No More Learning

conjunction is proved.
contradicts your system. )
134
believes that the consciousnesses are
explains the variety of consciousnesses and the
it is not nitya, or eternal).
that the soul is in partial conjunction
according to you, the soul is an entity without parts.
142
Supposing also that there is conjunction between the permanent soul and an always immoveable manas, how does one explain the diversity of the conjunction (necessary for the diversity of consciousness)? Would you say that this diversity results from
admits of the same conclusion 138
On the other hand, you cannot admit
141
with the manas, for,
? the diversity of the buddhi, "intelligence," (which is a quality, guna, of the soul)? But the buddhi presents the same difficulty as the manas: if the soul is not diversified, how would buddhi be diversified? Would you say that the diversity of the buddhi results from the diversity of conjunction of the soul and the manas, a variety which results from the samskdras? In this hypothesis, the soul serves no purpose; why not say that the diversity of consciousnesses comes from the consciousness itself which is diversified by the samskdras? The soul does not intervene in the beginning of consciousness, and to say that consciousness comes from a soul is to be as the charlatan who, although drugs suffice for the healing of the sickness, pronounces some magic syllables: Phut! Svaha!
You would say without doubt that consciousness, like the samskdras, exists through conjunction with the soul: but this is merely a statement without proof. But you would insist, saying that the soul is its support {asraya): please explain by an example the nature of the relationship of the support and the supported. The consciousness (that the samskdras influence) and the samskdras themselves are not a picture or a fruit that the soul supports as a wall supports a picture or as a plate supports fruit: in fact, on the one hand, one would have to admit physical contact (between the soul and the thought-samskdras); and, on the other hand, the picture and the fruit exist independently of the wall and the plate.
You say that you do not understand the support that the soul furnishes the thought-samskdras to be thus: the soul supports thought-samskdras as earth supports smell, color, taste, touch. We rejoice in this comparison, for it establishes the non-existence of the soul. In the same way that one cannot perceive the existence of earth independently of smell, etc. --what one designates by the word "earth" is only a collection of smells, etc. --in this same way there is no soul existing apart from the thought-samskdras: the thought-samskdras are what one designates by the word "soul". Who can obtain the idea of "earth" apart from smell, etc. ?
But, if "earth" does not exist apart from smells, etc , how can one qualify certain smells, etc. , as properties of earth: "The smell,
Refutation of the pudgala 1347
? 1348 Chapter Nine
the taste of earth? "
One expresses oneself thus with a view to distinguishing: in other words, one wants to indicate that certain smells, tastes, etc. , are what is termed "earth," not other smells or tastes which are termed "water. " In the same way, one designates a certain thing as being "the body of a wooden statue" indicating by that that it is of
143 wood, and not of baked clay.
***
If the soul produces the consciousnesses by reason of the variety of the samskdras, why doesn't it produce all the conscious- nesses at the same time?
[The Vaisesikas:] Because the strongest samskdra opposes the weakest samskdra in producing its result. And if the strongest samskdra does not constantly produce its result, it is for the same reason that you have given in explaining the traces (vdsands) abandoned by the consciousness in the series: we think that the samskdras are not permanent and are subject to change.
But then of what use is a soul? Diverse consciousnesses would be generated by the diverse force of the samskdras, since there is
144 no difference in nature between your samskdras and our vdsands.
[The Vaisesikas:] One cannot do without the soul. Memory,
145
the samskdras, etc. ,
"attributes" {guna)\ these attributes must of necessity have for their substratum, or support {dsraya), a "substance" {dravya) and, among the nine substances (earth, etc. ), the soul, since it is inadmissable that memory and the other mental qualities would have for their substratum any substance other than the soul (namely earth, etc. ), since the soul alone is intelligent.
But this system of substances and attributes is not proved. [You say that memory, the samskdras, etc. , are things included within the category of "attributes" and are not substances: we do
are things {padarthas) that are termed
? not agree. ] We think that all that exists is "substance. " A Sutra says that "the result of the religious life consists of six substances (namely the five pure skandhas and pratisarhkhyanirodha)" It is false that memory, etc. , has the soul as its substratum: as we have criticized the idea of a substratum.
[The Vaisesikas say:] If the soul does not really exist, what is the result of actions?
The result of actions is that the "soul" experiences pleasure or pain.
[The Vaisesikas:] What do you understand by "soul"?
It is what one speaks of when one says "I," the object of the
idea of self, the skandhas or object.
How do we know this?
It is to the series of skandhas, that is, to the skandhas--to one's body, to one's sensations--that one becomes attached; as the idea of "I" is generated with reference to the idea of white and other similar ideas: in the world does one not say "I am white, black, old, young, thin, fat"? What one regards as white, etc. ,--evidently the skandha of physical matter--is also what one regards as "I. " The "soul" imagined by the Vaisesika is different from white, etc. ; but, in fact, the idea of "I" is relative only to those skandhas and not to any "self" imagined [by the Vaisesikas. ]
[The Vaisesikas:] It is through metaphor that the world designates the body by the word "I" when it says, "I am white. " This metaphor is justified because the body is in the service of the true "I. "
So be it: one metaphorically calls what is used by the "I" by the
Refutation of the pudgala 1349
? 1350 Chapter Nine
name of "I. " But one cannot explain in this manner the conscious- ness that says "I" (with regard to the body, sensations, conscious-
146
[The Vaisesikas:] If the idea of "I" has the body for an object why is not this idea generated with regard to the bodies of others?
Because there is no relationship between the series of skandhas of others and this idea. When the body or mind is in a relationship with the idea of "I"--a cause and effect relationship--this idea is generated with regard to this body and this mind; but not with regard to the skandhas of others. The habit of considering "my" series as "I" exists in "my" series from the very beginning.
[The Vaisesikas:] If there is no "soul," to what do you attribute the idea of "I"?
We have answered this question when we explained what
**#
[The Vaisesikas:] What is the cause of the idea of "I"? It is a defiled mind, impregnated by this same idea of self, and having for its object the series of minds wherein it is produced.
***
[The Vaisesikas:] In the absence of a soul, who has suffering or pleasure? The dsraya within which suffering or pleasure is produced, in the same way that a tree is said to have flowers, a
forest has fruit. And the dsraya in question may belong to any of
148
ness, etc. )
147
of memory. It is the same for the idea of "I".
memory belongs to.
The master of memory is simply the cause
the six internal ayatanas, the eye-dyatana, etc. explained [in the First Chapter. ]
This has been
***
? [The Vaisesikas:] In the absence of a soul, who is it that does a deed? Who is it that tastes the result?
What do you understand by "he who does/* and "he who tastes"?
[The Vaisesikas:] We understand this to be the agent, the
149
taster.
Your explanation is merely words and explains nothing. The
150
Vaisesikas here invoke the doctrine of the Grammarians.
say that the agent is he who has independent power, that the taster is he who enjoys the result of the deed. Iri the world he who possesses independent power with regard to a certain action is considered as the "agent"; for example, Devadatta, having the power to bathe himself, to seat himself, and to walk, is called "the bather," "the sitter," and "the walker. "
This definition is not admissable. What does one understand by "Devadatta"? If one understands this to be a soul, the example is not proved, and is without value. If one understands a certain coming together or complex of skandhas, then Devadatta is indeed an agent, but he is not "an independent agent and creator of
151
Refutation of the pudgala 1351
--body, speech, and mind. That
deeds. " Action is threefold
which produces bodily action is the wind agitating the body; the body and the mind depend again on their causes and conditions; these causes and conditions depend in their turn on their causes and conditions: in all this there is not any simple entity, a "producer" dependent on itself or, in other words, independent. For everything that exists depends on causes and conditions. The soul as you understand it does not depend on causes and condi- tions; furthermore, it does nothing: it is not then an independent agent. Nowhere does anyone maintain the existence of an agent conforming to your definition, "He who possesses independent power is termed an agent. " That which one terms the agent of a certain action, is, amongst all its causes, that which is the principal cause of this action. Now even if we were to define the agent in this manner, your "self" is not an agent.
They
? 1352 Chapter Nine
What is in fact the principal cause of the beginning of bodily
152
action?
from desire there proceeds imagination; from imagination there proceeds effort which gives rise to a vapor which sets in motion bodily action. In this process, what activity do the Vaisesikas attribute to a "sour? This soul is certainly not an agent of bodily action. Vocal and mental action can be explained in the same way.
You say that the "soul" enjoys the result, because it discerns or knows the result: but soul has no role in discerning the result; it does not figure among the causes that produce consciousnesses as
153 we have shown above.
[The Vaisesikas:] If there is no soul, why do good and bad
154
Because the "non-assumed" elements, not constitutive of living beings, are not susceptible of serving as a support for sensation, etc. Only the six internal organs are the support of sensation, etc. ; not a soul, as we have proved.
***
[The Vaisesikas:] In the absence of a soul, how can past action, which is now destroyed, produce a future result?
To this question we would answer now by asking how, even
though a soul were to exist, destroyed action can have the force of
producing the result. The Vaisesikas would have it that the result
135 is generated from merit or from demerit (dharma, adharma),
inherent attributes (guna) of the soul, supported by the soul: but
156
Memory causes a wish or a desire for action to surge up;
deeds not die out in "non-living things'?
we have criticized the idea of a substratum or "support" shown that it is not rational.
and
According to the Buddhists, future results are not generated
157
moment in the evolution of a series that has its origin in action.
from destroyed action;
results are generated from the last 158
How does fruit proceed from the seed? One says, in the world,
? that fruit is generated from a seed. But in speaking in this way, one does not intend to affirm that the fruit is generated from a destroyed seed, nor that the fruit arises immediately after the seed (that is to say, from a "dying" seed). In fact, the fruit is generated from the last moment in the evolution of a series that has its origin in the seed. The seed successively produces a sprout, a stalk, a leaf, and finally the flower that brings the fruit into existence. If one says that the seed produces the fruit, this is because the seed, through a series of intermediate stages, projects in the flower the efficacy of producing the fruit. If the efficacy of producing the fruit, efficacy which is found in the flower, did not have the seed as its original cause (as its antecedent, or purva), then the flower would not have produced a fruit resembling its seed. In the same way, one says that although a result is generated from an action, it is not generated from destroyed action, nor is it generated immediately
after the action: it is generated from an ultimate moment in the evolution of a series issuing from the action.
Series, or samtana, means the material and mental skandhas succeeding without interruption in a row which has an action for its original cause. The successive moments of this row are different: there is then evolution (parindma), or transformation of the series. The last moment of this evolution possesses a special efficacy, the capacity of immediately producing the result: it is distinguished, in this regard, from other moments; it is then termed visesa, or the ultimate moment of evolution.
For example, when the mind at death is "associated with attachment," it possesses the capacity of producing a new existence. This mind has for its antecedents many actions of all types: nevertheless, it is the efficacy projected by a weighty action that informs (or qualifies) the last thought; in the absence of heavy action, the efficacy is projected by near action; in its absence by
159 habitual action; and in its absence by the action of a previous life.
There is a stanza (by Rahula) which says, "Weighty action, near
160
action, habitual action, old action: these four die in this order. " There is good reason to establish a distinction between a
Refutation of the pudgala 135 3
? 1354 Chapter Nine
retributive result and an out-flowing result. When the force that produces a retributive result has given forth its result, this force is
161
abolished.
force projected by a "cause similar to its effect" (sabhdgahetu), does not perish by the production of its result; when it is defiled, this force perishes by the force of its opposition; when it is not defiled, it perishes through Nirvana, which involves the abolition of the series, both physical matter and mind.
Why is a new retribution not generated from the retributive
result as a new fruit is generated from the fruit of a tree, or as a
162 fruit is also a seed?
163 But a new fruit is not generated from the fruit seed.
From what is the new fruit generated, if not from the evolution of a new series?
The first fruit seed, encountering the conditions necessary for evolution (water, earth, etc. ), finally produces the ultimate moment in the evolution--from whence the new fruit arises. When it produces the shoot, the old fruit takes the name of seed. If, before any evolution, (before any germinative processes), it is given the name of seed, it is an anticipative name, a name justified by the similarity of the ungerminated seed and the germinated
164
But the force that produces an out-flowing result, a
seed. In the same way here: when a retributive result
encounters the conditions that produce good and bad--good teaching, bad teaching--it gives rise to minds that will be rewarded, namely bad or good-impure minds. From these minds there proceeds an evolution of their series that results in an ultimate state from whence a new retribution will emerge. This is not generated under any other conditions. The example then justifies our thesis.
One can also take into account the nature of the retribution by another example (that shows that a new retribution does not necessarily succeed the first). If one colors the flower of a lemon tree with milk, a certain evolution of the plant series will take place which will cause the seed of the new fruit to be red. But the
(body, etc. )
? red seed, once planted, will not generate another red seed. In the
same way the retribution of an action does not produce a new
165 retribution.
***
I have, to the measure of my intelligence, taught in a summary and outline manner the result of actions. Only the Buddhas know how the series, impregnated by actions diverse in nature and in force, evolve from such a type that, arriving at such a stage, it produces a certain result: There is a stanza, "Action, the impression caused by the action, the active entry of this impres- sion, the result that results from it--no one if not a Buddha, knows
166 all this in the totality of its processes. "
Seeing then, by a path of demonstrative arguments, that the doctrine of the teaching of the Buddhas is perfect, and rejecting the opinion of those blind through bad views and through bad steps,
167 the non-blind see.
In fact, this doctrine of the non-existence of the soul is the only road to the city of Nirvana; although illumined by the rays which are the words of this sun which is the Tathagata, although followed by thousands of saints, and although it is without
168 obstacles, it is not seen by persons of weak insight.
In this book one will find but a summary indication for the use
of intelligent persons: but poison (of belief in soul), once within a
169 wound, will spread itself everywhere by its own force.
Refutation of the pudgala 1355
? 1356 Chapter Nine
Preliminary Notes
I. According to the Tibetan, this is "The Ninth Chapter {Kosastbdnam) entitled An Exposition of the Refutation of the Pudgala" {gan zag dgag pa bstan pa zhes bya ba mdzod kyi gnas dgu pa; Mdo 64, Gordier, p. 394).
But the colophon to the Eighth Chapter says that the Abhidharmako/abhdsyam ends with that Chapter: chos mnon pa'i mdzod kyi bfad pa las snoms par 'jug pa bstan pa zhes bya ba mdzog kyi gnas brgyad pa'? / chos mnon pa'i mdzod 'di rdzogs so = Abhidbarma- kofabhdsye Samdpattinirdeso ndma astamam kosastbdnam / samdpto'yam Abhidharma- kosah.
According to the colophon of the Vydkhyd, this Chapter is "The Determination of the Pudgala, An Annex to the Eighth Chapter" {astamakosasthdnasambaddha eva pudgalavinis- cayah). And according to the Bhdsyam, this section is entitled "The Treatise on the Refutation of the Pudgala," Pudgalapratisedha-prakarana (iv. 73, p. 650), or "The Refutation of the Doctrine of the Soul," Atmavddapratisedha (v. 27, p. 818).
To certain commentators, the last of the final stanzas of the "Ninth Chapter" refer to the entire Ko/abhdsyam; for others,-- who appear to be the wiser, --to only the Refutation of the Pudgala.
Evidently the Abhidharmakoiabhdsyam, an exposition of the doctrines of the Abhidharma according to the principles of the Vaibhasikas, ends with Karika viii. 40. The stanzas which follow on p. 1355 are the conclusion of the work.
The so-called "Ninth Chapter" does not contain any Karikas; here Vasubandhu teaches many doctrines which are common to both the Vaibhasikas and the Sautrantikas, but, on the whole, he adopts the position of the Sautrantikas.
Samghabhadra does not concern himself with the Ninth Chapter.
The stanzas on p. 1355 are, we would say, the conclusion of the Abhidharmakosabhd- syam. Hstian-tsang (TD 29, p. 152b17-22) places them at the end of his Chapter VIII; Paramurtha, on the contrary, makes them the preamble to Chapter IX {TD 29, p. 304al5-20). Thus it is evident that the "Treatise on the Refutation of the Pudgala" importunes,--if one can say this,--these stanzas (see below note 1).
II. Vasubandhu refutes the doctrines of the Pudgalavadins, "followers of the pudgala," and he calls them Vatsiputriyas. The Vydkhyd explains: vatsiputriyd dryasdmmattydh (see note 8). The sources (Vasumitra, Bhavya, and Vinitadeva) do not agree in their enumeration of the sects or schools which admit a pudgala. One will finds some information in Nirvana, 1926, p. 34, and in a version of Vasumitra's treatise which I hope to publish in the Collection de Materiaux pourI 'etude du Bouddhisme, by J. Przyluski.
The question is asked: are the Pudgalavadins Buddhists? Yasbmitra is very plain in this: na hi Vdtsiputriydndm muktir nesyate bauddhatvdt; "one does not pretend that they cannot obtain deliverance, for they are Buddhists" (see note 8). An opposite opinion, however, is given on p. 1338 (Hsuan-tsang, TD 29, p. 156c25) and in the final stanzas where the Pudgalavadins are included among the Tlrthikas.
Lcan-skya hu-thug-hu expresses a very widespread opinion when he says that the five schools of the Mahasmmitiyas, admitting that the "self is a "person", cannot be considered as Buddhist (Wassilief, p. 270).
Santideva {Bodhicarydvatdra, ix. 60) says, "The followers of a pudgala, internal non-believers (antas'caratirthika), admit a soul (dtman) called pudgala, and say that this soul is neither identical to the skandhas, nor different from them: otherwise one can see that they enter into the philosophy of the non-Buddhists. " They call themselves Buddhists, saugatammanya.
Candrakirti {Madhyamakdvatdra, vi. 86) says, "The non-Buddhists (tirthikas) speak of a pudgala, etc. ; seeing that the pudgala and other supposed principles do not have any activity,
? the Buddha declared that the mind alone is active. To say 'non-Buddhists' is a general manner of speaking; for there are Buddhists ('some sectarians of this Dharma') who admit a pudgala. From a certain point of view (rnam pa gcig tu na - ekaprakarena), they are not Buddhists, for, like non-Buddhists, they do not correctly understand the sense of the Teaching. Consequently, this designation ('non-Buddhist') is extended to all. It says in the Ratndvali, 'The world, with the Samkhyas, Vaisesikas, and Nirgranthas, believe in a pudgala, in the skandhas, and in other principles.
We would ask them if they teach the means to pass beyond being and non-being (or rather: if they pass beyond the affirmation and the negation of existence). . . ' Consequently one must consider those who believe in the skandhas, etc. , as persons outside (bdhya)" (We see that the "followers of the skandhas" or skandhavddins, that is to say, the orthodox Buddhists of the Hlnayana, are, like the followers of the pudgala, excluded from the Good Law).
III. The classical etymology of pudgala is represented in the Tibetan by gan zag and in the Chinese (Mahdvyutpatti, 207. 7) as ts'eng-chien ? ? : puryati galati ca (Sarvadarfana; and Sarad Candra Das and S. LeVi's translation of the Sutrdlamkdra, p. 259: "through which demerit increases and merit decreases, and vice versa").
Buddhaghosa, in his Visuddhimagga, 310, has: pun ts vuccati nirayo tasmin galantiti puggald.
The Abhisamaydlamkdrdloka, commenting on the Astasahasrika 19. 2, proposes the etymology: punah punar gatisu liyate, which is reflected in the translation of Hsuan-tsang "which, on many occasions, takes up the gatis. "
TheAstasahasrikahas:sattvadrstydjivadrstyd pudgaladrstydbhavadrstydvibhavadrstyd ucchedadrstydh idsvatadrstydh svakdyadrstyd etasdm evamddydndm drstindm prahdndya dharmam deiayisyatiti tendrthena bodhisattvo mahdsattva ity ucyate.
The Abhisamaydlamkdrdloka has: tatrdhamkdrddhdndrthena dtmd / dhito'hamkdra etasminn iti krtvd / sidandtmakatvdt sattvah / jivitendriyavaiena nikdyasabhdge parisamdpte vart at a itijivah / punah punar gatisu liyta itipudgalah / dvirbhavatiti bhavah / tirobhavatiti vibhavah / ndstiddnim abhut purvam ity ucchedah (prasajyate) astiyac (ca) svabhdvena na tan ndstiti fas vat ah / atmdtmiydkdrena pancaskandhadarsanam / evamddydndm drstindm . . .
We would remark that the etymology of sattva is as we have encountered in Kofa, v. 7, note 27 (reading of S. Levi). Buddhaghosa gets sattva from sakta, etc.
On other synonyms of pudgala, see above p. 1324 (Hsuan-tsang, TD 29, p. 154a28)
IV. Among the sources which must be compared with the present Treatise on the Refutation of the Pudgala, we would point out: 1. Kathdvatthu, i. l (translation of S. Z. Aung and Mrs. Rhys Davids, Points ofi Controversy); 2. Vijnanakdya, TD 26, number 1539, Chap. II (translated and analyzed in Etudes Asiatiques, 1925, i. p. 358-376); 3. Sdmmitiyasdstra, TD 32, number 1649, an analysis of which will be published in the Collection de Materiaux pour I'eftude du Bouddhisme, by Przyluski). Vasubandhu quotes part of these last two treatises: some indications on this subject are in the notes of our translation.
On the other hand, the Sutrdlamkdra of Asanga (edited and translated by S. Le'vi, 1907-1911), xviii. 92-103, depends to a certain extent on the Treatise of Vasubandhu. We would mention for example the discussion of the relationship between fire and fuel, the use of the same scriptural texts, and the demonstration of the inactivity of the pudgala.
A dependence by &antideva (for example, the Bodhicarydvatdra ix. 73) and his commentator on Vasubandhu is no less evident.
Vasubandhu's observations on the inability of an dtman to transmigrate, and on the relationship of fire and fuel, is seen in the Madhyamakasutras, x. 14 and xvi. 2.
All of the refutation to the pudgala in Candraklrti's Madhyamakdvatdra, is, one could say, inspired by Vasubandhu; for example vi. 146: "Some maintain the real existence of a pudgala, of which one cannot say that it is identical to the skandhas or different from them, permanent or impermanent; it is known by the six vijrldnas, and it is the object of the idea
Footnotes 1357
? 1358 Chapter Nine
of self. "
In his small Treatise, Vasubandhu refutes not only the followers of the pudgala,
--Buddhists albeit heretical, --but also some non-Buddhists, the Grammarians, the Samkhyas, and the VaiSesikas. He quotes Varsaganya (v. 27, translation, p. 818). He has some details concerning the positions of these non-Buddhists which can be compared with the traditions preserved by Paramartha and K'uei-chi (Takakusu, Toung-pao, 1904, and JRAS, 1905).
V. An argument of the Pudgalavadins, not mentioned by Vasubandhu, is pointed out in the Vydkhyd for i. 42 (p. 85 of the Petrograd edition). The Sutra says: caksusa rilpani drstvd na nimittagrahi'. . . "Having seen visibles by the eye, he does not conceive any affection. . . " As the eye sees, so too the pudgala sees by the eye {yasmdc caksuh paiyati tasmdt pudgala/ caksusa paiyati; see below note 38).
The Vydkhyd for iii. 43a admits the two hypotheses that Vasubandhu attributes death (cyuti) to the mind (citta), or to the pudgala.
Buddhaghosa, in his Manorathapurani, i. 95, explains in terms of which Vasubandhu would approve, why the Bhagavat speaks of a pudgala, even though a pudgala does not exist.
***
? 1. Vyakhyd: kirn khalv ato'nyatra mokso ndstiti / na pramddyam mumuksubhir iti vacandd ayam eva moksopdyo nasty ato'nyo moksopdyas tad atra moktukdmaih pramddo na kartavya ity arthad uktam dcdryena / codakah pfcchati kim khalv ata iti vistaral? .
Vasubandhu said, "Those who desire deliverance should apply themselves without weakness to this doctrine. " That is to say, "There is no deliverance outside of this doctrine. " The opponent answers, "Is there then no deliverance . . . "
2. On this subject, see the stanza of the Stotrakara (=Matrceta, Takakusu, l-tsing, p. 156): sdhamkdre manasi na samam ydti janmaprabandho
ndhamkdras calati hrdaydd dtmadrstau ca satydm /
anyah iditdjagati cayat? ndsti nairdtmyavddi
ndnyas tasmdd upasamavidhes tvanmatdd asti mdrgah //
"As long as the mind {manas- citta) is accompanied by the idea of "I," the series of rebirths cannot be stopped; the idea of "I" is not removed from the heart as long as there exists the view that there is a soul {dtman). Now there is not in the world any master who teaches the non-existence of the soul (nairdtmya-vddin), except you. Thus, there is not, outside of your doctrine, any other path of deliverance. "
Compare the stanzas attributed to the Acarya, Bodhicarydvatdrapanjikd, 492: yah pa/yaty dtmdnam tasydham iti sas vat ah snehah / snehdt sukhesu trsyati trsnddosdms tiraskurute. . .
The same for Candraklrti, Madhyamakdvatdra, vi. 120 (quoting the Madhyamakavrtti, p. 340), "Seeing through, prajfid that all defilements and all evil {kleia, doso) comes from the idea of self (satkayadrstt), and taking into consideration that the object of this idea is the soul {dtman), the ascetic (yogin) denies the soul. "
3. Saeki cites a commentary on the Vijfiaptimatra, 2,4: a. the asamskrtas do not exist; b. that which exists {asti-dharma- bhdva) is of three types: things known through direct perception, matter (color), the mind; things like pots and clothes {hsien shouyung fa ? 9? ? ? )'>> things like the organs (yu tso yungfa 'ft'fF^fc'fe ); ? three concep- tions of the self: identical to the skandhas, different from the skandhas, neither identical or different.
4. Agama, the proof from authority, is not mentioned because it is included within anumdna, inference.
5. Entity = bhdva; Hsuan-tsang translates this asyu-fa ^$? which calls to mind the atthidhamma of Buddhaghosa.
6. Vyakhyd: pratyaksam upalabdhir iti pratyaksam ity upalabdhivihsanam / pratyaksam tad upalabdhih pratyaksata upalabdhir ity arthah / athavd pratyaksam pramdnam upalabdhir upalabhyate'naya ity upalabdhih /
On upalabdhi, i. English trans, p. 74, ii. p. 205 , Sutralamkdra, p. 155.
The object of the mental consciousness is defined by YaSomitra: {upalabdhir) dharmdyatanasya vedanddilaksanasya yogivisayasya ca = the perception of the dharmdyatana (that is to say, vedand, etc. ) and of things which the Yogins perceive. (In fact the mental consciousness of the Yogins knows the minds and mental states of others, vii. ll).
But how can perception {upalabdhi) by the manas be pratyaksam, immediate or direct perception? In fact the manas which has just arisen is known by the manas which immediately follows (i. 17): manasas ca kim pratyaksam upalabdhih / samanantaranirud- dharh hi mano'nantarotpannena manovijnanena vijn~ayate. There is a difficulty here. Some other masters (the Sautrantikas) think that the mind knows itself: the subject and the object of the consciousness are both directly perceived: raktam vd dvistam vd sukhasamprayuktam va duhkhasamprayuktam vd (iv. 49) ity evamadi svasamvedyatayd (pratyaksam) ity apare / tad etad dvividham pratyaksam grdhyagatam grahakagatam vd.
7. Vyakhyd: maharsipranidhijndnaparicchinnatvdd asty eva caksurddikam indriyam
Footnotes 1359
? 1360 Chapter Nine
caksurvijnanddikdranam iti / sarvesdm avivdddc ca.
See i. 9c (Vyakhyd, p. 25), 44a. On pranidhijnana, see vii. 37.
8. Vyakhyd: Vdtsiputriyd Aryasammatiyah / anena vitathdtmadrstinivistatvalaksano hetur anaikdntika iti darsayati / na hi vdtsiputriydndm mokso nesyate bauddhatvdt / atha vd prdkpaksavirodhah / sdpaksdlo'yam pakso nasty dtmd ity anena darfayati.
From two things, one. The Vatslputriyas believe in a certain type of real self: now they are Buddhists, and one cannot deny that they can obtain deliverance: thus the author is wrong in saying that a false conception of the self creates an obstacle to deliverance. Or rather the thesis which denies the self is false.
On the avaktavyatd of the pudgala, see, for example, Madhyamakavrtti, 283.
9. Color, sound, etc. , are distinct things (bhinnalaksana); milk, a house, and an army are complexes of colors, tastes, odors, and tangibles, of straw and wood, of elephants, horses, and chariots, not of separate things, bhdvdntara: milk is nothing other than color, etc.
Compare Sutrdlamkdra, xviii. 92: prajfiaptyastitayd vdcyah pudgalo dravyato na tu.
10. YaSomitra quotes this stanza of Dharmaklrti:
varsdtapabhydm kirn vyomnas carmany asti tayol? phalam /
carmopamas cet so'nityah khatulyas ced asatphalah //
Sarvadariana, p. 10 (1858); Nyayavdrttika, ii. l, 5, Tatparya, 164; in Slokavdrttika:
khatulyas ced asatsamah; Naiskarmyasiddhi, ii. 60, etc.
If the pudgala is unconditioned (asamskrta), eternal, unmodifiable, it is like space, it is
like not existing. There exists only that which is "capable of action" (arthakriyd), that which is momentary (yat sat tat ksanikam): a thesis of the Sautrantikas; for the Vaibhasikas, the asamskrtas (space and the two nirodhas, i. 5c) exist.
11. For the Vatslputriya, as for Vasubandhu, the skandhas of the past and of the future do not exist. The meaning of the expressions ddhydtmika (or abhyantara) and upatta is explained in Kosa, i. 34d, 39a-b.
12. The Vyakhyd attributes this paragraph to the author, not to the Vatslputriyas. 13. For certain commentators, idhyate and dahyate are equivalent.
14. Astagravyaka (ii. 22): the four mahdbhutas or primary substances, and the four updddyarupas, from rupa (the visible) to the tangible.
15. The thing on fire (pradipta) is a complex; it is at one and the same time burner (fire) and the thing burning (indhana): in fact this thing is constituted of four elementary substances (above note 13), and one of these substances which is "heat" is the fire.
16. Earth and water are different, for their laksanas differ; the same holds for the burner and the thing burned.
17. Vyakhyd: updddyarthas tu vaktavya iti/ ananyatvdd ity abhiprdyah. We must give the word updddya an explanantion that justifies the thesis that fire and fuel are not different.
18. The fuel is made up of three mahdbhutas, and fire is its usmalaksana, the fourth mahdbhuta. They arise at the same time, like two horns.
19. One should understand: indhanam updddya - indhanam dsritya: the fire takes it support from the fuel. Or rather the meaning is that of sahabhdva, co-existence, or sahotpada, co-arising.
20. Paramartha: If he says, "that which is hot by its nature (the fire) is called hot. The object in question (fuel), although different from fire which is hot by nature, becomes hot through its association with that which is hot by its nature," we conclude that it is not incorrect to say that fire and fuel differ.
? 21. See below note 32. See the Sdrhmitiyanikdyaidstra. 22. Stcherbatski, p. 832, differs.
23. This is perhaps better translated, "is ascertained. "
24. The Chinese fen-pieh kuan ^}*g|| ? maintains the version "to discern. " "By reason of physical matter, etc. , which the eye perceives (as its own object), the visual consciousness "indirectly knows," "knows in second rank" the pudgala, because physical matter is the support (updddna) of the pudgala. And one cannot say that the pudgala is physical matter.
25. In this hypothesis physical matter is not the cause of the perception of the pudgala: there is perception of the pudgala "through relationship" with physical matter.
26. Compare Samyutta, iv. 166. 27. Not by reason of three.
28. Samyukta, TD 2, p.