________________
332
A. Wezler
in pain and also in alleged pleasure is ultimately the same in that both, pleasure and pain, are brought about by one's own karman 130. Next, pain and suffering (duhkha) have to be properly understood so as to be able to keep them present to one's mind. When one has come to realize that each and everything, from God Brahmā down to a grass-blade, is permeated by pain and suffering, one does not take interest in it any longer. And when, finally, liberation (apavarga) is recognized to be the unsurpassed, endless and altogether pure means for the ceasing of all pain and suffering, one strives for that goal only.
Bhāsarvajña concludes this passage by stating 131 tad evam dvādaśaprahāresv api tattvajñānabhāvanā copayujyata ity ato 'pi dvādaśadhā prameyam uktam / samksepabhāvanārtham ca tasya cāturvidhyam ucyate /: « Hence, true knowledge is also realized in all these twelve ways; it is for this reason, too, that the " object of valid cognition" is taught [in the NS] as twelvefold; and that it is (on the other hand] of four kinds [only], this is taught for the sake of keeping (true knowledge] present to one's mind in a concise form ».
That is to say, Bhāsarvajña first demonstrates the true knowledge one has to develop with respect to the twelve prameyas, following their order of enumeration as given in NS 1.1.9, and states thereafter by way of summarizing his exposition, that they have been taught by the Sütrakāra not only in order to refute the theory of the quadruple division of the doctrines of salvation as expounded by other schools, but also to intimate that all twelve of them should be reflected upon in the manner outlined by Bhāsarvajña himself. His very last remark is particularly interesting, and that in two respects: it determines more precisely the relation between the two alternative divisions of the prameya, the twelvefold and the quadruple; and the characterization of the latter as being introduced « samkşepabhāvanārtham > makes one wonder whether this is another instance of the well-known tendency, so important in the history of Indian religions down to the present day, to replace complicated and time-consuming religious acts by « abridgements ». But it is by no means clear that what Bhāsarvajña has in mind is such a substitution; he might have equally thought of a real alternative only, or even regarded the choice of the samkşepa as a means to intensifying the bhāvanā of true knowledge which ultimately leads to liberation.
Yet, such theoretical deliberations are of little use here, at least as long as the apparent contradiction is not discussed in which these remarks of Bhāsarvajña's seem to stand to what had been said by him earlier on the relation between the two divisions. Had he not claimed that it is the quadruple division only that leads to liberation and does he not clearly contradict himself in asserting now that « true knowledge is also realized in all these twelve ways »? I think that the two relevant passages appear contradictory only at first sight. For what Bhāsarvajña
130. CE. NBhūs 441.2-7 and 9-15 to which Bhāsarvajña refers back. 131. NBhūş 443.14-15. Read 'bhāvanopayujyate or 'bhāvanaivopa'!
