It's utterly impossible to have awareness without mind because, as Dharmakirti defined, mind is that which is clarity and cognizing.
The pivotal word in your statement is have
, which indicates a possession
and that requires an intrinsically existing possessor.
yes, Dharmakirti is correct, mind is that which is clarity and cognizing
and since cognizing depends on objects of awareness (something to "cognize")
another way of saying this i:s awareness+ object of awareness = mind.
springs forth the appearance of a person.
What you are saying is that mind produces awareness,
and doing this is dependent on cognition of objects.
there cannot be a mind without a person. person
is an object of awareness.
awareness cannot exist on its own because of dependent relationship.
awareness of objects
of awareness cannot happen without objects of awareness.
But don't confuse ordinary 'sensory awareness', (e.g., being "aware" of a dog barking)
with the fundamental ground of awareness
This doesn't contradict Nagarjuna at all.
What you are saying, is that first there is a person, and then that person either attains nirvana or doesn't.
This is still maintaining the notion of an inherently existent self (atman)
Which mean that the object of awareness produces itself as well as the awareness of itself.
Its like saying the mirror creates the lamp that is reflected in it.
How does that make any sense?