Chapter V: Buddhist Philosophy (4)

When the doctrine of pratîtyasamutpâda is described as "this being that is," what is really meant is that things can only be indicated as mere appearances one after another, for they have no essence or true nature. Nihilism (_s'ûnyavâda_) also means just this. The true meaning of pratîtyasamutpâda or s'ûnyavâda is this, that there is no truth, no essence in all phenomena that

141

appear [Footnote ref 1]. As the phenomena have no essence they are neither produced nor destroyed; they really neither come nor go. They are merely the appearance of maya or illusion. The void (_s'ûnya_) does not mean pure negation, for that is relative to some kind of position. It simply means that none of the appearances have any intrinsic nature of their own (_ni@hsvabhâvatvam_).

The Madhyamaka or S'ûnya system does not hold that anything has any essence or nature (svabhâva) of its own; even heat cannot be said to be the essence of fire; for both the heat and the fire are the result of the combination of many conditions, and what depends on many conditions cannot be said to be the nature or essence of the thing. That alone may be said to be the true essence or nature of anything which does not depend on anything else, and since no such essence or nature can be pointed out which stands independently by itself we cannot say that it exists. If a thing has no essence or existence of its own, we cannot affirm the essence of other things to it (_parabhâva_). If we cannot affirm anything of anything as positive, we cannot consequently assert anything of anything as negative. If anyone first believes in things positive and afterwards discovers that they are not so, he no doubt thus takes his stand on a negation (_abhâva_), but in reality since we cannot speak of anything positive, we cannot speak of anything negative either [Footnote ref 2].

It is again objected that we nevertheless perceive a process going on. To this the Madhyamaka reply is that a process of change could not be affirmed of things that are permanent. But we can hardly speak of a process with reference to momentary things; for those which are momentary are destroyed the next moment after they appear, and so there is nothing which can continue to justify a process. That which appears as being neither comes from anywhere nor goes anywhere, and that which appears as destroyed also does not come from anywhere nor go anywhere, and so a process (_sa@msâra_) cannot be affirmed of them. It cannot be that when the second moment arose, the first moment had suffered a change in the process, for it was not the same as the second, as there is no so-called cause-effect connection. In fact there being no relation between the two, the temporal determination as prior and later is wrong. The supposition that there is a self which suffers changes is also not valid, for howsoever we

________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Mâdhyamikav@rtti_ (B.T.S.), p. 50.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid_. pp. 93-100.]

142

may search we find the five skandhas but no self. Moreover if the soul is a unity it cannot undergo any process or progression, for that would presuppose that the soul abandons one character and takes up another at the same identical moment which is inconceivable [Footnote ref 1].

But then again the question arises that if there is no process, and no cycle of worldly existence of thousands of afflictions, what is then the nirvâ@na which is described as the final extinction of all afflictions (_kles'a_)? To this the Madhyamaka reply is that it does not agree to such a definition of nirvâ@na. Nirvâ@na on the Madhyamaka theory is the absence of the essence of all phenomena, that which cannot be conceived either as anything which has ceased or as anything which is produced (_aniruddham anntpannam_}. In nirvâ@na all phenomena are lost; we say that the phenomena cease to exist in nirvâ@na, but like the illusory snake in the rope they never existed [Footnote ref 2]. Nirvâ@na cannot be any positive thing or any sort of state of being (_bhâva_), for all positive states or things are joint products of combined causes (_sa@msk@rta_) and are liable to decay and destruction. Neither can it be a negative existence, for since we cannot speak of any positive existence, we cannot speak of a negative existence either. The appearances or the phenomena are communicated as being in a state of change and process coming one after another, but beyond that no essence, existence, or truth can be affirmed of them. Phenomena sometimes appear to be produced and sometimes to be destroyed, but they cannot be determined as existent or non-existent. Nirvâ@na is merely the cessation of the seeming phenomenal flow (_prapañcaprav@rtti_). It cannot therefore be designated either as positive or as negative for these conceptions belong to phenomena (_na câprav@rttimatram bhâvâbhâveti parikalpitum pâryyate evam na bhâvâbhâvanirvâ@nam_, M.V. 197). In this state there is nothing which is known, and even the knowledge that the phenomena have ceased to appear is not found. Even the Buddha himself is a phenomenon, a mirage or a dream, and so are all his teachings [Footnote ref 3].

It is easy to see that in this system there cannot exist any bondage or emancipation; all phenomena are like shadows, like the mirage, the dream, the mâyâ, and the magic without any real nature (_ni@hsvabhâva_). It is mere false knowledge to suppose that

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Madhyamikav@rtti_ (B.T.S.), pp. 101-102.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid_. p. 194.]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid_. pp.162 and 201.]

143

one is trying to win a real nirvâ@na [Footnote ref 1]. It is this false egoism that is to be considered as avidyâ. When considered deeply it is found that there is not even the slightest trace of any positive existence. Thus it is seen that if there were no ignorance (_avidyâ_), there would have been no conformations (_sa@mskâras_), and if there were no conformations there would have been no consciousness, and so on; but it cannot be said of the ignorance "I am generating the sa@mskâras," and it can be said of the sa@mskâras "we are being produced by the avidyâ." But there being avidyâ, there come the sa@mskarâs and so on with other categories too. This character of the pratîtyasamutpâda is known as the coming of the consequent depending on an antecedent reason (_hetûpanibandha_).

It can be viewed from another aspect, namely that of dependence on conglomeration or combination (_pratyayopanibandh_). It is by the combination (_samavâya_) of the four elements, space (_âkâs'a_) and consciousness (_vijñâna_) that a man is made. It is due to earth (_p@rthivî_) that the body becomes solid, it is due to water that there is fat in the body, it is due to fire that there is digestion, it is due to wind that there is respiration; it is due to âkâs'a that there is porosity, and it is due to vijñâna that there is mind-consciousness. It is by their mutual combination that we find a man as he is. But none of these elements think that they have done any of the functions that are considered to be allotted to them. None of these are real substances or beings or souls. It is by ignorance that these are thought of as existents and attachment is generated for them. Through ignorance thus come the sa@mskâras, consisting of attachment, antipathy and thoughtlessness (_râga, dve@sa, moha_); from these proceed the vijñâna and the four skandhas. These with the four elements bring about name and form (_nâmarûpa_), from these proceed the senses (_@sa@dayatana_), from the coming together of those three comes contact (_spars'a_); from that feelings, from that comes desire (_tr@s@nâ_) and so on. These flow on like the stream of a river, but there is no essence or truth behind them all or as the ground of them all [Footnote ref 2]. The phenomena therefore cannot be said to be either existent or non-existent, and no truth can be affirmed of either eternalism (_s'âs'vatavâda_) or nihilism (_ucchedavâda_), and it is for this reason

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Mâdhyamikav@rtti_ (B.T.S.), pp. 101-108.]

[Footnote: _Ibid._ pp. 209-211, quoted from _Sâlistambhasûtra_. Vâcaspatimis'ra also quotes this passage in his _Bhâmatî_ on S'a@nkara's _Brahma-sûtra_.]

144

that this doctrine is called the middle doctrine (_madhyamaka_) [Footnote ref 1]. Existence and non-existence have only a relative truth (_samv@rtisatya_) in them, as in all phenomena, but there is no true reality (_paramârthasatya_) in them or anything else. Morality plays as high a part in this nihilistic system as it does in any other Indian system. I quote below some stanzas from Nâgârjuna's _Suk@rllekha_ as translated by Wenzel (P.T.S. 1886) from the Tibetan translation.

6. Knowing that riches are unstable and void (_asâra_) give according to the moral precepts, to Bhikshus, Brahmins, the poor and friends for there is no better friend than giving.

7. Exhibit morality (_s'îla_) faultless and sublime, unmixed and spotless, for morality is the supporting ground of all eminence, as the earth is of the moving and immovable.

8. Exercise the imponderable, transcendental virtues of charity, morality, patience, energy, meditation, and likewise wisdom, in order that, having reached the farther shore of the sea of existence, you may become a Jina prince.

9. View as enemies, avarice (_mâtsaryya_), deceit (_s'â@thya_), duplicity (_mâyâ_), lust, indolence (_kausîdya_), pride (_mâna_), greed (_râga_), hatred (_dve@sa_) and pride (_mada_) concerning family, figure, glory, youth, or power.

15. Since nothing is so difficult of attainment as patience, open no door for anger; the Buddha has pronounced that he who renounces anger shall attain the degree of an anâgâmin (a saint who never suffers rebirth).

21. Do not look after another's wife; but if you see her, regard her, according to age, like your mother, daughter or sister.

24. Of him who has conquered the unstable, ever moving objects of the six senses and him who has overcome the mass of his enemies in battle, the wise praise the first as the greater hero.

29. Thou who knowest the world, be equanimous against the eight worldly conditions, gain and loss, happiness and suffering, fame and dishonour, blame and praise, for they are not objects for your thoughts.

37. But one (a woman) that is gentle as a sister, winning as a friend, careful of your well being as a mother, obedient as a servant her (you must) honour as the guardian god(dess) of the family.

40. Always perfectly meditate on (turn your thoughts to) kindness, pity, joy and indifference; then if you do not obtain a higher degree you (certainly) will obtain the happiness of Brahman's world (_brahmavihâra_).

41. By the four dhyânas completely abandoning desire (_kâma_), reflection (_vicâra_), joy (_prîti_), and happiness and pain (_sukha, du@hkha_) you will obtain as fruit the lot of a Brahman.

49. If you say "I am not the form, you thereby will understand I am not endowed with form, I do not dwell in form, the form does not dwell in me; and in like manner you will understand the voidness of the other four aggregates."

50. The aggregates do not arise from desire, nor from time, nor from

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Mâdhyamikav@rtti_ (B.T.S.), p. 160.]

145

nature (_prak@rti_), not from themselves (_svabhâvât_), nor from the Lord (_îs'vara_), nor yet are they without cause; know that they arise from ignorance (_avidyâ_) and desire (_t@r@s@nâ_).

51. Know that attachment to religious ceremonies (_s'îlabrataparâmars'a_), wrong views (_mithyâd@r@s@ti_) and doubt (_vicikitsâ_) are the three fetters.

53. Steadily instruct yourself (more and more) in the highest morality, the highest wisdom and the highest thought, for the hundred and fifty one rules (of the _prâtimok@sa_) are combined perfectly in these three.

58. Because thus (as demonstrated) all this is unstable (_anitya_) without substance (_anâtma_) without help (_as'ara@na_) without protector (_anâtha_) and without abode (_asthâna_) thou O Lord of men must become discontented with this worthless (_asâra_) kadali-tree of the orb.

104. If a fire were to seize your head or your dress you would extinguish and subdue it, even then endeavour to annihilate desire, for there is no other higher necessity than this.

105. By morality, knowledge and contemplation, attain the spotless dignity of the quieting and the subduing nirvâ@na not subject to age, death or decay, devoid of earth, water, fire, wind, sun and moon.

107. Where there is no wisdom (_prajñâ_) there is also no contemplation (_dhyana_), where there is no contemplation there is also no wisdom; but know that for him who possesses these two the sea of existence is like a grove.

Uncompromising Idealism or the School of Vijñânavâda Buddhism.

The school of Buddhist philosophy known as the Vijñânavâda or Yogâcâra has often been referred to by such prominent teachers of Hindu thought as Kumârila and S'a@nkara. It agrees to a great extent with the S'ûnyavâdins whom we have already described. All the dharmas (qualities and substances) are but imaginary constructions of ignorant minds. There is no movement in the so-called external world as we suppose, for it does not exist. We construct it ourselves and then are ourselves deluded that it exists by itself (_nirmmitapratimohi_) [Footnote ref 1]. There are two functions involved in our consciousness, viz. that which holds the perceptions (_khyâti vijñâna_), and that which orders them by imaginary constructions (_vastuprativikalpavijñâna_). The two functions however mutually determine each other and cannot be separately distinguished (_abhinnalak@sa@ne anyonyahetuke_). These functions are set to work on account of the beginningless instinctive tendencies inherent in them in relation to the world of appearance (_anâdikâla-prapañca-vâsanahetukañca_) [Footnote ref 2].

All sense knowledge can be stopped only when the diverse

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Lankâvatârasûtra_, pp. 21-22.]

[Footnote 2 _Ibid._ p. 44.]

146

unmanifested instincts of imagination are stopped (_abhûta-parikalpa-vâsanâ-vaicitra-nirodha_) [Footnote ref 1]. All our phenomenal knowledge is without any essence or truth (_nihsvabhâva_) and is but a creation of mâyâ, a mirage or a dream. There is nothing which may be called external, but all is the imaginary creation of the mind (_svacitta_), which has been accustomed to create imaginary appearances from beginningless time. This mind by whose movement these creations take place as subject and object has no appearance in itself and is thus without any origination, existence and extinction (_utpâdasthitibha@ngavarjjam_) and is called the âlayavijñâna. The reason why this âlayavijñâna itself is said to be without origination, existence, and extinction is probably this, that it is always a hypothetical state which merely explains all the phenomenal states that appear, and therefore it has no existence in the sense in which the term is used and we could not affirm any special essence of it.

We do not realize that all visible phenomena are of nothing external but of our own mind (_svacitta_), and there is also the beginningless tendency for believing and creating a phenomenal world of appearance. There is also the nature of knowledge (which takes things as the perceiver and the perceived) and there is also the instinct in the mind to experience diverse forms. On account of these four reasons there are produced in the âlayavijñâna (mind) the ripples of our sense experiences (_prav@rttivijñana_) as in a lake, and these are manifested as sense experiences. All the five skandhas called _pañchavijñânakâya_ thus appear in a proper synthetic form. None of the phenomenal knowledge that appears is either identical or different from the âlayavijñâna just as the waves cannot be said to be either identical or different from the ocean. As the ocean dances on in waves so the citta or the âlayavijñâna is also dancing as it were in its diverse operations (_v@rtti_). As citta it collects all movements (_karma_) within it, as manas it synthesizes (_vidhîyate_) and as vijñâna it constructs the fivefold perceptions (_vijñânân vijânâti d@rs'yam kalpate pañcabhi@h_) [Footnote ref 2].

It is only due to mâyâ (illusion) that the phenomena appear in their twofold aspect as subject and object. This must always be regarded as an appearance (_samv@rtisatyatâ_) whereas in the real aspect we could never say whether they existed (_bhâva_) or did not exist [Footnote ref 3].

________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Pañcâvatârasûtra_, p. 44.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid_., pp. 50-55.]

[Footnote 3: Asa@nga's _Mahâyânasûtrâla@mkâra_, pp. 58-59.]

147

All phenomena both being and non-being are illusory (_sadasanta@h mâyopamâ@h_). When we look deeply into them we find that there is an absolute negation of all appearances, including even all negations, for they are also appearances. This would make the ultimate truth positive. But this is not so, for it is that in which the positive and negative are one and the same (_bhâvâbhâvasamânatâ_) [Footnote ref 1]. Such a state which is complete in itself and has no name and no substance had been described in the La@nkâvatârasûtra as thatness (_tathatâ_) [Footnote ref 2]. This state is also described in another place in the _La@nkâvatâra_ as voidness (_s'ûnyatâ_) which is one and has no origination and no essence [Footnote ref 3]. In another place it is also designated as tathâgatagarbha [Footnote ref 4].

It may be supposed that this doctrine of an unqualified ultimate truth comes near to the Vedantic âtman or Brahman like the tathatâ doctrine of As'vagho@sa; and we find in La@nkavatâra that Râva@na asks the Buddha "How can you say that your doctrine of tathâgatagarbha was not the same as the âtman doctrine of the other schools of philosophers, for those heretics also consider the âtman as eternal, agent, unqualified, all pervading and unchanged?" To this the Buddha is found to reply thus--"Our doctrine is not the same as the doctrine of those heretics; it is in consideration of the fact that the instruction of a philosophy which considered that there was no soul or substance in anything (nairatmya) would frighten the disciples, that I say that all things are in reality the tathâgatagarbha. This should not be regarded as âtman. Just as a lump of clay is made into various shapes, so it is the non-essential nature of all phenomena and their freedom from all characteristics (_sarvavikalpalak@sa@navinivrttam_) that is variously described as the garbha or the nairâtmya (essencelessness). This explanation of tathâgatagarbha as the ultimate truth and reality is given in order to attract to our creed those heretics who are superstitiously inclined to believe in the âtman doctrine [Footnote ref 5]."

So far as the appearance of the phenomena was concerned, the idealistic Buddhists (_vijñânavâdins_) agreed to the doctrine of pratîtyasamutpâda with certain modifications. There was with them an external pratîtyasamutpâda just as it appeared in the

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Asa@nga's _Mahâyânasûtrâla@mkâra_, p. 65.]

[Footnote 2: _Lankâvatârasûtra_, p. 70.]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid._ p. 78.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._ p. 80.]

[Footnote 5: _Ibid._ pp. 80-81.]

148

objective aspect and an internal pratîtyasamutpâda. The external pratîtyasamutpâda (dependent origination) is represented in the way in which material things (e.g. a jug) came into being by the co-operation of diverse elements--the lump of clay, the potter, the wheel, etc. The internal (_âdhyâtmika_) pratîtyasamutpâda was represented by avidyâ, t@r@s@nâ, karma, the skandhas, and the âyatanas produced out of them [Footnote ref 1].

Our understanding is composed of two categories called the _pravichayabuddhi_ and the _vikalpalak@sa@nagrahâbhinives'aprati@s@thapikâbuddhi_. The pravicayabuddhi is that which always seeks to take things in either of the following four ways, that they are either this or the other (_ekatvânyaiva_); either both or not both (_ubhayânubhaya_), either are or are not (_astinâsti_), either eternal or non-eternal (_nityânitya_). But in reality none of these can be affirmed of the phenomena. The second category consists of that habit of the mind by virtue of which it constructs diversities and arranges them (created in their turn by its own constructive activity--_parikalpa_) in a logical order of diverse relations of subject and predicate, causal and other relations. He who knows the nature of these two categories of the mind knows that there is no external world of matter and that they are all experienced only in the mind. There is no water, but it is the sense construction of smoothness (_sneha_) that constructs the water as an external substance; it is the sense construction of activity or energy that constructs the external substance of fire; it is the sense construction of movement that constructs the external substance of air. In this way through the false habit of taking the unreal as the real (_mithyâsatyâbhinives'a_) five skandhas appear. If these were to appear all together, we could not speak of any kind of causal relations, and if they appeared in succession there could be no connection between them, as there is nothing to bind them together. In reality there is nothing which is produced or destroyed, it is only our constructive imagination that builds up things as perceived with all their relations, and ourselves as perceivers. It is simply a convention (_vyavahâra_) to speak of things as known [Footnote ref 2]. Whatever we designate by speech is mere speech-construction (_vâgvikalpa_) and unreal. In speech one could not speak of anything without relating things in some kind of causal

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _La@nkâvatârasûtra_, p. 85.]

[Footnote 2: _Lankâvatârasûtra_, p. 87, compare the term "vyavahârika" as used of the phenomenal and the conventional world in almost the same sense by S'a@nkara.]

149

relation, but none of these characters may be said to be true; the real truth (_paramartha_) can never be referred to by such speech-construction.

The nothingness (_s'ûnyata_) of things may be viewed from seven aspects--(1) that they are always interdependent, and hence have no special characteristics by themselves, and as they cannot be determined in themselves they cannot be determined in terms of others, for, their own nature being undetermined, a reference to an "other" is also undetermined, and hence they are all indefinable (_laksanas'ûnyata_); (2) that they have no positive essence (_bhâvasvabhâvas'ûnyatâ_), since they spring up from a natural non-existence (_svabhâvâbhâvotpatti_); (3) that they are of an unknown type of non-existence (_apracaritas'ûnyatâ_), since all the skandhas vanish in the nirvana; (4) that they appear phenomenally as connected though non-existent (_pracaritas'ûnyatâ_), for their skandhas have no reality in themselves nor are they related to others, but yet they appear to be somehow causally connected; (5) that none of the things can be described as having any definite nature, they are all undemonstrable by language (_nirabhilapyas'ûnyatâ_); (6) that there cannot be any knowledge about them except that which is brought about by the long-standing defects of desires which pollute all our vision; (7) that things are also non-existent in the sense that we affirm them to be in a particular place and time in which they are not (_itaretaras'ûnyatâ_).

There is thus only non-existence, which again is neither eternal nor destructible, and the world is but a dream and a mâyâ; the two kinds of negation (_nirodha_) are âkâs'a (space) and nirvana; things which are neither existent nor non-existent are only imagined to be existent by fools.

This view apparently comes into conflict with the doctrine of this school, that the reality is called the tathâgatagarbha (the womb of all that is merged in thatness) and all the phenomenal appearances of the clusters (_skandhas_), elements (_dhâtus_), and fields of sense operation (_âyatanas_) only serve to veil it with impurities, and this would bring it nearer to the assumption of a universal soul as the reality. But the _La@nkâvatâra_ attempts to explain away this conflict by suggesting that the reference to the tathâgatagarbha as the reality is only a sort of false bait to attract those who are afraid of listening to the nairâtmya (non-soul doctrine) [Footnote ref 1].

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _La@nkâvatârasûtra_, p. 80.

150

The Bodhisattvas may attain their highest by the fourfold knowledge of (1) _svacittad@rs'hyabhâvanâ_, (2) _utpâdasthitibha@ngavivarjjanatâ_, (3) _bâhyabhâvâbhâvopalak@sa@natâ_ and (4) _svapratyâryyajñânâdhigamâbhinnalak@sa@natâ_. The first means that all things are but creations of the imagination of one's mind. The second means that as things have no essence there is no origination, existence or destruction. The third means that one should know the distinctive sense in which all external things are said either to be existent or non-existent, for their existence is merely like the mirage which is produced by the beginningless desire (_vâsanâ_) of creating and perceiving the manifold. This brings us to the fourth one, which means the right comprehension of the nature of all things.

The four dhyânas spoken of in the _Lankâvatâra_ seem to be different from those which have been described in connection with the Theravâda Buddhism. These dhyânas are called (1) _bâlopacârika_, (2) _arthapravichaya_, (3) _tathatâlambana_ and (4) _tathâgata_. The first one is said to be that practised by the s'râvakas and the pratyekabuddhas. It consists in concentrating upon the doctrine that there is no soul (_pudgalanairâtmya_), and that everything is transitory, miserable and impure. When considering all things in this way from beginning to end the sage advances on till all conceptual knowing ceases (_âsa@mjñânirodhât_); we have what is called the vâlopacârika dhyâna (the meditation for beginners).

The second is the advanced state where not only there is full consciousness that there is no self, but there is also the comprehension that neither these nor the doctrines of other heretics may be said to exist, and that there is none of the dharmas that appears. This is called the _arthapravicayadhyâna_, for the sage concentrates here on the subject of thoroughly seeking out (_pravichaya_) the nature of all things (_artha_).

The third dhyâna, that in which the mind realizes that the thought that there is no self nor that there are the appearances, is itself the result of imagination and thus lapses into the thatness (_tathatâ_). This dhyâna is called _tathatâlambana_, because it has for its object tathatâ or thatness.

The last or the fourth dhyâna is that in which the lapse of the mind into the state of thatness is such that the nothingness and incomprehensibility of all phenomena is perfectly realized;

151

and nirvâna is that in which all root desires (_vâsanâ_) manifesting themselves in knowledge are destroyed and the mind with knowledge and perceptions, making false creations, ceases to work. This cannot be called death, for it will not have any rebirth and it cannot be called destruction, for only compounded things (_sa@msk@rta_) suffer destruction, so that it is different from either death or destruction. This nirvâna is different from that of the s'râvakas and the pratyekabuddhas for they are satisfied to call that state nirvâ@na, in which by the knowledge of the general characteristics of all things (transitoriness and misery) they are not attached to things and cease to make erroneous judgments [Footnote ref 1].

Thus we see that there is no cause (in the sense of ground) of all these phenomena as other heretics maintain. When it is said that the world is mâyâ or illusion, what is meant to be emphasized is this, that there is no cause, no ground. The phenomena that seem to originate, stay, and be destroyed are mere constructions of tainted imagination, and the tathatâ or thatness is nothing but the turning away of this constructive activity or nature of the imagination (_vikalpa_) tainted with the associations of beginningless root desires (_vâsanâ_) [Footnote ref 2]. The tathatâ has no separate reality from illusion, but it is illusion itself when the course of the construction of illusion has ceased. It is therefore also spoken of as that which is cut off or detached from the mind (_cittavimukta_), for here there is no construction of imagination (_sarvakalpanavirahitam_) [Footnote ref 3].

Sautrântika Theory of Perception.

Dharmottara (847 A.D.), a commentator of Dharmakîrtti's [Footnote ref 4] (about 635 A.D.) _Nyâyabindu_, a Sautrantika logical and epistemological work, describes right knowledge (_samyagjñâna_) as an invariable antecedent to the accomplishment of all that a man

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Lankâvatarasûtra_, p. 100.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ p. 109.]

[Footnote 3: This account of the Vijñanavada school is collected mainly from _Lankâvatârasûtra_, as no other authentic work of the Vijñânavâda school is available. Hindu accounts and criticisms of this school may be had in such books as Kumarila's _S'loka vârttika_ or S'a@nkara's bhasya, II. ii, etc. Asak@nga's _Mahâyânasûtralamkâra_ deals more with the duties concerning the career of a saint (_Bodhisattva_) than with the metaphysics of the system.]

[Footnote 4: Dharmakîrtti calls himself an adherent of Vijñanavâda in his _Santânântarasiddhi_, a treatise on solipsism, but his _Nyâyabindu_ seems rightly to have been considered by the author of _Nyâyabindu@tîkâ@tippani_ (p. 19) as being written from the Sautrântika point of view.]

152

desires to have (_samyagjñânapûrvikâ sarvapuru@sârthasiddhi_) [Footnote ref 1]. When on proceeding, in accordance with the presentation of any knowledge, we get a thing as presented by it we call it right knowledge. Right knowledge is thus the knowledge by which one can practically acquire the thing he wants to acquire (_arthâdhigati_). The process of knowledge, therefore, starts with the perceptual presentation and ends with the attainment of the thing represented by it and the fulfilment of the practical need by it (_arthâdhigamât samâpta@h pramâ@navyâpârah_). Thus there are three moments in the perceptual acquirement of knowledge: (1) the presentation, (2) our prompting in accordance with it, and (3) the final realization of the object in accordance with our endeavour following the direction of knowledge. Inference is also to be called right knowledge, as it also serves our practical need by representing the presence of objects in certain connections and helping us to realize them. In perception this presentation is direct, while in inference this is brought about indirectly through the li@nga (reason). Knowledge is sought by men for the realization of their ends, and the subject of knowledge is discussed in philosophical works only because knowledge is sought by men. Any knowledge, therefore, which will not lead us to the realization of the object represented by it could not be called right knowledge. All illusory perceptions, therefore, such as the perception of a white conch-shell as yellow or dream perceptions, are not right knowledge, since they do not lead to the realization of such objects as are presented by them. It is true no doubt that since all objects are momentary, the object which was perceived at the moment of perception was not the same as that which was realized at a later moment. But the series of existents which started with the first perception of a blue object finds itself realized by the realization of other existents of the same series (_nîlâdau ya eva santâna@h paricchinno nilajñânena sa eva tena prâpita@h tena nilajñânam pramâ@nam_) [Footnote ref 2].

When it is said that right knowledge is an invariable antecedent of the realization of any desirable thing or the retarding of any undesirable thing, it must be noted that it is not meant

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Brief extracts from the opinions of two other commentators of _Nyâyaybindu_, Vinîtadeva and S'antabhadra (seventh century), are found in _Nyâyabindu@tîkâtippanî_, a commentary of _Nyayabindutikâ_ of Dharmmottara, but their texts are not available to us.]

[Footnote 2: _Nyâyabindu@tîkâ@tippanî_, p. 11.]

153

that right knowledge is directly the cause of it; for, with the rise of any right perception, there is a memory of past experiences, desire is aroused, through desire an endeavour in accordance with it is launched, and as a result of that there is realization of the object of desire. Thus, looked at from this point of view, right knowledge is not directly the cause of the realization of the object. Right knowledge of course directly indicates the presentation, the object of desire, but so far as the object is a mere presentation it is not a subject of enquiry. It becomes a subject of enquiry only in connection with our achieving the object presented by perception.

Perception (_pratyaks'a_) has been defined by Dharmakîrtti as a presentation, which is generated by the objects alone, unassociated by any names or relations (_kalpanâ_) and which is not erroneous (_kalpanâpo@dhamabhrântam_) [Footnote ref 1]. This definition does not indeed represent the actual nature (_svarûpa_) of perception, but only shows the condition which must be fulfilled in order that anything may be valid perception. What is meant by saying that a perception is not erroneous is simply this, that it will be such that if one engages himself in an endeavour in accordance with it, he will not be baffled in the object which was presented to him by his perception (_tasmâdgrâhye arthe vasturûpe yadaviparyastam tadabhrântamiha veditavyam_}. It is said that a right perception could not be associated with names (_kalpanâ_ or _abhilâpa_). This qualification is added only with a view of leaving out all that is not directly generated by the object. A name is given to a thing only when it is associated in the mind, through memory, as being the same as perceived before. This cannot, therefore, be regarded as being produced by the object of perception. The senses present the objects by coming in contact with them, and the objects also must of necessity allow themselves to be presented as they are when they are in contact with the proper senses. But the work of recognition or giving names is not what is directly produced by the objects themselves, for this involves the unification of previous experiences, and this is certainly not what is presented

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The definition first given in the _Pramânasamucaya_ (not available in Sanskrit) of Di@nnâga (500 A.D.) was "_Kalpanâpodham_." According to Dharmakirtti it is the indeterminate knowledge (_nirvikalpa jñâna_) consisting only of the copy of the object presented to the senses that constitutes the valid element presented to perception. The determinate knowledge (_savikalpa jñâna_), as formed by the conceptual activity of the mind identifying the object with what has been experienced before, cannot be regarded as truly representing what is really presented to the senses.]

154

to the sense (_pûrvad@r@s@tâparad@r@s@tañcârthamekîkurvadvijñânamasannihitavi@sayam pûrvad@r@s@tasyâsannihitatvât_). In all illusory perceptions it is the sense which is affected either by extraneous or by inherent physiological causes. If the senses are not perverted they are bound to present the object correctly. Perception thus means the correct presentation through the senses of an object in its own uniqueness as containing only those features which are its and its alone (_svalak@sa@nam_). The validity of knowledge consists in the sameness that it has with the objects presented by it (_arthena saha yatsârûpyam sâd@rs'yamasya jñânasya tatpramâ@namiha_). But the objection here is that if our percept is only similar to the external object then this similarity is a thing which is different from the presentation, and thus perception becomes invalid. But the similarity is not different from the percept which appears as being similar to the object. It is by virtue of their sameness that we refer to the object by the percept (_taditi sârûpyam tasya vas'ât_) and our perception of the object becomes possible. It is because we have an awareness of blueness that we speak of having perceived a blue object. The relation, however, between the notion of similarity of the perception with the blue object and the indefinite awareness of blue in perception is not one of causation but of a determinant and a determinate (_vyavasthâpyavyavasthâpakabhâvena_). Thus it is the same cognition which in one form stands as signifying the similarity with the object of perception and is in another indefinite form the awareness as the percept (_tata ekasya vastuna@h kiñcidrûpam pramâ@nam kiñcitpramâ@naphalam na virudhyate_). It is on account of this similarity with the object that a cognition can be a determinant of the definite awareness (_vyavasthâpanaheturhi sârûpyam_), so that by the determinate we know the determinant and thus by the similarity of the sense-datum with the object {_pramâ@na_) we come to think that our awareness has this particular form as "blue" (_pramâ@naphala_). If this sameness between the knowledge and its object was not felt we could not have spoken of the object from the awareness (_sârûpyamanubhûtam vyavasthâpanahetu@h_). The object generates an awareness similar to itself, and it is this correspondence that can lead us to the realization of the object so presented by right knowledge [Footnote ref l].

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See also pp. 340 and 409. It is unfortunate that, excepting the _Nyâyabindu, Nyâyabindu@tîkâ, Nyâyabindu@tîkâ@tippanî_ (St Petersburg, 1909), no other works dealing with this interesting doctrine of perception are available to us. _Nyâyabindu_ is probably one of the earliest works in which we hear of the doctrine of _arthakriyâkâritva_ (practical fulfilment of our desire as a criterion of right knowledge). Later on it was regarded as a criterion of existence, as Ratnakîrtti's works and the profuse references by Hindu writers to the Buddhistic doctrines prove. The word _arthakriyâ_ is found in Candrakîrtti's commentary on Nâgârjuna and also in such early works as _Lalitavistara_ (pointed out to me by Dr E.J. Thomas of the Cambridge University Library) but the word has no philosophical significance there.]

155

Sautrântika theory of Inference [Footnote ref 1].

According to the Sautrântika doctrine of Buddhism as described by Dharmakîrtti and Dharmmottara which is probably the only account of systematic Buddhist logic that is now available to us in Sanskrit, inference (_anumâna_) is divided into two classes, called svârthânumâna (inferential knowledge attained by a person arguing in his own mind or judgments), and parârthânumâna (inference through the help of articulated propositions for convincing others in a debate). The validity of inference depended, like the validity of perception, on copying the actually existing facts of the external world. Inference copied external realities as much as perception did; just as the validity of the immediate perception of blue depends upon its similarity to the external blue thing perceived, so the validity of the inference of a blue thing also, so far as it is knowledge, depends upon its resemblance to the external fact thus inferred (_sârûpyavas'âddhi tannîlapratîtirûpam sidhyati_).

The reason by which an inference is made should be such that it may be present only in those cases where the thing to be inferred exists, and absent in every case where it does not exist. It is only when the reason is tested by both these joint conditions that an unfailing connection (_pratibandha_) between the reason and the thing to be inferred can be established. It is not enough that the reason should be present in all cases where the thing to be inferred exists and absent where it does not exist, but it is necessary that it should be present only in the above case. This law (_niyama_) is essential for establishing the unfailing condition necessary for inference [Footnote ref 2]. This unfailing natural connection (_svabhâvapratibandha_) is found in two types

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: As the _Pramâ@nasamuccaya_ of Diñnâga is not available in Sanskrit, we can hardly know anything of developed Buddhist logic except what can be got from the _Nyâyabindu@tîkâ_ of Dharmmottara.]

[Footnote 2: _tasmât niyamavatorevânvayavyatirekayo@h prayoga@h karttavya@h yena pratibandho gamyeta sâdhanyasa sâdhyena. Nyâyabindu@tîkâ_, p. 24.]

156

of cases. The first is that where the nature of the reason is contained in the thing to be inferred as a part of its nature, i.e. where the reason stands for a species of which the thing to be inferred is a genus; thus a stupid person living in a place full of tall pines may come to think that pines are called trees because they are tall and it may be useful to point out to him that even a small pine plant is a tree because it is pine; the quality of pineness forms a part of the essence of treeness, for the former being a species is contained in the latter as a genus; the nature of the species being identical with the nature of the genus, one could infer the latter from the former but not _vice versa_; this is called the unfailing natural connection of identity of nature (_tâdâtmya_). The second is that where the cause is inferred from the effect which stands as the reason of the former. Thus from the smoke the fire which has produced it may be inferred. The ground of these inferences is that reason is naturally indissolubly connected with the thing to be inferred, and unless this is the case, no inference is warrantable.

This natural indissoluble connection (_svabhâvapratibandha_), be it of the nature of identity of essence of the species in the genus or inseparable connection of the effect with the cause, is the ground of all inference [Footnote ref 1]. The svabhâvapratibandha determines the inseparability of connection (avinâbhâvaniyama) and the inference is made not through a series of premisses, but directly by the li@nga (reason) which has the inseparable connection [Footnote ref 2].

The second type of inference known as parârthânumâna agrees with svârthânumâna in all essential characteristics; the main difference between the two is this, that in the case of parârthânumâna, the inferential process has to be put verbally in premisses.

Pandit Ratnâkarasânti, probably of the ninth or the tenth century A.D., wrote a paper named _Antarvyâptisamarthana_ in which

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _na hi yo yatra svabhâvena na pratibaddha@h sa tam apratibaddhavi@sayamavs'yameva na vyabhicaratîti nâsti tayoravyabhicâraniyama. Nyâyabindu@tîkâ_, p. 29.]

[Footnote 2: The inseparable connection determining inference is only possible when the li@nga satisfies the three following conditions, viz. (1) pak@sasattva (existence of the li@nga in the pak@sa--the thing about which something is inferred); (2) sapak@sasattva (existence of the li@nga in those cases where the sâdhya oc probandum existed), and (3) vipak@sâsattva (its non-existence in all those places where the sâdhya did not exist). The Buddhists admitted three propositions in a syllogism, e.g. The hill has fire, because it has smoke, like a kitchen but unlike a lake.]

157

he tried to show that the concomitance is not between those cases which possess the li@nga or reason with the cases which possess the sâdhya (probandum) but between that which has the characteristics of the li@nga with that which has the characteristics of the sâdhya (probandum); or in other words the concomitance is not between the places containing the smoke such as kitchen, etc., and the places containing fire but between that which has the characteristic of the li@nga, viz. the smoke, and that which has the characteristic of the sâdhya, viz. the fire. This view of the nature of concomitance is known as inner concomitance (_antarvyâpti_), whereas the former, viz. the concomitance between the thing possessing li@nga and that possessing sâdhya, is known as outer concomitance (_bahirvyâpti_) and generally accepted by the Nyâya school of thought. This antarvyâpti doctrine of concomitance is indeed a later Buddhist doctrine.

It may not be out of place here to remark that evidences of some form of Buddhist logic probably go back at least as early as the _Kathâvatthu_ (200 B.C.). Thus Aung on the evidence of the _Yamaka_ points out that Buddhist logic at the time of As'oka "was conversant with the distribution of terms" and the process of conversion. He further points out that the logical premisses such as the udâhara@na (_Yo yo aggimâ so so dhûmavâ_--whatever is fiery is smoky), the upanayana (_ayam pabbato dhûmavâ_--this hill is smoky) and the niggama (_tasmâdayam aggimâ_--therefore that is fiery) were also known. (Aung further sums up the method of the arguments which are found in the _Kathâvatthu_ as follows:

"Adherent. Is _A B_? (_@thâpanâ_). Opponent. Yes.

Adherent. Is _C D_? (_pâpanâ_). Opponent. No.

Adherent. But if _A_ be _B_ then (you should have said) _C_ is _D_. That _B_ can be affirmed of _A_ but _D_ of _C_ is false. Hence your first answer is refuted.")

The antecedent of the hypothetical major premiss is termed @thâpanâ, because the opponent's position, _A_ is _B_, is conditionally established for the purpose of refutation.

The consequent of the hypothetical major premiss is termed pâpanâ because it is got from the antecedent. And the conclusion

158

is termed ropa@na because the regulation is placed on the opponent. Next:

"If _D_ be derived of _C_.
Then _B_ should have been derived of _A_.
But you affirmed _B_ of _A_.
(therefore) That _B_ can be affirmed of _A_ but not of _D_ or _C_ is
wrong."

This is the pa@tiloma, inverse or indirect method, as contrasted with the former or direct method, anuloma. In both methods the consequent is derived. But if we reverse the hypothetical major in the latter method we get

"If _A_ is _B_ _C_ is _D_.
But _A_ is _B_.
Therefore _C_ is _D_.

By this indirect method the opponent's second answer is reestablished [Footnote ref 1]."

The Doctrine of Momentariness.

Ratnakîrtti (950 A.D.) sought to prove the momentariness of all existence (_sattva_), first, by the concomitance discovered by the method of agreement in presence (_anvayavyâpti_), and then by the method of difference by proving that the production of effects could not be justified on the assumption of things being permanent and hence accepting the doctrine of momentariness as the only alternative. Existence is defined as the capacity of producing anything (_arthakriyâkâritva_). The form of the first type of argument by anvayavyâpti may be given thus: "Whatever exists is momentary, by virtue of its existence, as for example the jug; all things about the momentariness of which we are discussing are existents and are therefore momentary." It cannot be said that the jug which has been chosen as an example of an existent is not momentary; for the jug is producing certain effects at the present moment; and it cannot be held that these are all identical in the past and the future or that it is producing no effect at all in the past and future, for the first is impossible, for those which are done now could not be done again in the future; the second is impossible, for if it has any capacity to

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote: 1: See introduction to the translation of _Kathâvatthu_ (_Points of Controversy_) by Mrs Rhys Davids.]

159

produce effects it must not cease doing so, as in that case one might as well expect that there should not be any effect even at the present moment. Whatever has the capacity of producing anything at any time must of necessity do it. So if it does produce at one moment and does not produce at another, this contradiction will prove the supposition that the things were different at the different moments. If it is held that the nature of production varies at different moments, then also the thing at those two moments must be different, for a thing could not have in it two contradictory capacities.

Since the jug does not produce at the present moment the work of the past and the future moments, it cannot evidently do so, and hence is not identical with the jug in the past and in the future, for the fact that the jug has the capacity and has not the capacity as well, proves that it is not the same jug at the two moments (_s'aktâs'aktasvabhavatayâ pratik@sa@nam bheda@h_). The capacity of producing effects (_arthakriyâs'akti_), which is but the other name of existence, is universally concomitant with momentariness (_k@sa@nikatvavyâpta_).

The Nyâya school of philosophy objects to this view and says that the capacity of anything cannot be known until the effect produced is known, and if capacity to produce effects be regarded as existence or being, then the being or existence of the effect cannot be known, until that has produced another effect and that another _ad infinitum_. Since there can be no being that has not capacity of producing effects, and as this capacity can demonstrate itself only in an infinite chain, it will be impossible to know any being or to affirm the capacity of producing effects as the definition of existence. Moreover if all things were momentary there would be no permanent perceiver to observe the change, and there being nothing fixed there could hardly be any means even of taking to any kind of inference. To this Ratnakirtti replies that capacity (_saâmarthya_) cannot be denied, for it is demonstrated even in making the denial. The observation of any concomitance in agreement in presence, or agreement in absence, does not require any permanent observer, for under certain conditions of agreement there is the knowledge of the concomitance of agreement in presence, and in other conditions there is the knowledge of the concomitance in absence. This knowledge of concomitance at the succeeding moment holds within

160

itself the experience of the conditions of the preceding moment, and this alone is what we find and not any permanent observer.

The Buddhist definition of being or existence (_sattva_) is indeed capacity, and we arrived at this when it was observed that in all proved cases capacity was all that could be defined of being;--seed was but the capacity of producing shoots, and even if this capacity should require further capacity to produce effects, the fact which has been perceived still remains, viz. that the existence of seeds is nothing but the capacity of producing the shoots and thus there is no vicious infinite [Footnote ref l]. Though things are momentary, yet we could have concomitance between things only so long as their apparent forms are not different (_atadrûpaparâv@rttayoreva sâdhyasâdhanayo@h pratyak@se@na vyâptigraha@nât_). The vyâpti or concomitance of any two things (e.g. the fire and the smoke) is based on extreme similarity and not on identity.

Another objection raised against the doctrine of momentariness is this, that a cause (e.g. seed) must wait for a number of other collocations of earth, water, etc., before it can produce the effect (e.g. the shoots) and hence the doctrine must fail. To this Ratnakîrtti replies that the seed does not exist before and produce the effect when joined by other collocations, but such is the special effectiveness of a particular seed-moment, that it produces both the collocations or conditions as well as the effect, the shoot. How a special seed-moment became endowed with such special effectiveness is to be sought in other causal moments which preceded it, and on which it was dependent. Ratnakîrtti wishes to draw attention to the fact that as one perceptual moment reveals a number of objects, so one causal moment may produce a number of effects. Thus he says that the inference that whatever has being is momentary is valid and free from any fallacy.

It is not important to enlarge upon the second part of Ratnakîrtti's arguments in which he tries to show that the production of effects could not be explained if we did not suppose

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The distinction between vicious and harmless infinites was known to the Indians at least as early as the sixth or the seventh century. Jayanta quotes a passage which differentiates the two clearly (_Nyâyamañjarî_, p. 22):

"_mûlak@satikarîmâhuranavasthâm hi dû@sa@nam. mûlasiddhau tvarucyâpi nânavasthâ nivâryate._"

The infinite regress that has to be gone through in order to arrive at the root matter awaiting to be solved destroys the root and is hence vicious, whereas if the root is saved there is no harm in a regress though one may not be willing to have it.]

161

all things to be momentary, for this is more an attempt to refute the doctrines of Nyâya than an elaboration of the Buddhist principles.

The doctrine of momentariness ought to be a direct corollary of the Buddhist metaphysics. But it is curious that though all dharmas were regarded as changing, the fact that they were all strictly momentary (_k@sa@nika_--i.e. existing only for one moment) was not emphasized in early Pâli literature. As'vagho@sa in his _S'raddhotpâdas'âstra_ speaks of all skandhas as k@sa@nika (Suzuki's translation, p. 105). Buddhaghosa also speaks of the meditation of the khandhas as kha@nika in his _Visuddhimagga._ But from the seventh century A.D. till the tenth century this doctrine together with the doctrine of arthakriyâkâritva received great attention at the hands of the Sautrântikas and the Vaibhâ@sikas. All the Nyâya and Vedânta literature of this period is full of refutations and criticisms of these doctrines. The only Buddhist account available of the doctrine of momentariness is from the pen of Ratnakîrtti. Some of the general features of his argument in favour of the view have been given above. Elaborate accounts of it may be found in any of the important Nyâya works of this period such as _Nynyamanjari, Tâtparyya@tîkâ_ of Vâcaspati Mis'ra, etc.

Buddhism did not at any time believe anything to be permanent. With the development of this doctrine they gave great emphasis to this point. Things came to view at one moment and the next moment they were destroyed. Whatever is existent is momentary. It is said that our notion of permanence is derived from the notion of permanence of ourselves, but Buddhism denied the existence of any such permanent selves. What appears as self is but the bundle of ideas, emotions, and active tendencies manifesting at any particular moment. The next moment these dissolve, and new bundles determined by the preceding ones appear and so on. The present thought is thus the only thinker. Apart from the emotions, ideas, and active tendencies, we cannot discover any separate self or soul. It is the combined product of these ideas, emotions, etc., that yield the illusory appearance of self at any moment. The consciousness of self is the resultant product as it were of the combination of ideas, emotions, etc., at any particular moment. As these ideas, emotions, etc., change every moment there is no such thing as a permanent self.

The fact that I remember that I have been existing for

162