The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana — Th. Stcherbatsky (1927)
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
(The Sautrantika) nowsuggests. If Nirvana is not an Ens, because of 527. 1. the incogruity 1 which has been elicited, it must be a non-Ens, since it con¬ sists merely in the fact that the defiling elements and (their consequence), the individual existences, are stopped. We answer. This is also impossible, because (the following has been declared),
VII. If Nirvana is not an Ens,
Will it then be a non-Ens?
Wherever there is absence of an Ens,
There neither is a non-Ens.
If it is not admitted that Nirvana is an Ens, if (the thesis) «Nirvana 527. 5. is an Ens» is rejected, then perhaps Nirvana might be a non-Ens? (The author’s) idea is that it neither can be a non-Ens.
If it be maintained that Nirvana is the absence of defiling elements and individual existences (produced by them), 2 then (it would result) that the impermanence of these defiling elements and personal existences is Nirvana.
Indeed, the cessation of these defiling agencies and the end of personal exi¬ stences (can be envisaged as) nothing but their own character of imperma¬ nence. (They always have an end). Thus it will follow that impermanence is Nirvana. And this cannot be admitted, since in that case (Final Deliverance) will be attained automatically, 3 (the teaching of a Path towards Salvation, would be useless). Hence this is quite inadmissible!
Moreover, 527. 10.
VIII. Now, if Nirvana is a non-Ens,
How can it then be independent?
1 dosa-prasanga.
2 kJeSa-janmanor abhavah.
3 ayatnena.
NIRVANA
For sure an independent non-Ens
Is nowhere to be found.
527. 13. A non-Ens, whether it be here the impermanence (or cessation of some¬ thing), is constructed in our thought (and expressed in speech ) 1 as (a characteri¬ stic) appertaining to some positive counterpart. 2 (Absolute non-existence indeed) is similar to the non-existence of horns on the head of a donkey It is not known to be impermanent. We imagine 3 a characterized thing as relative 4 to some characteristic, and (vice versa ) a characteristic as being relative to some¬ thing characterized. The work of characterization 5 being thus relational , 0 what is impermanence (or cessation) without an entity characterized by it? Non-existence must therefore be imagined along with a counterpart . 7 Therefore, if Nirvana is a non-Ens, how can it be an absolute 8 Nirvana?
528. 3. (This argument might be formulated as follows),
(Thesis). Nirvana can be a non-Ens only as relative to some positive counterpart.
(Reason). Because it is a non-Ens.
(Example). Just as the destruction (of a jar is relative to this jar).
In order to make this clear it is added,
For sure, an absolute 8 non-Ens
Is nowhere to be found.
528. 5. (An objection is raised). If indeed it is maintained that an absolute non-Ens is impossible, then, e. g., the negation of a son of a barren woman must also be related 9 to a positive counterpart (in the shape of a real son of a barren woman).
528. 6 . (Answer) Who has established that the son of a barren woman etc. is a non-Ens? Just the contrary has been said above , 10
If sometting is not settled as an Ens
Neither can it be settled as a non-Ens.
What people call a non-Ens
Is nothing but a change in Ens.
1 prajiiapyate. fi pa rn spar a - apelcsika.
2 bhavam updddya. 7 updddya.
3 prajiiapyate. s anupaddya.
4 aSritya. ! ' updddya abhdvali.
5 laksya-laksana-pravrtti. 10 XV. 5.
appendix: candrakIrtus comment on relativity, xxv 195
Thus the son of a barren woman is not (really) a non-Ens, (a nega- 528. 9. tion as something real). It has indeed been declared that,
The empty space, the horns of asses,
The sons of barren women
Are spoken of as non-Ens.
The same refers to all imagined Ens , 1
But this should be understood as a mere denial of the possibility to ima- 528. 12. gine them as real, not as conceiving them as a negation, because positive (counterparts to which they could be related) do not exist. The «son of a barren woman» are mere words. They do not correspond to any reality which could be cognized, which could either be an Ens or a non-Ens. How can a thing whose concrete reality has never been experienced be imagined either as existing or as not existing , 2 Therefore it should be known that the son of a barren woman is not a real negation. Thus it is settled, there can be no non-Ens without a positive counterpart . 3
V. Nirvana is this world viewed sub specie aeternitatis.
It is now asked, if NirvSina is neither Ens nor is it non-Ens, what is 528 . 17. it indeed? We answer. The godlike Buddhas have made about this point the following declaration,
IX. Coordinated here or caused 4 are (separate things),
We call this -world phenomenal.
But just the same is called Nirvana,
When viewed without Causality, without Coordination.
1 bhdvesu Tcalpana.
2 Buddhist logic has established a very detailed and thorough theory of negation, where it is proved that every negative judgment is founded on a negative experience, on a pos¬ sible perception which has not happened ( anupalabdhi ), it is therefore always related to some positive substratum, cp. Nyayabindu, II. 26 IF.