Masamichi Sakai

The concept of contingency is very much debated. In this paper, I’ll offer a novel interpretation of it in Dharmakīrti’s ontology, focusing on his treatment and understanding of vināśa which is, according to Dharmakīrti, not contingent and thus occurs necessarily to everything. I will do so by clarifying some important terms, motivating and explaining Dharmakīrti’s position, and analyzing firsthand some Dharmakīrtian debate excerpts with Nyāya and/or Vaiśeṣika philosophers as the main opponents. In the course of this, I will show that basically, for Dharmakīrti, contingency is tantamount to dependency, whereas Nyāya and/or Vaiśeṣika authors, e.g., Śrīdhara and Bhāsarvajña, claim that something can be dependent on something else and still be necessary.

Dharmottara, one of the most outstanding commentators of Dharmakīrti, re-uses arguments in the Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā, his broad commentary on Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇaviniścaya, from his independent essay, the Kṣaṇabhaṅgasiddhi. By analyzing contents of re-used arguments in the Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā, this paper clarifies Dharmottara’s intention of paraphrasing his arguments in his commentarial work on Dharmakīrti. I argue that, in terms of content, such arguments are original and never fit into Dharmakīrti’s own system. It can be said that Dharmottara has a clear intention to display his new innovations not only in his independent monograph, but also in his commentarial work. For Dharmottara, a commentary on Dharmakīrti is a better place than an independent monograph for showing off his advanced notions, since it is only in a commentary that his ideas can stand out directly against those of Dharmakīrti. In this sense, Dharmottara writes his commentary strategically. At the end of the article I discuss the significance of composing independent monographs or essays in the intellectual history of medieval India in the case of Dharmottara