The Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha. Madhava
alone.
If you object: When it is asked, like what? you must quote an instance—we reply: Not so, for momentary objects self-characterised being momentary, have no common characters, and therefore it is impossible to say that this is like that. We must therefore hold that all is like itself alone, like itself alone.
In like manner we must hold that all is void, and void alone. For we are conscious of a determinate negation. This silver or the like has not been seen by me in sleeping or waking. If what is seen were (really) existent, then reality would pertain to the corresponding act of vision, to the (nacre, &c.), which is the basis of its particular nature (or haecceity), to the silver, &c., illusorily superposed upon that basis, to the connection between them, to the co-inherence, and so forth: a supposition not entertained by any disputant. Nor is a semi-effete existence admissible. No one imagines that one-half of a fowl may be set apart for cooking, and the other half for laying eggs. The venerated Buddha, then, having taught that of the illusorily superposed (silver, &c.), the basis (nacre, &c.), the connection between them, the act of vision, and the videns, if one or more be unreal it will perforce ensue that all are unreal, all being equally objects of the negation; the Mádhyamikas excellently wise explain as follows, viz., that the doctrine of Buddha terminates in that of a total void (universal baselessness or nihilism) by a slow progression like the intrusive steps of a mendicant, through the position of a momentary flux, and through the (gradual) negation of the illusory assurances of pleasurable sensibility, of universality, and of reality.
The ultimate principle, then, is a void emancipated from four alternatives, viz., from reality, from unreality, from both (reality and unreality), and from neither (reality nor unreality). To exemplify this: If real existence were the nature of a water-pot and the like, the activity of its maker (the potter) would be superfluous.
If non-existence be its nature the same objection will accrue; as it is said—
"Necessity of a cause befits not the existent, ether and the like, for instance;
"No cause is efficacious of a non-existent effect, flowers of the sky and the like, for instance."
The two remaining alternatives, as self-contradictory, are inadmissible. It has accordingly been laid down by the venerated Buddha in the Alaṅkárávatára[34]—
"Of things discriminated by intellect, no nature is ascertained;[35]
"Those things are therefore shown to be inexplicable and natureless."
And again—
"This matter perforce results, which the wise declare, No sooner are objects thought than they are dissipated."
That is to say, the objects are not determined by any one of the four alternatives. Hence it is that it has been said—
"A religious mendicant, an amorous man, and a dog have three views of a woman's person, respectively that it is a carcass, that it is a mistress, and that it is a prey."
In consequence, then, of these four points of view, when all ideas are come to an end, final extinction, which is a void, will result. Accordingly we have overtaken our end, and there is nothing to be taught to us. There consequently remain only two duties to the student—interrogation and acceptance. Of these, interrogation is the putting of questions in order to attain knowledge not yet attained. Acceptance is assent to the matters stated by the sacred teacher. These (Bauddha nihilists) are excellent in assenting to that which the religious teacher enounces, and defective in interrogation, whence their conventional designation of Mádhyamikas (or mediocre).
Certain other Buddhists are styled Yogácháras, because while they accept the four points of view proclaimed by the spiritual guide, and the void of external things, they make the interrogation: Why has a void of the internal (or baselessness of mental phenomena) been admitted? For their technology is as follows:—Self-subsistent cognition must be allowed, or it will follow that the whole universe is blind. It has conformably been proclaimed by Dharmakírti: "To one who disallows perception the vision of objects is not competent."
An external percipibile is not admissible in consequence of the following dilemma. Does the object cognitively apprehensible arise from an entity or not? It does not result from an entity, for that which is generated has no permanence. Nor is it non-resultant, for what has not come into being is non-existent. Or (we may proceed) do you hold that a past object is cognitively apprehensible, as begetting cognition? If so, this is childish nonsense, because it conflicts with the apparent presentness of the object, and because on such a supposition the sense organs (and other imperceptible things) might be apprehended. Further (we ask), Is the percipibile a simple atom or a complex body? The latter it cannot be, this alternative being ejected by the dilemma as to whether part or whole is perceived. The former alternative is equally impossible, an atom being supersensible, and it not being able to combine simultaneously with six others; as it has been said—
"If an atom could simultaneously combine with six, it would have six surfaces;
"And each of these being taken separately, there would be a body of atomic dimension."
Intellect, therefore, as having no other percipibile but itself, is shown to be itself its own percipibile, self-subsistent, luminous with its own light, like light. Therefore it has been said—
"There is naught to be objectified by intellect; there is no cognition ulterior thereto;
"There being no distinction between percept and percipient, intellect shines forth of itself alone."
The identity of percipient and percept is inferrible, thus: That which is cognised by any cognition is not other than that cognition, as soul, for instance, is not other than the cognition of soul; and blue and other momentary objects are cognised by cognitions. For if there were a difference (between percept and percipient), the object could not now have any connection with the cognition, there being no identity to determine a constancy of connection, and nothing to determine the rise of such a connection. As for the appearance of an interval between the object and subject consciousnesses, this is an illusion, like the appearance of two moons when there is only one. The cause of this illusion is ideation of difference in a stream without beginning and without interruption; as it has been said—
"As invariably cognised together, the blue object and the cognition thereof are identical;
"And the difference should be accounted for by illusory cognitions, as in the example of the single moon."
And again—
"Though there is no division, the soul or intellect, by reason of illusory perceptions,
"Appears to possess a duality of cognitions, of percepts and of percipient."
Nor must it be supposed that (on this hypothesis) the juice, the energy, and the digestion derivable from an imaginary and an actual sweetmeat will be the same; for it cannot be questioned that though the intellect be in strictness exempt from the modes of object and subject, yet there is competent to it a practical distinction in virtue of the succession of illusory ideas without beginning, by reason of its possessing diverse modes percept and percipient, conformably to its illusory supposition of practical agency, just as to those whose eyes are dim with some morbid affection a hair and another minute object may appear either diverse or identical; as it has been said—
"As the intellect, not having object and subject modes, appears, by reason of illusory cognitions,
"Illuded with the diverse forms of perception, percept and percipient;
"So when the intellect has posited a diversity, as in the example of the differences of the cognition of a hair and the like,
"Then it is not to be doubted that it is characterised as percipient and percept."
Thus it has been evinced that intellect, as affected by beginningless ideation, manifests itself under diverse forms.
When, therefore, by constancy