Verse 349

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

समुदायादिचित्तेन भारहारादिदेशना ।
विशेषप्रतिषेधश्च तद्दृष्टीन्प्रति राजते ॥ ३४९ ॥

samudāyādicittena bhārahārādideśanā |
viśeṣapratiṣedhaśca taddṛṣṭīnprati rājate || 349 ||

The mention of the ‘bearer of the burden’ and so forth is made with the aggregates, etc. in mind; as regards the particular denial,—that is of use against those who hold those views.—(349)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following argument has been urged by the opponent:—“It has been declared by the Blessed Lord as follows—‘O Bhikkhus, I am describing to you the Burden, the Taking up of the Burden, the Throwing up of the Burden and the Bearer of the Burden; the term ‘burden’ stands for the five constituent thought-phases, the ‘taking up of the Burden’ for satisfaction (pleasure), the ‘throwing up of the Burden’ for Liberation, and the ‘Bearer of the Burden’ for the Pudgalas Now, how do you explain this? Certainly the ‘Bearer of the Burden’ cannot be the same as the ‘Burden’ itself.”

The answer to this is supplied by the following:—[see verse 349 above]

The Thought-phases that appear at the same time, when meant to be spoken of collectively, come to be called ‘aggregates’; when these appear at the same time, in the form of Cause and Effect, they come to be called a ‘series’ or ‘Chain’; and when they are used as the basis of conception as a single concept, they come to be called by such names as ‘members of the Series’ and ‘Components of the aggregate’;—and it was with these ‘aggregates’ in mind that the Teacher spoke of the ‘Bearer of the Burden’; and there is thus no incongruity in this.

The term ‘etc.’ in the expression ‘aggregates, etc.’ includes the Series and the term ‘and so forth’ in the phrase ‘Bearer of the Burden and so forth’ stands for the Burden and the rest.

Thus then, those same Thought-phases which are spoken of as ‘aggregate,’ ‘series’ and the like, are spoken of as ‘the Pudgala, the Bearer of the Burden’, as in common parlance it is this to which the name ‘Pudgala ' is applied. It is for this reason that the Blessed Lord has described the Pudgala in the following words:—‘What is Pudgala, the Bearer of the Burden’?—having asked thus, He goes on—‘It is that which, O Long-lived one, bears such and such a name, belongs to such and such a caste, to such and such a clan, takes such and such food, feels such and such pleasures and pains, and lives so long’, Thus being of the nature of the ‘aggregate of thought-phases’, the Pudgala should be understood to be only ideally existent, and not as an Eternal Substance, as postulated by others—it was with a view to show this that the Lord used the above words. It has to be accepted as true; otherwise, as the ‘Burden’, etc. also have been spoken of as something different from the Thought-phases, (in the passage under reference), these also, like the Pudgala, would have to be regarded as not included among the Thought-phases. Thus it is clear that those preceding Thought-phases themselves which operate towards the bringing about of another succeeding Thought-phase have been spoken of as ‘Burden’,—those that are going to appear as the result have been spoken of as the ‘Bearer of the Burden’, So that the passage quoted does not warrant the conclusion desired by the Opponent.

Uddyotakara has argued as follows:—[This is a clear reference to Nyāyavārtika 3-1.1, page 341, but the passage found extends only up to the words ‘naiva tvamasi’, in line 26, of the present text]—“One who does not admit the ‘Soul’ cannot make sense out of the words of the Buddha who has declared—‘O Bhadanta, I am not Colour, I am not Feeling, Name, Impression or Cognition, O Bhadanta; similarly O Bhikṣu, you are not Colour, or Feeling, Name, Impression, or Cognition, you are not, O Bhadanta’—here Colour and the other Thought-phases have been denied to be the object of ‘I-consciousness’, this denial is particular, not Universal; while one who denies the ‘Soul’ should assert the denial in the Universal form ‘I am not—you are not’, A particular denial always implies a corresponding particular affirmation; e.g. when it is said ‘I do not see with my left eye’, it is clearly implied that ‘I do see with my right Eye’; if the man did not see with the right Eye also, then the mention of the qualification ‘left⁹ in the former assertion would be useless; the assertion should have been in the general form ‘I do not see’, Similarly in the case in question when it is said ‘Colour is not the Soul, Cognition is not the Soul’, it becomes implied that the Soul is and it is something different from these (Colour, Cognition, and the rest). It may be ‘incapable of being spoken of’ or anything else, but in any case the Soul is there.”

It is in answer to this that the Text adds—‘As regards the particular denial, etc.’.—That is to say, the mountain of the doctrine of the extant Soul propounded by evil-minded persons has risen up with twenty peaks,—such as ‘Colour is Soul, Cognition is Soul, the Soul has Colour, the Soul has Cognition, Colour subsists in the Soul, Cognition subsists in the Soul’ and so forth.—It is as against the first five of these views that the denial has its use as against persons who hold those views. The term ‘Taddṛṣṭīn’ means those who hold the view that ‘Colour is Soul’ and so forth. What is denied in the assertion (made by our Teacher) is exactly those points where the foolish-minded persons might have their doubts; and it is not intended to affirm anything. Otherwise, by saying what could not benefit His hearers, the Expounder would prove himself to be lacking in intelligence.—(349)

End of the section on the Vātsīputrīyas doctrine of ‘Soul’.