他の排除(anyāpoha)〉の分類について : ŚākyabuddhiとŚāntarakşitaによる〈他の排除〉の3分類=The classification of anyāpoha : The three-type classification by Śākyabuddhi and Śāntarakşita
It is well known that Śākyabuddhi and Śāntarakşita adopted the three-type classification of anyāpoha (exclusion of others). However, the difference betweem them and the fact that this classification was refuted by later scholars has not been discussed in detail. Therefore, this article tries to clarify the difference between them. First, the classification by Śākyabuddhi is examined. In the process of this, the original sanskrit text of Pramāņavārttikaţīkā is partly reconstructed and we can have a more accurate understanding of his discussions. He proposes three anyāpohas: 1. excluded particulars (vyāvrttasvalakşaņa), 2. mere other-exclusion (anyanivŗttimātra), 3. the appearance in a conceptual cognition (vikalpabuddhipratibaāsa). According to his explanation, the first anyāpoha (excluded particulars) is what is established as the basis of practical actions through language and inferential marks, the second anyāpoha (mere other-exclusion) is what is explained by old teachers, and the third anyāpoha (the appearance in a conceptual cognition) is what the author (=Dharmakīrti) of the treatise (=Pramāņavārttika) accepts as the object expressed by words. Next, Śāntarakşita also adopts a three-type classification of anyāpoha: 1. the reflection of objects (arthapratibimbaka) in conceptual cognition, 2. particulars (svalakşaņa), 3 simple prohibition (prasajyapratişedha). However, it is characteristic of him that he accepts all three anyāpohas as the meaning of words. He insists that the first anyāpoha (the reflection of objects) is the principal meaning of words. Further, the second anyāpoha (particulars) can also become the subsidiary meaning of words, because it has an indirect relationship with the reflection of objects (=the first anyāpoha) and is realized when the reflection of objects is cognized. The third anyāpoha (simple prohibision) is also explained as being the subsidiary meaning of words, because it brings the realization of difference in the meaning of words and it is understood by implication (arthāt) after the reflection of objects is cognized. As a result of this study, it has become clear that Śākyabuddhi and Śāntarakşita adopt almost the same structure to classify the anyāpoha, but Śāntarakşita proposes a more developed understanding concerning the meaning of words. Śāntarakşita insists that all of the three anyāpohas become the meaning of words and are expressed in a chance of denotation. As a result of this understanding, his unique theory, that the negation is understood by implication, seems to have been adopted.
