Marginalia To Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya I II

Author(s): Christian Lindtner
Publisher: Christian Lindtner
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269415/1

Page #1
ARCHIV FUR INDISCHE PHILOSOPHIE MARGINALIA TO DHARMAKIRTI'S PRAMANAVINISCAYA I-II By Christian Lindtner, Naerum I If the general task of historical-philological inquiry - as in contradistinction to purely philosophical inquiry is to acquire a knowledge of what happened and an understanding of what was understood - primarily from autopsy of literary sources - and if it absolves this task roughly through three interrelated phases: 1) linguistic interpretation dealing with textual criticism, lexicography, etc., 2) higher criticism dealing with authenticity, date, etc. of texts, and, 3) hermeneutics, or interpretation, dealing with the background, circumstances, motives, content, form and meaning, etc. of the texts, and if, finally, it is the ultimate task of a historically orientated philologist to present a systematically reconstructive interpretation of his text (and its author)', then, surely, any philologist or philosopher taking an interest in Indian logic and epistemology is in a debt of gratitude to ERNST STEINKELLNER, TILMANN VETTER and the late ERICH FRAUWALLNER for the pains-taking efforts and results achieved by them concerning the works and the thought of the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti (ca. 530-600)2. In these methodological reflections I am mainly following the Danish classical philologist J. N. MADVIG, for an account of whose views on the method and tasks of philology see PoVL JOHS. JENSEN, Johan Nicolai Madvig. Et Mindeskrift, Kobenhavn 1963, pp. 16-43. 2 FRAUWALLNER'S contributions are collected in GERHARD OBERHAMMER and ERNST STEINKELLNER, Erich Frauwallner. Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden 1982. The most important monograph on Dharmakirti we owe to TILMANN VETTER, Erkenntnisprobleme bei Dharmakirti, Wien 1964. Among ERNST STEINKELLNER'S contributions special mention may be made of his Die Entwicklung des Ksanikatvanumanam bei Dharmakirti, WZKS 12-13 (1968) 361-377 and Wirklichkeit und Begriff bei Dharmakirti, WZKS 15 (1971) 179-221. The celebrated pioneer works of F. TH. STCHERBATSKY are now largely superseded. For the date ca. 530-600 (against FRAUWALLNER's ca. 600-660) and for further references see my paper Apropos Dharmakirti - Two new Works and a new Date, AO 41 (1980) 27-37.

Page #2
150 Ch. LINDTNER While the problem of "Die Reihenfolge und Entstehung der Werke Dharmakirti's" has already been established in rough outlines by FRAUWALLNER in a paper thus entitled", and while the general historical significance of Dharmakirti seems to boil down to his penetrating contributions to "scientific methodology" (i.e. to logic and epistemology rather than to ethics and ontology), still numerous textual and historical puzzles as well as problems of interpretation remain to be solved before we are in a position to reconstruct a full picture of Dharmakirti as an individual author and philosopher with the historical setting as contrasting background. The following marginal notes to the first two chapters of the Pramanaviniscaya (PVin) - Dharmakirti's most systematic major work - as edited and translated by VETTER and STEINKELLNERS are only intended as a modest contribution towards that end. The approach of its author can be characterized as that of a philologist primarily concerned with philosophical issues. First, however, it will be useful for our purpose briefly to recall the frame-work of his thought as presented in PVin I-II and subsequently summarized by him in the epitome Nyayabindu (NB). Though his * Reprinted in his Kleine Schriften, pp. 667-689. - While his views on the formation and sequence of Dharmakirti's works is basically valid he does, however, leave several of the works ascribed to him out of account. Moreover, the Yogacara background of Dharmakirti is entirely left out of consideration, though, in my opinion, we here find a basic motive in the formation of his thought. + I have adopted this characterization from a paper read in Copenhagen (May 1983) by Ernst Steinkellner whom I here wish to thank for precious advice and support in preparing this contribution. 5 TILMANN VETTER, Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscayah. 1. Kapitel: Pratyaksam. Einleitung, Text der tibetischen Ubersetzung, Sanskritfragmente, deutsche Ubersetzung, Wien 1966. - ERNST STEINKELLNER, Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscayah. Zweites Kapitel: Svarthanumanam. Teil I. Tibetischer Text und Sanskrittexte, Wien 1973; id., Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscayah. Zweites Kapitel: Svarthanumanam. Teil II. Ubersetzung und Anmerkungen. Wien 1979. See also ERNST STEINKELLNER, Verse-Index of Dharmakirti's Works (Tibetan Versions), Wien 1977. * Dharmottarapradipa. Being a subcommentary on Dharmottara's Nyayabindutika, a commentary on Dharmakirti's Nyayabindu. Dec. and ed. D. MALVANIA, Patna 1955. - For a general characterization of the relationship of NB to PVin see e.g. ERNST STEINKELLNER, Dharmakirti's Hetubindu. Teil I. Tibetischer Text und rekonstruierter Sanskrit-Text, Wien 1967, pp. 24-25: "Der Nyayabinduh, welcher im engsten Zusammenhang mit dem Pramanaviniscayah steht, ist der Form nach eine Art Epitome aus diesem, dem Inhalt nach ein knapper Leitfaden zur Einfuhrung in die Theorie der Erkenntnismittel und der Logik. Die Einteilung in drei Kapitel (pratyaksam, svarthanumanam,

Page #3
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 151 remaining extant logical and epistemological works - Pramanavarttika (PV, earlier then PVin and NB), Hetubindu (later than PV and PVin), Vadanyaya (perhaps his latest work) and the two "essays" Sambandhaparikna and Samtanantarasiddhi - as a rule are composed with a more specific purpose and are more rich in details (thus, it may be added, occasionally offering us a fascinating glimpse into his workshop) they all nevertheless presuppose the same over-all structure (and should be interpretated with that context in mind) as presented in PVin and NB - a structure basically inherited from Dignaga's epoch-making Pramanasamuccaya? Dharmakirti, who sees himself as a commentator to Dignaga, is primarily concerned with valid knowledge (samyagjnana) as a means of successful action. Only two means of valid knowledge (pramana) are admissible: pratyaksa and anumana. Once an object of interest (artha) has been determined by either of them we are in a position to get what we want and avoid what we do not want. The artha known to us either occurs directly in perception as "evident" (pratyaksa) or indirectly, inferred through anumana. Any empirical object of pratyaksa has the power (Sakti) - in contradistinction to that of anumana - to impress itself clearly and directly in cognition (jnana) in its unique particularity (svalaksana). Nothing could be more obvious - pratyaksa - than a thing in its svalaksana, just as it presents itself. The other, or "secondhand", means of valid knowledge deals with exactly the same thing, but only indirectly through concepts, as a perceptual derivative: svalaksanadar pararthanumanam) steht uber Pramanaviniscayah und Pramanavarttikam noch in der Tradition des Pramanasamuccayah, bestimmt den Nyayabinduh also ein Lehrbuch der Erkenntnismittel, nicht eines der Logik". For the first chapter see MASAAKI HATTORI, Dignaga: On Perception. Being the Pratyaksapariccheda of Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya from the Sanskrit fragments and the Tibetan versions, Cambridge Mass. 1968. For chapters II, III, IV and VI see H. KITAGAWA, Indo Koten Ronrigaku no Kenkyu, Tokyo 1965. For chapter V we now have M. HATTORI, The Pramanasamuccayavrtti of Dignaga with Jinendrabuddhi's commentary. Chapter five: Anyapoha-parikna. Tibetan Text with Sanskrit Fragments, Kyoto 1982. An annotated translation of this chapter by OLE HOLTEN-PIND will appear Copenhagen 1985.- Historically speaking it is to be noted that Dignaga seems to be responsible for the following innovations in Buddhist epistemology: i) He is the first to classify yogijnana as a particular form of pratyaksa. ii) He is the first to regard the visaya of pratyaksa and anumana as respectively sva- and samanyalaksana. iii) He does not distinguish pramana from pramanaphala ( = svasamvitti). These are the three main innovations of interest to us here. In my opinion the main source (among other minor ones) of influence in the formation of these innovations is to be found in Dignaga's Yogacara background (cf. his Alambanaparikna, Prajnaparamitapindarthasamgraha (see esp. vv. 26-29, quoted,

Page #4
152 CH. LINDTNER sanahitavasanakrtaviplavarupah sarva eva vikalpah8. Direct knowledge is always free from conceptual construction (vikalpa) but, in order to be valid in practice, it must be abhranta, i.e. unimpaired by timira, etc. Otherwise we clearly err in whatever we do. So far a higher degree of naive realism in regard to sensa can hardly be conceived. Apart from indriyajnana Dharmakirti (following Dignaga) recognizes three kinds of pratyaksa: mental knowledge (manasa), self-awareness of all thoughts and mental phenomena (svasamvedana) and yogic intuition (yogijnana). In all cases the visaya of pratyaksa is still svalaksana, said to be ultimately real (paramarthasat), arthakriyasamarthya being the ultimate criterion of the empirical reality of things and "facts". If an object (vastu, bhava, artha) is incapable of arthakriya it cannot serve any sensible purpose. incidentally, Jnanasrimitranibandhavali, pp. 504-505, etc.]), more precisely in the srutamayi bhumih section (X) of the Yogacarabhumi. Here (TD, No. 4035, fol. 189b 7 seqq.) we learn, inter alia that pratyaksa (said of the artha) must be aparoksa, anabhyuhita, anabhyuhya and abhranta. There are four kinds of pratyaksapramana, viz. that of rupindriya-, manasanubhava-, loka- and suddhapratyaksa, etc. I hope to revert to this and the parallel epistemological passages in Yogacara literature at some future occasion, and shall therefore confine myself to these brief remarks for the present. 8 Quoted (from an untraced source) in H. R. KAPADIA (ed.), Anekantajayapataka by Haribhadra Suri. Volume I, Baroda 1940, p. 251. For the idea see e. g. PVin II, 24-28 and the references given in Steinkellner's translation, p. 43. Also PVin I, p. 58, 16-26. For the meaning of upaplava (or viplava) in PVin II, 27-28 see PV III, 212-214. The Yogacara background is unmistakable: upaplava corresponds to the grahyagrahakavikalpa (cf. e. g. note 26), i. e. to the paratantrasvabhava, whereas the status of parikalpitasvabhava must be assigned to the field of anumana (cf. e. g. PV I, 84: yathapratitikathitah sabdartho sav asann api...). PV III, 215 (q. v.) is also unintelligible without the laksananihsvabhavata doctrine of Samdhinirmocanasutra VII, 4, etc. A good instance of utpattinihsvabhavata occurs PV I (ed. R. GNOLI) p. 51, 1.9: na hi vikalpa yathartham eva jayante... As known, paratantrasvabhava is pratyayodbhava. See PV I, 166; III, 3; NB I, 13-15. Dharmakirti's use of the terms samvrtisat and paramarthasat tends to create some confusion. In this regard PV II, 55ab (= PV III, 3ab) is significant: arthakriyasamartham yat tad atra paramarthasat. STEINKELLNER's translation (p. 94): "Was fahig ist, einen Zweck zu erfullen, das ist hier in Wirklichkeit seiend (paramarthasat)" fails to see the point of atra which here means vyavaharatah. Similarly in PVin II, 20 where atra is translated as "in unserem System" whereas Dharmottara and Bu ston quite consistent with the context take it as 'gro ba 'dir "in the empirical world". The objection in PV III, 4a asaktam sarvam iti ced... (cf. AO 41 [1980] 31) compels Dharmakirti to admit that the sakti experienced in sprouts, etc. is only maintained to be real samvrtya. Ultimately nirvyaparah sarvadharmah (Pramanasamuccayavrtti ad I, 9d, q. v.). While I would not outrule that Dharmakirti is here indebted to Bhavya's distinction between a mithya- and a tathyasamvrti

Page #5
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 153 After a thorough discussion with spokesmen of other schools - as is to be expected from a good commentator - concerning the number of pramanas, their nature, their object and the four types of pratyaksa within this frame-work, Dharmakirti somewhat abruptly (PVin I, p. 78; NB I, 18, etc.) enters upon a discussion concerning the "result" attained by cognition, the pramanaphala. Dharmakirti introduces this theme as unexpectedly as did his main authority (acarya), Dignaga (Pramanasamuccaya I, 8cd; Nyayamukha, T. 1628; 3b 22-23 = T. 1629; 8c 16-17)*0. Till now the "object" of the pramanas has simply - but, no doubt, with a conscious naivete - been taken for granted without raising questions about its ontological status. His attention has been directed to vyavahara "usage", the everyday world of things, action, language, etc. where arthakriyasamarthya, as said, is the ultimate criterion of reality. Now, however, we suddenly learn that there is really no external object ([bahyartha] PVin I, p. 90, 1. 17) and that the assumed "objects" are merely acts, or manifestations, of mind ([vijnaptimatra) PVin I, p. 9.4, 1. 14). From this point of view (already familiar to us from PV), obviously, there is no real or substantial difference between the agent, instrument and the result of cognition. If everything is "only mind" and if there is nothing "out there the distinction between these three aspects is only apparent (yathanudarsana)". The fact that consciousness from another angle appears bifurcated as subject (grahaka, svabhasa) versus object (grahya, visayabhasa) is really also an illusion. Consequently all cognition is, in the final analysis, merely cognition of satya (defined as arthakriyasamartha!) it does, however, seem more likely that he is once again under the influence of his Yogacara background. In this milieu numerous speculations concerning the various subdivisions of samurti- and paramarthasatya were thriving. See L. DE LA VALLEE POUSSIN, Vijnaptimatratasiddhi. La Siddhi de Hiuan-tsang, Paris 1928-1948, pp. 549-551 (paramarthasamortisatya, etc.). Abhidharmakosa VI, 4 does not come into consideration. 10 Pramanasamuccaya, 8cd: savyaparapratitatvat pramanam phalam eva sat "The result of cognition is really (not different from] the means of cognition, because [the latter is, in fact, merely] assumed to perform a function (resulting in cognition)". - Cognition, then, does not grasp anything apart from itself, but somehow splits what, consequently, can only be cognition of itself into what seems to be two different parts. Obviously we here again find the underlying Yogacara doctrine of a real paratantrasvabhava appearing as an unreal pari kalpitasvabhava. "PVin I, 48 = PV III, 356. Here the prefix anu hardly has any particular significance; cf. PVin, p. 90, 1. 18-20: 'di la rnam pa gzag pa 'di ni ji Itar snan ba bzin yin gyi, de kho na nid ji lta ba bzin du ni ma yin noll. Siddhiviniscayatika, p. 468, 1. 21: 469, 1.23; 495, 1. 11 reads: yathadarsanam eveyam manameyaphalasthitih.

Page #6
154 CH. LINDTNER cognition itself, or svasamvitti. Needless to add, Dignaga and Dharmakirti here adhere to the celebrated "idealistic" Yogacara doctrine of cittamatra which we know, from other sources, to have flourished in those days. However, they may seem to have done so at the heavy cost of coming into conflict with the presuppositions of their own "realistic" pramana-system. As we have seen, they seem on the one hand to presuppose the existence of external objects, and, on the other, to assume that there are no external objects. Did our authors (in this respect I see no dissension between Dignaga and Dharmakirti) like so many other Indian philosphers - simply accept these two truths as theoretically (not practically) irreconcilable by having recourse to agama, or did they, as we would expect from "critical philosophers", seek some way of reconciling these apparent contradictions 12? - To answer this question we must briefly look at the approach taken to the doctrine of cittamatra by the most influential Yogacara philosopher before Dignaga, viz. Vasubandhu, the author of the Vimsatika, the Trimsika, Karmasiddhi, Abhidharmakosa and Vyakhyayukti, etc. 13. The latter text (which, incidentally, has been unduly neglected by modern Western scholarship) deals with sutra-exegesis and, inter alia, shows him as an adherent of the Mahayana doctrine of two truths: samurti being the visaya of laukikajnana and paramartha being that of lokottarajnana1. In the Trimsika - which gives his vijnanaparinamasystem and is based on agama - lokottarajnana is maintained to occur in vijnaptimatratva where there is neither any grahya nor, consequently; any grahaka15. The initial stanza of the Vimsatika - the yukti-pendant 12 Cf. my paper Atisa's Introduction to the Two Truths, and its Sources JIP 9 (1981) 161-214. 13 Cf. my forthcoming paper on Vasubandhu the Vaitulika. 14 See Vyakhyayukti (TD, No. 4061, fol. 109b 7 110a 3): las dan rnam par smin pa dag ni kun rdzob tu rdzas su yod / don dam par ni med de / jig rten pa'i ses pa'i yul yin pa'i phyir ro || dam pa ni ye ses jig rten las 'das pa yin te / de 'i don yin pas don dam pa 'o // de gnis kyi ran gi mtshan nid ni de 'i yul ma yin te / de 'i yul ni brjod du med pa 'i phyi 'i mtshan nid yin pa 'i phyir ro || 'dir jig rten pa'i ses pa 'am / jig rten las 'das pa tshad ma yin ze na / gcig kho nar ni jig rten las 'das pa yin no // jig rten pa ni dbye ba yod de jig rten las 'das pa 'i rjes las thob pa gan yin pa de ni tshad ma yin no gzan ni tshad ma ma yin no //. 15 Trimsika, 28-29: yada tv alambanam jnanam naivopalambhate tada / sthitam vijnanamatratve grahyabhave tadagrahat || acitto 'nupalambho 'sau jnanam lokottaram ca tat / asrayasya paravrttir dvidha dausthulyahanitah ||. - For vijnanamatratve in 28c (rather than vijnaptimatratve) cf. Mahayanasamgrahabhasya (TD, No. 4050, fol. 124a 4): ... ses bya'i mtshan nid de no bo nid gsum

Page #7
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 155 to the Trimsika - gives the syllogism expressing Vasubandhu's basic argument in favour of cittamatra as revealed in agama: (p) vijnaptimatram evedam, (h) asadarthavabhasanat; (d) yatha taimirikasyasatkesacandradidarsanam 16. In proving asadarthavabhasa(na) Vasubhandu avails himself of the old and well-known Madhyamika argument later technically known as the ekanekaviyogahetu"7. Vasubandhu could easily have added other stock-arguments known from numerous Mahayana texts to support his doctrine of cittamatra in refuting the existence of external objects 18. Here, however, the important thing to note is that the approach of Dignaga and Dharmakirti differs decisively from that of Vasubandhu. The latter stressed the "ontological approach arguing in favour of the unreality of external objects, whereas the former - without, of course, being unaware of the "ontological" approach - stressed the "epistemological" one: They start, almost like Descartes, with cognition as the indisputable first and show that cognition is impossible to explain if an absolute distinction is made between the means and the result of cognition. The "object" cannot be isolated from cognition: esse est percipi (... abhedo nilataddhiyoh: PVin I, 55b, etc.). To use a later terminology Vasubandhu is a nirakaravadin assigning the status of parikalpitasvabhava to the "object" (artha, grahya) whereas Dignaga and Dharmakirti are sakaravadins assigning the status of paratantrasvabhava to the "object"19. So, while definitely coming to the same conclusion as Vasubandhu, viz. cittamatra, their approach is certainly more advanced by their being able to account for the "object" as a part (arthavabhasa = visayabhasa = grahyakara = grahyamsa) of an apparently bifurcated but basically univalent "mind" and not just by discarding it as foreign to and disintegrated from mind. It is, especially to-day one and a half millennium later, not easy to say what personal" motives may have lead Dignaga - and Dharmakirti - to take an interest in logical and epistemological issues, but to some mo // ses bya'i mtshan nid de la ji ltar jug par 'gyur ba 'am /gan gis jug par 'gyur ba ste / rnam par ses pa tsam mo Il. 16 This reading of the second hemistich is supported by the early quotations found in Bhavya's Ratnapradipa and Tarkajvala. 17 Cf. my Nagarjuniana. Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna, Copenhagen 1982, p. 273 and Catuhsataka, IX, 12-19. 18 Cf. Mahayanasamgraha II, 14 with the Bhasya (which, in my view, is authentic) and Trisvabhavanirdesa, 35 (the authenticity of which seems less certain). 19 Cf. my forthcoming paper on Bhavya's Critique of Yogacara in the Madhyamakaratnapradipa, chapter IV.

Page #8
156 CH. LINDTNER extent it must have been an outcome of historical circumstances, more specifically under the pressure of the necessity of having to solve some problems prevalent within the Yogacara tradition. In case of Dharmakirti we of course know about his controversy with Kumarila and other non-Buddhist philosophers 20, but somehow the problems he takes up are also to be seen in the perspective of the vehement controversy taking place in those years between Bhavya and Dharmapala, Dharmakirti's "religious teacher", if we are to believe tradition on this point21. This, however, is not the place to go deeper into this problem where so much preliminary work still remains to be done 22 On this background, I think, we are enabled to interpret the epistemological works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti in a more proper perspective than has hitherto been the case. We know, of course, that Dharmakirti is mostly concerned with "scientific methodology" but the motive for this concern is not just "scientific curiosity" but, as I hope will be clear from what follows, a certain "religious urge", a desire for moksa. This finally brings us back to the question about Dharmakirti's attitude to the problem of two "truths", i.e. to the problem of reconciling the rational realism of Sautrantika forming his startingpoint with the idealism of vijnaptimatrata which, from the stand-point of sakaravada, denies the existence of external objects. On the final page of PVin (p. 100, 1. 12 seqq.) an opponent asks how, as an adherent of vijnaptimatra denying that cognition has a real object (visaya), Dharmakirti can speak of upaplava and the contrary (i.e. how he can distinguish true cognition from false cognition). This puts Dharmakirti with his back against the wall and his reply is to be found in the Nyayabhusana (NBhus) in its Sanskrit original: upaplavavasanabhisamdhidosad aprabuddhasyapy anasvasikam vyavaharam utpasyann ekam apramanam acaksita, aparam a samsaram avislistanubandhadrdhavasanatvad iha vyavaharavisamvadapeksaya pramanam, samvyavahari kasya caitat pramanasya rupam uktam; atrapi pare vimudha visamvadayanti lokam iti. - cintamayim eva prajnam anusilayante vibhramavivekanirmalam ana payi paramarthikam pramanam abhimukhikurvanti 23. - In other words: In samsara correct knowledge "works", wrong 20 See the indexes to STEINKELLNER's translations of Hetubindu and Pramanaviniscaya. 21 Cf, my remarks in AO 41 (1980) 32 and the linking together of Dharmapala and Dharmakirti in the Anekantajayapataka, II, p. 36. 22 At present the most important tasks would be editions and translations, etc. of Bhavya's Yogacaratattvaviniscaya (Tarkajvala V) and Dharmapala's commentary on the Catuhsataka (T. 1571). 23 NBhus, p. 57, 1. 14-19 (in l. 17 yuktam has been emended to uktam; in PVin I, p. 100, 1. 15 med pa'i should be deleted). Further fragments (apart from

Page #9
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 157 knowledge does not. As long as we live under the law of karman our cognition - whether right or wrong - is empirical or conventional. To realize the ultimate cognition it is necessary to have resort to prajna in its three phases: the first (not mentioned here) is srutamayi, the second (and the one of greatest interest to a critical philospher) is cintamayi, while the third (based on the former) is bhavanamayi. Dharmakirti thus admits two "levels" of pramana - an empirical and a transcendental -- and adds that he has only said a bit about the latter: de'i (i.e. don dam pa'i ses pa'i acc. to Dharmottara) yan cha tsam bstan pa yin no (PVin, loc. cit., 1. 24-25). This remark can only refer to the commentary to PVin I, 28: yoginam api srutamayena jnanenarthan grhitva yukticintamayena vyavasthapya bhavayatam tannispattau yat spastavabhasi jnanam tat pratyaksam (loc. cit., p. 72, 1.30 - 72, 1. 1)24. This becomes somewhat clearer in the light of the following passage from the first chapter of PV: sarvesam viplave 'pi pramanatadabhasavyavastha a asrayaparavytter arthakriyayogyabhimatasamvadanat; mithyatve 'pi prasamananu kulatvan matssamjnadivat25. From these passages we see that the paramarthikam pramanam is a spastavabhasi jnanam that presupposes the application of bhavanamayi prajna and only occurs when asrayaparavytti has taken place. This "revulsion of the basis" must take place before the intuition of a yogin becomes free from the those noted by VETTER, loc. cit.) occur Siddhiviniscayatika, p. 489, 1.20-24; Jnanasrinibandhavali, p. 419, 1. 14. See also K. MIMAKI, Blo gsal grub mtha', Kyoto 1982, p. 136. - Dharmottara's commentary to the final paragraph is to be found in the Dravyalamkarasvopajnatika (ed. by M. JAMBUVIJAYA in Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. Gedenkschrift fur Ludwig Alsdorf, Wiesbaden 1981, p. 137): paramarthikam api pramanam na nirhetukam; na ca bhavanavyatirikto hetuh. bhavana ca samvyavaharikapramanaparicchinnarthavisaya. tatas ca tat samvyavaharikam pramanam samyag nirupitam paramarthikajnanahetuh sampadyate, tatas tadvisayo yatnah paramarthavisaya eva, mithyajnanena hi visayikyta bhava nityadibhir akarair bhavyamana na paramarthikajnananibandhanam bhavanti, anityadibhis tv akarair bhavyamana nibandhanam bhavanty eva, tasmad ato vyamoham vyavartya paramarthanaye 'vatarayitavyo janah, sthulavisayatvad asya vyamohasya; etad vyamohanivetti purvika ca paramarthapraptih. For Tib. see AO 41 (1980) 36. [Professor Vetter (12. 1. 1984) kindly suggests these corrections in the NBhus-fragment: 'vasananabhisamdhi", "anubandham, vibhramavivekam, and adds that his ,Ubersetzung auf p. 101 so zu andern ist, dass mi mkhas pas kyan (aprabuddhasyapi) nicht auf das Sehen, sondern auf das Sichverlassenkonnen bezogen ist; ferner muss Versenkung' (p. 101, Z. 4 v. u.) ,Reflexion' werden".] 24 See ERNST STEINKELLNER, New Sanskrit-Fragments of Pramanaviniscayah, First Chapter, WZKS 16 (1972) 203. I have changed prasrutao to Srutao 25 R. GNOLI, The Pramanavarttikam of Dharmakirti. The first chapter with the autocommentary, Roma 1960, p. 51, 1. 3-5. This passage is translated by VETTER, Erkenntnisprobleme..., p. 37.

Page #10
158 CH. LINDTNER dichotomy (vikalpa) of grahyagrahaka. See for instance Samtanantarasiddhi (s. 80): gnas ma gyur pa'i phyir rnal byor pa gzun ba dan 'dzin pa'i rnam par rtog pa ma spans pa rnams kyis gzan gyi sems ses pa yan, tha snad la mi slu ba nid kyis gzugs la sogs pa mthon ba bzin du tshad ma nid yin no 26, and PV III, 281: praguktam yoginam jnanam tesam tad bhavanamayam / vidhutakalpanajalam spastam evavabhasate ||27. So far there is no reason to suspect that Dharmakirti (and Dignaga) differ seriously from the Vijnaptimatratasiddhi of Vasubandhu apart from in one respect. This divergence is suggested by the terminology employed by Dharmakirti in the passage quoted above: Where Vasubandhu speaks of two kinds of jnana - a laukika and a lokottara - Dharmakirti speaks of two kinds (rupa) of pramana - a samvyavaharika and a paramarthika. The scheme is, of course, the same but the approach is entirely different. We have already seen how Dignaga and Dharmakirti in their attempt to account for cittamatra by advocating sakaravada differed from Vasubandhu's nirakaravada and thus were enabled to render a certain unity to their system quite alien to that of Vasubandhu. The same epistemological approach also accounts for the other important innovation within the development of Yogacara with which we are here concerned. In this respect PVin I, 28 is significant: bhavanabalatah spastam bhayadav iva bhasate | yaj jnanam avisanvadi tat pratyaksam akalpakam || 28 The decisive term is pratyaksa. By classifying the highest form of cognition on a par with the most simple form of sensation (the term pratyaksa applies in both cases) Dignaga (followed faithfully by Dharmakirti) had indeed taken a new and bold step to render the relationship between samvrtisatya and paramarthasatya more coherent and 26 Samtanantarasiddhi - "die eine Abhandlung Dharmakirti's im Anschluss an Vimsatika 18 und 21 ist" (VETTER, op. cit., p. 65, n. 49) here in addition presupposes the tradition of Trimsika, 28-29 (quoted n. 15). For grahyagrahakavikalpa see Madhyantavibhagabhasya I, 1. For asrayaparavrtti cf. LAMBERT SCHMITHAUSEN, Der Nirvana-Abschnitt in der Viniscayasamgrahani der Yogacarabhumih, Wien 1969, pp. 90-103. 27 See the namaskarasloka of PV for vidhutakalpanajala (said of Samantabhadra). 28 The v. 1. given in NBhus, p. 171, 1. 13 (viz. pramanam for pratyaksam) misses the point Dharmakirti wants to stress (namely that yogijnana is in fact pratyaksa) entirely and is neither supported by Tib., Dharmottara nor any of the two other quotations of this verse hitherto traced; cf. AO 41 (1980) 36, n. 37 and Tantraloka, vol. VII, p. 170 (cf. G. TUCCI, Minor Buddhist Texts. Part I & II, Kyoto 1978, p. 594). See also ERNST STEINKELLNER, Yogische Erkenntnis als Problem im Buddhismus, in G. OBERHAMMER (ed.). Transzendenzerfahrung, Vollzugshorizont des Heils, Wien 1978, pp. 121-134.

Page #11
159 Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya intelligible than ever before in Buddhist tradition. To be sure, Dignaga was not the first to use the epithet pramanabhuta of Bhagavat but when he revived the term in the sense of "pratyaksa in person" the demands of his system gave it an interpretation without precedent 29. This innovation solved some old problems but also created new ones hardly foreseen by its author and his commentator. Here is an interesting field for future research. The importance of bhavanabala within this scheme now emerges clearly. It is generally agreed that bhavana possesses the power to transform or "digest" anything - be it real or unreal - so that it is clearly intuited without conceptual constructions 30. It is the power of habitual meditation that makes things familiar and obvious. It is the task of critical philosophy (yukti- cinta) to secure that only scientific facts are presented to be digested by bhavana. It derives its inspiration from agama. Philosophical critique thus becomes ancillary to religious experience. If we credit Vasubandhu with having created a system of vijnanaparinama we may as well credit Dignaga (followed by Dharmakirti) with having created one of *pramanaparinama31, so to speak. In view of its cardinal importance in his system it may seem surprising that Dharmakirti does not devote much space to justify the role 29 See HATTORI, op. cit., p. 23 with n. 3 and ERNST STEINKELLNER, The Spiritual place of the Epistemological tradition in Buddhism (= Nanto Bukkyo 49 [1982]). The meaning of the epithet comes out clearly in a fragment to which STEINKELLNER has drawn attention in his Philological Remarks on Sakyamati's Pramanavarttikatika (Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. Gedenkschrift fur Ludwig Alsdorf, 1981, p. 290):... bhavanabalanispannanirmalavikalpabhrantajnanatmakatvad bhagavatah pratyaksapramanasvabhavata saksad asty eva... In his interpretation of Dignaga's verse and Dharmakirti's commentary (i. e. the pramanasiddhi chapter of PV) STEINKELLNER (following VETTER) fails to clarify the distinction between Bhagavat as a samvyavaharika- and as a paramarthika-pramana. 30 See e. g. PV III, 281-287 and Kambala's Alokamala (known to Dharmakirti) 57-60; 117-118, etc. In both authors bhavana and abhyasa are used interchangeably. 31 This point is decisive for an adequate interpretation of almost any technical term in the epistemological system. Correct knowledge (pramana, samyagjnana) changes from having an object to having no object, from being conceptual (indirect) to being non-conceptual (direct), from being simple sensation to being pure intuition. The deliberately oscillating vagueness of terms such as arthakriyasamartha, avisamvada, svalaksana, etc. is easily understood once it is recognized that they have to apply to all four kinds of pratyaksa, etc. and, consequently, shift their meaning accordingly. Without being too general or too specific NB I, 1 summarizes the system of pramanaparinama with unmatched brevity and comprehensiveness: samyagjnanapurvika sarvapurusarthasiddhir iti...

Page #12
160 CH. LINDTNER of bhavana in his extant works. There are, however, historical grounds for this apparent omission. As shown elsewhere there are reasons to believe that Dharmakirti composed a work entitled Tattvaniskarsa in which, inter alia, he discussed the necessity of bhavana for realizing tattvartha. (I shall revert to this lost work of his below.) Moreover there are reasons to assume that Dharmakirti was familiar with a text in which the significance of bhavana is stressed, viz. Kambala's Alokamala. And, of course, we should not forget that the importance of bhavana was a matter of common consent within Mahayana. On this background there was no need for Dharmakirti to delve further into the matter. II After this attempt of interpretating a part of the background and some of the basic motives in the formation of Dignaga's and Dharmakirti's epistemology we shall now direct our attention to some more specific historical and textual problems posed by the first two chapters of PVin as edited and translated by VETTER and STEINKELLNER. In PVin I, 19d (!) and 21-27 Dharmakirti discusses the third form of pratyaksa, viz. svasamvedana. To some extent his discussion is based on the one given in his earlier work PV. This is clear from the fact that some of the verses are taken over from that work, sometimes without change, sometimes with slight or considerable modifications and sometimes they are even rendered into prose. Moreover PVin expressly refers to PV 32. But apart from this well-known fact there is reason to assume that he is also basing this paragraph on an earlier work of his. This may be shown as follows. In the Nyayavataravartikavrtti (NAVV) of Santisuri3 we come across the following quotation dealing with vijnana as svasamvedana: - (1) tadatadrupino bhavas tadatadrupahetujah / tat sukhadi kim ajnanam vijnanabhinnahetujam || (2) avisese 'pi bahyasya visesat prititapayoh/ bhavanaya visesena nartharupah sukhadayah || (3) prajnadivad visisyante bhavanabalabhavatah / narthena janitakaro buddhau bhogas tadatmanah || (4) niyatavisayatvena jnanakaro nivartitah / arthanvayatirekena vyapto niladibhasavat || 32 PVin I, p. 74, 1. 5 (read gtan la phab); II, p. 62, 1. 8; II, p. 96, 1. 19 (read 'grel du). 33 Nyayavataravartika-vrtti of Sri Santi Suri. Critically... edited... by Pandita DALASUKHA MALWANIYA, Bombay 1949, p. 20, 1. 31-32 and p. 21, 1. 1-10.

Page #13
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 161 (5) bhinnabhah sitaduhkhadir abhinno buddhivedane / abhinnabhe vibhinne ced bhedabhedau kimasrayau // (6) nanatvaikatvalopah syad evam sati jagattraye / tasmad antarbhava ete cetanas ceti sadhitam // Now two of these stanzas are already known to us from PV (1 = PV III, 251 and 5 = PV III, 279) and they also occur as PVin I, 22 and I, 27, q.v. But what is the source of the remaining four stanzas? Where does the NAVV quote them from, directly or indirectly? To answer this question we may have a closer look at PVin I, 22-27 (VETTER's edition, pp. 64-72). The second verse of our quotation proves to be identical with PVin I, 23: phyi rol khyad par med na yan || dga'dan yons su gdun ba dag/ goms las khyad par 'gyur bai phyir /bde sogs don gyi ran bzin min /34 Stanzas 3, 4, 6 of the quotation do not occur as verses in PVin but there are unmistakable traces of them all in the prose; compare 3 and 4 with VETTER's edition, p. 66, 1. 20-22. ... snon po la sogs pa'i snan ba'i khyad par bzin no de'i khyad par la mi ltos par goms pa'i khyad par dari rjes su 'brel pa de dag ni blo nid yin te / ses rab la sogs pa bzin no ll, and 6 with op. cit., p. 75, 1. 24: de'i phyir bde ba la sogs pa nan yin zin myon ba yan yin no ll. Thus we see that all the verses of our quotation occur in some form or other in the prose of PVin, but also that their source is neither PVin nor PV. On the other hand they are certainly by Dharmakirti. Hence we seem forced to assume that they hail from another of Dharmakirti's works - now lost. The most natural thing to assume is that the NAVV is here quoting Dharmakirti's Tattvaniskarsa, a text from which another fragment, four couplets dealing with bhavana, are already known from Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradipa 35. This conclusion is important in several respects: First of all it gives us a vague general idea of the nature of his Tattvaniskarsa. It must have discussed svasamvedana and bhavana (most probably in connection with yogipratyaksa). In other words one of its main topics was the various forms of pratyaksa and, as we may assume from the title of the work, their relationship to tattva. As shown above this is exactly what we would have expected Dharmakirti to deal with more extensively than he did in any of his 34 Emend PVin I, p. 66, 1. 14 to gdun ba; 1. 19 to gdun ba'i; 1. 30 to 'brel pa'i; p. 68, 1. 12 to gdun bar; 1. 25 to sin tu dan ba (D); p. 78, 1. 7 to logs sig tu. 35 See AO 41 (1980) 29. - For Dharmakirti tattva is equivalent to dvayaSunyata (cf. especially PV III, 213; 360 and Vimsatika, 28-29). It is in this sense we have to understand PV II, 253cd: muktis tu sunyatadrstes tadarthah sesabhaoana (v.1.). So for Dharmakirti (as for Kambala, etc.) ungata is grahuagrahakabhava, i.e. parinispannasvabhava.

Page #14
162 CH. LINDTNER extant works. So here Tattvaniskarsa may be held to provide the "missing link". Secondly this new fragment (even if it does not hail from Tattvaniskarsa, but from some other work of Dharmakirti's, the title of which is not known), sheds some light on the formation of at least this part of PVin. Now we know that it was composed as a systematic reshuffle not only of PV but also of one or more) of the author's earlier works, among these the Tattvaniskarsa. This is decisive when we have to assess the position of PVin within the literary output of Dharmakirti as a whole. Thirdly, we have now found a place for depositing some of the quotations from Dharmakirti occurring in later philosophical works but not to be traced in any of his extant treatises 36 In order to gain a better understanding of the historical position of Dharmakirti it is obviously incumbent upon us to determine his relationship to predecessors and opponents. Here we need not discuss the profound influence of Vasubandhu and Dignaga but will confine ourselves to point out some reminiscences of another and less known Buddhist philosopher, namely Kambala, the author of Alokamala (ca. 500 A. D.) 87. There are at least two stanzas (57, 84) in the. Alokamala - which itself betrays unmistakable influence from Vasubandhu and Dignaga - that here come into consideration: 57. bhavyate yad yad evetah paramparyena balisaih / tat tad eva purah khyati bhavanabalanirmitam / 84. iti buddhya vibhago 'sya panditaih parikalpyate / abhagasyapi cittasya lokasamortisatyatah // With these compare PV III, 282 cd (= PVin I, 29 cd), 284 cd and 285 (= PVin I, 31): abhutan api pasyanti purato 'vasthitan iva // spastabham nirvikalpam ca bhavanabalanirmitam // tasmad bhutam abhutam va yad yad evabhibhavyate / bhavana parinispattau tat sphutakalpadhiphalam | 36 For our purpose two stanzas are of special interest: nilapitadi yaj jnanam bahirvad avabhasate / tan na satyam ato nasti vijneyam tattvato bahih // tada peksa ca samvitter mata ya kartprupata / sapy atattvam atah samvid advayeti vibhavyate Il. It is quoted Anekantajayapataka, Vol. II, p. 82 (with the wrong reading apeksaya for apeksa, and mistakenly ascribed to PV) and in the Syadvadakalpalata to Sastravartasamuccaya, 393. Cf. also PV III, 220 to which Yasovijayaji (ad 392) incidentally quotes a clause from Devendravyakhya: citrajnane hi yo niladin pratyavabhasate, jnanopadhir jnanavisesano 'nubhavasvatmabhuta iti... (TD, No. 4217, fol. 196 a 3 (v. 1.]). For Devendrabuddhi, cf. FRAUWALLNER, Kleine Schriften, pp. 842-846. - For the background: Alambanapariksa, 6; Alokamala, 26-27. 37 For this text see WZKS 26 (1982) 191-194. My edition will appear in Indiske Studier 5 (1984).

Page #15
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 163 and PV III, 353 (= PVin I, 45) and III, 212: avibhago 'pi buddhyatma viparyasitadarsanaih / grahyagrahakasamvittibhedavan iva laksyate // paricchedo 'ntar anyo 'yam bhago bahir iva sthitah / jnanasyabhedino bheda pratibhaso hy upaplavah // From these parallels we not only see one of Dharmakirti's sources but also how, in his characteristic manner, he almost rewrites them rendering their meaning more precise and specific so as to suit his own purpose. Kambala, who follows the nirakaravada of Vasubandhu, does not classify yogijnana as pratyaksa, nor does he take svasamvitti as pramanaphala, nor does he, consequently, accept the triple division of vijnana. These features are specific to the sakaravada of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, etc. - In the same way it is a task for future research to trace instances where Dharmakirti has critical allusions to various nonBuddhist authors and thus reconstruct the living dialogue in which he was participating 38. (A tremendous task in itself, needless to add, is to trace and reconstruct the subsequent influence of Dharmakirti's own contributions to the debate inside and outside the Buddhist fold.) Moreover there are some problems with regard to the numbering and identification of the stanzas of PVin as edited by VETTER and STEINKELLNER. Some of these may be solved by searching for further fragments than have hitherto been identified in later sources. First of all, to be sure, there seems to be no problem with regard to PVin I, 19d where abc occur on p. 58 whereas d first occurs on p. 62, an antarasloka having been inserted as stanza 20. There are other instances of this awkward procedure, as we shall see, occurring in the second chapter of PVin. The Sanskrit of PVin I, 19 is quoted in Kalpalataviveka, p. 46, 1. 27-28: manasam caksavijnananantarapratyayodbhavam / tadarthantaragrahi sukhadinam svasamvedanam // 39. With regard to stanzas 41 and 42 we face problems. 41 ab corresponds, as Vetter points out, to PV III, 332 cd whereas "Der Anfang 38 38 Thus, for instance, there are several interesting allusions to Vakyapadiya (VP), compare PV II, 2d with VPI, 13 ab; PVin I, 47b with VP I, 37; PV I, 21 with VP I, 32, etc. - On the other hand when Sakyamati ad PV II, 5 (TD, No. 4220, fol. 79 a 5) quotes Siddhasena's Nyayavatara 2 (q.v.), this celebrated Jaina author surely is under the influence of Dharmakirti, here as elsewhere. This is a new piece of evidence for the discussion about the date of Siddhasena. 39 I owe this reference to Ernst Steinkellner who, for pada d also refers to NBhus, p. 101, 1. 7. In a I have emended caksuo to caksa'. - For PVin I, 21 ab Steinkellner kindly calls my attention to Tavarapratyabhijnavivstivimarsini, I, p. 116, 1. 25; II, p. 361, 1. 11; Bhamati, p. 537, 1. 19; Nyayakaaika, p. 190, 1. 9. See Pada-Index to PVin.

Page #16
164 CH. LINDTNER des Verses 42 ist wohl genauso wie der Rest von Vers 41 in die Prosa aufgegangen" (op. cit., p. 90, note to line 7). This leaves us either with one verse of two padas and one of three padas, or with one stanza of five padas. As there seems to be no precedent to such a metrical irregularity in Dharmakirti the translators (or clerks) are apparently to be held responsible for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. On p. 88, 1. 23, however, we read: 'dod pa dan mi 'dod par snan ba ni rtog pa yin gyi dban po 'i blo ni ma yin no ze na /, which is a literal prose version of PV III, 345ab: istanistavabhasinyah kalpana naksadhir yadi /. To support this identification we must also account for the missing pada of 42a. On p. 90, 1. 3 we read: de nid kyi phyir tshad ma dan bras bu dag yul tha dad pa yan ma yin no . Vetter identifies this with a line occurring in the Dharmottarapradipa (p. 91, 1. 16): na pramanaphalayor visayabhedah, but here the de nid kyi phyir (*tasmat) as well as the kyan (*api) are missing. VETTER also calls attention to PV III, 350 ab: tasmad visayabhedo 'pi na, svasamvedanam phalam /. This reference, I think, solves our difficulty: de nid kyi phyir (= tasmad) and yul tha dad pa yan ma yin no (= visayabhedo 'pi na) should be printed as stanza 42a (b) whereas tshad ma dan bras bu dag (=pramanaphalayor; cf. Dharmottarapradipa, loc. cit.) originally was composed as prose by Dharmakirti. There are, as known, numerous similar instances of this misrakavyakhyana style in the first chapter of PV40. In this way we may retain Vetter's numbering and read two regular stanzas as we would expect Dharmakirti to have composed (PVin I, 41-42): tadanyasamvido bhavat svasamvit phalam isyate / istanistavabhasinyah kalpana naksadhir yadi || tasmad visayabhedo 'pi na, svasamvedanam phalam uktam svabhavacintayam tadatmyad arthasamvidah || Similar problems occur in PVin II. STEINKELLNER (p. 40) prints verse 28 as follows: /mtshan nid de dan Idan pa yi // gtan tshigs de ni mi dmigs dan bdag dan bras bu zes bya gsum || kho na 'o, and in his translation (p. 44) he notes: "Der Vers ist nicht vollstandig, aber die Kommentare enthalten keinen Hinweis auf eine mogliche Erganzung". However, there is a solution. On p. 30 (!) we read as prose: rjes dpag bya dan de mtshuns la / (DERGE has //!) yod dan med la med par ni || nes pa. In the Nyayavataravivrtti of Siddharsi (p. 51, 1. 22-23 and elsewhere11) we find the following stanza: anumeye tha tattulye sadbhavo nastitasati/niscitanupalambhatmakaryakhya hetavas trayah . So what we read on p. 30 is in fact the beginning of a verse - PVin II, 9 - the 40 Cf. GNOLI, op. cit., p. XXXI. 41 Cf. STEINKELLNER's translation of Hetubindu, pp. 207-208.

Page #17
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 165 rest of which occurs as verse "28" on p. 40. No less than nineteen antaraslokas have been inserted! Verse 9 should then read: / rjes dpag bya dan de mtshuns la ll yod dan med la med par mi/ | res pa gtan tshigs mi dmigs dan || bdag dan 'bras bu zes bya gsum / We thus see that mtshan nid de dan ldan pa yi (p. 40, 1. 2) and kho na'o (p. 40, 1.5) really belong to the prose whereas de ni (p. 40, 1.3) belongs nowhere and must have been inserted by the translators (or revisers) not seeing that the nes pa (p. 30, 1.2) would have saved them from the difficulties of metre. (The numbering of verses should, of course, be changed accordingly.) According to Steinkellner verse 32, "vollig zerrissen" (p. 61, n. 182 of his translation, q. v.) as it is, is to be found on p. 42, 1.12-13, p. 44, 1.30-31 and p. 52, 1.10-11 giving us: I med par nes pa'i 'bras bu can || mi dmigs, 'jug pa'i bye brag gis / rnam bzi, bskal ba rnams la ni || med par nes pa yod ma yin/ Based on various parallels STEINKELLNER reconstructs this verse as follows (p. 117 of his edition): asajjnanaphala prayogabhedad anupalabdhih / caturvidha viprakrstesv abhavaniscayabhavat //. This, however, is impossible metrically and otherwise: in a we would thus have a javipula (-U) and in d the penultimate would be long, etc. A literal reconstruction of padas a and b must be: abhavaniscayaphalanu palabdhis caturvidha /. Whatever we do there is no place for prayogabhedat metrically and it can only be explained as belonging to the prose just as it does in the parallel passage in PV noted by STEINKELLNER (p. 45). The literal reconstruction above is also the only metrically satisfactory one. This brings us to the remaining two padas of verse 32. As noted by STEINKELLNER bskal pa (read: ba) rnams la ni ll med par nes pa yod ma yin | has its paralles in NB II, 27 (later than PVin!): ...viprakrstesu ... abhavaniscayabhavat. But no matter how we turn and twist this prose passage it is impossible to turn it into the two missing padas so as to get the Sanskrit hemistich we are searching for. We should therefore seek it elsewhere. On p. 56, 1.4-5 we find a verse consisting of two padas only (!), numbered "35" by the editor. A stanza of two padas only is without precedent in Dharmakirti, and this is obviously the missing hemistich of verse 32 which then reads: abhavaniscayaphalanupalabdhis caturvidha / isto 'yam arthah sakyeta jnatum so 'tisayo yadi //^2 (The numbering of the following verses is to be changed accordingly.) "? In his translation (p. 66, n. 205) STEINKELLNER says: "Dharmakirti hat... den letzten Pada geandert, so dass nun nicht die Besonderheit (atisaya), sondern die qualifizierte Person (*visesavat) Object ist". But metrically there is no space for *vicesavat (or rather for *vieisto which would be the normal

Page #18
166 CH. LINDTNER The Tibetan version of PVin II, 33 reads as follows: | snan ba mthon ba med pa dan // dnos po mi dmigs pa la ni / | rgyu mi srid par gyur pa na || dnos po med par rtogs par 'gyur / This, as STEINKELLNER notes, has its parallel in PV I, 203 (= 205): drsyasya darsanabhavakaranasambhave sati / bhavasyanupalabdhasya bhavabhavah pratiyate ll. The Tibetan version of this PV verse is: snan run mthon ba med pa'i rgyu // mi srid par ni gyur pa na / snan ran dros po ma dmigs pa'i || dnos po med pa rtogs par 'gyur / In a note to his translation STEINKELLNER (p. 58) remarks: "Dharmakirti hat den ubernommenen Vers offensichtlich nicht nur umgestellt, sondern auch den Sinn geandert. Im PV hat der Vers die Aufgabe, die Nichtbeobachtung des Wesens (svabhavanu palabdhi) zu beschreiben. Hier, im PVin, hat er aber die Aufgabe, alle eben besprochenen Arten der Erkenntnis des Nicht vorhandenseins zusammenzufassen. ... Eine Ruckubersetzung des problematischen Verses ware folgend denkbar: *dreyadarsanabhave bhavasyanupalabdhasya ca / karanasambhave sati bhavabhavah pratiyate //". This reconstruction is scarcely possible: The reading karanasambhave sati would give the impermissible ja-vipula if taken as pada c. It must be retained as pada bwhich, as it stands, violates the metre - just as pada d must be retained unaltered. Moreover if dreyadarsanabhave was correct we would have to have mthon ba med na for mthon ba med pa in the first pada of the PVin version. Consequently we are forced to admit that the Sanskrit form of PVin could not have differed from that of PV (given above). Still it is clear that the Tibetan version of the PVin verse is peculiar and requires an explanation. What has happened, in my opinion, is that the translators here - as elsewhere 43 - were under the influence of Dharmottara's exegesis (cf. STEINKELLNER, loc. cit.). The result, as we see from their version of PVin 33, was an unsatisfactory compromise which is neither faithful to the Sanskrit nor to Dharmottara's exegesis (which does, it should be added, not pretend to be verbatim). Again on p. 100 there seems to be a problem of verse "67" ( = 66 according to the revised numbering) consisting of five padas. Here ldog pa sgrub pa ma mthon tsam (1.5) obviously - as STEINKELLNER notes - corresponds to vyatirekasadhanasyadarsanamatrasya. It is, however, quite impossible to reduce this passage to a pada of eight syllables. So again the translators (or scribes) have mislead us by writing mthon for mthon ba, etc. Verse 66 then should read: yasyadarsanamatrena vyatire rendering of khyad par can). In fact nothing has been changed: atisayo is simply to be taken as an adjective. 43 Cf. VETTER's observation, PVin I, p. 104, n. 37 and p. 106, n. 65.

Page #19
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 167 kah pradarsyate / tasya samsayahetutvac chesavat tad udahstam Il. Incidentally this and the previous verse (i.e. 65 with the wrong reading na yuktadrstimatrena for na cadarsanamatrena in a) are quoted NBhus, pp. 142-143. On p. 106 pada d of verse "70" (= 69) is problematic. STEINKELLNER reconstructs the pada (p. 118): asiddhiyojanavacya. This is an exact rendering of ma grub sbyar ba... brjod bya min (p. 106, 1.4 and 1.8) but metrically impossible. We should read PVin II, 69d as na vacyasiddhiyojana / exactly as PV I, 18d, to which there is no alternative, metrically or otherwise 14 Further problems face us on pp. 112-113. Certainly the first two padas of "74" (in fact = 71 cd, as we shall see) are correctly identified by STEINKELLNER as PV I, 26 ab: tasmad vaidharmyadrstante nesto 'vasyam ihasrayah 1. For padas c and d the Tibetan version has: / yan na rgyu yi dnos por te // me med na yan du ba ste /- the exact equivalents of which are found in the Svavrtti to PV as pointed out by STEINKELLNER: ... hetubhavo va... dahanabhave ca dhumah. STEINKELLNER consequently (p. 118) reconstructs pada d as: dahanabhave ca dhumah. Now this again is metrically impossible whatever you do and STEINKELLNER wisely abstains from reconstructing pada c45. Again the Tibetan version is misleading. This passage in PVin was not composed as verse by Dharmakirti but as prose, i.e. exactly as in the parallel passage in PV. But this fact apparently leaves us with the new problem of a verse consisting of one hemistich only. There are, to be sure, no traces of the missing hemistich in the sequel. To solve our puzzle we most turn back to p. 106 (!) where we find (1.31-32) the following prose passage: de bzin du gean la yan tshad ma gian gyis gnod pa srid de /. This is an exact rendering of PV I, 20 ab where the translators (or revisers) once again failed to recognize the verse: tathanyatrapi sambhavyam pramanantarabadhanam /. To be sure, the corresponding Tibetan version of PV runs: | de bzin du ni gzan la yan || tshad ma gzan gyis gnod pa srid /. This then 44 Probably the prose of PVin II, p. 106, 1. 7 is corrupt. See the corresponding passage of the Tib. version of PV (TD, No. 4216 fol. 268 a 3): gan yan ma grub pa'i sbyor ba de bzin du mthun pa'i phyogs la yod pa dan / med pa zes bya ba la sogs pa la yan ci rigs par brjod par bya'o zes bya ba de lta bu la sogs pa/ ma grub sbyar ba de yan brjod bya min ll. Here ma grub sbyar ba brjod bya min renders na vacyasiddhiyojana, whereas de yan (= sapi) belongs to the prose just as the initial ma grub pa'i sbyor ba does. In PVin, I. 7 we should accordingly for de yan read de < yan. The lacuna may either be due to the omission of a scribe (haplography) or to an instance of editorial banalization. PVin, 1. 4, then, should be brought back to its original prose form. 45 Like 57a (= 55a) missing in STEINKELLNER'S "Versindex".

Page #20
168 CH. LINDTNER is the first hemistich of "71"(= 70). The second (= 70 cd) is to be found on p. 110, 1.25-26 (where STEINKELLNER takes it as 71 ab). The first hemistich of the next verse (71 ab) affords no problems and corresponds to STEINKELLNER'S "71 cd". Then follow two antaraslokas ("72" and "73" = 72 and 73) and finally the two missing padas of 71 that we were looking for: the first two padas of "74". This solves our problem and it only remains to be noted that the final verse ("75") should consequently be numbered as 74. These observations have mainly been concerned with the identification and numbering of the 133 verses of PVin I and II. No doubt the prose still poses several - mostly minor - problems as far as text, translation and interpretation are concerned. I shall have to postpone remarks on these for another occassion. Considering the difficulty of Dharmakirti's thought and style and the problems connected with the transmission of his works, this is only natural. Dharmakirti is not easy reading and, as we know, prayah prakrtasaktir apratibalaprajno janah. Experience from Classical philology, the elder sister, as it were, of Indian and Tibetan philology, shows that abstruse philosophical texts have to go through several editions before we get a text edited to the satisfaction of all - if ever. It would therefore be quite absurd if the above observations should leave the impression that the work done by VETTER and STEINKELLNER done so far is not first rate. At present no one could have done a better and more admirable job than they have. Much work remains to be done and Dharmakirti surely deserves it. Speaking of one of Proclus' writings COLERIDGE once remarked that "The most beautiful and orderly development of the philosophy which endeavours to explain all things by an analysis of consciousness, and builds up a world in the mind out of materials furnished by mind itself, is to be found in the Platonic Theology of Proclus". Had he had the chance to know the works of Dharmakirti he might well have met hesitations in deciding whom of these congenial almost contemporaries of widely different background to let carry off the palm. Pada-Index to PVin 146 akarakam api svayam 37d adarsanaj jagaty asminn aksadhir yady apekseta 5c anapeksitasadharmyao atadatmani tadatmyao 52c anirdesasya vedakam 53 a 54c 150 46 The numbering of verses follows VETTER's edition from 1966. Subsequent identifications by STEINKELLNER (cf. n. 24) or myself are included and few emendations - all obvious - have tacitly been made. Note that 10, 11ab, 12, 17ab, 24, 30, 33(c)d and 59(c)d are still missing in Sanskrit.

Page #21
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya anupaplutacaksusam anyatah pratipattitah anyathaikasya bhavasya anyathaivavabhasante anyasyanyatvahanes ca apratyaksasya sambandhad apratyaksopalambhasya abhinnavedanasyaikye abhinnabhe vibhinne ced abhinno buddhivedane abhutan api pasyanti abhedo nilataddhiyoh abhrantam abhilapini ayogolakavahnivat arthagrahah katham satyam arthasya drstav iva tad arthasyasambhave bhavat arthasyesta prameyata arthadhigamanatmana arthapaye 'pi netradhih arthena ghatayaty enam arthopayoge 'pi punah avibhago pi buddhyatma avisese 'pi bahyasya avedyavedakakara asakyasamayo hy atma astiyam api ya tv antardeg atma meyah phalam svavit asin me kalpanedrsi iti ced grahyatam viduh iti vetti na purvokta iti sa yogyata manam iyam sarvatra samyojya istanistavabhasinyah iksate saksaja matih uktam svabhavacintayam ucchinna sarvavastusu upaplavasamudbhava 47b 1d 49 a 46 c 50 a lc 55c 26a 27c 27b 29 c 55b 4b 25b 44 c 15c 3 a 43d 36d 6d 34 a 5a 45a 23 a 39 a 21 a 53 c 57d 14b 20b 14c 57 c 56 c 41 c 13d 42 c 25d 53d upayogavisesatah ekatra drsto bhedo hi ekasyapi tadatmanah kalpana naksadhir yadi kamasokabhayonmada kesadijnanabhedavat kriyate vidyamanapi kvacin nanyatra drsyate khadinam svasamvedanam 169 tat pratyaksam akalpakam tatratmavisaye mane tatrapy anubhavatmatvat tat sukhadi kim ajnanam tat sphutakalpadhiphalam tathakrtavyavastheyam tatha pratyeti nanyatha tathavabhasamanasya tathaivadarsanat tesam tadatadrupahetujah tadatadrupino bhavas tadarthantaragrahi su tadanyasamvido bhavat tadekatvasya hanitah taddrstav eva drstesu taddrstes taddhvanau smrtih 6b 16 a 53b 41d 29a 40b 48 c 16b 19b 7 c 39d grhitva samkalayyaitat grahakakaraviplava grahakakarasamkhyata grahyagrahakalaksana 58d 40d grahyagrahakavaidhuryat 38 c 45c grahyagrahakasamvitti grahyagrahakasamvidam 48d caurasvapnadyupaplutah jnanasya hetur artho 'pity jnanakararpanaksamam 29b 43 c 20d 28d 56a 57 a 22 c 31d 40 a 7d 43 a 47 a 22b 22 a 19c 41 a 49d 18a 11d

Page #22
170 CH. LINDTNER 8c 23c taddhetutve samam dvayam 3d purato 'vasthitan iva 29d tadrupam nasti tattvatah 51 b parvaparaparamarsao tadruparahita api 46d pratibaddhasvabhavasya tadvasat tadvyavasthanadi 37c pratisedhac ca kasyacit tasmat prameyadhigateh 34cpratitih kalpanarthasya 4c tasmat prameyadhigateh 35a pratyaksam kalpanapodham 4a tasmad bhutam abhutam va 31a pratyaksam anumanam ca la tasmad visayabhedo 'pi 42a pratyaksabhah + + + + 33c tasmad visesavisaya 17c pratyakse 'pi pramanata 3b tasya nanubhavo 'parah 38b pramanam meyarupata 34d tadatmyad arthasamvidah 420 pramanam svatmavedanam 580 tadeso 'nyadnso 'pi va 43b pramanantarasadbhavah 2c tena narthantaram phalam 36b pramanetarasamanyao 2a te yogyah svatmasamvidi 57b pramane sadrsatmana lb tesam atah svasamvittir 21c buddhav apratibhasanat 15b dadhanam tacca tam atmany 36c dure yatha va marusu 47cbhayadav iva bhasate (v: 1.) 28b odygadis taimiradivat 54d | bhavanaparinispattau bhaana 31c drstasamkalanatmakam 8b bhavanabalatah spastam 28a dosodbhava prakrtya sa 54a bhavanaya visesena i bhava yena nirupyante 51a dhir abhedam vyavasyati 50d bhinnakalam katham grahyam 20a na ca tat tadrg arthavat 32d bhinnabhah sitaduh khadir 27a na jane 'ham apidTsam 44d bhedavan iva laksyate 45d na tasmad bhinnam asty anyat 16c bhedabhedavyavasthaivam 25c. onantarapratyayodbhavam 19b bhedabhedau kimasrayau' 27d na vikalpanubaddhasya 32a bhrantir namopajayate 52b na siddham bhedasadhanam 260 na svasamvedanam phalam 42b mantradyupaplutaksanam 46a na hi muktvartharupatam 34 b mahan alpo 'pi desyate 47d nanarupavabhasinah 49b manasam caksavijnana nanyo 'nubhavyo buddhyasti 38a meyamanaphalasthitih 48b nabhijalpanusangini (v. 1.) 210 meyamanaphalasthitih 56d nabhedo 'rupadarsanat 50b narthadrstih prasidhyati 55d yah prag ajanako buddher 6a nartharupah sukhadayah 23d yaj jnanam avisamvadi 28c narthasamnidhim ikseta 9c yatsannidhane yo drstas nivartetecchaya matih yathakathamcit tasyarthao 44 a yathanudarsanam ceyam 48a paricchedatmatatmani 58b yatha bhrantair niriksyate 39b punar vikalpayan kimcid 14a yatha mrcchakaladayah 46b 19a 11c 9b

Page #23
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 171 yatha ragadivedane yada tada na samcodya yad yad evabhibhavyate yan naivam tad vibhedavat yasmad ekam anekam ca 56b 40c 31b 26b 51c que 8a 49c 6c 7b 350 170 37 a rupam tesam na vidyate o rupam muktvavabhusinah rupabhedam hi pasyanti 51d 44b 50c 55a 36a 35b 350 52 a 14d 9a 33a 22d samketasmaranopayam satyah katham syur akaras sa pascad api tena syad sambandham laukikim sthitim sambandho na prasidhyati sarvaivendriyaja matih savyaparam ivabhati sahopalambhaniyamad sa ca tasyatmabhutaiva sadhanam meyarupata sadhane 'nyatra tatkarma sadharmyadarsanal loke samarthyena samudbhavat samanyam buddhyabhedatah sa yogyateti ca proktam siddhih syad vyatirekatah sidhyed asadhanatve 'sya sukhadinam ananyabhak so'rtho vyavahito bhavet stimitenantaratmana osthiter anyadhiyam gateh sthito 'pi caksusa rupam spastarthapratibhasita smaranad abhilasena smartam sabdanuyojanam svapne 'pi smaryate smartam svayam saiva prakasate svasamvit phalam isyate ovasthayam indriyad gatau vikalpotthapita sa ca vikalpo 'vastunirbhasad vijnanabhinnahetujam vitathapratibhasini viparyasitadarsanaih * vibhaktalaksanagrahyao visesanam visesyam ca visesat prititapayoh visamvadad upaplavah degvyavasayena neha tat vyavaharah pravartate vyaparena svakarmani 54b 45 b 39c 7a 160 58c 59d 26c 21 b 5d 13b 2b 13c 32b 23b 33b 52d 180 37b 18c sabdenavyapstaksasya osunye tac caksuse katham 15a 8d 5b 32c 38d 41 b samvitsamarthyabhavinah samsargad avibhagas ced samhrtya sarvatas cintam 18b 25a 13a hetutvam eva yuktijna 20c A revised edition of the stanzas of PVin II" anumanam dvidha svartham trirupal lingato 'rthadTk / atasmims tadgraho bhrantir api sambandhatah prama // 2. yo hi bhavo yathabhutah sa tadrglingacetasah / hetus tajja tathabhute tasmad vastuni lingidhih // 47 The numbering of the verses follows my remarks above. Spaced words or clauses are reconstructed from Tib. and parallel Sanskrit sources. In 55c I prefer the v. 1. tesam for tasmat. STEINKELLNER's reconstruction of 52 ab (his 53 ab) violates the metre. A few emendations, mainly of misprints, have tacitly

Page #24
172 CH. LINDTNER 3. lingalingidhiyor evam param paryena vastuni / pratibandhat tadabhasasunyayor apy avancanam // tayos tadrupasunyayos tadrupadhyavasayatah / tadrupavancakatve 'pi krta bhrantivyavasthitih | manipradipaprabhayor manibuddhyabhidhavatoh / mithyajnanavisese 'pi vieeso 'rthakriyam prati | yatha tathayatharthatve 'py anumanatadabhayoh / arthakriyanurodhena pramanatvam vyavasthitam // pramanyam vastuvisayam dvayor arthabhidam jagau / pratibhasasya bhinnatvad ekasmims tadayogatah // atadrupaparavittavastumatraprasadhanat / samanyavisayam proktam lingam bhedapratisthiteh / 9. anumeye 'tha tattulye sadbhavo nastitasati / niscitanupalambhatmakaryakhya hetavas trayah / 10. ayogam yogam aparair atyantayogam eva ca/ vyavacchinatti dharmasya nipato vyatirecakah // 11. visesanavisesyabhyam kriyaya ca sahoditah / vivaksato 'prayoge 'pi tasyartho 'yam pratiyate | . vyavacchedaphalam vakyam yatas caitro dhanurdharah / partho dhanurdharo nilam sarojam iti va yatha // 13. pratiyogivyavacchedas tatrapy arthesu gamyate / tatha prasiddheh samarthyad vivaksanugamad dhvaneh ll 14. tad ayogavyavacchedad dharmi dharmavisesanam/ tadvisistataya dharmo na niranvayadosabhak // 15. nivrttyabhavas tu vidhir vastubhavo 'sato 'pi san / vastvabhavas tu nastiti pasya bandhyavijrmbhitam // nivyttir yadi tasmin na hetor vrttih kim isyate / sapi na pratisedho 'yam nivsttih kim nisidhyate || vidhanam pratisedham ca muktva sabdo 'sti naparah / vyavaharah sa casatsu neti praptatra mukata // 18. satam ca na nisedho 'sti so 'satsu ca na vidyate / jagaty anena nyayena nanarthah pralayam gatah // desakalanisedhas ced yathasti sa nisidhyate / na tatha na yatha so 'sti tathapi na nisidhyate / 20. tasmad asritya sabdartham bhavabhavasamasrayam / abahyasrayam atrestam sarvam vidhinisedhanam // 16. 17. 19. been made. PVin II, 7 occurs Nyayavataravartikavrtti, p. 70, 1. 21 and Nyayaviniscayavivarana, II, p. 4, 1. 2. See also NBhus, p. 289, 1. 24 and Isvarapratyabhijnavivrtivimarsini, p. 226, 1. 16. PVin II, 53 cd occurs in Nyayakanika, p. 138, 1. 13 and NBhus, p. 288, 1. 9. These identifications were kindly communicated to me by Ernst Steinkellner (9. 11. 1983).

Page #25
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 173 21. tabhyam sa dharmi sambaddhah khyaty abhave 'pi tadesah / sabdapravstter astiti so 'pisto vyavaharabhak l 22. anyatha syat padarthanam vidhanapratisedhane / ekadharmasya sarvatmavidhanapratisedhanam // 23. ananatmataya bhede nanavidhinisedhavat / ekadharminy asamharo vidhanapratisedhayoh // 24. ekam dharminam uddibya nanadharmasamasrayam / vidhav ekasya tadbhajam ivanyesam upeksakam / 25. nisedhe tadviviktam ca tadanyesam apeksakam / vyavaharam asatyartham prakalpayati dhir yatha || 26. tam tathaivavikalpyarthabhedasrayam upagatah / anadivasanodbhutam badhante 'rtham na laukikam // tatphalo 'tatphalas cartho bhinna ekas tatas tatah / tais tair upaplavair nitasancayapacayair iva || 28. atadvan api sambandhat kutascid upaniyate / drstim bhedasrayais te 'pi tasmad ajnataviplavah || 29. sarve bhavah svabhavena svasvabhavavyavasthiteh/ svabhava parabhavabhyam yasmad vyavrttibhaginah // 30. tasmad yato yato 'rthanam vyavrttis tannibandhanah / jatibhedah prakalpyante tadvisesavagahinah 11 31. tasmad yo yena dharmena visesah sampratiyate / na sa sakyas tato 'nyena tena bhinna vyavasthitih // 32. abhavaniscayaphalanu palabdhis caturvidha / isto 'yam arthah sakyeta jnatum so 'tisayo yadi // 33. drsyasya darsanabhavakaranasambhave sati / bhavasyanupalabdhasya bhavabhavah pratiyate // 34. istam viruddhakarye 'pi desakaladyapeksanam/ anyatha vyabhicari syad bhasmevasitasadhane // 35. svayam ragadiman nartham vetti vedasya nanyatah / na vedayati vedo 'pi vedarthasya kuto gatih // 36. tenagnihotram juhuyat svargakama iti srutau / khadec chvamamsam ity esa nartha ity atra ka prama // 37. prasiddho lokavadas cet tatra ko 'tindriyarthadrk / anekarthesu subdesu yenartho 'yam vivecitah // 38. svargorvasyadisabdas ca drsto 'rudharthavacakah / sabdantaresu tadrksu tadrey evastu kalpana // 39. 40. prasiddhis ca nlnam vadah pramanam sa ca nesyate / tatas ca bhuyo 'rthagatih kim etad dvistakamitam // 41. atha prasiddhim ullarghya kalpane na nibandhanam / prasiddher apramanatvat tadgrahe kim nibandhanam //

Page #26
174 CH. LINDTNER 42. utpadita prasiddhyaiva sanka sabdarthaniscaye / yasman nanarthavrttitvam sabdanam tatra desyate // 46 45. anyathasambhavabhavan nanasakteh svayam dhvaneh / avasyam sankaya bhavyam niyamakam apasyatam // esa sthanur ayam marga iti vaktiti kascana / anyah svayam bravimiti tayor bhedah pariksyatam // 47. sarvatra yogyasyaikarthadyotane niyamah kutah / jnata vatindriyah kena vivaksavacanad ste | 48. vivaksa niyame hetuh samketas tatprakasanah / apauruseye sa nasti tasya saikarthata kutah // 49. svabhavaniyame 'nyatra na yojyeta taya punah / samketas ca nirarthah syad vyaktau ca niyamah kutah // 50. yatra svatantryam icchaya niyamo nama tatra kah / dyotayet tena samketo nestam evasya yogyatam // 51. vrttibuddhipurva katvad ista sapravsttiphala / anya tu pravrttiphala tasya nimittadarsanat ll. 52. tadbhavamatra nurodhe svabhavo hetur atmani / upadhyapeksah suddho va nase karyatvasattvavat // ahetutvad vinasasya svabhavad anubandhita / sapeksanam hi dharmanam navasyambhaviteksyate // 54. etena vyabhicaritvam uktam karyavyavasthiteh / sarvesam nasahetunam hetumannasavadinam // 55. arthakriyasamartham yat tad atra paramarthasat / asanto 'ksamikas tesam kramakramavirodhatah // asamarthyac ca taddhetor bhavaty esa svabhavatah / yatra nama bhavaty asmad anyatrapi svabhavatah / 57. karyam svabhavair yavadbhir avinabhavi karame / hetus tadvyabhicare sa hetumattam vilanghayet // 58. nityam sattvam asattvam vahetor anyanapeksanat / apeksato hi bhavanam kadacitkatvasambhavah // 59. agnisvabhavah sakrasya murdha yady agnir eva sah/ athanagnisvabhavo 'sau dhumas tatra katham bhavet // 60. dhumahetusvabhavo hi vahnis tacchaktibhedavan/ adhumahetor dhumasya bhave sa syad ahetukah // anvayavyatirekad yo yasya desto 'nuvartakah / svabhavas tasya taddhetur ato bhinnan na sambhavah // 62. karyakaranabhavad va svabhavad va niyamakat / avinabhavaniyamo 'darsanan na na darsanat // 63. avasyambhavaniyamah kah parasyanyatha paraih / arthantaranimitte va dharme vasasi ragavat // 56. athan 61

Page #27
Marginalia to Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 175 64. arthantaranimitto hi dharmah syad anya eva sah / pascad bhavan na hetutvam phale 'py ekantata kutah || 65. na cadarsanamatrena vipakse 'vyabhicarita / sambhavyavyabhicaratvat sthalitandulapakavat || yasyadarsanamatrena vyatirekah pradarsyate/ tasya samsayahetutvac chesavat tad udahstam || hetos trisv api rupesu niscayas tena varnitah | asiddhaviparitarthavyabhicarivipaksatah || na ca nastiti vacanat tan nasty eva yatha yadi / nasti sa khyapyate nyayas tada nastiti gamyate || yady adsstya nivsttih syac chesavad vyabhicari kim vyatireky api hetuh syan navacyasiddhiyojana || tathanyatrapi sambhavyam pramanantarabadhanam / tasmat tammatra8ambamdah 80abhaoo bhaoam eva xa || 71. misartaget karama Da kargam agabhicarata / tasmad vaidharmyadsstante nesto 'vasyam ihasrayah || 72. anyathaikanivittyanyavinivrttih katham bhavet / nasvavan iti martyena na bhavyam gomatapi kim ll samnidhanat tathaikasya katham anyasya samnidhih / goman ity eva martyena bhavyam asvavatapi kim || 74. hetusvabhavabhavo 'tah pratisedhe ca kasyacit / hetur yuktopalambhasya tasya canupalambhanam //