The Sa skya pa and Dge lugs pa’s Views of the Definition of a Proper Sign

This paper examines the Sa skya pa and Dge lugs pa’s views of the definition (mtshan nyid) of a proper sign (rtags yang dag) and clarifies the difference of opinion. On the basis of the statements of Indian Buddhist logicians, Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, both the Sa skya pa and Dge lugs pa schools agree that a proper sign must satisfy the three conditions or modes (tshul gsum) but they present different definitions of a proper sign. The Dge lugs pa defines a proper sign as “that which is each of the three modes” (tshul gsum yin pa), while the Sa skya pa defines it as “that which is endowed with the three conditions” (tshul gsum tshang ba). According to the Sa skya pa, a proper sign can never be identical to each of the three modes since it is separable from its three modes. Moreover, it is argued by the Sa skya scholar, Shākya mchog ldan, that if the Dge lugs pa’s assertion were true, there would be only one mode instead of three modes. The Dge lugs pa scholar, Kun mkhyen ’jams dbyangs bzhad pa, asserts that, although a proper sign and its three modes are inseparable at the ontological level, they are distinguished from one another in the epistemic context, and hence Shākya mchog ldan’s criticism that there would be only one mode does not apply to the Dge lugs pa’s tenets.