9058009355

122 MANGALA R. CIIINCUORE

to fathom out a novel blend of them and in consequence may articulate an allogclhcr dilTerent kind of conceplual framework of his philosophy. Even while borrowing, one is not blindly borrowing anything and everything from others; he has to be careful and selective. That alone is borrowed, which is helpful for bclter explanation and darification of views. Hence, acknowledgement of originality and realization of the rationale behind the use of concepts and their implications can enable one to adjudge Dihn5ga's independence and provide a clue to understand properly his philosophy.

(D) A Piecemeal Account :

Another trend amongst the scholars is_f it seems, to understand Diftn2ga*s philosophy on the basis of particular text¹⁶ or with the help of fragment/s of a particular trealise.¹⁷ Such studies often concentrate upon a particular concept, notion, idea, occurring in the given text or fragment under considcration. Sometimes, mere translation of such fragments is used as a basis of charactcrization of his philosophy. Furthcr, conccntrating upon one particular problem,¹⁸ analysis and interpretation is given, and that seems, according to such scholars, to provide a beltcr insight into Dińn5ga*s philosophy.

In such studies, too, one docs not secm to be paying careful attention to the importancc, originality and evolulion of the conceptual framework of Dińnaga’s philosophy. For, it might be the case that he might have responded to a problem in a certain text in a particular way, while in another he might have suggested a morę satisfactory and comprehcnsive modę of resolving it. One should be crilical about the contcxt and the frame of reference or domain in which he undertakes that task. And by using one particular text alone one may not hope to have an insight into the philosophy of a philosopher as a wholc. Nor is it possiblc to understand the philosophy properly by fragmentary and piecemeal accounts. Rather, such a kind of piecemeal approach and myopicity of vision it seems to engender, may jeopardize the prospecl of gaining an insight into the philosophical illuminalion that DińnSga seems to providc through the appropriale framework of his philosophy as a whole.

From the above discussion, it should be elear that each of these four modcls is dcftcient and hence parlial in its approach, although not lacking allogcthcr in a point of considcrable significancc. However, while studying the philosophy of a particular philosopher like DińnSga one has to be very cautious. One has, to begin with, to find out the problems he responded to in dilTerent domains of philosophical inquiry. One would, likewise, be required to discover various concepts, ideas, nolions he invokcd together with the sort of intcrrclationship among them which he envisioned. One has also to lakę notę of the way in which his inąuiries into the dilTerent domains of philosophical scrutiny, viz._f mctaphysies, logie, cpistemology, philosophy of languagc, morał and soeial philosophy, etc. arc inlcrconnectcd and the