English
Each of these four classes is again divided into pleasant and unpleasant, making the following eight in all : — ,. , ;. \(d) pleasant (1). (1) Articulate . \ ;, ' L , ; ' (1) Sentient . . 6 unpleasant 2. 1(2) Inarticulate - " pl<T f ! ' ((6) unpleasant (4). ,. , , ((a) pleasant (5). (1) Articulate . ; ' * , , ; ' (2) Non-sentient . 6 unpleasant 6. 1(2) Inarticulate J " pl<T J >' ((6) unpleasant (8). 3. Gandha, or Smell. — This has only four classes : (1) Sugandha, or pleasant ; (2) Durgandha, or unpleasant ; (3) Samagandha, lit. similar smell, but which is interpreted as meaning smell which renders nourishment to the body ; (4) Visamagandha, dissimilar smell, or smell which does not render nourishment to the body. 4. Rasa, or Taste. — This consists of six classes : (1) Madhura, or sweet ; (2) Amla, or sour ; (3) Lavana, or brackish ; (4) Katuka, or acrid ; (5) Tikta, or bitter ; (6) Kasaya, or astringent. 5. Sparsa, or Touch. — This consists of eleven classes, viz. : (1) Prithivi, or earthy ; (2) Apas, or watery ; (3) Tejas, or fiery ; (4) Vayu, or airy ; (5) $laksnatva, or smooth ; (6) Karkasatva, or rough ; (7) Laghutva, or light ; (8) Gurutva, or heavy ; (9) Sita, or cold ; (10) Jighatsa, or hunger ; (11) Pipasa, or thirst. (iii) Atoms and Molecules In the preceding pages frequent mention has been made of the terms atoms and molecules. It is therefore expedient to examine more closely the Buddhist atomic theory. While frequent mention is made of the four Mahabhutas, neither the Pali sutras nor the seven Pali Abhidharma works contain any mention of the atomic theory, and the idea seems to have been introduced into Buddhism by the Sarvastivadins, probably as the result of contact with the Vaisesikas, for the 126 MANUAL OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY Jain atomic theory, like that of the Buddhists, seems a borrowed and not an original doctrine. I have been unable to find any reference to atoms or molecules in the Jnana Prasthana, nor in any of the six pada, which with them constitute the original Abhidharma canon of the Sarvastivadins. The Mahavibhasa, however, probably composed in the early part of the second century A.D., makes frequent mention of the atoms in its interpretation of the older works, and seemingly with no sense of incongruity. That it was quite prevalent at this time is seen from the fact that the Abhidharma Hrdaya, translated into Chinese in the third century A.D. (one of the earliest Abhidharma works to be translated), contains the whole theory in its developed form. The atomic theory plays an integral part in the philosophy of Vasubandhu and Sanghabhadra. The early and classical Yogacarins, moreover, accept the theory provisionally in spite of their idealism. The later Yogacarins, however, beginning with Dignaga, felt that the doctrine stood in the way of the doctrine that all phenomena spring from the mind, and in his Alambana pratyaya Dignaga wrote a very able refutation of the atomic theory. The Neo-Sthaviravadin school founded by Buddhaghosa does not seem to have gone, at first, into details of the atomic theory as found in the north, but the kalapa theory (corre sponding to the Sarvastivadin Samghata paramanu) was used by Buddhaghosa himself in the Attha SalinI, and was thereafter considered an integral part of the Sthaviravadin philosophy, the idea being mentioned and considerably developed in the Abhidhammattha-Sahgaha. At a somewhat later time (when, I do not know) the ultimate units of the kalapa or molecule received the name paramanu, and Professor Maung Ting tells me that at the present time it is considered an integral part of Sthaviravadin philosophy. 1. Atoms. — The Sarvastivadins (Ab. Hr. 1, etc.) tell us that there are fourteen kinds of atoms, just as the scientist COSMIC ANALYSIS 127 at least of a generation ago would have said that there are eighty odd kinds of atoms, one kind for each element. The number fourteen is accounted for by one being given to each of the sense organs, and one to each of the sense objects, and four additional ones for each of the four Mahabhutas. Unlike the atoms of the Vaisesikas and Jains, however, the atoms of the Buddhists are not eternal. They spring into being from time to time, and then are destroyed, lapsing seemingly into nothingness (cf. A.K. 12, latter half). Thus, the atoms of the five sense organs and sense objects originate owing to the atoms of the four elements, and would instantly lapse into decay were it not for the sustaining power of the elemental atoms. Hence every derivative atom has with it, sustaining it, one atom of each of the Mahabhutas.1 Even these mahabhumika atoms, however, are not themselves permanent, but undergo a four-fold process of birth continuance, decay, and destruction, followed by a new cycle of birth, etc. This phenomenalist view of the atoms is of interest as a contrast to the substantive view of the atoms held by their Indian contemporaries. 2. The Molecules. — These atoms are grouped together into molecules, and all parts of the material universe consist of these molecules, called Samghata paramanus by the Sarvastivadins, and kalapas by the Sthaviravadins. Vasubandhu tells us that the molecules of non-sentient matter are the simplest, and that even these are at least eight-fold, i.e. containing at the very least atoms of each of the four elements and four of the sense objects, atoms of sound not being necessarily included. Where a sound atom is produced by the action of the other atoms, the molecules are then nine-fold. Strictly speaking, even an eight-fold molecule contains at least twenty atoms, since there are four sense object atoms and each such derivative atom must have one atom of each of the four elements supporting it, making four 1 A.K. 429. 128 MANUAL OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY derivative and sixteen elementary atoms in the simplest molecule. This number is increased to five derivative and twenty elemental atoms in the case of those molecules containing sound atoms. The number eight or nine there refers only to the different kinds of atoms in a molecule, and not to the total number of constituent atoms. The molecules of every animate body is more complicated. Every such molecule must contain at least nine kinds of atoms, for in addition to the foregoing necessary eight, each molecule contains an atom of the kaya indriya, or touch sense organ. The molecules of the sense orifices (eye, ear, nose, etc.) are at least ten-fold, for such a molecule must contain not only the four elemental atoms, four sense object atoms, and a kaya-indriya atom, but also an additional atom of the sense organ in question. Since the Neo-Sthaviravadins retained the whole twenty- eight divisions of rupa of the old Pali Abhidharma, their list of the component parts of a molecule differs somewhat from the preceding. Those who are interested in the subject will find particulars in Abhidhammattha Sangaha (C.P. 164, seq.). (iv) The Eleventh Category of the Northern Schools Before closing our discussion of the divisions of rupa or matter as known to the Buddhists, we must examine the two as yet unexplained categories, namely, the Avijnapti rupa of the Sarvastivadins, and the mentally perceived matter of the Yogacarins. 1. Avijnapti was a term of much dispute among the Buddhists, and there were even widely diverging opinions as to the general group under which this particular category should come. The term means " not manifested ", or not expressed, or latent. According to the Buddhists, every physical act, word, or thought should have some corresponding result. In many cases the result was open and obvious. An act visibly modified the nature and position of the molecules. Sometimes, however, no such manifested (vijnapti) result COSMIC ANALYSIS 129 would be observed. The moral theory of the Buddhists would not allow them to suppose that such an action had no result, even though no result were visible, so they invented the category of Avijnapti, which we may say corresponds to the Western idea of the general character of a man, inasmuch as the general character of a man is affected by his past actions, even though it seems to have no result. This general character was affected by not only definite conscious acts, but also by acts performed unconsciously or in a state of confused thought. On the other hand, for the action to have effect it must be definitely good or bad.