Marginalia To Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya I II

Author(s): Christian Lindtner
Publisher: Christian Lindtner

Page 17

Marginalia to Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya
165
rest of which occurs as verse "28" on p. 40. No less than nineteen antaraślokas have been inserted! Verse 9 should then read:
/ rjes dpag bya dan de mtshuns la ll yod dan med la med par mi/
| res pa gtan tshigs mi dmigs dan || bdag dan 'bras bu żes bya gsum / We thus see that mtshan ñid de dan ldan pa yi (p. 40, 1. 2) and kho na'o (p. 40, 1.5) really belong to the prose whereas de ni (p. 40, 1.3) belongs nowhere and must have been inserted by the translators (or revisers) not seeing that the nes pa (p. 30, 1.2) would have saved them from the difficulties of metre. (The numbering of verses should, of course, be changed accordingly.)
According to Steinkellner verse 32, "völlig zerrissen” (p. 61, n. 182 of his translation, q. v.) as it is, is to be found on p. 42, 1.12-13, p. 44, 1.30-31 and p. 52, 1.10-11 giving us:
I med par nes pa'i 'bras bu can || mi dmigs, 'jug pa'i bye brag gis /
rnam bzi, bskal ba rnams la ni || med par nes pa yod ma yin/ Based on various parallels STEINKELLNER reconstructs this verse as follows (p. 117 of his edition): asajjñānaphalā prayogabhedād anupalabdhiḥ / caturvidhā viprakrstesv abhāvaniscayābhāvāt //. This, however, is impossible metrically and otherwise: in a we would thus have a javipulā (-U) and in d the penultimate would be long, etc. A literal reconstruction of pādas a and b must be: abhāvaniscayaphalānu palabdhiś caturvidhā /. Whatever we do there is no place for prayogabhedāt metrically and it can only be explained as belonging to the prose just as it does in the parallel passage in PV noted by STEINKELLNER (p. 45). The literal reconstruction above is also the only metrically satisfactory one. This brings us to the remaining two pādas of verse 32. As noted by STEINKELLNER bskal pa (read: ba) rnams la ni ll med par nes pa yod ma yin | has its paralles in NB II, 27 (later than PVin!): ...viprakrstesu ... abhāvaniscayābhāvāt. But no matter how we turn and twist this prose passage it is impossible to turn it into the two missing pādas so as to get the Sanskrit hemistich we are searching for. We should therefore seek it elsewhere. On p. 56, 1.4-5 we find a verse consisting of two pādas only (!), numbered "35" by the editor. A stanza of two pādas only is without precedent in Dharmakīrti, and this is obviously the missing hemistich of verse 32 which then reads: abhāvaniscayaphalānupalabdhis caturvidhā / isto 'yam arthaḥ sakyeta jñātum so 'tiśayo yadi //^2 (The numbering of the following verses is to be changed accordingly.)
“? In his translation (p. 66, n. 205) STEINKELLNER says: “Dharmakīrti hat... den letzten Pāda geändert, so daß nun nicht die Besonderheit (atisaya), sondern die qualifizierte Person (*visesavat) Object ist". But metrically there is no space for *vićesavat (or rather for *viếisto which would be the normal