________________ DATE AND AUTHORSHIP The controversies between the Dipakara and the Kosakara discussed in the foregoing chapter lead one to believe that the Dipa and the Vritti were written primarily with the ambition of presenting a rival treatise to the celebrated Kosa and the Bhashya, and at the same time with the aim of refuting the views of the Sautrantika Kosakara leaning more and more towords Mahayana. The Dipakara's declaration that he will propound the essence of Abhidharma forgotten by the Kosakara, his description of the latter as an apostate from the Sarvastivada, and his condemnation of him as a conceited person (pandita-manin)? ignorant of the Abhidharma (abhidharma-paroksha-mati-vsittinam)2 betray a certain rivalry entertained by him towards Vasubandhu the Kosakara. But calling the latter's views unbuddhistic (abauddhiya) based on the Vaitulika scriptures leading to the doctrine of ayoga-sunyata, he apparently tries to persuade us over and over again that the Kosa is not an authentic Vaibhashika treatise but only a mouth-piece of the Mahayanist Vasubandhu disguised as a Vaibhashika acharya. .. Unfortunately, the name of this rival has not survived either in the Dipa or in the Vtitti. In the Vtitti he is merely called Dipakara as Vasubandhu is called Kosakara. He is a Kasmira Vaibhashika as is evident from his criticism of the Bahirdesiyaka view of the four avyakrita-mulas in preference to the theory of three held by the Kasmira school. He is an orthodox Vaibhashika. Many of his views are identical with those of Samghabhadra, and in some cases they are expressed in almost identical terms. We can see this identity in their 1 Adv. p. 47. 2 Adv. p. 85. 3 Vide Adv. pp. 247-8. .. 9
