________________ 2. Vitarka and Vichara viz., grossness and subtleness, is invalid, since these two do not establish any specific difference (jati-bheda) but only a difference of degrees of a single factor. In short, the vitarka and vichara are not two different dharmas but only different states of a single dharma. From this controversy it appears that originally the Vaibhashikas, like the Theravadins, held these two factors to be simultaneously active, but modified their view under the influence of the criticism of the Kosakara. The explanation given by Samghabhadra that they co-exist, but do not become active together, is consistent with the doctrine of Sarvastivada, according to which, all dharmas, irrespective of their mutual opposition, always remain in existence (sarvada asti) but become active only under certain circumstances. Samghabhadra chooses two complementary factors like raga and moha as his example. But form the Sarvastivadin's point of view, even vidya and avidya, or samsaya and nirnaya can 'co-exist. These examples given by the Dipakara, therefore, show his conviction in the specific difference (jati-bheda) between the vitarka and vichara and his attempt to accommodate them in a single moment of consciousness, in the framework of the Sarvastivada. Further speculations on the nature of these two dharmas are recorded in the Asm. of Asanga, in the Pancha-skandhaka? of Vasubandu, and in Sthiramati's Bhashya on the Trimsika of Vasubandhu. These are almost identical with the views of the old Masters (purvacharya) quoted by Yasomitra : "What is vitarka ? A mental murmur of enquiry ( tharyseshako manojalpah), which rests on the support of volition (chetana) or speculative knowledge (prajna), according as it does not or does include deduction (abhyaha). It is gross state of mind. What is vichara ? A mental murmur of judgment (pratyavekshaka) which rests on the volition, etc. (as above). That is the subtleness of mind."3 Here the vitarka refers to the state of enquiry of mind and vichara to the state of judgment. Sthiramati explains the 1 See Sako. p. 64. 2 Vide Adv. pp. 81-82, 3 lbid.
