________________
178
H Kramer
On Dharmakirtis inderstanding of pribble
179
pramanajalah)." The Bhagavat is valid cognition (inasmuch as he is similar to a valid cognition. What is this nature of pramana so that it is asserted that the Bhagavat) is similar to it? (Reply: Valid cognition
is reliable cognition." On the interpretation of Ishad mar 'khruns pa as a karmadharaya see Säkyabuddhi's explanation and the Sanskrit text of Säkyabuddhi's comments on this passage preserved in Vibhuticandra's notes (reproduced below, n. 20). The sentence Ishad ma dan 'dra bas na tshad ma se bcom Idan 'das so probably corresponds to a Sanskrit text as available in Jinendrabuddhi's PST: bhagavan pramanam iva pramānam = lshad ma dan dra bas bcom ldan das Ishad ma'o (PST. D2a3). This is also corro borated by Säkyabuddhi's explanation of this sentence according to which the word pramana implies a similarity (PVT D71b5-72a2 = Q86b4-87a2):
de la 'grel pa mdaad pa bdag flid kyis tshigs su bcad pagrel pa mdaad cin shad mar gyur pa zes bya ba de 'chad pa lalahad mar 'khruris pages bya bar gyur palagra ni 'khruris pai don to c had ma yan de yin la
gyur pa yan de yin pas na ishad mar gyur pa'o de llar na ishod me rlag par ring pa bral (D:gsal) ba yin no morsum den rjes su dpag pa ni Lahad ma yin pa de bas na jiltar na bcom Idan das dei ran bin can ma yin pa la de skad du ce na Ishad ma dari 'dra bas na Ishad masle ses bya ba smos te tshad ma'i agradpe nan du dus pa can yin no sex bya ba i don to || gal te begoms pa i stobs las grub pa dri ma med param par mi rlog pa khrul pa med pa'i ye tes kyi bdag find can yin pa'i phyir bcom Idan das ni mhon sum gyi Ishad mairan bin can find du dros subeuge pa nid yin na fie bar blags pa la brier pas cu zig bya senadila skyon yod pa ma yin le rlog pa dan boas par des pa'ignas skabe la dgons nas brjod pair phyir rozes bya ba ni gian dag gi yin no ll dir gal te bcom Idan das ni ji skad du béad paitshad ma'i bdag niid can yin pa della na yan de llar rab tu grage pa ma yin no de bas na tha sfiad du byas pa' lshad max dper mdad payin no ie8 bya ba 'di ni rige pa yin no By relating (pitanikam kurvan) this i.e. PV 2.lab, etc.] to the stoka [i.e. PS 1.1] the Vrttikára [i.e. Devendrabuddhi] himself explains the [expression) pramanabhütäya (PS 11c) (with the phrase) pramunajata, (which means that the word bhula has the meaning of "coming into existence" (The compound pramanabhūta is to be understood as a kar. madharaya in the sense of: He fi.e. the Bhagavat) is a pramana, and he has come into existence. In this way the assumption (rlog pa) of an eternal pramana is rejected. (Opponent:J" pramanas are direct percep. tion and inference. Thus, how can the Bhagavat who is not of their nature be said to be this (ie. pramana? [Therefore Devendrabuddhi) says: "[The Bhagavat is) valid cognition inasmuch as he is similar to a valid cognition". This means that the word pramana implies a similar ity. (Opponent:]" "The Bhagavat essentially is stainless, non-concep
* bhaparalah praya belpaj inländvasthanay
"This interpretation of bhila is also known to Ravigupta (PVV 294a1), de la bur gan gyur pa de ni tshad mar 'khruns ses bya'o ll.
IN This passage is partly referred to in Tillemans 1993: 61, n. 7; the whole passage is quoted and translated in Seyfort Ruegg 1994: 312 and Dunne 1999: 255, n. 7.
As a further piece of evidence preserved in the Sanskrit original that this line of commentators used the wording pramdam iva in this context, another note of Vibhaticandra referred to in Dunne 1999: 2551, n. 7 may be adduced (Vibhu 521.28-30): aara ca sabdo 'nyatra prayujamno narbhūtopamartha prayujyala ily aha - pramanam iveli praminasabdo jane mukhyah taratra tu kena sidhar. myenopamanopameyatam ily ala-avisamuddili. "And any word inasmuch as it is employed for something different [from what it primarily denotea) is employed referring to an implied similarity. Therefore he says: 'like premagal. The word pramana primarily (denotes cognition Grana). By which similarity now is in the other case (when it is metaphorically applied to the Bhagavat] (the cognition that to which the Bhagavat) is represented as similar and the Bhagavat that which is similar to it? In response to this question, he says: 'reliable. I have not been able to identify the source of this note and it is possible that Vibhaticandra put together bits and pieces from different passages in the manuscripts available to him, combining them with his own words.
C. Vibha 521.26-27: lad atraurttikärah ilokapitanika u n pramanabhuMayely (PS Lla) elal sayam yicale - pramanajala ili bhulasabdah produrbha varthah (* Vibho 521.27 reads pramánam jäta ili... which seems very unlikely. The emendation is based on the Tibetan translation Lahad mar thru pa): cf. Steinkellner 1981: 290 (frag. 4).
# C. PST 2.8: pramdam odsou bhūtas ceti promdiabetas cf. Steinkellner 1980: 100
bhagavan, lathapy
# Cr Vibha 522,1-5: nanu bhavanabalanispannanirmaldvikalpáberantaj final makalväd" bhagaralah pratyakpapramanasabhavala wikaid asty era, kim upaca rdirayeneti cel, adoro yam, savikalpojlandasthi ayenabhidhanddily eke. idam te aira yuklam-yady api yathoklapramanamakan salam bhagans, tathapyaamua vaharibo advanasthabhedal, tatal simoyavaharikapramenopamiyale (This is the reading proposed in Steinkellner 1981: 290 (frag 5]: cf. also Dunne 1999: 256, n. 9. Vibhū 522. I reads: Mandbalanispannaniskalp wikarpd ikalpabhrantajnima kated. The emendation of asrayen Vibho 522,3] to adayend' is based on the Tibetan dgn mas-sada has no equivalent in Tibetan and may be an addition of Vibhūticandra).
atra de la refers to PV 2.lab just mentioned by Sakyabuddhi in the preceding sentence (PVT D71b5): Lahad ma to bya ba la sogs pas ses bya ba ni Ishad ma slu med can ses pa sex bya ba la sogs pas 801
# The remaining section of the text is also referred to and translated in Inami 1994: 29., n. 2.
# The remaining section of the text is also referred to and translated in Dunne 1999: 256 and 258, n. 10
