The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana — Th. Stcherbatsky (1927)
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
If Nirvana would have the double character of au Ens ajid a non-Ens, 531. 9. it would be then dependent, it would be relative to the totality of its causes and conditions , 4 it would not be the Absolute . 5 Why? Because both these Ens and non-Ens are conditioned . 6 Considering that the Ens is the counter¬ part 7 of the non-Ens and (vice versa) the non-Ens is the counterpart of the Ens, both Ens and non-Ens 8 are necessarily dependent existences. They are not absolute . 9 (If Nirvana were not the absolute), it could then be (partly) an Ens and (partly) a non-Ens. But it is not so. Therefore this is impossible.
1 atma-labha.
2 samskara.
3 Probably the Vaibhagika theory about the dharma-svabhava is here alluded to. Ac¬ cording to this theory some lifeless residue of the samskaras or dharmas remains in Nirvana, but there manifestation (dharma-laksana) is stopped for ever. We would then have in Nir¬ vana samskaras somehow existing and non-existing at the same time, cp. my Central Conception, pp. 42, 95.
4 hetu-pratyaya-samagrxm upadaya... bhavnt.
5 anupadaya (sat) = paramarthasat.
0 upadaya — praiitya = sdpeksika — Sunya.
1 upadaya — sdpeksika = sapratiyogitaka.
* Read bhavaS cdbhdcaS ca.
9 anupadaya - (sat) = paramarthasat.
NIRVANA
5 Si. 13 . And farther,
XIII. How can Nirvana represent
An Ens and a non-Ens together.
Nirvana is indeed uncaused, 1
Both Ens and non-Ens are productions. 2
532 . i. An Ens is caused, since it is produced by the totality of its causes and conditions. 3 A non-Ens is likewise caused, 4 since 1 . it arises as the counter¬ part 5 of an Ens, and 2. because it has been declared (in Scripture) that decay and death, are consequent upon a birth. 6 Thus if Nirvana were essen¬ tially an Ens or a non-Ens it could not be uncaused, it w r ould be necessarily caused. However it is not admitted to be caused. Therefore Nirvana cannot be both Ens and non-Ens together.
532 . 5. Let it be so. Let Nirvana itself not be Ens and non-Ens together. Perhaps it may be the place where Ens and non-Ens are found together However this is also impossible. Why? Because,
XIV. How can Nirvana represent
(The place) of Ens and of non-Ens together?
As light and darkness (in one spot)
They cannot simultaneously be present.
532 . 9 . Since Ens and non-Ens are mutually incompatible, they cannot possibly exist together in one place, in Nirvana. Therefore it is said,
How can Nirvana represent
(The place) of Ens and non-Ens together?
(The interrogation) means that this is absolutely impossible.
1 asamskrtam = na krtam.
2 samskrta = krtaka.
3 hetu-pratyaya-samagrx-sambhuta.
4 samskrta.
5 praiitya = upadaya — pratiyogin.
6 This simple statement that non-existence is dependent upon previous existence is here given the form of a Scriptural evidence, because it corresponds to the two last members of the I 2-membered pratitya-samutpada, stating that death follows upon a birth.
APPENDIX: CANDRAKlRTI’S comment on RELATIVITY, XXV 201
VII. Nor is Nirvana a negation of both Ens and non-Ens together.
The author now proceeds (to consider the fourth part of the quadri- 532. 11. lemma, and) indicates (the incongruity) of assuming that Nirvana is a nega¬ tion of both Ens and non-Ens. He says,
XV. If it were clear indeed
What an Ens means and what a non-Ens,
We could then understand the doctrine
About Nirvana being neither Ens nor non-Ens.
The judgment 1 that Nirvana is not an Ens would be possible, if (we 593. 1. knew) that there is a real Ens, then by its negation (Nirvana would be determined). If (we knew) that there is a real non-Ens, then by its nega¬ tion we would also understand what (the judgment means) that Nirvana is not an Ens. But since (we neither know) what an Ens nor a non-Ens really are, we can neither (understand) their negations . 2 Therefore (the result at which we are arrived, viz.) that Nirvana is neither an Ens nor a non-Ens, even this negative (result, cannot be accepted as logically) consistent . 3 This also must be rejected.
And moreover, 533. 5.
XVI. If Nirvana is neither Ens, nor is it non-Ens,
Who can then really understand
This doctrine which proclaims at once
Negation of them both together.
1 kolpand = yojana.