A History of Indian Philosophy Part 60

G.o.ds [Footnote ref l]." It seems particularly significant that [email protected] should credit [email protected] and not [email protected] with recovering the [email protected] creed. [email protected] was the teacher of Govinda, the teacher of [email protected]; but he was probably living when [email protected] was a student, for [email protected] says that he was directly influenced by his great wisdom, and also speaks of the learning, self-control and modesty of the other pupils of [email protected] [Footnote ref 2]. There is some dispute about the date of [email protected], but accepting the date proposed by [email protected]@darkar, [email protected] and Deussen, we may consider it to be 788 A.D. [Footnote ref 3], and suppose that in order to be able to teach [email protected], [email protected] must have been living till at least 800 A.D.

[email protected] thus flourished after all the great Buddhist teachers [email protected], Nagarjuna, [email protected] and Vasubandhu; and I believe that there is sufficient evidence in his karikas for thinking that he was possibly himself a Buddhist, and considered that the teachings of the [email protected] tallied with those of Buddha.

Thus at the beginning of the fourth chapter of his karikas he says that he adores that great man (_dvipadam varam_) who by knowledge as wide as the sky realized (_sambuddha_) that all appearances (_dharma_) were like the vacuous sky (_gaganopamam_ [Footnote ref 4]. He then goes on to say that he adores him who has dictated (_des'ita_) that the touch of untouch (_aspars'ayoga_--probably referring to [email protected]) was the good that produced happiness to all beings, and that he was neither in disagreement with this doctrine nor found any contradiction in it ([email protected] aviruddhas'ca_).

Some disputants hold that coming into being is of existents, whereas others quarrelling with them hold that being (_jata_) is of non-existents (_abhutasya_); there are others who quarrel with them and say that neither the existents nor non-existents are liable to being and there is one non-coming-into-being (_advayamajatim_). He agrees with those who hold that there is no coming into being [Footnote ref 5]. In IV. 19 of his karika he again says that the Buddhas have shown that there was no coming into being in any way (_sarvatha [email protected] [email protected]_).

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: [email protected]'s [email protected] on [email protected]'s karika, Anandas'rama edition, p. 214.]

[Footnote 2: Anandas'rama edition of [email protected]'s [email protected] on [email protected]'s karika, p. 21.]

[Footnote 3: Telang wishes to put [email protected]'s date somewhere in the 8th century, and [email protected]'vara would have him in 805 A.D.-897 A.D., as he did not believe that [email protected] could have lived only for 32 years.

_J.R.A.S._ 1916.]

[Footnote 4: Compare _Lankavatara_, p. 29, [email protected] ca gaganopamam_.]

[Footnote 5: [email protected]'s karika, IV. 2, 4.]

424

Again, in IV. 42 he says that it was for those realists (_vastuvadi_), who since they found things and could deal with them and were afraid of non-being, that the Buddhas had spoken of origination (_jati_). In IV. 90 he refers to _agrayana_ which we know to be a name of _Mahayana_. Again, in IV. 98 and 99 he says that all appearances are pure and vacuous by nature.

These the Buddhas, the emanc.i.p.ated one (_mukta_) and the leaders know first. It was not said by the Buddha that all appearances (_dharma_) were knowledge. He then closes the karikas with an adoration which in all probability also refers to the Buddha [Footnote ref 1].

[email protected]'s work is divided into four chapters: (i) agama (scripture), (2) Vaitathya (unreality), (3) Advaita (unity), (4) Alatas'anti (the extinction of the burning coal). The first chapter is more in the way of explaining the [email protected]@dukya [email protected] by virtue of which the entire work is known as [email protected]@dukyakarika_.

The second, third, and fourth chapters are the constructive parts of [email protected]'s work, not particularly connected with the [email protected]@dukya [email protected]

In the first chapter [email protected] begins with the three apparent manifestations of the self: (1) as the experiencer of the external world while we are awake (_vis'va_ or _vais'vanara atma_), (2) as the experiencer in the dream state (_taijasa atma_), (3) as the experiencer in deep sleep ([email protected]_), called the _prajna_ when there is no determinate knowledge, but pure consciousness and pure bliss (_ananda_). He who knows these three as one is never attached to his experiences. [email protected] then enumerates some theories of creation: some think that the world has proceeded as a creation from the [email protected] (vital activity), others consider creation as an expansion (_vibhuti_) of that cause from which it has proceeded; others imagine that creation is like dream (_svapna_) and magic (_maya_); others, that creation proceeds simply by the will of the Lord; others that it proceeds from time; others that it is for the enjoyment of the Lord (_bhogartham_) or for his play only ([email protected]_), for such is the nature (_svabhava_) of the Lord, that he creates, but he cannot have any longing, as all his desires are in a state of fulfilment.

[Footnote 1: [email protected]'s karika IV. 100. In my translation I have not followed [email protected], for he has I think tried his level best to explain away even the most obvious references to Buddha and Buddhism in [email protected]'s karika. I have, therefore, drawn my meaning directly as [email protected]'s karikas seemed to indicate. I have followed the same principle in giving the short exposition of [email protected]'s philosophy below.]

425

[email protected] does not indicate his preference one way or the other, but describes the fourth state of the self as unseen ([email protected]@[email protected]_), unrelationable (_avyavaharyam_), ungraspable (_agrahyam_), indefinable ([email protected]@na_), unthinkable (_acintyam_), unspeakable (_avyapades'ya_), the essence as oneness with the self (_ekatmapratyayasara_), as the extinction of the appearance (_prapancopas'ama_), the quiescent (_s'antam_), the good (_s'ivam_), the one (_advaita_) [Footnote ref 1]. The world-appearance (_prapanca_) would have ceased if it had existed, but all this duality is mere maya (magic or illusion), the one is the ultimately real ([email protected]_). In the second chapter [email protected] says that what is meant by calling the world a dream is that all existence is unreal. That which neither exists in the beginning nor in the end cannot be said to exist in the present. Being like unreal it appears as real. The appearance has a beginning and an end and is therefore false. In dreams things are imagined internally, and in the experience that we have when we are awake things are imagined as if existing outside, but both of them are but illusory creations of the self.

What is perceived in the mind is perceived as existing at the moment of perception only; external objects are supposed to have two moments of existence (namely before they are perceived, and when they begin to be perceived), but this is all mere imagination. That which is unmanifested in the mind and that which appears as distinct and manifest outside are all imaginary productions in a.s.sociation with the sense faculties. There is first the imagination of a perceiver or soul (_jiva_) and then along with it the imaginary creations of diverse inner states and the external world. Just as in darkness the rope is imagined to be a snake, so the self is also imagined by its own illusion in diverse forms.

There is neither any production nor any destruction (_na nirodho, na [email protected]_), there is no one who is enchained, no one who is striving, no one who wants to be released [Footnote ref 2]. Imagination finds itself realized in the non-existent existents and also in the sense

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Compare in Nagarjuna's first karika the idea of _prapancopas'amam s'ivam. Anirodhamanutpadamanucchedamas'as'vatam anekarthamananarthamanagamamanirgamam [email protected] prat.i.tyasamutpadam prapancopas'amam s'ivam des'ayamava sambuddhastam vande vadatamvaram_.

Compare also Nagarjuna's Chapter on [email protected]@sa, [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] na kvacit kasyacit kas'cit dharmmo [email protected]_. So far as I know the Buddhists were the first to use the words _prapancopas'aman s'ivam_.]

[Footnote 2: Compare Nagarjuna's [email protected], "anirodhamanutpadam" in [email protected], B.T.S._, p. 3.]

426

of unity; all imagination either as the many or the one (_advaya_) is false; it is only the oneness (_advayata_) that is good. There is no many, nor are things different or non-different (_na nanedam ...na [email protected] [email protected]_) [Footnote ref 1]. The sages who have transcended attachment, fear, and anger and have gone beyond the depths of the Vedas have perceived it as the imaginationless cessation of all appearance ([email protected] [email protected]_), the one [Footnote ref 2].

In the third chapter [email protected] says that truth is like the void(_akas'a_) which is falsely concieved as taking part in birth and death, coming and going and as existing in all bodies; but howsoever it be conceived, it is all the while not different from akas'a. All things that appear as compounded are but dreams (_svapna_) and maya (magic). Duality is a distinction imposed upon the one (_advaita_) by maya. The truth is immortal, it cannot therefore by its own nature suffer change. It has no birth. All birth and death, all this manifold is but the result of an imposition of maya upon it [Footnote ref 3]. One mind appears as many in the dream, as also in the waking state one appears as many, but when the mind activity of the Togins (sages) is stopped arises this fearless state, the extinction of all sorrow, final ceasation. Thinking everything to be misery ([email protected] sarvam [email protected]_) one should stop all desires and enjoyments, and thinking that nothing has any birth he should not see any production at all. He should awaken the mind (_citta_) into its final dissolution (_laya_) and pacify it when distracted; he should not move it towards diverse objects when it stops. He should not taste any pleasure (_sukham_) and by wisdom remain unattached, by strong effort making it motionless and still. When he neither pa.s.ses into dissolution nor into distraction; when there is no sign, no appearance that is the perfect Brahman. When there is no object of knowledge to come into being, the unproduced is then called the omniscent (_sarvajna_).

In the fourth chapter, called the Alats'anti, [email protected] further

[Footnote 1: Compare _Madhyamikakarika, _B.T.S._, p.3 _anekartham ananartham_, etc.]

[Footnote 2: Compare _Lankavatarasutra_, p.78, [email protected]@h tasmat tarhi mahamate [email protected]@[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]@h_; also 8,46, _Yaduta [email protected]@[email protected]@tyanavabodhanat vijnananam [email protected]@[email protected]@na mahamate [email protected] [email protected]@[email protected] bhavanti_.]

[Footnote 3: Compare Nagarjuna's karika, _B.T.S._ p. 196, _akas'am [email protected]@nganca [email protected] putra eva ca asantas'cabhivyajyante tathabhavena kalpana_, with [email protected]'s karika, III. 28, _Asato mayaya janma tatvato naiva jayate bandhyaputro na tattvena mayaya vapi jayate_.]

427

describes this final state [Footnote ref l]. All the dharmas (appearances) are without death or decay [Footnote: ref 2].

[email protected] then follows a dialectical form of argument which reminds us of Nagarjuna. [email protected] continues thus: Those who regard [email protected] (cause) as the karyya (effect in a potential form) cannot consider the cause as truly unproduced (_aja_), for it suffers production; how can it be called eternal and yet changing?

If it is said that things come into being from that which has no production, there is no example with which such a case may be ill.u.s.trated. Nor can we consider that anything is born from that which has itself suffered production. How again can one come to a right conclusion about the _regressus ad infinitum_ of cause and effect (_hetu_ and _phala_)? Without reference to the effect there is no cause, and without reference to cause there is no effect.

Nothing is born either by itself or through others; call it either being, non-being, or being-non-being, nothing suffers any birth, neither the cause nor the effect is produced out of its own nature (_svabhavatah_), and thus that which has no beginning anywhere cannot be said to have a production. All experience (_prajnapti_) is dependent on reasons, for otherwise both would vanish, and there would be none of the afflictions ([email protected]'a_) that we suffer. When we look at all things in a connected manner they seem to be dependent, but when we look at them from the point of view of reality or truth the reasons cease to be reasons. The mind (_citta_) does not come in touch with objects and thereby manifest them, for since things do not exist they are not different from their manifestations in knowledge. It is not in any particular case that the mind produces the manifestations of objects while they do not exist so that it could be said to be an error, for in present, past, and future the mind never comes in touch with objects which only appear by reason of their diverse manifestations.

Therefore neither the mind nor the objects seen by it are ever produced. Those who perceive them to suffer production are really traversing the reason of vacuity (_khe_), for all production is but false imposition on the vacuity. Since the unborn is perceived as being born, the essence then is the absence of

[Footnote 1: The very name [email protected]