________________
ĀLAMBANAPARIKSĀ
P. 3, 1. 2. Omit in the Sanskrit text the word "START" after dataTT.
P.3, 11. 1–3. Vasubandhu in his Viss'ikā and its bhāşya, speaks of three different opinions on the external things: (1) The first opinion is that the object of our cognition is one (eka), i.e. one whole (avayavin); (2) the second one is that it is many, i.e. atoms, and (3) the third view is: it is the collocation of atonis (sanghāta). The first opinion is held by Vais'eșikas. The holders of other two views are not named there (see Appendix A, p. 105 below). According to the commentary of Vinitadeva on the Vimsakaprakaraña as recorded by the French translators, the second opinion, that is referred to by Dinnāga as the first, is that the numerous atoms exist allowing amongst themselves some intermediate space=rdul. phra. rab. phrag. can. de. gnas. du. ma. The third one that is referred to by D. as the second, affirms that the atoms exist without any intermediate space amongst themselves =rdul. phra. rab. de. dag. bar. med. par. gnas; that is to say, these atoms which have reciprocal support are united=phan. thsun. bltos. pa. dan. bcas. paḥi. rdul. phra, rab. de. dag. ñid. hdus. pa (French trans., p. 48, n. 3).
Again Vasubandhu in his Kosa, says that it is the Kasmira Vaibhāşikas who hold that the atoms exist with some interspace and in close vicinity, (ATFART: 241977:) but do not get combined, and that Bhadanta (Vasubandhu] asserts that the atoms exist without any interspace, and due to this, they are called “combined ” (nirantaratve tu sprsta samjñā). Compare Tattvasangraha with Pañjikā, p. 197 : FATAJatareyaztet eiga faza: 1 arcefferanan faat aina II. ... agit ara fata FEATRICIiacaatszafcafaa: 1 See again on p. 552 : Bhadanta-S'ubhagupta's view : Alatafafogadatai Ascerai 196EU स्थूल इति मानसो विभ्रमो भवति । But there is no real combination of atoms (sparso na asti). See Abh. Kosa, Tib. text, pp. 82-3). Both these schools seem to hold that the atoms are direct objects of our cognition. Therefore Dirnāga might have included both these opinions in the first of the two. He might have meant by the theory of sanghāta the Vais'eșikas' opinion. This may be clear from
I.
