________________
Dignaga on trairupya Reconsidered: A Reply to Prof. Oetke
豈不穗以樂所成立合説為宗,云何此中乃言宗者唯取有法。 此無有失。以其總聲於別亦轉,如言燒衣。或有宗聲唯詮於法。 [Objection:] Haven't you in a general manner (in the first kärikā] called by the name 'paksa' the synthesized [proposition consisting of dharmin and dharma] which somebody wants to prove? Why in this [second kārika] do you apply [the same term] 'pakṣa' only to dharmin (i.e. the topic of the proposition)?
[Answer:] There is no such a defect because the word for an aggregate can be employed to express its constituent as well; e.g., the expression 'burned robe' [can be employed even when only a part of the robe is burned]. Furthermore, sometimes the word paksa can be employed only to express [the other constituent of the proposition,] dharma (i.e., the property to be proven).
255
14)
In the first kärkikä of NMukh Dignaga defines 'proposition' (paksa) and in the second kārikā he enumerates nine possible cases for a reason (hetu) which is defined as a property of pakṣa (pakṣadharma).1 In the second kärikā the word paksa is used in the sense of the topic of the proposition. Dignāga justifies this move by referring to the general principle in Sanskrit semantics that the word for an aggregate (samudaya-sabda) can be metaphorically employed to express its parts (avayava). Consequently, the word paksa can be employed in the three different meanings.
In PS III. 10 Dingaga says the exactly same thing about the word sadhya:
samudayārthasādhyatvad dharmamătre 'tha dharmini/
amukhye 'py ekadeśatvät sädhyatvam upacaryate
"Since [the word] sadhya has the meaning of an aggregate (samudāya) [i.e., a proposition consisting of dharmin and dharma], both a simple dharma as well as dharmin, though not the direct meaning [of the word sādhya], can be metaphorically called 'sādhya', because they are parts [of the proposition]."
