Reading section 19

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.