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

empirical consciousness. But neither can it be cognized by transcendental knowledge . 1 Why? Because transcendental knowledge should be a knowledge 533. 15, of universal Relativity . 2 This is (the absolute knowledge), which is essen¬ tially (eternal), beginningless . 3 How can this knowledge which is itself undefinable 4 grasp (the definite judgment) «Nirvana is negation of both Ens and non-Ens». Indeed the essence 5 of absolute knowledge is such that it escapes every formulation . 6

Therefore (the doctrine that) Nirvana is neither a non-Ens nor an Ens (at once) can he realized by no one. No one can realize it, no one can grasp it, no one can proclaim it, consequently it is (logically) impossible . 7

VIII. The real Buddha, what?

The author now proceeds to state that just as all the parts of the qua- 534. 3. drilemma are unapplicable to Nirvana, just so are they unapplicable to the Buddha who enters Nirvana. He says,

XVII. What is the Buddha after his Nirvana?

Does he exist, or does he not exist?

Or both or neither?

We never will conceive.

Indeed it has been already stated 8 —

That o.ne who firmly is convinced,

That Buddha (during lifetime) did exist,

Will be convinced that after death
The Buddha cannot be existing.

1 jildncna.

2 Sunyata-dlamhana, it is clear that the absolute Reality ( samvrta-Sunyatd ) is here meant which underlies the Universe of Relativity ( samvrti-iunyatd ), cp. p. 164 n.

3 anuipddam eva, «quite beginningless», it is also the knowledge of the Universe in which there is no causality (anuipdda). This knowledge is also called Omniscience, sarvajAatd= sarva-dkdrajnatd = Sunyatd-jndnam = praj Aa-pdra tn ita.

* avidyamana-svarupa , i. e. its character, svarupa , is not to be found among our human kinds of knowledge.

5 rupa — svarupa.

6 sarva-prapanca-atita, (prapaAco vak, cp. M. vr, p. 373.9).

7 na yujgate = nopapadyatc.

* Translated according to the version in XXII. 13, p. 447.

534. 10. Thus it is that we cannot imagine 1 what has happened after the com¬ plete extinction 2 of the Buddha, does he then exist, or does he not exist (after Nirvana)? Since both these solutions are unimaginable singly, they cannot be right both at once, neither is the negation of them both, therefore, ima¬ ginable.

534. 12. Not alone are all these four solutions unimaginable with regard to Buddha after his demise, but (his real existence before Nirvana is equally unimaginable).

XVIII. What is the Buddha then at lifetime?

Does he exist or does he not exist?

Or both or neither?

We never will conceive.

535. l. This is beyond our understanding, beyond our concepts. It has been shown in the chapter devoted to the examination of Buddliahood . 3

1 nohyate = na kalpyate.

? nirodha.

3 Ch. XXII. This chapter begins by stating that the Buddha is neither contained in the elements (skandha) of a personality, nor is he something apart from them (XX. 1 — 2). It is the old formula of the VatsTputrlyas and, probably, of all the early sects who have favoured the idea of a superhuman Buddha. If the Buddha consisted of elements (skandha) he would be anatma (XX. 3). On this occasion Candrakirti remarks that the term dtmin in this context is a synonym of substance, a real, independent or absolute substance (atma-sabdo'ynm svabhavaiabda-paryayah). If he were not Self-existent, he could not be the Buddha, since Buddha means Self-existent, tathdtgata — existent in reality, in absolute reality. He is then characterized as Mnya and nis-prapanca, the Inexpressible. Those who would attempt to give him a conceptual definition (prapancayanti) are incapable of contemplating him by mystic intuition (na, paSyanti tathdgatam) (XX. 10). The Reality, or Substantiality (svabhdva) of the real Buddha (tathagata) is just the same as the real substance of the world (tathagato yatsvabhavas tatsvabhavam idam jagat). And just as the (phenomenal) world is unreal (nihsvabhava), the personal Buddha is un¬ real just in the same degree (XXII. 16). Candrakirti adds that the unreality or relativity of the phenomenal world has been established in the first chapter of this work. It is thus clear that Buddha is regarded in a pantheistic light as Dens sive substantia. This is the strictly mo¬ nistic stand-point of consequent Mahayanism. The conception of the Buddha is here quite the same as the conception of God (iSvara) in the Suddha-adcaitn system of Sankara. The Yogacara school has, in this point as in others, deviated from strict Mahayanism. Just as it had established four kinds of Nirvana, instead of the former three (cp. above p. 185), it has also four kinds of Buddhas or four Bodies of Buddhas and four kinds of absolute knowledge (bodhi). Here Buddha abiding in « altruistic » (apratisthita) Nirvana appears as a real God, the personified Wisdom and Love. His Spirit is not that unique substance, undifferentiated into subject and object which is the essence of dharma-ldya or tathdta, but it is a living and sympathizing Spirit which distinguishes subject, object and the separate things of the pluriverse by pratyaveksanajhana . The constructions of the early Yogacara school regarding Nirvana, Buddha and Bodhi