8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

1/36

BhattaJayantasRefutaionoftheYogcra uddhistDoctrineofVijnavda

AnnotatedTranslationandAnalysis

AlexVVATSON andKeiKATAOlA

5SouthAsianClassicalStudiesNo5PP 8535

2 1 7

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

2/36

5ACS52 1BhattaJayantasRefutationoftheYogCra

BuddhistDoctrineofVijinavadaAnnotatedTranslationandAnalysis

AlexWatsonandKeiKataokalINTRODUCTION

InthepassageranslaedandexaminedbelowBhaJayanta2outlinesandhenrefuesthedocrineofVijnavadaadvancedbyYogaBuddhism3pmevijnavdininter1ocutorfirsSaeshisviewasthatitiscognitionJconsciousnessjidnaaloneaPPearinginachainofindividualmomenshamaniftstsasthevariousobiectsthaWePerCeiveTTluShecontinuesthereisnothingotherthanitforifhosehingsthatwetaketobeexernaandinsenienareacuallyofthenatureofcognltionWhaneedisthereoposulateanythingotherhancognlionVijnavdaispresentedbyBhattaJayantaasakindofnonqdualisrnieasholdingthateverythinginheuniverseisofhesamenatureHereferstoitbothahebegiJlnlngandendofhispresentationaS Vi7hdnadvaitavddahedocrineofthenonJualism ofcogniion eplaceshisdiscussionofitafterthatoftwooherkindsofnondualismhenondualismofBral1manandhenondualismofTTleWordiabdaThisdiscussionofthreekindsofnondualismcomeswihinachaperonliberationbeatitudemokaqPaLVargaTTLischapterisintumOneOutOftwelveinhismagnumopushedyamaarilThefirstsixchapersofheNydyamaarconcemthemselveswiththemeansofkr1 WledgeramathenextthreewihhevariousobjecsofknowledgerameyaTheChapteror11iberaioJlishethirdofthesethreeieheninhchqperofhewholeexLL

1TheresearchforthisarticlewasenabledoyafourweekPoscdoctoralFellowshipfromtheJapanSocietyforePromotionofScienceinSeptember2 9WheTIAlexWasonJOinedKeiKaaokaatKyushuUniversityFukuokaJapaTl

1AlhoughheiscommonlyreferredtoinsecondaryliteratureasJayantaBhattahereferstohimselfasBhataJayantainetwoplacesweknowofwhereheincludeshisownnameWoneOfhistextsAgdmd3215and12217

ForbackgroundinfomatioTlOnBhaJayaLltaSeeHegde1983andDezs62 51522OnhisimportanceforereconstruCtionofvanousaspectsofthehistoryofNyyaSeeOberhammer1962Wezler1975aLldMami2 6OntheNyayamaiijaTLasasourceoFinfomlaionaboutBuddhismSeeGupta19631718Kher1992179286Shah1997141148andKataoka2 9

i urknowledgeemsranslaionofthepassageinoaEuropeanlanguageForaGujratitranslaionsee5hah1992ForaJapaeSeranslationSeeKataoka2 6

85

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

3/36

ThechapteronLiberationintheNydyamalyanrmechapteronliberaionakingupninetytWOPageSinheMysoreeditioniseffectivelyacommentaryonjusonesBtra1122WhichdefinesliberationasthecompletecessaqtionofsufferingLadaLyanLavimokFOvargabmecontensofhechapercanbedividedupasfo1lows

ThedddrfTheNyayamaTUarllSaselectivecommentaryonAkaPdasNyayasi2trainthesensethatitcomensOnly on thesBtras thagivedefinitionslakaPaSiuras1eavingasidethosethatenunciateaopictobefurherdiscusseduddeiasdllaSandthosehacarryOuaninvesigationofatopicarfkLis1raSThefollowlngtableshowsthetopICSCOVeredinitswelvechaptersandheNyayasiilTaSthattheyarecommentlngOn 1ExplanaionofhesnrasiZlravyakhyLina

2TheNaureofLiberationmokaSVarZ2pa43 313113

4311513918Chapter VolumeSdtraTopic Page41ntroduction

111EnumerationofthesixteencategoriesbLZdarEha I12 3Whatitistobeameansofknowledge 31

brLTTZLZSLimanyalakFaSubdivisioniIltOfourkinds114PerceptionbTuLyakFO I171

115Inrence l116Compadson 373

3 117Speech 3964 The Veda 5735 WordmeaningbadarLhaandsentencemeaJlingdartha 36 Sentencemea1ng 143

9Whatitistobeanobjectofknowledge II 2637 brameyasamLinyalLZkaElaSubdivisionin1 1tkinds

111 Thesefd n788

2 Theobjectsofknowledgefromthebodyuptosuffering 369 1122Ljberation 43

11339nCagOriesldoubtdup enconclu1 522Sionofasylogismig1d114 ql217HypotheticalreasoningLarkauptounfairreplycIzala 584

1218GeneralitybasedonafalseanalogyEE 64551143Subdivisioninto24kinds 6461Z 12192 GroundsfordefeatindebatenigrahasthLina 67752l24Subdivisioninto22kinds 679

3TheMeansofAttainingLiberationmokOPaya 44 216 114Knowledgeoftheessentialnatureofrealitytatlvqiana 46 131615

41meNaiyyikaViewnaiyayikamala 46171641342NonDualism 4641415

4Z1NonDudismofBrahmanJdhh46417176J2422NonDualismofneWordSabdadvLZilavada476141871423NonDualismofCognitionviThdnadvailavLida

4231PerceptualCognitionpratyakaVtianaranslatedinhepresentaricle487125 4174232ErroneousCognitionb71ramqfLinaneoriesofErrorkhydivada 5 419518 134233ConclusionoftheRefuationoftheVinavdinViewthatCognltionisdevoidofobjectsk 5181451911

424ConclusionoftheRefutationofNonDualismddJd

43TheSkhyaViewsaTikhyamala5191316

5191852 652 817521Z5

52171

44TheJainaViewUainamata451eYogaViewg7df

5ConclusionofthediscussionofTheoriesconcern1ngLiberationVrgVdqp

Ithavingbeenestablishedinsection4thathemeansofatainlngliberationisknowledgeOftheessentialnatureofrealiytallvqfiianahequesionarisesasowhatpreciselyheObjectisofthisknowledgeJayanafirstglVeStheviewofhisownNaiyyikatraditionaccordingowhichliberaingknowledgeconcemstheindividualselfatman41nenheexpoundsandrejectsthethreeabovementiorledkindsofnonTdualism42followedbytheShkhya43Jaina44andYoga45viewsIisstrikingthattheBuddhistdocrinethatJayantapresentsasmostrelevanttoliberationisVnavdanOtaSmighvolumeandpagenumberinhistableandthroughoutthisartiderefertotheMysoreedition

286 287

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

4/36

Twoadditionalsections34and36giveVnavnrefutationsofSauttikaBuddhistrepresentaionalistviewsWedividethesiddhdntaintoninesectionsThesectionsoftheparvqpakathatheyareCOnCemedtorefuteareglVeninthefollowlngtable

havebeenexpecedthedocrineofnoSelfandtmavadaHedealswihthelatterviewelsewheremos1yintheseventhchaperbuttheviewthatdsexpressionintheexaminaionofBuddhisliberaionis LcognlionOnlyThenrsthalfofthisexamination4231dealswihvalidPerCePtualcognitionWhereashelatterhalf4232dealswitherroneouscognitionbhramqijianaBothhalvesaimatestablishingthattheexperiencedformakarabelongstocognitionnOttOaneXemalobjectTheportionwetranslateistheflrSthalfWhichtOgetherwiththeflrStSubSeCtionofthesecndhalfWaSediedinKataoka2 3ThosewishingtofollowtheSanskritshoulddownloadheupdatedversionofKataoka2 3fromherehpwwwlitkyushuuaCjpkkataokaataokaMvijRpdf

StructureofthepassageHavinglookedatheplaceofourpassagewithinthewiderconextofhewenowfocusinonhepassageitselfItconsissOftwomainsecionstheparvqpakFainwhichtheVijnav5dinakescentresageandthesiddhanlainwhichtheNaiyyikaJayantahimselfrefuteseachofthepolntSthathavebeenlaidouinthepDrvqakaWehavenumberedthesetwosections3and4SincetheyareprecededbytwobriefsectionsahebeginningofthepassageOne1makingcleartheconnectionofthispassagetotheprevioussectionoftheNydyamaarandtheother2narrowingdownthepreciseissuehaistobedecidedinheensulngdebatetohefollowlngqueStionDotheformsweperceivebelongocognlionortoanexernalobjectInthepvapakaSeCtiontheVtinavdinglVeSnVebasicarguments

1ThepositionhatformbelongstocognitioninvoIveslesspostulation312CogniionmustbeperceivedbeforeanobjectisperCeived32

321 ecauseiisheilluminaor322 BecausetherecanbenoobstacletoitbeingperCeived323 Beca11SeWeTeneCtOnObjectsasdependentoncognltion324 ThereforethereisnoneedtopostulateanobjectSeparatefromCOgniiotlata L

3IffoITndidnobelongtocognitiontherewouldbenowaytoexplainhowcognitionisdifferentiatedwithrespecttoitsparticularobjectspr8tikarmavyavasha 4Cognitionandisobjectarenecessari1yperceivedtogethersahopalambhaniyamahereforetheyarenondifferen355ConradicoIYPrOPertiesviTuddhadharmacannotbelong neandthesarneobjectbutheycanbelongtodifferencognitions37

Siddhna Papa41 3742 3Z43 3244 3245 32246 32347 3148 3349 35

ThesiddFlantaaddressesonlyhosesectionsofthepdrvqpakathatarguedagalnStBmaicalrealismitdoesnotconcemitselfwiththetwosectionsofthepdTVqPakainWhichheVijnavdinrefutedSaltrntikaviews

WenowglVeadeai1edsynopsISOfthewholepassagelConnectionwiththeprevioussectionCognltionqonlydisinguishedfromothernondualisms2DoubDotheformsweexperiencebelongtocognlionorobjects

21 bjectionfromtheNaiyyikatotheVjnavdin7broughdirecPerCePionetcWegraSPan bject22lePreCiseissuethatseparatesus

221Iftwoformsappear7theNaiy5yikawins222Ifoneformappearsdoesibelongtotheobjecorcognlion

3P5rvapakaVijnavdaFormbelongstocogniti6n31BecauseitinvoIveslesspostulationkabandldghavdt

311TheNaiyyikaspostulatedoublewhatwedo312Nosubstantialdifferencebetweennondualityofobjectandnondualityofcognltion

289 288

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

5/36

313Cognltionisestablishedforbothofus32Cognltionmustbegraspedfirst

32 Becauseitistheilluminator322Becauseitmustbegraspedattheverymomentthatitarises323BecauseofreflectionpiyavamariaonanobjectasprecededbyCOgnlion324Therelevanceofcognltionbeinggraspedtothemainissue

3241Agraspedcognltionhasform3242Anexternalobjectisthereforeredundant33BecausecognltionscouldnotbeobjecSPeCificiftheylackedform

331Aformlesscognltioncouldnotbefocusedononeparticularobject332Merelybeingcausedbyanobjectwi11notsumce333ConclusionHavingablueoectiscausedbyhavingablueform334ConsequenceJustificationofthelabelprama335Eveneverydayusageatteststocognltionhavingform336ConclusionTheonlywaycognltioncouldbedelimitedwithrespecttoitsobjectsisbyhavingform

34TheVijnavdinRefutationoftheSautrntikaView341TheSautrntikaViewthattheexternalobjectcanbeinferTed342CognltionisnotanalogoustoacStal343Theappearanceoftwoseparateforms3A4neinferenceofanexternalobjectisnotwarranted

3441Disagreementofnameonly3442Explicabilitywiththehelpoflatentimpressions

35Becauseanobjectisnecessarilyperceivedtogetherwithcognltion351Becauseofpositiveandnegativeconcomitance352 bjectandcognltionarenondifferenL

36RejectionoftheSautrntikaviewthatformresultsfromcontact37Contradictoryproperties

371Cannotcohabitinsingleobjects372Buttheycanresideindifferentcognltions

38ConclusionofthePiirvapaka

4Siddhnta41nereisnonondifferencebetweenperceiverandperceived

411Becausecontradictorypropertiescannotexisttogether

412EvenBuddhistsassumethedifferenceofperceiverandperCeived413FormsappeartousasobjectsofilluminationnOtaSilluminators

42ThegrasplngOfanobjectrequlreSaperCeiverbutthatdoesnotmeanthatthePerCeiverisitselfgrasped

421 bjectionneaPpearanCeOftheperceiverJuStistheappearanceoftheobject422ReplyCognltion iketheeyeisameansmeanSdonotmakethetargetredundant423 bjectionEyeandcognltionaredisanalogous424ReplyAnillumirlationisanilluminationofanobjectnOtOfanillumination425 ectionToseeanobjectCOgnltionitselfmustbegrasped426ReplyTheseelngOfanobjectisthemerearislngOfcognltionnOtthegrasplngOfcognltion427 bjectionnenthepresenceorabsenceofthecognltionwouldmakenodifference428ReplyItmakesadifferencebecallSetheseelngOfanobjectJuStistheocculTenCeOfacognltion

43Theinstrumentalityofcognltion44Cogniionsabiliyoilluminae

441hterpretationsofbecauseitisanillumination44 Causalbecauseitmakesmanifest4412Intransitivebeingmanifest441L3Synonymbeingacognltion

442Thereisnothingselfqilluminatlng4421 bjectionnreeSelfilluminatlngentities4422ReplynethreerequlreeXtemalfactors4423Conclusion

443PerceptlOnOftheselfisnotacaseofselfqillumination45Refutationofcognltionisgraspedassoon asitarisesbecauseitdoesnotdependonanyfurtherilluminationandbecausetherecanbenoobstruCtion

451AcausalcomplexisrequiredforcognlZlngaCOgnltion452ThedifferencebetweenMmrpsandNyyaconcerningthewaylnWhichacognltionisgrasped

46Responsetotheargumentfromrenectiononanearliercognitionavamalfa47ResporlSetOtheclaimoflesspostulation

471Anexternalobjectisnotpostulatedbutdirectlyperceived

29 91

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

6/36

59 Doesformbelongocognlior1 rOec 221 ab TocogniionForwhareason 3

1 cd1 Iftheextemalobjecisposiedohaveformhena 3 separaeperceiYermuSobeposid

1314 IfyoutryandavoidhisdoublepostulaiontySaylrlg 3 2hatheobjectisheperCeiverhenwearedisagree

1ngOnlyaboutTlameS1517 AloughcognonistrSpantinnaturitappears

asifvanegaedbecauseoflaenimpressions1819c CognlionisesablishedforbohdispuanSherefore 3 3

aribuingfooiinvoIveslessposulaion19c EvenifyoupostulateanexternalobjecyOuSi11have

oposulaeCOgr ionwihfom2122 Cogniionistheillumi11aorhereforeimusbe 32

graspedinorderfortheilluminaedobegrasped2327 TherecanbenoobsacleocognliontQinggraspeda 322

evemOmenttitarises29 WerefleconanobjecasprecededtyCOgnLtion 3 33 LingulSicusageindicatesthaCOgnlionhasfo3l CognlionisgraspedaJldicarlnObegraspe4as 324foess32 SinceaformCOnainlngCOgniionlSgraSPedand 3242

SirLCeWeOnlygrasponeformWhaneedistheretoPOSulaceXernaloec

3334 Removalofpossibleoecions heargumenaioninYerSeS3132

Ifcognltionlackedformherewouldbenoway 33explainisobjecSPeCificiypJt7tikarmanima

3539 RelaionofeSarnYiWataIen Objeccausesformoenercognlion

Objecandcognlionarenecessari1yperCeived 35geheroplmrdoretheyarenondiren

4 55 RefuaionofheSaur1tikaviewthafoisa 36PrOducoftheconacbeweer1 bjecZLndcogniion

5i RefutationofheSaunikaviewthaObeCandCOgnitionhoughdisincarenoperCeivedassuch

OWlng heireness57 CognliondoesnodependorlanObjec

472Responseotheclaimhatcognltionisestablishedforbothofus48Response heargumenthacognlionsoecSPeCificiylmPliesaihasform

481neobjecSPeCificiycanbeexplainedhroughcausallink482neresricionisbasedonhenaureofthings483ProofthatcognltioniscausedbyanObject484newholecausalcomplexisthemosteffectivefactor485ConvenionalExpressions49ResponsetothenecessarycoPerCePtlOnargument491Iftwohingsareacuallyonehowcantheybeogeher492neyarenoapprehendedbyhesamecognlion493Vijnavdinsalsoaccephedifference

JayantaandKum5ri1a1WelookedaboveathesyrlChronicconeXofourpassageieisplacewihintheayamaaWenOWlookatitsdiachronicconeXtieiSPlacewithinadebatethaalreadyhadahistoryofoYertheehundredyearsJayantasmostiTediateinfluenceinthisdebateisKumilaHedrawssoheavilyonheSdnyavada5chaperOfKumari1asSlokaVdrttikathatasubsanialporionofourpassageconsissOflittlemorethanparaphrasings ofKumri1as versesKaaokas2 3ediionincludesin aseparae apparatusthoseSnyavadaversesthatareclearlysourcesofsentencesintheyamaarL WegivehereatableofcorrespondencesbeWeenheopICSCOVeredirltheprvapakaSeCtionsofbothtexts

nestruCtureOfKumrilasandJayanaspdrvqpakaSvJ Topic mlr

VYerSe SeC1 n

4 ConnectionwithwhatprecedesSurelyyourVijnavdinpositionisrefutedbydirec 21

PerCeptlOn

5ThetermfyavadarefersherenottothedoctrineofemptlneSSOftheMdhyamikasbu heviewthaCOgnitionisemptyofdevoidofobjectsarthafiinyaieLthatitneitherperceivesnOrCOntainsrepresenationsofeXemalobjectsKumrilausestheermbecausehisSyavdachapercommentsonthepaLtOftheSabarabLaPatbeginsyastzLbraLyayabkathamaqfhanayorakabhednOPatabzamahe28 4FormoreontheuseofthetermfLTtyaVadEntorefertoYogCrasVijnav5dinsratherhanMdhyamikasSeeWatson2 6259nOte9

293 292

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

7/36

58l Contradicorypropertiescannobelong neandthe 37SameObject

62J3 ConcluOnOfth 38

SitionhoseDhamakirtianinnovations thatwerenopreseninDigngaandhencenottakenintoconsiderationbyKumri aJustasJayantasresponsetoVijnavdawasheavilyinfluencedbyapredecessorwithinhisownBrhmapicaltraditionSOKumarilasresponse Vijnavdawasheavi1yinfluencedbyapredecessorwithinhisownMimSakatradiionnamelyheVrtikaraOflwhoseaccountintheSabarabyahisSanyavadachapercomments9

TheEarlierHistoryoftheDebateOurhypohesisconcernlngthehisoryofhisdebatecanhusberepresenedbyhefol

Empty boxesinherighthand columnindicatehatJayanta hasignored a secion ofKumri1asemPtyboxesin thelefthandcolumnindicatethatJayanahashimselfinSertedasection thahehas notinheritedfromKumri aTherearethreecasesofthelatL

terbuherstoftheseSeCtion21ismisleadingforJayantaistheresummarizingtheargumentofKumri asNirZambanavdachapterThusitcanbesaidthatJayantaderivestheentiresruCtureOfhispdTrVqPakafromKumri1aeXCePtfortwoextrasectionsthatheinsertsOnegivingtheargumentftomtheobjectSPeCificityofcognition6bratikarmavyavasth6andtheothergivingtheargumentfromthenecessarycoPerCeptionSahopaZambhaniyamaofcognitionanditsobjectAsiswellknownbothoftheseargumensorlglnaeWithDharmakrtiandindeedJayantacitesDharmakirtiinbothoftheseSeC1 nSThesearenottheonlyplaceswhereJayantaupdatesKumri1asaccountbyimportlngargumensfromDharmakirtiForexamplehisSautrntikaCritlqueinsecion34hardlydrawsonthecorrespondingsectioninKumri abutfocusesraherontheepIStemOloglCalCOmPlicaionsinvoIvedininferringexternalobjectsasthecauseofforTnSWithincognltionWhetherandhowthepositiveandnegativeconcomitancethatwouldsupportsuchCauSationcouldbegraspedissuesdiscussedbyDhamakIrtitakecentrestageinthissectionwhichalsociesDhamlakrtiSimi1arlyJayantasconclusiontotheprvqpaadoesnodrawon Kumrilas corresponding sectionbutoutlines Dharmakirtis specincal yYogcara characerization of cognltions objectmeanS and resultand of the nonLdifferenceofhesethreeHeretooDhar7nakirtiversesarecitedInthefirsthreeouofhesefourcasesnamelytheargumentsftompratikamaVyaVaSthLiandsahopaZambTlaniyamaandtheintricaciesoftheSautrntikainferenceofextemalobJeCtSitcanbesaid thaJayantadraws onDharmakfrtiforthingshatwereeithernoelaboratedaa11OrnOtelaboratedassystematicallybyDignga7KumrilawasawareoftheideasofDigngahisnyavddachaptertakesaccountofthem8butitshowsnofamiliarltyWithDharmak7rtiThelatterhadbecomesufficien1yprominentbythetimeofJayantaforhimtoconsideritnecessarytoinsertintohisaccountoftheVijnavdinpo

BuddhistauthorsareshownonherightthosewhoopposedhemontheleftAnarrowfromone auhorto anoherindicateshaherstinfluencedOratleaswas takenintoaccountbythesecondThuswepositDigngaasthestar ngPOlntOfdlispariculardebateDigngaarguesthatCOgnltionariseswithadoubleformitcontainswithiniselfappearancesofbohsubjecandobjectO TheLactionofcogmiingdoesnotinfactinvoIveanyactivityVyaParaat

9AcompLicationshouldbepointedouthereTheVrLtika7agranEhathesectlonwithinheSabarabTzyainwhichSabarahavingglVenhisowncommenaryonsQtrasl115thencitestheCOmmentaryOftheVrttikraOnSistsofacommentaryonsDrasl135Buum5rilaatributeshisVrEikLiragrallEhaaPafromtheverybeginnlngPOrtionwhichhecommensoninheenverSeSofilouvarttikaVrikiiragmTZTzaMadrasedition abaranOtheVik5raSeeSLokavarikanLralambanavdda16Jacobi191116andTeraishi1997Xumri1asSz7nyatiidachapterthuscommensonapartofithaheatribuestendeniouslytoabara

1 seefrdCCJfadl9advydJeldbhsaT77Caandadl11abcForatranslationandanalysisofPranlasamuccayal8cd12andvrEEithereonseeKellnerforthcomingA

6weborTOWhisfelicitousexpressionfromBirgiKellneL7ThefourthpolntLDharmakirisYogcraidentificaionoftheobjecmeanSandresultofCOgnitionisareadythereinDigngaWhoJayantaalsocitesitlthatfinalsection8nyavda25b27seemsobebasedqnheinhieregresSargumenaPmmasanuLCCayal12ab5iinyavda2829seemstobebasedotlthememoryarumentforcognitionbeingperceivedatPranpasamLLCCayal1lcdSeeSeCion323 fheranslationinhisaricle

94 295

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

8/36

rSeCtion jJoJJJdd6

22 2683 1 ab

3 2 1314 1819c32 21a

32 1tl22322 2327191a33 28324 313233 19c335 3342 38344 219cd

3442 1517

35 5336 424751

37 585961b372 61cd

al11LforthesubjecandobjecofhatactionarenoseparatetheyaremerelytwoasPeCtSOfthesamecognlionNoristhemeansofcognltionseparatefromtheresultWearedealingwihsomehingwhichcomesintoexistencefu yformedasaunitarywholeandwhichonlyonthelevelofling SticanalysISCanbedividedintooecmeanSandresultInsofarasthesethreecanbeseparatedheob3ectbrameyais theobjectpOleviayakaragrd71ydkarawithin cogniionhe meansramais the subjectpOlewithincogniiongrahakakdraandheresultbramarlqPhalaisthecognitionscognition ofiSelfsvasaT7ZVedanaSVaSa7ZVitti12 Thus there are two cenraltheses ofDigngasthatremainedrelevanintheddatehroughouthefollowlngCenuriesCOgnltionhastwoformsSuecPOleandoqectPOleanditisselfCOgnized13ThcVrttikraprObablyinawarenessofDigngaOPpOSeSViinavdabyakinghefollowingpositionsisexemalob5ectsandnotcogniionsthathavetheformsakaaweperceiveOurcognltionisformless14Itisnocognizedwhenitarises15ItisimperCepLtible16eidentifiesthepreciseissuethatdifferentiatestheBuddhistandMimI71SakaviewsasthequesionofwhathastheformsweperceiveObjectsorcognltion tisthusOWlngtOhimthatthewaythedebatebeweenidealismandrealisminIndiacameobeCharacterizedwasinermsOfhisquestionabouakaraThiswasregardedasthecruCialquestionbyKumrilaandJayanaforexampleCommentlngOnthispassageofheVrtikraKumrilabohexpounds andrefuesheBuddhistviewinmoredeailProbablyawareofKumarilascriticismsDharmakirireeStablisheshe Buddhisviewprlmarilyin the Pramavarttikaa COmmenary onDigngasPramasamuccayaqandthePramaviniScayaJayantaaSWehavealreadySeenrefutestheBuddhistviewmainlybyrecourseoKumri asdiscussionbutalsobyexpoundingandrespondingtohepos igngaargumensintroducedby harmakirti

JayantaandKumari1a2TheprevioustableillusraedthestructuralrelationshipbetweenJayantasandKumri1asPdrvapakaSeCtionsbyshowingwheretheirsecionscorrespondedandwheretheydidnotInordertofacilitaeafullerplCtureOfhowJaYantamOuldsandPementshisiTLheritancefromKumrilahatableneedstobesupplemenedbyanothershowingthosePreCiseversesofKumrilaswhosewordingJayantapicksuponWeconfineo rSelvesheretootohepdTrVaPakaSeCtionalone

1efollowlngtWOpOlnsWhichbecomeclearifheinformationinthistableiscombinedwihhatinthepreviousareobenoed1Even the exrasecionsnofoundinKumri1ahaJayanainsershimselfnamelythoseconcemingheargumenisfromtheobiecSPeCincityofcognlionandhenecessarycoPerCeP1 nOfobjecandcognliondrawonversesbymrilanlisisasymptOmOfhefachat harmakirtididnotcreatethesetwoargumentsoutofnothingtheyhadaprehistorypartofwhichfindsexpressionintheSlokavarttikainforexampleVerSeS19c2 and53t711seepramasaLuCCayal8cdandvrttithereonandthevrEionl9d12seepramaaTuLCCayal1 WhichJayantacitesinsection38

seerddCCVadl11cJldddr28 7lfrdJL 17FormoTeOnthepTehistoryofthesaalambhanLyEZmaargumerlasrenecediLIKumrilaseeTaberforthcomingfortheprehisOryOftheaTgumenLaSreneCedinSadypjyoisSeeWaSOn2 626 26

Jdyd282 3 1ndfvdnutddJiJfgJdJ3 56dmddl

16r3 9dprd

297 296

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

9/36

ConventionsintheTranslationrmetranslationisglVeninthisfonSizeInterspersedwiththetranslationareourcommentsandexplanationsinthisfontSizeThesectiondivisionsandtheheadingsarenotintheorlglnaltheyareourownOurintentioninincludingthemistomakethestruCtureOftheargumentmoreexplicitandthemeanlngeaSiertofollow

PhilologlCalpolntSthatarenotpertinenttotheinterpreationoftheargumenthavebeenSeParatedofffromtheotherfootnotesandputinendnotesNumbersseparatedbyacolonrefertochapterandversethoseseparatedbyacommarefertopageandlinenumberthoseseparatedbyfu11stopsrefertosectionsorsBtrasInterpretativeinsertions required to complee thesenseofa sentence are enclosedinSquarebracketsExplanatorylnSertionsthatgobeyondwhatisnecessarytocompletetheSenSebyglVlngadditionalinformationareinsertedinroundbracketsTheformerusuallySuPPlyEnglishwordsthatcouldhavebeenexpressedintheSanskritsentencebutwerenotrrTlereareSOmeborderlinecaseswherethechoicebetweensquareandroundbracketshasbeenarbitraryWehavenotrenderediicetwhenitmerelyindicatesaspeakerChangeWesimplyputinsquarebracketsthenameofthespeakereachtimethereisachangeWhetheritisindiCatedbyiLfcetornotWehaveaimedfortheadmittedlyextremelydifficultPerhapsunachievablegOalofproducingatranslationthatissufficientlyclosetotheSanskritforittobeclearwhatpreciseSyntaCticrelationshipsweseeintheonglnalyetatthesametimeissufficientlyreadableforthosenotcomparlngittotheSanskrittobeabletofo1lowdleargumentSInthosecaseswhereforthesakeofreadabiliyWehaveoptedforasomewhatfreetrans1ationthatdoesnotmakeexplicithowwehavetakentheSanskritsyntaxWehaveinCludedanendnote

2JayantasometimesborrowsideasfromKumrilabutplacesthemincompletelydifftrent contexts to thatin which they occurin theSlokavarLtikaTTleideas expressedinVerSeS1517and19c2 forexampleareremOVedfromdleironglnalhomeoftheargumentfrom economy of postulationand placed byJayantainreSpeCtivelyhisSautrntikarefutationandhisargumentfromtheobjecSPeCincityofcognitionSimi1arlythepolntmadeinverse3 isremovedfromitsroleasanappendixtotheargumentfromreflectionarLimariaonanoectassubsequenttocognitionandplacedwithintheargumentfromtheobjectSpeCificityofcognltionJayantasareaofgreatestdivergencefromKumrilaiscertainlyhisexpositionandrefutationofDharmakTrtianargumentsofwhichKumilawasunawaTeButhisotherinn9Vations are not restricted to themovlng arOund ofwhat was already therein Kumari1aSometimesheunpacks whatisinKumrilamakingexplicitwhatisimplicitAtothertimesheaddsinnewstepsnotpresentinhissourceneWObjectionsandresponsesareinsertedintoasequenceofargumentationthatcomesfromKumrilaThuseveninthosePlaceswhereheisclearlybasinghimselfonargumentsfoundinKum5rilaheexercisesCreativltyinthewayheexpoundsthoseargumentsOn one occasion452he disagreeswith KumrilaHe temporarily suspends hisVinavdaTrefutationinordertoexplainhowhisownNaiyyikaraditiondivergesfromtheMmrpsakaviewthatcognliorlisimperceptibleandcanonlybeinferredButhethenimmediately statesEnoughofthis talkWhyatpresentdowehaveto attack aBrahmincolleague1ettirlgaBuddhistoffthehookSoheseesthedifferencesbetweenNyyaand imSasinslgnificantwhencomparedwiththemoreurgenttaskofdefeatlngtheBuddhistsforthatpurposetheMim5rpsakasareimportant alliesJayantas finalremarkofthe erLtireVijnavda section demonqStrateSWellhisattitudetowardstheBuddhists

1tiseitheremptymindedpeopleorcharlatanswhoexhibitthisattachmenttothetheoryoftheemptinessofcognitionnOtSeerSOfrealityThereforethetheoryOfthenondualityofcognitiontOOWheninvestigatedtumSOuttObelikeami18 rageuStlikethetheoryofthenonTdualityofheWnrdAndrhplikp19

Leitdoesnotstanduptoscrutlnyanditlacksabasisinreality9 lIrrp5 98

JdprVdJlIJdJVvvd gldJlgdrJe

299 98

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

10/36

TRANSLATION21Connectionwiththeprevioussection

CognltionOnlydistinguishedfromothernondualismsThus a11theproponentsofnondualitywhohavebeenrefutedin thepreviousSeCtionVedntinswhoholdthenondualityofBrahmanandVaiykarapaswhoholdthenonduality oftheWordhavebecomesilenttheBuddhistproponentsofthenondualityofcognitionhoweveraSSerthemselvesagainagainsusNaiyyikasinthefo lowingTnanner

Here4noEldualiyofX7hetherXBral1mantheWordorcognltionmeanStheviewthateverythingin eu liverseisX

VijnavdinItistruethatasupposedBral1manthatlacksbirthandcessationhaisSlngleunlimitedandnondualisnotlogicalSOitisabsoluelyreasonablenotoacceptitButasforcognitionvdjianamtupwhichismotnenaryiCharaceriedbybirthandcessationandoccurssequential1yinabeginninglessstreamitaloneevaappearSinthisandthatwayieasapotClothetcThereforewethinkhatitipa3yLimalotherthanitthereisnosecondsupposedentityinthefomofanobject21TbeVijnavdinpushisformofnondualismforwardasmorelogicalthanOtherfomsforheacceptsJuScognltionSOmethingreadilyaccepedbyeveryonenOafancifu1meaphysicalpostulaeBral1manSuPpOSedlyuntouchedbycharacteristicsweseeeverywheresuchascomlngintoexistenceandceaslngCognltionappearlngindifferenformsisal1thaisneededoeXplainourexperience

DolbtDotheformsweexperiencebelongtocognltionoroects

21 ectiorlfromtheNaiyyika eVij6navdirlThOughdirectperCep1 necwegraspanobject

NaiyyikaButwehave alreadyshown22thatwhatweexperiencethroughvalidmeansofknowledgesuchasdirectperteptlOnaretheuniqueformSOfoectswhichare

muuallydissimi1arSohowcanitbethatitiscognitionratherthandectsthathasthisappearanCeforintheabsenceofobjectstheseunlqueformswouldbeimpossibleForWetermCOgniionhegrasplngOfobjecsnOthegraspingofgraspinglJayantahasalreadyshownWhen aLgulngagainsMandanaMiraawhatwegrasproughdirectPerCePionbTtZLyakFaandheothermeansofknowledgeisdiffereniaedbhLnnanOunifomltlePOlnsouherehaifwedoawaywihexemalobjecsWedoawaywiheobviousexplanaionofhisdiffereniationTTLeimplicationisthatcognltionaSCOgnltionislhesamewithrespecttoallofisOtjecsPluralityerersourexperiencebecausecogniionconfronSaPluraliyOfobjecsIfallweenCOuntered were ccgnltionWe WOuld experience an unchanglngmOnOOneOramereblanknOthemuliCOlotlredandconstantlyshifiElgformshasoObvi 11SlyappearousJayanaconcludesbypoln1ngOllhaisprocessofapprehendingapluraliyOHormsiswhatweermthegrasplngOfobjectsWedonottermitthegrasplngOfgrasplng

22ThepreciseissuethatseparatesusVijnavadinWereplyasfollowsFirstthefollowingmatterneedstobeexaminedDoesoneformaPpearOrtWOintheseperceptualcognlionshisisblueLthisisyelTlowWhichariseforeveryone

22 IftwoformsappeartheNaiyyikawinsIftwoappearqthisistheobjectblueandthisisitscognltionthenwhatisthereOinvestigateinthismatterYouwi11havewonPleasebesoWOnmethepunishmenhatisappropnateforhedefeaedFromhereonthediscussionproceedsontheassump1 nhaOnlyonefolmaPPearSFurthermoreJayanarefersback hissecionassainghawoformsdonoappearseefoonOteS69and97museventhotlghhissectiondoesnotexplicitlyrehltethepossibilitythattwoformsappearJayantaseesitasdenylnghapossibiliybyimplicaionmawoformsappearousissoclearlynothecasethatitCanbedismissedjustwiisjokeabotlheapproprlaepunislmenforthedefeaedIfwofomsappearedtherewouldbenoroomforinves1gaiontheNaiyyikaposiionwouldobviouslybecorrectThereasonhahiswholedebaearisesishaonlyoneformappears23

2 Thetranslaionis basedonthetextasedit edbyKataoka2 3anu pdatedversionofwhichisavailableathttpwww1itkyushuuaCjpkkataokaKataokaJNMvijRPdf

2 JayantaishereechoinghewordingofheVrtikraLadbIzinnamarIwLip8281516nthecontexofrefuingheVed5nicnondualismofBrahmanearlierinhisalnikalasmadfJ8rgJ8r8VfvddJAVgreddVfdIfmdIllm 11m8gJ8d8VddVdOreddmJdmvIevieval8rFp47l912

ThereforeperceptlOndoesnohavenondifferenceasisobecbecauseigraSPSparticularformsofingsaaredisincfromeachoherAsforspeechandinferenceheirverynauresare

notpossiblewithoudifferencefuncionlngaSheydoowardheirownobjectsindependenceonhepriorgraspingofrelaionshipsbeweenpluraliemsiewordsandmeaningsinhecaseofSPeeChandlogicalreasonsandproperiesobeprovedinhecaseofinferenceThereforetheseWOalsocerainlyhavedifferenceastheirobjects

2 meideahawedonoperceivewOseparaeformsOneOfheobjectandoneofcogniiongoesback atleast to thikra1eddJ8lgm2814IisvoicedherebyheVijhavdinopponenSOPerhapsigoesfurtherbacktoaBuddhissolrCeknownoheVrtikaJa

3 13

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

11/36

222IfoneformappearsdoesitbelongtotheoectorcognltionIfjustonefomappearsthenthereisroomforinves1gaionTowhatdoesthisformbelongTheobjectorthecognltionAndwhenthisfoisthusinvestlgatedifitbeestablishedthatitbelongstotheobjecthenyouwillwinButifheviewthattheformbelongstocognitionisestablishedWeWillbevictoriousThecruCialpolntObedeerminediswheherfomsweperceivesuchasbluebelong aneXernalObJeCtOrocognlioniSelfHowdoeshisbearontheNaiyyikaobjecionin21ItrendersiirreleVanbymovlngthedebaeoamorefundamentallevelnefactthatwePerCeiveaPluralityofdifferenfomlSWhichwasgivenin21asapieceofprEmajhcieevidenceEortheexisenceofobjecsexlernalto cognlionCan nOW be seenO be compaiblewith noonly the Naiyyikabualso theVijahav5dinpositionForifformbelongstocognitionWehaveanexplanationoftheplralityofourexperiencehatdoesnorequlreeXemalobjecsThefacthaweperceiveapluraliyofdifferenfomswasabeerargumentsagalnSheviewhaWeperceiveonlyBrahmanforBrahmanisoneformlessandpadless1hcognl1OnisdiffereniaedandifitcaninctudeformswihinitselfhenperceivlngOnlyiisquiecompaiblewithperceivLngaPluraLltyOffomsThsthedebateeadlierinthischapteroftheexabouwhetherwhatappearSousisnondiffererlCeMna Migras Advaia Vedha viewor pluralityJayantas viewis nowirreleVantfor theVijnavadinagreeswihJayanaonhapoinnedebaehasshifedoaconsideraionofwheherhispluralityisbesaccOunedforbyregardinglasbelonglngoexemalobJeCsorcognlionitself

3PrvapakaVavdaFormbelongstocognitionQuestionFirstthenWhichoutoftheseWOViewsiscorrecttVijnavdinTheviewthatthisformbelongsOaCOgnitionquesionWly

312NosubstantialdifferencebetweennondualibTOfoectandnondualityofCOgniion

IfitismaintainedbyanopponenOfourVnavdathatitisheexternalob3eciselfbynaturean ectofperceptionthatistheperceiverthenthatobjecwouldbenothingotherthanhelightofconsciousnessSOthedisagreementbetweenuswouldCOnCemnameSOnlyWhatwouldhemotivaionbeforanOPPOElenOmainainahisjunCturethattheexternalobjectisthePerCeivernepolnishaSuChanopponentdespiebeiElganOndualisandhusavoidingthechargeofpostulatlngmOrethanonethgemPhasizestheexternaliyofhaOnethingThusheisinaposiionoholdhaformbelongsosomehingexernalwithourequlrlnga11ydoublingofpostulationObjectionnereisadifferenceowingtothefactatyourcognitionisinternalandournondualobjectisextemalVijnavdinOhyouwhoarebelovedofthegodshowknowledgeableyouareaboutdifferencesTheexternalityofapercivedoectconsissinitsbeingseparaefromaperceiver11extemaliylSnOtWithrespectoabodyAndiftheperceiverisheldtobeabsolutelynondifferentfromtheobjectarEhdEtheperceivedgrdhyLuthentheobjectasyawouldnotbeseparatefromtheperceiverlalazSObecauseitwouldnotbeexternalitwouldbenothingotherhancognitionSohowcouldhisnotbemerelyadisputeaboutnamesEvenhoughapoOCCuPleSadifferenspaiallocaionfromhaofmybodyifitwerenoSeParaefromtheperCeiveriwOuldElObeexemawouldbeofenaureOfcognitionWhichispreciselyOurVijavinpositionWhoishisopponenwhoriesodiffereniaehisnondualismfromViavadaonthegro11ndsthatwhahe claims to exisis externalJayantaisliftlngis posiion from the discussionin theSlokavaT1aandinXumrilastimenondualisticSaivismhadnoyedevelopedPerhapsKumrilahadinmindsomesrand ofVedna accordingowhichhe textemalworldofperceivedobjectsgr6hyaisrealbecauseitisidenticalwihBrahman

313CognitionisestablishedforbothofusBecausecognitionisesablishedforbothofusdisputantsthisfomshouldbelongtoitForabouttheexistenceofcognitionnOOnedisagreesThereforeiisrationalthathisformbelongtocognitionitselfEasyaivaForasiswellknownPostulatingonethingisbetterhanpostulatlngmanyZ4ThetextreurnShere hemainissuenamelywhetherformbelongstotheObjectorthecognltionneinferenceofthissecion31ishaavoidanceofunnecessaamOunSOfposulaionleadsotheconClusionhaibelongsocognlionneopponenholdinghenondualiyofheobjecpOSedathrea

31BecauseitinvoIveslesspostulationkakandlaghavdtVav5dinBecausetheextentofpostulationislessonourview

3 TheNaiyyikaspostulatedoublewhatwedoToexplainhiintheviewthatformbelongstotheobjecttheobjectbeinginsentientbynaureisincapableofilluminaingitselfhereforesomeotherperceivermustnecessrilybepostulaedbecauseotherwisetheinsentientoecwouldnotbegraspedThusidyourposiionhereisdoublethepostulationthahereisinours

4 AlmostanexactquoteofmlaSee8VdV18d8cdI

3 2 3 3

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

12/36

hisinferenceforhoughpostula1ngOnlyonething7hewassi11inaposiionOaribueform heobjectHavingdealtwithhatopponentheVhavadincaLICOnCludethissecionbyreaffirminghisalgumenthaifwewaLloavoidcontroversialposulaionWemuSaSSlgnformtocognlionforcogTnitionisacceptedbybothsidesWhereasanexemalobjecisno

andoherluminousbodieswithoutalsoapprehendingthosesourcesofilluminaionInthecaseofhemoonmOSofheimeitisntevenpossibleoaPprehendthesunwhichisilluminlngiforiisblockedbytheearth

HowaTeWeorespondtoheundeniabletruhofTaberspoinherehawecanseeanobJeCWihouSeelng the source ofthelight thatilluminaesiWe couldsimplyakeias a refuationofheVija5TlaV5dinalgumentaLldmoveonButhenwewouldbelefwithnosenseofwhytheVijavdinthinksha1ightmustbeperceivedinorderoilluminaeWeseetwopossibleexplanaions1AninvisiblenameOrOtherlightTSOurCeWOuldlackthepowertoilluminateAnamecamotrevealObJeCtSwithoureVealingltSelfintheprocessIfaperSOnhasanunobsruCedviewofthenameheywi11seeitOfcourseiLmaybeoutsideoftheirfieldofvisionorobstruCedthusal1thaCanbesaidishahenamemakesitselfvisiblenOtthaimusEbeperceivedTheexampleisthusnoquleSrongenoughOSeCuretheconclusionthatcognlionmusbeperCeivdinorderocognlZeanObjecbuheVi5navdincol1drespondtha11 eXmpleisparalletinallwaystoheexemplinedandiniscasethereisindeedthedifferencebetweencognlionandlighhaWhereastheformerisalwaysperCeivedWhenitrevealsobjectshelaterisalwaysperceivedwhenitrevealsobjectsexceptwhenitisoutDfview26TheproblemwithhisexplanaionisthatwhaheVijnav5dinactual1ysayshereisdlaanunperCeivedagrllila1ightcannoilluminateWeeiherhave akethislierallyinwhichcaseiisfalseOrWehavetoassumethaagrlisusedlooselytomeannounperceivedbuimpercepibleTheclaimabou1ight then becomesrueanimpercepiblelighcammOtilluminatebutitiSufficien1 nly toPrOVeheweakconclusionthatcogniionispercepiblewhichisanywayacceptable theNaiyyikanottheViavadinsstrongerconclSionthatcognltionmustbeperceivedButhereisasecondexPlarlaionwhlChavoidstheseproblemsandhasoheradvanages2WhentheVav5dinalksofhenecessiyofhelighbeingperceivedinorderforioilluminaeheisalkingnoOfthesourceoflighthelampburaherthe1ighofthelamp27thaspreadsoufromissourcetotheobjectthatitilluminatesIftheobjecinquesionisthewallinhOntOfmeIhaveOSeehelightbeweenmeandhewal1beforeIseethcwal1eVeniftheso11rCeOfthatlightisoltOfmyfieldofvisionInwhasensedoIseehelighaswellashewallThespacebetweenmeandwallisexperiencedasfulloflightgiventhatitthespacebeweenmeandthewalllooksverydiffereninthed kAsevidencethatlighwasconsideredobevisiblenoonlyaissourcesuchasanamebualsoinheforTnOfraysspreadingoufromthereSeeayavarEtikaad3138LightEdasisthereconsideredtobeasubsanceWhosetwoqualiiesCOlourandemperaureCaeltherbemanifesOrunmaLlifes1nthecaseofarayofthesunbttharemanifestinthecaseofarayoflighecolourismanifesbuthetemperaureunmanifestHencebohofthesekjndsarevisiblebymeansofheircolourInhecaseof

32CognitionmustbegraspedrstAndforthefollowlngreaSOntOOthisfomlbelongstocognltion

321BecauseitisheilluminatorForyouacceptcognltiontobeheilluminaorofobjectshataredevoidofilluminationAnditfo11ows from that that cognitionasyamustbe graspedbeforean objectisgraspedForwedonotfindthathelightofhingssuchaslampsisabletoilluminateifitis11ngraSpedThisisthehrstofthreeargumentsgiveniJ1321322and323fortheconclusionhaCOgnitionmusbegraspedfirstieprlOroheobjecHowhissupporshemainconenionhaforTnbelongsocognltionislaidoutin34Theargumentherein321canbedividedin hreeneassertionCogniionmusbegraspedflrSnereason1becauseifitwerel1 itwouldnotbeableograspanobjecTheexampleJuS1ikelightifitisnograspedCannOtilminateanobjectWhatsenseaTeWeomakeofheligheXamPleWhyisithecasethaalighinorderoilluminatemustbeperCeivedJohn Taberforthcomingdescribes this assumpion ashigh1y queionablelCommentlngOnheversesintheSlokavLirEEika25haarethesourceofJayanasargumenherehewries

11tjustdoesntseemtnlethatonehastoseethesourceofillminationinordertDSeeObjecsilluminedbyiAllthetimewelookaobjecSilluminedbyhesun25 vV2122

JdvddI

M1eprgrvJelddrddgdIl2221AndforthefollowingreasontoocognitionhasformBecauseforyouitisheilluminaoryouholditobehemeansofilluminaionofaneXernalobJeCthaisincapableofselfillumination22AndifhelighofcogniionisnoperCeivediSObjectisrLOtapprehendedbecausetheobjecsilluminaiohisdependentonthatcogniionjus1ikeapoisnotapprehendedifthelightofthelampisnotperceived

ntheverynexsenencesofheeXheVijnavdinargueshawhereasoLdecEsCanbepreSenyetunperceivedowlngtOanObsruCionCOgnlioncannobeocculTetltyetunPerCeivedItisnotinconceivablehathewasmoivaedoplacehaargumenhereinorderoacknowledgeburenderhaTmlessthedisanalogybetweenltgflEandcognitionln otherwDrdsSuSpeCtingthaheNaiyyikamayobjectthathelightmaynobeperceivedheru1esouthispossibiliyinthecaseofCOgnltionTheVi5anavdinaTgumentWOuldbeigherhoweverifbothlighandcognlionconraswihobjectsonthegroundsthatheybothunlikeoecsCannObepresenyeunperceivedhisisthecaseifweinterpretheVijnavdinargumenaCCOrdingoeXplanaion givenbelow

27 TsphraserenecsXumilasbeandJayanasdiadeIIPraksyaWherewetakethegenitivesasvddrl

3 4 3 5

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

13/36

Naiyyika tcanbegraspedbyanohercogniionahesubsequenttimeVijnavadinAndtha hercogniionwi11begraspedbywhaNaiyyikaByyeanohercogniionnavdinThenioowi11begraspedbyyeanohercogniionSowhatlimicanherebelNaiyyikaFaiguewi11bethelimi

navadinAsyoulikeWhenexhausedyoucanakerestBuyouWillnohavegraspedanobjectbecauseaslongastheilluminationremainsungraspeditisimpossibletodiscemhingsilluminaedbyhatThusthegrasplngOftheobjecCOuldneveroccur33ForhebjecttobegraspediscognltionilluminationhastobegraspedLetustermthisCthecondiiothahastobemetCaLlinOtbeobjecedbytheNaiyyikathattheilluminationoftheobjectisgmspedintheveryfirstmomentafertheoqectisgraspedT2SOhatsurelythentheobjeccanbegraspedTheVnavdinwouldrespondbyreapPlyingCtotheilluminationofLheobjectIfthatbecomesthenewobjechenitfollowsfromCthatithasnotyetbeengraspedatT2becauseitsilluminationhasnotyebeengTaSPedThuswehaveowaitunilhei11uminationoftheilluminaionoftheobjechasbeengraspedbeforetheobjectcanbegraspedandsoonInthiswayCentailsthatunlesstheilluminationoftheobjecisgraspedaexaCtlythetimethatitarisesthegrasplngOftheobjectisPOStpOnedforeverThereforeeventhosewhoholdhawegraspaneXernalobjecmusnecessari1yresoIltoanearliergrasplngOfcognition

heeyestlSieherayoflighhaenablesusoseespecificobjecsiscolouraLldempeTaureareunmanifeshenceiisjJIVisibleThisinerPretaionavoidstheproblemsofhepreviousagrecanbetakenliterally28andthereisnoIongerhedisaLlalogybeWeenlighandcognltlOnhaheformermaynotbeperceivedifobsruCtedbutthelaermustbeperCeivedItalsohastheaddiionaladvantagehaunlikehepreviousitoffersanexplanaionofwhycogniion1ikelighisperceivedbretheobjecisperCeivcdTTlelighisperCeivedfirstbecauseiisalwaysbeweenmeandheobjecieiiscIoseromyeyesrnlacOgnlionisperCeivedfirsisheconclusionhahelighexampleisinrOducedoinstaniateyeonhepTeViousinerpreaionhiscruCialaspecOftheconclusionisnorepresenedintheexample29

322BecauseitmustbegraspedattheverymomentthaiarisesAndevenifotjectssuchasapoariseinfrontofuswewi11notperceivehemwhenthereisalackofilluminationorwhenweareinconveniencedbyanobstacletbetweenusandtheobjec3 ratjbandhakavaid7zuTTdBuasforcognitionOnCeihasarisentherecarLbenoobstacletoitsbeingperceivedAndcognitiondoesnodependonanOtheri11uminationbecauselikealamplsVerynaureisoshineforhbyitselfThefirstsentencegaveWOTeaSOnSWhywemighnoperCeivesomehinghatispreseninfronofusanobsacleoTalackofilluminaionrnlahefirsofthesecannotapplyocognl1 nWaSSatedintheSeCOndsenenceafeTal beweenmeandanobjechereisagapwhereanobsaclemaybelocatedbubetweencognlibnandiselfhereisnosuchgap3JTTlehirdsentenceexplainswhyhesecondCnOtapPlyeiherbecausecognltionprovidesisoWnilluminaionandthusdoesnotrequlreanyoh r

TTlereforeahepreciseimewhenitarisesiis necessarilygraspedIfitwerenograspedwhenitarisesLitwouldnobegraspedatanysubsequenttimeeiherForWhatcouldoccurforiatasubsequentimeaSareSultofwhichitbegraspedathatsubSequentimeOrwhatdidnooccurforiaeimethaiarosetadaaSareSultofWhichiwasnotgraspedthen32 JayaLlasirnmediaesOurCeforhisrecountlngOfhisfamousinfinieregreSSargumenisKumrilayV28

rddCdJJrdJdfcVJJVeAndIeilluminationofhattcogniiondoesnowaitfortheriseofanothercogniionforgiventhatthaothercognitionwouldalsobeexperiencedbyyetanothelherewouldbeaninfiniteregleSS

KumrilawasinturndrawingonDigngaPnzmasamLCCayal 2abjhandruarepdnLEbhaveSeeGaneri1999andKellncrhcomingBdiscussionsofDigngasargum8ntt

Kum1ilassEddhdnEaisthatacognitionmayormaynobecognizedthrougharEhapaEEibyasubsequentcognltionhatsubsequenOnemayhentorrnaynotIbecognizedbyayetsubsequentoneandsoonWhentheagentbecomesfaiguedSeeyaVaCCfmaminiiinyavada191abyreflecingonheircognitiontheiTCOgnltionofthatcognlionectheyceasetodosoTheprocesscomeso aLlend and thereis noinfinieregreSSJayana takes this polnt about fatigue fromKumrilassidd7z6nEaSeCtionandplacesihisownpiiTVdkFaSeCionWherewehavejusenCOunerediL Heprefersoa1lowtheVijnavdin VerCOrnethepolntwithinhepnrvapakaratherthanuslngltaSarlunChallengedargumentagalnSttheVijinavadininhesiddfzanEaSeCtionlaSitisfor umila

28 rnleVijavdinrestaeShepolnabou1ighduringtherefuaionofhisargumeninsecqtion423 fthesiddhaTZtaTZaCLigr7zilabpraka5abprakaSyamprakahyaEiAgainhelieTalmeaLl1ngishaunperceivedlighcannOilluminaenOhaimpercepelghtannCltinateThusiiWOuldbeextremelysurprlSlngifLimperceptibleweretheintendedmeanlng

rnlaheinendedconclusionofhisargumenisnouSthacognlionisgraspedbuhaiisgraspedflrSisconfirmedbyhewaytheargumenissummaTizedahebeginnlngOfsecion44inhefdkfprddrdVJgrdJndJve

3 seeKaaoka2 675nOe2 forthepointhahepairingofhesetwocondiionsabsence

OflightandpresenceofanobstaclegOeSback heAbhidLarmakobhyaFormoreontheimpossibiliyofanyobsaCleordisor1ngfacorinervenlngbeweencognl

ionandisawarenessofiselfSeeWasOnforhcoming12 JayantasummarieSthisargumentinsection45 fhesEddhaTLabeforerefutingltyadapy

dJeVdJdrJlJdcJdgJVicJJlljPrd

3 7 3 i

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

14/36

Notethatwhahisargumentiethatgiveninthissection322esablishesisthatcogniionisgraspedatpreciselyesameimethaitaTisesSeeaOyadaivaLasyoFpLidabadaivagrahapamavasybhaveLaboveandLFpadyamanamevajhdnamLadaivagrhyaEeinthesummaryofthisargumeninSeCtion45 fthesiddh5nEagiveninfoonoe32YetimmediatelyafertheargumenhasbeengivenWefinditstaedthatcognltionmustthereforebegraspedearlierieprlOrtOtheobiecJayanadoesnotsatewhyifo1lowsfromcogniionbeinggraspedapreciselythetimeitarisesthaitisgraspedPrlOrtOtheobjecThereasonisincludedinheversionoftheargumentglVenbyKumrilasVijanavdinhoweveriilnyavada25

cgrdvdCdtedddVedddCeJJdrefdllAndheriseofhecogniionisacceptedtotakeplacebeforehegraspingoftheObjecandaheverytimehacogniionarisesimusbeexperienced herWiseineYerCOl1dbe

TTIuSWehavethemisslnglinkinheargumenCOgnlionarisesbeforeigraspsisobjecLnlisisalsoSatedbyeVrttikara3JIcouldbeseenobesuggesedbytheZighexampleafteramatchisstruCkinthedarkOralighisswitchedonthelighwillhenakeasmallaLnOuntOftimetotravelotheobjectsitwi11iuuminateSeealsoTabersforthcomingcommenonthejusCited5tokavaTtikaversetotheefftctthatitisaMmrnsakaprlnCiplethasomethingmustexisbeforeitcanexerciseisfuncionHePOinStOStokavdrLkaPTTLLyakFaSGEra54abwhichistranslaedandcommenedonaTaber2 567AsDharmakfrihassaid35

ForsomeonewhosepercepionisimperceptibleevenheseeingofanobjectCannObeesablished

3 3BecauseofreflectionraiyavamaTaonanObjecasprecededbycogniionForhefollowingreason iishecasethacogniionmustbegraspedfirsbecauseafercognizinganobjecWefindthawereneconthatobiectavamar5ad5n61asPreCededbycognitionhanaprhenaToexplainhiWhenknowersreflecthisbTjecwascognizedbymeheyarerememberinganumodanLe36firstagraspingofcogniionandonlyaferhaagraspingofheobjecFortherecanbenocogniionofsomehingqualified37whosequalifierhasnofirsbeengrasped38

JayantasformulaionofhisargumenisellipicalOurinerpretaionofiisinfluencedbyhisirnmediatesourcefortheargumennaLnelyStokavarEEikaiLinyav6da2829Citedinfootnoe43andbyaparallelargumentthahegivesatNyayama4iar27739Citedinfoonoel12AttimeTltherewasacogniionCofanobJeC AtT2WereflecLhisoectwascoBnizedbymeinwhichOfeauresaSthequalifiedvifeyaWhaishequaliflerviieFaTojudgefromheverbalizaionofthereflectionOnemightexpectthefacthateobjechasbeencognizedpreviouslybymeBuiisclearthaiisbeingunders dobehepreviouscognitionitselfCOnceChasbeenidentifledasthequalifierandOasthequalidtheVnavdincanappealoaBeneralNaiyyikaprincipleoesablishthaereflecionincludesamemoryofCbeforeismemoryOfOTheprlnClpleStatedinhelassentenceofetextishatifheqifieIhasnotbecngraspedthequalifiedcannobegraspedYoucannocognizesomeoneasalsickCarTierd4inieaSquaifiedbyasickdap4aunlessyouhavecognizedhesickhattheyarecarrying39similarlyifyouareexperiencingOashavingbeencognizedieaSqualifledbyCyOumuSthaveJuStCOgniedierememberedCIfweassumethaourmemorycanberuSedthenifo1lowshathestructureofhememoryinwhichfirsCisrememberedandthenOisrememberedrePlicaeShesruCtureOftheearlierexperiencernluSWeCanknowatthisearlierexperienteatTlinvoIvednoonlyaBraSplngOfO7bufirstagrasplnBOfCfollowedbyagrasplnBOfOWhatishappeninBaTLisnotclearahatmomenistherefirshusagraspingofOasaccordinBtOheNaiyyikasoristherefirsagraspingofCasaccordingotheViinavadinsItonlybecomesclearinthelightoftheevidenceaT2nlefacthaaT2heawarenessofCprecedesdleaWareneSSOfOindicatesthatintheoriginaexperienceatTlanaWareneSSOfCprecedestheawarenessofOFromthistoo4 itisestablishedthatfirsthereisagrasplngOfcognlionJayantasimmediatesourcehereKumrilaWaSintumprobablybasinBhimselfonDiBngasarBumentatpramasamuccayal11cd41AndbecauseofmemoryaasubsequenimecogniionhaswoformsandisselfCOgnizedformemoryasauisnotpossiblewihregardosomethingahasnobeenexperiencednleVrEEiexplainsLAndbecauseafterancxpcriencememOryanSeSOfhecognltionaswellasoftheobjectCOgnltionhaswoformsandisselfCOgnized42sincewehavememoryofhecognltionecognltlOnmuSthavebeenexperiencedeadierKumrilawries43AndasforrefleciononheformofheobjecaSpreCededbycoBnlionWhichoccurslaereVenintheabsenceofheobJeCThowwouldthabepossibleifereflecingcognitiondid

3gThisargumentissummarizedahebeBinnlngOfsection46inthesiddhanEabeforebeingreeddJdcdddrJlddrddrdgrdmdrddJdvlrJm

39YoucanhoweverCOBnlZehasomethinBISaStickwithouCOgnlZingtheperSOnCarrylnBl4 efromhisarBumenin323aswellasthoseglVenin32land322TheapECOrTelaesthissenenCeWithEaEaicarhaPrahamaaranaSyagTt7JeTlabhaviavyamin32ladEasmdd

mmMin3 41erJvVIlmdJdviIJ

mkl43dVJJdV2829

J JJleblddCdell

3 d pdfrdJeJd3 431 plamainticayal54cdForadiscussionofoherpossiblesynacicalinerpreaionsofthis

halfVerSeSeeWason2 62 6andKellnerforthcominBBForalisofplaceswhereiisCitedSeeSteinkellner2 74 SomeohercitaionsnomenionedheearefoundaNefvnZParprak53aadl5P1213adl27c28bP611JayarahascommenaryadThntdtk1 96cq97bP751ThEtvasahgrahqpa6ad2 69Vol2P7 517

ForotherplaceswhereDharmakfrtimakesthepolnhatcoBnlionofanobjecnecessarilyentailscognltionofcogniionSeePramavdrEika3443aband3446SeealsoTbTkabhasd1781816

LiterallyreenJOylngInthiscasethisobjectayamathab

3 8 3 9

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

15/36

noarisehavingdepicedanobJeCofhaformwihiniselfandifinhepasieatheimeofheOrigi1alcogniionheobjechadnobeenperceivedasprecededbycogniionELZTVamKumrilaherederjveswoconclusionsfromWOfeaturesofreflecionlCogJliionarisesconainingheformofanobjecforwecanreflecOnheformofanabsenobjec2AhetimeoftheoriginalCOgJliionheobjecWaSperCeivedasprecededbycognlionforwereneconheobjec1aeraSPrecededbycognl1 n44KumarilasnrscoJIClusionismoreorlessequlValenoDigngasconclusionofcognlionhaviJlgtWOformsHissecondcoJIClusionismoreorlessequivalenoDigngasconclusionofcognltionbeingSefLCOgnizedforifanobjecisperceivedasprecededbycognltionCOgnlionmusthavebeencognizedKumrilahusmakesclearwhamaynohavebeenclearfromDigngasargumetltnamelywhylproveshaCOgnlionhaswoformsdoessoaCCOrdingoKumrilaa1easbecausehefacthaWeCanrememberanobjecwhenanobjecisnohereshowshaheformoftheobjectmustbeconainedwihincognlionathaime45Whahenarehediffere1CeSbeweenthetwoargumentslWheTeDigngatalksofsmTiiKum5ri1alalksofJTtimaT2DigngasargumenisbasedonhefacthaWerememberhecognitioJlaswe11astheobjecFromhishecorLCludesthatwemusthaveexperiencedthecognitionKum5rllasargumenisbasedonhefachaweremembertheobjecasprecededbycognltion romhisheconcludesthawemushaveexperiencediasprecededbycognitionJayanalgnOleSKumarilasfilSconclusionHementionsneiherhefacthaheobjecisabsenahetimeoftherenectionnOrtheconclusionofcognltioJICOntainmgformHeconcenraesexclusivelyonesablishinghacognltionisgraspedprior heobjecbeinggraspedHisargumenisesseniallytheSameaSKumarilasargumentforthatconclusionbutheclarineswhacouldberegardedasobscureinKumrilai1WhasensedowereneconeobjecassubsequenocOgnlionHisansweramounts WereflectoniascogniedieaSqualifiedbycognitionSincecognlionishequalifierifollowsfromhemaximabouqualiflerandqualifiedthaimushavebeengraspedfirsbohinthememoryandineoriginalexperience

324Therelevanceofcognltionbeinggraspedbemainissue3241Agraspedcognltionhasform

AndcognitionbeingnecessarilygraspedLYasaresultofthethreepreviousargumentsCannOtbegraspedwithoutsomeformSOCertainlyitmusbegraspedwithform

TheargumenherecouldeitherderivefromwhajshypotheicallypossibleorfromwhatisempiricallyObserved1IfcognitiontackedformWhatwouldtherebetograspltwouldbecompletelytranspare1tlikeemptyspace2WedonoremembermerecogniionsbualwaysacogniLionqrsomeEg

3242AnexternalobjectisereforeredundantAndgivenhatacognltionwithformisgraspedhowcanherebesomeexternalotjectSeParatefromthatcognitionforwedonotgraspasecondfoSoJayantahasncrwsatedtherelevanceoftheargumentsin321322and323SinceweknowfromhosethreeargumentsthatcognltionisgraspedWeCanknowthaithasformSinceihasformWehavenoreasonoacceptheexistenceofaJXtemalobjectforwedonotgrasptwoforms46ThisargumentgoesbacknoonlytoKumrjlaSeetheapparatus heeditionbutalsootheVFtikraHewritesLWedonotperceivedifferentformsOneDftheobjectandon6 fcognltionAndforuscogniionisperCeivedperCepiblemereforeasweunderstandithereisnosupposedentityofthe1atureOfanobjectwhichisseparatefromcognitionLadbhinnam47ThisistheprinciplcBuddhistargumeninheVrttikrassLZnyavadasecionWhatJayantasargumentaddsistheideathatcogrlldo1isgraspedbeforeanobjectisgraspedmisideaisalsohereinKumrilabuitismoreemphasizedbyJayanaitismenticmedinallhreeoftheargumentsleadinguptcrthissectioJliTltheparaphrasesoftheseargumentsatthebeginnlngOfsections4344and46aJldiJltheparaphraseofthis324argumentatheeJldofsectn4648WhapreciseTOledoesitplaySurelytheaEgumentdoesnotrequlreitforglVenthatweonlygrasponeformthemerefacthawegraspcognltionwihfoise1 ughoestablishhatwedonotgraspanobjectthatisSeParatefromcognLtionAndifwegraspcognltionhenwemustgraspcognionwihformTTLatmayallbesobuhepolntOfJayantasargumensforcognltionofanobjecrequlrlngaPnOrCOgnltionofthecognltionisthattheysupporttheconenionthawegraspcognltionMuchweighhangsoJlsCOnentiontheargumentfailsinfacdoesnoevengetoffthegroundwihouiHenceinorderfortheVfttik5rasargumenttobestrengthenedhiscontenionthatcog1itionisgraspedpraEyakaCanObuddIzibneededtobesrengherledThacog1itionflrSgraspSitselfandth6nanObjectisnotacuallytheViJavdinsownviewGivenhaforhim

ltheobjecisnothingotherhancogJliion2wedonotperceivetwoforms

hereissimulanelyinhegrasplngOfobJeCtandcognlion

dJmJddfFrdJlCddrJJ

44 wewerehelpedinouTinterpretationofhesetwoversesbyTaberforhccrmingWhodrewOuraenionOUmbekasdivisionofhefeauresofherenecionin woOneyieldingonecoTICluSionandlheotheryieldingtheother

45 mighbeobjecedhaDigngainendedhisconclusionofcogniionhavingwOformsofollowfromthefactthattheoriginalexperiencewasofbohanobjecaJldcogniionButhiswouldbeaninsubsantialargumenthefachatanexperienceisofanoectdoesJlOenailthaihasthatObjectasafoTTnwithinitselfDigngadoesnoglVerequiredsupportlngargumensthatwouldiJldiCaehisobehisinenioJl

46 nleargumenthusmovesfromthefactthaCOgnlionisawareofitselftotheconclusionthatCOgnljonhasformandfromthereothedenialoftheexistenceofextemalobjectsFormoreontherelaionshipbeweenthefirstofhesetwoSVaSVedaTZaandsakaravadaSeeWatsonforthcomingSeCion

17 gyc dddmr281416

m1cnnnynmakarahLBecauseacognlionappearsbeforegrasplnganObJeCtandbecausehereisJIOdetermiLllngOfitasdevoidofformhisformbelongsocognltionalotle

31 311

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

16/36

The Vi5navdin here anticIPateS and rqectshe Naiyyika view that sinee cognltions objectqSpeCificitycanbeaccountedforbythefactthatitiscausedbyitsparticularobjectWedonotneedtoresorttotheassumptlOnOfformwithinitTTle Naiyyikas conceptualized the Telationship between object and cognltlOn aS that ofproducerUanakaandproducedUanyaTTlebackgroundmodelisthatoftheGrammariansaCCOrdingtowhichtheactiondenotedbyaverinthiscaseeactionofcognltiondenQtedbycQgnlZeisbIOughtaboutbykarakasthevariouscausalfactorsthattogetheTPrOdueeanactionDharmakittianBuddhismopPOSedthisapproachbydenyingthatanyactionisinvoIvedincognltionandmaintainlngthattheobjectandthesoCalledmeansofcognltionfarfrompfeeXistlngthecognitionandcauslnglttOCOmeintobeingOCCurSimultaneousywithitandaTenOtSePaTatefromitRatherthancognltlOnbeingadynamicPrOCeSSbeginnlngwithmeansaJldobjectandendingwithresultnamelycognltionofthatobjectitisaStaticnaparastateItisprecededandfo1lowedbysimilarstaticstatesbutineachonethereisSimultaneltyOfmeansreSulandobjectformWhatallowscognltiontobeobjectSPe cisthusnotthatitisbroughtintoexistencebyapreeXistlngobjectbutsimplythatitariseswithisobjecaSitsfomlTTlerelationbetweenoectandcognltionratherthaJlbeingQtleOfproducerandproducedismerdyQneOfspecifiervyavasEILaPaaandspecifiedvdVddItwasDharmakirtiscommentatorDharmottarawhointroducedthepreciseteTminologyofvyavasEhapyavyEZVaSLIzL5pakabhavarelationofspecifierandspecifiedCOntraStingitwithjanyqianakabhavarelationofproducerandproduced51ItispossiblethatJayatltasaccountinthissection33andtheCOrreSPOnding refutationin section4gin which heuses expressions such aspraEikarmavVaSEhathreetimesandJlaviFayatVaYyaVaSEhdhasbeeninnuencedbyDhalLmOttaraKataoka2 9hasShownthatJayanaknewDharmottaraswrihngWhichwasalreadysuggestedbythefactthatJayantaglVeSthenameDharmottaratoheBuddhistmOnkcharacterinhisplayAgamadambanzandisnotSufPrlSinggiventhatDharmottaTatOOkoveromDharmkaradattaArcataca73 79 astheforeqmostcQrnmentatQrOnDharmakrtiinJayantasareaofresidenceKashmir52

333ConclusionHavingablueoectiscausedbyhavingablueformThereforeitiscognitionspossessionofablueformnOOthercausethatexplainsitsparticulardistinguishingfeatureofhavingablueobeCtAndDharmakfrtisays53

Acognitionfocusedon thatblueobjectEatrahavingasimilarnaturetoOthercognitionsofotheroectsintermsofitbeinglikethemacognitionmuSthaveanaturebyvirtueofwhichitisdifferentiatedinaccordancewithitsoect

ThenecessofcognitionbeinggraspedfLrStisanunwantedconseqllenCeraSaTigathatresultsfromheNaiyyikandfmakapresupposionthatobjecSareOfadifferentnaturethancognition49itisuStaemporarystageinanargumenthatisfollowedbyWeOnlyperCeiveoneformthereforeletsforgetaboutanextemalobjecrmeVnavdinsidd7zdntaisthathereisnotemporaldifferencebutthatiftherewereanexemalobjeciWOuldhaveObeperceivedlater

33BecausecognlionscouldnotbeobjectSpeCciftheylackedform331Aformiesscognltioncouldnotbefocusedononeparticularobject

Forthefo1lowingreasontoocognitionhasformbecauseifitlackedformitcouldnotbedifferentiatedwithrespecttoitsobjects5ItwouldbeimpossibleforonecognltiontobeofblueandanoherofyellowetCAllcognlionswouldbehesamcEvenifyoupostulateanexemalobjectyouwi11anywaynecessarilyhavetoteachthatacognitionhasforrninordertoestablishthatitislimitedbyitsobjecandthusdistinguishablefrom cognitions ofotherobjectsForhowifitlackedformcould thisCOgnitionofbluearisingin thepresenceofmanythingsbecome1amavalambetaattachedtobluealonebyeCludingallofthethingsotherthanblueEadilaraforitsbeingacognitionbynaturedoesnotvarywithrespecttoal1ofitsobjectsYGiventhatcognltionarisesinthepresenceofrnanythingsthefacthatithasaparticularintentionalityCanOnlybeexplainedbyihavingaparicularformForifitsnatureconsistedmerelyinbeingafQrm1esscognlioniWOuldsandinthesamerelaiontoallthehingsinwhosepresenceitarosenOthingWOuldlinkittoitsspecificintentionalobjectandexcludeitfromotherobjectsonwhichitisnotfoCuSedAndhowcouldheactivltyOfthosewho actjudiciouslyYlbeproperlyfocusedonthatblueobjectaloneNoOnlycognlionbualsoacivltyCOuldnotbefocusedonparticulardistinctobjectsifthecognltionsOfhoseobeCsdidnohaveheirform

332MerelyteingcallSedtyanjectwiilllOtSuceAnditwouldnotberighttosaythatbeingcausedbybluedoesproducethisrequiredlimitationonacognitionofblue1adadhigalibecausegiventhefactthatthecognitionisalsocausedbyothercausalfactorskakasuchaslightandeyesVLlitwouldundesirablyfollowthatithadthoseasitsobjectstooL 5IseeomDharmottarasNyiiyabindzLEnacaEranyqianakabhavanibaTldtahsadtlyasLidhaabhavabaPiLzLaVaSE14pyavaVaSLhapakabhLiveT7acitedatTosaki1979397nOte7L

52JayaJltauSeStheexpressionpraElkarmavyavasEaasthoughitwereatechnicaltehndesplteitnotoccumnginDhaakT11iDharmakrtidoesusevyavasLhaTlainthiscontexthoweverinPramii137PJvJJ33 g

5 pV33 2SeeasofVffadl34P315Jvrdr8yrJle1mlvymgddmiJVdJg

19 ThisprasaiganaureismosClearlyindicatedbyinhe5tokavLEikaverse21givenin note25andinhisexhcSCnten9COl

5 neargumenofhissectioncomes DharmakiltiSeePraaviJZiicayal3437andPraTIJava7ka33 1319JayanaCites33 2belowin333

313 312

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

17/36

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

18/36

erHowdoestheSauranika thinkthatthenegativeconcomitancecanbeknownProbablynoroughashisversechafaCehzesiperCeivlngaCOgnltiotlwithoutformwhennoobjectistherebutratherthroughehypotheicalconsideraionthaiftherewerenoobjecherewouldbenocognlionwithformWithregardtolacandcrystalandthelikeOntheotherhanditisappropriatetoviewthesiuationinthatway65becauseinthatcaseweseethatthechunkofcrystalisreddenedbyhe1acXInthiscaseofanobjectandcognitionhowever

Itisobvio11Skhaluthatwedonothaveexperienceofcognitionascolouredbysomeextemalobject66 raSlackingfotmbynature67inthewaythatwedoexperienceacrystaltobecoIouredbyanobjectnamely1acandtobetransparentbynaure68

ThereforeeVenthoughanexemalobjectisnotexperiencedseparately6 iisinfeedbecausewithoutittheappearanceofacognitionwithacertainformsdkarqfiianawouldbeimpossibleWeexperiencevariousimagesThesecouldbeprQducedintwodifferentwaysbycognltionitselforbyobjecsexternalocognlionTheformerisruledoubydlefachacognltionistransparentbynatureThereforeexernalobjecSmuSbeinfeTredasheonlypossibleexplanaionInprevioussecionsheVijiinav5dinhasbeenargulngagalnSheNaiyyikaposiionthaheformsweperCeivebelongtoexernalobjecsHehasalmedsimplyatesablishinghatheformsweperceivebelongtocognltionforestabLishingthatmuchtnderminestheNaiyyikaposition13uidoesnounderminetheSaunikapositiotlWhichfordlatreaSOnnOWneedstobeaddressedforhelaerholdsaevenoughcogniionhasformseXernalobjecsaretobeinferredasthecausesofdlOSeformsAsDharmakrtihassaid61

Exernal jectscanbeesablishedfromnegativeconcomitanceefromthefacthawhenthereistlOeXternalobjectthereisnointemalimageJuSasinhecaseofdleCrySalWhenhereisnoredobjecthereisnoredrleSSaPPeanngindleCryStal

342CognitionisnotanalogoustoacrystallVijnavdinThisinferenceisimpossiblebecauseonecannotapprehendthepositiveCOnCOmlanceIhefachawhenanexernalobjecisthereaCOgniionhavinganimageofhaobjecappearsWecannotdeeminehabecauseweneverseeanexernalobjecalongsidebuseparaefromcognlTtioninthewaythatwedoseefirealongsidebuseparaefromsmoke

Forwheredidtheproponentofheviewthateextemalojectcanonlyeverbeinferredobservecognltionwithaformwhenanoqecispresent62andwithoutaformwhentheobjecthasgone664

TheVijii navdinsmainpolnseemsobehathepositiveconcomitancecannotbeknownforthatishowheiIlroducedheverseBuiniheclaimshatthenegaiveconcomiancecannobeknownei

65 TheWOmOSPlausiblecandidaesforinterpretingirLthatwayEaEhaarelashavingposiiveconcomianCehaisperceivedCOnrasingwihaT7VaydlMPalabdhebbeforeheverseand2ashavingbothposiiveandnegaiveconcomitancethatareperCeivedcon1aSingwitheverseTheresofthesenencewhichrnenionsonlywhaisrelevan heposiiveconcomianceweighsinfavourofthefirstButinfavourofhesecondiskaysphaikaqzyahLiaheendofhenexverseWhichimpliesreferenceobohhepositiveandnegativeconcomita1CeSeeheranSlaionofibelowaJldwhichseemsOhaveanexaclypara11elroletQtheaETtahereOfcourseitmakeslittledifferencewhichisinended6bBecausewecannoseebeyondhecognlionoanyexemalobjec

67ThisexpressionirakdrnisargaLtzhjeSemblessvaIahsvacchasvablzavahavingaransparentnatureofitselfaboveBttnOtehaheViilnavdinaSbecomesclearbelow3442aCcepsthacognltionissvahsvacchasvabllaVaHowcanthatbereconciledwiththepresenpoinTwodifferenpossibiliiessuggestemselves

1HereheemphasizesefacdlawedonoeJtPerieT7CeCOgniionolackformbynaureLHeknowsiodo sohroughscrlPureorhoughhypoheicalconsideraionsOnhisviewhisdisagreemenwihtheSaurnikaconcemlnghenegaiveconcomianCeCanbeseenobeslighaJldthismayexplainwhyheintroducesthefirsVerSeaSaSSer1ngdisagreemenregaIdinghepositiveconcomitancealone

2AithoughbohcandheSautrnikaagreehacogniionissvatalLSVaCCTLaSVabTLaVatheirdisagreemenCOnCemlng the negaive concomianceis considerableTheSaurnikaholdshawhennoobjecisherecognlionlacksformTheVnavdinholdsnoOnlythathiscannobeexperiencedbualsothaiisnorueforhimevenwhennoexemalobjecisthereCOgnlionhasfomcausedbylatentimpressionsSoforhimcogniionshavingaransparennatureSVaCChasvabhavameanshaheseLaterLtimpressionsdonotformpartofitsnatureitdoesnotmeanthai1acksformwhennoexernalobjecishereToanswerhequestiorLthenofhowOnhisviewhepresenclaimisleconcilablewihhislaerclaimhacognlionisransparenbynaurehereheisdenylnghaabsenceofexemalobjecmeansabsenceofaformincognlionhereheisassertlngthatlaenimpressionsafeOnlyastrfacemudhadoesnoaffeccognltionsransparennaure

68wecanseethecrysalObecolouredbythelacbecauseiispossibleoseethelacsepafaelyifweremoveifrombehindthecrystalaJldwecanseethatthecrystalistransparentbynaturebyakinghelacaway

6 ButonlyviaacognltionhaYingltSfom6 prdIfJcddl5cd62 ThisistheposiiveconcomianceWearedealingherewithcausalratherthanloglCalCOn

COmianceinotherwordseanalogousposiiveconcomianCeinecaseofEireaJldsmokeisnotlwhenhereissmokethereisfirebuwhenhereisfirethereissmoke

OnceacausalrelaionhasbeenesablishedbycausalconcomiancehelogicalconcomianceCanbeknownForexactlyhowacausalrelaionisesablishedaccordingODharmakTriSeeInami 9 9 9

6 Thisisthenegaiveconcomiance64 JayanahasalreadygivenhisverseinhehrsdlZikaVolp411415inhecontextof

SakarqfiidZaVadabeingpufoIWardasawayofesablishingthatheprarZapIzalaisnodifferenfromtheJrd

3 7 3 6

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

19/36

344TheinferenceofanexternaloectisnotwaNantedAndeven71posulaingheformoftheobjeconhegroundshatheappearanceofimagesincogniionwouldbeimpossiblewithoui2isnoappropriateForiisnotaroyaldecreethatanoectmushaveformWhatcrimewouldresultifiwerecognlionalonethathadblueandthelikeasitsforms

3441DisagreementofnameonlySautrnikaBecausewhatweexperienceisconnectedwithformss Chasbl eitistheoectTheSautrantikahereabandonstheposiionthaWeeXPeriencetwofomlSaCCePsharecxpetienceOnlyonebupreferstolabelthepossessorofthatformastheobjecWhenweinteractwitheformsWePerCeivewehinkweaTeinerac1ngWithobjectsnotwihourowncognltionSOWhycanwenottSehewordobjecforhepossessorofheformsweexperienceVijnavdinnthatcasethedisagreementbetweenusconcernsnamesonlyaSIhavesaid73forwebohaccephahereisnosecondformlnsection222eVijnavadinsaedhatifonlyoneformappearshenthecruCialissueiswheheritbelongs heobjecortocognltionIfdleformerthentheVijnavdinlosesthedebatelsthatnotconradicedbyhisattiudeherehattherewouldbenosubstantialdifferencebetweenhisownpositionandthaoffomlbelonglngoheobeCNobecausetheSautrikatypeviewthatisbeiJlgPuforwdhereacceptsthatlheottiectwhichhasformdoesnotfa1lousidecognition

3442ExplicabilitywiththehelpoflatentimpressionsSautrnikaBecausecognitionistransparentisdirt74musbecausedbysomethingelseVav5dinIcanbecausedbylatenimpressionsofigrLOrarLCeCognitionalthoughransparenofiselfbeingweigheddownbytheforceofbeginnlnglesslaerLimpressiorLSofignoranceXllJappearsasifisbodywerecontaminatedbyhemudofmanyformsXivAndbecausethesuccessionofthevariouscognlionsandhesuccessionofthevariouscorTeSPOfLdiilgjiatentimpressionsXYareJuStlikesproutsandseedsbeginnlnglesshereisnooccasionoaskFromwheredoesthelatentimpressionarise

DoesthisversesayanyhingthahasnobeensaidinhepreviousverseandheintervenlngPrOSeTheOnly possible difference we can discemishaSince the subjecOf the previous verseisheNityIumeyabyarthavadinietheSautrtikaandthesubjecofisoneisweWhichcouldbeakenasweVijav5dinsJayanamayhaveinendedthepreviousverseasakindofprasangafollowlngfromtheSaunjkaviewhaheexernalobjecCanOnlybeinferredneVereXperiencedandthisoneassa1ngheVijnavdinsowrlvieweSautrnikasaSaresultofheirownpresuppositionsIShouldnobeabletoexperienceheposiiveornegaiveconcomianceandneihercanweexpedenceem

343TheappearanceoftwoseparateformsWedonoexperiencetheposiiveconcomianceforaswehavealreadysaid6twodifferenformsdonoappearIfaswellasexpedenclnganimagewihincogIllionWehadasecondpercep1 nOfthecxtemalobjectdirectlyWeWOuldhavegroundsforasser1ngheposiiveconcomianceThusalhoughheSaunikahasOtPreviouslypuforwardheideaofwosepaTaeformsoneofheobjecdirec1yandonebelong1ngOCOgnitiontheVijnavdinarguesagainstsuchaviewhereandheSautrnikadefendsitlaerinissecionOriftwoformswereaccepteditwouldbedifficultoreplytothecriiquethatinfiniteregressresultsIfoneteachesthattheformoftheobjectisdirectlyperceptibleandthefomlOfhe cognitionCauSedby thatobjectisalsoperceptiblethenhefollowingChainofreasoningisunavoidableThefomoftheobjectfirstofallisgraspedbyacognlionwithformNowthefomofthecognltionalsoSinceiisgrasped7 musbegraspedbysomefurhercognitionwithformntShereisaninniteregressaniFhaXlSautrntikaLehecogniionwithformthagraspsheobjectbeheld tobeselfilluminalngthenitwi11notdependonafurthercognltionSOtherewi11benoinfiniteregreSSTheSautrantikadefendsheposiionhawehavewocognltlOnSOneOfheformofheobjecandoneOftheformwithincognltlOnL Butthesecondcognltiondoesnorequlreahirdcogr111 ninorderforittobe cognized foriis cognized byiSelfdlrOughselfilluminationHencetheinfiniteregressisavertedbutthesepaTaeexperienceofheformofheobjecispreservedVijnavdinInhacaseweshouldjustaccepttheselfTill11minatingorTnCOinngCOgnltionaloneforthereisnoappearanceofaformoftheobjectseparatefromthatXLNowthayouareaccepingthatheformCOnainingcognitionisselfTilluminatingforWhareasondoweneedasecondformbelonging heobjectThefirstofthetwocognltionsthatoftheformoftheobjectisredundarlforhesecondcognltionCOntainswithiniselfheformoftheobjec

71ThefuncionofevenapiistomaTkheconrasbetweenhepreviotSSentenCeSrejectingthaaformofheobjecseparatefromtheformofcognLioneaTnOuSandhissentencerqectinBthatsuchaformoftheobjectcanbeiftferred

72AstheSauntikadidabovein341alahprlzagananub7LyamanopEb6hyort7zabsakaraVd l e

73Insecion312anopponenputforwaTdthesamekindofviewasheSauikaadvanceshereandtheVijnavdinmainainedaSherethaWhatresultedwasadisagreemenabounameSOnly

74 ForexampkbluenSS69seesecion2217 ThaitEsgraspedfo1lowssraighforwardlyfromeopponentsclaimthatwegraspnotonly

theformofheobjecbualsoheformofhecogniionakaTadvEZyaPlEZtibh6sa

319 3 8

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

20/36

SinceheVijnavdinasslgnS 1aenimpressionsfu11responsibiliyforexplaininghowformsoccurincogniionevenwithouatlyeXtemalobjectsiisnauraloaskwherelaentimpressionscomefromButforlheVijanavdinlaenimpressionsaLldcognlionsareanalogollSosprousandseedsOrChickensandeggsalhacanbesaidishaheycomefromeachotherandhavedonesobeginnlnglesslySobecauseitispossiblethatthevarietyofformsincognitionarecreatedbythevarietyOfbeginnlnglesslatentimpressions1etsbedonewithanextemalobjeceVenOnethatisonlyinferableThusitisestablishedthatthisformbelongstocognitionalone

35BecauseanoectisnecessarilyperceivedtogeherwithcognltionForthefollowlngreaSOntOOitistocognltionthathisformbelongs

351BecauseofpositiveandnegativeconcomianceForwithoutcognitionnothingofthenaureofanobjectarlhardpaisexperiencedanyWhereButcognitionisclearlyexperiencedevenwhenthereisnoextemalobjectbutthereisaperCeivedfomasinthecaseofmirages75illusionsetcThusweknowthatformbelongstocognltionalsothroughpositiveandnegativeconcomitanceThenegativeconcomiancewascxpressedinhefirssentenCeWhenhereisnocognlionthereisnoexperienceofanyformThenexSenenCeimpliedtheposiiveconcomianCeWhencognlionisthereformsareperceivednequalifier LevenwhenhereisnoextemalobjecservesOeXCludethepossibilityhaitisnotcognltionbutanexemalobjecowhichheformsofhemirageandhelikebelong gainwearedealingwihcausalnOloglCalconcomiance

352 ectandcognltionarenondifferentAndifanobjecthadanaturethatexistedseparatelyfromcognltionthenitwouldbeexPeriencedevenwihoutacognltionButthisisnotthecaseThereforecognitionandobjectarenondifferentAsDharmakirtihassaid76

Blueandis cognltion arenondifferentbecausethey arenecessarilyperceivedtogether

Viewrefuted earlieris thatheserepreserlajonalformsbelong noexclusivelytocogrutionleavlngexternalobjecsasmerelyirlferablebutjointlytoboththecogrlliorlandtheexernalobjectRatherhan beinglocaed wihin consciousnessthey arelocated athemeetlngPOlnOfconsciousness andextemalobjec

Forifwerstexperiencedseparately an objectwithoutformandcognitionwithoutformandthenexperiencedthecognltionandtheobjectWhenincontacttOhaveformthenfromthatwecouldacceptthisformtobeanemergentpropertyofthecontactButthissequenceofexperiencesdoesnotexisLFurthermoreWehavealreadysaidthatcognltionssuchasrememberinganddreamingdohaveformeVenthoughtheylackacorrespondingextemalobject77sohowcouldformbeanemergentpropertyofcontactIfformrequiredcontacttoemergeWeWOuldnotbeableoeXPlainiseXisenCeindreamsandthelikeWherecognltionisnotirlCOnacwiharlyObjec

37Contradictoryproperties371Cannotcohabiinsingleobiects

MoreoverhowcanmutuallycontradictorygenderscohabitinasingleobjectdenotedbythewordsrmdThethreewordsarereSPeCtivelyneuerfeminineandmasculineaTLdyettheycanallbeusedOreferoSaS

ndforawanderingmendicantamaleloverandadoghowcanaslnglethingnamelyWOmanbecome theobjectofthreedifferentperceptlOnSaCOrPSeafemaleloverandfoodThe exampleisan 1d orleand commonlyusedSee thecitatiorlSfromtheSloktlVarEEikaPTVmaVarElikaLfVaVrEEiSarvadarianasaTigrahaandesewherein theNyL5yamE7TyarZglVenbyKataokain theapparauSotheediionItisnoClearwhetherthewomaniserlVisagedasbeirlgdeadoraliveThefacthathedogregrdherasfocdstggeSishatsheisdeadPeThapsihe1eildiciliismediiatlrlgOrlherCOrpSeinordertodeepenhissenseofthetrarlSjoriness andunsatisfactorinessofaZJaTLcexisterlCePerhapsherecerltneSS OfherdeathexplairlSWhythemansillseesherashisloverAltemativelyhoughsheisalivethemendicanmayseeherasacorpseinorderoenharlCehisdispassionvairagyaandhedogmayseeherasapoterLtialgiveroffood

36RejecionofheSautrantikaviewthatformresultsfromcontactAndformcannotbeanemergentpropertyofthecontactbetweencognitionandobjectnisisaSaunikaviewadvancedinheSlokavdrEtikaaCCOrdingowhichweexperiencerepresentaionshat arisefromobjecSand cognlioncomlnglnOCOnactThedifferencefromheSaurnika

77 whaheacuallysaidin351wasthacogniionsofthingssuchasmirageownsandi11uSionshaveformeVenhoughheylackacorrespondingexternalobjecL hspeakinghereofrememberinganddreamingheisdrawlrlgOnSIyaVada5lcdLfnrELsvapnadLbodzecSdalZakdraEaEavalAndforyoumemoriesanddreamCOgnitionsshouldbedevoidofformsinceyouholdformtoarisefromconactbeweerlCOgrliiorlarldobjecandthereisrlOSuChcontacinthosecases

75ThewordganElaTValagamacual1yrefersonlyOOnekindofsuperiormiragenamelyFaaMorgana

7mfJ154ab

32132

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

21/36

edgeasresultrisallcompletedwithinasingleentitynamelycogniionalone8 ForitshavingtheformofanobjectistheobjectofknowledgeiShavingtheformofheperceiveris themeans ofknowledgeand selfCOgniionis the resultAsDigngaLaught81

The appearanCe thatcogniionhasyaddbhdsamishe objecOfcogniionbrmeyaAndcognitionsmeanspramaandresultOhalaarerespectivelyhefomofheperceiverandselfcogniionTTlereforehesethreeieCOgniqtionsobjectmeanSandresultarenotseparatefromoneanother

ThereforeiisthiscogniionalonewhichSinceiSSeelngOfiSeSSenCeisoverurnedbythecoqueryilasa1YlioflaentimpressionsofbeginninglessignoranceXYiiLislookeduponasifitisdividedintoperCeiverperCeivedandpercept1 nButoncelgnOranCehasceaseditbecornesabsolutelyransparenOrnothingislef82ThishasbeensaidbyDharmakrti

Thereisnothingelse herthanthecognitionitselfhatisexperierLCedbyacognition83Texperiencingofhatcognitionisnotanothercognitionbecauseoftheabsenceofanobject tobegrasped andagrasping subjectinthaCaSe XtTILaloneshineshrthbyitselfAlthoughthenatureofcognitionisurldivideditisexperiencedbythosewhoseseelnglSmisakenasthoughitweredividedinOPerCeivedIPerCeiverandperception85

ThehreestandforgTiihyakdragrahakdkLiraandsvasZViEliheobjectmeanSaJldresulofcognitionprlmedddJ

HowcanasingleindividualwomanbecomethereferentofamasculinepluralformintheCaSeOfdarabawoman7Andhowcan things besingularandoffemininegenderwhen theyareelsewherepluralandofadifferentgender7BasinhecaseofaPdgdr9

Andfina11yhowcanOneOfthetwoformsshortandlongWhicharegraspedrelativetoeachotherbelocatedasrealinasingle jectTmakesnosenseOCallanobjeclongpersebecauseherewi11besomeobjecsincomparisontowhichiisshortWehavehadthreekindsofcaseWOrdsofcontradicorygenderandnumberseemlnglyrefemng heSameObjectWjdelydivergenperCep1 nSSeemlnglyofhesameobjecarldpalrSOfconradictoryatTibuesapplyingoaslngJeobeCinhaincomparisontosomethingsitisoneandincomparisonthersitistheoherThecontradictorywordsPerCeptionsandattributescannotandthusdonobe

long rrefertooneandhesameobjecforheVijnavdinEoroneadthesamethingcanOhaveCOntradicoryproperties

372uttheycanresideindifferentcognitionsInhecaseofcognltionshoweverthereisnocontradictionbecauseheyaredifferentfrorneachotherarisinginaccordancewiththevariousdifferentlatentimpressionsthathavetheroleoftheircoOPeratlngCauSeSTheTeisnocontradictionin thesensethahecontradictoryproperjesnolongerbelong hesamehingTheybelongOdifferenCOgnlionsAndwhyshouldnoCOgnLtionsbedifferentglVenthattheyarecondiionedbydifferentlaenimpressionsThewordsnaksaLramEarakdarldLLyalzareheconentsofandsignierswihinSeparaecognlionstheydonoal1denoteoneandhesameobjecnaksaramappearsinonecognitionandEaainanOtheTbecausehosetwocognlionshavedifferenlaenimpressionsconditionlngheirarislngThefactthatthemendicanttheloverandhedogal1perceivethewomansbodysodifferenlywouldbepuzzlingifhenatureoftheirpercep1 nSWeredeerminedbyheselfsameexLtemalobjectItbeCOmeSeaSilyexplicableiftheformstheyperceivebelongno neandhesameobjecbutoheirindividualcognltionseaChofwhichwillbeshapedbydifferentlatenimpressionsTheideashortarisesfromsomeonessubjectivejudgmeniisnoaproperyhabelongstoanindependentlYeXistingexernaobjeccTrTlfacnOrieXiserilocusitwouidbeconiradictecL yOpPOSiepropertiS

38ConclusionofthePdrvapakaThereforethisworldthatweexperienceisnothingbutcognitionWhichappearseveryWhereinadifferentwayOtherthanitthereisnosuchthingasanobjectAndthiseverydayinteractioninvoIvingXYimeansofknowledgeLobjecOfknowledgeandknowl

8 TheVinavdinisheredeliberaelydisagreeingwihtheviewputbyVSyyanaathebeglnnlng OfheNydyabhdyaanddefendedbyJayanaearlierinhisexhaal1ofhesehreebramaPrameyaPramiiplusheagenofknowledgepramdLareseparaelyexisingcategofieswhichtogetherdonotformaslngleentLtyandwhichareallrequiredforeverydaylnteraCtionvyuvLlizdraFormoredeailontheNyEiyabhyapassageandJayanascommenaryoniSeeendllOteXVi

8rddmC1182JayantaofenmentionshesewOpOSSibiliiesashetwoconcep1 nSOfnilVahaBud

dhistsofferedSeeforexampleNyayama4iarFp43945TZilVdrzLidipaddkzyeyamapavargapIzLSugaabJsanFaLyCCLedamicchanEiSVaCCvaJHdnasauadmltTheBuddhissholdhatemancIPaionWhichheydenotewihwordssuchasnLrvaiseiherhecessationofthestreamofcogniionsorhebecomingpureofthatlstreamOfcognitionsSeealsoAgama4ambara4415Schmihausen2 72 5mentionsWOViewsregangwhahappenSoalayavUaLaWhenArhatshipisatainedhaiceasesalogetherandhaitispreservedbuemptiedofunwholesomeseeds

83 leinheterminologyofourtexformbelongsocognlionnottoanobject138CfTosaki19851 11gj prdIdVfnfgcydl44dVJJj3353CfTosi19854 178Namelyneuter79SixownSminineSlngular

323 322

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

22/36

ayantanowconcludesheexpositionofVijavdawithaverseofhisowncompositionSomeonewhointhiswayiEiseesthatltithiswholeworldisindeedmerelyCOnSCiousnessdevoidofanythingofhenatureofanobjectquitstheseriesofsufftringsandattainsaftarlessniTVdT7a

412EvenBuddhistsassumethedifftrenceofperceiverandperceivedFurthermoreyOuaCCePthacognltionishepolntOfreferenceforthesenseofselfisofthenatureofblissandthelike89andisasifactivetowardsitsobject9 AnobjectOntheotherhanddoesnohavesuchanature91Thereforehowcouldhesetwobeidentical

413FormsPeartOuSaSOecsofilluminationnOasilluminatorsEventhoughiisrlOthecasehatwoformsappearalongthelinesofTTlisisacognltionandmisisanobject92neverthelessthisformthoughsingleWhenitappearsaPPearSaSanilluminatedoectandnoasanilluminaorInhecogniionthisisbluetheformoftheperceivedobjectbl11eappearscompleelyseparaedfromitsperceiveritiscertainlynotthecasehatitappearsasidenticalwiththeperceiverieaSIamlue

4SiddhntaTothisitisrepliedasfollows

41Thereisnonondiffbrencebeweenperceiverandperceived411Becausecontradictorypropertiescannoexistogeher

Asyouknowkhalu86henaureofacognitionXXbeingsingleCannObebothperCeiverandperCeivedbynaturebecausethenaturesoftheperCeiverandtheperceivedbeingmutuallydissimilarCannOtCOhabitinoneandthesamelocusJayantaurnsbackontheBuddhistthesamealgumentthatthelaterusedinsecion37namelyhadissimilarpropertiesmusbelongOdifferenhingsToexplainbeingacognitioninnaturebodharatdremainingasitdoesthroughotltsuchasequenceascogniionofbluecogniionofye1lowcognitionofwhiedeSPitethearislngandceaslngOfblueyellowetcisdeterminedtobedistinctomblueetcthroughpositiveandnegativeconcomitance87ThesensehereofalrVayaposiiveconcomianceandvyaiTeknnegaiveconcomianCediffersfromhewaylnWhichthetermswereusedinsections34and35WhichwasheirmoreusualmeanlngAsWePaSSfromcogniionofbluetOCOgniionofyelLowhereisanvayaofthecognitionOrStrictlySPeakingOfhebodzarLJLahefacOfbeingcogniionbynaureinhesensehaicontinuesanuibutthereisvyalirekaoftheyellowbecauseisupercedestlaLiricieappearsinseadofthebuesincethecognlionnaureconinuesbutheobjectsareconstantlYSuperCededCOgnltionandObjectmusbemuual1ydissimi1aTandcannobenondifferent

42ThegrasplngOfanobjectrequlreSaperCeiverbuthatdoesnomeanthattheperceiverisitselfgrasped

MoreoveriisindeedcorrecthatthegrasplngOfanilluminatedobjectsuchasbluedependsonanillumirlalngXXIcognltion93ButiisobeconsideredbywhahecognliongraspinghatobjecisgraspedathaimeTbeseWOSenencescOnainadistincioncruCialoJayaLlasovercomlngOfheViavdinsargumensTrueilluminaionrequlreSanilluminaorifweexperienceanobjecWeCanbesurehaSOmeCOgnlionmushavebroughtthataboutButthedependenceofthegrasplngOfanobjectoncognliorldoesnoenailthathecognlionmusbegraspedinorderforheobjecObegrasped

B9 ForNyyaiisnoinfacCOgJliionanaburaherpleasureSukmhaisofhenaureofblissSeeyyamaiUalTp27611dnaldadisvablaVaPPraSlddhamevasukhadehPleasure1ikeCOgnlionisaqualiyOfheselfbuiisnoakindofcognitionForB11ddhismbycontrastpleasureisofhenaureOfcogniioUanaLma

9 cfPramarzavinikayal37PramavarLLika33 8hefirshalfofwhichis cied ayrrIp4 12CfTosaki19794 4 1

dmfvveVrnflJdvJJddVdJddmdmPiII

DharmakhtiishereprobablybasinghimselfonPlamasamuccayalcdSaVyaParaPrailaNaPramPlaLaTteVaSalKellnerforthcomingAtranslatesthisasLCognitionthoughiisacual1yheresulismetaphoricallyreferredOaShemeaJISOfvalidcogniionbecauseiisheldoperformancivly

9 ecSdonothaveasenseofselffeelblissorcognlZeOherobjecs92 5eesecions22 3242and3439IethamuChlgranyou1Buhissenseisimpliedbyhefo1lowingsenenceLyoucon

Clude muChfromiWheredidheBuddhissayhahegrasplngieilluminaionOfobjecsdependsoncognltion asilluminatorItis anideathatwaseitherimplicitorexpliciaSeVeralplaces311321322323and351

ForyouhavejuStuSedthiswayofargulnglnSeCion3787cfAgmr13ygOrV

dEvadbodhardJanavadharddiLEBuformssuchasbluearenocognlionfortheyarenodeqterminedbypositiveandnegaiveconcomianceohavehenatureofcogniioninthewayhaindiVidualcowsareesablishedbyposiiveandnegativeconcomitancetohavecowness

88 ForthismeaningofaVayaandlaLirekaseeStaal196 5455Saal1966648andCardona1967

325 324

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

23/36

ThegraspingofhecogniionisnobasedonyeanothercogniionbecausethaWOuldleadtoheundesirableconsequenceofaninnnieregressAsarguedbyyouyourselvesin322lnfacJayanasownposiionishahecognlionofLheobjecisOratLeastcanbegraSpedbyanohercogniionNoinnnieregressresuLsforhimbecausehedoesnoholdheviewhahecognlionmusbegraspedinorderforheobjectobegraspedHeishusadoptingaVijnavdinpresupposiionhereinordertoargueagainstheVinavdinNorisacognlionselfilluminatlngbecauseitdoesnotappearintheformIamblueAsstaedatheendoftheprevioussecionratheriappearsinheformEIzisisblueWhywouldihaveObeexperiencedinheformIamblueJayanasargumenhereseemsellipticalWearedealingahispolnwiththegrasplngOfhecognlt1 nnOthegrasplrLgOftheobjectIftheObiecEweresaidobegraspedbyiselfthenheapnessofthechargethatwedonotexperienceIambluewouldbeeasilyunders dBuiisnoobviouswhyhegrasplngOfcognltionbyitselfshouldbeexperiencedinheformIamblueSomefurthercondiionrLeedstobaddedaSCahadharasemSLohavebeenawareforhepoinSOutathisjuncurehaheViav5dinaccepshatheperCeiverhasformssuchasblueandhelike94Whenhisconsideraionisbomeinmindlthenitfo11 WSthattheperceiversgrasplngOfitselfshouldappearinheformIamblueThepertinencOndiionha1ayanahasinmindherecouldequallybethenondifferenceofobjectandcognitionSincethishasbeenthetopicoftheprevioussectio4195EitherwayltSeernSClearhajusasheoherhomofhedilemmainfinieregressonlyresuledfromaVijnavdinpresuppositionnotacceptedbytheNaiyyikathesameisrueofhishomoEthedilemmathatweshouldexperienceIamblue

421 bjectionTheappearanceoftheperceiveruStisheappearanceofheobjec

VnavdinBecauseasisstaedin352theperceiverandheperCeivedarenodifferentfromeachother96whatyouaccepasheappearanCeOfaperCeivedobjectisnothingbuheappearanceofaperceiver

7lowdoeshisVijavdinobjectionrelatetoheprecedingNaiyyikaargumentItcouldbeseentorespondoanyoftheNaiyyikaspointssofarisaresponse 411insofarasitsaysthaPerCeiverandperceivedarenotmutual1ydissimilarItisaresponseto412insofarasitchallengestheoppositionbetweerinsentientinertmatterandsclfaWaeSenientandseemlnglyactivecognltionltisaresponseto4 3insofhrasitadmitsthatformsappearto11SaObjectsofilhminationrL7kLiSyab11tdeniesthatthatisenoughtoru1eoutthattheyareoftheSamenatureaSthesubJeCofilluminaionButitisalsointendedorespondspecifical1ytotheimmediatelyprecedingsection42neNaiyyikaSanceherewasaccepanCeOfthegrasplngOfaJlObJeCtbutdenialofthepossibilityofgraspingtheCOgnitionthatilluminaeSthaobjectrakakagTtZhabodzagTTZhapaTheVi3nav5dinresponsehereamouns graSPingofanobjecjusisagraspingofcognitionofhepeCeiverSeeyOyIgra7LyaVabLaSiELb7LaVaEbhyupagaEasaevagrahakavabhasafzforheobjectisnotsomethinginsentienbut one aspeCtOfcognltionnereforeCOntrary tO yOuraSSertionsin42COgnltionis

graspedanditis grasped by the second of the possible means mentionedherenamely selfi uminationHowhisisrelaedotheVijavdinsmainargumenbecomesclearintheremalnderofthissectionifeognlionjsgraspedidoesTlOtlackformifihasformWhatneedistheretopostulateanexternalObJCCtForaperCeivedobjectWereitdifferentfromaperceiverWOuldbeinsentieninnaureAperceiverOnheotherhandisofhenaureofanilluminationJuStbecauseiisaperceiverAndithasalreadybeensaedthatherearenotwoappearanCeS97InhacasearagivenhaoneofhewoappearshequesionarisesastowhichofthetwoheinsentiententiyorheilluminationistheappropriaecandidaeoappearXXiiconsider1nghisObviouslylistheilluminationthatappearsandnottheinsentiententltyAndanilluminaiondoesnoappearwithoutafoml98TTlereforeglVenhaitappearstogeherwithaformWhatistheneedofaninsenienobjecwhidhisdifferenfromthatformOnainingilluminaionTheargumenis summarizedin footnote96Itresemblesbudiffers Eromtheargument thattheVijnavdingaveinsection324

94 seegrivgdmGr2295 ThaCakradharacorrec1yidenifiedthecondiionthaayahadinmidhoweverispeT

hapssuggestedbythefollowingsentenceinheAgaTna4ambaTu78812SakiTnaElnanabpraLMParalra De2S62 5ranSlaesDoesirnakemanifesisownformOrheformofsomehingelseThereisnocognlionintheformof1amblleratherthiscognlionoftheotherthingasdiferentnamelythatagreeSwiththefacsThusherea1eashepolnhawedonoexperienceIambluefollowsaconsideraionofforlnraherhanaconsiderationofnondifferenee

96ItmightseemstrangethaheVnavadinheresimplyreassertshenondifftrenceofperCeiverandperceivedwhenthishasjusbeenreJeCedin41Butheassertionofnondifftrenceathebeginningofthissection421occursnoashesaringpoinOEalineofargumentbuTatheritsendpoinForinherestofhissecionheVinavdinglVeSheargumenhasuppollSthenonqdifferencenamelythatiftheobjecWeredifferenfromcognlionitwouldbeinsentienbynaureBusincebohyouNaiyyikasandweVijnavdinsagreethaonlyoneformshinesforth

uwakaiaeWehavetomakeachoicebetwcenhetwoCleadycognltionbeingoftheverynatureofilluminationbrakd aisabetercandidatebecauseprakaprakdhEeOncewethusaccepthaeogniionappearsandthereforehassomeformthepostulationofanextemalobjectinserLtientbynaturebecomesredundanRatherthatwhichweperCCivetheglahyaisofhenatureofcognitionieisnodifferentOmtheperceiver

97 seesectinS221and34398 WhynoPerhapsheideaisthatifitlackedformitwouldbeeompletelytrarLSParentandwe

WOuldseerighthroughitnisstepintheargumentdoesnotseemstrictlynecessaryfortheapPearanCeformisalreadyhereWeareJuSconsideringwheheritisofthenatureofanittsentienten yOrOfprakanusJayanamayflOthaveintendedthisasageneralpolnteXCludingthepossibilitythaprakcaneverappearwithouformhemayhaveintendedbyitluStthatinthisparticularcascprakdisclearlyappearlngWiththeformbecauseaLlinsentiententltylSnOtInwhichcaseitwouldbebeertotranslaeasLAndtheilluminationdoesnotappearwithoutarm

326 327

8/14/2019 Watson_Kataoka_2010_Jayanta_Yogcra.pdf

24/36

SpeCtivelyheVtinav5dinandtheNaiyyika1isasthoughtwodiffereniJlferencesareinthebackgroundofheextinhesesecionslCognitionisperceivedbecauselikealighitisanilluminationbynaure2CogniionisnoperceivedbecauselikeaJleyeiisameansofbringingabouperCeptionThlSWeCanSeeWhyherein423heVija5nav5dinwantsOaSSerthatheeyeisnoagOOdanalogyforcogniionHedisassociaeshetwoinwoways1cognitionisofthenaureofaJlilluminatiotlandheeyeisno2farfromthembothbeiflgmeanSOnhesamelevelCOgJlitionisacual yproducedbytheeyeWihhisfinalpointhaanillumiflaionthaisnotgraspedcannoilluminateanythingheimpliesthefolowlng SpeCificdisanalogyWhilean eyenOtbeing aJlilluminaionbynaureeJlablesusograspObJeCtSwithoutitselfbeinggraspedCOgnltionbeingani11umiLlaionbynatureenablesusograSpObJeCtSOnlywheniisitselfgrasped

424ReplyAnilluminationisanillminationofanobjectnotofanillumination

NaiyyikaTrueWhatwetermcognitionisanilluminationproducedbytheeyeButthailluminaionisanilluminationofanobjectsuchasacolournOtanilluminationofanilluminaion1 Forwhatisilluminaedbyaneyeisnotani11uminaionbutraheracolOur

IfaSyOuVijavdinjustsaidilluminaionisproducedbytheeyeishouldbeaJlilluminationofWhattheeyeiscapableofilluminatlngnamelyacoLournOtaTli11uminationInthesentencecolourisillllminatedbytheeyewhaisexpressedbycolourisanobeCtobegraspednleaCtionthaisexpressedbyisiuuminatedXXontheotherhandisi11uminaionmorespecificallygraspingcogniionWhydoesJayantaincludethisHowdoesthisconentiondifferentiaehispositionfromtheBuddhisposiionTTlepOintishaforhimi11uminaionisthegraspergrdhakaandanobeCsuChascolourishegraspedgrdhyaWhereasforheVi3navditlilluminatiottcogrLitiorLisboththegrasperandthegraspedAndthecolourbecomesi uminaedbyamerearisingofhecognitionnereforeanilluminationdoesnotrequlretObegraspedIeeyeprOducesacognitionBythemerearislngOfhacogniionCOlourisilluminatedneveTynatureofthecognltioncon