Haughty bitterness or altruistic concerns? On Dharmakirti's alleged motives for writing the Pramanavarttika

WIENER STUDIEN ZUR TIBETOLOGIE UND BUDDHISMUSKUNDE 104.2 To the Heart of Truth Felicitation Volume for Eli Franco on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday Part II ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN UNIVERSITÄT WIEN WIEN 2023 TO THE HEART OF TRUTH FELICITATION VOLUME FOR ELI FRANCO ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SEVENTIETH BIRTHDAY EDITED BY HIROKO MATSUOKA, SHINYA MORIYAMA, and TYLER NEILL PART II WIEN 2023 ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN UNIVERSITÄT WIEN Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? On Dharmakı̄rti’s Alleged Motives for Writing the Pramān.avārttika* Isabelle RATIÉ Université Sorbonne Nouvelle/ Institut Universitaire de France, Paris The “haughty bitterness” of the Pramān.avārttika’s introductory stanza The Pramān.avārttika begins with an invocation to the Buddha followed by an introductory stanza. The latter has been read as meaning something along these lines: Most people, being attached to unrefined [things and] lacking the intelligence required [in order to understand this treatise], not only have no interest at all in excellent discourses but even hate [their author], being covered with the stains of envy—so I do not even entertain the thought of helping others (paropakāra). [Nevertheless, my] mind’s passion for excellent discourses has long been nourished by their study, so it yearns [to compose] this [treatise].1 * I owe Eli Franco my first postdoctoral position, which enabled me to pursue my research for four years in Leipzig while working on a DFG project, and I am immensely grateful to this remarkably gifted, learned and versatile scholar for his support and kindness, as well as for what probably cemented our friendship from the start, namely, his genuine love for debate (which I experienced from our very first encounter—a spirited exchange during my PhD viva in the Sorbonne’s beautiful amphithéâtre Liard!). What follows is but a modest token of my affection and admiration—I hope that he will forgive my mistakes and ignorance. Many thanks are also due to Vincent Eltschinger for carefully reading a draft of this paper and correcting a shameful number of lingering typos. 1 prāyah. prākr.tasaktir apratibalaprajño janah. kevalam . nānarthy eva subhās.itaih. parigato vidves..ty apı̄rs.yāmalaih. | tenāyam na paropakāra iti naś cintāpi cetaś ciram . . sūktābhyāsavivardhitavyasanam ity atrānubaddhaspr.ham || Hiroko Matsuoka, Shinya Moriyama and Tyler Neill (eds.), To the Heart of Truth: Felicitation Volume for Eli Franco on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 104. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2023. 685–721. 686 Isabelle R ATIÉ This, at least, is how modern historians and philologists have read the verse,2 adducing it as evidence that Dharmakı̄rti experienced a deep intellectual solitude and that, while being acutely aware of his own achievements, he felt frustrated that none of his pupils could rise to the task of understanding him. According to Erich Frauwallner, the stanza expresses “a profound disappointment and bitterness”;3 Richard Hayes and Brendan Gillon depict it as “sardonic”4 while Raffaele Torella highlights its “bitterly haughty tone.”5 Vincent Eltschinger quotes it to illustrate “a bitterness that has become legendary,”6 and Helmut Krasser points out that in it Dharmakı̄rti “bitterly complains” about people’s hostility to his work.7 Eli Franco has aptly summed up the way in which the verse is understood nowadays as a “famously bitter introductory verse.”8 And as already pointed out by Stcherbatsky,9 from Ānandavardhana10 to Bu ston and Tāranātha,11 Indian 2 Mentions and translations of it are found e.g. in Stcherbatsky 1932, pp. 35–36; Frauwallner 1954, pp. 150–151; Mookerjee and Nagasaki 1964, p. 5; Torella 1992, n. 2, pp. 337–338; Hayes and Gillon 1994, p. 14; Eltschinger 2007, p. 64, n. 99; Balcerowicz 2008, pp. 68–70; Krasser 2012, p. 585; Steinkellner 2013, vol. I, p. 3; Franco 2018, p. 260; Matsuoka forthcoming (with the translation in Hayes and Gillon 1994). The only significant divergence as to the overall understanding of the stanza has to do with the way the negative particle should be construed in tenāyam . na paropakāra iti naś cintāpi: some (for instance Frauwallner 1954, p. 151) read it along with cintā (in which case the passage means “so I do not even entertain the thought of helping others...”), others understand it as belonging inside the iti clause (“so although I am aware/I fear that this will not be helpful to others...”). The latter interpretation is found e.g. in Steinkellner 2013, p. 3 and Franco 2018, p. 260 (this also seems to be the understanding e.g. in Vetter 1964, p. 63). 3 Frauwallner 1954, p. 150 (“eine tiefe Enttäuschung und Verbitterung”). 4 Hayes and Gillon 1994, p. 14. 5 Torella 1992, p. 327. 6 Eltschinger 2007, p. 64 (“une amertume devenue légendaire”). 7 Krasser 2012, p. 585. 8 Franco 2018, p. 260. 9 Stcherbatsky 1932, p. 36. 10 See below, n. 53 . 11 See e.g. Chimpa, Chattopadhyaya and Chattopadhyaya 1990, pp. 238, where the verse to be discussed below is said to have been composed after only a few of Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 687 and Tibetan traditions, too, had depicted him as embittered by the lack of positive response to his works, yet proudly convinced of their great value. These sources also quote another famous verse, found at the end of the Pramān.avārttika and seemingly echoing the introductory one: Even someone enjoying the power of a great intelligence cannot fathom the depth of my thought; even those devoting considerable energy [to its study] cannot see the essence of its highest truth. Having found no other suitable vessel (pratigrāhaka) in the world, it will end up decaying in my body, just as the ocean’s water [for which no receptacle is fit besides the ocean itself].12 The ancient commentaries on the Pramān.avārttika do not comment on the closing stanza;13 and they understand the introductory verse in a strikingly different way—or rather, in two strikingly different ways. Dharmakı̄rti’s learned readers understood him and, jealous of his intelligence, tied his works to the tail of a dog; Dharmakı̄rti allegedly responded by noting that as wandering dogs, his works would travel everywhere. Cf. Straube 2009, p. 471. 12 PV 4.286: anadhyavasitāvagāhanam analpadhı̄śaktināpy adr.s..taparamārthasāram adhikābhiyogair api | matam . mama jagaty alabdhasadr.śapratigrāhakam . prayāsyati payonidheh. paya iva svadehe jarām || Cf. more or less similar translations in Stcherbatsky 1932, p. 36; Frauwallner 1954, p. 151; Eltschinger 2007, p. 64, n. 99; Shulman 2016, p. 421. Note, however, that the verse has been read in a more elaborate way by Abhinavagupta, and Straube 2009, p. 481, attempts a rather different translation based on the poetician’s remarks. On Abhinavagupta’s understanding see also Ingalls et al. 1990, pp. 630–631, Bansat-Boudon 2016, pp. 71–72, and below, n. 13 and 58. 13 Prajñākaragupta alludes to it, however. See what is marked as verses 620–621 (in fact a single verse) in PVA, p. 648: sam . ks.epatah. kr.tam idam . parabodhasiddhyai vaktum . punah. subahu sādhu ca śakyam atra | ratnākarād adhigatasya hi ratnarāśeh. praud.hah. pratigrahakr.d asti na tena bhās.yam || “[I] have produced this brief [explanation] so as to make others understand [Dharmakı̄rti’s thought], but one could say much more about it, and [one could say it] better, too; for there is no other vessel (pratigrahakr.t) skilled [enough to bear] the heap of gems acquired from the repository of gems [that is the ocean of Dharmakı̄rti’s thought]— hence this commentary.” Cf. Abhinavagupta’s remarks in DhĀL, p. 490, to the effect that the image of the ocean (traditionally depicted as a receptacle of riches) suggests an extraordinary treasure (e.g. paramam yad arthatattvam kaustubhādibhyo’py uttamam. . . “[‘The essence of its highest truth’ really means] the ultimate essence of reality, which is even more 688 Isabelle R ATIÉ The “artificial and implausible” interpretations in Śākyabuddhi’s and Karn.akagomin’s commentaries What these commentaries have to say on the introductory stanza has not attracted much attention so far. A few scholars have noted in passing that Karn.akagomin, following Śākyabuddhi, provides two distinct interpretations;14 but in secondary sources, most allusions to the traditional understanding of the verse are restricted to the first interpretation laid down by Karn.akagomin—or rather, to a part of it, as will be seen below. Erich Frauwallner was aware of the existence of a second interpretation in Karn.akagomin’s commentary, but he dismissed the second one without even explaining it on the grounds that it is evidently “artificial and implausible.”15 Satkari Mookerjee and Hojun Nagasaki only offer a very partial view of what actually goes on in the commentaries, and they explain that Dharmakı̄rti wrote his work “for his own satisfaction” while ignoring the fact that the commentaries deny or at least greatly downplay this point.16 Hayes and Gillon allude to a plurality of interpretations in Karn.akagomin’s text but do not explain in what ways they differ, and their understanding of the second one is highly problematic, as will be seen below. Martin Straube, for his part, seems to be aware of the gap between the understanding of the verse adopted in modern sources and that of the ancient commentaries (and perhaps also of the fact that the latter has not been accurately reported so far) since he refrains from providing a translation of the verse on the grounds that the commentaries need further study.17 It is this gap that the present article attempts to fill by providing an English translation of Karn.akagomin’s explanations, obviously borrowed from Śākyabuddhi’s.18 Many readers will probably find—as do I—that Frauwallner was perfectly right in considering the second interpretation precious than the kaustubha [jewel]. . . ”). 14 Hayes and Gillon 1994, pp. 14–15; Katsura 1994; Straube 2009, p. 480, n. 26; Steinkellner 2013, vol. II, n. 2. 15 Frauwallner 1954, p. 151, n. 16 (“gekünstelt und unwahrscheinlich“). 16 Mookerjee and Nagasaki 1964, p. 5. 17 Straube 2009, p. 480, n. 26. 18 Katsura 1994 is a Japanese translation of the entire passage in Karn.akagomin’s Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 689 forced and implausible. It seems to me, however, that the reason why the Austrian scholar discarded it is precisely what makes it so interesting. For this outlandish reading had as its goal to establish that Dharmakı̄rti, far from being bitter and haughty, wrote his work out of sheer altruism and compassion. In contrast, as far as the word-by-word gloss is concerned, the first interpretation mentioned by Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin comes quite close to that of modern historians; as we will see, however, in fact it is also aimed at showing that, contrary to what one might conclude from a superficial reading of the stanza, Dharmakı̄rti did write the Pramān.avārttika for the sake of others. That commentators were thus prepared to have a verse say the opposite of what it seems to vigorously proclaim is a measure of how shocking Dharmakı̄rti’s attitude must have been to his coreligionists: Buddhist readers expected a treatise to be written with a purely altruistic goal in mind. The bitter accents of the verse were admittedly useful to some of his commentators: Yamāri took advantage of them to dismiss Devendrabuddhi’s authority by arguing that the master was specifically disappointed with his disciple.19 But many of Dharmakı̄rti’s Buddhist intellectual heirs must have deemed unacceptable his assertion that he had composed the Pramān.avārttika for himself, most people being hopelessly incapable of seeing its value. As will be seen below, the sarcasms of non-Buddhist authors finding Dharmakı̄rti quite self-centered for a proponent of a religion advocating selflessness may have played a role in the commentators’ attitude—all the more since even members of non-Buddhist traditions such as the Nyāya20 21 and Mı̄mām . sā claimed to write their own treatises out of compassion. At any rate, Dharmakı̄rti’s Buddhist readers must have felt an unbearable discrepancy between the tone of this opening stanza and that of Dignāga’s benedictory verse in the Pramān.asamuccaya, since the latter (commented commentary. As I do not read Japanese I was not able to check how its author understands and assesses the two interpretations provided; I have made ample use, however, of the philological notes in the article (see Appendix). 19 See Matsuoka forthcoming; the paper rightly points out that Yamāri must have been aware of the interpretations of the introductory verse found in Śākyabuddhi’s and Karn.akagomin’s works. 20 See e.g. Paks.ilasvāmin, NBh, pp. 96–97; Biardeau 1964, p. 121. See e.g. Śālikanātha, VMV, p. 376; Ratié forthcoming, n. 68. 21 690 Isabelle R ATIÉ upon at length in the Pramān.asiddhi chapter of Dharmakı̄rti’s Pramān.avārttika) depicts the Buddha as “seeking the benefit of all” (jagaddhitais.in) and as being the true teacher (śāstr.) precisely because he teaches all.22 The first interpretation: Dharmakı̄rti claims that he has no hope of helping others—but so as to indirectly incite others to better themselves Karn.akagomin’s first explanation of the verse (which is almost identical to Śākyabuddhi’s)23 runs as follows (the Sanskrit text is given below, Appendix, §B): In this [verse, Dharmakı̄rti] refers to the four kinds of flaws in those who study [treatises] (śrotr.), [namely]: bad insight (kuprajñatva), ignorance (ajñatva), lack of interest (anarthitva), and bias (amādhyasthya). The word prāya [“most,”] ending in -a [and understood as an adjective qualifying janah.],24 indicates a multitude, [and so] prāyo janah. [means] “most people.” [They are] “attached to unrefined [things]” (prākr.tasakti); because [this compound] makes [us] understand that25 [they] are attached to the unrefined treatises [of those] outside [the Buddhist fold] (bahih.śāstra), it is a non-appositional possessive compound [i.e. we should understand that most people “have an attachment to these unrefined treatises”]; alternatively, [it may be read as] being appositional, [i.e. as meaning that] they “have an attachment that is unrefined”—and [even in the latter case, their] attachment [can be said to be] unrefined [precisely] because it bears on [something] unrefined. This refers to the flaw of bad insight in those whose study. [The next compound,] “lacking the intelligence required” (apratibalaprajña), is [to be] construed with “most people.” [These people] “lack the intelligence required,” that is,] their 22 See e.g. Franco 1997, pp. 15ff. 23 That is, apart from two sentences on the meaning and grammatical status of prāyah. (PVSVT., p. 3: prāyaśabdo’kārānto bāhulyavacanah., and ibid.: anye tu prāyah.◦ . . . iti vyācaks.ate), which are not found in the Tibetan translation of Śākyabuddhi’s commentary. Manorathanandin briefly mentions Karn.akagomin’s two explanations for this word (see below, n. 36: prāyo bhūyān bāhulyena vā). 24 Karn.akagomin is about to offer an alternative interpretation whereby the word prāyah. is understood as an indeclinable word with an instrumental sense. 25 On this notion of gamakatva in grammatical discussions on compounds see Joshi 1968, pp. vi-vii. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 691 intelligence is no match (apratibala) [inasmuch as] it is incapable of grasping the treatise. This refers to [the flaw of] ignorance.26 “Not only” do they have “no interest at all in excellent discourses,” but “they even hate” the [person] who utters these [discourses], “covered” as they are “with the stains of envy.” This means that they are both uninterested and hateful; and it respectively refers to [the flaws characterized as] lack of interest and bias. Here too, [both] must be construed with “most people.” Others, however, explain that the word prāyah., although it ends in -s, is an indeclinable word and inherently conveys the sense of the instrumental in bāhulyena, [which means “ordinarily,” “in general.” People are “covered with the stains of envy”;] “envy” is the resentment resulting from the thought of someone else’s accomplishment. [The stain of envy is to be understood as] the stain that is envy, because [it is envy itself] that stains the mind; [Dharmakı̄rti uses] the plural [in “the stains of envy”] with reference to the various individuals. [The word] “hence” (tena) [means that Dharmakı̄rti] wanted to undertake [the composition of] “this,” [namely,] the work entitled [Pramān.a]vārttika, for the reason thus [stated so far, that is, the flaws in those who study]. [The compound paropakāra, “helping others,” literally means] “the help of others.” [Here] the affix ghañ [used to produce the substantive upakāra from upakr.- (“to help”)] indicates the action [of helping] in the sense that one is helped by this [– that is to say, “the help of others” really means “that by which others are helped”];27 alternatively, [the compound] paropakāra [may be understood as] “that which helps others” in accordance with [Pān.ini’s aphorism]28 “[the affix] an. [is used] when there is a direct complement [in a compound].”29 [At this point Dharmakı̄rti says:] “I do not even entertain the thought that [this work may] help others.” How then did he [come to] undertake the composition of the treatise? He answers this [question] with the passage 26 This distinction between the defects of “bad insight” (kuprajñatva) understood as the belief in wrong (i.e. here non-Buddhist) views and “ignorance” (ajñatva) defined as a deficient insight (prajñā) may have to do with the discussion found in AKBh on AK 3.29, which distinguishes kuprajñā and avidyā (see La Vallée Poussin 1926, pp. 89ff.). 27 Just as the substantive roga, “disease,” means “that by which one is afflicted” (see Pān.ini 3.3.16). 28 Pān.ini 3.2.1. I.e., paropakāra means something like “other-helper” just as the compound kumbhakāra means “pot-maker.” 29 692 Isabelle R ATIÉ beginning with cetaś ciram, [which means the following: my] mind has a “passion”—[i.e.] an attachment, an obsession—that has “long been nourished”—[i.e., nourished] for a long time “by the study of excellent discourses”; “so”—[that is,] for this reason—it “yearns for this,” [i.e.] it has become eager to compose this Vārttika. This, [at least,] is how some explain [this verse]. At first sight, the interpretation provided here is not substantially different from that adopted by modern scholars. Granted, Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin consider that Dharmakı̄rti’s depiction of “most people” affords him an opportunity to enumerate four specific flaws that prevent them from understanding the importance and interest of his endeavour—an enumeration that is certainly not glaringly manifest from the sole verse and that many modern studies do not mention at all. The commentators also make clear that the “unrefined” things to which people are allegedly attached are the treatises of non-Buddhists—a point that, again, might not seem entirely evident from the verse itself. Nonetheless, just as historians today, in this first interpretation, Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin understand the stanza as meaning—at least at its most obvious and superficial level—that Dharmakı̄rti did not even entertain the hope of being helpful to anybody else by writing his work (in this reading the particle na is construed with naś cintāpi), and that he was rather driven to compose it by his personal passion for good works, a passion fostered by his long study of such works (which they understand to be Buddhist, as opposed to their “unrefined” counterparts). Yet there are several elements that should make us wary of reading this first interpretation as more or less equivalent to that of modern scholars. First of all, Karn.akagomin (following Śākyabuddhi) understands the words tenāyam as meaning something like “hence this [work]”: according to him, this is Dharmakı̄rti’s way of indicating that the first part of the verse—read as the enumeration of the flaws preventing people from understanding a sound philosophical work—is his actual reason for writing the treatise. So the stanza is to be understood as follows: Most people, being attached to unrefined [treatises by outsiders, and] lacking the intelligence required [in order to understand this treatise], not only have no interest at all in excellent discourses but even hate [their author], being covered with the stains of envy. Hence this [work]. I do not even entertain the thought that [it may] help others; Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 693 [nevertheless, my] mind’s passion for excellent discourses has long been nourished by their study, so it yearns [to compose] this [Vārttika]. This might sound like a gross misunderstanding: given the word order and overall meaning of the stanza, doesn’t the first part of it rather provide the reason why Dharmakı̄rti dispairs of helping anybody with his work? But Karn.akagomin had in fact already made clear before this passage that this is not quite how the stanza is to be read. Thus, while discussing the meaning of the initial invocation to the Buddha, Karn.akagomin had already presented Dharmakı̄rti as going out of his way to write such an invocation because, although the latter is not an absolute requirement so as to reach the completion of a work, he had in mind “the benefit of others” (pārārthya) and strove to “preserve a worthy tradition” (sadācārānupālana)30 —a remark that may well be have been meant to defuse from the start any interpretation of the next verse involving Dharmakı̄rti’s intellectual pride or egoism, or suggesting his being somehow isolated within his own Buddhist tradition. Karn.akagomin then added, as an introduction to the verse under scrutiny (see Appendix, §A for the Sanskrit text): Indeed, there are definitely some wise [people] who [can] grasp the treatise entitled [Pramān.a]vārttika; nonetheless, despite being of help [to others, this treatise] is as good as [if it were] not [so] due to the plethora of flaws in those who study it. With this in mind, [Dharmakı̄rti] formulates the second verse that begins [with the words] prāyah. prākr.ta◦ . . . [He does so] while pointing out that the cause for [his] undertaking this treatise is that his thought has been stimulated by his study of excellent discourses, and in order to convey the following in a roundabout way 30 PVSVT., p. 1: yady api hi śāstrārambhe namaskāraślokopanyāsam antaren.a kāyavāṅmanobhir is..tadevatānamaskārakaran.ena pun.yopacayād avighnena śāstrasya parisamāptir bhavati, tathāpi vyākhyātr.śrotr̄.n.ām . stutipurah.sarayā pravr.ttyā pun.yātiśayotpādāt pārārthyam . sadācārānupālanam . cālocya viśis..tadevatāpūjāślokam upanyastavān ācāryah.. “For even though one [may] complete a treatise without obstacles if one does not formulate a verse of salutation at its beginning, [simply] by accumulating merit while [privately] saluting one’s chosen deity with one’s body, speech and mind, the master did formulate a verse of adoration to his chosen deity, having considered that [this] is beneficial to others—since if the activity of those who explain or study [the text] begins with a praise, additional merit will ensue [for them]—, and that it preserves a worthy tradition.” 694 Isabelle R ATIÉ (vakrokti): “the flaw[s]31 that cause [others] to stray away from the great meaning [of this work] must be abandoned.” Here, Karn.akagomin (again, following Śākyabuddhi’s virtually identical commentary) emphasizes that the Pramān.avārttika is actually helpful to others. It may appear not to be so, but only due to the flaws that mar the understanding of its readers. Besides, Dharmakı̄rti says that he was prompted to write by his study of sound discourses. This enables the commentators to claim that Dharmakı̄rti really wrote the Pramān.avārttika for other people’s sake rather than his own: by pointing out that the study of good treatises sharpened his desire to practice philosophy, Dharmakı̄rti, according to Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin, is showing how studying good treatises has improved his own mind; he is thus indirectly inciting readers to get rid of their own flaws, and this is his way of suggesting that they too should study the Pramān.avārttika so as to better themselves. The counterintuitive aspect of this reading is justified by presenting the injunction to eliminate the flaws and study the Pramān.avārttika as “conveyed in a roundabout way” (vakrokti). In Karn.akagomin’s time, the compound vakrokti (literally, “crooked speech”) was used in a broad sense to designate the ability of poetic discourse to convey a more subtle meaning beyond the obvious one.32 What is implied here is that, although the verse is correctly read, at a basic level, as having Dharmakı̄rti say that he has no hope of helping others, in fact his words should not be understood in this elementary sense, because they have a more subtle, and altruistic, import. Perhaps those who came up with this interpretation were taking advantage of Dharmakı̄rti’s reputation as a poet;33 perhaps this reputation of his was enhanced by their commentarial tactic. At any rate, as noted by Hiroko 31 Karn.akagomin is about to specify that this flaw is “of four kinds.” 32 Bhāmaha and Dan.d.in for instance use it in this broad sense (and not so as to designate the specific figure of speech called vakrokti, which is described in later sources as resting on the playful misinterpretation of someone’s speech by an interlocutor). See e.g. De 1960, vol. I, p. 84 and vol. II, p. 48–52; Bronner and McCrea 2001, p. 458, n. 13. 33 On the latter and the muktaka stanzas traditionally ascribed to Dharmakı̄rti see Straube 2009; cf. Bansat-Boudon 2016, pp. 66–73, and Shulman 2016, pp. 421–422. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 695 Matsuoka,34 this tactic was adopted by Manorathanandin and summed up as follows in his introduction to the stanza: [Dharmakı̄rti], while not seeing [how] the treatise might help others given the plethora of flaws in those who study, [and] while showing that his own reason for undertaking the treatise was only that his mind had been disposed [to it] by his study of excellent discourses, states [the following stanza] in order to incite in a roundabout way (vakrokti) those who study to engage in the treatise by getting rid of this flawed state.35 Again, having provided a summarized version of Karn.akagomin’s first interpretation,36 he concludes: 34 Matsuoka forthcoming. 35 PVV, p. 2: śrotr.dos.abāhulyāc chāstren.a paropakāram apaśyan sūktābhyāsabhāvitacittatām evātmanah. śāstrārambhakāran.am . darśayan vakroktyā dos.atāpanayanena śāstre śrotr̄.n pravartayitum āha. [*śrotr̄.n corr.; śrotr.n Ed.] 36 PVV, pp. 2–3: prāyo bhūyān bāhulyena vā janah. prākr.tes.u bahih.śāstres.u saktir abhis.vaṅgo yasya sa prākr.tasaktir anena kuprajñatvam . śrotr.dos.a uktah.. apratibalā śāstrārthagrahan.am praty aśaktā prajñ ā yasyāsāv apratibalaprajñah . . . anenājñatvam uktam. kevalam . nānarthy eva subhās.itaih. kintu subhās.itābhidhāyinam ı̄rs.yā parasampattau cetaso vyāros.ah. saiva malaś cittamalinı̄karan.āt. taih. parigato yuktah. san vidves.t.y api. ı̄rs.yāmalair iti vyaktyapeks.ayā bahuvacanam. anena yathākramam anarthitvam amādhyasthyam . coktam . . tena śrotr.dos.akalāpenāyam āripsito vārttikākhyo granthah.. param upakarotı̄ti paropakāra iti no’smākam . cintāpi nāsti. katham . tarhi śāstrakaran.e pravr.ttir ity āha cetaś ciram . sūktasyābhyāsena . dı̄rghakālam vivardhitavyasanam . vistāritābhis.vaṅgam iti hetor atra vārttikakaran.e’nubaddhaspr.ham jātābhilās am. “[The word] prāyah. [means] ‘most’ or ‘in general.’ [Most] . . people are ‘attached to’—[i.e.] have an intense affection for—‘unrefined’ [things, i.e.,] the treatises of outsiders. This refers to the flaw in those who study that is [characterized as] bad insight. They ‘lack the intelligence required,’ [that is,] their intelligence is no match [inasmuch as] it is incapable of grasping the meaning of the treatise. This refers to [the flaw of] ignorance. ‘Not only do they have no interest at all in excellent discourses,’ but ‘they even hate’ the [person] who utters these [discourses], ‘covered’ as they are ‘with the stains of envy’—[that is,] since they have these [stains]. ‘Envy’ is the resentment resulting from the thought of someone else’s accomplishment. [The stain of envy literally means] the stain that is envy, because [it is envy itself] that stains the mind; [Dharmakı̄rti uses] the plural [in ‘the stains of envy’] with reference to the various individuals. This respectively refers to [the flaws that are] the lack of interest and bias. [The word] 696 Isabelle R ATIÉ This [stanza], by making those who study realize that they have all these flaws—[viz.] bad insight and so on—, prompts them to engage in the treatise by getting rid of these defects.37 As noticed by Matsuoka,38 this interpretation was adopted by Kamalaśı̄la as well. He alludes to it while pointing out that writing only for oneself makes no sense, and while trying to dispel (again!) the suspicion that Dharmakı̄rti might have thought otherwise. He remarks in this respect that even though Dharmakı̄rti discusses at length what a correct “inference for oneself” is, this does not mean that he thought that writing a treatise might be a selfish enterprise: [Admittedly,] the master [Dharmakı̄rti] says in the Nyāyabindu that “because one understands thus all by oneself, the inferential formulation of this [understanding] also belongs to [the category of] inference for oneself”;39 however, he did not [say this] while having in mind an external formulation, but only with respect to an internal discursive [thought], since an inference for oneself [only] consists in thought, [as opposed to actual speech]. As for what [Dharmakı̄rti] says [in the stanza] beginning with “Most people, being attached to unrefined. . . ”— its point, [conveyed] in a roundabout way (vakrokti), is also to transform others, whose minds are afflicted by the stains of envy and so on, into suitable vessels [for his teaching]; so enough with this digression.40 ‘hence’ [means that Dharmakı̄rti] wanted to undertake [the composition of] this work entitled [Pramān.a]vārttika because of this series of flaws in those who study. [The compound] paropakāra [means] that one helps others; [Dharmakı̄rti says] ‘I do not even entertain the thought that [this work may] help others.’ How then did he undertake the composition of the treatise? He answers this [question by saying the following: my] mind has a ‘passion’—[i.e.] an intense attachment—that has ‘long been nourished’—[i.e.,] fostered for a long time—‘by the study of excellent discourses’; for this reason it ‘yearns for this,’ [i.e.,] it has become eager to compose this Vārttika.” 37 PVV, p. 3: etena kuprajñatādidos.ajātam ātmano bodhitāh. śrotāras tatparihāren.a śāstre pravartitā eva bhavanti. 38 See Matsuoka forthcoming. 39 NB 2.44 (with pratı̄tir instead of vyavacchedapratı̄tir and svārthānumāne’py instead of svārthe’py anumāne). 40 TSP, p. 8: yat punar uktam ācāryen.a nyāyabindau svayam apy evam . pratipattir bha- Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 697 The second interpretation: Dharmakı̄rti is only concerned with Dignāga’s legacy and writes out of compassion for others Śākyabuddhi’s and Karn.akagomin’s commentaries remain virtually identical as they both proceed to present an alternative understanding of the verse. This shows that diverging interpretations of the Pramān.avārttika must have appeared early on41 – and that this verse in particular must have already been deemed problematic at that early stage. This second explanation is conspicuously absent from Manorathanandin’s commentary; it is nonetheless found in Vibhūticandra’s notes at the end of the manuscript of Manorathandin’s Vr.tti.42 It is rarely mentioned in secondary sources, and inadequately summed up in the few studies of my knowledge that refer to it. As in the first interpretation, its goal is obviously to rescue Dharmakı̄rti from any accusation of haughty selfishness. But its tactic is strikingly different, as it no longer strives to detect an oblique meaning in the stanza. It purports that the verse is perfectly straightforward and that in it, Dharmakı̄rti explicitly presents his altruistic concerns and compassion as the sole motives for his composition of the Pramān.avārttika. How is such a commentarial prowess achieved? vatı̄ti svārthānumāne’py asyāh. prayoga iti na tad bahirbhūtam . prayogam adhikr.tya, kim . tarhy antarjalpātmakam eva, svārthānumānasya jñānātmakatvāt. yac ca prāyah. prākr.tasaktir* ityādikam uktam tad api vakroktyā pares.ām ı̄rs.yādimalopahatacetasām . bhājanı̄karan.ārtham ity alam . bahunā. [*prākr.tasaktir corr.; prākr.taśaktih. Ed. (despite nn. 4–5).] 41 As already noted in Steinkellner 1980, p. 286, n. 16. Katsura 1994, p. 37, n. 30, claims, on the basis of the opposition eke/anye, that the second interpretation is evidently the one favoured by Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin, so that Steinkellner 1980, p. 287 (=286?), n. 16, should be reexamined, presumably because it does not mention any preference on the commentators’ part (I thank Hiroko Matsuoka for helping me with the Japanese in this note). I doubt whether the opposition eke/anye can be seen as unassailable evidence for the commentators’ leaning here, and Thieme 1956, p. 15, adduced by Katsura in support of his thesis, only mentions the common (yet by no means universal) kecit/apare opposition in the Kāśikā and related texts; Katsura’s hypothesis is nonetheless quite likely. In any case, what is most striking in this regard is that by Śākyabuddhi’s time, competing interpretations were already circulating. 42 See p. 515 in PVV Ed. The text had already been identified in Steinkellner 1980, p. 698 Isabelle R ATIÉ The passage (the Sanskrit text of which is given in Appendix, §C) starts as follows: Others, however, [understand this] in a different way. [According to them, the stanza] beginning with prāyah. is [in fact] a response to this question: why does the master Dharmakı̄rti produce a commentary of the vārttika type on the Pramān.asamuccaya, rather than an independent treatise? [And] here is the overall meaning of the verse: my mind yearns [to compose] a commentary on the Pramān.asamuccaya, out of concern (cintā) and compassion (karun.ā). [These] concern and compassion stem from the fact that the treatise composed by the master Dignāga is [only] of little help; and that it is [only] of little help is due to the flaw[s] in those who study [it]. The new interpretation emphasizes from the start that the Pramān.avārttika is not an independent treatise but a commentary – and it claims that what it comments on is Dignāga’s Pramān.asamuccaya. Although it is often assumed nowadays that this was a matter of consensus among traditional sources, there was in fact a debate between commentators as to what the Pramān.avārttika commented upon.43 Much was at stake in this controversy, including the issue of the order in which the chapters of the work were to be read;44 but in this particular instance, claiming that it was a commentary on Dignāga’s Pramān.asamuccaya had the additional advantage of enabling a reading of the verse according to which Dharmakı̄rti, rather than bemoaning his own intellectual loneliness for want of any worthy reader, selflessly worries about other people’s fate—that is, more specifically, Dignāga’s posterity, and the welfare of Dignāga’s readers. He has such a concern because, precisely due to the flaws that plague those who study, Dignāga’s work has turned out to be of little help (alpopakāra). It is not the case that, as claimed by Hayes and Gillon, in this interpretation Dharmakı̄rti “is compassionately writing his Pramān.avārttika as an exposition that can provide some trifling aid (alpopakāritva) in explaining Dignāga’s theories”:45 however bold this 286, n. 16; cf. Katsura 1994, p. 37, n. 30. 43 See Ono 1997, Franco 2018, Chu in the present volume and Franco and Preisendanz forthcoming. 44 See Franco 2018. Hayes and Gillon 1994, p. 15. 45 Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 699 attribution to Dharmakı̄rti of selfless motives, at no time does it ascribe to him the humble statement that his own work only provides “a trifling aid,” what is said to be of little help here being Dignāga’s work, not Dharmakı̄rti’s. It is to make up for the Pramān.asamuccaya’s limited soteriological impact that Dharmakı̄rti sets out to write the Pramān.avārttika; and we are thus warned from the outset that he is exclusively driven by this “concern”—this is how the word cintā is now understood—and even “compassion” (the latter point is not easy to grasp, since the word karun.ā is absent from the stanza, but the commentators will shortly present a solution for this problem). The text goes on: As for the meaning of each word, it is explained [as follows]. [The word] prāyah. [means] “in general”; it is to be construed with “people, being attached to [things that are] prākr.ta.” In ordinary [parlance, people] call prākr.ta someone vile whose origin is impure; in the same way, [the stanza says that people in general] are attached to—[i.e.,] attracted to—the treatises of outsiders as well as the criticisms, formulated by opponents, of the treatises [containing] the teachings of the master [Dignāga—and these treatises and criticisms] are “impure” (prākr.ta) since they have an impure (dus..ta) origin, given that they have as their source a perverted knowledge. But why are [people] attached to these impure [treatises and criticisms]? As an [answer to this question the stanza] says “[and] lacking the intelligence required”: [it is] for this reason [that people,] taking what is in fact a bad discourse for an excellent one, become attached to these impure [discourses]. And precisely because they lack the intelligence required, they are incapable of understanding correctly by themselves the excellent discourses of the master [Dignāga, so that,] taking them to be faulty, they “have no interest” in the excellent discourses of the master. Moreover, they harbour hatred towards the master; this is what [the passage] beginning with “[not] only” says. [This passage is to be understood thus:] not only do [people] have no interest in the “excellent discourses” of the master but, being “covered with the stains of envy,” they “even hate” the master Dignāga. Dharmakı̄rti is not complaining that he is misunderstood and even hated; he is not deploring his being ignored and persecuted. He only worries because Dignāga’s legacy is met with indifference and hostility. Those who came up with this interpretation also seem to have realized that the depiction of most people as being attached to prākr.ta, “unrefined” or 700 Isabelle R ATIÉ “vulgar” things, could be read as the contemptuous assertion that people lack the intellectual subtlety required to understand Dharmakı̄rti’s work. Hence their insistence here that prākr.ta actually indicates an impurity rather than a lack of finesse: they argue this is not about intellectual refinement, the issue being that most people have their minds polluted by religious doctrines that oppose Buddhism. Hayes and Gillon take the passage as meaning that people are “so addicted to such vulgar pursuits as political science (nı̄tiśāstra) that they could not avail themselves of truly learned treatises.”46 It seems impossible, however, to read the compound ācāryanı̄tiśāstradūs.an.āni in this way—first, because the word dūs.an.a (“refutation,” “critique”) would remain unexplained, and also because, as will be seen below, the expression ācāryanı̄ti recurs as the text unequivocally refers to Dignāga’s teachings. The “impure” things to which most people are attached therefore have little to do with political science; and as made clear by Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin, they are to be identified not just with treatises expounding non-Buddhist tenets in general, but more specifically, with the non-Buddhists’ works that target Dignāga’s thought. The commentators may have had in mind for instance Uddyotakara’s Nyāyavārttika or Kumārila’s Ślokavārttika—and it is against such attacks that, according to them, Dharmakı̄rti sets out to defend Dignāga. The explanation goes on: [The compound] “who had an intense passion for the study of excellent discourses” (sūktābhyāsavivardhitavyasana) qualifies (kim . bhūta) [Dignāga. It] is definitely to be construed [thus as qualifying Dignāga as the object of the verb “hate”], although [the latter] is distant [from it in the stanza], in accordance with the rule “[there may be] a connection of x with y even when y is far.”47 [So it is] the master Dignāga [who] is described as having a “passion” for the study of “excellent”— [i.e.] beautiful—discourses, [namely], the venerable [Buddha]’s teachings; [here] “nourished” [simply means] “intense,” [and this intense passion] is exclusively devoted to that [scriptural study]. With this, [Dharmakı̄rti] expresses the fact that the master Dignāga has acquired [both] merit and knowledge; for those who have an intense passion 46 Hayes and Gillon 1994, p. 14. 47 I do not know the source of this half-verse; it is often quoted, with some variants, in Buddhist and non-Buddhist literature (see e.g. NBh, p. 46; YD, p. 23; HBT., p. 131; NBhūs., p. 461; Bhāmatı̄, p. 718; etc.). Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 701 for the study of excellent discourses necessarily acquire [both] merit and knowledge. Precisely because [people], “lacking the intelligence required,” have no interest in the excellent discourses of the master and are attached to the impure [treatises of outsiders,] “this” (ayam), [that is to say,] the Pramān.asamuccaya, is [said] not [to be] paropakāra. [In this compound, the word] upakāra [means] the act of helping, [the affix] ghañ indicating an action;48 [and] considering that there is not a great amount of help from the [Pramān.asamuccaya]—[here the word] para [means] “in great quantity” (utkr.s..ta)—, it is not “of great help”— but it is definitely of some help, [even though it only helps] a little, and this [little help] is clearly suggested by the word prāyah. [meaning “in general” while allowing for exceptions]. The word iti has a causal sense [here, i.e., iti naś cintāpi means] “for this reason, I have a ‘concern’ (cintā).” [This concern] takes the following form: “Even though this treatise [by Dignāga] is of great import, it has turned out not to help many—so how could I considerably improve its usefulness?” Besides, due to the word “also” (api), [one must understand that he] also [feels] compassion, which takes the form of a desire to rid [people] of pain [and may be expressed] thus: “Any hatred for the master [Dignāga], who is as good as a bodhisattva, [must be] a cause of evil, however minute [it may be]; therefore I will bring about great respect for the master by correctly explaining the master’s teaching (ācāryanı̄ti), and as a result, I will lead people away from this cause of evil.” The second word iti [that appears in] “so (iti) it yearns [to compose] this” expresses the fact that these concern and compassion are the causes [prompting him to write]. Therefore [one should understand] that [Dharmakı̄rti’s] “mind” “yearns” for “this,” [i.e. it yearns] to compose the Pramān.avārttika, which is a commentary on the Pramān.asamuccaya; “long” [means that his mind] has continuously desired [to compose this] for a long time. Dharmakı̄rti’s assertion that his passion for sound discourses has been fostered by their long study could be taken as a conceited reference to his own erudition. The commentary therefore insists on having the compound sing Dignāga’s praise rather than his own. Besides, this second interpretation leaves no room for the possibility that this passion might be about philosophical discussions, and hightened by the in-depth study of pramān.a literature: it is exclusively the Buddha’s words that Dignāga has busied himself studying, 48 Although the Sanskrit word here is bhāva (Tib. ngo bo), I take it in its grammatical sense, i.e. as referring to the action denoted by a verb (see e.g. Kahrs 2013). 702 Isabelle R ATIÉ and his scriptural passion has granted him both merit and knowledge. Due to people’s flaws, the Pramān.asamuccaya is nonetheless misunderstood and ignored. Dignāga’s magnum opus is now taken to be the subject of the sentence ayam . na paropakārah.; and the compound paropakāra is no longer understood as “a help for others,” but as “a great help.” However unlikely, this new analysis has the advantage of not ruling out the Pramān.asamuccaya’s helpfulness to some people: Dharmakı̄rti, instead of claiming that his own treatise will help nobody, is worrying that Dignāga’s work only helps a few (among whom Dharmakı̄rti himself is likely to be counted, this being probably taken as Dharmakı̄rti’s grateful way of acknowledging his debt towards Dignāga). And this is what Dharmakı̄rti sets out to change as he hopes to make the Pramān.asamuccaya accessible—and therefore useful—to many. One particularly problematic aspect of this interpretation, from a purely syntactic point of view, is the presence of the particle api in the stanza. It is now incomprehensible, since it can no longer be construed with the negation (“I do not even entertain the hope that. . . ”) or read as indicating a concessive clause (“although I think that it will not be helpful. . . ”). So here, Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin use one of the oldest tricks in the bag of South Asian commentators when they need to force into a text something that is blatantly absent from it: they assert that the particle api is simply here to suggest, besides Dharmakı̄rti’s explicit “concern” (cintā), another motive that remains otherwise entirely implicit in the stanza—namely, compassion (karun.ā). Killing two birds with this rather heavy stone, they explain away the presence of the particle while having Dharmakı̄rti assert that compassion is his true motive for composing the Pramān.avārttika. According to this second interpretation, the stanza thus means something like this: In general, people, being attached to impure [non-Buddhist treatises and criticisms of Dignāga], and lacking the intelligence required [in order to understand Dignāga’s Pramān.asamuccaya], not only have no interest at all in [his] excellent discourses but even hate [him, although he] had an intense passion for the study of [the Buddha’s] excellent discourses, because [they are] covered with the stains of envy. Therefore I am concerned that this [Pramān.asamuccaya] is not of great help, and [I] also [feel compassion towards people in general]; so [my] mind has been yearning to compose this [commentary on the Pramān.asamuccaya] for a long time. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 703 Dharmakı̄rti’s “haughtiness” according to Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta The two interpretations examined above spectacularly differ from the reading of Dharmakı̄rti’s stanza that is common nowadays; and the second one seems far-fetched to say the least. It is unlikely, however, that the tendency to read Dharmakı̄rti’s verse as bitter and haughty only appeared in the relatively recent times of Bu ston and Tāranātha: far more plausible is the supposition that this understanding circulated early on, and that the interpretations reported in Śākyabuddhi’s and Karn.akagomin’s commentaries were produced as a reaction to such a reading. I could find no contemporary source explicitly discussing this, but it is certainly no coincidence that Utpaladeva, a tenth-century Śaiva nondualist who was profoundly influenced by Dharmakı̄rti and often discussed his Pramān.avārttika,49 introduces his Īśvarapratyabhijñā treatise while insisting that for his part, he is writing exclusively out of a desire to help others (paropakāra) and for the sake of “people” (jana);50 the commentaries on this introductory verse also explain how in fact compassion—supposedly the cardinal virtue of Buddhism—can only make sense in a Śaiva nondualistic system.51 The beginning of the Īśvarapratyabhijñā treatise sounds like a direct response to Dharmakı̄rti, one emphasizing that, whereas the great Buddhist master had no intention to help others and no interest in compassion, Utpaladeva’s goal in writing his work is purely altruistic and compassionate. Besides, in the ninth century, Ānandavardhana ascribes to Dharmakı̄rti a verse depicting a woman so perfectly beautiful that she is doomed to 49 On the considerable impact of the Dharmakı̄rtian tradition on Utpaladeva’s thought, see in particular Torella 1992. Although Utpaladeva is said to seldom quote his opponents and to prefer allusive paraphrases, newly discovered fragments of his Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivr.ti contain quotations of Dharmakı̄rti, including at least one from the PV (see Ratié 2021, pp. 32–33 and 170–174). 50 See the commentaries on the words janasyāpy upakāram icchan (“and wishing to help people”) in ĪPK 1.1.1; Abhinavagupta, evidently drawing on Utpaladeva’s lost Vivr.ti thereon, discusses paropakāra in the ĪPVV ad loc. (see e.g. ĪPVV, vol. I, p. 33, translated in Ratié 2009, p. 357). 51 See Ratié 2009. 704 Isabelle R ATIÉ solitude,52 and the poetician argues that Dharmakı̄rti thus intended to suggest his own intellectual loneliness as a misunderstood genius. As evidence for this attribution, Ānandavardhana only quotes the last verse of the Pramān.avārttika, making no mention of the introductory one. Yet some of his remarks with respect to the stanza depicting the beautiful woman seem to echo the introductory stanza: . . . Once its [literal sense] is subordinated, this sentence reveals the lament of someone who, [being] puffed up with pride in his unique qualities and having triggered the fever of envious people (samatsarajana) due to the greatness of his genius, sees that no one else knows his own excellence.53 Ānandavardhana explains the reference to the “mental fever” (cintājvara) induced by the woman’s beauty in the hearts of “people” (jana) as an allusion to the feverish jealousy brought about in people by Dharmakı̄rti’s brilliance. It is striking, however, that the closing verse of the Pramān.avārttika54 says nothing at all about people being jealous. Given this silence, it seems very likely that Ānandavardhana also knew the introductory verse, and that the words samatsarajana at least alluded to it. It is also clear that Ānandavardhana did not take this jealousy to be about Dignāga; and while evidently finding that Dharmakı̄rti’s pride (avalepa) is justified by his genius, he did not mince his words about his being “puffed up” (ādhmāta) with it. Abhinavagupta’s position on this seems to be somewhat different from Ānandavardhana’s: 52 lāvan.yadravin.avyayo na gan.itah. kleśo mahān arjitah. svacchandam . carato janasya hr.daye cintājvaro nirmitah. | es.āpi svayam eva tulyaraman.ābhāvād varākı̄ hatā ko’rthaś cetasi vedhasā vinihitas tanvyās tanum . tanvatā || “[He] spared no expense of beauty. [He] went to great pains. [He] induced a mental fever in the hearts of people who [used to] act of their own will. As for her—poor her—, she is miserable, entirely on her own, as no lover could [ever] be her equal. What goal did the Creator have in mind when he fashioned the body of this delicate beauty?” This translation is much indebted to the (far more elegant) one in Shulman 2016, p. 421. 53 DhvĀ ad 3.40, p. 489: . . . anena vākyena gun.ı̄bhūtātmanā nih.sāmānyagun.āvalepādhmātasya nijamahimotkars.ajanitasamatsarajanajvarasya viśes.ajñam ātmano na kañcid evāparam . paśyatah. paridevitam etad iti prakāśyate. This translation largely follows Ingalls, Masson and Patwardhan 1990, p. 625. 54 Quoted above, n. 12. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 705 As for the latter [stanza, i.e. the one closing the Pramān.avārttika],55 one must consider that it rests on the heroic rasa. [This is the case] because [the stanza] rouses heroic resolve (utsāha) [to understand Dharmakı̄rti’s thought],56 since [this thought] is a source of tremendous respect for the people who study it and since it can [only] be grasped with [such great] effort. [It] also [rests on the heroic rasa] because [the stanza specifically] has to do with dharmic heroism, since [the stanza’s speaker] highlights, [while talking] about himself (svātmani),57 that [the thought in question] has a benevolent (kuśala) author; [he does this by conveying that he] has produced [a thought] that, being thus particularly worthy of being used, [must] help the few people who are fit for it. Otherwise, what would be achieved [in this stanza] with a mere lament? If [one argues that] this is just [Dharmakı̄rti] lamenting his having undertaken [to write a treatise] without thinking it through first (apreks.āpūrvakāritva)—then what would be the point, since [such a lament] could be neither for his sake nor for someone else’s? So enough with this digression.58 55 Cf. Bālapriyā, p. 490: anadhyavasitetyādiślokasya vı̄rarase’pi viśrāntim āha parasya cetyādi. 56 Cf. Bālapriyā, p. 491, which understands it as “the heroic resolve to understand [Dharmakı̄rti’s] thought” (matagrahavis.ayakotsāhety arthah.), and takes Dharmakı̄rti’s mata (i.e., the subject of the sentence in the stanza under scrutiny) as the implicit subject of the iti clause (matam iti śes.ah.) and as the complement of the first compounds (matasyeti śes.ah.). 57 I take svātmani to refer here to the person speaking in the first person in the stanza, i.e., Dharmakı̄rti. The Bālapriyā does not comment on this svātmani, but glosses (p. 490) the one that appears in the previous sentence (regarding the verse on the beautiful woman), the construction of which is somewhat parallel: svātmanı̄ti vaktā dharmakı̄rtir atra svātmaśabdārthah.. “In ‘svātmani,’ the word ‘oneself’ refers to the speaker [in the stanza, namely,] in this [case], Dharmakı̄rti.” Bansat-Boudon 2016, which provides a partial translation of this passage pp. 71–72, offers a very different interpretation of svātmani in both cases, construing it with viśrānti. While any aesthetic experience is ultimately some kind of svātmani viśrantih. according to Abhinavagupta, I do not think that this is what is being discussed here, the point being rather that the author of both stanzas is talking about himself (again, in the sequel of the passage quoted here, ātmani can only refer to the author of the stanza). 58 DhĀL ad 3.40, pp. 490–491: parasya ca śrotr.janasyātyādarāspadatayā prayatnagrāhyatayā cotsāhajananena, evam . bhūtam atyantopādeyam . sat katipayasamucitajanānugrāhakam kr tam iti ca* svātmani kuśalakāritāpradarśanayā dharmavı̄rasparśanena . . vı̄rarase viśrāntir iti mantavyam. anyathā paridevitamātren.a kim . kr.tam . syāt. apreks.ā- 706 Isabelle R ATIÉ The passage is difficult and the translation provided here is merely tentative,59 but as far as I understand it, it explains that the verse pertains to the heroic rasa for two reasons. First, it induces in its readers “heroic resolve” (utsāha), that is, the mundane feeling corresponding, on the plane of aesthetic experience, to the heroic rasa. It does so by pointing out the excellence and extreme difficulty of Dharmakı̄rti’s thought, thus challenging skilled readers to undertake the noble and arduous task of studying it. So, while Dharmakı̄rti ostentatiously complains about being misunderstood, he is in fact inspiring worthy students to become a suitable vessel for his teachings. And according to Abhinavagupta, a second reason for classifying the stanza under the vı̄rarasa category is that it shows the author to be benevolent (kuśala), so that it can be said to pertain to dharmic heroism (dharmavı̄ra). This, of course, is a rather fitting label for a verse whose author is named after the glory of dharma; but this assertion as to Dharmakı̄rti’s benevolence is quite surprising, given that the stanza itself makes no mention whatsoever of such good intentions:60 it rather sounds like an expression of bitter disappointment with others, and it also seems to assert that nobody will ever understand Dharmakı̄rti’s thought—at least in his lifetime, since it depicts Dharmakı̄rti’s philosophical findings as doomed to age within the confines of their author’s body. Abhinavagupta’s point seems to be, however, that such a benevolence is not explicitly stated but suggested: the stanza is seemingly about Dharmakı̄rti complaining that he is misunderstood, but by pūrvakāritvam* ātmany āveditam . cet, kim . tatah. svārthaparārthāsambhavād ity alam . bahunā. [*iti ca J1, J2; iti Ed. *apreks.āpūrvakāritvam J1, J2; apreks.āpūrmakāritvam Ed.] 59 It differs in several respects from that offered in Ingalls, Masson and Patwardhan 1990, p. 631 (p. 632, n. 11, its authors acknowledge the difficulty of the passage and highlight its “awkward” syntax—a problem that may be solved, at least in part, by adopting the ca found in manuscripts). The passage is also quoted in Bansat-Boudon 2016, pp. 71–72, but there it is cut after parasya ca until svātmani kuśalakāritā◦ , so that the translation only provides a very partial overview of what goes on in the text. 60 One might therefore be tempted to read kuśala as simply meaning here, as it often does, “skilled” or “competent;” but this would fail to explain how the fact that Dharmakı̄rti is a kuśala author constitutes the very reason why the stanza specifically pertains to the dharmavı̄ra category. Nor would it take into account the main point of the iti clause, namely, the fact that Dharmakı̄rti’s thought must be anugrāhaka. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 707 highlighting the excellence of his thought, he leads people to understand that, although this thought has not helped anybody else so far, it must be helpful (presumably after Dharmakı̄rti’s death) to others, be it a few outstanding minds. So despite appearances, the stanza is not an expression of self-pity: it is about inciting others to study his work, and it is even about suggesting that his goal is really to help others (or at least, some remarkably gifted others). What is striking about this analysis is that Abhinavagupta’s comment focuses on the issue of paropakāra. The latter is at the heart of the introductory stanza of the Pramān.avārttika, while the closing stanza makes no explicit mention of it. Abhinavagupta is also careful to specify that the others that Dharmakı̄rti’s thought has not helped yet are not just anybody, but rather constitute a select audience of skilled people who are “fit” for it. It is as though Abhinavagupta were thus using the tactics found in Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin’s first interpretation of the introductory stanza to explain the closing one: he seems to be arguing that one must read beyond the last stanza’s obvious meaning, since it is in fact an indirect way of inciting others to read his treatise, a way that ultimately betrays his benevolence. This should not lead us to suspect, however, that contrary to Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta saw Dharmakı̄rti as a selfless bodhisattva who felt neither pride nor haughtiness. In fact, Abhinavagupta specifies in his commentary on the Nāt.yaśāstra that the heroic rasa must involve some measure of bitterness: Thus all rasas consist in bliss. Nonetheless some, on account of the objects that colour them, have a touch of bitterness (kat.ukiman), as [is the case] of the heroic [rasa]; for [the latter] has as its very essence such [things] as the endurance of torments.61 Besides, shortly before this point in the Dhvanyāloka, Ānandavardhana had examined the objection that the “rasa of the appeased” (śāntarasa) might just be the heroic rasa when the religious element in it (i.e., dharmavı̄ra) is predominant. He had rejected this identification on the grounds that “it is not acceptable to include it in the heroic [rasa], since the latter rests on one’s 61 Abhinavabhāratı̄ (as edited in Gnoli 1985, p. 17): ity ānandarūpatā sarvarasānām, kim . tūparañjakavis.ayavaśāt kes.ām api kat.ukimnāsti sparśo vı̄rasyeva, sa hi kleśasahis.n.utādiprān.a eva. This translation closely follows Gnoli 1985, p. 73. 708 Isabelle R ATIÉ being full of an erroneous sense of self (abhimāna),”62 adding that “particular states of mind such as the heroic [rasa] of compassion (dayā) are [in fact] a variety of the rasa of the appeased, because they are free in all respects of egoity (ahaṅkāra)—whereas when [they are] not [entirely free of egoity], they are a variety of the heroic [rasa].”63 Abhinavagupta had pointed out in this respect that the heroic rasa always involves egoity, contrary to the śāntarasa, because “heroic resolve (utsāha) has as its essence such [thoughts] as ‘I, who am such [and such]. . . ”64 He had also quoted Bharata saying that there are only three varieties of heroic rasa, pertaining respectively to generosity (dāna), religion (dharma), and war (yuddha), so as to make clear that the heroism of compassion (considered a form of śāntarasa) is not to be confused with dharmic heroism.65 In other words, when, a few pages later, Abhinavagupta depicts the closing stanza of the Pramān.avārttika as pertaining to dharmic heroism, this is also his way of emphasizing that, however admirable, Dharmakı̄rti is certainly not to be seen as embodying compassionate detachment—and that his verses definitely exude the strong sense of self at the basis of the heroic rasa. Beginning a treatise after Dharmakı̄rti: a trend of self-centered humility? Of course, the interpretations provided by Śākyabuddhi and Karn.akagomin for the Pramān.avārttika’s initial verse should also be understood in the context of a war that was being waged in the introductions of treatises at the time, where many authors claimed to write so as to salvage people from the 62 DhvĀ ad 3.26, p. 393: na ca vı̄re tasyāntarbhāvah. kartum . yuktah., tasyābhimānamayatvena vyavasthāpanāt. Cf. Masson and Patwardhan 1969, p. 96; Ingalls, Masson and Patwardhan 1990, p. 524. 63 DhvĀ ad 3.26, p. 394: dayāvı̄rādı̄nām . ca cittavr.ttiviśes.ān.ām . sarvākāram ahaṅkārarahitatvena śāntarasaprabhedatvam, itarathā tu vı̄raprabhedatvam. . . 64 DhvĀL, p. 393: utsāho hy aham evam . vidha ity evam . prān.a ity arthah.. According to Masson and Patwardhan 1969, p. 133 and 137, n. 2, in the Abhinavabhāratı̄, Abhinavagupta takes a strikingly different position on this issue; see, however, Gerow 1994, pp. 202-203 and p. 205, n. 191, for a more convincing reading that does not involve such a contradiction. 65 Ibid.; see Masson and Patwhardhan 1969, pp. 101–102; Ingalls, Masson and Patwardhan 1990, p. 524. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 709 mistaken views propagated in rival religious traditions. The history of this war—which, to my knowledge, remains largely unwritten –66 is far beyond the scope of this essay, but it might not be out of place to note in conclusion that after Dharmakı̄rti, while some Buddhist philosophers insisted in their introductions that they had composed their works out of compassion for those not clever enough to understand Dharmakı̄rti’s thought by themselves,67 some authors chose to overtly declare writing for selfish reasons (just as Dharmakı̄rti)—but, it seems, as an indirect statement of humility; as a vakrokti, as it were, reversing a self-centered motive into the assertion of one’s imperfection and need for knowledge. Thus in the eighth century, Arcat.a for instance points out in the introduction to his commentary on the Hetubindu that being dull-witted (jad.adhı̄), he has nothing in common with the great luminary that is Dharmakı̄rti; he then adds, as an excuse so to speak for writing a commentary on one of his works: “still, there are some who are even more weak-minded than me; it is for their sake, and also for mine, that [I] am going to explain this Hetubindu.”68 Kamalaśı̄la seems eager to present an even more modest introduction to his commentary on Śāntaraks.ita’s Tattvasaṅgraha: 66 Nonetheless see e.g. Balcerowicz 2008, which highlights several interesting connections between the introductions of Buddhist and Jaina works, and Eltschinger 2015, which edits and translates all the maṅgala verses in Śaṅkaranandana’s works (pp. 330ff) and highlights at times their “martial overtones” (p. 335). See also Franco and Preisendanz forthcoming on Prajñākaragupta’s assertion, in the opening verse of the PVA, that he is writing “out of compassion for the people who have been deluded by bad logicians” (kutarkasam . bhrāntajanānukampayā): Yamāri explains that kutarka, which he understands as a bahuvrı̄hi, refers to Uddyotakara, Kumārila and so on—which shows, as pointed out by Eli Franco and Karin Preisendanz, his awareness that the verse echoes Uddyotakara’s claim, in the initial verse of the NV, to write so as to “eliminate the ignorance [produced by] bad logicians” (kutārkikājñānanivr.tti), whom Naiyāyika commentators of course designate as Buddhists. 67 Even in cases where the text is not a commentary on a work by Dharmakı̄rti: Moks.ākaragupta for instance claims in the introductory verse of the TBh that he is writing it “so that pupils of little intelligence can study Dharmakı̄rti’s thought” (. . . śiśūnām alpamedhasām | dharmakı̄rtimatam . śrutyai. . . ). 68 HBT., v. 4: tathāpi mandamatayah. santi matto’pi ke cana | tes.ām . kr.te mayāpy es.a hetubindur vibhajyate || 710 Isabelle R ATIÉ [People] like me, of dull intellect (jad.adhı̄), are incapable of ever saying something new; and what path is there anywhere that has not been repeatedly trodden, day after day, by clever [ones]? Nonetheless, as I long to acquire merit, being devoted to the pursuit of my own benefit (svārtha), my mind endeavours to study the truths [gathered in Śāntaraks.ita’s work] so as to induce the production of merit.69 This assertion that Kamalaśı̄la is only writing for his own sake is probably to be taken with a grain of salt, since as mentioned above, a few pages later, he himself explains that Dharmakı̄rti’s claim to be writing solely for selfish reasons is just an indirect way of inciting others to study his work.70 It is also worth mentioning in this respect that according to Piotr Balcerowicz, the Jain Akalaṅka is responding to “his arch-enemy” Dharmakı̄rti, and specifically, to the introductory stanza of the Pramān.avārttika, when he depicts his goal, at the beginning of his Laghı̄yastraya, as “the apprehension of his own self” (svātmopalabdhi).71 The Jain commentator Prabhācandra endeavours to mitigate the assertion, which might appear to be far too self-centered, by explaining that here, sva- really means “all people” (sakalajana)!72 According to Balcerowicz, “Akalaṅka’s departure from Jaina practice of selfless teaching in favour of pursuance of his own goal was influenced by the personal and bitter aspect of Dharmakı̄rti’s statements that opened way to verbalise personal feelings.”73 One wonders, however, whether Akalaṅka—if he is indeed alluding to Dharmakı̄rti’s attitude here, which seems far from certain74 —is not trying to transform (as Buddhist authors do) what could 69 TSP, v. 2 : vaktum . vastu na mādr.śā jad.adhiyo’pūrvam . kadācit ks.amāh. ks.un.n.o vā bahudhā budhair ahar ahah. ko’sau na panthā kvacit | kintu svārthaparasya me matir iyam . pun.yodayākāṅks.in.as tattvābhyāsam imam . śubhodayaphalam . kartum . samabhyudyatā || Cf. McClintock 2010, p. 92, n. 249. 70 See above, n. 40 . I thank Hiroko Matsuoka for pointing out to me that Yamāri for instance similarly composed an introductory stanza explaining that his commentary on the PVA, however useless to intelligent people, is to help “me and [people] like me” (bdag gam bdag dang ‘dra ba). 71 LT, v. 1, p. 2. 72 See NKC, p. 4 and Balcerowicz 2008, p. 68, n. 78. 73 Balcerowicz 2008, p. 70. 74 Balcerowicz 2008 repeatedly asserts that svātmopalabdhaye is the goal for Aka- Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 711 be perceived as a selfish concern into a manifestation of greater humility (the author is in need of bettering himself before he can even think of helping others). Finally, Abhinavagupta takes an interesting position in this regard. As seen above, his Śaiva predecessor Utpaladeva had claimed to write his magnum opus exclusively so as to help others, i.e. all people, in an introductory verse that was most certainly meant as an ironical response to the Pramān.avārttika’s initial stanza. At the beginning of one of his two commentaries on Utpaladeva’s treatise, however, Abhinavagupta manages to conflate both attitudes—Utpaladeva’s ostentatious altruism, as well as the self-centered humility of the Dharmakı̄rtian heirs—in one single verse: May this [commentary of mine] be helpful to all those of little intelligence; or to just one [person] endowed with considerable acumen—or, [if it can]not [help] anybody else, may it be helpful to me!75 laṅka’s composition of the treatise, but as far as I can see, the verse in question only mentions it as the goal for his paying homage (namo namah.) to the tı̄rthaṅkaras, which is a rather different issue. 75 ĪPV, vol. I, v. 6, p. 4: sarvatrālpamatau yadvā kutrāpi sumahādhiyi | na vānyatrāpi tu svātmany es.ā syād upakārin.ı̄ || 712 Isabelle R ATIÉ Appendix: An annotated edition of Karn.akagomin’s commentary on the introductory verse of the Pramān.avārttika76 §A. santy eva hi santo’sya77 vārttikākhyasya śāstrasya grahı̄tāras tathāpi śrotr.dos.abāhulyena sann apy upakāro’sann iveti kr.tvā78 sūktābhyāsabhāvitacittatvam 79 mahārthabhramśe hetudosas tyaktum eva śāstrārambhe kāran.am . darśayan, ayam . . . . yukta ity etac ca vakroktyā kathayitum dvitı̄yam ślokam āha pr āyah pr ākr tetyādi. . . . . §B. atra caturvidhah. śrotr.dos.a udbhāvitah., kuprajñatvam ajñatvam anarthi81 tvam80 amādhyasthyam . ca. prāyaśabdo’kārānto bāhulyavacanah., prāyo jano bhūyān janah.. prākr.tasaktih. prākr.tāni bahih.śāstrān.i tatra saktir yasyeti gamakatvād vyadhikaran.o bahuvrı̄hih.. prākr.tā vā saktir yasyeti samānādhikaran.a eva. prākr.tavis.ayatvāc ca saktih. prākr.tā. anena kuprajñatvam . śrotr.dos.a uktah.. apratibalā 82 prajñā yasya so’pratibalaprajñah prāyo jana śāstragrahan.am praty aśaktā . . 76 Ms. 2a1–2b5; Ed. PVSVT. pp. 2(l. 25)–4(l. 27). The parallel passage starts in Tib. P 3b, l. 2 and Tib. D 3a, l. 3. 77 santy eva hi santo’sya Ed., cf. Tib. (. . . ’di. . . mkhas pa dag kyang yod pa kho na yin); •• •• •• •• •• •• •• Ms. (illegible from the facsimile). N. 1 in Ed. about a “missing portion. . . found in the margin in a different hand” does not concern these words but a previous passage (from pratyekabuddha◦ to vidyate eva); number 1 after santo[’]sya only indicates the end of the line in the Ms. 78 sann apy upakāro’sann iveti kr.tvā conj.; santam apy upakāram asantam iva kr.tvā Ms., Ed.; santam apy upakāram asantam iti kr.tvā conj. Katsura 1994, n. 18. The Tib. parallel passage, phan pa yod bzhin du yang med pa skad du byas nas, indeed suggests iti kr.tvā, as noted by Katsura; but if one adopts the iti clause thus suggested, in Sanskrit the accusative inside the clause no longer makes sense. I assume that the nominative may have been wrongly corrected into an accusative after the loss of iti, and that the corruption into iva kr.tvā was facilitated by an original iveti kr.tvā; it should be noted, however, that the Tib. parallel passage as preserved in P and D does not support iva. 79 ayam conj.; ayam ca Ms., Ed.; the Tib. parallel passage has no equivalent for this ca. 80 anarthitvam Ms., Ed.; in Tib. (P) don du gnyer ba nyid should be corrected into don du mi gnyer ba nyid in accordance with Tib. D (see Katsura 1994, n. 21). 81 prāyaśabdo’kārānto bāhulyavacanah. Ms., with avagraha added here for standardized spelling; prāyah.śabda okārānto bāhulyavacanah. Ed.; prāyah.śabdo’kārānto [bāhulyavacanah.] corr. in Katsura 1994, n. 22; om. Tib. 82 aśaktā corr. Ed., cf. Tib. (mi nus pa’i); asaktā Ms. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 713 iti sambandhah.. anenājñatvam uktam. subhās.itair nānarthy eva kevalam,83 kintu subhās.itābhidhāyinam . vidves.t.y apı̄rs.yāmalaih. parigatah. san. anarthı̄ ca vidves..ti cety arthah.. etena yathākramam anarthitvam amādhyasthyam . coktam. atrāpi prāyo jana iti sambandhanı̄yam. anye tu prāyah.śabdah. sakārānto’py84 asti 85 nipātah., sa ca bāhulyenety asmim . s tr.tı̄yārthe svabhāvād vartata iti vyācaks.ate. ı̄rs.yā parasampattau cetaso vyāros.ah., saiva malaś cittamalinı̄karan.āt. vyaktibhedād bahuvacanam. yata evam . tena kāran.enāyam āripsito vārttikākhyo granthah.. paropakārah. pares.ām upakārah.. upakriyate’neneti karan.e ghañ, parān vopakarotı̄ti paropakārah. karman.y an.. paropakāra iti no’smākam . cintāpi nāsti. katham . tarhi śāstraracanāyām . pravr.ttir ity āha cetaś ciram ityādi. ciram . dı̄rghakālam . sūktābhyāsena vivardhitam . . vyasanam . saktis tatparatā, sūktābhyāsavivardhitam 86 tat tathoktam. iti hetor atra vārttikaracanāyām anuvyasanam yasya cetasas . baddhaspr.ham . ceta iti. evam eke vyācaks.ate. . jātābhilās.am §C. 87 anye tv anyathā.88 kasmād ayam ācāryadharmakı̄rtir89 vārttikanyāyena 90 pramān.asamuccayavyākhyām . karoti na punah. svatantram eva śāstram ity as91 92 min praśnāvasare prāha prāya ityādi. asya ślokasyāyam . samāsārthah.. cintayā karun.ayā ca me pramān.asamuccayavyākhyāyām . ceto jātābhilās.am iti. cintā 83 subhās.itair nānarthy eva kevalam conj., cf. Tib. (legs par bshad pa don du mi gnyer ba kho nar ma zad); subhās.itair nānarthy eva Ms., Ed. 84 prāyah.śabdah. sakārānto’py Ms. (with standardized sandhi here for prāyaśśabdas sakārānto’py); prāyah.śabdasyā(?sa)kārānto’py Ed.; prāyah.śabdasya sakārānto’py corr. Katsura 1994, n. 25. 85 anye tu. . . iti vyācaks.ate om. Tib. 86 cetasas Ms., Ed.; no equivalent in Tib. (see Katsura 1994, n. 29). 87 The Sanskrit fragment of Śākyabuddhi’s commentary starts here in PVV App., p. 515. 88 anye tv anyathā Ms., Ed.; a. . . thā PVV App. 89 ācāryadharmakı̄rtir Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (slob dpon chos gyi grags pa); om. PVV App. 90 pramān.asamuccayavyākhyām . karoti Ms., Ed.; pramān.asamuccayam . vyācas..te PVV App. Tib. tshad ma kun las btus pa ’chad par byed could translate both. 91 ity asmin praśnāvasare Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (zhes ’dri ba’i skabs ’dir); iti praśne PVV App. 92 asya ślokasyāyam . samāsārthah. Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (tshigs su bcad pa ’di’i btus pa’i don); ayam arthah. PVV App. 714 Isabelle R ATIÉ 94 karun.ā cācāryadignāgaracitaśāstrasyālpopakāritvena,93 alpopakāritvam . ca śrotr.janāparādhena.95 padārthas tūcyate. prāya iti96 bāhulyena prākr.tasaktir jana iti sambandhah.. 100 tı̄rthikaśāstrāni prākr.ta97 ucyate loke nı̄co98 yasya dus..to’nvayah..99 evam . . 101 viparyastajñānaprabhavatvād dus..tāparapran.ı̄tāni cācāryanı̄tiśāstradūs.an.āni nvayāny atah.102 prākr.tāni, tes.u saktir anurāgo yasya sa tathoktah..103 kasmāt punah. prākr.tasaktir104 ity āhāpratibalaprajña105 iti. ato’sau durbhās.itam api subhās.itam iti gr.hı̄tvā106 prākr.te sajyate.107 apratibalaprajñatvād eva 108 dosavattvena109 cācāryasubhās.itāni svayam . yathāvad avaboddhum aks.amo . 93 iti. cintā karun.ā cācārya◦ Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (zhes bya ba. . . sems pa dang snying rje dag ni slob dpon . . . ); om. PVV App. 94 alpopakāritvam . ca Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (phan pa chung ba yang); tac ca PVV App. 95 śrotr.◦ Ms., cf. Tib. (nyan pa po’i), corr. Katsura 1994, n. 34, PVV App.; śrātr.◦ Ed. 96 iti Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (zhes bya ba); om. PVV App. 97 prākr.ta Ms., Ed., PVV App. Tib. P and D phal cher zhes bya ba ni should be corrected in to phal pa zhes bya ba ni. 98 jana iti sambandhah.. prākr.ta ucyate loke nı̄co Ms., Ed.; jñānānı̄co(?) PVV App. yasya dus..to’nvayah. Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (gang zhig rgyu ngan pa las byung ba yin no); dus..tānvayah. PVV App., corr. Katsura 1994, n. 35. 99 100 101 evam . Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (de bzhin du); om. PVV App. cācāryanı̄tiśāstradūs.an.āni Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (dang. . . slob dpon gyi lugs kyi bstan bcos sun ’byin pa rnams kyang); ācāryanı̄tidūs.an.āni PVV App. 102 dus..tānvayāny atah. Ms., corr. Katsura 1994, n. 36, cf. Tib. (rgyu ngan pa las byung ba yin no, de’i phyir); dus..tānvayāny ataś ca PVV App.; dus..tānvayād yatah. Ed. One might even suspect an original reading such as dus..tānvayāni yāny atah. here. 103 sa tathoktah. Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (de la de skad ces bya’o); om. PVV App. 104 kasmāt punah. prākr.tasaktir Ed. (silent corr.), cf. Tib. (yang ci’i phyir phal pa la chags); kasmāt punah. prāyah. prākr.tasaktir Ms.; kutah. prākr.tasaktir PVV App. 105 āhāpratibalaprajña Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (shes rab rtsal med pas na zhes bya ba smos te); āha pratibalaprajña PVV App. 106 iti gr.hı̄tvā Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (zhes bya bar gzung nas); kr.tvā PVV App. 107 prākr.te sajyate Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (phal pa la chags par byed do); tyajate PVV App. avaboddhum aks.amo Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (khong du chud par mi nus pas); boddhum aks.amo PVV App. 108 109 dos.avattvena Ms., Ed., PVV App.; om. Tib. (as noted in Katsura 1994, n. 37). Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 715 gr.hı̄tvā tair ācāryasubhās.itair anarthı̄. ācārye ca vidves.avān bhavatı̄ty āha kevalam ityādi. na kevalam anarthı̄ subhās.itair ācāryı̄yair api tu vidves.t.y 111 apı̄rs.yāmalaih. parigatah. sann ācāryadignāgam.110 kim sūktā. bhūtam? 112 bhyāsavivardhitavyasanam. vyavahitenāpi sambandho bhavaty eva,113 yena yasyābhisambandho dūrasthasyāpi tena sa iti nyāyāt.114 śobhanam uktam . 115 tatrābhyāsas tatra vivardhitam vyasanam sūktam bhagavatpravacanam . . . . 117 tatraivātyartham116 āsaktatvam anenā. yasyācāryadignāgasya sa tathoktah.. cāryadignāgasyopacitapun.yajñānatvam118 āha, upacitapun.yajñānā eva hi sūktābhyāsavivardhitavyasanā bhavanti.119 yenāpratibalaprajña ācāryasubhās.itair 121 anarthı̄120 prākr.tasaktiś ca tena kāran.enāyam na . pramān.asamuccayo 110 ācāryadignāgam Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (slob dpon phyogs kyi glang po la); dignāgam PVV App. 111 PVV App. reads it as kim . bhūtam. 112 vyavahitenāpi Ms., Ed.; vyavahitānām api PVV App. 113 bhavaty eva Ms., Ed. (Tib. has kho na); ’sti PVV App. 114 yena yasyābhisambandho dūrasthasyāpi tena sa iti nyāyāt Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (lugs las gang zhig gang dang ’brel pa ni ring na ’dug kyang de dang der zhes ’byung ba’i phyir ro); om. PVV App. 115 bhagavatpravacanam . Ms., Ed.; om. PVV App., Tib. 116 tatraivātyartham Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (which has no equivalent of ca); tatraiva cātyartham PVV App. 117 yasyācāryadignāgasya sa tathoktah. Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (slob dpon phyogs kyi glang po gang la... de la de skad ces bya’o); om. PVV App. 118 anenācāryadignāgasyopacitapun.yajñānatvam Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (’dis ni slob dpon phyogs kyi glang po bsod nams dang ye shes bsags pa nyid yin par); anenopacitapun.yajñānatvam PVV App. 119 upacitapun.yajñānā eva hi sūktābhyāsavivardhitavyasanā bhavanti Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (bsod nams dang ye shes bsags pa dag kho na legs par bshad pa la goms pas lhur len pa bskyed par ’gyur ro); tasyaiva tathātvāt PVV App. 120 yenāpratibalaprajña ācāryasubhās.itair anarthı̄ Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (gang gi phyir shes rab kyi mthu med pas slob dpon gyis legs par bshad pa dag don du mi gnyer zhing); yenānarthı̄ PVV App. 121 prākr.tasaktiś ca tena kāran.enāyam . pramān.asamuccayo Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (phal pa la chags pa de’i phyir tshad ma kun nas bsdus pa ’di); prākr.tasaktis tena kāran.ena samuccayo PVV App. 716 Isabelle R ATIÉ paropakārah.. upakaran.am upakāro bhāve ghañ.122 para utkr.s..ta upakāro nāsmād bhavatı̄ti kr.tvā na paropakāro’lpas tūpakāro’sty eva123 sa ca prāyah.śabdena sūcita 125 mahārtham apı̄dam eva.124 itiśabdo hetau, asmād dhetor asmākam . cintā . 126 127 śāstram tat katham asyātyartham . na bahūnām upakārakam . jātam . . sāphalyam . kuryām ity evamākārā. ācārye ca bodhisattvakalpe128 vidves.ah. svalpo’py129 anarthahetur ato’ham ācāryanı̄ter aviparı̄taprakāśanenācārye130 bahumānam utpādya tato131 ’narthahetor janam132 nivartayis.yāmı̄tyevam . duh.khaviyogecchākārā karun.āpy apiśabdāt. ity133 atrānubaddhaspr.ham iti dvitı̄yenetiśabdena134 135 cintākarunābhyām cetaś ciram cintākarun.ayor hetutvam āha. ity ābhyām . . . . 122 upakaran.am upakāro bhāve ghañ Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (phan pa ni phan pa ste ngo bo yin no); om. PVV App. 123 para utkr.s..ta upakāro nāsmād bhavatı̄ti kr.tvā na paropakāro’lpas tūpakāro’sty eva Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (’dis phan pa mchog dam par mi ’gyur bas na mchog tu phan pa min pa’o. phan pa cung zad ni yod pa kho na te); param utkr.s..tam. anyopakāro’sty eva PVV App. 124 sa ca prāyah.śabdena sūcita eva corr. Katsura 1994, n. 40, cf. Tib. (de ni phal cher zhes bya bas bstan pa yin no); sa ca prāyaśabdena sūcita eva Ms., Ed.; prāyaśabdasūcitah. PVV App. 125 itiśabdo hetau, asmād dhetor asmākam . cintā Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (des na zhes bya ba’i sgra ni rgyu yin pa ste, rgyu des na bdag gyis... sems pa’ang yin no); itir hetau, iti hetor nāsmākam . cintā PVV App. Katsura 1994, n. 41, conjectures no’smākam . instead of asmākam .. 126 jātam . Ms., Ed.; om. PVV App. asyātyartham . sāphalyam . Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (’di shin tu ’bras bu dang bcas par); asyārthasāphalyam PVV App. . 127 128 ca bodhisattvakalpe Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (byang chub sems dpa’ dang ’dra ba la); om. PVV App. 129 svalpo’py Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (cung zad cig); anyo’py PVV App. 130 ’ham ācāryanı̄ter aviparı̄ta◦ Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (bdag gyis slob dpon gyi lugs phyin ci ma log par, with logs par in Tib. P corrected into log par, found in Tib. D); mahān ācāryanı̄tena viparı̄tārtha◦ PVV App. 131 tato Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (de las); om. PVV App. 132 janam has no equivalent in the Tib., as noted in Katsura 1994, n. 43. 133 ity Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (phyir); om. PVV App. 134 dvitı̄yenetiśabdena corr., cf. Tib. (phyir zhes bya ba’i sgra gnyis pas ni); dvitı̄yeneti śabdena Ed., PVV App. 135 ābhyām . Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (’di gnyis); om. PVV App. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 717 dı̄rghakālam atra136 pramān.asamuccayavyākhyābhūtapramān.avārttikaracanāyām137 anubaddhaspr.ham . santānena pravr.tteccham iti. References Abhinavabhāratı̄ (Abhinavagupta). See Gnoli 1985. AK/AKBh Abhidharmakośa/Abhidharmakośabhās.ya (Vasubandhu). Ed. P. Pradhan, Abhidharma-Koshabhās.ya of Vasubandhu. Patna 1967. Bālapriyā (Rāmasāraka). See DhĀ. Balcerowicz, P. 2008. “Some remarks on the opening sections in Jaina epistemological treatises.” In: Ed. W. Slaje, Śāstrārambha. Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit. Wiesbaden. 25–82. Bansat-Boudon, L. 2016. “The world on show, or sensibility in disguise. Philosophical and aesthetic issues in a stanza by Abhinavagupta (Tantrāloka I 332, Locana ad Dhvanyāloka I 13).” In: Eds. E. Franco and I. Ratié, Around Abhinavagupta. Aspects of the Intellectual History of Kashmir from the Ninth to the Eleventh Century. Berlin (reprint Delhi 2022). 33–79. Bhāmatı̄ (Vācaspatimiśra). In: Eds. A. Śāstrı̄ and R. Śāstrı̄, The Brahmasūtra Śānkara Bhās.ya, With the Commentaries Bhāmati, Kalpataru and Parimala. Bombay 1938. Biardeau, M. 1964. Théorie de la connaissance et philosophie de la parole dans le brahmanisme classique. Paris/La Haye. Bronner, Y., and L. McCrea. 2001. “The poetics of distortive talk. Plot and character in Ratnākara’s ‘Fifty Verbal Perversions’ (Vakroktipañcāśikā).” Journal of Indian Philosophy 29: 435–464. Lama Chimpa, A. Ch., and D. Chattopadhyaya. 1990. Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India. Delhi (Shimla 1970). De, S. K. 1960. History of Sanskrit Poetics. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Calcutta. DhĀ Dhvanyāloka (Ānandavardhana). Ed. P. Sāstri, The Dhvanyāloka of Śrı̄ Ānandavardhanāchārya with the Lochana & Bālapriyā Commentaries. Benares 1940. DhĀL Dhvanyālokalocana (Abhinavagupta). See DhĀ. Eltschinger, V. 2007. Penser l’autorité des Écritures. La polémique de Dharmakı̄rti contre la notion brahmanique orthodoxe d’un Veda sans auteur. Autour de Pramān.avārttika I.213–268 et Svavr.tti. Wien. 136 atra Ms., Ed., cf. Tib. (’di la); om. PVV App. 137 ◦ pramān.avārttikaracanāyām Ms., Ed.; ◦ vārttikaracanāyām PVV App. (Tib. only has gzhung ’grel). 718 Isabelle R ATIÉ ———. 2015. “Latest news from a Kashmirian ‘second Dharmakı̄rti.’ On the life, works, and confessional identity of Śaṅkaranandana according to new manuscript resources,” In: Eds. P. Mc Allister, C. Scherrer-Schaub and H. Krasser† , Cultural Flows Across the Western Himalayas. Wien. 303–363. Franco, E. 1997. Dharmakı̄rti on Compassion and Rebirth. Wien. ———. 2018. “Yamāri and the order of chapters in the Pramān.avārttika,” In: Eds. S. D’Intino and Sh. Pollock, The Space of Meaning: Approaches to Indian Philology. Paris. 247–269. Franco, E., and K. Preisendanz. (forthcoming). “Yamāri, Dignāga and the scope of Dharmakı̄rti’s work.” Forthcoming in a felicitation volume. Frauwallner, E. 1954. “Die Reihenfolge und Entstehung der Werke Dharmakı̄rti’s,” In: Eds. J. Schubert and U. Schneider, Asiatica. Festschrift Friedrich Weller. Leipzig. 142–154 (reprint in: Eds. G. Oberhammer et al., Kleine Schriften. Wiesbaden 1982: 677–689). Gerow, E. 1994. “Abhinavagupta’s aesthetics as a speculative paradigm.” Journal of the Oriental American Society 114-2: 186–208. Gnoli, R. 1985. The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta. Varanasi. Hayes, R. P., and B. S. Gillon. 1994. “Introduction to Dharmakı̄rti’s Theory of Inference as Presented in Pramān.avārttika Svopajñavr.tti 1–10.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 19: 1–73. HBT. Hetubindut.ı̄kā (Arcat.a). Eds. S. Sanghavi and Jinavijayaji, Hetubindut.ı̄kā of Bhat..ta Arcat.a, With the Subcommentary Entitled Āloka by Durveka Miśra. Baroda 1949. Ingalls, D. H. H., J. M. Masson and M. V. Patwardhan. 1990. The Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta. Cambridge (Mass.). ĪPK Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā (Utpaladeva). See Torella 2002. ĪPV Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinı̄ (Abhinavagupta). Ed. M. R. Shāstrı̄ and M. K. Shāstrı̄, Īshvara-pratyabhijñā Vimarśinı̄. 2 vols. Srinagar 1918–1921. ĪPVV Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivr.tivimarśinı̄ (Abhinavagupta). Ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shāstrı̄, Īśvarapratyabhijñā Vivritivimarśinı̄ by Abhinavagupta. 3 vols. Srinagar 1938–1943. J1 Manuscript of Dhvanyālokalocana (Abhinavagupta), Jammu. Dhvanyālokalocanam. Kashmirian nāgarı̄. no. 803. In: Stein 1894. J2 Manuscript of Dhvanyālokalocana (Abhinavagupta), Jammu. Dhvanyālokalocanam. Kashmirian nāgarı̄. no. 803 gha. In: Patkar 1973. Joshi, S. D. 1968. Patañjali’s Vyākaran.a-Mahābhās.ya, Samarthāhnika (P. 2.1.1), edited with translations and notes. Poona. Kahrs, E. 2013. “Action, being and brahman.” Journal of Hindu Studies 6-3: 317–332. Katsura, Sh. 1994. “Karn.akagomin-saku ‘Ryōhyōshaku-dai-isshō-fukushū’ wayaku-kenkyū (1) [Karn.akagomin’s T.ı̄kā on Pramān.avārttika, Chapter I (1)].” Hiroshima-Daigaku Bungakubukiyō 54: 22–40. Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 719 Krasser, H. 2012. “Bhāviveka, Dharmakı̄rti and Kumārila.” In: Eds. F. Voegeli et al., Devadattı̄yam. Johannes Bronkhorst Felicitation Volume. Bern. 535–594. La Vallée Poussin, L. de. 1926. L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu, traduit et annoté. Troisième Chapitre. Louvain. LT Laghı̄yastraya (Akalaṅka). See NKC. MacClintock, S. L. 2010. Omniscience and the Rhetoric of Reason. Śāntaraks.ita and Kamalaśı̄la on Rationality, Argumentation, and Religious Authority. Boston. Masson, J. L., and M. V. Patwardhan. 1969. Śāntarasa. Abhinavagupta’s Philosophy of Aesthetics. Poona. Matsuoka, H. (forthcoming). “Yamāri on the ādivākya of the Pramān.avārttika.” Paper presented at the 6th International Dharmakı̄rti Conference, 21st –26th August 2022, Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea. Mookerjee, S., and H. Nagasaki 1964. The Pramān.avārttikam of Dharmakı̄rti. An English Translation of the First Chapter with the Autocommentary and with Elaborate Comments [Kārikās I-LI]. Patna. NB Nyāyabindu (Dharmottara). Ed. D. Malvania, Pan.d.ita Durveka Miśra’s Dharmottarapradı̄pa [Being a Subcommentary on Dharmottara’s Nyāyabindut.ı̄kā, a Commentary on Dharmakı̄rti’s Nyāyabindu]. Patna revised ed., 1971. NBh Nyāyabhās.ya (Paks.ilasvāmin/Vātsyāyana). Ed. A. Thakur, Gautamı̄yanyāyadarśana With Bhās.ya of Vātsyāyana. New Delhi 1997. NBhūs. Nyāyabhūs.an.a (Bhāsarvajña). Ed. Yogı̄ndrānanda, Śrı̄madācārya-Bhāsarvajñapran.ı̄tasya Nyāyasārasya svopajñam . vyākhyānam . Nyāyabhūs.an.am. Varanasi 1968. NKC Nyāyakumudacandra (Prabhācandra). Ed. M. K. N. Shastri, Nyāya-kumudacandra of Śrı̄mat Prabhācandrācārya. A Commentary on Bhat..tākalaṅkadeva’s Laghı̄yastraya. 2 vols. Bombay 1938. NV Nyāyavārttika (Uddyotakara). Ed. A. Thakur, Nyāyabhās.yavārttika of Bhāradvāja Uddyotakara. New Delhi 1997. Ono, M. 1997. “A reconsideration of the controversy about the order of the chapters of the Pramān.avārttika. The Argument by Indian Commentators of Dharmakı̄rti.” In: Eds. H. Krasser et al., Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Wien. 701–716. Patkar, M.M. 1973. Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Shri Ranbir Sanskrit Research Institute, Jammu (Kashmir). vol. II. Jammu. PV 2–4 Pramān.avārttika (Dharmakı̄rti) 2–4. Ed. Y. Miyasaka, “Pramān.avārttikakārikā (Sanskrit and Tibetan).” Acta Indologica 2, 1971-1972: 1–206. PVA Pramān.avārttikālaṅkāra (Prajñākaragupta). Ed. R. Sāṅkr.ityāyana, Pramān.avārtikabhāshyam or Vārtikālaṅkārah. of Prajñākaragupta (Being a Commentary on Dharmakı̄rti’s Pramān.avārtikam). Patna 1953. 720 Isabelle R ATIÉ PVSVT. Pramān.avārttikasvavr.ttit.ı̄kā (Karn.akagomin). Ed. R. Sām . kr.tyāyana, ācāryaDharmakı̄rteh. Pramān.avārttikam (svārthānumānaparicchedah.) svopajñavr.ttyā Karn.akagomi-viracitayā tat..tı̄kayā ca sahitam. Ilāhābād 1943 (repr. Kyoto: 1982). PVSVT. Ms. Manuscript of Pramān.avārttikasvavr.ttit.ı̄kā (Karn.akagomin), facsimile. Ed. Shoren Ihara, Sanskrit Manuscripts of Karn.akagomin’s Pramān.avārttika(sva)vr.ttit.ı̄kā. Facsimile Edition. Patna/Narita 1998. PVV Pramān.avārttikavr.tti (Manorathanandin). Ed. R. Sāṅkr.tyāyana, Dharmakı̄rti’s Pramān.avārttika with a Commentary by Manorathanandin. Patna 1938–1940. PVV App. Appendix I in PVV. Ratié, I. 2009. “Remarks on compassion and altruism in the Pratyabhijñā philosophy,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 37: 349–366. ———. 2021. Utpaladeva on the Power of Action. A First Edition, Annotated Translation and Study of Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivr.ti, Chapter 1. Cambridge (Mass.). ———. (forthcoming). “On the practice of autocommentary in Sanskrit sources.” The Medieval Globe. Shulman, D. 2016. “Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta on the limits of rasadhvani: a reading of DhvĀ 3.43.” In: Eds. E. Franco and I. Ratié, Around Abhinavagupta. Aspects of the Intellectual History of Kashmir from the Ninth to the Eleventh Century, Berlin (reprint Delhi 2022). 401–423. Stcherbatsky, Th. 1932. Buddhist Logic. Vol. I. Delhi. Stein, M. A. 1894. Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Raghunatha Temple Library of His Highness the Mahārāja of Jammu and Kashmir. Bombay. Steinkellner, E. 1980. “Philological remarks on Śākyamati’s Pramān.avārttikat.ı̄kā.” In: Eds. K. Bruhn and A. Wezler, Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf. Wiesbaden. 283–295. ———. 2013. Dharmakı̄rti’s frühe Logik. Annotierte Übersetzung der logischen Teile von Pramān.avārttika 1 mit der Vr.tti. 2 vols. Tokyo. Straube, M. 2009. “Dharmakı̄rti als Dichter.” In: Eds. M. Straube et al., Pāsādikadānam . . Festschrift für Bhikkhu Pāsādika. Marburg. 471–511. TBh Tarkabhās.ā (Moks.ākaragupta). Ed. L. N. Shastri, Tarkabhās.ā of Moks.ākaragupta. Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts. Sarnath 2004. Thieme, P. 1956. “Pān.ini and the Pān.inı̄yas.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 76-1: 1–23. Tib. D Tibetan translation of Śākyabuddhi’s Pramān.avārttikat.ı̄kā, sDe dge. D4220. Tib. P Tibetan translation of Śākyabuddhi’s Pramān.avārttikat.ı̄kā, Peking. P5718. Torella, R. 1992. “The Pratyabhijñā and the logical-epistemological school of Buddhism.” In: Ed. T. Goudriaan, Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrism. Studies in Honor of André Padoux. Albany. 327–345. ———. 2002. Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā of Utpaladeva with the Author’s Vr.tti, Critical Edition and Annotated Translation. Corrected ed. Delhi (Roma 1994). Haughty Bitterness or Altruistic Concerns? 721 TSP Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā (Kamalaśı̄la). Ed. D. Shastri, Tattvasaṅgraha of Ācārya Shāntaraks.ita with the Commentary “Pañjikā” of Shrı̄ Kamalśı̄la. Varanasi 1968. Vetter, T. 1964. Erkenntnisprobleme bei Dharmakı̄rti. Wien. VMV Vākyārthamātr.kāvr.tti (Śālikanātha). In: Ed. Subrahmanya Śāstri, Prakaran.apañcikā, mahāmahopādhyāyaśrı̄macchālikanāthamiśraviracitā. Varanasi 1961. YD Yuktidı̄pikā. Ed. A. Wezler and Sh. Motegi, Yuktidı̄pikā. The Most Significant Commentary on the Sām . khyakārikā, Stuttgart 1998.