The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana — Th. Stcherbatsky (1927)

THE CONCEPTION

OF

BUDDHIST NIRVANA

BY

Th.^TCHEKBATSKY, Ph. d.

PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LENINGRAD, MEMBER OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE USSR

Suedasien Institut HO

PUBLISHING OFFICE OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE USSR

Sudosien-lnsfitut

der University Heidelberg

<nv*nt« r |,j tf ( un t»r (JO j'

Published by order of the Academy of Scieaces of the USSR
March 1927

Permanent Secretary S. d’Oldenburg.

j

Begun in April 1926 — Printed in April 1927

Tht. jihct. VI -+- 246 CTp.

JleHHHrpaACKHfi PyfijiHT AT? 19096 — 158/4 neu. j. — Tnpaat 850
H3AaTeju»CTB0 AKa^eMBH Hayn CCCP
Pocy*apcTBeHHafl AKaxeMHMecKaa Tmiorpa^Hfl. 9 jihhhh 1?.

-Hi J l K. Mf

PEEFAOE.

• The incentive to this work was given by Sir D. Ross, Director of the School of Oriental Studies in London, when I was asked by him to contribute for the Bulletin of the School a review of Professor L. de la Vallde Poussin’s book upon Nirvana. While considering some of the points there discussed I was led to reconsider the position of the Sautrantika School and its supposed «denial» of Nirvana. This school then disclosed itself as an intermediate step between Hinayana and Mahayana, and its attitude could not be understood without clearly realizing the Central Conception of the latter. I have thus been further induced to elicit the Mahayana Conception of a Buddha and his Nirvana. The contrast between Hinayana and Mahayana then appeared as an occasional confirmation of the views and explanations of technical terms contained in my «Central Conception of Buddhism» (published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London 1924). The present work can be regarded as a sister volume to it and could have also born the title of «The Central Conception of Mahayana».

I have appended a translation of the principal parts of those works of
Nagarjuna and Candraklrti which are the foundation stone of Mahayana.

In the process of this my work I derived great help from many valuable suggestions of my friend Prof. M. Tubiansky to whom I here express my grati¬ tude. The preparation of the Indexes of proper names and Sanscrit words is due to the selfdenying industry of Miss Alexandra Schneider to whom my deepest thanks are due.

In the reading of proofs I have been assisted by my aged mother. Since an Englishman has become a rara avis in this country, we both are alone responsible for all the imperfections of english style that may be found in this book.

In the transliteration of Sanscrit words I have abstained from the use of diacritics for guttural n since its value is always clear without it.

PAGE

CONTENTS.

Pkeface.... I

I. Preliminary. 1

II. Buddhism and Yoga. 2

III. Mystic intuition (yogi-prat yaks a). 16

IY. Buddha’s belief in personal immortality. 20

Y. Was Buddha an agnostic?. 21

VI. The position of the later schools of the H in ay an a ... 23

VII. The double character of the absolute. 26

VIII. The Vaibhasikas. 27

IX. The Sautrantikas. 29

X. The Yogacaras. 81

XI. The Madhyamikas. 35

XII. The doctrine of causality in Hinayana. 39

XIII. This doctrine modified in Mahayana. 40

XIV. The doctrine of Relativity. 42

XV. The real eternal Buddha cognized in mystic intuition . . 44

XVI. The new conception of Nirvana. 45

XVII. Is Relativity itself relative? Condemnation of all logic

XVIII. Parallel developments in Buddhism and Brahmanism ... 50

XIX. European parallels .. 51

XX. The position of Nyaya-Vaisesika. 54

XXI. Conclusion. 60

Appendix I. 63

A TREATISE ON RELATIVITY * (Madhyamika-sastra)

BY NaGARJUNA

Chapters I and XXV.

Prefatory. 65

Dedication. 69

IV

Examination of Causality. 71

Chapter XXV.

Examination of Nirvana. 74

Appendix IV. 79

THE CLEARWORDED

(Prasannapada)

A COMMENT
UPON

Nagarjuna’s Treatise on Relativity
(Madhyamika-vrtti)

BY

OandrakTrti.

Dedication.'. 82

Chapter I.

Examination of Causality

L Preliminary. 83

II. The meaning of Pratitya-samutpada according to the

III. The meaning of this term in Hinayana .. 86

IV. The Hinayanist interpretation rejected.. 86

V. The opinion of Bhavaviveka. 87

VI. Bhavaviveka’s criticism of Buddhapalita’s comment . . 88

VII. The definition of the term by Bhavaviveka. 89

VIII. The principle of Relativity the Law of all pluralistic

p. 90

IX. Causality denied . 92

X. Identity of cause and effect denied :. 93

XI. Bhavaviveka assails the comment of Buddhapalita ... 94

XII. The first objection of Bhavaviveka answered. 94

XIII. The second point of Bhavaviveka, viz. that the answer of

XIV. The Madhyamika method explained . 98

PAGE

XV. Buddhapalita’s comment vindicated from the standpoint of

XVI. The answer of the Sankhya virtually repudiated by

Buddhapalita. 101

XVII. Some minor points explained. 103

XVIII. The third stricture of Bhavaviveka answered. The denial

OF one view does not imply the acceptance of the con- 103

TRARY ... .

XIX. Examination of Bhavaviveka’s formal argument against the Sankhya. 105

XX. Bhavaviveka’s argument assailed from the standpoint of formal logic. 107

XXI. Anotner attempt of Bhavaviveka to vindicate his argu¬ ment . 109

XXII. Bhavaviveka also avails himself of the argument that

FOR THE MoNIST ALL INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE IS UNREAL ... 112

XXIII. Another formal error in the syllogism of Bhavaviveka. 116