Chapter V: Buddhist Philosophy (5)

a long time past does not prove that a permanent self has been existing for such a long period. When I say this is that book, I perceive the book with my eye at the present moment, but that "this book" is the same as "that book" (i.e. the book arising in memory), cannot be perceived by the senses. It is evident that the "that book" of memory refers to a book seen in the past, whereas "this book" refers to the book which is before my eyes. The feeling of identity which is adduced to prove permanence is thus due to a confusion between an object of memory referring to a past and different object with the object as perceived at the present moment by the senses [Footnote ref 1]. This is true not only of all recognition of identity and permanence of external objects but also of the perception of the identity of self, for the perception of self-identity results from the confusion of certain ideas or emotions arising in memory with similar ideas of the present moment. But since memory points to an object of past perception, and the perception to another object of the present moment, identity cannot be proved by a confusion of the two. Every moment all objects of the world are suffering dissolution and destruction, but yet things appear to persist, and destruction cannot often be noticed. Our hair and nails grow and are cut, but yet we think that we have the same hair and nail that we had before, in place of old hairs new ones similar to them have sprung forth, and they leave the impression as if the old ones were persisting. So it is that though things are destroyed every moment, others similar to these often rise into being and are destroyed the next moment and so on, and these similar things succeeding in a series produce the impression that it is one and the same thing which has been persisting through all the passing moments [Footnote ref 2]. Just as the flame of a candle is changing every moment and yet it seems to us as if we have been perceiving the same flame all the while, so all our bodies, our ideas, emotions, etc., all external objects around us are being destroyed every moment, and new ones are being generated at every succeeding moment, but so long as the objects of the succeeding moments are similar to those of the preceding moments, it appears to us that things have remained the same and no destruction has taken place.

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See pratyabhijñânirâsa of the Buddhists, _Nyâyamañjarî_, V.S. Series, pp. 449, etc.]

[Footnote 2: See _Tarkarahasyadîpikâ_ of Gu@naratna, p. 30, and also _Nyâyamañjarî,_ V.S. edition, p. 450.]

163

The Doctrine of Momentariness and the Doctrine of Causal Efficiency (Arthakriyâkâritva).

It appears that a thing or a phenomenon may be defined from the Buddhist point of view as being the combination of diverse characteristics [Footnote ref 1]. What we call a thing is but a conglomeration of diverse characteristics which are found to affect, determine or influence other conglomerations appearing as sentient or as inanimate bodies. So long as the characteristics forming the elements of any conglomeration remain perfectly the same, the conglomeration may be said to be the same. As soon as any of these characteristics is supplanted by any other new characteristic, the conglomeration is to be called a new one [Footnote ref 2]. Existence or being of things means the work that any conglomeration does or the influence that it exerts on other conglomerations. This in Sanskrit is called _arthakriyâkâritva_ which literally translated means--the power of performing actions and purposes of some kind [Footnote ref 3]. The criterion of existence or being is the performance of certain specific actions, or rather existence means that a certain effect has been produced in some way (causal efficiency). That which has produced such an effect is then called existent or _sat_. Any change in the effect thus produced means a corresponding change of existence. Now, that selfsame definite specific effect

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Compare _Milindapañha,_ II. I. 1--The Chariot Simile.]

[Footnote 2: Compare _Tarkarahasyadîpikâ_ of Gu@naratna, A.S.'s edition, pp. 24, 28 and _Nyâyamañjarî,_ V.S. edition, pp. 445, etc., and also the paper on _K@sa@nabha@ngasiddhi_ by Ratnakîrtti in _Six Buddhist Nyâya tracts_.]

[Footnote 3: This meaning of the word "arthakriyâkâritva" is different from the meaning of the word as we found in the section "sautrântika theory of perception." But we find the development of this meaning both in Ratnakîrtti as well as in Nyâya writers who referred to this doctrine. With Vinîtadeva (seventh century A.D.) the word "_arthakrîyâsiddhi_" meant the fulfilment of any need such as the cooking of rice by fire (_arthas'abdena prayojanamucyate puru@sasya praycjana@m dârupâkâdi tasya siddhi@h ni@spatti@h_--the word _artha_ means need; the need of man such as cooking by logs, etc.; _siddhi_ of that, means accomplishment). With Dharmottara who flourished about a century and a half later _arthasiddhi_ means action (anu@s@thiti) with reference to undesirable and desirable objects (_heyopâdeyârthavi@sayâ_). But with Ratnakîrtti (950 A.D.) the word _arthakriyâkâritva_ has an entirely different sense. It means with him efficiency of producing any action or event, and as such it is regarded as the characteristic definition of existence _sattva_). Thus he says in his _K@sa@nabha@ngasiddhi,_ pp. 20, 21, that though in different philosophies there are different definitions of existence or being, he will open his argument with the universally accepted definition of existence as _arthakriyâkâritva_ (efficiency of causing any action or event). Whenever Hindu writers after Ratnakîrtti refer to the Buddhist doctrine of _arthakriyâkâritva_ they usually refer to this doctrine in Ratnakîrtti's sense.]

164

which is produced now was never produced before, and cannot be repeated in the future, for that identical effect which is once produced cannot be produced again. So the effects produced in us by objects at different moments of time may be similar but cannot be identical. Each moment is associated with a new effect and each new effect thus produced means in each case the coming into being of a correspondingly new existence of things. If things were permanent there would be no reason why they should be performing different effects at different points of time. Any difference in the effect produced, whether due to the thing itself or its combination with other accessories, justifies us in asserting that the thing has changed and a new one has come in its place. The existence of a jug for example is known by the power it has of forcing itself upon our minds; if it had no such power then we could not have said that it existed. We can have no notion of the meaning of existence other than the impression produced on us; this impression is nothing else but the power exerted by things on us, for there is no reason why one should hold that beyond such powers as are associated with the production of impressions or effects there should be some other permanent entity to which the power adhered, and which existed even when the power was not exerted. We perceive the power of producing effects and define each unit of such power as amounting to a unit of existence. And as there would be different units of power at different moments, there should also be as many new existences, i.e. existents must be regarded as momentary, existing at each moment that exerts a new power. This definition of existence naturally brings in the doctrine of momentariness shown by Ratnakîrtti.

Some Ontological Problems on which the Different Indian Systems Diverged.

We cannot close our examination of Buddhist philosophy without briefly referring to its views on some ontological problems which were favourite subjects of discussion in almost all philosophical circles of India. These are in brief: (1) the relation of cause and effect, (2) the relation of the whole (_avayavi_) and the part (_avayava_), (3) the relation of generality (_samanya_) to the specific individuals, (4) the relation of attributes or qualities and the substance and the problem of the relation of inherence, (5) the

165

relation of power (_s'akti_) to the power-possessor (_s'aktimân_). Thus on the relation of cause and effect, S'a@nkara held that cause alone was permanent, real, and all effects as such were but impermanent illusions due to ignorance, Sâ@mkhya held that there was no difference between cause and effect, except that the former was only the earlier stage which when transformed through certain changes became the effect. The history of any causal activity is the history of the transformation of the cause into the effects. Buddhism holds everything to be momentary, so neither cause nor effect can abide. One is called the effect because its momentary existence has been determined by the destruction of its momentary antecedent called the cause. There is no permanent reality which undergoes the change, but one change is determined by another and this determination is nothing more than "that happening, this happened." On the relation of parts to whole, Buddhism does not believe in the existence of wholes. According to it, it is the parts which illusorily appear as the whole, the individual atoms rise into being and die the next moment and thus there is no such thing as "whole [Footnote ref 1]. The Buddhists hold again that there are no universals, for it is the individuals alone which come and go. There are my five fingers as individuals but there is no such thing as fingerness (_a@ngulitva_) as the abstract universal of the fingers. On the relation of attributes and substance we know that the Sautrântika Buddhists did not believe in the existence of any substance apart from its attributes; what we call a substance is but a unit capable of producing a unit of sensation. In the external world there are as many individual simple units (atoms) as there are points of sensations. Corresponding to each unit of sensation there is a separate simple unit in the objective world. Our perception of a thing is thus the perception of the assemblage of these sensations. In the objective world also there are no substances but atoms or reals, each representing a unit of sensation, force or attribute, rising into being and dying the next moment. Buddhism thus denies the existence of any such relation as that of inherence (_samavâya_) in which relation the attributes are said to exist in the substance, for since there are no separate substances there is no necessity for admitting the relation of inherence. Following the same logic Buddhism also does not

166

believe in the existence of a power-possessor separate from the power.

Brief survey of the evolution of Buddhist Thought.

In the earliest period of Buddhism more attention was paid to the four noble truths than to systematic metaphysics. What was sorrow, what was the cause of sorrow, what was the cessation of sorrow and what could lead to it? The doctrine of _pa@ticcasamuppâda_ was offered only to explain how sorrow came in and not with a view to the solving of a metaphysical problem. The discussion of ultimate metaphysical problems, such as whether the world was eternal or non-eternal, or whether a Tathâgata existed after death or not, were considered as heresies in early Buddhism. Great emphasis was laid on sîla, samâdhi and paññâ and the doctrine that there was no soul. The Abhidhammas hardly give us any new philosophy which was not contained in the Suttas. They only elaborated the materials of the suttas with enumerations and definitions. With the evolution of Mahâyâna scriptures from some time about 200 B.C. the doctrine of the non-essentialness and voidness of all _dhammas_ began to be preached. This doctrine, which was taken up and elaborated by Nagârjuna, Âryyadeva, Kumârajîva and Candrakîrtti, is more or less a corollary from the older doctrine of Buddhism. If one could not say whether the world was eternal or non-eternal, or whether a Tathâgata existed or did not exist after death, and if there was no permanent soul and all the dhammas were changing, the only legitimate way of thinking about all things appeared to be to think of them as mere void and non-essential appearances. These appearances appear as being mutually related but apart from their appearance they have no other essence, no being or reality. The Tathatâ doctrine which was preached by As'vagho@sa oscillated between the position of this absolute non-essentialness of all dhammas and the Brahminic idea that something existed as the background of all these non-essential dhammas. This he called tathatâ, but he could not consistently say that any such permanent entity could exist. The Vijñânavâda doctrine which also took its rise at this time appears to me to be a mixture of the S'ûnyavâda doctrine and the Tathatâ doctrine; but when carefully examined it seems to be nothing but S'ûnyavâda, with an attempt at explaining all the observed phenomena. If everything was

167

non-essential how did it originate? Vijñânavâda proposes to give an answer, and says that these phenomena are all but ideas of the mind generated by the beginningless vâsanâ (desire) of the mind. The difficulty which is felt with regard to the Tathatâ doctrine that there must be some reality which is generating all these ideas appearing as phenomena, is the same as that in the Vijñânavâda doctrine. The Vijñânavâdins could not admit the existence of such a reality, but yet their doctrines led them to it. They could not properly solve the difficulty, and admitted that their doctrine was some sort of a compromise with the Brahminical doctrines of heresy, but they said that this was a compromise to make the doctrine intelligible to the heretics; in truth however the reality assumed in the doctrine was also non-essential. The Vijñânavâda literature that is available to us is very scanty and from that we are not in a position to judge what answers Vijñânavâda could give on the point. These three doctrines developed almost about the same time and the difficulty of conceiving s'ûnya (void), tathatâ, (thatness) and the âlayavijñâna of Vijñânavâda is more or less the same.

The Tathatâ doctrine of As'vagho@sa practically ceased with him. But the S'ûnyavâda and the Vijñânavâda doctrines which originated probably about 200 B.C. continued to develop probably till the eighth century A.D. Vigorous disputes with S'ûnyavâda doctrines are rarely made in any independent work of Hindu philosophy, after Kumârila and S'a@nkara. From the third or the fourth century A.D. some Buddhists took to the study of systematic logic and began to criticize the doctrine of the Hindu logicians. Di@nnâga the Buddhist logician (500 A.D.) probably started these hostile criticisms by trying to refute the doctrines of the great Hindu logician Vâtsyâyana, in his Pramâ@nasamuccaya. In association with this logical activity we find the activity of two other schools of Buddhism, viz. the Sarvâstivâdins (known also as Vaibhâ@sikas) and the Sautrântikas. Both the Vaibhâ@sikas and the Sautrântikas accepted the existence of the external world, and they were generally in conflict with the Hindu schools of thought Nyâya-Vais'e@sika and Sâ@mkhya which also admitted the existence of the external world. Vasubandhu (420-500 A.D.) was one of the most illustrious names of this school. We have from this time forth a number of great Buddhist thinkers such as Yas'omitra (commentator of Vasubandhu's work),

168

Dharmmakîrtti (writer of Nyâyabindu 635 A.D.), Vinîtadeva and S'ântabhadra (commentators of Nyâyabindu), Dharmmottara (commentator of Nyâyabindu 847 A.D.), Ratnakîrtti (950 A.D.), Pa@n@dita As'oka, and Ratnâkara S'ânti, some of whose contributions have been published in the _Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts_, published in Calcutta in the _Bibliotheca Indica_ series. These Buddhist writers were mainly interested in discussions regarding the nature of perception, inference, the doctrine of momentariness, and the doctrine of causal efficiency (_arthakriyâkâritva_) as demonstrating the nature of existence. On the negative side they were interested in denying the ontological theories of Nyâya and Sâ@mkhya with regard to the nature of class-concepts, negation, relation of whole and part, connotation of terms, etc. These problems hardly attracted any notice in the non-Sautrântika and non-Vaibhâ@sika schools of Buddhism of earlier times. They of course agreed with the earlier Buddhists in denying the existence of a permanent soul, but this they did with the help of their doctrine of causal efficiency. The points of disagreement between Hindu thought up to S'a@nkara (800 A.D.) and Buddhist thought till the time of S'a@nkara consisted mainly in the denial by the Buddhists of a permanent soul and the permanent external world. For Hindu thought was more or less realistic, and even the Vedânta of S'a@nkara admitted the existence of the permanent external world in some sense. With S'a@nkara the forms of the external world were no doubt illusory, but they all had a permanent background in the Brahman, which was the only reality behind all mental and the physical phenomena. The Sautrântikas admitted the existence of the external world and so their quarrel with Nyâya and Sâ@mkhya was with regard to their doctrine of momentariness; their denial of soul and their views on the different ontological problems were in accordance with their doctrine of momentariness. After the twelfth century we do not hear much of any new disputes with the Buddhists. From this time the disputes were mainly between the different systems of Hindu philosophers, viz. Nyâya, the Vedânta of the school of S'a@nkara and the Theistic Vedânta of Râmânuja, Madhva, etc.

169