Whitehead, Maadhyamika, and the Praj~naapaaramitaa By Robert F. Olson Philosophy East and West Vol. 2 !"#$ % pp.

&&#'&(& Copyright 1975 by University of Hawaii Press Hawaii, USA

p. 449 A nu ber of !ongruen!es !an an" have been foun" to e#ist between the pro!ess phi$osophy of A$fre" %orth &hitehea" an" 'u""hist thought. (he present series of arti!$es is a"e possib$e on$y be!ause of these !ongruen!es an" the great potentia$ for phi$osophi! !ross)ferti$i*ation whi!h they suggest. +ne of the points, however, at whi!h !ongruen!e see s to "isappear is the basi! one of the va$i"ity of spe!u$ative phi$osophy itse$f, parti!u$ar$y when the ,aa"hya i-a for of ,ahaayaana 'u""his is !onsi"ere". 'oth the ,aa"hya i-as an" the !$ose$y re$ate" Pra./naapaara itaa 0Perfe!tion of insight1 011 tra"ition )) both here referre" to as Pra./naa 'u""his 021 )) are !hara!teri*e" by a thoroughgoing progra of inva$i"ating !on!eptua$ thought3 the for er through the use of $ogi!a$ para"o#, an" the $atter through what ight be !a$$e" rhetori!a$ para"o#. 041 Con!eptua$ thought of any -in" is re$egate" by Pra./naa 'u""his to the $eve$ of 5!onventiona$ truth5 6sa7 v.rtisatya8, whi!h is essentia$$y "e$usive or fa$se when seen fro the stan"point of 5u$ti ate truth5 6para aarthasatya8. +n the other han" &hitehea"9s progra is pre ise" on the inherent va$i"ity of !on!eptua$ thought3 Spe!u$ative Phi$osophy is the en"eavor to fra e a !oherent, $ogi!a$, ne!essary syste of genera$ i"eas in ter s of whi!h every e$e ent of our e#perien!e !an be interprete". 041 (he e$u!i"ation of i e"iate e#perien!e is the so$e .ustifi!ation for any thought: an" the starting point for thought is the ana$yti! observation of !o ponents of this e#perien!e. 051 (hat we fai$ to fin" in e#perien!e any e$e ents intrinsi!a$$y in!apab$e of e#hibition as e#a p$es of genera$ theory, is the hope of rationa$is ... ;t is the faith whi!h for s the otive for the pursuit of a$$ s!ien!es a$i-e, in!$u"ing etaphysi!s. 0<1 (he bases of su!!ess in the i aginative !onstru!tion of an a"e=uate etaphysi!a$ syste are, first, its "erivation as 5genera$i*ation of parti!u$ar fa!tors "is!erne"5 in the ri!h variety of hu an e#perien!e, 071 an" se!on", its 5unf$in!hing pursuit of the two rationa$isti! i"ea$s, !oheren!e an" $ogi!a$ perfe!tion.5 0>1 &e are ta$-ing then, apparent$y, about two "ia etri!a$$y oppose" progra s of en"eavor, one as antiinte$$e!tua$ as the other is inte$$e!tua$. &hen we $oo- ore "eep$y at both of these, however, there see s to e to be two routes to fo$$ow in see-ing a !onne!tion between su!h a spe!u$ative etaphysi!a$ phi$osophy as &hitehea"9s an" Pra./naa 'u""his . +ne of these routes is to e#a ine the notion of re$ative va$i"ity of syste s of thought on the $eve$ of 'u""hist 5!onventiona$ truth.5 (he other is to e#p$ore the stri-ing$y non)"ua$isti! $anguage of the Pra./naapaara itaa Suutras, spe!ifi!a$$y that of the A.s.tasaahasri-aa Pra./naapaara itaa 0(he perfe!tion of insight in eight thousan" $ines1. 091

p. 45? )) %aagaar.una9s basi! state ents in !hapter 24 of the ,a"hya a-a-aari-aas regar"ing the status of !onventiona$ truth are we$$ -nown3 (he tea!hing of the @har a rests on the two truths, that of the wor$"9s !onvention 6$o-asa7 v.rtisatya8 an" what is truth u$ti ate$y 6para aarthata.h8. A$though there is a profoun" "istin!tion 6vibhaaga8 between the two, the u$ti ate truth, an" hen!e nirvaa.na, !annot be attaine" without resorting to that other truth base" on !o on usage 65transa!tion53 vyavahaara8. 01?1 %aagaar.una pro!ee"s to show that the !onventiona$ "o!trines of 'u""his 6the Aour Aryan (ruths, 'u""ha, @har a, an" Sangha8 as we$$ as a$$ !o onsense truths 6that "oers "o things, things !o e to be an" pass away, et!.8 are, in fa!t, $ogi!a$$y va$i"ate" on$y by eans of the prin!ip$e of "epen"ent origination or e ptiness3 0111 5Bverything ho$"s 6fits with, is $ogi!a$$y !onsistent with3 yu.yate8 for that for whi!h e ptiness ho$"s: nothing ho$"s for that for whi!h e ptiness "oes not ho$".5 0121 (he !oheren!y of transa!tiona$ truth turns out to be foun"e" upon the pre ise of !orre$ativity. 'ut this very !oheren!y is itse$f u$ti ate$y un"er ine" by the sa e pre ise when it is syste ati!a$$y app$ie" to the separate !on!epts whi!h transa!tiona$ truth "epen"s upon. (hey are u$ti ate$y not to be "epen"e" upon si p$y be!ause they are 5e pty5 fabri!ations of the "epen"ing 6upaa"aana8 in". (hese fabri!ations are the "is!ri inations 6vi-a$pa3 isCis not, per anentCi per anent, bon"ageCre$ease, sa7 saaraCnirvaa.na, not e ptyCe pty, et!.8 whi!h are the !on!eptua$ an" verba$ pro$iferation 6prapa/n!a8 whi!h sustains the painfu$ aff$i!tion 6-$eDsa8 of the "epen"ing in". 0141 (he "o!trine of e ptiness was provi"e" by the 'u""has as a re e"y for a$$ views, 0141 in!$u"ing e ptiness itse$f3 5%either 9e pty9 shou$" be sai", nor 9not e pty9, nor 9both9 nor 9neither9 )) but they are sai" 0anyway1 for the sa-e of "esignation 6pra./napti8. 0151 (hus a$$ transa!tiona$ truth 6vyavahaarasatya8, va$i" as su!h owing to its !orre$ativity, is inva$i" fro the u$ti ate stan"point of nirvaa.na or en$ighten ent )) an" it is the essentia$ pre ise of transa!tiona$ truth, "epen"ent origination, whi!h provi"es the eans by whi!h transa!tiona$ truth is trans!en"e". A$though %aagaar.una "oes not e#p$i!it$y spe!ify what the va$i" stan"ar"s 6pra aa.na8 of transa!tiona$ truth are, 01<1 it !an easi$y be shown that he a-es use of at $east the three pra aa.nas of "ire!t per!eption 6pratya-.sa8, inferen!e 6anu aana8, an" authoritative tra"ition 6aaga a8 throughout his writings. (his is ost !$ear$y shown in !hapter 24 of the ,a"hya a-a-aari-aas, where inferen!e is use" to show a $ogi!a$ !oheren!e between the !on!ept of "epen"ent origination, !onventiona$ 'u""hist "o!trine 6that is, aaga a8, an" !onventiona$ !o on)sense per!eptions an" inferen!es regar"ing the wor$". Conventiona$ 'u""hist "o!trine is thus seen to be reasonab$e, an" !onventiona$ !o on)sense notions !an be reasonab$e too. 'ut truth for %aagaar.una is u$ti ate$y a prag ati! !on!ept3 5(ruth is in rea$ity not what has issue" forth without !ontra"i!tion p. 451 fro 0the outh of1 a sentient being3 truth is so$e$y what is for the we$fare of others 6parai-aantahita8. ;ts opposite is fa$sity, be!ause of its being "etri enta$ 6ahitatva8.5 0171 Hen!e the truth)va$ue of what is transa!tiona$ is si p$y its effe!tiveness as a eans 6upaaya8 to nirvaa.na. 'ut the effe!tiveness of transa!tiona$ truth is inseparab$e fro its rationa$ !oheren!e, an" as %aagaar.una shows, it is this very rationa$ !oheren!e whi!h "ia$e!ti!a$$y puts transa!tiona$ !on!epts to rest 6upaDsa a8. ;n this sense the rea$ truth)va$ue of transa!tion is its inherent fa$sifiabi$ity. ;t is this fun"a enta$$y para"o#i! stan"point whi!h, of !ourse, see s to give $itt$e en!ourage ent to any progra of spe!u$ative phi$osophy. ))) Can"ra-iirti 67th !entury8, 01>1 representing the Praasa7ngi-a s!hoo$ of the ,aa"hya i-as, stout$y aintains the prin!ip$e of "is!ontinuity between the two $eve$s of truth3 !onventiona$ truth $ea"s

beyon" itse$f on$y by virtue of the fa!t that its !on!eptua$)$inguisti! !o ponents "isso$ve into in!oheren!y when s!rutini*e" by eans of the very pre ise of !oheren!y, "epen"ent origination. Aor Can"ra-iirti a$$ things 6bhaava8 bear a twofo$" nature 6svaruupa or svabhaava8. +ne of these is !onstitute" by that whi!h is the ob.e!t 6vi.saya8 of right vision 6sa yag"arDsana8 an" the other by that whi!h is the ob.e!t of fa$se vision 6 .r.saa"arDsana8 of those whose inte$$e!tua$ eye 6b$o9i ig8 is !o p$ete$y !overe" by ignoran!e. 0191 (he $atter )) the fa$se vision of !onventiona$ truth )) is in"ee" va$i", a!!or"ing to the wor$", if it is the per!eive" ob.e!t 6graahya8 of what the wor$" !onsi"ers the si# sense)fa!u$ties to be when these are free of i pair ent by si!-ness, "rugs, spe$$s, "e!eptive sti u$i 6su!h as e!hoes, ref$e!tions, irages8, et!. (he si#th fa!u$ty, in" 6 anas8, is sub.e!t not on$y to the a$fun!tions of the other five, with whose per!eptions it ust "ea$, but a$so to the "a age !ause" by the "o!trina$ syste s an" views 6si""haantaa"i8 presente" by those who are 5not right5 6ya7n "ag pa a yin pa8 as we$$ as by fa$$a!ious reasoning 6anu aanaabhaasa8. 02?1 Can"ra-iirti says that what is i agine" 6-a$pita8, base" upon i$$usion or irage, as we$$ as what is i agine" by non)'u""hist theori*ers 6tiirthi-a8 are both none#istent fro the wor$"9s point of view. (heory )) su!h as the three)gu.na theory of the Saa7 -hya )) is !$asse" with i$$usory appearan!es be!ause those who engage in it, a$though they "o 5"esire to gain a!!ess to rea$ity, they "esire to rea!h that supre e point through !orre!t "eter ination of the true 0nature1 of the birth, "estru!tion, an" so on, of things whi!h are re!ogni*e" even by ignorant persons su!h as !owher"s an" wo en.5 0211 (here is no way to get !$oser to rea$ity by i proving upon or"inary !onventiona$ truth. (he on$y thing su!h theori*ers arrive at, a!!or"ing to Can"ra-iirti, is a terrib$e fa$$ into 5the ravine of ba" views.5 An" he a"vises even the 'u""hist theori*er 6in the present !ase a $ogi!ian of the s!hoo$ of @ignaaga83 5Eet this !onventiona$ 0truth1 beF ;t e#ists as e bo"i ent beset by error a$one. 0Get1 it is the !ause of p. 452 a!!u u$ation of who$eso e roots whi!h $ea" to re$ease for those who "esire it )) up unti$ their "is!overy of rea$ity 6tattvaa"higa a8.5 0221 (he u$ti ate truth !annot be put into wor"s 6anabhi$aapya8 an" is not an ob.e!t of -now$e"ge 6na ./naanavi.saya8 )) it is to be persona$$y e#perien!e" 6svasa7 ve"ya83 0241 5;n that u$ti ate how !ou$" there be any a!tivity of wor"s or of -now$e"ge 6./naana8 Aor that u$ti ate is without !on"itions apart 0fro itse$f1 6aparapratyaya8, =uiete", to be persona$$y e#perien!e" 6pratyaat ave"ya8 by Aryas, trans!en"ing a$$ !on!ept)pro$iferation. ;t !annot be taught, nor !an it be -nown 6na ./naayate8.5 0241 Hen!e where u$ti ate rea$ity is !on!erne" 5the Aryas 0251 the se$ves are the pra aa.na.5 02<1 (hus there !an be no rea$ !onf$i!t between the wor$"9s truth an" the u$ti ate truth: !onf$i!t with the wor$" !an arise on$y when one "enies so ething whi!h is re!ogni*e" as va$i" by the wor$". 0271 &hen the ,aa"hya i-a "enies the va$i"ity of the !on!epts re!ogni*e" by the wor$", he "oes so not ere$y be!ause he spea-s fro the u$ti ate stan"point, but a$so be!ause he is out to show that the inva$i"ity of those !on!epts "erives fro the very nature of !onventiona$ truth, that is, its "epen"ent origination, an" thus the pro!e"ure of "ia$e!ti! refutation is rea$$y an e#er!ise of transa!tiona$ truth base" upon re!ogni*e" !onventions of $ogi! 6anu aana8 an" or"inary per!eption 6pratya-.sa8. 02>1 (he target of refutation is a"e up of the !on!epts both of the every"ay wor$" as we$$ as those of 'u""hist tea!hing )) in other wor"s, the pra aa.na of authoritative tra"ition or s!ripture 6aaga a8 is in!$u"e" within the rea$ of !onventiona$ truth. 0291 'eyon" the va$i" )) but u$ti ate$y "e$usive )) pra aa.nas of !onventiona$ truth, we fin" a sort of u$ti ate pra aa.na3 the Aryas the se$ves, or ore a!!urate$y perhaps, their persona$ e#perien!e of en$ighten ent. (his u$ti ate stan"ar", however, is tru$y e pty3 a state of si$en!e 6tuu.s.nii7 bhaava8 out of whi!h there arises no !on!ept)pro$iferation an" hen!e no assertions or "enia$s. 04?1 (his is the non)viewpoint of the u$ti ate truth of whi!h %aagaar.una ironi!a$$y says, 5(hose for who there is rea$$y non)e#isten!e 6i.e. the ,aa"hya i-as8, who be!ause of their

re$ian!e upon en$ighten ent 0re$y on1 no assertion, no 0spe!ia$1 !on"u!t, no thought )) how !an they be !onsi"ere" nihi$istsH5 0411 %ihi$is 6naasti-atva8, $i-e its opposites, is a position ta-en within !onventiona$ity, whereas u$ti a!y is a o"e of e#perien!e whi!h "oes not ta-e any position nor "eny any position )) the positions "eny the se$ves. ,y !on!$usion is that for %aagaar.una an" for Praasa7ngi-a ,aa"hya i-a, 0421 the phi$osophi! progra a"u brate" at the beginning of this arti!$e is "evoi" of truth)va$ue. (he en"eavor to interpret e#perien!e, to e#p$ore an" e#ten" the powers of rationa$ity, "oes not in itse$f $ea" to the goa$ of nirvaa.na. Bven if spe!u$ative phi$osophy !an satisfy the episte o$ogi!a$ !anons of !onventiona$ truth, fro the u$ti ate stan"point, it has no ore truth in it than "oes a irage or spots before the eyes. ; thin- another possib$e eva$uation of !onstru!tive phi$osophi! thought !an be $in-e" with the tea!hing of the ear$ier Pra./naapaara itaa tra"ition, however, an" it is to this that we now turn. p. 454 )V (he state" purpose of the Perfe!tion of ;nsight as a tea!hing is essentia$$y the sa e as that of %aagaar.una )) getting ri" of atta!h ent3 (his "har a is taught for the sa-e of not)ta-ing)ho$" 6anu"graha8 of any "har a )) yet the wor$" !arries on ta-ing)ho$". 0441 ... (his perfe!tion of insight is presente" for a great purpose3 for 0bringing about1 non)a!=uisition 6aparigraha8, for 0bringing about1 non)a""i!tion 6anabhiniveDsa8 0441 Su!h a progra ai s at the e$i ination of a o"e of e#perien!e, that is, e#perien!e =ua$ifie" by atta!h ent. (he goa$ is a "eta!he" o"e of -nowing )) perfe!t insight or en$ighten ent )) whi!h is "es!ribe" in negative ter s3 (he (athaagatas9 non)atta!h ent)-nowing 6asa7nga./naana8 is in"ee" perfe!t insight. 0451 %on)apprehension 6anupa$a bha8 of any "har a is the perfe!tion of insight. (hus it is sai" that when there is no i"ea 6sa7 ./naa8, na e 6sa a./na8, "esignation 6pra./napti8, or !onventiona$ $anguage 6vyavahaara8 )) then 0there is1 perfe!t insight. 04<1 (his is that perfe!tion of insight )) no supposition 6 anya aanataa8 about any "har a at a$$. 0471 Aro this we gather that the unatta!he" o"e of -nowing rea$ things 6"har as8 is a o"e of -nowing without !on!eptua$i*ation. ;nsofar, then, as any rea$ thing is !on!eive" or ta$-e" about, it is -nown in the atta!he" o"e an" is thereby fa$sifie". @har as or "har ataa 6rea$)thing)hoo", the nature of rea$ity8 as !on!eive", s!he ati*e" 6for e#a p$e, in abhi"har a thought8, an" ta$-e" about are fabri!ations 6-a$panaa83 Aor those "har as are not there in the way that untaught, si p$e peop$e are a""i!te" to the ... (he way they are not there is the way they are there. (hus they are not)being)there 6avi"ya aana8, so they are !a$$e" ignoran!e 6avi"yaa8. Untaught, si p$e peop$e are a""i!te" to the . A$$ "har as, not being there, are fabri!ate" 6-a$pita8 by the . Having fabri!ate" the they are atta!he" to the two e#tre es 6e#isten!e an" non)e#isten!e, et!.8 an" neither -now nor see those "har as 0as they rea$$y are1... Having fabri!ate" the they be!o e a""i!te" to the two e#tre es. Having be!o e a""i!te", an" re$ying on that sour!e as 0a basis of1 apprehension, they fabri!ate past "har as, future "har as, present "har as. Having fabri!ate" these they be!o e a""i!te" to na e an" for 6the five bun"$es8... Aabri!ating a$$ those "har as whi!h are not there they neither -now nor see the Path as it rea$$y is... (hey "o not go forth fro the trip$e wor$". (hey "o not wa-e up to the true en" 6bhuuta-o.ti, i.e. u$ti ate rea$ity8. 04>1 Atta!h ent is by eans of both na e 6naa a8 an" sign 6ni itta8... 0(hin-ing,1 5for an" the other bun"$es are e pty5 )) this is atta!h ent. 0;f1 one entertains the i"eas 5past "har as5 with regar" to past "har as, 5future "har as5 with regar" to future "har as, 5present "har as5 with regar" to present "har as )) this is atta!h ent. 0491

p. 454 (he ter 5"har as5 is here ne!essari$y a biguous. ;ts basi! fun!tion is to "esignate so ething rea$ or va$i". (hus "har ataa refers to the nature of a$$ that is rea$, what !onstitutes a!tua$ity. 'ut 5"har a5 is itse$f a wor", an" when "har as are na e" ) for , !ons!iousness, bo"hisattva, nirvaa.na, or whatever )) they are tota$$y within the sphere of the atta!he" o"e. ;t is in this sense that 5a$$ "har as are a"e up by fabri!ation.5 04?1 At the sa e ti e the ter s 5"har a5 an" 5"har ataa5 are use" to refer to what is u$ti ate$y rea$, apart fro fabri!ation3 5A$$ "har as are ta$-e" about on$y by eans of na es, on$y by eans of 0$inguisti!1 transa!tion 6vyavahaara8. 'ut the transa!tion is nowhere, is out of nowhere, is not a transa!tion at a$$3 a$$ "har as are free of transa!tion. free of ta$-, not transa!te", not ta$-e" about.5 0411 (he s-i$$)in) eans 6upaaya)-auDsa$ya8 of the bo"hisattva is both to per!eive signs )) the i ages, i"eas, an" na es enta$$y abstra!tab$e fro e#perien!e )) an" to "eve$op his awareness of the sign$essness of rea$ity as it is u$ti ate$y. 0421 (his is an e#pression of the "o!trine of the two truths, !onventiona$ an" u$ti ate, app$ie" in a way whi!h revea$s the bo"hisattva to be a being 5in this wor$" but not of it.5 ;t is this s-i$$)in) eans whi!h enab$es hi to operate in the two o"es si u$taneous$y. However, be!ause he "oes re ain in the unatta!he" o"e, he is not -ar i!a$$y boun" to those e#perien!es whi!h are nor a$$y in the sphere of atta!h ent3 5He !u$tivates, "evotes hi se$f to, an" honors for s, soun"s, o"ors, tastes, tou!hes5 )) but he "oes so be!ause, in fa!t, he has 5over!o e5 6abhibhuuya8 these, he has no atta!h ent or ob.e!tive supports 6aara ba.na8, an" his a!ts thus arise out of s-i$$)in) eans. 0441 Conventiona$ or transa!tiona$ truth in!$u"es the entire rea$ of "is!ourse, not on$y what is inva$i" in re$ation to 'u""hist "is!ourse but 'u""hist "is!ourse as we$$3 ;n rea$ity no "istin!tion or "ifferen!e between 0any of1 these "har as !an be apprehen"e" 6na upa$abhyate8. As ta$- are they "es!ribe" by the (athaagata ... 5e pty,5 or 5sign$ess,5 or 5wish$ess.5 or 5without for ation,5 or 5non)arising,5 or 5without birth,5 or 5non)e#isten!e,5 or 5"ispassion,5 or 5!essation,5 or 5nirvaa.na5 )) these are 0.ust1 ta$-e" about ... A$$ "har as whatever are beyon" ta$6anabhi$aapya8. 0441 5Perfe!tion of insight5 )) this is on$y na e)giving. An" 0the possibi$ity of va$i"$y asserting31 5that na e is this 0a!tua$ thing15 !annot be apprehen"e". &e say that the na e has on$y spee!h as its ob.e!t)of)referen!e, whi$e that perfe!tion of insight is neither foun" nor apprehen"e"3 .ust as it is a na e, .ust so is it perfe!tion of insight: .ust as perfe!tion of insight is, .ust so is the na e. A "ua$ity of "har as here is neither foun" nor apprehen"e". 0451 (he a!tua$ referen!e of the wor" 5perfe!tion)of)insight5 is not to a rea$ thing but to a spee!h)thing, verba$i*e" rea$ity )) or as the !o entary says, the ter .ust ref$e!ts the "is!ri ination 6vi-a$papratibi ba-a8 of the atta!he" o"e. (he rea$ thing whi!h is being ta$-e" about, that is, the state of perfe!t insight, is not !apab$e of !o parison with the na e or !on!ept, sin!e na es !an on$y be !o pare" with na es )) an" it is on$y when there are no na es that the rea$ity of p. 455 perfe!t insight is foun". Bven the negative $anguage asso!iate" with u$ti ate truth has fina$$y to be seen in this $ight3 %on)arising 6anutpaa"a8 appears to you to be ta$-e" about, but this sa e non)arising is 0on$y1 ta$-. 04<1 Aor is unthin-ab$e an" so are the other bun"$es. 0&hen a bo"hisattva1 "oes not even entertain the i"ea 5for is unthin-ab$e,5 he pro!ee"s in the perfe!tion of insight... 0471 (he nonatta!he" o"e of -nowing is present when one 5pro!ee"s but "oes not arrive at 0the !onsi"erations1 9; pro!ee"9, an" 9; wi$$ pro!ee"9 be!ause a$$ "har as are neither arrive" at nor "epen"e" upon 0in rea$ity1. (his is the bo"hisattvas9 sa aa"hi !a$$e" 9non)"epen"en!y upon any "har a 6sarva"har a)anupaa"aana8.95 04>1 (his o"e is spo-en of as 5stan"ing in e ptiness,5 0491

whi!h is where the (athaagata stoo" an" where a$$ those who fo$$ow hi shou$" stan" )) pre!ise$y nowhere at a$$ )) be!ause his in" was not fi#ate" 6aprati.s.thita aanasa8 by any !on!eptua$i*e" "har a or !onsi"eration. 05?1 (he inevitab$e !on!$usion is that what is so for the unatta!he" o"e has nothing to "o with un"erstan"ing, hen!e the para"o#i! re.oin"er by Subhuuti to those who fin" the tea!hing on the perfe!tion of insight "iffi!u$t to un"erstan"3 5;t !an9t be un"erstoo", it !an9t be un"erstoo" 6na vi./naayate8 ... for in it nothing at a$$ is pointe" out, nothing at a$$ is $earne".5 0511 An" as there is no "har a at a$$ pointe" out, i$$u inate", or !o uni!ate" no one wi$$ ever gain the perfe!tion of insight fro Subhuuti9s tea!hing of it. 0521 Eoo-e" at fro this para"o#i! ang$e, that is, fro the point of view of u$ti ate truth, a$$ "o#a )) the points of view of transa!tiona$ truth )) are e=ua$$y ere fabri!ations, none of whi!h !an be sai" to be even re$ative$y a"e=uate to e#press or "es!ribe perfe!t insight, sin!e the $atter is not 5avai$ab$e5 for !o parison with its $inguisti! "es!riptions. &e are apparent$y no !$oser to a possib$e $in- between !on!eptua$ity an" en$ighten ent, inte$$igibi$ity an" nirvaa.na. 'ut fro the very "is!ontinuity between the two, there e erges an interesting !oro$$ary3 whi$e on the one han" the rea$ an" the fi!tive, or fabri!ative, !annot be "istinguishe" be!ause "istinguishing is itse$f !on!eptua$, on the other han" what fabri!ation, "is!ri inations, !on!epts rea$$y are is, in fa!t, the perfe!tion of insight3 (his perfe!tion of insight !annot be taught or $earne" or "istinguishe" or !onsi"ere" or "e onstrate" or ref$e!te" upon by eans of the bun"$es or by eans of the e$e ents 6"haatu8 or by eans of the sense)fie$"s 6aayatana8. (he reason for this is the iso$ation 6vivi-tatva8 of a$$ "har as, the abso$ute iso$ation of a$$ "har as... 'ut the perfe!tion of insight is not to be un"erstoo" apart fro the bun"$es, et!. (he reason for this is that it is .ust the very bun"$es, et!., whi!h are e pty, iso$ate", =uiete". Aor thus are the perfe!tion of insight an" the bun"$es, et!.3 a non)"ua$ity whi!h is without "ivision an" !annot be apprehen"e" be!ause of its e ptiness ... its iso$ation ... an" hen!e its being =uiete". 0541 p. 45< (his non"ua$ nature is referre" to in =uasi)positive ter s as 5su!hness5 6tathataa83 (he (athaagata -nows for 6an" ea!h of the bun"$es8 as su!hness... (he su!hness of the bun"$es is the su!hness of the wor$": the su!hness of the wor$" is the su!hness of a$$ "har as... (his is a$$ .ust one su!hness whi!h has $eft behin" the anifo$" 0states1 of e#isten!e an" non)e#isten!e, be!ause it is not one, not any, not "isappearing, without o"ifi!ation, without "ua$ity, un"ivi"e". 0541 (his one su!hness of a$$ rea$ things is a$so i"enti!a$ with perfe!t insight, the state of en$ighten ent3 0551 'e!ause of the boun"$essness of ob.e!tive supports 6aara ba.na3 inten"e" ob.e!t8, this perfe!tion of insight is a boun"$ess perfe!tion. 'e!ause of the boun"$essness of sentient beings this perfe!tion of insight is a boun"$ess perfe!tion. 'e!ause a$$ "har as are without a beginning, i""$e, or en" this perfe!tion of insight is a boun"$ess perfe!tion. 05<1 5(he absen!e of own)being 6svabhaava8 in beings shou$" be -nown as the nature of the perfe!tion of insight.5 0571 (he absen!e of own)being 6that is, in"epen"ent se$f)e#isten!e8 in beings "e onstrates the absen!e of it in the perfe!tion of insight. Si i$ar$y their iso$ation, unthin-abi$ity, in"estru!tib$e nature, an" the fa!t that they are not in the pro!ess of be!o ing en$ightene" )) a$$ "e onstrate the sa e for the perfe!tion of insight. 05>1 ;f then the nature of rea$ity is not "ifferent fro en$ighten ent, then the nature of rea$ity ust share the unatta!he", non"epen"ing, nonapprehen"ing !hara!ter of en$ighten ent. A hint of this !an be seen in two of the ter s often asso!iate" 6as above8 with Dsuunya 6e pty8, na e$y, vivi-ta 6iso$ate"8, an" Dsaanta 6=uiete"8. 'oth of these see to have their origin in the $anguage of e"itation proper3 the iso$ation or separation of the e"itator fro his !on!eptua$ an" e otiona$ 5!onne!te"ness5 with his nor a$ so!ia$ wor$", fo$$owe" by his "eve$op ent of inner =uiet or

tran=ui$ity 6Dsa atha, upaDsa a, et!.8. &ith the Perfe!tion of ;nsight tra"ition these sub.e!tive aspe!ts of "is!onne!te"ness an" tran=ui$ity are sai" to be the u$ti ate nature of a$$ rea$ things. 0591 (he u$ti ate nature of rea$ity shares in the "is!onne!te"ness whi!h !hara!teri*es the perfe!tion of insight. Sin!e this insight is unatta!he" -nowing, the (athaagatas @e onstrate @har a to beings for the sa-e of non)!$inging 6aDs$e.sa8 I (he non)!onne!tion 6asa7 ban"ha8 of for 6an" the other bun"$es8 is the non)!$inging of for ... (he non)!onne!tion of for is for 9s $a!- of origination an" !essation ... ;n this way non)!$inging !o es to be, as a resu$t of -nowing an" seeing that a$$ "har as are not !$inging, not !onne!te". 0<?1 (his !o on nature $ea"s to further i p$i!ations. Perfe!t insight is not "ifferent fro the rea$ nature of those !hara!teristi!s of the atta!he" o"e whi!h, !onventiona$$y, the perfe!tion of insight is suppose" to e$i inate3 p. 457 (his is the perfe!tion of non)"is!ip$ine 6avinaya8, be!ause there is no apprehension of past, future, an" present goa$s. (his is the perfe!tion of non)aff$i!tion 6asa7 -$eDsa8, be!ause there is no own)being to gree", anger, an" "e$usion. (his is the perfe!tion of "ispassion, be!ause there is no fa$seness in any "har a. (his is the perfe!tion of non)arising, be!ause there is no "is!ri ination in any "har a. (his is the perfe!tion of non)"is!ri ination, be!ause of its i"entity with "is!ri ination 6vi-a$pasa ataa8. (his is the perfe!tion of suffering, be!ause the nature of "har as is $i-e spa!e. 0<11 @istra!te" thoughts are thoughts "istra!te" fro the nature of "har as 6"har ataa8. 'ut su!h thoughts when seen as they rea$$y are by insight are without 0intrinsi!1 !hara!teristi!s an" are in rea$ity not "istra!te". ;n"ee", those thoughts are by nature bright$y !$ear 6pra-.rtiprabhaasvara8. 0<21 After a$$, if it is a$$ "har as whi!h share the sa e nature, su!hness, with the perfe!tion of insight, then su!h unwho$eso e 6a-uDsa$a8 "har as as anger, "e$usion, "is!ri ination, "istra!tion, suffering, et!. are not to be e#!$u"e". Aina$$y, there is the !$ear i p$i!ation that it is the given nature of things whi!h is i"enti!a$ with the perfe!tion of insight, an" therefore this insight is not so ething whi!h has yet to be attaine" by the striving bo"hisattva. Bn$ighten ent, in short, is what the bo"hisattva a$rea"y rea$$y is3 (he 0 e"itative1 a!tua$i*ation 6bhaavanaa8 of the perfe!tion of insight is an a!tua$i*ation of spa!e. Ho age shou$" be pai" to those bo"hisattvas who put this ar or on, for he who fastens on his ar or for the sa-e of beings see-s to be ar e" with spa!e ... Aor the sa-e of beings who are 0the se$ves1 $i-e spa!e, $i-e the "har a)rea$ , he see-s to be ar e", he see-s to be!o e fu$$y en$ightene". He see-s to $iberate spa!e, he see-s to get ri" of spa!e. 0<41 He wi$$ a-e efforts about spa!e, about wi"e)open spa!e, who thin-s of being traine" in or of a-ing efforts about the perfe!tion of insight. 0<41 @eep is the perfe!tion of insight3 it is not a!tua$i*e" by anything, for no one a!tua$i*es it ... nor is there anything to be a!tua$i*e" ... anywhere. (he a!tua$i*ation of the perfe!tion of insight is a!tua$i*ation of spa!e, of a$$ "har as, of non)atta!h ent, of the $i it$ess, of non)e#isten!e, of non) a!=uiring. 0<51 (he nature of things is not so ething whi!h re=uires a!tua$i*ation3 spa!e is e pty without nee"ing to "eve$op that e ptiness. ;n e#a!t$y the sa e way the perfe!tion of insight is not in nee" of "eve$op ent. (he i p$i!ation is evi"ent that the essentia$ origina$ nature of thought 6!itta8, bright$y !$ear, as we$$ as the nature of things in genera$, is unatta!he" -nowing, the perfe!tion of insight whi!h !onstitutes bu""hahoo"3 (he nature of a$$ "har as is !o p$ete purity ... A$$ "har as have attaine" nirvaa.na, 0an" hen!e1 are i"enti!a$ with su!hness ... A$$ "har as are nob$e arhats, !o p$ete$y purifie" by nature ... A$$

"har as are en$ighten ent be!ause they !ause one to be aware of the bu""ha)-nowing 6bu""ha./naana8. 0<<1 p. 45> V Eet us now !onsi"er fro this parti!u$ar perspe!tive &hitehea"9s own non)"ua$isti! approa!h to the topi! of -nowing or per!eption. Per!eption for &hitehea" is basi!a$$y another na e for rea$ity itse$f. An a!tua$ o!!asion is a pro!ess of !on!res!en!e, growing together, of any ob.e!ts into a nove$ sub.e!t, by eans of those prehensions of ob.e!ts whi!h together !onstitute the new a!tua$ o!!asion. (he a!tua$ o!!asion is its prehensions, an" the ob.e!ts of prehension are the sub.e!t in its pro!ess of a!tua$i*ation. Aro this stan"point a$$ that a!tua$$y e#ists is the sub.e!t3 5Apart fro the e#perien!e of sub.e!ts there is nothing, nothing, nothing, bare nothingness.5 0<71 +b.e!ts are on$y !onstitute" by 6or as8 the prehensions, fee$ings, per!eptions of the sub.e!t as it ena!ts itse$f. 0<>1 ;n other wor"s, 5that o ent of e#perien!e, in its !hara!ter of being that one o!!asion, is nothing e$se than the per!ipient 0sub.e!t1 itse$f.5 0<91 %ow the 5e#perien!es of sub.e!ts5 are si p$y prehensions, per!eptions: an" the ana$ysis of prehension 07?1 shows that it !onsists of the sub.e!t, the ob.e!t6s8, an" the anner in whi!h the ob.e!t is fe$t or per!eive" by the sub.e!t. Get this is on$y ana$ysis, an" rea$ity is the syntheti! !on!res!en!e, as a unity, of an a!tua$ o!!asion. (he per!eptua$ e#perien!e, an a!t of -nowing, is thus a sing$e, un"ifferentiate" who$e: there is, in fa!t, no ob.e!t as su!h, e#terna$ to the sub.e!t, nor a sub.e!t separab$e fro its ob.e!t6s8, nor a pro!ess of per!eiving whi!h a sub.e!t 5has5 with regar" to an ob.e!t. (he threefo$" ana$ysis "oes ref$e!t, on the other han", the anner in whi!h the wor$" is apparent$y e#perien!e" by ost peop$e ost of the ti e )) a anner whi!h the very $anguage of the pre!e"ing wor"s of this senten!e ren"ers in typi!a$ for 3 Peop$e 6that is, sub.e!ts8 e#perien!e a wor$". ,y point is that there is an i p$i!it para$$e$ here for the ,ahaayaana "o!trine of two truths3 &hitehea"9s etaphysi! in"i!ates an 5u$ti ate$y5 non"ua$ rea$ity whi!h is 5nor a$$y,5 that is, ana$yti!a$$y or !on!eptua$$y, e#perien!e" as a anifo$" 5wor$"5 in whi!h the any sub.e!ts severa$$y e#perien!e ea!h other as ob.e!ts. ; thin- that we !an fin" a possib$e reason in &hitehea"9s own "is!ussion of per!eption for the -in" of "i!hoto y .ust suggeste". &hitehea" "es!ribes three o"es of per!eption3 !ausa$ effi!a!y, presentationa$ i e"ia!y, an" the i#e" o"e of sy bo$i! referen!e. Per!eption in the o"e of !ausa$ effi!a!y is si p$y the prehension whi!h !onstitutes the !on!res!ing sub.e!t itse$f as we$$ as the ob.e!tifie" 5"ata5 in re$ation to whi!h the sub.e!t is the e ergent, nove$ o!!asion. ;t is the sub.e!t9s e#perien!e or awareness of the ob.e!tive ba!-groun" of whi!h it is the sub.e!tive resu$t. ;n this sense, what the sub.e!t is, is what it per!eives 6prehen"s8. Cons!ious per!eption, a feature of prehension whi!h see s to appear on$y in ore !o p$e# organis s, a$$ows for the o"e of presentationa$ i e"ia!y, whi!h is sensory per!eption in the sense that the ter 5per!eption5 is or"inari$y use"3 soun"s, s e$$s, !o$ors, tastes, an" bo"i$y fee$ings 6tou!h, -inesthesia, p. 459 pain, et!.8. 0711 (hree aspe!ts of presentationa$ i e"ia!y shou$" be noti!e" here. Airst, it is a phase of per!eption in the o"e of !ausa$ effi!a!y, not a generi!a$$y separate o"e of per!eption. (he ob.e!tive si"e of prehension be!o es sense ob.e!ts, sense)"ata, for the sub.e!t to the e#tent that this o"e of per!eption is possib$e for it, but what is e#perien!e" as sense)per!eption is a$rea"y e#perien!e" 6prehen"e"8 in a ore i e"iate way as !ausa$ effi!a!y, that is, prehension whi!h !onstitutes sub.e!t an" ob.e!t as one o!!asion. Se!on", therefore, presentationa$ i e"ia!y shares the onto$ogi!a$ non)"ua$ity of !ausa$ effi!a!y )) the wor$" whi!h appears "oes so by virtue of sense)"ata 5whi!h !an with e=ua$ truth be "es!ribe"

as our sensations or as the =ua$ities of the a!tua$ things whi!h we per!eive. (hese =ua$ities are thus re$ationa$ between the per!eiving sub.e!t an" the per!eive" things.5 0721 ;t is in this o"e that the 5wor$"5 appears as su!h, that is, as 5a !o unity of a!tua$ things,5 !onte poraneous with the sub.e!t, whi!h are spatia$$y e#ten"e". (his sensoria$$y per!eive" e#tension arises fro 5that genera$ s!he e of re$ationships provi"ing the !apa!ity that any ob.e!ts !an be we$"e" into the rea$ unity of one e#perien!e.5 0741 ;n other wor"s, the prehensions !onstituting an a!tua$ o!!asion are 59ve!tors:9 for they fee$ what is there an" transfor it into what is here.5 0741 Per!eption of spatia$ e#tension, in!$u"ing the appearan!e of a wor$" as being 5e#terna$5 to !ons!iousness, is the rea$i*ation in sensory ter s of the intrinsi! sub.e!t)ob.e!t !hara!ter of a$$ prehension. 'ut this per!eive" e#tensiveness presents a wor$" of separab$e !ontent, for 5in so far as !on!erns their "is!$osure by presentationa$ i e"ia!y, a!tua$ entities in the !onte porary universe are !ausa$$y in"epen"ent of ea!h other.5 0751 (he wor$" of "ua$ity is beginning to e erge, but not =uite, for the thir" aspe!t of presentationa$ i e"ia!y )) an" this a$so app$ies to !ausa$ effi!a!y itse$f )) is its infa$$ibi$ity3 5@ire!t e#perien!e is infa$$ib$e. &hat you have e#perien!e", you have e#perien!e".5 07<1 (here is no "istin!tion here of true an" "e$u"e" or i$$usory per!eption, 0771 there is si p$y per!eption as an u$ti ate fa!t, for error arises on$y in the i#e" o"e of per!eption, sy bo$i! referen!e. Sy bo$i! referen!e is the nor a$ per!eptua$ e#perien!e of hu an beings. ;n it the o"e of presentationa$ i e"ia!y, whi!h in itse$f is $itt$e ore than a 5barren estheti! "isp$ay,5 is now reasso!iate" with per!eption as !ausa$ effi!a!y. (he resu$t is the transfor ation of bare i e"ia!y into a wor$" of eaning, !ontaining e otions, otivations, eva$uations, $anguage, art )) as !ons!iousness is now free to refer one !o ponent of e#perien!e to another. (hus the i ages of presente" i e"ia!y are use" to $in- the 5heritage fro the past,5 the ob.e!tive sour!es of the !on!res!ing a!tua$ o!!asion, to the possib$e future as the o!!asion in turn be!o es ob.e!tivity for a new o!!asion. B#perien!e via sy bo$i! referen!e !an be "e$usive, for 5fee$ing asso!iates regions in the presente" $o!us with inheritan!es fro the past, whi!h in fa!t have not been thus trans itte" into the present regions.5 07>1 (his !apa!ity for error is at ti es unfortunate in its !onse=uen!es but is, fro &hitehea"9s perspe!tive, the p. 4<? sour!e of evo$utionary progress in that it testifies to a growing i aginative free"o . 0791 Cons!iousness a-es its gains by its gra"ua$$y attaine" free"o fro i e"iate per!eption, whi!h it is now ore an" ore ab$e to anipu$ate an" o"ify. Aro another )) 'u""hist )) ang$e, sy bo$i! referen!e is pre!ise$y the sour!e of the prob$e of suffering, for now the !ons!ious$y "i!hoto i*e" wor$" has fu$$y e erge". Eet us !onsi"er Can"ra-iirti9s ana$ysis of the genesis of suffering. 0>?1 (he starting point is 50!on!eptua$1 apprehension of an ob.e!t5 6vastuna upa$a bha8, that is, an ob.e!t per se an" "eta!he" fro its sub.e!t as we$$ as fro 5other5 ob.e!ts. (his resu$ts in 50verba$)!on!eptua$1 pro$iferation5 6prapa/n!a8 whi!h pro$iferates the who$e 5net of fabri!ation5 6-a$panaa.aa$a8, whi!h !onsists of en"$ess "is!ri inations 6vi-a$pa83 -nowing an" -nown, spee!h an" spea-er, a!tor an" a!t, an an" wo an, su!!ess an" fai$ure, happiness an" isery, fa e an" infa y, praise an" b$a e, et!. 'ase" upon these "is!ri inations is the ego 6aha7 a a iti8 whose a""i!tion 6abhiniveDsa8 they are. (his a""i!tion for s the "epen"en!y 6upaa"aana8 whi!h is the !ause of suffering. @epen"en!y is tra"itiona$$y ana$y*e" as !onsisting of3 618 ob.e!ts of "esire 6-aa a8, 628 ethi!o)re$igious vows 6Dsii$avrata8, 648 views 6".r.s.ti8, an" 648 assertion of an 0essentia$1 se$f 6aat avaa"a8. (hese together !onstitute the ongoing sour!e of suffering in hu an e#perien!e, an" it !an be a$$eviate" ra"i!a$$y on$y by "isso$ving the basis for "epen"en!y or a""i!tion, na e$y, the "is!ri inations growing out of !on!eptua$ apprehension. Su!h apprehension is fro &hitehea"9s point of view the basis of sy bo$i! referen!e an" as su!h is a anifestation of the !reative a"van!e of !ons!iousness, a$beit an a"van!e arre" by repeate"

"isaster. Aor Can"ra-iirti an", apparent$y, %aagaar.una, it is the repeate" "isaster whi!h re!eives a$$ of the attention. A!!or"ing to &hitehea", the "anger inherent in the e ergen!e of sy bo$i! referen!e is that it has the ten"en!y to "egenerate into ere ref$e# a!tion3 nor a$ hu an per!eption via sy bo$i! referen!e turns to so e "egree fro the !ons!ious $in-ing of presente" i e"ia!y with !ausa$ effi!a!y to a se i!ons!ious, rea!tive $in-ing of the two. (he a!tua$ effe!tive eaning of what is sy bo$i!a$$y per!eive" is e$i inate"3 So eti es there "oes intervene so e effe!tive referen!e to the eaning of the sy bo$. 'ut this eaning is not re!a$$e" with the parti!u$arity an" "efiniteness whi!h wou$" yie$" any rationa$ en$ighten ent as to the spe!ifi! a!tion re=uire" to se!ure the fina$ en". (he eaning is vague but insistent. ;ts insisten!e p$ays the part of hypnoti*ing the in"ivi"ua$ to !o p$ete the spe!ifi! a!tion asso!iate" with the sy bo$. 0>11 (hus when a !ar horn soun"s, y sy bo$i!a$$y referre" per!eption pro.e!ts upon the bare, presente" au"itory sense)"ata y entire !ausa$ heritage as it !on!res!es into this a!tua$ e#perien!e an" on towar" the future. (he spatia$$y $o!a$i*e" soun" sy bo$i*es its eaning for e, in other wor"s, an" ; get out of the way. +n the other han" ref$e# a!tion resu$ts when ; per!eive the sa e soun" p. 4<1 as sy bo$ but bypass its a!tua$ eaning, that is, the tota$ prehension whi!h !onstitutes y e#perien!e at that o ent, an" instea" ; refer it to a stereotype" pattern within y !ausa$ heritage. (he resu$t is a ref$e# response whi!h ay be 5out of tou!h5 with a!tua$ity3 the !ar horn, b$o!-s away, triggers in e an overwhe$ ing fear an" ; spi$$ y !offee on the !at. (he "eter ining fa!tor here ay $ie in a !hi$"hoo" trau a invo$ving a ba" e#perien!e with a horn, but the present resu$t is that y e#perien!e is "o inate" by a "isproportionate ingression of the o$" pattern into nove$ !ons!ious o!!asions. (he 'u""hist wou$" say here that this is .ust what !onstitutes the suffering arising fro "epen"en!y )) the a""i!tive patterns 6sa7 s-aara in its ore negative usage8 that !onstitute a stereotype" apprehension of one9s own persona$ity 6sat-aaya".r.s.ti8, whi!h in turn e$i!its stereotype" affe!tive states 6-$eDsa8, whi!h then perpetuate the type of hu an a!tion that a-es up the person9s sa. saari! e#isten!e. 0>21 Aor the 'u""hist, of !ourse, this situation is not ere$y an o!!asiona$ re$apse into the auto ati!ity of ref$e# a!tion 6as &hitehea" spea-s of it8 but is rather a fun"a enta$ !on"ition )) that is, the un"er$ying a""i!tion or "epen"en!y itse$f )) whi!h obstru!ts 0>41 en$ightene" -nowing an" affe!ts a$$ e#perien!e with suffering. (here is a "ifferen!e as ; see it between Praasa7ngi-a ,aa"hya i-a an" the Perfe!tion of ;nsight on this point. Can"ra-iirti apparent$y fin"s the prob$e of suffering to be ine#tri!ab$y re$ate" to the basi! e!hanis of sy bo$i! referen!e, na e$y, !on!eptua$ apprehension 6upa$a bha8. Hen!e, fu$$ en$ighten ent or !o p$ete nirvaa.na 0>41 ne!essari$y re=uires the e$i ination of !on!eptua$ity. (he Perfe!tion of ;nsight, e phasi*ing the essentia$ i"entity of unatta!he" -nowing or en$ighten ent with a$$ things an" !on"itions, a$$ows for the two o"es to !oe#ist, in a sense. 0>51 ;f even "is!ri ination an" "e$usion are u$ti ate$y en$ighten ent, ; see no reason why !onstru!tive etaphysi!s nee" be e$i inate" fro the unatta!he" !ons!iousness of a bo"hisattva. ; thin- this is a$$ the ore true of a etaphysi! su!h as &hitehea"9s whi!h, as ; have suggeste", !an be seen to rest on the non"ua$isti! pre ise that !on!rete rea$ity is si p$y a pro!ess of -nowing 6!on!res!ing prehension8 )) atta!he" to itse$f as its own ob.e!tive !ausa$ past, an" unatta!he", as a pro!ess of ever)nove$ se$f)!reation. ;n other wor"s, ; thin- that Pro!ess Phi$osophy provi"es a !oherent possib$e onto$ogi!a$ e#p$anation for the o"es of -nowing an" the two)truths "o!trine of Pra./naa 'u""his . At the sa e ti e ; wou$" agree with Pra./naa 'u""his that there is no way to !ons!ious$y e#perien!e rea$ity in the unatta!he" o"e by eans of !on!eptua$ un"erstan"ing an"

interpretation: for the ob.e!tive nature of !on!eptua$ thought 6as apart fro the pro!ess of thin-ing itse$f8, that is, the nature of that)whi!h)is)un"erstoo", is atta!he" -nowing. p. 4<2 *O+E, 1. Usua$$y ren"ere" 5Perfe!tion of &is"o .5 but an i portant nuan!e of penetration is brought out by the wor" 5insight.5 2. (his is a "ebatab$e entity, but ; fee$ it is usefu$. ;t is eant parti!u$ar$y to e#!$u"e the Gogaa!aara s!hoo$ an" the s!hoo$ of @ignaaga. 4. (he use of verba$ para"o# as a eans of "e ora$i*ing !on!eptua$ "epen"en!y on the part of the $istener. (he %aagaar.unian "ia$e!ti! etho" a!!o p$ishes the sa e thing through the use of $ogi!a$ argu entation. 4. A$fre" %orth &hitehea", Pro!ess an" Jea$ity 6%ew Gor-3 ,a!,i$$an, 19278, p. 4, hereafter !ite" as PJ. 5. PJ. p. <. <. PJ. p. <7. 7. PJ. p. 7. >. PJ, p. >. 9. A.s.tasaahasri-aa Pra./naapaara itaa, e". P. E. Kai"ya 6@arbhanga3 ,ithi$a ;nstitute, 19<?83 hereafter !ite" as AP. (rans. B"war" Con*e as (he Perfe!tion of &is"o in Bight (housan" Eines 6'o$inas, Ca.3 Aour Seasons Aoun"ation, 19748. (rans$ations hereafter are y own, base" upon Con*e9s. Citations are given for the pagination of the Sans-rit te#t as given by Con*e in bra!-ets an" in the argin in Kai"ya9s e"ition. 1?. ,a"hya a-a-aari-aas 6hereafter !ite" as ,L8 24.>)1?. Sans-rit te#t e"ite" by Eouis "e Ea Ka$$ee Poussin, ,uu$a a"hya a-a-aari-aas 6,aa"hya i-asuutras8 "e %aagaar.una, ave! $a Prasannapa"aa, !o entaire "e Can"ra-iirti 6St. Petersburg, 19148. 11. ,L 24.2? ff. 12. ,L 4.14. 14. ,L 1>.4f. 14. ,L14.>. 15. ,L 22.11. (hus %aagaar.una !an refer even to va$i" e#pressions 6yaa yo.yate8 of 'u""hist "o!trine as 5fabri!ation5 6-a$panaa8 en"orse" by 'u""has, Pratye-abu""has, an" DSraava-a 6arhats8 a$i-e. ,L 17.14ff. 1<. ;n his Kigrahavyaavartanii, %aagaar.una sub.e!ts the notion of pra aa.na to the "ia$e!ti! refutation without e#p$i!it "is!ussion of its ro$e in transa!tiona$ truth, a$though in verse < the four pra aa.nas of per!eption, inferen!e, s!ripture, an" ana$ogy are entione". See Are"eri!- M. Streng, B ptiness3 A Stu"y in Je$igious ,eaning 6%ashvi$$e, (enn.3 Abing"on Press, 19<78, pp. 222ff. 17. Jatnaava$i 2.45. %aavisa7 vaa"avat satya7 0sattvaa"1 u"gata arthata.hC parai-aantahita7 satya ahitatvaan .r.setaratCC rea"ing se s "pas bsgyur ba "on "u in with the Pe-ing e"ition of the (ibetan for the se!on" =uarter)stan*a 6vo$. 129, p. 17< 7ne 145a8. Sans-rit te#t in P. E. Kai"ya. e"., ,a"hya a-aDsaastra of %aagaar.una 6@arbhanga3 ,ithi$a ;nstitute, 19<?8, p. 4?4. 1>. (he sour!es "rawn upon here for Can"ra-iirti9s thought are his !o entary on the ,a"hya a-a-aari-aas, the Prasannapa"aa 6see footnote 1?8, an" his ,a"hya a-aavataara 6hereafter !ite" as ,A8, avai$ab$e in (ibetan as e"ite" by Eouis "e $a Ka$$ee Poussin, 'ib$iothe!a 'u""hi!a, vo$. 9 6St. Petersburg, 19128. A partia$ trans$ation by "e $a Ka$$ee Poussin is to be foun" in Ee ,useon, vo$s. > 619?78, 11 6191?8, an" 12 619118. 19. ,A, pp. 1?2f. ;n trans$ations fro the ,A, the presu e" origina$ Sans-rit ter s are given where the !orrespon"en!es with the (ibetan are reasonab$y !$ear. 2?. ,A, pp. 1?4f. 21. ,A, p. 1?5.

22. Prasannapa"aa, pp. <> f. 24. ,A, p. 1?9. 24. Prasannapa"aa, p. 494. 25. ,A, pp. 1?7f. 2<. ,A, p. 1113 "e -ho na /ni" bsa pa $a 9phags pa rna s -ho no tsha" a yin. 27. ,A, pp. 112f. 2>. Cf. Prasannapa"aa, p. 57. 29. Prasannapa"aa. p. 75. Here Can"ra-iirti "efines the pra aa.nas of transa!tiona$ truth to be the three entione" ear$ier p$us upa aana, ana$ogy. ;t shou$" be note" that for Can"ra-iirti "ire!t p. 4<4 per!eption, pratya-.sa, is not "ivi"e" into rea$ an" i$$usory per!eption )) it is si p$y per!eption of whatever appears3 (herefore in the wor$" whether it is 0!a$$e"1 a "efinab$e ob.e!t 6$a-.sya8, uni=ue parti!u$ar 6sva$a-.sa.na8, or genera$ !hara!teristi! 6saa aanya$a-.sa.na8 )) a$$ of it is evi"ent 6aparo-.sa8 be!ause of its being "ire!t$y apprehen"e": hen!e per!eption 6pratya-.sa8 is "eter ine" by its ob.e!t 6vi.saya8 together with !ognition 6./naana8. A$though a "oub$e oon an" other 0i$$usions1 are not per!eption in re$ation to the !ognition of one free fro ophtha$ ia, they are in"ee" per!eption in re$ation to one having ophtha$ ia. 4?. Prasannapa"aa, p. 57. 41. Jatnaava$ii 1.<?. 42. ; $eave asi"e !onsi"eration here of the other s!hoo$ of ,aa"hya i-a, the Svaatantri-a. (heir fore ost representative, 'haavavive-a, was vigorous$y !riti!i*e" by Can"ra-iirti in his Prasannapa"aa 6!hapter 18 for a"vo!ating in"epen"ent $ogi!a$ argu ents whi!h were in a!!or" with u$ti ate truth, rather than si p$y a$$owing opponents9 argu ents to annihi$ate the se$ves. See G. La.iya a, 5'haavavive-a an" the Praasa7ngi-a S!hoo$,5 in %ava)%a$an"a),ahaavihaara Jesear!h Pub$i!ation, vo$. 1 6%a$an"a, 19578, pp. 2>9)441. 44. AP, p. 4?5. 44. AP, p. 2>1. 45. AP, p. 274. 4<. AP, p. 177. 47. AP, p. 492. 4>. AP, p. 15. 49. AP, p. 19?. 4?. AP, p. 1<2. 41. AP, p. 475. 42. AP, p. 45<. 44. AP, p. 4>4: !o pare a$so p. 45>. 44. AP, p. 447. 45. AP, p. 2??. 4<. AP, p. 4?. 47. AP, p. 219. 4>. AP, p. 14 6!on"ense"8. 49. AP, pp. 44f. 5?. AP, pp. 47f. 51. AP, p. 4>. 52. AP, pp. 4?f: !o pare ,L 25.24. 54. AP, p. 177. 54. AP, p. 271. 55. AP, pp. 45?f.

5<. AP, p. 4<. 57. AP, p. 175. 5>. AP, pp. 175f: !o pare pp. 525f. 59. Converse$y, it ight be sai" that !onne!te"ness an" $a!- of tran=ui$ity are aspe!ts of the atta!he" o"e of -nowing as we$$ as of the wor$" as !on!eptua$$y fabri!ate"3 sub.e!tive$y !onne!te"ness wou$" ean "epen"en!y 6upaa"aana8, whi$e ob.e!tive$y it wou$" ean "epen"ent origination 6pratiityasa utpaa"a8: sub.e!tive$y $a!- of tran=ui$ity wou$" ean suffering 6"u.h-ha8 an" ob.e!tive$y, perhaps, i per anen!e 6anityataa8. <?. AP, 294f: !o pare p. 275: note a$so p. 2?<3 5(his is the perfe!tion of non)atta!h ent 6asa7nga8 be!ause a$$ "har as are without atta!h ent.5 <1. AP, pp. 2?5f. A$$ "har as are $i-e spa!e )) e pty: on the other han", suffering, !ause" by atta!h ent an" perpetuate" by the for ations 6sa7 s-aara8, perva"es a$$ "har as )) that is, 5everything is suffering.5 (his is a hyperpara"o#i! variation on the basi! pattern here. <2. AP, pp. 257, 259. <4. AP, p. 19<. <4. AP, p. 197. <5. AP, p. 4?1. p. 4<4 <<. AP, pp. 47<f. ;n this sa e vein it is sai" that ea!h of the five bun"$es is itse$f both e pty an" the boun"$ess rea$ nature of a$$ "har as3 a notion whi!h a$rea"y points to the Avata7 sa-a "o!trine of the interpenetration of a$$ things 6AP, pp. 47>f.8. <7. PJ, p. 254. <>. ;t !ou$" e=ua$$y we$$ be sai" that the sub.e!t is on$y !onstitute" by 6or as8 the per!eptions of the ob.e!ts. <9. A$fre" %orth &hitehea", Sy bo$is 3 ;ts ,eaning an" Bffe!t 6%ew Gor-3 N. P. Putna 9s Sons, 19598, p. 9: hereafter !ite" as Sy bo$is . 7?. Aor e#a p$e, PJ, p. 45. 71. (a-ing the 'u""hist position ; wou$" in!$u"e 5 enta$5 per!eptions, that is, e ories, i ages, thought patterns, et!. )) as a$$ of these are presentations for !onte p$ative awareness. Pheno eno$ogi!a$$y !onsi"ere" these wou$" a$$ show the sa e spatia$ e#tension that is so i portant a !o ponent of &hitehea"9s ana$ysis of presentationa$ i e"ia!y in genera$. 72. Sy bo$is , pp. 21 f. 74. PJ, p. 1?5. 74. PJ, p. 144. 75. PJ, p. 1>>. 7<. Sy bo$is , p. <. 77. Sy bo$is , p. 24: PJ, p. 99. 7>. PJ, p. 274. 79. Sy bo$is , pp. 19, 59. >?. Prasannapa"aa, pp. 45?f., !o enting on ,L 1>.4ff. >1. Sy bo$is , pp. 74f. >2. Prasannapa"aa, pp. 45?f. >4. Here ; a thin-ing of the two aavara.na or obstru!tions, -$eDsaavara.na 6the obstru!tion !onstitute" by a""i!tive gree", anger, an" "e$usion8 an" ./neyaavara.na 6!ognitive obstru!tion8. >4. He re ar-s at ,A, 1?>f, that !onventiona$ truth, 5be!ause of the a!tivity of the ignoran!e !hara!teri*e" by the !ognitive obstru!tion a$one 6an" free of -$eDsaavara.na8, appears to the Aryas 0who are within1 the rea$ of appearan!e 6aabhaasago!ara85 )) but the fu$$ en$ighten ent of the bu""has invo$ves the e$i ination of the !ognitive obstru!tion an" hen!e !onventiona$ity "oes not appear to the .

>5. Co pare, note 42, herein, on the "ua$

o"a$ity of the bo"hisattva9s -nowing.