________________
Early Tibetan Ideas on the Ascertainment of Validity (nges byed kyi tshad ma)
267
And the second case of a first perception of this kind is when the general aspect (spyi) of something with branches appearing afar is intrinsically ascertained, but the specific aspect (bye brag), e.g. that it is a Simšapā-tree is ascertained extrinsically. 68)
Both cases are meant as cases of "first perceptions" (dang po pa), for Sa pan connects the examples with the disjunctive particle "or" ('am).
The original source of these two cases of "first perception" has been found by Shakya mchog ldan in Dharmottara's Pramāņaviniscayațīkā69) as a part of Dharmottara's exposition of extrinsically ascertained cognitions.)
Dharmottara explains the first case as a cognition with an object determined as existent in its appearance but doubtful with regard to the necessarily connected thing: is that fire real or not?71) And the second case is more elaborately explained by Dharmottara, because he also considers the ascertainment of general aspects other than the one already intrinsically ascertained.72)
Although it is clear therefore that Sa paņ takes these cases from Dharmottara, the systematic aspect of his subsuming them under the category "first perception" is not extant in Dharmottara's exposition. It is however preformed by rNgog Lotsāba's arrangement of three cases of "first perception", 75) although rNgog's third case is treated differently by Sa pan.
This third case of "first perception" in rNgog Lotsāba's description of Dharmottara's explanation is the case of a perception which is doubtful with regard to the appearance itself
(snang ba nyid), i.e. when it is not clear that something has actually appeared in one's perception. . Sa paņ evidently refers only to the first two cases as cases of "first perception" and explains the
third case in another way, namely by splitting it up into two kinds, which he calls yid ma gtad pa and 'khrul rgyu can respectively.74)
Although already rNgog Lotsāba distinguishes three kinds of "first perception" according to Dharmottara75) and refutes the third kind, 76) and others like Phywa pa Chos kyi seng ge) and Shakya mchog Idan78) also clearly attest to such a division for Dharmottara, I am unable to find a threefold division of that kind in either Dharmottara's Pramāņaviniscayaţikā or his other works, that is particularly the two Prämāṇyapariksä-essays.
Dharmottara seems rather to be strict about the fact that a doubt (samsaya) only relates to the later determining function of a perception) and that the first function of perception, determination of the appearance of an object, cannot be impeded by a doubt at all.80) He even offers a quotation from Dharmakirti to this effect.SI)
68) Rang'grel 101alf.: rgyang ring po na yul daba dang ldan pa snang ba na/ spyi shing Isam laltos nas sgro 'dogs chos nas rang las
nges shing bye brag sha pa la rtog bral ma 'khrul ba yin pas mngon sum Ishad ma yin yang sha pa'i Idog pa la sgro 'dogs ma chod pas gzhan las nges so II
a 'dab SB: 'bad pa D isam la SB: Esal D nas SB: pas D 69) Cf. Pham byed II 349,6f. 70) PVint(a) 14,16-18,5. 71) PVin T(a) 16,2-4: 'ga' zhig yod par zhen par byas pa'i yul can ci me 'di bden nam 'on te ma yin zhes med na mi 'byung bar the Ishom
za ba 'di la yang / 72) Cf. PVin T(a) 16,5-18,5, where Sa pan's second case corresponds only to PVinta) 16,5-17.14. 73) Cf. above note 65. 74) Cf. Pham byed II 349,7f. and 353,2ff. 75) Cf. above note 65. 76) Cf. Pham byed II 367,2f. 77) Cf. his polemics against Dharmottara in the fragment of Pham byed II 367,5-370,3 (368,2 and 368,4f.). 78) In his Rol mtsho 616,6f. he even quotes a passage from Dharmottara: slob dpon Chos mchog ni/gzhan las nges kyi Ishad ma
gsum ste / snang ba vang las nges shing bden pa gzhan las nges pa dang/ spyi rang las nges shing khyad par gzhan las nges pa dang/ snang ba nyid kyang gzhan las nges dgos pa dang gsum moll zhes gsung ba...
This quotation may be only a summarizing paraphrase, but I can find neither a text of this kind in Dharmottara's works nor a similar statement. 79) Cf. PVin T(a) 18,8ff. 80) Cf. PVin?(a) 18,14ff. 81) Cf. PVinȚ(a) 18.12ff.; this quotation, said to be from the Pramāņavārtika, has not been identified so far, but a similar
passage is to be found in PVSV 31,21-23 (cf. Steinkellner/Krasser 1989: 87, note 67).
