Rngog Lotsaba On Sahopalambhaniyama Proof In Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya

SR No.: 269456
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Helmut Krasser
Publisher: Helmut Krasser
Total Pages: 26
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 3 MB

Page 16

78
Aspects of Buddhism that invalidates the assumption of a non-implicative negation. 1.2.2. In the subsection of the proof of a valid cognition) that invalidates
the implicative (negation) there are two (proofs]:45 1.2.2.1. (one that establishes a valid cognition) that invalidates (the fact that (manifold) forms are the nature of a unitary (eka) cognition, and 1.2.2.2. (one that establishes a valid cognition) that invalidates (the fact that they
are the nature of a manifold cognition. 1.2.2.1.46 The first one is to be known through four alternatives: 1.2.2.1.1.
ma yin te bden pa dang lhan cig 'brel pa nges pa med pa'i phyir ro || PVINŢ P 185a2 (D 159 alf) = «By force of ignorance (avidya) (cognition) shows something of an unreal nature, but not something real. For [two) connected (things), that are real and together at the same time) (saha) are not ascertained. A more detailed refutation of the two kinds of connection is to be found in Kamalaśila's TSP 694,23-695.12.
45 In the following refutation rNgog lotsāba makes use of the arguments applied by Dharmakirti in PVIN I 84,12-86,10 in order to prove that cognition does not resemble its object.
16 This paragraph has its equivalent in PVINŢ P 183a2-183b3 (D 157a6-157b5): <1 ci'i phyir tha dad pa dgag pa tsam bsgrub par bya ba yin gyil gcig nid du ni bagrub pa ma yin no zhes smra gcig tu ni (ni D: om. P) 'thad pa yin (yin D: ma yin P) te i gang gi phyir gal te gzung ba'i rnam pa gsal ba yang mi bden na rig pa yang bden pa fid du gang gis rtogs (P: rtog D) par byed 1" yang gal te rnam par shes pa mi bden pa gsal bar byed na bden par yang gsal bar byed debden pas ni nes ba cung zad kyang bya pa med pa'i phyir rol
($1.2.2.1.1.) gal te de Itar gzung ba'i rnam pa de gal te gcig gi ngo bo yin na ni phyogs chas byas pa'i 'gal ba'i chos dang Idan pa mi 'thad do || phyogs cha tha dad pa de yang gcig nid yin na ni yan lag can gyi rdzas gcig ci'i phyir mi 'dod de khyad par ci yod |
($1.2.2.1.2.) yan lag can gyi rdzas la ni kha bsgyur ba dang ma bsgyur ba yod pa'i phyir 'gal gyi | blo la ni ma yin pa'i phyir 'di nid khyad par yin no zhe na shes pa ma yin pa'i rags pa gcig ma shes pa yang rung ste khyad par ci yod del blo'i rang bzhin nid ni rags pa'i ñes pa ñams pa ma yin no ||
($1.2.2.1.3.) gzhan yang kha bsgyur ba dang ma bsgyur ba la sogs pa dang ldan pa kho na ni 'gal ba ma yin gyil on kyang phyogs cha tha dad pa yang yin no zhes mang du bshad zin to || de'i phyogs cha tha dad pa'i rgyu mtshan gyis kyang 'gal ba na gal te rnam par shes pa gcig yin na ni yan lag can yang gcig nid yin la 'di du ma nid yin na ni khyad par med pa'i phyir shes pa'i rags pa yang du ma nid do ||
($1.2.2.1.4.) gzhan yang rgyu can ces bya ba ni don dam par yod pa ma yin nol skad cig ma'i rdzas la ni gang du kha bsgyur ba dang | g.yo ba dang bsgribs pa yod pa dang med pas byas pa'i tha dad pa ma mthong ba de nid rdzas gcig tu 'gyur roll g.yo ba la sogs pas byas pa'i tha dad pa'i gnas skabs su tha dad pa mthong bas gzhan du yang rjes su 'jug par byas pa ni ma yin pas tshad ma ,'ga'zhig yod pa yin noll de'i phyir rags pa thams cad la phyogs gzhan dang 'brel pas cha shas yongs su bcad pa las gyur pa'i 'gal ba'i chos 'du bar mthong bas tha dad pa med pa spang bar bya ba yin no zhes rigs pa yin no II
<I> This passage is translated in IWATA I 181 (text: II 128171) and MATSUMOTO 1980 p. 18. Both of them understand it in such a way that the purvapakşa ends with zhes smra and that the following sentence already is part of the answer. Consequently, they prefer the reading of Peking (gcig tu ni 'thad pa ma yin te). To my understanding,