________________
474
yin pa de nid sgrub pa yin pas (PVT 12b3f.) yad eva sadhyan tad eva sadhanam iti (PVSVT 23, 221.). In the case of the commentaries on tadbhavalakṣaṇa- from PVSV 17, 13 it is again only the Tibetan translation of Sakyamati's PVT which supports the
E. Steinkellner
interpretation as a genitive-tatpurusa.
50
The same result can be gained from a survey of the relevant passages of the Pramanaviniscaya. It is particularly interesting to note that Dharmottara in his explanation of these passages analyses tadatmatva (PVin II 10, 15) as a tatpurusa, as well as tadbhava (PVin II 7,25; 46, 18f., 33), while he seems to analyse tädatmya (PVin II 24, 12) as a bahuvrlhi. In NBT on NB 11 22 he also explains it as a bahuvrihi: sa sadhyo 'rtha atma svabhavo yasya tat tadaima. tasya bhavas tadatmyam (NBT 113, 3.), as pointed out by Matsumoto (note 12). Vinitadeva explains it as a tatpuruşa The crucial statement in the Hetubindu is HB 4, 31. sadhyadharmasya vastu tas tadbhavataya sadhanadharmabhavamatranubandhasiddhi ("is the proof that the property to be proven follows only the presence of the proving property because in reality [the property to be proven] is the essence [bhava] of that [proving property]."). The compound tadbhava-, here, is explained as a tatpuruşa by Arcata.
54
47 The explanation of radarnya from PVSV 4, 2 is too short (cf. PVT 15bif., PVSVT 29, 15). 48 PVT 47b6f: dei no bo'i misham id ces bya ba la sogs pa'i bagrub par bya ba'i ran beingxi no bo'i mishan Aid=PVSVT 76, 11f.: Ladbhavalaksana iti sadhyasvabhavalakṣaṇaḥ----
Additional support is given by the short paraphrases of tadbhava- from PV 1 27a (=29) and a number of passages in the Vrtti on vv. 27-28 (-29-30).
49 Cf. PVin II 24, 12 (tadaimya) and 10, 15 (tadatmatva) 7, 25; 46, 18f. and 33 (tadbhava). 50 Cf. PVinT 235b6: ga gi phyir sgrub par byed pa de bigrub par bya ba'i ran bain Aid yin
pa des na*****
51 Cf. PVinT 224b6f., 344a7f., 345a7.
52 Cl. PVinT 282b4: bigrub par bya ba'i chos de'i bdag Rid gan yin pa'i sgrub par byed pai
chos de l'oll
53 NBT, 63a2 bigrub par bya ba'i don de'i bdag Aid gak yin pa de'i dos po ni de nid de l Cf. also the formulation of NBT 162, 12 which corroborates an interpretation as bahuvrihi: yo hi sadhyadharmaḥ sadhanadharmamatranubandhavan, sa eva tasya sadhamadharmasya sabharo nanya And of NBT 162, 15f.: tasmat sa eva sadhyah kartavyah (sic!) yuh sadhanarya subhavah sya
54 NBTi 65, 1f.: rtags 'ga tig bagrub par bya ba'i don gyi ran bein yin pa de'i phyir 55 HBT 41, 15-17: tadbhavataya sa sadhanadharme bhavaḥ svabhave yarya tasya bhavalaya tadbhavataya yo hi sadhanadharmah sadhyadharmasya sabhavaḥ so hatham tam namu badhatyat ("This, [ie] the proving property; the existence [bhava.] [. e.] the essence [rabhava] of which, because it is the existence-essence [bhava] of that. For how could the proving property, being the essence [rvabhava] of the property to be proven, not follow this [property to be proven] ?"")
Svabhavapratibandha again
But on another comparable occasion Arcata prefers to interprete tadatman of HB 8, 13 as a bahuvrihi.
475
Thus we find two interpretations of the compounds tadatman-, tadbhava-: as a tatpuruşa by Sakyamati, Karpakagomin, Arcata and Dharmottara (PVinT), and as a bahuvrihi by Arcata and Dharmottara (NBT and PVinT). I have to admit that I could not find a statement in these commentaries that would provide some information as to a distinct reason for such a twofold explanation of the compound, nor can I think of one. We have to keep in mind, however, that the meaning of the compound within the context of Dharmakirti's theorem of the svabhavapratibandha remains the same, whether it is taken as a tatpuruşa or as a bahuvrihi.
For, interpreted as a tatpuruşa, it means that the concept of the proving property (sadhanadharma, hetu) is, in reality, the essence (atman, bhava) of the property to be proven (sadhyadharma). And taken as a bahuvrlhi, it means that the concept of the proving property has the property to be proven, in reality, as its essence(atman, bhava). The difference between the two solutions is, that in the case of the tatpuruşa-solution the concept of the hetu is introduced as being reduced to its reality, thus serving as the real essence of the concept of the sadhya; and in the case of the bahuvrthi-solution these positions are reversed. Since the function of the compound within the contextual theorem remains unchanged, it is possible that there was no awareness in the commentators, e. g. Arcata and Dharmottara, that it needed to be dissolved in one particular way only. It seems that this is one of those cases where the modern scholar has a problem that was none to the tradition under examination, and where, therefore, he looks for an answer that was never given.
With regard to the term tadatmya we can observe that the earlier explanations of the compound fadatman take it as a tatpuruşa, while-possibly starting with Arcata-it is then also understood as a bahuvrihi. In both cases of explanation, however, the term tadatmya indicates the fact, that one property is in reality the same as the other pro
56 Cf. HBT 83, 5: tadamano yo yasya svabhavaḥ tatsvabhavaya.....
57 HB 5, 12 does not support, I think, either interpretation. I do not accept, however, Matsumoto's argument against my construction of the expression lingivabhava. Arcata (HBT 57, 11ff.) does not express himself regarding the nature of the compound lingisvabhava, from HB 5, 11f we can only understand, that Dharmakirti wants to emphasise that the reason is vastuto lingine bhava, where rvabharu definitely has the meaning "essence" (cf. HBT 57, 13f.). rabhava of this sentence also cannot be connected with HB 5, 14f, because there Dharmakirti turns against the assumption that even a property that is conditioned by something else, and non-concomitant can be considered as an essential property (rabhava) (cf. HB II 102f., note 7).
