Rngog Lotsaba On Sahopalambhaniyama Proof In Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya

Author(s): Helmut Krasser
Publisher: Helmut Krasser

Page 15

H. Krasser rNgog lotsaba on the sahopalambhaniyama..
lished to be existent (sat). Thus, it would follow that all (aspects) are abandoned. And if a non-implicative negation [of being something] different which is not of the nature of cognition is illuminated, it follows that an external object or something else that is cognized is illuminated as being different as well.42 Thus, it follows that the objective (as well as] the subjective (aspect) are established. In this way it follows that the subjective (aspect) which is not established [as long as the objective one is not experienced] and the objective (aspect) which is different [from it] are real.
77
Answer: As the subjective (aspect) is experienced and reliable (avisamuadin), it is said to be existent (sat). However, the objective (aspect) is, although it is experienced as being illuminated, not reliable, for it is invalidated by a valid cognition (pramäṇabadhita). Therefore, although [the two] are not different, insofar as [both of them) are experi enced as being illuminated, that one whose reliability is established to be without an invalidating [cognition] is real (satya), while the (other one) without [such a reliability] is false (brdzun pa, alika).43 Thus the difference is established. Moreover, it does not follow either that the objective (aspect) is illuminated as being real, for being connected with the real [subjective aspect] it is not reasonable. [This is so] because the two [kinds of] connection [i.e. tädätmya and tadutpatti] contradict [their] having the same time (ekakala) and not being of one and the same nature (anekarupa), and because another kind [of connection] is not possible. This was the exclusion of [a valid cognition]
-
that cognition of the object is different from the cognition of that cognition, because it is the condition for the latter. Thus the reason "sahopalambhaniyama" would not be established.
42 This argument is not clear to me!
43rNgog lotsaba's answer is based on the following passage of Dharmottara: ñams su myong ba nges pa'i rang bzhin mi shu ba ni spang bar nus pa ma yin te | de ni khas blang bar bya ba yin pa'i phyir ro || yang gang ñams su myong yang gnod par byed pa mthong pa'i phyir slu ba de ni spang bar bya ba yin te | dper na zla ba gnis kyi rang bzhin Ita bu'o gnod par byed pa med pa'i phyir 'khrul pa mi 'grub po zhes1) gang 'chad par 'gyur ro || de bzhin du rnam 'grel las kyang | gnod byed rig pa dam pa ni | med na ñams myong spang bya min?)
zhes so || dga' ba la sogs pa'i rang bzhin yang dag pa'i rig pa ni spang bar bya ba ma yin te gnod par byed pa med pa'i phyir ro || des na gcig ma yin no zhes bya bar gnas so|| PVINT P 185a2-5 (D 159a2-4); the passage is translated in IWATA I 180.
1)
PVIN II 45,19f: gnod par byed pa med pas 'khrul pa mi grub pa'i phyir ro ||
(= badhakabhävad bhräntyasiddheḥ PVSV 16,4f)
2) not identified.
44 Cf. mi bden pa'i rang bzhin ñid ma rig pa'i dbang gis ston par byed kyi bden pa ni