Dharmakirti: Pramanavartika

PRAMANAVARTIKA by Acharya Dharmakirti (7th Century CE)

Chapter Two: Establishing the Reliable Guide

The One who transformed into the Supreme Reliable Guide, Being motivated by altruism to benefit sentient beings,

The Teacher, Sugata, and Protector

To You, I make prostrations.

I will compile into one from all those scattered treatises of mine In order to establish valid cognition.”

Opening words of salutation to the Compassionate Buddha,

Acharya Dignaga’s Pramanasamuchaya ‘Compendium of Treatises on Valid Cognition’

These profound words of salutation, penned by Acharya Dignaga (6th Cent. CE), who was considered to be the father of Buddhist logic, were perceived as sublime by Acharya Dharmakirti (7th Cent. CE), himself a great logician and philosopher saint. On apprehending them, the desire arose in Acharya Dharmakirti to be involved in the salutation passage, and thereby inspired him to compose an entire chapter based on them (Chapter Two

of Pramanavartika). The chapter reveals a plethora of rich and intricate principles of logic and epistemology that underscore the salient features of Buddhist metaphysical thought, on critical topics such as rebirth, efficacy of nirvana and Buddhahood and so forth, which otherwise would forever have remained concealed. Pramanavartika, especially its second chapter, has tremendous implications for the practice of Buddhism. An understanding of it convinces the practitioner of the rationality underlying the teachings of the Buddha, and consequently, advances her practice to a deeper level.

Ref. 1) This Chapter has two parts:

  1. Establishing the Omniscient One as the Reliable Guide [cf. Ref. 2]

  2. The purpose of praising the Buddha for being born as the Reliable Guide [cf. Ref: 142]

Ref. 2) First: Establishing the Omniscient One as Reliable Guide has two parts [cf. Ref. 1]:

  1. Identifying the illustration of a Reliable Guide following the explanation of the meaning of, ‘having evolved into a Reliable Guide.’[cf. Ref. 3]

  2. Explaining how the Buddha transformed himself from an ordinary state to a Reliable Guide for all sentient beings through favourable causes, following the explanation of the meaning of the remaining four points, ‘Altruistic One with the motivation to liberate all sentient beings from Samsara’; ‘Teacher of the wisdom of selflessness as means to liberate all beings’; ‘Sugata [One Gone to Bliss] – the one who is freed from samsara through integrating the wisdom of selflessness himself’; and ‘Protector of all sentient beings by teaching the path of the wisdom of selflessness to the sentient beings’.[cf. Ref. 28]

Ref. 3) First: Identifying the illustration of a Reliable Guide following the explanation of the meaning of ‘having evolved into a Reliable Guide has two parts [cf. Ref. 2]:

  1. Definition of valid cognition in general [cf. Ref. 4]

  2. Indicating that the Buddha also qualifies this definition [cf. Ref. 11]

Gaining insight into the phenomena of higher states and definite goodness of nirvana and Buddhahood along with their complete means, depends on valid cognition. Amongst these numerous valid cognitions, the one that is error-­‐free with respect to knowing all phenomena is the Buddha’s Omniscience alone. What then constitutes the definition of valid cognition?” Khedrup Rinpoche’s note from ‘The Ocean of Reasoning’

Ref. 4a) First: Definition of valid cognition in general has four parts [cf. Ref. 3]:

  1. Delineating the definition of valid cognition and explaining the meaning of validity with respect to what the liberation aspirants seek

  2. Abandoning the three flaws of the definition of valid cognition

  3. Explaining the definition of valid cognition conjoined with its illustrations [cf. Ref. 9]

  4. Explaining different versions of validity in relation to valid cognition employed to eliminate misconceptions [cf. Ref. 10]

Ref. 4b) First: Delineating the definition of valid cognition and explaining the meaning of the validity of what the liberation aspirants seek [cf. Ref. 4a]:

  1. Valid cognition is awareness, which is non-deceptive What remains as functional is non-deceptive.

What arises from sounds

Is indicative of the intention.

Ref. 5] Second: Abandoning the three flaws of the definition of valid cognition [from Ref. 4a]:

  1. Limitation of the pervasion [cf. Ref. 6]

  2. Over-­‐pervasion [cf. Ref. 7]

  3. Incorrectness[cf. Ref. 8]

Ref. 6) First: Abandoning the argument that the said definition has limitation of the pervasion [cf. Ref. 5]:

    1. The sound is valid with respect to The meaning of the object

Which is clearly perceived by the mind of the utterer. It is not a reason to establish the fact of the meaning.

Ref. 7) Second: Abandoning the argument that the said definition of valid cognition has the flaw of over-­‐pervasion [cf. Ref. 5]:

  1. The concealer [subsequent cognitions] is not [valid cognition] as it Apprehends what is perceived [already.]

The awareness alone is valid cognition.

Ref. 8) Third: Abandoning the argument that the said definition to be totally incorrect [cf. Ref. 5]:

  1. It [valid cognition] is the chief [and not the sense powers] with respect to Engaging in the objects to be abandoned and to be adopted.

Due to variance of the objects with their aspects,

The various cognitions are posited by the awareness.

Ref. 9) Third: Explaining the definition of valid cognition conjoined with its illustrations [cf. Ref. 4a]:

  1. The existence of this makes the existence of that. The nature of that is established through itself. Valid cognition is established through labels. Texts are to eliminate the ignorance.

Ref. 10) Fourth: Explaining different versions of validity in relation to valid cognition employed to eliminate misconceptions [cf. Ref. 10]:

6-7. The one, which illuminates the meaning of the unknown as well is [valid cognition.]

Following the cognition of the specific entity,

The consciousness of the generic aspect is attained.

It is intended [as the valid cognition], which is but the awareness of Self-characteristics of the [object], which was [earlier] not known, As it investigates the self-characteristics [of the object.]

Ref. 11) Second: Showing that the Buddha also qualifies that definition in the context of reliability has two parts [cf. Ref. 3]:

  1. Explaining the [Buddha] as the valid one/Reliable Guide [cf. Ref. 12]

  2. Explaining the meaning of ‘having transformed.’[cf. Ref. 13]

Ref. 12) First: Explaining the [Buddha] as the valid one/ Reliable Guide [cf. Ref. 11]:

8a. Since the Transcendental One is endowed with it, He is indeed the valid one.

Ref. 13) Second: Explaining the meaning of ‘having transformed’ has two parts [cf. Ref. 11]:

  1. The purpose of mentioning ‘having transformed’ [cf. Ref. 14]

  2. Clarifications related to having accomplished the purpose [cf. Ref. 15]

Ref. 14) First: The purpose of mentioning ‘having transformed’ [cf. Ref. 13]:

8b. ‘Having transformed’ is said To reject non-production.

Therefore it is proper that the valid one should be causally contingent.

Ref. 15) Second: Clarifications related to having accomplished the purpose has two parts [cf. Ref. 13]:

  1. Rejecting the one who knows how to do all actions as the Omniscient One [cf. Ref. 16]

  2. Establishing the one who knows the reality of all phenomena as the Omniscient One [cf. Ref. 24]

Ref. 16) First: Rejecting the one who knows how to do all actions as Omniscient One has two parts [cf. Ref. 15]:

  1. Rejecting Creator as the self-­‐born permanent Omniscient One [cf. Ref. 17]

  2. Rejecting the reasons to support Creator as the Omniscient One [cf. Ref. 18]

Ref. 17) First: Rejecting Creator as the self-­‐born permanent Omniscient One [cf. Ref. 16]:

9. Valid cognition cannot be permanent,

As it should be the valid one to cognize an existent thing. Since the cognized is impermanent,

It is non-static.

  1. Those produced sequentially,

Cannot feasibly be produced from a permanent thing. It [permanence] should not be contingent

As nothing can assist it.

Ref.18) Second: Rejecting the reasons to support Creator as the Omniscient One has two parts [cf. Ref. 16]:

  1. Pointing to the flaws of the reason [cf. Ref. 19]

  2. Rejecting Creator as the Creator of all [cf. Ref. 22]

Ref.19) First: Pointing to the flaws of the reason, which support the Omniscience of Creator [cf. Ref. 18]:

  1. Despite being impermanent, no valid cognition [exists to prove it to be Omniscient.]

[The reasons], such as it acts intermittently, a unique shape, Functioning, and so forth [are invalid.]

Either it establishes the accepted, or the example is not established, Or it leaves a doubt.

  1. Determined by the presence of blessings, Anything like a shape is created.

What is inferred through that

Is valid [for the creation by the efforts of beings.]

  1. [That varied] things are produced from varied causes,

[If] inferred through similar label [with generic contents]- such as ‘shape’, which are not distinguishable,

Is not valid.

It is like [inferring] fire through grey substance.

  1. Otherwise, absurdity befalls To accept that the potter,

Who is the maker of pots and so forth, which are forms of clay, Should also be the maker of anthills.

  1. The result [production], which pervades [both] the [topics], In generic when applied to affirm [the thesis],

[Rejecting] on the basis that since the related objects [topics] are distinct,

The [production as the reason] should be different, a criticism known as ‘similar results’ [rejection.]

  1. Seeing the generic label of the varying [objects], And applying it as reason is not proper.

It is [then] like [inferring] the voice with horns [of cattle] As it being a referent of [the label] gawo.

  1. Since it is contingent on the person who seeks to utter, The sound is absent nowhere.

If due to its presence, one infers the referent, Anything can be established by anything.

  1. This analysis applies [also to] Jainas [Tib. Serkya] and so forth, When they say [things] are devoid of mind,

As they are impermanent,

And are possessions of mind, as they die when they are peeled off.

Ref.20) Entity is more important between entity and specific.

  1. [That the reasoning to not be established] is acceptable, If the entity of the object is not established.

The specificity is not [a ground] for rejection [of the reasoning], For it is like sound with the dependence of space.

Ref.21) Referent is more important between the label and the referent.

20. Even without establishing the label,

It is established if the referent object is established.

It is like the Buddhists citing [Rishi] Uluka’s[Tib: Ugpapa, one of the non-Buddhist philosophical tradition holders]

Body and so forth as reasons [to establish the particle of four elements as impermanent.]

  1. If [the referent] is erroneous and the like, The reason is to be known as erroneous, Even if there is no error in the labels,

As the meanings [referents] are established through meanings.

  1. When ‘it moves,’ and ‘is in possession of hands,’ are used as reasons, To establish [the topics] as with horns and elephant,

Being the referents of the labels,

Is through renown and not for being the [true] referents as intended by the labels.

Ref. 22) Second: Rejecting Creator as the creator of all [cf. Ref. 18]:

23. Just as [Creator] is labeled as a cause, Why is it not labeled as a cause?

And why not non-cause,

As it is non-cause [at other times?]

  1. If through weapons and medicines, Injuries and healing take place,

Why not a piece of wood, which is irrelevant

Not seen as a cause [to the injuries and healing.]

  1. [Creator] cannot be the creator,

As there is no difference in its nature [when creating and not creating.] Since permanent things do not disintegrate,

It is not feasible to establish the potential [to give rise to results.]

  1. If one conceives of a cause that does not qualify

Those coming into being through the existence of [the causal factor], [One has to accept] that all [results]

Will have infinite causes.

Ref. 23) Definition of ‘cause’:

27. The soil and so forth, when their nature changes To produce the shoot, is [known] as cause. Upon making them fertile,

The features of [the results] are seen.

  1. Since the object and the sense source are not different

When in collection, and [still] are the causes for consciousness, Likewise is this [Creator], if you assert.

It is not tenable as differences [of clarity] do exist in them [sense source and so forth when in collection.]

  1. If the individual [causes], which by themselves are impotent

Are not different in nature when assembled, they should have no potential. [As they do acquire potential when assembled],

The difference is established [between the causes when in isolation and in collection.]

  1. Therefore, [the factors] which are impotent in isolation,

Yet upon collection, feature of [potency for arising] turns feasible, Are the causes, and not Creator and so forth,

As they possess no different [features upon collection.]

Ref. 24) Second: Establishing the one who knows the reality of all phenomena as the Omniscient One has three parts [cf. Ref. 15]:

  1. The reason for aspirants of liberation to seek the Omniscient One as the Reliable Guide [cf. Ref. 25]

  2. The mode of seeking the Omniscient One as the Reliable Guide to liberation [cf. Ref. 26]

  3. Identifying the Omniscient One who suits the aspirants wish to seek liberation [cf. Ref. 27]

Ref. 25) First: The reason for aspirants of liberation to seek the Omniscient One as the Reliable Guide [cf. Ref. 24]:

  1. That the valid one [Buddha] should be the one to cognize the hidden phenomena. Yet there is no reasoning to prove it,

And there is no one to exert consistently [towards attaining that.] Opponents argue thus.

  1. The ones with doubt in the mistakes Made by ignorant teachers,

In order to be careful in the veracity of teachings, Seek those who are knowledgeable.

Ref. 26) Second: The mode of seeking the Omniscient One as the Reliable Guide to liberation [cf. Ref. 24]:

  1. Therefore they investigate

To see if [He] has the wisdom to realize the purpose [of the aspirants.] That He realizes the number of the insects,

Is not of any use for me.

Ref. 27) Third: Identifying the Omniscient One who suits the aspirants wishing to seek liberation [cf. Ref. 24]:

34. The one who realizes

What is to be abandoned and what is to be adopted

Along with the means, is indeed accepted as the valid [Omniscient] one, Not [the one who knows the number of] all [insects and so forth.]

35. Whether or not one sees things at a distance,

The one who sees the suchness as intended [is relevant.] If seeing distance is the valid one,

Seek vulture [as the guide.]

Ref. 28) Second: Explaining how the Reliable Guide originated from favourable causes following the explanation of the meaning of the remaining four points ‘Altruistic One,’ ‘Teacher,’ ‘Sugata,’ and ‘Protector’ has two parts [cf. Ref. 2]:

  1. Establishing how the Omniscient One traversed along the path to become the Reliable Guide through the proper sequence [cf. Ref. 29]

  2. Establishing the rationales for the Omniscient One to traverse to the level of having transformed into a Reliable Guide through the reverse sequence. [cf. Ref. 74]

Ref. 29) First: Establishing how the Omniscient One traversed along the path to become the Reliable Guide through proper sequence has two parts [cf. Ref. 28]:

  1. How from the favourable methods and wisdom, the results in the form of two benefits for self and others arise [cf. Ref. 39]

  2. How the Buddha as the Reliable Guide arose from these causes [cf. Ref. 73]

Ref. 30) First has four parts [cf. Ref. 29]:

  1. Identifying [great compassion as] the wholesome intention [cf. Ref. 31]

  2. How the wholesome intention of great compassion gives rise to the wholesome action [Teacher of the wisdom of selflessness] [cf. Ref. 58]

  3. How the wholesome action of ‘Teacher’ gives rise to the ‘Sugata’ [One Gone to Bliss], the favourable benefit for the self [cf. Ref. 64]

  4. How from ‘Sugata,’ arises ‘Protector,’ the favourable benefit for others [cf. Ref. 71-­‐72]

Ref. 31) First: Identifying the wholesome intent [of great compassion] has two parts [cf. Ref. 30]:

  1. Indicating the great compassion as the initial cause [of Omniscience][cf. Ref. 32]

  2. Rejecting the qualm that doubts the existence of great compassion [cf. Ref. 33]

Ref. 32) First: Indicating the great compassion as the initial cause [of Omniscience][cf. Ref. 31]:

36a. Compassion as the cause arises through familiarization.

Ref. 33) Second: Rejecting the qualm that doubts the existence of great compassion has two parts [cf. Ref. 31]

  1. Rejecting that great compassion cannot be trained over many lives [cf. Ref. 34]

  1. Rejecting the position that compassion cannot progress infinitely despite training in it for many lives [cf. Ref. 57]

Ref. 34) First: Rejecting that great compassion cannot be trained over many lives has six parts [cf. Ref. 33]:

  1. Delineating the reasons for the existence of former and later lives [cf. Ref. 35]

  2. Rejecting the reasons, which support that the last moment of mind does not connect to the sequentially akin mind of the next life [cf. Ref. 38]

  3. Individually rejecting the three modes of dependency of mental consciousness on body [cf. Ref. 43]

  4. Explaining the causes for the ordinary beings to connect to the next birth [cf. Ref. 51]

  5. General rejection of dependency of the mental consciousness only on the body, through analyzing the [nature of] body [cf. Ref. 52]

  6. Rejecting the objections to the last moment of mind to connect to the sequentially akin mind of the next life [cf. Ref. 56]

Ref. 35) First: Delineating the reasons for the existence of former and later lives [cf. Ref. 34]:

36b. [If you assert,] since the mind is dependent on the body,

Attaining [Omniscience] through familiarization [in compassion] is not feasible. This is not so, as [the body] as dependee [of the mind] is rejected.

  1. When taking rebirth,

Respiration, sense sources, and mind Do not arise merely from the body Independent of one’s own kind.

  1. [Otherwise] it is absurd.

For the one with potential, when taking birth, What [other conditions] are required?

The absence of what [conditions] forbids her from taking birth?

  1. Since no [element of] earth and so forth should exist Which do not give rise

To sentient beings of heat and moisture and so forth [if beings arise independent of mind,]

Therefore all [beings] arise from the nature [of their karmic] seeds.

  1. Should sense powers and so forth arise

Independent of one’s own kind [that existed previously,] Just as one [object] mutates [to give rise to the result],

All should [equally be able to] mutate, as there is no difference in the reason.

  1. Even if the individual sense power and so forth are harmed, The harm is not felt in the mental consciousness.

[Whereas] when this [mind] undergoes change,

The change is seen also in those [sense powers and so forth.]

  1. Therefore those [karmas], which are the dependee mind Dependent on which the [present] mind exists,

Are the causes of the sense powers. Thus sense powers arise from mind.

43a. If there exists supports such as these, The same will [continue] later as well.

Ref. 36) Rejecting contradiction with teachings of the Buddha:

43b. Since consciousness of the [body] aids [the mindfulness and introspection], It is indicated that the mind depends on the body.

Ref. 37) Rejecting contradiction with reasoning:

44. If the mind does not [arise] in the absence of the sense power,

The [sense power] also does not [arise] in the absence [of the mind.] Since the two aid each other,

The two are mutually causal.

  1. What exists in stages cannot [arise] from the one without stages. It cannot be dependent, as it is not affected [by conditions.]

[If you assert] that the mind arises in grades from the body [which accompanies the earlier graded minds,]

[Then] the [body] as well is seen as sequential.

  1. The former moments [of the body]

Should be the cause of the later moments [of the mind], Therefore [the mutuality of causation]

Is seen at all times.

Ref. 38) Second: Rejecting the reasons which support that the last moment of mind does not connect to the sequential akin mind of the next life has two parts [cf. Ref. 34]:

  1. Rejection in general [cf. Ref. 39]:

  2. Identifying the unique cause that indispensably determines the result [cf. Ref. 42]:

Ref. 39) First: Rejection in general [cf. Ref. 38]:

47. What contradiction exists

For the last moment of the mind to connect [to the next mind?] Even for the [last moment] of an Arhat’s mind

What [reason] is there for it not to connect [to the next mind?]

  1. Is it that you choose to follow a tenet system

Which [you consider] as not verified by a valid cognition? If [you assert] that it is devoid of [body as] its causes, Why is not the same asserted here?

Ref. 40) Rejecting the body to be the indispensable cause of the mind has two parts:

  1. Here is the rejection of the body to be the cooperative cause [cf. Ref. 41]:

  2. Rejecting the body to be the substantial cause [this will be explained later [cf. Ref. stanza 53 onwards and 62 stanza onwards]:

Ref. 41) First: Here is the rejection of the body to be the cooperative cause [cf. Ref. 40]:

  1. The [body] should apprehend [forms] as does the mind.

Therefore [the body] with [individual] sense power is not [the indispensable cooperative cause of the mind,]

Nor the collection [of the sense powers]

As [the individual senses] have varying potentials to give rise to mind.

  1. Being devoid of mind, [the mind] does not [arise] from other [bodies.]

[The body and the mind] coexist due to the same cause [of previous karma.] It is like [the five] senses, and the form and taste [of sugar] coexisting.

[The mind] assumes [changes] through [having them as perceptive] meanings.

Ref. 42) Second: Identifying the unique cause that indispensably determines the result [cf. Ref. 38]:

51. [The mind] is always corollary to [the previous mind.]

The presence of which aids [the next moment of the mind.]

Therefore it is [the indispensable] cause. Thus it is referred to as the seventh [grammar structure of reasoning]

And [result] is produced [from it.]

52. On some occasions,

[The body] does help the continuum of the mind. Like a fire to a pitcher,

The [mind] does not revert just on that basis.

Ref. 43) Third: Individually rejecting the three modes of dependency of mental consciousness on body [cf. Ref. 34]:

  1. Rejecting the body alone to be the substantial cause [cf. Ref. 44]

  2. Rejecting the mind to be a characteristic of the body and simultaneous dependent of

body [cf. Ref. 46]

  1. Rejecting the mind to be dependent on the body on the ground that it is of the nature of the body [cf. Ref. 50]

Ref. 44) First: Rejecting the body alone to be the substantial cause [cf. Ref. 43]:

53. The existence of the body

Should absurdly preclude the reversal of the mind.

Due to the presence [of conceptual mind] the presence of [respiration] is possible and is affected

[Thus] the respiration [arises] from [conceptual mind] and not [vice versa.]

  1. How can exhaling and inhaling of the air happen Without effort [of the mind.]

Due to the increase and diminishing [of the respiration,]

Should [absurdly] lead to the increase and diminishing [of the conceptual mind.]

  1. If mind is the cause [of the latter moments of the mind], The same absurdity follows, [you maintain.]

It is not the same, for the reason that the other projecting [karma], Is the cause for [the body and mind] to [co]exist.

  1. Like a wood [which does not catch fire due to a spell casted on it,]

The body which is made unfit due to discordant factors, is not the cause [of the mind.]

Death undermines the discordant [factors,]

The [person] should absurdly come back to life again.

  1. It is like the changes of the wood not reverting, Even if the fire is reverted.

Thus [life] is not reverted, [you may maintain.]

It is not so, as there exists the practices to heal [illnesses.]

  1. Some non-reversible objects Undergo changes [and not reverse.]

[Whereas some] reverse [after undergoing changes.] Examples are wood and gold respectively.

  1. [Some] changes even though small, do not reverse. Those reversible when undergoes change,

[The original] returns.

It is like the hardness of gold.

  1. [Some illnesses] are said to be slightly not curable, Either it is due to difficulty in finding a healer,

Or due to exhaustion of lifespan.

If the fault [of illness] alone is the cause [of death,] there should be no non- curable [illness.]

  1. Why not [the dead] reverse to life,

By becoming freed of the causes for change,

When the poison [which] kills is removed [by mantras,] Or through cutting the bitten [piece].

Ref. 45) Delineating the definition of substantial cause:

62. In the absence of changes in the substantial cause, No change will potentially ensue.

It is like [not coming into being of] a vase In the absence of change in the clay.

  1. In the absence of change in an object, If some other object changes,

The [former] cannot be the substantial cause of the [other.] It is like ox and non-ox.

  1. The mind and the body are the same [as the ox and non-ox.] The resultant [mind] co-exists with the body

Since it arises from [the earlier moment of the mind] as the [substantial] cause, and [the earlier moment] of body as the cooperative [cause.]

They are like fire and refined copper.

Ref. 46) Second: Rejecting the mind to be a characteristic of the body and simultaneous dependent of body [cf. Ref. 43]:

65. For the existence or non-existence [of the mind], no dependee is required.

This is not [true] as what serves as cause to sustain is [simultaneous] dependee. Besides what aids to the sustenance [of the mind,]

There exists no other dependee.

66a. They are [substantially] different, [if you maintain,] [Then] it becomes the cause.

What did it do to [the sustenance] of the object.

Ref. 47) Rejecting the body to be the basis for the non-­‐disintegration of the mind:

66b. It leads to the absurdity that [the mind] should have no disintegration.

If [you] claim that the disintegration of it is due to the causes.

67-8. That too follows the same absurdity. What does the cause for abiding do?

Till it encounters the cause for disintegration, it abides. The disintegration being a natural phenomenon

Has no contradiction.

What can the cause for sustenance do?

If [you say], it is like the basis for the water [to be maintained.] The same [rejection] applies [to body and mind] too.

  1. An [object] is a [causal] dependee if it gives rise to The same continuum of a thing

When that undergoes momentary disintegration.

If not [as causative], it cannot be possible [as the dependee.]

  1. [A container] can be a dependee of water and so forth As it hinders that from being spilled.

Quality, generality and karma, which are devoid of movements, What dependee do they need?

  1. The [above reasoning] also rejects the abiding of the lineage and so forth [which is said to be due to]

[Quality] which disperses and withdraws [from substance], and [substance] on which the dispersal and withdrawal acts,

For the reason that there is no [distinct] dependee [for abiding.]

Ref. 48) Summary: Rejecting the mind to be a characteristic of the body and concomitant dependent of body:

72. If an object disintegrates due to another [factor,] What can the cause for abiding do?

If disintegration happens without another [factor,] The cause for abiding is impotent.

  1. [Those with permanent] dependee, will have abiding. All that is produced are with [permanent] dependee. Therefore, all phenomena

Will never disintegrate.

  1. If one has the nature of disintegration of its own, What other [factors] exist to make it abide?

If one does not have the nature of disintegration of its own, What other [factors] exist to make it abide?

  1. In the absence of increase and diminishing of the body, Due to the actions [of familiarity] of the mind, Intelligence and so forth

Are seen to improve, and diminish.

  1. Such is not existent in the dependents Such as firelight and so forth.

The [body] can also affect these [intelligence and so forth]

As it is not the case that the [sensory] mind does not receive benefits [from the body.]

Ref. 49) Objection is raised that attachment and so forth increase and diminish depending on the state of the body:

  1. At times, during increase [and decrease] in the [strength] of the body,

The flaring of attachment and so forth happen due to the pleasant and unpleasant [feelings.]

They [the feelings] in turn are determined by the internal object [of tactility] Which is given rise to by the balance of elements and so forth.

  1. This also explains the loss of memory and so forth Due to the [illness] of gathering and the like.

The variations in the internal [tactility]

Give rise to the changes in the [sensory] consciousness.

  1. It is like for some, Hearing and seeing Tiger and blood Causing loss of sense.

  1. Since the mind is purely determined By the actions of the [earlier minds],

[The subsequent ] minds cannot arise without the [previous moments of the mind].

Therefore [the mind] is dependent on the [preceding] minds [and not the body.]

Ref. 50) Third: Rejecting the mind to be dependent on the body on the ground that it is of the nature of the body [cf. Ref. 43]:

  1. Just as by dependence on the mind,

Processes such as learning are seen in the [subsequent moments] of the mind over time,

[The same] qualities [as learning] should happen to the body, As it is not different from [the mind.]

Ref. 51) Fourth: Explaining the causes for the ordinary beings to connect to the next birth [cf. Ref. 34]:

  1. Since the beings are endowed with attachment for the self, Without others driving them,

They appropriate inferior birth,

Due to desire for achieving happiness and eschewing miseries.

Why take inferior birth if they seek happiness?

  1. The beings are shackled

Due to misperception of misery, and attachment. Those who are freed of these [factors,]

Will not be born [in samsara.]

  1. [If you ask,] but the migrating here and there [of the beings] is not seen. It is due to lack of clarity of the senses that they are not seen.

It is like the eyes when devoid of clarity, Cannot see the subtle smoke.

  1. Despite being with body, due to their subtlety,

Some, at times, [can move] unobstructed [by other objects.]

It is like water [seeping through a clay pot] and mercury through gold. Therefore not seen by [Charvakas] cannot rule out the existence.

Ref. 52) Fifth: General rejection of dependency of the mental consciousness only on the body through analyzing the [nature of] body [cf. Ref. 34]

  1. If hand and so forth are moved, All should be moved.

No contradictory actions should be seen with a single [object.]

On the contrary, the duality of [moving and not moving parts] is established.

  1. Although all should be veiled When one [part] is veiled.

But it is visible that not all is veiled.

When one is tainted with colour, one can see that some are tainted and [others] not.

Therefore, the collection is not one [as without parts]

  1. If [the particles] are numerous [without distinct whole],

They should be like the previous moments [of subtlety], where [the sensory consciousness] cannot cognize

As they should have no change,

And that they [remain] as subtle [particles.]

  1. It is not established [of the sameness of the object before and after]. The form with distinct feature is not subtle particle

As it is the object of sensory [consciousness.]

This [reasoning] also rejects [power of the external objects] to veil.

Ref. 53) Rejecting Vaishayshik’s thesis that the substantially different appropriator of the parts makes things to be perceived by the sense consciousness:

  1. How can the mercury react with gold,

And colours be perceived [by the sense consciousness?]

How do [conditions], such as sense power, which are individually inapt, [Give rise to sense consciousness] to cognize [form.]

  1. From ‘possession,’ if [you say.] The same absurdity applies to this also. If the gold and mercury

Are perceived by the [sense consciousness] by the power of ‘possession.’ Without seeing the [the particles as the] basis, how can the meeting of the particles be cognized [by the sense consciousness.]

  1. It is contradiction [to assert] the existence of taste and form [which were absent before.]

If through mere imputation, [a different taste is posited,][you maintain.] Separate minds should be [there and not a mind to cognize a taste altogether different from the earlier individual tastes.]

How possibly can a long garland come into being?

  1. Separate from the object, with [its characteristics] And the labels,

The possession of counts and actions [do not exist]

[If they do, they should be] perceptible but are not perceived by a [valid] mind

  1. [The objects of] labels and mind are the imputed referents of conceptual thoughts Which follow the principle of exclusion.

For example, qualities and so forth, And disintegration and non-arising.

  1. If you assert that what is referred to here is imputed [labels] Why do you not assert the same to all things

With the reasons on the basis of which The former was accepted.

  1. If you assert, imputed [labels] are not for all.

Those that are [substantially] different are the prime [with actual label,] Whereas those which are not [substantially] different have no basis for distinct [actual label.]

97-8. Although in the absence of the nature of distinct entities, The [two] labels of white and so forth and their possessions,

Are not the same-meaning-bearer-labels synonymous labels [Tib. dra namdrang]. If [the object] has a [substantially] different [quality,]

The substance and the quality will then have no difference. Despite not being substantially different,

It is for the distinct isolates, [that the conceptual thoughts engage] separately. It is like the statement that ‘action is not substance.’

Ref. 54) Object-­‐indicator-­‐label versus characteristic-­‐indicator-­‐label:

  1. The labels indicating the object Denote count and so forth

As different from the appropriator [vase.]

They also differentiate [the count of vase from that of a pillar.]

  1. For those who want to know merely [the possession] [The label] excludes inferring all other [characteristics.]

For some, [the label] ‘the possession of the fingers’

Indicates as though [‘the possession’] is different phenomenon [from the fingers.]

  1. Although one meaning is indicated, all [characteristics] are inferred. Uttering ‘finger possessed’

Is known as object-indicator-label. This is how the labels are applied.

Ref. 55) Type-­‐indicating-­‐labels versus collection-­‐indicating-­‐labels [Tib. Rig-­‐joe ki dra and Tsog-­‐joe ki dra]:

102-3.[The label ‘vase’] excludes the unique potentials of form and so forth, And rejects non-causation

Of the common result of [holding water].

[This collection of the particles] becomes the referent [of the actual] label ‘vase.’ Therefore [the label] ‘vase is a form’

Is not a label to indicate the common locus [of vase and form.] Therefore, the distinction here is between [the labels]

To indicate the type and collection. [The label] ‘the form of the vase’

Has [the form of the vase as] the generic and [vase as its] limb, And indicates the potential of [the form of the vase to ensue] Its [resultant] feature [of cognition.]

104. If all [particles of the body] are the [substantial] cause [of the mind] Missing one part would deprive [the arising of the mind.]

If each [particle] has the capability,

Numerous [conceptual minds] should simultaneously be existent.

105-6.Since both [respiration and the body] are similar in being multiple, Inhaling and exhaling is not what determines [a single conceptual mind.] Even if it is one [respiration], many [conceptual minds] should manifest, As the causes are forever immediate.

If it is not the cause of multiple [minds,]

Sequentially as well, it cannot be the cause as there is no difference [for it being unchanging.]

Even with a single respiration, multiple [minds] arise To apprehend the objects.

The [previous position that with one respiration, only one conceptual mind arises] is not established.

  1. If the multiple [objects] are cognized by one mind,

It would [cognize the multiple objects] simultaneously.

There would then exist no contradiction [in it seeing all phenomena simultaneously].

In sequence as well [it cannot cognize multiple objects] as there lies no difference [between the sequential and the single mind]

In not having the appearance-aspect [Tib: nampa].

  1. If [you] assert that respiration in manifold

Which arises [one at a time] in temporal [sequence,] But not from one’s own type,

Is the cause of such a mind.

109-10.Without the cause for having the sequence,

How can [various moments] of the respiration have sequence? If the former types of [respiration] are the causes,

The first moment [of the conception] cannot possibly have [respiration,] As it does not have such a cause [with the same type as the result.] [Further,][the particles] of respiration are at distinct places,

Though [respiration] can have sequence, it still is [simultaneously] multiple. Therefore, [multiple] minds should arise simultaneously.

  1. If the multiple [respirations] which exist at one moment, Are the causes of a single mind,

The mind should not occur

Even in the absence of a single cause [such as forceful movement] due to the weakness of respiration.

  1. Just as there exist variations in the causes, The [same] variation occurs to the mind.

It is not the result,

If [the variation] is not seen in it,

With the variations [seen] in the cause.

  1. One individual mind is certain with its potential,

To be the [direct] cause of another individual [mind.] A distinct mind of attachment [nature,]

Undermines the potential to apprehend another object.

  1. If [you assert] that [initially] multiple minds arise from the body, Later, [the arising of the minds]

Are due to [the earlier minds] of the same nature as oneself, Why is the potential of the body ceased?

Ref. 56) Sixth: Rejecting the objections to the last moment of mind to connect to the sequentially akin mind of the next life [cf. Ref. 34]:

  1. [If you assert that] when the body ceases, The mind alone should be left

As there is no basis.

  1. Since it seeks to achieve the causal engagement [of the next body,] If it does not find the factor for sustenance,

The five sources of this life,

Will [then] be the cause to give rise to another body.

  1. [If one posits] ‘not seen’ [as the reason],

To reject secondary phenomena [cooperative cause]

And [substantial] cause, [it is already] explained that [this reasoning] is not valid. [Positing] sense powers and so forth [as the reason] as well is non pervasive [invalid reasoning.]

  1. That earlier sense powers having the potential To give rise to their own kinds is visible.

Seeing the changes [in the present sense powers,]

That the others, [the succeeding ones] are produced is established.

  1. If these [sense powers] are produced from [permanent] body, [One will be stricken] with the absurdities indicated previously. . If [they arise] from the mind,

Other bodies as well should arise from [the mind] itself.

  1. [The reasoning that][the mind] is void of [body as] its cause, Does not establish the last moment of the mind

As not taking rebirth.

Therefore such reasoning is non-pervasive [invalid.]

Ref. 57) Second: Rejecting the position that compassion cannot progress infinitely despite training in it for many lives has two parts [cf. Ref. 33]:

  1. Unlike leaps, compassion does not require repeated efforts to reach the same degree of progress

  2. Unlike water heating, compassion has mind as a very stable base for progress

121-4. If [you] say, although progress will be existent through familiarization [of the mental qualities,]

Like [the act of] leaping and the water heat, They will never transcend the bounds of limit.

Is the reason for not proliferating of the [mental] qualities [the following] The dependence on repeated efforts after [the initial] act,

Or the basis [of these] qualities is not stable?

The nature of the [mental qualities] are not as such. [Whereas for the leap and water heat],

The potential, which aids [the leap and the water heat,] does not have the potential to aid the subsequent [moments],

Nor is the basis stably durable.

[Therefore] progress exists, but [infinite progress] is not the nature [of these things.]

Whereas with an action done, if does not require repeated efforts, [The earlier] efforts will make the difference [in proliferation.]

  1. If compassion is brought to familiarity to the mind, Spontaneously does it flow.

It is like fire consuming fuels And mercury [reacting] to gold.

  1. Thus [attributes such as love] which are generated, Are born as qualities with the nature [of mind.] Therefore the subsequent efforts

Do make a difference in [proliferating the mental qualities.]

  1. Since minds such as loving-kindness Being of the nature to proliferate

By virtue of the seeds of the previous type-continuum, How will it remain [static] if one familiarizes oneself with it?

  1. Whereas [earlier moments of] the act of leaping do not [proliferate] into the [next higher measure of] leaping,

As the power of their causal force and the efforts Are definite [with limitations.]

[Therefore] the act of leaping is with definite [limitations.]

  1. Initially, [the person] cannot jump as in the future, Due to the discordant [factors] within the body.

With effort, as the discordant factors are gradually eliminated, It will reach a [limit bound] by [the limits] of one’s power.

If the above points were true, why has not basic compassion transformed into great compassion in all sentient beings by now?

  1. [Although] loving kindness arises from its seed, If what is causally related to the seed

Is not hampered by the discordant factors [such as anger,]

The mind should have been the nature of this [loving kindness.]

  1. Through familiarization of the preceding moments,

The mental qualities such as loving kindness and non-attachment, Will become the prime

Of the other manifestations.

Through practice, [the mind] will have the nature of loving kindness,

Like non-attachment [for Arhats,] crave [for the lustful], and the thought of repulsion [for the practitioners of impurity.]

Ref. 58) Second: Cultivating favorable actions to become the Teacher [of the wisdom of selflessness] for achieving Omniscience – the Reliable Guide [cf. Ref. 30]:

  1. The cause for the one with Great Compassion to engage in acts of practice [of the wisdom of emptiness][cf. Ref. 59]

  2. Establishing how to practice the wisdom through learning and reflection [cf. Ref. 60]

  3. How the results are achieved through meditational practice of what was established through learning and reflection [cf. Ref. 61]

  4. How the results thus achieved stand distinct from those of other vehicles such as the vehicles of Shravakas and Pratiyakabuddhas [cf. Ref. 62]

Ref: 59) First: The cause for the one with Great Compassion to engage in acts of practice [of the wisdom of emptiness][cf. Ref. 58]:

  1. In order to quell the miseries [of sentient beings,]

The Compassionate One with [initial] rigour engages in the means [to overcome one’s own sufferings.

Being deprived of the knowledge of the results of the means and their causes, It is difficult to teach [others] of these.

Ref. 60) Second: Establishing how to practice through learning and reflection [cf. Ref. 58]:

  1. Through scriptures and analytical inquiry, And following [the insight into] suffering,

One examines the nature of the cause of suffering, And its being impermanent and so forth.

Should the cause be [permanently] abiding,

Seeing the reversal of the resultant [suffering] then is impossible.

  1. To overcome the cause [of suffering],

One examines the counter force [of the cause of suffering.] Realizing the nature of the cause [of suffering,]

One will realize its counter force as well.

  1. The attachment the partaker of the composite [appropriated aggregates] Which was given rise to by the grasping at self and mine is the cause [of suffering.]

The antidote to that is the realization of selflessness [whose apprehension of the object] is mutually exclusive [with that of self-grasping.]

Ref. 61) Third: How the results are achieved through meditational practice of what was established through learning and reflection [cf. Ref. 58]:

  1. Familiarizing in multitudes of means through various ways, Over an extended period of time,

One then becomes the One with [Omniscience] To vividly [perceive][all] the demerits and merits.

137a. Therefore with the mind to [see all phenomena] so vividly, All imprints of the cause [of suffering] are eliminated.

Ref. 62) Fourth: How the results thus achieved stand distinct from those of other vehicles such as the vehicles of Shravakas and Pratiakabuddhas [cf. Ref. 58]:

137b. That is what marks the difference between the great Muni who engages in the well-being of others,

And rhinoceros[-like Pratikyabuddha] and so forth.

Ref. 63) Reason for Pramanasamuchaya’s word of salutation to mention the ‘Teacher’, immediately after ‘Compassionate intention to render benefit’ to sentient beings:

138. Practicing the means to accomplish the purpose, Is accepted [with the reference ‘Teacher.’]

Since following the accomplishment [of the two – compassionate intention, and the Teacher of selflessness,] the first [the Sugata, the favorable personal benefit] ensued,

The [former] two are said to be the causes.

Ref. 64) Third: How the wholesome action of ‘Teacher’ gives rise to the ‘Sugata’ [One Gone to Bliss,] the favourable benefit for the self has two parts [cf. Ref. 30]:

  1. Indicating the cessation with three qualities as ‘Sugata’ in the cessation context [cf. Ref. 65]:

  2. Rejecting the qualm that faults cannot be eliminated for good [cf. Ref. 70]:

Ref. 65) First: Indicating the cessation with three qualities as ‘Sugata’ in the cessation context [from Ref. 64]:

139a. The cessation of the causes with three qualities Is indeed the Sugata [The One Gone to Bliss.]

Ref. 66) The three qualities of the state of cessation aspect of Sugata are [cf. Ref. 65]:

  1. Well ceased [and not tainted with miseries][cf. Ref. 67]

  2. Cessation freed of relapsing to samsara [cf. Ref. 68]

  3. Cessation of all [defilements and their imprints.][cf. Ref. 69]

Ref. 67) First: Well ceased [and not tainted with miseries,] the first of the three qualities of the cessation aspect of Sugata [cf. Ref. 66]:

139b. Since [the cessation aspect of Sugata] is not the basis for suffering, It is well [ceased]. It is [due to] seeing the selflessness

Or, due to the effort [of repeated familiarization of selflessness, which was seen already.]

Ref. 68) Second: The second quality of Sugata: Cessation freed of relapsing to samsara [cf. Ref. 66]:

140. [For the non-Arhats like Experiencer of seven lives] birth and faults [such as attachment]

All arise [again], and thus they are referred to as returners [to samsara.] Since [Sugatas of cessation] have abandoned the seed of the view of self, They’re indeed not the returners [to samsara.]

What is the antidote through which the seed of the view of the self is abandoned?

141-2a.The [wisdom of selflessness fuses with its object which is the] true reality, and that it is mutually in exclusion [with the view of the self pertaining to its apprehension of objects.]

Ref. 69) Third: The third quality of cessation: cessation of all defilements and their imprints [cf. Ref. 66]:

141-2b. Although devoid of afflictions, and freed of [samsaric] illnesses,

[The lower Arhats] are still left with the faults of body, speech and mind. They are also left with the lack of clarity in teaching the path.

[Sugata] is indeed the cessation of all as [it is the result of perfection of] practice.

Ref. 70) Second: Rejecting the qualm that faults cannot be eliminated for good [cf. Ref. 64]:

141-2c. Some [Skt: Jaimini, Tib: Gyalpokpa] claim that, ‘since [the Tathagata] speaks, flaws are not [fully] eliminated from him.’

This is erroneous [reasoning] as the [accuracy] of the counter pervasion is questionable.

  1. The thought that flaws are not [fully] eliminated, Is it because that they are permanent,

Or that the means [to overcome] them are absent, Or no one knows the means?

What reasons do the opponents have to hold the view that cessation of faults is not possible? Is it for any of the following reasons?

  1. The faults such as attachment are permanent

  2. There are no antidotes to overcome the faults even if they are impermanent

  3. There is no one who has the knowledge of the antidotes, even though the antidotes do exist

  4. There is no one interested in knowing the antidotes even thought they have the ability to learn

  5. There is no teacher to guide them though aspirants are there

  1. The flaws have causes,

Familiarizing the antidotes of the causes can cease them, Knowing the nature of the causes [of the flaws],

Also indicates the knowledge of [the antidotes.]

Ref. 71-­‐72) Fourth: Establishing ‘Protector’ [Favorable benefits for others] following the insight into Sugata [cf. Ref. 30]:

  1. The Protector teaches the path which [He] has experienced [perfectly.] Expectation-free for results ruled out His telling lies [when teaching.] His mind endowed with great love,

All efforts were invested for others’ benefits.

Ref. 73) Second: How the Buddha as the Reliable Guide arose from those causes [cf. Ref. 29]

146a. Therefore He is a Reliable [Guide.]

Ref. 74) Second: Establishing the rationales for the Omniscient One to traverse to the level of having transformed into a Reliable Guide through the reverse sequence [cf. Ref. 28].

This has five parts:

  1. Establishing the nature of ‘Protector’ [cf. Ref. 75a]

  2. Establishing ‘Sugata’ through ‘Protector’ [cf. Ref. 138]

  3. Establishing the ‘Teacher’ through ‘Sugata’ [cf. Ref. 139]

  4. Establishing ‘Great Compassion’ through the reasoning of ‘Teacher’ [cf. Ref. 140]

  5. Establishing ‘Reliable Guide’ on the basis of all the above reasons [cf. Ref. 141]

Ref. 75a) First: Establishing the nature of ‘Protector’ has two parts [cf. Ref. 74]:

  1. Establishing the nature of ‘Protector’ for the reason that the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths purely from His own experience [cf. Ref. 75b]

  2. Establishing the nature of the Four Noble Truths [cf. Ref. 76]

Ref. 75b) First: Establishing the nature of ‘Protector’ for the reason that the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths purely from His own experience [cf. Ref. 74a]:

146b. Or He is a Protector

As He taught the Four Noble Truths [from His own experience.]

Ref. 76) Second: Establishing the nature of the Four Noble Truths [cf. Ref. 75a]:

  1. Truth of suffering [cf. Ref. 77]

  2. Truth of the causes of suffering [cf. Ref. 88]

  3. Truth of cessation of suffering and its causes [cf. Ref. 95]

  4. Truth of the path leading to the cessation [cf. Ref. 106]

Ref. 77) First: The Noble Truth of Suffering has two parts [cf. Ref. 76]:

  1. Illustration of the truth of suffering [cf. Ref. 78]

  2. Definition of the four aspects of the truth of suffering [cf. Ref. 83]

Ref. 78) First: Illustration of the truth of suffering has two parts [cf. Ref. 77]:

  1. Identifying samsara and establishing that it existed since primordially [cf. Ref. 79]

  2. Rejecting the position that samsara has beginning [cf. Ref. 82]

Ref. 79) First: Identifying samsara and establishing that it existed since primordially has two parts [cf. Ref. 78]:

  1. Establishing that samsara originated from its concomitant causes which existed since primordially [cf. Ref. 80]

  2. Rejecting origination of samsara causelessly or from discordant causes [cf. Ref.??]

Ref. 80) First: Establishing that samsara originated from its concomitant causes which existed since primordially [cf. Ref. 79]:

146c. The aggregates that are propelled [by the power of afflictions and karmas] is samsara.

Through familiarization, attachment and so forth are seen to manifestly [increase].

Ref. 81) Second: Rejecting origination of samsara causelessly or from discordant causes [cf. Ref. 79]:

147-8.They are not produced randomly,

As causeless production contradicts [with occasional production.]

[Attachment and so forth] are not [the resultant] entities of wind and so forth, as [the reasoning] is erroneous.

If [you] assert that since the nature [of wind, bile and phlegm] are mixed, [the earlier] contradiction does not hold true,

Why then are not the other [resultant] entities not seen as well.

[Also] it leads to the absurdity that everyone should [have same intensity] of attachment.

Thus attachment and so forth are not the [resultant] entities of all [the three defects such as wind.]

  1. If [you] assert that it is like [the varying] physical forms and so forth, therefore the contradiction is not there,

The varying [physical size issue] mimics the same argument, If you do not bring karma [into account,]

As the environmental condition [as the reason for the varying sizes of physical body.]

  1. Even if it were the case that attachment and so forth

Are the [resultant] phenomena of all the [defective natures,]

Since there exists no nature without the potential [of the attachment and so forth,] What reason is there for the results not to be the same?

[The translation of the following three stanzas [151-­‐153] is based on Ven. Ju Mipham’s commentary.] Can also refer to the two Indian authors.

  1. Despite the difference in the defects,

There exists no difference in [the resultant attributes of attachment and so forth.] It is not unestablished, as change in all should bring change [in arising anger.] Yet [attachment and so forth] is not arisen by all [defects.]

  1. When the causes increase,

The results cannot diminish; it is like fever and so forth. The changes in attachment and so forth

Are given rise to by [the feelings of] pleasure and pain.

  1. If [you] assert that the pain caused by the imbalance of [the three defects] hinders attachment from arising,

You tell us what then causes [attachment and so forth?] It is through equilibrium state [of the three]

Which multiplies the substance, thus giving rise to attachment.

  1. Attachment is seen even in those with imbalance of the [three illnesses.]

For others [with remedies], no [attachment and so forth are seen] even when [the three] are in equilibrium.

[Attachment is seen intensely] in some with blood dripping at the exhaustion. Since it is not certain that the man will have [increase] of substance in relation to a specific [beautiful] woman,

Does it mean that he does not have intense attachment to that one?

  1. If [you assert] the physical form is also a factor [for attachment,]

It is not the case, as not all [attachment] necessitates [attractive forms as factors.] Irrespective of [attractive form], it should leave no [possibility] for arising [of attachment.]

It [also leads to the absurdity] that [attachment] should arise in those [saints] who do not view attractive qualities [in women.]

  1. If viewing qualities [of attraction] is the factor,

All should become the viewers of [attractive] qualities,

As there is no difference in [the objective attractiveness as] the cause.

  1. At the time when someone is seen with attachment, He cannot be with aversion,

As the two [attachment and aversion] are contradictory.

But it is not the case that the [same person] definitely cannot give rise to aversion.

  1. [Whereas in our system], falling to attachment and so forth, Is seen as dependent

On the latent tendencies of the concomitant [minds]. The [aforesaid] fault does not accrue here [for us.]

159-60.This rejects [the attachment and so forth] to be the attributes of elements.

So does this reject [the elements] to be the basis [for attachment and so forth after their arising.]

The [element derivatives such as] whiteness and so forth Do not have [the elements such as] earth as their basis.

The word of acceptance [of elements to be the basis of the element derivatives] is Either [due to the earlier moments] serving as the causal factor, or for their coexisting with [elements], which are their basis.

This is why [they are known] as the basis. No other [reason] is tenable.

  1. If like intoxicants and their potential, They can be separated,

The entity [intoxicant] and its potentials Are not different [entities.]

  1. If [the body and mind] are similar to this [example of intoxicants and their potentials], it is not the case.

The elements and mind are different

As [the two] are the objects of [direct perceptions] which have distinct appearances.

163-4.Like the physical form’s [dependence on the elements],

It [absurdly] follows that with change in body, there should be a corresponding change in the mind.

The conceptual thoughts are not contingent on the object. Independent of the body, some minds serve as causes

To activate the latent tendencies of other [minds]. Thus minds arise from other [minds].

Ref. 82) Second: Rejecting the position that samsara has beginning [cf. Ref. 78]:

165-6.Non-minds are not the substantial cause of minds.

Therefore [that the birth has no beginning] is established. If [you] assert that all entities [have consciousness]

[In the form of] potentials to give rise to consciousness, Who will accept such a surprising statement,

Except for Samkyas who are worse than animals,

That hundred elephants exist on a tip of a blade of grass,

Which was never seen before.

  1. If the cause is split open into hundred pieces, The [resultant] entity to be perceived

Is never seen previously [at the time of cause.] How is it that this [result] exists [in the cause?]

  1. [For you] since [things] that were non-existent previously are produced [causelessly],

It absurdly follows that attachment [is seen] randomly [in beings.]

If all beings, because they are within the bounds of the nature of elements, are endowed with attachment,

All beings should be similar in having the same [intensity] of attachment.

169-170. [You maintain] that the elements determine [the beings.]

On the contrary, [despite variance of degrees in] these elements, Variance of degrees in living beings does not exist.

Like the variance in the dependee, the [attachment and so forth] should likewise increase and diminish.

This amounts to [the attachment and so forth], which existed [previously,] to cease [later.] Although attachment and so forth vary [in intensity],

Since [elements] that are their concomitant causes do not cease their entity, [The attachment and so forth] do not cease, as do [the elements], which are their causes [and which never remain void in beings.]

  1. All should have the same [intensity] of attachment

For it arises from the nature of [elements], which all [beings] have equally. [It is like] consciousness [perceiving] cattle [in the case of Vaishayshiks], Or in this system of [Charvaka] it is [like] the [element of earth and so forth] Not [resulting] in varying degrees of being sentient.

  1. [If you assert] that though there are varying degrees of heat, There is no fire without heat.

Likewise is the case here with [body and attachment]. [The example] is not [tenable]

As fire is rejected to be different from heat.

  1. The qualities [of attachment and so forth], which are distinct from body, At times should become nil

As [attachment and so forth] varies in degree

With the variation in degree [of the body.] It is like whiteness [of the cloth.]

  1. Unlike the physical form, [attachment and so forth] are not definitely [contingent on elements].

The [physical form] is inseparably with the elements.

If [you] assert, that it is the same for [attachment and so forth],

It is not so. It absurdly leads to [accepting] that [all afflictions such as] attachment and so forth should concurrently arise.

175a. Since it is only the imputed phenomenon that is the object [of thoughts]

[The external object] as well is not what determines the existence [of the thoughts.]

175b. In the absence of the concomitant causes,

That attachment and so forth definitely exist [in the ordinary beings] is untenable. [Or] since the [elements as] the cause is immediate,

All [afflictions] should arise [in all beings] at all times.

Ref. 83) Second: Definition of the four aspects of the Truth of Suffering [cf. Ref. 77]:

  1. Definition of Impermanence [cf. Ref. 84]

  2. Definition of Suffering [cf. Ref. 85]

  3. Definition of Selflessness [cf. Ref. 86]

  4. Definition of Emptiness [Please note that emptiness in this context is the gross one – the emptiness of the self being distinct from the aggregates -­‐ as compared to the emptiness in the context of ultimate reality.][cf. Ref. 87]

Ref. 84) First: Definition of Impermanence [cf. Ref. 83]:

176a. Since [the five aggregates] are seen [to be produced] occasionally, They are impermanent.

Ref. 85) Second: Definition of Suffering, the second of the four aspects of the truth of suffering [cf. Ref. 83]:

176b. They are of suffering nature

As they are the basis for [all] faults

And are contingent on [afflictions and karmas] as their causes.

Ref. 86) Third: Definition of Selflessness, the third of the four aspects of the truth of suffering][cf. Ref. 83]:

176c. It is devoid of selfhood, which is [non-contingent].

Ref. 87) Fourth: Definition of Emptiness, the fourth of the four aspects of the truth of suffering][cf. Ref. 83]: [Please note the difference between the emptiness in this context and the ultimate reality]

176d. It is also not blessed [or determined][by the permanent self.]

177-8.Since [the permanent self] is not the cause [of the aggregates,] the [former] does not bless [the latter.]

How can a permanent [thing] be a producer,

From a single [permanent thing],

No multiple [results] can be produced at different times.

Even with other causes coming together [with the permanent self,] Results cannot be produced.

That the presence of other causes is inferred [through results] Is not feasible for permanent [phenomena.]

Ref. 88) Second: Truth of cause of suffering has four aspects [cf. Ref. 76]:

  1. Origin [cf. Ref. 89]

  2. The cause of all [cf. Ref. 90]

  3. Rigorous producer [cf. Ref. 91]

  4. Condition [cf. Ref. 92]

Ref. 89) First: Origin, the first of the four aspects of the truth of cause of suffering][cf. Ref. 88]:

179. Since [the aggregates of suffering] are occasional, Suffering is established to be having origins [or causes.]

Since that which is devoid of cause does not depend on others, Either they should eternally be existent or be non-existent.

180-1.Others [Charvakas] assert

That just as the pointedness of the thorn and so forth Are causeless,

So too are these [aggregates] causeless.

It is well proclaimed that [an object] is the cause

If with the presence of that, something else is produced And if with a change in that, something else gets changed. Those [aggregates] also qualify these [attributes.]

182a. Since the [first moment of] the texture [of an Utpala flower] is the cause of the [second moment of its form],

It is an [indirect] causal factor for [the eye consciousness] perceiving [the form.]

Ref. 90) Second: The cause of all, the second of the four aspects of the truth of cause of suffering [cf. Ref. 88]:

182b. Permanent things are rejected [to be the cause], So is production not possible from Creator. .

[Permanent phenomena] do not have potential [to give rise to results.]

Ref. 91) Third: Rigorous producer, the third of the four aspects of the truth of cause of suffering [cf. Ref. 88]:

  1. Therefore the attachment for existence is accepted to be the cause [of the aggregates,]

For the reason that the [different] places of humans Are the results of wanting to obtain what one seeks.

  1. [What seeks a place for birth] is attachment for existence, Whereas, the attachment the beings have

To obtain happiness and shun misery

[Are respectively] the attachment for desirables and attachment for freedom from dying

Ref. 92) Fourth: Condition, the fourth of the four aspects of the truth of cause of suffering]

Indicating attachment as the condition [cf. Ref. 88]:

  1. Due to the attachment to the self,

One misconceives miseries as happiness.

This projects [one] to appropriate all [the unfavourable births.] Therefore, attachment is the basis for samsara.

  1. Those freed from attachment are not seen to take birth, This is what the Acharyas indicated.

Since attachment is not seen in those freed of bodies, Attachment also arises from body.

The reason [that the body is the cause of attachment] is what [we also] accept.

Ref. 93) Does it not contradict with the preceding statement where the body was rejected to be the cause of attachment?

  1. [Previously, the body] to be the substantial cause [of attachment] was rejected. If [Charvakas] accept this reasoning,

They will reject one’s own standpoint.

  1. If [you] assert, that since attachment is seen only in those born with bodies, The [body as] produced and [the attachment] are concurrent.

[The attachment] as well should be produced concurrently [with the body and not later.] This establishes [the existence of attachment], which precedes [the first moment of attachment of this life.]

Ref. 94) Is it not that ignorance and karma as well are causes? Why is only attachment indicated here?

  1. Although ignorance is a cause,

It is not mentioned [here] and only attachment is indicated, For the reason that it propels the continuum,

And [is also] immediate. Karma as well is not [indicated.]

In the presence [of attachment,][karma inevitably exists.][In the absence of the former, the latter] cannot [operate.]

Ref. 95) Third: Truth of cessation of suffering and its causes has four aspects [cf. Ref. 76]:

  1. Cessation [cf. Ref. 96]

  2. Peace [cf. Ref. 97]

  3. Excellence [cf. Ref. 104]

  4. Definite deliverance [cf. Ref.109]

Ref. 96) First: Cessation, the first of the four aspects of the truth of cessation][cf. Ref. 95]:

  1. [The appropriated aggregates] are not eternally [existent,]

As it is possible for their causes to have [powerful] counter forces.

If [you] assert that since [only the aggregates] cycle [as samsara,] there is no nirvana,

As there is no self. [The response] is ‘established’ and ‘uncertain’ respectively.

  1. As long as attachment to the self is not eliminated, [And the sufferer] is severely in agony,

Until then, one continues to reify suffering And will not abide in the nature [of happiness.] Though there is no one to be liberated,

One needs to strive to abandon the misconception [of the self.]

  1. The reason for the one who is freed of attachment to remain [in samsara] Is either due to affection or by virtue of karma.

They do not have the wish to eliminate [the aggregates propelled.]

  1. The karma of those who transcended the attachment of samsara Does not have the power to propel another [birth,]

As [attachment which is] the cooperative cause is consumed.

Ref. 97) Second: Peace, the second of the fours aspects of the truth of cessation] has three parts [cf. Ref. 95]:

  1. Rejecting the opposition that those freed from attachment are not freed from faults [cf. Ref. 98]

  2. Rejecting the opposition that those freed from attachment are not freed from samsara [cf. Ref. 100]

  3. Rejecting the opposition that self-­‐grasping is not the cause of samsara [cf. Ref. 102]

Ref. 98] First: Rejecting the opposition that those freed from attachment are not freed from faults [cf. Ref. 97]:

194. No contradiction exists between [seeing the selflessness of person] and the knowledge of suffering [of the beings.]

[The Arhats] generate love towards [the beings]

[Who are designated on] the phenomena [of the aggregates]

Which came into being due to the earlier composition of [afflictions and karmas.]

  1. Attachment arises due to reification of self and others On the basis of phenomena that lack selfhood. [Whereas the Arhats] generate love [towards the beings]

Realizing [that they are merely imputed on the basis of] the continuum [of the aggregates of] suffering nature.

Ref. 99) Rejecting the thesis that those who are freed from attachment should [still] have aversion:

  1. Ignorance is the root of flaws [such as aversion,] That apprehends the beings [with selfhood] too.

In the absence of that [ignorance,] aversion does not [arise] from the cause of the flaws.

Therefore, the love [that Arhats] have do not [lead] to flaws [such as aversion.]

Ref. 100) Second: Rejecting the opposition that those freed from attachment are not freed from samsara [cf. Ref. 97]:

197. [The Arhats] are not non-liberated.

They have exhausted the earlier compositions and thus will not take another birth.

In the case [of those Arhats who still have contaminated karmas], even though the compositional [karmas] are not exhausted,

While they abide [in their aggregates,] they are freed from the flaws of [afflictions.]

Ref. 101) If the Arhats remain out of love, why do they not abide eternally?

  1. The compassion [Arhats] have is less,

Thus they do not strive too hard to remain [for long.] Whereas the ones with great love

Will remain for others [until samsara ends.]

Ref. 102) Third: Rejecting the opposition that self-­‐grasping is not the cause of samsara [cf. Ref. 97]:

  1. Since [the Stream Enterers] are freed from the view of perishable collections Those in the first path [Stream Enterer path] should be freed of samsara. [They are not freed], as they have not yet abandoned the innate [view of perishable collection.]

How can there be samsara if one has abandoned [the innate view of perishable collection?]

  1. The mind viewing I [to be with selfhood]

Over the sentient beings, exists spontaneously, As one desires “May I have happiness,”

And “May I not have miseries.”

Ref. 103) How the innate view of perishable collection is indeed the root of samsaric faults:

  1. Not seeing the self [with selfhood] One will not feel attached to the self. Without attachment,

One will not rapidly accumulate [karmas], [All] driven by desire for happiness.

Ref. 104) Third: Exuberance [the third of the four aspects of the truth of cessation][cf. Ref. 95]:

  1. The causes that give rise to suffering

Are bondage. How can this be so for a permanent phenomenon? The causes that stop giving rise to suffering

Are nirvana. How can this be so for a permanent phenomenon?

Ref. 105) Rejecting Vatsiputras [Tib: naymabhuwa] who posit inexpressible substantial self, which is neither permanent nor impermanent:

  1. What is not describable as impermanent, Shall not be a cause of anything,

For what cannot be described as [permanent or impermanent,] Bondage or nirvana is not feasible.

  1. What is devoid of transitoriness,

Is what the scholars’ term as permanent. Therefore, give up this embarrassing view, And hold that [the self] is permanent.

Ref. 106) Truth of the path leading to the cessation has four parts [cf. Ref. 76]:

  1. Path

  2. Realization

  3. Practice

  4. Definite liberator

Ref. 107) The above four points will be discussed under three topics [cf. Ref. 106]:

  1. Indicating that the wisdom realizing selflessness is the path to liberation from samsara [cf. Ref. 108]

  2. Rejecting the qualm that the wisdom of selflessness is not the path to liberation [cf. Ref. 109]

  3. Rejecting the false belief adhering to a distorted path as the path to liberation [cf. Ref. 117]

Ref. 108) First: Indicating that the wisdom realizing selflessness is the path to liberation from samsara [cf. Ref. 107]:

205a. Meditation on the aforesaid path [of the wisdom of selflessness] Will [attain the perfect state of] of transformation.

Ref. 109) Second: Rejecting the qualm that the wisdom of selflessness is not the path to liberation has four parts [cf. Ref. 107]:

  1. The reason that the cessation of faults once achieved will never degenerate [cf. Ref. 110]

  2. Indicating that the wisdom of selflessness is the antidote to all faults such as afflictions [cf. Ref. 111]

  3. Rejecting other reasons that cessations could degenerate [cf. Ref. 115]

  4. The summary of the above points [cf. Ref. 116]

Ref. 110) First: The reason that the cessation of faults once achieved will never degenerate [cf. Ref. 109]:

205b. If [you] assert that despite [the complete] transformation,

Faults can relapse, like a path [cultivated in a person who did not have a path previously.]

This will not happen, as the potential [for faults] does not exist [any more.]

  1. The mind perceiving the object, Apprehends it in conformity with the object,

Thus in conformity with the objective reality, [Which in turn] is also the producer of [the mind.]

  1. If the mode of reality

Is distorted by other conditions,

It depends on [antidote] as condition, to reverse it.

[Thus,] like a mind [seeing] a snake [on a rope], it is not reliable.

  1. The nature of consciousness is clear light. The defilements are adventitious.

Therefore, where [the negative forces] were powerless previously [at the time of conceptual experience of selflessness,]

It is powerless when [the wisdom of selflessness] is actualized [at the time of the Arya’s path.]

  1. Even if [the negative forces] have power [to arise during the post meditation at the Arya level,]

They do not last long, like a fire on a wet ground, As [the Aryas] have the essential nature

To generate [the wisdom of selflessness] as antidote.

  1. Harmlessness and the [wisdom of] the accurate meanings

[Which became inseparable with] the nature [of mind] will not reverse, Even when efforts are exerted by the distortions,

As the mind inclines towards the [former.]

Ref. 111) Second: Indicating that the wisdom of selflessness is the antidote to all faults such as afflictions [cf. Ref. 109]. Antidotes to faults such as afflictions have two attributes:

  1. The antidote should engage with the object by imbuing it with the reality of the object [cf. Ref. 112]

  2. The antidote should be directly in opposition to the counterforce, with respect to the object of apprehension [cf. Ref. 113]

Ref: 112) First: The antidote should engage with the object by imbuing it with the reality of the object [cf. Ref. 111]:

  1. Despite attachment and aversion being mutually exclusive, They do not counteract one another,

As [the two] have self grasping [ignorance] as the common cause,

And that [either of the two] can [possibly] be the cause and [the other] the effect.

Ref. 113) Second: The antidote should be directly in opposition to the counterforce, with respect to the object of apprehension [cf. Ref. 111]:

  1. Since loving kindness and so forth, do not oppose the ignorance [with respect to the object of apprehension,]

It cannot destroy the severe faults [such as aversion,] As all faults are rooted in [ignorance]

Which is but the view of perishable collection.

[The view of perishable collection is one of the five wrong views:]

  1. View of perishable collection [Skt: satkaya drsti; Tib: jig-­‐ta]

  2. View of the extremes [Skt: antagraha drsti; Tib: thar-­‐ta]

  3. Distorted view [Skt: drsti paramarsa; Tib: log-­‐ta]

  4. Wrong view of the Supreme view [Skt: mithya drsti; Tib: tawa chogzin]

5) Wrong view of the Supreme morality and conduct [Skt: silavrataparamarsa drsti; Tib: tsultrim tulshugchogzin]

Ref. 114) Proving that the view of perishable collection is the afflictive ignorance:

213-4.It is the countervailing of wisdom;

Being a mental factor, it should apprehend [its object.] [Sutras] say that what mistakenly apprehends is ignorance.

Others [on the contrary, like the absence of knowledge, non-awareness, and what contradicts the knowledge] are not qualified [here as ignorance.]

What is referred to here [as ignorance] is the countervailing [of the wisdom of emptiness.]

The view of emptiness is the countervailing view [of this ignorance.] It is well established that the nature [of the view of emptiness] Contradicts all faults.

Ref. 115) Third: Rejecting other reasons that cessations could degenerate [cf. Ref. 109]:

  1. [If you assert] cessation is not possible,

As it is the nature of the living beings, just as physicality is inevitable part of a pot. When subjected to antidotes,

Elimination [of the negative forces] is also seen.

Ref. 116) Fourth: The summary of rejecting the qualm that the wisdom of selflessness is not the path to liberation [cf. Ref. 109]:

  1. What is a thorough cessation of faults

Is very stable and [the faults] will not relapse.

[The cessation] is never separated [from the mind] as [the wisdom of emptiness] assumes the nature of being imbued [with the mind.]

[The cessation] does not relapse [to faults,] like the ashes not relapsing [after the fire extinguishes.]

Ref. 117) Third: Rejecting the false belief adhering to a mistaken path as path to liberation has two parts [cf. Ref. 107]:

  1. Indicating that self-­‐grasping is the root of all faults [cf. Ref. 118]

  2. Thus meditation on any path will never liberate from samsara, unless self-­‐grasping ignorance is eliminated [cf. Ref. 120]

Ref. 118) First: Indicating that self-­‐grasping is the root of all faults [cf. Ref. 117]. How the view of perishable is the root of all miseries of samsara:

217-8. Whoever sees the self?

Will at all times grasp at [the self] as ‘I.’

This grasping leads to attachment to happiness. The attachment obscures the faults,

And make one see [only the pleasing], which in turn will intensify the attachment. This compels one to grasp at the causes [of happiness] as ‘mine.’

Therefore as long as there is attachment to the self, For that long, one will cycle in samsara.

Ref. 119) How the view of perishable is the root of all afflictions and contaminated karmas:

  1. Seeing the ‘self,’ will lead to seeing ‘others.’

Bifurcating self and others leads to attachment and aversion. Associated with these [attachment and aversion],

All faults [such as killing and so forth] ensue. .

Ref. 120) Second: Thus meditation on any path will never liberate from samsara unless self-­‐grasping ignorance is eliminated has three parts [cf. Ref. 117]:

  1. Mere elimination of affinity to ‘mine’, while adhering to self, is not a liberating path [cf. Ref. 121]

  2. Mere sacred words of Creator are not a liberating path [cf. Ref. 131]

  3. Self-­‐mortification to exhaust karma and body alone is not a liberating path [cf. Ref. 135]

Ref. 121) First: Mere elimination of affinity to ‘mine’, while adhering to self, is not a liberating path [cf. Ref. 120]:

  1. With definite attachment to the self,

No freedom from attachment to ‘mine’ will there be. [Seeing the view of] self as non-faulty,

No cause will there be to eliminate the attachment to the self.

Ref. 122) Rejecting the belief that the view of self is not faulty, but the attachment to the self is to be abandoned:

221-2. [You assert] that [only] the attachment [to the self] is faulty.

What can be done with it? It is to be abandoned. Without negating the [self] as the object,

[The attachments which grasp at it] cannot be abandoned.

[That way of] abandoning attachment and aversion, which are associated with qualities and faults,

Is due to not seeing [these attributes] in the objects,

And not through external negation [like removing thorns.]

  1. Attachment [arises] not because of [seeing] qualities in the attachment [itself,] But through seeing qualities in the object.

That which has all causes complete,

What can hinder it from [reaping] the results?

  1. In what way can one see faults in the attachment? If [you] say, [by seeing] it as the basis for miseries. Be it that way. One cannot detach from it still,

As it is seen as ‘mine’ [viewing of which cannot be abandoned, for it is a proper object that tallies with the truth,] which is like [how the liberated] self [cannot be abandoned.]

  1. If in the absence of this [attachment],

[The view of] self is not the cause of suffering. [The reverse] is likewise [true.] Since both [the view of self and attachment] are flawless,

One cannot be freed from the attachment to both.

Ref. 123) Meditating on the evident suffering is not the path to liberation. Rejecting the views of Vaishayshik and Samkya:

  1. [Vaishayshik asserts]

Like the limbs bitten by snake,

With the meditation on the suffering [nature of ‘mine’ and attachment to the self,] they will be eliminated.

[Response:]

Through abandoning the mind conceiving the sense of ‘mine’, They are eliminated, not otherwise.

227-8.Holding the sense powers and so forth As the basis of possession,

What can eliminate the sense of ‘mine’ about them? How is detachment towards them feasible?

The thought of renouncing can arise

With respect to the hair and so forth which are separated from the body. For the others [which remain as parts of the body], affinity still arises.

This is what all could evidently witness.

  1. The [self] being associated with ‘gathering’ [and ‘possession,’] and so forth, The thought of ‘mine’ will [inevitably] arise.

This relation of [gathering and so forth] exists like [the ones before doing this meditation.]

Despite seeing [‘mine’ as suffering [the attachment to them] cannot be abandoned.

  1. Even in the absence of ‘gathering’ and so forth,

Benefits [can be obtained] from everything [such as external food, thus the thought ‘mine’ can arise with those which do not have the attributes such as ‘gathering’ and so forth.]

[If you say,] like [snake bitten] fingers, that which gives rise to suffering No thought of ‘mine’ will arise towards that.

[But the sense powers and so forth,] do not always give pain.

231-2.[If you say,] it is like poisonous food, [attachment will not arise.] When the attachment is towards a superior happiness,

It remains unattached to those that are contrary [to the greater happiness.] Due to attachment to the superior happiness,

One can cast away minor happiness.

Childish people [not finding superior pleasure] will engage In any kind, which their attachment finds.

Not finding woman,

People are seen with desirous acts on animals.

  1. Those [Vaishayshiks] who advocate [independent] self, How can they accept [the self] to be disintegrating? The adherence [you have] towards the [liberated self,]

Which is freed from being the basis of all experiences, labels, and qualities,

Is not really an [healthy] adherence [as a permanent thing forming the basis of experiences and so forth will forever remain like that and not be freed from it.]

  1. The self-grasping [mind] will forever Reinforce the attachment to the self.

[The attachment to the self restate] the state of the potential Of the adherence to ‘mine.’

  1. Despite the efforts [in meditating on the suffering nature of ‘mine’]

One engages in attachment, due to [seeing] the aspects of qualities [of mine,] This is an obstacle to [achieving] non-attachment to ‘mine’,

And also obscures its faults.

  1. If one is also freed from the attachment to the self,

[Then] there should be no [perception] of the attachment free [self,] As [the adherence] to the self is eliminated.

[If so,] meditation on the suffering [meant to achieve the liberated self] is pointless.

  1. Despite meditation meditating on these [‘mine’] as suffering, And becoming realized of the suffering,

There is no elimination of attachment,

As [the arising of suffering] is directly experienced even before [meditation on suffering.]

  1. If the mind [of attachment] is removed at that moment,

By [meditating] on the faults of the [object which was a cause of pleasure,] It is [still] not freed from attachment to that [object].

It is like a lustful one [feeling attached] to another woman.

  1. The attachment that arises

Through grasping at [attributes] of attraction and repulsion of a [particular] object, Serves as the seed for all other attachments

Which in the presence of varied [conditions] gives rise to [further attachments.]

  1. Attachment is the subject of [self as] the faultless object.

Producers [of happiness for the self, such as the sense powers] as well are faultless.

Sentient beings are not more than just these [self, the attachment to the self, and producers.]

In this case, how can there be freedom from attachment?

  1. In this [samsara, ‘mine’] is faulty, It is the same for the self.

Since [the self in this samsara] cannot be freed from attachment, How can this be freed of attachment to anything?

242-4. [If you say,] that affinity to [something] due to seeing qualities in it, Can be undermined through seeing the demerits [of the same.]

This is not true for sense powers and so forth.

[The affinity for sense powers and so forth] is seen even in new-borns.

[The affinity towards the same] also exists among the disabled persons. [Whereas affinity does not arise] towards [the same in others,]

Despite seeing good qualities.

Nor does it exist in relation to the past ‘mine.’

Therefore, the cause for the mind of ‘mine’ Is not seeing qualities in them.

Thus even seeing their demerits

Does not eliminate [the attachment to them.]

245a. Further, the attachment sees qualities, which are non-existent with [sense powers and so forth],

Which it reified.

Ref. 124) Summary: Rejecting the position that meditation on ‘mine’ like sense powers as suffering, to be the path to liberation:

245b. Therefore how can one harm [the affinity to ‘mine’]

By resorting to the means that does not harm [the self grasping mind which is] its cause.

Ref. 125) Rejecting the position of Samkyas -­‐having direct realization of the duality of the self on the one hand and pleasure and so forth on the other is the liberation from samsara.

246-7. [The ordinary beings] seek things that are superior to others.

They also have the intelligence to know [that pleasure and so forth] have the nature of birth and disintegration [while viewing the self as permanent.]

The [ordinary] beings know that one is distinct from sense powers and so forth.

Therefore seeing [the self and pleasure and so forth] as one Is also not what causes attachment [to samsara.] Attachment to the self [is the cause of samsaric miseries]

[For the reason that by virtue of its own power,] attachment towards internal factors such as eye sense power,

Is intrinsically generated.

Ref. 126) Distinguishing renunciation and aversion:

  1. The renunciation some feel towards the present suffering

Is [but] aversion, and not [inclined towards] freedom from attachment, For attachment [to the self is still there at that time]

And seek other situations [for happiness.]

  1. Since [this] aversion is caused by [a great] misery. It will last as long as [the great misery lasts.]

Once [the great misery] disappears,

[The person] will return to the original state of [non-renunciation.]

Ref. 127) Identifying the one who is actually freed from attachment [having transcended miseries]:

  1. By casting away attachment towards desirable objects and aversion towards repulsive objects,

One maintains [a state of equilibrium.]

One is known as [Arhat,] the one freed of attachment

Who, in equilibrium, [is not stirred by attachment or aversion to] sandal ointments and axe respectively.

Ref. 128) Distinguishing the ripening path and liberating path:

  1. When advising [beings] to meditate on suffering

[The Buddha] intended the [meditation] on conditioned suffering.

We [espouse] that [conditioned suffering] arises from conditions [of stained karmas and afflictions.]

[Meditation on the conditioned suffering] is the basis for the view of selflessness. The view of emptiness liberates [beings from the bondage of samsara.]

The remaining meditations are for the purpose of [ripening the person to be prepared for the view of emptiness, which is the liberating path.]

  1. Therefore, [the Buddha] taught that [the insight] into impermanence will [give rise to the insight into] miseries.

From [the insight into] miseries, [the insight into] selflessness ensues.

Ref. 129) Summary: There is no way by which attachment to ‘mine’ can be severed unless self-­‐grasping ignorance is eradicated.

What constitutes samsaric beings?

  1. Those who are not freed from attachment [towards the self] and have desire [towards ‘mine.’]

[Driven by the earlier two attachments,] striving by all means [to acquire happiness for the self,]

Are not freed from afflictions and karma.

Such [persons] are known as ‘samsaric beings.’

Ref. 130) The need to eliminate the view of perishable collections [self-­‐grasping ignorance] for one to be freed from the fears of samsara:

  1. Therefore, those who seek liberation

Should discard the view of perishable collection from its root, Which arose from the seed of the same kind.

Inherited since primordially.

Ref. 131] Second: Mere sacred words of Creator are not liberating path [cf. Ref. 120]:

  1. The saying that divine words [of Creator] liberate [beings] Does not at all appeal [to the wise,]

The ones who do not see reasons For divine words to actually do so.

  1. Unlike the rituals on seeds [to impede the growth of shoots,]

[Creator’s empowerment] is incapable to impede the birth of beings [in samsara.] [Otherwise,] applying the sesame oil and subjecting to fire burns and so forth, too Should absurdly be accepted to liberate [beings.]

Ref. 132) Rejecting the belief that the fire puja purifies the negative karmas thus serving as a cause to liberate the beings. The belief entails the fire puja performed according to the earlier ritual, makes the person in the ritual shrine lighter in weight. It is seen as a sign of purification of negative karmas.

  1. Reduction in the weight later, which was previously heavier, Is not due to a subduing of the negative karmas.

The weight disappears [due to the torments of the fire].

Since negative deeds are not physical, they do not have [physical] weight.

  1. The mind that distorts [misery as happiness]

And the attachment that arises from it and [the karma, the concomitant mental factor of] intention,

[Propel] the beings to take birth in the unfavorable states.

Therefore, [those who] sever them [by antidotes] will not migrate there.

  1. If birth [in samsara] is a result of merely these [causes,] [Where is the role of karma?]

The intention itself is karma.

Therefore, [merely receiving empowerments] does not undermine the causes of birth.

  1. [The opponents assert,]

[The sense powers and so forth] are the basis for taking birth, and for cognizing things.

These [sense powers and so forth] arise from the unseen [karma] of Dharma and non-Dharma.

[Empowerments] destroy these unseen [karmas] and [thus] no transmigration [occurs.]

Therefore [karma] is composition, [a quality of the self] and not [the mental factor] of intention.

  1. [Response:] The determining factor for the arising of [sense powers and so forth] Is [intention, which concomitant with attachment is] a potential of the mind,

And not others [like composition as the opponents assert.]

Why do not those who have this [intention concomitant with attachment], transmigrate?

  1. If [by the empowerments,] the potentials [of the intentions] become nil, It should follow that immediately after receiving the empowerments,

[The act of] apprehending, engaging, [mental] scattering and the elimination [of scattering], by the power of mental intention,

Should not be feasible.

  1. [Opponents:] If [at death] since there is no mind, [Samsaric birth] will not occur.

The mind of defilements will connect [to the next life.]

If [you] assert, that it does not have potential [to do so, due to the empowerment,] it would absurdly follow that the [same] potential is absent while still alive [due to the empowerment.]

  1. The increase in [the wisdom of emptiness] as the antidote and [inappropriate attention] of the nature [of the faults,]

Will respectively diminish and increase [the faults such as attachment.] The continuum of the faults are determined by their seeds,

Not what can be eliminated by conferring empowerments.

265-6.Since permanent phenomena is not contingent [on others,]

It contradicts progressive production [of bondage and liberation.] [In permanence,] things remain the same.

[Thus] it contradicts composing [results.]

It absurdly leads to accepting the oneness of cause and result. If these [karmas and results] are separate from this [self,]

It then rejects [the self] to be the actor and consumer [of ripening results.]

267a. [Permanent self] does not have the potential to render benefits.

[For advocates of non-permanent self,] the argument that ‘someone else will have to remember

And partake [in the result] is not a [sound] rejoinder,

As [permanent self] will not have a memory of anything.

Ref. 133) How is memory accounted for then?

267b. Therefore memory arises from experience.

    1. Attachment increases

Through reifying sixteen improper attributes Over the four truths,

Such as permanence, pleasure, self, mine and so forth.

    1. With proper meditation of the right view [of emptiness] Which realizes [the sixteen] aspects,

Not in non-conformity [with the four truths,]

It will shatter attachment along with its appendages.

Ref. 134) Jaina asserts that even though in the absence of attachment, with the contaminated karmas and body, the person cannot be liberated:

    1. Even though [contaminated] karmas and body remain, In the absence of [attachment as] one [factor,]

Rebirth is not possible.

It is like a shoot in the absence of seeds.

Ref. 135] Third: Jaina asserts that the antidote to eliminate karmas and body is the path to liberation. Self-­‐mortification to exhaust karma and body alone is not liberating path [cf.

Ref. 120]:

    1. Karmas and body cannot be abandoned

As no [exclusive] antidotes exist [to eliminate] them.

[In the presence of attachment,] the potential for their [eradication] is not possible. With [attachment,][karmas and body] will relapse again.

272-3.If one strives to exhaust the two [- karmas and body,]

[The efforts to remove karma] is distress and is meaningless. A plethora of results [of karma] are seen,

Inferring a plethora of seeds of karma.

Therefore a single penance of distress Cannot eliminate [the multitudes of karmas.]

Some of these aspects [of penance of torturing the body and so forth,] Can minimize [a little of corporeal suffering,]

But will not exhaust [the innumerable] variant karmas.

274-5.[You assert that] it is the power of the penance

To intermix all the potentials [of karma] and exhaust the [mixture.]

[If you assert] that elimination [of karmas] happens by partial penance, [initially penance in the form of virtues, such as generosity, to intermix all the potentials and then little self-mortification to exhaust the mixture.]

All [karmas] should be abandoned without [any of the severe] self-mortifications. If it is other than [previous one], that is real self-mortification,

This [pain incurred thus] is the fruit of [earlier negative] karma.

Therefore, intermixing of the potentials [of the karma] and so forth is not feasible.

276. [The wisdom directly seeing selflessness], which eradicates the faults, Is meant to exterminate the faults [such as attachment] from arising.

It is potent to [eliminate the seed of] karma [as a result of attachment to give rise to fruits in the future.]

How can [this wisdom] undermine the [fruits of] the karmas which are already produced?

Ref. 136) Rejecting the view that karma and attachment are equally to be abandoned to achieve liberation from samsara:

277a. Faults [such as attachment] do not arise from karmas.

Faulty factors [such as attachment] produce [karmas,] and not vice versa.

Ref. 137) Qualm: But attachment can arise from happiness created by positive karmas:

277b. In the absence of misconception, Desire for pleasure does not ensue.

Ref. 138) Second: Establishing ‘Sugata’ from the reason of ‘Protector’ [cf. Ref. 74]:

278-9a.The knowledge of suchness, stability and Omniscience Is established through [the reasoning of] ‘Protector.’] Sugata here is in the context of realization.

Therefore [Sugata] excels outsiders, trainees, And no-more-learners respectively.

Ref. 139) Third: Establishing ‘Teacher’ from the reason of ‘Sugata’ [cf. Ref. 74]:

279b. The one who strove for [all]-knowing [and succeeded] for the benefit of [all] others is ‘Teacher.’

Ref. 140) Fourth: Establishing ‘Great Love’ from the reason of ‘Teacher’ [cf. Ref. 74]:

279c. From ‘Teacher,’ [infers] ‘[Great] Love,’

For He does not forsake engaging in the deeds [of giving guidance] to [all] others.

Ref. 141) Fifth: Establishing the Buddha as the ‘Supreme Reliable Guide’ from the above reasons [cf. Ref. 74]:

280. With Great Love, You taught [only] wholesome [teachings,] And with wisdom, you taught the [ultimate] truth.

Since You [have perfected] Your pursuit of expounding [the Four Noble Truths] with [Great Compassion as the motivating] cause,

You are the [Supreme] Reliable Guide.

Ref. 142] Second: The purpose of praising the Buddha for being born as the Supremely Reliable Guide [cf. Ref. 1]:

281-2. [The reason] for praising the Buddha with His qualities [in Pramanasamuchaya] Is to establish that [the full account] of valid cognition

Is what is found in His teachings. [The Buddha] did not reject inference. [Further,] on many occasions,

His advocacy of syllogisms were seen [when He said,] For example, ‘anything given to the slightest arising, Has the nature of cessation.’

283. The reason with the attribute of indispensability of one for the other Is the basis for inference.

Pervasion of predicate over the reason Is what is clearly delineated in [Sutras.]

By virtue of this translation, may His Holiness. the IVth Dalai Lama live eternally and may his wishes be fulfilled spontaneously.

May each and every sentient being come across, reflect and meditate on this profound text, to enable them to experience Bodhicitta and the wisdom of emptiness.

May everyone be free of suffering. May everyone have lasting happiness.

May all soon reach the final state of Enlightenment.

May this teaching flourish at all times in the minds of all dear mother sentient beings. May auspiciousness prevail [Skt:Sarva Mangalam] [Tib: Choeki zay pa ta shi par gyur chik]

Colophon: The present English translation of the second chapter of Pramanavartika, which was authored by Acharya Dharmakirti (7th Century CE), is based on the commentary by the renowned saint-­‐scholar, the most Venerable Khedrup Gelek Pelsang (14th Century CE), who was the second heir to the Omniscient LamaTsongkhapa and the most Venerable Gyaltsab Dharma Rinchen (14th Century CE), the First Gaden Tripa.

Deeply sincere and enthusiastic aspirants, such as Nilza Wangmo (Ph.D. scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University) and others, requested this English translation. The translation and annotations are rendered by Geshe Dorji Damdul, during a month-­‐long solitary retreat undertaken in June 2015, at Sempa Ling cottage of the Bakshi family in Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh.

Editor: Ms. Kaveri Gill (PhD)

 

Warning: Division by zero in /web/htdocs/www.sangye.it/home/altro/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1379