Pramanas And Language Dispute Between Dinnaga Dharmakirti And Akalanka

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 41

A DISPUTE BETWEEN DINNĀGA, DHARMAKĪRTI AND AKALANKA 383
series.?' In this way we have two quasi-synonymous series of cognitive acts that are related causally:
1) mati [memory
samjñā recognitive coginition
→ cintā → inductive thinking
(association)
→ abhinibodha → determined cognition]
2) smrti
[memory
+ pratyabhijñāna → recognition
→ üha/tarka + suppositional
knowledge
→ ābhinibodhika anumāna
inference 'for oneself"]
L
au.1
The difference between these two series lies in their either nonverbal or verbal character. The former of this series is rather to be reckoned among direct, perceptual acts of cognition, whereas the latter most frequently is associated with indirect cognition."
77 See, for instance: (1) LTV 10cd-11ab: ...dhāraṇā, smrtih samjñāyāḥ ..., cintāyāh ..., abhinibodhasya..., (2) SVI 2.1 (p. 120.4): smrtyä pratyabhijñānatā, comp. Svi? 2.1 (p. 120.20–21): mateh smrtih, tatah pratyabhijñā, ata ühaḥ, asmäd aśābdânumā śrutam ity uktam bhavati; and (3) SVIV 2.23 (along with Svił, p. 217.27– 218.1): avagraha adir yasyāḥ să câsau matih samāsaḥ: să ca smrtiś ca sarjñā ca cinta ca abhinibodhaś ca te ātmāno yasya tathôktam. (...Sensuous cognition is a compound piece of knowledge: it is both memory, recognitive cognition, thinking and determined cognition alike...'); (4) RVār 1.13 (p. 58.15-16): mananam matih smaranam smrtih samjñānam samjñā cintana namin an cu:
cintā ābhimukhyena niyatam bodhanam abhinibodhah iti = SVIV 1.27 (p. 115.14-15).
2 US 1415) 78 Since mati and smrti (likewise abhinibodha and ābhinibodhika) are used interchangeably, in order to determine which of these quasi-synonymous series of cognitive acts occurs in the context of either perception or indirect cognition, we should look for occurrences of middle terms (samjñā, pratyabhijñāna, cintā, ūha /tarka). (1) Terms of the first series (mati samjna cinta → abhinibodha) occur, as far as I could see consistently, in the context of sensuous cognition (mati-jñāna), or perception (pratyaksa), e.g.: RVār 1.13 (mananam matih smaranam smrtih saṁjñānam saṁjñā cintanam cintā ābhimukhyena niyatam bodhanam abhinibodhaḥ iti), SVIV 1.27 (mananaṁ vā it matih, smaranaṁ smrtiḥ, samjñānam samjñā, cintanaṁ cintā, ābhinibodhanam abhinibodha iti), SVIV 2.23 (...mati-jñāna-prabheda-lakṣaṇam avagrahâdi-matismrti-samjñā-cintâbhịnibodhâtakam ...), LT 10cd-11ab (jñānamādyam smrtih samjñā cintā câbhinibodhikam), LT 25 (aksa-dhi-smrti-samjñabhiś cintayâbhinibodhikaiḥ), LTV, 61 (p. 21.7: anindriya-pratyakşam smrti-samjñācintâbhinibodhâtmakam). (2) Terms of the second series (smrti pratyabhijñāna ūha/tarka → ābhinibodhika/anumāna) are used in the contect of inference (anumāna) or verbal cognition, e.g.: NVi2 3.83 (śrutam ... prakirnam pratyabhijñādau), NV, 188 (sadrsyâtmani sambandhagrahe ... pratyabhijñādinā siddhyet), PSa 1.2 (paroksam pratyabhijñādi), PSaV 1.2 (parokşam pratyabhijñâdi), PSa 3.17 (pratyakşa-nirnayan na rte sämänyânusmrtis tatah / pratyabhijna tatas tarkah tatah sādhya-parigrahah II, PSa 73, p. 122.21-22 (...anvayavyatirekârtha-vişayatvam sabda-grahanam pratyabhijñānâder...). The only case where both series are mixed is SVI 1.27 (akşa-jñānair anusmrtya pratyabhijñāya cintayan / ābhimukhyena tad-bhedān viniścitya pravartate // ), in which only verbal equivalents of the technical terms are used. The context here is perception. Apart