(3.) Sautrantikas or Representationists.

(4.) Vaibhashikas or Presentationists.]

[Footnote 32: Cf. Ferrier's Lectures and Remains, vol. i. p. 119.

"Suppose yourself gazing on a gorgeous sunset. The whole western heavens are glowing with roseate hues, but you are aware that within half an hour all these glorious tints will have faded away into a dull ashen grey. You see them even now melting away before your eyes, although your eyes cannot place before you the conclusion which your reason draws. And what conclusion is that? That conclusion is that you never, even for the shortest time that can be named or conceived, see any abiding colour, any colour which truly _is_. Within the millionth part of a second the whole glory of the painted heavens has undergone an incalculable series of mutations. One shade is supplanted by another with a rapidity which sets all measurement at defiance, but because the process is one to which no measurement applies,... reason refuses to lay an arrestment on any period of the pa.s.sing scene, or to declare that it is, because in the very act of being it is not; it has given place to something else. It is a series of fleeting colours, no one of which _is_, because each of them continually vanishes in another."]

[Footnote 33: Principium exclusi medii inter duo contradictoria.]

[Footnote 34: Query, La?kavatara?]

[Footnote 35: Cf. Ferrier's Inst.i.tutes of Metaphysic, p. 213. "If every _completed_ object of cognition must consist of object _plus_ the subject, the object without the subject must be incomplete, that is, inchoate--that is, no possible object of knowledge at all. This is the distressing predicament to which matter is reduced by the tactics of speculation; and this predicament is described not unaptly by calling it a _flux_--or, as we have depicted it elsewhere, perhaps more philosophically, as a never-ending redemption of nonsense into sense, and a never-ending relapse of sense into nonsense."]

[Footnote 36: Cf. Burnouf, _Lotus_, p. 520.--Should we read _samudaya_?]

[Footnote 37: Cf. G. H. Lewes' History of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 85.

"We not only see that the architect's plan determined the arrangement of materials in the house, but we see why it must have done so, because the materials have no spontaneous tendency to group themselves into houses; that not being a recognised property of bricks, mortar, wood, and gla.s.s. But what we know of organic materials is that they _have_ this spontaneous tendency to arrange themselves in definite forms; precisely as we see chemical substances arranging themselves in definite forms without the intervention of any extra-chemical agency."]

[Footnote 38: These are not the usual four 'sublime truths;' cf. p.

30.]

[Footnote 39: Madhava probably derived most of his knowledge of Buddhist doctrines from Brahmanical works; consequently some of his explanations (as, _e.g._, that of _samudaya_ or _samudaya_, &c.) seem to be at variance with those given in Buddhist works.]

CHAPTER III.

THE aRHATA SYSTEM.

The Gymnosophists[40] (Jainas), rejecting these opinions of the Muktakachchhas,[41] and maintaining continued existence to a certain extent, overthrow the doctrine of the momentariness of everything.

(They say): If no continuing soul is accepted, then even the arrangement of the means for attaining worldly fruit in this life will be useless. But surely this can never be imagined as possible--that one should act and another reap the consequences! Therefore as this conviction, "I who previously did the deed, am the person who now reap its consequences," establishes undoubtedly the existence of a continuing soul, which remains constant through the previous and the subsequent period, the discriminating Jaina Arhats reject as untenable the doctrine of momentary existence, _i.e._, an existence which lasts only an instant, and has no previous or subsequent part.

But the opponent may maintain, "The unbroken stream (of momentary sensations) has been fairly proved by argument, so who can prevent it?

In this way, since our tenet has been demonstrated by the argument, 'whatever is, is momentary, &c.,' it follows that in each parallel line of successive experiences the previous consciousness is the agent and the subsequent one reaps the fruit. Nor may you object that, 'if this were true, effects might extend beyond all bounds'--[_i.e._, A might act, and B receive the punishment]--because there is an essentially controlling relation in the very nature of cause and effect. Thus we see that when mango seeds, after being steeped in sweet juices, are planted in prepared soil, there is a definite certainty that sweetness will be found in the shoot, the stalk, the stem, the branches, the peduncle, &c., and so on by an unbroken series to the fruit itself; or again, when cotton seeds have been sprinkled with lac juice, there will be a similar certainty of finding, through the same series of shoot, &c., an ultimate redness in the cotton. As it has been said--

"'In whatever series of successive states the original impression of the action was produced,

"'There verily accrues the result, just like the redness produced in cotton.

"'When lac juice, &c., are poured on the flower of the citron, &c.,

"'A certain capacity is produced in it,--do you not see it?'"

But all this is only a drowning man's catching at a straw, for it is overthrown by the following dilemma:--

In the example of the "cloud," &c. [_supra_, p. 15], was your favourite "momentariness" proved by this very proof or by some other?

It could not be the former, because your alleged momentariness is not always directly visible in the cloud, and consequently, as your example is not an ascertained fact, your supposed inference falls to the ground. Nor can it be the latter--because you might always prove your doctrine of momentariness by this new proof (if you had it), and consequently your argument regarding all existence ["whatever is, is momentary," &c.] would become needless. If you take as your definition of "existence" "that which produces an effect," this will not hold, as it would include even the bite of a snake imagined in the rope, since this undoubtedly produces the effect [of fear]. Hence it has been said that the definition of an existence is "that which possesses an origin, an end, and an [intermediate] duration."

As for what was said [in p. 16] that "the momentariness of objects is proved by the fact that the contrary a.s.sumption leads to contradictory attributes of capacity and want of capacity existing contemporaneously,"

_that_ also is wrong--for the alleged contradiction is not proved, as the holders of the Syad-vada[42] doctrine [_vide infra_] willingly admit the indeterminateness of the action of causes. As for what was said of the example of the cotton, that is only mere words, since no proof is given, and we do not accept even in that instance a separate destruction [at each moment]. And again, your supposed continued series cannot be demonstrated without some subject to give it coherence, as has been said, "In individual things which are of the same cla.s.s or successively produced or in mutual contact, there may be a continued series; and this series is held to be one [throughout all"].

Nor is our objection obviated by your supposed definite relation between causes and effects. For even on your own admission it would follow that something experienced by the teacher's mind might be remembered by that of the pupil whom he had formed, or the latter might experience the fruits of merit which the former had acquired; and thus we should have the twofold fault that the thing done pa.s.sed away without result, and that the fruit of the thing not done was enjoyed. This has been said by the author of the Siddhasenavakya--

"The loss of the thing done,--the enjoyment of the fruit of a thing not done,--the dissolution of all existence,--and the abolition of memory,--bold indeed is the Buddhist antagonist, when, in the teeth of these four objections, he seeks to establish his doctrine of momentary destruction!"

Moreover, (on your supposition of momentary existence), as at the time of the perception (the second moment) the object (of the first moment) does not exist, and similarly at the time of the object's existence the perception does not exist, there can be no such things as a perceiver and a thing perceived, and consequently the whole course of the world would come to an end. Nor may you suppose that the object and the perception are simultaneous, because this would imply that, like the two horns of an animal, they did not stand in the relation of cause and effect [as this relation necessarily involves succession], and consequently the _alambana_, or the object's data [_supra_, p.

29], would be abolished as one of the four concurrent causes (_pratyaya_).[43]

If you say that "the object may still be perceived, inasmuch as it will impress its form on the perception, even though the one may have existed in a different moment from the other," this too will not hold.

For if you maintain that the knowledge acquired by perception has a certain form impressed upon it, you are met by the impossibility of explaining how a momentary perception can possess the power of impressing a form; and if you say that it has no form impressed upon it, you are equally met by the fact that, if we are to avoid incongruity, there must be some definite condition to determine the perception and knowledge in each several case. Thus by perception the abstract consciousness, which before existed uninfluenced by the external object, becomes modified under the form of a jar, &c., with a definite reference to each man's personality [_i.e._, I see the jar], and it is not merely the pa.s.sive recipient of a reflection like a mirror. Moreover, if the perception only reproduced the form of the object, there would be an end of using such words as "far," "near,"

&c., of the objects.[44] Nor can you accept this conclusion, "as exactly in accordance with your own views," because, in spite of all our logic, the stubborn fact remains that we do use such phrases as "the mountain is nearer" or "further," "long" or "large." Nor may you say that "it is the object (which supplies the form) that really possesses these qualities of being 'further,' &c., and they are applied by a fashion of speech to the perception [though not really belonging to it]"--because we do not find that this is the case in a mirror [_i.e._, it does not become a _far_ reflection because it represents a far object.] And again, as the perception produced by an object follows it in a.s.suming the form of blue, so too, if the object be insentient, it ought equally to a.s.sume its form and so become itself insentient. And thus, according to the proverb, "wishing to grow, you have destroyed your root," and your cause has fallen into hopeless difficulties.

If, in your wish to escape this difficulty, you a.s.sert that "the perception does not follow the object in being insentient," then there would be no perception that the object is insentient,[45] and so it is a case of the proverb, "While he looks for one thing which he has lost, another drops." "But what harm will it be if there is no perception of a thing's being insentient?" [We reply], that if its being insentient is not perceived, while its blue form is perceived, the two may be quite distinct [and as different from each other as a jar and cloth], or it may be a case of "indeterminateness" [so that the two may be only occasionally found together, as smoke with fire].

And again, if insentience is not perceived contemporaneously with the blue form, how could there then be conformity between them [so that both the blue and the insentience should together const.i.tute the character of the thing?] We might just as well maintain that, on perceiving a post, the unperceived universe entered into it as also const.i.tuting its character.[46]

All this collection of topics for proof has been discussed at full length by the Jaina authors, Pratapachandra and others, in the _Prameyakamalamarta??a_, &c., and is here omitted for fear of swelling the book too much.

Therefore those who wish for the _summum bonum_ of man must not accept the doctrine of Buddha, but rather honour only the arhata doctrine.

The Arhat's nature has been thus described by Arhachchandra-suri,[47]

in his _aptanischayala?kara_.

"The divine Arhat is the supreme lord, the omniscient one, who has overcome all faults, desire, &c.,--adored by the three worlds, the declarer of things as they are."

But may it not be objected that no such omniscient soul can enter the path of proof, since none of the five affirmative proofs can be found to apply, as has been declared by Tautat.i.ta [Bha??a k.u.marila[48]]?

1. "No omniscient being is seen by the sense here in this world by ourselves or others; nor is there any part of him seen which might help us as a sign to infer his existence.

2. "Nor is there any injunction (_vidhi_) of scripture which reveals an eternal omniscient one, nor can the meaning of the explanatory pa.s.sages (_arthavada_) be applied here.

3. "His existence is not declared by those pa.s.sages which refer to quite other topics; and it cannot be contained in any emphatic repet.i.tions (_anuvada_), as it had never been mentioned elsewhere before.

4. "An omniscient being who had a beginning can never be the subject of the eternal Veda; and how can he be established by a made and spurious Veda?

5. "Do you say that this omniscient one is accepted on his own word?

How can you establish either when they thus both depend on reciprocal support?

6. "[If you say,] 'The saying is true because it was uttered by one omniscient, and this proves the Arhat's existence;' how can either point be established without some previously established foundation?

7. "But they who accept a [supposed] omniscient on the baseless word of a parviscient know nothing of the meaning of a real omniscient's words.

8. "And again, if we now could see anything like an omniscient being, we might have a chance of recognising him by the [well-known fourth]

proof, comparison (_upamana_).

9. "And the teaching of Buddha [as well as that of Jina], which embraces virtue, vice, &c., would not be established as authoritative, if there were not in him the attribute of omniscience,[49] and so on."

We reply as follows:--As for the supposed contradiction of an Arhat's existence, derived from the failure of the five affirmative proofs,--this is untenable, because there _are_ proofs, as inference, &c., which _do_ establish[50] his existence. Thus any soul will become omniscient when, (its natural capacity for grasping all objects remaining the same), the hindrances to such knowledge are done away.

Whatever thing has a natural capacity for knowing any object, will, when its hindrances to such knowledge are done away, actually know it, just as the sense of vision cognises form, directly the hindrances of darkness, &c., are removed. Now there _is_ such a soul, which has its hindrances done away, its natural capacity for grasping all things remaining unchanged; therefore there is an omniscient being. Nor is the a.s.sertion unestablished that the soul has a natural capacity for grasping all things; for otherwise the Mima?sist could not maintain that a knowledge of all possible cases can be produced by the authoritative injunction of a text,[51]--nor could there otherwise be the knowledge of universal propositions, such as that in our favourite argument, "All things are indeterminate from the very fact of their existence" [and, of course, a follower of the Nyaya will grant that universal propositions can be known, though he will dispute the truth of this particular one]. Now it is clear that the teachers of the Purva Mima?sa accept the thesis that the soul has a natural capacity for grasping all things; since they allow that a knowledge embracing all things can be produced by the discussion of injunctions and prohibitions, as is said [by Sabara in his commentary on the Sutras, i. 1, 2], "A precept makes known the past, the present, the future, the minute, the obstructed, the distant, &c." Nor can you say that "it is impossible to destroy the obstructions which hinder the soul's knowing all things," because we [Jainas] are convinced that there are certain special means to destroy these obstructions, viz., the three ["gems"], right intuition, &c. By this charm also, all inferior a.s.saults of argument can be put to flight.