^{page 363 note 2} See, for instance, the Saṁkṣepaśaṁkaravijaya (Cat. Aufrecht, Oxford, fol. 254^a), where is narrated, with variants, the legend elsewhere attributed to Udayana : “…. yaḥ patitvā gireḥ śṛṅgād avyayah, tanmataṁ dhruvam …. yadi vedāḥ pramāṇaṁ syur, bhūyāt kā cin na me kṣatiḥ.” The Buddhists do not accept this ordeal: “saugatās tv abruvann: idaṁ na pramāṇaṁ matanirnaye, maṇimaṉtrauṣadhair evaṁ deharakṣā bhaved iti.” The king does not yield to this (rather conclusive) argument, but he manages a new experience, asking: “What is hidden in this basket?” The Buddhists do, of course, know that there is a serpent. But a divine voice is heard: “This serpent is not a serpent, but Viṣṇu.” Therefore the king gives orders for the slaughter of the heretics (vadhāya śrutividviṣām).

The story of the serpent in the basket is well known from Tāranātha.

The legend of Udayana—Brahmin and Buddhist falling from the top of a mountain—is interesting from its conclusion. The Naiyāyika conqueror, being a murderer—for the benefit of the creed—is not approved of by the priests of Jagannāth, and he does not conceal his anger. “The following couplet, which has not been traced beyond oral tradition, at once illustrates the irreverence of the Hindu mind and shows that the Nyāya is prized as the stronghold of theism. The verses are reported—falsely, it is hoped—to have been uttered by Udayana Ācārya : aiśvaryamadamatto ’si, mām avajñāya vartase : upasthiteṣu bauddheṣu madadhīnā tava sthitiḥ …. but let the Bauddhas show themselves, and upon me will depend thy very existence.” (N. Nīlakaṇṭha Gore: “A rational Refutation of the Hindu Philosophical Systems,” p. 6, note. Mr. C. H. Tawney has given me this curious reference. See also Barth, Bulletin, 1899–1900, 2, 32, n. 4 ; J.B.T.S., iv, 1, p. 21.)

^{page 364 note 1} The law of controversy according to Dignāga, see Madhyamakavṛtti, fol. 9^b, ed. Calcutta, p. 9 init. ; Ślokavārtika, p. 250, cf. p. 372 ; Sugiura, Sadagiro, “Hindu Logic as preserved in China and Japan,” p. 34 (Un. of Pennsylvania, Series No. 4).Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 2} Cf. the history of Sabhika, Mahāvastu, iii. 389 foll.

^{page 365 note 1} Bouddhisme, Notes et Bibl., p. 43, n. 1 (from the Muséon); J.E.A.S., 1901, p. 308.

^{page 365 note 2} Śaṅkara, 2, 2, 24; Abhidharmakośav., 13^a (Burn., Introd., 449); Madhyamakavṛtti, ad vii, 25. Cf. Aitareya Br. 11, 6, 4.

^{page 366 note 1} See the transl. of the Sarvadarś. s., Muséon, 1901. Tātp. ṭ. 339; Ślokavārt. 397; Nyayāb. ṭ. 16. 4. Professor Harapraśad Śástrí, in his last report (1895–1901), has given a short but interesting notice of two little treatises by Ratnakirti, Apohasiddhi, Kṣaṇabhaṅgasiddhi.

^{page 367 note 1} See Śaṅkaradigvijaya, Ānand. S.S., Comm. ad viii, 81. Śaṅkara was paying a visit to the Mīmāṁsaka Mandana; as he asks some washing-women the way to the āśrama, they give the following answer: “Where you shall hear the birds singing: svataḥ pramāṇaṁ, parataḥ pramāṇam …, there is the house.” On the philosophical problem, Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 185, is interesting.

^{page 367 note 2} Sanskrit Texts, second edition, 1873.

^{page 367 note 3} Sarvadarśanasaṁgraha, transl. 1882. The so-called “second edition” (1894) is only a reprint.

^{page 367 note 4} Bombay S.S. lv.

^{page 367 note 5} On the Sāṁkhyas, Garhe, Sāṁkhya, 115; Deussen, Vedānta, 94.

^{page 368 note 1} Vācaspatimiśra, Nyāya vārtika tātparyaṭīkā, p. 300: “It shall be established, in the fourth book of the sūtras, that from the existence of created things (kārya), viz. the body and the world, can be logically demonstrated the existence of a creator of these creatures, able to create them, knowing the essence of everything, unpolluted by the impression of the matured passional action, and endowed with a supreme pity. But, when this compassionate Being sees that the creatures are ignorant of the method to realize their own welfare and to avoid bad destiny, that they are consumed by the fire of numerous sufferings, he must be grieved by the sufferings of the creatures. Being so grieved, knowing the way of salvation, is it possible that he did not teach this way, or that he did teach this way erroneously? Therefore, this compassionate Being, after having created the earth and the four classes of human beings, did certainly teach them the way to attain happiness and to avoid the reverse: he cannot stay without teaching it (na hy anupadiśya sthātum arhati). And the teaching of this father-like compassionate Being is accessible to the Devas, to the Ṛsis, to the men; it must be accepted by the four classes. …. ”

^{page 368 note 2} Deussen, p. 96: “Das Offenbarte ist ihm (Śaṅkara) das Offenbare.” Cf. Śaṅkara, 1, 1, 2 (Ān. S.S., p. 34); Bhām. Objection of the Mīmāṁsakas, 1, 1, 3.

^{page 369 note 1} Āptavākyāvisavādasāmānyād anumānatā = Pramāṇasamuccaya, ii, 5, fol. 5^a, 4 (Tandjur, Mdo, xcv): yid-ches thsig ni mi-bslu-ba spyi-las rjes-su-dpag-pa-ñid. Cf. iii, 2 (fol. 7^a, 2); Tātp. 138. 2; Vārttika, 61. 13; Nyāyas. i, 1, 17.

^{page 369 note 2} “As it has not a specific object, the śabda is not a specific pramāṇa. Things are perceptible or imperceptible: the first ones can be known by perception (pratyakṣa), the second ones by means of the liṅga ….” Nyāyas. ii, 1, 46; Vārt. 260; Tātp. 286. 3. See Ślokavārt., pp. 51–53, the characteristics of the Śabda.

^{page 369 note 3} Śaṅkara, of course, establishes by purely rational arguments the principles of his system; but, as well said by Ānandagiri, “If it is possible to show by logical process that there is a cause of the world, we are altogether unable to ascertain by common pramāṇas the nature of this cause, the unity and the other characteristics of Brahman.” Śaṅkara says: “The true nature of the cause of the world, on which final emancipation depends, cannot, on account of its excessive abstruseness, even be thought of without the help of the holy texts; for it cannot become the object of perception …, and as it is devoid of characteristic signs, it does not lend itself to inference ….” (Thibaut, i, p. 316.) Śaṅkara, 2, 1, 11; see 1, 1, 4 (p. 47. 2); Bhām. 294. 11; and Vedāntakalpataru.

^{page 370 note 1} Tantravārtika, 169. 11: yathā mīmāṁsakatrastāḥ śākyavaiśeṣikādayaḥ nitya evāgamo 'smākam ity āhuḥ śūnyacetanam, pradveṣād, vedapūrvatvam anicchantaḥ kathaṁ cana, tanmātre 'pi ca bhūyiṣṭhām icchantaḥ satyavāditām …. ahiṁsādy atatpūrvam ity āhus tarkamāninaḥ. 170.2: āhuḥ svāgamanityatvaṁ paravākyānukāriṇaḥ …. tatra śākyaiḥ prasiddhāpi sarvakṣaṇikavāditā tyajyate, vedasiddhāntāj jalpadbhir nityam āgamam. dharmas tenopadiṣṭo 'yam “anityaṁ sarvasaṁskṛtam, kṣaṇikāḥ sarvasaṁskārā asthirāṇāṁ kutaḥ kriyā, buddhibodhyam trayād anyat saṁskṛtaṁ kṣanikaṁ ea tat.” 171.2: śabdādiṣu vinaśyatsu vyavahāraḥ kva vartatām? “sthitaiṣā dharmatety” etad arthaśūnyam ato vacaḥ. eṣety api na nirdeṣṭuṁ śakyā kṣaṇavināśinī, kim uta sthitayā, sākam eṣety asyaikavākyatā. tenānityaśbdavādinām āgamanityatvānupapatteḥ …. 163. 2: śākyādayo 'pi hy evaṁ vadanty eva: “yathotpādād vā tathāgatānām anutpādād vā sthitaiveyaṁ dharmanityateti.” The line: Kṣaṇikāḥ sarvasaṁskārā …. is quoted, Bodhicaryāvat. t. 251, 27. Cf. Bhāmatī, 361.3, and the Nyāyabindupūrvapakṣa, a very interesting little tract by Kamalaśīla, Tandjur, Mdo, cxi, fol. 118^b. The following one is to be found, Śaṅkara, 540, Comm. Ślokavārt. p. 735. The three ‘asaṁskṛta’ are well known. See for the quotation 163. 2 the Sarvadaś. s., p. 21, 1. 8, and notes to the translation (Muséon, 1901–2). As concerns the ahiṁsā, see Atmatattvaviveka (ed. 1873), p. 121 in fine. There are some curious observations on the matter in Rhys Davids' “Dialogues,” p. 165.

^{page 370 note 2} Mīmāṁsātantravārt. (Ben. S.S.), p. 171. 9: Asādhuśabdabhūyiṣṭhāḥ śākyajaināgamādayaḥ asannibandhanatvāc ca śāstratvaṁ na pralīyate. Māgadhadākṣiṇātyatadapabhraṁśaprāyāsādhuśabdanibandhanā hi te ∣ mama vihi bhikkhave kammavacca isī save ∣ tathā, ukkhitte loḍammi ukkheve atthi kāraṇaṁ 5 padane natthi kāranam ∣ atthy ubbhave kāranam ime sakkadā dhammā sambhavanti sakāranā, akarana vinasanti anupyattikāranam rty evam ādayah. Tataś cāsatyaśabdesu kutas tesv arthasatyatā, drstāpabhrastarūpeṣu katham vā syad anāditā. 173. 19 Śākyādigranthesu punar yad api kim cit sādhuśabdābhiprayenā-10 vinastabuddhya prayuktam, tatrāpi prajñaptivijñaptipaśyatātisthatadiprāyaprayogāt kiṁ cid evaviplutam labhyate. Kim uta yani prasiddhāpabhrastadesabhāsābhyo 'pi apabhrastatarām bhikkhave ity evamādīm, dvitīyābahuvaeanasthāne hy ekārāntam prakrtam padam drstam, na prathamabahuvaeane sambodhane 'pi, samskrtasabdasthane ea kakāradvaya-15 samyogo, 'nusvaralopah, rvarnākārapattimātram eva prakrtāpabhraṁśesu drstam na ukarāpattir api ∣ so 'yam samskrtā, dharmā. ity asya sarvakālam svayam eva pratisiddho 'pi vināśah krta iti asādhuśabdambandhanatvād ityantena hetunā vedatvakrtakaśastrantarasankāmvrttih I am indebted to Mr F W. Thomas for the readings of the India Office MS., to Mr A. C. Woolner for the readings of the Oxford MS. Line 3, Oxford has mamā. Line 4, Oxford, kammavaeasī, ukhittai, ukheve, printed text, lodasmi uvve; F W. Thomas, no doubt rightly, ukkheve, sie for ubbhave via ubjave. Line 5, I O, padune (=patane, du might be ddu), acchi uttave (= ubbhave) ; Oxford, ajjhadbhave (jjha can be tthyu); printed text, anubhave, samkada; Oxford, sakkadā; I.O, sakvadā. Line 6, Oxford, anupattikaranad, I.O agrees with printed text, F. W. Thomas's suggestion anuprapti° and the reading °karanād might be right; Oxford, evamādirūpah. Line 12, Oxford, kiṁ punar. Line 13, Oxford after bhikkave has sakkada dhamma ity evam°. Line 14, Oxford, saṁskrtapadasthāne. Line 16, Oxford, na hy u°. This tenet of Buddhist schools alluded to in the Prākrit quotation by Kumārila, viz. that vinaśa is ahetuka, is known from various authorities. See, for instance, Ślokavārtika, 736. 1: “āhuh svabhavasiddham hi te vināśam ahetukam,” and Comm.: “svābhāviko ghatadmāṁ vmāśah te hi svahetubhyo vinaśvarā eva jātāh janitvaiva pradhvamsyante, kim atra kāraneneti” Bhāmatī (1891), 360. 18 “vaināsikair akāranam vināsam abhyupagacchadbhih.” Abhidharma kośav., Paris MS, fol. 269^b 6 “utpattyanantaravinasirūpam cittacaittavat ākasmiko hi bhāvānām vināśa iti, akasmādbhava ākasmikah, ahetuka ity arthah” Madhyamakavrtti, 7 16 (Buddh. T S), Nyāyabindu, 106 3, Nyāyakandali, 78. 8. We have, therefore, to read Udbhave asti kāranam patane nāsti kāranam. Asti udbhave kāranam Ime samskrtā dharmah saṁbhavanti sakaranāh akaranā vinasyanti [svayam?] utpattikāranāt.

^{page 372 note 1} Tantravārt. 116. 13: svadharmātikrameṇa ca : yena kṣatriyeṇa satā pravaktṛtvapratigrahau pratipannau, sa dharmam aviplutam upadekṣyati iti kaḥ samāśvāsaḥ? Uktam ca Paralokaviruddhāni kurvāṇaṁ dūratas tyajet ātmānaṁ yo ‘tisaṁdhatte ’nyasmai syāt kathaṁ hita ? iti. Buddhādeḥ punar ayam eva vyatikramo ‘laṁkārabuddhau sthitaḥ ; yenaivam āha: Kalikaluṣakṛtāni yāni loke mayi nipatantu, vimucyatāṁ tu loka ! iti. Sa kila lokahitārthaṁ kṣatriyadharmam atikramya, brāhmaṇavṛttaṁ pravaktṛtvaṁ pratipadya, pratiṣedhātikramāsamarthair brāhmaṇair ananuśstaṁ dharmaṁ bāhyajanān anuśāsan dharmapāḍām apy ātmano ‘ngīkṇtya, parānugrahaṁ kṛtavān iti; evaṁvidhair eva guṇaiḥ stūyate; tadanuśisṭānusāriṇaś ca sarva eva śrutismṛtivihitadharmātikrameṇa vyavaharanto viruddhācāratvena jñāyaute.

^{page 372 note 2} On the sarvajñatva of Jina and of Buddha, see the very interesting lecture of Pathak, K. B., The Position of Kumārila in Digambara Jaina Interature (Trans. Congr. London, pp. 186–214)Google Scholar; also Sarvadarś. s., Jaina chapter; and Nyāyabinduṭ (112. 17, 114. 3, 116. 15, 117. 2 foil.), a handful of syllogisms on sarvajñatva, vaktṛtva, rāgādimattva. Cf. Kandalī, 397 fine; Bhāmatī, 322. 4.

^{page 373 note 1} Cited by Pārthasārathimiśra ad Ślokavārt., p. 83 : Kīṭasaṁkhyāparijñānaṁ tasya naḥ kvopayujyate dūraṁ paśyatu mā vāsau tattvam iṣṭaṁ tu paśyati.

^{age 373 note 2} This word is difficult to translate. It would be rather dangerous to understand “any discriminative operation.” The paramārthasatya (true Truth) is, of course, above expression and thought; there is not thought without vikalpa, “falsche Vorstellung” (P.W.).

^{page 373 note 3} Cf. Bodhicāryāv. ix. 37, 38.

^{page 374 note 1} Ślokavārt. 86. 10 (Comm.): “ …. tasmin nirvyāpāre 'pi tatsaṁnidhimātreṇaiva kudyādibhyo 'pi deśanā, niḥsarantīti cet ….” See the sūtras quoted Bodhicāryāv. ṭ. 276: “tasmin dhyānasamāpanne cintāratnavad āsthite | niścaranti yathākāmaṁ kuḍyādibhyo 'pi deśanāḥ | tābhir jijñāsitān arthān saryān jānanti mānavāḥ | ….” And: “te tathāgatamukhād ūrṇākośād uṣṇīṣād ghṛṇirṁ niścarantaṁ śṛṇvanti ….” Cf. Śikṣāmuccaya, 284. 9 : “ …. yadi buddhā, na bhavanti gaganatalād dharmaśabdo niścarati kuḍyavṛkṣebhyaś ca.” It is well known that Buddha did not speak after he had attained the Saṁbodhi (the silence (tūsṇīṁbhāva) is the highest Truth (paramārthasatya), cf. Madhyamakavṛtti, 15^a (B.T.S. 15. 11), and Laṇkāvtāra, 17. 15: maunās …. tathāgatāh); but it is worth while to contrast the Aryatathāgataguhyasūtra and the Pāli books. We read in the Northern Sūtra [Madh. vṛtti, fol. 109^b, p. 130. 15): “ yāṁ ca …. rātrirṁ tathāgato 'nuttarārṁ samyaksaṁbodhiṁ abhisaṁbuddho, yāṁ ca rātrim upādāya parinirvāsyati, asminn antare tathāgatenaikākṣaram api nodāhṛtam ….” The same phraseology Itivuttaka, p. 121, 20; Sumangalavilāsinī, Intr., § 44, and no doubt elsewhere, but with an altogether different conclusion.

^{page 374 note 2} Māyāmohāvatāra (Viṣṇupur.).

^{page 374 note 3} Tantravārt. 81. 20 : sarvatra hi tadbalena pravartate taduparame coparamatīti vijñānamātrakṣaṇabhaṅganairātmyādivādānām apy upaniṣatprabhayatvaṁ vi-ṣayeṣy ātyantikaṁ rāgaṁ nivartayitum ity upapannaṁ saryeṣāṁ prāmāṇyam sarvatra ca yatra kālāntaraphalatvād idānīm anubhayāsaṁbhayas tatra yedamūlatā. I am unable to identify the quotation from the Upaniṣads.—Similarly the Sautrāntikas maintain that Buddha, when teaching the śūnyatā, was directed by principles of policy (upāyakauśalya). Cf. Nyāyāvārt. tātp. ṭ. 415. 21.

^{page 375 note 1} Tantravārt. 117. 13: “Sākyādayaś ca sarvatra kurvāṇā dharmadeśanām | hetujālavinirmuktāṁ na kadā cana kurvate.” This rationalistie side of Buddhism is illustrated by the formula: “yat kiṁ cit subhāṣitaṁ tad buddhavaeanam” (Aṅguttara N. iv, 164. 7; Bodhie. ṭ. 284. 1; Śikṣās. 15. 19). Minayeff (Recherches, 85) gives reference to the Bhabra Ediet: “ …. e kechi bhaṁte bhagavatā budhena bhāsite save se subhāsite vā ….” The meaning is quite different; the new sentence can be a tendencious recast of the old one ? Cf. Majjhima N. i, 71. 20: “ Yo …. evaṁ vadeyya: …. takkapariyāhataṁ samaṇo Gotamo dhammaṁ deseti vīmāṁsānucaritaṁ sayaṁpaṭibhānan ti, …. nikkhitto evaṁ niraye.”

^{page 375 note 2} See the curious stanza (Subhāṣitāvali, 3437) ascribed by Vallabhadeva to Dignāga (three of the four MSS. mention Dignāga). As observed by P. Peterson, the stanza occurs in Mahābhārata, iii, 312, 115 (ed. Protap) = Böhtlingk, Sprüche, 2505 = Mbh. iii, 17,402 = Subhāṣitārṇava, 163. I cannot agree with P. Peterson; “ It is impossible to contend that its attribution here to the well-known Buddhist writer …. may not be a copyist's error.” Our stanza in the Mbh. episode occurs in an answer of Yudhiṣṭhira to some Yakṣa. Cf. the closely connected story (of Bahubhaṇḍaka) in the Comm. to Dhammapada, 141, and the Devadhammajātaka (Jātaka 1, 1, 6 (p. 126)). The stanza runs as follows : tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāu munir yasya vaco (sic) pramāṇam dharmasya mūlaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthā. In the Mbh.: naiko rṣir yasya mataṁ pramāṇaṁ, dharmasya tattvam. …. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ : cf. Śaṅkara, ad ii, 1, 11 (Deussen, Vedānta, 97); Mahājana = dharmaparo loko brāhmaṇādiḥ = Manvādiḥ. Cf. Ślokavārt. 75; Tātparyaṭ. 301; Ātmatattvav. 121.

^{page 375 note 3} Tātp. ṭ., pp. 300 ff. ; see supra, p. 368, n. 1.—There are many strong arguments against the authority of the Vedas. See, for instance, Comm. to Nyāyasūtras, ii, 1, 56 (or 57). “When it is said ‘svargakāmo yajeta’ we cannot ascertain the truthfulness of the precept; but we see that the putreṣṭi's, the kārīrya's, rites for promoving mundane fruits, do not realize the expected fruits; therefore ….”

^{page 376 note 1} Cf. Petavatthu, ii, 1.