BhattaJayantasRefutaionofthe YogcraBuddhistDoctrineofVijnavda AnnotatedTranslationandAnalysis

AlexVVATSON andKeiKATAOlA

5 SouthAsianClassicalStudiesNo5PP285352 20107

5ACS52010

BhattaJayantasRefutationoftheYogCra BuddhistDoctrineofVijinavada

AnnotatedTranslationandAnalysis AlexWatsonandKeiKataokal
INTRODUCTION

InthepassageranslaedandexaminedbelowBhaJayanta2outlinesandhenrefues thedocrineofVijnavadaadvancedbyYogaBuddhism3pmevijnavdininter
1ocutorfirsSaeshisviewasthatitiscognitionJconsciousnessjidnaaloneaPPearing inachainofindividualmomenshamaniftstsasthevariousobiectsthaWePerCeive TTluShecontinuesthereisnothingotherthanitforifhosehingsthatwetaketobeex ernaandinsenienareacuallyofthenatureofcognltionWhaneedisthereoposulate anythingotherhancognlion VijnavdaispresentedbyBhattaJayantaasakindofnonqdualisrnieasholdingthat everythinginheuniverseisofhesamenatureHereferstoitbothahebegiJlnlngand endofhispresentationaS Vi7hdnadvaitavddahedocrineofthenonJualism ofcog niionHeplaceshisdiscussionofitafterthatoftwooherkindsofnondualismhe nondualismofBral1manandhenondualismofTTleWordiabdaThisdiscussionof threekindsofnondualismcomeswihinachaperonliberationbeatitudemokaqPaL VargaTTLischapterisintumOneOutOftwelveinhismagnumopushedyamaaril ThefirstsixchapersofheNydyamaarconcemthemselveswiththemeansofkr10Wl edgeramathenextthreewihhevariousobjecsofknowledgerameyaThe Chapteror11iberaioJlishethirdofthesethreeieheninhchqperofhewholeexLL

1TheresearchforthisarticlewasenabledoyafourweekPoscdoctoralFellowshipfromtheJa
panSocietyforePromotionofScienceinSeptember2009WheTIAlexWasonJOinedKeiKa aokaatKyushuUniversityFukuokaJapaTl

1AlhoughheiscommonlyreferredtoinsecondaryliteratureasJayantaBhattaherefersto
himselfasBhataJayantainetwoplacesweknowofwhereheincludeshisownnameWone

OfhistextsAgdmd3215and12217
ForbackgroundinfomatioTlOnBhaJayaLltaSeeHegde1983andDezs620051522On hisimportanceforereconstruCtionofvanousaspectsofthehistoryofNyyaSeeOberhammer 1962Wezler1975aLldMami2006OntheNyayamaiijaTLasasourceoFinfomlaionabout BuddhismSeeGupta19631718Kher1992179286Shah1997141148andKataoka
2009

i00urknowledgeemsranslaionofthepassageinoaEuropeanlanguageForaGu jratitranslaionsee5hah1992ForaJapaeSeranslationSeeKataoka2006

285

Thedddrf

ThechapteronLiberationintheNydyamalyan
rmechapteronliberaionakingupninetytWOPageSinheMysoreeditioniseffectively acommentaryonjusonesBtra1122Whichdefinesliberationasthecompletecessaq tionofsufferingLadaLyanLavimokFOvargabmecontensofhechapercanbedi
videdupasfo1lows

TheNyayamaTUarllSaselectivecommentaryonAkaPdasNyayasi2trainthesense
thatitcomensOnly on thesBtras thagivedefinitionslakaPaSiuras1eavingaside thosethatenunciateaopictobefurherdiscusseduddeiasdllaSandthosehacarryOu aninvesigationofatopicarfkLis1raS

ThefollowlngtableshowsthetopICSCOVeredinitswelvechaptersandheNyayasiilTaS thattheyarecommentlngOn
Chapter

1ExplanaionofhesnrasiZlravyakhyLina

430313113 4311513918

SdtraTopic 1ntroduction 111EnumerationofthesixteencategoriesbLZdarEha 113Whatitistobeameansofknowledge brLTTZLZSLimanyalakFaSubdivisioniIltOfourkinds 114PerceptionbTuLyakFO

Volume

2TheNaureofLiberationmokaSVarZ2pa

Page4
I12
31

3TheMeansofAttainingLiberationmokOPaya

440216011

4Knowledgeoftheessentialnatureofrealitytatlvqiana 460131615 41meNaiyyikaViewnaiyayikamala 461716413

42NonDualism

4641415

4Z1NonDudismofBrahmanJdhh46417176J2
I171
l
373

422NonDualismofneWordSabdadvLZilavada4761418710
423NonDualismofCognitionviThdnadvailavLida 4231PerceptualCognitionpratyakaVtiana ranslatedinhepresentaricle4871250417
4232ErroneousCognitionb71ramqfLina

115Inrence 116Compadson

117Speech

396

The Veda WordmeaningbadarLhaandsentencemeaJlingdartha Sentencemea1ng 119Whatitistobeanobjectofknowledge

573

neoriesofErrorkhydivada

5041951813

143

4233ConclusionoftheRefuationoftheVinavdin

II 263 n78 360

430

ViewthatCognltionisdevoidofobjects
k 5181451911 5191316 519185206
520817 521Z5 424ConclusionoftheRefutationofNonDualism
ddJd

brameyasamLinyalLZkaElaSubdivisionin101tkinds
1110Thesefd

11121Theobjectsofknowledgefromthebodyuptosuffering
8

43TheSkhyaViewsaTikhyamala

1122Ljberation 11339nCagOriesldoubtdup0enconclu
Sionofasylogismig1d

44TheJainaViewUainamata
451eYogaViewg7df

10

522

5ConclusionofthediscussionofTheoriesconcern1ngLiberation
VrgVdqp

1140ql217HypotheticalreasoningLarkauptounfairreplycIzala 584 1218GeneralitybasedonafalseanalogyEE 1Z 51143Subdivisioninto24kinds 121920GroundsfordefeatindebatenigrahasthLina 52l24Subdivisioninto22kinds 645 646 677

679

521710

Ithavingbeenestablishedinsection4thathemeansofatainlngliberationisknowledge
Oftheessentialnatureofrealiytallvqfiianahequesionarisesasowhatpreciselyhe

ObjectisofthisknowledgeJayanafirstglVeStheviewofhisownNaiyyikatradition
accordingowhichliberaingknowledgeconcemstheindividualselfatman41nen heexpoundsandrejectsthethreeabovementiorledkindsofnonTdualism42followed bytheShkhya43Jaina44andYoga45viewsIisstrikingthattheBuddhist docrinethatJayantapresentsasmostrelevanttoliberationisVnavdanOtaSmigh

4volumeandpagenumberinhistableandthroughoutthisartiderefertotheMysoreedition

286

287

havebeenexpecedthedocrineofnoSelfandtmavadaHedealswihthelatterview elsewheremos1yintheseventhchaperbuttheviewthatdsexpressionintheex aminaionofBuddhisliberaionis LcognlionOnlyThenrsthalfofthisexamination 4231dealswihvalidPerCePtualcognitionWhereashelatterhalf 4232dealswitherroneouscognitionbhramqijianaBothhalvesaimatestablishing thattheexperiencedformakarabelongstocognitionnOttOaneXemalobject

Twoadditionalsections34and36giveVnavnrefutationsofSauttikaBud
dhistrepresentaionalistviews WedividethesiddhdntaintoninesectionsThesectionsoftheparvqpakathatheyare COnCemedtorefuteareglVeninthefollowlngtable

TheportionwetranslateistheflrSthalfWhichtOgetherwiththeflrStSubSeCtionofthe secndhalfWaSediedinKataoka2003ThosewishingtofollowtheSanskritshould
downloadheupdatedversionofKataoka2003fromhere hpwwwlitkyushuuaCjpkkataokaataokaMvijRpdf

Siddhna 41 42 43

Papa 37 3Z
321 321 322 323

Structureofthepassage
Havinglookedatheplaceofourpassagewithinthewiderconextofhe wenowfocusinonhepassageitselfItconsissOftwomainsecionstheparvqpakFain whichtheVijnav5dinakescentresageandthesiddhanlainwhichtheNaiyyika

44 45 46 47 48 49

31 33 35

JayantahimselfrefuteseachofthepolntSthathavebeenlaidouinthepDrvqakaWe havenumberedthesetwosections3and4Sincetheyareprecededbytwobriefsections ahebeginningofthepassageOne1makingcleartheconnectionofthispassagetothe

previoussectionoftheNydyamaarandtheother2narrowingdownthepreciseissue

haistobedecidedinheensulngdebatetohefollowlngqueStionDotheformswe
perceivebelongocognlionortoanexernalobject InthepvapakaSeCtiontheVtinavdinglVeSnVebasicarguments 1ThepositionhatformbelongstocognitioninvoIveslesspostulation31 2CogniionmustbeperceivedbeforeanobjectisperCeived32
321 ecauseiisheilluminaor

ThesiddFlantaaddressesonlyhosesectionsofthepdrvqpakathatarguedagalnSt
BmaicalrealismitdoesnotconcemitselfwiththetwosectionsofthepdTVqPakain

WhichheVijnavdinrefutedSaltrntikaviews

WenowglVeadeai1edsynopsISOfthewholepassage lConnectionwiththeprevioussectionCognltionqonlydisinguishedfromothernon
dualisms

322 BecausetherecanbenoobstacletoitbeingperCeived 323 Beca11SeWeTeneCtOnObjectsasdependentoncognltion 324 ThereforethereisnoneedtopostulateanobjectSeparatefrom

COgniiotlata11L

2DoubDotheformsweexperiencebelongtocognlionorobjects
210bjectionfromtheNaiyyikatotheVjnavdin7broughdirecPerCePion etcWegraSPanObject

3IffoITndidnobelongtocognitiontherewouldbenowaytoexplainhowcog
nitionisdifferentiatedwithrespecttoitsparticularobjectspr8tikarmavyavasha
33

22lePreCiseissuethatseparatesus 221Iftwoformsappear7theNaiy5yikawins 222Ifoneformappearsdoesibelongtotheobjecorcognlion 3P5rvapakaVijnavdaFormbelongstocogniti6n 31BecauseitinvoIveslesspostulationkabandldghavdt 311TheNaiyyikaspostulatedoublewhatwedo 312Nosubstantialdifferencebetweennondualityofobjectandnon dualityofcognltion

4Cognitionandisobjectarenecessari1yperceivedtogethersahopalambhani
yamahereforetheyarenondifferen35 5ConradicoIYPrOPertiesviTuddhadharmacannotbelong00neandthesarne

objectbutheycanbelongtodifferencognitions37

288

289

313Cognltionisestablishedforbothofus

412EvenBuddhistsassumethedifferenceofperceiverandperCeived 413FormsappeartousasobjectsofilluminationnOtaSilluminators 42ThegrasplngOfanobjectrequlreSaperCeiverbutthatdoesnotmeanthatthe

PerCeiverisitselfgrasped

32Cognltionmustbegraspedfirst
321Becauseitistheilluminator

322Becauseitmustbegraspedattheverymomentthatitarises 323Becauseofreflectionpiyavamariaonanobjectasprecededby
COgnlion

4210bjectionneaPpearanCeOftheperceiverJuStistheappearanceof
theobject

324Therelevanceofcognltionbeinggraspedtothemainissue 3241Agraspedcognltionhasform 3242Anexternalobjectisthereforeredundant 33BecausecognltionscouldnotbeobjecSPeCificiftheylackedform 331Aformlesscognltioncouldnotbefocusedononeparticularobject 332Merelybeingcausedbyanobjectwi11notsumce 333ConclusionHavingablueoectiscausedbyhavingablueform 334ConsequenceJustificationofthelabelprama 335Eveneverydayusageatteststocognltionhavingform 336ConclusionTheonlywaycognltioncouldbedelimitedwith
respecttoitsobjectsisbyhavingform 34TheVijnavdinRefutationoftheSautrntikaView

422ReplyCognltion1iketheeyeisameansmeanSdonotmakethe

targetredundant
4230bjectionEyeandcognltionaredisanalogous 424ReplyAnillumirlationisanilluminationofanobjectnOtOfan illumination 4250ectionToseeanobjectCOgnltionitselfmustbegrasped

426ReplyTheseelngOfanobjectisthemerearislngOfcognltionnOt

thegrasplngOfcognltion
4270bjectionnenthepresenceorabsenceofthecognltionwould
makenodifference

428ReplyItmakesadifferencebecallSetheseelngOfanobjectJuStis

theocculTenCeOfacognltion
43Theinstrumentalityofcognltion 44Cogniionsabiliyoilluminae 441hterpretationsofbecauseitisanillumination
4411Causalbecauseitmakesmanifest 4412Intransitivebeingmanifest

341TheSautrntikaViewthattheexternalobjectcanbeinferTed
342CognltionisnotanalogoustoacStal

343Theappearanceoftwoseparateforms 3A4neinferenceofanexternalobjectisnotwarranted 3441Disagreementofnameonly

3442Explicabilitywiththehelpoflatentimpressions

441L3Synonymbeingacognltion 442Thereisnothingselfqilluminatlng
44210bjectionnreeSelfilluminatlngentities

35Becauseanobjectisnecessarilyperceivedtogetherwithcognltion
351Becauseofpositiveandnegativeconcomitance 3520bjectandcognltionarenondifferenL 36RejectionoftheSautrntikaviewthatformresultsfromcontact
37Contradictoryproperties 371Cannotcohabitinsingleobjects

4422ReplynethreerequlreeXtemalfactors
4423Conclusion

443PerceptlOnOftheselfisnotacaseofselfqillumination

45Refutationofcognltionisgraspedassoon asitarisesbecauseitdoesnot dependonanyfurtherilluminationandbecausetherecanbenoobstruCtion 451AcausalcomplexisrequiredforcognlZlngaCOgnltion 452ThedifferencebetweenMmrpsandNyyaconcerningthewayln

372Buttheycanresideindifferentcognltions
38ConclusionofthePiirvapaka

Whichacognltionisgrasped
4Siddhnta

46Responsetotheargumentfromrenectiononanearliercognitionavamalfa

41nereisnonondifferencebetweenperceiverandperceived 411Becausecontradictorypropertiescannotexisttogether

47ResporlSetOtheclaimoflesspostulation
471Anexternalobjectisnotpostulatedbutdirectlyperceived

290

91

472Responseotheclaimhatcognltionisestablishedforbothofus 48Response0heargumenthacognlionsoecSPeCificiylmPliesaihas form 481neobjecSPeCificiycanbeexplainedhroughcausallink

59 10ab
10cd1

Doesformbelongocognlior10rOec TocogniionForwhareason Iftheextemalobjecisposiedohaveformhena separaeperceiYermuSobeposid IfyoutryandavoidhisdoublepostulaiontySaylrlg hatheobjectisheperCeiverhenwearedisagree 1ngOnlyaboutTlameS

22
3

311

482neresricionisbasedonhenaureofthings

1314

312

483ProofthatcognltioniscausedbyanObject
484newholecausalcomplexisthemosteffectivefactor 485ConvenionalExpressions 49ResponsetothenecessarycoPerCePtlOnargument
1819c

1517

AloughcognonistrSpantinnaturitappears asifvanegaedbecauseoflaenimpressions CognlionisesablishedforbohdispuanSherefore aribuingfooiinvoIveslessposulaion

313

491Iftwohingsareacuallyonehowcantheybeogeher

492neyarenoapprehendedbyhesamecognlion
493Vijnavdinsalsoaccephedifference

19c0

EvenifyoupostulateanexternalobjecyOuSi11have
oposulaeCOgr11ionwihfom

2122 JayantaandKum5ri1a1 WelookedaboveathesyrlChronicconeXofourpassageieisplacewihintheaya 2327

Cogniionistheillumi11aorhereforeimusbe graspedinorderfortheilluminaedobegrasped TherecanbenoobsacleocognliontQinggraspeda evemOmenttitarises

321

322

maaWenOWlookatitsdiachronicconeXtieiSPlacewithinadebatethaalready hadahistoryofoYertheehundredyearsJayantasmostiTediateinfluenceinthisde bateisKumilaHedrawssoheavilyonheSdnyavada5chaperOfKumari1asSloka VdrttikathatasubsanialporionofourpassageconsissOflittlemorethanparaphras

ings ofKumri1as versesKaaokas2003ediionincludesin aseparae apparatus

29

WerefleconanobjecasprecededtyCOgnLtion LingulSicusageindicatesthaCOgnlionhasfo CognlionisgraspedaJldicarlnObegraspe4as

foess

323

30 3l 32

3241

thoseSnyavadaversesthatareclearlysourcesofsentencesintheyamaarL We givehereatableofcorrespondencesbeWeenheopICSCOVeredirltheprvapakaSeC
tionsofbothtexts

SinceaformCOnainlngCOgniionlSgraSPedand SirLCeWeOnlygrasponeformWhaneedisthereto
POSulaceXernaloec

3242

3334 nestruCtureOfKumrilasandJayanaspdrvqpakaS
vJ VYerSe

Removalofpossibleoecions0heargumenaion

inYerSeS3132
Ifcognltionlackedformherewouldbenoway0
explainisobjecSPeCificiypJt7tikarmanima dmlr
SeC10n

33

Topic Connectionwithwhatprecedes
SurelyyourVijnavdinpositionisrefutedbydirec
PerCeptlOn

3539

RelaionofeSarnYiWataIen

Objeccausesformoenercognlion Objecandcognlionarenecessari1yperCeived0
21 geheroplmrdoretheyare nondiren

14

35

4055 5ThetermfyavadarefersherenottothedoctrineofemptlneSSOftheMdhyamikasbu0he
viewthaCOgnitionisemptyofdevoidofobjectsarthafiinyaieLthatitneitherperceivesnOr

RefuaionofheSaur1tikaviewthafoisa PrOducoftheconacbeweer10bjecZLndcogniion RefutationofheSaunikaviewthaObeCand COgnitionhoughdisincarenoperCeivedassuch OWlng0heireness CognliondoesnodependorlanObjec

36

5i

COntainsrepresenationsofeXemalobjectsKumrilausestheermbecausehisSyavdachaper commentsonthepaLtOftheSabarabLaPatbeginsyastzLbraLyayabkathamaqfhana
yorakabhednOPatabzamahe2814FormoreontheuseofthetermfLTtyaVadEntoreferto YogCrasVijnav5dinsratherhanMdhyamikasSeeWatson2006259nOte9

57

292

293

58l

Contradicorypropertiescannobelong00neandthe SameObject ConcluOnOfth

37

SitionhoseDhamakirtianinnovations thatwerenopreseninDigngaandhencenot
takenintoconsiderationbyKumri1a

62J3

38

JustasJayantasresponsetoVijnavdawasheavilyinfluencedbyapredecessorwithin
hisownBrhmapicaltraditionSOKumarilasresponse0Vijnavdawasheavi1yinflu encedbyapredecessorwithinhisownMimSakatradiionnamelyheVrtikaraOfl

Empty boxesinherighthand columnindicatehatJayanta hasignored a secion of Kumri1asemPtyboxesin thelefthandcolumnindicatethatJayanahashimselfin

Sertedasection thahehas notinheritedfromKumri1aTherearethreecasesofthelatL

whoseaccountintheSabarabyahisSanyavadachapercomments9

terbuherstoftheseSeCtion21ismisleadingforJayantaistheresummarizingthe argumentofKumri1asNirZambanavdachapterThusitcanbesaidthatJayantade rivestheentiresruCtureOfhispdTrVqPakafromKumri1aeXCePtfortwoextrasections thatheinsertsOnegivingtheargumentftomtheobjectSPeCificityofcognition6brati karmavyavasth6andtheothergivingtheargumentfromthenecessarycoPerCeption SahopaZambhaniyamaofcognitionanditsobjectAsiswellknownbothofthesear gumensorlglnaeWithDharmakrtiandindeedJayantacitesDharmakirtiinbothofthese

SeC10nS

TheEarlierHistoryoftheDebate
Ourhypohesisconcernlngthehisoryofhisdebatecanhusberepresenedbyhefol

ThesearenottheonlyplaceswhereJayantaupdatesKumri1asaccountbyimportlng argumensfromDharmakirtiForexamplehisSautrntikaCritlqueinsecion34hardly drawsonthecorrespondingsectioninKumri1abutfocusesraherontheepIStemOloglCal COmPlicaionsinvoIvedininferringexternalobjectsasthecauseofforTnSWithincognl tionWhetherandhowthepositiveandnegativeconcomitancethatwouldsupportsuch

CauSationcouldbegraspedissuesdiscussedbyDhamakIrtitakecentrestageinthissec

tionwhichalsociesDhamlakrtiSimi1arlyJayantasconclusiontotheprvqpaadoes
nodrawon Kumrilas corresponding sectionbutoutlines Dharmakirtis specincal1y Yogcara characerization of cognltions objectmeanS and resultand of the nonL
differenceofhesethreeHeretooDhar7nakirtiversesarecited

BuddhistauthorsareshownonherightthosewhoopposedhemontheleftAnarrow
fromone auhorto anoherindicateshaherstinfluencedOratleaswas takeninto

accountbythesecond ThuswepositDigngaasthestar1ngPOlntOfdlispariculardebateDigngaarguesthat COgnltionariseswithadoubleformitcontainswithiniselfappearancesofbohsubjec

InthefirsthreeouofhesefourcasesnamelytheargumentsftompratikamaVyaVaSthLi andsahopaZambTlaniyamaandtheintricaciesoftheSautrntikainferenceofextemalob JeCtSitcanbesaid thaJayantadraws onDharmakfrtiforthingshatwereeitherno elaboratedaa11OrnOtelaboratedassystematicallybyDignga7Kumrilawasaware oftheideasofDigngahisnyavddachaptertakesaccountofthem8butitshowsno familiarltyWithDharmak7rtiThelatterhadbecomesufficien1yprominentbythetimeof JayantaforhimtoconsideritnecessarytoinsertintohisaccountoftheVijnavdinpo

andobjectO TheLactionofcogmiingdoesnotinfactinvoIveanyactivityVyaParaat

9AcompLicationshouldbepointedouthereTheVrLtika7agranEhathesectlonwithinhe SabarabTzyainwhichSabarahavingglVenhisowncommenaryonsQtrasl115thencitesthe COmmentaryOftheVrttikraOnSistsofacommentaryonsDrasl135Buum5rilaatributes

hisVrEikLiragrallEhaaPafromtheverybeginnlngPOrtionwhichhecommensoninheenverSeS ofilouvarttikaVrikiiragmTZTzaMadrasedition0abaranOtheVik5raSeeSLokavarika

6weborTOWhisfelicitousexpressionfromBirgiKellneL

7ThefourthpolntLDharmakirisYogcraidentificaionoftheobjecmeanSandresultof
COgnitionisareadythereinDigngaWhoJayantaalsocitesitlthatfinalsection

nLralambanavdda16Jacobi191116andTeraishi1997Xumri1asSz7nyatiidachapterthus
commensonapartofithaheatribuestendeniouslytoabara 10 seefrdCCJfadl9advydJeld bhsaT77Caandadl11abcForatranslationandanalysisofPranlasamuccayal8cd12andvrEEi thereonseeKellnerforthcomingA

8nyavda25b27seemsobebasedqnheinhieregresSargumenaPmmasanuLCCaya l12ab5iinyavda2829seemstobebasedotlthememoryarumentforcognitionbeingperceived
atPranpasamLLCCayal1lcdSeeSeCion3230fheranslationinhisaricle

294

295

al11Lforthesubjecandobjecofhatactionarenoseparatetheyaremerelytwoas PeCtSOfthesamecognlionNoristhemeansofcognltionseparatefromtheresultWe aredealingwihsomehingwhichcomesintoexistencefu11yformedasaunitarywhole andwhichonlyonthelevelofling111SticanalysISCanbedividedintooecmeanSand resultInsofarasthesethreecanbeseparatedheob3ectbrameyais theobjectpOle viayakaragrd71ydkarawithin cogniionhe meansramais the subjectpOle withincogniiongrahakakdraandheresultbramarlqPhalaisthecognitionscogni tion ofiSelfsvasaT7ZVedanaSVaSa7ZVitti12 Thus there are two cenraltheses of DigngasthatremainedrelevanintheddatehroughouthefollowlngCenuriesCOgnl tionhastwoformsSuecPOleandoqectPOleanditisselfCOgnized13 ThcVrttikraprObablyinawarenessofDigngaOPpOSeSViinavdabyakinghefol lowingpositionsisexemalob5ectsandnotcogniionsthathavetheformsakaawe

rSeCtion

jJoJJJ

dd6

22
3

268

10ab

11 312 1

1314
1819c

32
321 322 33 324 331 335 342 344 3442 351

21a
1tl22

2327191a 28 3132
19c0

perceiveOurcognltionisformless14Itisnocognizedwhenitarises15ItisimperCepL tible16eidentifiesthepreciseissuethatdifferentiatestheBuddhistandMimI71Saka
viewsasthequesionofwhathastheformsweperceiveObjectsorcognltionItisthus

OWlngtOhimthatthewaythedebatebeweenidealismandrealisminIndiacameobe
CharacterizedwasinermsOfhisquestionabouakaraThiswasregardedasthecruCial questionbyKumrilaandJayanaforexample CommentlngOnthispassageofheVrtikraKumrilabohexpounds andrefueshe BuddhistviewinmoredeailProbablyawareofKumarilascriticismsDharmakirire eStablisheshe Buddhisviewprlmarilyin the Pramavarttikaa COmmenary on DigngasPramasamuccayaqandthePramaviniScayaJayantaaSWehavealready SeenrefutestheBuddhistviewmainlybyrecourseoKumri1asdiscussionbutalsoby expoundingandrespondingtoheposDigngaargumensintroducedbyDharmakirti

30 38 219cd
1517

53 424751 585961b 61cd

36
371 372

JayantaandKumari1a2 TheprevioustableillusraedthestructuralrelationshipbetweenJayantasandKumri1as
PdrvapakaSeCtionsbyshowingwheretheirsecionscorrespondedandwheretheydid notInordertofacilitaeafullerplCtureOfhowJaYantamOuldsandPementshisiTL heritancefromKumrilahatableneedstobesupplemenedbyanothershowingthose PreCiseversesofKumrilaswhosewordingJayantapicksuponWeconfineo11rSelves heretootohepdTrVaPakaSeCtionalone

1efollowlngtWOpOlnsWhichbecomeclearifheinformationinthistableiscombined
wihhatinthepreviousareobenoed 1Even the exrasecionsnofoundinKumri1ahaJayanainsershimselfnamely

11seepramasaLuCCayal8cdandvrttithereonandthevrEionl9d 12seepramaaTuLCCayal10WhichJayantacitesinsection38 seerddCCVadl11cJldd 1dr2817lfrdJL

Jdyd2820301ndfvdnutddJiJfgJdJ 3056dmddl

thoseconcemingheargumenisfromtheobiecSPeCincityofcognlionandhenecessary coPerCeP10nOfobjecandcognliondrawonversesbymrilanlisisasymptOmOf hefachatDharmakirtididnotcreatethesetwoargumentsoutofnothingtheyhada prehistorypartofwhichfindsexpressionintheSlokavarttikainforexampleVerSeS 19c20and53t7

17FormoTeOnthepTehistoryofthesaalambhanLyEZmaargumerlasrenecediLIKumrila seeTaberforthcomingfortheprehisOryOftheaTgumenLaSreneCedinSadypjyoisSeeWaSOn
200626026

16r309dprd

296

297

2JayantasometimesborrowsideasfromKumrilabutplacesthemincompletelydifftr

ConventionsintheTranslation
rmetranslationisglVeninthisfonSize
InterspersedwiththetranslationareourcommentsandexplanationsinthisfontSize

ent contexts to thatin which they occurin theSlokavarLtikaTTleideas expressedin

VerSeS1517and19c20forexampleareremOVedfromdleironglnalhomeofthear gumentfrom economy of postulationand placed byJayantainreSpeCtivelyhis

SautrntikarefutationandhisargumentfromtheobjecSPeCincityofcognitionSimi

1arlythepolntmadeinverse30isremovedfromitsroleasanappendixtotheargument
fromreflectionarLimariaonanoectassubsequenttocognitionandplacedwithinthe
argumentfromtheobjectSpeCificityofcognltion

ThesectiondivisionsandtheheadingsarenotintheorlglnaltheyareourownOurin

tentioninincludingthemistomakethestruCtureOftheargumentmoreexplicitandthe
meanlngeaSiertofollow

JayantasareaofgreatestdivergencefromKumrilaiscertainlyhisexpositionandrefuta tionofDharmakTrtianargumentsofwhichKumilawasunawaTeButhisotherinn9Va
tions are not restricted to themovlng arOund ofwhat was already therein Kumari1a

PhilologlCalpolntSthatarenotpertinenttotheinterpreationoftheargumenthavebeen
SeParatedofffromtheotherfootnotesandputinendnotes

Numbersseparatedbyacolonrefertochapterandversethoseseparatedbyacomma
refertopageandlinenumberthoseseparatedbyfu11stopsrefertosectionsorsBtras

Sometimesheunpacks whatisinKumrilamakingexplicitwhatisimplicitAtother

timesheaddsinnewstepsnotpresentinhissourceneWObjectionsandresponsesare
insertedintoasequenceofargumentationthatcomesfromKumrilaThuseveninthose

PlaceswhereheisclearlybasinghimselfonargumentsfoundinKum5rilaheexercises Creativltyinthewayheexpoundsthosearguments
On one occasion452he disagreeswith KumrilaHe temporarily suspends his
VinavdaTrefutationinordertoexplainhowhisownNaiyyikaraditiondivergesfrom

Interpretativeinsertions required to complee thesenseofa sentence are enclosedin SquarebracketsExplanatorylnSertionsthatgobeyondwhatisnecessarytocompletethe SenSebyglVlngadditionalinformationareinsertedinroundbracketsTheformerusually SuPPlyEnglishwordsthatcouldhavebeenexpressedintheSanskritsentencebutwere
notrrTlereareSOmeborderlinecaseswherethechoicebetweensquareandroundbrack
etshasbeenarbitrary

theMmrpsakaviewthatcognliorlisimperceptibleandcanonlybeinferredButhe thenimmediately statesEnoughofthis talkWhyatpresentdowehaveto attack a

Brahmincolleague1ettirlgaBuddhistoffthehook SoheseesthedifferencesbetweenNyyaandMimSasinslgnificantwhencompared

WehavenotrenderediicetwhenitmerelyindicatesaspeakerChangeWesimplyput insquarebracketsthenameofthespeakereachtimethereisachangeWhetheritisindi
CatedbyiLfcetornot

withthemoreurgenttaskofdefeatlngtheBuddhistsforthatpurposetheMim5rpsakas
areimportant alliesJayantas finalremarkofthe erLtireVijnavda section demonq StrateSWellhisattitudetowardstheBuddhists 1tiseitheremptymindedpeopleorcharlatanswhoexhibitthisattachmenttothe theoryoftheemptinessofcognitionnOtSeerSOfrealityThereforethetheory OfthenondualityofcognitiontOOWheninvestigatedtumSOuttObelikeami 18 rageuStlikethetheoryofthenonTdualityofheWnrdAndrhplikp19

WehaveaimedfortheadmittedlyextremelydifficultPerhapsunachievablegOalofpro

ducingatranslationthatissufficientlyclosetotheSanskritforittobeclearwhatprecise
SyntaCticrelationshipsweseeintheonglnalyetatthesametimeissufficientlyread ableforthosenotcomparlngittotheSanskrittobeabletofo1lowdleargumentS InthosecaseswhereforthesakeofreadabiliyWehaveoptedforasomewhatfreetrans 1ationthatdoesnotmakeexplicithowwehavetakentheSanskritsyntaxWehavein
Cludedanendnote

Leitdoesnotstanduptoscrutlnyanditlacksabasisinreality

9lIrrp519811

JdprVdJlI
JdJV vvd0gldJlgdrJe

298

299

TRANSLATION20 1Connectionwiththeprevioussection
CognltionOnlydistinguishedfromothernondualisms Thus a11theproponentsofnondualitywhohavebeenrefutedin theprevious SeCtionVedntinswhoholdthenondualityofBrahmanandVaiykarapaswho holdthenonduality oftheWordhavebecomesilenttheBuddhistpropo nentsofthenondualityofcognitionhoweveraSSerthemselvesagainagainsus
Naiyyikasinthefo1lowingTnanner
Here4noEldualiyofX7hetherXBral1mantheWordorcognltionmeanStheviewthateverything
inIeuIliverseisX

muuallydissimi1arSohowcanitbethatitiscognitionratherthandectsthathasthis

appearanCeforintheabsenceofobjectstheseunlqueformswouldbeimpossibleFor
WetermCOgniionhegrasplngOfobjecsnOthegraspingofgraspingl
JayantahasalreadyshownWhen aLgulngagainsMandanaMiraawhatwegrasproughdirect PerCePionbTtZLyakFaandheothermeansofknowledgeisdiffereniaedbhLnnanOunifomltle POlnsouherehaifwedoawaywihexemalobjecsWedoawaywiheobviousexplanaionof hisdiffereniationTTLeimplicationisthatcognltionaSCOgnltionislhesamewithrespecttoallofis OtjecsPluralityerersourexperiencebecausecogniionconfronSaPluraliyOfobjecsIfallween

COuntered were ccgnltionWe WOuld experience an unchanglngmOnOOneOramereblanknOthe

muliCOlotlredandconstantlyshifiElgformshasoObvi011Slyappearous Jayanaconcludesbypoln1ngOllhaisprocessofapprehendingapluraliyOHormsiswhatweerm thegrasplngOfobjectsWedonottermitthegrasplngOfgrasplng

VijnavdinItistruethatasupposedBral1manthatlacksbirthandcessationhais

SlngleunlimitedandnondualisnotlogicalSOitisabsoluelyreasonablenotoaccept itButasforcognitionvdjianamtupwhichismotnenaryiCharaceriedbybirth andcessationandoccurssequential1yinabeginninglessstreamitaloneevaappearSin thisandthatwayieasapotClothetcThereforewethinkhatitipa3yLimalother thanitthereisnosecondsupposedentityinthefomofanobject21

TbeVijnavdinpushisformofnondualismforwardasmorelogicalthanOtherfomsforheaccepts JuScognltionSOmethingreadilyaccepedbyeveryonenOafancifu1meaphysicalpostulaeBral1man SuPpOSedlyuntouchedbycharacteristicsweseeeverywheresuchascomlngintoexistenceandceaslng Cognltionappearlngindifferenformsisal1thaisneededoeXplainourexperience

22Thepreciseissuethatseparatesus
VijnavadinWereplyasfollowsFirstthefollowingmatterneedstobeexamined

DoesoneformaPpearOrtWOintheseperceptualcognlionshisisblueLthisisyelT
lowWhichariseforeveryone

221IftwoformsappeartheNaiyyikawins
IftwoappearqthisistheobjectblueandthisisitscognltionthenwhatisthereO

investigateinthismatterYouwi11havewonPleasebesoWOnmethepunishmenhat
isappropnateforhedefeaed
Fromhereonthediscussionproceedsontheassump10nhaOnlyonefolmaPPearSFurthermoreJay anarefersback0hissecionassainghawoformsdonoappearseefoonOteS69and97mus eventhotlghhissectiondoesnotexplicitlyrehltethepossibilitythattwoformsappearJayantaseesit asdenylnghapossibiliybyimplicaionmawoformsappearousissoclearlynothecasethatit CanbedismissedjustwiisjokeabotlheapproprlaepunislmenforthedefeaedIfwofoms appearedtherewouldbenoroomforinves1gaiontheNaiyyikaposiionwouldobviouslybecorrect Thereasonhahiswholedebaearisesishaonlyoneformappears23

2DolbtDotheformsweexperiencebelongtocognltionoroects 210ectiorlfromtheNaiyyika0eVij6navdirlThOughdirectperCep10n ecwegraspanobject NaiyyikaButwehave alreadyshown22thatwhatweexperiencethroughvalid meansofknowledgesuchasdirectperteptlOnaretheuniqueformSOfoectswhichare

20ThetranslaionisbasedonthetextaseditedbyKataoka2003anupdatedversionofwhich
isavailableathttpwww1itkyushuuaCjpkkataokaKataokaJNMvijRPdf

21JayantaishereechoinghewordingofheVrtikraLadbIzinnamarIwLip
8281516

InthecontexofrefuingheVed5nicnondualismofBrahmanearlierinhisalnikalasmad
fJ8rgJ8r8VfvddJAVgreddVfdIfmdIllm011m 8gJ8d8VddVdOreddmJdm vIevieval8rFp47l912

notpossiblewithoudifferencefuncionlngaSheydoowardheirownobjectsindependenceon hepriorgraspingofrelaionshipsbeweenpluraliemsiewordsandmeaningsinhecaseof SPeeChandlogicalreasonsandproperiesobeprovedinhecaseofinferenceThereforethese

WOalsocerainlyhavedifferenceastheirobjects
2

meideahawedonoperceivewOseparaeformsOneOfheobjectandoneofcogniion

ThereforeperceptlOndoesnohavenondifferenceasisobecbecauseigraSPSparticular formsofingsaaredisincfromeachoherAsforspeechandinferenceheirverynauresare

goesback atleast to thikra1eddJ8lgm

2814IisvoicedherebyheVijhavdinopponenSOPerhapsigoesfurtherbacktoaBud
dhissolrCeknownoheVrtikaJa

300

301

222Ifoneformappearsdoesitbelongtotheoectorcognltion

312NosubstantialdifferencebetweennondualibTOfoectandnondualityof
COgniion

Ifjustonefomappearsthenthereisroomforinves1gaionTowhatdoesthisformbe
longTheobjectorthecognltionAndwhenthisfoisthusinvestlgatedifitbees tablishedthatitbelongstotheobjecthenyouwillwinButifheviewthattheform belongstocognitionisestablishedWeWillbevictorious
ThecruCialpolntObedeerminediswheherfomsweperceivesuchasbluebelong0aneXernal ObJeCtOrocognlioniSelfHowdoeshisbearontheNaiyyikaobjecionin21Itrendersiirrele VanbymovlngthedebaeoamorefundamentallevelnefactthatwePerCeiveaPluralityofdiffer enfomlSWhichwasgivenin21asapieceofprEmajhcieevidenceEortheexisenceofobjecsexler nalto cognlionCan nOW be seenO be compaiblewith noonly the Naiyyikabualso the Vijahav5dinpositionForifformbelongstocognitionWehaveanexplanationoftheplralityofour experiencehatdoesnorequlreeXemalobjecs ThefacthaweperceiveapluraliyofdifferenfomswasabeerargumentsagalnSheviewhaWe perceiveonlyBrahmanforBrahmanisoneformlessandpadless1hcognl1Onisdiffereniaedand

IfitismaintainedbyanopponenOfourVnavdathatitisheexternalob3eci

selfbynaturean0ectofperceptionthatistheperceiverthenthatobjecwouldbe nothingotherthanhelightofconsciousnessSOthedisagreementbetweenuswould
COnCemnameSOnly WhatwouldhemotivaionbeforanOPPOElenOmainainahisjunCturethattheexternalobjectisthe PerCeivernepolnishaSuChanopponentdespiebeiElganOndualisandhusavoidingthecharge ofpostulatlngmOrethanonethgemPhasizestheexternaliyofhaOnethingThusheisinaposiion oholdhaformbelongsosomehingexernalwithourequlrlnga11ydoublingofpostulation

Objectionnereisadifferenceowingtothefactatyourcognitionisinternaland
ournondualobjectisextemal

ifitcaninctudeformswihinitselfhenperceivlngOnlyiisquiecompaiblewithperceivLngaPluraL ltyOffoms
ThsthedebateeadlierinthischapteroftheexabouwhetherwhatappearSousisnondiffererlCe Mna Migras Advaia Vedha viewor pluralityJayantas viewis nowirreleVantfor the VijnavadinagreeswihJayanaonhapoinnedebaehasshifedoaconsideraionofwheherhis pluralityisbesaccOunedforbyregardinglasbelonglngoexemalobJeCsorcognlionitself

VijnavdinOhyouwhoarebelovedofthegodshowknowledgeableyouareabout differencesTheexternalityofapercivedoectconsissinitsbeingseparaefroma perceiver11extemaliylSnOtWithrespectoabodyAndiftheperceiverisheldtobe

absolutelynondifferentfromtheobjectarEhdEtheperceivedgrdhyLuthentheob jectasyawouldnotbeseparatefromtheperceiverlalazSObecauseitwouldnotbe

externalitwouldbenothingotherhancognitionSohowcouldhisnotbemerelya

disputeaboutnames
3PrvapakaVavdaFormbelongstocognition QuestionFirstthenWhichoutoftheseWOViewsiscorrect tVijnavdinTheviewthatthisformbelongsOaCOgnition
quesionWly EvenhoughapoOCCuPleSadifferenspaiallocaionfromhaofmybodyifitwerenoSeParae

fromtheperCeiveriwOuldElObeexemawouldbeofenaureOfcognitionWhichisprecisely
OurVijavinposition WhoishisopponenwhoriesodiffereniaehisnondualismfromViavadaonthegro11ndsthat whahe claims to exisis externalJayantaisliftlngis posiion from the discussionin the

SlokavaT1aandinXumrilastimenondualisticSaivismhadnoyedevelopedPerhapsKumrila
hadinmindsomesrand ofVedna accordingowhichhe textemalworldofperceivedobjects gr6hyaisrealbecauseitisidenticalwihBrahman

31BecauseitinvoIveslesspostulationkakandlaghavdt
Vav5dinBecausetheextentofpostulationislessonourview

313Cognitionisestablishedforbothofus Becausecognitionisesablishedforbothofusdisputantsthisfomshouldbelongtoit ForabouttheexistenceofcognitionnOOnedisagreesThereforeiisrationalthathis formbelongtocognitionitselfEasyaivaForasiswellknownPostulatingonething

isbetterhanpostulatlngmanyZ4 ThetextreurnShere0hemainissuenamelywhetherformbelongstotheObjectorthecognltionne inferenceofthissecion31ishaavoidanceofunnecessaamOunSOfposulaionleadsothecon ClusionhaibelongsocognlionneopponenholdinghenondualiyofheobjecpOSedathrea0

311TheNaiyyikaspostulatedoublewhatwedo Toexplainhiintheviewthatformbelongstotheobjecttheobjectbeinginsentientby
naureisincapableofilluminaingitselfhereforesomeotherperceivermustnecessr

ilybepostulaedbecauseotherwisetheinsentientoecwouldnotbegraspedThus
idyourposiionhereisdoublethepostulationthahereisinours

AlmostanexactquoteofmlaSee8VdV18d8cd

I1

302

303

hisinferenceforhoughpostula1ngOnlyonething7hewassi11inaposiionOaribueform0he objectHavingdealtwithhatopponentheVhavadincaLICOnCludethissecionbyreaffirminghis algumenthaifwewaLloavoidcontroversialposulaionWemuSaSSlgnformtocognlionforcogT

nitionisacceptedbybothsidesWhereasanexemalobjecisno

andoherluminousbodieswithoutalsoapprehendingthosesourcesofillumina ionInthecaseofhemoonmOSofheimeitisntevenpossibleoaPprehend thesunwhichisilluminlngiforiisblockedbytheearth HowaTeWeorespondtoheundeniabletruhofTaberspoinherehawecanseeanobJeCWihou Seelng the source ofthelight thatilluminaesiWe couldsimplyakeias a refuationofhe Vija5TlaV5dinalgumentaLldmoveonButhenwewouldbelefwithnosenseofwhytheVijavdin thinksha1ightmustbeperceivedinorderoilluminaeWeseetwopossibleexplanaions 1AninvisiblenameOrOtherlightTSOurCeWOuldlackthepowertoilluminateAnamecamotreveal ObJeCtSwithoureVealingltSelfintheprocessIfaperSOnhasanunobsruCedviewofthenamehey wi11seeitOfcourseiLmaybeoutsideoftheirfieldofvisionorobstruCedthusal1thaCanbesaidis hahenamemakesitselfvisiblenOtthaimusEbeperceivedTheexampleisthusnoquleSrong enoughOSeCuretheconclusionthatcognlionmusbeperCeivdinorderocognlZeanObjecbuhe Vi5navdincol1drespondtha110eXmpleisparalletinallwaystoheexemplinedandiniscase thereisindeedthedifferencebetweencognlionandlighhaWhereastheformerisalwaysperCeived WhenitrevealsobjectshelaterisalwaysperceivedwhenitrevealsobjectsexceptwhenitisoutDf view26 TheproblemwithhisexplanaionisthatwhaheVijnav5dinactual1ysayshereisdlaanunper Ceivedagrllila1ightcannoilluminateWeeiherhave0akethislierallyinwhichcaseiisfalseOr WehavetoassumethaagrlisusedlooselytomeannounperceivedbuimpercepibleTheclaim abou1ight then becomesrueanimpercepiblelighcammOtilluminatebutitiSufficien10nly to PrOVeheweakconclusionthatcogniionispercepiblewhichisanywayacceptable0theNaiyyika nottheViavadinsstrongerconclSionthatcognltionmustbeperceivedButhereisasecondex PlarlaionwhlChavoidstheseproblemsandhasoheradvanages 2WhentheVav5dinalksofhenecessiyofhelighbeingperceivedinorderforioilluminae heisalkingnoOfthesourceoflighthelampburaherthe1ighofthelamp27thaspreadsoufrom issourcetotheobjectthatitilluminatesIftheobjecinquesionisthewallinhOntOfmeIhaveO Seehelightbeweenmeandhewal1beforeIseethcwal1eVeniftheso11rCeOfthatlightisoltOfmy fieldofvisionInwhasensedoIseehelighaswellashewallThespacebetweenmeandwallis experiencedasfulloflightgiventhatitthespacebeweenmeandthewalllooksverydiffereninthe
dak

32Cognitionmustbegraspedrst AndforthefollowlngreaSOntOOthisfomlbelongstocognltion 321Becauseitisheilluminator Foryouacceptcognltiontobeheilluminaorofobjectshataredevoidofillumination Anditfo11ows from that that cognitionasyamustbe graspedbeforean objectis graspedForwedonotfindthathelightofhingssuchaslampsisabletoilluminateif itis11ngraSped ThisisthehrstofthreeargumentsgiveniJ1321322and323fortheconclusionhaCOgnition musbegraspedfirstieprlOroheobjecHowhissupporshemainconenionhaforTnbelongs
ocognltionislaidoutin34 Theargumentherein321canbedividedin0hree
neassertion

CogniionmusbegraspedflrS nereason1 becauseifitwerel10itwouldnotbeableograspanobjec Theexample JuS1ikelightifitisnograspedCannOtilminateanobject

WhatsenseaTeWeomakeofheligheXamPleWhyisithecasethaalighinorderoilluminate mustbeperCeivedJohn Taberforthcomingdescribes this assumpion ashigh1y queionablel CommentlngOnheversesintheSlokavLirEEika25haarethesourceofJayanasargumenherehe

wries

11tjustdoesntseemtnlethatonehastoseethesourceofillminationinordertD SeeObjecsilluminedbyiAllthetimewelookaobjecSilluminedbyhesun
25

Asevidencethatlighwasconsideredobevisiblenoonlyaissourcesuchasanamebualsoinhe forTnOfraysspreadingoufromthereSeeayavarEtikaad3138LightEdasisthereconsideredto beasubsanceWhosetwoqualiiesCOlourandemperaureCaeltherbemanifesOrunmaLlifes1n thecaseofarayofthesunbttharemanifestinthecaseofarayoflighecolourismanifesbuthe temperaureunmanifestHencebohofthesekjndsarevisiblebymeansofheircolourInhecaseof IntheverynexsenencesofheeXheVijnavdinargueshawhereasoLdecEsCanbepre

SenyetunperceivedowlngtOanObsruCionCOgnlioncannobeocculTetltyetunPerCeivedItis notinconceivablehathewasmoivaedoplacehaargumenhereinorderoacknowledgebu renderhaTmlessthedisanalogybetweenltgflEandcognitionln otherwDrdsSuSpeCtingthahe Naiyyikamayobjectthathelightmaynobeperceivedheru1esouthispossibiliyinthecaseof COgnltionTheVi5anavdinaTgumentWOuldbeigherhoweverifbothlighandcognlioncon raswihobjectsonthegroundsthatheybothunlikeoecsCannObepresenyeunperceived hisisthecaseifweinterpretheVijnavdinargumenaCCOrdingoeXplanaion2givenbelow 27 TsphraserenecsXumilasbeandJayanasdiadeIIPraksyaWherewetake
thegenitivesasvddrl

vV2122
JdvddI

M1
eprgrvJel ddrddgdIl22

21AndforthefollowingreasontoocognitionhasformBecauseforyouitis
heilluminaoryouholditobehemeansofilluminaionofaneXernalob JeCthaisincapableofselfillumination

22AndifhelighofcogniionisnoperCeivediSObjectisrLOtapprehended
becausetheobjecsilluminaiohisdependentonthatcogniionjus1ikeapo

isnotapprehendedifthelightofthelampisnotperceived

304

305

heeyestlSieherayoflighhaenablesusoseespecificobjecsiscolouraLldempeTaureare
unmanifeshenceiisjJIVisible

Naiyyika1tcanbegraspedbyanohercogniionahesubsequenttime
VijnavadinAndtha0hercogniionwi11begraspedbywha
NaiyyikaByyeanohercogniion

ThisinerPretaionavoidstheproblemsofhepreviousagrecanbetakenliterally28andthereisno IongerhedisaLlalogybeWeenlighandcognltlOnhaheformermaynotbeperceivedifobsruCted
butthelaermustbeperCeivedItalsohastheaddiionaladvantagehaunlikehepreviousitoffers

anexplanaionofwhycogniion1ikelighisperceivedbretheobjecisperCeivcdTTlelighisper CeivedfirstbecauseiisalwaysbeweenmeandheobjecieiiscIoseromyeyesrnlacOgnlionis perCeivedfirsisheconclusionhahelighexampleisinrOducedoinstaniateyeonhepTeVious inerpreaionhiscruCialaspecOftheconclusionisnorepresenedintheexample29

navdinThenioowi11begraspedbyyeanohercogniionSowhatlimi
canherebel NaiyyikaFaiguewi11bethelimi

322Becauseitmustbegraspedattheverymomentthaiarises Andevenifotjectssuchasapoariseinfrontofuswewi11notperceivehemwhen

navadinAsyoulikeWhenexhausedyoucanakerestBuyouWillnohave

graspedanobjectbecauseaslongastheilluminationremainsungraspeditisimpossible
todiscemhingsilluminaedbyhatThusthegrasplngOftheobjecCOuldneveroccur33

thereisalackofilluminationorwhenweareinconveniencedbyanobstacletbetweenus
andtheobjec30ratjbandhakavaid7zuTTdBuasforcognitionOnCeihasarisen

ForhebjecttobegraspediscognltionilluminationhastobegraspedLetustermthisCthecondi
iothahastobemetCaLlinOtbeobjecedbytheNaiyyikathattheilluminationoftheobjectis

therecarLbenoobstacletoitsbeingperceivedAndcognitiondoesnodependonan
Otheri11uminationbecauselikealamplsVerynaureisoshineforhbyitself ThefirstsentencegaveWOTeaSOnSWhywemighnoperCeivesomehinghatispreseninfronofus anobsacleoTalackofilluminaionrnlahefirsofthesecannotapplyocognl10nWaSSatedinthe
SeCOndsenenceafeTal1beweenmeandanobjechereisagapwhereanobsaclemaybelocated

gmspedintheveryfirstmomentafertheoqectisgraspedT2SOhatsurelythentheobjeccanbe
graspedTheVnavdinwouldrespondbyreapPlyingCtotheilluminationofLheobjectIfthat

becomesthenewobjechenitfollowsfromCthatithasnotyetbeengraspedatT2becauseitsillumi
nationhasnotyebeengTaSPedThuswehaveowaitunilhei11uminationoftheilluminaionofthe

bubetweencognlibnandiselfhereisnosuchgap3JTTlehirdsentenceexplainswhyhesecond CnOtapPlyeiherbecausecognltionprovidesisoWnilluminaionandthusdoesnotrequlreany
oher

objechasbeengraspedbeforetheobjectcanbegraspedandsoonInthiswayCentailsthatunless theilluminationoftheobjecisgraspedaexaCtlythetimethatitarisesthegrasplngOftheobjectis
POStpOnedforever

ThereforeeventhosewhoholdhawegraspaneXernalobjecmusnecessari1yresoIlto
anearliergrasplngOfcognition

TTlereforeahepreciseimewhenitarisesiis necessarilygraspedIfitwereno graspedwhenitarisesLitwouldnobegraspedatanysubsequenttimeeiherFor WhatcouldoccurforiatasubsequentimeaSareSultofwhichitbegraspedathatsub

SequentimeOrwhatdidnooccurforiaeimethaiarosetadaaSareSultof Whichiwasnotgraspedthen32

JayaLlasirnmediaesOurCeforhisrecountlngOfhisfamousinfinieregreSSargumenis
KumrilayV28 rddCdJJrdJ

rnleVijavdinrestaeShepolnabou1ighduringtherefuaionofhisargumeninsecq tion4230fthesiddhaTZtaTZaCLigr7zilabpraka5abprakaSyamprakahyaEiAgainhelieTalmeaLl
28

dfcVJJVe

1ngishaunperceivedlighcannOilluminaenOhaimpercepelghtannCltinateThusii

WOuldbeextremelysurprlSlngifLimperceptibleweretheintendedmeanlng
rnlaheinendedconclusionofhisargumenisnouSthacognlionisgraspedbuhaiis graspedflrSisconfirmedbyhewaytheargumenissummaTizedahebeginnlngOfsecion44in hefdkfprddrdVJgrdJndJve
I
30

AndIeilluminationofhattcogniiondoesnowaitfortheriseofanothercog niionforgiventhatthaothercognitionwouldalsobeexperiencedbyyet anothelherewouldbeaninfiniteregleSS

seeKaaoka200675nOe20forthepointhahepairingofhesetwocondiionsabsence

OflightandpresenceofanobstaclegOeSback0heAbhidLarmakobhya

KumrilawasinturndrawingonDigngaPnzmasamLCCayal12abjhandruarepdnLEbhave SeeGaneri1999andKellncrhcomingBdiscussionsofDigngasargum8ntt Kum1ilassEddhdnEaisthatacognitionmayormaynobecognizedthrougharEhapaEEibya subsequentcognltionhatsubsequenOnemayhentorrnaynotIbecognizedbyayetsubsequent oneandsoonWhentheagentbecomesfaiguedSeeyaVaCCfmaminiiinyavada191abyre flecingonheircognitiontheiTCOgnltionofthatcognlionectheyceasetodosoTheprocess

comeso aLlend and thereis noinfinieregreSSJayana takes this polnt about fatigue from

FormoreontheimpossibiliyofanyobsaCleordisor1ngfacorinervenlngbeweencognl
ionandisawarenessofiselfSeeWasOnforhcoming
12

Kumrilassidd7z6nEaSeCtionandplacesihisownpiiTVdkFaSeCionWherewehavejusenCOun
erediL Heprefersoa1lowtheVijnavdin00VerCOrnethepolntwithinhepnrvapakarather

JayantasummarieSthisargumentinsection450fhesEddhaTLabeforerefutingltyadapy

dJeVdJdrJlJdcJdgJV
icJJlljPrd

thanuslngltaSarlunChallengedargumentagalnSttheVijinavadininhesiddfzanEaSeCtionlaSitis
forKumila

30i

307

Notethatwhahisargumentiethatgiveninthissection322esablishesisthatcogniionisgrasped atpreciselyesameimethaitaTisesSeeaOyadaivaLasyoFpLidabadaivagrahapamavasy bhaveLaboveandLFpadyamanamevajhdnamLadaivagrhyaEeinthesummaryofthisargumenin SeCtion450fthesiddh5nEagiveninfoonoe32Yetimmediatelyafertheargumenhasbeengiven WefinditstaedthatcognltionmustthereforebegraspedearlierieprlOrtOtheobiecJayanadoes notsatewhyifo1lowsfromcogniionbeinggraspedapreciselythetimeitarisesthaitisgrasped PrlOrtOtheobjecThereasonisincludedinheversionoftheargumentglVenbyKumrilas

Vijanavdinhoweveriilnyavada25

JayantasformulaionofhisargumenisellipicalOurinerpretaionofiisinfluencedbyhisirnmedi

atesourcefortheargumennaLnelyStokavarEEikaiLinyav6da2829Citedinfootnoe43andbya parallelargumentthahegivesatNyayama4iar27739Citedinfoonoel12AttimeTlthere wasacogniionCofanobJeC0AtT2WereflecLhisoectwascoBnizedbymeinwhichO feauresaSthequalifiedvifeyaWhaishequaliflerviieFaTojudgefromheverbalizaionof thereflectionOnemightexpectthefacthateobjechasbeencognizedpreviouslybymeBuiis

clearthaiisbeingunders00dobehepreviouscognitionitselfC

cgrdvdCdt
edddVedddCeJJdrefdll

OnceChasbeenidentifledasthequalifierandOasthequalidtheVnavdincanappealoaBen
eralNaiyyikaprincipleoesablishthaereflecionincludesamemoryofCbeforeismemoryOfO

Andheriseofhecogniionisacceptedtotakeplacebeforehegraspingofthe
Objecandaheverytimehacogniionarisesimusbeexperienced0her
WiseineYerCOl1dbe

TTIuSWehavethemisslnglinkinheargumenCOgnlionarisesbeforeigraspsisobjecLnlisisalso
SatedbyeVrttikara3JIcouldbeseenobesuggesedbytheZighexampleafteramatchisstruCkin thedarkOralighisswitchedonthelighwillhenakeasmallaLnOuntOftimetotravelotheobjects

TheprlnClpleStatedinhelassentenceofetextishatifheqifieIhasnotbecngraspedthe qualifiedcannobegraspedYoucannocognizesomeoneasalsickCarTierd4inieaSquaified byasickdap4aunlessyouhavecognizedhesickhattheyarecarrying39similarlyifyouareex periencingOashavingbeencognizedieaSqualifledbyCyOumuSthaveJuStCOgniedieremem beredCIfweassumethaourmemorycanberuSedthenifo1lowshathestructureofhememory inwhichfirsCisrememberedandthenOisrememberedrePlicaeShesruCtureOftheearlierexperi encernluSWeCanknowatthisearlierexperienteatTlinvoIvednoonlyaBraSplngOfO7bufirsta

grasplnBOfCfollowedbyagrasplnBOfO

itwi11iuuminateSeealsoTabersforthcomingcommenonthejusCited5tokavaTtikaversetothe efftctthatitisaMmrnsakaprlnCiplethasomethingmustexisbeforeitcanexerciseisfuncionHe POinStOStokavdrLkaPTTLLyakFaSGEra54abwhichistranslaedandcommenedonaTaber200567 AsDharmakfrihassaid35

WhatishappeninBaTLisnotclearahatmomenistherefirshusagraspingofOasaccordinBtO
heNaiyyikasoristherefirsagraspingofCasaccordingotheViinavadinsItonlybecomes

clearinthelightoftheevidenceaT2nlefacthaaT2heawarenessofCprecedesdleaWareneSSOf OindicatesthatintheoriginaexperienceatTlanaWareneSSOfCprecedestheawarenessofO Fromthistoo40itisestablishedthatfirsthereisagrasplngOfcognlion JayantasimmediatesourcehereKumrilaWaSintumprobablybasinBhimselfonDiBngasarBument atpramasamuccayal11cd41Andbecauseofmemoryaasubsequenimecogniionhaswo formsandisselfCOgnizedformemoryasauisnotpossiblewihregardosomethingahasno beenexperiencednleVrEEiexplainsLAndbecauseafterancxpcriencememOryanSeSOfhecognl tionaswellasoftheobjectCOgnltionhaswoformsandisselfCOgnized42sincewehavememoryof

hecognltionecognltlOnmuSthavebeenexperiencedeadier

Forsomeonewhosepercepionisimperceptibleevenheseeingofanobject
CannObeesablished

323BecauseofreflectionraiyavamaTaonanObjecasprecededbycogniion Forhefollowingreason00iishecasethacogniionmustbegraspedfirsbecause

afercognizinganobjecWefindthawereneconthatobiectavamar5ad5n61as
PreCededbycognitionhanaprhenaToexplainhiWhenknowersreflecthisbT jecwascognizedbymeheyarerememberinganumodanLe36firstagraspingofcogni ionandonlyaferhaagraspingofheobjecFortherecanbenocogniionofsome hingqualified37whosequalifierhasnofirsbeengrasped38

Kumrilawries43AndasforrefleciononheformofheobjecaSpreCededbycoBnlionWhichoc curslaereVenintheabsenceofheobJeCThowwouldthabepossibleifereflecingcognitiondid

3gThisargumentissummarizedahebeBinnlngOfsection46inthesiddhanEabeforebeingre
eddJdcdddrJlddrddrdgrdmdrdd

3d pdfrdJeJd304
31

JdvlrJm

plamainticayal54cdForadiscussionofoherpossiblesynacicalinerpreaionsofthis

halfVerSeSeeWason2006206andKellnerforthcominBBForalisofplaceswhereiis

CitedSeeSteinkellner200740SomeohercitaionsnomenionedheearefoundaNefvnZ Parprak53aadl5P1213adl27c28bP611JayarahascommenaryadThntdtk 1096cq97bP751ThEtvasahgrahqpa6ad2069Vol2P70517 ForotherplaceswhereDharmakfrtimakesthepolnhatcoBnlionofanobjecnecessarilyen tailscognltionofcogniionSeePramavdrEika3443aband3446SeealsoTbTkabhasd178

1816 LiterallyreenJOylng

39YoucanhoweverCOBnlZehasomethinBISaStickwithouCOgnlZingtheperSOnCarrylnBl 40efromhisarBumenin323aswellasthoseglVenin32land322TheapECOrTelaes thissenenCeWithEaEaicarhaPrahamaaranaSyagTt7JeTlabhaviavyamin32ladEasmdd

mmMin322

41erJvVIl

mdJdviIJ
mkl

43dVJJdV2829
J0JJlebl

Inthiscasethisobjectayamathab

ddCdell

308

309

noarisehavingdepicedanobJeCofhaformwihiniselfandifinhepasieatheimeofhe Origi1alcogniionheobjechadnobeenperceivedasprecededbycogniionELZTVam KumrilaherederjveswoconclusionsfromWOfeaturesofreflecionlCogJliionarisesconaining heformofanobjecforwecanreflecOnheformofanabsenobjec2Ahetimeoftheoriginal COgJliionheobjecWaSperCeivedasprecededbycognlionforwereneconheobjec1aeraSPre

cededbycognl10n44

Theargumenherecouldeitherderivefromwhajshypotheicallypossibleorfromwhatisempirically Observed1IfcognitiontackedformWhatwouldtherebetograspltwouldbecompletelytranspar e1tlikeemptyspace2WedonoremembermerecogniionsbualwaysacogniLionqrsomeEg

3242Anexternalobjectisereforeredundant Andgivenhatacognltionwithformisgraspedhowcanherebesomeexternalotject SeParatefromthatcognitionforwedonotgraspasecondfo

SoJayantahasncrwsatedtherelevanceoftheargumentsin321322and323Sinceweknowfrom hosethreeargumentsthatcognltionisgraspedWeCanknowthaithasformSinceihasformWe

KumarilasnrscoJIClusionismoreorlessequlValenoDigngasconclusionofcognlionhaviJlgtWO formsHissecondcoJIClusionismoreorlessequivalenoDigngasconclusionofcognltionbeing
SefLCOgnizedforifanobjecisperceivedasprecededbycognltionCOgnlionmusthavebeencog

nizedKumrilahusmakesclearwhamaynohavebeenclearfromDigngasargumetltnamelywhy
lproveshaCOgnlionhaswoformsdoessoaCCOrdingoKumrilaa1easbecausehefactha WeCanrememberanobjecwhenanobjecisnohereshowshaheformoftheobjectmustbecon

havenoreasonoacceptheexistenceofaJXtemalobjectforwedonotgrasptwoforms46
ThisargumentgoesbacknoonlytoKumrjlaSeetheapparatus0heeditionbutalsootheVFti kraHewritesLWedonotperceivedifferentformsOneDftheobjectandon60fcognltionAndfor uscogniionisperCeivedperCepiblemereforeasweunderstandithereisnosupposedentityofthe

ainedwihincognlionathaime45 Whahenarehediffere1CeSbeweenthetwoargumentslWheTeDigngatalksofsmTiiKum5ri1a
lalksofJTtimaT2DigngasargumenisbasedonhefacthaWerememberhecognitioJlaswe11 astheobjecFromhishecorLCludesthatwemusthaveexperiencedthecognitionKum5rllasargu menisbasedonhefachaweremembertheobjecasprecededbycognltionFromhisheconcludes thawemushaveexperiencediasprecededbycognition JayanalgnOleSKumarilasfilSconclusionHementionsneiherhefacthaheobjecisabsenahe

1atureOfanobjectwhichisseparatefromcognitionLadbhinnam47ThisistheprinciplcBuddhist argumeninheVrttikrassLZnyavadasecion
WhatJayantasargumentaddsistheideathatcogrlldo1isgraspedbeforeanobjectisgraspedmis ideaisalsohereinKumrilabuitismoreemphasizedbyJayanaitismenticmedinallhreeofthe

timeoftherenectionnOrtheconclusionofcognltioJICOntainmgformHeconcenraesexclusivelyon esablishinghacognltionisgraspedprior0heobjecbeinggraspedHisargumenisesseniallythe
SameaSKumarilasargumentforthatconclusionbutheclarineswhacouldberegardedasobscurein Kumrilai1WhasensedowereneconeobjecassubsequenocOgnlionHisansweramounts0 WereflectoniascogniedieaSqualifiedbycognitionSincecognlionishequalifierifollows

argumentsleadinguptcrthissectioJliTltheparaphrasesoftheseargumentsatthebeginnlngOfsections 4344and46aJldiJltheparaphraseofthis324argumentatheeJldofsectn4648Whaprecise
TOledoesitplaySurelytheaEgumentdoesnotrequlreitforglVenthatweonlygrasponeformthe merefacthawegraspcognltionwihfoise10ughoestablishhatwedonotgraspanobjectthatis SeParatefromcognLtionAndifwegraspcognltionhenwemustgraspcognionwihformTTLatmay allbesobuhepolntOfJayantasargumensforcognltionofanobjecrequlrlngaPnOrCOgnltionof thecognltionisthattheysupporttheconenionthawegraspcognltionMuchweighhangsoJls COnentiontheargumentfailsinfacdoesnoevengetoffthegroundwihouiHenceinorderfor theVfttik5rasargumenttobestrengthenedhiscontenionthatcog1itionisgraspedpraEyakaCanO buddIzibneededtobesrengherled Thacog1itionflrSgraspSitselfandth6nanObjectisnotacuallytheViJavdinsownviewGiven
haforhim

fromhemaximabouqualiflerandqualifiedthaimushavebeengraspedfirsbohinthememory
andineoriginalexperience

324Therelevanceofcognltionbeinggraspedbemainissue
3241Agraspedcognltionhasform

AndcognitionbeingnecessarilygraspedLYasaresultofthethreepreviousarguments CannOtbegraspedwithoutsomeformSOCertainlyitmusbegraspedwithform

ltheobjecisnothingotherhancogJliion 2wedonotperceivetwoforms hereissimulanelyinhegrasplngOfobJeCtandcognlion

dJmJddfFrdJl

CddrJJ
44

46

nleargumenthusmovesfromthefactthaCOgnlionisawareofitselftotheconclusionthat

wewerehelpedinouTinterpretationofhesetwoversesbyTaberforhccrmingWhodrew

OuraenionOUmbekasdivisionofhefeauresofherenecionin0woOneyieldingonecoTIClu Sionandlheotheryieldingtheother mighbeobjecedhaDigngainendedhisconclusionofcogniionhavingwOformso

45

COgnljonhasformandfromthereothedenialoftheexistenceofextemalobjectsFormoreonthe relaionshipbeweenthefirstofhesetwoSVaSVedaTZaandsakaravadaSeeWatsonforthcoming
SeCion3
17

gyc0dddm

followfromthefactthattheoriginalexperiencewasofbohanobjecaJldcogniionButhiswould beaninsubsantialargumenthefachatanexperienceisofanoectdoesJlOenailthaihasthat ObjectasafoTTnwithinitselfDigngadoesnoglVerequiredsupportlngargumensthatwouldiJldi

CaehisobehisinenioJl

r281416 m1cnnnynm

akarahLBecauseacognlionappearsbeforegrasplnganObJeCtandbecausehereisJIOdetermiLllng
Ofitasdevoidofformhisformbelongsocognltionalotle

310

311

ThenecessofcognitionbeinggraspedfLrStisanunwantedconseqllenCeraSaTigathatresultsfrom heNaiyyikandfmakapresupposionthatobjecSareOfadifferentnaturethancognition49itisuSt aemporarystageinanargumenthatisfollowedbyWeOnlyperCeiveoneformthereforeletsforget aboutanextemalobjecrmeVnavdinsidd7zdntaisthathereisnotemporaldifferencebutthatif therewereanexemalobjeciWOuldhaveObeperceivedlater

The Vi5navdin here anticIPateS and rqectshe Naiyyika view that sinee cognltions objectq

SpeCificitycanbeaccountedforbythefactthatitiscausedbyitsparticularobjectWedonotneedto resorttotheassumptlOnOfformwithinit
TTle Naiyyikas conceptualized the Telationship between object and cognltlOn aS that ofproducer

UanakaandproducedUanyaTTlebackgroundmodelisthatoftheGrammariansaCCOrdingtowhich
theactiondenotedbyaverinthiscaseeactionofcognltiondenQtedbycQgnlZeisbIOughtabout bykarakasthevariouscausalfactorsthattogetheTPrOdueeanactionDharmakittianBuddhismop

33BecausecognlionscouldnotbeobjectSpeCciftheylackedform 331Aformiesscognltioncouldnotbefocusedononeparticularobject Forthefo1lowingreasontoocognitionhasformbecauseifitlackedformitcouldnot

POSedthisapproachbydenyingthatanyactionisinvoIvedincognltionandmaintainlngthattheobject
andthesoCalledmeansofcognltionfarfrompfeeXistlngthecognitionandcauslnglttOCOmeinto

beingOCCurSimultaneousywithitandaTenOtSePaTatefromitRatherthancognltlOnbeingadynamic
PrOCeSSbeginnlngwithmeansaJldobjectandendingwithresultnamelycognltionofthatobjectitisa StaticnaparastateItisprecededandfo1lowedbysimilarstaticstatesbutineachonethereis SimultaneltyOfmeansreSulandobjectform WhatallowscognltiontobeobjectSPeCcisthusnotthatitisbroughtintoexistencebyapreeXistlng objectbutsimplythatitariseswithisobjecaSitsfomlTTlerelationbetweenoectandcognltion ratherthaJlbeingQtleOfproducerandproducedismerdyQneOfspecifiervyavasEILaPaaandspecified
vdVdd

bedifferentiatedwithrespecttoitsobjects50
ItwouldbeimpossibleforonecognltiontobeofblueandanoherofyellowetCAllcognlionswould
behesamc

Evenifyoupostulateanexemalobjectyouwi11anywaynecessarilyhavetoteach

thatacognitionhasforrninordertoestablishthatitislimitedbyitsobjecandthusdis tinguishablefrom cognitions ofotherobjectsForhowifitlackedformcould this COgnitionofbluearisingin thepresenceofmanythingsbecome1amavalambeta attachedtobluealonebyeCludingallofthethingsotherthanblueEadilaraforits beingacognitionbynaturedoesnotvarywithrespecttoal1ofitsobjectsY

Giventhatcognltionarisesinthepresenceofrnanythingsthefacthatithasaparticularintentionality CanOnlybeexplainedbyihavingaparicularformForifitsnatureconsistedmerelyinbeingafQrm 1esscognlioniWOuldsandinthesamerelaiontoallthehingsinwhosepresenceitarosenOthing

ItwasDharmakirtiscommentatorDharmottarawhointroducedthepreciseteTminologyofvyavasEha pyavyEZVaSLIzL5pakabhavarelationofspecifierandspecifiedCOntraStingitwithjanyqianakabhavare

lationofproducerandproduced51ItispossiblethatJayatltasaccountinthissection33andthe
COrreSPOnding refutationin section4gin which heuses expressions such aspraEikarmavVaSEha threetimesandJlaviFayatVaYyaVaSEhdhasbeeninnuencedbyDhalLmOttaraKataoka2009has ShownthatJayanaknewDharmottaraswrihngWhichwasalreadysuggestedbythefactthatJayanta

glVeSthenameDharmottaratoheBuddhistmOnkcharacterinhisplayAgamadambanzandisnot
SufPrlSinggiventhatDharmottaTatOOkoveromDharmkaradattaArcataca730790astheforeq

WOuldlinkittoitsspecificintentionalobjectandexcludeitfromotherobjectsonwhichitisnotfo
CuSed

mostcQrnmentatQrOnDharmakrtiinJayantasareaofresidenceKashmir52 333ConclusionHavingablueoectiscausedbyhavingablueform ThereforeitiscognitionspossessionofablueformnOOthercausethatexplainsits

AndhowcouldheactivltyOfthosewho actjudiciouslyYlbeproperlyfocusedonthat
blueobjectalone

particulardistinguishingfeatureofhavingablueobeCtAndDharmakfrtisays53
Acognitionfocusedon thatblueobjectEatrahavingasimilarnatureto OthercognitionsofotheroectsintermsofitbeinglikethemacognitionmuSt haveanaturebyvirtueofwhichitisdifferentiatedinaccordancewithitsoect

NoOnlycognlionbualsoacivltyCOuldnotbefocusedonparticulardistinctobjectsifthecognltions OfhoseobeCsdidnohaveheirform

332MerelyteingcallSedtyanjectwiilllOtSuce Anditwouldnotberighttosaythatbeingcausedbybluedoesproducethisrequired limitationonacognitionofblue1adadhigalibecausegiventhefactthatthecognition isalsocausedbyothercausalfactorskakasuchaslightandeyesVLlitwouldundesira

blyfollowthatithadthoseasitsobjectstooL

5IseeomDharmottarasNyiiyabindzLEnacaEranyqianakabhavanibaTldtahsadtlya
sLidhaabhavabaPiLzLaVaSE14pyavaVaSLhapakabhLiveT7acitedatTosaki1979397nOte7L

52JayaJltauSeStheexpressionpraElkarmavyavasEaasthoughitwereatechnicaltehndesplteit notoccumnginDhaakT11iDharmakrtidoesusevyavasLhaTlainthiscontexthoweverinPramii
19

ThisprasaiganaureismosClearlyindicatedbyinhe5tokavLEikaverse21givenin

0note25andinhisexhcSCnten9COl 50 neargumenofhissectioncomes0DharmakiltiSeePraaviJZiicayal3437and PraTIJava7ka3301319JayanaCites3302belowin333

137PJvJJ330g 5 pV3302SeeasofVffadl34P315Jvr dr8yrJle1mlvymgddmiJV

dJg

312

313

IfthenauresofcogniionswererestrictedoJuSthefacthatheyarecognitionsanddidnoinclude Whattheyarecognltionsoftheywoulda11bealikeandsoacognlionofbluewouldbeindistinguish ablefromacognlionofyellow

JayantaoisolaeoneofhemashemoseffecivegrVenLhatifanyoneofthemisremovedthere
sultwouldnotcomeabou

335EveneveIdayusageatessocognlionhavingform
334ConsequenceJustificationofthelabelprama Forthisveryreason54cognitionaloneaSthemosteffectivefactorSadhakaEamaCan

AndevenworldlyeVerydayutterarlCeSeXistthatattesttocognltionhavingformAnd ca5peoplespeakinthefollowingwayThisisablueobjectbecauseinmyminda
COgnltionwiththatformhasarisen

Liustlybecomeameansofvalidknowledgem55glVenthatsaEiwhenthisvery
taking on offorTnis resorted to asits preeminerlCCaEiiayaoverotherfactorshe meaningofthewordmostEamabbecomesjustied
ForsomehingObeapramdrzaitmustbethemosteffectivefactorthatbringsaboutavalidcognltion AndforsomethingobehemoseffectivefacOrimusthavesomepreeminencethaheotherfacors lackIfweacceptthatcognltiontakesonformhenwecanregardthatasjspreeminenceSettlngit

336ConclusionTheonlywaycognltioncouldbeddimitedwithrespecttoits Objectsisbyhavingform Thereforecognlionmustnecessari1yhaveformY11becauseotherwiseitwouldbeimpos

Sibleforittobedelimitedwithrespecttoisobjects

5 apartfromoherfac01SandwehushavesomeJuSificaiorlforiandnotthembeingapramaTta ForotherwiseSince wewouldfindnopreeminenceinanycausalfactorkakait WOuldbehardtojustifythatanycausalfactorEaEisthemosteffectiveone

1fcognlionwerenocapableoftakinginformnOneOfhekLilYZkasWhehercognliondevoidofhe abiliy0akeonfo11nOrOhersputforwardbyotherschooIsasthemosteffecivecausalfactorand husashemeansofproducingknowledgeforexampleilldriyarEzasannikalaCOnaCtbetweensense faculyandobjecputforwardbytheNaiyyikaswo111dhaveanypreeminenceHencetherewo111dbe noJuSificationforanyofthembeinghemoseffectiveonehenceherewouldbenoJuSincationfor anyofhembeingthemeansofknowledge ThereasonhatJayanaputshispolntin0hemouthofhisViinavdinopponentmaybehahein facagreesthathereisnoJuSiLicaionforanysnglekarakabeinghemosteffectiveoneThisargu menhusgiveshimahookonowhichhecanhanghisresponseinthesiddhanEasection484Lhatthe meansofknowledgeisnotanyslnglek6TukabuthewholecausalcomplexItmakesnosensefor

1uSeVenifanextemalobjectexistsaformwithincognltionmustbepostulated Soitisbettertostoprighttherebeingsatisfiedwithcognitionalone58

34TheVijnavadinRefutationoftheSautrntikaView 341TheSautrntikaViewthattheexternalobjeccanbeinferred Therearethose59whoargueasfollowsLX Becausecognitionhasaransparentnatureof itselftheappearanceinitofblueyellowandthelikemusthavesomethingotherthan

cognitionasthecauseofitsparticulariyupadhijus1ikelacorsomeotherredthing

Placedbehindacrystalimplantsrednessintothecrysal
ItmaylookliketheredrleSSbelongstothecrystalbutitisactuallylmplanedtherebysomehingoher hanitSimilalylmayseemliketheforrnsweperCeivebelongtoourcognlionsbusincecognltion istranspaenbynauretheymusbeimplanedtherebysomehingotherhanit

51 55

Iebecausecognlioncanhaveapardcularfomandthusgraspapaticularform GrammariansdefineaninstrumenasthemoseffectivefactorinbringingaboutanacionSee

AddIzyayl442SddhakaLdmaEvLiEkarL2mDebatesinphilosophicaltextsoverwhatbeinga pmmapaconsisSinoftenappealtoisbeingthemosteffectivefacorinbiingingaboutknowledge asaresultQfbeinganinstrumentKelLnerforthcomingAsuggeststhattheeadiesinsanCeOfhis

mayCYddVrJJbadi11
5secprdVJjd11andTosaki1979404
rVdgefy de7dJdmll
57

Thecamakesli1esensehereliwouldbemoreapproprlaeTheSEokavalEikdVerSeOn vddcdevdddJl
JJrJU

Althoughallcausalfaetorscontributetoanacionhemosteffectiveoneisheld
ObethelastandtheonethatparticularizesbhedakaTnheaction

WhichthisisbasedSyavada30includesaca

DhamakTrtimenionstwocondiionsthamusbemeforsomehingtoqualifyashemosef fecivefacOrandhenceasthemeansofvalidknowledgeprlmrla1Itmustcomelastinthe ime1inebeforehearislngOfheresultingactionnOtSeparatedfromitbyanylnterVenlngObstacle Seevyavadllin33102itmustpaTticuIarizetheresulingcogniiondeermininghaijsof blueandnotofyellowforexamplePossessionoftheformoftheobjectseemeyarQELiin3306 andviL2yabhsaEainPralfJLiZaSamlLCCayal9cisheonlyLhingthameetsthesetwoconditions

ItispossiblethatLhishasinfLuencedJayaJlta
58

Asimi1arexpressionisfoundinthej6barabzaaVrtikrascommentaryonl15p526

7EaEofialZELeVaPariuFyaavELLyevavirallumarhaiThereforeyoushouldresconenWith COgnliononeandsopatthapOlnt 5 NamelySauttikas

314

315

ThereforeeVenthoughanexemalobjectisnotexperiencedseparately60iisinfeed becausewithoutittheappearanceofacognitionwithacertainformsdkarqfiianawould

erHowdoestheSauranika thinkthatthenegativeconcomitancecanbeknownProbablyno

roughashisversechafaCehzesiperCeivlngaCOgnltiotlwithoutformwhennoobjectistherebut
ratherthroughehypotheicalconsideraionthaiftherewerenoobjecherewouldbenocognlion
withform

beimpossible
WeexperiencevariousimagesThesecouldbeprQducedintwodifferentwaysbycognltionitselfor

byobjecsexternalocognlionTheformerisruledoubydlefachacognltionistransparentby
natureThereforeexernalobjecSmuSbeinfeTredasheonlypossibleexplanaion InprevioussecionsheVijiinav5dinhasbeenargulngagalnSheNaiyyikaposiionthaheformswe perCeivebelongtoexernalobjecsHehasalmedsimplyatesablishinghatheformsweperceive belongtocognltionforestabLishingthatmuchtnderminestheNaiyyikaposition13uidoesnoun derminetheSaunikapositiotlWhichfordlatreaSOnnOWneedstobeaddressedforhelaerholds aevenoughcogniionhasformseXernalobjecsaretobeinferredasthecausesofdlOSeforms AsDharmakrtihassaid61

WithregardtolacandcrystalandthelikeOntheotherhanditisappropriatetoviewthe siuationinthatway65becauseinthatcaseweseethatthechunkofcrystalisreddened
byhe1acXInthiscaseofanobjectandcognitionhowever

Itisobvio11Skhaluthatwedonothaveexperienceofcognitionascolouredby someextemalobject660raSlackingfotmbynature67inthewaythatwedoex perienceacrystaltobecoIouredbyanobjectnamely1acandtobetransparent

bynaure68

Exernal0jectscanbeesablishedfromnegativeconcomitance efromthefacthawhenthereistlOeXternalobjectthereisnointemalimageJuSasinhecaseof
dleCrySalWhenhereisnoredobjecthereisnoredrleSSaPPeanngindleCryStal

342Cognitionisnotanalogoustoacrystall
VijnavdinThisinferenceisimpossiblebecauseonecannotapprehendthepositive
COnCOmlance

TheWOmOSPlausiblecandidaesforinterpretingirLthatwayEaEhaarelashavingposi iveconcomianCehaisperceivedCOnrasingwihaT7VaydlMPalabdhebbeforeheverseand2 ashavingbothposiiveandnegaiveconcomitancethatareperCeivedcon1aSingwitheverse Theresofthesenencewhichrnenionsonlywhaisrelevan0heposiiveconcomianceweighs infavourofthefirstButinfavourofhesecondiskaysphaikaqzyahLiaheendofhenex verseWhichimpliesreferenceobohhepositiveandnegativeconcomita1CeSeeheranSlaionof ibelowaJldwhichseemsOhaveanexaclypara11elroletQtheaETtahereOfcourseitmakeslittle

65

IhefachawhenanexernalobjecisthereaCOgniionhavinganimageofhaobjecappears WecannotdeeminehabecauseweneverseeanexernalobjecalongsidebuseparaefromcognlT
tioninthewaythatwedoseefirealongsidebuseparaefromsmoke

differencewhichisinended

6bBecausewecannoseebeyondhecognlionoanyexemalobjec 67ThisexpressionirakdrnisargaLtzhjeSemblessvaIahsvacchasvablzavahavingarans
parentnatureofitselfaboveBttnOtehaheViilnavdinaSbecomesclearbelow3442aC

Forwheredidtheproponentofheviewthateextemalojectcanonlyeverbe

cepsthacognltionissvahsvacchasvabllaVaHowcanthatbereconciledwiththepresenpoin
Twodifferenpossibiliiessuggestemselves

inferredobservecognltionwithaformwhenanoqecispresent62andwithouta
formwhentheobjecthasgone664
TheVijii5navdinsmainpolnseemsobehathepositiveconcomitancecannotbeknownforthatis howheiIlroducedheverseBuiniheclaimshatthenegaiveconcomiancecannobeknownei

1HereheemphasizesefacdlawedonoeJtPerieT7CeCOgniionolackformbynaureLHe knowsiodo sohroughscrlPureorhoughhypoheicalconsideraionsOnhisviewhisdis agreemenwihtheSaurnikaconcemlnghenegaiveconcomianCeCanbeseenobeslighaJld thismayexplainwhyheintroducesthefirsVerSeaSaSSer1ngdisagreemenregaIdinghepositive

concomitancealone

60

ButonlyviaacognltionhaYingltSfom ThisistheposiiveconcomianceWearedealingherewithcausalratherthanloglCalCOn

61prdIfJcddl5cd
62

COmianceinotherwordseanalogousposiiveconcomianCeinecaseofEireaJldsmokeisnot lwhenhereissmokethereisfirebuwhenhereisfirethereissmoke Onceacausalrelaionhasbeenesablishedbycausalconcomiancehelogicalconcomiance CanbeknownForexactlyhowacausalrelaionisesablishedaccordingODharmakTriSeeInami

1999
6 64

2AithoughbohcandheSautrnikaagreehacogniionissvatalLSVaCCTLaSVabTLaVatheir disagreemenCOnCemlng the negaive concomianceis considerableTheSaurnikaholdsha whennoobjecisherecognlionlacksformTheVnavdinholdsnoOnlythathiscannobe experiencedbualsothaiisnorueforhimevenwhennoexemalobjecisthereCOgnlionhas fomcausedbylatentimpressionsSoforhimcogniionshavingaransparennatureSVaCChasva bhavameanshaheseLaterLtimpressionsdonotformpartofitsnatureitdoesnotmeanthai 1acksformwhennoexernalobjecishereToanswerhequestiorLthenofhowOnhisviewhe presenclaimisleconcilablewihhislaerclaimhacognlionisransparenbynaurehereheis denylnghaabsenceofexemalobjecmeansabsenceofaformincognlionhereheisassertlng
thatlaenimpressionsafeOnlyastrfacemudhadoesnoaffeccognltionsransparennaure

Thisisthenegaiveconcomiance JayanahasalreadygivenhisverseinhehrsdlZikaVolp411415inhecontextof

SakarqfiidZaVadabeingpufoIWardasawayofesablishingthatheprarZapIzalaisnodifferen
fromtheJrd

68wecanseethecrysalObecolouredbythelacbecauseiispossibleoseethelacsepafaely ifweremoveifrombehindthecrystalaJldwecanseethatthecrystalistransparentbynatureby
akinghelacaway

316

317

DoesthisversesayanyhingthahasnobeensaidinhepreviousverseandheintervenlngPrOSeThe Only possible difference we can discemishaSince the subjecOf the previous verseishe NityIumeyabyarthavadinietheSautrtikaandthesubjecofisoneisweWhichcouldbe akenasweVijav5dinsJayanamayhaveinendedthepreviousverseasakindofprasangafol lowlngfromtheSaunjkaviewhaheexernalobjecCanOnlybeinferredneVereXperiencedand thisoneassa1ngheVijnavdinsowrlvieweSautrnikasaSaresultofheirownpresupposi tionsIShouldnobeabletoexperienceheposiiveornegaiveconcomianceandneihercanweexpe
denceem

344TheinferenceofanexternaloectisnotwaNanted
Andeven71posulaingheformoftheobjeconhegroundshatheappearanceof

imagesincogniionwouldbeimpossiblewithoui2isnoappropriateForiisnota royaldecreethatanoectmushaveformWhatcrimewouldresultifiwerecognlion
alonethathadblueandthelikeasitsforms

3441Disagreementofnameonly 343Theappearanceoftwoseparateforms
SautrnikaBecausewhatweexperienceisconnectedwithformss11Chasbl11eitis theoect TheSautrantikahereabandonstheposiionthaWeeXPeriencetwofomlSaCCePsharecxpetience
OnlyonebupreferstolabelthepossessorofthatformastheobjecWhenweinteractwitheforms WePerCeivewehinkweaTeinerac1ngWithobjectsnotwihourowncognltionSOWhycanwenot tSehewordobjecforhepossessorofheformsweexperience

Wedonoexperiencetheposiiveconcomianceforaswehavealreadysaid6twodif
ferenformsdonoappear
IfaswellasexpedenclnganimagewihincogIllionWehadasecondpercep10nOfthecxtemalobject directlyWeWOuldhavegroundsforasser1ngheposiiveconcomianceThusalhoughheSaunika hasOtPreviouslypuforwardheideaofwosepaTaeformsoneofheobjecdirec1yandonebelong 1ngOCOgnitiontheVijnavdinarguesagainstsuchaviewhereandheSautrnikadefendsitlaer
inissecion

VijnavdinnthatcasethedisagreementbetweenusconcernsnamesonlyaSI havesaid73forwebohaccephahereisnosecondform
lnsection222eVijnavadinsaedhatifonlyoneformappearshenthecruCialissueiswheherit belongs0heobjecortocognltionIfdleformerthentheVijnavdinlosesthedebatelsthatnot conradicedbyhisattiudeherehattherewouldbenosubstantialdifferencebetweenhisownposition

Oriftwoformswereaccepteditwouldbedifficultoreplytothecriiquethatinfinite regressresultsIfoneteachesthattheformoftheobjectisdirectlyperceptibleandthe fomlOfhe cognitionCauSedby thatobjectisalsoperceptiblethenhefollowing ChainofreasoningisunavoidableThefomoftheobjectfirstofallisgraspedbya cognlionwithformNowthefomofthecognltionalsoSinceiisgrasped70musbe

graspedbysomefurhercognitionwithformntShereisaninniteregressaniFhaXl SautrntikaLehecogniionwithformthagraspsheobjectbeheld tobeself

andthaoffomlbelonglngoheobeCNobecausetheSautrikatypeviewthatisbeiJlgPufor
wdhereacceptsthatlheottiectwhichhasformdoesnotfa1lousidecognition

3442Explicabilitywiththehelpoflatentimpressions
SautrnikaBecausecognitionistransparentisdirt74musbecausedbysomething else Vav5dinIcanbecausedbylatenimpressionsofigrLOrarLCeCognitionalthough ransparenofiselfbeingweigheddownbytheforceofbeginnlnglesslaerLimpressiorLS

illuminalngthenitwi11notdependonafurthercognltionSOtherewi11benoinfinite
regreSS

TheSautrantikadefendsheposiionhawehavewocognltlOnSOneOfheformofheobjecandone OftheformwithincognltlOnL Butthesecondcognltiondoesnorequlreahirdcogr1110ninorderforit tobe cognized foriis cognized byiSelfdlrOughselfilluminationHencetheinfiniteregressis avertedbutthesepaTaeexperienceofheformofheobjecispreserved

ofignoranceXllJappearsasifisbodywerecontaminatedbyhemudofmanyformsXiv
Andbecausethesuccessionofthevariouscognlionsandhesuccessionofthevarious corTeSPOfLdiilgjiatentimpressionsXYareJuStlikesproutsandseedsbeginnlnglesshere
isnooccasionoaskFromwheredoesthelatentimpressionarise

VijnavdinInhacaseweshouldjustaccepttheselfTill11minatingorTnCOinng

COgnltionaloneforthereisnoappearanceofaformoftheobjectseparatefromthatXL
NowthayouareaccepingthatheformCOnainingcognitionisselfTilluminatingfor

Whareasondoweneedasecondformbelonging0heobject
Thefirstofthetwocognltionsthatoftheformoftheobjectisredundarlforhesecondcognltion
COntainswithiniselfheformoftheobjec

71ThefuncionofevenapiistomaTkheconrasbetweenhepreviotSSentenCeSrejecting thaaformofheobjecseparatefromtheformofcognLioneaTnOuSandhissentencerqect inBthatsuchaformoftheobjectcanbeiftferred 72AstheSauntikadidabovein341alahprlzagananub7LyamanopEb6hyort7zabsakara

VdJlJe

69seesecion221 70 ThaitEsgraspedfo1lowssraighforwardlyfromeopponentsclaimthatwegraspnotonly theformofheobjecbualsoheformofhecogniionakaTadvEZyaPlEZtibh6sa

73Insecion312anopponenputforwaTdthesamekindofviewasheSauikaadvances hereandtheVijnavdinmainainedaSherethaWhatresultedwasadisagreemenabounameS
Only
74

ForexampkbluenSS

318

319

SinceheVijnavdinasslgnS01aenimpressionsfu11responsibiliyforexplaininghowformsoccur incogniionevenwithouatlyeXtemalobjectsiisnauraloaskwherelaentimpressionscomefrom ButforlheVijanavdinlaenimpressionsaLldcognlionsareanalogollSosprousandseedsOrChick ensandeggsalhacanbesaidishaheycomefromeachotherandhavedonesobeginnlnglessly

Viewrefuted earlieris thatheserepreserlajonalformsbelong noexclusivelytocogrutionleavlng externalobjecsasmerelyirlferablebutjointlytoboththecogrlliorlandtheexernalobjectRather han beinglocaed wihin consciousnessthey arelocated athemeetlngPOlnOfconsciousness and
extemalobjec

Sobecauseitispossiblethatthevarietyofformsincognitionarecreatedbythevariety Ofbeginnlnglesslatentimpressions1etsbedonewithanextemalobjeceVenOnethatis onlyinferableThusitisestablishedthatthisformbelongstocognitionalone 35Becauseanoectisnecessarilyperceivedtogeherwithcognltion ForthefollowlngreaSOntOOitistocognltionthathisformbelongs 351Becauseofpositiveandnegativeconcomiance Forwithoutcognitionnothingofthenaureofanobjectarlhardpaisexperiencedany WhereButcognitionisclearlyexperiencedevenwhenthereisnoextemalobjectbut thereisaperCeivedfomasinthecaseofmirages75illusionsetcThusweknowthat formbelongstocognltionalsothroughpositiveandnegativeconcomitance
ThenegativeconcomiancewascxpressedinhefirssentenCeWhenhereisnocognlionthereisno experienceofanyformThenexSenenCeimpliedtheposiiveconcomianCeWhencognlionisthere formsareperceivednequalifier LevenwhenhereisnoextemalobjecservesOeXCludethepossi bilityhaitisnotcognltionbutanexemalobjecowhichheformsofhemirageandhelikebe longAgainwearedealingwihcausalnOloglCalconcomiance

Forifwerstexperiencedseparately an objectwithoutformandcognitionwithout formandthenexperiencedthecognltionandtheobjectWhenincontacttOhaveform thenfromthatwecouldacceptthisformtobeanemergentpropertyofthecontactBut thissequenceofexperiencesdoesnotexisL FurthermoreWehavealreadysaidthatcognltionssuchasrememberinganddreamingdo

haveformeVenthoughtheylackacorrespondingextemalobject77sohowcouldform
beanemergentpropertyofcontact
IfformrequiredcontacttoemergeWeWOuldnotbeableoeXPlainiseXisenCeindreamsandthelike WherecognltionisnotirlCOnacwiharlyObjec

37Contradictoryproperties 371Cannotcohabiinsingleobiects Moreoverhowcanmutuallycontradictorygenderscohabitinasingleobjectdenotedby

thewordsrmd

ThethreewordsarereSPeCtivelyneuerfeminineandmasculineaTLdyettheycanallbeusedOrefer
oSaS

3520ectandcognltionarenondifferent Andifanobjecthadanaturethatexistedseparatelyfromcognltionthenitwouldbeex PeriencedevenwihoutacognltionButthisisnotthecaseThereforecognitionandob

jectarenondifferentAsDharmakirtihassaid76 Blueandis cognltion arenondifferentbecausethey arenecessarilyperceived Andforawanderingmendicantamaleloverandadoghowcanaslnglethingnamely WOmanbecome theobjectofthreedifferentperceptlOnSaCOrPSeafemaleloverand
food

together

36RejecionofheSautrantikaviewthatformresultsfromcontact Andformcannotbeanemergentpropertyofthecontactbetweencognitionandobject
nisisaSaunikaviewadvancedinheSlokavdrEtikaaCCOrdingowhichweexperiencerepresenta
ionshat arisefromobjecSand cognlioncomlnglnOCOnactThedifferencefromheSaurnika

The exampleisan01d orleand commonlyusedSee thecitatiorlSfromtheSloktlVarEEikaPTVma VarElikaLfVaVrEEiSarvadarianasaTigrahaandesewherein theNyL5yamE7TyarZglVenbyKataokain the apparauSotheediionItisnoClearwhetherthewomaniserlVisagedasbeirlgdeadoraliveThefac thathedogregrdherasfocdstggeSishatsheisdeadPeThapsihe1eildiciliismediiatlrlgOrlher COrpSeinordertodeepenhissenseofthetrarlSjoriness andunsatisfactorinessofaZJaTLcexisterlCe PerhapsherecerltneSS OfherdeathexplairlSWhythemansillseesherashisloverAltematively houghsheisalivethemendicanmayseeherasacorpseinorderoenharlCehisdispassionvairagya
andhedogmayseeherasapoterLtialgiveroffood

77

whaheacuallysaidin351wasthacogniionsofthingssuchasmirageownsandi11u

75ThewordganElaTValagamacual1yrefersonlyOOnekindofsuperiormiragenamelyFaa
Morgana 7mfJ154ab

SionshaveformeVenhoughheylackacorrespondingexternalobjecL hspeakinghereofremem beringanddreamingheisdrawlrlgOnSIyaVada5lcdLfnrELsvapnadLbodzecSdalZakdraEaEava lAndforyoumemoriesanddreamCOgnitionsshouldbedevoidofformsinceyouholdformto arisefromconactbeweerlCOgrliiorlarldobjecandthereisrlOSuChcontacinthosecases

320

321

Howcanasingleindividualwomanbecomethereferentofamasculinepluralforminthe
CaSeOfdarabawoman7Andhowcan things besingularandoffemininegender when theyareelsewherepluralandofadifferentgender7BasinhecaseofaP
dgdr9

edgeasresultrisallcompletedwithinasingleentitynamelycogniionalone80Forits havingtheformofanobjectistheobjectofknowledgeiShavingtheformofheper ceiveris themeans ofknowledgeand selfCOgniionis the resultAsDignga

Laught81
The appearanCe thatcogniionhasyaddbhdsamishe objecOfcogniion

Andfina11yhowcanOneOfthetwoformsshortandlongWhicharegraspedrelative
toeachotherbelocatedasrealinasingle0ject
TmakesnosenseOCallanobjeclongpersebecauseherewi11besomeobjecsincomparisonto
whichiisshort

brmeyaAndcognitionsmeanspramaandresultOhalaarerespectively hefomofheperceiverandselfcogniionTTlereforehesethreeieCOgniq
tionsobjectmeanSandresultarenotseparatefromoneanother ThereforeiisthiscogniionalonewhichSinceiSSeelngOfiSeSSenCeisoverurnedby thecoqueryilasa1YlioflaentimpressionsofbeginninglessignoranceXYiiLislooked

WehavehadthreekindsofcaseWOrdsofcontradicorygenderandnumberseemlnglyrefemng0he SameObjectWjdelydivergenperCep10nSSeemlnglyofhesameobjecarldpalrSOfconradictorya tTibuesapplyingoaslngJeobeCinhaincomparisontosomethingsitisoneandincomparison0 0thersitistheoherThecontradictorywordsPerCeptionsandattributescannotandthusdonobe long00rrefertooneandhesameobjecforheVijnavdinEoroneadthesamethingcanOhave COntradicoryproperties

uponasifitisdividedintoperCeiverperCeivedandpercept10nButoncelgnOranCehas
ceaseditbecornesabsolutelyransparenOrnothingislef82
ThishasbeensaidbyDharmakrti Thereisnothingelse0herthanthecognitionitselfhatisexperierLCedbyacog

372uttheycanresideindifferentcognitions

Inhecaseofcognltionshoweverthereisnocontradictionbecauseheyaredifferent frorneachotherarisinginaccordancewiththevariousdifferentlatentimpressionsthat
havetheroleoftheircoOPeratlngCauSeS
TheTeisnocontradictionin thesensethahecontradictoryproperjesnolongerbelong0hesame hingTheybelongOdifferenCOgnlionsAndwhyshouldnoCOgnLtionsbedifferentglVenthatthey arecondiionedbydifferentlaenimpressions ThewordsnaksaLramEarakdarldLLyalzareheconentsofandsignierswihinSeparaecognlions theydonoal1denoteoneandhesameobjecnaksaramappearsinonecognitionandEaainan OtheTbecausehosetwocognlionshavedifferenlaenimpressionsconditionlngheirarislng Thefactthatthemendicanttheloverandhedogal1perceivethewomansbodysodifferenlywould bepuzzlingifhenatureoftheirpercep10nSWeredeerminedbyheselfsameexLtemalobjectItbe COmeSeaSilyexplicableiftheformstheyperceivebelongno00neandhesameobjecbutoheir individualcognltionseaChofwhichwillbeshapedbydifferentlatenimpressions Theideashortarisesfromsomeonessubjectivejudgmeniisnoaproperyhabelongstoaninde pendentlYeXistingexernaobjeccTrTlfacnOrieXiserilocusitwouidbeconiradictecLDy
OpPOSiepropertiS

nition83Texperiencingofhatcognitionisnotanothercognitionbecause
oftheabsenceofanobject tobegrasped andagrasping subjectinthaCaSe

00XtTILaloneshineshrthbyitself
Althoughthenatureofcognitionisurldivideditisexperiencedbythosewhose seelnglSmisakenasthoughitweredividedinOPerCeivedIPerCeiverandpercep

tion85
ThehreestandforgTiihyakdragrahakdkLiraandsvasZViEliheobjectmeanSaJldresulofcognition
prlmedddJ

80TheVinavdinisheredeliberaelydisagreeingwihtheviewputbyVSyyanaathebe glnnlng OfheNydyabhdyaanddefendedbyJayanaearlierinhisexhaal1ofhesehree bramaPrameyaPramiiplusheagenofknowledgepramdLareseparaelyexisingcatego fieswhichtogetherdonotformaslngleentLtyandwhichareallrequiredforeverydaylnteraCtion vyuvLlizdraFormoredeailontheNyEiyabhyapassageandJayanascommenaryoniSee

endllOteXVi
8rddmC110

38ConclusionofthePdrvapaka ThereforethisworldthatweexperienceisnothingbutcognitionWhichappearsevery WhereinadifferentwayOtherthanitthereisnosuchthingasanobjectAndthiseve rydayinteractioninvoIvingXYimeansofknowledgeLobjecOfknowledgeandknowl

82JayantaofenmentionshesewOpOSSibiliiesashetwoconcep10nSOfnilVahaBud dhistsofferedSeeforexampleNyayama4iarFp43945TZilVdrzLidipaddkzyeyamapavargapIzL SugaabJsanFaLyCCLedamicchanEiSVaCCvaJHdnasauadmltTheBuddhissholdhateman cIPaionWhichheydenotewihwordssuchasnLrvaiseiherhecessationofthestreamof cogniionsorhebecomingpureofthatlstreamOfcognitionsSeealsoAgama4ambara4415 Schmihausen2007205mentionsWOViewsregangwhahappenSoalayavUaLaWhenArhat

shipisatainedhaiceasesalogetherandhaitispreservedbuemptiedofunwholesomeseeds
83

78Namelyneuter 79SixownSminineSlngular

leinheterminologyofourtexformbelongsocognlionnottoanobject 138CfTosaki19851011
gj

prdIdVfnfgcydl4 dVJ j3353CfTosi1985401

322

323

JayantanowconcludesheexpositionofVijavdawithaverseofhisowncomposition

412EvenBuddhistsassumethedifftrenceofperceiverandperceived FurthermoreyOuaCCePthacognltionishepolntOfreferenceforthesenseofselfisof thenatureofblissandthelike89andisasifactivetowardsitsobject90AnobjectOnthe otherhanddoesnohavesuchanature91Thereforehowcouldhesetwobeidentical 413FormsPeartOuSaSOecsofilluminationnOasilluminators EventhoughiisrlOthecasehatwoformsappearalongthelinesofTTlisisacognl tionandmisisanobject92neverthelessthisformthoughsingleWhenitappearsaP

PearSaSanilluminatedoectandnoasanilluminaorInhecogniionthisisblue theformoftheperceivedobjectbl11eappearscompleelyseparaedfromitsperceiver itiscertainlynotthecasehatitappearsasidenticalwiththeperceiverieaSIam
blue

SomeonewhointhiswayiEiseesthatltithiswholeworldisindeedmerely COnSCiousnessdevoidofanythingofhenatureofanobjectquitstheseriesofsuf
ftringsandattainsaftarlessniTVdT7a

4Siddhnta Tothisitisrepliedasfollows

41Thereisnonondiffbrencebeweenperceiverandperceived 411Becausecontradictorypropertiescannoexistogeher Asyouknowkhalu86henaureofacognitionXXbeingsingleCannObebothperCeiver andperCeivedbynaturebecausethenaturesoftheperCeiverandtheperceivedbeing

mutuallydissimilarCannOtCOhabitinoneandthesamelocus JayantaurnsbackontheBuddhistthesamealgumentthatthelaterusedinsecion37namelyha
dissimilarpropertiesmusbelongOdifferenhings

42ThegrasplngOfanobjectrequlreSaperCeiverbuthatdoesnomeanthatthe
perceiverisitselfgrasped

MoreoveriisindeedcorrecthatthegrasplngOfanilluminatedobjectsuchasbluede
pendsonanillumirlalngXXIcognltion93Butiisobeconsideredbywhahecognlion graspinghatobjecisgraspedathaime
TbeseWOSenencescOnainadistincioncruCialoJayaLlasovercomlngOfheViavdinsargu mensTrueilluminaionrequlreSanilluminaorifweexperienceanobjecWeCanbesurehaSOme COgnlionmushavebroughtthataboutButthedependenceofthegrasplngOfanobjectoncognliorl doesnoenailthathecognlionmusbegraspedinorderforheobjecObegrasped

Toexplainbeingacognitioninnaturebodharatdremainingasitdoesthroughotlt
suchasequenceascogniionofbluecogniionofye1lowcognitionofwhiede SPitethearislngandceaslngOfblueyellowetcisdeterminedtobedistinctomblue etcthroughpositiveandnegativeconcomitance87
ThesensehereofalrVayaposiiveconcomianceandvyaiTeknnegaiveconcomianCediffersfrom

B9

ForNyyaiisnoinfacCOgJliionanaburaherpleasureSukmhaisofhenaureof

hewaylnWhichthetermswereusedinsections34and35WhichwasheirmoreusualmeanlngAs
WePaSSfromcogniionofbluetOCOgniionofyelLowhereisanvayaofthecognitionOrStrictly SPeakingOfhebodzarLJLahefacOfbeingcogniionbynaureinhesensehaicontinuesanu ibutthereisvyalirekaoftheyellowbecauseisupercedestlaLiricieappearsinseadofthe

blissSeeyyamaiUalTp27611dnaldadisvablaVaPPraSlddhamevasukhadehPleasure1ike COgnlionisaqualiyOfheselfbuiisnoakindofcognitionForB11ddhismbycontrastpleas
ureisofhenaureOfcogniioUanaLma

90cfPramarzavinikayal37PramavarLLika3308hefirshalfofwhichis cied a
yrrIp4012CfTosaki1979400401
dmfvveVrnfl JdvJJddVdJddmdmPiII

buesincethecognlionnaureconinuesbutheobjectsareconstantlYSuperCededCOgnltionand
Objectmusbemuual1ydissimi1aTandcannobenondifferent

DharmakhtiishereprobablybasinghimselfonPlamasamuccayalcdSaVyaParaPrailaNaPra mPlaLaTteVaSalKellnerforthcomingAtranslatesthisasLCognitionthoughiisacual1y heresulismetaphoricallyreferredOaShemeaJISOfvalidcogniionbecauseiisheldoperforman ForyouhavejuStuSedthiswayofargulnglnSeCion37

87cfAgmr13ygOrV

acivly

90ecSdonothaveasenseofselffeelblissorcognlZeOherobjecs
92

dEvadbodhardJanavadharddiLEBuformssuchasbluearenocognlionfortheyarenodeq terminedbypositiveandnegaiveconcomianceohavehenatureofcogniioninthewayhaindi Vidualcowsareesablishedbyposiiveandnegativeconcomitancetohavecowness ForthismeaningofaVayaandlaLirekaseeStaal19605455Saal1966648andCar

88

5eesecions2213242and343

dona1967

9IethamuChlgranyou1Buhissenseisimpliedbyhefo1lowingsenenceLyoucon Clude00muChfromiWheredidheBuddhissayhahegrasplngieilluminaionOfobjecs dependsoncognltion asilluminatorItis anideathatwaseitherimplicitorexpliciaSeVeral places311321322323and351

324

325

ThegraspingofhecogniionisnobasedonyeanothercogniionbecausethaWOuld leadtoheundesirableconsequenceofaninnnieregress Asarguedbyyouyourselvesin322lnfacJayanasownposiionishahecognlionofLheobjec

isOratLeastcanbegraSpedbyanohercogniionNoinnnieregressresuLsforhimbecausehedoes noholdheviewhahecognlionmusbegraspedinorderforheobjectobegraspedHeishus

7lowdoeshisVijavdinobjectionrelatetoheprecedingNaiyyikaargumentItcouldbeseento respondoanyoftheNaiyyikaspointssofar

isaresponse0411insofarasitsaysthaPerCeiverandperceivedarenotmutual1ydissimilarItisa responseto412insofarasitchallengestheoppositionbetweerinsentientinertmatterandsclfaWae
Senientandseemlnglyactivecognltionltisaresponseto413insofhrasitadmitsthatformsappear

adoptingaVijnavdinpresupposiionhereinordertoargueagainstheVinavdin

to11SaObjectsofilhminationrL7kLiSyab11tdeniesthatthatisenoughtoru1eoutthattheyareofthe
SamenatureaSthesubJeCofilluminaion

NorisacognlionselfilluminatlngbecauseitdoesnotappearintheformIamblue
AsstaedatheendoftheprevioussecionratheriappearsinheformEIzisisblue

Butitisalsointendedorespondspecifical1ytotheimmediatelyprecedingsection42neNaiyyika SanceherewasaccepanCeOfthegrasplngOfaJlObJeCtbutdenialofthepossibilityofgraspingthe
COgnitionthatilluminaeSthaobjectrakakagTtZhabodzagTTZhapaTheVi3nav5dinresponse hereamouns0graSPingofanobjecjusisagraspingofcognitionofhepeCeiverSeeyOyI gra7LyaVabLaSiELb7LaVaEbhyupagaEasaevagrahakavabhasafzforheobjectisnotsomething

WhywouldihaveObeexperiencedinheformIamblueJayanasargumenhereseemselliptical WearedealingahispolnwiththegrasplngOfhecognlt10nnOthegrasplrLgOftheobjectIfthe ObiecEweresaidobegraspedbyiselfthenheapnessofthechargethatwedonotexperienceIam bluewouldbeeasilyunders00dBuiisnoobviouswhyhegrasplngOfcognltionbyitselfshould

beexperiencedinheformIamblue

insentienbut one aspeCtOfcognltionnereforeCOntrary tO yOuraSSertionsin42COgnltionis graspedanditis grasped by the second of the possible means mentionedherenamely self
i1umination

SomefurthercondiionrLeedstobaddedaSCahadharasemSLohavebeenawareforhepoinSOutat hisjuncurehaheViav5dinaccepshatheperCeiverhasformssuchasblueandhelike94 Whenhisconsideraionisbomeinmindlthenitfo110WSthattheperceiversgrasplngOfitselfshould appearinheformIamblueThepertinencOndiionha1ayanahasinmindherecouldequallybe thenondifferenceofobjectandcognitionSincethishasbeenthetopicoftheprevioussectio4195 EitherwayltSeernSClearhajusasheoherhomofhedilemmainfinieregressonlyresuledfroma

VijnavdinpresuppositionnotacceptedbytheNaiyyikathesameisrueofhishomoEthedilemma thatweshouldexperienceIamblue

HowhisisrelaedotheVijavdinsmainargumenbecomesclearintheremalnderofthissection

ifeognlionjsgraspedidoesTlOtlackformifihasformWhatneedistheretopostulateanexternal ObJCCt ForaperCeivedobjectWereitdifferentfromaperceiverWOuldbeinsentieninnaure AperceiverOnheotherhandisofhenaureofanilluminationJuStbecauseiisaper ceiverAndithasalreadybeensaedthatherearenotwoappearanCeS97Inhacase aragivenhaoneofhewoappearshequesionarisesastowhichofthetwohe

insentiententiyorheilluminationistheappropriaecandidaeoappearXXiiconsider 4210bjectionTheappearanceoftheperceiveruStis
heappearanceofheobjec VnavdinBecauseasisstaedin352theperceiverandheperCeivedarenodif 1nghisObviouslylistheilluminationthatappearsandnottheinsentiententltyAndan

illuminaiondoesnoappearwithoutafoml98TTlereforeglVenhaitappearstogeher
withaformWhatistheneedofaninsenienobjecwhidhisdifferenfromthatform
COnainingilluminaion Theargumenis summarizedin footnote96Itresemblesbudiffers Eromtheargument thatthe Vijnavdingaveinsection324

ferentfromeachother96whatyouaccepasheappearanCeOfaperCeivedobjectis
nothingbuheappearanceofaperceiver

94 95

seegrivgdmGr22

ThaCakradharacorrec1yidenifiedthecondiionthaayahadinmidhoweverispeT

hapssuggestedbythefollowingsentenceinheAgaTna4ambaTu78812SakiTnaElnanabpraL M Paralra De2S62005ranSlaesDoesirnakemanifesisownformOrheformofsomehing

elseThereisnocognlionintheformof1amblleratherthiscognlionoftheotherthingasdi ferentnamelythatagreeSwiththefacsThusherea1eashepolnhawedonoexperience Iambluefollowsaconsideraionofforlnraherhanaconsiderationofnondifferenee

uwakaiaeWehavetomakeachoicebetwcenhetwoCleadycognltionbeingoftheverynature ofilluminationbrakd5aisabetercandidatebecauseprakaprakdhEeOncewethusaccept haeogniionappearsandthereforehassomeformthepostulationofanextemalobjectinserLtient bynaturebecomesredundanRatherthatwhichweperCCivetheglahyaisofhenatureofcogni tionieisnodifferentOmtheperceiver 97 seesectinS221and343 98 WhynoPerhapsheideaisthatifitlackedformitwouldbeeompletelytrarLSParentandwe WOuldseerighthroughitnisstepintheargumentdoesnotseemstrictlynecessaryfortheap PearanCeformisalreadyhereWeareJuSconsideringwheheritisofthenatureofanittsentienten 1yOrOfprakanusJayanamayflOthaveintendedthisasageneralpolnteXCludingthepossibil itythaprakcaneverappearwithouformhemayhaveintendedbyitluStthatinthisparticular cascprakdisclearlyappearlngWiththeformbecauseaLlinsentiententltylSnOtInwhichcaseit wouldbebeertotranslaeasLAndtheilluminationdoesnotappearwithoutarm

96ItmightseemstrangethaheVnavadinheresimplyreassertshenondifftrenceofper CeiverandperceivedwhenthishasjusbeenreJeCedin41Butheassertionofnondifftrencea thebeginningofthissection421occursnoashesaringpoinOEalineofargumentbuTather itsendpoinForinherestofhissecionheVinavdinglVeSheargumenhasuppollSthe nonqdifferencenamelythatiftheobjecWeredifferenfromcognlionitwouldbeinsentienbyna

ureBusincebohyouNaiyyikasandweVijnavdinsagreethaonlyoneformshinesforth

326

327

TTleargumentin324sartedfromtheconsideraionhacogf11tionmusbegraspedbeforeanoject CaflbegraspedsincehishadbeenesablishedinhethreeprevioussecionsSinceiisgraspedi musthavesomeformSinceonloneformappearstousWemuSOnlyexperieflCeCOgrllionThere foreanexemal0ectbecomesredundafl ThisargumenSartsfromheconsiderationhaonlyonefomappearSTTluSindecjdingowhatha formbelongswehavetochooseoneoutofthewocaJldidatesaninsentienobjecOrillumina1ngCOg nitionSinceanilluminationisobviouslysomethingthatappearSOeCauSePrak6prakaiaeWeare COmPelledtochoosethaThereforeaninsentienteXtemalobjectisredundant

SpeCtivelyheVtinav5dinandtheNaiyyika1isasthoughtwodiffereniJlferencesareintheback groundofheextinhesesecionslCognitionisperceivedbecauselikealighitisanillumination bynaure2CogniionisnoperceivedbecauselikeaJleyeiisameansofbringingabouperCeption ThlSWeCanSeeWhyherein423heVija5nav5dinwantsOaSSerthatheeyeisnoagOOdanalogy forcogniionHedisassociaeshetwoinwoways1cognitionisofthenaureofaJlilluminatiotland heeyeisno2farfromthembothbeiflgmeanSOnhesamelevelCOgJlitionisacual1yproducedby theeye

Wihhisfinalpointhaanillumiflaionthaisnotgraspedcannoilluminateanythingheimpliesthe
folowlng SpeCificdisanalogyWhilean eyenOtbeing aJlilluminaionbynaureeJlablesusograsp

422ReplyCognltion1iketheeyeisameans meansdonotmakethetargetredundant NaiyyikaTTlisisnotcleverforonecannOtdenyatargethroughthemeansofreach ingiToexplainzianeyeisthemeanswhichilluminaesacolourasiSarge andonecannOtdenyacoloursayingthataneyealoneshollldappearniscognitionis themeanswhichilluminaesanobjectwhosenaureisspecifiedbyproperiessuchas materialiyfluidiyhardnessandhelikewhereashecogniionistranspareninnaure instarkcontras0hoseproperiesmereforeitisnomorethecasethatcognition latiselfcouldappearinatwaythanitisthataneyecouldappearascolo

Wesho11dnotsacriflCethetargctforthesakeofthemeansTheveTypOlrltOfuslngmeanSistoreacha argeNorcouldwedoawaywithaargesuChasacolouredobJeCbyassumlngthatiismerely a mafljfesaiof10foneofitsmeaTISCognlioflhavinganaurequltCCOntraTy0haOfheoectisno beerCaJldidateforappearlngaSthecolouredobjectthantheeyeis

ObJeCtSwithoutitselfbeinggraspedCOgnltionbeingani11umiLlaionbynatureenablesusograSpOb
JeCtSOnlywheniisitselfgrasped

424ReplyAnilluminationisanillminationofanobject notofanillumination NaiyyikaTrueWhatwetermcognitionisanilluminationproducedbytheeyeBut thailluminaionisanilluminationofanobjectsuchasacolournOtanilluminationofan

illuminaion100Forwhatisilluminaedbyaneyeisnotani11uminaionbutraheracol
Our

IfaSyOuVijavdinjustsaidilluminaionisproducedbytheeyeishouldbeaJlilluminationof

WhattheeyeiscapableofilluminatlngnamelyacoLournOtaTli11umination Inthesentencecolourisillllminatedbytheeyewhaisexpressedbycolourisan

obeCtobegraspednleaCtionthaisexpressedbyisiuuminatedXXontheother
4230ectionEyeandcognltionaredisanalogous VijnavdinCognitionhoughameansisnotameansinthesamewayhaheeye tisameansbecauseunlikeheeyeiisofthenatureofanillumination99ForwhaWe temcognltionisthesoCal1edilluminationthatisproducedbytheeyeAndanillumina tionhaisnotgraspeddoesnoilluminateanobjecofilluminaion
In421heVijnavdiflbysressingthacognitionisofhenatureofaniuuminationbrkasvar

handisi11uminaionmorespecificallygraspingcogniion
WhydoesJayantaincludethisHowdoesthisconentiondifferentiaehispositionfromtheBuddhis

posiionTTlepOintishaforhimi11uminaionisthegraspergrdhakaandanobeCsuChascolouris hegraspedgrdhyaWhereasforheVi3navditlilluminatiottcogrLitiorLisboththegrasperandthe
grasped

bhavaiethairesembleslighWaSabletoreachtheconclusioTtthacognitionaloneappearsnOtan
ObiectnuSJsrebttaleftbsn422stressedekijipofcognl10nnOttOgmtbuoan eyeThesewoexamples1ightandaneyeareSuitableforrenderingplausibletheconclusionsofre

Andthecolourbecomesi11uminaedbyamerearisingofhecognitionnereforean illuminationdoesnotrequlretObegrasped IeeyeprOducesacognitionBythemerearislngOfhacogniionCOlourisilluminatedneveTy natureofthecognltionconsistsinilluminatngthecolouritdoesnotrequlreanyhingfurthersuchasa graspingofiselfThusheVijnavdinscontentionintheprevioussection423thataJlillumina

ionmusbegraspedinorderOgraSpaJlObjecisfalse

99

ItisruehattheSanskriherecouldjustmeanCogniionisnotameansunlikeheeye

whichisameansTTlefollowingsenencewouldalsobcconsiseflWithsuchninerpreation COgnlionraherthanbeiTZgameanS1SPTOdLLCedbyameansnamelytheeye BultheVijnavdinsargumenahisstageof11yrequireshaCOgniionisnoakinothe eyesandthatpointcanbernadewithouhavingtodenythatcogniioflisameansand2forhe VijnavdincognlionisameansSeethefo1lowlngargumentattributedohimathebeginnlngOf

SeCjon43ddgJdl

ThltSWeprefertointerpretthissentenceasmeanlrlgthatalthoughcognlionisamearlSiisun 1iketheeyeinhaiisaflilluminationbynaure

00

cfAgdmdlrd7821prdgod81evd

328

329

4250ectionToseeanobjectCOgnltionitselfmustbegrasped
VijnavdinButashasalreadybeenstatedbyusin322101

43Theinsumentaliyofcognition

AsforyourclaimbecauseitisameansCOgnitionisgraspedfirstlOthatisinconclu
SivebecauseofsuchmeansastheeyeaSWehavesaid miscontinuestherefuationofheposiionthacOgnltionneedstobeperceivedbutfocusesonhe specificarglmentthatcognlionbecauseitisameansmuSbeperceivedpnortoeobjecWhere hasisparicularargumenbeenstatedmeclosesthingOithattheVijnavdinhassaidishis claimathebeginnlngOfsection32jiidnaqlhiprakahkamapnzkdiasyEhaabhavadbhfrabhyLLPa gEZmyaEeEaEaicdEhdEpraElamaEararTtaSyagrahenablVLEavyamThisseemstobetheonlycandi daeforwhaJayantaisrefelTlngbackoherewihyaEuCyaEeButtwodifficultiesneedtobenoed 1Thegistercis not preciselygbutrahe janasyapdrvgrahEZpEZm2TTleneXtSeCtion44isclearlyarefuationofhebeginningDf32
refemngtoitaisOutSedyrVJgdmdd

WhenacognitionisnotperceivedanObjectdoesnotappealinitaLra Seeinganobjectcannotbeaccomplishedforsomeonewhosecognitionoftheob
jectisimperceptible

426ReplyTheseelngOfanobjectisthemerearislngOfcognltion

notthegrasplngOfcognltion
NaiyyikaThatisincorrectSeeinganobjectOnthecontraryCanbeaccomplished OnlyforsomeonewhosecognitionoftheobjectisimperceptibleTheseeingofanob xxiv JeCtlSJuSttheoccurrenceofacognltionnOttheseelngOfthecognltion 4270bjectionThenthepresenceorabserlCeOfthecognltion
WOuldmakenodifference

vykhyeyamIfhebeginnlngOf32iscleaflywhaisrefutedinhenexSeCionisitLikelyalsotobe
whaisrefuedinhissecion

VijnavadinSurelyifthecognitionisnotgraspedtherewouldbenodifferencebeT tweenitsoccurTenCeOrnOnOCCurrenCeHenceanobjectwouldbeperceptibleevenfor
SOmeOneWhosecognitionoftheobjectdoesnotoccurSoitwouldundesirablyfollow thateveryonewouldbeomniscient

WedonothaveacompletelysatisfacOrySOlutiontothisproblembuitisnoeworthyhatKumila 00grVeSWOSeParaerefutationsinhis3iddhdnEadirectedoWardsargumensfromupayaEVaandpra kLi5akaEvaIsipossiblehaJayanaissimplyfolowingKumri1assLddhdnEaandforgeingthathe didnotmentionanargumentfromupayEZEvainhisownpz7rvapakFaSeCtionlnfactKumri1aalsodoes notclearlypresenttwoseparaeargumensinhispLirvapakFaSeCtionbutwhenstatlngheargument fromprakaiakaEvEtheclarifiespraka5akamwithupayasEZPmalamSoheideaofcognltionbeinga meansispreseninthesourceofJayanaspLlrvapakEZPreSentaionoftheprakL2kaEvaargumenHe didnotreflecthainhisownpEirvapakFaPreSenationbuherefersOithereinhissiddhalZEa

TheremaybesomeslgnificanceinthefactthatJayantausestLCyaEeheretorefertotheLLPyatvaargu

428ReplyItmakesadifferencebecausetheseelngOfanobject JuStistheoccurrenceofacognltiorl tNaiyyikaThaiswonderfu11yexpressedAsyouknowCOgnjtionbyitsverynatureis theilluminationofanobjecL HowcouldthatWhennonoccurrentnOtbedistinguished

fromwhenitisoccurrent
ForwheniisnooccurrentthereisnoilluminationofanobjecSOhaisveryeasilydisinguishable fromwheniisoccurrenWhenbydefiniionthereisaniltuminaionofanobjec

menbuukEaminthenextsectjontorefer0heprakaSEZkaEVaargumenwihukEEZmherefers0he argumentthatwasactuallystatedwihucyaEeherefers0esimi1arbutdisinguishableargumentha COuldbeimpliedthaimplicationhavingbeenmadesomewhatexplicitinthesourceforhispresenta

ionthoughnoinhisown

Thereforebecauseacognltionhasasitsnaturethemakingperceptibleofanobjectthe
ObeCtsbeingperceptibleisnothingmorethantheoccurrenceofthecogrnXXVnot

JayantarespondsheretotheargumentbypolntlngOutthataShehasalreadystateditisitlCOnClusive anaikiinEikabecausetheeyesandtheothersensefaculiesaremeansbuarenOperCeivedHemus berefemngback04224forhatistheonlyplacewherehehasmenionedtheeyesliedidnotac ua11yusetheword Linconclusivelanaikd1tikatherenOrdidherefertoanargumentbasedonthe loglCalreasonbecauseiisameansbutheinconclusivenessofsuchanargumentwasimpliedtothe

exenhahisreasoningtherein422resedontheeyesnotbeingpercepible

thegraspingofthatcognitionSoitiscorrectthatcognitionuTPerCeivedilluminates
anoect

AndifyoumaintainthatacogniEiononlywhengraspedCanbringaboutthe illuminationofanobjectthenyouneedtostateasacorroboratingexampleofa meansthatOnlywhengraspedCanbringabouttheilluminationofoects1ike smokeinbringingaboutinferentialknowledgeoffireor1ikealampinbring ingaboutperception ofcolourIfyou optfor1ikesmokethentheobject WOuldbesomethinginferredAndyouyourselvescriticizedthisviewthatob jectscanbeinferredXXVi

101

InfactonlyhesecondhalfoEthisverseWhichisPlamavlyal54cdWaSStatedearT
LO1

liernefirsthnlfhasbeencomposedbyJayanaandaddedhereasanaccompanimenoDharmaT
kshalfYerSe
IeprlOr0heobjecbeinggrasped

330

331

InyourrefuaionofheSautfikasinsecion34rIbeVijnavdjnhereaTguedagalnStheview thaexernalobjecscouldbeinEenedfromformswihincognlionButheVijav5dinwouldbe COmmittinghimselfoJuSsuchaviewifhewereoclaimherethacognlionlikesmokbybein

4413Synonymbeingacognltion lfthewordilluminationismerelyasynonymofcognltionlinotherwordsifbecause itis anilluminationmeansbecauseitisacognitioninnaturetheneexamplea lamPlacksthereasonbeingacognitioninnatureForalampisnotacognitionin

nature

direc1yperceivedallowsoneoinEerheexisenceofanobjechaisotherthanitandthaonedoes
nodireclyperceive

Norisacognition1ikealampbecausethereisnoawarenessoftwoforms Toexplaininthecaseofalampthereisanawarenessofbothpotandlampin SuChawayasIamlookingatapobymeansofalampBuitisnotthecase thatwegraspbothacognitionanditsobjecinsuchawayasIamperceivinga

COgnizedobjectbymeansofacognltion WewouldnodescribeourexperienceinhawaybecauseweexperienceluSttheobjectnOtalsosome
SeParaemeansofi11umina1nglnamelycognltionThisisnoanalogousothecaseofalampfor therewecanexperiencethelampassomethingseparatefromtheobjechaiilluminales

AlogicalreasonheEumusbeperVadedbythepropertyObeprovedsddhyamuSbeprSeninhe prooESectbakFaandmusbepreseninheexampleTTlefuSOfthesecondiionsisnomeif p7ukiatvmearlSbecauseimakesmanifesthesecondisnomeifimeanSbecauseitismani

festhehirdisnotmetifitmeansbecauseitiscognltioninnature

442Thereisnothingselfillumina1ng

Forthefo1lowingreasontootheselfaWareneSSdoctrineisinapproprlatebecausewedo

notfindanythingatallthatisselfqilluminatlng
44Cognitionsabilityoilluminate 44lInterpretationsofbecauseiisanillmination Astowhayouclaimedinsecion3t21thatacognitionisgraspedfirstbecauseitis anilluminaionrakaiatvat1ikealamphatalsoneedsObescrutinizedWhatisthe precisemeaningofbecauseitisani11uminationbrakaiatvat 44l1Causalbecauseitmakesmanlfes VijnavdinAnilluminationakaiabiswhatmakessomethingmanifestbra ka5ayatiItsnaturebhavaisbeinganilluminationrakdiatvam

44210bjectionThreeselfilluminatlngentiies
VijnavdinBhartfharisaysthat threeilluminationsieCOgnitionSpeeChand lampsilluminateboththemselvesandotherthings104

4412ReplyThethreerequlreeXternalfactors NaiyyikaThisisnotrightbecausespeeChandlampsdependonextemalcausalcom plexesinordertobegraspedthemselvesandinordertoilluminateobjectsSpeechde

PendsontheleamlngOflingulSticconventioninordertoi11uminateanobjectandonan
earinrdertilluminateitselfXXVii UnlesslknowhelanguagethaisbeingspokenitsconventioElalconnecionsbetweenwordsandheir meanlngSSPeeChwi1lappearOmeaSuSSOmuChsoundtwithouglVlngrlSeinmetocognLtionsofthe
objecsiisalkiElgaboutAndifIamdeafhenwhetherIknowhelanguagethaisbeingspokel10r not8peCChwillnoteYenprOVOkinmecognltionsofsound

NaiyyikaIfthatisthecasethenthisbeinganilluminationaShasalreadybeen
Staedin422and43isinconclusivebecauseofeyesandsuchlike Theeyesandheohersensefaculiesmakehingsmanifestyettheyarenotgraspedatalllealone
firsL Sotheymakethelogicalreasonbecauseiisanilluminaionunders00dasbecauseimakes

hingsmallifest7inconclusiveasareasonforhepropertytobeprovedbeinggraspedfirs
4412InhanSitivebeingmanifest

AlamptOOOnlyindependenceuponaneyeandthelikeisgraspedandenablesanob jecttobegraspedBureisismuchdifferenceiElgraSPingaPOandihelikeaneye operatesindependenceonlightbutingraspinglightit0perateSwithoutdependingon

lightButit does not followfrom this muchdifference thatalampis self

Ifani11umirlationrakaiabistheprocessofbeingmanifestbrakdianamthenbe CauSeiisanilluminationisanunesablishedloglCalreason103Foracognlionisnot manifesathetimewhenitgraspsanobject

AtthatimeonlytheobjectappearsaCCOrdingtotheNaiyyikasnOtCOgnltionalso

04cfAgdmdm78224dlmprnrra

Bothhaand oursenenCeSeemObeinexacquoaionsofVabapadiyasvavrEEiadl12p 41lJddd

VdcdrVJrdIpmcdrddpryfJdz

kLiShhInthisworldherearethreelighshreeilluminaionsthareVealbohheirownEormand theformsofthingsotherthanthemselvesnamIyfiretheiLluminationwithinpeopleieCOgni
ionandspeechthelasofthesebeingtheilluminaionhailluminaeSbothhethreeillumina
10

unesablishedinheproofSubjectOakanamelycognition

ionsandnonilluminaions

332

333

illuminatingLO5Andifitdidthenabsolutelyallpotsandothervisibleobjectswouldbe

CognltioniscapableneitherofrevealingltSelf00thersnOrOfrevealingltSelftoiselfAllitiscapable
OfisrevealingoherthingsarqPmkLiiaLvam

SelfilluminatlngOmtheviewpolntOftheeyesofnoctumalcreaturessuchascats
Theplausibilityoftheideathatlightisselfilluminatlngderivesfromadistincionbetweenlightand exernalobjectsThisdistinctionischaracterizedbythosewhowantouseLighLasanexampleof SOmehingselfillumina1ngaSthatwhenweperceivelightii1uminatesitselfbutwhenweperceive
anobjecitrequiresi11uminationbysomethingotherthanitselfButthedistinctioncanbemoreaccu

4423Conclusion

ThereforeitisstatedqultefalselythatthesethreeilluminationsnamedlampCOg

nitionandspeecharecapableofilluminatlngboththemselvesandthingsother
thanthemselvestheyinfactrevealotherthingsandarethemselvesrevealed abhive4yathroughexternalcausalcomplexesXXViii

raelycharacerizedasthatourpercepOnOflightdoesnotdependonlightWheleasourpercep10nOf ObjectsdoesdependonlightrnlatathingsnondependenceonlightforbeingpercejvedisnoequlVa 1entoitbeingselfreVealirlglSmadeclearfromhefacthatcatsandthelikecanperceiveevenpos

andslChlikewihoutlight

443PerceptlOnOftheselfisnotacaseofselfillmination FortheMimarpsakaadherentsoftheviewthataselfisperceptibleOntheotherhand therecertainlyexistsadistinctionbetweentheparofitthatistheperceiverandthepart ofitthatisperceivedinaccordanCeWiththedifferenceofitsstatesThereforecognltion

isinnowayselfilluminatlng Thetextisslightlyellip1ealThecontextintheSLokavarLLikasourceofJayaTtasremarkhereisas followsKum5rilahasbeenargulngagalnStthepossibilityofcognlionbeingselfilluminatlngPartly onthegroundsthatonehingcannotbebothperceiverandperceivedTheVijaVdinobeCtShat surelyforKumrilaonehingisbothperceiverandperceivednamelytheselfhowelsecouldKumarila explainhispositionthatheselfispercepibleKumrilaappealstohisviewthaheselfhoughone ispluraltoheexenthatithasapluralityofsatesItssubstancenatureisdifferentfromitscognltion oneofitspropertiesWhentheselfperceivesitselfitisnotacaseofselfilluminationbecauseone aspectofinamelyitscognit10nistheperceiveraJldadrenaSPeCofitselfnamelyitssubstance natureisthepercciYC106
JayantathusimagllleSthathisVinavdinopponentmaylikewisepolnouhatevenJayaJltasfellow

NoethathisargumenismoresophisticatedthaJlhesimplepolntthatlightisperceivednotbyitself bubysomethingotherthaJlitselfOfcourseheonlythingevenpoentiallycapableofrevealingltSelf
LoiLseqiseognitionandthatistheproofSubjectsoitcannotserveasanexampleTodismisstheex

ampleoflightmerelyonthegroundsthaitisperceivedbysomehingotherthaniselfaSthoughitfell intoexaetlythesamecampaspotsWOuldbetoneglectanimportaJldifferencebetweenthetwoJayq anasargumenttakesheexamplemoreseriouslythanthatitidentifiesthefeaturesoflightthatmakeit looklikeaplausibleinsanceofsomethingselfreVealingandthenreeXPlainsthem Thereisasenseinwhichunlikepotsthatareincapableofrevealingthemselvestohumaneyes1ightis CaPableofrevealingltSelfohumaneyesBueventharevealingofiselfLL70Lhersisdependenton

OtherfactorsSoevenifwedonogethunguponthefacthatlightdoesnotrevealitselftoitselfand allowhatitdoeshaveaslgnificantfeahlreitsabiJitytorevealitself00thersneVerthelessiisrLOt evencapableofbringingaboutLhaLfeatureELsebecauseidependsonotherfactors

AsforcognltionOntheotherhanditisseentohavethepropertyofilluminatlngOther thingsalonenOtthepropertyofilluminatingitselfbecauseithasbeenexplainedin
4412thaititselfisnotmanifetatthetimewhenitilluminatesanobjecL HavingdealtwithspeechaJldlampshecomesnowOthehirdofthedoeOgnltionthepnncIPalopIC OfdispueThestandardexampleusedbytheVinavdintorendercognltionsself1uminosltyPlauT SiblenamelylighAampshasbeenshownafterallnottobeselfilluminatlngandneihercouldspeech akeisplaceasacorrobora1ngeXamPleBuiisatleastpossiblethatcognitionistheoneaJldonly thingintheuniversehaisselfillumina1ng1ackofoherexaLnPlesisnoiselfdecisiveTlmshe
glVeShereanindependentreasonforcognltionnotbeingselfLilluminaing

BrahminstheMimSakasaCCePthatonethingtheselfisseIfilluminatlnga1diftheselfWhyno alsocognltionJayaJltapOlntSOutfollowingKumrilathatinthecaseofperceptLOnOftheselfitisnot onehingperceivingitselfbuoneaspecorsateavasLhdoftheselfperceivinganoheraspect

orstateoftheselfThereisthusdifferencenOtnOndifferencebetweenperCeiverandperceived

InhisanalysisofspeechandlampsJayantamentionedtheirselfgraSPingselfilluminaionsvagraha
fZZLWaprakahfiL3Bu herehedeniesthaanequivaIentthingcanhappenOCOgnltionThecaseof

JayantasphraseLadherentsoftheviewthataselfisperceptiblecouldreferalsotohoseofJayanas fellowNaiyyikaswhoholdheselfobepercepiblebuiislikelyoreferprlmaTilyotheKaumirila MTmSakasbecauseadifferenceofperceiverandperceivedwithinheselfbasedonadifferenceof

SSaesSaSPeCicallyKaum1anYleW

COgnltionthusturnSOuttOCOmeeVenlessclosethanlightandspeechtobeingrulyselfilluminalngat leasttheyarecapableofrevealingthemselves00herseveniftheydependonoherfacOrStOdoso
108ydV67cdj8

IOI

ereJayantadeniesthatalampISSVaPrak6andinhefirstandlassenenceofhissection

dnVgrJlgr0dVJldetl
1CfdrdrdJdJl

442denieshatanythingatallissvapTYlkaNeverthelesshespokeaboveofspeechssvapraka5 anaCOntraStlngthawihitsarLhaprakianaTheapparentconradictioncaJlberemovedinwo WayS1wecaninterpretVaPraka1aWhenhedoesnotdenyitasrevealingofitselftoothersr andwhenhedoesdenyitasLrevealingofiselfoitselEr2HisalkofspeechssvaplakEinawas apreliminarycharacteri2ationbutonfurheTanalysisevenspeechssupposedLrevealingofitselfto OhersumsouttodependonoherfactorsSOisnotcaedoutbyitselfaloneSOisnottruly

l

gdVgrdmyddfcd VinavdinSureLyyotEholdthattheselfisbothperceiverandperceived MmSakaThenatureofbeingaperceiverLaLgrdhakaEvamwihregardo

thetselfLaLracanbelongtocogniionbTuLyayasyabecausecognitionaSa propeftydharlnaissomehowdifferentfromitslocusWhatisperCeivedisthe
selrsnaureassubsanCeetC

334

335

45Refutationofcognlionisgraspedassoonasitarises

becauseitdoesnotdependonanyfurtherillumination
andbecausetherecanbenoobstruCion

And thereis no awareJleSS Of a qualedhing whose qualifierhas nobeen graspedTbereforecognitionmusthavebeengrasped

451AcausalcomplexisrequiredforcognlZlngaCOgnltion
Andasforwhayouclaimedin322 Acognlionmerelybyarislng1SgraSPedatthatverylnStantbecauseidoesr10t

UpOthispointhehasshownthroughakindofinferencethatwemusthavegraspedcognltionNow herespondsoanimaginedobjecionfromaMimSakaopponentwhoaccepSthatwemustindeed
havegraspedcognitionbtholdsthatthatgrasplnglSinferentialnOtPerCePtual

Norisitthecasethatoneexperiencesthecogniionwhichdeerminesapreced
ingcognition11Linthewayabovemenionedittham
eaSCOnSis1ngOfaJlirlferentialprocess

dependonsomeoherillumination107andbecausetherecouldbenothingthat
obstruCsitsbeinggrasped1080therwiseieifitwerenotgraspedathatvery instantitcouldneverbegraspedJO

Raheronedeterminesheearliercognitiondirectlywihoutaninferenialproc essForonedoesnotgrasptheinferentialprocesskramagra7zat 200683nOte60havingspottedthefollowingparallelargumentwithregardOeperceptibilityof

theselfasopposedtotheperceptibilityofcognition1F2

thattooisnorightForinthemomentwhenacognitionarisesthereisnocausalcom
plexthatenablesonetograspi
Acognitionca1POeniallybegraspedsubsequen1yhroughanuvyavasayaaperceptualdeterminingof aprecedingcogniionaCCOrding0heNaiyyikabuecausesthaenableanLLYyaVaSayaSuChasa CertainqualityofattenionandacerainconnecionbetweenheselfandtheinernalorganarenOpre Senathemomenwhenthecognltionarises

TheelliptlCallasthalfVerSeWOuldhavebeenextremelydimculttoconstruewereitnotforKataoka
TheauhoroftheBh5yaieVtsyayanahashimselfshownthathereisindeed
agraspingofanobjectqualifiedbythecognizerscognitioninsuchcasesasthe objectwasgraspedbymea1dhowcoulditbeappropriatetodisregardat Itishddthatthereisnocognitionofsomeingqualifiedwhosequalifierhasnot

Anditisnotthecasethatacognlionisapprehendedowlng0hemereabsence OfobstruCtionForasaresultoftheabsenceofthemeansofitsbeinggrasped
also110acognitionisnograspedathatimet
TheabsenceofanobstructionisnecessarybutitisnotenoughWealsoneedhepresenceofsome thing11amelyhemearlSthroughwhichcogniionisgrasped

beengraspedNeitherisatnemoryofsomethingthathasnotbeenexperienced earlierpossible
And wedo nothaveacognitionofanobjectqualifiedbythetselfaferfirst knowingeselfhroughinferenceasthequalifierbecausewedonotdetermine SuChaninferential1sequence

ThereforetheselfisdirectlyperCeived

452ThedifferencebetweenMimrpsandNyyaconcerningthewayinwhicha

Jusasheobject was cognizedindicates that cognltionmusthavebeen grasped earlierthrough

COgnltionisgrasped
AndunlikethefollowersofJaiminiWedonoinsisthatacognltionisneverperCeptiblet
Foronecan experiencethe graspingofan objectquaedbyacognitionafterhat COgniionintheformthisobjecwascognizedbyme JustasinthecognitionthcccthiswhiteihecionHaSauappearsasqualified bythatcolourwhiteSOinthecogniiontheobjecthasbeencognizedtheob JeCtaPpearSaSqualifiedbyacognition

EZnuYyaVaSayaanus4yadhiSOtheobjectwascognizedbymeindicatesatheselfmusthavebeen
graspedearlierthroghJ

CouldtheearliergrasplngOfcognltionandselfnotbeinferentia17Nobecausewehavenoconscious nessofanysuchinferentialprocessandwewouldhaveifaJlinferencehadbeencaLTiedout

111anusL5yadllisusedhereasasynonymofanuYyaaSLiya ddrrp27728 J
VrdCCIl

107 8 109

seein322Crd seein322dcfdg

seein322dgrddVedd
ThesenseofthealsoisaSareSulOftheabsenceofemeansilEadditEolltOaSareSultof

kl l
M

110

anobstmction

hm
JdmJJ

336

337

AndacognltionwhichisalwaysimperCePtiblecannotevenbeinferredIhavealready

earlierJayarltadoesr10tSPellouthowpreciselyheisreJeCtlngthatargumentheeWeunderstarldhis
assertionhattheargumerLtholdsonlylnSOmeCaSeSaSfollows

elaboraedthattoo1E3EnoughofthisalkWhyapresentdowehavetoattackaBrahL
mirlcolleague1ettingaBuddhistoffthehook

4t6Responsetotheargumentfromreflectiononanearliercognitionavamaria
AnditisforthatreasonaEafll14thatyourclaimin323

Cognltior10faLlObjectmustbeprecededbycognitionofthecognltlOnnOtalwaysbutonlyinthose casessuchasrefleciorlSavamaTiahatinvoIvegrasping anobjectashavingbeencognizedieaS qualifledbyanearliercognltionThesedoindeedpresupposeaneadiergrasplrlgOfthecognl10n7bu saLldardcognltionsofoectsdozlOtnegraSPlngOfcognltionpresupposedinhehstcasefurther moretakestheformofaTZuVyaVaSayaSOmethingthatakesplaceaernOtbeforeandnoSimularleOuS

withtheorlglnalcognlticnOftheobject

Havirlgr10WrefutedallofheargumensforcogrLltiotlbeinggraspedbeforeitgraspsanobJeCtJayanta
conclldes

Graspinganobjectmustbeprecededbygraspingthecognitionitselfbecause Wefindthatsubsequentlywereflectavamarfatonthatobjectassubsequent
ocognlion

Thereforeyourargumentin324L BecauseacognltionappearsbeforegrasplnganObjecandbecaJISethereisnode

doesnoholdineverycaseRatheritisadmittedtaLhabhyupagamyaLeonlyinsome CaSeSbecauseirlSuChcaseswehaveanawarenessofanobjectqualifiedbyacognition
TheVijnav5dinsargumenmaintainedthatsincerefLectionsonobjectsashaviTlgbeencognizedin VOIveamemoryr10OnlyoftheobjectbutaJsoofthecognltionthecogniionmushavebeengrasped

temliningofitasdevoidofformthisformbelongstocognitionalone5
ismerechatoutofvainhopebytheredClothWearingBuddhistsl

47Responsetotheclaimoflesspostulation
dmrrIp537dfarDpiprJl EladEZruLITZaLLLmEZPinahkya2Andiftheacionofthecognizeriecogrlitionwerealwaysimper CePibletheniCOuldnoteverlbeinferredbecausenologicalconnectioncouldbegrasped AlloherinstancesofataicainthispassagepointforwardLAndforhefo1lowingreason
J14

Nowyousaidin31thatthereislesspostulationifweaccepttheviewthatitiscogni
tionthathasform

471AnexternalobjectisnotpostulatedbutdirectlyperCeived

notbackBuhereitisunlikelytobepoJZltlngforwaTdbecausethereisnothingforittopolntfo
Ward0andtherearethirlgSicouldpoizlbackO

WhereastheotherinstancesofatalcaWhichpolntforwardarefollowedeitherbyanablative OrahihereiisfollowedbyastaemenapihabhyupagamyateWhichisitselFsupportedbyan ablaiveThenthaitisheendofhesectiorlhereisnothingaferthattowhichitcouldpoint

TheablaivehatsupportsabzyLLPagElyE7teUiiTIErVi5iil1laSVedanaiisunlikelytobethearget

RegardingthisLatraXXIXgiventhatintheabovementionedmannerL16theformofanob JeCtisapprehendedbydirectperceptlOnaSSOmethingextemaltobegrasped7howcan
yousayitispostulatedOrinwhatwayisthepostulation1essormore ItmakesnosenseosayhatanextemalobjectispostulatedSinceitisseenSOimakesnoserLSetOSay
thatacceptlngaLleXterralobjeciJIVOIvesmoreOreVenlessPOStuLatioL

OfaphrasemeanlngAndforthefo1lowlngreaSOnnOtOnlybeeauseitisglVlngareaSOnforsome hingelsebutalsobecauseidoesnomakeanewpolntthepolntitmakeshasjusbeenexplained atlengthintheprevioussectionSeeladviiislarthagra7Ladar3EZllatandthefollowirlgeehalf

VerSeS

472Responsetotheclaimthatcognltionisestablishedforbothofus Andwithregardtowhatyousaidofcognitionin313namelythatiisestablishedfor bothpartiesinthisdebateifthereckoningofanentityisdependentuponmeansof validcognltionanOjecttooiscertainlyestablishedforbothButifOntheotherhand thereckoningofanentltyisdependentupondesireoraversionhowcanacognltionfor itspartbeestablishedforbothThereforethispointofyoursamountstonothing

IfuleBuddhisisfreetoassertthenorleStablishmentofexternalobjectssimplyonthebasisofhisowrl
aversionthenJayantzLisfreetodothesamewithregardtocognlt10n 115seein323mdJprdmJfJddrlCgr
rgrdlmJJJJdmdgmm

WetakeihaaEaScaherepoirsbacktotheargumertCfthepreviGuSSCCtion45ieogni tionisnotalwaysgraspedsincetheTneanSforitbeinggraspedarenotalwaysthere451butthatit CanbegraspedasevidencedbyourabiJityohaveacognltior10farlObjecqualinedbyacognltion 452nereforetheargumenhathegraspingofanobjectdependsonthegraspingofthecogrli

tiondoesnotholdineverycasenasiirvatrEkanburatheronlyoccasiona11yEdevE7

ThereasonhaJayantadecidedoinsertsecior1452whichisparenheticalinthatitdigresses fromhisVinavdarefuaionhusseemsObenoOnlyteCauSeOfiSCOnneCionwih451but alsobecauseofitspreflgurlngOFthissecior146TherefutationoftheavamaJargumerltiethe topicofthis secion46StarSoemergein452irlSOfaraswegetthereiadiscussionofjLo mayayEZmart1WhichishowJayanaarticulatesheavaTnaJinthepIVaPaaiithemaxim aboutqualifierandqualinedWhichwasusedosupportheavamaTargumentinhepzTVaPaa andiiiamenion ofjiidnEZViii16rtzagraaWhichis thewayinwhichJayantacharacterizes
mdJIin46

L16Itisnotobviouswhatheisreferrlng10mOSlikelyoneormoreofhefollowlng2l413
424426428

338

339

48Response0heargumenthatcognlionsobjecSpeCicitylmpliesthatithas
fbm

42Therestrictionisbasedonthenatureofthings
VnavdinOnwhatisthisrestricionhaacogniionhasasisobjeconlyisob

481TheobjectSpeCificitycanbeexplainedthroughcausal1ink Nowasforthisclaimthayoumadein331 EvenifoneaccepSaneXernalobjectOneCannOtdenythatacognltionisunited

withaformforthatisheonlywayOeStablishtheobjecSPeCificityOfcogni

jectcausalfactorbased NaiyyikasItisjustcausedbythenaureofhings

ThissamequestionappliesequallytotheviewthatcognitionhasformInresponseto

hequesionofwhybluealoneistheobjectcausalfactororwhyacognltionhasasits
contenonlytheobjectandnotanyofheothercausalfactorsOtlehasnootherway
butOrePlybyresortingtohenaureofthingsAndequallyinresponse0heques

ionsuchhatsometimesitis ofblueforexampleandatothertimesofyel
low

histooisnotrightbecausecognitionsobjecSpeCincityisalsoexplicableinanother

tionofhowiisthatacogniioninreceivingaJbrmShouldreceiveheformonlyofhe objectcausalfacOrandnotofothercausalfactorsOneCOuldresor0nly0thenaureof
hings

WayAlthoughacognltionofbluedoesariseinthepresenceofmany thingsandal
houghiSbeingacognitioninnaturedoesnotvarywithregardtoallobjectsl18never helessiisproducedonlybybluealoneasitsobjeccausalfactorarmakaraaand
thereforeiSandsasorientedowardsbluealone ForheVijnavdintheonlythingcapableofexplainlngthatacognltionisofblueandnotofye1lowis thaihasblueasisformTheNaiyyikahereprovidesanaltemativeexplanaionnamelythatbecause blueisheobjcctcausalfacorkarmakdrakaLhaproducesthecognitionitariseswithblueasitsob JeCdespie not having blue asits formWhereas thc Vavdins explanation ofhe object SPeCificityofcognitionisladakarataitshavingthaobjecasitsfotheNaiyyikasistqUanyaEva7n isbeingproducedbythatobject

483Proofthatcognltioniscausedbyanobject AnditisknownthroughpositiveandnegativeconcomitancehaanObjectcausesacog
nitlOn WhenanobjectistheretheTeisacognltionWhenanqbjectisnoteTethereisnocognltion

ToexplainhiSomeonewishingtoseeDevadattavisitshishouseAnddespite

havinggonetherehedoesnoseehimifDevadaaenamisnotthere121 WhenDevadattacomesbacklaterhedoesseehim112whensuchasequenceas
thisoccursXXXoneseesinitthatcognitionofDevadattatadd71iyaccordswith
hispresenceorabsence

VOnavadinAsIsaidin332119itisproducedalsobyeyesandlightetcand thereforeiShouldhavethemasobjecS00 NaiyyikaItisruethatitisproducedbyeyesetcbutnotbythemasanobject20

ItisproducedbyblueasanobjectOntheotherhandThereforeihasnothingotherthan
thataloneasitsconen

AslongasDevadatahadnotcomebackCOgnlionofDevadaawasnocauSedOarise

WhenhecamebackitaroseThushecogniionisdeermirledtobeproducedbyhim
onthegroundsthatitexistswhenheexissThisbeingthecasecognitionsbeingre
strictedtothatobjectaloneriisestablishedbyitsbeingproducedbyhaobjecSo enoughofpostulatingaformofcognition ThisresictiGnOfcognitionOaPariicuiarobjectasaresulofbeingproducedbyiXXiii

Seein331ilm drJmmdVyViym

explainswhyhumanactivity00hasaparticularobjec123

118nesewerethetwofactsadducedbytheVnavadintosuppo11hisargumenSeeil1331
ndidJmdmdJJddmddPrf

vdkg1dJJm8d1JmprVdJ

Our consrualofbodharL2patvamafeFaS6dhdram derives from taking LttO beparallelto scCddmJddmdbb8d

L19

d1 Manyfactorsgointotheproductionofthecognltionthisisbluebutal1exceptbluebelong
O

1ZINegativeconcomitance lpositiveconcomitance
113

tosomecaegoEyOfcausalfacorotherhanobjectkaJarITleeyeSandlightaremeans

ThiswasanadditionalpointthatheVt7anav5dinclaimedtobeimpossibleunlesscognltion

hadforSemVpreigeViivdy31t

340

341

484Thewholecausalcomplexisthemosteffectivefactor Asforecharacterofbeingthemosteffectivefactorithasalreadybeendemonstrated inthechapteronthedefinitionofpraaingeneral124thatitbelongsothecausal COmplexasawholeandnottojustoneofthevariouscausalfactors

Inthesecion334ofthepGTVaPakaoWhichthissecionrespondstheVijav5dinclaimedthatif COgniiottdidnohavefomnOneOfthecausalfactorskarakaswouldhavepreeminenceovelheoth ersSOnOneOfhemwouldbethemoseffeciveoneHerehereplieshaindeednoindividualcausal factoristhemosteffeciveoneaShehasalreadyshowninthefirshnikaofhetexthemoseffecive facoriehepramaishewholecausalcomplexiehetotalityofallthecausalfactorsAftera11 ifanyoneofhecausalfacorsWhetheragenObjeclocusoroherWeretakenawayhentheresult WOuldnotbeproducedThereforeoneOrSOmeCannObeisolaedfromtheohersasthemoseffec
tiYe

BlueanditscognitionarenotdifEerentfromeachotherbecausetheyarenecessarily perCeivedtogetherSahqpalambhaniyamLiE thattooseemsouslikeinfantstalkForthemeaningofthewordtogetherisinap PrOPriateiftheyareidentical

TogetherisarelationalermthaexpresseSaCOnneCionbeweenwoormoreiLems

492Theyarenotapprehendedbythesamecognltion Orifyouintendthemeaningofthelogicalreasoniesa7LqPalambhaniyamdLtobeLbe
CauSe they are necessari1y perceivedbythe samecognitionlekopalambhaniyamat thenthisisanunestablishedloglCalreason128

485ConventionalExpressions AsfoieverydaylinguisticusageWhichyouadducedin335T25ittoodeviates126is notthecasethatpeopleneverXXXiYalsosayasfollowsThisisablueobjectbecausea

COgnitionwiththatbluethingasitsobjecthasarisen
TheVavadinadducesexpressionslikeLacognitionhavingthatasisformLadakGraTnhasarisen theNaiyyikaadducesexpressionslikeacogniionhavingthaasiSObjecLadviayamhasaisen WhatisthesignificandifferenceThelaterimpliestheexistenceofsomethingoutsideofiself

IfhemeanlngOfheoglCaJreasonislbecausetheyarenecessarilyperCeivedOgeheriisnocapable Ofestablishingidentity1finzLnatempOaVOidthisproblemismeaLtlnglSaSSertedobetbecaus heyarenecessarilyperceivedbythesamecognlionadifferenloglCalproblemariseshatofnon esablishmenintheproofSubjecnamelyblueanditscognlion

ForatthemomentofperCeivlngtheperceivedobjectsuchasblueWedonotperceiveits
perCeiverieCOgnitionIthasalreadybeenexplainedl19thatthesetcognitionssuchas

nlisis bluearenothing but theappearanceofmerely anexternalperCeivedobject

TTlereforetheassertionhatafoJTnPOSSeSSingcognitioElmuStbeacceptedevenifanex
temalobjectexistsisnotappropriateL27
12SnaraksiathoughhedoesnouseheexpressionekppalaTnbhaniyaTTZLZineTPretSthesaho Mm8ntinthiswayTbvgr820292030 dJVeddmdyVednml ddVydJdJJVVJeJl rfI ni7adhnedanap cedap ni7akLirasya vedanamvedanaTn BBS ediionTib 89a7erlGOSediionlll Whe7ZEIzeeperiellCedAisnecessarilyL71eeerienceqfBthenAisnodiffer enfromBOrCannObeseparaedfromiJuSlikeheownnaureofacognlion OfblueomhCOgnonoFbueeuSethesCOndmoGnome

49ResponsetothenecessarycoperCePtlOnargument 491Iftwothingsareactual1yonehowcantheybeLtogether
Andasforwhayousaidin352

Ip321315dJ
dddJJdemdgryrmlldvriredreb8Cidlm arLhaslalSdnupapaEEebPreciselybecausehewordpramdenoeStheinsrumenandthe instrumentishemoseffecivehinginthebringingabouofaLtyaCionifollowsthatiisap PrOPriateforthewholecausalcomplexObethepraTnabecauseiisnopoSSiblethatanyindi VidualcausalfacorWhaSOeVeraparfromthewholecausalcomplexhaveconaCtwiththemean
ingmoseffectiYel
25

derfenceJHemiegrceCOge
alicsmarkexpressionsofthenecessLyofbeingperceivedbyhesamecognitionCommen1ng OnhisKamaaS7laacua11yusestheexpressionekopalambhaniyamawiceWearenoawareOf

atlyOthereYidencehoweYerOfJayantaknowlngeitherSnaraksiaorKamalaSfla KamalaEflascommenaryOnthesewoversesreportstheviewofSubhagupahaifLperCeived
ogeherrneansperCeivedbythesameekacogniionthen thelogicareasonisunesablished

Insecion335theVinavadinadducedasevidenceforcognionhavingfoLTnSuChevery

dayexpressionsasrnLisisablueobjecbecauseinmymindacognlionwiththaforrnhasarisen

asiddhaJayantasresponsetoheargumenhusresemblesubhaguptas 1WHeisprobablyreferrLngbackprimaily0413idamnilamiLlgrdhakadvIcchinnaeva
gr77yakL5rovab71aSate0her places wherehehas made relaed remarks are42444l2and 4422AndherearepartsofhetexouSideofhispassagehaarereevanforexamplefrom
sIflJbmfVegndm fddJJJJyymdrrIp

126eimaysomeimessupportyoubutitsometimessupportsus
127

section33bohbegaLtandendedwihheconenionthaevenifanexternalobjecexisted

OneWOuldstillhaveOPOSulaeafombelonglngOCOgnlionforotherwisetheobjecLspeCificity OfcognJioncouldnobeexplained

83llLForwhatweexperienceisthisisblueandnotthisisaperCePtualcogniion

342

343

Whichlackspenetrationbyheformofitsperceiverandwhichisdisinctfromthatper
Ceiver

Jo

ShSMKedeJddgJdW cmmeJdJrJd1fJ
2ombay1924

AndinsomecasesweevenexperiencethatwereflectontheperceiveraloneieCOgni ionSeParatedfromtheformofheperCeivedinsuchawayasIdonoremember
SOmeObjectwasgraspedbymeatthaime OneisawareofapastcognlionbutnooftheobjecCOgnized

IyengarHRRedmrd1 0rgJddrMysore1944 ShastriDeddgrJdr

WJCmePmdJdJ2Vol

7bJgr

SobecausewearethusawareoftheformofacognltionandtheforTnOfanobjectin
SeParaLionfromeacholherhowcanyousaythat

umesBauddhaBhafatiSeriesl2VirzJaSi19811982
GO5 XdshnamaCharyaEedThttvasagrahaqfSantarakita WiththeCommentaTyKamaZaii7a2VolumesGaekwads OrienalSeries3031Baroda1926
Seerbgr

BlueanditscognltionarenotdifferentbecausetheyarenecessarilyperCeivedbyhe
Samecognition

493Vnavadinsalsoacceptthedifference

Anditisthisverydistinctionthatyoutoorefertowhenyousayblueanditscognl
110n130

grJ

regrdrr

ShastriML KedreivaraparikdSa4yqiyoEis wiEh

J Cy qrDelhi19g9

VinavdinThisisamerereferencetotheopponensview

0riginalEdition5rfnagar1926
7y

NaiyyikaThatisnotsoforiftheywereidenicaltheycouldnotevenbereferred
OSeParatelyForthisreasontoothisformdoesnotbelongtoacogntion

nakurAedt GmyddddW VdEsydyanaNyyacaurgranthik1NewDelhi1997 VaradacharyaKSLedNdyamaardJayantabllaHa yrddyJJeor2Volumes Mysre1969and1983

References Primary Sources

AJdJlr

KSS

KatreSMedAadhyayPiniDelhiMotilal Banarsidass1989 Dezs6CedLChAdoAboLLEReZigionbyBhaHaJay

rJJi

SuklaSNedemr2 VolumesKashiSanskrit SerieslO6Nyaya section15

Benares19341936

Agmddddr

anEaNew YorkNew YorkUniversity PressandtheJJC

Foundation2005 JdJ 5sDed IdlVJCmeAcyo
VaranasiBauddhaBharati1987 GJ
PmnVVVr Pr8mVJ

nakurAedLyabhyavdlttikaBharadia thL dyotakaraNewDelhi1997 TosakiHedPrJJiJ Jdefdemog2Volumes

TokyoDaiOShuppansha1979and1985
GnoliRLed771ePramavatttikamDharmakrtitlle FirsEChqpEerwiththeAutocommentaTyRomalsiutoltal ianoperilMedioedEstremoOriente1960 SteinkellnerEedDharmaktis Pramapaviniicaya

ShahNJedNydyamaarianEhibhafigaAhmedabad L.D. Institute ofIndology 1972

Prlmfc

ChapterTland2ViennaBeijingAustrian Academy of
SciencesChinaTibe0logyResearchCenre2007
30

ThattwothingsarebeingspokenaboutisconveyedintheSanskribyhedualending

344

345

PrdmCC

SeinkellnerEedDigndgaramasamuccayaClaP JerA0JicdJrecoCJJJJeJ
JJ

Two manuscrips preservedinheBritishLibraryIndiaOfficeNo2149

Bumell1449bNo797Burnel13739

erggdJJfcJer lJJJJ URLhttpikgaOeaWaCaatdignagaPS1pdf1astac CeSSed18FebTuary2010

A manuscnppreservedin the NationalArchiveKahmanduNo41299

NGMPPA643

AmanuscnpPreSerVedintheSarasvaiMahalLibrarySampumanandSanskrit VishvavidyalayaVaranasiNo29689

Praasamuccayavrtti ncsoTCalledvrttiislikelytobepartofthePramapasamuc CayaitselfforreferencestoltSeePramanasamuccaya

Secondary Sources
gedrrf MKeIegr

gemmeVr

KSTS50BombaySrinagar1930ReprinNew Delhi
1982 dVV

CardonaG19678AnvayaandldtirekainIndianGrammarTyleA4yarLi rryJi3132DrRaghaYanFelicitaionVolume
313352

IyerKASedmedlrr

Dezs6C2005 GaneriJ1999

SeeAgmdr SelfIntimationMemoryandPersonalIdentityJournaL
diPJJo274693

lhltlll

DeccanCollegeMonographSeries32Poona1966
d

FrauwallnerEed5abarasvamiByamzudenM
l5JgrJJJZreJeeJiJe

GupaB1963

ledeKarmamib2aqlSaVer6ffentlichungenderKommis
SionfbrSprachenundKulturenStidundOsasiens6Wien
1968 SLokavarMikaVrttikaagrantlla5str7SKRaKKnangaswamyReds

DiezrnehmungsLehreinderyamaqiarilBeiragezur Sprachund Kulturgeschichte des Orients16Walldorf Hessen rBhaJayantaAnnaLstzeBhandarkar OrientalRe

erCJJe64115

HegdeRD1983

VvVgMa drasUniversltyOfMadras1971

InamiM1999

On the Determination ofCausalityh Shoryu Katsura edrJi0IgM

eJPJPOCeedJrJJer0J

SLokavarttikaiyavada TheversesciedinthisarticlearebasedonKataokasdraft

editionoftheSdnyavadachapterbutareglVenherewithout
Variantsneeditionisbasedonthefollowlngwoeditions
andfourmanuscrlPtS JrJlh JacobiH1911

rm CreCejrofmovemer4

1997OsterreichischeAkademiederWissenSChaftenPhi
losophischHistorische KlasseDenkschriften281Wien
131154

SParthasdathiMiiaEdSwmiDvrikadsa Ssrr
VaranasiTaraPublications1978 veSKR5mana

neDates ofthePhilosophicalSBtrasoftheBrahmans
rJArfcOrieJJocJ31129

SsrlRevKKunjuniRq5aRnangaswamyMadras
UniversltybfMadras1971

346

347

KaaokaK2003

CriticalEdiionoftheanddvaitavddaSecionofBhaa
JayanasmrgmJrJge

SchmihausenL2007

AJdydgiddeJmgJd CeJmJCCJyogc PiJlSudia Phi

OrfeJdJCre144115155 AnupdatedversionofthisediionhasbeenmadeaYailable byKataokaat

hww1ityushutjpataokKataokaMRpdf

lologicaBuddhicaMonographSeriesIVaTokyo
ShahNJ1992 lJqrJfdJ Vol5AhmedabadLD7nstitteOfIndology
AdddmdrAdJrgd

KaaokaK2006

JayantanoYuishikiHihanNyyamaariNinshikiIchi
genronHihanWayakuTlAnannotatedJapanesetranslation

ShahNJ1997

Ofhe5nddvaitavada Section of BhaaJayanas NayamarTbtsugakuNe0FacultyofLetersKyu

ShuUniversiy653985 KataokaK2009 ACriticalEdiionofBhaaJayantasNLiyamaiUarinle BuddhistRefuaionofKumari1asCriicismofApohaTJle emeOrdJJ1564981
45841

if WoJ0JdidgjcPdrJJSanskriSanskriti GranthamIa4LAhmedabadJagrutiDilipSheth
SaalJF1960

ReYiewofDSRueggCorifaloiredeJdl fgJeJdgPJJdd WeJ

lO537

SaalJF1966

ContraposiioninIndian Logich Proceedings qfthe

J0grdJdJCgrer8gk0gdd

Jg0ycfeCgpp634649
KellnerB20092010Towards aCriticalEdidonofDharmakirisPramdpa

VdrElikaInJtlrgenHannederandPhilippMaasedsTbxL
GeegdJCrimddrece

SeinkellnerE2007 TaberJ2005

SeefrdmVfd
ACJieddfJe0gmi0

ltielZerZeiLscLrJ7LrdieKLLndSLLdatnS55316lIl KellnerBforthcomingASelfaWareneSSsvasapvedanain Digngas Pramdpaq

Perct10nLondonRou1edgeCurzon TaberJforhcoming TeraishiY1997 fumrilasBuddhisJoLLrTZalqrndialZPhilosPhJ Kumri1ano DigngaJry6ron HihanTashano Tameno SliriwoMegueNihonTibetGakkaiKaih414261 69 TosakiH19791985 SeemVffd3 WanA2006
gAdregglJArg

SamuCCayaandVrttiAclosereadingJournalqfh7di
PJ KellnerBforthcomingBllSelfaWareneSSsvasVedanaandinfinieregressesa

COmParison ofargumens by Dignga and Dharmakirti

rJdPi

KherC1992

dmPreedemcdJJgmDelhi SriSagumPublicaions

gAgff fedfcfrie0ePublica

MamiH2006

rSomenotesonheconEroYerSiesbeweenthedcaTdband thevyakhyatarabintheNayamaarlJournalqfb7dian
nddiJJdfe5433341

ionsoftheDeNobiliResearchLibrary32Wien
WaSOnAforthcoming
BhaRmakalChasElaboration ofSelfAwarenessSVa

OberhammerG1962OnthesourcesinJayanaBhaandUddyoakarae
ercdfede1idOe69150 WezlerA1975

SarWedanaandhowitdiffersfromDharmakhtisExposi ionoftheConcepJournalqfb7dianPhilosophy ZurIdenitader LjfcarydbundVdkhyataraIlin Jayanabhaser Zere

dgdfg19135146

348

349

Keywords

JayanaVijnavdaNyyaDharmakirtiYogcra
Nyyama6jarfKumri1a dnmddIViJJI8m
p42
II

sincehepolntispresumablyhahereisabeginnlnglesschainofcognltion1atentimpresT

TheEZyamisawkwadisnoinallwinessesbuwehavereainediPar1ybecausewehave truStedCLhereOurbesmanuscripPerhapstheintentionisIfthisformhaappearSisuSone wehavelefthehiuntranslaedSinceiisdifnculoseehoworenderiwihouLovertrans la11ngTheVinavdinusesittointroduceane7KPlanationofwhyhehasjusresponded0heop

ponenwihasarcasticinsul

SionCOgniion1aenimpressionechedualendingofanEdlayOzisslightlyawkwardAsingular endinidicatlngaSlnglestreamconsistlngOfbothwouldsufnceWeatempomakesenseofhe ransmiedreadingbyinseringLcorresponding rvi ourtranslaioninvoIvlngasarenderingofhecompoundrelaionshipbeweenpramapTu meyapramiEiandvyavahdraisvag11eitcouldcoverlocativewithregardtoinstrumentalby meansofOrVarioussensesofhegeniiveegrelaed0 Assaedinfootnoe80PaofhebackgroundofthisrerrlarkisadiscussionathebeginnlngOf

thed8ydfJ8yrdVrJyeprfid

Mvaidhuaattheendofcompoundsoccurscommonly1nCludinginhedyamarnhe
SenSeOfLabsenceofbuiclearlycanOtmeanthathereForthissenseofinconveniencedbysee

ayamaqiarIp2723lWherehallucinationsofalovedoTlissedwomanarislngfromrepeaed ineulcationofloveorgriefaeSaidobei11usorybecausetheythepersonhavinghemisinconven iencedbyasubsequenrefuerbddhakaofhehallucinaiorLkdmEZkadibhavanbhyasabhzLVa

aoka200675nOe19 AlthoughinhisoriginaleditionKataoka2003128optedforhereadingpmEibandhEZVaidhLL yatbyheimeofhisJapanesetranslaion200675nOe19hesawmoreevidenceinfavourof

rmmP8r8mJeJmemddrV8drmcdJdC
VfftVadantr1mJel1315

NrayaDakanhacomenlngOrLgeTtdraEantraVidyabLila213wriesyaddhadkaPddah caEasrTLCaivapvidhdsuarVO bLvyava1alParisamapyaEeThushemushaveknownaversion OfthelassenenceoftheNyayabhayapaSSageglVenabovethatreadinsteadofLaIParlsaTt apyaEeVyaVahaTTZbparisamapyaEeWhichiswhawehaveinheNamaiyarsenenceunderdis

CuSSlOn

PTTZtLbaTZd7LakavaidhtLTaL Thereisthepara11elbadlEZkavaidhLLTydinhejusciedpassagethefac hatincoveniencedbysuggess anagenthefactthattheSEokav5rEEikasourceverseherereads PratibaTtdhqkayogdtthefachahebesofhemanuscriptscollaedCLreadspraEibaTZdhakaa thisplaceandthefactthatinhenextsenenCepratibaTtdhakoiswellatesedAthaPlacehow

evertheonewitnesswhichdoesnoreadpraEibandhEZkoisCLWhichreadspnzELbandhoSQWe CannOtuSebothofthelasofheseWOPOlnsasevidenceforpraEibandhakaL

JayanaknewheversionwithEaEtvampaLsamdpyaEeeVICayaducyaEeLpramLiE6praml
rlmerdmircJJfdlJvri8JdJfdvlndJedmrrI

pZ7ButheoknewtheversionwithvdVJrdrmJgisplausiblegivene followlng Senencefromhiscommenaryon thepassageEadayamihapramPramaEaPra neyPramiEiriEtcaturvaTaeVavyavahalbparisamyaLeVol13889Sohisfomlulaion OfhepresenSenenceinourpassageseemstohavebeeninfluencedbytheNyiiyab71yadiscussion TheMysoreediionreadscaEurvaTaeVaheKSSeditioncaElrVaTgeaivaThelocaiveis SupPOrted by the reading ofhe Lucknow MSCaEurvEZTe eVaWherehe reason for the non applicaionofsandhiwasprobablyodisambiguaethelocaivefromthenominativeTohaYePari SaTTlaPyaEe here connecedwith alocaivewouldhermoremakehis sentenceconsisentwih bQth theNyyabltayaCaEasTu CaivapviElhasuand the presenSenenCeiTlheayamaar U oneofhemoivesforfillinghecompoundouwihunrequiredexrawordssuchasvilaais

ivAlthoughthereadigOfMandN8T71yamamissimplerthecausaivegrahyLmamis
WellaesedintheoherwinessesSOWeaempOglVeisensewihthisranslaionbeingneces Sarilygraspediebeingcausedforcedobegraspedbyheforceofheprecedingarguments

YNotetheal1iteraivepaemsinkaEhamakltiLaEadiEarapadarttaparularerIakevaEan1
Jdm8J8meJ

YpreaPLirvElrnOreliteral1yLafterpropetconsideration Yii Notetheal1iteraioninhecompoundalokEZlocaTtddikaTTZkalZtarajaniEEZtVEZSya

YliL

WeleavetheevaunranslaedbecauseweseenooheropionthaWOuldnotbeanovertrans

heallieraiondndyvlrJdVry
XVi

laio

onthecompoundanadyaviiivdsandSeenOexiiirlereweinerPlethea17adLasqualify

rXTheSanskritisslighyawkwardinhayeEtLisnopickedupsubsequen1ybyacorelaive hechangeofspeakercomesathebeginnlngOf342wihtaddamEZ
INoeealliterationindr8lvd Literal1yanonCOmpleionLanonterminaion t WctctoTefertoVmJdd
liii

1ngaVidyiibecauseoftheavidyaviraEaiEILathebeginnlngOfhenexsenence EvidenceforvaidhuTydEgivingareasonforjusttheclaimofhesecondpadaratherthanfor thaof the nrstwo or forhaofhe fourhis provided by1he auoNCOmmenary0he
PmVinfgclyVerSescedgrJlygrJlJVjd2he factate flrS

JayanausesthecompoundanadyavidyavasanLiWiceinhispassageanda1easwoother

timeselsewhereinheayamaitjarLImakesli1edifferencewheherweinellreheaTtddiaS qualifyingavidydorvasaTlaforboththeignoranceandthelatentimpressionsarebeginnLngless JayantaelsewhereusesbothanddyEZVidyaandaniidivasanaHerewetakeiasqualifyingvasandbe CauSeWehaveuShadavidyavdsaTZaaSOneuniinheprevioussenenceandbecauseinhissum maryofthispassageatthebeginnlngOfthenexParagraPhheusesJ11Standvsma ThemonkintheAgamadambaraWhenexplainingVinavdauSeSaSenencewithmuch

thesmCVOCabulaaSthisoneSeeJ71Jrmed8dVJJddedJ
nddnrdVVJVdddydJ

PLidaisuSconcludingheopICOfheprevioussecionofhePramapavinikayanlyfromhe SeCOndpadaonisanewpoinmade3heparallelverseinhePramavaTIEfka3327 1JeJfJ8dl LThereisnohingelsethaisexperiencedbythacogniionhereisnooherexperienceofieiT therbecausehatexperierLCe00issuscepibleothesamerefuaionashasjustbeenusedagainst theexemalobjecThereforeEaEiieCOgniionEaEshinesforthbyitselfAlthoughthethird PLidareadsdifferenly1isclearhaitooglVeSareaSOnuSforheclaimofhesecondpddaWe thankBirgiKcllnerbrthisinmationOnthereadingJJVJJJJebrVJJfv PTTZkaEehereadingofheediionsSeeKellner2009196L198

350

351

 weprefernooinerprehiscompoundasabalutvr1L Althoughcompoundsendinglna
manarefarmorecommonlybahLLvli7zLshaJltapLErLEaSDharmartisometimesusesthemastatr puruaSSeeforexamplebuddhydmainPramapavinLkayal44PTumavarEEika3353Which Jayantahasjusciedaboveinsecion38andwhichhusmayhaveinfuencedhisformulaionhere SeealsothePramdrzavdrELkasvaYriadl43p264whereDhannakfrticommensonthephrasein hisverseekasydrtzasvabzavaawihhesentenceekohyarthatmaTTlaarthaisaaLrLLais ClearfromthefacthahereisnooherwordwihwhichiisaBreelng TTlaprakii5akEZbodlzaisakarmadharayaisimpliedbybodhatZLadgTtfhakasyaizhe nextsentencefromthesenseereiiscIearthahegeniivesareamanadhjkanz1aFurthermore ifhecompoundmeantcognltionofheilluminaorhemeanlngherewouldbeabsoluelycontrary toJayantasintentionhewantstode17ythatgrasplnganObeCdependsoncognlZlnglsilluminator XThereisnoneedtoconJeCnreadifferentreadinglnWhichwehavehenominaivekataTu insteadofkaarasyakataaSyaVabhiisT71yuklamisTlOtgrammaticallyincorrec XXil AlhoughpTYLk6SateisbetterattestedWePreferpakaiyatethereadingoftheBHUmanu SCrlPforweseehissenertceasanalygthelPrlkayatementionedintheprevioussen
enCe
XXY

ThatupahmbhoLp6daPreSandhiisanominaivenOtalocativeissuggestedbythenomi

naiveddrf1aerinesenence XZYTTlatadlLLpddapreSandhiisanominaivenOalocaiveissuggesedbythenominative Ladgrazapalnlaterinhesenence yatLvayaEVaCadz7siLamisawkwardWihouthecaheyaEwOuldbefineWithhecai

1XYl

WOuldbesmooherifwereadtanOyaWearerelucarlt0glossovertheproblembysimply adop1nghetatthatisfoundinMandClforyaisthereadingnotonlyofhemOrlyofhewi nessesbutalsoofheGrant7zib7zangaAloughiispossiblethattheediorofheGralZhibhahga didnotaccuratelyfollowhismanuscriphereitseemsousJuSaspossiblehaaisasecondary

correctlOn
W

LuthoughJayantaClearly11Sedprakti3mainsection4A12aboveoconveyanonCauSative

intransitivemeaningshiningforthappearingbeingmanifestinfacpreciselyoconraWih acausativemeaningilluminatingsomethingLmakingsomethingmanifesthehasusedtheword threetimesinthelasttwosenencesinacausativcsense nlemetreisUpendravajrbuhelastpadaisunmetncal1tshouLdhaveeLevensyllables

XXYl

endingshorlonglongbutihaswelveendingshortlongShortlong1tSPenultimatesy11ableis SuPerfluous AlthoughwehavedecidedOuSehereaseparaeEnglishsenenceatTuintheSanskritis

XXx

ObviouslythecoqrelaiveoftheyLIL XllwetakeyaddahebeginnlngOfhefirshalfVerSeaSCOrrela1ngwihtatrainhelas weconstruehesenenceasaadasaNeJlaaddhasahdLva11iiveioneknowshe

IXIJ

lat7Edtvamofcognltionofhim m wetaketatlTZnLyanaSiEhiobesynonymouswihheearlierusedexpressionpraikarma
4S1SOhaJdddJIe XX1 weieetlnggaSwdmidd
mY

TTlernaJOntyOfwitnessesdonotcontainthedoublebutjjshardoderiveasaisfactory

SenSeWithoutit

352