智山學報 第28 019松本 照敬「THE TERM MOKSA IN GAUDAPADIYA-KARIKA-BHASYA」

ewMeeWag=+Asu

THE

TERM

MOKSA

IN

.

GAUDAPADIYA-KARIKA.BHASYA

-

-S.

MATSUMOTO

In

a

_great

current of

Indian

thoughts,

Moksa

has

been

sought after

as

the

main subject

by

most _of

_{philosophical}

_schools.

A

lot

_of

philoso-'

phers

considered

it

from

various angles, _and

Safikara

_{was no exception}

to

this

rule.

When

We

read

Gaudapfidiya-karika

II,

32

na nirodha na

cotpattir na

baddho

na ca sadhakab na mumuksur na vai mukta

ity

esa

'

paramarthatA,

we may expect

that

Safikara

uses

this

term

only meta-'

phorically.

However

Safikara

in

other

works

uses

the

term

Mokea

without reservation;e.g.

in

UpadeSasahasri

Gadya

I,

1

and

45,

he

states

Moksa

to

be

the

_purpose

of

the

_prakarapa.

In

this

articleCi',

the

use

of

the

term

Moksa

_(Mumuksu,

Mukta)

in

'Safikara's`2'

Gaudapadiya-karika-bhasya{S'

_(GKBh.)

will

be

inquired.

First

the

_passages

connected with the term

Moksa

(Mumuksu,

Mukta)

and

its

translations

are

_given

below.

(1)

GKBh.

I,

2

(p.

30,

l.

22

f.)･･-･･･nirbijatayaiva

cet, sati

linanarTi

sampannanarp susupta-pralayayob

_{punarutthananupapattib}

syEt, muktEntirTi

ca

_{punarutpatti-prasafigah}

bijabhavfiviSesat.

jfiana-dahya-bijabhsve

_ca

jfiananarthakya-prasafigab.

If

[you

maintain

that

Brahrnan

is

_meant

by

_the

_word `sat'

in

ChUp.

VI]

only as without seeds,

it

would

be

impossible

that

[persons]

_who

have

_been

_dissolved

in

Sat

at

[the

time

of]

the

reabsorption

[of

_the

universe]

[or]

have

become

united

[with

Sat]

in

deep

sleep, again come

back

_[to

individual

consciousness].

[But

they

corne

back]

and

[therefore

you

have

to

fear]

the

undesirable result

that

those

who are

[reputed

to

be]

released

from

transmigration

[can]

be

reborn;because

[for

both

THE

TERM

MOKSA

IN

GAUDAPADIYA-KARIKA-BHASYA

-

-

is

the

same.

Moreover,

if

there

is

no seed, which

has

to

be

burnt

by

means of

knowledge,

[you

arrive at]

the

undesirable result,

that

'

ledge

[which

is

taught

by

the

Sruti]

is

useless.

e)

GKBh.

I,

7

(p.

35,

L

25

f.)･･････atas

tac-cintayam

evadaro

sttnam

aryanarp,

na nisprayojanayarTi s;rptav

adara

ity

atab sT6!i-cintakanam

evaite

vikalpfi.

Therefore

those

who are noble and seek

Moksa

take

notice of

the

.

consideration of

this

(=Turiya)

only,

but

do

not

take

notice of

the

creation which

is

useless.

Hence

these

imaginations

are only

for

those

who

think

about

the

creation.

C3)

GKBh.

II,

32

(p.

91,

l.

14f.)-･････yada

vitatharTi

dvaitam

atrnaivaikalj

paramarthatab

sarps

tadedarp

nispannarp

bhavati

sarvo 'yarp

laukiko

vaidikaS ca vyavaharo'vidya-visaya evEti

tada

na virodhah. nirodhanarp

.nirodhab"

pralaya,

,,utpattir"

jananarTi,

.baddhab" sarpsari

jivab,

.sadhakah" sadhanavan moksasya, .rnumuksur" mocanarthi, .mukto"

vimukta-bandah utpatti-pralayayor abhfivfid

baddhadayo

na santity .esa

paramarthata".

When

[one

has

seen

that]

the

rnultiplicity

is

unreal

[and

that]

the

only existing

[thing]

from

the

standpoint of

the

Ultimate

Truth

is

the

Atman,

then

itis

established:

this

whole activity

[in

thinking,

speaking

and

doing]

belonging

to

ordinary

life

and

prescribed

in

the

Vedas

is

only

the

object of

ignorance,

[and]

then

[there

is]

no contradiction.

.Nirodhah"

i.e.

restraining

[means]

dissolution

(pralaya).

.Utpatti"

[means]

production

(janana).

.Baddha"

[means]

the

transmigratery

soul. .Sadhaka"

[means]

someone who

has

the

means

[to

the

ment] of release

[from

transmigration].

.Mumuksu"

[means]

one who

wants

to

release

[himself].

.Mukta"

[means]

one who

has

been

freed

from

bondage.

Because

there

are no

_production

and

dissolution[of

the

world],

there

[also]

does

n6t exist

[a

_person

who

is]

_.baddha" etc.

That

is

the

Ultimate

Truth.

rgM\eeag=-i-Apt

(4)

GKBh.

III,

1

_(p.

103,

l.

9

f.)･･････yata

.upfisanfiSrita" upasanam

atmano

rnoksa-sEdhanatvena

_gata

upasako'harTi mam6pasyarp

brahma

tadupasanarp

k;tva･･････

･･t･･･,

because

.upasanaSrita"

having

recouse

to

worship of

the

Atman

as means

[to

the

attainment] _of

Moksa,

`I

am a worshipper

[and]

Brahman

is

my object of worship

[and]

having

done

_the

worship of

it

---i--(s)

GKBh.

III,

5

(p.

108,

_l.

4

_{f.)････`･bhedabhave}

_pradhanasya

pararth-yanupapattir

iti

cet, na,

_{pradhanak;tasyarthasyfitmany}

asamavayat.

_yadi

hi

pradhana-k;to

bandho

mokso varthah

_puru6esu

bhedena

samavaiti

tatab

_{pradhanasyapararthyam}

atmaikatve

n6papadyata

iti

_yukta

purusa-bheda-kalpana.

na ca sarpkhyair

bandho

mokso varthah

_{purusa-samaveto/}

'bhyupagamyate.

_{-･-･･･(p.}

108,

l.

24

f.)

_{parasatta-matram}

eva caitan

nimittikrtya svayarp

badhyate

_{mucyate ca}

_pradhfinam.

[Sarpkhya]

:

If

there

is

_no

distinction

[among

_{thepuruijas],}

_then

it

is

not

_possible

that

_pradhana

accomplishes

the

_purpose

of another

(

=

purusa).

[Safikara]

:No,

because

the

_purpose

which

is

accomplished

by

the

_pradhEna

is

not

inseparably

united with

the

Atman.

That

is

to

say;if

the

_purpose

which

is

accomplished

by

the

_pradhana

bondage

or

Moksa

inseparably

unites

to

_purusas

individually,

then

in

the

case

of

only one

Atman

it

[would]

not

be

_possible

for

the

_pradhana

to

accom-plish

the

aim of another

(=purusas),

_and

_therefore

[Sarpkhya's]

sup-position

that

there

is

distinction

among

_purusas

[would]

be

_proper.

But

Sarpkhyas

_do

not admit

that

the

_purpose

[of

_pradhAna],

bondage

or

Moksa

inseparably

unites

to

the

_purusa.

･････-The

pradhEna

is

bound

and released

by

itself

_through

_using

_the

_{mere existence of another}

(=

purusa)

only

as

the

efficient cause.

(6)

GKBh,

III,

5

_(p.

109,

_l.

24

f.)･･････ayuta-siddhanarp

samavaya-laksa4ah

sarpbandho na virudhyata

iti

cet,

na,

icchadibhyo'nityebhyo･

atmanayuta-THE

TERM

MOKSA

IN

GAUDAPADIYA-KARIKA.BHASYA

l

i

-siddhatve cecchadinEm

atma-gata-mahattvavan

nityatva-prasafigab. sa

canisthab,

atmano'nirmoksa-prasafigat.

[Vaigesika]

:It

is

not opposed

that

[desire

etc.

because]

they

do

not exist without

[the

Atman,]

have

a contact characterized

by

an

in$eparable

inherence.

t

[Safikara]

:

No.

The

eternal

Atman

is

existent earlier

than

the

uneternal

desire

etc.

[and]

therefore

it

is

impossible

that

[the

Atman]

does

not exist without

[thern].

On

the

other

hand

if

desire

etc. are

not existent without

the

Atman,

then

[we

have

the

undesirable] result

that

they

are

just

as

eternal

as

the

_greatness

contained

in

the

Atman.

And

this

is

undesirable.

Because

_you

would reach

the

undesirable

con-clusion

that

there

is

no

Moksa

of

the

Atman.

.

<7)

GKBh.

III,

5

(p.

111,

l.

3f.)･･････yatha

tv

akaSasyavidyadhyaropita-ghatfidy-upadhi-k;ta-rajo-dhitrna-malavattvadi-dosavattvarp

tathatmano

'vidyadhyaropita-buddhyady-upadhi-krta-sukha-dubkhadi-dosavattve

bandha-moksadayo

vyavahErika na vidyate.

As

the

AkEga

has

faults,

i.e.

having

dust,

smoke,

impurity

etc.

caused

by

a

lirniting

adjunct such as a

jar

etc. which

is

superimposed

[upon

the

Akaga]

by

Avidyfi,

in

the

same manner,

the

Atman

has

faults

happiness

or misery etc. caused

by

limiting

adjuncts,

i.

e.

the

Intellect

etc. which are superimposed

[upon

the

Atman]

by

Avidya.

Under

this

condition,

bondage

and

Moksa

etc.

[as

far

as

they

are]

belonging

to

the

thoughts,

expressions and action

[of

daily

life]

are not

contradicting.

(8)

GKBh.

III,

22

_(p.

129,

l.

14

f.)･･-･･･.yasya"

punar

v5dinah .svabha=

venam;to

bhavo

martyatarp

gacchati"

paramarthato

jayate

tasya

pragut=

patteb

sa

bhavab

svabhavato'm;ta

iti

_pratijfia

mTsaiva.

katharp

tarhi.

k;takenamTtas

tasya

svabh5vab.

k;takenamTtab

sa

katharp

sthasyati

niScalab. am;ta-svabhfivataya na

katharpcit

sthfisyati.

atrnajati･vadinab

sarvadajarp nama nasty eva, sarvam etan martyam. ato'nirmoksa-prasafiga

ity

abhiprayalj.

am\Wag=-EApt

[If]

an assertor

[says]

that

.a

thing

which

is

spontaneously

immortal

goes

to

the

rnortal nature",

i.e.

is

born

really,

[then]

his

_proposition

that

the

entity

is

spontaneously

immortal

before

creation

is

_wrong,

How

?

For

him

the

nature

is

immortal

artificially.

How

will

this

[nature

which

is]

immortal

_{artificially continue}

_to

be

inchangeable?

It

_wil1

by

no means continue

to

exist as

having

an

immortal

nature.

At

all

times

there

never

is

such

[a

thing]

which

is

unborn, and every-thing

is

mortal

to

one

who

holds

that

the

Atman

comes

into

being.

Therefore

[his

proposition

would reach]

the

_undesirable conclusion

that

there

is

no

Moksa.

This

is

the

meaning

[of

GK.

III,

22].

(9)

GKBh.

III,

40

_(p.

149,

l.

8

f.)･･････yesarp

_punar

brahma-svarapa-vyatirekena rajju-sarpavat

kalpitam

eva mana

indriyadi

_{ca na}

_{paramfirthato}

vidyate,

tesam

brahma-svaritpanam

_{abhayarp moksfikhya caksaya}

Santih

svabhavata eva siddha nanyEyatta _.n6pactirah

kathaiTicana"

ity

_ukteb.

_ye

tv

ato'nye

_yogino

_margaga

hina-madhyama-drstayo

_mano'nyad

Atma-vyatiriktam

atma-sarpbandhi

_paSyanti

tesgm

atma-satyanubodha-rahitanarp

manaso nigrahayattarpabhayaip sarvesArp

_yoginEm.

kiip

ca

dubkha-ksayo'pi.

na

hy

titma-sarpbandhini

manasi

_pracarite

duhkha-ksayo'sty

avivekinatn.

kim

catma-prabodho'pimano-nigrahayatta eva.

tatha-aksayapi

moksakhya

gantis

tesarp

mano-nigrahayattaiva.

But

some

_people

[realize

that]

the

mind and

the

sense-organs etc.,,

which

are

imagined

only, _{as a serpent}

[on

_a] rope,

do

not really exist

apart

from

the

very nature

of

Brahman.

For

those

_people,

who

have

Brahman

as

their

nature, _{.fearlessness" and}

.undecaying calmness" named

Moksa

are spontaneously accomplished,

[and]

_they

do

_not

depend

_on

other

[thing].

Because

it

is

_said

_that

_conduct

is

by

_{no means}

[needed]

(III,

36

d).

However

_Yogins

who are

different

from

this

[and]

are

going

a .way"

(=use

a method apart

from

knowing)

[and]

who

have

inferior

or middling view, regard

the

mind

[as

existing] _apart

from

_the

Atman

_[and]

as

[only]

connected with

the

Atman.

For

those

[people]

=.all

Yogins",

_{who are void of}

the

_real

understanding

(anubodha)

of

THE

TERM

MOKSA

IN

GAUDAPADIYA-KARIKA-BHASYA

-

-

-mind".

Moreover

[in

their

cace] .the

destruction

of

misery" also

[de-pends

on

the

mind].

As

soon as

the

mind which

is

[according

to

their

view] connected with

the

Atman

is

set

in

motion

[again],

those

who

have

no

judgement[=do

not see

that

there

is

no

thing

apart

from

the

Atman]

_[can

no more experience]

the

cessation of misery.

Moreover,

[for

those

_people]

.understanding

(prabodha)"

of

the

Atman

depends

on

the

restraint of

the

mind.

Similarly,

in

their

case, .undecaying

calmness" named

Moksa

depends

on

the

restraint of

the

mind.

aot

GKBh.

IV,

30

_(p.

179,l.

18

f.)-･････ayarp

capara

fitmanah

sarpsfira-moksayolj

paramirtha-sadbhava-vadinarp

dosa

ucyate. .anader"

atita-koti-rahitasya

.sarpsErasya"-antavattvarp samaptir .nasetsyati"

yuktitab

siddhim nOpyasyati. na

hy

anadih sann antavfin

kagcit

_padartho

drsto

loke.

bijahkura-sarpbandha-nairantarya-vicchedo

drsta

iti

cet. na. ekava=

stv-abhEvenapoditatvat.

tathfinantatapi

vijfiana-prapti-kEIa-prabhavasya

moksasyadimato na

bhavisyati.

ghatadisv

adarganat.

_{ghatadi-vinfigavad}

avastutvad adosa

iti

cet.

tatha

ca moksasya

paramartha-sadbhava-pratijfia-hanilj.

asattvtid eva

gaga-vis5pasyevadimattvabhavaS

ca.

And

the

following

is

said as another

defect

to

diputants

who assert

that

transmigration

and

Moksa

[that

eomes after

transmigration]

of

the

Atman

have

a

_positive

existence

from

thestandpoint

of

the

Ultimate

Truth.

.It will not

be

established",

i.e.

will not

become

evident

by

rneans of reasoning

that

.transmigration" .which

is

beginningless"

i.

e.

without a

_past

starting

_point

.has an end"

i.

e. a completion.

Because

any substance which

has

no

beginning

and

_yet

has

an end

is

not seen

is

ordinary

life.

[Objection]

:An end

is

seen

in

the

continuousness

of

the

relation

of

the

seed and

the

sprout.

[Reply]

:

[This

objection

is]

not

[proper],

for

[this

illustration]

is

disowned

because

_[seed

and sprout] are not one

thing.

In

the

like

manner,

if

Moksa

occurs at

the

time

when one

_gets

knowledge,

it

has

a

beginning.

[Therefore]

it

will also

be

not endless.

Because

we

do

not experience

that

the

jar

etc.

[which

haveabeginning

an#wa=tAng

have

not an end].

[Objection]

:

[Moksa]

is

not a

_positive

entity

like

the

destruction

of a

jar

etc.

[which

(=the

destruction,

absence)

has

a

begin,

but

no

end].

Therefore

there

is

no

defect

[in

our argument].

[Reply]

:But

in

this

way,

_you

_give

up

_your

_proposition

that

Moksa

_[as

something

that

is

brought

about and

begins]

has

a

_positive

existence

from

the

standpoint of

the

Ultimate

Truth.

Moreover

[in

this

way]

[Moksa]

has

not a

beginning,

like

the

horn

of a

hare,

because

of

its

very non-existence.

GKBh.

IV,

31-2

(p.

180,

l.

20

f.)･･･-･･vaitathye

k;ta-vyakhyanau

SIok5v

iha

sarpsfira-moksfibhava-prasafigena

_pathitau.

The

two

Slokas

[IV,

31-32]

which

have

been

explained

in

[the

chapter of]

falseness

[of

the

multiplicity]

[==II,

6-7]

here

are repeated

in

connection with non-existence of

transmigration

and

Moksa

[which

comes after

transmigration].

aD

GKBh.

IV,

77

_(p.

204,

t.

17

f.)･･････paramartha-darSanena

nirasta-dharmadharmakhy6tpatti-nimittasya-.animittasya

cittasya"-iti

_y5

moksa=

khya-anutpattib

sa sarvadfi sarvavasthasu sama nirvigesadvaya ca.

[Non-origination]

of

the

.mind which

is

causeless" == which

is

free

from

the

causes of

_production

consisting of

dharma

and adharma

by

means of realizing

the

Ultimate

Truth.

This

.no-origination", which

is

called

Moksa,

therefore

is

always under all conditions .equal" =

unqualified and .non-dual".

op

GKBh.

IV,

91

(p.

215,

l.

3

f.)･･････paramarthatas

tu

.prakTtya"

svabhavata .akaSavad"

akaga-tulyah

sitksma-nirafijana-sarvagatatvaib

.sarve

dharma"-atmAno

.jrteya" mumuksubhir .anEdayo" nityab.

From

the

standpoint of

the

Ultimate

Truth,

however,

.all

dharmas"

i.e.

souls .should

be

known"

by

those

who

seek

Moksa

as

.by nature"

i.e.

from

their

own state, _.like

the

ether"

i.e.

similar

to

the

_ether

in

as much as

they

are

[like

the

ether] subtle, spotless and all-pervading

THE

TERM

MOKSA

IN

GAUDAPADIYA-KARIKA.BHASYA

-

-

-a$

GKBh.

IV,

92

_(p.

215,

l.

13f.)･････-jfieyatapi

_dharmaparp

sailiv!tyaiva

na

_paramarthata

ity

aha.

_yasmad

adau

bucklha

.sdibuddhab" ,,prak;tyaiva"

svabhavata eva

_yathE

nitya-prakaSa-svarapab

_savitaivarp

nitya-bodha-svaritpfi

ity

arthalj. .sarve

dharmah`C

sarva

atmanab.

na ca

tesErTr

nigcayab

kartavyo

nitya-niScita-svaritpa

ity

arthab. na

sarpdihyamana-svarQpfi evarp naivarp veti. .yasya" mumukeor .evarp"

yath6kta-prak5rerpa

sarvada

bodha-nigcaya-nirapekrpatatmartharp

_parartharp

vE

_yatha

savita

nityarp

_{prakaSantara-nirapeksab}

svtirtharp

_parartharp

vety evarp _.bhavati

ksfintir"

_{bodha-kartavyata-nirapeksatE}

sarvada svatmani

.so'mTtatvEya"-am;ta-bhavasya

kalpate.

moksfiya samartho

bhavaty

ity

arthab.

Even

the

knowableness

[attributed]

to

the

.dharmas"

[is

valid] only

by

covering

[of

the

Ultimate

Truth],

[and

does]

not

[exist]

from

the

standpoint of

the

Ultimate

Truth.

[The

verse] asserts

[this

view]:

･･････Because all

dharmas

i.e.

all souls are

.adibuddhah"

i.e.

awakened

from

the

very

beginning

.spontaneously"

i.e.

by

their

own

nature.

The

meaning

is:just

as

the

sun

has

eternal

brightness

in

essence,

in

the

same

manner,

[the

souls]

have

eternal awakeness

in

essence.

[.They

are well

determined."]

And

[we]

have

not

to

_give

a

determination

of

them;

that

means

that

their

essence

is

eternally

determined.

They

have

no such essence

that

it

is

uncertain whether

they

are such or not such.

The

_[man]

striving after

Moksa

who

has

.thus"

i.e.

in

the

manner

above-mentioned always

independence

from

the

determination

of awakeness

for

the

sake of

himself

and others,

just

as

the

sun never needs another

light

for

the

sake of

itself

or others,

[and]

therefore

thus

has

.ksanti"

i.

e.

independence

frorn

the

necessity

to

bring

about awakeness,

is

suitable

for

.amrtatva"

i.e.

the

immortal

state.

This

means

that

he

is

fit

for

Moksa,

aO

GKBh.

IV,

93

(p.

216,

l.

7

f.)-･････tathE

napi

ganti-kartavyatatmanity

aha.

_yasmad

EdiSantE

nityam eva

ganta

anutpanna ajaS ca.

_prak;tyaiva

sunivrtEh sustaparata-svabhava nitya-mukta-svabhava

ity

arthab. sarve

dharmab

samES

cabhinnag

ca samtibhinna. ajarp samyarp viSaradarp

rwth*Wrg=-f-Apt

viSuddham

atma-tattvarp

_yasmat

tasmac

chfintir mokso va nasti

kartavya

ity

arthab. na

hi.

nityaika-svabhavasya

k;tarp

kirpcid

arthavat syat.

[The

author of

Kirikas]

says

that

similarly

it

is

_{not necessary}

to

bring

about

_peace

in

the

Atman.

Because

[all

.dharmas"] are .peaceful

from

the

outset"

i.e.

eternally

_peaceful

and .non-originated"

i.

e.

un-born.

_[They

are] _.by

their

very nature

_perfectly

extinguished".

[This

means

that]

their

real nature

is

well-ceased and always released.

All

.dharmas" are .samabhinna"

i.

e. equal and undivided.

Because

.the

sameness

is

unborn and without

fear",

i.

e.

[because]

the

nature of

the

Atman

is

_pure,

therefore

_peace

or

Moksa

are nothing

to

be

brought

about.

Because,

for

[a

thing]

_that

has

_always

_one

nature, nothing

that

is

brought

about

has

any use.

aS

GKBh.

IV,

98

(p.

219,

l.

11

f.)-･-･･-tesfim

avararpa-cyutir

nastiti

bruvatarp

svasiddhante'bhyupagatarp

tarhi

dharmErptim

avarapam,

_nety

ucyate. alabdhfivarapfih. alabdham aprAptam

fivara4am

avidyadi-bandha=

narp

_yesfirp

te

dharma

alabdhavara4a

bandhana-rahitE

ity

_arthah

prakTti-nirmalah svabhfiva-Suddha

adau

buddhas

tathti

muktA

_yasm5n

nitya-buddha-Suddha-mukta-svabhavah.

_yady

evarp

katharp

tarhi

budhyanta

ity

ucyate. nayakAh svfiminab

sarnartha

bodhuTp

bodha-Saktimat-svabhava

ity

arthah.

_yatha

niyta-prakaSa-svarapo'pi san savita

_prakaSata

ity

ucyate,

yatha

va nitya-nivTtta-gatayo'pi nityam eva

Sailas

tisthantity

ucyate

tadvad.

[Objection]

:People who say

that

there

is

no

_perishing

of

the

obstruction of

the

[dharmas]

admit

in

their

own system an obstruction

of

the

dharmas.

[Reply]

:No,

[because]

.all

dharmas"

are alabdhavararpa

[i.e.

they

are

those]

who

have

.unobtained"

[i.e.]

unaquired

.obstruction"

[i.e.]

bondage

consisting of

Avidya

etc.,

that

rneans:they are

free

from

bondage.

.Prak;ti-nirmalah"

[i.e.]

they

are

pure

by

nature,

[and]

.are awakened

from

the

very

beginning",

.and released",

because

they

have

a nature which

is

eternally

_pure,

conscious and released.

THE

TERM

MOKSA

IN

GAUDAPADIYA-KARIKA-BHA$YA

[Reply]

:

They

are .leader"

i.e.

Iords,

that

means:able

to

know,

having

a nature which

has

the

_power

of consciousness.

It

is

like

the

expression

that

`the

sun

shines'

though

it

has

thenature

of eternal

shin-ning; or `mountains are always standing'

though

they

have

ceased

eter-nally

to

rnove.

'

The

above

tells

us about

the

fact

_that

Safikara

_states

Moksa

from

'

two

stages.

In

one

stage,

Safikara

asserts

that

Moksa

is

to

be

brought

about

from

the

standpoint of

the

daily

truth.

There

are

Moksa

and

Sarpsara

under

the

condition of our

ignorance.

Moksa

is

dealt

with as

an aim which can and must

be

realized

by

means

of

knewledge.

The

passages

(1),

(2),

(4,

(5),

(6),

(s),

tz,

aaj

come under

this

standpoint. ,

On

the

other

hand,

Safikara

asserts

that

there

is

no

Samsara

and no

Moksa

after

Sarpstira

(the

souls are eternally released)

from

the

standpoint of

the

Ultimate

truth.

The

_passages

(3),

(7),

(9),

aot,

aD,

asD,

a5

states

this

opinion.

.

And

Safikara

tries

to

unify

these

two

stages.

According

to

Safikara,

we

are

involved

in

the

circle of

SaTpsEra

by

sarpv;ti.

Sarpv;ti

is

a concept confronted with sadbhsva

(IV,

57),

and

is

ignorance

about

reality.

As

far

as we are attached

to

rnultiplicity of

the

_phenomenal

world which appears

by

sarpv;ti, we cannot

_get

the

_peace

of our mind.

Therefore

we

_must

deny

the

false

_{appearnce of}

the

_phenomenal

world

and must

_get

the

_peace

of mind.

The

state _of

_peace

is

called

Moksa.

Such

Moksa

is

realized

by

knowledge.

In

fact,

however,

nothing

is

brought

about

by

knowledge.

Because

all souls are eternally

_pure,

¢onscious and released.

This

knowledge

removes only

ignorance

about

reality.

But

it

is

not a

_purely

theoretical

knowledge.

We

have

seri-ously

to

strive after

this

knowledge

and after

Mok$a.

Note

(1)

I

express rny

hearty

thanks to

Prof.

T.

E.

Vetter,

who

_guided

me very

kindly

on

this

article.

t

(aj

Opinion

is

divided

on the

_problem

that

the

author of

GKBh.

is

Safikara.

am\Xee=-f-Ath

Vidushekara

Battacharya,

The

Agama

Sa-stra

_of

Gauqlapa-du,

University

of

Calcutta,

1943.

_(not

Safikara);

Hajime

Nakamura,

The

Development

_of

Vlrd2inta

Philosopby,

(Vedanta

Tetsugaku

no

Hatten)

Tokyo,

1955,

pp.

527

f.

(not

Safikara);

Sengaku

Mayeda,

On

the

Author

_of

the

Ma-n.

4tidyopanis.ad

and the '

Gau4apadlyabhdsya

(The

Adyar

Library

Bulletin)

1967,

p.

73--94

(Safikara);

'

T.

E.

Vetter,

thr

Bedeutung

des

Illusionis"m

bei

Sahkara,

(WZKSO)

1968,

pp.

407

f.

(Sarikara);

P.

Hacker,

IVbte

en the

Ma-n.

4u-dyopanis.ad

and

Sdfikara's

-

t

Agamas'a-stravivaragea,

(Indian

Maior,

1972)

p.

115

f.

(Safikara).

<3)

Text:

Ma'n.4u'dyopanis.ad,

with

the

Ka-rika"

of

Gaudepa-du,

the

Bhdisya

of

i

H

t

Sahkara,

the

Tika-

of

Anandujn-a"na

and a

Dipika-

of

Saitkara-nanda,

(Poona,