Anekantajay patakakhyam Prakaranam Part 2

Author(s): Haribhadrasuri, Munichandrasuri
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 417

286
NOTES
[P. 80, 1. 10
(ii) The Yogācāras answer that only the mental world is real, and that the non-mental or the material world is completely void of reality, They are thus subjective idealists.
(iii) Another class of the Bauddhas reply that both the mental and non-mental are real. Thus they are realists and are rightly styled as Sarvāstitvavadins?.
When these Sarvastetua-vadina are asked the epistemological question as to how external reality is known to exist, some give one answer and the rest another. Thus there aro two answers to this question. The Sautrāntilas reply that external objects ara not perceived but known by inference. They are therefore styled as Bahyānumeya-tādins, and they are thus representationists or critical realists. Others known as the Vaibhão sikas reply that the external world is directly perceived. They are therefore styled as Bāhya-pratyaksu-vādins, and they are thus direct realists.
Different dates are assigned to the four schools of Buddhism. Yama. kami Sogen notes the following tradition in this connection in his Systems of Buddhist Thought (p. 104):
"Thus the Vaibhashikas arose in the third century after Buddha's death; the Sautrāntikas in the fourth; the Madhyamika school, as Aryadeva states, came into existence five hundred years after the Nirvana of Buddha, and Asanga, the founder of the Yogācāras or the Vijñanavādins is, at least, as late as the third century of the Christian Era."
The late Prof. A. B Dhruva has said that this view is not sound as here propagators are looked upon as founders. Further, he has opined:
“Vijäädavāda existed long before the time of Asanga and Vasabandhu, and so there is no reason to make it posterior to the Sunyavāda of Nagarjuna. From the position of the Soutrāntika who is halt an ido the next step is naturally to that of the Yogācāra who is a complete idealist rather than to the Madhyamika who is & Nihilist.' -intro. (p. LXX) to SM.
Dr. Keith holds a contrary view as can be seen from his Buddhist Philosophy (P. 228 ).
Of the 32 Dvātrims ikās of Siddhasona Divãkara, XV deals with the various schools of Buddhism. The four schools noted above are briefly described in Upamiti“ (IV, p. 436). While pointing out the systems of pbilosophy which resort to the last four nayas, Nyāyācārya Yas'ovijaya Gani in his Nayopades'a ( v. 119) says that the Sautrāntika school arose from Rjugūtra, Vaibhās'ika from S'abda, Yogācāra from Samabhirūdha and Mädhyamika from Evambhūta respectively. This statement of his is probably based upon Tattvabodhavidhāyinī (p. 378), & com. ou Sammdir payarana (1,5). For, there it is said:
1 This term is used in a slightly different sense by some Bauddha
writers, 2 See An Introduction to Indian Philosophy (pp. 163-164) by
Dr. S. C, Chatterjee and Dr. D. M. Datta.