{"id":86,"date":"2019-09-06T04:15:26","date_gmt":"2019-09-06T04:15:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icp05.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=86"},"modified":"2019-09-06T04:15:26","modified_gmt":"2019-09-06T04:15:26","slug":"bauddhadarsanam","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/icp05\/chapter\/bauddhadarsanam\/","title":{"rendered":"Bauddhadar\u015banam"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n

E-text (Quadrant-I) :<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The system that is useful in ascertaining the \"tattvam\" (real nature) is called Dar\u015banam. Since Veda is not taken as an authority and refuted this is considered a N\u0101stikadar\u015banam (system of atheists). It was Buddha, who propounded and expounded the theories of this Dar\u015banam and therefore it is named after him. Bauddhas (followers of Buddha) believe in the four truths. Buddha or Sugata is God and the Universe is momentary. Among Bauddhas there are four denominations.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

P\u0101\u1e47ini rules (A\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101dhy\u0101y\u012b 4.4.60 \u2013 asti n\u0101sti di\u1e63\u1e6da\u1e43 mati\u1e25) one who does not believe in paraloka (another world) is called N\u0101stika (atheist). Bh\u1e5bgu in Manusm\u1e5bti (2.10,11) defines a N\u0101stika:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u0936\u094d\u0930\u0941\u0924\u093f\u0938\u094d\u093f\u0941\u0935\u0947\u0926\u094b \u0924\u0935\u091c\u094d\u091e\u0947\u092f\u094b \u0927\u0930\u094d\u092e\u0936\u093e\u0938\u094d\u0924\u094d\u0930\u0902\u093f\u0941 \u0935\u0948 \u0938\u094d\u0930\u094d\u0943\u0924\u093f\u093f\u0903\u0964\u093f\u0947 \u0938\u0935\u093e\u092e\u0930\u094d\u0925\u0947\u0937\u094d\u0935\u0930\u094d\u0940\u0930\u094d\u093e\u0902\u0938\u094d\u092f\u0947\u093f\u093e\u092d\u092f\u093e\u0902 \u0927\u0930\u094d\u094b\u00a0 \u0924\u093f\u00a0 \u0924\u093f\u0930\u094d\u092e\u092d\u094c\u0965<\/p>\r\n

\u092f\u094b\u093d\u0935\u0930\u094d\u0928\u094d\u092f\u093f\u0947 \u093f\u0947 \u0930\u094d\u0942\u0932\u0947\u093f\u0947\u093f\u0941\u0936\u093e\u0938\u094d\u0924\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0936\u094d\u0930\u092f\u093e\u0926\u094d\u0926\u094d\u0935\u093f\u091c\u093f\u0903\u0964\u0938\u00a0 \u0938\u093e\u0927\u0941\u0924\u092d\u0930\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f\u0937\u094d\u0915\u093e\u092f\u092e\u093f\u093e\u0924\u0938\u094d\u093f\u0915\u094b\u0903\u00a0 \u0935\u0947\u0926\u0924\u093f\u0928\u094d\u0926\u0915\u093f\u0903\u0965<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u015brutistu vedo vij\u00f1eyo dharma\u015b\u0101stra\u1e43 tu vai sm\u1e5bti\u1e25\u0964te sarv\u0101rthe\u1e63vam\u012bm\u0101\u1e43sye t\u0101bhy\u0101\u1e43 dharmo hi nirbabhau\u0965 yo'vamanyate te m\u016ble hetu\u015b\u0101str\u0101\u015bray\u0101ddvija\u1e25\u0964\u00a0sa s\u0101dhubhirbahi\u1e63k\u0101rya\u1e25 n\u0101stiko vedanindaka\u1e25\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u015aruti (Veda) and Sm\u1e5bti (Dharma\u015b\u0101stram \u2013 code of conduct) are the two bases of Dharma and in all matters they are not to be subjected to logic. Any Dvija (Br\u0101hma\u1e47a \/ K\u1e63atriya \/ Vai\u015bya) who belittles them by the application of logic is called N\u0101stika or Vedanindaka and such a person should be excommunicated by noble people<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

So, in any case Bauddha is a N\u0101stika as he neither believes in paraloka (another world) nor in Veda. But a close look at the tenets of Buddhism makes one believe that undoubtedly the roots of Bauddha philosophy lie in Veda, i.e. Upani\u1e63ats<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Pram\u0101\u1e47as<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

While C\u0101rv\u0101kas accept Pratyak\u1e63am (Perception) only, Bauddhas, having refuted the argument of C\u0101rv\u0101kas, accepted Pratyak\u1e63am and Anum\u0101na (Inference). Needless to say, the rest of the Pram\u0101\u1e47as are included in the above two.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Four Denominations of Bauddhas<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

A sentence like \"gato'stamarka\u1e25\" (the sun is set) is understood differently by different people following their will \u2013 a lover approaches his love, a thief goes for a theft and a Vaidika (who follows Veda) goes to perform Sandhy\u0101vandanam (worship of twilight). Similarly although it was a single Upade\u015ba (preaching) by Buddha, due to the difference in the Buddhi (intellect) of the disciples it was received in four different ways and thus there are four denominations among Bauddhas.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

I. M\u0101dhyamik\u0101\u1e25<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The disciples ought to do two things \u2013 Yoga and \u0100c\u0101ra. Yoga means Paryanuyoga, i.e. asking questions to know the unknown things. \u0100c\u0101ra means accepting whatever is said by Guru (teacher). Since these people followed \u0100c\u0101ra they are the best and since they did not follow the Yoga they are the worst \u2013 by and large they are called M\u0101dhyamikas (those in the middle). They declared \u2013 \"through the four Bh\u0101vanas we get rid of the bad v\u0101sana (influence) and now we will get Nirv\u0101\u1e47a (Mok\u1e63a) in the form of \u015a\u016bnya (void) that is required. And no more preaching to us.\"<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

II. Yog\u0101c\u0101ras<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Some disciples have questioned \u2013 even if the four Bh\u0101vanas and void of outside thing are accepted how can the inner things, i.e. the things in the form of J\u00f1\u0101nam (cognition) also be accepted as void? So these are named \"Yog\u0101c\u0101ras\". They argue \u2013 one should accept \u2013 \"knowing self and identifying one's own cognition\". Otherwise no business can be transacted and the world turns gloomy. Dharmak\u012brti explains <\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u0905\u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0937\u094b\u092a\u0932\u092e\u094d\u092d\u0938\u094d\u092f \u093f\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0925\u092e\u0926\u0943\u0924\u091f\u093f\u0903\u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u0938\u0926\u094d\u0927\u094d\u092f\u0924\u093f apratyak\u1e63opalambhasya n\u0101rthad\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di\u1e25 prasiddhyati<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

For one, who does not identify cognition through perception, cognition of things is not possible<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

They argue \u2013 conceiving an outside thing is simply not possible, i.e. the existence of an outside thing and knowing it is impossible by all means. None of the options can stand: the thing that is being conceived through cognition (J\u00f1\u0101nam) \u2013 is it already born or not yet born? The one that is born would perish in the next moment, i.e. K\u1e63a\u1e47ika or momentary, and as such it cannot be there (the K\u1e63a\u1e47ikav\u0101da or theory of mutability is the lifeline of Buddhism \u2013 everything in the universe is momentary). On the other hand, for a thing that is not yet born there cannot be the existence. Take a look at the third option \u2013 the thing of past, had caused cognition and therefore such a thing can be conceived through J\u00f1\u0101nam? This is just childish \u2013 the cognition is: \"the thing is there now\". Moreover, if a thing is conceivable through J\u00f1\u0101nam due to its virtue of generating J\u00f1\u0101nam, then the Indriyam (sense-organ) also becomes conceivable by J\u00f1\u0101nam as it also generates J\u00f1\u0101nam.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Further, is the thing to be conceived in the form of a Param\u0101\u1e47u (atom) or like an Avayav\u012b, i.e. assembly of different parts? The second one is untenable \u2013 whether the complete thing such as a gha\u1e6da (pot) is subject of J\u00f1\u0101nam or a part of it? The complete pot cannot be the subject as in a moment of time one cannot perceive the entire gha\u1e6da. If a part of it is conceived then it is not the gha\u1e6da but part of it. Each single part of gha\u1e6da is not gha\u1e6da but a conglomeration of all parts. So an outside thing in the form of an Avayav\u012b cannot be conceived by J\u00f1\u0101nam. The first one is also untenable \u2013 it is beyond the sense organs and all six parts of a Param\u0101\u1e47u cannot be seen simultaneously \u2013\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u0937\u091f\u094d\u0915\u0947 \u093f \u092f\u0941\u0917\u092a\u0926\u094d\u092f\u094b\u0917\u093e\u0924\u094d\u092a\u0930\u092e\u0930\u094d\u093e\u094b\u0903\u094b\u093f\u0903\u00a0 \u0937\u0921\u0919\u094d\u0917\u093f\u093e\u0964\u00a0<\/span>\u093f\u0947\u0937\u093e\u0930\u094d\u092a\u094d\u092f\u0947\u0915\u0926\u0947\u0936\u0924\u094d\u0935\u0947\u0924\u092a\u0923\u094d\u0921\u093f\u0903\u00a0 \u0938\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0926\u094b\u0903\u0941\u0930\u094d\u093e\u0924\u094d\u0930\u0915\u093f\u0903\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u1e63a\u1e6dkena yugapadyog\u0101t param\u0101\u1e47o\u1e25 \u1e63a\u1e0da\u1e45gat\u0101\u0964 te\u1e63\u0101mapyekade\u015batve pi\u1e47\u1e0da\u1e25 sy\u0101da\u1e47um\u0101traka\u1e25\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

A Param\u0101\u1e47u would have connection with six directions \u2013 four directions, up and down. As such it has got six parts. If all the six parts have got a single place then even if there are so many Param\u0101\u1e47us united to form a pot, the pot would be the size of a Param\u0101\u1e47u.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Therefore since there is no anything to be conceived other than itself, i.e. Buddhi (intellect), just like it shines itself, the Buddhi in the form of the thing shines. It is clarified <\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u093f\u093e\u0928\u094d\u092f\u0930\u094d\u0925\u094b\u093d\u093f\u0941\u092d\u093e\u0935\u094d\u092f\u094b \u0930\u094d\u0941\u0926\u094d\u0927\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0924\u0938\u094d\u093f \u093f\u0938\u094d\u092f\u093e\u00a0 \u093f\u093e\u093f\u0941\u092d\u0935\u094bs\u092a\u0930\u092e\u093f\u0903\u0964\u00a0<\/span>\u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u094d\u092f\u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u093f\u0915\u0935\u0948\u0927\u0941\u092f\u093e\u092e\u093f\u094d\u0938\u094d\u0935\u092f\u0902 \u0938\u0948\u0935 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0936\u093f\u0947\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

n\u0101nyatho'nubh\u0101vyo buddhy\u0101sti tasy\u0101 n\u0101nubhavo\u2019para\u1e25\u0964 gr\u0101hyagr\u0101hakavaidhury\u0101t svaya\u1e43 saiva prak\u0101\u015bate\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

There is no any other thing to be known through Buddhi. It does not have any other J\u00f1\u0101nam. Because there are no two separate things called gr\u0101hya (the one being conceived) and gr\u0101haka (the one which conceives). Rather the Buddhi itself shines spontaneously.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The statement \"tasy\u0101\u1e25 n\u0101nubhavo\u2019para\u1e25\" is meant to refute the theory of Naiy\u0101yikas (logicians). Naiy\u0101yikas argue that Buddhi conceives a thing like gha\u1e6da (pot) and thus one would get the cognition of gha\u1e6da (gha\u1e6daj\u00f1\u0101nam). When the Buddhi conceives the gha\u1e6da, that is outside, there will be gha\u1e6daj\u00f1\u0101na. After having gha\u1e6daj\u00f1\u0101na, one would get a J\u00f1\u0101nam in the form of \"gha\u1e6daj\u00f1\u0101nav\u0101n aham\" (I have the cognition of pot) and this is called Anuvyavas\u0101ya (the cognition that follows the initial cognition). According to Bauddhas the outside thing is not conceivable to Buddhi (intellect). Rather the Buddhi itself modifies the form of the thing, such as gha\u1e6da (pot) and shines itself. Buddhi is just like a lamp, which although shines things such as gha\u1e6da, also shines itself. Buddhi in the form of gha\u1e6da shines on its own. So Bauddhas\u00a0<\/span>do not accept \"Anuvyavas\u0101ya\" of Naiy\u0101yikas. \"tasy\u0101\u1e25 n\u0101nubhavo\u2019para\u1e25\" in the verse means this.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The abheda (non-difference) between the thing being conceived or gr\u0101hya and the one that conceives or gr\u0101haka (here it is Buddhi) is to be known through Anum\u0101na (Inference). The norm is \u2013<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u092f\u0926\u094d\u0935\u0947\u0926\u094d\u092f\u093f\u0947\u092f\u0947\u093f \u0935\u0947\u0926\u094d\u092f\u093f\u0947\u093f\u093f\u094d \u093f\u093f\u094b \u093f \u0924\u092d\u0926\u094d\u092f\u093f\u0947, \u092f\u0930\u094d\u0925\u093e \u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u093f\u0947\u093f\u093e\u0924\u094d\u0930\u094d\u093e yadvedyate yena vedyate tat tato na bhidyate, yath\u0101 j\u00f1\u0101nen\u0101tm\u0101<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The thing, that is known by a cognition, is not different from that cognition.\u00a0<\/span>Just like J\u00f1\u0101nam (cognition) is not different from \u0100tm\u0101 (soul).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Here Bauddhas follows Advaitaved\u0101nta \u2013 \u0100tm\u0101 is a form of J\u00f1\u0101na. Therefore, the \u0100tm\u0101 that is known through J\u00f1\u0101nam is not different from the latter. Similarly the things, such as n\u012bla (black), are not different from their J\u00f1\u0101nas (cognitions). Bauddhas argue \u2013 if there is a difference between gr\u0101hya and gr\u0101haka then there cannot be a relation as essential cause T\u0101d\u0101tmya (identity) is not there. J\u00f1\u0101na born out of thing cannot rule the relation. There is no any perennial relation between a gha\u1e6da and its causes, viz. potter, stick and wheel.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The appearance or experience of gr\u0101hya, gr\u0101haka and J\u00f1\u0101nam separately is just an illusion like a single Moon appearing as two (for a person suffering from myopia). This kind of illusion is caused by the uninterrupted stream of \"bhedav\u0101san\u0101\" (the smell or impression of difference that remains in the mind) that is an\u0101di (beginningless). The following verses are in a summarized form <\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u0938\u093f\u094b\u092a\u0932\u092e\u094d\u092d\u0924\u093f\u092f\u0930\u094d\u093e\u0926\u092d\u0947\u0926\u094b \u093f\u0940\u0932\u093f\u0924\u093f\u092f\u094b\u093f\u0903\u0964<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u092d\u0947\u0926\u0936\u094d\u092f \u092d\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0924\u0928\u094d\u093f\u0924\u0935\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u093f\u0948\u093f\u0903 \u0926\u0943\u0936\u094d\u092f\u0947\u093f\u0947\u0928\u094d\u0926\u093e\u0924\u0935\u0935\u093e\u0926\u094d\u0935\u092f\u0947\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u0905\u0924\u0935\u092d\u093e\u0917\u094b\u093d\u0924\u092a\u00a0 \u0930\u094d\u0941\u0926\u094d\u0927\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0924\u094d\u0930\u094d\u093e \u0924\u0935\u092a\u092f\u093e\u092e\u0924\u0938\u093f\u0926\u0936\u092e\u093f\u0948\u093f\u0903\u0964<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u094d\u092f\u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u093f\u0915\u0938\u0902\u0924\u0935\u0924\u093f\u092d\u0947\u0926\u0935\u093e\u0924\u093f\u0935\u0932\u0915\u094d\u0937\u094d\u092f\u093f\u0947\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

sahopalambhaniyam\u0101dabhedo n\u012blataddhiyo\u1e25\u0964 bheda\u015bya bhr\u0101ntivij\u00f1\u0101nai\u1e25 d\u1e5b\u015byetend\u0101viv\u0101dvaye\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n

avibh\u0101go'pi buddhy\u0101tm\u0101 vipary\u0101sitadar\u015banai\u1e25\u0964 gr\u0101hyagr\u0101hakasa\u1e43vittibhedav\u0101niva lak\u1e63yate\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

There cannot be a J\u00f1\u0101nam (cognition) without a Vi\u1e63aya (thing). The cause of the relation between J\u00f1\u0101na and Vi\u1e63aya is T\u0101d\u0101tmya (identity) between them. In case it is said that Vi\u1e63aya is different from J\u00f1\u0101na then, since there is no T\u0101d\u0101tmya, there cannot be a relation between them. Therefore, Buddhi itself shines in many forms due to beginningless impressions and when, due to the four Bh\u0101vanas all the impressions do perish and consequently the gamut of forms of different things is also gone. Then the pure Vij\u00f1\u0101na emerges and the same is Mok\u1e63a.\u00a0<\/span>This is the theory of Yog\u0101c\u0101ras who are called by the name Vij\u00f1\u0101nav\u0101dins.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

III. Sautr\u0101ntikas<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Another group of Bauddhas, called Sautr\u0101ntikas oppose the argument of Vij\u00f1\u0101nav\u0101dins \u2013 there cannot be an outside thing (b\u0101hy\u0101rtha) is untenable as there is no Pram\u0101\u1e47am (an authority of Means of Knowledge). The norm of concomitance of gr\u0101hya and gr\u0101haka cannot be accepted as Pram\u0101\u1e47am as there is no any positive logic that thwarts the doubt such as \"there may be a concomitance of gr\u0101hya and gr\u0101haka somewhere even if there is difference between the thing to be known (vedya) and the thing that knows (vedaka)\".<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Moreover, J\u00f1\u0101nam (cognition) is internal and J\u00f1eya (the thing to be known) is external. As such both the things are seen separately. Vij\u00f1\u0101nv\u0101di's argument that \u2013 \"although the form of black (n\u012bl\u0101k\u0101ra\u1e25) is in the form of J\u00f1\u0101na it is seen outside due to Bhr\u0101nti (illusion)\" is explained by the following <\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u092a\u0930\u0930\u092e\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0947\u0926\u093e\u0928\u094d\u093f\u0930\u092e\u093e\u0926\u094d\u092f\u094b\u093d\u092f\u0902\u092d\u093e\u0917\u094b\u00a0 \u0930\u094d\u0924\u093f\u0930\u0930\u092e\u0935 \u0924\u0938\u094d\u0930\u094d\u0925\u093f\u093f\u0903\u0964\u00a0<\/span>\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u093f\u0938\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092d\u0947\u0926\u094d\u0926\u094d\u0935\u0926\u093f\u094b \u092d\u0947\u0926\u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u092d\u093e\u0938\u094b\u093d\u092a\u094d\u092f\u0941\u092a\u092a\u094d\u0932\u0935\u093f\u0903\u0965\u00a0<\/span>\u092f\u0926\u0928\u094d\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u0947\u092f\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0924\u094d\u0935\u0902\u093f\u0926\u094d\u092c\u0924\u093f\u0935\u092e\u0926\u0935\u092d\u093e\u0938\u093f\u0947\u0964<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

paricched\u0101ntar\u0101dyo'ya\u1e43 bh\u0101go bahirivasthita\u1e25\u0964 <\/span><\/p>\r\n

j\u00f1\u0101nasy\u0101bhedino bhedapratibh\u0101so'pyupaplava\u1e25<\/span><\/p>\r\n

yadantarj\u00f1eyatattva\u1e43 tadbahirvadavabh\u0101sate\u0964<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

That which is other than the part of the internal cognition (which makes the object known) is seen as if it were external (cognition itself which takes the form of object being conceived). This apparent duality in what is, but one\u00a0<\/span>cognition, is an illusion. Whatever is internal, that itself appears as if it were external.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

This is not acceptable to the Sautr\u0101ntikas. They say \u2013 \"So, if the black thing has got the form of J\u00f1\u0101na, then there should be a J\u00f1\u0101nam such as 'aha\u1e43 n\u012blam' (I am black) but not 'ida\u1e43 n\u012blam' (this is black) as \u0100tm\u0101 is referred to as 'aham' (I) but not 'idam' (this). The upam\u0101na (simile), i.e. 'bahirvat' (like a thing outside), does not hold logic as there is no any outside thing that exists. No sane person can say 'Vasumitra looks like the son of a barren woman' (vasumitra\u1e25 vandhy\u0101putravat avabh\u0101sate). Moreover, by the word 'bahirvat' (like the outside thing) you (Vij\u00f1\u0101nav\u0101din) suggest that one should imagine the existence of an outside thing thereby hitting self by one's own arrow.\"<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

One may argue \u2013 \"a gha\u1e6da that is born in a K\u1e63a\u1e47a (point of time) would generate another gha\u1e6da in the second K\u1e63a\u1e47a and would perish (following K\u1e63a\u1e47ikav\u0101da). Then conceiving a thing that is there in different time by J\u00f1\u0101na is not possible.\" That is not so \u2013 a thing connected with sense-organs would render its form in the J\u00f1\u0101nam it is going to generate. By such a form the thing is inferred. In the following verse the question and answer are summarized \u2013\u00a0<\/span>\u0924\u092d\u0928\u094d\u0928\u0915\u093e\u0932\u0902 \u0915\u0930\u094d\u0925\u0902 \u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u094d\u092f\u0924\u0930\u094d\u0924\u093f\u00a0 \u091a\u0947\u093f\u094d\u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u094d\u092f\u093f\u093e\u0902 \u0924\u0935\u0926\u0941\u093f\u0903\u0964<\/span>\u093f\u0947\u093f\u0941\u0924\u094d\u0935\u0930\u094d\u0947\u0935\u091a\u00a0 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0947 \u093f\u0903 \u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u093f\u093e\u0915\u093e\u0930\u092e\u093e\u092a\u092e\u094b\u0903\u0915\u094d\u0937\u0930\u094d\u0930\u094d\u094d\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

bhinnak\u0101la\u1e43 katha\u1e43 gr\u0101hyamiti cet gr\u0101hyat\u0101\u1e43 vidu\u1e25\u0964 hetutvameva ca vyakte\u1e25 j\u00f1\u0101n\u0101k\u0101r\u0101rpa\u1e47ak\u1e63amam\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

So, just like \u2013 the food by good physique, country by language, affection by reception are inferred the thing is by the form of J\u00f1\u0101na \u2013<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925\u0947\u093f \u0918\u091f\u092f\u0924\u094d\u092f\u0947\u093f\u093e\u0902\u093f\u00a0 \u0924\u093f\u00a0 \u0930\u094d\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924\u0924\u094d\u0935\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0925\u092e\u0930\u0942\u092a\u093f\u093e\u0930\u094d\u094d\u0964\u00a0<\/span>\u093f\u0938\u094d\u0930\u094d\u093e\u093f\u094d \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0930\u094d\u0947\u092f\u093e\u0924\u0927\u0917\u093f\u0947\u093f\u0903\u092a\u094d\u0930\u0930\u094d\u093e\u094b\u0903\u0902 \u0930\u094d\u0947\u092f\u0930\u0942\u092a\u093f\u093e\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

arthena gha\u1e6dayatyen\u0101\u1e43 na hi muktv\u0101rthar\u016bpat\u0101m\u0964 tasm\u0101t pramey\u0101dhigate\u1e25 pram\u0101\u1e47a\u1e43 meyar\u016bpat\u0101\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The J\u00f1\u0101nam joined with the thing of cognition (by the cognisor) does not exist in any other form bar the form of the thing of cognition. Therefore the means\u00a0<\/span>of cognizing the thing to be known is nothing but J\u00f1\u0101na's \"meyarupat\u0101\" (form of the knowable).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

According to Bauddhasiddh\u0101nta, Vij\u00f1\u0101nam (cognition) itself is \u0100tm\u0101. But, just like any other Pad\u0101rtha (thing) this Vij\u00f1\u0101nam is also K\u1e63a\u1e47ika (momentary). So an uninterrupted stream of Vij\u00f1\u0101nas (called sant\u0101na) is \u0100tm\u0101. This is called \u0100layavij\u00f1\u0101nam. Each person is an \u0100layavij\u00f1\u0101nasant\u0101nam. When a person is in the form of \u0100layavij\u00f1\u0101nasant\u0101nam, he gets connection with things (Vi\u1e63ay\u0101\u1e25) through senses (Indriy\u0101\u1e25) and the Vij\u00f1\u0101nam teaches and specifies vi\u1e63ayas like n\u012bla (black) etc. Then it is called Prav\u1e5bttinimittavij\u00f1\u0101nam (cognition of behaviour). It is clarified <\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u093f\u093f\u094d \u0938\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0926\u093e\u0932\u092f\u0924\u0935\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u093f\u0902 \u092f\u0926\u094d\u092d\u0935\u0947\u0926\u093f\u0930\u094d\u093e\u0938\u094d\u092a\u0926\u0930\u094d\u094d\u0964\u00a0<\/span>\u093f\u093f\u094d \u0938\u094d\u092f\u093e\u093f\u094d \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0935\u0943\u0924\u093f\u0924\u0935\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u093f\u0902\u092f\u0928\u094d\u0928\u0940\u0932\u093e\u0926\u094d\u0926\u094d\u0935\u0926\u0915\u0930\u094d\u0941\u0924\u0932\u0932\u0916\u0947\u093f\u094d\u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

tat sy\u0101d\u0101layavij\u00f1\u0101na\u1e43 yadbhavedaham\u0101spadam\u0964 tat sy\u0101t prav\u1e5bttivij\u00f1\u0101na\u1e43 yann\u012bl\u0101dikamullikhet \u0965<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u0100layavij\u00f1\u0101nam is that which is subject in the cognition of \"aham\" (I). The cognition that specifies things such as n\u012bla is called Prav\u1e5bttivij\u00f1\u0101nam.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Therefore there is an outside thing (b\u0101hyapad\u0101rtha) that is different from \u0100layavij\u00f1\u0101nam and the same is the cause of Prav\u1e5bttivij\u00f1\u0101nam that springs up now. That particular b\u0101hyapad\u0101rtha (outside thing) is gr\u0101hya (to be taken up \/ conceived). But not the one that springs up now and then due to the Vij\u00f1\u0101nams that are born now and then due to V\u0101san\u0101parip\u0101ka (readiness of impressions to generate an activity) as claimed by Vij\u00f1\u0101nav\u0101dins (Yog\u0101c\u0101ras). In order to facilitate the Parip\u0101ka to happen now and then only, one should accept that the five J\u00f1\u0101nas related to \u015aabda (sound), Spar\u015ba (touch), R\u016bpa (form), Rasa (taste) and Gandha (smell) along with the J\u00f1\u0101nam of internal things, such as Sukham (comfort) \u2013 all these six J\u00f1\u0101nas are born out of the following four Pratyayas (causes). A wise person must accept these as they are being experienced even if he does not like it.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The following are the four Pratyayas (causes) of Cittam (the Vij\u00f1\u0101nam of form etc.) and Caittam (Sukham etc.) \u2013<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

1.\u0100lambana: Literally it means \u0101dh\u0101ra (base). The cittam (the cognition of r\u016bpa \/ form etc.), which is also called \"J\u00f1\u0101nam\" and which shines the N\u012bla (black) etc., takes the form of N\u012bla following \u0100lambanapratyaya (the cause of the base). The base of Prav\u1e5bttij\u00f1\u0101nam (cognition of behaviour) is the Vi\u1e63aya (thing) and therefore the Vi\u1e63aya itself is called \u0100lambanapratyaya.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

2. Samanantarapratyaya: The cittam is called J\u00f1\u0101nam when there is the form of a thing in it. The capacity to conceive the form into self is Bodha (J\u00f1\u0101nam \/ Cognition). Just like from a gha\u1e6da (pot) of the earlier K\u1e63a\u1e47a (moment \/ point of time) another similar gha\u1e6da is born in the next K\u1e63a\u1e47a (K\u1e63a\u1e47ikav\u0101da) from a J\u00f1\u0101na of the earlier K\u1e63a\u1e47a, which is capable of conceiving the form, another similar J\u00f1\u0101nam is born. There is no beginning of such a J\u00f1\u0101naprav\u0101ha (stream of J\u00f1\u0101nas). There will be two forms in such a J\u00f1\u0101nam \u2013 \"aham\" (I) and \"idam\" (this). The first form (\u0101k\u0101ra) is born from the J\u00f1\u0101nam of earlier K\u1e63a\u1e47a (moment). For this no other cause is required. It (aham\u0101k\u0101ram) is \"an\u0101di\" (beginningless), eternal and immutable (unchanging). This \"aham\u0101k\u0101ram\" will be there even when a Prav\u1e5bttivij\u00f1\u0101nam such as \"aya\u1e43 gha\u1e6da\u1e25\" (this is a pot) etc. arises. The second type of form, i.e. idam\u0101k\u0101ram, springs up now and then. So it requires other causes, has got beginning and is seen differently. Things, such as \u015aabda, Spar\u015ba etc. effect similar forms in the J\u00f1\u0101na and thus they cause Prav\u1e5bttivij\u00f1\u0101nam.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Sahak\u0101ripratyaya: This is a light that makes the J\u00f1\u0101nam clear. \"Mana\u1e25 sa\u1e43yoga\"\u00a0<\/span>(connection with mind) is also a Sahak\u0101ripratyaya.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

4. Adhipatipratyaya: Indriyam (sense-organ) is called Adhipatipratyaya. Eye helps in getting form only. Tongue gets taste only and so on. Thus the Indriyas control the forms of different things and are therefore called Adhipatis (controller \u2013 literary meaning).<\/span>The above are four causes of Sukha (comfort) etc. which are in the form of Citta (r\u016bp\u0101divij\u00f1\u0101nam) and Caittam (Sukha etc.).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The formless things other than the five elements are called Skandhas. The Skandha in the form of Citta and Caitta is of five types \u2013<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n