Chapter IV 131 truth. For a thing which is dependent ( paratantra ) for its existence ) may exist in empirical and not in absolute truth' ( Prof. Vidhu- sekhara here also, as usual agaist Manuscript authority, emends परतन्त्राभिसंवृत्या into परतन्त्रोऽभिर्मवृत्त्या on the ground that the sense requires it and it is supported by Buddhist works. He says अभि संवृत्या is the same as अभिनिष्पत्त्या संवृत्या which he explains as संवृत्ति which is the cause of existence or appearance of things. Not satisfied with all this, the Professor says that we should read परतन्त्रो हि संवृत्या instead of परतन्त्रोऽभिसंवृत्या first proposed by himself !). Prof. Vidhusekhara points out that the Buddhists admit two kinds of सत्य, संवृतिसत्य ( corresponding to व्यवहारनय of the Jainas, and the व्यावहारिक सत्यानृत of Sankara ) and परमार्थसत्य ( परमार्थनय of the Jainas, पारमार्थिक सत्य of Saikara) (द्वे सत्ये समुपाश्रिय बुद्धानां धर्मदेशना । लोकसंवृतिसत्यं च सत्यं च परमार्थतः ।। येऽनयोर्न विजानन्ति विभागं सत्ययोर्द्वयोः। ते तत्त्वं न विजानन्ति गम्भीरं बुद्धशासने || Madhyamakārika IV. 8-9). संवृति is the उपाय and परमार्थ is the उपेय. परतन्त्र is one of the three लक्षणs of a thing, according to the Buddhists, परिकल्पित or कल्पित, imagined (e. g. योगनिर्मित elephant ) परतन्त्र or तन्त्र, dependent ( the form of the योगनिर्मितelephant depending for its existence upon the cause योग) and परिनिष्पन्न or निष्पन्न, perfect (the non-existence of the elephant ). The परिकल्पित corresponds to the प्रातिभासिक सत्य of the Vedāntins. We differ from Prof. Vidhusekhara regarding the interpretation of this Karikā. परतन्त्र means here undoubtedly 'other schools of philosophy', the Buddhistic school (cf. समानतन्त्रसिद्धः परतन्त्रासिद्धः प्रतितन्त्रसिद्धान्तः ( Nyayasutra I. 1-29). The Buddhists regard संवृति or लोकसंवृत्ति as सत्य ( which is really a contradiction in terms, for संवृत्ति means आवरण), while Gaudapāda regards it as अज्ञान. It is wrong to say that Sankara admits any व्यावहारिक सत्य. In the begin- ning of the Vedāntasütrabhäşya, he defines his position quite clearly मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य, अहमिदं ममेदमिति नैसर्गिको लोकव्यवहारः. He talks of व्यवहारावस्था, but not of व्यवहारसत्य. Like Gauda pāda, he understands सत्य to be one, indivisible and with- out any gradations. संवृति must therefore be always असत्य. Gauda- pāda recognised only कल्पितसंवृति. The objector says:– You said in the last two Karikās that चित्त was असंग and जीव is not born. But in Karika 57, you also said संवृत्या जायते सर्वम्. How can you reconcile this ?
