Veṅkaṭanātha's way of reusing Buddhist texts

Veṅkaṭanātha's Buddhist opponents as

they emerge in the Buddhist texts he

[email protected]

giovedì 9 ottobre 14

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

1. Buddhism in South India: a ghost?

2. Veṅkaṭanātha and his forerunners

3. a possible interpretation


Buddhism in South India


this slide should show the actual presence of Buddhism in South India by the time we are speaking. This makes a striking difference to people who are used to work on Kumārila or Jayanta, for whom the Buddhist opponents are just as frequent as the non-Buddhist ones.

Veṅkaṭanātha and his forerunners

• Yāmuna (X c.)

• Rāmānuja (XI c.)

• Veṅkaṭanātha (XIII c.)


now, what would you expect concerning the reuse of Buddhist texts? Perhaps that they are less and less frequent while the memory of Buddhism in South India vanishes and while the opponents change (shifting from Buddhists to inner-Vedānta opponents)?By contrast, V quotes far more than Y and R. Not that they had not the chance to do it.

Yāmuna

• Āgamaprāmāṇya

(mainly dealing with the validity of Pāñcarātra Āgamas)


no mention of the invalidity of Buddhism!

Yāmuna

• Saṃvitsiddhi and Ātmasiddhi

dealing with prakaṭa saugata and then pracchanna ones


There are indeed a few reuses of Buddhist texts, namely

Yāmuna

sahopalambhaniyamād abhedo nīlataddhiyoḥ | (PVin 1.54ab)

sahopalambhaniyamād abhedo nīlataddhiyoḥ | (ĀS ad 14)

sahopalambhaniyamān nānyo ’rthaḥ saṃvido bhavet (SS 416)


However, the PVin hemistich was very popular. One finds it everywhere (Śālikanātha’s Ṛjuvimālā, Vācaspati’s Bhāmatī on the BrSūBh, his Nyāyakaṇikā on the Vidhiviveka, Sucarita’s Kāśikā)

Yāmuna

avibhāgo ’pi buddhyātmā viparyāsitadarśanaiḥ | grāhyagrāhakasaṃvittibhe-davān iva lakṣyate || (PVin 1.44)

yathāhuḥ prakaṭāḥ

avibhāgo ’pi buddhyātmā viparyāsitadarśanaiḥ | grāhyagrāhakasaṃvittibhe-davān iva lakṣyate || iti (ĀS 416)


Again in the context of prakāṭa vs. pracchanna Buddhists. ALso quoted by Vācaspati on YS 4.23 and Sucarita on ŚV śunya 92,

Rāmānuja

Mention of Buddhists:

saugata (ŚrīBh ad 2.2.17)

long discussion, no quotes


In ŚrīBh ad 2.2.17, he mentions four kinds of them (not by name, but one can recognise sarvāstivādins, sautrāntikas (or pramāṇavādins, given that only their epistemology is mentioned?), vijñānavādins and, on a separate group, śūnyavādins.The descriptions are interesting, but no textual material is used, perhaps because no longer available? Further, there is a quotation, namely

Rāmānuja

sahopalambhaniyamād abhedo nīlataddhiyoḥ | (PVin 1.54ab)

sahopalambhaniyamād abhedo nīlataddhiyoḥ | (ŚrīBh ad 2.2.27)


However, the PVin hemistich was very popular. One finds it everywhere (Yāmuna! (and Śālikanātha’s Ṛjuvimālā, Vācaspati’s Bhāmatī on the BrSūBh, his Nyāyakaṇikā on the Vidhiviveka, Sucarita’s Kāśikā))

Veṅkaṭanātha

parataḥ prāmāṇya (SM, TMK)

kṣaṇikatva (TMK)

dharmadharmibhāva (TMK)

nirvikalpapratyakṣa (TMK)

sahopalambhaniyama (TMK)

ākārasamarpaṇa (TMK)

śūnyatā (TMK)

bhrānti (TMK)

śabda (TMK)

Selection of discussions of Buddhist topics:


please note the variety of topics. What would you say about them?kṣaṇikatva, TMK 1.25--31 (mādhyamika) śabda TMK 5.21dharmadharmibhāva TMK 1.9nirvikalpapratyakṣa 4.33sahopalambhaniyama 4.20--26ākarasamarpaṇa (vs. Sautrāntika), ad TMK 4.27 (jñāna cannot assume the form of the previous kṣaṇa). śūnya ad TMK 4.28

Veṅkaṭanātha

parataḥ prāmāṇyabhrāntinirvikalpapratyakṣa sahopalambhaniyama ākārasamarpaṇaapohamukti citta-caitta

dharmadharmibhāva śabdaśūnyatākṣaṇikatvaaṇutucchatvasaṃyogajāti



please note the variety of topics. What would you say about them? I: primarily EPISTEMOLOGICAL concern (yellow), then ontology (red) (no ethical issues)kṣaṇikatva, TMK 1.25--31 (mādhyamika) śabda TMK 5.21dharmadharmibhāva TMK 1.9nirvikalpapratyakṣa 4.33sahopalambhaniyama 4.20--26ākarasamarpaṇa (vs. Sautrāntika), ad TMK 4.27 (jñāna cannot assume the form of the previous kṣaṇa). śūnya ad TMK 4.28measures (TMK 5.46)

VeṅkaṭanāthaMention of Buddhists:

Dharmakīrti, Prajñākara, Sugata (TMK)

mādhyamika (ŚD, TMK), yogācāra (TMK)

śūnyavādin (VS, TMK)

saugata (ŚD, TMK)

bauddha (ŚD)

bāhya (SM)


As you can see, some of them are neutral, whereas bāhya can begin having a derogatory nuance and perhaps even more so śūnyavādin. This nuance is even stronger in the following case:(sugata, TMK 1.25; saugata TMK ad 1.31 and ad 4.33, mādhyamika TMK ad 4.20, 4.33; yogācāra TMK ad 4.33) śūnyavāda SS ad TMK 2.75

Veṅkaṭanāthapracchannabauddha (ŚD)

ahetukavināśavāde tu saugatacārvākādi-sauhārdodgāraprasaṅgaḥ (ŚD)

na vāde śūnyavādinaḥ adhikaro anupāyatvāt (VS)

[…] iti pralobhanamātram […] kūṭayuktibhis… (TMK)

there is the undesirable consequence of ejecting (vomiting) friendship for the buddhists, the materialists, etc.

this is only seduction. Through cheat[ful] reasonings…


Here it is clear that to resemble a Buddhist is something to be avoided. Note, however, that in the last case something else is happening, that is, the Buddhist positions are recognised as seductive and rhetorically powerful, so that one needs to be warned.Anyway, until now VD’s position resembles a lot Yāmuna’s one. And the same applies to the next case:(VS “p. 53”, quoted in Chari on TMK p. 94n).

Veṅkaṭanātha

nirupadravabhūtārthasva-bhāvasya viparyayaiḥ || na bādhā yatnavattve ’pi buddhes tatpakaṣapātataḥ | (PV 2.210--211)

uktaṃ ca bāhyair eva

anupaplavabhūtārthasvabhā-vasya viparyayaiḥ | na bādho yatnavattve ’pi buddhes tatpakaṣapātataḥ || iti (SM ad 1.1.5, 1974 p. 74)


Again, this verse was already very well-spread (Vācaspati’s commentary on SK 64). Both Vācaspati and Veṅkaṭanātha attribute it to bāhyas. It is found also in Veṅkaṭ’s TMK. Thus, as with Yāmuna, some Buddh. texts are just common shared knowledge. The fact that VD has the same text as Vācaspati suggests that he did not go back to PV. More importantly, VD’s understanding corresponds to Vācaspati’s one and NOT to DhK’s one (as reconstructable), since it does not at all regard moral issues.

Veṅkaṭanātha

nirupadravabhūtārthasvabhāvasya viparyayaiḥ || na bādhā yatnavattve ’pi buddhes tatpakaṣapātataḥ | (PV 2.210--211)

uktaṃ ca bāhyair eva

anupaplavabhūtārthasvabhāvasya viparyayaiḥ | na bādho yatnavattve ’pi buddhes tatpakaṣapātataḥ || iti (SM ad 1.1.5, 1974 p. 74)


But: DhK’s Hetubindu in TMK.

Veṅkaṭanātha

pakṣadharmas tadaṃśena vyāpto hetus tridhaiva saḥ | avinābhāvaniyamād hetvābhāsās tato ’pare || (Hetubindu, v. 1)

āha ca dharmakīrtir hetubindau

pakṣadharmas tadaṃśena vyāpto hetus tridhaiva saḥ | avinābhāvaniyamād dhetvābhāsās tato ’pare || iti (TMK ad 9)


In fact, the same verse is present also in DhK’s PVsvavṛtti 3.1), but VD himself attributes it to the HB. The same quote is probably frequent among Buddh pramāṇavādins: Durvekamiśra’s Dharmottarapradīpa (subcomm on Dharmott’s Nyāyabinduṭīkā on DhK’s Nyāyabindu) (apart from the obvious arcaṭa’s Hetubinduṭīkā and Durveka Miśra’s Hetubinduṭīkāloka), but not so among Viśiṣṭādvaitins.

Veṅkaṭanātha

pakṣadharmas tadaṃśena vyāpto hetus tridhaiva saḥ | avinābhāvaniyamād hetvābhāsās tato ’pare || (Hetubindu, v. 1)

āha ca dharmakīrtir hetubindau

pakṣadharmas tadaṃśena vyāpto hetus tridhaiva saḥ | avinābhāvaniyamād dhetvābhāsās tato ’pare || iti (TMK ad 9)


Note that also the frame if compared to the previous ones shows a direct acquaintance with a certain author and text.This is confirmed (through vyatireka) by what follows:

Veṅkaṭanātha

grāhyadharmas tadaṃśena vyāpto hetus (Dignāga, Hetumukha, cf. Frauwallner, Kleine Schriften, p. 840)

anye ’pi

grāhyadharmas tadaṃśena vyāpto hetur iti


Here it seems that VD has known this text only indirectly. Let us now check whether this is a real distinction, meaning, whether in this case VD is really using DhK and Dignāga acc. to their intention as far as we can reconstruct it. First of all, the context is that of the discussion about dharma and dharmin within the Buddh and Advaita critique of dravya. The critique was (more or less): If a dharma has no qualities, it can’t be seized, if it has some, regressus ad inf. Reply: we need them, even Buddhists agree, in the case of inferences.

Veṅkaṭanātha

satyam, kālpanikahetusādhyadharmadvārā anumānapravṛttiḥ, pāramparyeṇa tu svalakṣaṇaviśrāntyā bhāktam anumānaprāmāṇyam iti hi bauddhānāṃ rahasyam. tattvagatyā caturvidhānām api teṣāṃ dharmadharmibhāvaḥ kṣepyaḥ.


This is what immediately follows the preceding quotations. The point is: How can one cognise without the dharma-dharmin ontology?The secret of Buddhists is that they assume it, though secondarily. On a higher level, this has to be rejected.

Veṅkaṭanātha

ukto mārgas tadabhyasād āśrayaḥ parivartate ||PS 206||

prāg eva mārgga uktaḥ tasyābhyāsād āśrayasya cittasantānasyālayasya vā pariśuddhatvaṃ bhavati (ad PS 206)

vāsanocchedamātraṃ tu bauddhaikadeśikaḥ. tatra sarvajñānasantānaikatāpattiḥ syān na veti vibhāgaḥ. tatra tatprakriyāpariccheda evottaram.

dhīsantānapraṇāśaṃ tu Prajñākaramatasthāḥ. tatrāntimasyārthakriyāvira-hād asattve tatpūrveṣām api tathā iti śunyatāvatāraḥ (TMK ad 9)

context: views on mukti in TMK

prakriyā=production


Note the precise reference to Prajñākara school and the acquaintance with the problem of the interpretation of what is āśraya. Why not DhK? Possibly because he does not say anything on this topic (santāna is mentioned in PV 2.189 as cause of tṛṣṇā, but nothing more. Why not Devendrabuddhi? Perhaps already lost (now only Tib). Furthermore, Prajñākara is the only DhK-commentator who really founded a school. Anyway, here VD seems to be referring to differences among the commentators of DhK.

Veṅkaṭanātha

PV svārthā 1.(or 3.)26, Ce (frame: evam api hi brūtha…iti) on the deny of a kevalānvayin hetu, also quoted in NBhūṣ (TMK ad 1.30)

PVin 1.33ab, Ce (frame: yat punar āhuḥ…iti) on vikalpa, also quoted in Śrīdhara’s NKand (TMK ad 4.33)

PV svārthā 1.(or 3.)77 Ce (frame: yat punar āhuḥ…iti) on vikalpa, no other quotes I know of (TMK ad 4.33)

PVin 1.54ab Ce (vs. Yāmuna’s Re!) (frame: ataḥ…iti) on sahopalambhaniyama, also quoted by Vācaspati on YS 4.14 (TMK ad 4.20)

PVin 1.44 Ce (frame: etena… iti pralapitaṃ praty uktam), also in ĀS (TMK ad 4.20)

further quotations


On PV 1.26, see Prets 1997, p. 338. Do you know of other quotes of this verse? It is “tasyāṁ yadrūpam ābhāti bāhyam ekam ivānyataḥ | vyāvṛttam iva nistattvaṁ parīkṣānaṅgabhāvataḥ”




saugata (ŚD, TMK)

bauddha (ŚD, TMK)

yuṣmad (to address the Buddhist PP in SM)

bāhya (SM)


Going back to the first slide concerning VD, the charges just regard the generic Buddhists, whereas the more specific one goes, the more VD really engages with his Buddh opponents of the past (even the charges get more precise). By the way, the only real quotes are from the Pramāṇavādins. Which brings me back to a general question I would like to ask you: Do you agree that Pramāṇavādins within India (the situation is completely different in Tibet) have been more influential outside Buddhism than within it?




saugata (ŚD, TMK)

bauddha (ŚD, TMK)

yuṣmad (to address the Buddhist PP in SM)

bāhya (SM)


Please note that he, for instance, refers to the Vaibhāṣika with whom he discusses in TMK 5.21 about the nature of the padārthas just as saugatas. Thus, saugata or bauddha are not just used in case of theories embraced by all Buddhist schools. Rather, the opposite seems to be the case: unless VD has a specific interest, he does not further specify his source.

Veṅkaṭanātha




Where are the more precise mentions?



Veṅkaṭanātha






Both regard Pramāṇavāda authors…So that we have many Pramāṇavāda-like topics and the only precise quotes occur in the case of Pramāṇavāda authors

Veṅkaṭanātha’s sources


Now a main problem: Who are VD’s sources? Did he knew the texts directly or not?


Sure intermediate sources: Yāmuna, Rāmānuja


Y and R are VD’s standard sources, even when quoting texts he must have been directly acquainted with, such as the MBh, Narayaniyaparvan. Still, in this case Y and R are not enough, since they reuse little Buddhist textual material, as seen above


Possible intermediate sources: NBhūṣ, Vācaspati, Śrīharṣa


We can postulate further sources, among the ones popular at VD’s time.Regarding Śrīharṣa, there is a very interesting case. I would not have expected VD to surely know him, since Śrīharṣa was an Advaitin and a sceptic, but:


pūrvasambandhaniyame hetutve tulya eva nau | hetutattvabahir bhūtasattvāsattvakathā vṛthā || (KKKh 1, v. 5)

yad atra mādhyamikamatasthair ucyate: pūrvasambandhaniyame hetutve tulya eva nau | hetutattvabahir bhūtasattvāsattvakathā vṛthā || iti (ad TMK 1.32)


Here, we have a verse which had apparently NO other source but Śrīharṣa, and what is even more striking is that it is attributed to Madhyamikas. Why? Because it is well known that the Śrīharṣa and Madhy. share a certain skeptic attitude, and the Viśiṣṭādvaitins are constantly (see above) charging the Advaitins of being pracchanna bauddhas, so that probably Śrīharṣa was the ideal target. In this sense -sthair could be significant: “those who [in fact] are in [the same] opinion as the Madhyamikas”.


Possible intermediate sources: NBhūṣ, Vācaspati, Śrīharṣa


So, even if VD may have reused much Buddhist textual material second-hand, still he had to do an effort to find it (and this is already striking, since, as already mentioned, he often reuses just what he finds in Y and R), an effort his predecessors had not done

Conclusions

Ce-quotes (of Buddhists and non-Buddhists opponents alike, whereas own people may be just reused)


Conclusions


quotes only of Pramāṇavādins


Conclusions



Dharmakīrti, Prajñākara (and Sugata) the only proper names

more specific charges against Pramāṇavādins (vs. generic charges against “Buddhists”) by the way, VD does not use the term

“Pramāṇavāda”. He may have Pramāṇavādins in view while using “Mādhyamika” and “Yogācāra”, though (see ad TMK 4.33)


Conclusions

Ce-quotes (of Buddhists and non-Buddhists)


Dharmakīrti and Prajñākara only proper names

more specific charges

independent knowledge of Pramāṇavāda


the last conclusion is only a working hypothesis. But it solicits a question: Why?

Conclusions

Why?


given that there are no political reasons for that! It seems that VD was curious to know about Buddhist opponents, although they were no longer a sociological problem. The reasons can only be intellectual.

Why?

• Because Veṅkaṭanātha has a different agenda, aiming at the aikaśāstrya


Buddhism is not really part of this single śāstra, but this attitude still makes V aware of what had been thought also outside his school, which was no longer a closed one, since it was God’s own śāstra, thus potentially encompassing whatever is right. And needing to come to discussion with all other systems.

Why?

• Veṅkaṭanātha’s aikaśāstrya is God’s śāstra (and needs to face also Buddhist texts)


Thus, intellectual and, secondarily, spiritual need to look at Buddhist texts and opponents.

Veṅkaṭanātha's way of reusing Buddhist texts

Documents

Transcript of Veṅkaṭanātha's way of reusing Buddhist texts