In the twenty-second chapter of the Prajñāpradīpa, which was translated into Chinese by Prabhākaramitra and into Tibetan by Klu’i rgyal mtshan, Bhāviveka, a Mādhyamika philosopher, criticizes the Mīmāṃsaka in a context where he makes a ‘‘digression’’ on the Tathāgata’s omniscience. In the beginning, Bhāviveka introduces a syllogism by which the Mīmāṃsaka tries to reject the Buddhist view of omniscience. Bhāviveka’s counter-argument differs in, respectively, the Chinese and the Tibetan translations. However, previous studies have studied only one of these translations.
The Chinese translation points out that the reason presented by the Mīmāṃsaka would be unestablished (asiddha), arguing that Buddhist scriptures are authorless. This argument is based on Bhāviveka’s own view of the Tathāgata’s teachings, which is found in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Prajñāpradīpa. Conversely, the Tibetan translation points out that the thesis presented by the Mīmāṃsaka would be fallacious (pakṣābhāsa) through an examination of the meaning of ‘‘one who is not omniscient’’ (asarvajña). Both translations can be considered to contain valid arguments, so they should be dealt with equally.
