Early Tibetan Ideas On Ascertainment Of Validity

Author(s): Ernst Steinkellner
Publisher: Ernst Steinkellner

Page 2

258
Ernst STEINKELLNER
his introduction of the 'thal phyir-praxis in dialectical discussion, hardly any of this innovative man's epistemological ideas escaped the critique of Sa pan and his followers. But his contributions are certainly original and his influence was lasting and was of remarkable import to the theories of the later dGe lugs pa scholars.")
Finally there are many topics in all the theoretical traditions that have not been dealt with in all their details and consequences within the Indian Buddhist documents.
Such topics provide another broad field for the activity of the Tibetan scholars who tried to express the implications and to bring the often rudimentary beginnings in their sources to systematical completion.5)
An example of the latter is the theme of the present paper. Already van der Kuijp indicated in a note that we here face an area that was hardly developed by the Indian scholars but must have been of considerable interest to the Tibetans during the first period of their study of epistemology on the basis of the Indian tradition.
And in fact the problem under discussion in an interesting one, for it is related to no less than the question of how validity of a cognition (tshad ma nyid, prämänya) can be ascertained (nges pa, niścita).
In the Tibetan epistemological literature this theme is usually dealt with under the topic of "the valid cognition which ascertains the validity (of a valid cognition)" (mtshan nyid nges byed kyi tshad ma)." This topic forms a corollary to the definition of valid cognition (tshad ma'i mtshan nyid) and can be found dealt with - more or less extensively - in all relevant treatises.)
The question of whether the validity (pramanya) of a valid cognition (pramana) is certain on account of the cognition itself (svatah), is intrinsic to the cognition, or is in need of another
3) Cf. L. W. J. van der Kuijp. Phya-pa chos-kyi seng-ge's Impact on Tibetan Epistemological Theory. JIPh 5, 1978,
355-369[=Tibetan Studies, ed. M. Brauen and Per Kvaerne, Zürich 1978, 163-177] and van der Kuijp 1983: 59fT. 4) Even if we cannot yet say anything definite regarding his often indicated dependency on Sankaranandana (cf. e.g, van
der Kuijp 1983, note 340). It should also be considered in this connection that he evidently did not know Sanskrit (cf. van der Kuijp 1983: 61). On his impact on Tibetan dialectical practice cf. Jackson 1987: 129 and van der Kuijp 1989:
13ff. 5) Cf. the system of invalid cognitive acts (tshad min) in van der Kuijp 1978: 358ff. 6) Cf. van der Kuijp 1983: 60 and note 207. 7) E.g. Rang 'grel 100a6: mtshan gzhi la mishan nyid nges pa'i tshad ma, or Mun sel 120, 20: mtshan nyid nges byed kyi Ishad ma,
or similar formulations. 8) The following is a survey of major sources and of major paraphrases. It is not comprehensive, but includes examples from the different traditions mainly for the earlier period and adding some from later times.
rNgog Lotsāba Blo ldan shes rab: paraphrases in Pham byed II 366,6–367,5; 350,2f.; Ngog lugs: paraphrases in Rang 'grel 101b2-4; Rol mtsho 618,6-619.1.
Phywa pa Chos kyi seng ge: paraphrases in Pham byed II 367,5-370,3; Rol mtsho 617,2-7; 623,5-6. gTsang nag pa br Tson grus seng ge: bs Dus pa 26a2-27b5. Sa skya pandita: Rigs gter VIII 546-58a; Rang 'grel 100a6-102al. 'U yug pa Rigs pa'i seng ge: Rigs mdzod (A), 197,1-3. Bo dong pan chen Phyogs las rnam rgyal: Rigs snang (Vol. 7) 479,3-488,6. Go ram pa bSod nams seng ge: rNam bshad 127al-134a4; gSal byed 5605-60a5; "Od zer 105a6-b6.
gSer mdog pan chen Shakya mchog Idan: Pham byed II 341,4–375,1; Rol mtsho 615,6-619,2; Kun bzang 300,4-301,3. Mus rab 'byams pa Thugs rje dpal bzang: Rab gsal 166,5-169,6. Glo bo mkhan chen bSod nams Ihun grub: Nyi ma 278,3–280,2. Ngag dbang chos grags: dPal ster 351,5-376,6.
Tsong kha pa: 'Jug sgo 22,10-24.9. mKhas grub rje: Mun sel 120,20-122,2; Rigs pa'i rgya mtsho (Vol. Da) 25b1-26b2.
Gyal tshab rje: Thar lam sal byed 129b2-131a2; dGongs pa rab gsal 12b3-14a6. dGe 'dun grub: Rigs rgyan 118,3-125,5. Pan chen bSod nams grags pa: Gongs gsal 408,1-429,2. "Jam dbyangs bzhad pa'i rdo rje: Blo rigs 339,1-342, 1.
A kya Yongs dzin dByang can dgra ba'i blo gros: Blo rigs 523,1-5 (cf. A Compendium of Ways of Knowing, Dharamsala 1976, 48-52).
Phur Icogs Yongs dzin Do rje chang: Blo rigs 10b1-12b4.
Jam dpal bsam 'phel: Blo rigs 16,6-19,10 (cf. Lati Rinbochay, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, Valois 1981, 121-128, for a modern commentary).