Sanskrit Manuscript Of Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya

Author(s): Kazunobu Matsuda, Ernat Steinkellner
Publisher: Kazunobu Matsuda, Ernat Steinkellner
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269417/1

Page #1

THE SANSKRIT MANUSCRIPT OF DHARMAKĪRTI'S PRAMĀŅAVINISCAYA
(Report on a Single Folio Fragment from the National Archives Collection, Kathmandu)
By Kazunobu Matsuda, Kyoto and Ernst Steinkellner, Vienna
1. INTRODUCTION The identification of the Buddhist Sanskrit manuscript fragments preserved in the National Archives of Nepal, Kathmandu, has been the ongoing work of K. Matsuda, one of the collaborators in this study. The main portion of these fragments was first examined by Cecil Bendall about a century ago?. After Bendall's death, the photographs of these fragments passed into the hands of Louis de La Vallée Poussin who published studies on several of the fragments?. A few studies by
Kazunobu Matsuda would like to acknowledge his debt of gratitude to Professor Balram D. Dangol of the National Archives for his unstinting cooperation in providing the microfilms needed and arranging for permission to publish the study and the related folios.
2 C. BENDALL spent a four month period from November 1898 to March 1899 in India and Nepal, during which time he visited the Durbar Library (present National Archives) where he discovered the cache of old manuscript fragments which he borrowed and photographed. For his reports, see: Remarks on the Results of Bendall's Recent Journey to Nepal in Search of Sanskrit Mss. and Inscriptions. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 2 (Feb. 1899) 30–35; Pāli MSS. in Nepal. JRAS 1899, 422; Outline-Report on a Tour in Northern India in the Winter 1898-9. JRAS 1900, 162-164; Nepal MSS. JRAS 1900, 345-347; Śikṣāsamuccaya ([Bibliotheca Buddhica I] Petersburg 1897– 1902), p. 291, n. 7 and frontispiece; Fragment of a Buddhist Ordination-Ritual in Sanskrit. Album Kern (Leiden 1903), p. 373–376; Subhāşita-Samgraha. Le Muséon 1903, 375-402 and 1904,5-46 and 245–274, esp. p. 375–377; Note on the History of the Pāli Canon in Northern India. Verhandlungen des XIII. Internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses, Hamburg Sept. 1902 (Leiden 1904) 58-60. - Some of the fragments examined by Bendall are entered in H.P. SĀSTRI'S A Catalogue of Palm-Leaf & Selected Paper Mss. Belonging to the Durbar Library, Nepal, Vol: II (Calcutta 1915), p. 246-248 (rep. Stuttgart 1989 as VOHD Supplementband 31, with microfilm concordance by R. GRÜNENDAHL), where they are among the particular group of manuscripts in the Library's collection referred to as 'Bendall's Puka'.
3 See DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN'S Mss. Cecil Bendall. JRAS 1907, 375–379; Mss. Cecil Bendall II. Fragments en écriture Gupta du Nord. JRAS 1908, 45-53
WZKS 35 (1991) 139-149

Page #2

140
K. MATSUDA - E. STEINKELLNER
other scholars have also appeared. A number of the folios, however, have remained unidentified. Overlooked by scholars for decades, the originals of these fragments have slumbered unnoticed in Kathmandu until now.
Among the folios so far examined by Matsuda, there is a manuscript set entitled Bauddhaśāstrīyapattrāņi (Manuscript No. I-1697 Vi Bauddhadarśana 64 Ka)5, which is an unusual compilation comprised of one folio taken from eight different manuscripts. These eight folios written on palm leaves are, with the exception of one, written in Gilgit/ Bāmiyān Type II (G/B-II) script or in Early Nepālī script, a fact indicating that they are among the oldest extant manuscripts from the Nepal region. Of these eight, only one of them has been previously published by Bendall? Matsuda has succeeded in identifying the other folios as follows:
and Bouddhisme. Etudes et Materiaux-Theorie des douze Causes (London 1913), p. 115f.
* For example, S. LÉVI, Mss. sanskrits decouverts au Nepal. JA 1923-II, 359; Notes Indiennes. JA 206 (1925) 17–69, esp. p. 26-35; M. P. MASSONOURSEL, Les Trois Corps du Bouddha-Appendice (Manuscrit de la Collection Bendall). JA 1913-I, 598-618; P.V. BAPAT, A Pāli Manuscript in an Indian Script. ABORI 33 (1952 [53]) 197-210; Z. NAKAMURA, On the Four Sheets of Gilgit Manuscripts of Saddharmapundarīkasūtra in the Bill (Bir) Library. Añjali (Peradeniya 1970), p. 63-74 and Gilgit Manuscript of the Mahāsannipātaratnaketusūtra kept in the National Archives, Kathmandu. Hokke-Bunka Kenkyū 1 (Tokyo 1975) 13-37. - Regarding to two articles by NAKAMURA, his 1975 article successfully identified the 5 folios of which 4 had been previously published by POUSSIN in JRAS 1908 as the Ratnaketuparivarta. Unfortunately, at that time Nakamura was unaware of Poussin's publication, and had further considered these folios (as well as the Saddharmapundarīka folios in his 1970 article) written in Gilgit/Bāmiyān Type I script, i.e., Round Gupta script, as belonging to the famous Gilgit manuscripts discovered by M. A. Stein in 1931. But this is incorrect. These folios, although written in the same script as the Gilgit manuscripts, should be regarded as one of the Nepalese manuscripts which are deposited in Kathmandu and were earlier examined by Bendall in 1899 (see BENDALL, JRAS 1900, 345ff.).
5 This mansucript set is catalogued in Brhatsūcīpattra VII-2 'Bauddhavişayaka' (Kathmandu 1966), p. 27.
6 According to Lore SANDER's Paläographisches (Wiesbaden 1968, VOHDSupplementband 8), G/B-II script, i.e., Proto-Sāradā script, was used after the sixth century. This script had reached China and Japan via the Silk Road, where it was known as the Siddhamātņkā script.
7 See BENDALL 1903, which corresponds to fragment No. 6 in the list below.
8 The order of the fragments below corresponds to the order in which they appear in the microfilm provided by the Nepal/German Manuscript Preservation Project (Real No. A39/3, taken on Sept. 23, 1970).

Page #3

The Sanskrit Manuscript of Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya
141
1 Viniscayasamgrahani Section of the Yogācārabhūmi
[G/B-II script] 2 Saddharmapundarīkasūtra 10
[G/B-II script] 3 Pramāņaviniscaya
[Early Nepālī script] 4 An Unknown Commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāsya 11
[G/B-II script] 5 Gaudapādīyakārikābhāşya 12
[Nepālī script] 6 Bhikṣuṇīkarmavācanā 13
[G/B-II script] 7. Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā 14
[G/B-II script] 8 Paryāyasamgrahani Section of the Yogācārabhūmi 15
[G/B-II script]
Although Matsuda intends to publish detailed findings on these folios in the near future, this paper represents the initial results of a collaborative study on the folio identified as Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya. The Pramāņaviniscaya is an important text in the Indian school of Buddhist logic systematized by Dharmakīrti, of which the
9 Corresponding to Tibetan tr., Peking ed., No. 5539, Hi 87b7-92a3; and Chinese tr., Taisho Vol. 30, p. 728c16-730b21. Cited herein are passages from the Samdhinirmocanasūtra, Tibetan tr., Peking ed., No. 774, Nu 42a5 46a1; and LAMOTTE ed., VIII.39-IX.7. For a report on other manuscript fragments of the same text, see MATSUDA, On Leningrad Ms. Ind. VII.23 presented by the 13th Dalai Lama. The Identification of the Sanskrit Manuscript of the Viniscayasamgrahani Section of the Yogācārabhūmi. Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies 34 (1988) 16-20.
10 Corresponding to KERN/NANJIO ed., p. 15.1-18.4. Matsuda noticed that another four folios belonging to the same mansucript were in another manuscript set of the Archives examined by Bendall; for his forthcoming paper done in collaboration with Prof. H. Toda, see Three Sanskrit Fragments of the Saddharmapundarīkasūtra from the Cecil Bendall Manuscript Collection in the National Archives, Kathmandu. Memoirs of the Department of Ethics, College of General Education, The University of Tokushima 20 (1991).
11 A fragment from a large hitherto unknown commentary on the Abhidharmakosabhāşya, chapter I, corresponding to PRADHAN's first ed., p.7.10-8.4. In content it is completely unlike Yaśomitra's commentary (WOGIHARA ed., p. 27.18f.), nor does, it match those by Sthiramati (Tib. tr., Peking ed., No.5857, To 57a2f) and *Pūrņavardhana (Tib. tr., Peking ed., No.5594, Ju 34b3f) which it resembles. It is speculated that this fragment is from a commentary either by Gunamati or Vasumitra, neither of which exists today.
12 Written in ordinary Nepālī script, it covers chapter II.7-13 of a Vedānta text attributed to Sankara. This fragment is the only one that is out of place in this otherwise Buddhist manuscript set.
13 See note 7 above. 14 Corresponding to Chinese tr. by Hsuan-tsang, Taisho Vol. 5, p.516-517.
15 Corresponding to Tibetan tr., Peking ed., No. 5542, Yi 47b7-49b7; and Chinese tr., Taisho Vol. 30, p. 768c20-769c9.

Page #4

142
K. MATSUDA - E. STEINKELLNER
original Sanskrit manuscript has long been believed lost. This folio, numbered on the verso side as folio "87", belongs to the latter portion of chapter III, Parārthānumāna, in the Tibetan translation, which corresponds to Ce 323b7–324b5 of the Peking edition No.5710 and to Ce 225a2-b6 of the Sde dge (Derge) edition No. 4211. There is a rumor among scholars that the complete Sanskrit manuscript of the present text exists somewhere in China 16, but up to now there is no solid evidence to support this contention. If, in some future age, such a mansucript should appear it will no doubt be of great interest to scholars. In the meantime, scholars in the field, who are acquainted with the text only through citations in other works, will have to be content with this 'tantalizing whiff of the original Sanskrit text which the present folio affords.
2. TRANSCRIPTION The transcription below is that done by Matsuda 17, following which is the constitution of the text, based on the transcription, as done by E. Steinkellner. Symbols used: ( damaged letter; ( ) restored letter; ( ) cancelled letter; ( > superfluous letter; * Virāma; (!) sic.
recto 1 =d anvayam āpādayati pratiședhanişedhasya vi[dhā]narūpatvāt*
| asataḥ sapakşān na nivșttir ity asapakşa eva nāstīti cet* neti< saiva nivștter nivșttir asataḥ katham iştā abhāvapratişedho hi
bhāvo'= 2 = saty apy asti bhāvapratişedhas tu na sambhavatīty askhalita
prajño devānāmpriyo yas tadvişayam pratişedham necchati asad
abhāva iti ca vyavaharati | nirlothitaś cāyam artho 'sati nā= 3 = stitety arthāntare | tena neha pratanyate | na cāsann ātmā sattā
sādhanavịtteḥ sandigdhaḥ syāt* | na ce(!) pareņa tathopagata iti ||
apramāņād abhyupagamāt tathaiva bhavati | atiprasa = 4 = ngāt* | na copagamabalena sapakşāpakşau vyavasthāpya pramā
napravarttanam yuktam* | evam hy āgamasiddha ātmā syāt* | nānumānasiddhaḥ | tasmād avyatireke (opy asataḥ sapakşa(!) vyatirekaḥ sa =
16 A private correspondence from Dr. Chr. Lindtner of last year indicated to Matsuda that there are at least three more or less complete Pramāņaviniscaya manuscripts available from Lhasa.
17 Matsuda also wishes to acknowledge his debt of gratitude to Professors T. E. Vetter, T. Tani and T. Iwata for their helpful comments to his draft transcription.

Page #5

The Sanskrit Manuscript of Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya
143
5 = ndigdhaḥ syāt* prāņādīnām ātmanaḥ sandehāt* | ata eva vipakşād api (1) ekatra hi niyame siddhe 'nyanivarttanam
verso 1 sidhyet* | anyathā kvacid drste 'bhāvasiddhāv api syād evādrste
samsayaḥ | tathā hy asakala(bhe)vyaktibhedavyāpino hy(!) arthāḥ keci(t) tajjātisambhavino drstāḥ pārthivālohalekhyavat* | virodha
sya cādrste(h) sam= 2 = deha eva | nairātmyena prāņādīnām ( uktalakṣaṇasya virodha
syāsiddheḥ sandigdho nairātmyād vyatirekaḥ |ātmapratiniyame hi
tatkāryātmatayā prāņādīnām nairātmyena saha virodhaḥ 3 syāt* | sa ca na sidhyatīty uktam* | astu nāma nirātmakebhyo
vyatirekaḥ () prāņādīnām tadbhāve ca nairātmyavyāvșttiḥ | tathāpi nānairātmyād ātmāj(!) jīvaccharīre sidhyati yenāyam na
vya= 4 = tirekasyābhāvam bhāvam icchati | yathā vyatirekābhave ()pi
sapakşe prāņādir nestaḥ sapakşāvyatirekī ced dhetur hetur ato (')nvayi nānvayi (!) avyatireki ced anairātmyam na sātmakam | iti
samgra= 5 = haslokaḥ | na prāņādisambhavena nai[rātmyavy]āvarttanādāt
magatiḥ kin tarhi vidhimukhenaiva prāņādayaḥ
3. CONSTITUTION OF THE TEXT The fragment identified and transcribed above by Matsuda and edited below belongs to the section of the third chapter of the Pramāņaviniscaya which deals with the theory of apparent logical reasons (hetvābhāsa). This section covers PVin III vv. 68–85b (f. 313a3–327a8) and has no direct correspondence with a parallel section in the fourth chapter of the Pramāņavārttika where a similar coherent treatment of this topic is lacking 18. As Prof. Frauwallner demonstrated, this part of the last chapter of the Pramāņaviniscaya is essentially new, both in structure as well as in content, although materials from relevant parts of the Pramāņavārttika have been exploited 19.
After an explanation of the unproved (asiddha), indecisive (anaikāntika) and contradictory (viruddha) reasons, Dharmakīrti refutes
18 Steinkellner was able to use the analytical descriptions of PV IV and PVin III that were prepared by Tom J.F. Tillemans, Lausanne, and T. Iwata, Tokyo, respectively for the Mahāyāna Buddhism volume of the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy edited by K. Potter, and would like to thank both colleagues on this occasion for making these surveys available to him.
19 Cf. E. FRAUWALLNER, Die Reihenfolge und Entstehung der Werke Dharmakīrti's in Asiatica, Festschrift Friedrich Weller, Leipzig 1954, p. 148f.

Page #6

144
K. MATSUDA - E. STEINKELLNER
(322a5-324b7) the Naiyāyika Uddyotakara's theorem of the kevalavyatirekin hetu, i.e. the idea that the reason can be valid when only the condition of its common absence with the inferred property (sādhya) is satisfied, i. e. when only the contrapositive pervasion (vyatirekavyāpti) can be adduced 20. This is, for example, the case when the existence of a self (ātman) is inferred in living bodies (jīvaccharīra) from their having breath etc. (prānādimattva) 21. The fragment begins near the end of Dharmakīrti's demonstration that if the Naiyāyika insists on his idea that the logical reason "having breath etc." (prānādimattva) does not occur only in dissimilar instances (vipakşa), this would oblige him to approve of a positive pervasion (anvaya) for this reason, too. And this, in turn, would contradict his theorem of a "reason with only contrapositive concomitance" (kevalavyatirekin), “because the negation of a negation is an affirmation" (lines 1f.).
This is followed by a short résumé of his more elaborate explanation of affirmation (vidhi) and negation (pratişedha) in PVin II 8, 1-10, 1 (lines 3–8). Then Dharmakīrti answers the question as to how similar instances (sapakşa) could be implied in this case, since a Buddhist does not accept the existence of a self (ātman) at all (lines 9-31).
After the summarizing verse 84, the fragment ends within a final objection. A short answer is terminated by Dharmakīrti's own classification of the crucial reason "(having) breath etc.": it is a case of the "indecisive uncommon” (asādhāraṇānaikāntika) reason (P 324b7).
Since most of the contents of this fragment from the hetvābhāsa section have been treated by Dharmakīrti more elaborately in PV IV and PVin II, they are presented here in an extremely concentrated form - although sometimes the dissolution of the Pramāņavārttika verses into prose is helpful too. My attempt at translating this fragment has therefore also been added in order to present additional reasons for the text's constitution.
Numbers in square brackets refer for the following passage to parallel texts of the Pramāņavārttika. Mistakes in these texts are corrected without comment.
... då anvayam āpādayati, [1] pratişedhanişedhasya vidhānarūpatvāto
* read (balā)d (cf. nan gyis P). b Ms.: de dgag pa bkag pa'i no bo ni P.
Ms.: sgrub pa'i ran bżin yin pa'i phyir ro P.
20 In this section Dharmakīrti draws on materials from the context of the discussion of the asādhāraṇānaikāntikahetu in PV IV, in particular vv. 205-212, 216-222, and 237–244.
21 Nyāyavārttika (ed. Calcutta 1936-1944) 145, 2-4.

Page #7

recto
verso
म: य
ान।
भनुन य दकियः
হ্যাগার, মামা। নাম

Page #8

The Sanskrit Manuscript of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya
[2] asataḥ sapakṣān nad nivṛttir ity asapakṣa eva nāstīti cet, neti saiva nivṛtter nivṛttir asataḥ katham iṣṭā. [3] abhāvapratiṣedho hi 5 bhāvo 'saty apy asti, bhavapratiṣedhas tu na sambhavatīty askhalitaprajño devānāmpriyo yas tadvisṣayam pratiṣedham necchaty asad abhāva iti1 ca vyavaharati. nirloṭhitaś cayam artho 'sati nāstitety arthantares. tena neha pratanyate.
[4] na cāsann ātmā sattāsādhanavṛtteḥ sandigdhaḥ syāt. na cah 10 parena tathopagata ity apramāṇād abhyupagamat tathaiva bhavati, atiprasangat. na copagamabalena sapakṣāsapakṣauk vyavasthāpya pramānapravartanam yuktam. evam hy āgamasiddha ātmā syāt, nānumānasiddhaḥ. [5] tasmād avyatireke 'py asataḥ sapakṣād vyatirekaḥ sandigdhaḥ syat prāṇādīnām ātmanaḥ sandehat. ata eva vipakṣād 15 apim. [6] ekatra hi niyame siddhe 'nyanivartanam sidhyet. anyathā kvacid dṛṣṭe 'bhavasiddhāv api syād evādṛṣṭe" samsayaḥ. [7] tatha hy asakalavyaktibhedavyāpino 'py° arthāḥ kecit tajjātisambhavino dṛṣṭaḥ pārthivālohalekhyavat. [8] virodhasya cadṛṣṭteḥ sandeha eva. nairātmyena prāṇādīnām uktalakṣaṇasya virodhasyāsiddeḥ [9] san20 digdho nairatmyād vyatirekaḥ. [10] ātmapratiniyame hi tatkāryātmatayā prāṇādīnām nairatmyena saha virodhaḥ syat, sa ca na sidhyatity uktam.
[11] astu nama niratmakebhyo vyatirekaḥ prāṇādīnām tadbhāve ca nairātmyavyāvṛttiḥ, tathāpi nānairātmyād ātmā jīvaccharire 25 sidhyati, [12] yenāyam na vyatirekasyābhāvam bhāvam icchati yathā vyatirekābhāve 'pi sapakṣe prāṇadir neṣṭaḥ.
[13] sapakṣāvyatireki ced dhetur hetur ato 'nvayi |
nānvayavyatirekī ced anairātmyam na satmakam || v. 84 || iti sangrahaślokaḥ.
na prāṇādisambhavena nairatmyavyāvartanād ātmagatih. kin tarhi. vidhimukhenaiva praṇādayaḥ..."
30
d na without equivalent in Tib. tudviṣayam Ms.: yul de la P.
f Tib. adds de lta bu la sogs pa.
8 arthāntare Ms.: de'i nan du P.
h
ca: ce Ms.
i
opagata iti Ms.: khas blans pa'i phyir ro źe na P.
i eva without equivalent in Tib.
145
kāsapakṣau (cf. mi mthun pa'i phyogs P): apakṣau Ms.
sapakṣād (cf. mthun pa'i phyogs... las P): sapakṣa Ms.
m Tib. adds ldog pa the tshom za ste.
"adṛṣṭe Ms.: ma mthon ba rnams la P.
'py (cf. don yan P) hy Ms.
Pātmā ātmāj Ms. (: Tib. gson po'i lus bdag dan bcas par seems to translate atmavaj jīvacchariram).
0
9 yenāyam Ms.: gan gis na bdag med pa med pas bdag yod par 'gyur bas 'di P (probably a gloss).
bdag rtogs par byed pa yin no źe na P.

Page #9

146
K. MATSUDA E. STEINKELLNER
4. PARALLEL TEXTS
[1] Cf.: pratiṣedhaniṣedhaś ca vidhānāt kidṛśo 'paraḥ || (PV IV 221cd) [2] Cf.: nivṛttir nāsataḥ ṣādhyād asādhyeṣv eva no tataḥ |
neti saiva nivṛttiḥ kim nivṛtter asato matā || (PV IV 222) [3] Cf.: nivṛttyabhāvas tu vidhir vastubhāvo 'sato 'pi san/
vastvabhāvas tu nāstīti... (PV IV 223a-c PVin II 15a–c) [4] Cf.: sattāsādhanavṛtteś ca sandigdhaḥ syād asan na saḥ
asattvañ cābhyupagamād apramāṇān na yujyate // (PV IV 237) [5] Cf.: asato 'vyatireke 'pi sapakṣad vinivartanam |
sandigdham tasya sandehad vipakṣad vinivartanam // (PV IV 238) [6] Cf.: ekatra niyame siddhe sidhyaty anyanivartanam |
dvairāśye saty adṛṣṭe 'pi syad adṛṣṭesu samsayaḥ || (PV IV 239) [7] Cf.: avyaktivyāpino 'py arthaḥ santi tajjātibhāvinaḥ |
kvacin na niyamo 'dṛṣṭyā pārthivalohalekhyavat || (PV IV 240) [8] Cf.: bhāve virodhasyādṛṣṭau kaḥ sandeham nivartayet / (PV IV 241ab) [9] Cf.: nairatmyad api tenāsya sandigdham vinivartanam / (PV IV 242ab) [10] Cf.: kvacid viniyamat ko 'nyas tatkāryatmataya sa ca // (PV IV 241cd) [11] Cf.: astu nama tathāpy ātmā nānairātmyāt prasidhyati // (PV IV 242cd) [12] Cf.: yenāsau vyatirekasya nabhāvam bhāvam icchati/
[13]
yatha navyatireke 'pi prānādir na sapakṣataḥ || (PV IV 243) = PV IV 244
5. TRANSLATION
(Therefore by implication of (? the respective forms of the reason?) "occurrence in only the similar instances and non-cecurrence in only 22 the dissimilar instances" either of the two examples is said to indicate both (forms) 23.
Thus a non-deviating concomitance in difference of this type is not established in the case of (a reason) which does not have a concomitance in agreement (ananvayin) 24. If established )25 it procures by force the concomitance in agreement, because the negation of a negation has the form of an affirmation 26.
22 Wrong for "only non-occurrence in ..
23 Cf. PV IV (220cd): arthāpattyāta evoktam ekenobhayadarśanam //. Cf. PVin II 7,7-12, 29-32 and PVin IIa: 37, 38f. and note 92.
24 Cf. PV IV 221ab: idrgavyabhicāro 'to 'nanvayiṣu na sidhyati [.
25 P323b6f.: de ñid kyi phyir mthun pa'i phyogs ñid la yod pa dan mthun pa'i phyogs ma yin pa ñid la med pa źes don go bas dpe gñis las gan yan run ba gñi ga bstan par brjod do || de'i phyir ldog pa mi 'khrul pa 'di 'dra ba ni rjes su 'gro ba med par mi grub bo || grub na ni...
26 Following the Tibetan: "because the form of the negation of a negation of that is essentially an affirmation".

Page #10

147
The Sanskrit Manuscript of Dharmakirti's Pramāṇaviniscaya
If (it is said): "There is no non-occurrence [of the reason] in similar instances that do not exist. Therefore [the reason] does not occur only in what is not a similar instance (asapakse)" 27, (we answer): When (you say) "(there is) no (non-occurrence)", why do you assume just this non-occurrence of an non-occurrence in (similar instances) that do not exist? 28 "The negation of non-occurrence as occurrence is well extant even in (the similar instance) that does not exist; the negation of occurrence, however, is not possible." He is (indeed) a beloved of the gods with unshaken intelligence, who does not accept a negation referring to something and (at the same time) uses words like "nonexistent, non-occurrence". We further treated this subject extensively in another circumstance 29 (arthāntare), [i. e. the section beginning with the words] "non-occurrence at the non-occurrence" 30. Therefore it is not spread out here.
Furthermore, a self is not non-existent because of the (actual) function of a proof for (its) existence, (but) would be doubtful (only). And it is certainly neither31 so [i. e. non-existent] on account of an inauthenticated assumption in form of (the statement) "The opponent assumes [the self to be] so [i. e. non-existent]" 32, because of undesired consequences. Nor31 is the use of a valid cognition appropriate when similar and dissimilar instances are established (merely) by force of an assumption. For in this case the self would be proven by scripture, it (would) not be proven by inference. Therefore, because this (self) is doubtful, the exclusion (vyatireka) of breath etc. [from the similar instances] would be doubtful even if [according to the Naiyayika] (the reason) is not excluded from non-existent similar instances. For the same reason [the exclusion is doubtful] from the dissimilar instances too. For, if the necessary occurrence in the one case [i. e. the similar instances] is established, the non-occurrence in the other [i. e. the dissimilar instances] would follow; else a doubt would surely occur with regard to [occurrence in] an invisible (case), even if in a certain visible case non-occurrence is established. To wit: we find that certain proper
27 Cf. PV IV 222ab and PVin II 8, 1f. (cf. PVin IIa: 39).
28 Cf. PV IV 222cd and PVin II 8, 13f. (cf. PVin IIa: 40 with note 99). 29 I. e. PVin II 8, 1-10. 1.
30 Cf. PVin II 8, 1; ... med pa la med pa ñid... The final source for the beginning of this section is NV 166, 2f.: asati nāstiteti cāsampradhārya proktam...
31 It seems that the two na ca sentences are connected, which would corroborate the emendation of na ca in line 9.
32 This is only an attempt. The Tibetan says: "If (it is said): 'Because the opponent assumes (it to be) so'".

Page #11

148
K. MATSUDA - E. STEINKELLNER
ties (artha) belong to the same genus, although they do not occur in all the different individual things, e.g. (the property "scratchable by iron"] in case of the earthen (diamond) which cannot be scratched by iron. And if the contradiction [between “having breath etc." and "being without self”] is not cognized, there (remains) only doubt. Since a contradiction as defined 33 between breath etc. and selflessness is not established, the exclusion (of breath etc.) from selflessness is doubtful. For a contradiction with selflessness would (only) be extant if breath etc. were restricted to (the occurrence of) a self by being an effect or the essence of that (self). And this contradiction) is not the case, as has been said (before).
But let there be an exclusion of breath etc. from selfless (things) and an absence of selflessness when these (i.e. breath etc.) occur. A self is nevertheless not established in a living body because of a non-selflessness on account of which 34 this opponent) does not accept the absence of an exclusion to be a presence in the same way) as he does not accept [an occurrence of] breath etc. in similar instances, although the counterpositive (vyatireka) is absent [therein).
If what is not excluded (avyatirekin) from the similar instances is [accepted as] the reason, then the reason would be concomitant in agreement (anvayin). If (a reason) which is not excluded [from the similar instances) is not [accepted as] concomitant in
agreement, something non-selfless (would) not have a self. (v. 84) This is the summarizing verse.
If (the opponent says:) “The self is not cognized on account of an exclusion of selflessness because of an occurrence of breath etc. How then? Breath etc. (cause the cognition of a self) only by way of affirmation.”
NV
PV
Abbreviations Nyāyavārttika. Ed. in two vols., Calcutta 1936-1944. Peking edition. Ed. D.T. SUZUKI, Tokyo-Kyoto 1955– 1961 Pramānavārttika. Ed. Y. MIYASAKA, Acta Indologica 2 (1971-72) 1-206. Pramāņaviniscaya, Chapter II. Ed. E. STEINKELLNER, Wien 1973. Pramānaviniscaya, Chapter II. Transl. E. STEINKELLNER, Wien 1979. Pramāņaviniscaya, Chapter III. P 5710 (Tshad ma, Ce, 285a7-329a7).
PVin HI
PVin IIa
PVin III
33 Cf. perhaps PVin II 13, 2-4 and 5f.
34 Tib. adds the gloss (?): "since the self would be existent because of non-selflessness".

Page #12
The Sanskrit Manuscript of Dharmakirti's Pramanaviniscaya 149 An Historical Postscript On 4 March 1991, during a research tour to Europe, I had an opportunity to make a firsthand examination of the photographs taken by Cecil Bendall, through the kindness of my friends Dr. Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Dr. Klaus Wille of the University of Gottingen. These photographs were passed from the hands of de La Vallee Poussin to Etienne Lamotte, and are now deposited at Gottingen. Among them, I was surprised to find a photograph of the very folio discussed here. I was even more surprised to find on the back of the photograph the correct ascription, 'Pramanaviniscaya', written in what is apparently the hand of de La Vallee Poussin, as well as the page numbers for the correspond ing Tibetan translation. In other words, the credit for first identification should go to de La Vallee Poussin, although his discovery has gone unpublished and unnoticed until now. (K. Matsuda, 19 March 1991).