Literacy And Rationality In Ancient India

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst

Page 11

816
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
LITERACY AND RATIONALITY IN ANCIENT INDIA
817
system, which agrees with what we know about it. After this exposition he draws attention to what he considers its lack of coherence. It is not clear why a follower of the Lokayatika school should have wished to defend ideas belonging to the altogether different Samkhya school of thought Xuanzang's exposition and refutation of the Samkhya position can therefore hardly have been part of his debate with his hapless opponent. Nor is it likely that a real Samkhya would have felt defeated by the reflections brought to bear on their system by the Chinese pilgrim. It is yet interesting to see that Xuanzang is here depicted as presenting what is an accurate description of the main features of the Samkhya philosophy, and that, having presented this outline, he tries to show its inner incoherence. The fundamental assumptions of this philosophy do not according to the position attributed to Xuanzang, justify the functions it ascribes to the various entities it postulates.
Accounts like this are extremely interesting, and give us a glimpse, if ever so faint, of situations India's philosophers may have been familiar with. In the present context we have to limit our reflections to one issue: How did Xuanzang know so well the system of his opponent? It seems extremely unlikely that he had been trained by one of them. It is much more likely that he had studied their texts, either alone or with the help of a Buddhist teacher. Indeed, Xuanzang himself reports that Samkhya and various other non-Buddhist topics were taught at the Buddhist university of Nalanda." It seems safe to conclude that intellectual confrontations like the one involving Xuanzang could not have taken place, at least not in this form, without access to written documents, and indeed, the extensive use of reading and writing at his period is not controversial. But what do we know about the debates that took place many centuries before Xuanzang? And what did the participants in those debates know about the views of their opponents? We will return to these questions below.
First we turn to our second example, which is situated a few centuries before the time of Xuanzang. It depicts a debate between a Buddhist and a Samkhya in which, this time, the latter is victorious. The story is found in Paramärtha's The Life of Vasubandhu. The main character is the Samkhya teacher Vindhyaväsa, who modified the Samkhya doctrine and came to think that the doctrine set forth by him was the greatest, and that nothing could be superior to it. However, Buddhism was flourishing in the world at that time. Vindhyavasa therefore resolved to refute it. The text continues:36
Accordingly he went to the country of Ayodhya and beat the drum of dispute with his head and said: (The translator of this passage explains in a note that, according to a commentator, 'It was customary for a king in India to keep a drum at the Royal Gate. When a man wants to appeal to the Court or to challenge a dispute, he has to beat it.')
I will dispute (with any Buddhist Sramana). If I am defeated my opponent shall cut my head off, but it, on the contrary, he is beaten, he shall give me his head.' The King Vikramaditya [..), being informed of the matter summoned the heretic and asked him about it, whereupon the latter answered: Thou art, O King, the Lord of the Land, in whose mind there should be no partial love to either Sramanas or Brahmins. If there be any doctrines prevailing (in thy country) thou shouldst put them to the test (and see whether they are right or wrong. Now I intend to dispute) with a disciple of Sakya-muni -the Buddha) to determine which party is the winner or the loser. Each should vow to stake his own head.' The King thereupon gave him permission and despatched men to ask all the Buddhist teachers of the country in the following words 'Is there anyone who is able to oppose this heretic? Whosoever thinks himself competent should dispute with him. At that time the great Teachers of the Law, Manoratha, Vasubandhu, and others were all absent travelling in other countries. (...) There was at home only Buddhamitra the teacher of Vasubandhu. [...] This Teacher of the Law was formerly very leamed, but he was now advanced in years and therefore weak in mind and feeble in his speech. He said: "Now the great champions of the Law are all abroad The heretic is strong and obstinate and must not be let alone any longer. I will now see to it myself.' He informed the King, who appointed a day on which he summoned a great assembly to the hall of discussion, where the heretic and the Buddhist teacher were to meet and dispute. The heretic said: 'Will you first set forth your opinion? Or will you refute the opinion first set forth by me?' The priest replied: 'I am like a great ocean which swallows up all that comes. You are like a lump of earth which will be submerged if it comes to the ocean. You may do as you like. His opponent said: "Then you had better set forth your own opinion (first). I will refute it.' The Buddhist teacher, thereupon, set forth his doctrine of impermanence and said: 'All composite things are in process of destruction every moment, why? because they disappear in the end. He further supported this by various arguments. The heretic opponent could repeat all these arguments of the Buddhist priest after once hearing them and began to criticise them one by one by processes of reasoning. On being requested to commit to memory and repeat these refutations the priest failed to do so. He could not even reconstruct his own arguments, though requested to do so. Thus the Buddhist priest was completely defeated. The heretic said: 'You are a Brahmin by caste and I also am a Brahmin. We are not allowed to kill. I will beat you on the back instead, in order to show that I am the victor.' He did so. The king gave him three lacs of gold as a prize. On receiving the gold he distributed it among the people at large and returned to the Vindhya mountain where he cntered a rocky cave.
35 36
Joshi, 1967:127. Takakusu, 1904.283 f. Cp. the discussion in Larson & Bhattacharya, 1987:131
The story has a happy ending after all, for Vasubandhu, after his retur, composed a work criticising the Samkhya doctrine in such a competent manner