________________ 410 ERNST STEINKELLNER light of this particular later systematic thought is a clear indication of the uninterrupted flow of a basic Buddhist intellectual attitude, namely the conviction that there are matters with regard to which one should refrain from holding a definite view. It is not until the development of the theory of non-perception by Dharmakirti that the Buddhist tradition - at least in one of its lines - is provided with systematic reasoning that can explain this basic attitude as being epistemologically valid as well. With Dharmakirti's help, our interpretation of the word anupalabbh(iy)amana has thus gained something of the quality of a veritable "madhyamaka marga": On the one hand a definite affirmation of existence is prohibited, on the other, negation is also declared impossible. Can we wish for more and get any further? Or are we deluding ourselves in proposing this "middle answer" as an - also historically - true solution to be preferred to the dead-end extremes our respected predecessors proposed as the unavoidable consequences of the statement of a Tathagata's non-perception?
