219–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hayes R.P. (1988). Dignāga on the interpretation of signs. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Hayes R.P., Gillon B.S. (1991). Introduction to Dharmakīrti’s theory of inference as presented in Pramāṇavārttika svopajñavṛtti 1–10. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 19, 1–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Inami, M. (1999). On the determination of causality. In S. Katsura (Ed.), Dharmakīrti’s thought and its impact on Indian and Tibetan philosophy, No. 32 in Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 131–154. Proceedings of the Third International Dharmakīrti Conference, Hiroshima, 4–6 November, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Katsura, S. (1986a). Indo ronrigaku ni okeru henjū-gainen no seisei to hatten: Charakasanhitā kara Darumakīruti made, Hiroshima Daigaku Bungaku-bu Kiyō, 45. Special edition 1. Hiroshima: Hiroshima Daigaku Bungaku-bu. The origin and development of the concept of Vyāpti in Indian logic: From the Carakasaṃhitā up to Dharmakīrti. (in Japanese with English abstract pp. 120–122).Google Scholar
  10. Katsura, S. (1986b). Trairūpya formulae. In Buddhism and its relation to other religions: Essays in honour of Dr. Shozen Kumoi on his seventieth birthday. [s.l: s.n], pp. 161–172.Google Scholar
  11. Katsura S. (1992). Dignāga and Dharmakīrti on adarśanamātra and anupalabdhi. Asiatische Studien/É tudes Asiatiques, 46(1): 222–231Google Scholar
  12. Katsura, S. (1996). How did the Buddhists prove something? The nature of Buddhist logic. The Numata Yehan Lecture in Buddhism. Calgary: The University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  13. Katsura, S. (2000). Dignāga on trairūpya reconsidered: A reply to Prof. Oetke. In A. Akamatsu (Ed.), Indo no bunka to ronri. Tosaki Hiromasu hakase koki kinen ronbunshū [Culture and logic in India. A felicitation volume for Prof. H. Tosaki on his seventieth birthday]. Fukuoka: Kyūshū Daigaku.Google Scholar
  14. Katsura, S. (2004). The role of dṛṣṭānta in Dignāga’s logic. In S. Katsura, & E. Steinkellner (Eds.), The role of the example (dṛṣṭānta) in classical Indian logic, Vol. 58 of Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde (pp. 135–173). Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universitä t Wien.Google Scholar
  15. Lasic, H. (1999). Dharmakirti and his successors on the determination of causality. In S. Katsura (Ed.), Dharmakīrti’s thought and its impact on Indian and Tibetan philosophy, Vol. 32 of Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens (pp. 233–242). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Proceedings of the Third International Dharmakīrti Conference (Hiroshima, 4–6 November, 1997).Google Scholar
  16. Mill J.S. (1843). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence, and the methods of scientific investigation. London, England, J. W. ParkerGoogle Scholar
  17. Mill J.S. (1865). An examination of Sir William Hamilton’s philosophy and of the principal philosophical questions discussed in his writings. Bosto: W. V. SpencerGoogle Scholar
  18. Oetke, C. (1994). Studies on the doctrine of Trairūpya, Vol. 33 of Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universitä t Wien.Google Scholar
  19. Ono, M. (1999). Dharmakīrti on asādhāraṇānaikāntika. In S. Katsura (Ed.), Dharmakīrti’s thought and its impact on Indian and Tibetan philosophy, No. 32 in Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Proceedings of the Third International Dharmakīrti Conference (Hiroshima, 4–6 November, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. Steinkellner E. (1966). Bemerkungen zu Īśvarasenas Lehre vom Grund. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, 10, 73–85Google Scholar
  21. Steinkellner, E. (1988). Remarks on niścitagrahaṇa. In R. Gnoli, & L. Lanciotti (Eds.), Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, Vol. 56 of Serie Orientale Roma (pp. 1427–1444). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.Google Scholar
  22. Steinkellner, E. (1993). Buddhist logic: The search for certainty. In T. Yoshinori, J. V. Bragt, J. W. Seisig, J. S. O’Leary, & P. L. Swanson (Eds.), Buddhist spirituality: Indian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Early Chinese (pp. 312–318). New York, New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  23. Steinkellner, E. (1997). Kumārila, Īśvarasena, Dharmakīrti in Dialogue. A New Interpretation of Pramāṇavārttika I 33. In P. Kieffer-Pulz, & J.-U. Hartmann (Eds.), Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ: Studies in honour of Heinz Bechert on the occasion of his 65th birthday, Monographien zu den Sprachen und Literaturen des indo-tibetischen Kulturraumes: v. 30. Swisttal-Odendorf, Austria: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, pp. 625–646.Google Scholar
  24. Steinkellner, E. (2004). The early Dharmakīrti on the purpose of examples. In S. Katsura, & E. Steinkellner (Eds.), The role of the example (dṛṣṭānta) in classical Indian logic, Vol. 58 of Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde (pp. 225–250). Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.Google Scholar
  25. Tillemans T.J.F. (1990). On sapakṣa. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 18, 53–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tillemans, T. J. F. (2004). Inductiveness, deductiveness and examples in Buddhist logic. In S. Katsura, & E. Steinkellner (Eds.), The role of the example (dṛṣṭānta) in classical Indian logic, Vol. 58 of Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde (pp. 251–275). Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations