________________
296
ALBRECHT WEZLER
PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVĀTMAKATVAVADA II
297
Cakradhara thus: "[By a process of transformation milk) is turned into ghee and other dairy products, and ghee, etc., is the source of growth in physical strength; for, when ghee and similar products are consumed, one grows in physical strength, and when one is in a well-nourished condition sperm, etc., (are produced in one's body, and when there is sperm, one [is able to begel) sons and other children. Because they die when time has come, their body is boiled" (i.e. rots in the course of time), and the decomposed (corpse) by way of transformation turns into worms, and these, too, (finally) get putrefied. In the Vpkşayurveda (the following is authoritatively taught in order to ensure) a (proper) growth if trees: 'This being so, even a tree can originate from it (i.e. milk) and from a tree (one gets) fruit, from fruit organic juice, from organic juice physical strength; hence each and everything is (contained in milk, yet the different products do not become manifest simultaneously due to the fact that their manifestation is conditioned by place, time and shape."" Now this passage allows to make the following observations: [1] In order to explain the Samkhya contention that sarvat sarvatrasti - which is but an alternative expression for sarvam ekam ekari ca sarvam or sarvami sarvatmakam - Cakradhara gives an example, viz. milk and its various products-of-transformation. Since it is precisely this example which is frequently found in Samkhya texts themselves, or fragments of such texts, there is no question about his having borrowed it in its substance from a Samkhya source, though its identity cannot be determined.
[2] . Subsequently he seems to quote from a Vrksåyurveda text; this would, of course, be in order to vindicate his preceding explanation. However, the assumption of the editor of the NMGBh that the last sentence forms a quotation is highly questionable, nay demonstrably wrong: The expressions tatha ca sari as well as tatra at the beginning of the alleged quotation lack that which is referred to; of course, it is, at least as regards the latter expression, possible to make the guess that what is actually referred to is 'milk'; but, as to the initial tarha ca sari, one is left only with the conclusion that it cannot but resume what has been said in the preceding portion of the NMGBh itself or similar statements to that effect. Regarding this latter possibility one might feel tempted to ask whether Cakradhara has in this case made an unfortunate choice and given a rather incomplete and imperfect quotation. But this alternative can be safely ruled out, because the alleged quotation is problematic in other respects, too. It is clearly in prose while all Vykşayurveda texts (except for commentaries) which have been preserved or of which we know by secondary transmission are written in verse; in addition, the concluding sentence (defakäläkarāpabandhå etc.) makes one prick up one's ear. At least, this is what happened to me when I read it for the first time, since I was immediately reminded of many a passage I had examined in my first article on the sarvasarvatmakarvavada. In fact, what is given in this sentence is nothing but the usual refutation of the objection frequently raised against this vada, viz. if every material phenomenon contains in itself at least one representative of each and every species in individual things, one would expect all of them to be manifest, or visible, at a time; and, to be sure, the counterargument that this is not the case due to desakalakarapabandha can only be adduced by an upholder of Sainkhya like in the other less ambiguous instances, too. Hence it is much more likely that what we have to do with here is not a quotation, but simply a constituent part of Cakradhara's own text. The final doubts are resolved as soon as it is realized that the final iti does by no means indicate a quotation, but has to supplemented, as also in many other cases in the NMGBh, by a following arthah, and that the words Vyksãyurveda vyksana vddhaye Shiyale have to be construed with the preceding one, i.e. tad eva ca kvathitam. This assumption is further corroborated by the observation that the alleged quotation if it were indeed introduced by Vrksåyurveda vrkşanan yrddhaye friyate would stand in sharp contrast to this statement; for, in the subsequent sentence a means of making trees grow is not even alluded to! The translation of this passage I gave earlier has, therefore, to be amended, but only as regards the sentence tad eva ca kvathitam Vrksayurvede vrkanam vrddhaye friyate which rather means: "and of this (i.e. the corpse) when decomposed it is stated authoritatively in the Viksyurveda that it is a proper
attempt at determining the relation between these two wddas was not entirely satisfactory, i.e. that the sarvasardmakarvadda has rather to be taken as the more comprehensive doctrine, covering both aspects, that of appearing as well as that of disappearing: That every phenomenon contains in itself at least one representation of each and every species of individual things can be recognized, and shown not only (e. g.) by the end of an 'alimentary chain', but also by the various products-of-transformation appearing out of a prakti.
* The di is most probably added here in view of the widespread idea, met with in the Sämnkhya and Yoga texts also, that in addition to sperm blood (fonita etc.) (from the side of a future mother) is necessary for conception
#As kudha- cannot but be derived from the root vanhe and quite clearly means rolling. decomposition here, TURNER's assumption ('A Comparative Dictionary of Indo-Aryan Languages", 169, 3.V. KUTII) that a root kuth 'rol" should be separated from Vkvath "boil", accepted also by v. HINÜBER, "Pali kathati: Ein Beitrag zur Überlieferngsgeschichte des Theravida-Kanons" in: IU 21 /1979),21-26). becomes implausible. It seems more likely that originally there was one root wash only denoting the various) changes caused in liquids (cf. e.. Manus. 11. 159) or animal/vegetal matter by warmth or heat
CT. WEZLER 1981: 371, 3751, 378, 381.