________________ 97 3. Chitta-viprayukta-samskara The acceptance of these Vaiseshika reals exclusively by the Yogacharas did not, however, make them realists like the Vaibhashika. Unlike the latter, they treated all viprayuktaSamskaras as mere notions (prajnapti). And in the case of the last nine samskaras, which directly correspond to the Vaiseshika padarthas, they interpreted them merely as different names of the hetu-phala. The Sautrantikas also recognise these notions, but severely oppose the Vaibhashikas for accepting them as dravyadharmas or reals. They point out that the so-called viprayuktasanskaras have neither own nature (sva-bhava), nor are they preached in the sutras. The II Kosasthana of the Bhashya? constains long and lively controversies between the Sautrantika and the Vaibhashika on the validity of each and every item of the viprayukta-sanskara. The Kosakara examines the Scriptures quoted by the Vaibhashika, analyses their arguments, ridicules their dogrnatic realism and finally accuses them of supporting the heretic schools. A counter attack to this polemic of the Kosakara is found in our Vaitti. The Dipakara indirectly refers to the Kosakara as an infant, ignorant of the Abhidharma and boldly declares that he will prove the sva-bhavas of these samskaras, and will also quote sutras in his favour.4 Unfortunately, a large number of folios containing these lively controversies are lost. Discussions on prapti and aprapti are entirely lost. The controversies on the nirodha-samapatti are severely interrupted, since only a prima facie argument has survived which contains a view of the Kosakara condemned as 'unbuddhistic' by the Vtitti." The treatment of sabhagata and asamjnika is almost identical with the Vaibhashika explanations of these samskaras in the Bhashya. The Vpitli here borrows several passages from the latter. The Dipakara does not advance any new arguments but contents himself with a 1 Asm. p. 11. 2 LVPAK. II. 35-48. 3 Adv. p. 86. 4 Ibid. 5 Vide Adv. p. 95.
