________________
98
Eli Franco
filed ((u)pakliṣṭam syad iti). Our text, however, is too fragmentary to serve as a basis for reconstructing an argument.
In 374a1 the siddhanta position is being reiterated, namely, it is not correct to say that luminous consciousness is defiled (... [y] x [1] x [c] x (p[r]abha)svaram tad upaklistam ity etad ayuktam vaktum). It can also not be said that luminous consciousness is only partly defiled, namely, in its non-essential part because it does not have a defiled part and a non-defiled part (na hy asyavayava upaklisto 'vayavo 'nupaklista iti) because consciousness does not have parts.
This ends section 3. Even if we take 374al as the end of section 1 (which is not at all certain since the figure for 1 is indistinguishable from a simple danda), it is hard to see where section 2 may have ended and section 3 began in such a small space.
Of section 4 only the beginning and the end remain. It begins with the assertion that the non-defiled is different from the defiled (anyam khalv apy upakliṣṭād anupaklista...) and ends with a reductio ad absurdum that in this manner (the defiled) too would be luminous (pi prabhasvaram evam sya(t)). In-between the proponent may have argued again for a symmetry between defiling and purifying or becoming luminous.
Finally, section 5 refers to the opponent's position that consciousness itself is not defiled because it is perceived to be luminous (yadi khalv api grhyate prabhasvaram ity anupaklista<m> bhavati). The proponent's reply is unfortunately not preserved. As mentioned above, 374b1 preserves the name of the chapter: prabhasvarapratijñopālambhika "[the chapter that] criticizes the thesis [that consciousness is] luminous [by nature]."
3) The final topic in our fragments deals with the question whether the Buddha too is included in the sangha. Unfortunately, SPITZER was unable to continue his work. I was able to identify at least six, probably seven, more fragments which clearly deal with the same topic: 51, 59, 80, part of 130, 242(uncertain), 548 and 854. At least four of these fragments probably belong to folio 375; the others could either belong to 375 or to 376 where the discussion continues.
142 Possible conjectures on the basis of these remnants would be yac cittam (or perhaps yat kim
cat?)
143 Cf. n. 65 above on the possible prakritic pronominal adjective.
5la (2.1x2.8)
Lost Fragments of the Spitzer Manuscript
a ///(?)ryyagunasamanya///
b.. [ply?) äryyaguna(sāmanyaviseṣa?)///
59a (3.4x4.9)
2///[ya]thäryyah evam [bu)(d)dh(as) t. .J 3 ///ry[y]a e[v]am [buddha a]panna ..///
51b
a ///(saman)y(a)[v](i)[](e)sänupra/// b///samghe tasman (n).///
59b
Hag
99
1. i[ti] tan naḥ 4 Il ya[d]./// 2. s tasman na bhagavām samghe../// 3.. [tatra yad uktam)... ++///
