Refutation of a Pratimoksha Vowed Restraint as a Nonrevealing Form That Follows from a Revealing Form
In response to the Vaibhashika objection that if the existence of nonrevealing forms were negated, the consequence would be that pratimoksha vowed restraints would not exist, Vasubandhu, in his (Auto)commentary on “A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge” (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod-kyi rang-’grel, Skt. Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya) (Gretil 195.25-28, Derge vol. 160, 168B), gives the Sautrantika response:
(Sautrantika retorts that) there would be [Tib. only: a rebuttal with] counter-consequences to (those) consequences. Suppose there were indeed (a pratimoksha vow that was) a nonrevealing (form and) that what it (followed) from was from a special type of mental urge referred to (by us) as “a karmic impulse for (an action of) the body.” [Tib. adds: What (consequence) would come from that?] (The consequence would be that) it (a pratimoksha vowed restraint) would be something that follows from a mind, but it would, in fact, not be like a nonrevealing form from an absorbed concentration. (It would be like that) because of the special type of casting of it – (namely) by a special type of mental urge.
(Skt.) anuṣaṅgānāṃ punaḥ pratyanuṣaṅgā bhaviṣyanti / yadi tasmādeva kāyakarmasaṃśabditāccetanāviśeṣādavijñaptiḥ syāt / cittānuparivartinī syātsamāhitāvijñaptivat naivaṃ bhaviṣyati / cetanāviśeṣeṇa tadākṣepaviśeṣāt/
(Tib.) /thal ba rnams la yang thal ba'i gnyen po dag yod de/ gal te lus kyi las zhes bya ba'i sems pa'i khyad par de nyid las rnam par rig byed ma yin pa 'byung bar 'gyur na yang cir 'gyur mnyam par gzhag pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa bzhin du sems kyi rjes su 'brang ba yin par 'gyur ro/ /de ltar mi 'gyur te/ sems pa'i khyad par gyis de'i 'phen pa khyad par yod pa'i phyir ro/
A nonrevealing form from a total absorption (mnyam-par gzhag-pa'i rnam-par rig-byed ma-yin pa, Skt. samāhitāvijñapti) is equivalent to a restraint from mental constancy (bsam-gtan sdom-pa, Skt. dhyānasaṃvara). Such a restraint is a temporary blockage of gross consciousness, gross feelings and gross distinguishing during the meditative attainment of a balanced absorption on non-distinguishing (‘du-shes med-pa’i snyoms-‘jug, Skt. saṃjñisamāpatti) or a temporary blockage also of gross disturbing emotions during the meditative attainment of a balanced absorption on cessation (‘gog-pa’i snyoms-‘jug, Skt. nirodhasamāpatti). Such nonrevealing forms are cast together with a state of mind – namely, the attainment of a state of total absorption. They do not follow from a revealing form; both Vaibhashika and Sautrantika agree on this.
Sautrantika then argues, suppose that our assertion is correct that a pratimoksha vowed restraint arises with the mental urge that drives the action of the body kneeling to obtain the vowed restraint – and, though not mentioned, with the mental urge that drives the action of speech repeating the words of the pledge to uphold the vowed restraints. If the pratimoksha vowed restraint cast by the mind containing that urge were a nonrevealing form, then the absurd conclusion would follow that a nonrevealing form was cast by a state of mind – namely, the mind containing that urge – that was not a state of absorbed concentration.
Jinaputra Yashomitra, in The Clarified Meaning, An Explanatory Commentary on (Vasubandhu’s) (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod kyi ‘grel-bshad don-gsal-ba, Skt. Sphuṭārtha Abhidharmakośavyākhyā) (Gretil ed. 351, Derge Tengyur vol. 143, 7A) explains:
As for “there would be [Tib. only: a rebuttal with] counter-consequences of (those) consequences,” the meaning is that there will be rebuttals of them [Tib.: answers to them]. As for “from (a special type of mental urge) referred to (by us) as ‘a karmic impulse for (an action of) the body,’” the meaning is “from (a special type of mental urge that has) the body as its sphere of influence.”
As for “like the nonrevealing form from an absorbed concentration” the meaning is just as a nonrevealing form from a total absorption is something that follows from a mind, likewise there could (also) be a nonrevealing form that had the defining characteristic of being a pratimoksha vowed restraint and so on (that also follows from a mind). But it would not become something that follows from a mind (that was an absorbed concentration). “Because of the special type of casting of it, (namely) by a special type of mental urge that was not an absorbed concentration” has the meaning “because of (there being) a special type of casting of a nonrevealing (form) for (what was) not an absorbed concentration.
(Skt.) anuṣaṃgāṇāṃ punaḥ pratyanuṣaṃgā iti. tatparihārā bhaviṣyantīti arthaḥ. kāyakarmasaṃśabditād iti. kāyādhiṣṭhānād ity arthaḥ. samāhitāvijñaptivad iti. yathā samāhitāvijñaptiś cittānuparivartinī. evaṃ prātimokṣasamvarādilakṣaṇāpy avijñaptiḥ syāt. na cittānuparivartinī bhaviṣyati. cetanāviśeṣeṇāsamāhitena tadākṣepaviśeṣād asamāhitāyā avijñapter ākṣepād ity arthaḥ.
(Tib.) /thal ba rnams la yang thal ba'i gnyen po de dag yod de zhes bya ba ni de'i lan yod do zhes bya ba'i tha tshig go/ /lus kyi las zhes bya ba ni lus la brten pa zhes bya ba'i tha tshig go/ /mnyam par gzhag pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa bzhin du zhes bya ba ni ji ltar mnyam par gzhag pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa sems kyi rjes su 'jug pa yin pa ltar so sor thar pa'i sdom pa la sogs pa'i mtshan nyid kyi rnam par rig byed ma yin pa yang de dang 'dra bar yang 'gyur ro/ /mdo sde pa rnams kyis de ltar mi 'gyur te zhes bya ba smos te/ /mdo sde pa rnams kyis de ltar mi 'gyur te zhes bya ba smos te/ mnyam par gzhag pa ma yin pa'i sems pa'i khyad par gyis de'i 'phen pa khyad par yod pa'i phyir sems kyi rjes su 'jug par mi 'gyur te/ mnyam par gzhag pa ma yin pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa 'phangs pa'i phyir ro zhes bya ba'i tha tshig go/
Sthiramati, in The Meaning of the Facts, An Annotated Subcommentary to (Vasubandhu’s) “Autocommentary to ‘A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge’” (Chos mngon-pa mdzod-kyi bshad-pa'i rgya-cher ‘grel-pa don-gyi de-kho-na-nyid, Skt. Abhidharmakoṣa-bhāṣyā-ṭīkā-tattvārtha) (Derge Tengyur vol. 210, 11B-12A), explains further:
Sautrantika extensively retorts, “Suppose there were (indeed a pratimoksha vowed restraint that was a nonrevealing form and that what it followed from was a special type of mental urge referred to by us as) “a karmic impulse for (an action of) the body.” In other words, if you (Vaibhashikas) think there definitely would be, (in that case, a pratimoksha vowed restraint that could be designated as a nonrevealing form).” “What would come (from that)?” (means) “What fault would come (from that)?”
“It (that nonrevealing form of the pratimoksha vowed restraint) would become something that follows from a mind” (means) because it relied on a mind alone, but (it did so) like (a nonrevealing form that was) not a nonrevealing (form) from a total absorption. Because nonrevealing (forms) from a total absorption and from an untainted restraint do not depend on a revealing (form to arise, therefore), by relying on only a mind, they are something that follows from a mind. (If it is) like that, the absurd conclusion would follow that the nonrevealing form of a pratimoksha vowed restraint (as defined by you Vaibhashikas) would also be something that follows from a mind when there is no revealing (form). But you (Vaibhashikas) claim that revealing (forms) are definitely to be accepted (as what pratimoksha vowed restraints follow from).
(Tib.) /mdo sde pas gal te lus kyi las zhes bya ba rgyas par smras te/ gal te gdon mi za bar rnam par rig byed ma yin par ‘gyur dogs na snyam du bsams pa’o/ /cir ‘gyur zhes bya ba ni skyon cir ‘gyur zhes bya ba’o/ /sems kyi rjes su ‘brang ba yin par ‘gyur ro zhes bya ba ni sems tsam la rag las pa’i phyir mnyam par gzhag pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa bzhin no/ /ji ltar bsam gtan dang zag pa med pa'i sdom pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa rnam par rig byed la mi ltos pa'i phyir/ sems tsam la brten pas sems kyi rjes su 'brang ba yin pa de bzhin du so sor thar pa'i sdom pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa yang rnam par rig byed med pa na sems kyi rjes su 'brang bar thal bar 'gyur bar gdon mi za bar rnam par rig byed khas blang bar bya'o/
A nonrevealing form from an untainted restraint (zag pa med pa'i sdom pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa, Skt. anasrāvasaṃvarāvijñapti) refers to the restraint gained from being parted from tainted phenomena, such as from disturbing emotions, gained with the attainment of a true pathway mind.
The Sautrantika argument is that if Vaibhashika accepts that the nonrevealing forms from mental constancy and from untainted restraints arise merely from states of mind and that they follow from those states of mind without depending on a revealing form, then the absurd conclusion follows that Vaibhashika would also need to accept that the nonrevealing form of a pratimoksha vow also arises like that, simply by following from a state of mind. But this contradicts the Vaibhashika assertion that the nonrevealing form of a pratimoksha vowed restraint arises simultaneously with the first moment of a revealing form.
In other words, if Vaibhashika asserts that some nonrevealing forms, such as a pratimoksha vowed restraint, follow from a revealing form, whereas other nonrevealing forms, such as a nonrevealing form from an absorbed concentration, follow from a state of mind, then there is no pervasion between being a nonrevealing form and being a nonrevealing form that follows from a revealing form. Thus, Vaibhashika contradicts itself in asserting that some kinds of nonrevealing forms can follow from a revealing form, and some can follow from a state of mind, and yet a pratimoksha vowed restraint, as a nonrevealing form, must definitely follow from a revealing form.
Sautrantika further argues, if Vaibhashika can accept that some nonrevealing forms, such as a nonrevealing form from an absorbed concentration, can follow from a mind, they should equally be able to accept that a pratimoksha vowed restraint, as a nonrevealing form, can also follow from a mind – namely from the mental urge that Sautrantika asserts as being a karmic impulse for an action of the body. This is because, as just stated, there is no pervasion between being a nonrevealing form and being a nonrevealing form that follows from a revealing form.
The Sautrantikas, however, do not accept the existence of revealing forms as defined in the Vaibhashika system as distinct, substantial, material entities, nor do they accept the existence of nonrevealing forms. Therefore, they argue that they do not have any contradiction in their system of asserting that pratimoksha vowed restraints and the vowed restraints from mental constancy and from an untainted restraint all follow from a state of mind and none of them are a nonrevealing form. In other words, Sautrantika avoids all self-contradiction when they assert the pervasion between being a pratimoksha vowed restraint and being a pratimoksha vowed restraint that follows from a mind.
Refutation of a Revealing Form Having the Force to Cast a Pratimoksha Vowed Restraint
Vasubandhu, Autocommentary (Gretil 195.28-196.01, Derge 168B-169A), states:
Even in the case of there being a revealing (form as defined by you Vaibhashikas), in the casting of it (of a nonrevealing form), it (the revealing form) would be made to look to [Tib. would rely on] the force of a mental urge because of it (the revealing form) being dull.
(Skt.) sā 'pi ca vijñaptiḥ satī tadākṣepe cetanāyā balaṃ nibhālayate / jaḍatvāt
(Tib.) /rnam par rig byed de yod na yang de 'phang bar bya ba ni sems pa'i stobs la rag las pa yin te de blun pa'i phyir ro/
Jinaputra Yashomitra, The Clarified Meaning, (Gretil 351, Derge 7A-B), explains:
Even if your revealing (form as a distinct, substantial material entity) existed and were present [Tib.: were not non-existent], in the casting of a nonrevealing form it would be made to look to [Tib.: would rely on] the force and strength of the mental urge producing (it) and (thus) be cast. (But it cannot do that.) Why? Because of it (a revealing form) being dull – (in other words) because of it being not something with clarity – it is not possible for there to be an arising of a nonrevealing (form that is caused) by something other than the force of a mental urge. In other words, in the case of a mental urge, with which one takes on oneself (the obtaining of a pratimoksha vowed restraint, having scrutinized and decided beforehand to do so), being absent, a revealing (form) that has spontaneously arisen cannot cause a nonrevealing form to arise.
(Skt.) sāpi ca vijñaptir bhavadīyā satī vidyamānā avijñapter ākṣepe utpādanacetanāyā balaṃ sāmarthyaṃ nibhālayate apekṣate. kasmāt. jaḍatvād apaṭutvāc cetanābalam antareṇa tām avijñaptiṃ janayituṃ na śaknoti. na hy asatyāṃ samādānacetanāyāṃ yadṛcchotpannā vijñaptir avijñaptiṃ janayati.
(Tib.) /khyed kyi rnam par rig byed de yod cing med pa ma yin na yang rnam par rig byed ma yin pa 'phang par bya ba ni sems pa'i stobs dang mthu la rag las pa yin te ltos pa yin no/ /ci'i phyir zhe na/ blun ba'i phyir te mi gsal ba'i phyir ro/ /sems pa'i stobs med pa ni rnam par rig byed ma yin pa de bskyed par mi nus te/ yang dag par len pa'i sems pa med na rnam par rig byed gyi nas byung bas ni rnam par rig byed ma yin pa skyed par mi byed do/
In The Meaning of the Facts (Derge 11B-12A), Sthiramati explains in more detail:
“Even if your revealing (form as a distinct, substantial material entity) existed” needs to be elaborated upon. Even if revealing (forms of the body and of the speech as defined by you Vaibhashikas) did exist and they did cast nonrevealing (forms), the casting (of them) would take place as a phenomenon (that arose from) a cause that subsequently engaged them (the revealing forms of the body and speech) at a definite time. The meaning is (these nonrevealing forms would have arisen) as things that relied on the force of a (subsequently engaging) mental urge – (namely) as something that depended (on such a mental urge).
As for saying that this (mental urge) itself is the cause (for the nonrevealing forms to have arisen), it is “because they (the revealing forms of the body and speech) are dull,” which means “because of them (the revealing forms of the body and speech) being not things with clarity (of what they were directing themselves at, because of their being a nominal and a definitional form of physical phenomenon respectively and not ways of being aware of something). The lack of clarity in the inability (of the revealing forms of the body and speech) to cast nonrevealing forms without there being a mental urge (that subsequently engaged them) is due it not being directed (at something).
Like this, although (Sautrantika asserts that) the revealing (forms of the body and speech) are things that are (subsequently) caused by the power of a mental urge to cast a great, medium or small (pratimoksha) vowed restraint, but because (these vowed restraints) would be motivated (caused to arise) by things that are unspecified (if they were cast by the power of the revealing forms of the body and speech alone), they (these revealing forms) do not become something with the ability to cast nonrevealing (forms).
(Tib.) /rnam par rig byed de yod na yang zhes bya ba rgyas par 'byung ste/ rnam par rig byed de yod kyang rnam par rig byed ma yin pa 'phangs pa ste/ 'phangs pa ni dus nges par rjes su 'jug pa'i rgyu'i dngos por gnas pa'o/ /sems pa'i stobs la rag las pa ni bltos pa zhes bya ba'i tha tshig go/ /'di nyid la rgyu smras pa ni blun pa'i phyir ro zhes bya ba ste mi gsal ba'i phyir ro zhes bya ba'i don to/ /rnam par rig byed ma yin pa de ni sems pa med par 'phen par mi nus la mi gsal ba ni dmigs pa med pa'i phyir ro/ / 'di ltar rnam par rig byed ni sems pa'i dbang gis sdom pa chen po dang 'bring dang chung ngu 'phen pa la 'jug gi /lung du ma bstan pas kun nas bslangs pas ni rnam par rig byed ma yin pa 'phen par nus par mi 'gyur ro/
As previously discussed, Vasubandhu, in A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge, Put in Verses (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod-kyi tshig-le’ur byas-pa, Skt. Abhidharmakośa-kārikā) (IV.11) (Gretil ed., Derge Tengyur vol. 140, 11A), introduced the terms “initial engager” (rab-tu ‘jug-byed-pa, Skt. pravartika) and “subsequent engager” (rjes-su ‘jug-byed, Skt. anuvartika) in the context of his presentation of the Vaibhashika system.
For a karmic action of the body:
- An initial engager is the mental consciousness that directs itself at the body during the mental action of scrutinizing and deciding to commit a karmic action of the body with a revealing form of the body.
- A subsequent engager is the sensory consciousness that directs itself at the body during the action of the body in which a method for causing the action to occur is implemented by the revealing form of the body.
Sautrantika points out that when Vaibhashika claims that when a revealing form arises, it casts a nonrevealing form along with it, the consciousness that causes (motivates) that revealing form to arise is the subsequent engager of the body. This implies that this karmic action of the body was preceded by a karmic action of the mind – to scrutinize and decide to commit the action of the body – that was caused (motivated) to arise by an initial engager consciousness. Both the subsequent and initial engager consciousnesses would have been accompanied by the mental factor of an urge, and one could say that these mental urges also initially and subsequently engaged the body and caused the revealing form of the body to arise. Thus, Sautrantika argues, the casting of a nonrevealing form by the revealing form as it arose could only occur by the force of these initially and subsequently engaging mental urges, and both these mental urges are karmic impulses.
In the Vaibhashika system, a revealing form “casts,” or “throws,” a nonrevealing form in the sense that the revealing form is the simultaneously arising cause (lhan-cig 'byung-ba'i rgyu, Skt. sahabhūhetu) of the nonrevealing form. Both the revealing and nonrevealing forms arise simultaneously. In such a case, both the cause and effect must share the same ethical status – here, they both must be either constructive or destructive.
Because the revealing forms of the body (namely, the nominal shape of the body) and the revealing forms of speech (namely, the vocalizations of distinctly pronounced phrases through which a meaning is made understandable and which are comprised of vocalized syllables that communicate that desired meaning to others) that Sautrantika accepts – are unspecified phenomena and therefore not karmic impulses, which necessarily must be constructive or destructive, they cannot serve as simultaneously arising causes that “cast,” or “throw,” the nonrevealing forms of the great pratimoksha vowed restraints of a full monk or nun, the intermediate ones of a novice monk or nun, or the small ones of a layman or laywoman, all three of which are constructive. Therefore, for a pratimoksha vowed restraint to arise as a constructive phenomenon – which it is, whether or not it is considered a nonrevealing form – the simultaneously arising revealing forms of the body and speech must rely on the constructive incited karmic mental urges that subsequently engaged the body and speech as the equal status cause (skal-mnyam-gyi rgyu, Skt. sabhāgahetu) of the pratimoksha vowed restraint. An equal status cause brings about a result in a subsequent moment that has the same ethical status as it has.
Thus, although Sautrantika accepts the existence of pratimoksha vowed restraints as constructive phenomena and that they arise simultaneously with the revealing form of the body kneeling on one knee and the revealing form of the speech reciting the words of the pledge to refrain for the rest of one’s life from committing certain actions, it does not accept the pratimoksha vowed restraints as being either nonrevealing forms or karmic impulses.