|
Change History
Message: The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 04, 2010 11:18AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
Change Date: November 04, 2010 11:18AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's <i>Nyāyamukha</i>
{In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the context of cognition.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yidi Shi</i>: “The object of the thesis-subject is manifold (with many properties), now these manifold cannot all be taken into an account, but one among them can happily be selected in apperceptive construction.” 法上《正理一滴釋》云：「自宗法義有多，今不悉顧，但樂立一也(，論即是宗，故云論宗)。」
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the similar cases (<i>sapakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable, or both specifiable and non-specifiable. As well, they can relate to the dissimilar cases (<i>vipakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable or both specifiable and non-specifiable.
{Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
{In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the context of cognition.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yidi Shi</i>: “The object of the thesis-subject is manifold (with many properties), now these manifold cannot all be taken into an account, but one among them can happily be selected in apperceptive construction.” 法上《正理一滴釋》云：「自宗法義有多，今不悉顧，但樂立一也(，論即是宗，故云論宗)。」
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the similar cases (<i>sapakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable, or both specifiable and non-specifiable. As well, they can relate to the dissimilar cases (<i>vipakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable or both specifiable and non-specifiable.
{Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 04, 2010 11:13AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
Change Date: November 04, 2010 11:13AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's <i>Nyāyamukha</i>
{In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the context of cognition.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yidi Shi</i>: “The object of the thesis-subject is manifold (with many properties), now these manifold cannot all be taken into an account, but one among them can happily be selected in apperceptive construction.” 法上《正理一滴釋》云：「自宗法義有多，今不悉顧，但樂立一也(，論即是宗，故云論宗)。」
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
{In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the context of cognition.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yidi Shi</i>: “The object of the thesis-subject is manifold (with many properties), now these manifold cannot all be taken into an account, but one among them can happily be selected in apperceptive construction.” 法上《正理一滴釋》云：「自宗法義有多，今不悉顧，但樂立一也(，論即是宗，故云論宗)。」
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 04, 2010 01:56AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
Change Date: November 04, 2010 01:56AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's <i>Nyāyamukha</i>
{In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the context of cognition.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yidi Shi</i>: “The object of the thesis-subject is manifold (with many properties), now these manifold cannot all be taken into an account, but one among them can happily be selected in apperceptive construction.” 法上《正理一滴釋》云：「自宗法義有多，今不悉顧，但樂立一也(，論即是宗，故云論宗)。」
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
{In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the context of cognition.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yidi Shi</i>: “The object of the thesis-subject is manifold (with many properties), now these manifold cannot all be taken into an account, but one among them can happily be selected in apperceptive construction.” 法上《正理一滴釋》云：「自宗法義有多，今不悉顧，但樂立一也(，論即是宗，故云論宗)。」
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 04, 2010 01:53AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
Change Date: November 04, 2010 01:53AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's <i>Nyāyamukha</i>
{In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the context of cognition.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yidi Shi</i>: “The object of the thesis-subject is manifold (with many properties), now these manifold cannot all be taken into an account, but one among them can happily be selected in apperceptive construction.” 法上《正理一滴釋》云：「自宗法義有多，今不悉顧，但樂立一也(，論即是宗，故云論宗)。」
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to the object of dissertation in the thesis are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the he them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
{In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the context of cognition.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yidi Shi</i>: “The object of the thesis-subject is manifold (with many properties), now these manifold cannot all be taken into an account, but one among them can happily be selected in apperceptive construction.” 法上《正理一滴釋》云：「自宗法義有多，今不悉顧，但樂立一也(，論即是宗，故云論宗)。」
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to the object of dissertation in the thesis are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the he them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 04, 2010 01:42AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
Change Date: November 04, 2010 01:42AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's <i>Nyāyamukha</i>
[In {In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the contextcognition.]
nition.}
ion.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yid[After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:]
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the similar cases (<i>sapakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable, or both specifiable and non-specifiable. As well, they can relate to the dissimilar cases (<i>vipakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable or both specifiable and non-specifiable.
ject of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the similar cases (<i>sapakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable, or both specifiable and non-specifiable. As well, they can relate to the dissimilar cases (<i>vipakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable or both specifiable and non-specifiable.
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to the object of dissertation in the thesis are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
[In {In the beginning of the <i>Mukha</i> where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the <i>mukha</i>, we find the term Yi (義, <i>artha</i>) has to be understood in the contextcognition.]
nition.}
ion.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The <i>mukha</i> is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's <i>Zhengli Yid[After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:]
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the similar cases (<i>sapakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable, or both specifiable and non-specifiable. As well, they can relate to the dissimilar cases (<i>vipakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable or both specifiable and non-specifiable.
ject of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the similar cases (<i>sapakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable, or both specifiable and non-specifiable. As well, they can relate to the dissimilar cases (<i>vipakṣa</i>) either as specifiable, non-specifiable or both specifiable and non-specifiable.
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to the object of dissertation in the thesis are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
Original Message
作者: gustavDate: November 04, 2010 01:38AM
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's《Nyāyamukha》
The Meaning of 義 in Dignāga's Nyāyamukha
[In {In the beginning of the Mukha where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the mukha, we find the term Yi (義, artha) has to be understood in the contextcognition.]
ion.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The mukha is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's Zhengli Yid[After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:]
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the similar cases (sapakṣa) either as specifiable, non-specifiable, or both specifiable and non-specifiable. As well, they can relate to the dissimilar cases (vipakṣa) either as specifiable, non-specifiable or both specifiable and non-specifiable.
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to the object of dissertation in the thesis are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
[In {In the beginning of the Mukha where Dignāga explains the attempt he tries to achieve in the mukha, we find the term Yi (義, artha) has to be understood in the contextcognition.]
ion.}
為欲簡持能立能破義中真實故造斯論。
The mukha is made in order to genuinely specify the object of that through which the establishable can be established and that through which the non-establishable can be destroyed.
Verse 1a: 宗等多言說能立，是中唯隨自意，樂
Verse 1b: 為所成立說名宗，非彼相違義能遣
宗等多言說能立者，由宗因喻多言辯說他未了義，故此多言於論式等說名能立。
The verse begins with “宗等多言說能立” indicates that through the (dissertator's) inferential formula consisting of verbal theses, reasons and instances, the object which is not yet conceived by the other (interlocutor) is tried to be unfolded. Hence, these verbal apparatuses in the formula are altogether entitled “能立 (that through which the establishable can be established)”.
又以一言說能立者，為顯總成一能立性，由此應知隨有所闕名能立過。
To entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the natuTo of the establishable, with which any lacks of the full unity of such nature should be identified, and they are entitle that through which the establishable can be established with a verbal name aims at uniting the nature of the establishable, with which any (possible) lacks (in the cases) in contrast [to the full unity of such nature] should be identified, and they are entitled “the flaws of the establishable”.
言是中者，起論端義，或簡持義。
Those that are meant by “among them” refer to the objects of dissertation or of specification.
*Object of dissertation: the object referred by the verbal thesis.
*Object of specification: the object referred by the apperceptive perspective chosen by the dissertator at certain circumstance.
是宗等中，故名是中，所名唯者，是簡別義。
Because [the objects are specified in] these verbal apparatuses such as thesis etc., hence they are entitled “in them”; that which is entitled “only” indicates that [the objects are] only [restricted (and therefore are conceived) within the specified scope and hence are] objects of specification.
隨自意顯：不顧論宗隨自意立。
[The objects] appear in accordance with the [dissertator's] own apperception. [This means,] disregarding [the manifoldness of the objects of specification that can be united under the object of] the thesis, [the dissertator] specifies whatever object of specification with [the dissertator's] own apperception.
*Ouyang Jingwu: Fashang's Zhengli Yid[After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:]
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the similar cases (sapakṣa) either as specifiable, non-specifiable, or both specifiable and non-specifiable. As well, they can relate to the dissimilar cases (vipakṣa) either as specifiable, non-specifiable or both specifiable and non-specifiable.
{After Dignāga unites the full nature of a proper thesis and recites the flaws identifying the improper thesis, he writes:}
因與似因多是宗法，此差別相今當顯示：
Verse 2a: 宗法於同品，謂有、非有、俱
Verse 2b: 於異品各三，有、非有、及二
[The objects specified by] reasons and pseudo-reasons are [logically] often [a part of the objects that can be specified] in the theses. The difference between them will be demonstrated through the following treaties:
[All that which can be specified in the object of dissertation, namely,] the thesis-predicates (dharma), can relate to the [Hence, the twofold meaning of the term 義, namely, 起論端義 and 簡別義 can be understood as: the object of the thesis, and the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.]
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to the object of dissertation in the thesis are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the object further specified as properties of the first object. Later, Dignāga goes into the details about this.}
如是宗法三種差別，謂同品有、非有、及俱，先除「及」字。
Such thesis-predicates are divided into three kinds: specifiable in the similar cases, non-specifiable in the similar cases, and both specifiable and non-specifiable in the similar cases. The word “and” was omitted in convenience in the previous verse.
此中，若品與所立法鄰近均等，說名同品，以一切義皆名品故。
In them, (when distributing all the possible cases under the entries of all the possible predicates,) the cases that fall close to (namely, in the same group of) the object of dissertation specified by the thesis-predicate are entitled “the class of the similar cases”, because all the objects (in the first sense, as the objects of dissertation) are so entitled in classes, (i.e., with class names).
*All the objects are so entitled in classes, because, since the object of dissertation is manifold and further analyzable, such a distribution is valid.
若所立無，說名異品。
The class in which the object of dissertation in the thesis does not fall, (namely, the exclusion of the class of the similar cases) are entitled “dissimilar cases”.
非與同品相違或異，若相違者應唯簡別，若別異者應無有因。
(The distinction between the class of the similar cases and the class of the dissimilar cases) is not identified by contrary or by difference. If by contrary, it will be JUST too specific, (for the class of the cases with property contrary to property A takes ONLY part of the class exclusive of property A). If by difference, the class will contain cases in which (although the thesis-predicate is specifiable,) the reason-predicate is not specifiable.
MEPO forum
is powered by Phorum.