LAMBERT SCHMITHAUSEN

A FURTHER NOTE ON HETUCAKRADAMARU 8-9 :

This short paper records an observation which happened to come to my mind in the process of comparing a German translation with the original a Tibetan text of Digngas Hetucakradamaru (HCD), a translation made, . . from English versions, by my respected colleague, Dr. Klaus GLASHOFF, a professor of mathematics who is deeply interested in Buddhist logic. I admit that my note is by no means an adequate homage to our distinguished colleague Kamaleswar BHATTACHARYA, but not being in a position, at present, to produce anything substantial I dare, after all, to present it to him for want of anything better. In a most stimulating article published on pp. 237239 of vol. 36 (1993) of the Indo-Iranian Journal, Eli FRANCO rightly declared himself puzzled by the fact that in spite of the popularity of the HCD and the . number of existing translations and interpretations no one seems to have been aware, or at least to have expressly stated an awareness, of the difculty offered by vv. 89, which seem to have been taken either as a mere repetition of v. 5 : : : , or rendered in an incomprehensible manner : : : , or simply ignored : : : . The text of the verses is as follows:
steng og mi mthun logs dang sbyar// yang dag gtan tshigs gnyis yin no// logs dang mi mthun steng og sbyar// gal bai gtan tshigs gnyis yin no// 8 zur bzhi thad dang snol mar sbyar// thun mong ma nges rnam pa bzhi// logs gnyis thad kar sbyar bas na// thun mong ma yin ma nges pao// 9

FRANCO tentatively proposes the following translation:

The reasons placed at the top and bottom, which are the two valid reasons, are to be connected to the opposite sides. (8ab) The reasons placed at the opposite sides, which are the two contradictory reasons, are to be connected to the top and the bottom. (8cd) The reasons placed at the four corners, which are the fourfold inconclusive reasons in as much as they are too broad, are to be connected to the facing corners straight across . (9ab) By connecting the two opposite sides crosswise one obtains the reason which is inconclusive in as much as it is too narrow. (9cd) Journal of Indian Philosophy 27: 7982, 1999. c 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Victory PIPS: 185423 HUMNKAP indis994.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.1

80

LAMBERT SCHMITHAUSEN

FRANCOs ingenious interpretation takes its clue in the title of the work, namely The drum of the wheel of reasons. And a wheel is something which turns. Further, since Dignga thought of his wheel a not so much as a circle but as a square (for strictly speaking a circle does not have corners), the only meaningful turns would be by 90, 180 or 270 degrees,1 but in view of the symmetrical arrangement of the reasons a rotation by 180 degrees would merely repeat the basic position. Since the basic position is, according to v. 5, [A] too broad (1) contradictory (4) too broad (7) valid (2) too narrow (5) valid (8) too broad (3) contradictory (6) too broad (9)

a rotation by 90 or 270 degrees (which in view of the symmetry of the gure amounts to the same) would yield the following position: [B] too broad (7/3) valid (8/2) too broad (9/1) contradictory (4/6) too narrow (5) contradictory (6/4) too broad (1/9) valid (2/8) too broad (3/7).

According to FRANCO, vv. 89 describe (or prescribe?) the movement from position (A) to position (B). However, the question suggesting itself is that of the purpose of this rotation. Apart from this, FRANCO himself admits (in n. 7) that his translation presupposes that in the Tibetan translation an attribute was mistaken for a predicate. I myself prefer to understand the syntactical construction of 8ab, 8cd and 9ab in accordance with 9cd, i.e. to take sbyar to stand for sbyar bas na, and to take mi mthun (in 8a and c) in the sense mi mthun phyogs = vipaksa. The translation I propose is as follows: .
What comes about by connecting the top and the bottom of the three alternatives presence, absence and both of the hetu in the sapaksa with the side (i.e. the . middle alternative) of the vipaksa (i.e. absence of the hetu in the vipaksa) are the . . two valid reasons. (8ab) What comes about by connecting the top and the bottom of the vipaksa with the . side of the sapaksa are the two contradictory reasons. (8cd) . What comes about by connecting the four corners sideways (i.e. horizontally) and crosswise is the fourfold reason that is inconclusive on account of being common   . (sadharana) to both sapaksa and vipaksa . (9ab) . . What comes about by connecting the two sides sideways is the reason that is   . inconclusive on account of being peculiar (asadharana) to the subject . (9cd)

indis994.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.2

A FURTHER NOTE ON HETUCAKRADAMARU 8-9 :

81

My interpretation does not refer the positions mentioned in vv. 89 to those of the hetus (as in v. 5) but refers them to the possibilities of presence, absence and both [presence and absence]2 of the hetu in the sapaksa as well as in the vipaksa pointed out in v. 4 of the HCD. The . . . vv. 89 make perfectly good sense as soon as we imagine these six possibilities to be arranged in a hexagonal (and, roughly, wheel-like) structure: (sapaksa:) . (top:) presence (= st) (side:) absence (= ss) (bottom:) both (= sb) (vipaksa:) . presence (= vt) absence (= vs) both ( = vb)

As for the purpose of vv. 89, I understand them as a kind of instruction for construing the nine hetus of the hetucakra proper (HCD v. 5) from . the basic data supplied by HCD v. 4. Verse 8ab instructs the reader to . combine st and sb with vs in order to obtain the two valid reasons, i.e., the hetus placed on top (no. 2) and in the bottom (no. 8) of the hetucakra proper (see g. A): presence (= st) absence (= ss) both (= sb)

8ab:

aa presence (= vt) a absence (= vs) ! !!

both ( = vb)

Analogously, according to 8cd the two contradictory reasons (in g. A: 4 and 6) result from connecting ss with vt and vb, and according to   . 9ab the four sadharana reasons (in g. A: 1, 9, 3 and 7) come about by connecting st with vt and sb with vb (horizontally) as well as st with vb and sb with vt (crosswise). Finally, connecting ss with vs yields   . the asadharana reason (in g. A: 5): 8cd: presence (= st) ! presence (= vt) !! absence (= ss) absence (= vs) aa a both (= sb) both ( = vb)

indis994.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.3

82

LAMBERT SCHMITHAUSEN

9ab:

presence (= st) presence (= vt) J absence (= ss) absence (= vs) J both (= sb) J both ( = vb) presence (= st) absence (= ss) both (= sb) presence (= vt) absence (= vs) both ( = vb)

9cd:

NOTES Perhaps what Dignga had in mind was rather an octogon, which would at any a rate better t with his calling it a wheel: top (2) corner (1) corner (3) side (4) center (5) side (6) corner (7) corner (9) bottom (8) 2 I.e., presence in some of the probandum-possessors (or non-possessors) and absence in others.
1

Jesteburg Germany

indis994.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.4