On tanmatra
Shujun
Motegi
I. In the evolution theory of the classical Samkhya system of thought as laid down in the Saynkhyakarika (SK), the nature and the role of tanmatra is not quite clear. The SK tells us that five tanmatras are produced from aham-kara and from them are issued five bhutas (material elements). The tanmatras and the bhutas are characterized respectively as avisesa and visesal). Nothing more is stated in the SK itself. The commentaries of the SK explain that tan-matra consists of sabda, rasa, sparsa, rupa and gandha which are attributes of material elements. Following the commentaries, we will start our discussion with the supposition that tanmatras are five in number and stand for sabda, etc2)..
The first question about tanmatra is concerning the meaning of its first member tad-. The word tanmatra means that only' or something consisted of that only'. What, then, is denoted by tad- (that) ? All the commentaries of the SK are silent on this point, which leaves the meaning of the word unclear. The second question is about the role of tanmatra played in the system of the SK. All the commentaries of the SK interprete suksma in the SK v.,40 as tanmatra and give it the role of making material basis for suksmasarira, a tranmigrating subtle entiny. But, as remarked by Frauwallner3), to make ma-terial basis, it is much more suitable to use mama-terial element (bhuta) than at-tribute (tanmatra). We, therefore, can guess that this role of making material basis is conceived later by the SK commentators to give tanmatra a reason of existence in the system of the SK. No other role of tanmatra is mentioned in the SK and its commentaries. As the result, the role of tanmatra remains un-clear.
The position taken by tanmatra in the 25 tattvas raises the third question. 7 anmatra is placed between ahamkara and bhuta in the evolution theory of the SK which explains the formation of the world cosmologically and
metaphi-(2) On tanmatra (S. Motegi)
sically. Tanmatras are sabda, etc., which are attributes belonging to materials. It is, therefore, natural that tanmatra is supposed to be subject to material element. But, in the evolution theory of the SK, a material element is subject to attribute, giving the impression that the position of both is upset.
On these three questions mentioned above the SK and its commentaries do not give us an apprehensible explanation. To get a clearer understanding of tanmatra, we should consult other literatures than the SK and its commentaries.
II. It has been often pointed out that the word tanmatra occurs first in the Maitrayant Upanisad 3-2. The topic discussed there is the bhatatman, the low-er sort of atman that is involved in the transmigration. On the word bhuta of bhatatman, the following interpretation is made4):
asyopavyakhyanam...pancatanmatra* bhutasabdenocyante/atha pancamahabhutani bhutasabdenocyante/atha tesam yat samudayam tac charirain ity uktam/
*tanmatrani5)
From this passage we notice that there is a word tanmatra as well as tanma-tra. Since the term matra is widely used, the examination of its usage may give us a hint for grasping the meaning of tanmatra. The Prasna Upanisad 4-8 gives an important example of the usage of matra, which is as follows6): Prthivi ca prthivimatra cal apas capomatra cal tejas ca tejomatra cal vayus ca
vayumatra cal akasamatra cal...
The word matra in this passage signifies a material element. Taking it into consideration that prthivimatra can be expressedd tanmatra to avoid the repeti-tion of prthivi, we may safely to assume that tanmatra was originally used in this sense, i. e. a material element7) and that it was changed into tanmatra in the course of time, though what is indicated by tad remains still unclear.
We, therefore, cannot believe that tanmatra used in the Mait Upa has the same contents as stated by the commentators of the SK. There seems nothing to support that tanmatra is used in the meaning of sabda, etc. in the Mait Upa. Rather, from the above mentioned, the following explanation is cogent: in the Mait Upa, tanmatra is used for interpretation of the word bhuta, a ma-terial being, and means something mama-terial. Hence tanmatra has nearly the same meaning as mahabhuta, though there may be a difference that one is
-957-On tanmatra (S. Motegi) (3) subtle and the other is gloss8). It must mean a material element, not sabda, etc. This is all that can be got from this passage.
III. Another source for tanmatra is the Mahabhatata (Mbh). We see tan-matra several times in the Anus" asanaparvan and the Moksadharmaparvan (Mdh). But all the passages in which tanmatra occurs are considered to be the later addition by the editor of The Critical Edition of the Mbh, and they are printed not in the main text but in the Appendix. The term tanmatra in the Mdh occurs only in the context of enumerating the 25 tattvas of the Samkhya system to explain the world created by Siva or Visnu. It is clear that the SSai-va or the VaisnaSSai-va sect adopted the Samkhya thought after tanmatra had al-ready been introduced into the system9).These passages, therefore, don't give us anything new concerning a necessity of tanmatra for the Samkhya thought or its contents before accepted by the Samkhya thinkers'0).
In the Mdh of The Critical Edition, the word tanmatra is absent, though the Mdh refers many times to the Samkhya thoughts in various stages of develop-ment. The enumeration of the 25 tattvas which is one of the characteristic
theories of the Samkhya is already found in some places of the Mdh and mem-bers of the 25 tattvas found in the Mdh are nearly the same as those of the SK. Hence some of the Samkhya thoughts in the Mdh can be said to be very close to those in the SK regarding the emmuration of tattvas or the evo-lution theory. Inspite of this, tanmatra is not seen in the Mdh. Sabd a, etc. are enumerated as one of the 25 tattvas even in the Mdh without being called tanmatra. We accordingly have to suppose that the conception of tanmatra is not needed in the evolution theories in the Mdh.
VI. The evolution theory seems to be a key to understand the necessity of tanmatra for the Samkhya system. We shall compare the evolution theory of the SK with those found in the Mdh.
One of the characteristics of the evolution theory of the SK consists in giv-ing a faculty of producgiv-ing material to ahamkara. Hence, as the evolution the-ory to be compared with that of the SK, we have only to play attention to the ones in which the same function is attributed to ahamkara. In the Mdh, some evolution theories are noticed to have ahamkara as a member"), and as the
common characteristics of them the following two may be pointed out: (1) material elements are produced from ahamkara
(2) attribute is treated as subject to material element
Let us take the evolution theory in the Mdh 294(A) as an example of such evolution theory and compare it with that of the SK(B).
(A) prakrti...mahat...ahamkara...5 bhata
-5 indriya
-5 visesa
(B) prakrti...mahat...ahamkara...
-11 indriya
5 tanmatra...5 bhata A comparison shows that both A and B are very similar in members and their order of evolution. We may assume that the evolution theory of the SK is the developed one of this sort of evolution theory of the Mdh.
At the same time the changed position of indriya (sense organ) attracts our notice. In A, indriyas are produced from bhutas, while, in B, they are produced from ahamkara. Since the function or the role of each member doesn't seem to differ much in A and B, this change of position of indriya must have been caused for some reasons in the process of the development of the Samkhya thought.
In the philosophical system of the Samkhya school, indriya, especially bud-dhi-indriya, plays the main role in pratyaksa (direct perception) which is admit-ted as one of the three means of valid knowledge. In an old treatise of this school, pratyaksa is defined as frotradivrtti' (vrtti of ear, etc.)12). In this definition vrtti is explained in a commentary as follows13): direct perception means that an indriya, for example, ear, reaches an object and comes to be modified into its form, i. e. sound. This function cannot be attributed to a ma-terial indriya, because it cannot move towards an object. They must not be produced from material. Therefore, indriya is considered to be produced from ahamkara, an internal organ which is not made of material elements. As the result of this, indriya can perform the above mentioned function in pratyaksa.
Concerning the evolution theory, ahamkara comes to make two beings: ma-
-955-On tanmatra (S. Motegi) (5) terial element and sense organ. Attribute of material element is, in other point of view, an object of perception. The evolution scheme now comes to be explain-ed as follows: ahamkara makes material elements and then objects of percep-tion on the one hand, and indriyas on the other hand. In this order of evo-lution, indriya and its object are not on the same stage. The object of indriya comes into existence at the next stage of indriya, which does not seem bal-anced. To make the whole scheme well balanced, it might be better that both indriya and its object are on the same stage of evolution. If indriya and its object are to be put on the same stage, bhuta is required to change its position and come lower than objects of indriya, as seen in B. This process must have taken place in the systematization of the Samkhya thought. I believe that this is the time when the word tanmatra is needed by Samkhya thinkers. S"abda, etc. are now placed above bhuta. Then there arose a necessity to get a word by which sabda, etc. are expressed as a group. For it sounds strange if the elements in the upper stage of evolution are called one by one, while those in the lower stage are grouped together and represented by a single word. The term of tanmatra is thus adopted as the word which can represent the group of attributes that are now placed upper than bhuta. As the result of this, tan-matra has its position in the evolution scheme of the SK without any other function than representing sabda, etc. as a group.
V. As has been pointed out, there are many types of evolution theory in Chinese Buddhist texts14). Some of them have an appearence contradictory to what I have mentioned in the previous section. As an example of this kind of
evolution theory we may refer to the one found in the.Po lun15): 冥 初 … 覚
我 心 … … 五 微 塵 … … 五 大 … … 十 一 根
In this scheme, imZriya(根)remains lower than bhuta(大), while tanmatra
(?,微 塵)is adopted and put above bhuta. To examine this kind of evolutiom
theory, we must take the following two points into consideration. (1) In the Yoga school which holds a theory close to that of the Samkhya, indriya can remain lower tha bhuta, because it is supposed to be made of material
ele-ment(bhautika).(2)It is not certain whether微 塵corresponds to tanmatra
like anu. With these two points in view, we may guess that this kind of evo-lution theory belongs to the Yoga school, in which tanmatra was adopted but indriya was left lower than bhuta, or that this evolution scheme is formed by the confusion of the Samkhya and Yoga thoughts. The second possibility which seems true is that Mstands for a subtle material element. In this case, the problem takes a quite different appearance. This possibility suggests that there was a theory which admitted two kinds of material element, subtle and
gloss. 微 塵is a subtle material element, not sabda, etc. If it does not mean
sabd a, etc., it is not necessary to deal with it here.
VI. From what has been discussed above, I draw a conclusion as follows: The term tanmatra was derived from tanmatra and originally meant a mate-rial element like anu. This concept was introduced into the Samkhya system of thought at certain stage of its development to represent all the attributes of material elements as a group, with the intention to formulate a well bal-anced evolution scheme.
1) SK v22, 24, and 38.
2) The same idea as this supposition is referred to in the Ta chih to lun (Taisho vol. 25, p. 546c).
3) Frauwallner, E., Geshichte der Indischen Philosophie, 1 Band, (Wien, 1953) p. 346. 4) Eighteen Principal Upanisads, vol. 1 (Poona, 1958) p. 330.
5) Van Buitenen, J. A. B. reads tanmatrapi in The Maitrayaniya Upanisad (Hague, 1962), p. 102.
6) Eighteen Principal Upanisads, p. 35.
7) This usage of matra is found in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, 4-3-9. And ma-trasparsa in the Bhagavad Gita, 2-14 can be included in the same usage of matra. 8) Cf. Johnston, E. H., Early Samkhya (London, 1937), p. 59 note 1.
9) Nearly the same usage of tanmatra in the Purana litaratures is collected by Ramsuresh Pandey in the Mahabharat our Pranon men Samkhya Darshan (Delhi, 1972), pp. 199-204.
10) According to the Yuktidipika (ed. R. C. Pandey, Delhi-Varanasi-Patna, 1967), p. 91, all the Samkhya teachers, including Varsaganya and Vindhyavasin, accepted tanmatra, though there were different opinions about it among them.
11) Cf . Mdh 291, 198 etc. 12) Yuktidipika, p. 3, 20-21. 13) Yuktidipika, p. 103, 26.
14)Cf. M. Honda,5tudies o∫Samkhya Philosophy vo1.1(イ ン ド哲 学 研 究 ・ 上,
To-kyo, 1980), pp. 73-307. 15) Taisho. vol. 30, p. 170c.
16) Nyayavartika ad Nyayasutra 1-1-29.
Pan"cadhikarana, one of the Samkhya teachers, holds that indriya is bhautika.
(Yuktidzpika, p. 91) (Lecturer, Shinshu University)
