The Influence of Śākyabuddhi's Refutation of Śubhangupta's Atomic Theory on Śāntarakşita's Mādhyamika Philosophy

This paper focuses on the atomic theory and epistemology examined in the Yogacara and Madhyamika philosophical traditions. The ideas present in Vasubandhu's refutation of three kinds of atomic theory in his vimsatika vijnaptimatratasiddih(Vs) are also evident in the work of Sakyabuddhi, Santaraksita, Kamalasila and Haribhadra. Of greater influence on Santaraksita ta, KamalasIla and Haribhadra's Madhyamika theories is Sakyabuddhi's refutation, in his Pramanavarttika-tika (PVTS), of Subhagupta's atomic theory. Sakyabuddhi specifically targets the ideas expressed in verses 35 and 46 of Subhagupta's Bahyarthasiddhikarika (BASK). According to Subhagupta, an atom which is surrounded (parivarana) by other atoms of the same kind is perceived by perception as if it is not separated (avicchinna). Such a gross form (sthula) is erroneous. The ideas in this verse 35, are criticized by Sakyabuddhi as follows: An atom (paramanu) cannot be established by pratyak$a and anuma1Ja. Therefore Subhagupta cannot claim that a gross (sthula) image is erroneous (vibhrama). The non-existence of a gross image can be proved by establishing an atom. However, the existance of an atom has not yet been established. In addition, Sakyabuddhi rejects a gross image, which is thought to consist of an atom, on the grounds that it is untenable from the viewpoints of singleness (eka) or multiplicity (aneka). The ideas in verse 46, in which Subhagupta criticizes verse 14 of Vasubandhu's Vs, are criticized by Sakyabuddhi as follows: A thing which has different directions and sections (digbhagabheda) inevitably possesses parts (savayavatva). This is definitive of solid matter (murtatva), that is, the atom. A thing without parts is not material (amurtatva) but is mind-mental (citta-caitta). Therefore the atomic theory is untenable. Taking these arguments and circumstances into consideration, it may be safe to say that Subhagupta preceded Sakyabuddhi (c. 660-720). (Accordingly, Subhagupta can be considered to have lived around c. 640-700.) Such arguments and circumstances are even more evident in chapter 23 of Tattvasarflgraha (TS), KamalasIla's TS-panjika and the Madhyamakalankara (MA). One reason for this is that KamalasIla in his TSP and TS1989-1991 quotes verse 14 of the Vs and uses it as a basis for criticizing verse 46 of the BASK. Therefore it is evident that Sakyabuddhi's critical examination of Subhagupta's atomic theory and epistemology contributed to Santaraksita's and Kamalasila's examination and the systematization of their Y ogacaraMadhyamaka philosophy. On the other hand, as a Yogacara, Sakyabuddhi's epistemology is criticized by Santaraksita and KamalasIla from their Madhyamika viewpoint according to which there is inconsistency between the single mind and manifestation in it of many akaras. Through this method of selective borrowing and criticism their Madhyamika theory is established