________________
XVII. The Buddhist doctrine of Emptiness
113
maintainer of emptiness"; his tenet, his own doctrine; would be angry, would show anger; there would be a veloing of the doctrine, that is the meaning. As, of course, a king angered by perverse conduct on the part of a servant confiscates all his property, similarly even his doctrine takes away from the adopter of the usage of Demonstration, which is at variance with the 'emptiness' doctrine, the correctitude of statement which is his entire property.
Further, the emptiness doctrine is described by that disputant merely by expounding his own Scripture (orthodox view), so he accepts the authoritativeness (prämānyam) of Scripture: so how is there establishment of his own alternative), since he adopts a Demonstrant? Further, 'means of proof does not exist without thing to be proved (prame ya)': so that upon non-acceptance of Demonstration the things to be proved also are dissolved. And so for hinu muteness only is logical), and not a display of jaw-dancing for presentation of the emptiness doctrine; since the emptiness' doctrine also is subject of proof (prameya). And here, in using the root 'touch' and the word kylānta (tenet), the intent of the Saint is as follows: If he is a maintainer of emptiness, then, not to mention adoption in any way of means of proof, if he even ventures upon a mere touching of Demonstration, then with him kylānta, the god of death, would be angry: now his anger leads to death. And so he, using Demonstration in conflict with his own tenet, is, as reduced to a censure-situation), verily dead. This being so, Ho!, used in derisive eulogy; your contemners, you they contemn, (146) they adduce faults in vou: people of this kind, contemners of you, members of other schools; their view, that which they discern with the eye of want of mental cognition: - Ho! well-viewed, properly viewed: through derision by contrary indication' the meaning is not correctly viewed'. Here in the root asū ya, although it should have the Suffix nak?) because of meaning 'having that habit', we have the Suffix win"), since there is ptional variation. Your contemners, those who have contempt'; or those who are contemptuous of you': with Suffix having the sense of matu (possessed'). If the reading is lvad-asūyu-distam, there is nothing awkward, because the word asuyu with the suffix ud has been used by Udayana and oihers in the Nyāya-tāt paryaparisuddhi) etc., of an envious person.
Here the intent of the maintainers of 'emptiness' is this: "The tetrad of reals, knower, Demonstrand, Demonstrant, and act of knowing, is a non-entity invented by others; because it does not bear examination, like a horse's horn. Of them the knower, to begin with, is the self. And he is non-existent because of not being apprehendible by Demonstration. As thus: By perception there is no establishment of him, because he transcends the range of the senses. And, as for the establishinent of him, with egcity' as accessory condition, by mental perception , that also is equivocal, because in 'I am fair, or dark', etc., that is adopted also as based upon the body. Moreover, if this accessory condition of egoity should refer to the self, then it should not be occasional, because the self is always in proximity; for cognition is occasional, seen preceded by occasional causes; like the cognition of lightning. Nor, again, by inference, because there is non-apprehension of an invariable mark. And in traditions (Scriptures) which maintain mutually conflicting things, there is no Demonstrativeness. As thus: by one in some way or other soire thing is set out; by a second, more expert, the same
9 Se that there is no means of proof. ) conclusion actually a topled, and arted upon. by soine Buddhists, e. g. Bod hidharma. On nigraha-sthane see note X 5).
1. c. the word should be asuyaka, not asiyin. 8) See note ). *) A sub-commentary on the Nyiya-stitra. 10) The notion of '1', as perceived by ihe mind-organ (manas), the common percipient. Thomas, The Flower Spray
