phyogs chos
property of the subject, subject's characteristic-reason (1 of 3 roles of a valid reason), reason's relevance to the subject [JV]
property of the position [RY]
qualification of [the subject of] the thesis [of a syllogism] by reason, "presence of the reason in the subject"; accessories [of enlightenment] / qualification of [the subject of] the thesis [of a syllogism] by the reason, presence of the reason in the subject, rtags kyi tshul gsum / property of the subject [RY]
property of the position [ggd] [RY]
premise/ proposition (in logic) [RB]
accessories (of enlightenment(/ qualification of (the subject of the thesis (of a syllogism by reason, presence of the reason in the subject [IW]
accessories (of enlightenment)/ qualification of (the subject of) the thesis (of a syllogism) by the reason, presence of the reason in the subject; rtags kyi tshul gsum/ property of the subject rtags gsal gyi sbyor ba 'god pa'i tsul dang po, de sgrub kyi shes 'dod chos can skyon med pa'i steng du 'god tsul dang mthun par yod pa nyid du tsad mas nges pa ste, dper na me dang chu mi snang yang du ba dang chu skyar snang ba la brten nas yul de na me dang chu yod par rtogs pa lta bu rjes su dpag pa la yod pa'am rtsod gzhi chos can gyi steng du rtags grub pa'o [IW]
Discussion[edit]
Although the most common translation of this term that I have seen is "property of the subject," this translation is problematic if one uses "subject" as a translation of chos can. The reason is explained in the topic called in Tibetan phyogs sgra, where Dharmakirti refutes the arguments of non-Buddhists who suggest that instead of saying phyogs chos one should say chos can gyi chos. The reason that does not work is because chos can gyi chos could refer equally well to the mthun dpe as well as the chos can: in the syllogism sgra chos can/ mi rtag ste/ byas pa'i phyir/ dper na bum pa bzhin/ if you say chos can gyi chos it could refer to the bum pa as easily as to the sound. Saying phyogs removes this ambiguity.
In English, if we say "property of the subject," we fall into the same trap. (The mere addition of the definite article in English does not seem to adequately address this issue since its usage in English is rather slippery.) Hence we need to use a different term. Thus the suggestion of "property of the position" seems the better translation. DKC