Samkhya In Abhidharmakosa Bhasya

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269562/1

Page #1
JOHANNES BRONKHORST SAMKHYA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSA BHASYA recent article (Bronkhorst, 1994) I drew attention to a number of cations in various early authors that ascribe to Samkhya a position we do not find in the classical texts of that school. In Samkhya, if an believe these authors, a substance used to be looked upon as a ction of qualities. The classical doctrine of the school, on the other 1, distinguishes clearly between a substrate which remains the same, operties that undergo modification. Modification (parinama) itself scribed in the following terms in the Yuktidipika: the substrate (dharmin), without abandoning its essence, drops the earlier ity (dharma) and accepts the next one, that is called modification (parinama); again: odification is the destruction of one property of a substance which remains me, and the appearance (pravrtti) of another property; third time: "ation of a substrate (dharmin) is the appearance [in it) of another property e disappearance of the earlier one. Yoga Bhasya defines the same concept in the following manner: Juction of a new property in a substance which remains the same, while the property is destroyed. y earlier article I did not refer to the way in which the Sharmakosa Bhasya defines parinama in Samkhya in its discussion hidharmak 9.50a. There was no need for this, for its definition nost identi t h the one in the Yoga Bhasya, followed by a discussion. The whole passage reads: low do the Samkhyas [define) modification? As follows:) The appearance of a new property in a substance hich remains the same, while another property is destroyed. Vhat is wrong with that? or there is no such substrate (dharmin) which remains the same od whose properties could undergo modification. of Indian Philosophy 25: 393-400, 1997. ? Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands

Page #2
394 JOHANNES BRONKHORST SAMKHYA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSA BHASYA 395 (e) Who says that the substrate is different from the property? Modi fication is merely the becoming otherwise of that very substance. (1) This, too, is incorrect. (g) What is incorrect about it? (h) This is a new way of speaking, to say that this is that, but [at the same time that it is not like that. In this discussion two persons speak: a Buddhist and a Samkhya. The Buddhist asks questions and criticizes the answers of the Samkhya. To the Samkhya, it would appear, belong (b), (c), and (8); the Buddhist questioner may then pronounce (a), (c)-(d), (f) and (h). The Samkhya explains first that modification is the appearance of a new property in a substance which remains the same, while another property is destroyed", then specifies that the substrate is not different from the properties, so that "modification is merely the becoming otherwise of that very substance". The Buddhist disagrees with the initial explanation by pointing out that there is no such substrate which remains the same and whose properties could undergo modification", and with the subsequent specification by rejecting the Samkhya's procedure, according to which "this is that, but at the same time it is not like that". This passage gives the impression of presenting Samkhya in its classical form, and not in its pre-classical shape, in which no unchanging substrate of properties had yet been introduced. Yet Louis de la Vallee Poussin's translation of this passage creates a different impression. It reads: Abhidharmakosa Bhasya was not yet accessible, nor indeed known to exist. He worked exclusively on the basis of translations of this text into Chinese and Tibetan, using commentaries where available. The fact that his French translation has still lost none of its usefulness even after the discovery of the Sanskrit original, testifies to its excellence. In spite of this, one might be tempted to think that, in the case of the passage under consideration, La Vallee Poussin's lack of access to the Sanskrit original is responsible for an inaccuracy in his translation. However, La Vallee Poussin's translation expresses something that, though not present in the Sanskrit original, seems to be close to the position of pre-classical Samkhya, so far as we know that earlier position. His translation states that, properly considered, a substance is nothing but a collection of properties (dharma), one of which may, in certain circumstances, be called substrate (dharmin). Is it possible that La Vallee Poussin used, in preparing his translation, material that contained information about preclassical Samkhya? Where did he find this? A look at Yasomitra's Sphutartha Abhidharmakosa Vyakhya, the only commentary that has been preserved in Sanskrit, may shed light on the question. This text contains some passages that are of the greatest interest in this context. First the following one, which occurs in an altogether different context: What is modification (parindma)? ... It is the becoming otherwise of a chain (samiati).... What is this chain? Is it the becoming otherwise of a chain which remains the same, just as for the Samkhyas it is the appearance of a new property in a substance which remains the same, while another property is destroyed? Qu'entendent les Samkhyas par parindma? - Ils admettent que, dans une substance permanente (dharmin, dravya), les dharmas ou essences naissent et disparaissent. - En quoi cette doctrine est-elle absurde? (3a) - On ne peut admettre, d'une part, un dharmin permanent, d'autre part des dharmas naissant et disparaissant. - Mais les Samkhyas ne supposent pas qu'il y a un dharmin a part des dharmas, ils disent qu'un dharma, quand il se transforme (parinam), devient le support de divers caracteres ce dharma, ils l'appellent dharmin. En d'autres termes, la transformation (parinama) c'est seulement la modification (anyatha bhavamdra) de la substance (drava). - Cette these n'est pas non plus admissible. - Pourquoi? - Parce qu'il y a contradiction dans les termes: vous admettez que cela (la cause) est ceci (l'effet), et que ceci n'est pas comme cela. This translation deviates in one essential aspect from the Sanskrit passage which we have just studied. The phrase "ils disent qu'un dharma, quand il se transforme (parinam), devient le support de divers characteres: ce dharma, ils l'appellent dharmin" has nothing corresponding to it in the Sanskrit. It should not of course be forgotten that La Vallee Poussin prepared his translation at a time when the original Sanskrit text of the The underlined part ascribes exactly the same position to the Samkhyas as does the passage - esp. sentence (b) - found in the Abhidharmakosa Bhasya. However, Yasomitra also comments on Vasubandhu's passage (and therefore in a way on his own), and there he explains "a substance which remains the same" (avasthitasya dravyasya) as meaning "constituted of colour, taste, and so on" (ruparasadyatmakasya). This seems to be what we were looking for. Yasomitra would seem to interpret Vasubandhu in accordance with early Samkhya doctrine. One is likely to get the impression that, according to Yasomitra, substance in Samkhya consists in its qualities (ruparasadyatmaka), and is not their substrate. This interpretation looks puzzling. It raises the question whether Vasubandhu had this interpretation in mind while writing this passage. And if Vasubandhu intended this, did the author of the Yoga Bhasya, to hold on to the early nosition of Samkhva? And what about the

Page #3
396 JOHANNES BRONKHORST SAMKHYA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSA BHASYA 397 "For not in a substance which remains the same means "constituted of colour, taste, and so on". "While another property is destroyed" means "while the milk is destroyed". "Appearance of a new property means "production of curds". On sentence (d) Yasomitra comments: 12 author of the Yuktidipika? It becomes vital to find out whether we have understood Yasomitra correctly. Note first that Yasomitra does not comment on exactly the passage of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa Bhasya cited above from Pradhan's edition. Yasomitra knew a slightly different reading, which is also the one adopted by Dwarikadas Shastri in his edition. The difference is minimal, but crucial. Yasomitra and Dwarikadas Shastri have the two words na hi at the beginning of sentence (b), and lack hi in sentence (d). The whole passage now becomes: "No such substrate (dharmin)" means "a property different from the properties of milk etc., which are colour etc., a property which does not arise and does not get destroyed even when those other properties) arise and get destroyed". Sentence (d), too, expresses Vasubandhu's opinion, and not that of the Samkhyas. This means that Yasomitra explains Vasubandhu's opinion on the nature of substance. And there substance is conceived of as being constituted of colour, taste, and so on". This last point is clear from such passages as the following one from the Abhidharmakosa Bhasya: (a) How do the Samkhyas (define) modification? (b) For there is no appearance of a new property in a substance which remains the same, while another property is destroyed. (c) What is wrong with that? (d) There is no such substrate (dharmin) which remains the same and whose properties could undergo modification. (e) Who says that the substrate is different from the properties? Modifi cation is merely the becoming otherwise of that very substance. (f) This, too, is incorrect. (8) What is incorrect about it? (h) This is a new way of speaking, to say that this is that, but at the same time that] it is not like that. (Opponent:) The atom is a substance, and a substance is different from colour etc. It is not established that when those (qualities) disappear that (substance) will disappear, [too) [Reply:) It is not acceptable that (a substance) is different (from its qualities), since no one distinguishes them, (saying: "these are earth, water and fire, and these are their colour etc." Here, too, we may attribute the different sentences to two speakers, but they will now have to be attributed differently from before. The new reading of (b) is somewhat clumsy, and one might be tempted to think, with Yamashita (1994: 58 n. 47), that it is erroneous. But if we assume, with Yasomitra, that it is correct, we cannot but conclude that (a) and (b) go together and are pronounced by the same person, the Buddhist, who knows the position of Samkhya, but raises a question about it, knowing that there is no appearance of a new property in a substance which remains the same, while another property is destroyed". Question (c) is then asked by the Samkhya; and answer (d) is to be put in the mouth of the Buddhist. To the Samkhya further belong (e) and (g), to the Buddhist (f) and (h). In this reading sentence (b) cannot but be a remark made by the Buddhist, i.e. by Vasubandhu, about the nature of modification as he sees it, whereas in the reading accepted by Pradhan sentence (b) gives the position of the Samkhya. Yasomitra comments on the sentence with na hi and therefore on Vasubandhu's position, not on the Samkhya position. He does so in the following words:"1 Indeed, for Vasubandhu and the Buddhists in general, there is no such thing as a lasting substance that is the substrate of qualities. Strictly speaking there are only qualities, without substrate. This is what Yasomitra explained correctly. La Vallee Poussin must have believed that Yasomitra attributed the position which we now recognize as Buddhist to Samkhya. This would explain his misleading translation into French of the passage under consideration. He can hardly be blamed for this, given that he had no access to the Sanskrit text of Vasubandhu's work. Recently an English translation has been published of La Vallee Poussin's French translation. The translator, Leo M. Pruden, explains in the Translator's Preface (1988-1990: I. xxiii f.) that the Abhidharmakosabhasya can best be understood from its Sanskrit original, and he relates how his translation from the French of La Vallee Poussin went hand in hand with a study of the Sanskrit original. Indeed, it was his original intention to publish his work with the English translation on the right facing page, and the romanized Sanskrit on the left facing page; only the high cost of publishing prevented him from doing so. The question that interests us at present is what effect this acquaintance with the Sanskrit text has had on Pruden's English translation of the passage under consideration. Pruden translates as follows (1988-1990: II, 453):

Page #4
398 JOHANNES BRONKHORST SAMKHYA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSA BHASYA 399 What do the Samkhyas understand by parinama? They admit that dharmas arise and disappear within a permanent substance (a dharmin or dravya). How is this incorrect? One cannot admit the simultaneous existence of a permanent dharmin, and of dharmas arising and disappearing But the Samkhyas do not hold that there is a dharmin separate from the dharmas: they say that a dharma, when it is transformed (parinam), becomes the support of different characteristics: this dharma they call dharmin. In other words, transformation (parinama) is only the modification (anyathabhavamatra) of a substance (dravya). This thesis is not correct. Why is it not correct? Because there is a contradiction in terms: you admit that that the cause) is identical to this the result), but that this is not like that. 12%; samkhyasya iv avasthitasya dharminah satmabhatarya dharmantarasyotsargah svarmabhutasya cotpadah.parinama iti. Abhidh-k(VP) II p. 142. Abhidh-k-vy p. 148 1. 3-7; Abhidh-k-bh(D) p. 217 I. 18-21: ko 'yam parinamo nametil.../samtater anyathavam itil...lka ceyam samtatir iti/kim yarha samkhyanand avasthita-dravyasya dharmantara-nivstau dharmamtara-pradurbhavah fatha 'vasthayinyah samtater anyathatvam iti 9 Abhidh-k-vy p. 324 1. 31-34; Abhidh-k-bh(D) p. 509 I. 17-20; cited below. 10 Abhidh-k-bh(D) p. 509 1. 36: katham ca samkhyanam parinamah/na hy avasthitasya dravyasya dharmantaranivritau dharmantarapradurbhavainilkas citra dosah/sa eva dharml na samvidyate yasyavasthitasya dharmanam parindmah kalpyeta/kas caivam aha dharmebhyo nyo dharmititasyaiva tu dravyasydnyathibhavamatram parinamah/evam apy ayuktam/kim atrayuktanstad eva cedam na cedam latheti apurvaisd vacoyuktih/ "Abhidh-k-vy p. 324 1. 31-33; Abhidh-k-bh(D) p. 509 1. 17-18: na hy avasthitasya dravyasyetiruparasadyatmakasyaldharmdntaranivritav iti/kstranittaudharmantarapradurbhava itildadhijanmal 12 Abhidh-k-vy p. 324 1. 33-35: Abhid-k-bh(D) p. 509 I. 18-20 sa eva dharmi netilrupadyatmakaksiradidharmebhyo 'nyo dharma utpadavyaye 'py anul panno 'vinastah/parinama iti/ksiranivttau dadhibhavah/ 13 Abhidh-k-bh(P) p. 190 1.3-5; Abhidh-k-bh(D) p. 562 1. 4-7: drayam hi paramanur anyac ca rapddibhyo dravyam iti na tesam vindse tadvindsah siddhyatilayuktam asyanyaivam yavata na nirdharyate (paricchidyate, D) kenacit imani prthivyaptejamsi ime lexum (esam. D) rupddaya inil. Cp. Frauwallner, Phil. d. Buddh, p. 101; Abhidhk(VP) Vol 2. p. 213-214. It can easily be seen that this is a satisfactory translation of La Vallee Poussin's French. But quite obviously, the Sanskrit has not been taken into consideration. We still find the claim that "the Samkhyas say that a dharma, when it is transformed (parinam), becomes the support of different characteristics: this dharma they call dharmin"; we have seen that the Sanskrit says nothing of the kind. NOTES REFERENCES ! YD p. 49 1. 10-11: p. 75 1. 6-7: jahad dharmantaram purvam upadatte yada param tartvad apracyuto dharmi parinamah sa ucyarell. Compare this with Vkp 3.7.118: purvavastham avijahar (v.1. parvam avastham ajahat) samsprsan dharmam uttaram/sammarchita ivarthatma jayamano 'bhidhiyatell. * YD p. 49 1. 6-7: parinamo hi namavasthitarya dravyasya dharmantaranivetti dharmantarapravstris ca. Muroya (1996: 49) rightly points out that this definition of parinama occurs in a passage defending the point of view of Nyaya-Vaisesika. The next definition of the Yuktidipika essentially substitutes dvirbhava for pravi, and tirobhava for nivtri, in order to answer an objection from the side of these opponents. YD p. 53 1. 25-26: ... dharmino dharmantarasydvirbhavah purvasya ca tirobhavah parinamah. I prefer this interpretation to the alternative one "Modification is the appearance of another property which is the substrate and the disappearance of the carlier one", cp. Muroya, 1996: 50. YBh 3.13: avasthitasya dravyasya purvadharmanivrttau dharmantarotpattih. Cp. the Nyaya Bhasya introducing sotra 4.1.33: avasthitasyopadanasya dharmandiram nivartate dharmamatram upayate.... Abhidh-k-bh(P) p. 159 1. 18-19: katham ca samkhyanam parinamahlavasthitasya dravyasya dharmantaranivritau dharmantarapradurbhava itikas catra dosah/sa eva hi dharmi na samvidyate yasyavasthitarya dharmanam parinamah kalpyeta/kas caivam dha dharmebhyo 'nyo dharmititasyaiva tu dravyasyanyathibhavamatram parinamahlevam apy ayuktam/kim atrayuktan/tad eva cedam na cedam tatheti aparvaisa vacoyuktih/ Instead of vacoyuktih, Pradhan's edition has vdyo yukrih. An independent confirmation that - at least from the Buddhist point of view - modification in Samkhya is merely the becoming otherwise of that very substance" may be the following observation in the Abhidharmadipa (Abhidh-d p. 106 1. 10 Bronkhorst, Johannes (1994). "The qualities of Samkhya'. WZKS 38 (Orbis Indicus, Festschrift G. Oberhammer), 309-322. Muroya, Yasutaka (1996). 'Satkaryavada ronsho ni okeru parinama to abhivyakti (Parinama and abhivyakti in the Samkhya argument for satkaryavada)'. Indo Shishoshi Kenkya/Studies in the History of Indian Thought 8: 42-63. Pruden, Leo M. (1988-1990). Abhidharmakosabhasyam by Louis de La Vallee Poussin, English Translation. 4 volumes. Berkeley, California: Asian Humanities Press. Yamashita, Koichi (1994). Patanjala Yoga Philosophy, with reference to Buddhism. Calcutta: Firma KLM. Yoga Bhasya. In: Patanjalayogadarsana of Maharsi Patanjali, along with Vyasabhasya. Edited with Yogasiddhi Hindi commentary, by Suresh Chandra Shrivastava. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Surbharati Prakashan, 1988. (Chaukhamba Surbharati Granthamala, 140.) Yuklidipika. Edited by Ram Chandra Pandeya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967.

Page #5
400 JOHANNES BRONKHORST ABBREVIATIONS Abhidh-d Abhidh-k(VP) Abhidh-k-bh(D) Abhid-k-bh(P) Abhidh-k-vy Abhidharmadipa with Vibhasaprabhavitti, ed. P. S. Jaini, Patna 1959 (TSWS 4) Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakosa, traduit et annote par Louis de La Vallee Poussin, 6 vols., Paris 1923-1931 Abhidharmakosa and Bhasya of Acarya Vasubandhu with Sphutartha Commentary of Acarya Yasomitra, pts. 1-4, ed. Swami Dwarikadas Shastri, Varanasi 1970-1973 (BBS 5, 6, 7, 9) Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakosabhasya, ed. P. Pradhan, rev. 2nd ed. Aruna Haldar, Patna 1975 (TSWS 8) Yasomitra, Sphutartha Abhidharmakosavyakhya, ed. Unrai Wogihara, Tokyo 1932-1936 Baudha Bharati Series, Varanasi Erich Frauwallner, Die Philosophie des Budhismus, Berlin 1956 Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, Patna Bhartrhari, Vakyapadiya, ed. W. Rau, Wiesbaden 1977 Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens, Wien Yoga Bhasya Yuktidipika BBhs Frauwallner, Phil.d.Buddh TSWS Vkp WZKS YBh YD Section de langues et civilisations orientales Universite de Lausanne BFSH 2 CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland