Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
312-368]
Endnotes 605 57
The font used in this version is New Times Roman with all diacritical marks correctly used
in unicode (the previous versions used “TCC Times”). All spelling mistakes (including
transliterated words), have been corrected.
Potter’s Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies vol 9 page numbers are enclosed in brackets
[328]. Each paragraph in this edition have not been indented for simplicity of editing, and
the numbered endnotes in the original “Potter-Summary” has been reinserted and the
endnotes follow the main text, e.g. [146].
The name of the native home of this important philosopher, the original
“Buddhist Logician,” is given to us as Siṁhavaktra near Kāñcī (modern
Conjeveram). According to Tibetan tradition he lived in a cave on Bhoraśaila in
Orissa and sojourned in Nalanda, but Hsüan-tsang is reported to have found a
hill in Andhra near Vangi in the West Godavari district, and that Dignāga was
born in Simhapura or Nellore [135]. K.S. Murty (Amala Prajñā: Aspects of
Buddhist Studies. Professor P.V. Bapat Felicitation Volume (Delhi 1989, p. 356)
says that Dignāga founded sixteen Mahāvihāras, and gives more historical
information. He summarily states that Dignāga was born in “a suburb of
Kañcipura, resided for some time in Orissa... mostly lived in Andhra ... died in a
forest in Orissa.”
Those who postulate that the supporting object (ālambana) of the cognition
(jñāna) through the eye etc. is an external thing, consider that either the atoms
are (the cognition’s supporting object) or that a molecule (saṁghāta) (of atoms)
is (the cognition’s supporting object), because there arises a cognition which
hears the representation (abhijñāna) of that (molecule).
1: Even if the atoms are the causes of the sense-cognition (vijñapti), since
(the cognition) does not bear the representation of those (atoms), the
atoms are not the content(s) (viṣaya) of that (cognition), just as the sense-
organs (are not the cognition’s object).
Concerning the atoms, even if they are the cause (of the cognition), they are not
the cognition’s object(s) any more than the sense-organs.
It is right (to consider) that any thing, which produces a cognition which bears
its representation (i.e. the representation of that thing), is, only it, [315] the
cognition’s supporting object, because it has been taught that in this way it is the
determining condition of the birth (of the cognition).
2b: because (the molecule) does not exist as something real, just as
the second moon (does not exist).
As regards the vision of a second moon owing to some defect in the senses, even
if (the cognition) bears its representation (i.e. the representation of a second
moon), it (the second moon) is not the object of that (cognition). In the same
way an aggregate is not the (condition’s) support, because it is not the cause (of
the cognition), since it does not exist as something real.
The external things that are called “atoms” and “molecules” are not the
(cognition’s) supporting object, as a part (of the requirements necessary
to be a cognition’s supporting object) is missing.
Some people hold that things, because they are possessed of several forms, are
perceptible under one or another of these forms.
There exists also in the atoms the nature of (being the) cause, which produces a
cognition that bears the representation of a molecule.
3cd: The atom’s form is not an object of the (visual) cognition just a
solidity (is not).
Just as solidity, etc., although they exist, are not the objects of the eye’s
perception, so also atomicity is like that (i.e., is not a perceptual object).
Among the atoms of a pot, a cup etc., although they are very numerous,
there is not any difference.
4c: If (it is held that) the diversity (between the pot, the cup etc.) is
due to the diversity of the forms (which they possess), (that is to say,)
if some person thinks that, owing to the difference of the forms of the
neck etc. (of the pot, the cup etc. as wholes), which comes forth as
a difference in their perceptions, (then we must answer that) the
difference (of the pot, the cup etc. as wholes) exists (only) in the pot,
etc.. [316]
4d-5a: But it (i.e., the difference) does not exist in the atoms, which
(according to the opponent are the only things that) exist as
something real, because there is not in them any diversity of
measure.
(Effectively) even if the atoms are real different matter, there is no difference
(among them), because they are all of a spherical form.
5b: Therefore it (i.e. the difference between the pot, the cup etc. and in
general between things) exists (only) in those (things) which do not really
exist.
5cd: because, if the atoms are eliminated, the cognition which bears
its representation (i.e. the representation of the pot) ceases.
In relation to the things that really exist, even if one eliminates what is
connected (with them), the perception which is (their) own is not eliminated.
6ac: The knowable interior form, which appears as external, is the object
(of the cognition).
Even if an external object does not exist, what appears as (if it were) external,
but exists only internally, (that) is the determining condition, the (cognition’s)
support,
What exists only internally is the determining condition (of the cognition), the
(cognition’s) support, because it is provided with the two characteristics
(indicated in paragraph 5), since the interior cognition bears the representation
of that object (i.e. the knowable interior form) and comes forth through it.
If somebody asks: How can it be understood that, when (the interior cognition)
happens to bear in the indicated way the representation (of the knowable interior
form), (this knowable interior form which is only) a part of that (interior
cognition and) which comes forth together (with that interior cognition) can be
the determining condition (of that interior cognition)?, we answer:
7a: Even if (the knowable interior form comes forth) together (with
the interior cognition), it is the determining condition because of the
necessary relation (between the knowable interior form and the [317]
interior cognition.
7b: (Even if the knowable interior form and the cognition are born)
successively (the knowable interior form) is (the determining
condition of the cognition), because it leaves a trace.[141]
There is no contradiction even if (the knowable interior form and the interior
cognition) come forth successively, because the representation of an object gives
rise to a trace which (in its own turn) produces the birth of an effect (i.e. a new
representation) similar to the representation (of the previous object) and which
lies in the consciousness.
The trace either exists in consciousness or exists in its own indefinable form; (in
both cases) there is no difference in relation to the production of the effect.
8b-d: So the form of the object and the trace function mutually
caused beginninglessly.
The cognition, depending on the trace (that is) called “eye” and on the
(knowable) interior form, comes forth bearing the representation of the object,
(which is) not produced by an (external cognition’s) support. These two (i.e. the
form of the object or knowable interior form and the trace) are mutually caused
beginninglessly. And the cognition comes forth from the trace fully matured
under the form of an object and at its turn the trace (comes forth) from the form
of that (object). Both (i.e. the form and the trace) must be considered, according
to one’s own will, either as different or as not different from the cognition.
The work consists of six kārikās together with commentary. We provide below
Tola/Dragonetti’s translations of the six verses along with our (i.e., the editor’s)
summary of the commentary where called for.
(E275; T274) Since men take what is conventionally understood to be real this
work is composed to provide them knowledge.
(E277; T276) 1. The cognition of a snake, in regard to a rope when the rope is
seen, is without reality. When we see its parts, in regard to it also the cognition
is illusory, like the snake.
(E281; T280) 3. Since things without parts cannot be conceived the last (part) is
equivalent to the non-existent. Therefore a wise man should not regard what is
mere illusion as reality.
(Objection:) Even if things like atoms don’t exist, the perception and thought of
them does, as does our thought of magical entities [319]
(E283; T282) 4. (Answer:) If illusion, that also, since it is not true, is not such as
it appears; being appearance without reality, it is of like character with those.
How do we know this? In the world if a seed lies fallow we don’t see any
shoots.
(E285; T284) 5. Whoso with subtle intelligence conceives all things as merely
dependent, that intelligent man easily abandons attachment, etc., like the fear of
a snake.
Just as a man frightened by what he takes to be a snake loses his fear when he
discovers it is a rope.
(E282; T281) 6. When considering worldly things one should think in the
conventional way. When desiring entirely to abandon infirmities one must seek
according to ultimate reality.
According to Hajime Nakamura (Indian Buddhism, op. cit., p. 300) there are two
distinct texts, both extant in Tibetan only: one is titled Hetucakranirṇaya and the
other Hetucakraḍamaru.
There are nine possible ways in which the sapakṣa (sp) and vipakṣa (vp) can be
related to the hetu (h). They are given below, with indication of which cases
2 (T11-18) The h has three features: it resides in the p and the sp and does not
reside in the vp, where residence can be either complete or partial.
Objection: But suppose we are trying to prove that the p, say prakṛti, exists? Or
suppose it does not exist? [321]
3 (T19-21) Answer: A term, say h, cannot prove another term; e.g., smoke
cannot prove fire. Rather it is the residence of h in p that constitutes
pakṣadhamatā.
5-9 (T29-36) Further exposition of the nine cases. As can be seen in the
summary of the Hetucakra above, two cases (#s 1 and 4) are valid. Furthermore,
another two cases (#s 5 and 9) are such that precisely the opposite of the thesis is
proved, and the remaining five cases are inconclusive and lead to doubt.
Inference can be of two kinds: that derived from perception, and that derived
from inference or memory. For example, by remembering the validity of former
inferences one comes to infer the validity of this one.
17-18 (T53) Since one object has many properties a sign (nimitta) cannot apply
to more than one thing unless the dissimilar cases are excluded. And a
characteristic mark (lakṣaṇa) comprises many factors; only if it stays within the
limits of those applicable can it properly apply.[322]
As for the ways of losing an argument, also discussed by Gautama, it is said that
they are like quibbles and so will not be mentioned here. A number of other
categories of a similar sort are referred to and set aside.
2. These are the topics dealt with in the text of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā: the [323]
locus (āśraya), qualification (for instruction), the actions (of Bodhisattvas) with
their spiritual cultivation, the (sixteen) different aspects of emptiness), logical
arguing, the faults into which one may fall, the advantages (of knowledge).
3. The recorder, in order to state his own authority, indicates the factors that can
lead believers to appropriate actions: he indicates who is the teacher, whose
assembly listened to the teachings, and the time and the place where the teaching
was held.
5. All (these) references, viz. the fact that he (the recorder) heard the teaching as
explicitly indicated by the adverb (“thus”), the pronoun (“I”) and the verb
(“have heard”), etc. are occasional (and thus not included among the thirty-two
principal items to he discussed). The fundamental teachings of the knowledge
are in fact thirty-two only.
(E56-57; T60-61.) 8. The sage correctly said “I do not see a Bodhisattva.” In this
way he explained the emptiness of the enjoyer of (supposedly) real entities.
9. When it is said that visible, etc. objects are empty in so far as in them there is
no such thing in them, this denies that there are external things to be enjoyed.
10. If a visible object and the like do not exist, it is implicit that the body in
which they (are supposed to exist), the world which constitutes the support of
this, and the (thirty-two) marks of the great man vanish; when one realizes this,
individuality appears to that man unreal, as being a mere inner assumption.
11. If the inner experiences are empty the emptiness of prakṛti is implicit; in fact
one’s lineage consists of consciousness and is held to result in compassion and
wisdom.
12. When he (the Buddha) says that beings are neither born nor [324]
cease, etc. he is saying that individuals as well as rebirth are empty.
13. When it is stated that he does not see either the factors of the Buddha nor
those of Bodhisattvas, he shows that the Buddha’s powers, etc. are empty.
14. Since it is stated that factors are constructed he states that factors are not
ultimately real.
15. Since by every means he (the Bodhisattva) uproots the view that there is a
self, the Blessed one has declared that in no way does there exist a person.
16. So when he says that all factors are not born, the Buddha, who knows the
truth, has implicitly declared that factors are without a self-nature.
17. By stating that there is neither growth nor diminution of pure and impure
factors the existence of good factors, whether conditioned or unconditioned, is
denied.
21. When the teacher says “a Bodhisattva exists” he, showing that there are
aggregates from the concealed (saṁvṛta) viewpoint, refutes the distraction
involving the imputation of the absence (of things).
22. According to this same rule in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, as well as in other sources
from beginning to end, the imputation of absence (of things) must be refuted.
23. These are not logical arguments (hetuvākya); rather suggestions are given
here as regards what one must do. Inferences are to be learned elsewhere, as for
instance in the Brahmajālasūtra.
25. Insofar as he does not see in any way either a name or field of experience or
action or the constituents of human personality, therefore he says that he does
not see any Bodhisattva.
26. This is the refutation of all constructions, the synopsis of the teaching. All
aspects taken to be contents of knowledge are constructions of thought.
27. This teaching based in the perfection of wisdom is based on the triple
aspects: constructed, dependent, perfected.
28. Saying “nothing exists” all constructions are refuted, when by the example
of illusory appearances the dependent is indicated.
30. In the teachings of the antitheses of the ten imputations the three aspects of
things are indicated both collectively and distributively.
31. So, for instance, in the introductory section of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, on the
basis of these three aspects the Buddha refutes the distraction which consists in
the imputation of absence.
35. Likewise in other expressions such as “the Buddha is like māya” or “he is
like a dream.” Those who understand apply this same point in other contexts.
36. The Buddha is said to be like māya through collocation with the speaker.
“Like māya” indicates the dependent nature.
38. This knowledge, its nature obstructed by ignorance, appears quite different
from what it really is, like a magic show, just as (what is dreamt [326] in) a
dream appears quite different (when one awakens).
43. The same thing may he considered matter and the perfection of wisdom.
Duality is really only identity. Thus both assumptions are refuted.
44. The Buddha explained the logical nature of this statement, inasmuch as
things are essentially pure and nonexperienceable. He also considers manyness
inadmissible since existence and nonexistence are contradictory.
46. When it was said before that matter is empty of the nature of matter, this was
meant to refute the false assumption that it has a nature.
50. Therefore in this world a name is imputed hut in fact there is no object
expressed by it; it is therefore established that objects are imputed according to
their names.
52. This refutes things being named, but it does not deny that there are objects.
This point should he understood elsewhere the treatise.
53. The man who truly knows does not perceive anything corresponding to a
name. Therefore this refutation is made as regards the existence of objects
connoted by names, but it does not deny that sounds have a conventional
purpose.
54. But Subhūti said “I do not find any name for the Bodhisattva,” denying both
the language and things named.
55. There does not exist in the perfections of wisdom any expression which
should not he understood according to this method of interpretation; its various
meanings are to be grasped in this way by intelligent men.
57. This, then, is the synopsis of the arguments contained in the perfection of
wisdom; its meaning comes again and again in other books (of the
Prajñāpāramitā).
58. If I have gained some merit by this summary may it help men to reach the
supreme merit that transcends this existence. [328]
[2] This passage concludes with the word “sataimiram.” Eli Franco (op. cit.) argues, contra Masaaki
Hattori and Alex Wayman, for instance, that their interpretation of this word as indicating an additional
(fourth) kind of perceptual fallacy is mistaken, or at least that (following Lambert Schmithausen’s
suggestion) Dignāga changed his mind between the time of composing the kārikās and composing the
vṛtti.
113.1.4.Vaiśeṣika
(E49-58; T42-51) In the Vaiśeṣikasūtras perception is defined as follows: an
awareness produced from contact between a self, a sense-organ, the mind and an
object. Some Vaiśeṣikas say sense-object contact is the instrument since it is the
specific cause, but others of them say it is contact between the self and the
internal organ that is the instrument since that is the predominant (pradhāna)
cause. Now elsewhere the Vaiśeṣikasūtras remark that this definition explains
(the stages of) doubt and ascertainment (niścaya). But ascertainment is not the
same as awareness produced by the fourfold contact mentioned, since
ascertainment also requires conceptual construction, whereas perception lacks
that. The fourfold contact is the simple presentation of an object, not its
ascertainment.
Vaiśeṣika: But sense-object contact does not involve conceptual construction.
Answer: Then even doubt and inference must be perception, since [333] they
arise from sense-object contact.
Vaiśeṣika: But a sense-organ grasps the qualifiers that are actually in the thing
and thus ascertainment naturally follows.
Answer: Then no doubt could ever arise or be removed!
Now the Vaiśeṣikas say in various places that perception grasps its content as
depending on universals, individuators, and as substance, quality or motion, etc.
But if an awareness is produced merely from sense-object contact then there is
no possibility of it having any relation to any qualifier, since it is merely the
object that is presented. In order to cognize a qualified entity one must cognize
113.1.5.Sāṁkhya
(E64-85; T52-62) Kapila’s followers define perception as the functioning of the
auditory and other organs. But if so either there are an infinite number of sense-
organs, since there must be an infinite number of organs corresponding to the
infinitely diverse amounts of guṇas such as sounds, etc., or else one sense-organ
might grasped all objects, since all objects are composed of the three guṇas.
Sāṁkhya: Though all things are composed of configurations (saṁsthāna) of the
three guṇas they are not composed in the same way. Thus sounds differ from
shapes, etc., and each group is grasped by the appropriate organ.
Answer: But you admit that in least in the cease of visual and tactual sensations
the objects are grasped by both senses. Furthermore it is nonsense to speak of
the “configuration” of an auditory, gustatory or olfactory content. Then again,
things of the same configuration made of [335] different materials would be the
same, which is not the case, and in short we would not comprehend the
distinctive feature of things such as their productivity of satisfaction, etc., and in
fact be unable to tell the differences among many kinds of different things
except those that differ in configuration. To avoid this one would have to
assume the sense-organs were capable of conceptual construction.
These guṇas you speak of—are they cognized individually or together? Not
individually, since those three are none of them objects of audition, sight, etc., or
if they are the same as those objects the objects cannot be taken, as the
113.1.6. Mīmāṁsā
(E89-109; T63-70) Mīmāṁsāsūtra I.1.4’s account of perception is that it is the
awareness that arises when the sense-organs are connected with something
existent. But if here “existent” (sat) excludes nonexistent (asat) things their
definition is wrong because the term “something existent” is redundant.
Mīmāṁsā: “Something existent” merely indicates the counterpositives
(pratiyogin) (of the relation of the senses etc. to their objects).
Answer: Then those objects should be named. Anyway, connection can only be
with what exists. A sense cannot be in contact with a mirage, which doesn’t
exist at all. If you mean that “something existent” designates just that kind of
object to which the sense-organ is related, that is still wrong, since atoms (which
are not perceptible) and ointments (which are not intended) are also related to
sense-organs, so it would follow that perception should arise from contact with
such entities.
Mīmāṁsā: Just as “go,” meaning what goes, is a term for cows even though
other things than cows go, so “exists” in our definition applies even if it applies
to other things as well.
Answer: “Go” is commonly accepted to mean cow, but “sat” is not commonly
accepted as a word for sense-objects only. And if the senses always came into
contact with their objects one could not experience things far away nor large in
size.
A commentator (vṛttikāra): Perception as the result of awareness is different
from the instrument; now since the result of perception is just the awareness that
arises when the sense-organs are connected with something existent the
definition is correct. In fact, the only instrument that could fill these
requirements is the joint contact of sense, object, [337] internal organ and self,
accompanied by a trace.
Answer: If so, what is the point of the words “the awareness that arises” in the
sūtra? And why should the word “pratyakṣa,” which emphasizes the sense’s
(akṣa) role, be singled out in the words used?
The commentator: Perception is that by means of which an ascertainment of the
form “this is a cow” (say) arises with regard to a perceived object.
113.5 Apohaparīkṣā
Summary by Richard P. Hayes
References preceded by “H” are to numbers of paragraphs in Hattori’s (1982)
critical edition of the Tibetan translations of [350] Pramāṇasamuccayavṛtti
Chapter Five by Kanakavarman and by Vasudhararakṣita, accompanied by
Jinendrabuddhi’s commentary translated into Tibetan by Blo Bros brtan pa, all
found in Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University No. 21 (Kyoto
1982). References preceded by “K” are to folio numbers in the Tibetan
translation by Kanakavarman (Text 5702 of the Peking Edition of the Tibetan
Tripiṭaka, Vol. 130). References preceded by “VP” are to folio numbers in the
Tibetan translation by Vasudhararakṣita (Text 5701 of the Peking Edition of the
Tibetan Tripiṭaka, Vol. 130); those by “VD” are to the Sde-dge (“Derge”)
edition (Text 4204) of this same translation: “T” refers to the translation by
Richard Hayes, Dignāga on the Interpretation of Signs. Studies of Classical
India 9 (Dordrecht 1988).
When the Buddha outlined the Religious Truth, he assumed the existence of
matter for the sake of convenience and referred to it. He needed material on
which to demonstrate that one-sided definitions in terms of identity, non-
identity, or non-existence are inadequate when one is not concerned with real
entities such as the elements of the universe. This is the Buddha’s method when
preaching to unenlightened people. Those entia, whose existence is assumed by
the Buddha for the sake of convenience not just fictitiously but in dependence
Then the question may arise: “What is wrong in speaking of those entia in terms
of identity, non-identity or non-existence?” Stanzas 1-8 answer the first two
alternatives. Stanzas 1-4 are concerned with the logical contradictions that will
result from speaking of a whole and its parts in terms of identity and non-
identity. Stanza 5 deals with a supplementary question, the question of the
atoms; thus the possibility of assuming the existence of atoms as real entities is
denied. The contradictions that will arise from speaking of a continuant and its
successive members in terms of identity and non-identity are discussed in
Stanzas 6-7. Stanza 8 points out the logical errors which will take place when
we speak of aspects and their substratum in terms of identity and non-identity.
However, the arguments employed in these stanzas are not very original. They
are of a kind of conventional Mādhyamika dialectics. Examples are shown
below:
Stanza 1: “If (a whole) were identical (with its parts, each of the component
parts) would be of the same entity (as the whole, and, therefore,) a part would he
identical with another part (of the same whole. For example, a hand would be a
foot). Or, (if you say, ‘Indeed. a whole is nothing more than its parts, but each of
Or,
Stanzas 6-7, line 2: “If a continuant were identical with (each of its successive
members, a person—who is one example of a continuant—) would have lost his
whole being and existence when he left his babyhood behind and, after gradual
growth, achieved boyhood; (therefore, a continuant) cannot be identical with (its
successive members). If you say that he should not have lost (his whole being
and existence even when he achieved boyhood,) then (you must concede the
complete) mixing (of babyhood and boyhood). If, (on the contrary,) a continuant
(and its successive members) were not identical, (a person whose) body (at the
[365] present moment) is suffering (from a disease,) would make medical
efforts in vain ....”
Stanza 8: “Through the aspects such as ‘being the outgrowth (of past deeds),’
etc. we grasp their substratum and give it a name. (Therefore,) the substratum
would have no existence if it were not identical with the aspects. The
contradictions, (on the other hand) that result from the identity (of the aspects
and their substratum can easily) be pointed out in the same way as in the
previous (stanzas, where the contradictions of the identity of a whole with its
parts etc. were dealt with).”
Throughout these arguments it is presumed that the existing matter in the strict
sense of the word is capable of being spoken of in terms of identity or non-
identity. Therefore, the contradictions pointed out by these arguments actually
imply the non-existence of the three kinds of entia wholes, continuants and
aspects. The denial of the existence of these entia, however, is not the ultimate
intention of the Ch’ü-yin-chia-she-lun: for Stanza 9, which is concerned with the
criticism of the last alternative in question, namely the criticism of speaking of
these entia in terms of absolute nonexistence, runs as follows:
Stanza 9: “If you do not admit of the existence of a body, (the following will be
concluded: Buddha,) the holder of the right view, should have preached (for
example, the four methods of contemplation) in vain: moreover, there should be
Thus, the denial of the existence of three kinds of entia, which is implied by the
contradictions pointed out in Stanzas 1-8, is protested against by Stanza 9. The
reconciliation of these two opposite claims, however, is proposed in Stanza 10
by the theory of vijñaptimātratā, i.e. the theory that the world of the
unenlightened people is nothing but a construction of their mind. It may easily
be understood that such an idealistic theory as the theory of vijñaptimātratā can
offer the ground on which to base the unreality of the three kinds of entia; but
how can it be the basis for their reality as well? The point is as follows:
That the whole world is a construction of the mind does not necessarily mean
the absolute non-existence of all entia in all senses. For, to say that the world is a
construction of the mind is only to say that everything is of assumed existence;
but by no means does it nullify the distinctions between the two groups of entia,
those whose existence is [366] assumed just wrongly and those whose existence
dependence on realities. Since the three kinds of entia with which we are
concerned belong to the latter group, they should be allowed to have some kind
of reality while those belonging to the former group can never have reality. Thus
by the theory of vijñaptimātratā the ground is prepared for the reconciliation of
the seemingly incompatible claims; accordingly, the three kinds of entia which
are unreal in that their existence is assumed by the mind, these same entia are
real in that their existence is assumed in dependence on realities.
Then what are the realities on which the existence of these entia is based? The
analysis of the statements of the commentary on Stanza 10 will lead to the
conclusion that the realities are the elements of the universe. In other words, the
elements of the visible, the audible etc., as traditionally accepted in Buddhist
scholasticism, are the realities on which the existence of the three kinds of entia
is based. The manner of the argument of Stanza 11 gives support to this
conclusion. Stanza 11 supplements Stanza 10 in that it denies the idea of true
reality to the three kinds of entia although it grants them relative reality. The
argument it employs for the denial of the true reality of the three kinds of entia is
based on the ground that none of these entia can properly be placed either in the
category of the saṁskṛta nor in that of the asaṁskṛta. Since it is the tradition of
Buddhist scholasticism to classify all the elements of the universe into these two
categories, the true reality of the elements of the universe has been presumed in
order that the true reality of the three kinds of entia can be denied on such
grounds. Thus the conclusion which we have reached from the analysis of the
The elements of the universe are something like the thing-in-itself (Ding-an-
sich) in Kantian philosophy, and the classification of the assumed existence into
three kinds of entia like his theory of the twelve categories of understanding.
Thus, the world of the unenlightened people [367] which is the equivalent to the
phenomenal world of Kant, is constructed on the elements of the universe,
taking the forms of the whole, the continuant and the aspect. But here the
analogy ends. For, according to Kant, the Ding-an-sich is utterly beyond the
faculty of our cognition and, therefore, nothing can be said about it pro or con,
while, according to the Ch’ü-yin-chia-she-lun the elements of the universe are
truly capable of being the objects of designation and, therefore, can he spoken of
in terms of identity and non-identity. Why is it then that only the elements of the
universe are truly capable of being the objects of designation? The reason is that
they are real in the strict sense of the word and, therefore, are in possession of
the real svabhāvas (=independent natures). Those entia, on the other hand,
whose existence is merely assumed by mind through the categories of the three
kinds of entia, have no real svabhāvas, and therefore cannot he spoken of either
in terms of identity or non-identity.
The structure of the religiously unenlightened people’s world having been thus
explained, Stanza 12 proceeds to the problem of the peculiar mannerisms of the
Buddha’s preaching. It reads as follows:
Stanza 12: “Since (Buddha,) the Holy One, wanted to root out the spiritual
defilemements (of the ordinary people who were not familiar with metaphysical
thinking), he adapted himself to (the situation and referred only to) those entia
that existed within the ranges of their (meager) understanding; therefore, he
never talked of those entia in terms of identity and non-identity. It was thus that
he preached by pedagogical devices and converted the people (into the pathway
of the Religious Truth).”
[END]