________________
450
Lambert Schmithausen
Samdhinir macanastra VIII. 7
451
Ww
+
means that it has that for its nature (tatsvabhava)." This is interpreted by Uc to mean:
"......the external object of mind (+lad alambanam) is merely manifested by internal cognition; this means: the object has mind cognition as its nature." The Sanskrit original may be reconstructed as follows: (2a) tatha hi tadalambanan (U,: tad alambanair) vijnaptimdtraprabha
vitam (2b) tatsvabhavan ily arthah.
This sentence can be accepted to support (A) only if it is understood as a paraphrase of the pratika, at least of its first part, but preferably of the whole. In the latter case, ity arthah would, against Ue and probably also U. have to be taken to govern the whole sentence, and tat- (U: 1) in (2b) would have to be interpreted as vijana.. In this latter case, (2) would say that the Satra sentence "means that this object, being constituted by mere cognition, has the nature of vijnana", which would be an excellent parpahrase of (A). But both this interpretation and the interpretation of (2) as a paraphrase of only the first part of the pratika are to be discarded because (2) is not likely to be a para phrase of the Sotra wording at all; for such a paraphrase is given in (3). 'di ltar tatha hi in the beginning of (2a) rather suggests an explanation or a reason Moreover, tat- (+) in (26) may equally well represent vijnapiif, as is much more likely, the regimen of ity arthah is, with Ue and probably also U., confined to (2b), i. e. if (2b) is understood as an additional explanation of (vijnaptimatra prabhavita in (2a). The sentence would then mean:
"I. e. (or: For) that object (or, definitely better, with U.: its object, i. e. the object of vijnana") is constituted by mere cognition, i.e. has that
(viz. mere cognition) as its nature." Understood in this way, (2) would, similar to (2) in the Bhasya (see 13. 3. 1), explain (1) by showing that vijnana can be called 'alambanavi jaaptima. traprabhavita because (or: in the sense that) its object is vijnlaptimatraprabhavita (consists of or is manifested by cognition only), i.e. because the compound is to be understood in the sense of (S3) or (S4), (3), on the other
hand, sums up by paraphrasing (1) in other words while retaining its construc tion. In this way, Asvabhava's commentary on our sentence proves to be a consistent whole supporting (S).
15. Jnanagarbha on Samdh VIII. 754) (1) rigs pa bstan pa'i phyir/ rnam par ses pa ni.....rab tu phye bayin no
tes nas bfad doll) tes guns so/ (2) dmigs pa ni yul gyi rnam par sems snart ba yin la/ (3) de yani rnam par rig pa dan tha dad pa ma yin tel (4) cig car dmigs pa'i phyir roll (2) "The objective support (alambana) is the appearance of mind (citta) in
the form of an object (visayakarena), (3) and this (appearance of mind in the form of an object)) is not
different from the fact' of) cognition (vijnapti), (1) because they are (by necessity*) perceived simultaneously."
If in this text, which tries to interpret the sentence under discussion in the light of the epistemology of Dharmakirti and his followers (-sahopalambha niyama argument"), (2) and (3) are actually a paraphrase of the basic text
--but I am not sure they are a paraphrase moreover which, free though it is, will still have substantially preserved the syntactical structure of the latter, Jhanagarbha would seem to confirm [A] because dmigs pa Calambana) func tions as the grammatical subject, as in [A 1). Moreover, he would have split the sentence into two, again as in [A 1). Perhaps Jhanagarbha has understood the sentence under the discussion as follows: The object Calambana) is mind (appearing as an object] (vijnana), [this mind-appearing-as-an-object being] characterized by [being] nothing but not different from) [the act of cognition (vijnaptimatraprabhavita). In any case, Jhanagarbha can hardly be adduced in support of [S].
16. Byan chub rdzu 'phrul on Samdh VIII. 758) (1) 'o na sems dan grugs brian tes gdags su yan ji ltar run sham pa las Prnam par ses pa ni tes nas bsad dol tes bya ba gsuis le/
51) See n. 19. 52) Halantsang's in (2b) is in fact rendered by mam par rig p in the Tibetan translation
of Ytlan-ts'e's Sandh commentary (Tj thi 117 b 8). 53) Cp also the discussion of Bhasya (2a) in $ 13. 3. 1.
54) JAnag. 22, 3-7; Nozawa, 193. (55...55) Or: "and C. being such.) the [objective support) ......." 56) Cp. Jnanag. 25, 7 f. 57) Cp Pramanavirttika III. 388; Pramanaviniscaya 1. 55ab; T. Iwata, Sahopalambhaniyama
(diss. Hamburg 1980). 58) SardhVy co 193 b 1-3; Nozawa, 197.