BUDDHACARITA 12.74: No Smoke Without Fire?

−−−−¦⏑⏑⏑−¦¦⏑−−−¦⏑−⏑−   navipulā

hitvā hitvā trayam idaṁ viśeṣas tūpalabhyate |

−⏑−−¦⏑−−−¦¦−⏑−⏑¦⏑−⏑−

ātmanas tu sthitir yatra tatra sūkṣmam idaṁ trayam || 12. 74 

12.74

By progressive abandoning of these three,

Higher distinction is obtained,

But where the soul prevails,

There – subtly – these three are.

COMMENT:

“There is no smoke without fire,” the saying goes.

But it is not always clear what constitutes smoke and what constitutes fire. A false accusation may seem like smoke, but if the accusation was false – though it may have serious repercussions for the accused – the accusation and surrounding publicity were not in fact fairly comparable to smoke and were not indicative of fire.

If we follow the ostensible meaning of today's verse, the soul is like fire, and ignorance, karma, and thirsting are like smoke.

Again, however, as in yesterday's verse, the grammatical construction leaves unspecified the exact causal relation that the bodhisattva intended to express, between (a) the soul and (b) the three causes of saṁsāra under discussion.

Yesterday (as again in BC12.76) the construction was the locative absolute saty ātmani, “the soul being there,” or “the soul continuing to be there,” which I followed EHJ in translating “as long as the soul persists.” Today the construction is the analagous yatra... tatra, “where [the soul is], there [the three are].”

So Aśvaghoṣa has framed the grammar in such a way that -- ironically -- (b) ignorance etc., could be like fire; and (a) the soul, could be smoke.

Such might have been the case  in recent years in places in Ireland where the soul prevailed -- in Catholic churches where children were sexually abused by priests hiding behind a religious smokescreen.  That may have been an example of people not being able to see the fire for the smoke. 

EBC translated the second half of today's verse:

as long as the soul itself continues, there this triad continues in a subtil form.

EBC thus seemed to understand the second tu as having expletive force: he translated ātmanas tu as “the soul itself.” The effect is to strengthen the impression that the bodhisattva is talking of the soul as something that really exists. So this might be in accordance with the ostensible meaning in which the soul is comparable to fire. But it is not in accordance with the alternative meaning in which ignorance is analagous to causal fire and the delusory concept of the soul is analagous to symptomatic smoke.

EHJ's translates:

but where the soul still remains, there these three remain in a subtile state.

EHJ notes further: “The argument recalls the Buddhist theory of the anuśayas.”

An anuśaya means a latent tendency. The word is derived from anu-√śī, to sleep alongside, and Aśvaghoṣa uses it in SN Canto 15:

yady api pratisaṃkhyānāt kāmān utsṛṣṭavān asi /

Even if, as a result of calm consideration, you have let go of desires,

tamāṃsīva prakāśena pratipakṣeṇa tāñ jahi // SN15.4

You must, as if shining light into darkness, 
abolish them by means of their opposite.

tiṣṭhaty anuśayas teṣāṃ channo 'gnir iva bhasmanā /

What lies behind those desires sleeps on, like a fire covered with ashes;

sa te bhāvanayā saumya praśāmyo 'gnir ivāmbunā // SN15.5

You are to extinguish it, my friend, by the means of mental developing, 

as if using water to put out a fire.

So what is EHJ suggesting about the relationship between the soul and the threesome of ignorance, karma and thirsting? EHJ is suggesting that what sleeps alongside what?

Is EHJ suggesting that ignorance is a latent tendency that can -- albeit in subtle form -- sleep alongside the soul? I think he is suggesting that. 

In that case, I would like to ask EHJ: how can ignorance, karma and thirsting, as latent tendencies, sleep alongside what has never existed?

I think, that EHJ, not for the first time, along with EBC, totally failed to notice Aśvaghoṣa's irony.

What EBC failed to notice in the 19^th century, EHJ failed to notice in the 20^th century. And in the 21^st century Patrick Olivelle has only compounded the error by writing that Aśvaghoṣa presents Buddhism as the crowning and consummation of the Brahmanical religion.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Aśvaghoṣa, when we really get to know him, is so irreligious you could put him in a biscuit tin as a means of keeping moisture out.

VOCABULARY

hitvā = abs. hā: to leave , abandon , desert , quit , forsake , relinquish

idam (acc. sg. n.): this

idam (acc. sg. n.): this

viśeṣaḥ (nom. sg.): m. distinction

tu: but (sometimes used as a mere expletive)

upalabhyate = 3^rd pers. sg. passive upa- √ labh: to seize , get possession of , acquire , receive , obtain , find ; to perceive , behold , hear , to understand , learn , know , ascertain

ātmanaḥ (gen. sg.): m. the soul

tu: but (sometimes used as a mere expletive)

sthitiḥ (nom .sg.): f. standing upright or firmly , not falling ; continuance in being , maintenance of life , continued existence

yatra: ind. wherein

tatra: ind. therein

sūkṣmam (acc. sg. n.): finely, feebly, subtly

idam (nom. sg. n.): this

trayam (nom. sg.): n. three

處處捨三種 而復得三勝
以我常有故 彼則微細隨 

BUDDHACARITA 12.73: Cause of Samsāra, Or Symptom of Ignorance?

−−−−¦⏑−−−¦¦−−−−¦⏑−⏑−

yat karmājñāna-tṣṇānāṁ tyāgān mokṣaś ca kalpyate |

−−−⏑¦⏑−−−¦¦⏑−−⏑¦⏑−⏑−

atyantas tat-parityāgaḥ saty ātmani na vidyate || 12.73

12.73

And as for liberation being brought about

Through letting go of karma, ignorance and thirsting,

There is no complete abandonment of them

So long as the soul persists.

COMMENT:

For the sake of being clear what is going on here, at more than one level, I don't mind going over the same ground again and again – at the risk of boring even myself.

Arāda has concluded that liberation means the “knower of the field,” i.e. “the soul,” abandoning the body.

The bodhisattva in response is saying that, in his view, this soul also needs to be abandoned.

And one way of understanding this response is as if the bodhisattva

• (a) is accepting that there is such a thing as a soul which can separate itself from a person's physical body, and
• (b) is arguing that this soul, after it has abandoned the body, also needs to be abandoned.

But the way of understanding the bodhisattva's response which is, to use Aśvaghoṣa's word, anya (other, alternative, different), is to understand that the bodhisattva

• (a) does never accept the religious notion of a disembodied soul, but rather
• (b) is arguing that the whole ignorant religious notion of a separate soul needs to be abandoned.

In order truly to understand the anya/alternative nature of the bodhisattva's response, it seems to me, we have to be a person who in our sitting practice is anya, other, alternative, different, contrarian. That means being, in other words, a person who understands the principle that real change involves carrying out an activity against the habit of life. And such activty, I venture to submit, is what Nāgārjuna was pointing to when he wrote of bringing into being just that act of knowing (jñānasyāsyaiva bhāvana).

In translating the 4^th pāda of today's verse “So long as the soul persists,” I have gone with EHJ's translation. This translation, ironically (since I don't think EHJ himself was aware of the alternative gist), covers well enough both the ostensible gist of the bodhisattva's argument, and also the real or alternative gist.

The irony is possible because of Aśvaghoṣa's use of the locative absolute. Saty ātmani suggests the soul continuing to be present in the area of karma, ignorance and thirsting, but without specifying any causal relation between the soul and karma, ignorance and thirsting. 

The bodhisattva's citing of karma, ignorance and thirsting refers back to what Arāḍa said in BC12.23:

a-jñānaṁ karma tṛṣṇā ca jñeyāḥ saṁsāra-hetavaḥ

Ignorance, karma, and thirsting are to be known as the causes of saṁsāra...

According to the ostensible gist of today's verse, then, the continued existence of the soul, even after it has escaped from a human body, is causal. It is a cause of the non-abandonment of karma, ignorance, and thirsting, which are themselves the causes of saṁsāra.

But the real, alternative gist might be that belief in a non-existent soul is symptomatic of ignorance. And it is this ignorance, not its symptoms, which leads to chequered karma and spiritual thirsting for heaven. Hence...

1. ignorance avidyā
2. doings saṁskārāḥ
3. consciousness vijñānam
4. psychophysicality nāmarūpam
5. six senses ṣaḍ-āyatanam
6. contact saṁsparśaḥ
7. feeling vedanā
8. thirsting tṛṣṇā
9. grasping hold upādānam
10. becoming bhavaḥ
11. birth jātiḥ
12. the suffering of aging and death, and so on, sorrows, lamentations...                            jarā-maraṇa-duḥkhādi śokāḥ saparidevanāḥ....

...saṁsāra-mūlaṁ saṁskārān avidvān saṁskaroty ataḥ |

avidvān kārakas tasmān na vidvāṁs tattva-darśanāt ||MMK26.10

The doings which are the root of saṁsāra

Thus does the ignorant one do.

The ignorant one therefore is the doer;

The wise one is not, because of the act of reality making itself known.

avidyāyāṁ niruddhāyāṁ saṁskārāṇām asaṁbhavaḥ |

avidyāyā nirodhas tu jñānasyāsyaiva bhāvanāt ||MMK26.11

In the ceasing of ignorance,

There is the non-coming-into-being of doings.

The cessation of ignorance, however,

Is because of the bringing-into-being of just this act of knowing.

tasya tasya nirodhena tat-tan nābhipravartate |

duḥkha-skandhaḥ kevalo 'yam evaṁ samyaṅ nirudhyate ||MMK26.12

By the destruction of each,

Each is discontinued.

This whole edifice of suffering

Is thus well and truly demolished.

A further reflection on today's verse, lest this is all sounding too metaphysical, is that if we understand what Aśvaghoṣa is clarifying here, with regard to cause and symptom, we may be able to find applications for such understanding which are more pertinent to everyday life and current affairs.

When a lovesick bloke, for example, can't help thinking that if only he could get back together with his missing other half all his sorrows would be swept away, then he can't help seeing the suffering of being parted from his loved one as the central cause of his present struggling in saṁsāra. Whereas the deeper truth might be that what he is experiencing as suffering is only a symptom of his own ignorance.

Again, when stock markets fall, as has been happening this week, or when the price of other kinds of investment steadily declines, the suffering investor can't help thinking “If only the price could climb back to where it was x weeks, months or years ago,” as if the cause of saṁsāric suffering -- and hence the way out of saṁsāric suffering -- was within the remit of the behaviour of the market.

The general point, then, might be that our human mind is very prone, when faced with the symptoms of our own ignorance, to see those symptoms as if they were the cause of our trouble.

And that is bad enough when we do it on an individual level. But when the powers that be do it on the macro level, the result – sooner or later – is bound to be sorrows and lamentations on a global scale.

If the US stock markets continue to go down, the US president and his bankers, or the US bankers and their president, will doubtless do their best to address that symptom. But if the fall of the stock market is symptomatic of the bursting of a massive money bubble which has been inflating for twenty years or more, efforts to address the symptom will only lead to further inflating of the bubble.

VOCABULARY

yat: (relative pronoun) that “....”

karmājñāna-tṛṣṇānām (gen. pl.): karma, ignorance and thirst

tyāgāt (abl. sg.): m. leaving , abandoning , forsaking

tyaj: to leave , abandon , quit; to let go

mokṣaḥ (nom. sg.): m. release, liberation

ca: and

kalpyate = 3^rd pers. sg. causative passive kḷp: , to set in order , arrange ; to fix ; to declare as , consider as (with double acc.) ; to frame , form , invent , compose (as a poem &c ) , imagine

atyantaḥ (nom. sg. m.): mfn. beyond the proper end or limit; excessive , very great , very strong ; endless , unbroken , perpetual ; absolute , perfect

tat-parityāgaḥ (nom. sg. m.): abandoning of that

parityāga: m. (ifc. f(ā).) the act of leaving , abandoning , deserting , quitting , giving up , neglecting , renouncing

sati = loc. sg. pres. part. as: to be

ātmani (loc. sg.): m. the self, the soul

na: not

vidyate = 3^rd pers. sg. passive vid: to be found , exist , be ; (esp. in later language) vidyate , " there is , there exists " , often with na , " there is not "

無知業因愛 捨則名解者
存我諸衆生 無畢竟解脱 

BUDDHACARITA 12.72: Grounds for Growth of a Non-Existent Seed

⏑⏑−−¦⏑⏑⏑−¦¦⏑−−−¦⏑−⏑−    navipulā

ṛtu-bhūmy-ambu-virahād yathā bījaṁ na rohati |

−⏑−−¦⏑−−−¦¦−−−⏑¦⏑−⏑−

rohati pratyayais tais-tais tadvat so 'pi mato mama || 12.72

12.72

Just as, in the absence of season, soil and water,

A seed does not grow,

But does rise up when those various grounds are present,

So also, as I see it, does 'the soul.'

COMMENT:

Arāḍa's conclusion was that liberation is realized when the kṣetra-jña, the knower of the field, slips away from the body like a bird escaping from a cage.

The bodhisattva in the present series of verses is objecting to Arāḍa's conclusion on the grounds that ultimate liberation requires the further step of total abandonment of the kṣetra-jña, aka the pure ātman, the pure or spiritual self – in short, the soul.

In today's verse the bodhisattva's argument is that just as a seed grows when various grounds, or causal conditions, are present, so too does the soul grow in the presence of various grounds – like an acorn growing into an oak tree.

The irony in today's verse, then, might be as follows:

The bodhisattva, on the face of it, accepts Arāḍa's view that such a thing exists as a separable soul, so that the aim is to eliminate the acorn.

But below the surface, of course, the bodhisattva is saying that he sees there is no such acorn, nor has there ever been any such real acorn, as a separable soul – except in the deluded imagination of religious believers.

The most difficult things to get rid of, FM Alexander observed, are the ones that don't exist.

For consistency and to mirror the original, I could have translated rohati as "does grow" in both the 2^nd and 3^rd pādas of today's verse. But if we understand that, below the surface, the bodhisattva is talking of 'the soul' as something which does not really exist, this sense would be better conveyed by a translation like “rises to the ascendancy” – as the soul rose to the ascendancy in Europe's Dark Ages, when fear of eternal damnation kept the peasant classes in our place.

When the soul was in the ascendancy...

... and just for balance. 

VOCABULARY

ṛtu-bhūmy-ambu-virahāt (abl. sg.): in the absence of season, soil or water

vi-raha: m. abandonment, desertion; lack , want (ifc. = lacking , with the exception of)

yathā: ind. as, just as

bījam (nom. sg.): n. seed

na: not

rohati = 3^rd pers. sg. ruh: to ascend, rise , spring up , grow , develop ,

rohati = 3^rd pers. sg. ruh: to ascend, grow ; to rise , spring up , grow , develop , increase , prosper , thrive

pratyayaiḥ (inst. pl.): m. belief ; ground , basis , motive or cause of anything (in med.) = nimitta , hetu &c ; (with Buddhists) a co-operating cause; the concurrent occasion of an event as distinguished from its approximate cause

tais-taiḥ (inst. pl.): this and that , various , different

tadvat: ind. like that , thus , so (correlative of yad-vat ; of yathā)

saḥ (nom. sg. m.): it [the ātman]

api: also

mataḥ (nom. sg. m.): mfn. thought , believed , imagined , supposed , understood ; regarded or considered as , taken or passing for (nom. or adv.)

mama (gen. sg.): of/by me

猶如彼種子 時地水火風
離散生理乖 遇縁種復生 

BUDDHACARITA 12.71: Letting Go of the Platonic Self, & the Beginning of Investigation of Grounds

⏑−−−¦⏑−−−¦¦−−⏑⏑¦⏑−⏑−

viśuddho yady api hy ātmā nirmukta iti kalpyate | 

−−−⏑¦⏑−−−¦¦⏑−−⏑¦⏑−⏑−

bhūyaḥ pratyaya-sad-bhāvād amuktaḥ sa bhaviṣyati || 12.71

12.71

For even if the pure self, 'the soul,' 

Is declared to have been released,

Once again, as long as the grounds exist,

It will become not released.

COMMENT:
To learn the Buddha-dharma, Zen Master Dogen famously asserted, is to learn the self. And to learn the self is to forget the self. 

Arāḍa seemed, below the surface, to be saying something very similar  in BC12.63, about using the self to drop off the self. 

The Sanskrit word for the self in these practical contexts is ātman. 

In today's verse, however, ātman seems to mean the Platonic or spiritual self or the soul, and the bodhisattva seems to be using the term as synonymous with kṣetra-jña, the knower of the field (MW: the soul, the conscious principle in the corporeal frame) referred to in the previous two verses. 

In what sense, then, is it reasonable to talk of the ātman as being set free, or liberated, or released; and equally to talk of the ātman as becoming not free or not liberated or not released?

When the ātman is not being released, is there a self which is being overly tensed up, as if the whole self were being held in a cage of undue muscular tension? Or is it rather that the concept of an ātman or a soul or a self is being held onto? 

Is the practical aim to free the self which is the original unit of psychophysical unity -- like in Zazen, or like in an Alexander lesson?  

Or is the aim to let go of the false conception of a separable soul -- like releasing a helium balloon into the sky, or like dropping a hot potato? 

Again, are these two aims -- one physical and one mental? Or do they boil down in practice to one aim? 

In the coming verses of the bodhisattva's reply we will have several opportunities to come back to these questions, since the bodhisattva repeatedly refers to the ātman. 

What I strongly suspect, a priori, is that Aśvaghoṣa intentionally left two doors open; and what I picture is Aśvaghoṣa sitting there nodding and smiling as, through the centuries (EBC in the 19th, EHJ in the 20th, and PO in the 21st) professors of Sanskrit, with all their intellectual knowledge about the ancient wisdom of India, singularly fail to notice the existence of the second door -- marked "IRONY." 

Of particular interest to us who sit, in the lineage of the Zen ancestors, is the use of the word  pratyaya, grounds, in the 3rd pāda  of today's verse.  

In tomorrow's verse also Aśvaghoṣa records the Buddha using this word pratyaya, to which Nāgārjuna turns his attention in the first chapter of his Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā (MMK).  The title of that first chapter of MMK is pratyaya-parīkṣā, which can be translated "Investigation of Grounds." More controversially, in view of the fact that Nāgārjuna discusses four pratyayāḥ, I have thought to translate the chapter title "Investigation of the Cornerstones" or "Investigation of the Cornerstones of Direction." 

The derivation of pratyaya  seems to go back to prati-√i, which means "to go back to." The same may be true of the derivation of pratītya  in the compound  pratītya-samutpāda. I think that both pratyaya and pratītya go back to the root prati-√i, to go back. 

How important it is, in Nāgārjuna's teaching, for us to understand the meaning of pratītya-samutpāda, Springing Up by going back, is indicated in the opening two verses of MMK: 

a-nirodham an-utpādam an-ucchedam a-śāśvatam

an-ekārtham a-nānārtham an-āgamam a-nirgamam ||MMK1.1

Beyond closing down, beyond springing up,

Beyond discontinuity, beyond continuity,

Beyond identity, beyond distinctions,

Beyond coming near, beyond going away,

yaḥ pratītya-samutpādaṁ prapañcopaśamaṁ śivam |

deśayām-āsa saṁbuddhas taṁ vande vadatāṁ varam ||MMK1.2

There is Springing Up, by going back,

Which, as the wholesome cessation of spin,

He the Fully Awakened Sambuddha taught.

I praise him, the best of speakers.

In today's verse EHJ translates pratyaya-sad-bhāvād  "from the continued existence of the causal conditions." PO translates "because the causal roots are present." 

So we get a sense from today's verse of pratyaya indicating what something goes back to, or what -- causally -- something is grounded in.

In the compound  pratītya-samutpāda, the second element samutpāda is usually translated "origination" and the first element  pratītya "dependent" or "conditional" or "interdependent." But the verb sam-ut-√pad is given first in the MW dictionary as "to spring up together." And I take pratītya to be the absolutive of  prati-√i . 

So I intend to state the case, starting next year, if I live that long, for reading pratītya-samutpāda as an expression of action itself, springing up into which is synonymous, in the teaching of the Zen ancestors, with going back to the source of suffering, and cutting suffering off at its source, which is ignorance. 

Today's verse, then, can be read as preparing the ground for us to understand the teaching that the bodhisattva in BC Canto 14, as the fully awakened Sambuddha, is going to realize as  pratītya-samutpāda  -- i.e. so-called "Dependent Origination;" but also, as I intend to propose, "Springing Up by going back." 

VOCABULARY

viśuddhaḥ (nom. sg. m.): mfn. completely cleansed or purified (also in a ritual sense) , clean , clear , pure (lit.and fig.)

yady-api: ind. even if, although

hi: for

ātmā (nom. sg.): m. the breath; the soul ; the individual soul , self , abstract individual ; essence , nature , character , peculiarity

nirmuktaḥ (nom. sg. m.): mfn. loosed , separated , sundered , liberated or saved or escaped
nir- √ muc:  to loosen or liberate

iti: “....,” thus

kalpyate = 3^rd pers. sg. causative passive kḷp:  to set in order , arrange ; to fix ; to declare as , consider as (with double acc.) ; to frame , form , invent , compose (as a poem &c ) , imagine

bhūyaḥ: ind. further on; once more , again , anew

pratyaya-sad-bhāvāt (abl. sg.); because of the existence of its grounds / the roots of its direction / causal roots

pratyaya: m. belief ; ground , basis , motive or cause of anything (in med.) = nimitta , hetu &c ; (with Buddhists) a co-operating cause; the concurrent occasion of an event as distinguished from its approximate cause

sad-bhāva: m. real being , existence ; the being true , truth , real state of things

amuktaḥ (nom. sg. m.): mfn. not loosed , not let go , not liberated from birth and death , not liberated from rāhu , still eclipsed

saḥ (nom. sg. m.): it

bhaviṣyati = 3^rd pers. sg. future bhū: to become

汝謂我清淨 則是眞解脱
若遇因縁會 則應還復縛

BUDDHACARITA 12.70: How Pregnant Can a Concept Be?

⏑−−⏑¦⏑−−−¦¦−−−−¦⏑−⏑−

vikāra-praktibhyo hi kṣetra-jñaṁ muktam apy aham |

−−⏑⏑¦⏑−−−¦¦−⏑−−¦⏑−⏑−

manye prasava-dharmāṇaṁ bīja-dharmāṇam eva ca || 12.70

12.70

For, I consider 'the Knower of the Field,'

Even freed from 'the Transformed and the Primary,'

To be engendering in nature

And to be, in its very nature, a seed.

COMMENT:
Arāḍa's conception of the knower of the field, in the final analysis, is of a spiritual something which, like a bird entering and leaving a cage, can be either embodied or disembodied. And on the surface the bodhisattva is discussing the knower of the field in these terms, as if he thought there might be such a thing as a soul that can be either embodied or disembodied. But below the surface, as usual, it is a different story. Below the surface the bodhisattva is giving an ironic description of a concept, a bit of ignorance, something which -- though metaphorically called a bit of dust on Arāḍa's eye -- does not exist. 

And yet, even though it does not exist, the false conception is pregnant with all sorts of wrong doing. 

EBC translated today's verse: 
For I consider that the embodied soul, though freed from the evolutes and the evolvents, is still subject to the condition of birth and has the condition of a seed.

EHJ translated: 

For I am of opinion that the field-knower, although liberated from the primary and secondary constituents, still possesses the quality of giving birth and also of being a seed.

PO:

For although the Knower of the field is freed from Primal nature and Transformations, / Yet I think it still has the quality of giving birth and serving as a seed. 

From these translations one would think that the bodhisattva was talking of "the embodied soul" or the "field-knower" in such a way that he believed in the existence of such a thing. And Aśvaghoṣa's intention may have been to invite the unwary reader to go for such a reading. 

But the meaning concealed below the surface, again, must be that the Knower of the Field, aka the spiritual soul, is a seminal falsehood, an idea which contains within it the seed of all kinds of foolishness. 

That EHJ and PO missed this irony is doubly evident from their footnotes, which refer back again to sāṁkhya texts and sāṁkhya philosophy. Hence, EHJ:

For prasava-dharmāṇam, cp. prasava-dharmin in Sāṁkhyakārikā, 11, where it is explained as the capacity to give birth, as buddhi gives birth to ahaṁkāra. Bīja-dharman is practically co-extensive in meaning; so MBh., xii, 11662，of avyakta...

And PO: 
In the Sankhya system the eight prakṛtis act as a seed, giving birth to other entitities within the evolutionary  process. When such qualities are present, someone cannot be said to be fully liberated. 

Not for the first time, each of the three professors seems to have missed the irony which Aśvaghoṣa concealed below the surface.  

Professors of Sanskrit are prone to see the Buddha's teaching as belonging within the bigger basket of Indian religion. That view itself is like a seed, one of whose fruits is that, in Buddhist studies departments around the world, Aśvaghoṣa is liable to be confused with somebody who might have been even slightly interested in encouraging us to study Sāṁkhya philosophy. 

The bodhisattva in today's verse seems to be speaking on the basis of acceptance of Sāṁkhya concepts. But that appearance, if we understand Aśvaghoṣa's true intention in writing Buddhacarita, might be deceptive. 

What was Aśvaghoṣa's true intention in writing Buddhacarita? I think it might have been the same as Bodhidharma's intention in coming to China in the east from India in the west. 

At the same time, Aśvaghoṣa's intention in writing Buddhacarita might have been the same as Nāgārjuna's intention in writing MMK. Hence:

sarva-dṛṣṭi-prahāṇāya yaḥ saddharmam adeśayat |

anukampām upādāya taṁ namasyāmi gautamam || MMK27.30

In the direction of abandoning all views,

He taught the true dharma,

Taking pity.

I bow to him, Gautama.  

The most troublesome seed in the world, pregnant with all kinds of dire possibilities, might be a view that has yet to be abandoned. 

VOCABULARY

vikāra-prakṛtibhyaḥ (abl. pl.): from transformed and primary constituents

hi: for

kṣetra-jñam (acc. sg.): m. the Knower of the Field (MW: " knowing the body " i.e. the soul , the conscious principle in the corporeal frame)

muktam (acc. sg. m.): mfn. freed, liberated

api: even, though

aham (nom. sg.): I

manye = 1^st pers. sg. man: to deem, consider, think of

prasava-dharmāṇam (acc. sg. n.): mfn. subject to the condition of birth, Bcar.

prasava: m. setting or being set in motion; m. begetting , procreation , generation , conception , parturition , delivery , birth , origin ; birthplace

√su 2: (= √1. sū) (only in 3. sg. pr. sauti and 2. sg. Impv. suhi) to urge , impel , incite

√su 4 (= √2. sū): (only in 3. sg. sauti » pra- √sū) to beget , bring forth

prasava-dharmin: mfn. characterized by production , productive , prolific ib

prasava-māsa: m. the last month of pregnancy

dharman: n. (esp. ifc.) nature , quality , characteristic mark or attribute

bīja-dharmāṇam (acc. sg. n.): mfn. having the condition of a seed, Bcar.

eva: (emphatic)

ca: and

性轉變知因 説言解脱者
我觀是生法 亦爲種子法 

BUDDHACARITA 12.69: Finding Fault in Failure to Abandon What Is Most Difficult to Abandon

⏑−−⏑¦⏑−−−¦¦⏑⏑−⏑¦⏑−⏑−

śrutaṁ jñānam idaṁ sūkṣmaṁ parataḥ parataḥ śivam |

−−−−¦⏑−−−¦¦⏑−−⏑¦⏑−⏑−

kṣetra-jñasyāparityāgād avaimy etad anaiṣṭhikam || 12.69

12.69

“I have listened to this wisdom of yours,

Which grows more subtle stage by stage,

and more wholesome,

But insofar as the Knower of the Field is not abandoned,

I see this wisdom as short of the ultimate.

COMMENT:

As noted a couple of days ago, the means (upāya) that Arāḍa has outlined contains the three essential elements of the noble eightfold path, which are namely śīla (integrity), samādhi (integration) and prajñā (integral wisdom).

And yet, ironically, when it comes to liberation itself, Arāḍa's understanding of liberation is not at all integral but is rather fragmentary. He believes there to be such a thing as a "Knower of the Field" -- in other words, a soul, a conscious principle (as the MW dictionary puts it) in the corporeal frame.

In today's verse, when we read it superficially, the bodhisattva can be understood as recognizing that there is such a thing as a “Knower of the Field” – a principle of consciousness disembodied from the corporeal frame -- and protesting that the Knower of the Field is also something to be abandoned, as it is possible for a flea to abandon a bird that has abandoned a cage. 

In reality, however, whereas a flea on a bird that has abandoned a cage is a real thing that really exists, a disembodied "Knower of the Field" is not real; it is only a thought that excites the deluded imagination of the religious and the superstitious. 

Below the surface, then, the bodhisattva can be heard as laying the ground for his own coming realization that the root of all suffering is ignorance. 

In these terms, Arāḍa's conception of a disembodied “Knower of the Field” might be nothing more than a bit of ignorance, a bit of dust in Arāḍa's eye, a bit of a view. 

In the end, today's verse seems designed to remind us, the truth is not a view. To realize the truth is rather to go in the direction of abandonment of views. 

Hence Nāgārjuna's ultimate conclusion in MMK, that the true dharma which the Buddha taught has its direction. And that direction is towards the abandoning of all views (sarva-dṛṣṭi-prahāṇāya). 

In conclusion, the bodhisattva seems on the surface to be saying in today's verse that the Knower of the Field is something to be abandoned. But the real point might be that the Knower of the Field, as Arāḍa conceives it, is nothing to be abandoned. Because the disembodied Knower of the Field is nothing that has ever existed. 

There again, the most difficult things to abandon are always the things -- like views -- that don't exist. 

sarva-dṛṣṭi-prahāṇāya yaḥ saddharmam adeśayat |

anukampām upādāya taṁ namasyāmi gautamam || MMK27.30

In the direction of abandoning all views,

He taught the true dharma,

Taking pity.

I bow to him, Gautama.  

VOCABULARY

śrutam (acc. sg. n.): mfn. heard, listened to

jñānam (acc. sg. n.): n. knowing , becoming acquainted with , knowledge , (esp.) the higher knowledge (derived from meditation on the one Universal Spirit)

idam (acc. sg. n.): this

sūkṣmam (acc. sg. n.): fine, subtle

parataḥ: ind. farther

parataḥ: ind. farther

śivam (acc. sg. n.): mfn. auspicious, propitious , gracious , favourable , benign

kṣetra-jñasya (gen. sg.): the Knower of the Field ; m. " knowing the body " i.e. the soul , the conscious principle in the corporeal frame

aparityāgāt (abl. sg.): because it is not abandoned

parityāga: m. the act of leaving , abandoning , deserting , quitting , giving up , neglecting , renouncing

avaimi = 1^st pers. sg. ava-√i: to look upon , consider ; to perceive , conceive , understand , learn , kno

etat (acc. sg. n.): it, this

a: not

naiṣṭhikam: mfn. forming the end , final , last ; highest , perfect , complete

聞汝勝智慧 微妙深細義於知因不捨 則非究竟道