Knowing, Naming and Negation: A Sourcebook on Tibetan Sautrantika by Anne Carolyn Klein

Author:Anne Carolyn Klein
Language: eng
Format: azw3
Publisher: Snow Lion
Published: 1991-01-02T00:00:00+00:00

Merely the way that the Sautrantikas Following Scripture posit definitions and illustrations of the two truths is similar to that of the Vaibhasikas, but their [further] presentations of these differ greatly. For, whatever the Vaibhasikas assert as existing (yod pa, sat), they also assert as substantially established (rdzas su grub pa, dravya-siddha) [and therefore, for them, uncaused or permanent phenomena are substantially established] whereas no Sautrantika asserts such.

In the system of the Sautrantikas [Following Reasoning] generally characterized phenomena are [permanent] uncaused phenomena such as space. Phenomena imputed by thought such as generality, common locus, particular, illustration, one, many, relation, the thesis being proven, proof, and so forth, are also generally characterized phenomena. However, whatever is [a specific instance of any of] these need not be a generally characterized phenomenon.

Even though generality, for example, is a generally characterized phenomenon, something can be a generality but not be a generally characterized phenomenon. For example, a pot is a generality because it is concomitant with the various instances of silver, gold, and clay pots, but a pot is not a generally characterized phenomenon. It is an impermanent thing and, therefore, a specifically characterized phenomenon.

A pot is also a common locus of being both a product and an impermanent thing; it is a particular because it is a specific type of existent; it is an illustration of the general class of objects of knowledge, and it is one because it is a single. Despite being all these things-which, like generality, are generally characterized phenomena-a pot itself is a specifically characterized phenomenon. Thus, whatever is a generality and so forth is not necessarily a permanent or generally characterized phenomenon.

This is because although the self-isolate (rang ldog) of the explicit object of a thought consciousness [the image which is that thought's appearing object] is not a specifically characterized phenomenon [since it is a mental image and thus permanent and imputed by terms and thought], it is not contradic tory for a specifically characterized phenomenon [such as a pot] to be an explicit object of thought [because thought is capable of actually getting at impermanent phenomena].

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.