I consider it particularly revealing that, as you say, the „verb “naqar” […] allows both the meaning “gouge out” and “poke/pierce.””
The semantic scope of Hebrew naqar and Sanskrit utpāṭay-, both of which can apparently express both the meanings under discussion, seems to be identical in the given context of blinding. It shows that one cannot draw any compelling conclusions about the actual method from the verb alone. utpāṭana might probably have taken on the meaning of “blinding” in a most general way and therefore translates perhaps best as “blinding”, irrespective of the actual technique exercised on the victim.
On this occasion, let me bring an addendum to your notice, which parallels a passage quoted already from Bhāvadevasūri’s Pārśvanāthacaritra („netre śastrīkayotpāṭya“, 1.198c), and which I owe to Harunaga Isaacson: śastreṇotpāṭya locanam (Kṣemendra’s Avadānakalpalatā 45.27). In both cases a cutting tool (śastra) is used.
Haru also drew my attention to a hook-like instrument, perhaps a fishhook (baḍiśa), which is mentioned in the Padmapurāṇa (23.144) as a tool used for blinding. Since the passage however depicts tortures fancied to be experienced in hell, the degree of reality is perhaps rather questionable.
I should like to express my gratitude to all, who have contributed valuable references in such a helpful manner.
Kind regards,
WS