The Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha Part 2

[Footnote 28: Or this may mean "and all the various other things to be handled in the rites."]

CHAPTER II.

THE BAUDDHA SYSTEM.

At this point the Buddhists remark: As for what you (Charvakas) laid down as to the difficulty of ascertaining invariable concomitance, your position is unacceptable, inasmuch as invariable concomitance is easily cognisable by means of ident.i.ty and causality. It has accordingly been said--

"From the relation of cause and effect, or from ident.i.ty as a determinant, results a law of invariable concomitance--not through the mere observation of the desired result in similar cases, nor through the non-observation of it in dissimilar cases."[29]

On the hypothesis (of the Naiyayikas) that it is concomitance and non-concomitance (_e.g._, A is where B is, A is not where B is not) that determine an invariable connection, the unconditional attendance of the major or the middle term would be unascertainable, it being impossible to exclude all doubt with regard to instances past and future, and present but unperceived. If one (a Naiyayika) rejoin that uncertainty in regard to such instances is equally inevitable on our system, we reply: Say not so, for such a supposition as that an effect may be produced without any cause would destroy itself by putting a stop to activity of any kind; for such doubts alone are to be entertained, the entertainment of which does not implicate us in practical absurdity and the like, as it has been said, "Doubt terminates where there is a practical absurdity."[30]

1. By ascertainment of an effectuation, then, of that (viz., of the designate of the middle) is ascertained the invariable concomitance (of the major); and the ascertainment of such effectuation may arise from the well-known series of five causes, in the perceptive cognition or non-cognition of cause and effect. That fire and smoke, for instance, stand in the relation of cause and effect is ascertained by five indications, viz., (1.) That an effect is not cognised prior to its effectuation, that (2.) the cause being perceived (3.) the effect is perceived, and that after the effect is cognised (4.) there is its non-cognition, (5.) when the (material) cause is no longer cognised.

2. In like manner an invariable concomitance is ascertained by the ascertainment of ident.i.ty (_e.g._, a sisu-tree is a tree, or wherever we observe the attributes of a sisu we observe also the attribute arboreity), an absurdity attaching to the contrary opinion, inasmuch as if a sisu-tree should lose its arboreity it would lose its own self. But, on the other hand, where there exists no absurdity, and where a (mere) concomitance is again and again observed, who can exclude all doubt of failure in the concomitance? An ascertainment of the ident.i.ty of sisu and tree is competent in virtue of the reference to the same object (_i.e._, predication),--This tree is a sisu. For reference to the same object (predication) is not competent where there is no difference whatever (_e.g._, to say, "A jar is a jar," is no combination of diverse attributes in a common subject), because the two terms cannot, as being synonymous, be simultaneously employed; nor can reference to the same object take place where there is a reciprocal exclusion (of the two terms), inasmuch as we never find, for instance, horse and cow predicated the one of the other.

It has thus been evinced that an effect or a self-same supposes a cause or a self-same (as invariable concomitants).

If a man does not allow that inference is a form of evidence, _prama?a_, one may reply: You merely a.s.sert thus much, that inference is not a form of evidence: do you allege no proof of this, or do you allege any? The former alternative is not allowable according to the maxim that bare a.s.sertion is no proof of the matter a.s.serted. Nor is the latter alternative any better, for if while you a.s.sert that inference is no form of evidence, you produce some truncated argument (to prove, _i.e._, infer, that it is none), you will be involved in an absurdity, just as if you a.s.serted your own mother to be barren.

Besides, when you affirm that the establishment of a form of evidence and of the corresponding fallacious evidence results from their h.o.m.ogeneity, you yourself admit induction by ident.i.ty. Again, when you affirm that the dissentiency of others is known by the symbolism of words, you yourself allow induction by causality. When you deny the existence of any object on the ground of its not being perceived, you yourself admit an inference of which non-perception is the middle term. Conformably it has been said by Tathagata--

"The admission of a form of evidence in general results from its being present to the understanding of others.

"The existence of a form of evidence also follows from its negation by a certain person."

All this has been fully handled by great authorities; and we desist for fear of an undue enlargement of our treatise.

These same Bauddhas discuss the highest end of man from four standpoints. Celebrated under the designations of Madhyamika, Yogachara, Sautrantika, and Vaibhas.h.i.+ka, these Buddhists adopt respectively the doctrines of a universal void (nihilism), an external void (subjective idealism), the inferribility of external objects (representationism), and the perceptibility of external objects (presentationism).[31] Though the venerated Buddha be the only one teacher (his disciples) are fourfold in consequence of this diversity of views; just as when one has said, "The sun has set," the adulterer, the thief, the divinity student, and others understand that it is time to set about their a.s.signations, their theft, their religious duties, and so forth, according to their several inclinations.

It is to be borne in mind that four points of view have been laid out, viz., (1.) All is momentary, momentary; (2.) all is pain, pain; (3.) all is like itself alone; (4.) all is void, void.

Of these points of view, the momentariness of fleeting things, blue and so forth (_i.e._, whatever be their quality), is to be inferred from their existence; thus, whatever _is_ is momentary (or fluxional) like a bank of clouds, and all these things _are_.[32] Nor may any one object that the middle term (existence) is unestablished; for an existence consisting of practical efficiency is established by perception to belong to the blue and other momentary things; and the exclusion of existence from that which is not momentary is established, provided that we exclude from it the non-momentary succession and simultaneity, according to the rule that exclusion of the continent is exclusion of the contained. Now this practical efficiency (here identified with existence) is contained under succession and simultaneity, and no medium is possible between succession and non-succession (or simultaneity); there being a manifest absurdity in thinking otherwise, according to the rule--

"In a reciprocal contradiction there exists no ulterior alternative;

"Nor is their unity in contradictories, there being a repugnance in the very statement."[33]

And this succession and simultaneity being excluded from the permanent, and also excluding from the permanent all practical efficiency, determine existence of the alternative of momentariness.--Q.E.D.

Perhaps some one may ask: Why may not practical efficiency reside in the non-fluxional (or permanent)? If so, this is wrong, as obnoxious to the following dilemma. Has your "permanent" a power of past and future practical efficiency during its exertion of present practical efficiency or no? On the former alternative (if it has such power), it cannot evacuate such past and future efficiency, because we cannot deny that it has power, and because we infer the consequence, that which can at any time do anything does not fail to do that at that time, as, for instance, a complement of causes, and this ent.i.ty is thus powerful. On the latter alternative (if the permanent has no such power of past and future agency), it will never do anything, because practical efficiency results from power only; what at any time does not do anything, that at that time is unable to do it, as, for instance, a piece of stone does not produce a germ; and this ent.i.ty while exerting its present practical efficiency, does not exert its past and future practical efficiency. Such is the contradiction.

You will perhaps rejoin: By a.s.suming successive subsidiaries, there is competent to the permanent ent.i.ty a successive exertion of past and future practical efficiency. If so, we would ask you to explain: Do the subsidiaries a.s.sist the ent.i.ty or not? If they do not, they are not required; for if they do nothing, they can have nothing to do with the successive exertion. If they do a.s.sist the thing, is this a.s.sistance (or supplementation) other than the thing or not? If it is other than the thing, then this adscit.i.tious (a.s.sistance) is the cause, and the non-momentary ent.i.ty is not the cause: for the effect will then follow, by concomitance and non-concomitance, the advent.i.tious supplementation. Thus it has been said:

"What have rain and s.h.i.+ne to do with the soul? Their effect is on the skin of man;

"If the soul were like the skin, it would be non-permanent; and if the skin were like the soul, there could be no effect produced upon it."

Perhaps you will say: The ent.i.ty produces its effect, _together with_ its subsidiaries. Well, then (we reply), let the ent.i.ty not give up its subsidiaries, but rather tie them lest they fly with a rope round their neck, and so produce the effect which it has to produce, and without forfeiting its own proper nature. Besides (we continue), does the additament (or supplementation) const.i.tuted by the subsidiaries give rise to another additament or not? In either case the afore-mentioned objections will come down upon you like a shower of stones. On the alternative that the additament takes on another additament, you will be embarra.s.sed by a many-sided regress _in infinitum_. If when the additament is to be generated another auxiliary (or additament) be required, there will ensue an endless series of such additaments: this must be confessed to be one infinite regress. For example, let a seed be granted to be productive when an additament is given, consisting of a complement of objects such as water, wind, and the like, as subsidiaries; otherwise an additament would be manifested without subsidiaries. Now the seed in taking on the additament takes it on with the need of (ulterior) subsidiaries; otherwise, as there would always be subsidiaries, it would follow that a germ would always be arising from the seed. We shall now have to add to the seed another supplementation by subsidiaries themselves requiring an additament. If when this additament is given, the seed be productive only on condition of subsidiaries as before, there will be established an infinite regression of additaments to (or supplementations of) the seed, to be afforded by the subsidiaries.

Again, we ask, does the supplementation required for the production of the effect produce its effect independently of the seed and the like, or does it require the seed and the like? On the first alternative (if the supplementation works independently), it would ensue that the seed is in no way a cause. On the second (if the supplementation require the seed), the seed, or whatever it may be that is thus required, must take on a supplementation or additament, and thus there will be over and over again an endless series of additaments added to the additament const.i.tuted by the seed; and thus a second infinite regression is firmly set up.

In like manner the subsidiary which is required will add another subsidiary to the seed, or whatever it may be that is the subject of the additions, and thus there will be an endless succession of additaments added to the additaments to the seed which is supplemented by the subsidiaries; and so a third infinite regression will add to your embarra.s.sment.

Now (or the other grand alternative), let it be granted that a supplementation identical with the ent.i.ty (the seed, or whatever it may be) is taken on. If so, the former ent.i.ty, that _minus_ the supplementation, is no more, and a new ent.i.ty identical with the supplementation, and designated (in the technology of Buddhism) _kurvad rupa_ (or effect-producing object), comes into being: and thus the tree of my desires (my doctrine of a universal flux) has borne its fruit.

Practical efficiency, therefore, in the non-momentary is inadmissible.

Nor is practical efficiency possible apart from succession in time; for such a possibility is redargued by the following dilemma. Is this (permanent) ent.i.ty (which you contend for) able to produce all its effects simultaneously, or does it continue to exist after production of effects? On the former alternative, it will result that the ent.i.ty will produce its effects just as much at one time as at another; on the second alternative, the expectation of its permanency is as reasonable as expecting seed eaten by a mouse to germinate.

That to which contrary determinations are attributed is diverse, as heat and cold; but this thing is determined by contrary attributions.

Such is the argumentation applied to the cloud (to prove that it has not a permanent but a fluxional existence). Nor is the middle term disallowable, for possession and privation of power and impotence are allowed in regard to the permanent (which you a.s.sert) at different times. The concomitance and non-concomitance already described (viz., That which can at any time do anything does not fail to do that at that time, and What at any time does not do anything, that at that time is unable to do it) are affirmed (by us) to prove the existence of such power. The negative rule is: What at any time is unable to produce anything, that at that time does not produce it, as a piece of stone, for example, does not produce a germ; and this ent.i.ty (the seed, or whatever it may be), while exerting a present practical efficiency, is incapable of past and future practical efficiencies.

The contradiction violating this rule is: What at any time does anything, that at that time is able to do that thing, as a complement of causes is able to produce its effect; and this (permanent) ent.i.ty exerts at time past and time future the practical efficiencies proper to those times.

(To recapitulate.) Existence is restricted to the momentary; there being observed in regard to existence a negative rule, that in regard to permanent succession and simultaneity being excluded, existence which contains succession and simultaneity is not cognisable; and there being observed in regard to existence a positive rule, in virtue of a concomitance observed (viz., that the existent is accompanied or "pervaded" by the momentary), and in virtue of a non-concomitance observed (viz., that the non-momentary is accompanied or "pervaded" by the non-existent). Therefore it has been said by Jnana-sri--

"What is is momentary, as a cloud, and as these existent things;

"The power of existence is relative to practical efficiency, and belongs to the ideal; but this power exists not as eternal in things eternal (ether, &c.);

"Nor is there only one form, otherwise one thing could do the work of another;

"For two reasons, therefore (viz., succession and simultaneity), a momentary flux is congruous and remains true in regard to that which we have to prove."

Nor is it to be held, in acceptance of the hypothesis of the Vaises.h.i.+kas and Naiyayikas, that existence is a partic.i.p.ation in the universal form existence; for were this the case, universality, particularity, and co-inhesion (which do not partic.i.p.ate in the universal) could have no existence.

Nor is the ascription of existence to universality, particularity, and co-inhesion dependent on any _sui generis_ existence of their own; for such an hypothesis is operose, requiring too many _sui generis_ existences. Moreover, the existence of any universal is disproved by a dilemma regarding the presence or non-presence (of the one in the many); and there is not presented to us any one form running through all the diverse momentary things, mustard-seeds, mountains, and so forth, like the string running through the gems strung upon it.

Moreover (we would ask), is the universal omnipresent or present everywhere in its subjicible subjects? If it is everywhere, all things in the universe will be confounded together (chaos will be eternal), and you will be involved in a tenet you reject, since Prasasta-pada has said, "Present in all its subjects." Again (if the universal is present only in its proper subjects), does the universal (the nature of a jar) residing in an already existing jar, on being attached to another jar now in making, come from the one to attach itself to the other, or not come from it? On the first alternative (if it comes), the universal must be a substance (for substances alone underlie qualities and motions); whereas, if it does not come, it cannot attach itself to the new jar. Again (we ask), when the jar ceases to exist, does the universal outlast it, or cease to exist, or go to another place? On the first supposition it will exist without a subject to inhere in; on the second, it will be improper to call it eternal (as you do); on the third, it will follow that it is a substance (or base of qualities and motions). Destroyed as it is by the malign influence of these and the like objections, the universal is unauthenticated.

Conformably it has been said--

"Great is the dexterity of that which, existing in one place, engages without moving from that place in producing itself in another place.

"This ent.i.ty (universality) is not connected with that wherein it resides, and yet pervades that which occupies that place: great is this miracle.

"It goes not away, nor was it there, nor is it subsequently divided, it quits not its former repository: what a series of difficulties!"

If you ask: On what does the a.s.surance that the one exists in the many rest? You must be satisfied with the reply that we concede it to repose on difference from that which is different (or exclusion of heterogeneity). We dismiss further prolixity.

That all transmigratory existence is identical with pain is the common verdict of all the founders of inst.i.tutes, else they would not be found desirous to put a stop to it and engaging in the method for bringing it to an end. We must, therefore, bear in mind that all is pain, and pain alone.

If you object: When it is asked, like what? you must quote an instance,--we reply: Not so, for momentary objects self-characterised being momentary, have no common characters, and therefore it is impossible to say that this is like that. We must therefore hold that all is like itself alone, like itself alone.

In like manner we must hold that all is void, and void alone. For we are conscious of a determinate negation. This silver or the like has not been seen by me in sleeping or waking. If what is seen were (really) existent, then reality would pertain to the corresponding act of vision, to the (nacre, &c.), which is the basis of its particular nature (or haecceity), to the silver, &c., illusorily superposed upon that basis, to the connection between them, to the co-inherence, and so forth: a supposition not entertained by any disputant. Nor is a semi-effete existence admissible. No one imagines that one-half of a fowl may be set apart for cooking, and the other half for laying eggs.

The venerated Buddha, then, having taught that of the illusorily superposed (silver, &c.), the basis (nacre, &c.), the connection between them, the act of vision, and the _videns_, if one or more be unreal it will perforce ensue that all are unreal, all being equally objects of the negation; the Madhyamikas excellently wise explain as follows, viz., that the doctrine of Buddha terminates in that of a total void (universal baselessness or nihilism) by a slow progression like the intrusive steps of a mendicant, through the position of a momentary flux, and through the (gradual) negation of the illusory a.s.surances of pleasurable sensibility, of universality, and of reality.

The ultimate principle, then, is a void emanc.i.p.ated from four alternatives, viz., from reality, from unreality, from both (reality and unreality), and from neither (reality nor unreality). To exemplify this: If real existence were the nature of a water-pot and the like, the activity of its maker (the potter) would be superfluous.