Rngog Lotsaba On Sahopalambhaniyama Proof In Dharmakirtis Pramanaviniscaya

Author(s): Helmut Krasser
Publisher: Helmut Krasser

Page 23

H. Krasser rNgog lotsāba on the sahopalambhaniyama ...
85
tion and the object which is not different (are perceived together), it is (established that cognition) in general ([jñāna)sāmānya) and (the object are perceived together). With regard to that (cognition) in general from which the object) is to be proved not to be different there exists (the property of] being perceived together, because a moon or wrestlers being without cognition as such are not observed. Therefore (the reason) is not unestablished.62
(2.2.a.) (The refutation of this pūrvapakşa is lacking] 2.3.a. [The reason is not inconclusive for being too general either.763
Because the object of the cognition of the all-knowing (Buddha) too [i.e. the other person's mind continuum), although his cognition is not perceived by the other person), is perceived in the other person's
(mind-/ continuum through self-consciousness.64 . [It is also not inconclusive) because the all-knowing (Buddha) grasps
only mind insofar as one abiding in Yoga (yogavāhin) does not grasp
mind
62 The answer is similar to those of Dharmottara and Kamalaśīla: gar dang gyad la Ita ba la sogs pa rnams la gang shes bya dmigs par mi 'gyur ba'i shes pa ni 'ga' yang yod pa ma yin noll de bas na (D: ni P) shes bya mi dmigs par shes pa (dmigs par shes pa P: om. D) dmigs pa 'am | shes pa mi dmigs par shes bya dmigs pa ni 'ga' yang yod pa ma yin no zhes rnam pa gzhan nid 'gog pa yin gyi | dmigs pa thams cad la tha dad pa nid 'gog pa ni ma yin no || PVINŢ P 185b3-5 (D 159b1f); na ca natacandramallapreksāsu kaścij jñānopalambho 'sti yo na jñeyopalambhah, jñeyopalambho va na jñānopalambhaka iti kuto 'siddhatā. TSP 693,1-3; cf. MATSUMOTO 1980 p. 21.
63 One is forced to add such an introductory statement, for otherwise the following formulation of the reason cannot be construed. As the immediately preceding part, the refutation of $2.2., is also missing, one might think of a scribal error. However, rNgog lotsāba adds another proof for the reason's not being inconclusive which also lacks the predicate to be proved and which is not connected with the first formulation by a conjunctive or disjunctive particle such as dang or 'am. Therefore and also because the remaining part of the refutation is quite short, it is also possible that rNgog lotsāba for some reason wanted to finish this section very quickly and just noted the most important points without formulating full sentences.
64 Similar Dharmottara's refutation which is preserved in Sanskrit in Kamalasila's Panjikā: gang yang bcom ldan 'das kyi (P: kyis D) shes bya dang thugs (D: thug P) la lhan cig dmigs pa nges pa yod kyang | tha dad pa med pa ni ma yin no zhes smras pa de ni mi rigs te i gang gi phyir de la ni lhan cig dmigs pa nges pa ñid med de tha dad pa nid du rgyud gzhan gyis rang gi sems dmigs pa'i phyir ro || de nid kyi phyir sems dang sems las byung bas kyang 'khrul par 'gyur ba ma yin te de dag rnams kyang so sor bdag nid yang dag par rig pa'i phyir ro | PVINT 185b5-7 (D 159b2-4); (näpi buddhavijñeyacittenānaikāntiko hetuh), na hi tatraikopalambhaniyamo 'sti, prthak prthak sarvair eva cittasya samvedanāt, ata eva na' cittacaittair vyabhicärah, tesām api pratyekam ātmana eva samvedanāt. TSP 693,19-21; cf. MATSUMOTO 1980 p. 21.
1) cf. TS Pib (Peking, vol. 139, No. 5765) 160b8 ... 'khrul pa ma yin le