RESEARC.HES JN Essays in Honour of Professor Alex Wayman Edited by RAM KARAN SHARMA MOTILAL nANARSIDASS PUnLlSHERS PR(VATE LIMITED .DELHI Firsl Edilion: Delhi, 1993 C MOTILAL HANARSIDASS PUBLlSHERS PRIVATE LrMITED AII Rights R.:servcd ISBN: 81-208-0994-7 Also avail"hle at; MOTILAL BANARSIDASS 41 U.A., Bungalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi 110007 120 Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Madras 600004 16 Sto Mark's Road, Bangalore 560001 Ashok Rajpath, Patna 800 004 Chowk, Varanasi 221001 PRINTFD IN INDIA BY JAINI!NDRA PRAKASH JAIN AT SURI JAINE='OORA PREs.". A-45 NARAlNA NDUSTRIAL ARI!A, PHASI! 1, NEW DELHI 110028 AND PUBLISIIED BY NARI!NDRA PRAKASH JAI:-¡ FOR MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS PRIVATI! LIMn"BD, BUNOALOW ROA/), JAWAHAR NAOAR, DELHI 110007 ~ f CONTENTS Pr(fclC(' VII Em('ll('ou'.1" B/c.l"l"ill.I;'.1" XI Biilgrtlphicll/ Skc!ch nl,41I'.\" IVIZI'lllIlI/ xiii Bib/iograph.l' xxiii BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCHES A. ~1ISCELLANEOUS l. The List of th\: A.\"U1]lSkrtú-tlharmaAccording to Asaóga A1':DRÉ BAREAU 2. The ~ven PrincipIes of thc Vajjian Republic: Thcir Differl;nt Interpretation:) HAJIME NAKAMURA 7 3. A Difficult Beginning: Comments on an English Translation of C.mdragomin's Desandstava MICHAEL HAHN 31 4. A Study of Aspects of Rága N. H. SAMTANI 61 B. KARMA THEORY 5. PrincipIe of Life According to Bhavya SHINJO KAWASAKI 69 6. TJle Buddhist Doctrine of Karma HARI SHANKAR PRASAD 83 7. A Critical Appraisal of Karmaphalaparik~aof Nagarjuna T. R. SHARMA 97 C. DEPENDENT ORIGINATION 8. Thc Rclationship bctweenPatíccasamllppüda and Dhóttl AKIRA lfIRAKAWA 105 9. Dependent Origination: Its Elaboration in Early Sarvastivadin Abhidharma Texts COLLETT COx10. 19 Dependent Origination in Buddhist Tantra (,OORGE R. ELDER 143 JAINA PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCHES 11. (Kevali)Bhuklil'icüra of Bhavasena: Text and Translaiion PADMAN}.8" S. JAINI 163 VI Buddhist Philosophical Researches 12. Earliest Portions ofDasavaikiilika-.\'ülraM.A. DHAKY 79 ¡~rNDU PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCHES 13. Buddhist and Mimal11..a Vi.:ws ,)n Lak~aQa K. KUNJU~~I RAJA 195 14. Grammarians and Phil,~S,1ph.:rs KAMAI.I:SWARIIHAnACHARYA 15. Kashmir Sai\'ism (KS) and th.: V.:danta of Sai1kara R C. DWIVEDI 16. Siddhi-s in the Bhagavata PuraQa and in the Yogaslltra-s of Patañjali-A C'omparison T. s. RUKM~~I 17. Languagl.~and Mct:lphor in Indian Stotra Litcrature R. K. SHARMA 227 í8. Pittt/ V~rsus A.~l/i-An Ayurv.:dic P.;rspccti"c BHA(j\\,\~ D.~SH 241 19. The Doctrinc of'Aham-Artha' R.V. JOSHI 247 Co,i'rib/l'or~ 2Rl The t, PREFACE It is preeminently fit for the scholarly world to bring out a I::~'icitation volumc to honour Prof~ssor Alex Wayman. who has distinguishcd himself by an outpouring of scholarly works on Buddhisll1 for almost forty ycars; and who is now Professor of Sanskrit. cll1l:ritus. Columbia University. Nl:w York. r am proud of my association with Pr"fessor Wayrnan dating back to 1957 as my distinguishcd satirthya whcn I join.:d the Univcrsity of California. Berkeley, as a Fulbright studcnt. Thcre \\'1.' both studil.'d undl.'r Professor Murray Barnson Emenl.'au, an eminl.'111linguist. clas~icist and Indologist; and thcn were awardcd our Ph.D.'s the same dat!: in 1959. Prof. Wayman has h<cn al! along a sourc.: of inspirati,}n to me. Hc identifies himsclf with his studies in an l'xclusive attention always occupied \\'ith scholarly pursuits. finishing one thing, and thinking of his next proj.:ct. I don'f remcmbcr if he ever talk~d of-anything other than Indian Philosophy. Buddhism or gl: nI.'ra I Indology. Prof. Emcncau's kind blessings are found in print in this volum~. Those of Prof. R.N. Dandekar and othcr distinguished memb\:rs of the Felicitation Committee are also very much thcre: "punas ca bhüyo 'pi namo 'stu tebhyaJ,1". I am gratcful to the Felicitation Committcc and ¡¡Iso tü thc I-:arncd contributors for cnriching this volumc. It is divided into thrl:e major sections: Buddhist. Jaina and Hindu Philosophical Rescarchcs. In a way this is also the scupc of Profcs~or Wayman's rescarchcs. Undcr thc Buddhist rcsearchcs. the essay by André Barl'au. U~illg the Vinaya in Chinesco dcfcnd~ Wayman's position th:lt A~~lñga bclongcd to t/lc Mahi~:isaka scct. Hajime Nakamllr:l points out difTering \'ic\\'s. about the scvcn Vajji:ll1 Rl'public principIes; it is nicc to havc this important set ofparagraphs in thc presl.'nt volum~. Michacl Hahn cl)nccrns himsl'lr with the f¡lIl10U~ Buddh.isl poet Candr:lgomil1 who might :ll~o be thc gramm:lrian of th~lt n:lll1C hut h:lrdly the C:ll1dragomin \\'ho cl)mmentl'd on Buddhist Tantr:ls. N.H. Samtani vig(lr,'u~ly trC¡lt~ the term ra~(/. Aflcr lhcse mi~ccll:lnC('U~article~ thl'rl.' arc THE DOCTRINE OF 'AHAM- 19 ARTHA' R. v. JOSHI.De/hi Tlle followers of Advaita and Vai~Qava Vecianta categoricaUy differ on this doctrine. The Advaitin explains 'aharo-artha' or cI-sense'in five ways: (i) that ego (aharl1kara)is 'I-sense'. (ii) that consciousnessreftected in c;)nscience.is 'I-sense'. (iii) that consciousnessconditioned by conscience in the forro of ego is 'I-sense'. (iv) that the uniting eleroent of anímate and inaniroate (cit- acit-grantbi) is cl-sense'. It aroountsto that ego-consciousc ness (ahaJi1kár:l-caitanya)modified by identical super- imposition (tádátmya-adhyása)is cl-sense'. (v) that pure consciousnessis not cl-sense'. The Advaitin declares the ego of Sa1ilkhya as 'I-sense' but rejectsthe SaIhkhya theory of creation. This stand is not logical. Even if we accept for the sake of arguroent that the Advaitin does not disagree with the SáIhkhyatheory of creation, the ego as propounded in non-dualism does differ froro the ego of Sá1i1khya,because the ego in non-dualisro is diff~rent in each individual 'Self' while the egu in Sa1ilkhyais not different in each individual'Self'. The Sá~khya acceptsa threefold ego of the nature of (i) a pure ego associated with goodnessand virtue (sáttvika) (ii) a dynamic ego with passion and pride (rájasika) ar,d (iii) an ego as experiencedin ignorance and inertia (tama- sika).l Nevertheless.the ego in Sarhkhyais not destroyed during profound repose or dreamless sleepof an individual, otherwise the ego of every individual will siroultaneously be destroyed. Therefore, the ego ofSáIhkhya and the ego of Vedanta are not identical.Thc Non-dualist a~pts cI-ness'(ahantva) in ego and not in -In a l:lter pa..¡sageit appears that the author ugesthe word 'consciencc' for the a,'tabkaraIJa (Ed.). 248 Buddhist Phi/osophica/Researcnes '&If', otherwi~ on account of 'I-ness' thc pure 'Self' will bccome qualificd (saviS\:~a)and in that casethe attribute 'I-ness' will have to be acccpted in 'Self'. When 'I-ness' is acccpted in 'Self'. al1 il1dividual 'Sclves' will be undcrstood as '1' (aham) because- 'Self' is onc without a second. Our normal exp~ricnce in life is howcvcr different. We understand individual 'Sclf' by'This', 'That', 'You' and 'He' and nút in thc forro or'¡'. The objl:ction is Ul1tcl1ableso far as SaJilkhyais concernedbecause il1 Sañlkhya all 'Puru~a' are diff.:rcnt from eachother. 'Puru~' in SaJilkhya is without any modification (nirvikara) but not without attributes (11irdharmaka). As such therc is no defcct in Samkhya in accepting '¡-ness' in 'self',2 while the Non-dualist acccpts'¡-ness' in ego and not in 'sclf'.3 Let us first examinethc non-dualistic view that conscienceis ego and ego is '¡-sensc', In non-dualism the sattvika part offive clenlcnts as a result of ncscicncc, produces conscience divided Ínto (i) mil1d (manas). (ii) intellect (buddhi), (iii) ego (ahariJkar~) and (iv) citta (mind stuff) , A close pcrusal of the theory of crcatiot1 il1 Vedic and Paura~ic cosmology and thc thcory of crcation in the Mok~dharma pan'a of the Santi parva of the Mahabharata indicates that conscicnceof non-dualismand rnind of the Upar:i~adsare equivalcnt terms,C Mind is considercd as endc.wed with several functions such as volition (samkalpa). dctcrmination (adhyavasaya). desire or fceling (abhimana). thinking. contcmplation. faith and knowing.6 The PauraJ)icpoint of view that milld and sensesoriginate from purc egotism associatcdwith goodnessand virtuc (sattvika ahamkara) dces not agrce with the ncn-dualistic vil:w whcrein mil1d originates from purc parts (sattvika aJilsa)of five elem{'nts. Wc ccme across severalncn-dualistic Sanskrit texts saying that thl: principIe of intelligu'.ce is the ego, or arl cgC'-clementc,rigi- nating from thc principIe of intelligcncc is the ego. The Non- dualist maintains that the conscience, originating from five elcmcnts. is ego. The matcrialistic schccl of Carvaka maintains thc cxistl.:ncc of 'I-scnsc' till "cath. whilc thc Advaita Vl:diinta maintaÍl1sthat 'I-s<.nse'is d\.'stroYl:daI1d produccd in cach slccp and awaking. 'I-sensc' is diff~rcnt day by day in eachil1dividual. By thl: time onc and th~ samc 'I-scnsc' ccntinucs to cxist in an individual 'Self' in Carvaka systcm,thousands cf '¡-scnsc' are producl:d in The Doclrine 01 'Ahaln-Artho' 249 2.notherindividual 'Sclf' in non-dualismo Therefore the Non- dualist cannot maintain one and the same forro of 'Sclr till liberation. Th.~ Non-dualist solvcs this problcm stating that although the ego, a product of nescicnce,is dcstroycd during profound rcpcse, it conti:1uesto cxist in causalform.' The causalform ofthc ego, obviously, could not ~ ncscicncebecausc nescienCe could never be the direct cause of conscience because Ncn-dualist accepts conscicnce as a product of fivc elements. This helps us to prove that either ego or five elemcntscould be the causal forro of ego.