7475

1. Introduction: The Aim and Subject Matter of Pramāṇa Treatises

In Sanskrit, this work is entitled Pramaṇaśāstrasenasaptālaṃkāramanata.⁴⁶ In Tibetan, it is called Tshad ma’i bstan bcos sde bdun gyi rgyan yid kyi mun sel.

Homage to the Noble Mañjughoṣa!

The blue-throated [Śiva], sporting his lunar diadem and an abundance of streaming locks, rushes to your lotus feet with the enthusiasm of a bee making for a flower.

The splendor of your physical presence outshines even that of the mountain of precious jewels; so immense is its grandeur that the earth, girdled by the oceans, must surely shudder, as it strains to support it.

Your enlightened activity is like the dawn light; as its first shafts appear, the commander of the dark forces discards his arrows and is stunned into inactivity.

Your speech is a great lake, exquisitely rimmed by trees with the sixty branches [of verbal qualities];

through it, Mighty Sage [Śākyamuni], may you relieve the world of all ills!

While Śiva has his lunar diadem, your insignia is the crown jewel of compassion, symbol that you have taken upon yourself the burden of helping limitless beings in samsara.

The devoted offering of just a handful of flowers in celebration of your qualities is all it takes [to invite] a brilliant flash of insight, bursting into my mind like blazing sunlight, banishing the murky gloom of unknowing.

Just as soothing moonlight falls upon every night lily on the lake’s waters, the wonderful pervasive power of your omniscient awareness saturates the lotus mind of every living being.

76

At your lotus feet, Mañjughoṣa, nurturer of the lotus, I invite you, amid a flourish of your dazzling orange petal-like digits, to mature my lotus mind, bringing it to its full glory.

Formed from the moonstone of the two collections,

that sphere of the three trainings, who emanated the cool rays of correct reasoning

and emerged unscathed, despite the attacks of Rāhu-like adversaries.

Reverentially, I raise to my crown the celebrated lunar orb that is Dignāga.

I prostrate myself at the feet of my spiritual tutors, those mighty elephants.

Their faces are caparisoned with the golden gauze decoration of the teachings of the Able One [Śākyamuni].

Their gaits are the four methods of attracting disciples. Their brows are elevated with intelligence.

Their purity of knowledge and tenderness are reflected in the brilliant ivory-like whiteness of their tusk-like teeth.

The great Dharmakīrti perfectly distinguished the flawless thought of the lord of reasoning [Dignāga].

Having gained the insight allowing me a share in this knowledge equal to his own, I will impart it clearly and correctly using the path of reason.

Due to their sightless faculties, other religious guides have been unable to clarify even a scrap [of Dignāga’s intention].

They have frittered away their youth in the turgid recital of the texts.

Let them now give it a rest!

From deep within the storm cloud of my intellect,

I summon forth ten million thunderbolts of scripture and reason.

Unleashing them, I obliterate the forest of corrupt assertions.

I demolish the mountain of false accounts.

Inebriated by the noxious beverage of your false accounts

and constrained by your limited knowledge of Buddhist scripture,

some of you have peddled your own fabricated doctrine.

I warn such spiritual guides: Your time has come!

77

This marvelous work is a scintillating sun.

May its rays sustain the multipetaled flowers of reason

and its dawning be greeted by the melodious bee-like hum

of eager, young intellects setting about their inquiry.

OUTLINING THE CONTENT OF THIS WORK

This work explains the true thought of the Seven Treatises on Pramāṇa and their source [the Compendium of Pramāṇa] composed by the father and [spiritual] son, the great masters Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, who are the progeny born from the very heart of the noble Mañjughoṣa. These writings reveal what the Sugata meant in his various pronouncements forming the Abhidharma piṭaka, that profound treasury of his precious words. They reveal in their entirety all the essentials relating to the three vehicles, the means by which those who earnestly engage in the quest for freedom may be conveyed to liberation and omniscience. They explain these essentials following the path of Pramāṇa, thereby preventing any danger of misinterpretation. The intention of the Pramāṇa treatises is set out in four sections: [4]

1. The aim of the Pramāṇa treatises
2. How [the achievement of] that aim depends on these treatises
3. A call to value treatises that have such an aim
4. The core subject matter of these treatises

THE AIM OF THE PRAMĀṆA TREATISES

1. Countering certain misconceptions associated with the aim
2. The actual aim

COUNTERING CERTAIN MISCONCEPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AIM

1. Countering the misconception that Pramāṇa treatises are not relevant to those engaged in the quest for liberation
2. Countering the misconception that Pramāṇa treatises are not relevant to the location in question
3. Countering the view of those who, while conceding that the Pramāṇa treatises have an aim, believe it to be an inferior one

78

COUNTERING THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THE PRAMĀṆA TREATISES ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THOSE ENGAGED IN THE QUEST FOR LIBERATION

Someone claims that Pramāṇa treatises are of no use in the quest for liberation. He says that these are treatises concerned with logic and thus fall outside the gamut of the piṭaka of internal learning.

[Response:] We point out that “logic” can denote two distinct things. We acknowledge that the type of reasoning advanced by non-Buddhist philosophers such as the sage Lingkyé⁴⁷ is the stuff of pure invention. However, the second is the variety referred to in the Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras:

Logical reasoning is held to be dependent and lacking certainty.

It is not comprehensive, [but] is conventional and inferior.

It is that on which the juvenile rely.⁴⁸

As this indicates, it is first necessary to determine the real nature of a thing conceptually by holding an object universal.⁴⁹ At that [initial] stage, when its nature is not manifest, the individual approaches it through conceptual logic. It is in this respect that treatises explaining such matters are described as treatises on logic.

Not even this detractor suggests that Pramāṇa treatises deal with the first variety of [non-Buddhist] material. And no logical argument could establish that these treatises are concerned with that sort of material, since they are all [Buddhist] works derived from following our teacher, the Omniscient One. The type of conceptual logic that these treatises work with must therefore be of the second variety. To suggest that those engaged in the quest for liberation can do so without such logical understanding is to regard the supreme dharma level⁵⁰ and everything that precedes it us unneeded, because the only way one can understand reality before that level is necessarily by taking an object universal as one’s object.

The claim that the Pramāṇa works are not treatises dedicated to the field of internal learning is also untenable. A treatise belonging to the field of internal learning denotes a work that concentrates on communicating the means that should be employed to eliminate ignorance and cultivate the wisdom that realizes selflessness, the antidote to that ignorance. [6] The Pramāṇa works clearly delineate the selflessness of persons and phenomena in a logical fashion, and they definitely focus on teachings belonging to the higher training in wisdom. If you say that this is insufficient grounds for counting 79something as belonging to the field of internal learning, then you must identify which works within the canon constitute the piṭaka of internal learning!

Quite apart from that, the general notion that something that does not belong to the field of internal learning is by virtue of that fact useless to those engaged in the quest for liberation is totally erroneous. Enlightenment remains beyond the reach of those who fail to master the five fields of learning. The Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras states:

Without application in the area of the five fields of learning,

even the most supreme of ārya beings cannot gain full omniscience.

Thus, to prevail over others, [then] guide them, and achieve full personal knowledge,

one must strive in [all of] these fields.⁵¹

If these treatises belong to the piṭaka dealing with the field of internal learning, someone might question whether they can be considered treatises on logic.

[Response:] In addition to belonging to that piṭaka, the Pramāṇa works are also treatises on reasoning. The science of reasoning⁵² is the field of reasoned analysis. These works provide the principal means by which those engaged in the quest for spiritual goals can gain a systematic, reasoned understanding of what they should pursue and reject. Treatises belonging to the field of internal learning and treatises on logic are therefore not mutually exclusive. A treatise such as [Guṇaprabha’s] Vinaya Sutra belongs exclusively to the field of internal learning. Works such as Dharmakīrti’s Seven Treatises on Pramāṇa belong to both categories. The [Nyāyasūtra] works by the Brāhmaṇa Akṣapāda [Gautama] teaching the sixteen categories of logic belong purely to the category of logic. Medical texts, on the other hand, fall into neither of these categories. Thus there are four points of demarcation between the two categories.⁵³

Some may still argue that the mere fact that a work teaches the two kinds of valid cognition, logical reasoning, proof statements, and discrediting statements means that it falls within the field of logic and that this alone excludes it from the field of the internal learning.

[Response:] If that is so, it would follow that the Conqueror’s own teachings do not belong to the piṭaka of internal learning, because they also teach the two types of valid cognition, logical reasoning, and so forth. The Abhidharma Sutra contains the passages “With a visual awareness one cognizes 80blue but does not think ‘blue’”⁵⁴ and [7] “A visual cognition is produced in reliance upon the eye and form.”⁵⁵ In these, the Buddha delineates what sense perception is and sets out the three conditions for its production. Also, the Ten Grounds Sutra says:

One becomes aware of fire by smoke.

One becomes aware of water by [certain] waterfowl.

Similarly, one becomes aware that [someone has] the lineage of an intelligent bodhisattva by various telling signs.⁵⁶

This presents an effect reason as well as the inferential cognition that arises in dependence on it. The passage “Whatever is subject to production is also subject to cessation”⁵⁷ presents a [same-]nature reason, as well as the proof statement within which it is formulated. The words “I, or another such as myself, can fully assess an individual”⁵⁸ feature a reason involving the nonobservation of something that should be apparent. “An [ordinary] person cannot fully assess another . . .”⁵⁹ uses a reason involving the nonobservation of something that is not accessible.⁶⁰ In response to Dīrghanakha’s remark “I do not tolerate anything,” the Blessed One inquired of him, “And is the view that you tolerate nothing tolerable to you?”⁶¹ The Blessed One was using a consequence and a discrediting counter. In declaring “The presence of this [one thing] necessitates the occurrence of that [other thing],”⁶² the Buddha was revealing a [logical] relationship. In explaining how, once the antidote is introduced, the undesirable element will be discarded, and also in comparing that process to how light rids a place of darkness, he was teaching about preclusion. That is to say, the majority of those subjects discussed in [Dharmakīrti’s] Seven Treatises can be individually matched with relevant passages found within the Conqueror’s own teachings. I will not elaborate on this further as it will take up too much space.

To reiterate the point, if one advocates that Pramāṇa literature does not belong to the piṭaka of internal learning, one must concede that the same is true of the teachings of the Conqueror. Furthermore, the Blessed One himself stated:

Bhikṣus and wise ones,

follow me not through mere respect

but once you have examined what I say,

as though you were assaying something:

81

burning, cutting, and rubbing it

to test if it is [truly] gold.⁶³

He thereby encouraged us to investigate the real import of his pronouncements by means of valid cognition. The noble Maitreya also said, “[Having] a mind that logically analyzes the good Dharma, never [being subject to] obstructions from evil spirits . . . .”⁶⁴ Entering the Middle Way also says: [8]

While ordinary individuals are bound by the conceptual,

yogis without conception have gained freedom.

The wise declare that the arrest of conceptual notions

results from the exercise of one’s analytical [powers].⁶⁵

It is therefore the judgment of all āryas that a “faith-based devotee” is someone who disregards the reasoned, logical approach in favor of one that involves simply accepting what the teachings say at face value; he is an individual of inferior intellectual powers. Conversely, someone who adopts a reasoned, logical approach to distinguish what should be adopted from what should be rejected is lauded by the wise as a “practitioner with devotion to the Dharma.” So if confronted by someone making the diabolical claim that to embrace reasoned analysis is to take the approach of logic and that this is something those engaged in the quest for liberation should avoid, sensible individuals would be well advised to simply block their ears!

COUNTERING THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THE PRAMĀṆA LITERATURE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE LOCATION IN QUESTION

Someone proposes that the sole use of the collection of [Dharmakīrti’s] Seven Treatises is for attacking the views of those who belong to [Indian philosophical] schools outside the Buddhist tradition and that consequently in locations where members of other schools do not exist, study or reflection on the treatises becomes a pointless exercise.

[Response:] This misconception is extremely grave, and it constitutes the spurning of Dharma. These treatises provide us with a broad range of means to counter extreme positions that involve exaggeration or denial [of what exists]. These positions include the beliefs that being concerned with virtue and vice is pointless because there are no past and future lives, and that straining in pursuit of paths that lead to liberation or enlightenment is pointless because liberation and enlightenment do not exist, and the impressions 82that one’s [physical and mental] aggregates are pure, of a pleasurable nature, a fixed character, and have a self. So does [the aforementioned individual] really think that in those locations where there are no non-Buddhist “outsiders,” we do not need to concern ourselves on a personal level with eliminating distorted notions, developing an understanding of the impermanent, suffering, empty, and selfless nature [of the aggregates], and determining with certainty whether there are past and future lives, what the relationship between actions and results is, and whether liberation and enlightenment actually exist?

Unless one can rid oneself of distorted notions of the “learned” variety, there is no way that the path of seeing can eliminate those elements it is supposed to counter. Misconceptions of this learned variety are promulgated by various philosophical schools. The Pramāṇa treatises refute the views held by non-Buddhist philosophers not with the narrow goal of engaging in disputation with these philosophical extremists but to attack the distortions themselves. [9]

COUNTERING THE VIEW OF THOSE WHO, WHILE CONCEDING THAT THE PRAMĀṆA TREATISES HAVE AN AIM, BELIEVE IT TO BE AN INFERIOR ONE

Some grant that studying the Seven Treatises helps one develop a keen critical eye for judging an argument and agree that this can be helpful when interpreting what is being taught in the writings of various other traditions. In this respect, they liken such study to the salt that is used for flavoring food; it does not in and of itself represent a goal of any particular worth or significance.

[Response:] This notion is also incorrect. All the issues vital to the three vehicles—namely, what things within the framework of the four truths are to be adopted or discarded, together with the method employed in pursuit of this exercise, in addition to the topics of the selflessness of phenomena and so forth—are comprehensively laid out in a systematic, logically argued fashion in these treatises. In that sense, no other works are capable of offering a more worthy focus for one’s learning, deliberation, and meditational practices.

THE ACTUAL AIM

Dharmakīrti’s Seven Treatises on Pramāṇa and their source text [the Compendium of Pramāṇa] set out to prove that Śākyamuni is the sole unerring 83authority in matters concerning the quest for liberation. They achieve this by demonstrating that both the teacher and his teachings are totally flawless. These teachings exist in two forms: the communicated word and that which has been internalized. Regarding the first of these, [the Commentary on Pramāṇa]⁶⁶ says:

A statement that is coherent, communicates the method corresponding [to the goal] and that [real] human goal

is one that is [worthy] of thorough analysis.

Others are not.⁶⁷

Hence the teaching in its communicated form is a type of utterance that is marked by three attributes: (1) it shows the goal for which the person in pursuit of liberation aims, (2) it shows that the sacred means that corresponds to that goal has the power to achieve it, and (3) it presents these in a coherent fashion. The way to establish that this communicated form of the teaching is flawless is by examining its contents—using valid cognition to authenticate the things it says about evident and hidden phenomena, and also verifying those sections that deal with profoundly hidden phenomena by subjecting them to the threefold investigation. As the Commentary on Pramāṇa says:

One should accept a treatise [whose respective statements] about the things that [we] see and those that [we] do not see are not discredited by proven reasoning or its own words. To [determine that those words do not contradict one another we] should analyze [the treatise’s statements].⁶⁸ [10]

Alternatively, one approaches the teaching by authenticating what the teachings have to say on matters of crucial importance. Once the teachings’ veracity on these matters has been confirmed by means of valid cognition, using the fact that the pronouncements on the issues of less importance emanate from the same teacher, one establishes that these pronouncements must also be free from error. That the Buddha is an unerring authority regarding the major issues but unreliable about minor ones is untenable.

What the communicated instruction discusses falls into two main areas: the elevated, comfortable states in cyclic existence and the truly worthy—the latter referring to the states of liberation and enlightenment—together with the means for their achievement. In terms of the sequence in which these 84goals are personally accomplished, one first gains an elevated state of existence, after which one can achieve the truly worthy. When viewed in terms of relative importance, the elevated states are subordinate to the truly worthy. With regard to the process of confirming their existence with valid cognition, it is the truly worthy and the means to achieve it that must come first, with the confirmation of the more elevated states following after. The process is described in the passage:

One properly ascertains how things are regarding what is to be adopted and what discarded, together with the means [to pursue these].

Thereby [one finds the Buddha to be] unerring with respect to the principal matter.

And thus [one can] infer [the same] with respect to the other [matters].⁶⁹

The teachings in their internalized form are the paths of the three vehicles and the results gained through them. These are none other than the states of the truly worthy and the means by which they are achieved. One verifies their existence with valid cognition and thereby establishes the veracity of the teaching in its communicated form, the medium expressing that content. Once one has verified that the communicated form of the instruction is flawless, one can employ this as a reason to establish that its teacher is a person of valid authority and also that the Sangha, those who actually put the teachings into practice in the prescribed manner, are totally trustworthy.

Once someone has established that the Buddha alone is a person of valid authority for those engaged in the quest for liberation, if he is of Mahayana persuasion—someone with the compassion and the exceptional resolve to ensure that the needs of every spiritual type are served—he will gain the ascertainment that no one except a buddha has the power to actually satisfy the needs of beings of all three [spiritual] types. This ascertainment will serve as the cause for him to develop bodhicitta, with its personal determination to gain enlightenment. [This ascertainment] can either [prompt] the initial generation [of bodhicitta] in those who have not previously experienced it or make it irreversibly steadfast in those who have. Even when the individuals involved aspire to nothing more than the achievement of personal liberation, it is this trust that the Buddha alone is the guide in the quest for it that leads to the informed conviction that (1) only the path taught by him 85can facilitate release from samsara [11] and (2) the instructions of figures like Kapila, who fall outside this tradition, do not offer a means to achieve such release. The faith that such an individual gains in this Dharma and its teacher will be one that is knowledge based.

Even for those whose interests and aspirations stretch no further than the achievement of happiness and comfort in future existences within samsara, confirmation that the Buddha is the sole person of valid authority will inspire them to adopt him alone as their refuge, the one able to help protect them from pain and sufferings in future existences. They will also develop the conviction that the likes of Śiva and Brahmā, constrained by their own shortcomings, are in no position to provide protection for others.

Once [the individual] has verified that the communicated and internalized forms of the teachings are without fault of any description, he can set about systematically resolving remaining questions about the identity, variety, sequence, and respective capacities of the paths included in the three vehicles. Through this process, the claims of others—such as that the sacrificial offering⁷⁰ of cattle can secure comfortable future states of existence, or that by taking Śaivite empowerments or practicing punishing physical austerities one can purify the negativity of one’s past deeds and gain liberation—are revealed to be immature nonsense. One will come to see the adoption of such practices as comparable to the action of someone who, in an attempt to escape the oppressive heat of the sun, leaps into a flaming pit. One will reach the conclusion that the communicated teachings of the Conqueror alone should act as the focus of one’s learning and deliberation, and that the internalized form of the teachings should serve as the exclusive foundation of one’s meditation. And it is by learning, deliberating, and meditating on these communicated and internalized forms of the teachings that those seeking liberation and enlightenment embark on their quest in earnest.

Some, due to the disinformation peddled by schools such as the Cārvāka have had their innate judgment blinded and have wantonly engaged in the taking of life for reasons of immediate gratification. Even they will turn away from such amoral practices when they generate valid ascertainment of the flawlessness of the teachings of the Conqueror. Those seeking favorable conditions in their future existences will be led by this ascertainment to eschew those practices that are incompatible with the achievement of such an aim, and they will instead adopt a wholesome code of conduct. The intelligent therefore recognize that bringing about [these results] is the true aim of the Seven Treatises and the Compendium of Pramāṇa. [12]

86

HOW THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THAT AIM DEPENDS ON THESE TREATISES

An ordinary, myopic individual⁷¹ cannot hope to gain valid knowledge that the Teacher and his teachings are flawless by direct observation, as if that flawlessness were an obvious visual object that could simply be gazed upon. Instead, certain knowledge of that flawlessness is something gained through a valid inference. The development of such a valid inferential cognition in turn necessarily relies on an incontrovertible logical reason proving that the Teacher together with his Dharma in both its communicated and internalized forms are faultless. Verification that such a logical reason is incontrovertible depends on one’s establishing by means of valid cognition that it fulfills the three criteria.⁷² In the final reckoning, each of the three criteria must be accessible to and resolved by the perceptual experience of a myopic person, since if they had to depend exclusively on further inferences to support them, it would result in an infinite regress.

To sum up, if an individual has developed a desire to achieve either the elevated states within cyclic existence or the truly worthy, this valid ascertainment of the flawlessness of both the Buddha and his teachings will guarantee that he forsakes paths contrary to the achievement of those goals and develops the resolve to train properly in the right paths with such dedication that he will not be distracted from his purpose. This ascertainment is gained by relying on logical reasons and the valid cognitions verifying that the reasons satisfy the three criteria. A comprehensive treatment of these matters—presented in the form of a systematic investigation involving the logical refutation of all positions to the contrary—is an approach that is found in few commentarial treatises attempting to elucidate the intent of the Buddha apart from those of the two lords of reasoning, Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. Therefore it is not difficult to establish that one should rely on them.

A CALL TO VALUE TREATISES THAT HAVE SUCH AN AIM

Any individual endeavoring to secure release from cyclical existence, either for himself or for others, should view the treatises that reveal the proper method for severing the very root of samsara as a valuable asset. We can see for ourselves that even someone who aspires to just keeping his own stomach full will maintain his preoccupation with food and drink to the exclusion of all else. [13] Here, we are concerned with someone who has undertaken to strive for the most supreme of states and, following the example set by those of sharper faculties, has committed himself to engage in careful assessment 87prior to acting. If such a person fails to appreciate these treatises as the very thing that can provide him with the means to gain valid knowledge of the supreme goal he aspires to attain and the method for achieving that goal, and instead regards them as superficial chaff belonging to a tradition that interests itself only with controversy and disputation, he must be totally unacquainted with the notion of distinguishing between right and wrong paths of action. It hardly seems necessary to comment on whether he is of wise judgment. Self-absorbed in the smugness he derives simply from having spent time in a cave, such a foolish person clings to the idea that a few garbled words he chooses to refer to as “personal instructions of a contemplative” contain vital significance within them. The notion that he is of sharper faculties can be entirely dismissed. Indeed, he is not even worthy of the label “faith-based practitioner,” since he places his faith in unworthy objects. Accordingly, his mental state lacks the stability required for sound judgment. We may liken him to someone trying to gain his footing on a bubble.

One who learns, deliberates, and meditates on the present corpus of works should direct his efforts toward the exercises of analytical study, reflection, and so forth with the intention of discovering the process by which both he and others are caught up in samsara and how they might find their way out of it. If instead, he performs these exercises solely for the purpose of engaging in verbal sparring with his companions, not only will doing so demean him personally, it will also cause others to disrespect the treatises. Intelligent individuals should never allow the taint of their own mind to sully the brilliant works of true masters!

THE CORE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRAMĀṆA TREATISES⁷³

1. Identifying the core subject matter of the treatises
2. Explaining that core subject matter at length

IDENTIFYING THE CORE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TREATISES

Entrance to Reasoning states:

Perception, inference, and pseudo [forms of them

are] for the sake of personal knowledge.

Proof [statements], discrediting [statements], and pseudo [forms of them

are] for the sake of knowledge in others.⁷⁴ [14]

88

That is to say, the subject matter is twofold: (1) those means by which one personally gains valid ascertainment of the fact that the Teacher and what he teaches are flawless and (2) those means one subsequently employs to offer guidance to others.

Perception and inferential cognition make up the first of these. Whether one’s description of things accurately reflects the way they really are will depend on whether the cognitions responsible for providing the information about them are accurate. Since the correct cognition that allows one to ascertain hidden phenomena is inferential and the correct cognition that allows one to ascertain evident phenomena is valid perception, these treatises teach the valid forms of these two. Other types of cognition tend to mislead one, and so pseudo forms of perception and inferential cognition are also discussed as a subsidiary, in order to rule out [inauthentic forms] of these two.

Having ascertained the facts for oneself, one induces realization in others. The essential elements required for this process are the correct and the pseudo forms that comprise the second set of four. Discrediting statements are taught so that they can neutralize the most strident of mistaken convictions, while proof statements are imparted to counter indecision that wavers between two views. The pseudo forms of those two are discussed to rule out [inauthentic forms] of them.

Therefore the core of the Pramāṇa treatises is covered in the three chapters on perception, personal inference, and inference for others. Why then does the Compendium of Pramāṇa explain these in six chapters?⁷⁵ The [subject matter of the] Compendium’s “Analysis of the Example” and “Analysis of Exclusion” are subsumed into the Commentary on Pramāṇa’s [first] chapter, “Personal Inference,” whereas [the Compendium’s] “Analysis of False [Self-Defeating] Rejoinders”⁷⁶ is subsumed within [the Commentary on Pramāṇa’s fourth chapter,] “Inference for Others.”

So among the Pramāṇa treatises, the Compendium of Pramāṇa, Commentary on Pramāṇa, Ascertainment of Pramāṇa, and Drop of Logic are expositions that deal with the entire core subject matter. The four remaining works among the Seven Treatises are offshoots of these and do not cover the whole range of subjects. More specifically, the Drop of Reasoning and Analysis of Relation are derived from the chapter “Personal Inference,” whereas the Verification of Other Minds and Science of Disputation are derived from the chapter “Inference for Others.” Why then does Dharmakīrti’s commentary to the Compendium have four chapters [rather than three]? The principal topic addressed by the treatise is how one goes about proving that the Teacher 89and what he taught are flawless, and it was to address this matter specifically that the [second] chapter “Establishing Validity” was taught. [15] The fact that the Teacher and his teachings are flawless must be confirmed by valid cognition. This is gained by relying on a correct logical reason. The chapter “Personal Inference” was set forth to describe such reasons. To serve as a flawless reason, something must fulfill the three criteria, which ultimately need to be substantiated by the direct experience of perception. Thus the [third] chapter, “Perception,” was set forth primarily to describe valid perception. The [fourth] chapter, “Inference for Others,” was then presented to discuss the means of conveying to others what one has ascertained for oneself. This delineates the core subject matter of the treatises.

The Seven Treatises are the source of the honey-like path to liberation.

The commentary [on Pramāṇa] is the lotus, with its pistil visible.

Other supposed scholars shed no more light on it than its nemesis, the moon.

Only the solar power of my intellect can truly illuminate it!