Vedanta Philosophy Described By Bhavya In His Madhyamaka Hrdaya

Author(s): V V Gokhale
Publisher: V V Gokhale
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269378/1

Page #1
* THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY DESCRIBED BY BHAVYA IN HIS MADHYAMAKAHRDAYA by V. V. GOKHALE Poona Among Indian treatises, reviewing the different systems of contemporary Indian thought, Bhavya's Madhyamakahrdaya together with the autocommentary, called the Tarkajvala, is probably the earliest and most important as a source-book for the history of Indian philosophy. In this work, consisting of eleven chapters of very uneven length, the author devotes one chapter each to six different systems of Indian philosophy, Buddhistic and non-Buddhistic, among which Chap. VIII deals with the pre-Samkara Vedanta as was known to him in the sixth century A.D. * Read at the Nineteenth All-India Oriental Conference (1957) at New Delhi. 1 I am deeply indebted to my friend, Pandita Rahula Sarkstyayana, for placing at my disposal most generously a rapid handcopy prepared by him from a Sanskrit ms. of the Madhyamakahrdayakarika, discovered at the sa.lu monastery in Tibet in the autumn of 1936 (JBORS, XXIII, pt.i, pp. 15ff, 48, 55). In his personal communication he describes the script of the original ms. as "inornate (analamkrta) Ranjana characters of the 10th century A.D." and the ms. itself as "consisting of old and shattered palm leaves with the marginal pagination marks fallen off (galitaparsvatvat patrarka api viluptah)". For the Tibetan version, I have used my own copy of Vol. XIX (Dsa) of the Narthang Tenjur, in which the text of the Madhyamakahrdayakarika (= Mhk) extends from fol. 1 to 40a6 and the autocommentary, called the Tarkajvala (= T), thereafter upto fol. 360b1. The Sanskrit Mhk, consisting roughly of 930 anustubh verses, is divided into the following eleven chapters: I. Bodhicittaparityaga, II. Munivratasamasraya, III. Tattvajnanaisana, IV. Sravakatattvaniscayavatara, V. Yogacaratattvaviniscaya, VI. Samkhyatattvavatara, VII. Vaisesikatattvaniscaya, VIII. Vedantatattvaviniscaya, IX. Mimansatattvanirnayavatara, X. Sarvajnatasiddhinirdesa, XI. Stutilaksanartirdesa. Out of 25 folios containing the text, one folio (= no. 18) covering the latter part of Chap. VI and most part of Chap. VII is found altogether missing in my copy. What appears on the back of the last leaf (25b) according to the report in JBORS (ibid.) is obviously the beginning of a commentary on Nagarjuna's Yuktisastika (cf. Tenjur, Mdo XXIV, 1: 0-yrtti by Candrakirti). From the colophon to Chap. III: Tattvajnanamstavatare Tattvajnanaisi(Sic. sa?) naparicchedo nama trtiyah samaptah it seems clear, that Tattvajnanamstavatara, which was suspected to be a different work of Bhavya, and which is alluded to by him twice under that title in his own "Jewel in the Hand" (See: LVP's translation in MCB, Vol. II (1933), and N. Aiyaswami Sastri's Karatalaratna (1949) from Chinese) is only another, probably earlier, name of the Mhk before it attained its present enlarged size. The concluding verse of our present work: Iti Madhyamakasyedam samksepad hrdayan krtam/ dhimatam naikasutrantabimbadarsanadarpanam leaves no doubt about the authenticity of the present title. At the same time a third designation of this work is

Page #2
166 V. V. GOKHALE The late Prof. Max Walleser had utilized the Tibetan version of this VIIIth. chapter, containing Bhavya's own statement and refutation of the Vedanta doctrine, for drawing stimulating conclusions regarding its earlier characteristics and, in particular, establishing its relationship with the so-called Gaudapada-karika, recognized traditionally as the Agamasastra.3 Upto recent times scholars have continued to draw upon this or that part of Bhavya's work in its Tibetan version, but in the absence of the original Sanskrit text, which was taken to have been irrevocably lost, it has by no means been an easy task to interpret Bhavya's arguments correctly on the basis of such second-hand and not very lucid material. Now, however, an almost complete and fairly readable Sanskrit text of at least the Madhyamakahrdayakarika has become fortunately available, and it will be possible to work out on its basis more easily the rich and varied contents of the Tibetan Tarkajvala, whose original still remains undiscovered. In the following, I propose to give the Sanskrit text of the first sixteen karikas of Chapter VIII of the Madhyamakahrdaya, entitled Vedantatattvaviniscaya, and translate it together with its commentary, found in the Tibetan version of the Tarkajvala. This part of the chapter contains found in the very last colophon, which runs: Tarkajvala nama sutram samaptam, which would mean, that the Mhk was also called the Tarkajvalasutra, while the author's own commentary on it was called the Tarkajvala, according to Tibetan sources.. The name of the author is found in various forms, either original or reconstructed, e.g.: Bhavaviveka, Bhavya, Bhavyaka, Bhavyakara, Bhavyaviveka, Bhavaviveka, Bhavivikta, Bhaviveka and, probably neither the last nor the least one, Bhagavadviveka, which is found in the opening verse of our Skt. ms., though not in the Tibetan version; it reads: Anyayamarganugatam samiksya prayena lokan karunayamanah / kudrslijalasanitulyam etac cakara sastram Bhagavadvivekah. Most of these designations seem to point to Viveka as the essential part of his name, with Bhagavat, Bhavya, Bha, Bhava etc. having a more or less titular significance. We call him here by his popular name: Bhavya. 2 Max Walleser, Der altere Vedanta, Geschichte, Kritik und Lehre (Heidelberg, 1910). The same author has also investigated parts of Chap. IV of Mhk and T, dealing with the Hinayana doctrines, for discussing the sects of early Buddhism in his Die Sekten des alten Buddhismus (Heidelberg, 1927), pp. 77 ff. 3 Of this I have used the edition of Pandit Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya (University of Calcutta, 1943) = AS. * E.g., S. Yamaguchi, Buddhist Controversies concerning Existence and Non-existence (Japanese), containing an examination of Chap. V, which deals with the Yogacara standpoint (Kyoto, 1941); H. Nakamura, Early Vedanta Philosophy (Pracinavedantavadah), Vol. I (Japanese), pp. 236-332 (Tokyo, 1950), offering a translation of Chap. VIII of the Tibetan Tarkajvala, which deals with the Vedanta. An English summary of the essential points, discussed in this important work in pp. 178-235, appears under the title "Upanisadic Tradition and the Early School of Vedanta, as noticed in Buddhist Scripture", HJAS, Vol. 18, nos. 1 & 2 (June 1955), pp. 74-104.

Page #3
THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY the purvapaksa, containing a statement of the Vedantic position as understood by Bhavya. X X X (1) Vedantavadinah prahur atmavid durlabho bahih/ kuta atmadvisam moksah sunyasamskaravadinam3// 167 The Vedantins state: "Outside of our own School it is difficult to find one, who knows the Soul. To those who dismiss the Soul, maintaining that all productive forces of life (samskaras) are utterly unsubstantial, what is left there, by means of which a deliverance can be obtained? T: "Vedanta" means the end of all knowledge, which, indeed, implies non-attachment. One who discusses it or maintains it as one's own theory is a "Vedantavadin". They propound as follows: In any other system of knowledge "outside of" the Vedanta doctrine, "one who knows the Soul" is extremely "difficult to find". By whose support will the Buddhists, who "hate the Soul", attain their own "deliverance"? Since they maintain that "all things are unsubstantial" (sunya), unreal (svabhavarahita), and momentary (ksanavinasta), how could they be at all delivered from anything? The character of the eternal Soul, being such, that the knowledge of bondage and deliverance are dependant upon it, it is the Purusa, wellknown from the Vedas, who is being glorified (in the next stanza): (2) tamahparastat purusam mahantam suryavarcasam / mrtyum atyeti matiman matva 'tmanam mahesvaram? // Having perceived on the other side of darkness that transcendent Person, lustrous like the sun, that universal Spirit, which is the great Lord, a man of intelligence can surpass death. 8 T: "Darkness", which, having the nature of unhappiness causes unhappiness, originates in the sphere of the threefold Existence (traidhatuka), which is the cumulative result of the process of cause and effect. The threefold Existence itself being regarded as darkness, "on the other side of it" means beyond the threefold Existence. This circle of darkness In accordance with the Skt. text, the order of the four feet of this stanza in T. should have been: a, c, b, d. * Cf. AS. IV, 96: jnanam asamgam; notes on pp. 84 ff. etc. 7 Hand-copy of the Ms. (= Mc.) shows: purastat in a, mrtyubhyeti in c and satva in d (for 'matva' having known or perceived; cf. Katha-Upan. (= KU) 2. 12; Svetasva.-Upan. (= SU) 1. 6; 1. 12; AS. I, 28 etc.). For the various terms from the Upanisadic literature, occurring in this and the following stanzas, refer to Col. G. A. Jacob's Upanisadvakyakosah, A Concordance of the principal Upanisads and Bhagavadgita (Bombay, 1891). Cf. description of the asurya-worlds in Samkara's comm. on Isa-Upan. (= IU) 3. =

Page #4
168 V. V. GOKHALE (tamo-mandala) reaches far beyond the sphere of this earth, and the abode of the "Person" is far beyond the circle of darkness. It has been said:9 "I have known that great Seer, radiant like the sun and living beyond darkness. Having known Him, one surpasses death. There is no other way leading to the place of non-birth." The Person is called "purusa" 10 because (1) he exists through destruction of the past, or (2) he surpasses slumber, or because (3) he protects, or (4) he fills up. He is "transcendent (mahantam)", because he exceeds everything. 11 He is "lustrous like the sun", because he is of variegated colours. The sun's lustre is variegated and contains the following colours :12 (1) white, (2) blue, (3) red, (4) steel blue, (5) yellow, (6) pigeon grey, (7) ruby, (8) tawny ("ka.bi.tsa.la' = (Skt.) kapinjala?). Why is his solar lustre said to possess these colours? It is because it contains the spirits of all the deities, or because such is the innate character of the Great Lord (Mahesvara): (1) The whiteness of the sun represents the essence of the Moon (Soma); (2) the (azure) colour of water is derived from both Fire (Agni) and the Moon; (3) the 9 Quotation from SU 3.8: veda' ham etam purusam mahantam adityavarnam tamasah parastat / tam eva viditva 'timstyum eti na'nyah pantha vidyate 'yanaya ll, which is again found in the comm. to verse 16 below. Tib. translation of ayana here = skye. med. gnas. hgro. ba (ajatisthanagamana), which seems to suggest the ajati-vada of Gaudapada, treated at length in AS. III-IV. 10 Four derivations of purusa: (1) purva + us, cf. Byhada.- Upan. (BU) 1.4.1: osati ha vai sa tam yo 'smat purvo bubhusati; (2) sayanat parah; (3) piparti (from 'pr palane") and (4) prnati (from 'pr purane'); cf. Nirukta II. 3: purusah puri sadah / puri sayah / purayater va) .... tenedam purnam purusena sarvam. Further, Samkara on BU. IV. 3.7: purusa akasavat sarvagatatvat purna iti purusah. 11 Cf. Samkarananda on SU 3.8: mahantam sarvasmad adhikam. 12 Cf. Amarakosa 1.5.12-17. On the colour-scale from 'black, grey, blue, red, yellow upto white' in the development of the Soul, according to the epic Samkhya, see 0. Strauss, Indische Philosophie (Munchen, 1925), p. 133, also p. 112 (on the Lesya theory in Jainism). For an example of colours attributed to Gods in Mahayana Buddhism, cf. the description of Hevajra with eight hands of different colours, represented by different Vedic and other deities, in Alice Getty, The Gods of Northern Buddhism (Oxford, 1928), pp. 142 ff. Further, Atharvasi.-Upan. 5, SU. 4.1. In the original the colours may be: (1) sukla, sveta, avadata etc., (2) nila, (3) lohita (below for 'pale red' = patala, cf. Amarakosa (AmK) 1.5.15), (4) dhuma (= 'du.ba' below); here Tib. has "ba-bla" (arsenic = haritala?), whose colour seems to be implied. The name Indra (of whom this is the colour) used to be derived from indha, fuel, cf. BU. IV. 2.2: indho ha vai namaisa yo 'yam daksine 'ksan purusas tam va etam indham santam indra ity acaksate (also, Sat. Br. 6.1.1.2 etc.), (5) pita, haridra etc., (6) paravata (phug. ron' = pigeon; below: 'rdul. dan. yun' = rajah-pita, dusty yellow), (7) manjistha ('htsod' = madder, rubia cordifolia; below: 'smug.po'. = purple brown, macrotomia; cf. Nagarjuna's Paramarthastava, 5 (from Lhasa ms.): na rakto haritamanjistho varnas tenopalabhyate na pitah krynah suklo va avarnaya namo'stu te), (8) Cf. Mahavyutpatti (= Mvy, ed. R. Sakaki, Kyoto, 1916) 4892: kapinjala, kapincala = 'Gon.mo.sreg' (wood-cock); below: 'myur.ba = swift, speedy etc. is incomprehensible. S. C. Das (Dictionary): 'sna.tshogs.mdog = karbura (p. 766). a, eta Atharvasi. Uply, The Gods of colours, rep

Page #5
THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY 169 = red colour is supported by the God of Wealth (Kubera); and the pale red represents the spirit of the Propitious Rudra ('Ru.tra.bde.byed.dag' (Skt.) Rudra-Samkara); (4) the smoky colour comes from Indra; (5) the yellow colour comes from Mitra; (6) the dusty yellow colour represents the spirits of Mitra and the Water-God (Varuna); (7) the purple belongs to 'Dgar.ka.nid' (sic. 'Tha.skar.gnis'? = Asvinau); (8) the presence of the Visve-devas makes it volatile ('myur.ba'?). The colour of Purity (brahma-varna) is the result of his being the Supreme Lord (Isvara). The root "at-" indicates constant movement (satata-gamana); hence the term "atman" means either that all beings always move in Him, or that He constantly moves among all beings. 13 He it is, who is "great", because of his omnipresence (sarvavyapitva), and being "supreme" (isvara). He transcends all the worlds. The saint (yogin), who perceives the "Person" (Purusa) of the above description by his divine eye (divyacaksus), surpasses all bondage and attains immunity from old age and death. Now, although the Person possesses various colours, the distinctive mark (laksana) recognized by the saint at the time of his own final liberation, is as below: (3) rukmavarnam yada pasyan pasyet kartaram isvaram / vihaya papam punyan ca param samyam14 tada 'pnuyat // When, on perceiving the gold-coloured one, he recognizes (in him) the Lord, the Maker, he may then, after casting off both sin and merit, attain that supreme equanimity. T: "Gold" is the fine gold found in the sand. When the Soul, having a similar "colour" is seen and recognized by the concentrated eye of meditation (dhyanacaksus) as such, one may be sure of being in the presence of the great "Lord" himself. While seeing thus, one becomes "supreme" in cutting off the essence of all sin and merit as well as the bondages characterized by both of them. In particular, one becomes tranquil (santa). One "attains" the essence of tranquility, which implies a turning away from all action and is beyond discourse (nirvikalpa).15 13 Cf. IU. 6; Bhagavadgita (= BG) 6.29-30, etc. 14 Mc. reads: satmyam. From the following T, the Skt. reading would appear to be neither satmyam nor samyam, but santam, but it may be noted that AS uses both samya and santa in the same sense for describing the Absolute; comp. III, 47, IV 45 with IV. 80, 93, 95, 100. Mundaka-Upan. (= MuU), 3.1.3 (cf. Maitri-Upan. (= MU) 6. 18) of which the present stanza is a virtual reproduction, also reads samyam thus: yada pasyah pasyate rukmavarnam kartaram isam purusam brahmayonim | tada vidvan punyapape vidhuya niranjanah paramam samyam upaiti || 15 Cf. AS. IV. 80; III. 33-34. This description of the Absolute, it may be noted, is not very different from Maitreyanath's conception of the Buddhahood; see: Ratna

Page #6
170 V. V. GOKHALE (Now), if he is beyond the three spheres of Existence, how could he be the "Maker (karty)"? And being so distant, whose Lord is he? The answer is, that inspite of his distant abode, he is all-pervading, as described below: (4) bhutam bhavat bhavisyac ca sarvam purusa isyate / so 'ntar bahis ca dure ca so 'ntike sa ca karmakrt16 // Whatever is past, present or future, it is all regarded as the Person (purusa). He is within and without, far and near; and he is the Doer. T: Whatever, like a man etc., has gone by (atita), whatever is now in view (pratyutpanna) and whatever is to come hereafter (agami) - "all this' is possessed and sanctified (adhisthita) by him, i.e., he pervades all the three spheres of existence. Because, the zenith is his head, the nadir his base,17 the sky his abdominal cavity,18 the quarters his hands, the planets and constellations his pores of hair, the mountains his chest, the mountain-range his bone, the streams the network of his arteries, and the forests his hair and nails. His back is the celestial world and his forehead is Brahma. (Religious) merit and demerit are his two eyebrows. The knitting of his eyebrows is the Lord of Death. The sun and the moon are his two eyes.19 His breathing out and breathing in are the wind. The hillocks20 are his teeth. His tongue is the Goddess of Speech. The syllable: om and the exclamation: vasata1 are his two lips. The opening and closing of his eyelids is the Time; his left side the woman and his right side the man.22 The 'Lokaloka'-mountain-range (dividing the visible gotravibhaga Mahayanottaratantrasastra (Patna, 1950), II. 29: acintyam nityam ca dhruvam atha sivam sasvatam atha / prasantam ca vyapi vyapagatavikalpam gaganavat// asaktam sarvatrapratighaparusasparsavigatam na drsyam na grahyam subham api ca buddhatvam amalam // 16 Cf. Rg-Veda X. 90. 2: purusa evedam sarvam yad bhutam yac ca bhavyam = SU. 3. 15 (The v.1.: evaitat for evedam, found in Kamalasila's comm. on Santaraksita's Tattvasamgraha, p. 76 (Baroda, 1926) has already been pointed out by H. Nakamura in his article "A note on Pre-Sankara Philosophy", Proceedings of the Okurayama Or. Res. Institute, Vol. 1, p. 3 (Yokohama, 1954); also v.1. bhavyam for bhavyam (ibid.). Further cf. Iu. 1. 5. BG. 13. 15. 17 Cf. MahaU. 5. 156: urdhvam sirah pindamayam adhah padamayam tatha / parsvayor hastasamsthanam madhye codaradharminam. 18 T. Ito. ba = udara; v.1. stoho is inexplicable. 18 Cf. MuU. 2. 1. 4: caksusi candrasuryau. 30 T.: ri.bran (Sic. ri.phran or ri.brag?) 31 T.: ba.sa.tha.shes.bya.bahi. yi.ge.ni.chu.gniso, where I take "chu" to be a mistake for "mchu" (lip). (This has now been confirmed by Sde. dge edition) 2 Cf. BU. 4. 2. 2-3 etc.

Page #7
THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY 171 world from the regions of darkness)23 form the intervening space between his nipples. His fingers represent the interspaces between mountains; his pair of knees the two golden leaves 24 (?). His two shanks are the pair of Asvinikumaras; the part below his loins the day and night; his male organ the Indra; the nature of his enjoyment the Prajapati, and his pair of feet the Visnu. (Finally), the colours are his blood. Being both 'within and without', as well as 'far and near', he moves in and moves out everywhere, and even enters the process of maturation etc. (Now), if he is all alone, how is he able to enter upon a variety of activities and (yet) remain unimpaired? This is established (in the following) by means of an example: (5) visve bhavas tato jata urnanabhad ivamsavah /25 From him are born all things in the universe, like threads coming out of a spider. T: Just as a silk-worm (krmi) produces abundant threads and yet without undergoing any change remains unspent, even so does the Person, inspite of his producing the three spheres of existence, remain unchanged and unspent. Although as the cause of all existence he is inexhaustible, it is said here, that he still brings about the dissolution of the existence: tasmin pralina vidvamso na 'pnuvanti punarbhavam 25 // Wise men, who have merged themselves in him, do not get a second birth. T: When a 'wise man', practising profound meditation (dhyana-yogin) perceives him by his eye of intelligence (prajna-netra), not only does he get himself merged in him, but being bereft of all sins does not have to share in the miseries, arising in this world of 'rebirth'. (Now,) why does the Yogin not attain immortality (amrtatva) without having perceived the Person? The reason for this is stated below: (6) amrtatvam na martyasya vahneh saityam ivesyate / tasmad amrtata 'yukta 'prabodhat puruse 'mrte26 || 28 Cf. Kirfel, Kosmographie der Inder (Bonn, 1920), pp. 121-122, 126; Raghuvamsa, I. 68. 24 T.: gser.hdab.gnis.so. 25 For the simile of a spider cf. BU. 2. 1. 20; SU. 6. 10; MuU. 1. 7 etc. Thas "dar.gyi. srin.bu" (= kosakarakita, silkworm) and "srin.bal.byed.pahi.srin.bu" (hair-making insect) in the stanza and the commentary respectively. For the second half of the stanza cf. SU. 1. 7: lina brahmani tatpara yonimuktah. 26 Mc. reads: tamabhyasya for na martyasya and does not write any of the avagrahas in the second line of the stanza. Numerous passages are found in the Upanisadic literature expressing this thought, continued from the preceding stanza. See: SU. 3. 7; 5. 6; 6. 17; KnU (= Kena-Upa.). 2. 4; KU. 6. 8; cf. BU. 4. 4. 7 KU. 6. 14-15; AS. III. 21, IV. 7, etc.

Page #8
172 V. V. GOKHALE The mortal cannot be regarded as having immortality, just as fire (cannot be regarded) as having coldness. Hence, it does not stand to reason that immortality could be attained without there being an awakening into the state of) that person. T: 'The mortal' (martya) is what deserves to die (martum arhati), or what suffers death (marta-bhuta), (which means the whole world (sarvaloka). Being by nature something that always suffers death, it could not be considered as having immortality, because it has not that character, just as heat, and not coldness is the character of fire. Hence, for those mortals, who have not visualized the Person, residing beyond the kingdom of death, the attainment of immortality is unthinkable. The following serves the purpose of eulogising his great prowess (mahanubhava): (7) yatah param param na'sti yato jyayan na vidyate / aniyan na'pi tenedam visvam ekena samtatama7 || As there is nothing else higher than him, or superior to him or even subtler than him, he alone is the sole cause, that holds together the diversity of this universe). T: Other than him there is nothing that excels (paratva), or is superior (jyayastva) and preeminent (jyaisthya), or is more subtle (aniyastva). The character of a saint (yogin), endowed with eight such attributes (guna), has been laid down as follows:27 "He is endowed with the (1) power to attenuate himself (animan), (2) power to extend himself (mahiman), (3) power to levitate himself (laghiman), (4) supremacy (over the elements etc., isita), (5) power of control (vasita), (6) power to reach (rab.phye (?) 27 See: SU. 3. 9: yasmat param naparam asti kimcid yasman naniyo na jyayo 'sti kascit) .... tenedam purnam purusena sarvam. See note 43 below. The Tibetan version of Mhk (fol. 28a) includes the following stanza in T as a part of the original karikatext, although it is not found among the Sanskrit karikas. It reads: de.ni.phra.dan rags.dan.ldan || yan.ldan.gtso.bo.dban.sgyur.ba || rab.phye (sic.phyi?). hdod.pasi.mthar. thug.gan // rnal.hbyor.ji.ltar.hdod.par.hgro. This enumerates the eight siddhis of a Yogin, as explained, e.g., by Ksirasvamin (12th cent. A.D.), commenting on Amarakosa I. 36 (aisvaryam animadikam) (ed. by Hara Datta Sharma, Poona Or. Ser. - No. 43, p. 12). The last Siddhi, viz., yatha(or yatra)-kamavasayita, is sometimes replaced by gariman, as e.g. in Mahesvara's commentary on the Amarakosa (Bombay, 1907), but the Yogasutras of Patanjali, III. 44 (together with the Bhasya of Vedavyasa and the commentary of Vacaspatimisra) agree with the present text. Cf. anima laghima praptih prakamyam mahima tatha / isitvam ca vasitvam ca tatha kamavasayita // (Vacaspatyam under animan, Calcutta 1873); laghima vasitesitvam prakamyam mahimanima / yatrakamavasayitvam praptiraisvaryam astadha // (Abhidhanacintamani of Hemacandra, p. 36, Calcutta, samvat 1934). For a comprehensive study of these Yogic powers, see Sigurd Lindquist, Siddhi und Abhinna (Uppsala, 1935). It may be noted that through this reference Bhavya is seen to assume the closest affinity between Vedanta and the Patanjala-darsana.

Page #9
THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY 173 = prapti), (7) irresistibility of will (prakamya) and (8) power to proceed at will (yathakamavasayita)." Hence, although he is alone, he is the soul of the diverse aggregate of the three spheres of existence: (8) tasmin sarvani bhutani bhavaty atmaiva pasyatah28 / For the discerner, all the beings in Him are also included in the Soul. T: All that moves or does not move (caracarabhuta) is comprehended within the soul. And besides, one who sees the soul realizes, balapanditacandalavipradinan ca tulyata29 // and the ignorant and the learned, the outcast and the Brahmin, and so forth, are all equal. T: The equality (implied here) is in reference to the non-distinction in (respect of their) demerit or merit (papapunya). : Now, if someone were to raise the question: "This Person (purusa), who is (said to be) ubiquitous (sarvavyapin), and from whom, although he is alone, the bodies of all kinds of living beings (gati), like gods and men, are (said to be) born, - how is it that he, like any (other) bodied being, is neither evanescent (anitya), nor non-pervasive (a-sarvatraga)?", - the following is said as a rejoinder: (9) ghatotpattau vinase va na 'kasasya tadatmata / tadatmata 'tmano 'pista na dehadyudayavyaye30 || When a pot is being produced or destroyed, the ether does not become 28 Cf. TU. 7: yasmin sarvani bhutani atmaivabhud vijanatah (Samkarananda's Dipika). 29 Nakamura (op. cit., note 4 above) refers to Brahmasutra-Sarkarabhasya, II. 3. 43: tathahy eke sakhino dasakitavadibhavam brahmana amananty atharvanika Brahmasukte "brahma dasa brahma dasa brahmaiveme kitavah"ityadina / dasa ya ete kaivartah prasiddhah, ye cami dasah svamisv atmanam upaksapayanti / ye canye kitava dyutakrtas 'te sarve brahmaiveti hinajantudaharanena sarvesam eva namarupakytakaryakaranasamghatapravistanam jivanam brahmatvam aha. Further, BG. V. 18: vidyavinayasampanne brahmane ..../.... svapake ca panditah samadarsinah. I have noted at least two other references to outcasts in the present work: - Mhk. I. 26 reads: na krosta mattamatangakumbhasphalanapatane / na matangah samudrantamahimandalapalane (which includes a play on the word matarga). The other reference to the outcasts is found in Ton III. 26 of Mhk. which, while establishing the non-substantiality of material elements, like the Earth (urvi) etc., states the objector's view as: de.dag.gi.sra.ba.dan.gser.ba.dan.tsha.ba.dan.gyo.ba.la.sogs.pahi.no.bo.nid.gan.yin.pa. dag.ni.ri.khrod.pa.dan.gdol.pa.yan.chad.la.yan.grags.te (i.e. even the Sabaras and Matangas know their nature). In pointing out these references to the outcasts by Bhavya, it may not be impertinent to observe, that Candrakirti shows a less highbrowed attitude towards them, when in a parallel instance he substitutes a shepherdess for an outcast, cf. gopalarganajana, p. 260, 418 of Madhyamakavrttih (ed. by L. V. Poussin, Bibl. Buddhica, IV, 1913).

Page #10
174 V. V. GOKHALE identical with it (in shape etc.). Similarly, when bodies etc. are born or die, they cannot be considered to be identical with the Soul. T: As in the case of a pot, a jar etc., which is being produced or destroyed, the ether does not assume the characteristics of the pot (etc.), so also the Purusa does not assume the nature of the embodied being (lus.can = saririn, dehin), even while in its various shapes it is being born or suffers death. (Now,) to establish (further) this example of the ether with a view to meet a serious objection (from the adversary), it is pointed out: Savad ekasya nanatvam ced abhedatah / ghatabhedena caikatvam samye sarvasya janmavat31 // If (an objection is raised, viz. that) the unity (of the Soul) is (here turned into) a diversity, which is evident in the multiplicity of bodies, illustrated by the ether in the pot, (we answer, that) when the pot is broken, there exists an unbroken unity of the ether). (Hence,) it is as if everything is born in a state of sameness. T: It may be said: "Although your ether may be a unity, it is being divided into the separate, large and small pots. (Hence,) the Soul also must be like that." But, this does not stand to reason: because no distinction can exist within the ether which is occupying all the pots. The ether within a pot, which is being broken and that in another pot, which is already broken, is not different from each other. This applies to the ether in all pots alike. In a similar way, the Soul (= atman) does not exist separately in all the embodied beings, and in spite of the multiplicity of bodies, the Soul is the same in all of them. Thus, the example of the ether in the pot has not been disproved. 30 Mc. reads: dehadyudayavyayam in (d), where dehadi corresponds to Tib. lus.can (= dehin) both in Mhk and T. Cf. AS. III. 3 and 4 (corresponding respectively to udaya and vyaya of the jiva) with further references on pp. 301-2; Brahmabindu-U. 13-14. It is made clear by Bhavya that the adversary here and in the following argument is bhavana na webu the Buddhist (see stanza 1 above and T on 12 below). However, cf. also the Samkhyakarika 10, which describes the characteristics of the vyakta and the avyakta, which are found mixed up here in the description of the Purusa, i.e., his being 'active' (cf. karts in st. 3; karmakst in st. 4 etc.) and at the same time 'one' (eka in st. 7), 'eternal and omnipresent' (nitya, sarvatraga in st. 16 & T.) etc. This apparent incongruity which is sought to be removed by the Vedantin by giving this example of the ether in the pot' (ghatakasa) should therefore be equally objectionable to the Samkhya. 31 Mc. reads: deha- for ceda- in (b) and caikasya for caikatvam in (c.) Mc. being the single source for the Sanskrit text, which sometimes makes no sense, I have ventured to emend it here rather heavily. The (d) of this stanza also seems doubtful. On the basis of T I might suggest: samyam sarvasya siddhavat (= (Hence) the state of sameness of everything is as good as proved).

Page #11
THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY 175 Now, to prove the unity of the Soul (= atmaikya) by a different approach (= naya), (we say the following:) (11) yatha ghatadibhede 'pi madbhedo na 'sti kas cana/ (tathaiva dehabhede 'pi na'tmabhedo 'sti kas cana32 || Although there may be a difference between the various kinds of) pots etc., the clay (of which they are made) is in no way different. Similarly, although the bodies may differ, the Soul is in no way different. T: Although the products, like a pot, a cup etc. are different, there is no difference in their material cause. So also, there is no difference whatever in the Soul, although the bodies of deities33 etc. may differ from each other. (12) ghatakase yathaikasmin rajodhumadibhir vste / tadvatta na hi sarvesam sukhader na tatha'tmanah34 || When the ether in one pot becomes covered by dust, smoke and so forth, it is not that the ether in all the other pots also becomes similarly affected. So also with happiness etc., which are not of the Soul. T: The Buddhist having first found fault with the Soul-theorists (= atmavadin) by saying: "As (your) Soul is omnipresent, if one (person) is happy, everybody else should also be happy", the following is said for refuting the same. Although ether is all-pervading, when the ether occupying the interior of one pot is covered by dust, smoke etc., the ether inside all the other pots also does not on that account become so covered; nor does the absence of any such covering in the case of one pot cause the absence of the same in the case of all other pots. Likewise, when one person here becomes happy, all the rest also do not on that account become so; nor does the misery of one entail the misery of all the rest. (Now,) if it is asked: "How does happiness or misery arise at all in each of these individuals (= samtana)?"', the answer is (13) aprabodhad anatmajnah svapne bhogabhimanavat35 / cinoti karma bhunkte ca tatphalam yac chubhasubham // 32 The second line of this stanza is missing in Mc. and has therefore been reconstructed from the Tibetan. For a different reconstruction, see A$. Pp. 52-53. The loss of this line may be due to the homoeographic 'sti kas cana (either in the original ms. or in the copy). Cf. AS. III. 6, which is also found quoted in the Tibetan version of Santaraksita's Madhyamakalamkara (see Walleser, Der altere Vedanta, p. 20). 38 For this reference to deities, see T on stanzas 2, 4 above. 34 In (d), sukhadir would seem better than sukhader of Mc. The first line is almost identical win ($. III. 5 (yathaikasmin ghatakase rajodhumadibhir yute); the editor suggests the roll wing reconstruction of the second line from the Tibetan: na bhavanti tatha sarve i sukhadi tathatm at (p. 52). 35 Cf. numerous passages dealing with the dream-consciousness in the Upanisads,

Page #12
176 V. V. GOKHALE (As long as) one has not recognized the Soul on account of one's own ignorance, one goes on priding oneself over unreal enjoyments in a state of dream as it were; one keeps collecting (various kinds of) karma and enjoys their fruits, whether good or bad. T: So long as one does not perceive the Soul and remains ignorant about it, one takes pride in the enjoyment of unreal things etc. in the state of dream as it were. Being in total ignorance of the Soul, he still goes on heaping up karma, whether good or bad, and tasting its good or bad fruits.36 (Now,) as the Person (= Purusa) is the Doer and the Enjoyer, it may be objected, that inasmuch as He collects together sins as well as merits, and enjoys them, He is (open to the charge of being) himself a sinner and so on; but we would say: (14) dehasamstho 'py asamgatvad bhunjano nopalipyate / rajavat kamacari37 ca papena 'naparadhy asau // Although He pervades the body, He, while enjoying (the objects), remains uncontaminated (by them) and like a king, behaving according to his pleasure, He remains innocent of all sin. T: Although He pervades the whole body. He still remains unaffected (ma.chags.pa = asakta), and even while enjoying the objects He is not contaminated by them. Just like a king, He behaves according to His sweet will, and yet does not commit any injury (to anyone) (phyir.gnod. pa.byed.pa.med.pa). Because of His being the Lord of all, although He may commit sin, He does not deserve to share the results of that sin. Thus, to follow up the above line of argument: (15) ekam sarvagatam nityam param brahma 'cyutam padam/ yogi yunjana (ave)tti38 na tadaiti punarbhavam || as in BU.4.3, and AS. The Buddhists have likewise exploited the dream phenomenon at least since the days of the Prajnaparamitas and later by Vasubandhu (Vijnaptimatratasiddhi-vimsatika 3) etc. to prove the essential unreality of the practical world. 36 The entire text of T. is divided into fairly equal 27 sections (bam.po) of which the 22nd bam.po ends here. E. Frauwallner (in "Zu den buddhistischen Texten in der Zeit Khri.sron.lde.btsan's", Wiener Zeitschr. fur die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens, Bd. I, 1957) reckons 300 slokas to be the extent of one bam.po, covering about 12 folios of the Sde.dge edition. In the Narthang edition used here, it covers about 14 folios. 37 This acceptance of the Divine Right of kings, extended into the sphere of religious thought, is also consistent with the description of the Purusa found in T on stanza 2 and 3 above, as compared with Manu. V. 96; VII. 4-7. Further, for Purusa as a sinner, cf. Sarvasiddhantasamgraha, IV. 4. 33-34 (cited by Nakamura). 38 Mc. shows here a lacuna of two letters, which I have tried to restore after T: kun.tu.rtogs.pa.yin.te, as in the stanza itself no translation of the missing term is given. With a slight emendation the original reading might as well be: yunjan yada vetti.

Page #13
THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY 177 The saint (yogin) perceives by practice (of meditation) that unique, omnipotent, eternal, pure, supreme and immortal refuge, and then he is not born again. T: Because of its supremacy over the whole body it is 'unique'; because of its pervading the entire world it is 'omnipresent'; because of its indestructibility it is 'eternal', because of its having the nature of the Nirvana10 it is 'pure'; because of its high eminence it is 'supreme'; because of its being without beginning or end it is immortal; because of its being a place of resort it is the 'refuge'. The yogin objectifies it by means of his deep meditation (bsam.gtan.gyi.sbyor.bas dhyanayogena); by such intense practice, the pure one (= brahman) described above is thoroughly apprehended (by him), and then he turns away from rebirth. (Now,) the characteristic of that Soul which remains aloof from all enjoyment of the good and the not-good is extolled in the following: (16) nityam tad avikalpan ca yatra vacam agocarah / giras tatra prayujyante bhedapahrtabuddhibhih // It is everlasting, inconceivable and beyond the realm of speech. (Yet) various terms are used to describe it by those whose minds are led away by pluralistic considerations. T: That Brahman is 'everlasting', because it is capable of being objectified by the Yogin at all times; it is 'inconceivable', because it is something different from the senses and the consciousness. What comes within the reach of the mind can (alone) become the object of speech, hence, whatever is beyond its reach is also 'beyond the realm of speech'. Further, 'a mind, led away by pluralistic considerations' means a mind, which is inclined to accept pluralism; one who has such a mind is meant here by the expression: 'whose mind is led away by pluralistic considerations'. By him the term: Brahman is 'used to describe it', as well as other terms like: Soul (atman), Person (purusa), Almighty (isvara), the Omnipresence (sarvatraga), the Eternal (nitya) and so forth. The reason (for such usage) is the practicality (of these terms). The meaning of other such terms is to be understood according to the context. Its nature being inexpressible the Vedas have called it: "self-born, actionless, immeasurable", "the Person beyond darkness" (and further) "I have known that great Seer, radiant like the sun and living beyond darkness. Having known Him, 39 Ratnagotravibhaga IV. 53 ff. (p. 107) makes an insinuating comparison between the Tathagata and Brahma and speaks of brahmyam padam; cf. brahmanyam padam, AS. IV. 85. 40 For Brahma-nirvana, BG. 2. 72; 5. 24-26.

Page #14
178 V. V. GOKHALE one surpasses death. There is no other way leading to the place of nonbirth." 41 Similarly: "The One, who dwells in each and every subtle source of creation, and in whom all this folds and unfolds itself, - having recognized Him with certitude, who is the superior, excellent and adorable God, I am led towards absolute quiescence":42 "To whom there is nothing superior, nor inferior; than whom there is nothing more subtle, nor gross; unimpeded and uncovered (like a tree?), that God stands all alone, being also the Person, who growingly pervades everything":43 "Being subtler than the subtle and greater than the great, He stands pervading all the living beings by his own virtue. Free from sorrow and without offering any sacrifice, one perceives with clarity of all senses the greatness of His sovereignty.":44 Further, "On knowing the great and powerful Soul, which is bodiless among the embodied ones, and which endures among the undurables, the wise man does not grieve."45 Again, "It moves and it moves not, it is far away and yet nearby, it is both inside as well as outside of everything.":46 And similarly, "He is the source of whatever is incarnate, just as a spider is that of threads, or the moon- . stone that of the liquid (oozing from it), of the fig-tree that of its descending shoots."'47 and so forth. Thus the truth is that the Person (Purusa) is to be seen by means of direct perception according to the Vedic lore, 41 See stanza 2, note 9 above. 42 Quotation from SU. 4. 11: yo yonim yonim adhitisthaty eko yasminn idam sam ca vi-caiti sarvam tam isanam varadam devam idyam nicayyemam santim atyantam eti. The Tibetan of the last pada: bdag.nes.bzun.nas.sin.tu.shi.bar.hgro.bar.hgyur points to a variant: emi for eti. 43 Quotation from SU. 3. 9: yasmat param naparam asti kim cit vasman naniyo na jyayo 'sti kas cit/ vrkna iva stabdho divi tisthaty ekas tenedam purnam purusena sarvam already cited in note 27 to stanza 7 above. The (c) in Tib, differs from Skt. Cf. BU. 3. 9. 28, where the Purusa is compared to a tree. 4 This corresponds to SU. 3. 20: anor aniyan mahato mahiyan atma guhayam nihito 'sya jantoh / tam akratum pasyati vitasoko dhatuh prasadan mahimanam isam. Again we have here some differences in the original of Tibetan: guna? for guha in (b) and dhatu- for dhatuh in (d), which is noted and explained by Samkara in his comm.: athavendriyani dhatavah sarirasya dharanat tesam prasadad visayadosadarsanabaladyapanayanat. KU. 2. 20 has the variant atmanah for isam in (d). 45 This is the same as KU. 2. 22: asariram sariresv anavasthesv avasthitam / mahantam vibhum atmanam matva dhiro na socati. 46 See: IU. 1. 5: tadejati tan naijati tad dure tad v antike / tad antarasya sarvasya tad u sarvasya 'sya bahyatah. 47 This is found quoted by Kamalasila on Tattvasamgraha, 154 (GOS): urnanabha ivamsunam candrakanta ivambhasam/prarohanam iva plaksah sa hetuh sarvajanminam; Prameyakamalamartanda (NSP, 1912, p. 17b). This is quoted again by Bhavya in his Prajnapradipa (Tib. version, Bibl. Indica, p. 19), where instead of nya.groo (nyagrodha) fig tree, the reading is: blag.sa( plaksa). Cf. Nakamura in Proceedings etc. (cited in note 6 above) pp. 2-3.

Page #15
THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY 179 X and that it is irrefutable. This is how the Vedantist establishes his prima facie argument. As this deserves to be given an answer, the author of this treatise proceeds to make the following statement. X Such are the contents of one of the earliest sources of information on the pre-Samkara Vedanta, 48 which must have come to be accepted by the Buddhists not long since as a full-fledged system of Indian philosophy. That a close affinity had already existed between the views of the Madhyamikas on the one hand and the Vedantists or the Upanisadists on the other has been placed beyond doubt on the pre-Bhavya testimony of Gaudapada's Agamasastra as well as the post-Bhavya testimony of Santaraksita's Tattvasamgraha.49 Bhavya's own detailed estimate of the Vedantic position (which comes after the above purvapaksa) confirms the recognition of some common ground between the two idealistic trends of Indian philosophic thought. Bhavya is generous enough to acknowledge, that whatever is good in the Vedanta may be considered as taught by the Buddha himself. Before we close this presentation of his data, therefore, we may make a special note of the following stanzas appearing during the course of his controversy with the Hinayanists in Chapter IV of the Mhk: Sravakatattvaniscayavatara: IV (7): na buddhoktir mahayanam sutrantadav asamgrahat / margantaropadesad va yatha Vedantadarsanam || (The Hinayanist, affirming his purvapaksa says:) The Mahayana cannot represent the teaching of the Buddha, either because it is not included among the Sutrantas etc. (including the Abhidharma and the Vinaya), or because it teaches the heretic paths of salvation, thus being similar to the Vedanta system. (T fol. 155a explains, that the Vedanta, which is known to be the concluding part of the Vedas, teaches bathing on the rivers, fasting and incantations as the methods of getting freedom from sin; and the Mahayanists also follow the same methods for destroying sins' and increasing merits.) And now Bhavya's reply to this argument is found to be the following: IV (56): Vedante ca hi yat suktam tat sarvam buddhabhasitam / dpstantanyunata tasmat samdigdham va pariksyatam // 48 See: Nakamura, "Upanisadic tradition etc.", HJAS, Vol 18 (cited above in note 4), p. 104. The nearest approach to this description of the Vedanta seems to have been made by Kalidasa in the opening stanza of his Vikramorvasiyam: Vedantesu yam ahur ekapurusam .... etc. Cf. the opening stanza of Abhijnana-sakuntalam with the description of the eight Siddhis in T on 7. 49 See: stanza 330: tesam alpaparadhan tu.... etc.

Page #16
180 V. V. GOKHALE Whatever is well said in the Vedanta is all taught by the Buddha. Hence, (in your above argument) the example given is faulty. The doubtfulness (in your thesis) will have to be examined. (T explains that there is a fallacy in giving an example, which is already covered by what is to be proved, i.e., the fact that some of the Vedantic and the Mahayanist methods of salvation are identical is not enough to prove, that Mahayana is not taught by the Buddha. Hereupon the Hinayanist points out, that there are points of dissimilarity as well, e.g., the bad words like killing, robbing etc., discussed in various parts of the Vedas, that are absent in the Mahayana), which can also be given as examples. The Mahayanist replies, that if it is admitted that such bad utterances are not found in the Mahayana, then there is no mistake (with us); because the Mahayana would in that case be neither against the Tripitaka, nor against the doctrinal teachings, as we have been seeking to establish all along. Thus, whatever is well spoken in the Vedas and in accordance with the words of the Buddha would be acceptable, and yet (some of) their teachings would be unacceptable (according to your reasoning). After properly examining this doubtful position, what is reasonable should be accepted, and what is unreasonable rejected.) (P.S.: As no other text of the Tibetan Tarkajvala was available to me except the one in the Narthang edition of the Tenjur, I thought of requesting my friend, Prof. Hajime Nakamura (Tokyo University), who had already translated this portion into Japanese (see note 4) without the aid of the Skt. original of the Madhyamakahrdayakarikas, to edit the Tibetan text for being published along with the present article. He. lost no time in preparing the following most useful appendix, based upon the Derge, the Peking and the Narthang editions of the Tenjur, as soon as I had submitted my own translation to him. I am greatly obliged to him and his colleagues for this excellent cooperation. I am also thankful to him for a few valuable references and comments, he was kind enough to send me.)