Marginalia To Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya I II

Author(s): Christian Lindtner
Publisher: Christian Lindtner

Page 19

Marginalia to Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniscaya
167
kaḥ pradarsyate / tasya samsayahetutvāc chesavat tad udāhstam Il. Incidentally this and the previous verse (i.e. 65 with the wrong reading na yuktādrstimātrena for na cādarśanamātrena in a) are quoted NBhūş, pp. 142–143.
On p. 106 pāda d of verse "70" (= 69) is problematic. STEINKELLNER reconstructs the pāda (p. 118): asiddhiyojanāvācyā. This is an exact rendering of ma grub sbyar ba... brjod bya min (p. 106, 1.4 and 1.8) but metrically impossible. We should read PVin II, 69d as na vācyāsiddhiyojanā / exactly as PV I, 18d, to which there is no alternative, metrically or otherwise 14
Further problems face us on pp. 112-113. Certainly the first two pādas of "74" (in fact = 71 cd, as we shall see) are correctly identified by STEINKELLNER as PV I, 26 ab: tasmăd vaidharmyadrstānte nesto 'vaśyam ihāśrayaḥ 1. For pādas c and d the Tibetan version has: / yan na rgyu yi dños por te // me med na yan du ba ste /- the exact equivalents of which are found in the Svavṛtti to PV as pointed out by STEINKELLNER: ... hetubhāvo vā... dahanābhāve ca dhūmaḥ. STEINKELLNER consequently (p. 118) reconstructs pāda d as: dahanābhāve ca dhūmaḥ. Now this again is metrically impossible whatever you do and STEINKELLNER wisely abstains from reconstructing pāda c45. Again the Tibetan version is misleading. This passage in PVin was not composed as verse by Dharmakīrti but as prose, i.e. exactly as in the parallel passage in PV. But this fact apparently leaves us with the new problem of a verse consisting of one hemistich only. There are, to be sure, no traces of the missing hemistich in the sequel. To solve our puzzle we most turn back to p. 106 (!) where we find (1.31-32) the following prose passage: de bžin du géan la yan tshad ma gian gyis gnod pa srid de /. This is an exact rendering of PV I, 20 ab where the translators (or revisers) once again failed to recognize the verse: tathānyatrāpi sambhāvyam pramāṇāntarabādhanam /. To be sure, the corresponding Tibetan version of PV runs: | de bzin du ni gzan la yan || tshad ma gźan gyis gnod pa srid /. This then
44 Probably the prose of PVin II, p. 106, 1. 7 is corrupt. See the corresponding passage of the Tib. version of PV (TD, No. 4216 fol. 268 a 3): gan yan ma grub pa'i sbyor ba de bżin du mthun pa'i phyogs la yod pa dan / med pa zes bya ba la sogs pa la yan ci rigs par brjod par bya'o zes bya ba de lta bu la sogs pa/ ma grub sbyar ba de yan brjod bya min ll. Here ma grub sbyar ba brjod bya min renders na vācyāsiddhiyojanā, whereas de yan (= sāpi) belongs to the prose just as the initial ma grub pa'i sbyor ba does. In PVin, I. 7 we should accordingly for de yan read de «lta bu la sogs pa / ma grub sbyar ba de> yan. The lacuna may either be due to the omission of a scribe (haplography) or to an instance of editorial banalization. PVin, 1. 4, then, should be brought back to its original prose form.
45 Like 57a (= 55a) missing in STEINKELLNER'S "Versindex”.