Poussin 1902 on Scriptural Authority

8/2/2019 Poussin 1902 on Scriptural Authority

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/poussin-1902-on-scriptural-authority 1/71

On the Authority (Pramanya) of the Buddhist Agamas(1)

By Louis DE LA Vall`ee PoussinThe Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society of Great Britain andIreland1902

Louis De La Vallée Poussin “On theauthority ( pr maā ṇ ya) of the Buddhist

gamas (1).”Ā JRAS, 1902, pp. 363–376.

pp.363-376

.

font FACE="System" LANG="ZH-TW">



p.363

THE well-known history of Buddhism by

Taaranaatha－not to mention

here the book of I-tsing－is filled with tales of

the controversiesbetween Buddhists and

'orthodox' teachers of the

Miimaa^msaa, Nyaaya, orVedaanta schools.The Tibetan chronicler affirms,

to say the truth,that the noble (aarya) AAcaaryas

were armed with all

the weapons magical artcould afford; their

adversaries used the sameweapons, and it was by the



striking effects of miracles thatthe Raajas mere

made generous or favourable, orwere converted. Thosetales are confirmed by

legends of which the'Sa^nkaras and Udayanas are

the heroes.(2) I do not

───────────

(1) A lecture given at themeeting of the R.A.Society, 11th June, 1901.

(2) See, for instance, theSa^mk.sepa'sa^mkaravijaya

(Cat. Aufrecht, Oxford, fol.254a), where is

narrated, with variants, thelegend elsewhere



attributed to Udayana: ".....ya.h patitvaa gireh

'srr^ngaad avyayah,tanmata^m dhruvam.....yadivedaah pramaa.na^m syur,

bhuuyaat kaa cin na mek.sati.h." The Buddhists do

not accept this

ordeal: " saugataas tvabruvann: ida^m na

pramaana^m matanirnayema.nimantrau.sadhair eva^m

deharak.saa bhaved iti." The

king does not yieldto this (rather conclusive)argument, but he

manages a new experience,asking: " What is

hidden in this basket?" The

Buddhists do, of course, know that there is a

serpent. But a



divine voice is heard: "Thisserpent is not a

serpent, but Vi.s.nu." Therefore the king givesorders for the slaughter of

the heretics(vadhaaya 'srutividvi.saam).The story of the serpent in

the basket is wellknown from Taaranaatha.The legend of Udayana－

Brahmin and Buddhistfalling from the top of a

mountain－isinteresting from itsconclusion. The Naiyaayika

conqueror, being a murdererfor the benefit of

the creed-is not approved of

by the priests of Jagannaath, and he does not

conceal his anger. "



The following couplet, whichhas not been traced

beyond oral tradition, at onceillustrates theirreverence of the Hindu mind

and shows that theNyaaya is prized as the

stronghold of theism. The

verses are reported－falsely,it is hoped－to

have been uttered byUdayana AAcaarya:

ai'svaryamadamatto 'si, maam

avaj~naaya vartase:upasthite.su bauddhe.sumadadhiinaa tava

sthiti.h.... but let theBauddhas show

themselves, and upon me

will depend thy veryexistence.".(N. Niilaka.n.tha

Gore: "A rational



Refutation of the HinduPhilosophical Systems, p.

6, note. Mr. C. II. Tawneyhas given me thiscurious reference. See also

Barth, Bulletin,1899-1900, 2, 32, n. 4; J.B.T.S.,

iv, 1, p.21.)

p.364

believe them to be only a fiction,

but they must belooked upon as of little historicalimportance. The

war is really elsewhere; it isbetween the

philosophical systems

(dar'sana), not between themagicians (mantra-vid).

The doctrinal debate isessentially a



philosophical one: the magisterdixit argumentation

cannot be used, and itappears that Dignaaga'sadversaries have been obliged

to submit to hiscontroversial axiom, that is to

say, "a doctor cannot

be beaten, except by such wayof reasoning as is in

accordance with his own point of view."(1)

We do not fully trust the

legends on the IndianSt. Barthelemies, ruled over by'Sa^nkara and his

fellowworkers; but we knowthat the prize of the

fight was an important one. The

defeated doctor hadto accept his winner for a guru

(master).(2) The



conversion or apostasy, it mustbe added, was not

very hard. Brahmins andBuddhists, those freresennemis, are the products of

parallel intellectualevolutions; they had many

points of agreement; and

the Dubious Truth's kingdom,that is, the sphere of

the sa^mvrrtisatya(vyavahaara。), is large enough to

allow easy metaphysical

concessions.However, the importance of those logical and

oratorical contests is beyondany doubt. The

prosperity of Buddhism in India

seems to have variedwith its doctors' fortune-

luxuriant with its



hundreds of scholar-monks inthe large universities

of the catholic Sa^mgha,when the Dignaagas,Candrakiirtis, Candragomins,

were giving the Good Lawa high degree of authority; falling

almost into decay

under their anmic successors,mean magicians, and

of a poor dialectical training. Therefore, one must

insist on the special interest

those disputes wouldoffer to the Indianist, were itpossible to know them

with some details. The twoschools, then in the full

strength of their maturity, were

───────────



(1) The law of controversyaccording to Dignaaga, see

Madhyamakavrrtti, fol. 9b,ed. Calcutta, p. 9init.; 'Slokavaartika, p. 250,

cf. p. 372;Sadagiro Sugiura, "Hindu

Logic as preserved in

China and Japan," p. 34 (Un.of Pennsylvania,

Series No. 4).

(2) Cf. the history of Sabhika,

Mahaavastu, iii.389foll.

p.365

fighting each other;philosophical questions of

capital consequence werebeing discussed. The



Buddhists, so to speak,champions of the "free

examination" (libre examen),are distinguished fromthe other sects by the indelible

character of adefinite creed, and by the

somewhat revolutionary

appearance of some of theiressential dogmas. But, up

to the present time, we havehad nothing to base our

conclusions upon except

hypotheses. Taaranaatha, likemany a chronicler, prefers themarvellous stories to

the doctrinal expositions. On theBuddhist dar'sanas

we knew almost nothing but

what Colebrooke, the firstand no doubt the greatest of

Indianists, taught us



some sixty years ago. TheSarvadar'sana and the

famous commentary on theBrahmasuutras were the onlyauthorities to draw from. On the

Buddhist side theSanskrit documents are very

few; they were left a

long time untouched orunknown. The courageous

explorations of Schiefner,Wassilieff, and others,

interesting as they are, throw

little light on themomentous matter.But things are going now

another way. Not tospeak of several collections, the

Bibliotheca Indica,

the Vizianagaram S.S., theChawkhamba S.S., give us

in a handy form the works of thehigh masters and the



commentaries of their pupils－honest, eloquent, and

learned men－the 'Sriidharas,Paarthasaarathimi'sras,Vaacaspatimi'sras.

We find in the Bhaamatii thewhole of a quotation

from the 'Saalistambasuutra; in

the Nyaayavaarttikawe find a precise reference to

some old canonicaldefinition of the pudgalavaada.

(1) 'Sa^nkara mentions

the famous text, "What does theEarth rest upon?....What does the Wind? "(2) In a

chapter of theNyaayaratnaakara are twenty

quotations ascribed to

the 'Bhik.su,' fourteen of which,at least, are to be

read in the fifth chapter of thePramaa.nasamuccaya



by Dignaaga. The Taatparaya.tiikaa and the Maadhava's

well-known compilation showtheir high value bynumerous passages extracted

from

───────────

(1) Bouddhisme, Notes et Bibl., p.43, n. 1 (from the

Museon); J.R.A.S., 1901, p.308.

(2) 'Sa^nkara, 2,2, 24;Abhidharmako'sav., 13a

(Burn., Introd., 449);Madhyamakavrrtti, ad vii,

25. Cf. Aitaraya Br. 11, 6, 4.

p.366



Pramaa.navini'scaya of Dharmakiirti. And lastly,

Dharmottara and hisNyaayabindu were both known toVaacaspatimi'sra.(1)

How could we doubt it? Those books are

circumstantial books, books of

polemic. So saysVaacaspatimi'sra: "Vatsyaayana

has written acommentary on the

Nyaayasuutras; but that commentary

(bhaa.sya) has been discussedby Dignaaga; and it wasto answer that powerful

antagonist that Uddyotakaramade his new commentary

on the same Suutras

(vaarttikas)."Not less rich, indeed, in

precious references is



the Jaina literature, as thelearned pandit k. B.

Pathak has conscientiouslyestablished.It seems unquestionable,

if we trustTaaranaatha－and a short

examination of Tandjur

confirms the Tibetan chronicler－that Dignaaga and

Dharmakiirti were fortunateenough to endow their

co-religionists with a complete

new set of philosophical principles. Thanksto those doctors,

the canonical dogmas of "universal momentariness" and

of "no existence of a soul"

(k.sa.nikatva,nairaatmya) were provided

with a logic, with a



psychology, with a theory of theunderstanding. Since

Brahmins and Buddhists startfrom directly oppositetenets, no wonder is it to find

them in manifestconflict concerning the definition

of perception, the

essence of individual anduniversal, the normal use

of reasoning, the finalemancipation. But not to

speak of the historical

meaning of those strongthough subtle conceptions, weshall find abundant

food for our curiosity in thevaried turns of a war

in which every blow is warded

off, in which eachparty, if uncertain to win, is, at

least, sure not tobe irremediably conquered.



The above prolegomena seem

necessary, firstly, toshow with a full light howmuch needed are the

researches to which weventure to call attention

(those researches, it must

───────────

(1) See the transl. of theSarvadar`s.s., Museon,

1901. Taatp..t. 339;'Slokavaart. 397;Nyayaab..t. 16. 4. Professor

Harapra'sad 'Sastri,in his last report (1895-

1901), has given a

short but interesting noticeof two little

treatises by Ratnakirti,Apohasiddhi,



K.sa.nabha^ngasiddhi.

p.367

be admitted, will not get their fullvalue before the

Tibetan translations of 'Saastras

and Vrrttis havebeen duly studied); secondly,

to make any mistakeimpossible: for the question I

shall endeavour to

develop is certainly not to beneglected, but it isonly one of the many doctrinal

topics the AAcaaryasof both parties have explained.

The question bears on the

authority of the Vedasand of the Buddhist AAgamas, or,

to use the technical



word, on the 'authority of theVerbum, ' the

'Sabdapraamaa.nya.The problem is a difficultone, for it implies

the investigating of a moregeneral question, namely,

the question of the

praamaa.nya, or the validity of the means of proof(1)－the very

nucleus of Kant's orof Descartes' philosophical

systems. We shall not

investigate here this lastquestion, which wouldcarry us too far.

As far as the 'Sabda isconcerned, Sir John Muir,

in the third volume of his

"Original Sanskrit Texts,"has given a complete survey

of all the texts



published up to 1873(2) ;Professor Cowell just

touches it, but throws a greatdeal of light upon itin his translation of the

Jaiminii-dar'sana (3);Dr.G.Thibaut, in the

introduction of his

Arthasa^mgraha, led us tohope he would some day

examine the opinion of theMiimaa^msakas on the

matter; Mahaadev Raajaaram

Bodas treats it in a fewwords in his amplecommentary on the

Tarkasa^mgraha.(4)I can only point out the final

result of a long

scholastic elaboration. Thereare two orthodox

systems, not to dwell on theminute divergences, that



of the Vedaantists andMiimaa^msists on one side,

that of the Naiyaayikas on theother.(5)

───────────

(1) See 'Sa^nkaradigvijaya,

AAnand. S.S., Comm. adviii, 81. 'Sa^nkara was

paying a visit to theMiimaa^msaka Mandana;

as he asks some

washing-women the way tothe aa'srama, they givethe following answer: "Where

you should hear thebirds singing: svata.h

pramaa.na^m, parata.h

pramaa.nam....there is thehouse."

On the philosophicalproblem,Advaitabrahmasiddhi,



p. 185, is interesting.

(2) Sanskrit Texts, secondedition, 1873.

(3) Sarvadar'sanasa^mgraha,transl. 1882. The

so-called "second edition"

(1894) is only areprint.

(4) Bombay S.S. Iv.

(5) On the Saa^mkhyas,Garbe, Saa^mkhya, 115;Deussen, Vedaanta, 94.

p.368

The latter, champions of theism, establish by



reasoning the existence of God(ii'svara), maker and

ruler, good, and by his owngoodness obliged toreveal to the creatures the way

of salvation. ThatGod, "who never can mislead

or be misled," has

revealed the truth. And where isthat revelation to

be found if not in the Veda,mould and pattern of the

sacrifices, of the castes, of the

social andcenobitic life?For the former

(Miimaa^msists and Vedaantists)the Vedas are eternal; they have

no personal author

(apauru.soyatva).The 'Sabda, that is, the

Verbum or Veda, is a



means of proof quite differentfrom that our senses,

or reason, can furnish us. Itsobject－be it eitherthe Brahmnn, the endless and

boundless substance, asthe Vedaantists believe, be it

the Dharma, or the

sacrificial law, as theMiimaa^msists contend－is

above any common or worldlypramaa.na.

The Vedaantists call the

smrrti, or tradition,inference (anumaana) , and forthem the word

perception (pratyak.sa) has thesame meaning as

'sruti (revelation),2 which has a

selfauthority, thisauthority being recognized by an

internal intuition.



The Vedas are eternal andthe origin of

knowledge.Against the opinion of all theVeda-followers

(vedavid) , Miimaa^msists orNaiyaayikas, the

Buddhists maintain that the

'sabda or aaptopade'sa(the word of a truthful witness)

───────────

(1) Vaacaspatimi'sra,Nyaaya vaartikataatparya.tiikaa, p. 300: ''It

shall beestablished, in the fourth book

of the suutras,

that from the existence of created things

(kaarya), viz. the body andthe world, can be



logically demonstrated theexistence of a creator

of these creatures, able tocreate them, knowingthe essence of everything,

unpolluted by theimpression of the matured

passional action, and

endowed with a supremepity. But, when this

compassionate Being seesthat the creatures are

ignorant of the method to

realize their ownwelfare and to avoid baddestiny, that they are

consumed by the fire of numerous sufferings, he

must be grieved by the

sufferings of thecreatures. Being so grieved,

knowing the way of



salvation, is it possible thathe did not teach

this way, or that he didteach this wayerroneously? Therefore, this

compassionate Being,after having created the

earth and the four

classes of human beings, didcertainly teach them

the way to attain happinessand to avoid the

reverse: he cannot stay

without teaching it (nahy anupadi'sya sthaatumarhati). And the teaching

of this father-likecompassionate Being is

accessible to the Devas, to

the RRsis, to themen; it must be accepted by

the four classes..."



(2) Deusson, p. 96: "DusOffenbarto ist ihm

('Saukara) das Offenbaro." Cf.'Sa^nkara, 1, 1, 2(AAn. S.S., p. 34); Bhaam.

Objection of theMiimaasakas, 1, 1, 3.

p.369

cannot be distinguished fromthe vulgar pramaa.nas.

Udayana and Vaacaspatimi'srabring forth Dignaaga'sdilemma:-

"Where is the aaptopade'sa'sstrength to be

found? In the witness's

undoubting trustfulness, orin the specific truth of his

learning? In the first



instance, it is a case of inference.(1) (Witness is

to be relied upon, for he knowsthe facts and he doesnot lie.) In the second, the

evidence comes from anactual perception. (The truth of

the teaching is made

obvious by its accordance withthe facts.)"(2)

Let us see, however, if thedissidence is as deep

as it seems to be. On the one

hand－the Brahmins donot deny it－the eternity of the Vedas or the

existence of God, theVedainspirer, has to be

established by proofs.(3) On

the other hand, theBuddhists consider their own

suutras as eternal, and



one of the most commonly usednames for Buddha is the

Omniscient. Both make an equaluse of "Faith restingon Reason," and the polemic,

apart from the logicaldispute, grows up unchecked on

the solid ground of

fact."The Buddhists," says

Kumaarila, "give the Veda ahuman origin; on account of

the principle of the

universal momentariness theydeny its eternity; but,strange to say, they claim

eternity for their ownbooks (aagamas)!" such

───────────



(1)AAptavaakyaavisa^mvaadasaamaany

aad anumaanataa =Pramaa.nasamuccaya, ii, 5,fol. 5a, 4 (Tandjur,

Mdo, xcv):

yid-ches thsig ni mi-bslu-ba

spyi-las rjes-su-dpag-pa-~nid.

Cf. iii, 2 (fol. 7a, 2) ; Taatp,138. 2;

Vaarttika, 61. 13; Nyaayas. i,

1, 17.

(2) "As it has not a specificobject, the 'sabda is

not a specificpramaa.na.Things are perceptible

or imperceptible: the firstones can be known by

perception (pratyak.sa), thesecond ones by means



of the li^nga....." Nyaayas.ii,1,46;Vaart. 260;

Taatp. 286. 3. See'Slokavaart., pp. 51-53, thecharacteristics of the 'sabda.

(3) 'Sa^nkara, of course,establishles by purely

rational arguments theprinciples of his system;

but, as well said byAAnandagiri, " If it is

possible to show by logical

process that there isa cause of the world, we arealtogether unable to

ascertain by commonpramaa.nas the nature of this

cause, the unity and the other

characteristics of Brahman." 'Sa^nkara says:

"The true nature of the



cause of the world, on whichfinal emancipation

depends, cannot, on accountof its excessiveabstruseness, even be thought

of without the helpof the holy texts; for it

cannot become the

object of perception..., and asit is devoid of

characteristic signs, it doesnot lend itself to

inference..."(Thibaut, i, p.

316.) 'Sa^nkara, 2,1, 11; see 1, 1, 4 (p. 47. 2);Bhaam. 294. 11;

and Vedaantakalpataru.

p.370

assertion of Kumaarila beingsupported by quotations



from old AAgamas. "Throughhatred of the Vedas,

admitting the eternity to be aproof of veracity,jealous of any superiority in the

Veda, they insiston the eternity of their aagamas;

at the same time,

to exalt their master, theyglorify him for having

discovered the doctrine of theahi^msaa (respect for

living beings)."(1) "The Buddhist

AAgamas, they say,are eternal! But in whatlanguage are those books

written? In Prakrit, a barbarousdialect; worse, if

possible, than the

Apabhram'sa!"(2) and Kumaariladoes triumph; for the

───────────



1 Tantravaartika, 169. 11:

yathaamiimaa^msakatrastaa.h'saakyavai'se-

.sikaadaya.hnitya evaagamo

'smaakam ity aahu.h'suunyacetanam,pradve.saad,

vedapuurvatvam anicchanta.hkatha^m cana,

tanmaatre 'pi cabhuuyi.s.thaam icchanta.hsatyavaaditaam....ahi^msaady atatpuurvam

ity aahustarkamaanina.h.

170.2:



aahu.h svaagamanityatva^mparavaakyaanukaari.na.h....

tatra 'saakyai.h prasiddhaapisarvak.sa.nikavaaditaatyajyate, vedasiddhaantaaj

Jalpadbhir nityamaagamam.dharmas tenopadi.s.to 'yam

"anitya^m sarvasa^mskrrtam,k.sa.nikaah

sarvasa^mskaaraa asthiraa.naa^mkuta.h kriyaa,

buddhibodhyam trayaad

anyat sa^mskrrta^m k.sanika^m catat."

171.2:

'sabdaadi.su vina'syatsu

vyavahaara.h kva vartataam?" sthitai.saa dharmatety"

etad artha'suunyam ato vaca.h.



e.sety api na nirde.s.tu^m'sakyaa k.sa.navinaa'sinii,

kim uta sthitayaa saakame.sety asyaikavaakyataa.tenaanitya'sabdavaadinaam

aagamanityatvaanupapatte.h..

163. 2:

'saakyaadayo 'pi hy eva^mvadanty eva:

"yathotpaadaad vaatathaagataanaam anutpaadaad vaa

sthitaiveya^m dharmanityateti."

The line: K.sa.nikaa.hsarvasa^mskaaraa.... is

quoted, Bodhicaryaavat.t. 251,27. Cf. Bhaamatii,

361. 3, and theNyaayabindupuurvapak.sa, a very

interesting little tract byKamala'siila, Tandjur,



Mdo, cxi, fol.118(b). Thefollowing one is to be

found, 'Sa^nkara, 540, Comm.'Slokavaart. p. 735. Thethree 'asa^msk.rta' are well

known.See for the quotation 163. 2

the Sarvadar's.s.,

p. 21, 1. 8, and notes to thetranslation (Museon,

1901-2).As concerns the ahi^msaa,

see Atmatattvaviveka

(ed. 1873), p,. 121 in fine. Thereare some curiousobservations on the matter

in Rhys Davids'"Dialogues," p 165.

2 Mimaa^msaatantravaart. (Ben.S.S.), p. 171. 9:



Asaadhu'sabdabhuuyi.s.thaa.h 'saakyajai-

naagamaadaya.hasannibandhanatvaac ca'saastratva^m na

praliiyate.

Maagadhadaak.si.naatyatadapab

hra^m'sapraayaasaadhu's-abdanibandhanaa hi te ｜

mama vihi bhikkhavekammavacca isii save ｜ tathaa

ukkhitte lo.dammi

ukkheve atthi kaara.na^m

p.371

Prakrits were, at his time,

considered as recentdegenerations of the Sanskrit.

That philological argumentis capital; but



Kumaarila goes on, for it is of interest to overthrow

Buddhism in the very core of the Good Law, in thedogmatic conception of the

Teacher. "This word of Buddha," so he says, "is well

known: 'May all sins

done in the world during this ironage fall down upon

my head; but may the world besaved!'" In that saying

we find the whole of the Great

Vehicle's glory. ButKumaarila shows how absurd isthat

───────────

(5) pa.dane.natthi kaara.nam

｜ atthy ubbhave

kaara.nam ime sakka.daadhammaa sa^mbhavanti



sakaara.naa, akaara.naavi.nasanti

a.nupyattikaara.nam ity evamaadaya.h.Tata's caasatya'sabde.su

kutas te.svarthasatyataad.r.s.taapabhra.s.taruupe.su

katha^m vaasyaad anaaditaa.

173. 19: 'Saakyaadigranthe.supunar yad api ki^m

citsaadhu'sabdhaabhipraye.naa-(10) vina.s.tabuddhyaa

prayukta^m, tatraapi praj~nap-tivij~naptipa'syataati.s.thataa

dipraayapra-yogaat

ki^m cid evaavipluta^mlabhyate.

Kim uta yaaniprasiddhaapabhra.s.tade'sabhaa.s-



aabhyo'piapabhra.s.tataraani bhikkhave ity

evamaadiim,dvitiiyaabahuvacannasthaane hyekaaraanta^m praak.rta^m

pada^m d.r.s.ta^m, naprathamaabahuvaeane

sa^mbodhane 'pi;

sa^msk.rta'sabdasthaane cakakaaradvaya-

(15)sa^myogo,'nusvaaralopah,.rvar.naakaaraapattim-

aatram evapraak.rtaapabhra^m'se.su d.r.s.ta^mna ukaraapattir api ｜ so

'ya^m sa^msk.rtaadharmaa ity asya

sarvakaala^m svayam eva

prati.siddho 'pi vinaa'sa.hk.rta iti

asaadhu'sabdanibandhanatvaad ityantena hetunaa



vedatvaakrrtaka'saastraantarn'sa^nkaanivrrtti.h....

I am indebted to Mr. F. W. Thomas for The readingsof the India Office MS., to Mr. A.

C. Woolner for thereadings of the Oxford MS.

Line 3, Oxford has mamaa.

Line 4, Oxford,kammavacasii, ukhittai, ukheve;

printed text, lodasmiuvve; F. W. Thomas, no doubt

rightly, ukkheve, sic

for ubbhave via ubjave. Line5, I.O., padune (=patane, du might be ddu), acchi

uttave (=uhbhave);Oxford, ajjhadbhave (jjha can

be tthyu); printed

text,.nubhave, asa^mkadaa;Oxford, sakka.daa; I.O.,

sakvadaa. Line 6, Oxfordanupattikaara.naad; I.O.



agrees with printed text; F. W. Thomas's suggestion

auupraapti and the readingkara.naad might be right;Oxford, evamaadiruupaa.h.

Line 12, Oxford, ki^m punar.Line 13, Oxford after

bhikkave has sakka.daa

dhammaa ity evam. Line 14,Oxford, sa^msk.rtapadasthaane.

Line 16, Oxford, na hyu.

This tenet of Buddhist schools

alluded to in thePraakrit quotation by Kumaarila,viz. that vinaa'sa

is ahetuka, is known from variousauthorities. See,

for instance, 'Slokavaartika,

736. 1: "aahu.hsvabhaavasiddha^m hi te

vinaa'sam ahetukam," and



Comm.: "svaabhaavikogha.taadiinaa^m vinaa'sa.h: te

hi svahetubhyo vina'svaraa eva jaataa.h: janitvaivapradhva^msyante, kim atra

kaara.neneti." Bhaamatii(1891), 360. 18: "vainaa'sikair

akaara.na^m vinaa'sam

abhyupagacchadbhi.h."Abhidharmako'sav., Paris MS.,

fol. 269(b) 6: "utpattyanantaravinaa'siruupa^m

cittacaittavat: aakasmiko hi

bhaavaanaa^m vinaa'saiti; akasmaadbhava aakasmika.h,ahetuka ity artha.h."

Madhyamakav.rtti, 7. 16 (Buddh. T.S.); Nyaayabindu,

106. 3; Nyaayakandalii, 78. 8.

We have, therefore, to read:Udbhave asti kaara.na^m

patane naasti kaaranam. Astiudbhave kaara.nam:



Ime sa^msk.rtaadharmaa.h sa^mbhavanti

sakaara.naa.hakaara.naa vina'syanti[svayam?] utpattikaara-

.naat.

p.372

incomprehensible pity(karu.naa): "Can me for a

moment believe that a

K.satriya, a member of theroyal caste, after deserting theduties of his own

caste to make himself a teacherand a boon-receiver,

thereby intruding on the rights

peculiar to theBrahmins alone, can we believe

that such a man could



teach the true teaching? Heboasts in putting aside

his own duty (svadharma); heis praised for hisaltruism; but how could he be

both the loser of himself and the saviour of

others? Indeed, Buddha's

disciples, despising revealed aswell as traditional

precepts, are conspicuous bythe unlawfulness of

their life."(1)

But to go further, Buddha isomniscient.(2) Whereare, then, in Buddhism all those

treatises, thoselaws, metric, grammar,

astronomy, those Vedaa^ngas

(members of the Veda) whichare the hereditary

possessions of the Brahmins?



The Buddhists answer, notwithout some wit: "Be

it so; Buddha is not omniscient,but he knows theDharma (Religious Law). It has

been said: 'What useis it for us that Buddha knows

or knows not the

number of the insects, that he befar-sighted or not,

since he knows the truth

───────────

(1) Tantravaart. 116. 13:svadharmaatikrame.na ca:

yena k.satriye.na sataapravakt.rtvapratigrahau

pratipannau, sa dharmam

aviplutam upadek.syatiiti ka.h samaa'svaasa.h?

Ukta^m ca



Paralokaviruddhaanikurvaa.na^m duuratas tyajet

aatmaana^m yo'tisa^mdhatte 'nyasmai syaatkatha^m hita? iti.

Buddhaade.h punar ayameva vyatikramo

'la^mkaarabuddhau sthita.h;yenaivam aaha:

Kalikalu.sak.rtaani yaani lokemayi nipatantu,

vimucyataa^m tu loka ! iti.

Sa kila lokahitaartha^mk.satriyadharmam atikramya,

braahma.nav.rtta^mpravakt.rtva^m pratipadya,

prati.sedhaatikramaasamarthairbraahma.nair

ananuanu'saasan'sista^mdharma^m baahyajanaan



anu'saasan dharmapiidaam apyaatmano '^ngiik.rtya,

paraanugraha^m k.rtavaan iti;eva gu.nai.h stuuyate;tadanu'si.s.taanusaari.na's ca

sarva eva'srutism.rtvihitadharmaatikrame.

na vyavaharanto

viruddhaacaaratvena j~naayante.

(2) On the sarvaj~natva of Jinaand of Buddha, see

the very interesting lecture of K. B. Pathak, ThePosition of Kumaarila in

Digambara JainaLiterature (Trans..Congr.

London, pp. 186-214);

also Sarvadar's,s., Jainachapter; and

Nyaayabindu.t (112, 17, 114.3, 116. 15, 117. 2



foll.), a handful of syllogismson sarvaj~natva,

vakt.rtva, raagaadimattva.Cf. Kandalii, 397fine; Bhaamatii, 322. 4.

p.373

that we want?(1) And we shallprove that Buddha knows

the Dharma. This Buddha'ssaying, 'All compound is

momentary, ' and any othertexts dealing withascertainable mattters, are easily

shown to be exact;therefore, the dogmatic

principles, or verites de

foi, those, for instance, thatbear on the

worshipping of relics orcaityas, must needs be



exact, since they have been saidby Buddha himself."

Kumaarila answers: "The wayyou reason does notmake the authority of Buddha

certain; on thecontrary. That Buddha, in

matters of common

experience, might have said thetruth, no wonder; but

as soon as his teachings passthose limits, where

does his authority come from?

Since you appeal for acertainty to your ownexamination; you make Buddha's

authority useless. Shall I showyou with a more

striking instance how irrelevant is

your reasoning? Ishall use your own syllogism:

'Buddha is not



omniscient, since I say he is not;for the fire burns

when I say it does.' To affirmsafely that Buddha isomniscient, one must needs be

oneself omniscient."Then Kumaarila: "Buddha,

you say, has made

himself a teacher. What for?For his own, or for

other people's advantage? Inboth cases he is led by

raaga, by desire, or some ;

and an omniscientbeing cannot be

(raagaraan).Do you not alsoaffirm that Buddha is completely

devoid of any vikalpa?

(2)He must, therefore, keephimself absolutely motionless;

he gave no teaching, and hisDharma was taught by



some one else. Will you say [inaccordance with one

of your suutras] that Buddhastays motionless, asdoes the Miraculous Jewel, (3)

but that by hispresence alone he gives all

things around him, and

even the walls, the teachingpower? You will not make

────────────

(1) Cited byPaarthasaarathimi'sra ad 'Slokavaart.,p. 83:

Kii.tasa^mkhyaaparij~naana^m tasya na.h

kvopayujyate

duura^m pa'syatu maavaasau tattvam i.s.ta^m tu

pa'syati.



(2) This word is difficult totranslate. It would be

rather dangerous tounderstand "anydiscriminative operation."

The paramaarthasatya(true Truth) is, of course,

above expression and

thought; there is not thoughtwithout vikalpa, "

falsche Vorstellung" (P.W.).

(3) Cf. Bodhicaaryaav. ix. 37, 38.

p.374

us believe in whateverteachings walls can give!

Those are devilish games!(pi'saaca). Go and tell

such tales to anyone you willfind ready to believe



them." (1)Besides, to study the

question closely, theBuddhist AAgamas must havebeen derived from the

Vedas. Kumaarila does notmention the Puraanic

hypothesis of the Buddha avatar

of Vi.s.nu, that is,avatar of malevolence(2) or of

pity, according to theway it is looked at. More clever

still, and with a

sort of anticipation of ProfessorHermnn Oldenberg'stheory, he thinks that the

Vedas, misunderstood,contain the germs of all

heretic systems: " The

doctrine of the non-existence of the external world,

that of the universalmomentariness, and that of the



non-existence of a soul, arederived, he says, from

the Upani.sads."(3) Thereforewe have to recognizethe authority of those nihilistic

doctrines only sofar as they lead us to dislike the

sensible world.

But, "That indebtedness tothe Veda is fruitless

for those heretic leaders(tiirtha^mkaras): they give

the Veda up since they are

rationalists." "'Saakyadoes not teach the Dharma

────────────

(1) 'Slokavaart. 86. 10

(Comm.) : "... tasminnirvyaapaare 'pi

tatsa^mmdhimaatre.naiva



ku.dyaadibhyo 'pi de'sanaani.hsarantiiti cet...."See

the suutras quotedBodhicaaryaav..t. 276: "tasmindhyaanasamaapanne

cintaaratnavad aasthite ｜ni'scaranti yathaakaama^m

ku.dyaadibhyo' pi'

de'sanaa.h taabhir jij~naasitaanarthaan sarvaan

jaananti maanavaa.h ｜....."And: "te

tathaagatamukhaad

ur.naako'saad u.s.nii.saadgh.r.ni^m 's.r.nvanti..." Cf.Sik.saasamuccaya, 284.

9: "... yadi buddhaa nabhavanti gaganatalaad

dharma'sabdo ni'scarati

ku.dyav.rk.sebhya's ca."

It is well known that Buddha didnot speak after he



had attained theSa^mbodhi (the silence

(tuus.nii^mbhaava) is thehighest Truth(paramaarthasatya), cf.

Madhyamakav.rtti, 15a (B.T.S.15. 11), and La^nkaavataara,

17. 15: maunaas ...

tathaagataa.h); but it is worthwhile to contrast the

AAryatathaagataguhyasuutraand the Paali books. We

read in the Northern Suutra

(Madh. v.rtti, fol. 109b,p.130.15) : "yaa^m ca....raatri^m tathaagato

'nuttaraa^msamyaksa^mbodhimabhisa^mbuddho, yaa^m ca

raatrim upaadaayaparinirvaasyati, asminn antare

tathaagatenaikaak.saram apinodaahrrtam...." The same



phraseology Itivuttaka, p.121, 20;

Suma^ngalavilaasinii, Intr., §44, and no doubtelsewhere, but with an

altogether differentconclusion.

(2) Maayaamohaavataara(Vi.s.nupur.).

(3) Tantravaart. 81. 20 :sarvatra hi tadbalena

pravartate taduparamecoparamatiiti vij~naanamaat aamapy upani.satprabhavatva^m

vi.saye.sv aatyantika^mraaga^m nivartayitum ity

upapanna^m sarve.saa^m

pramaa.nyam. sarvatra ca yatrakaalaantaraphalatvaad

idaaniim anubhavaasa^mbhavastatra vedamuulataa.



I am unable to identify thequotation from the

Upani.sads.-Similarly theSautraantikas maintain thatBuddha, when teaching the

'suunyataa, was directed byprinciples of policy

(upaayakau'salya).

Cf. Nyayavaart. taatp..t. 415.21.

p.375

without surrounding it with acomplete net of

proofs"(1);－and all thoseVedabaahyas, or strangers

to the Veda, as Manu has said,

despise the tradition.They approve the teaching of

the outcasts ('suudra),



the building up and theworshipping of the caityas,

things unheard of and againstthe Sm.rti.This last is the main objection,

the only one, itseems, that proved to be of any

historical moment. On

the side of the Brahmins wefind the perennial

constitution of castes andrites, and the

universality of honest people.

In vain does Dignaaga claimfor his own side the'mahaajanaparigraha'(2);

Vaacaspatimi'sra, (3) afterhaving, in beautiful words,

possibly inspired by

Buddhist theism,

────────────



(1) Tantravaart. 117. 13:"Saakyaadaya's ca

sarvatra kurvaa.naadharmade'sanaam ｜hetujaalavinirmuktaa^m na

kadaa cana kurvate.'' Thisrationalistic side of Buddhism is

illustrated by the

formula: " yat ki^m citsubhaa.sita^m tad buddha

vacanam" (A^nguttara N. iv,164. 7; Bodhic..t. 284.

1;'Sik.saas. 15.19) Minayeff

(Recherches, 85) givesreference to the Bhabra Edict:"... e kechi bha^mte

bhagavataa budhena bhaasitesave se subhaasite

vaa..." 'The meaning is quite

different; the newsentence can be a tendencious

recast of the old one?



Cf. Majjhima N. i, 71. 20: " Yo... eva^m vadeyya

...takkpaariyaahata^m sama.noGotamo dhamma^m desetiviimaa^msaanucaritam

saya^mpa.tibhaanan ti, ...nikkhitto eva^m niraye."

(2) See the curious stanza(Subhaa.sitaavali, 3437)

ascribed by Vallabhadeva toDignaaga (three of the

four MSS. mention Dignaaga).

As observed by P.Peterson, the stanza occurs inMahaabhaarata, iii,

312, 115 (ed. Protap)=Bohtlingk,Spruche, 2505 = Mbh.

iii, 17,402 = Subhaa.sitaar.nava,

163. I cannot agreewith P. Peterson; "It is

impossible to contend that



its attribution here to the well-known Buddhist

writer.... may not be a copyist'serror." Our stanzain the Mbh. episode occurs in

an answer of Yudhi.s.thira to some Yak.sa.

Cf. the closely

connected story (of Bahubha.n.daka) in the Comm. to

Dhammapada, 141, and theDevadhammajaataka (Jaataka

1, 1, 6 (p. 126)).

The stanza runs as follows:

tarko 'prati.s.tha.h 'srutayovibhinnaa

naasaau munir yasya vaco(sic) pramaa.nam

dharmasya muula^mnihita^m guhaayaa^m

mahaajano yena gata.h sapanthaa.



In the Mbh.: naiko r.sir yasya

mata^m pramaa.na^m,dharmasya tattvam.....Tarko 'prati.s.tha.h: cf.

'Sa^nkara, ad ii, 1, 11(Deussen, Vedaanta, 97) ;

Mahaajana = dharmaparo loko

braahma.naadi.h =Manvaadi.h.Cf. 'Slokavaart. 75;

Taatparya.t. 301; AAtmatattvav.121.

(3) Taatp..t., pp. 300 ff.; see

supra, p. 368, n.1. － There are many strongarguments against the

authority of the Vedas. See, forinstance, Comm.to

Nyaayasuutras, ii, 1, 56 (or 57).

"When it is said'svargakaamo yajeta' we

cannot ascertain the



truthfulness of the precept; butwe see that the

putre.s.ti's, the kaariirya's, ritesfor promovingmundane fruits, do not realize

the expected fruits;therefore..."

p.376

defined the personal God anddefended revelation,

breaks down, stone by stone,the whole of theBuddhist edifice. "None of

those saviours(sa^msaaramocaka(1)), Buddha

or Jina, is omniscient;

'Suddhodana's son is evidentlyneither the creator of

the world nor the maker of thehuman body. The



Buddhist aagamas did notregulate the laws of caste

and of the Brahmanic life; theyknow nothing of therites of life from the cradle to

the grave. Thoseaagamas, of which the authority

is vainly supported,

depend for all that concerns thepractical life upon

the 'Sruti, the Smrrti, theItihaasas, the Puraa.nas.

Buddhists themselves do not

fear to say, 'It is thecustom (saa^mv.rtam etat), 'and they follow, in

practical life, Revelation and Tradition. The Vedas,

and the Vedas only, are observed

by the three castes.In order to keep their meaning

unaltered, the .R.sis,



one after the other, have writtenthe several limbs

of the Vedas and the Treatises('Saastras), Buddha'swords do not, in fact, interfere

with the every-daylife of men. They are heard and

obeyed by nameless

people only(manu.syaapasada), by foreigners,by

tribes who live like beasts(pa'supraaya). They can

have no authority."

────────────

(1) Cf. Petavatthu, ii, 1.

Documents

Poussin 1902 on Scriptural Authority