Indian Philosophy

Author(s): Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 83

The Various Buddhist Views Regarding Soul
came into existenee the doctrine called sarvāstivāda. It gave to the element nama also the designation "citta', and offered an account of this citta or aggregate-of-vedanā-samjñā-samskāra-vijñāna by dividing it into a number of parts or properties - inherent as well as adventitious, general as well as spécific. It is this position that constitutes the doctrine called sarvāstivāda. This doctrine offered a minute--a very minute-account of citta and its various states called 'caitasika', but even while sticking to its basic tenet of momentarism it posited a past as also a future course and attributed in its own manner to a momentary citta or cajtasika existence in all the three phases of time, 35 But it too had to face opposition on the ground that since Buddha regards everything as merely momentary or one existing in the present time alone his position cannot be compatible with an existence of the three phases of time. Indeed, to accept the three phases of time is to allow entry from the backdoor to the doctrine of eternalism. Out of a consideration like this there came into existence the doctrine called sautrāntikavāda. It kept in tact the already evolved framework of properties (=dharmas) or citta-cum-caita. sjka but altogether freed these entities from the shackles of existence in the three phases of time and treated them as existing in the present time alone.
In this way intensive discussion and assemblies-for-disputation went on belog organized by the parties and counter-parties. Thus one party would defend the doctrine positing something real while another party the just opposite doctrine positing something unreal; similarly, a third party would defend the doctrine positiog something real-as-well-as-unreal while a fourth party the doctrine positing something-neither-real-nor-unreal. Similarly, there were current a number of sets of four alternatives like the set comprising permanent, impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, neither permanent nor impermanent, the set comprising one, many, both one and many, neither one nor many, and so on and so forth, To people like Nāgarjuna it appeared that to stick to the rival alternatives such as these is incompatible with Buddha's Middle Path. This idea impelled them in the direction of positing an element free from the four rival alternatives 86 and on that basis they established the doctrine called śūnyavāda. Śūnya (=void) stands for the
35 See the Tattvasangraha section Traikālyapariksā kārikās 1786ff. (p. 503). In Abhidha
rmadipa (along with notes, kārikā 299, p. 250), while describing the four positionholders flourishing within the Buddhist order, there is given an account of Sarvāstivāda whose explanation of all phenomena presupposes the acceptance of three phases
of time. 36 Mädhyamikavrtti pp. 16, 26 and 108 and the kārikás 5, 7 occurring on p. 275; also
Syădvadamañjari, kārikā 17. Tasman na bhāvo nabhāvo na lakṣyam näpi laksanam | Akāšam ākāśasamā dhätavaḥ pañca ye pare // Astitvam ye tu paéyanti nāstitvam calpabuddhayah / Bhāvanām te na paśyanti drastavyopajamam sivam 11 -Madhyamakakārikā 5.7-8