dignaga & dharmakirti

8/23/2019 Dignaga & Dharmakirti

1/10

THE JOURNAL

OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

BUDDHIST STUDIES

C O - E D I T O R S - I N - C H I E F

Gregory Schopen RogerJacksonIndiana University Fairfield University

Bloomington, Indiana, USA Fairfield, Connecticut, USA

E D I T O R SPeter N. Gregory Ernst Steinkellner

University of Illinois University of ViennaUrbana-C hampa ign, Illinois, USA Wien, Austria

Alexander W. Macdonald Jikido TakasakiUniversite de Paris X University of Tokyo

Nanterre, France Tokyo, JapanBardxvell Smith Robert ThurmanCarleton College Amherst CollegeNorthfteld, Minnesota, USA Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

A S S I S T A N T E D I T O RBruce Cameron Hall

College of William and Ma ryWilliamsburg, Virginia, USA

Volume 9 1986 Number 2


2/10

C O N T E N T S

I . A R T I C L E S1. Signs , M emo ry an d His tory : A Ta ntr ic Budd his t

Th eor y o f Sc r ip tu ra l T ransm iss ion , by Janet Gyatso 72. Symbol ism of the Bu ddh is t Stupa, by Gerard Fussman 373. T h e Identif icat ion of dG a' rab rd o r je ,by A. W. Hanson-Barber 5 54 . An A pp roa ch to Do gen 's Dia lec tica l Th in k i ngand Method of Ins tan t ia t ion , by Shohei Ichimura 655. A R ep ort on Religious Activity in Cen tral Ti bet ,October , 1985 , by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. a n dCyrus Stearns 1016. A Stu dy of th e Earliest Garbha Vidhi of theShingon Sect , by Dale Allen Todaro 1097. O n the So urce s for Sa skya Panclita 's N ote s on th e"bSam yas D ebate ," by Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp 147

II . B O O K R E V I E W S1. The Bodymind Experience in Japanese Buddhism:A Phenomenological Study ofKukai and Dogen,by D. Sha ne r(Will iam W ald ron ) 1552. A Catalogue ofthe s Tog Palace Kanjur,by Ta deus z Skorupsk i

(Bruce C am ero n Hal l) 156


3/10

3 . Early Buddhism and Christianity: A Comparative Study ofthe Founders' Authority, the Com munity, andthe Discipline, by Cha i-Shin Yu(Vijitha Ra japak se) 1624 . The Heart ofBuddhist Philosophy: Dinndgaand D harmakirti, by A m a r S ingh(Richard Hayes) 1665. Shobogenzo: Zen Essays by Dogen, t ransla ted byT h o m a s C l e a r y(Steven H ein e) 1736. Studies in C h 'an and Hua-yen, edi ted byRo ber t M. Gim el lo an d P e te r N. Grego ry( J o h n j o r g e n s e n ) 1 7 77. The Tantric Distinction, by Je f frey H op kin s(Bru ce Bu rril l) 181Jef f rey Hopkins Repl iesBruce Burr i l l RepliesN O TE S AN D NE W S [2 i te m s] 189

L I ST O F C O N T R I B U T O R S 191


4/10

166 J I A B S V O L . 9 N 0 . 2The Heart of Buddh ist Philosophy: D innaga and Dharmakirti, by A m a rSingh . New D el h i : M u n sh i r am M an o h a r l a l , 1984. xvi + 168 pp.Appendices , g lossary , b ib l iography and indices.

Th e p u r p o se of the work under r ev iew is to d e m o n s t r a t etha t two of the key f igures in the history of I n d i an B u d d h i s tph i losophy , Dihnaga and D h a r m a k i r t i , w e r e m e m b e r s of theSau t ran t ika schoo l r a ther t han of the Vi jnanavada or any o t h e rMahayana schoo l . In eva lua t ing any t reat ise set t ing out to defendsuch an hypo thes i s , it is i m p o r t a n t to t ake in to considerat ion thefollowing three issues: 1) To wha t ex ten t wou ld cer t a in ty co ncern ing scholastic affiliation of t hese two phi losophers af fect our int e r p r e t a t i o n of their works? 2) To w h a t ex t en t is it possible todec ide the m a t t e r of scholastic affil iation given the ev idence nowavai lable? 3) How well does the t rea t ise be ing exa m ined marsha l lev idence for the conclus ion that it advances? Let us e x a m i n eeach of these issues in t u r n .

Wo u l d k n o w i n g for cer ta in that Dihnaga and D h a r m a k i r t ibe longed to any given school influence our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n oftheir works? Dr. Singh clearly answers this quest ion st ronglyaff i rmatively, s tat ing (p. 16) t h a t if his thesis is cor rec t " then thehistory of the Buddhi s t Ind ian ph i losophy f rom 5th cen t u r y onward has to be re-wri t ten ." But befo re ag ree ing tha t the scholasticaffiliation of D i h n ag a and D h a r m a k i r t i is a m a t t e r of such radicali m p o r t a n c e , we m u s t ask exact ly what it m e a n s to say t h a t a givenph i losopher be longs to a par t icular school . In the co n t ex t ofIndian Buddhism does scholast ic aff i l iat ion imply that thep h i l o so p h e r so aff i l iated held unswervingly to a given set of well-def ined sec t a r i an dogmas , or d o es it imply merely that he t e n d e dt o ad h e r e to certain intel lectual t rends? Is saying that Dihnagawas a Sau t ran t ika , in o ther words , ana logous to saying that someone i s , for example, a Roman Catho l i c of the Cis t e rc i an Order?O r is it m o r e a n a l o g o u s to say ing tha t someone is p a r t of theh u man i s t mo v emen t ? I n so f a r as there were r igidly defined sectswi th in Indian Buddhism, these sects tended to be def ined according to the body ofvinaya ru l es under which the i r members wereo r d a i n ed . K n o w i n g the set ofvinaya ru les to which Dihnaga wasb o u n d m i g h t be i n t e res t ing in itself, but it would hardly shedany l ight on his invest igat ions in to epis temology or i ndeed in toany subject mat ter o ther than vinaya itself. And so I assume tha tfa r more i l l umina t ing than knowing a t h inker ' s sec t a r i an membersh ip would be so me d e t e r mi n a t i o n of the relatively looselydef ined in t e l l ec tua l movement to which the t h inker be longed .


5/10

R E V I E W S 167But here we must proceed most caut iously. For , despi te the effor ts of later Indian and Tibetan academics to classify Buddhistdoctr ines into a highly ar t i f icial schema of four schoolstwoHinayana and two Mahayanawi th we l l -de f ined dogmat i c boundar ies , Indian phi losophica l schools were cons tant ly evolving.Par t icular ly in the h ighly crea tive per iod to which V asu ba nd hu ,Dir inaga and Dharmakir t i belonged, i t can pract ical ly be saidthat each of the men whose works survive down to the presentday was a school unto himself. The di f ferences be tween Dir inagaan d Dh arm aki r t i a r e so man y as t o ma ke the i r co m m on m em ber ship in a s ingle "school" a very abs t rac t membership indeed, onebased on l i t t l e more than the fac t tha t both phi losophers addressed approximate ly the same se t of i ssues . L ike any otherabs t rac t ion or genera l iza t ion, the mat ter of the "school" of Vasubandhu, Dir inaga and Dharmakir t i wil l inevi tably fai l to applyper fec t ly to any par t icular member of the shcool or to any par t icular text tha t is de em ed to rep res en t the school . In sho r t ,knowing to which school of thought Di r inaga belonged i s onlyof very limi ted value in he lpin g us un de rs t an d w hat , for exam ple ,he had in mind when he used the te rm svalak$ana. To set t le apro blem of how to in terpr e t a specif ic passag e or how to con s t ruea part icular technical term, we must set s tereotypes aside altogether and engage in the very complex task of textual analys i s .And so , suppos ing tha t S ingh can in some sense prove tha tDir inaga was a Saut rant ika ra ther than a Yogacara , a reasonableresponse would be: "So what?"

Can one prove scholastic affi l iation? Clearly, if schools aref luid intel lectual t re nd s rath er tha n sects with f ixed do gm aticboundaries , the task of assigning someone to a school is relat ivelya rb i t ra ry . Even dec id ing wh e the r an au tho r was a M ahayan i s tnot is not an easy matter in the absence of some such rel iablecr i ter ion as expl ici t references to texts that only a Mahayanistwould ci te as authori ty. That Kamalasl la is a Mahayanist is easyto de termine , because he makes expl ic i t i ssue of the fac t and hecitessutras t ha t non-M ahayan i s t s p resum ably r e jec ted as spur iou s .But Di r inaga and Dharmaki r t i do not c i te sutras at all as au tho ri ty .What , i f any, sutras they read while not wri t ing works on logicmust be regarded as a mat ter of a lmost pure conjec ture , for i ti s a dear ly he ld doct r ine of the Buddhis t epis temologis t s tha tsutras do no t have an au thor i ty i ndependen t o f r eason anyway .

As can be seen from al l that I have said up to here, I am atthe outse t ra ther dubious about both the s igni f icance and thepossibi l i ty of anyone's establ ishing Dir inaga 's and Dharmakir t i ' s


6/10

168 J I A B S V O L . 9 N 0 . 2scholastic aff i l iat ions. Let me nevertheless make an assessmentof S ingh ' s pa r t i cu la r a rguments . His a rguments a r e , unfor tu nate ly , ra th er chaot ica l ly pre sen ted a nd leave the read er confusedas to what is being said and towards what end. But focussing onSingh's treatment of one or two issues may be of value in givingsome indication of the overall value of his work.The centra l a rgument of S ingh 's f i r s t chapter , "The Saut rant ika T rad i t ion ," can be epi tom ized as fol lows. S ince "Din nagais the fol lower, com m enta tor and de fen der o f V asub and hu ' sphi losophica l s tan dp oin t" an d "D ha rm aklr t i is the fol lower , comm enta to r , and de fende r o f Dinn aga , " if one can de te rm ine Vasubandhu 's school one wil l know the school of Dinnaga andDharmakir t i as well (pp. 45-46) . I f any of these three thinkershad changed his philosophical loyalt ies during his l ifet ime, or ifthere has been a fai lure of a disciple to be consis tent with theviews of his master , the Brahmanical cr i t ics would have beenunlikely to "overlook" such a weak point of an opponent, i .e . ,his inconsis tency (p. 33) . Therefore, Singh argues, we can befa i r ly sure tha t Vasubandhu, Dinnaga and Dharmakir t i a l l he ldunswervingly to the same phi losophica l conclus ions . Working onthis supposit ion, Singh devotes most of his f irs t chapter to determining the phi losophica l a f f i l ia t ions of Vasubandhu. His pointof de pa r tu re is Er ich Frauw al lner ' s now wel l-known and widelyaccepted theory tha t there were two Vasubandhus , but , as weshal l see , S ingh 's account of Frauwal lner ' s two-Vasubandhuhypo thes is is som ew hat garbled .

According to S ingh, Frauwal lner " in 1951 put forward athes is tha t there were two famous phi losophers by the name ofVa sub and hu . On e was the Vi jnanavadin V asub and hu , Asarnga 'sbro th e r , and the o th e r was the Sau t r an t ika Va sub and hu whoremained Sautrantika t i l l death." This thesis was at tacked by P.S.Ja ini in 1957 an d Alex W aym an in 1961 an d up da ted by Schmidt-hausen in 1967. All of these scholar ly advances, says Singh, thenled Frauwallner to amend his thesis in 1969, s tat ing in this newversion tha t the Sautrant ik a V asu ba nd hu a lso conv er ted to Vijna-navada and wrote the Vijnaptimdtraldsiddhi. Singh, convinced tha tFrauwallner 's 1951 thesis had been correct in the f irs t place (p.37 and p. 42) , sets out to cr i t icize those scholars who putativelyled F rau w alln er to ch an ge his views for the wo rse. Befo re look ingat some of those arguments , however , le t me se t the records t r a igh t on the deve lopment o f F rauwal lne r ' s two-Vasubandhutheory. In 1951 Frauwal lner did indeed argue tha t the e lderVasubandhu was Asa i iga ' s b ro the r and composed a number o f


7/10

R E V I E W S 169key Mah ayana w orks , inc luding a com m entary to M ai t reyana tha ' sMadhydntavibhdga, th e Daiabhumikasdstra and o thers . And in tha tsame work Frauwal lner d id indeed a rgue tha t the younger Va-subandhu wro t e t he Abhidharmakoia. But Frauwal lner d id notcom mit h imse l f to say ing tha t V asu ban dh u I I d ied a Saut ran t ika .In fact , he said that he was not yet in a posit ion to decide whetherthe Vi jnanavada-or ien ted Vijnaptimdtratasiddhi was wri t ten by th ee l de r o r t he younge r Vasubandhu . 1 In 1 956 (no t 1969), beforethe two-Vasubandhu theory had been cr i t ic ized by the scholarsthat Singh ment ions and t r ies to refute , Frauwal lner s ta ted theop i n i on t ha t t he younge r Vasubandhu had composed t heVijnaptimdtratasiddhi.2 In 1957 he added three logical works tothe l i s t of Vasubandhu II ' s wri t ing.

3In 1961 he rei terated hisopin ion tha t Vasubandhu I I had wr i t t en the Abhidharmakoia a n d

"in his old age had completely changed over to Mahayana" andwri t ten both the Vimsatikd and t he Trimsika-VijMptimdtratasiddhi*In other words , Singh is incorrect in saying that "Frauwal lnerhas al tered his previous thesis for one which seems less sat isfactory" (p. 37) , for Frauwal lner never did express the thesis thatSingh attr ibutes to him as his f irst . The only al terat ion inFrauwal lner ' s account was f rom be ing undec ided to be ing dec ided on the au th ors h ip of the Vijnaptimdtratasiddhi and the logicalworks . Singh 's carelessness wi th secondary sources , exempli f iedhere in his t reatment of Frauwal lner , occurs f requent ly in hisbook.

Singh is also careless in his translat ion of Sanskri t . To giveone example, he offers "Dars tant ikas are the Vai tul ika peoplewho do not follow reason (yukti) and the sc r ip tures , bu t a re a r rogant regarding thei r logic (sophis t ry) ," (p . 25) as a t ransla t ionfor tadanye vddino ddr^dntikavaitulikapaudgalikdh na yuktydgamd-bhidhdyinah, tarkdbhimdnds te. Through a se r ious miscons t rua l o fthe syntax of the sentence, Singh fai ls to arrive at a more correctt ransla t ion, which might be: "Other theor is ts , namely theDarsfant ikas (or Sautrant ikas) , Vai tul ikas and Personal is ts (Pud-galavadins) , do not invoke reason and scr ipture; they have a highregard for speculat ion."A nd equal ly careless is Singh 's form ulat ion of ar gu m en t .For example, in the context of t rying to explain away the t radit ional a t t r ibut ion of several Mahayana works to Dir inaga, namelyth e Prajndpdramitdpin4drtha a n d Yogdvatdra, Singh a rgues tha tthe language of the former "clearly reveals the fact that this isnot the work of the logician Dihnaga or any other logician. I t i sapparen t ly a work by a poe t who does no t know anyth ing about


8/10

170 J 1 A B S V O L . 9 N Q . 2logic or epistemology" (p. 35). Moreover, the Prajnd-paramitapinidrtha is ful l of Mahayana terminology that is not tobe found in the Pramanasamuccaya (p . 34) . Therefore , Singh concludes , these two Mahayana works cannot have been wri t ten bythe au thor o f Pramanasamuccaya. If the supposi t ions behind thisargument were granted , of course , we should al so have to conclude that Dirinaga's Pramanasamuccaya, in which there are vir tual ly no references to abhidharma t erminology, could not havebeen composed by the author of the Abhidharrnakosamarmadlpa,wh ich is virtually free of the technica l term ino log y of pramdna.But th is would thoroughly undermine Singh 's ent i re thes is thatDi i inaga mus t be long to Vasubandhu ' s schoo l on the g roundsthat Di i inaga wrote a commentary to Abhidharmakosa.In h is second ch ap ter Singh exam ines the v iews of a n u m be rof modern scholars on the scholast ic aff i l iat ion of Dii inaga andDharmakl r t i . The a rgument s o f S tcherba t sky , Malvan ia , N .C .Sh ah, Vet ter , C D . Sha rm a, Satkar i M uker jee , Sar ikr tyayana, Das-gupta and Warder are reviewed and cr i t ic ized . Since there havebeen so many conf l ic t ing conclus ions reached, a l l apparent lybased o n an e xa m inat io n of the available eviden ce, it is clear tha tif a definitive answer is to be found to the question of whichschool the Buddhist logicians fol lowed, that answer must be basedei ther on new evidence heretofore unavai lable to modern schol ars or on a masterful ly careful and impart ial invest igat ion of allavai lable evidence. Singh provides us with no new evidence onth is whole mat ter , but ra ther t r ies to reexamine al l the evidencecon side red by ot he r scholars an d to show that it poin ts ineluctablyto the conclus ion that both Di i inaga and Dharmakl r t i were unswervingly Sautrant ika in their commitments. Prima facie thisseems l ike a Quixot ic task, since everyone, whether they concludethat Di i inaga and Dharmakl r t i are Saut rant ikas or Vi jnanavadins ,concedes tha t t hese ph i losophers foun ded a new mov em ent , generally called nydydnusdrin (based on reasoning) to contrast i t withdgamdnusdrin (based on sc ripture ) . A nd so if D ha rm ak lrt i is aSautrant ika, he is in any case far from being an uncri t ical con-t inuator of the early Sautrant ikas or Darstant ikas whose viewsare out l ined in the Pal i Kathdvatthu or in the fragments of worksby K um ara lata , et al ., who se views are discussed, som etim es favorably and so me t imes unfavorably , in the Abhidharmakosa. The verytopics upo n which those pre-Dir inaga Sa ut rant ikas expre ssed d ist inct ive views are not topics that come up in Dii inaga'sPramanasamuccaya or in the works of Dharmaklrt i . As for post-D ha rm ak i r t i acco unts of Sau t rant ika v iews, w hen they conformto the posi t ions argued by Di i inaga or Dharmakl r t i , the confor-


9/10

R E V I E W S 171mity is du e to the s imple fact tha t the auth or s of those acco untstook Dharmaki r t i a s the parad igmat ic Nyayanusf in Saut ran t ika .Bu t o t he r au t ho r s took Dha rm ak i r t i as t he pa r ad i gm a t i cNyayanusar in Vi jnanavadin . So whom should we be l i eve : Vaca-spa t imis ra , Uday ana an d o the rs wh o re fe r to D harm aki r t i a s aSau t r an t i ka , o r Vi n i t adeva , Manor a t hanand i n and o t he r s whorefer to Dharmakir t i as a Vi jnanavadin? To s ide wi th e i ther wi thout compel l ing reasons seems a rb i t ra ry , and a more produc t iveapproach might be to begin wi th the acknowledgment tha tDir inaga is ju s t D ir inaga an d th at he is ap pr oa ch in g a new set ofissues with a relat ively fresh m ind , while D ha rm ak irt i is an in ge nious thinker who bui lds a s ignif icant ly new edif ice upon the founda t ions of Di r inaga ' s work . But ra ther than t ak ing the approachju st ou t l ined , Singh t r ies to show why V acaspat im isra is to bebe l ieved whi le Vin i tadeva and Manora thanandin a re gu i l ty ofdis tor t ing the facts . For example on pp. 76-77 Singh says:

Vacaspa t i ca tegor ica l ly ca l led Di i inaga and Dharmakir t i Sau tran t ikas .When Dir inaga and Dharmakir t i ca l led themse lves Yogacara Vi jnanava-dins is not to be traced in any of their writ ings . Some Vijnanavadin comm enta to r s have c rea ted th is confus ion . W hy does Vacaspa ti p resen t themas op po nen ts o f Yogacara? Now here have they expressed " the ir own opinion" of be longing to Yogacara . There is no in te rna l ev idence , e i the r inthe work of Dir inaga or of Dharmakir ti , that they have called themselvesYogacar ins or Saulran t ika-Yogacara .

Singh does not explain, however , why the absence of Dhar-makir t i ' s saying expl ic i t ly "I am a Vi jnanavadin" shows moreconclusively that he was not a Vi jnanavadin than the absence ofhis saying "I am a Sautrant ika" would show that he was not aSautrant ika . Perhaps the absence of expl ic i t se l f - ident i f icat ionshows s imply that Dharmakir t i h imself did not regard his scholast ic affi l iat ion as relevant to what he had to say. The effort toplace a l l Buddhis t phi losophers into the ra ther f la t archi tectonicof two Hi na ya na a nd two Mah aya na schools was, af ter a ll , theconcern of academics who l ived several centur ies af ter Dharma-klr t i ' s t ime, and i t may be qui te anachronis t ic to t reat the issueas a concern of Dharmaki r t i himself. And so the tes t imony ofsuch l a te r academics as Vacaspa t i , Udayana , Par thasara th i andnumerous Tibe tan au thor i t i es , a l l o f whom were heavi ly in f luenced by the ar t i f ic ia l four-school schema, should be t reated wi ththis possible anachronici ty in mind. Above al l , both Dir inaga andDharmakir t i should be a l lowed to speak for themselves as to thei rscholast ic predilections. Being al lowed to do so, they both, asSingh h imse l f acknowledges , r emain s i l en t .


10/10

172 J I A B S V O L . 9 N Q . 2I n s u m m a r y , the specialist in Buddhi s t ep i s t emolog ica l

theory is unlikely to find new ins ights in to that theory in Singh 'sbook . Nor is the b e g i n n e r in this area likely to be able to use thebook as a re l iable guide through the secondary l i t e ra tu re on thesubject, for the a u t h o r is far too r eady to sacrifice accuracy ino r d e r to make every sc rap of ev i d en ce ap p ea r to work towardshis conclus ion . So conv inced is Singh of his conclus ion at theoutset that one can scarcely imagine his admi t t ing tha t any factserves as co u n t e r ev i d en ce to it, the resul t being that the book ism o r e a polemical t ract than a work of scient i f ic scholarship. Ifthe book succeeds in a n y t h i n g it is to show, a lbei t inadver tant ly ,the bankrup tcy of t r ea t ing the ph i losophers under d i scuss ion assp o k esmen of doct r ina i re schoo ls r a ther t ha n t r ea t ing the schoolsas heurist ic categories into which individuals, who differ considerably from one a n o t h e r , can provisional ly be placed forpedagog ica l pu rposes .

Final ly, there is a false claim about the au thor h imse l f t ha tshou ld be rectified. He is ident i f ied on the t it le pa ge as the h o l d e rof a Ph.D. from the Universi ty of T o r o n t o , and the dust jacketspecifies that the T o r o n t o Ph.D. was a w a r d e d in 1978. No Ph.D.has ever been awarded by the Universi ty of T o r o n t o to A m a rSingh , who in 1979 u n d e r w e n t his last unsuccessful at tempt (af terprevious fai lures) to d e f en d the disser ta t ion on which the booknow being reviewed was based .

Richard P. H ay esN O T E S

1. Erich Frau wa l lner , On the Date of the Buddhist M aster of he Law Vasubandhu.(Rome: Is t i tu to I ta l iano per il Medio ed Es t remo Or ien te , 1951) , p. 56.

2 . Erich Frauwal lner , Die Philosophie des Buddhismus (Ber l in : Akademic -Ver-lag, 1958, c. 1956), p. 351. Frauwal lne r wr i t e s : "Ausse rdem s ind un te r demNamen Vasubandhu zwe i k le ine re Werke c rha l t en , die be ide den N a m e nVi jnap t ima t ra ta s iddh ih . . . f i ihren, e ines in zwanzig Versen (Virnsatika), das an-d e r e in dreissig (Trirnsika). Die ausse re Ober l i e fe rung la s s t ke ine En tsche idungzu , ob diese be iden Werke von V a s u b a n d h u , dem Bruder Asa r igas s t ammen,o d e r von V a s u b a n d h u dem J i i n g e r e n , dem Verfasser des A b h i d h a r m a k o s a h .Mciner Ansicht nach ist V a s u b a n d h u d e r J i i n g e r e ihr Verfasser , doch kann dieseschwierige Frage hier nicht wei ter erorter t werden . . . . [Trirnsika] gil t als dasl e t z te Werk Vasubandhus , der gestorben sein soil , bevor es ihm moglich war,d e n b e a b s i c h t i g e n k o m m e n t a r zu schre iben . Es en tha l t e ine Dogmat ikde r Yogac -a r a -L e h r e in K n a p p s t e r F o rm . "

3. Erich F rauwal lne r , "Vasubandhu ' s Vadav idh ih . " Wiener Zeitschriftfur dieKunde Siid- und Ostasiens 1:104-146. See pp. 104-105 .

4. Erich F rauwal lne r , "Landmarks in the his tory of Indian logic ." WienerZeitschrift ur die Kunde Siid- und Ostasiens 5:125-148 . See especially pp. 131 -132 .

dignaga & dharmakirti

Documents