[In Mahdvyutpatti, 233 (list of
utensils)
we have: 6.
Abhidharmakosabhasyam-Vol-2-Vasubandhu-Poussin-Pruden-1991
This formula can easily find a place in the Brahmanimantanika, Majjhima, i.
329.
537. See Kosa, vii. 55a. Vibhdsa, TD 27, p. 767b2. In the same way the memory of the Bhagavat bears "naturally" on 91 kalpas (iv. 109). The explanations of the Visuddhimagga, 414, on the triple khetta of the Bhagavat: jatikkhetta, 10,000 cakkavdlas which tremble at his birth; andkkhetta, a kopi and 100,000 cakkavdlas where his parittas, magic formulas of protection, reign; visayakkhetta, the field which is the object of his knowledge, infinite.
538. Paramartha here stops the exposition of the "pluralist" thesis.
539. Samghabhadra refutes this argument. The comparison with the Cakravartins proves nothing: their power is limited to the four continents; the power of conversion of the Buddhas is infinite, since their "knowledge" (JUdna) attains to all the universes.
? 540. All this argument in the BodhisattvabhUmi, foL 39.
Tatra prabhMair eva kalpairekatyo 'pi buddhasya prddurbhdvo na bhavati / ekasmmn eva ca
kalpe prabhutdndm buddhdndm prddurbhdvo bhavati / tesu ca tesu . . . diksv aprameyd- samkhyeyesu lokadhdtusv aprameydndm eva buddhdndm utpddo veditavyah / tat kasya hetoh / santi das'asu diksv aprameydsamkhyayd bodhisattva ye tulyakalakrta pranidhdnds tulyasam bhdrasamuddgatdi ca / yasminn eva divase pakse mdse samvatsara ekena bodhisattvena bodhicittam pranihitam tasmmn eva divase. . . sarvaih / yathd caika utsahito ghafito vydyacchitas ca tathd sarve / tathd hi dhriyante 'sminn eva lokadhdtdv anekdni bodhisattva/atdni ydni tulyakdIakrtapranidhdnddnitulyaddndmtulyasT
prajnani prdg eva daiasu diksv anantdparyantesu lokadhdtusu / buddbaksetrdny apt trisdhasra- mahdsdhasrdny aprameydsankhyeydni daiasu dikfu samvidyante / na ca tulyasambhdrasamudd gatayordvayos tdvad bodhisaUvayor ekasmhh lokadhdtau buddhaksetreyugapad utpattyavakdfo 'sti prdgevdprameydsaihkhyaydndm/ nacapunastulyasarhbhdrdndmkramendnuparipdfikayautpdd
yujyate / tasmad das'asu diksv aprameydsamkhyeyesu yathdpari/odhitesu tathdgataiunyesu te tulyasambhdrd bodhisattva anyonyesu buddhaksetresutpadyanta iti veditavyam // tad anena parydyena bahulokadhdtusu buddhabdhulyam eva yujyate na catkasmhn buddhaksetre dvayo tathdgatayoryugapad utpddo bhavati / tat kasya hetoh / dirghardtram khalu bodhisattva/tr evam pranidhdnam anubrmhitam bhavatiyathdham eko'parinayakefakeparindyakak sydm sattvdndm vinetd sarvaduhkhebhyo vimocayitd. . . // punas ca fakta ehas tathagatas trisdhasramahdsdhasr ekasmin buddhaksetre sarvabuddhakdryam kartum / ato dvittyasya tathagatasya vyartha eva utpddah . . . // [ekasya ca tathagatasya] loka utpdddt sattvdndm svdrthakaranaprasiddhih pracuratard bhavatipradaksmatardtat kasya hetoh / tesdm evam bhavatiayam eva krtsnejagaty ekas tathagato na dvitryah / asminnjanapadacdrikdm vd viprakrdnte parmirvrte vd ndsti sa kaici. . . yasydsmabhir antike brahmacaryarh carkavyam sydd dharmo vd irotavya iti viditvdbhitvarante ghanatarena cchandavydydmena brahmacaryavdsdya saddharmairavandya ca / buddhabahutvam te upalabhya ndbhitvarerann evam esdm ekasya buddhayotpdddt svakdrthakdryaprasiddhih pracuratard bhavati pradaksmatard ca.
541. Mahdvyutpatti, 181, svayamydnam, pratyudydnam, kalahajitah, fastrajitah (read pratyudydna . svayamydna, kalahapt. . . ) [var. astrajitah\
542. Koptardjan, see Mahdvyutpatti, 186. 8. Samyutta, v. 44: ye keci kuttardjdno sabbe te ranrlo cakkavattissa anuyantd (? ) bhavanti.
543. Tfjddha sphita subhiksadkirnabahujanamanusya (Mahdvyutpatti, 245. 10,11,13,14). Vydkhy jandh prdkrtamanusydh / manusyds tu matimantah; J As. 1913, i. 602.
544. Digha, ii. 173, Siksasamuccaya, 175.
545. Madhyama, TD1, p. 493al0, Ekottara, TD 2, p. 73 lbl6, Samyukta, TD 2, p. 194a7. Majjhima, iii. 172, Samyutta, v. 99; compare Digha, iii. 59.
lalita, 14-18, Mahdvastu, i. 108. Digha, ii. 172, Majjhima, Hi. 172, Mahdbodhwamsa, 66 (according to Leumann, Maitreyasamiti, 86).
Vydkhyd: grhapatiratnam koiddhyaksajdtfyah / parindyakaratnam balddhyaksajdtryah. Grh pati possess the divine eye, vii. 53c-d
546. The marks (iv. 108,110a) are enumerated in Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 888a6-889a9; Parsva examines why there are thirty-two, no more no less.
Good Pali bibliography in Rhys Davids-Stede.
547. De/asthatara is translated by Paramartha as "most correct"(flb'e>>g;j? ), and comments: "not 'iodined"(pup'ien^S). The Vydkhyd is illegible:defasthatardniti/ atrasthdndni (? ), translated as gnas ma 'grus pa.
548. Tibetan: Because some [persons] were endowed with grasping, after having made provision through attachment to taste and through laziness, a protector of the fields was rewarded
Footnotes 541
? 548 Chapter Three
Paramartha: Little by little, beings through attachment to taste, and through idleness, made provision, and by means of riches looked to (var. hired) a protector of the fields. Hsuan-tsang: By reason of the appearance of stocking up provisions and of robbery, in order to put an end (to robbery), they hired (ku Jg. ) a guardian of the fields.
549. Summary bibliography of the "Buddhist Genesis. "
a. AggafHiasutta, Digha, iii. 84 and LI7 {Dialogues L105, iii. 9 and 25, meaning of the word
aggarlna according to Buddhaghosa; O. Franke, 273). Visuddhimagga, 417 (Warren, 324, Sp. Hardy, Manual, 63).
b. Kandjour, Vinaya, iii. 421-430, v. 115-166, trans, by Schiefner, 6 June 1851, Melanges Asiatiques, i. 395 (mentioned by Georgi, Alphabetum Tibetanum, 188; Pallas, Sammlungen fiber die Mongolische VSlkerschafter, ii. 28; Kovalewski, Buddhistischen Kosmologie, Mem. de I'umv. de Kasan, 1837, i. 122 and the Ssanang Ssetsen of Schmid and by Rockhill, Life, 1.
lokaprajHapti, xi (analyzed in Cosmologie, 318) which quotes the Vdsisfhabhdradvqa vydkarana (comp. Digha, iii. 80).
AbhmiskramanasOtra, Kandjour, Mdo 28. 161, translated by Csoma,//*SB, 1833,385, reprinted by Ross, ibid 1911.
c Mahdvastu, 1338 and notes 615.
d BeaL, Catena, 109, Four lectures, 151 (according to Dfrgha, Madhyama, etc)
550. Dirgha, TD 1, p. I47c28 (Compare Digha, il7,34).
Vydkhyd: dfiyarUpatvdd rilpinah / upapddukatvdn manomaydh / hastapadatadan-
gulyddyupetatvdt sarvdngapratyangopetdf) / samagrendrtyatvdd avikaldh / kdnavibhrdntddyabh- dvdd ahmendriydfch / dariamyasamsthdnatvdc chubhak / ramanfyavarnatvdd varnasthdyinab / ddityddiprabhdnapeksatvM svayamprabhdf) / karmarddhisamyogendkds'acaratvdd vihd- yasamgamdp/ kava&karahdrunapeksrtvatpntibhaksakprityaktt
dirgham adhvdnam tispbantfti.
Kartnarddbi is defined v? 53c, where it is called karmajd rddhi.
551. Pphiviparpapaka,Mahdvympmi,22^2\2\VLs,v^ i&]? f# , Param- artha: "earth-skm-dried";^j? lj6. Notes of Senart, Mahdvastu, i. 616 (MSS. paryamfaka, par- pantaka); Lex. paryafa.
552. Atthasdlim, 392.
553. Lists of Cakravartins descended from Mahasammata. The LokaprajUdpti contains a list based
on the Abhidharma, another on the Vinaya {Cosmologie, 320, 322): Mahdvyutpatti, 180; Chavannes, Cinq cents contes, i. 324,330; Mahdvastu, L348;Jataka iii. 454; Sumangala, L258;JRAS. 1914,414; Geiger, concerning the translation of the Mahavamsa.
5 54. Hui-hui says: "This Sastra does not totally explain how many years life diminishes or augments by a year. The traditional opinion is that, every century, life diminishes or augments by one year (This is the system presented by Remusat, Melanges posthumes, 103, with a computation which appears to me to be erroneous: read 16,798,000 in place of 16,800,000). The Mahayana admits this theory for diminution, but it thinks that, during the period of augmentation, the life of the child is double that of the life of his father. " In the Cakkavattisihandda (Digha, iii. 68), persons of 80,000 years have children of 40,000; these, children of 20,000; then 10,000,5,000,2,500 or 2,000,1,000, 500,250 or 200,100 years. Cosmologie, 314.
555. Vasubandhu follows Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 693a7.
According to the explanations that Chavannes concludes from the numerical Dictionary and his
commentary {Cinq cents contes, i. 16) famine appears when life is thirty years long; sickness, when it is twenty years; killing, when it is tea This is kalpakasdya.
Vydkhyd. There are three ends (nirydna) of the kalpa: fire, illness, and hunger. Should we think that these three scourges are produced successively at the end of each and every kalpa when life is ten years long {dafavarsdyuhkalpa) ? Or rather that these three scourges are produced in turn at the
? end of three successive kalpas? Scholars are divided; but we are followers of the second opinion (which is that of TO 32, number 1644, quoted by Saeki).
556. Anguttara, i. 159. "I have heard the ancient Brahmins say . . . that the world was once over-populated, such as Avici (? ). How did it come to be that now mankind was destroyed, diminished, and that the villages became non-villages . . . ? Now, Oh Brahmiryrien are adhammardgaratta, visamalobhdbhibhuta, micchddhammapareta. Tbey take up sharp arms and kil oneanother. . . Itnolongerrains,thereishunger. . . (. . . micchddhammaparetdnam[manussdnam] yakkha vd amanmse osajjanti . . . yd is unlikely; we have a variant vale)" This passes into the eschatologkal plan oiDigba, iii70, the Cakkavattisihandda. (Famine and illness are absent, there is only satthantarakappa).
557. Pali sources. Anguttara, i. 160, dubbhikkham hoti dussassam setoffhikath saldkavuttam tena bahu mantissa kalarh karonti. Samyutta, iv. 323: The Bhagavat passes through the country with a great following of Bhikkhus when famine was reigning, dubbhikkhe dvihitike setoffhike satdkdvutteln the Suttavibhanga {Vinaya, ed Oldenberg, iii. 6. 15,87): in such a country duddhikhd hoti dvihitikd setoffhikd saldkdvuttd na sukard uHchena paggahena ydpetum; commentary in Samantapdsddikd, i. 175 (where Buddhaghosa gives many explanations; some are in agreement with those of Vasubandhu). Buddhaghosa gives the variant setoffikd, a sickness of rice, that we find in Anguttara, iv. 269: women will have a similar sickness, as manjeffhikd (from maHjiffbd, madder-root) is the sickness of sugar-cane, as setoffikd a type of wheat blight, is the sickness of rice. Rhys Davids-Stede discuss the expression dvihitikaduhkika {Samyutta, iv. 195).
558. Paramartha and Hsiian-tsang translatesamudga(ka)by chU-chi^%,x. o accumulate, bring together; 'du-ba has the same meaning. The version of Hsiian-tsang is very free; Paramartha appears more literal: Now chU-chi, at that period was called chan-cbe %$$$? ,. {p. 223c). Further lien-che (perfume box, etc, Couvreur, 1904, p. 197) ^ called chan-che.
[In Mahdvyutpatti, 233 (list of utensils) we have: 6. samudga {-za ma tog), 25. cafica {-gab-tse, ga-ba-tse). For gab-tse {ga-ba-tshe, tse), the word lists give: "table for magical operations", Sarad Chandra, Desgodins, etc]
b! Divydvaddna, 131 (the story of Mendhaka, excerpted from the Dulva, voL iii, Chap, on Medicines, S. Levi, Elements de formation du Divya, Toung-Pao, 1907,11, note): dvddafavarsikd andvrsfir vydkrtd / trividham durbhiksam bhavisyati carlcu ivetdsthi faldkdvrtti ca / tatra cafteu ucyatesamudgake/ tasmmmanusydbijdnipraksipyaandgatasattvdpeksaydsthdpayantimrtdndm anena te btjakd[r]yam karisyanti / idam samudgakam baddhvd cancu ucyate. . .
559. This second explanation is slightly closer to that of the Divya.
560. Divya: vilebhyo dhdnyagudakdni /aldkaydkfsya bahudakasthdlydm kvdthayitvd pibanti.
561. Dirgha, TD1, p. 137bl2; Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 690al4, examines whence come the suns (created at the origin of the world? created at the end of the kalpa by the actions of beings? ), the water, the wind; examine that which becomes things; is there parindma (iii. 40d)? is there transformation in fire, in water? Above, note 497.
562. [In the same way that, at the end of the world, the flame of Karnadhatu provokes the arising of the flame of Rupadhatu, above p. 477].
<<563. SaekimentionshereDirgha,TD1,p. I47c2,onthefivetypesofseeds;thesametheVydkhyd: parka btjajatdni mitiabtjam phahtbijam btjabijam agrabtjam skandhabtjam.
Digha, i. 5, iiL44,47; Sumangaktvildsini, i-81, etc (Rhys Davids and Stede, s. voc. btja): mSla, khandha, phalu, agga, bijabija; Fragments Stein, JRAS. 1913, 574, Rockhill in Revue Histoire Religions, ix. 168.
564. For nimittakdrana, samavdyikdrana, see Ui, Vaiiesika Philosophy, 136,139,141,146.
565. Guna [dharma] and dravya [dharma] are defined Vaifesikasutra, il. 15-16, see Ui, Vaiiesika Philosophy, p. 122.
Footnotes 549
? Footnotes 550
566. Vaifesikasutra, ii. 1. 1: "The earth has smell, taste, smell, touch".
567. The Pailukas maintain that things (avayavidravya)y wool, etc are not consumed, or burned up; the old attributes disappear; new attributes, arisen from the cooking, arise; but the things, which are the support (ds'raya) of the attributes, remain as they are (tadavastha) (Vydkhyd).
We have in Nydyabindu, Calcutta, 1889, p. 86, a Pailuka, a disciple of Kanada; in the Nydyavdrttikatdtpatya, 355 (ad 3. 1. 4) a Pailukantha.
568. According to Madhyama, 58.
569. We shall see in viii. ll that there are eight apaksdlas and that the first three Dhyanas are sa-injita. (See also iv. 46).
Anguttara, v. 135: the thorn (kanfaka) of the First Dhyana is sadda; of the Second, vitakkavicaras; of the Third, piti; and of the Fourth, assdsapassdsas. Kanpaka is that which destroys the Dhyana, that which is incompatible with the Dhyana (Kathdvatthu, ii. 5), as the mind of women
is the kanfaka of the chaste life; apaksdla, on the contrary, is a certain vice, an imperfeaion or lack, essential to a Dhyana.
Tibetan: skyon; Chinese versions: tsai 5& = calamity; vipatti, tsai-wo #? j|J| calamity-obstacle, and also kuoiOh fault, defect, in Mahdvyutpatti, 245, 664 (see the notes to Sasaki's edition: apaksdla, apaksala, apaksana, apdcara), Siksasamuccaya, 145 and Bodhisattvabhumi in Wogihara.
570. See iv. p. 107, vL24a, viillOlb.
571. Paramartha adds: They obtain Nirvana in this sphere.
572. Same doctrine and phraseology in Visuddhimagga, 421: evam vinassanto'pi ca [loko] nirantaram eva satta vdre aggina vinassati. . . vdto panpunnacatusatthikappdyuke Subhakinhe viddhamsento lokam vindseti.
573. Hsiian-tsang: the text (wen ~$t ) of the Prajndptipada. Par2Ltr&rth2i: fen-pieh li-shih /*<<^g! ji? ttffl(p. 225a).
? CHAPTER FOUR
Karma
V/m. Homage to the Buddha
Who created the variety of the world of living beings and the
receptacle-world which we have described in the preceding chapter? It was not a god (ii. 64d) who intelligently created it.
la. The variety of the world arises from aaion.
The variety of the world arises from the actions of living beings.
But, in this hypothesis, how does it happen that actions produce at one and the same time, pleasing things,--saffron, sandalwood, etc. --on the one hand, and bodies of quite opposite qualities on the other?
The actions of beings whose conduct is a mixture of good and bad actions (vydmisrakarm, iv. 60) produce bodies resembling abscesses whose impurities flow out through the nine gates, and, in order to serve as a remedy to these bodies, they also produce objeas of pleasing enjoyment, colors and shapes, odors, tastes and tangibles.
But the gods have accomplished only good actions: their bodies and their objeas of enjoyment are equally pleasing.
***
What is aaion?
lb. It is volition and that which is produced through volition.
The sutra says that there are two types of aaion, volition (cetand)
l
and the action after having been willed. Aaion after having been
? 552 Chopper Four
willed (cetayitvd) is what the kdrikd designates by the words "that which is produced through volition. "
These two aaions form three aaions: bodily aaion, vocal aaion, and mental aaion.
How do you establish this division, according to the support of its aaion, according to its nature, or according to its original cause?
To what does this question tend? If one were to regard its support,
there is nothing but an aaion, for all aaions are supported on a physical
support, a body. If one were to regard its nature, there is only vocal
aaion, for, of these three,--body, speech and manas,--only the voice is 2
ultimatelyaaionbyitsnature. Ifoneweretoregarditsorigionalcause, we have only mental aaion, for all aaions have their origin in the mind The Vaibhasikas say that the three types of aaion are established by reason of all of these three causes, support, nature and original cause, in this order.
Ic-d. Volition is mental aaion: it gives rise to two aaions, bodily and vocal aaioa
3 Volition is called mental aaion; that which arises from volition,
4
namely aaion which has been willed, is made up of the two other
aaions, bodily and vocal aaion.
***
2a. These two aaions are informative and non-informative. Bodily aaion and vocal aaion are informative (vijnapti) and non-
informative (avijnapti, i. 11, iv. 4); we then have bodily informative 5
aaion, vocal informative aaion, bodily non-informative aaion, and vocal non-informative aaion.
What aaion is "bodily informative aaion? "
2b-3b. Bodily vijnapti is shape. It is not movement because all conditioned things are momentary, since they perish: on the other hand, nothing does not perish without a cause and the creative cause would be at the same time destruaive.
Bodily vijnapti is such and such a shape (samsthana, i,10a) of the
? body by reason of a volition
6
According to others, (the Vatslputriyas,) bodily vijnapti is dis-
7
placement, forittakesplacewhenthereismovement,andnotwhen
8 there is no movement.
The author answers: This is not so, because all conditioned things are momentary.
What is understood by "momentary" (ksanika)!
Ksana means to perish immediately after having acquired its being; ksanika is a dharma that has ksana, as a dandika is one who has a staff
9 (danda).
A conditioned thing does not exist beyond the acquisition of its being: it perishes on the spot where it arises; it cannot go from this spot to another. Consequently bodily vijnapti is not movement.
The Vatslputriyas: If conditioned things are momentary, we would admit that they are not susceptible of displacement.
It is proven that they are momentary, "since they necessarily
10
perish;" for the destruction of conditioned things is spontaneous; it
does not come from anything; it does not depend on a cause.
1. That which depends oh a cause is an effect, something "done," "created" Destruction is a negation: how can a negation "be done" or
"created? " Therefore destruction does not depend on a cause.
2. Destruction does not depend on a cause: hence a conditioned thing perishes as soon as it arises; if it did not perish immediately, it
would not perish later, since it would then remain the same. Since you
n
admit that it perishes, you must admit that it immediately perishes. 3. Would you say that a conditioned thing changes and that,
consequently, it is later subject to destruction? It is absurd to say that a certain thing changes, becoming another thing, staying the same thing that you say shows its modified characteristics (ii. 46a, p. 245).
4. Would you say that there is no means of correct knowledge more decisive than direct perception; would you say that everyone holds that kindling perishes through its relationship with fire; and that, con- sequently, it is false that all things perish without a cause? There are many remarks to make with respect to this.
In fact, people do not directly perceive the destruction of kindling by reason of fire. If you think that kindling perishes through its relationship to fire because we no longer see the kindling when this
Karma 553
? 554 Chapter Four
relationship has taken place, then your thesis rests on an inference, and not on direct perception, and your reasoning is not conclusive.
The fact that we no longer see kindling after its relationship with fire is open to two interpretations: either the kindling perishes by reason of this relationship, or it unceasingly perishes in and of itself, and under normal conditions is unceasingly reborn in and of itself, but stops renewing itself by virtue of its relationship with the fire.
You admit that the destruction of the flame is spontaneous. When, after a relationship with wind, the flame is no longer visible, you admit that this relationship is not the cause of the destruction of the flame; but you admit that the flame, by virtue of this relationship, stops renewing itself. The same for the sound of the bell: a hand, laid on the bell, prevents a renewing of its sound; but it does not destroy the sound that you admit is momentary.
Therefore it is inference that should determine this question.
5. The Vatsiputriyas: What reasons do you bring to bear in favor of the thesis of spontaneous destruction?
We have already said that destruction, being a negative state, cannot be caused. We would further say that if destruction is the effect of a cause, nothing would not perish without a cause.
If, like arising, destruction proceeds from a cause, it would never take place without a cause. Now we hold that intelligence, a flame, or a sound, which are momentary, perish without their destruction de- pending on a cause. Hence the destruction of the kindling, etc. , is spontaneous.
The Vaibhasikas maintain that an earlier thought perishes by reason of a later thought, that earlier sound perishes by reason of later sound.
But the two thoughts in question are not simultaneous. Some contradictory thoughts,--doubt and certainty, pleasure and suffering, love and hate,--do not displace one another; and the same holds for non-contradictory thoughts. And if you suppose that they do contradict one another, then how can weak dharmas destroy strong dharmas of the same type--as when weak thoughts or sounds immediately follow strong thoughts or sounds?
12
6. Some [the Sthavira Vasubandhu] think that a flame perishes
through the absence of a cause of duratioa But an absence cannot be a
? cause.
According to the Vaisesikas, a flame perishes by reason of dharma
and adharma, merit and demerit.
This explanation is inadmissible. Dharma and adharma would both
be causes of arising and of destruction: dharma would cause the flame to
arise and cause it to perish, accordingly as the flame is favorable or
unfavorable; adharma, accordingly as it is unfavorable or favorable.
Now we cannot admit that dharma and adharma enter into activity and
13
cease being active from moment to moment.
Furthermore since this manner of explaining destruction would
hold for all conditioned things, it is useless to pursue the discussion. You
do not have the right to say that kindling perishes through its
14 relationship with the flame.
7. If one holds that the destruction of the kindling, etc. , has for its cause the relationship of this kindling with fire, one would then be forced to acknowledge that a cause that engenders is at the same time a cause that destroys.
Cooking (paka), or a relationship with fire, produces different products (pakaja), of deeper and deeper color. The same cause that produces the first color destroys this first color, or, at least--if you object that it refers to a new relationship with fire, since the fire is momentary--the cause that destroys the first color is similar to the cause that produces it. Now it is impossible that a certain cause would produce a certain effect and that later this same cause, or a parallel cause, would destroy this same effect. (Compare Tarka-samgraha, xxiii).
Would you say that, if the successive flames are different,--long,
short, large and small,--our conclusion does not become indispensable?
Let us use another example. By the prolonged action of ashes, snow,
caustics, sun, water, or earth, there arises and disappears in turn
different "products of cooking. " But you do not attribute the character-
istic of momentariness to these diverse factors of cooking.
15
ask why water diminishes when it is heated if a
8. Some
relationship with fire is not destruction of the water?
By reason of its relationship with fire, through the force of the fire, the heat element--which is present in water (ii. 22, p. 186)--increases and, increasing, causes the mass of water to be reborn in quantities more and more reduced, until being totally reduced, the water ceases renewing
1<s itself. This is what a relationship with fire does to water.
Karma 555
? 556 Chapter Four
16 itself. This is what a relationship with fire does to water.
9. Let us conclude. The destruction of things is spontaneous. Things perish in and of themselves, because it is their nature to perish. As they perish in and of themselves, they perish upon arising. As they perish upon arising, they are momentary. Thus there is no movement, no displacement; there is only arising in another place of the second moment of the series: this is the case, even in the opinion of our opponent, for the fire which consumes firewood The idea of movement is a false conception.
Hence bodily vijnapti is not displacement, movement; rather bodily vijnapti is shape.
###
The Sautrantikas say that shape is not a distinct thing, a thing in and of itself. [For the Vaibhasikas, rupayatana, visible physical matter is both varnarupa or color: blue, etc. , and samsthdnarupa or shape: long, etc. (i. 10a).
537. See Kosa, vii. 55a. Vibhdsa, TD 27, p. 767b2. In the same way the memory of the Bhagavat bears "naturally" on 91 kalpas (iv. 109). The explanations of the Visuddhimagga, 414, on the triple khetta of the Bhagavat: jatikkhetta, 10,000 cakkavdlas which tremble at his birth; andkkhetta, a kopi and 100,000 cakkavdlas where his parittas, magic formulas of protection, reign; visayakkhetta, the field which is the object of his knowledge, infinite.
538. Paramartha here stops the exposition of the "pluralist" thesis.
539. Samghabhadra refutes this argument. The comparison with the Cakravartins proves nothing: their power is limited to the four continents; the power of conversion of the Buddhas is infinite, since their "knowledge" (JUdna) attains to all the universes.
? 540. All this argument in the BodhisattvabhUmi, foL 39.
Tatra prabhMair eva kalpairekatyo 'pi buddhasya prddurbhdvo na bhavati / ekasmmn eva ca
kalpe prabhutdndm buddhdndm prddurbhdvo bhavati / tesu ca tesu . . . diksv aprameyd- samkhyeyesu lokadhdtusv aprameydndm eva buddhdndm utpddo veditavyah / tat kasya hetoh / santi das'asu diksv aprameydsamkhyayd bodhisattva ye tulyakalakrta pranidhdnds tulyasam bhdrasamuddgatdi ca / yasminn eva divase pakse mdse samvatsara ekena bodhisattvena bodhicittam pranihitam tasmmn eva divase. . . sarvaih / yathd caika utsahito ghafito vydyacchitas ca tathd sarve / tathd hi dhriyante 'sminn eva lokadhdtdv anekdni bodhisattva/atdni ydni tulyakdIakrtapranidhdnddnitulyaddndmtulyasT
prajnani prdg eva daiasu diksv anantdparyantesu lokadhdtusu / buddbaksetrdny apt trisdhasra- mahdsdhasrdny aprameydsankhyeydni daiasu dikfu samvidyante / na ca tulyasambhdrasamudd gatayordvayos tdvad bodhisaUvayor ekasmhh lokadhdtau buddhaksetreyugapad utpattyavakdfo 'sti prdgevdprameydsaihkhyaydndm/ nacapunastulyasarhbhdrdndmkramendnuparipdfikayautpdd
yujyate / tasmad das'asu diksv aprameydsamkhyeyesu yathdpari/odhitesu tathdgataiunyesu te tulyasambhdrd bodhisattva anyonyesu buddhaksetresutpadyanta iti veditavyam // tad anena parydyena bahulokadhdtusu buddhabdhulyam eva yujyate na catkasmhn buddhaksetre dvayo tathdgatayoryugapad utpddo bhavati / tat kasya hetoh / dirghardtram khalu bodhisattva/tr evam pranidhdnam anubrmhitam bhavatiyathdham eko'parinayakefakeparindyakak sydm sattvdndm vinetd sarvaduhkhebhyo vimocayitd. . . // punas ca fakta ehas tathagatas trisdhasramahdsdhasr ekasmin buddhaksetre sarvabuddhakdryam kartum / ato dvittyasya tathagatasya vyartha eva utpddah . . . // [ekasya ca tathagatasya] loka utpdddt sattvdndm svdrthakaranaprasiddhih pracuratard bhavatipradaksmatardtat kasya hetoh / tesdm evam bhavatiayam eva krtsnejagaty ekas tathagato na dvitryah / asminnjanapadacdrikdm vd viprakrdnte parmirvrte vd ndsti sa kaici. . . yasydsmabhir antike brahmacaryarh carkavyam sydd dharmo vd irotavya iti viditvdbhitvarante ghanatarena cchandavydydmena brahmacaryavdsdya saddharmairavandya ca / buddhabahutvam te upalabhya ndbhitvarerann evam esdm ekasya buddhayotpdddt svakdrthakdryaprasiddhih pracuratard bhavati pradaksmatard ca.
541. Mahdvyutpatti, 181, svayamydnam, pratyudydnam, kalahajitah, fastrajitah (read pratyudydna . svayamydna, kalahapt. . . ) [var. astrajitah\
542. Koptardjan, see Mahdvyutpatti, 186. 8. Samyutta, v. 44: ye keci kuttardjdno sabbe te ranrlo cakkavattissa anuyantd (? ) bhavanti.
543. Tfjddha sphita subhiksadkirnabahujanamanusya (Mahdvyutpatti, 245. 10,11,13,14). Vydkhy jandh prdkrtamanusydh / manusyds tu matimantah; J As. 1913, i. 602.
544. Digha, ii. 173, Siksasamuccaya, 175.
545. Madhyama, TD1, p. 493al0, Ekottara, TD 2, p. 73 lbl6, Samyukta, TD 2, p. 194a7. Majjhima, iii. 172, Samyutta, v. 99; compare Digha, iii. 59.
lalita, 14-18, Mahdvastu, i. 108. Digha, ii. 172, Majjhima, Hi. 172, Mahdbodhwamsa, 66 (according to Leumann, Maitreyasamiti, 86).
Vydkhyd: grhapatiratnam koiddhyaksajdtfyah / parindyakaratnam balddhyaksajdtryah. Grh pati possess the divine eye, vii. 53c-d
546. The marks (iv. 108,110a) are enumerated in Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 888a6-889a9; Parsva examines why there are thirty-two, no more no less.
Good Pali bibliography in Rhys Davids-Stede.
547. De/asthatara is translated by Paramartha as "most correct"(flb'e>>g;j? ), and comments: "not 'iodined"(pup'ien^S). The Vydkhyd is illegible:defasthatardniti/ atrasthdndni (? ), translated as gnas ma 'grus pa.
548. Tibetan: Because some [persons] were endowed with grasping, after having made provision through attachment to taste and through laziness, a protector of the fields was rewarded
Footnotes 541
? 548 Chapter Three
Paramartha: Little by little, beings through attachment to taste, and through idleness, made provision, and by means of riches looked to (var. hired) a protector of the fields. Hsuan-tsang: By reason of the appearance of stocking up provisions and of robbery, in order to put an end (to robbery), they hired (ku Jg. ) a guardian of the fields.
549. Summary bibliography of the "Buddhist Genesis. "
a. AggafHiasutta, Digha, iii. 84 and LI7 {Dialogues L105, iii. 9 and 25, meaning of the word
aggarlna according to Buddhaghosa; O. Franke, 273). Visuddhimagga, 417 (Warren, 324, Sp. Hardy, Manual, 63).
b. Kandjour, Vinaya, iii. 421-430, v. 115-166, trans, by Schiefner, 6 June 1851, Melanges Asiatiques, i. 395 (mentioned by Georgi, Alphabetum Tibetanum, 188; Pallas, Sammlungen fiber die Mongolische VSlkerschafter, ii. 28; Kovalewski, Buddhistischen Kosmologie, Mem. de I'umv. de Kasan, 1837, i. 122 and the Ssanang Ssetsen of Schmid and by Rockhill, Life, 1.
lokaprajHapti, xi (analyzed in Cosmologie, 318) which quotes the Vdsisfhabhdradvqa vydkarana (comp. Digha, iii. 80).
AbhmiskramanasOtra, Kandjour, Mdo 28. 161, translated by Csoma,//*SB, 1833,385, reprinted by Ross, ibid 1911.
c Mahdvastu, 1338 and notes 615.
d BeaL, Catena, 109, Four lectures, 151 (according to Dfrgha, Madhyama, etc)
550. Dirgha, TD 1, p. I47c28 (Compare Digha, il7,34).
Vydkhyd: dfiyarUpatvdd rilpinah / upapddukatvdn manomaydh / hastapadatadan-
gulyddyupetatvdt sarvdngapratyangopetdf) / samagrendrtyatvdd avikaldh / kdnavibhrdntddyabh- dvdd ahmendriydfch / dariamyasamsthdnatvdc chubhak / ramanfyavarnatvdd varnasthdyinab / ddityddiprabhdnapeksatvM svayamprabhdf) / karmarddhisamyogendkds'acaratvdd vihd- yasamgamdp/ kava&karahdrunapeksrtvatpntibhaksakprityaktt
dirgham adhvdnam tispbantfti.
Kartnarddbi is defined v? 53c, where it is called karmajd rddhi.
551. Pphiviparpapaka,Mahdvympmi,22^2\2\VLs,v^ i&]? f# , Param- artha: "earth-skm-dried";^j? lj6. Notes of Senart, Mahdvastu, i. 616 (MSS. paryamfaka, par- pantaka); Lex. paryafa.
552. Atthasdlim, 392.
553. Lists of Cakravartins descended from Mahasammata. The LokaprajUdpti contains a list based
on the Abhidharma, another on the Vinaya {Cosmologie, 320, 322): Mahdvyutpatti, 180; Chavannes, Cinq cents contes, i. 324,330; Mahdvastu, L348;Jataka iii. 454; Sumangala, L258;JRAS. 1914,414; Geiger, concerning the translation of the Mahavamsa.
5 54. Hui-hui says: "This Sastra does not totally explain how many years life diminishes or augments by a year. The traditional opinion is that, every century, life diminishes or augments by one year (This is the system presented by Remusat, Melanges posthumes, 103, with a computation which appears to me to be erroneous: read 16,798,000 in place of 16,800,000). The Mahayana admits this theory for diminution, but it thinks that, during the period of augmentation, the life of the child is double that of the life of his father. " In the Cakkavattisihandda (Digha, iii. 68), persons of 80,000 years have children of 40,000; these, children of 20,000; then 10,000,5,000,2,500 or 2,000,1,000, 500,250 or 200,100 years. Cosmologie, 314.
555. Vasubandhu follows Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 693a7.
According to the explanations that Chavannes concludes from the numerical Dictionary and his
commentary {Cinq cents contes, i. 16) famine appears when life is thirty years long; sickness, when it is twenty years; killing, when it is tea This is kalpakasdya.
Vydkhyd. There are three ends (nirydna) of the kalpa: fire, illness, and hunger. Should we think that these three scourges are produced successively at the end of each and every kalpa when life is ten years long {dafavarsdyuhkalpa) ? Or rather that these three scourges are produced in turn at the
? end of three successive kalpas? Scholars are divided; but we are followers of the second opinion (which is that of TO 32, number 1644, quoted by Saeki).
556. Anguttara, i. 159. "I have heard the ancient Brahmins say . . . that the world was once over-populated, such as Avici (? ). How did it come to be that now mankind was destroyed, diminished, and that the villages became non-villages . . . ? Now, Oh Brahmiryrien are adhammardgaratta, visamalobhdbhibhuta, micchddhammapareta. Tbey take up sharp arms and kil oneanother. . . Itnolongerrains,thereishunger. . . (. . . micchddhammaparetdnam[manussdnam] yakkha vd amanmse osajjanti . . . yd is unlikely; we have a variant vale)" This passes into the eschatologkal plan oiDigba, iii70, the Cakkavattisihandda. (Famine and illness are absent, there is only satthantarakappa).
557. Pali sources. Anguttara, i. 160, dubbhikkham hoti dussassam setoffhikath saldkavuttam tena bahu mantissa kalarh karonti. Samyutta, iv. 323: The Bhagavat passes through the country with a great following of Bhikkhus when famine was reigning, dubbhikkhe dvihitike setoffhike satdkdvutteln the Suttavibhanga {Vinaya, ed Oldenberg, iii. 6. 15,87): in such a country duddhikhd hoti dvihitikd setoffhikd saldkdvuttd na sukard uHchena paggahena ydpetum; commentary in Samantapdsddikd, i. 175 (where Buddhaghosa gives many explanations; some are in agreement with those of Vasubandhu). Buddhaghosa gives the variant setoffikd, a sickness of rice, that we find in Anguttara, iv. 269: women will have a similar sickness, as manjeffhikd (from maHjiffbd, madder-root) is the sickness of sugar-cane, as setoffikd a type of wheat blight, is the sickness of rice. Rhys Davids-Stede discuss the expression dvihitikaduhkika {Samyutta, iv. 195).
558. Paramartha and Hsiian-tsang translatesamudga(ka)by chU-chi^%,x. o accumulate, bring together; 'du-ba has the same meaning. The version of Hsiian-tsang is very free; Paramartha appears more literal: Now chU-chi, at that period was called chan-cbe %$$$? ,. {p. 223c). Further lien-che (perfume box, etc, Couvreur, 1904, p. 197) ^ called chan-che.
[In Mahdvyutpatti, 233 (list of utensils) we have: 6. samudga {-za ma tog), 25. cafica {-gab-tse, ga-ba-tse). For gab-tse {ga-ba-tshe, tse), the word lists give: "table for magical operations", Sarad Chandra, Desgodins, etc]
b! Divydvaddna, 131 (the story of Mendhaka, excerpted from the Dulva, voL iii, Chap, on Medicines, S. Levi, Elements de formation du Divya, Toung-Pao, 1907,11, note): dvddafavarsikd andvrsfir vydkrtd / trividham durbhiksam bhavisyati carlcu ivetdsthi faldkdvrtti ca / tatra cafteu ucyatesamudgake/ tasmmmanusydbijdnipraksipyaandgatasattvdpeksaydsthdpayantimrtdndm anena te btjakd[r]yam karisyanti / idam samudgakam baddhvd cancu ucyate. . .
559. This second explanation is slightly closer to that of the Divya.
560. Divya: vilebhyo dhdnyagudakdni /aldkaydkfsya bahudakasthdlydm kvdthayitvd pibanti.
561. Dirgha, TD1, p. 137bl2; Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 690al4, examines whence come the suns (created at the origin of the world? created at the end of the kalpa by the actions of beings? ), the water, the wind; examine that which becomes things; is there parindma (iii. 40d)? is there transformation in fire, in water? Above, note 497.
562. [In the same way that, at the end of the world, the flame of Karnadhatu provokes the arising of the flame of Rupadhatu, above p. 477].
<<563. SaekimentionshereDirgha,TD1,p. I47c2,onthefivetypesofseeds;thesametheVydkhyd: parka btjajatdni mitiabtjam phahtbijam btjabijam agrabtjam skandhabtjam.
Digha, i. 5, iiL44,47; Sumangaktvildsini, i-81, etc (Rhys Davids and Stede, s. voc. btja): mSla, khandha, phalu, agga, bijabija; Fragments Stein, JRAS. 1913, 574, Rockhill in Revue Histoire Religions, ix. 168.
564. For nimittakdrana, samavdyikdrana, see Ui, Vaiiesika Philosophy, 136,139,141,146.
565. Guna [dharma] and dravya [dharma] are defined Vaifesikasutra, il. 15-16, see Ui, Vaiiesika Philosophy, p. 122.
Footnotes 549
? Footnotes 550
566. Vaifesikasutra, ii. 1. 1: "The earth has smell, taste, smell, touch".
567. The Pailukas maintain that things (avayavidravya)y wool, etc are not consumed, or burned up; the old attributes disappear; new attributes, arisen from the cooking, arise; but the things, which are the support (ds'raya) of the attributes, remain as they are (tadavastha) (Vydkhyd).
We have in Nydyabindu, Calcutta, 1889, p. 86, a Pailuka, a disciple of Kanada; in the Nydyavdrttikatdtpatya, 355 (ad 3. 1. 4) a Pailukantha.
568. According to Madhyama, 58.
569. We shall see in viii. ll that there are eight apaksdlas and that the first three Dhyanas are sa-injita. (See also iv. 46).
Anguttara, v. 135: the thorn (kanfaka) of the First Dhyana is sadda; of the Second, vitakkavicaras; of the Third, piti; and of the Fourth, assdsapassdsas. Kanpaka is that which destroys the Dhyana, that which is incompatible with the Dhyana (Kathdvatthu, ii. 5), as the mind of women
is the kanfaka of the chaste life; apaksdla, on the contrary, is a certain vice, an imperfeaion or lack, essential to a Dhyana.
Tibetan: skyon; Chinese versions: tsai 5& = calamity; vipatti, tsai-wo #? j|J| calamity-obstacle, and also kuoiOh fault, defect, in Mahdvyutpatti, 245, 664 (see the notes to Sasaki's edition: apaksdla, apaksala, apaksana, apdcara), Siksasamuccaya, 145 and Bodhisattvabhumi in Wogihara.
570. See iv. p. 107, vL24a, viillOlb.
571. Paramartha adds: They obtain Nirvana in this sphere.
572. Same doctrine and phraseology in Visuddhimagga, 421: evam vinassanto'pi ca [loko] nirantaram eva satta vdre aggina vinassati. . . vdto panpunnacatusatthikappdyuke Subhakinhe viddhamsento lokam vindseti.
573. Hsiian-tsang: the text (wen ~$t ) of the Prajndptipada. Par2Ltr&rth2i: fen-pieh li-shih /*<<^g! ji? ttffl(p. 225a).
? CHAPTER FOUR
Karma
V/m. Homage to the Buddha
Who created the variety of the world of living beings and the
receptacle-world which we have described in the preceding chapter? It was not a god (ii. 64d) who intelligently created it.
la. The variety of the world arises from aaion.
The variety of the world arises from the actions of living beings.
But, in this hypothesis, how does it happen that actions produce at one and the same time, pleasing things,--saffron, sandalwood, etc. --on the one hand, and bodies of quite opposite qualities on the other?
The actions of beings whose conduct is a mixture of good and bad actions (vydmisrakarm, iv. 60) produce bodies resembling abscesses whose impurities flow out through the nine gates, and, in order to serve as a remedy to these bodies, they also produce objeas of pleasing enjoyment, colors and shapes, odors, tastes and tangibles.
But the gods have accomplished only good actions: their bodies and their objeas of enjoyment are equally pleasing.
***
What is aaion?
lb. It is volition and that which is produced through volition.
The sutra says that there are two types of aaion, volition (cetand)
l
and the action after having been willed. Aaion after having been
? 552 Chopper Four
willed (cetayitvd) is what the kdrikd designates by the words "that which is produced through volition. "
These two aaions form three aaions: bodily aaion, vocal aaion, and mental aaion.
How do you establish this division, according to the support of its aaion, according to its nature, or according to its original cause?
To what does this question tend? If one were to regard its support,
there is nothing but an aaion, for all aaions are supported on a physical
support, a body. If one were to regard its nature, there is only vocal
aaion, for, of these three,--body, speech and manas,--only the voice is 2
ultimatelyaaionbyitsnature. Ifoneweretoregarditsorigionalcause, we have only mental aaion, for all aaions have their origin in the mind The Vaibhasikas say that the three types of aaion are established by reason of all of these three causes, support, nature and original cause, in this order.
Ic-d. Volition is mental aaion: it gives rise to two aaions, bodily and vocal aaioa
3 Volition is called mental aaion; that which arises from volition,
4
namely aaion which has been willed, is made up of the two other
aaions, bodily and vocal aaion.
***
2a. These two aaions are informative and non-informative. Bodily aaion and vocal aaion are informative (vijnapti) and non-
informative (avijnapti, i. 11, iv. 4); we then have bodily informative 5
aaion, vocal informative aaion, bodily non-informative aaion, and vocal non-informative aaion.
What aaion is "bodily informative aaion? "
2b-3b. Bodily vijnapti is shape. It is not movement because all conditioned things are momentary, since they perish: on the other hand, nothing does not perish without a cause and the creative cause would be at the same time destruaive.
Bodily vijnapti is such and such a shape (samsthana, i,10a) of the
? body by reason of a volition
6
According to others, (the Vatslputriyas,) bodily vijnapti is dis-
7
placement, forittakesplacewhenthereismovement,andnotwhen
8 there is no movement.
The author answers: This is not so, because all conditioned things are momentary.
What is understood by "momentary" (ksanika)!
Ksana means to perish immediately after having acquired its being; ksanika is a dharma that has ksana, as a dandika is one who has a staff
9 (danda).
A conditioned thing does not exist beyond the acquisition of its being: it perishes on the spot where it arises; it cannot go from this spot to another. Consequently bodily vijnapti is not movement.
The Vatslputriyas: If conditioned things are momentary, we would admit that they are not susceptible of displacement.
It is proven that they are momentary, "since they necessarily
10
perish;" for the destruction of conditioned things is spontaneous; it
does not come from anything; it does not depend on a cause.
1. That which depends oh a cause is an effect, something "done," "created" Destruction is a negation: how can a negation "be done" or
"created? " Therefore destruction does not depend on a cause.
2. Destruction does not depend on a cause: hence a conditioned thing perishes as soon as it arises; if it did not perish immediately, it
would not perish later, since it would then remain the same. Since you
n
admit that it perishes, you must admit that it immediately perishes. 3. Would you say that a conditioned thing changes and that,
consequently, it is later subject to destruction? It is absurd to say that a certain thing changes, becoming another thing, staying the same thing that you say shows its modified characteristics (ii. 46a, p. 245).
4. Would you say that there is no means of correct knowledge more decisive than direct perception; would you say that everyone holds that kindling perishes through its relationship with fire; and that, con- sequently, it is false that all things perish without a cause? There are many remarks to make with respect to this.
In fact, people do not directly perceive the destruction of kindling by reason of fire. If you think that kindling perishes through its relationship to fire because we no longer see the kindling when this
Karma 553
? 554 Chapter Four
relationship has taken place, then your thesis rests on an inference, and not on direct perception, and your reasoning is not conclusive.
The fact that we no longer see kindling after its relationship with fire is open to two interpretations: either the kindling perishes by reason of this relationship, or it unceasingly perishes in and of itself, and under normal conditions is unceasingly reborn in and of itself, but stops renewing itself by virtue of its relationship with the fire.
You admit that the destruction of the flame is spontaneous. When, after a relationship with wind, the flame is no longer visible, you admit that this relationship is not the cause of the destruction of the flame; but you admit that the flame, by virtue of this relationship, stops renewing itself. The same for the sound of the bell: a hand, laid on the bell, prevents a renewing of its sound; but it does not destroy the sound that you admit is momentary.
Therefore it is inference that should determine this question.
5. The Vatsiputriyas: What reasons do you bring to bear in favor of the thesis of spontaneous destruction?
We have already said that destruction, being a negative state, cannot be caused. We would further say that if destruction is the effect of a cause, nothing would not perish without a cause.
If, like arising, destruction proceeds from a cause, it would never take place without a cause. Now we hold that intelligence, a flame, or a sound, which are momentary, perish without their destruction de- pending on a cause. Hence the destruction of the kindling, etc. , is spontaneous.
The Vaibhasikas maintain that an earlier thought perishes by reason of a later thought, that earlier sound perishes by reason of later sound.
But the two thoughts in question are not simultaneous. Some contradictory thoughts,--doubt and certainty, pleasure and suffering, love and hate,--do not displace one another; and the same holds for non-contradictory thoughts. And if you suppose that they do contradict one another, then how can weak dharmas destroy strong dharmas of the same type--as when weak thoughts or sounds immediately follow strong thoughts or sounds?
12
6. Some [the Sthavira Vasubandhu] think that a flame perishes
through the absence of a cause of duratioa But an absence cannot be a
? cause.
According to the Vaisesikas, a flame perishes by reason of dharma
and adharma, merit and demerit.
This explanation is inadmissible. Dharma and adharma would both
be causes of arising and of destruction: dharma would cause the flame to
arise and cause it to perish, accordingly as the flame is favorable or
unfavorable; adharma, accordingly as it is unfavorable or favorable.
Now we cannot admit that dharma and adharma enter into activity and
13
cease being active from moment to moment.
Furthermore since this manner of explaining destruction would
hold for all conditioned things, it is useless to pursue the discussion. You
do not have the right to say that kindling perishes through its
14 relationship with the flame.
7. If one holds that the destruction of the kindling, etc. , has for its cause the relationship of this kindling with fire, one would then be forced to acknowledge that a cause that engenders is at the same time a cause that destroys.
Cooking (paka), or a relationship with fire, produces different products (pakaja), of deeper and deeper color. The same cause that produces the first color destroys this first color, or, at least--if you object that it refers to a new relationship with fire, since the fire is momentary--the cause that destroys the first color is similar to the cause that produces it. Now it is impossible that a certain cause would produce a certain effect and that later this same cause, or a parallel cause, would destroy this same effect. (Compare Tarka-samgraha, xxiii).
Would you say that, if the successive flames are different,--long,
short, large and small,--our conclusion does not become indispensable?
Let us use another example. By the prolonged action of ashes, snow,
caustics, sun, water, or earth, there arises and disappears in turn
different "products of cooking. " But you do not attribute the character-
istic of momentariness to these diverse factors of cooking.
15
ask why water diminishes when it is heated if a
8. Some
relationship with fire is not destruction of the water?
By reason of its relationship with fire, through the force of the fire, the heat element--which is present in water (ii. 22, p. 186)--increases and, increasing, causes the mass of water to be reborn in quantities more and more reduced, until being totally reduced, the water ceases renewing
1<s itself. This is what a relationship with fire does to water.
Karma 555
? 556 Chapter Four
16 itself. This is what a relationship with fire does to water.
9. Let us conclude. The destruction of things is spontaneous. Things perish in and of themselves, because it is their nature to perish. As they perish in and of themselves, they perish upon arising. As they perish upon arising, they are momentary. Thus there is no movement, no displacement; there is only arising in another place of the second moment of the series: this is the case, even in the opinion of our opponent, for the fire which consumes firewood The idea of movement is a false conception.
Hence bodily vijnapti is not displacement, movement; rather bodily vijnapti is shape.
###
The Sautrantikas say that shape is not a distinct thing, a thing in and of itself. [For the Vaibhasikas, rupayatana, visible physical matter is both varnarupa or color: blue, etc. , and samsthdnarupa or shape: long, etc. (i. 10a).
