Transmission and Tradition:
The Meaning and the Role of "Fragments" in Indian Philosophy


Opening Lecture
Harvesting in the Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā:
Methodological and Organisational Remarks
Ernst Steinkellner, Vienna

Some general remarks on the nature of fragments will be followed by methodological remarks on philosophical fragments in India and in Jinendrabuddhi's text in particular. Further, a proposal for the structural and organisational presentation of the fragments and reports available in the PSṬ will be offered in the hope of establishing during this conference a method for editing these materials, which may be commonly applied by all who work towards the same goal. A handout will demonstrate examples from the PSṬ's beginning.
See Handout I and Handout II.

On the Textual Fragments of Bhaṭṭa Udbhaṭa
Koji Ezaki, Vienna

V. Raghavan and E. Solomon have already reported that in the Syādvādaratnākara (SVR), written by the Jaina philosopher Vādideva Sūri (1086–1130 CE), a number of fragments of the lost work(s) of Bhaṭṭa Udbhaṭa, one of the "forgotten" Cārvākas, can be found. Udbhaṭa’s dates are unfortunately still uncertain. Interestingly enough, one of the Udbhaṭa text fragments is identical to a quotation found in the Hetubinduṭīkā (HBṬ) by the Buddhist philosopher Bhaṭṭa Arcaṭa (ca. 710–770 CE). However, in the HBṬ Arcaṭa does not mention Udbhaṭa's name in connection with this passage. In contrast, in the SVR the fragment is followed by another passage of Udbhaṭa, a passage that also directly follows in the HBṬ. This suggests that both passages in the HBṬ might be ascribed to Udbhaṭa. On the other hand, both Udbhaṭa and Arcaṭa may have used a common source. There are also other possible interpretations of this situation, which I will examine in my paper.

Disregarded Material for the Study of Pāśupata Śaivism
Christian Ferstl, Vienna

Studies on the philosophy and the religious believes of the Pāśupatas are mainly based on the scanty remains of Pāśupata literature (i.e., the Pañcārthabhāṣya and the Ratnaṭīkā) and later doxographical works (e.g., Haribhadra’s Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya and Mādhava’s Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha). Recently some more early Śaiva works have come to light in Nepalese manuscripts. However, one important source for the study of this early Śaiva school of thought was not yet examined in detail, namely, the Mattavilāsaprahasana (MVP), written by the early 7th century Pallava king Mahendravikramavarman. This satirical play is renowned for displaying, among other characters of various religious denominations, a Pāśupata called Babhrukalpa. While Babhrukalpa is clearly labled “pāśupata” by the stage direction, another character which is called unmattaka can also be identified as a Pāśupata on a certain stage of initiation. By drawing on textual evidence from the drama dialogues and early Śaiva works, the paper will at first examine how and to which extend of certainty both Babhrukalpa and the unmattaka can be identified as Pāśupatas. In a second step, selected passages from the MVP will be compared to passages from the Pāśupata literature in order to improve our understanding of the play as well as of Pāśupata Śaivism.

Vṛttikāra´s Perspective on the Scriptural Authority
Takamichi Fujii, Tokyo

(supplied later)

The Tattvārthasūtra and its sources in the Āgamas
Shin Fujinaga, Miyakonojo

The Jaina compendium Tattvārthasūtra is a summary of Jaina thought for the age of Āgamas. Each Sūtra is considered to have some relationship with sentences in the canon. This paper will explore such relationships of the Sūtras in the fifth chapter of the Tattvārthasūtra, which discusses Jaina ontology.

Citations in the Syādvādaratnākara
Kyo Kano, Kobe

The Syādvādaratnākara, a commentary to the Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṅkāra of Vādidevasūri, a Jaina logician, is a unique text which contains a lot of citations often with the name of the author. Among them we find citations from Jñānaśrīmitra’s works, of which we have no Tibetan translation except one. Comparing these citations with the extant original texts accessible to us, we find how the author transmitted Jñānaśrīmitra’s texts.

Fragments of Non-Buddhist Texts
in Jinendrabuddhi’s Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā, Chapter 3
Shoryu Katsura, Kyoto

The aim of this presentation is to present the fragments of non-Buddhist Indian philosophical texts, such as the Ṣaṣṭitantra of the Sāṃkhya, that are found in Jinendrabuddhi’s Ṭīkā on Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya and its Svavṛtti, Chapter 3. These fragments should enable us to reconstruct certain phases in the transmission of the logical theories in India.

Collecting treasures – Some reflections on a database of fragments of śāstric works
Horst Lasic, Vienna

In Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya, we find for the first time an extensive – and to a certain degree systematic – treatment of positions held by other philosophers or philosophical schools. In discussing these positions, Dignāga refers to them in various ways. Among other things, we find quotations and paraphrases of textual passages that express these positions. Jinendrabuddhi's commentary on the Pramāṇasamuccaya frequently supplies still more material and also helps contextualize the foreign passages found in Dignāga's work. Frauwallner and others already made use of these sources when tracing developmental steps in early lines of Indian philosophy. Their work, however, was impeded by the fact that the Pramāṇasamuccaya and its commentary were only available in Tibetan translations. Jinendrabuddhi's commentary, which has since become available in Sanskrit, gives us a positive chance to enlarge our knowledge. We are, however, confronted with an immense increase of fragmentary Sanskrit materials, and so are also faced with the urgent issue of how to handle them in the most useful way. Being confident that an electronic database of fragments of śastric works is the most appropriate means to this end, I will reflect on some specific points of its design that, to my mind, need serious addressing.

The Transmission of “Fragments” Ascribed to Pañcaśikha
Philipp A. Maas, University of Vienna

The Pātañjala Yogaśāstra (ca. fourth century CE) contains a number of citations from early but lost Sāṅkhya works, twelve of which are ascribed by the tenth century commentator Vācaspatimiśra to the early Sāṅkhya teacher Pañcaśikha. In my paper, I shall summarise the present state of research in the philosophy of Pañcaśikha and highlight the role of Pañcaśikha’s yoga fragments for the reconstruction of his teachings. This summary will provide the backdrop for a reconsideration of the authorship question of the fragments in the light of sources predating Vācaspatimiśra and for the presentation of the results of my text-critical research in the written transmission of these fragments in ca. thirty palm leaf and paper manuscripts from different parts of the Indian sub-continent.

Following the Fragments: An Investigation into Selected Quotations
from Seventh-century Madhyamaka Works
Anne MacDonald, Vienna

The Madhyamaka author Candrakīrti’s penchant for citation and allusion to previously recorded ideas is most obvious in the first eight chapters of his commentary on Āryadeva’s Catuḥsataka, where he illustrates basic Buddhist concepts with references to a plethora of Buddhist and non-Buddhist religious and secular literature, some of it still unidentified. The last half of the same work and his other compositions, dealing primarily with distinctly Madhyamaka philosophical issues, are especially rich sources for opponent objections and views. The paper for the symposium will present and attempt to identify and trace the origins of selected quoted material.

How to identify the fragments from the “ācāryāḥ” and “vyākhyātāraḥ
in the Nyāyamañjarī
Hiroshi Marui, Tokyo

Frauwallner (1936) enlightened us to recognize the paramount importance of the Nyāyamañjarī as a source of information for reconstructing the early history of Nyāya. Above all, we find a number of references to, or fragments from the “ācāryāḥ” and “vyākhyātāraḥ” there. But it is sometimes very difficult to identify those fragments, those from the “ācāryāḥ” in particular, for several reasons. I will show some textual evidences to demonstrate where the difficulty of identification lies.

On the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika fragments of the theistic arguments
in the Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā
Shinya Moriyama, Matsumoto

The interreligious debate between Buddhist and Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika philosophers documented in Kamalaśīla’s Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā on the second chapter of Śāntarakṣita’s Tattvasaṅgraha is one of most important sources for studying the development of theistic arguments in India before the 8th century. In this text, Kamalaśīla quotes fragments of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika religious philosophers such as Aviddhakarṇa, Uddyotakara, Praśatamati, and his followers, who are not identified in the texts by Uddyotakara and Praśastapāda that are still extant. Although their contents have already been briefly examined by G. Chemparathy, I will provide more details about these fragments by comparing them to the same quotations found in other Jainist and later Hindu philosophical texts, testing thereby the reliability of Kamalaśīla’s quotations.

Traditionalism and Innovativeness of the Nyāya Philosophers
Yasutaka Muroya, Leipzig

The Buddhist theory of universal momentariness (kṣaṇikatva) was a very controversial topic for Brahmanical philosophers attempting to prove the existence of the metaphysically, epistemologically and soteriologically central concept of the “self” or “soul” (ātman). This paper will offer a historical analysis of the Naiyāyikas’ argumentation refuting the Buddhist theory from the point of view of their relationship to earlier thinkers, as well as their novel contribution to the intellectual tradition of Nyāya. A case study will be used as an example of the various ways the Nyāya works of the early medieval period were transmitted and how they constructed knowledge. This will be done by examining the entire extant corpus of these works, as well as those that are known to exist, and those that are today lost.

On the bias for doxographical accounts
in later commentaries on Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadīya
Hideyo Ogawa, Hiroshima

Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadīya, composed of three , is discussed in the following commentaries: Bhartṛhari's autocommentary on the first and second kāṇḍas; Vṛṣabha's commentary on the first kāṇḍa and the autocommentary; Puṇyarāja's on the second kāṇḍa; and Helārāja's on the third kāṇḍa. The two later commentators, Puṇyarāja and Helārāja, are noteworthy in that they treat Bhartṛhari as a kind of doxographer. They try to attribute different views presented by Bhartṛhari to different schools of thought, in some cases citing works from these various schools. It is interesting, however, that there are cases in which the Pāṇinīyas’ tradition and the autocommentary are contradictory or do not support the attribution in question. In the present presentation, I shall consider such cases to show that doxographical accounts of the views found in the Vākyapadīya possibly jeopardize its originality being understood.

Early Nyāya Fragments, Aviddhakarṇa, and other Uncertainties
Ernst Prets, Vienna

In addition to the Nyāyacaturgranthikā, we also know that Pakṣilasvāmin’s Nyāyabhāṣya was commented on by a number of early Naiyāyikas, of whom only their names, titles of works, or fragments have survived in the philosophical literature (e.g., Aviddhakarṇa and Bhāvivikta are said to have written a Nyāyabhāṣyaṭīkā). Many important ideas of the Nyāya system seem to derive from lost works. This assumption is substantiated by the fact that such works are often referred to in texts by authors from opposing schools and systems. Aviddhakarṇa and Bhāvivikta are not only said to have written Nyāyabhāṣyaṭīkās, but most likely also commentaries on the Bṛhaspatisūtra, called Tattvaṭīkā. Another unknown Nyāya author of the same period named Prīticandra is mentioned by Śāntarakṣita at the end of his Vādanyāyaṭīkā (uddyotakaraprīticandrabhāviviktaprabhṛtiḥ). On the basis of fragments and textual analysis, this paper tries to clarify the role of Aviddhakarṇa and Bhāvivikta, as well as the presumable identity of Prīticandra.

On the Conditions of Understanding Philosophical Works from Historical Eras
Stefan Riegelnik, Vienna

In my talk I plan to pursue the question why we are able to understand philosophical works from long-ago eras. As a starting point of my examination, I take Hegel’s opening remarks in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, in which he points out that the history of philosophy suffers from “an inner contradiction” springing from philosophy’s objective, namely truth, which according to Hegel has no history. History is understood as a representation of past forms of “knowledge”, but these do not entail “truth”. As I will show, this contradiction is apparent in many ways. I will focus on these contradictions, not so much to defend a particular conception of the history of philosophy, but to show how the discussion of transmitted works influences our “self”-understanding as well. This is, in turn, a condition for understanding philosophical texts from the past. In order to elaborate on these conditions, I will contrast the understanding of historical philosophical works with the understanding of works in other fields.

Quotations from and references to the Yogācāra Sentences found in Bhavya´s Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā and Tarkajvālā, Chapter 5, entitled Yogācāratattvaviniścaya
Akira Saito, Tokyo

(supplied later)

Some notes on the fragments quoted in the Sucaritamiśra´s Commentary on śabdanityatā section of the Ślokavārttika
Taisei Shida, Kyoto

(supplied later)

Intertextual References in the Satyaśāsanaparīkṣā of the Jaina Vidyānandin
Himal Trikha, Vienna

Quotation, paraphrase and other kinds of intertextual reference, i.e., reference to textual material from preceding works were among the key techniques of composition for many scholars committed to the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions. The correspondences resulting from this composition techniques characterise large portions of extant works and interlink individual works over a span of centuries – not only with regard to the topics expounded but also with regard to the wording expressed. I am currently working on a systematic classification of verbal correspondences in the philosophical Sanskrit works of the Jainas. In my talk I will give an overview over the criteria I use to assess the type of correspondence between two text passages, drawing on examples I found in Vidyānandin’s Satyaśāsanaparīkṣā and related works.

On the Sanskrit Fragments of the Early Sāṅkhya Theory of Proof
Toshikazu Watanabe, Vienna

In the parārthānumāna chapter of his Pramāṇasamuccaya, Dignāga devotes quite a lot of his text on criticizing the Sāṅkhya theory of proof. The chapter contains many fragments of the school's basic text (probably the Ṣaṣṭitantra attributed to Vārṣagaṇya) and its commentaries, texts that are no longer extant in their original form. Jinendrabuddhi provides us with many additional fragments of these texts in his commentary (PSṬ) on the same chapter of the Pramāṇasamuccaya. Some of these fragments have been collected by Frauwallner [1958], together with the Sanskrit fragments found in the Yuktidīpikā and the Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī. Frauwallner, however, only had the Tibetan translation of the PSṬ available. Now that a critical edition of the parārthānumāna chapter of the PSṬ is being done, using a unique Sanskrit manuscript that has become available, it is possible to find a number of additional Sanskrit fragments from early Sāṅkhya treatises on the topic of proof. In this presentation, after having extracted these materials from the PSṬ, I shall examine whether they are quotations from lost Sāṅkhya works, and whether they can be classified as from the basic text or its commentaries. In addition, the difference between the Sanskrit fragments found in the PSṬ, the Yuktidīpikā and the Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī will be discussed.

Kumārila and his Quotation of the Pañcaviṃśabrāhmaṇa
Kiyotaka Yoshimizu, Sendai

The Mīmāṃsāsūtra consists of 890 sections. Many of them quote and examine how to interpret texts from the Yajurveda, which lays down how all kinds of sacrifices are to be performed. There are also a few sections dealing with a text from the Sāmaveda, which primarily describes how to sing hymns of praise to the gods. In addition to traditionally quoted texts, Kumārila occasionally quotes the Pañcaviṃśabrāhmaṇa, one of the Sāmavedabrāhmaṇas transmitted by the Kauthuma school. However, he gives priority to the Taittirīya over other Yajurveda schools. Thus, it is likely that he lived in a region in which the Taittirīya and the Kauthuma, as the dominant Vedic schools, cooperated in undertaking sacrifices. The present paper attempts to reveal Kumārila’s relationship to the Kauthuma school by pointing out that several quotations from the Pañcaviṃśabrāhmaṇa play an important role in the Tantravārttika and thus, testify to Kumārila’s own beliefs.