"MASTERS OF BUDDHISM ADORE THE BRAHMAN THROUGH NON-ADORATION" (BHAVYA, MADHYAMAKAHgDAYA, III)

by
V. V. GOKHALE

Delhi
Bhavya, the Buddhist acarya of the early sixth century A.D., who seems to have attempted in his Madhyamakah.rdaya (accompanied by an autocommentary, called TarkajvMd) the first systematic treatise on contempoary Indian Philosophy, was peculiarly independent as well as liberal in his philosophic outlook. In a preceding article on this subject: "The Vedanta-Philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakah.rdaya" (Indo-Iranian Journal, II, 1958, Nr. 3, Pp. 165-190, written in collaboration with Prof. H. Nakamura), I have presented in English a translation of the available Sanskrit text and Commentary (found only in Tibetan) of Chapter VIII, verses 1 to 16, of this important work, where Bhavya states the pf~rvapak.sa of the Vedhntins before preceeding to refute their arguments. To illustrate Bhavya's characteristic approach in dealing with the Ved~ntic doctrine of his days, I have also quoted and translated therein two additional karikas from a different Chapter of the same work, viz., IV, verses 7 and 56 (ibid, pp. 179-180). Here, in replying to the Hinay~nists, who accuse the Mah~y~nist for having common affiliations with the Ved~ntins, Bhavya points out by implication, that the Vedanta need not be totally rejected, because whatever is well said therein and acceptable to us was already said by the Buddha himself ( = Veddnte

ca hi yat saktam tat sarvam Buddhabhd.sitam).

Bhavya's criticism refers naturally to the Pre-~aflkara Vedanta, of which Gau.dapada has been quoted by him as a prominent authority, and the Supreme Reality of the Ved~ntins, the Brahman, is represented by him on their behalf as having various attributes, like: .~tman, Purus.a,

Mahedvara, kartr, karmak.rt, eka, sarvatraga, nitya, para, acyuta, pada, avikalpa. Such a conglomeration of apparently inconsistent attributes
could not but be an easy target for a veteran M~dhyamika dialectician like Bhavya, because when once the Brahman was regarded as avikalpa

272

v.v. GOKHALE

(inconceivable) and also as inexpressible ("yatra vacam agocara.h" verse 16), he could not allow it to be designated with all the remaining positive attributes, which would fall only within the sphere of a relativistic terminology obtained in the realm of conception. If such terms are to be used at all to describe the Brahman, they could only have a purely conventional meaning and merely practical suggestiveness. They could by no means express the Absolute Truth, which is beyond words . The Pre-Safikara VedAnta might well be aware of this consequence, when it declared the Truth to be avikalpa (inconceivable) and yet did not hesitate to describe it in the same breath as being a positive object of approach for the Yogin, who endeavoured to lose his own identity into it through meditation and direct perception, in order to attain the state of Immortality (ibid., Chap. VIII, verses 3, 5.). Thus, the Pre-Safikara VedAnta of Bhavya's time, which appears to be deeply rooted in its affiliations with Yogic theories and practices, especially of the DhyAna-yoga, could not afford to notice the logical implications of its stand in using both positive as well as negative statements to describe the Absolute. Bhavya, on the other hand, following the Madhyamaka-tradition, is consistent in holding, that only negative statements are possible and tenable for communicating the true nature of the Absolute, although conventional designations, like: Brahman, might be used as only an indirect guidance. He also brings out fully the traditional MAdhyamika distinction between the "Two Truths": vyavahara-satya (the conventional Reality) and Paramartha-satya (the Absolute Truth). We find the Post-Bhavya Vedgnta and, in fact, the Indian philosophical systems in general, benefitting by such Buddhist criticism, and improving their respective logical positions by building up a systematic Mayavada, and bringing out the full implications of Negation by developing the theory of Apoha. With these introductory remarks, I quote below a few verses from Chapter III of the abovementioned work of Bhavya, with a translation based upon the Tibetan Tarkajvala. Here he describes the Supreme Reality, called "Brahman" by the VedAntists, which the MahAy~nists hold, in principle, to be identical with "Nirvana" or "Dharmakaya," and which, being beyond the reach of the human mind, is incapable of being worshipped either physically, or mentally or vocally. It can be adored only by means of Non-adoration (anupdsanayoga), and this is what the Buddhist saints, like Avalokite~vara, Maitreya, Samantabhadra and Mafijugri have always done. (In the following, the Karikas found in the manuscript-copy of the

MASTERS OF BUDDHISM ADORE THE BRAHMAN

273

Madhyamakahrdaya have been amended on the basis of their Tibetan versions (Narthang Tenjur, Vol. XIX (Dsa), fol. 14b5 to 15M), and their numbering is only provisional. The TarkajvaIgt-commentary, available only in Tibetan (op. tit. fol. 132a-135b), has been occasionally summarized and put into square brackets following the literal translation of the K~rik~t): Namaskgra-manaskhra-vy~h~rgdinir~k.rt~.h/ namasyanti hi ye n~tha.m namas tebhyo'pi bh~vatah.//(275) Buddhgdyukti.h sam~rop~t pratipattygnugu.nyata.h/ sarvathg'py avikalpatvgd av~cyas tattvato mata.h//(276) Atra v~co nivartante cittasy~ 'yam agocarah./ nivartate ca sa.mkalpo jfianamauna.m ca j~yate//(277) Anantapu .nyar~gingm ameyajfieyavedin~m/ buddhgnh.m dharmak~yo'yam prapaficopMama.h ~iva.h//(278) Na mgm.sacak.su.s~ d.r~yo na d.rgyo divyacak.sus.fi/ savikalp~ 'vikalpena jfignen~'py e.sa durdr~a.h//(279) .P~patmangm iva svargah sara.ngn~m iva'ran. ~/ j~tyandh~ngm iva' 'dityas t~rkikg.n~m agocara.h//(280) Na san n~'san na sadasan ng'nyas tebhyo na c~'nyath~/ n~' .niygn na mahgn naiko na dQre n~'pi c~'ntike//(281) Ki .mcit kathaficin n~'py asm~j j~yate vyajyate'pi v~/ n~'tr~'vati.s.thate kagcin n~'pi kMcit praliyate//(282) Idar0. tat paramam brahma brahm~dyair yan na g.rhyate/ idam. tat parama .m satyam, satyav~di jagau muni.h//(283) Ary~valokiteg~ryamaitrey~dy~gca s0rayah./ anup~sanayogena munayo yad up,sate//(284)

"(275): And again, respectful greetings to those, who worship the Lord
without having recourse either to salutations, meditations or eulogies

(vyah&a = stotradi). (276): Positive designations, like: Buddha, (sugata,

tathagata, bhagavat, arhat, svayambhft, jina, muni) are conventional, and used to indicate the highest corresponding attainments (like: d~la, sam8dhi, praj~a, jgSna. The truth is, that, being inconceivable, he is indescribable. (277): Speech turns away from here, and mind stops short; conception has to turn back, and knowledge remains silent. (278): This is the quiescent and benevolent Dharmak~ya of the Buddhas, who are receptacles of infinite merit and immeasurable knowledge [as said in the Tathagatajganamudrasfttra]. (279): Being invisible either to the physical or the divine eye, this (Dharmakaya) is difficult to perceive

274

V.V. GOKHALE

either by conceptual or non-conceptual knowledge. (280): It is outside the ken of dialecticians, just as the Heaven is outside that of the sinners, or a state of concord is outside that of the passionate ones, or the sun is outside that of those, who are born blind. (281): It is neither existent, nor non-existent, nor both existent and non-existent, nor different from both the above, nor anything else. It is neither subtle, nor gross, nor alone, nor far, nor near. (282): Nothing and in no way is anything born from, or manifested by, it. There is none here, who either endures or perishes. (283): This is the great Brahman, which cannot be grasped by the (god) Brahmg [or Vi.s.nu or Mahegvara and others, whose views are rooted in self-complex. 'Brahman', which means both "the Lord of the living beings" (prajapati), as well as "the state of having gone beyond suffering" (nirvd~a), is to be understood here only in the latter sense, i.e. nirvan,a, 1 which these gods are not in a position to perceive, because perception is not possible by means of a knowledge which is contingent (sdlambana). Those, who declare as infallible such words as: "There is no greater Dharma than Truth" (na hi satydt paro dharma.h), are themselves subject to the laws of creation (sam.skrta), and because of their having a diverse character (saprapagca), cannot represent the sole truth; to them it is said :] - This is the great Truth, declared by the Sage, who always speaks the Truth. "This is the great Truth," because, not being subject to the laws of creation (anabhisam.skrta) and being beyond all deception, it is the sole Truth... The Sage has said so in the Sfttras, like the Vajracchedika, as follows : "Whatever is subject to creation (sam.sk.rta) is false (mr.sd), whatever is not so is not false." While the Mahgbrahmh occupies a high position because of his thousand consecrations, and the igvara and others owe their high position to their being adored by their respective circles, in the present case] (284): (It is this,) which the learned seers (sftraya.h), like Arya Avalokitega, Arya Maitreya and others adore by the method of non-adoration (anupdsanayoga). [Many seers, too, like Arya Avalokite~vara, Arya Maitreya, Samantabhadra and Mafijugri-kumarabhfita, etc., who being endowed with the Perfections (Pdramitds), have obtained mastery over the ten Bhamis, and who, being purified by abstract (nirdlambana) meditations, are well versed in the non-substantiality of all things, worship it (i.e. the Brahma) through non-worshipping, inasmuch as salutations, recitations of hymns and 1 Vasubandhu also, while equating the term "'Brahmacarya" with "Nirva.namdrga", explains, that "the primary sense of Nirvdtta is Brahman, because it is said to be quiescent, cool and pure". (Vyakhyayukti, Peking-Mdo. LVII1. 7, fol. 32a).

MASTERS OF BUDDHISM ADORE THE BRAHMAN

275

meditations are just illusory manifestations of the unsubstantial body, speech and mind.]" Thus, we have in the above passage a M~dhyamika criticism of the Vedhntic term: "'Brahman" which, if properly understood, could be equated with Nirv~.na or Dharmakgtya, according to Bhavya. This proper understanding does, in fact, make all the difference between the Buddhist and the Vedfintic view of the Absolute Reality. And, he concludes later, it is owing to the Buddha's having taken a correct and a proper view of things, that the teachings of the Buddha alone are acceptable, and none others. Apart from this, verse 284 of the above passage may be said to throw new light on the vexed question regarding the historicity of Avalokitegvara and Maitreya, and perhaps also of Samantabhadra and Ma~ju~ri. The Tarkajv~l~ does not apply the epithet " ~ r y a " to the latter two, although they are also included among the "sftrayah.", who deserve, I imagine, as much historical recognition as Vy~tsa or Vfdmiki of the Brahmanical tradition. We know, that a number of works in Buddhist literature (translated into Tibetan and Chinese) have been attributed to these seers, among whom Maitreya seems to have drawn the special attention of scholars, probably because of his authorship of certain fundamental works of the M~dhyamika-Yog~c~ra philosophy,z The insinuating question regarding the relationship of this philosopher and Gau.dapgda, the founder of the Vedhnta system, has yet to be answered on the basis of a thoroughgoing study of Maitreya's works, still existing in Sanskrit fragments and Chinese and Tibetan versions. In the meanwhile, the reference made to him above by Bhavya may be taken as a sort of confirmation of his being a historical person in the august company of three others viz., hrya Avalokite~vara, Samantabhadra and Ma~ju~ri.

Alex Wayman refers to the controversy in his Analysis of the ~ravakabhami Manuscript (Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1961),p. 33 ff.