________________
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
372
TWO SIDDHASENAS AND THE AUTHORSHIP
373
has in mind are colour and other sensations (visaya) related to the five senses. If a substance as the substratum for its qualities were in the relation of identity to its qualities, then eg the relation substance-visible-form, which further relates the substance to a particular sense (here: sense of vision), would be passed onto other relational complexes substance - sensation - sense organ: in consequence, the distinction between the character of sensory data would be blurred and disappear, the distinction between them being merely nominal. Cr. Abhayadevasari's TBV. ad loc. p. 636.23-27. yatha pradarsita ambandha-virintah pir-ddi-vyapadesam difrityisom purus-rapatay niranisayo 'pi san tahd drayyam api ghuning-rasand-cakrus-vaksrotra-ambandham andpya ripresa-gandha-sparia-sabda-vyapadedamdam labhate dravo svarprovisistam api nahi sakrendradi-dada-bhedad giráno-ndthayeva ripadi-sabda-bhedat vastu-bhedo yuktas tada dravyddiaitaikanta-sthiteh karhancidbhedábheda-vádo dravya-guņayor marya-wida Isl. - "Just as a man qualified by a specified relation, who is determined in his relational status] by the designation 'father', etc., still remains) unsurpassed (se unmodified) - viz. existent - in his human form, in the same manner also the substance - having entered a specific relation with the [faculties of smell, taste, vision, touch and hearing - receives the designation alone (that refers to its) colour, taste, smell, touch and sound, even though
the substance remains the same in its intrinsic nature of [being] a substance. For it is not sound [to assume that an entity (refered to) is different on account of the difference of referring) terms (such as 'colour, etc., analogous to the non-difference of one and the same male deity despite the difference of (referring terms (such as) Sakra'. 'Indra', etc. Hence, since the doctrine of the absolute unity of substance is proved the doctrine (propounding conditional difference - cum-non-difference between substance and its qualities is a false doctrine 2 Abhayadevasuri introduces the refutation with the words arya Wirakanindya. and further explicates (TBV. ad loc. p. 636.29-637.5). yadi nama dmrddi-drawiam rva rosana-sambandhad rasa iri vyapadefa matram daddayet dvigue-madharam masalah kuto Whaver fath Haydn-sambandhad yadindma "krsnam bhavel anantapuskrsnar far kuah syd vanamiya-bheddvagafer nayanadi-sambandh mdorld asambhavdr. Rath, putridi-sambandha-corena pir-adir eva purto have
alpo mahdin veri yukta visesa-pratipafter upacaritate mithydive Samanya prariparty api tatha prasekter iri bhavah. - "Suppose that a singular substance such as mango fruit. etc, could acquire the designation alone 'taste due to its) relation with the faculty of smell, how could it become sweet of two kinds (sc. possess two sweet flavours, if the determining relation substance-sense is singular) with respect to taste? Similarly, suppose that due to the relation with the faculty of vision - Something could be called] 'black', how could it be black of infinite kinds (sc. how could it be characterised by innumerable shades of black, if there is only one substance-sense relation)? This should not occur], because the recognition of difference within the complex consisting of various flavours / shades) would not be possible due to the mere (sc. singular) relation with the (faculty of vision, etc Similarly, it is sound to maintain that a man who is precisely the father, etc., by way of Chis) relation to this son, etc., could become either small nor big. because such should be the lexpected) unwelcome consequence if on account of the apprehension of the particular there could also arise the apprehension of the general, either mctaphorically or falsely. Such is the idea". What is implied here, I believe, is that in the first case, a singular substance (mango fruit, a black object) is the bearer of a number of indistinct and particular cognate qualities (distinct sweet flavours a range of particular shades of black), even though there is only one general relation (connection) between the substance and the respective sense organ (faculties of taste of vision) that is accountable for the respective general blanket-terms such as "sweet" or "black", whereas in the second case the substance
(the man retains its this) singular character, even though one should by analogy expect him to appear diversified, since it (he) enters a number of relations For the specific meaning of visam particularised complexity / individualised charactersee NAV.29.23: Tasmaltad eva santvedanam pasarjani-ksta veisanta pradhani-krtarkökdrar samanyam grhndifty meyale... ("Therefore, it is taught that the very same sensation in which the particularised complexity is made subordinate and in which one (common form is made the main import grasps the universal...") and NAT 29 ad NAV 29.23: pasarjanity-adi wpasarjani-krtam gauni klarte valsamyam visesa-rupand send tal-Gatha. 23 STP.3.23: dewasa thal jammed-vigand ya guna-lakkanariti vattavat
evam sal kevalino ju jai tam no u davyassa // STP.3.8: tarasgandha phasa asamdnd-sgahana lakkhand jamhd/
Faha davvānugaya guna tri le kel icchamill TBV. ad 3.8. p. 633.1-2. ripe-rasa-gandha-sparsah asandra-grahan-laksand yasmit tato davatrid guna iti kecanavaisesid . > VS.4.19-11:9) aneka-dravena drayvena samanayad rūpe-visesc căpalahdhih. 110 ctena s andhrspardesu nam khatam (11) And-abhydd avyabhicdrah The idea is further specified in PBh (236). p. 44: perasagrandha-sparses aneka-drava.smide swagata-wiseşdir svdsnya sannikarin niyatëndriya-nimittam pratvakram - P.B. wpadyate. + VSV9.18sambandhi-Sahden saryogino grahanan dhamadehanyad vyakhya Suntgliditate. See the reading of the sutra in NAVS: ardom karyam kerana Samogi scaminai vidhi cēti ligikam. * The relevant section is edited and translated in KUNST (1999: 11-53).
converhimpapanaw patra Mare Trevena kim
amalupipinnatiram yarra faire travena km / The verse is also found in TSVA. p. 203. TBV, vol. 11, p. 569.28-29 and in PMI 2.1.9
33: p. 45.17-18. In the reading of TSa the p e ab are interchanged with the pidus cd! On the authenticity of this verse, see BALCEROWICZ (1999. xx. m. ix) and BALCEROWICZ (2000 45. n. 72).
Patrasvamin's treatise in question is his lost Tri-laksana kadarthana. See DHAKY (1995: 43).
NA. 17ab: hetos tathpapanya va spår prayogo "nathapi vi / NA.22ab: anythinupapan aivan hetor laksanam iram.
I quote the whole passage of STP.3.46-53, which is relevant for further discussion: STP.3.46: pari dhe ndyo-vaso damnath-sha hoi
50 ca dunigine donni w pakkhe vidhanimel STP.3.47: jail rayon-vaha lavanvi ceva hominid /
Moviy may vaya kīvaiya cha para-sama l STP.3.48 jam kablanit darisanan air darvarhivassa vartowanit/
Suddhodna-lanaässa parisuddho pejava-viäppo Il STP.3.49: dohi vi chi rin sathan aliena taha si micchana
jane servisapphanattanena R inne STP.3.50: je s tva-dose sakkolsyd bhonamni samkhanani
samitha was de resim ve vi te sacral STP.3.51: Warumom sek sama terme lui/
Tribhova-dukkha-rimokkham de vi na prireniti prikkarit // STP.3.52: marthi padhe-visittho gludo i jari tena jujjai and
j u gado por medisi pudharta STP.353: klesala siya paya-ra purisa keras
michaam te ceva mai mom Here: hr hujuma = vivus melata.
M