Dharmakirti on the Duality of the Object: Pramanavarttika III (Leipziger Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte Sud- und Zentralasiens) [Eli Franco, Miyako. : Dharmakirti’s Pramanavarttika: An Annotated Translation of the Fourth Chapter (Parathanumana): 1 (Veroffentlichungen Zu Den Sprachen Und. Japan’s largest platform for academic e-journals: J-STAGE is a full text database for reviewed academic papers published by Japanese societies.
PVV samartham ca [D. So, one should understand that the pervasion between ‘presence in a multitude’ and ‘being many [different things]’ is established.
Pramanavarttika – Wikipedia
The result is that for Dharmaklrti any word isfitfor any object. By whom [is the thesis accepted]?
Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 37, 1, Academic Tools How to cite this entry. What is the svadharmin here, and what is the Buddhist actually intending to prove? Hence, the reason dnarmakirti not be stated at all. Perception is always purely non-conceptual and non-linguistic whereas inference is conceptual, linguistic thinking [ 28 ] that fharmakirti on the basis of good reasons. It looks like we have something much like the two-fold process of reference-fixing and reference-borrowing that figure in causal theories of reference.
Prajiiakaragupta gives two interpretations, a fact which takes on some MlY. Now this [treatise] of the [proponent] is essentially the same as his own words svavacana at that time [i. Thus, because of commonness [of the term candra to several things], [the reason] sattva would not invalidate [the thesis that sasin] is not the moon. Note that Jinendrabuddhi’s interpretation of prasiddha PVV1: We have done this in a few ways, conscious that much more needs to be done: Devendrabuddhi’s introduction to k.
Thus, the restrictions which svayam imposes would become pointless.
So, [it means] what is intended by [the proponent] himself personally [and not by some other expounder]. But the Buddhist proponent is not to be held responsible for a subject in dharmakjrti thesis which he never wished to prove.
The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. He asserts to others ‘Understand this state of affairs from my words!
Since the instantiations do not exist when the body is not established, how could the universal be? The [consequence’s] two terms, viz. Another investigation of the [treatise] should not be undertaken; if there is investigation, the [treatise] was not examined.
PV-k IMlY. I think it is fair to say that many Tibetans, such as mKhas grub rje, rGyal tshab rje et al, have tended to focus on what is dharmakriti separate issue from that of the predominant Dharmakirtian problem of the probative status of arguments from authority.
What is the svadharmin in Buddhist logic? When the debater ascertains the characteristics of the reason, all this may mean is that a person making an inference must only in fact have followed a number of reliable procedures to initially determine the characteristics of the reason. However, if one interprets the argument as “the eyes, etc.
Dharmaklrti then uses the Method of Paraphrase, to maintain that what the proponent is actually proving is that ordinary and real pleasure, etc. In the usual type of example of this fallacy, i. The state of affairs expressed correctly by its effect, i.
The opponent’s argument thus, in a backhanded way, reinforces Dharmaklrti’s own fundamental positions. Dharmakirti’s Theory of Inference: Thus thought grasps a subject S as qualified by a predicate-property P.
Introductory Remarks xix a Preceeding the translation of k.