STUDIES IN BUDDHIST PRAMANAVADA (EPISTEMOLOGY AND LOGIC) IN WESTERN EUROPE*

The essay analyzes an important area of Western European Buddhology-studies of Buddhist epistemology and logic. The article presents the research results of leading Buddhist scholars from the main schools of the British, German, French, Austrian, Italian, and Dutch, their main publications, ideas, and methodology.

Keywords: Buddhist logic, Buddhist epistemology, pramanavada, Western European Buddhology, history of Buddhology.

Before presenting the state of research of the Buddhist pramanavada (Skt. - "the doctrine of the tools of reliable knowledge"), it is necessary to define the range of related concepts of Indian thinkers, which today are considered epistemology and logic. The importance of this definition is due to the fact that in the traditional Indian culture, in which Buddhism originated, knowledge was structured differently than in the Western culture. In Indian philosophy, epistemology and logic are not two different disciplines, but one. It has historically changed both its content and designations (for more information, see [Kanaeva, 2011; Lysenko, 2011 (1); Lysenko, 2011(2)]). One of the classical disciplines in Ancient India was the theory of debate, which in Sanskrit was designated by the terms hetuvidya, vadanyaya, tarkanyaya, tarkashastra, tarkavidya, vadavidya (hetuvidya - literally, "science of foundations", vādanyāya "rules of reasoning", tarkanyāya -"rules of debate", tarkaśāstra, tarkavidyā - "science of reasoning"). vādavidyā - "the science of reasoning"), etc. In the III-IV centuries. at schoolnyaya its content was expanded by the addition of epistemological concepts, and the new science, in addition to its old names, received the name nyayasastra (nyayasastra - "science of methods" in the broadest sense, methods of knowledge, rational reasoning, etc.).

In the Nyaya Sutras of Gotama-Akshapada, much space is devoted to the study of the problems of obtaining reliable knowledge (pramā) and its tools (pramāna). Following the Nayaikas, Buddhists developed their " science of method." Since the thirteenth century, when Buddhism was already ousted from India, this discipline has been called pramanavada, pramanashastra, and pramanavidya (pramāṇavāda, pramāṇaśāstra, pramāṇavidyā - "the science of tools for obtaining reliable knowledge"), but not forgetting its earlier names. All three sciences - hetuvidya, nyayasastra, and pramanavada, two of which are the successors of the former-include theories equivalent to Western epistemological and logical concepts. However, logical concepts that solve the problems of structuring and rationing reasoning have never been separated in Indian culture from epistemological concepts that solve the problems of obtaining reliable knowledge. Thus, pramanavada is only one of the latest Sanskrit names for a theoretical discipline that is analogous to epistemology and logic.

This review examines the works concerning Buddhist epistemology and logic according to the basic Buddhist textbook "Nyayabindu" ("Drop of Method", hereinafter - NB) by Dharmakirti with a commentary on "Tika" by Dharmottara (hereinafter - NBT) [Shcherbatskoy, 1995, part 1],

* The study (project N 14-01-0006) was supported by the HSE Science Foundation Program in 2014-2015.

page 179
in which they laid out the basic teachings of the" father " of Buddhist epistemology and Dignaga logic. Such epistemological concepts as the theory of cognizability of the world (bāhyārthānumeyatvavāda), classification of varieties of knowledge (rātā) and tools for obtaining reliable knowledge (rātāa) - sense perception (pratvakṣa) and inference (apitāpa), the doctrine of their ability to give reliable knowledge (pramānyavāda), the doctrine of the relations between these types of knowledge (pramānyavāda) are presented in the NB and NBT. tools. Among the logical concepts contained in the NB and NBT are the doctrine of varieties of inference and grounds for inference (hetu), the classification of logical errors (abhasa, dosha), which includes errors in inference and argumentation, as well as the theory of meanings of language expressions (apohavada) and the theory of argumentation (hetuvidy). F. I. Shcherbatskoy saw among the Buddhist concepts of the theory of the meaning of language expressions. the theory of the essence of judgments (adhyavasāya, niścaya, vikalpa) [Steherbatsky, 1962, vol. I, p. 1], clarifying the differences between pure perception and rational knowledge. In this essay, I will focus on the theoretical positions and results of only those European Buddhologists for whom the above epistemological or logical concepts were the subject of their publications.

One more clarification. Today, scientists are not strictly tied to the country in which they were born and received professional education. Very often, specialists in the field of cross-cultural studies pursue an international career: they receive a European education without being European, publish in European publications, and work in European universities. Therefore, it can be quite difficult to draw the line between European and non-European Buddhists. It is equally difficult to assign a modern scholar to any one European school, since Buddhologists are improving their profession all over the world and are also working as visiting professors all over the world, sometimes in several universities at the same time. Based on the limited scope of the essay, I focused only on the key figures of researchers who worked mainly in Europe, aiming to give a general idea of the areas of work of specific scientists and their methodology, leaving out other types of their activities (organizing Buddhist conferences, participating in them, publishing journals, collective monographs, reading training courses etc.).

The history of research on Buddhist epistemology and logic in Europe is very young. The first acquaintance of Europeans with Buddhist culture took place at the end of the XVII century, as evidenced by the book of the diplomat Simon de la Loubert "On the Kingdom of Siam" (1691) [Loubere, 1691-1700], which deals with Buddhism among other things. The emergence of serious academic studies of Buddhism can be said only from the beginning of the XIX century, when Michel Francois Ozeray's book "Studies in Buddhism" (Ozeray, 1817) was published .1 Since the middle of the 19th century, Buddhology has developed into a special field of orientalism and has acquired a wide scope. But the first publications of research on the logical-epistemological works of Buddhists appeared much later, at the very beginning of the XX century. At that time, Buddhologists saw their main task in translating the main texts of a logical-epistemological orientation. By this time, three major schools of Buddhology had been formed: the old Anglo-German school (T. W. and K. A. Rees-Davids, G. Oldenberg, E. D. Thomas), the Leningrad school (headed by F. I. Shcherbatsky), and the Franco-Belgian school (L. de la Vallee-Poussin, J. Prziluski, S. Levy, P. Demieville and E. Lamotte)2 [Prebish, Keown, 2006, p. 360; Conze, 1967, p. 1]. These schools, based in the leading universities of their countries, have become world centers for training Buddhologists and "growth points" for Buddhist studies in other regions of the world.

The first logical-epistemological theory to attract the attention of researchers was the theory of argumentation (hetuvidyā) in its pre-Dognag form. It is present in the texts of the Pali Canon and near-canonical works, such as " Milinda's Questions "(hereinafter-VM [Milinda's Questions, 1989]). They were translated at the end of the 19th century by one of the founders of the Anglo-German school, T. W. Rees-Davids (184-922), and published in the series "Sacred Books of the East" [The Questions..., 1890-894]. The methodology of the first researchers mainly included philological and historical methods. In the introductory article to the first volume of the publication, the translator comprehensively described the text as a monument to the literature and history of Buddhism, but practically said nothing about the logical side of the Indian theory of polemics, according to the rules of which

1 It is noteworthy that the first publication of a biography of the Buddha was made by the Russian scholar Isaac Jacob Schmidt in the Asiatic Journal in 1825.

2 K. Regamcy wrote that the latter continued the line of the Russian school [Regamcy, 1950, p. 247-248].

page 180
there are dialogues between King Milinda and Monk Nagasena. This and the characteristic features of the discussions that led to the development of the Buddhist dialectic (theory of debate) and its inclusion in the oral canon are discussed in the publication of the joint translation of S. Z. Aung and K. A. F. Rees-Davids with Pali "Kathavatthu-prakarana" ("Clarification of the subjects of dispute"). Tissa Moggaliputta (first century) from the Abhidhamma Pitaka (Points of Controversy..., 1915). In the Kathavatthu Prakarana, the debate is not about the theory of dispute, but in defense of Buddhist theories, and the translators did not pay much attention to the logical aspects of hetuvidya when describing the monument.

Professor Arthur Berriedale Keith of the University of Edinburgh considered the logical concepts of Buddhists in connection with their polemics with the Nayaikas and Vaisheshikas, whose logical-epistemological doctrines were his main subject. A. B. Keith's research was among the first few references to the rational tendency of Indian philosophy, which, in his opinion, was previously ignored, and this attitude made it difficult to understand Indian philosophical thought [Keith, 1968, p. 3] (1st ed. - 1921). He speaks about this in his 1921 book "Indian Logic and Atomism" (Keith, 1968), where he gives an outline of the history of Indian epistemology and logic, the interpretation of the main concepts of this field of knowledge in the Nyaya and Vaisesika schools, and analyzes the influence of the Yogachara Buddhist school on the corresponding theories of all Indian schools. He noted the discrepancy between Dignaga's epistemology and Yogachara's general position, since "his doctrine of perception reveals elements that do not agree with the idea that thought is the only reality" (Keith, 1968, p.99). In particular, Dignaga believed that the reality that consciousness comes into contact with in the act of perception is true(vastu, paramarthasai), but because of its momentary nature, it is unknowable. To form the idea of what is known, the work of the imagination (vikalpa) must be added to perception [ibid., p. 101]. Unlike the realist logicians, Dignaga believed that the connection of logical reason and consequence is justified not by the connection of subject and attribute in external reality, but by the connection created by consciousness. This relationship is fixed by the three-aspect rule (trairūpya) for the middle term (hetu) [ibid., p. 106].

The British scholar Herbert Neil Randle worked in the same direction as A. B. Keith: he studied the Indian Pramanavada as a whole and the Buddhist Pramanavada as an important part of this tradition. The article "Commentary on the Indian Syllogism" (Randle, 1924) draws parallels between the five-term nayaik syllogism and the Aristotelian syllogism, and examines the Buddhist trairupya rule for the middle term in its development in Dignaga's treatise "Hetuchakra-damaru" ("Wheel of Inference Grounds"). as interpreted by S. C. Vidyabhusana in his" History of Indian Logic " (Vidyabhusana, 1978). One of the features of the Indian doctrine of inference, G. Randle saw in the fact that " the Indian logician does not abstract M (Probans) and P (Probandum) from their concrete embodiments, but he distinguishes SM (logical basis, logical sign), as it occurs in the subject of inference, and XM (logical basis, logical sign), as it is contained in other specific cases."

This is important in cases with general signs such as "existence" and "cognizability" and in cases where M denotes a specific quality, such as" audibility " for sound. In the first case, there is no X that is not M, and in the second, there is no X that belongs to M, because, given the Indian view of the syllogism as an argument from examples and the existence of general or specific qualities, arguments using such signs remain in doubt [Randle, 1924, p. 399].

The researcher pays attention to the extra-logical (epistemological and ontological) foundations of the Indian syllogism in order to find out how to establish rules for syllogisms without using the syllogism axiom (Dictum de Omni et Nullo) [ibid., p. 403]. The result of his reflections is as follows: to better understand the character of trairupya, it is necessary to forget the Western axiom of syllogism and interpret the Indian rules in the light of the original Indian theories of syllogism [ibid., p.405]. This did not prevent A. B. Keith from criticizing G. Randle for "reading" Western ideas into Indian logic (Keith, 1932, p.1045).

The next publication by G. Randle, Excerpts from Dignaga (Randle, 1926), includes translations from Sanskrit of excerpts from Pramana-samuchchai (A Collection of Aphorisms about the Sources of Reliable Knowledge) Dignagas containing the Buddhist Pramanavada and criticism of the corresponding ideas of opponents (Akshapads, Uddyotakaras, Prashastapads); translations are supplemented by their historical, philosophical and linguistic interpretation. Indian special terminology is subject to literary rather than scientific requirements and is characterized by great variety and uncertainty. G. Randle offered his own interpretations of difficult expressions. So,

page 181
Dignaga's definition of perception as kalpana-apodham (devoid of mental construction), he interprets as "devoid of determinations", referring to the categories of Vaisheshiks (genera, species, relationships, qualities and actions), which Dignaga considered only "fictions of understanding".

G. Randle relies on the materials of S. C. Vidyabhushana, but treats them critically: clarifies the dating of Dignaga's life, compares and analyzes more than just describes the concepts of Indians. Giving the formulation of the three-aspect rule of the middle term (trai-rupya), Dignagi says that it is identical to Prasastapada's, and the "three aspects" that he is talking about are (1) presence in the smaller term (paksha), (2) presence in the examples "by similarity" (sapaksha), (3) the absence of "dissimilarity" (vipaksha) in the examples. The formula belongs to a time when the doctrine of obligatory communication (vyapti) has not yet appeared.

The publication of his doctoral thesis "Indian Logic in the Early Schools" (Randle, 1930) was highly appreciated by colleagues, although it did not escape criticism (Keith, 1932, p.1041). To clarify the history of Indian logic, G. Randle used the method of comparing the mutual citations of Indian authors.3 The book's historical introduction shows how much discussion has played a significant role in the emergence of schools, the establishment of communication between them, and the development of logical thinking in India. However, some of Mr. Randle's conclusions were criticized by A. B. Keith: for example, that there was no logic at the time of the creation of the Kathavatthu Prakarana, or that by sankhya and yoga in Kautilya's Arthashastra we mean vaiseshika [ibid., p. 1043]. A. B. Keith criticized the dating of Dignaga's life to the time before Prasastapada based on the adoption of the opinion of F. I. Shcherbatsky [ibid., p. 1044]. The Edinburgh professor found J. R. R. Tolkien's argument stronger. Tucci, who dated Dignaga's life on the basis of comparing the texts of Dignaga and Prasastapada. A. B. Keith believed that G. Randle too highly appreciated Indian logic [ibid., p. 1045].

Polish-born German-born Buddhist scholar Arnold Kunst has worked for a long time in the UK, but not only there. His dissertation "Problems of Buddhist logic in the consideration of "Tattvasangrahi"", defended at the Polish Academy of Sciences, was published in the "Notes of the Oriental Studies Commission" (Kunst, 1939). It contains a German translation of the chapter" Anumanapariksha "("Anumanapariksha").Consideration of the conclusion") from the "Tattvasangraha" ("Compendium of Categories") Shantarakshita with a commentary on "Panjika" by Kamalashila, based on the Tibetan and Sanskrit originals, as well as Shantarakshita's kariki in Sanskrit and Tibetan. The translation is well structured: it includes thematic headings that allow you to follow the course of the controversy, but are not present in the Sanskrit original. They mark the issues being discussed and allow you to understand which of the participants is entering the discussion, whether they are on the side of the proponent or the opponent. A. Kunst's second significant contribution to Pramanavada research was the publication in 1951 of the Sanskrit text Vigrahavyavartani (Consideration of Differences)with E. G. Johnston Nagarjuna (Vigrahavyāvartanī, 1951) 4.

Bimal Krishna Mathilal (1935-1991), an Indian philosopher, spent much of his academic life in the United Kingdom. He was head of the Department of Eastern Religions and Ethics at Oxford University and wrote the following works: "Epistemology, Logic and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis", "Essays on Logic and Ethics", "Logic, Language and Reality", "Perception: an Essay on classical Indian theory of Knowledge", "The Nature of Logic in India" et al. [Matilal, 1971; Matilal, 1982; Matilal, 1985; Matilal, 1986; Matilal, 1998]. Having received a classical Sanskrit education, B. K. Mathilal was a representative of a new generation of scholars. He adopted two philosophical traditions (Indian and Western) and combined knowledge of Sanskrit texts and Western methodology in his research. He belonged to the galaxy of comparativists who promoted the need for a philosophical, and not just philological, interpretation of ancient and medieval Indian texts, which would make them understandable to modern philosophers.

B. K. Mathilal's book" Epistemology, Logic and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis " (Mathilal, 1971) examines the Buddhist Pramanavada in the context of the entire rationalistic trend of Indian philosophy. There are sections on the epistemology and logic of Dignaga and his school, as well as on the Buddhist-Nayaik controversy over the possibility of using the language of the Nayyas.-

3 He highly appreciated the use of this method by F. I. Shcherbatsky [Randle, 1926, p. 5].

4 In Russia, this text was later translated by V. P. Androsov [Androsov, 2000].

page 182
the use of empty terms and negation in Nagarjuna's dialectic. In his book The Nature of Logic in India (Matilal, 1998), there are chapters on the role of Dignaga in shaping a new paradigm of logical theory and on Dharmakirti's development of problems of induction. In this work, B. K. Mathilal highly appreciated the achievements of Buddhist logic. In particular, about the Buddhist theory of meaning (apohavada), he wrote that "anyapoha (exclusion of the other) is clearly superior to the objective universals of the Nayaiks, such as spirituality" [ibid., p. 104]. Since understanding a designation as an "exception" to a set of things that are not the meaning of the term "does not construct a particular reality, we do not need to raise the question of how it relates to something that inherently excludes the other "[ibid.].

B. K. Mathilal noted Dharmakirti's not-quite-Buddhist attitude to the "non-perception conclusion" (anupalabdhi-anumana): he believed that non-perception does not guarantee knowledge of an indissoluble connection [ibid., p. 112]. Studying Dharmakirti's contribution to the development of the theory of inference and induction in his treatises Pramanavarttika, Nyayabindu, Hetubindu, and Vadanyaya, Mathilal compared Dharmakirti's theory with Hempel's concept of causal or scientific inference (Hempel, 1965), because he found much in common with the Buddhist approach to the study of induction. natural scientists ' approaches to it [Matilal 1998, p.116].

Among the new generation of researchers is Jonardon Ganeri, who has worked at many universities around the world and currently holds the positions of Professor of Philosophy at the British University of Sussex, Associate Professor at Monash University in Australia, and visiting Professor at Kyunghee University in Seoul. His first education is related to mathematics and mathematical physics. Fascinated by Indian philosophy, he used his natural science and mathematical background to research philosophical texts in Sanskrit. In the works of this author, one can clearly see the desire to understand the fundamental characteristics of universals of various cultures that determine the activities of their carriers in various fields: ethics, science, religion and philosophy. It is also present in his works on Buddhist hetuvidya. The article "Argumentation, Dialogue and Kathavatthu" [Ganeri, 2001] describes the method of conducting dialogue in the mentioned text - vādayutti. In the chapter "Apoha, the place of a sign and the content of sensations" [Ganeri, 2011] from the collective monograph "Apoha: Buddhist Nominalism and Human Cognition", the author includes Buddhists in the discussion about sensory cognition that is taking place in modern Western philosophy. He tries to trace "how sensory experience imposes constraints on beliefs and judgments," and how beliefs and judgments are accountable and controlled by sensory experience (Ganeri, 2011, p. 228). Output of D. Ganeri's point is that in Dharmakirti's theory of perception, the non-conceptual content of perception is much richer than in Western sense data theory, and Apohi's theory can help us understand how sense perception can "normatively limit our beliefs" [ibid., p. 245].

For one of the founders of the Italian Institute for the Near and Far East (IsMEO - Istituto per il Medio e l'estremo Oriente), the outstanding Italian orientalist Giuseppe Tucci, Buddhism in all its manifestations and local forms has become the most important object of research. With his knowledge of Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan, he was able to do a great job of finding, reconstructing, translating, and publishing previously unpublished Buddhist texts in monastery libraries in Tibet and Nepal. Among his nearly 360 publications on various subjects, there are also those related to the Buddhist hetuvidya.

In one of his first articles on this topic, "Buddhist Logic before Dignaga" (Tucci, 1929 (1)), the first steps of Buddhist logic were reconstructed before its formation into a systematic teaching. The main sources for D. Tucci were two texts that have been preserved fragmentary in Chinese: "The Essence of Means "("Upaya-hrdaya"), the authorship of which is not exactly established, and" The Science of Dispute "("Tarka-sastra"), attributed by some researchers to Vasubandhu. In the same year, in the book "Dodignag texts on Buddhist Logic from Chinese sources" [Tucci, 1929 (2)], he published his translation-reconstruction of these texts into Sanskrit, providing it with comments and pointers.

The method used by the researcher is a comparison of special terminology in three languages (Chinese, Tibetan and Sanskrit) used in the texts of Asanga, Dignaga, Sthiramati, representatives of Nyaya and Vaisheshika, Chinese commentators, and in Chinese and Tibetan translations of Buddhist texts. Logical and epistemological concepts are compared: the theory of debate (vada), the doctrine of the tools of reliable knowledge (pramana), the teachings of perception (pratyaksha) and inference (anumana), the members of inference (avayava), and the classification of logical processes.

page 183
mistakes (abhasa) in Upaya-hridaya, in Nagarjuna's Vigraha-vyavartani, in Asanga, Vasubandhu, Prasastapada and Charaka and their reception in Dignaga and Dharmakirti.

These comparisons make it possible, as Tucci wrote, "to recover lost original texts and to gain a better knowledge of the logical theories accepted or formulated by Buddhist writers before Dignaga" (Tucci, 1929 (1), p.481). The comparison allowed the Italian Buddhist to note that long before Dignaga, logic in the form of tarki or hetuvidya was condemned and recognized as useless by the ancient schools, it was perceived by Buddhist scholars as an auxiliary tool and developed in independent directions. The great masters Asanga, Vasubandhu, and many others whose names are lost, perfected the ancient rules of discussion (kathā or vivāda). Asanga was the first, as far as we can guess, to introduce hetuvidya into the work on the justification of Buddhist teaching [ibid., p. 481-482].

The" science of reasoning " (hetuvidya) in India did not serve the acquisition of objective true knowledge about the world, but from the moment of its birth it was used only as a tool for debates on metaphysical and soteriological issues. D. Tucci, ignoring this fact, blamed for refusing to search for new explanatory models in philosophy, for obeying the rules of epistemology raised into dogma and logic on Dignaga [ibid., p. 482] 5. Tucci denied him the right to be called the creator of the three lakshana-theory of the middle term, trairupya, seeing its presence already in Vasubandhu [ibid., p. 480] and in the anonymous pre-Dignag Tarkashastra, which, according to Chinese texts, was very authoritative in China and Central Asia [ibid.., p. 483]. The first Buddhist attempt to reduce the number of members of the five-term syllogism nyai D. Tucci saw in the commentary of Sthiramati (c. 540) on the " Mahayana-abhidharma-sangiti-sastra "("Sastra of the set of explanations of Mahayana teachings") [ibid., p. 477].

Tucci studied the treatise "The phenomenon of Nyaya" ("Nyayamukha") Dignagi [Tucci, 1930 (1)] and the influence of his epistemological ideas on the Sanskrit poetry theorist Bhamaha [Tucci, 1930(2)]. In the first volume of the two-volume "Small Works" [Tucci, 1971, vol. I] published an article on Nagarjuna's Vadaviddhi and a small study on the authenticity of Dignaga's authorship for the Nyayapravesha treatise. In the first issue of the Minor Buddhist Texts (Tucci, 1956), D. Tucci published Sanskrit reconstructions of two previously unpublished texts of a logical and epistemological nature:" Instructions on the Essence of the Foundation "(Hetutattvopadeśa) Jitari and Vidyakarashanti's Introduction to the Theory of Debate (Tarkasopāna). The reconstruction was carried out with the help of Tibetan translations. The value of the texts lies in the fact that they were textbooks for Tibetan monks. Jitari's essay follows Dignaga's Nyayapravesha, and Vidyakarashanti's textbook, which contains three chapters (on perception, "inference for oneself" and "inference for another"), not only follows NB and NBT, but also, as the researcher found, literally reproduces large fragments from these texts.

The role played by representatives of the Franco-Belgian school of Buddhology in the history of the study of Buddhist Hetuvidya consists mainly in the publication of Buddhist texts in Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan, as well as their translations into French. The Buddhist Pramanavada did not become a special subject of research in this school. But the school's tradition has included training specialists with knowledge of several languages in which the Buddhist canon was created: Pali, Chinese, Sanskrit and Tibetan, which is extremely helpful in reconstructing the lost Sanskrit originals. Thus, Sylvain Levy's contribution to the study of Buddhist hetuvidya was the publication of many Sanskrit texts written in the Yogachara school, in particular the authoritative Mahayana Sutra-Alankara (Decoration of the Mahayana Sutras) [Mahāyanasūtrālamkāra..., 1907-1911].

His student Louis de la Balle Poussin, who knew Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese, significantly expanded the number of available texts on Buddhist epistemology and logic by publishing the Sanskrit texts "Mulamadhyamaka-kariki" ("Root stanzas on the middle") Nagarjuna's commentary on " Prasannapada "("Clear Interpretation") Chandra-kirti [Mūlamadhyamakakārikās..., 1903], Tibetan translations of Madhyamaka Avatars ("The Earthly Incarnation of Madhyamaka") Chandrakirti [Madhyamakāvatāra..., 1907] and "Nyayabindu" ("Drop

5Он писал: "...heuristic began to leave the place to logic and epistemology, an achievement for which Dirinaga was mainly responsible. Even for Vasubandhu logic was still a section of vāda" ("Heuristics have begun to give way to logic and epistemology, an achievement for which Dignaga is mainly responsible. Even for Vasubandhu, logic was still a topic of debate.")

page 184
logics") Dharmakirti with commentary by Vinitadeva's "Tikka" [Dharmakirti..., 1908-1913]. He made a classic translation into French of the extremely complex Abhidharmakoshi (Treasury of Explanations of the Teaching). Vasubandhu with the author's commentary "Abhidharmakosha-bhashya"6 [L'Abhidharmakośa..., 1923-1931]. In his work on the translation, he used not only the Sanskrit original, but also the Tibetan and Chinese translations of the Abhidharma Encyclopedia, the Sanskrit commentary on it by Yashomitra, and the Japanese interlinear translation. He is the author of another fundamental work-a commented translation from the Chinese compendium of yogacara "Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi" ("Statement of vijnapti only") in the interpretation of Xuan Tsang [Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi..., 1928-1929].

De la Balle Poussin's student, Etienne Paul Marie Lamotte, a Belgian professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was not prevented from becoming a professional Buddhist by his prelacy in the Catholic Church. He was proficient in the main languages of the Buddhist canon: Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan, and used these languages to translate the Mahaprajna Paramita Shastra (The Shastra of the Great Perfection of Wisdom)into French The Nagarjuns [Lamotte, 1944-1980].

The Swiss-French sinologist and orientalist Paul Demieville entered the history of the study of Buddhist hetuvidya by publishing Chinese sources and translating authoritative Buddhist texts from Chinese: Milindapanhi (Demieville, 1924) and Yogachara-bhumi (The Foundations of Yoga) Sangharakshi (Demieville, 1954). Many current researchers from different countries (primarily France, Belgium, India, and Japan) studied under the masters of the Franco-Belgian school and published their works in French. Although Buddhist studies are flourishing in France today, problems of Buddhist epistemology and logic are not popular there.

David Seyford Ruegg, a specialist in Madhyamaka philosophy, studied in France. Born in New York in 1931, he was a student of J. Filhoz, L. Renoux, M. Lalu and R. Stein, and studied Tibetology with Buddhist speakers in Europe, the United States, and India. Ruegg worked at universities around the world: in Leiden (Netherlands), Seattle (USA), and Hamburg Since 1972, he has been working with the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He has many works on Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka, including two on hetuvidya: "The usefulness of the four Chatushkothian Positions and the Problem of Describing Reality in Mahayana Buddhism" (1977) and "The Differences between Swatantrika and Prasangika in the History of Madhyamaka Thought" (2006). They are reprinted in the recently published collection of essays from various years "Buddhist Philosophy of the Middle" [Ruegg, 2010].

The first article is devoted to the polemical technique of "four - part negation" (catuşkoti) used by the Madhyamiks, the second-to the period in the history of Buddhist epistemology when Tibetan doxographers divided two branches (sub-schools) of Buddhist thought: swatantrika and prasangika. Both branches are traced back to Nagarjuna and his disciple Aryadeva. These sub-schools were headed by the svatantrika Bhavaviveka (VI century) and the prasangiki Buddhapalita (ca. V century) and Candra-kirti (VII century). Svatantrika got its name because its adherents incorporated "autonomous" (svatantra) inference (apitapa) and formalized reasoning (prayoga) into the madhyamaka teaching. This innovation is attributed to Bhavaviveka, although it was due to Dignaga (Ruegg, 2010, p. 160). Considering a large number of Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, the researcher solves two questions here: whether the terms "prasangika" and "swatantrika" were used by Indian Madhyamiks and whether this word usage was justified, which it gave to the Buddhists themselves - D. Ruegg found that the Indians did not use these terms, since they are "reverse translations" of Tibetan expressions into English. Sanskrit. After reviewing the available modern Indological and Tibetological works, which address the question of the legitimacy of dividing the two sub-schools, S. Ruegg came to the conclusion that there is no unambiguous answer to the second question - there are different points of view.

The German School of Buddhology mainly studies Indian Buddhism, although it also conducts research on Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhism. One of the founders of the school is Max Walleser, a professor at the Institute of Buddhist Art in Heidelberg. He published the Tibetan text of chapters 1.1-13.2b " Mulamadhyamaka-kariki "("Root stanzas about the middle", further -

6 "Abhidharmakosha" was translated into Russian: from Sanskrit book I-V. I. Rudym, books II-VI-E. P. Ostrovskaya and V. I. Rudym (1998-2006), fragments of Book IX - L. I. Titlin (2012); from Tibetan books I-IV-B. V. Semichov and M. G. Bryansky (1980-1988).

page 185
MMK)7 by Nagarjuna with a commentary by Buddhapalita (1913-1914) and translations of MMK from Tibetan (1911) and Chinese (1912) into German. M. Walleser did not specifically deal with the problems of epistemology. Nagarjuna's work still attracts the attention of German researchers (they are led, in particular, by Felix Erb), but not by its logical and epistemological component.

Lambert Schmithaussna, a specialist in Yogachara philosophy who works with primary sources in Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese and Japanese, is more attracted to the problems of modern Buddhism. Among his many publications, there are two that highlight the problems of Buddhist epistemology: an article on the definition of perception [Schmithausen, 1972] and a monograph on "treasury consciousness" (alaya-vijnana) [Schmithausen, 1987]. In the first, he proposed a hypothesis about the origin of the concept of alaya-vijnana in connection with the need to explain the return of consciousness after states like nirodha-samāpatti (skt. "achieving cessation", meaning the cessation of mental activity), in which consciousness is interrupted, and gave the interpretation of alaya-vijnana as" consciousness to which all contaminated dharmas adhere as an effect to the cause " (Schmithausen, 1987, § 3.13.8).

Birgit Kellner, a professor at the University of Heidelberg (since 2010), has focused on the Buddhist Pramanavada. B. Kellner translates, publishes and researches Buddhist texts, paying great attention to textual philological analysis to establish their historical and philosophical meanings. Among her translations of Buddhist logical-epistemological texts is the translation of karikas (verses) 1647-1690 from Shantarakshita's Tattvasangrahi with Kamalashila's commentary "Panjika" in the book "Nothing Remains Nothing" (Kellner, 1997 (1)). The book presents a study of this text, which contains a polemic of Buddhists with a representative of the Mimansa Kumarila school on the problem of non-perception as a tool for cognizing non-existence. This problem is also discussed in the article "Non-perception perception or inference?" [Kellner, 1997 (2)].

In the article on the consideration of the problem of self-consciousness (svasamvedana) in "Pramanasamucchaya" ("Collection of [aphorisms] on the tools of reliable cognition") With the author's commentary by Dignaga (hereinafter-PS (V)) [Kellner, 2010], based on the information contained in the commentary on these texts by Jinendrabuddha, a new interpretation of the complex fragment PS(V) 1.8 ed-10 is proposed. In it, Dignaga interprets self-awareness as an exclusively subjective access to an individual's mental states. Another article "Self-awareness and Regression to Infinity: A Comparison of Dignaga's and Dharmakirti's arguments" is also devoted to the problem of self-awareness [Kellner, 2011].

In the article "Logic first, then Buddha -" [Kellner, 2004], the author seeks an answer to the question posed in the title, comparing the Sanskrit texts of the Pramanavinishchaya ("On the reliability of knowledge") Dignagi and Pramanavarttikas ("Commentary [of Dignagi's Teaching] on the Tools of Authentic Cognition") Dharmakirti with commentary on it by Diwendrabuddha, Shakyabuddha and Karnakagomin and using Tibetan translations for understanding the original sources. The question arises because the Dignaga text begins with the glorification of the Buddha as an "instrument of reliable knowledge", and this attribute of the Buddha is present in subsequent texts. Conclusion-an instrument of rational cognition all the above-mentioned Buddhist authors interpret it as a "means to achieve liberation", which is a super-rational state of the psyche. Based on a thorough textual analysis, B. Kellner concludes that the conclusion gets a different status for all these authors. Shakyabuddhi portrays inference primarily as a tool of dialectical and interpretive activity, suitable for both philosophy and soteriology. This position allows Buddhists to establish contacts with representatives of other traditions. Karnakagomin speaks of inference as the only instrument of individual liberation. A recent article by B. Kellner is devoted to the problem of the visual image (akara) in abhidharma and Buddhist epistemology [Kellner, 2014]. It examines in detail the use of the term "akara" in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha, which sheds light on the meaning and history of the formation of Buddhist epistemological concepts.

Swedish scientist Klaus Otke is considered one of the representatives of analytical philosophy in comparative studies. His work is closely connected with the German school of Buddhology: he studied Indology, Sinology and philosophy in Hamburg, where he received academic degrees and taught (1973-1983). After working as a visiting professor in the United States and Australia, since 1993 he has headed the Russian Academy of Sciences.-

7 This text was translated into Russian by V. P. Androsov [Androsov, 2006].

page 186
He holds the Faculty of Indology and Tibetology at Stockholm University. The Pramanavada is one of his main themes, and since Buddhists have played a very important role in the history of its formation, many of his works are dedicated to the development of Buddhism. Otke devoted himself to the study of Buddhist writings. In his studies of Nagarjuna's philosophy [Oetke, 1989; Oetke, 1990; Oetke, 1991; Oetke, 1992; Oetke, 1996], he proposed a new interpretation of Nagarjuna's philosophy based on the analysis of the "mechanism" of Nagarjuna's proof of non-existence [Franco, 1999, p.427].

Fundamental research of K. Oetke's introduction to the Buddhist three-aspect rule for the middle term (trairupya) [Oetke, 1994], which raises a number of historical, philosophical and hermeneutical problems, has become a notable event in case studies. Historical and philosophical problems are connected here with the "adequate consideration" of the middle term rule (hash), which the author strives for and which is often not found in modern specialized literature. Solving problems in the history of philosophy, according to K. Oetke," serves the purpose of enriching our perspectives on special problems; it is even possible that Oriental studies will give us a new perspective on history and society, a new understanding of life " [Oetke, 1994, p. 6]. He justifies the need to apply such a hermeneutical method, which would take into account different alternatives of interpretation (philological, pragmatic) of the same text. But all these alternatives "should be based on conscious and preferred, as well as explicitly and precisely formulated principles "[ibid., p. 4], which would not distort the meaning of the original texts. The author criticizes researchers who allow too free interpretations (in particular, R. Hayes and Buddhologists who included the specification "exactly" - eva in the third paragraph of the trairupya rule) [ibid., p. 16].

In the history of Indian logic, the researcher sees the existence of two directions in which the development of logical theory was carried out: in the first, coming from the Nayyas, work was carried out on improving the conditions of indissoluble connection (avinabhava), in the second, usually raised to Dignaga, the rule of three-aspect (trairupya) of the middle term was clarified. K. Otke hypothesized that the trairupya canon was formulated by Rosle Dignagi, in Nyayapravesh (Introduction to Method) Shankaraswamina (ser. VI century) [ibid., p. 20]. After reviewing the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the Vadavidhi (Rules of Disputation)texts Vasubandhu and Shankaraswamin's Nyayapraveshi, a critique of the trairupya rule by Nayaik Uddyotakara in Nyayavarttika (Commentary on Nyaya), Sanskrit and Chinese versions of Nyayamukha (The Beginning of Logic) Dignagi and "Pramanavinishchaya" ("Establishing the tools of reliable knowledge") Dharma-kirti, he interpreted the meaning of the trairupya formulations presented in them by means of predicate logic, using the methodology used by representatives of analytical philosophy to study epistemological problems. The researcher found that the complete set of trairupya conditions is equivalent to a set of conditions already present in Vasubandhu, but it is still an open question whether they have the same meaning in Dignaga and Vasubandhu, whether the trairupya rule is equivalent to the indissoluble connection mentioned by Vasubandhu.

In the texts of the Indian logicians, Otke distinguishes between the epistemic and non-epistemic interpretation of the trirupya. He finds the first one in the Prasastapada-bhashya, and the second one, called" realistic", in the Buddhist and Nayaika texts. The epistemic interpretation assumes that the definition of trairupya takes into account the conditions of a cognitive situation, which includes a cognizing subject who is aware of this situation. K. Otke offers about two dozen symbolic models of this situation, based on different meanings of the expressions prasiddha ("known") and pramāṇataḥ ("known"), which he fixes in the formulas [ibid., p. 79, 81, 83, 84], and compares epistemic and non-epistemic interpretations. The final chapter of the book discusses the concept of svabhāvapratibandha (natural, essential connection) Dharmakirti, developed in the Pramanavart-tika with the author's commentary, although not related to the problem of the trairupya rule, but containing a solution to the question of how knowledge of universal statements is possible [ibid., p. 121]. K. Otke recalls that Dharmakirti distinguished between two types of this connection: identity and identity.tadatmya, lit. "having the same nature"; is established between the terms when what is to be inferred is the essential quality of the object associated with it; and the causal relationship of tadutpatti (lit. "origin from"). Dharmakirti correlated these two kinds of connections with three kinds of inference bases (kāryahetu, svabhāvahetu, and anupalabdhihetu): karyahetu with the tadutpatti connection, and svabhava and anupalabdhihetu with the tadatmya connection. K. Otke interprets the Buddhist reasoning in chapter 27 (karike) in such a way that Dharmakirti was closer to the epistemic version of the trairupya rule found in Prasastapada than the Dignaga version. At the same time, Dharmakirti reduced

page 187
three points of the rule to two: 1) the logical sign is observed in the subject of inference, 2) there is an essential relationship between the sign and the signified. Giving examples ensures that the requirements of the classical three-term trirupy rule are met [ibid., p. 123].

Leonard van der Kuyp (born 1952), a Dane who now works at Harvard, continues the tradition of German Tibetan-speaking Buddhology. He defended his doctoral dissertation in Hamburg and published some works there [Kuijp, 1978; Kuijp, 1983; Kuijp, 1985]. Elie Franco considers L. van der Kuyp to be the first researcher to devote a book to the study of the" new epistemology "that appeared in Tibet between the 11th and 13th centuries, whose representatives criticized the epistemology of the 10th and 11th centuries, which grew out of the commentaries of Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika. The book " Contribution to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology: from the eleventh to the thirteenth Centuries "(Kuijp, 1983) was published in Wiesbaden (Germany) and includes four large essays on the key thinkers of the period.

The School of Buddhology at the University of Vienna is an authoritative one today. Austrian Buddhology gained international status in 1880, when the Department of Ancient Indian Philology and Archeology was established under the leadership of the outstanding orientalist Georg Buehler. It was at the University of Vienna that the research of Buddhist epistemology and logic in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese texts became a priority area of work. Erich Frauvallner was one of the first to address them. He was a universal scholar and studied pre-philosophical texts (Upanishads) and philosophical texts written by representatives of different schools, but most of all he was interested in works on pramanavada. He devoted more than half of his articles to her, often quite large in volume. The first was a small study of the Sanskrit text Dignaga "Notes on fragments from Dignaga" [Frauwallner, 1929], which, as noted by E. Franco [Franco, 1999, p.451], already showed all the characteristic features of his methodology, namely the use of Tibetan and Jain texts for the reconstruction of lost fragments of Sanskrit manuscripts. E.'s work Frauwallner's" Dignaga, His Writings and Evolution " [Frauwallner, 1959] remained the best study on Dignaga for forty years after its publication [Franco, 1999, p.451], and his proposed dating of the lives of prominent Indian thinkers [Frauwallner, 1961] was widely recognized. His series of articles on Dharmakirti's work, published in the 1960s and 1970s, became an era in the research of the Indian Pramanavada and contributed to the recognition of Dharmakirti as a key figure in its history. The texts on Buddhist epistemology and logic published by E. Frauvallner and their translations (chapter 1 of Pramanavarttika, Alambana-pariksha, Hetuchakradamaru, Hetumukha, section Pramanasamucchai, Vadavidhana and Va-davidhi, etc.) provided a solid foundation for the research of a galaxy of his students. Among them are Lambert Schmithausen, Ernst Steinkellner, Tilmann Fetter, Birgit Kellner.

According to Eli Franco (1999, p. 452), a new upsurge in Buddhist research in Austria began with the establishment of the Institute of Tibetology and Buddhology at the University of Vienna in 1973 and the invitation of Ernst Steinkellner (b. 1937) as its director. Steinkellner specializes in the study of the Buddhist Pramanavada. He did much to discover forgotten and reconstruct lost Buddhist texts from fragments preserved in other sources, significantly expanded the range of primary sources available to Europeans on the Buddhist Pramanavada, when he published and translated the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts of Dharmakirti's Hetubindu (Steinkellner, 1967), and published the second chapter of Svartha-anuman from Pramanavinishchaya."Dharmakirti [Steinkellner, 1973], published the first two chapters of Dharmakirti's recently discovered Sanskrit text Pramanavinishchai [Steinkellner, 2007] and, together with his students, prepared for publication sections of Jinendrabuddhi's commentary Pramanasamucchaya-tika [Steinkellner, Krasser, basic, 2005-2007]. Recently, his translation of the logical section "Pramanavarttiki" was published with a commentary in the book "Early Logic of Dharmakirti" (Steinkellner, 2013). E. Steinkellner's translations are accompanied by commentaries that clarify the relationship between the ideas of these thinkers and those of their predecessors and followers, which are of great importance for reconstructing the history of Buddhist (and Indian) epistemology and logic.

This story he recreates bit by bit in his works. Thus, the article "Dharmakirti's Development of a proof of the concept of instantaneity" (Steinkellner, 1968) identifies three stages in the history of the evolution of this proof, and the articles "Reality and Representation in Dharmakirti" (Steinkellner, 1971) and "On the Interpretation of svabhava-hetu" (Steinkellner, 1974) explore the meaning of this proof. the concept of svabhava (identity), which plays an important role in the ontology and logic of Dharmakirti. E. Steinkellner played a significant role in the change of

page 188
stereotypical attitude within the Buddhist community to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition as unoriginal. The Austrian Buddhist scholar, guided by the principle of contextualism, called for taking into account when evaluating the achievements of the Buddhist Tibetan intellectual tradition its own self-assessment - how its speakers express their own motives and intentions. This principle allowed us to see the Tibetan version of Buddhism as a living, developing tradition and was implemented in articles devoted to the evolution of Buddhist epistemology in Tibet: "'True Being': Meaning and Historical significance of the term", " Early ideas for Achieving Authenticity in Tibet "(Steinkellner, 1983; Steinkellner, 1992).

The research interests of E. Steinkellner's student Helmut Krasser extended to Indology, Tibetology, and Buddhology. He worked with texts in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Japanese. Among his works on Pramanavada, one can distinguish the publication of the Tibetan text and the German translation of Dharmottara's commentary on the fragment " Pramanavinishchai "(Krasser, 1989; Krasser, 1991), in collaboration with E. Steinkellner and X. Lasic noted the publication of Jinendrabuddha's Tika commentary on Dharmakirti's Pramanasamucchaya (Steinkellner, Krasser, Lasic, 2007) and the article "Are Pramanavadin Buddhists Non-Buddhists?" (Krasser, 2004). In the article, he raises the question, discussed by many medieval and modern authors, about how compatible in Buddhism rational epistemology and logic and the super-rational state of liberation-the answer to it is X. Krasser searches Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese texts for the Dignagas, Dharmakirti, and Dharmottara Buddhists, their medieval translators and commentators, and their opponents. The result of thinking about the texts is that the epistemological writings of Buddhists are addressed to opponents, their goal is to turn heretics away from false doctrines; the tools for obtaining reliable knowledge (pramanas) cannot introduce opponents to the Buddhist dharma, but they need to be examined while their misguided opponents lead the world in the wrong direction; wisdom is born from reflection, functioning together with conventional wisdom. Therefore, perception and inference are indirectly the reasons for the realization of the supreme pramana, that is, the Buddha [Krasser, 2004, p. 144-145]. All this proves that epistemology and logic are recognized by the authors considered as a kind of religious activity.

At the Dutch School of Indology, Buddhist hetuvidya attracted the attention of comparatives as an important part of traditional Indian culture. Fritz Stahl, an expert in Brahmin studies (Vedas, Panini grammar, navya-nyaya logic) and European sciences (mathematics, physics, astronomy, mathematical logic, and philosophy), who worked in the 1960s as a professor of comparative philosophy in Amsterdam, and in 1968-1991 as a professor in Berkeley (USA), gave her a place in the Russian Academy of Sciences. in the context of reflections on the possibility of dialogue between Western and non-Western cultures and its meaning.

His reflections on Buddhist epistemology and logic are presented in a collection of essays, speeches, and reviews from various years, Universals. Studies in Indian logic and linguistics "[Staal, 1988]. In the introduction to the collection, the author cites the results that follow from the materials collected here, first, the justification of the principle of" uncertainty of translation", or the" principle of leniency", by Willard Quine, who rejects doubts about the possibility of communication between civilizations and shows how not to isolate philosophy from those in the humanities, especially in Asian studies. research; second, demonstrating that pundits have discovered the same universals as the West; and third, proving that Western social sciences must learn from Asia before they can help pave the way for a common future for humanity [ibid., p. IX].

Exploring Indian logic, the Dutch philosopher sought answers to four questions:: 1) whether there are logical universals; 2) whether there are universals of linguistics; 3) what is the nature of Indian logic; 4) what is the nature of Indian linguistics. In chapter 1, on the correlations of language and logic in Indian thought. Steel uses a symbolic record of the reasoning of Indian logicians. The alphabet of the language it uses includes variables that connect their quantifiers and logical constants (bundles). He shows that the symbolism chosen by him is quite suitable for formalizing complex expressions such as tatpurusha 8 and bahuvrihi 9, as well as technical ones.

8 A complex word in which the first term is a definition for the second: for example, tatpurusha - "his person".

9 A compound word that denotes an object by its characteristic features: for example, bahuvrihi - "having a lot of rice".

page 189
terms of Indian logic. He uses Buddhist material in Chapters 5 ("Contraposition in Indian Logic") and 7 ("The Concept of Paksha in Indian Logic").

In Chapter 5, f. Stal formalizes Dharmakirti's formulation of the trairupya rule and hypothesizes that the introduction of the word eva quantifies all three points of the trairupya rule and that the 2nd and 3rd rules are equivalent and form a logical counterposition. This was not noticed earlier by F. I. Scherbatskaya and I. Bohensky, who had studied the trirupiae [Staal, 1988, p. 95]. E. Frauvallner did not attach much importance to the problem of quantification when he investigated the problem of quantification. "Hstuchakra" Dignagi. But the Buddhists themselves (Dharmakirti and his commentator Dharmottara) seem to have known the law of counterposition. In Chapter 7, f. Stal, reviewing Dharmakirti's Nyayabinda with Dharmottara's commentary translated into English by F. I. Shcherbatsky, criticized the interpretation of the doctrine of inference by a Russian Buddhist who wrote that Buddhists did not distinguish between the subject of inference (pact) and the predicate of inference (anumea). Stahl calls this statement "confusion" [ibid., p. 135], recognizing a little later that the Indians themselves had this confusion, ambiguity in the use of terms, and that F. I. Shcherbatsky felt this ambiguity and reflected it in his translations, using "subject of inference" or "thesis" instead of paksha [ibid., p. 136].

Answers to the questions outlined in the introduction by F. Stal gives in chapter 6: there is nothing in the linguistic structure of Sanskrit or Greek that determines certain logical structures, but one can see the connection of linguistic structures with certain logical doctrines [ibid., p. 128].

The second prominent figure at the Netherlands School of Indology is Johannes Bronkhorst (born 1946), who served as Professor of Sanskrit and Indology at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) from 1987 to 2011. Among his numerous publications on a wide range of problems of Indian philosophy, his monograph "Language and Reality: on an Episode of Indian Thought" [Bronkhorst, 2011], which publishes the material of lectures given at the Sorbonne, is relevant to the research of Buddhist epistemology and logic. It examines the evolution of ideas about the relation of language expressions and their subject meanings in Indian culture based on the sacred Brahmin texts of the Upanishads, works of grammarians, Orthodox and non-orthodox schools, and touches on the contribution of Buddhists to the philosophy of language (based on Nagarjuna's Mahaprajnaparamita-shastra, Asanga's Abhidharmasamuccai with commentary, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha-bhashya)., texts of Dignagi).

Tom Tillemans (born 1950) is known as a Danish-Canadian Buddhist scholar for his Danish roots and Canadian education. He is currently a professor at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) and is involved in a Canadian project to publish the Tibetan Canon. His research interests include Buddhist texts in Sanskrit and Tibetan, as well as logical and epistemological problems. He publishes and translates Buddhist texts [Tillemans and Lopez, 1998; Dharmakīrti's Pramā ṇavārttika ..., 2000; Tillemans, 2008], and examines them using the methods of textual analysis and analytical philosophy. In the texts, he looks for evidence of the innovations that famous and little-known Indian and Tibetan thinkers brought to the history of Buddhist epistemology and logic.

The reviewed publications demonstrate the sustained interest of European Buddhologists in the logical-epistemological component of Buddhist philosophy. There is a noticeable desire to reconstruct the objective history of the Buddhist Pramanavada, taking into account its local transformations in India, Tibet, and China. Much has already been done in this area of study; the works of the main Pramanavada theorists have been published in Tibetan, Chinese, and Sanskrit (often reconstructed from Tibetan and Chinese) and translated into many European languages: Dharmakirti, Dharmottara, Shantarakshita, Kamalashila, Chandrakirti, etc.; there is an active discussion of the meaning of Buddhist concepts and their various interpretations are proposed by means of Western philosophy and logic, aiming at their authentic understanding in the context of Indian, as well as world philosophy.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

JIABS - Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies.

JIP - Journal oflndian Philosophy, Dordrecht.

STTAR - Sanskrit Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region

page 190
WSTBK - Wiener Studien zur Tibetologic und Buddhismus Künde. Monograph Series published by the Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistisehc Studien, Wien.

WZKM - Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Wien.

WZKS - Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasicns, Wien.

WZKSO - Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd - (Bde. 1-13: und Ost-)asiens, Wien.

list of literature

Androsov V. P. Buddhism of Nagarjuna, Moscow: East Lit., 2000.
Androsov V. P. Nagarjuna's Teaching on sredinnost': issledovanie [Nagarjuna's Teaching on sredinnost']. and translated from Skt. Mula-madhyamaka karika; translated from Tib. " Interpretation of the root stanzas on the middle ground [called] Fearless [refutation of dogmatic views]" ("Mula-madhyamaka-vritti Akutobhaya"). Moscow: Vostochnaya lit., 2006.

Milinda questions (Milindapanha). Translated from pali, preface, research and commentary by A. V. Paribka. east lit. Nauka Publishing House, 1989 (Bibliotheca Buddhica XXXVI; Monuments of Oriental Writing LXXXVIII).

Kanaeva N. A. Logika buddiiskaya [Buddhist logic] / / Filosofiya buddhizma: entsiklopediya [Philosophy of Buddhism: encyclopedia].

Lysenko V. G. Direct and indirect perception: a dispute between Buddhist and Brahmanist philosophers (slow reading of texts).Moscow: IF RAS, 2011(1).

Lysenko V. G. Pramanavada / / Philosophy of Buddhism: encyclopedia / Ed. by M. T. Stepanyants. Moscow: East Lit., 2011(2).

Shcherbatskoy F. I. Teoriya poznaniya i logika ucheniyu pozdneyshikh buddhistov [Theory of Knowledge and logic of teaching the late Buddhists]. Ch. 1-2. SPb.: Asta-press Ltd, 1995.

Bronkhorst J. Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2011.

Buddhapālita. Mūlamadhyamakavrtli / Tibetische Übersezung. Herausgegeben von M. Walleser. S.-Petersburg: Akadémie Impériale des Sciences, 1913-1914 (Bibliotheca Buddhica XVI).

Conze E. Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays. Oxford: Cassirer, 1967.

Demié ville P. Les versions chinoises du Milindapanha // Bulletin du l'École française d'Extrême-Orient. 1924. T 24.

Demiéville P. La Yogācīrabhūmi de Sańgharakşa // Bulletin du l'École française d'Extrême-Orient. 1954. T. 44. Fasc. 2.

Dharmakīrti. Nyāyabindu. With Vinīladeva's Tīkā; / Ed. in Tibetan by L. de la Vallee Poussin. Calcutta: Baptist Mission press, 1908-1913 (Bibliotheca Indica 171).

Dharmakīrti s Pramā ṇavārttika: An Annotated Translation of the Fourth Chapter (Parārthānumāna). Vol. 1. K. 1-148 / by T.J.F. Tillemans. Wien: Verlag der stcrreichischen Akademic der Wissenschaften, 2000.

Franco E. Buddhist Studies in Germany and Austria 1971-1996, with a Contribution on East Asian Buddhism by M. Friedrich // JIABS. Vol. 22. N 2. 1999.

Frauwallner E. Bemerkungen zu den Fragmenten Dignāgas // WZKM. Bd. 36. 1929.

Frauwallner E. Zu den Fragmеntеn buddhistischеr Logiker in Nyāyavārttikarn // WZKM. Bd. 40. 1933. Hf. 3/4.

Frauwallner E. Die Philosophie des Buddhismus. В.: Akademic Verlag, 1956.

Frauwallner E. Dignāga, sein Werk und seine Entwicklung // Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd - und Osta-siens. 1959. Vol. 3.

Frauwallner E. Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic // WZKSO. 1961. Vol. 5.

Ganeri J. Dharmakīrti on Inference and Properties // JIP. Vol. 18.

Ganeri J. Dharmakīrti's semantics for the particle eva // Dharmakirti's Thought and Its Impact on Indian and Tibetan Philosophy. Wien, 1999 (Österreichiche Akademic der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 281).

Ganeri J. Argumentation, Dialogue, and the Kathāvatthu // JIP. 2001. Vol. 29.

Ganeri J. Apoha, Feature-Placing, and Sensory Content // Apoha: Buddhist Nominalism and Human Cognition / Ed. by M. Siderits, T. Tillemans, & A. Chakrabarti. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 2011.

Hempel K. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. N.Y.: Free Press, 1965.

Jong J.W. de. A Brief History of Buddhist Studies in Europe and America. Varanasi: Bhatar-Bharati, 1976.

Keith A.B. Indian Logic in the Early Schools by H.N. Randlе: Review // Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies. Vol. 6. N 4. 1932. Keith A. Indian Logic and Atomism: An Exposition of the Nyāya and Vaisesika Systems. 1st Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921. 2nd Ed. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968.

Kellnеr B. Nichts bleibt Nichts. Die buddhistische Zurűckweisung von Kumārilas Abhāvapramāna: Übersetzung und Interpretation von Śāntarakşilas Tattvasahgraha vv. 1647-1690, mil Kamaiaśīas Tattvasahgrahapañjikā, sowie Ansätze und Arbeitshypothesen zur Geschichte negativer Erkenntnis in der indischen Philosophie. Wien: Universität Wien, 1997 (WSTBK 39).

page 191
Kellner В. Non-cognition (anupalabdhi) - Perception or Inference?: The views of Dharmottara and Jñānasrīmitra // Tetsugaku. (Hiroshima). 1997. Bd. 49.

Kellner B. Review of Vier Studien zum altindischen Syllogismus. Philosophica lndica-Einsichten-Ansichten, Bd. 2 by Claus Oetke // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Vol. 60. N 2. 1997.

Kellner B. First logic, then the Buddha? // Hōrin. N 11. 2004.

Kellner B. Self-awareness (svasamvedana) in Dignāga's Pramānasamuccaya and - vrtti: A Close Reading // JIP. 2010. Vol. 38. N 3.

Kellner B. Self-awareness (svasamvedana) and Infinite Regresses: a Comparison of Arguments by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti // JIP. 2011. Vol. 39. N 4-5.

Kellner B. The Concept of Ākāra in Abhidharma and in Buddhist Epistemological Analysis // JIP. 2014. Vol. 42. Issue 2-3.

Kellner В., Krasser H., Tauscher H. Ernst Steinkellner - Imprints and echoes // Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Part I. Wien: Universität Wien, 2007.

Krasser H. Dharmottaras Exkurs zur Definition gültiger Erkenntnis im Pramanaviniscaya. Tibetischer Text, Sanskrit-materialen und Übersetzung. Wien: Verlag der Östеrrеichischеn Akademic der Wissenschaften, 1989 (together with E. Steinkellner).

Krasser H. Dharmottaras kurze Untersuchung der Gültigkeil einer Erkenntnis. Laghupramanyapariksa. Teil 1: Tibetischer text und Sanskritmaterialien. Teil 2: Űbersetzung. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991.

Krasser H. Are Buddhist Pramāṇavādins non-Buddhistic? Dignaga and Dharmakirti on the impact of logic and epistemology on emancipation // Нōrin. Vergleichende Studien zur japanischen Kultur. N11. 2004.

Kuijp L.W.J, van der. Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge's Impact on Tibetan Epistemological Theory // JIP. Vol. 5. 1978.

Kuijp L.W.J, van der. Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology: From the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1983.

Kuijp L.W.J, van der. Studies in the Life and Thought of Mkhas grub rje I: Mkhas grub rje's Epistemological Oeuvre and His Philosophical Remarks on Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya // Berliner indologische Studien. Vol. 1. 1985.

Kuijp L.W.J, van der. A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and Logic Attributed to Klong chen Rab'byams pa (1308-1364) and Its Place in Indo-Tibetan Intellectual History // JIP. 2003. Vol. 31(4).

Kunst A. Probleme der buddhistischen Logik in der Darstellung des Tattvasangraha // Polska Akademia Umiejętnośti. Mèmoires de la Comission Orientaliste. N 33. Krakow, 1939.

L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu / Tr. et annotè L. de la Vallèe Poussin. Paris: Paul Geuthner; Louvain: J. -B. Istas, 1923-1931.

Lamotle Е. Le Traitè de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nāgārjuna (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāśtra). T. I-V. Louvain: Institute Orientaliste, 1944-1980.

Lamotte E. Biographical Note on Louis de la Vallèe Poussin // Royal Academy of Science, Literature and Fine Arts, Year book for 1965. Vol. 131.

Loubèrе S. de la. Description de Royaume de Siam. Tome I. Amsterdam: Chez Henry & la Vеuvе dе Theodore Boon, MDCC (1700). Tome II. Du Royaume de Siam. Contenant le plusieurs Pieces detachees. Paris: Lе Veuve de Jean Baptiste Coignard еt Jean Baptiste Cougnard, MDXCI (1691).

Madhyamakāvatāra par Candrakirti / Trad. tibètaine.Publièe par L. de la Valléе Poussin. St. -Petersburg: Academie Imеprialе des Sciences, 1907 (Bibliotheca Buddhica IX).

Mahāyanasutrālamkāra, expose de la doctrine du Grand Vehicule selon le systeme Yogachara / Tr. francaise Sylvain Levi. 2 vols. P.: Librarie Honore Champion, 1907-1911.

Matilal B.K. Epistemology. Logic and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis. The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 1971 (new edition - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Matilal B.K. Logical and Ethical Issues: An Essay on the Indian Philosophy of Religion. Calcutta: Calcutta University, 1982 (rеpr. - Delhi: Chronicle Books, 2004).

Matilal B.K. Logic, Language and Reality. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985.

Matilal B.K. Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian Theory of Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Matilal B.K. Understanding, Knowing and Justification // Knowing from words / Ed. by B.K. Matilal and A. Chakrabarti. Dordrecht: Kluwеr Academic Publishers, 1994 (Synthese Library: Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 230).

Matilal B.K. The Character of Logic in India / Ed. by J. Ganеri and H. Tiwari. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.

Matilal B.K. The Word and the World: India's Contribution to the Study of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Mūlamadhyamakakārikās (Mādhyamikasūtras) de Nāgārjuna avec la Prasannapadā Commentaire de Candraklrti / Publ. par L. dе la Vallee Poussin. St.-Pеtеrsburg: Academie Imperiale des Sciences, 1903 (Bibliotheca Buddhica IV).

Oetkе K. Rationalismus und Mystik in der Philosopwhie Nāgārjunas // Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik. Vol. 15. 1989.

page 192
Oetkе К. On some non-formal aspects of the proofs of the Madhyamakakārikās // Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka / Ed. D.S. Ruegg and L. Schmithausеn. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990.

Oetke K. Remarks on the interpretation of Nāgārjuna's philosophy // JIP. Vol. 19. 1991.

Oetke K. Pragmatic lmplicatures and Text-Interpretation (The Alleged Logical Error of the Negation of the Antecedent in MüIamadhyamakakārikās) // Studien zur Indologie und lranislik. Vol. 16. 1992.

Oetke K. Studies on the Doctrine of Trairūpya // WSTBK. 1994. Hf. 33. Wien.

Oetke K. 'Nihilist' and 'non-nihilist' interpretations of Madhyamaka (Review article of Т. Е. Wood. Nāgārjunian Disputations: A Philosophical Journey through an Indian Looking-Glass. Honolulu 1994) // Acta Orientalia. Vol. 57. 1996.

Oetke K. Limitations of Theories of Pramāṇa // JIP 2003. Vol. 31 (1/3).

Oetke K. Some Further Comments on the First Section of the Vigrahavyāvartanī // JIP. 2012. Vol. 40(4).

Ozeray M.F. Recherches sur Buddhou. P.: Brunot-Labbé, 1817.

Points of Controversy (Kathāvatthu) / Tr. S.Z. Aung & C.A.F. Rhys Davids. Bristol, London: Oxford University Press, 1915.

Prebish Ch.S., Keown D. Buddhism: An online introduction. 3rd ed. Journal of Buddhist Ethies Online Books, Ltd. 2006. http://dl4a.org/uploads/pdf/Charles-Prebish-and-Damien-Keown. -Buddhisrn-An-Online-Introduction-en08-.pdf.

The Questions of King Milinda / Tr. by T.W. Rhys Davids // Sacred Books of the East. Vols. XXXV & XXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon, 1890-1894.

Randle H.N. A Note on the Indian syllogism // Mind. New Series. Vol. 33. N 132. (Oct. 1924).

Randle H.N. Fragments from Dihnaga. (1st ed. - London: RAS, 1926. Prize Publication Fund, Vol. 9). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1981.

Randle H.N. Indian Logic in the Early Schools: A Study of the Nyāyadarśana in its Relation to the Early Logic of Other Schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930.

Regamey C. Buddhistische Philosophie. Bern: A. Francke, 1950.

Ruegg D.S. In Memoriam Arnold Kunst // JIP. 1983. Vol. 11.

Ruegg D.S. The Buddhist Philosophy of the Middle: Essays on Indian and Tibetan Mādhyamaka. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2010.

Schmithausen L. The Definition of Pratyakşam in the Abhidharmasamuccayaḥ // WZKS. 1972. Vol. 16.

Schmithausen L. Ālayavijñāna: On the Origin and the Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogācāra Philosophy. 2 vols. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1987 (Studia Philologica Buddhica. Monograph Series, 4a and 4b).

Sixty Years of Sanskrit Studies: 1950-2010: Published on the Occasion of 15th World Sanskrit Conference. Vol. 2: Countries other than India I Ed. by R. Tripathi. New Delhi: Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. 2012.

Staal F. Universals: Studies in Indian Logic and Linguistics. Chicago-London: University of Chicago, 1988.

Steherbatsky Th. Buddhist Logic: 2 vols. Leningrad: Izdatclstvo Akademii nauk, 1930-1932; reprinted - N.Y.: Dover Publications, 1962.

Steinkellner E. Dharmakīrti's Hetubindu. Teil 1. Tibetischer und Sanskri-Text. Teil 2. Übersetzung und Anmerkungen. Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1967 (Österreichische Akademic der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 252, Abh. 1-2).

Steinkellner E. Die Entwicklung des kşaņikatvānumānam bei Dharmakīrti // WZKSO. Bd. 12-13. 1968. S. 361-367.

Steinkellner E. Wirklichkeit und Begriff bei Dharmakīrti // WZKS. Bd. 15. 1971.

Steinkellner E. Pramā ņaviniścaya of Dharmakīrti. Svārthānumāna Chapter / Ed. in Sanskrit and Tibetan by Ernst Steinkellner // Osterreichische Akademic der Wissenschaften, Veroffentlichungen der Komission fur Sprachen und Kulturen Sudasiens (Wien). 1973. H. 12.

Steinkellner E. On the interpretation of the svabhāvahetuḥ // WZKS. Bd. 18. 1974.

Steinkellner E. Tshad ma'i skyes bu: Meaning and Historical Significance of the Term // Proceedings of the Csoma de Kőrös Symposium Velm-Wien. Vol. 2. Wien, 1983.

Steinkellner E. Svabhāvapratibandha again // Acta Indologica. Vol. 6. 1984.

Steinkellner E. Methodological Remarks on the Constitution of Sanskrit Texts from the Buddhist pramāṇa-Tradition // WZKS. Bd. 32. 1988. S. 103-129.

Steinkellner E. Early Tibetan Ideas on the Ascertainment of Validity (nes byed kyi tshad ma) // Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989. Narita, 1992. Vol. 1.

Steinkellner E. The Early Dharmakīrti on the Purpose of Examples // On the Role of the Example (drstānta) in Classical Indian Logic / Ed. by Sh. Katsura, E. Steinkellner // WSTBK. Heft 59. 2004. P. 225-250.

Steinkellner E. Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya: Chapters 1 and 2, Critically edited.. Wien, Beijing: VŐAW, China Tibetology Publishing House, 2007 (Sanskrit Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region - STTAR 2. Bd. 15/1, 15/2).

Steinkellner E. Dharmakīrtis frűhe Logik. Annotierte Übersetzung der logischen Teile von Pramā ṇavārttika I mil der Vrtli. Bd. 1. Introduction, Übersetzung, Analyse. Bd. II. Introduction, Anmerkungen, Anhänge etc. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2013 (Studia Philologica Buddhica. Monograph Series XXIXa,b).

page 193
Steinkellner Е., Krasser H. Dharmottaras Exkurs zur Definition gültiger Erkenntnis im Pramāṇaviniścaya. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989.

Steinkellner E., Krasser H., Lasic H. Jinendrabuddhi's Pramānasamuccayatīkā: Chapter 1. Part 1: Critical Edition. Part 2: Diplomatic Edition. Wien, Beijing: VÖAW, China Tibetology Publishing House, 2005 (STTAR 1. Bd. 1).

Tillemans T.J. F. Two Tibetan Texts on the "Neither One nor Many" Argument for śūnyatā // JIP. 1984. Vol. 12.

Tillemans T.J. F. Formal and semantic aspects of Tibetan Buddhist debate logic // JIP. 1989. Vol. 17.

Tillemans T.J. F. Dharmakīrti on Prasiddha and yogyata // Aspects of Buddhism: Proceedings of the International Seminar on Buddhist Studies, 25 June 1994. Warsaw: Oriental Institute Warsaw University, 1997.

Tillemans T.J.F. Scripture, Logic, and Language: Essays on Dharmakīrti and his Tibetan successors. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1999.

Tillemans T.J.F. What are Mādhyamikas Refuting? Śāntarakşita, Kamalaśīla et alii on Supcrimpositions (samāropa) // Three Mountains and Five Rivers: Prof. Musashi Tachikawa's Felicitation Volume / ltd. by T. Wada. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2004.

Tillemans T.J.F. The slow death of the trairūpya in Buddhist logic: A propos of Sa skya Pandita // HŌrin, Vergleiehende Studien zur japanischen Kultur. 2005. N 11.

Tillemans T.J.F. Materials for the study of Āryadeva, Dharmapāpala, and Candrakīrli: the Catuhsataka of Āryadeva, chapters XII and XIII with the commentaries of Dharmapāla and Candrakirli: Introduction, Translation, Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese Texts, Notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2008.

Tillemans T.J.F. How to Talk about Ineffable Things: Dignāga and Dharmakīrti on Apoha // Apoha: Buddhist Nominalism and Human Cognition / Ed. by M. Siderits, T Tillemans, A. Chakrabarti. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 2011.

Tillemans T.J.F. Yogic Perception, Meditation, and Enlightenment. The Epistemological Issues in a Key Debate between Madyamaka and Chan // A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy / Ed. by S.M. Emmanuel. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Tillemans T.J.F., Lopez D. jr. What can One Reasonably say about Nonexistence? A Tibetan Work on the Problem of Ā śrayāsiddha // JIP. 1998. Vol. 29.

Tucci J. Buddhist logic before Dińnāga (Asaiiga, Vasubandhu, Tarka-śāstras) // Journal of the Royal Asiatic-Society. 1929. N 3.

Tucci G. Pre-Dińnāga Buddhist texts on logic from Chinese sources // Gaekwad Oriental Series. Vol. 49. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1929.

Tucci G. The Nyāyamukha of Dińnāga, being the oldest Buddhist text on logic after Chinese and Tibetan materials // Materialien zur Kunde des Buddhismus. Bd. XV. Heidelberg: Institute fűr Buddhismus-Kunde, 1930.

Tucci G. Bhamaha and Dinnaga // Indian Antiquary. 1930. Vol. LIX.

Tucci G. Minor Buddhist Texts, I (Serie Orientate Roma, IX, I), Roma: IsMEO, 1956; Minor Buddhist Texts, II (Serie Orientate Roma, IX, 2), Roma: IsMEO, 1958; Minor Buddhist Texts, III (Serie Orientate Roma, XLIII), Roma: IsMEO, 1972.

Tucci G. Opera minora. 2 vols. / Ed by G. Bardi. Roma: Universita di Roma, Scuola Orientale, 1971.

Vigrahavyāvartanī of Nāgārjuna / Ed. in Sanskrit by E.H. Johnston and A. Kunst // Mélanges chinoise et boud-dhiques (Bruxelles). Vol. IX. 1951.

Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi: la siddhi de Hiuan-Tsang / Ttraduite et annotée par Louis de la Vallée Poussin. 2 vols. P.: P. Geuthner, 1928-1929.

Vidyabhuşaņa S.C. A History of Indian Logic: Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Schools. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978.

page 194

Permanent link to this publication: