Chapter 3: "The evaluation states," adjudication alongside argument¶

This is the essay's central chapter. The two Chinese characters 評曰, "The evaluation states," occur 289 times in the two hundred fascicles of classical Chinese. They exercise the authority of a verdict. After the various positions have been set out, they announce which is Vaibhāṣika orthodoxy. The related formula 如是說者, "Those who say as follows," occurs 207 times and marks the accepted position.¹ As Chapter 1 noted, the attribution to five hundred arhats gives the work's verdicts the tone of a resolution. This chapter asks what lies beneath that tone. What supports the verdict? When do adjudication and argument coincide, and when do they part? What kind of truth is a doctrine fixed by adjudication?

The forms of "The evaluation states." The bases of the 289 verdicts fall into four categories. Some conclude with an argument, some cite sacred teaching, some follow textual form, and some are bare adjudications that offer nothing. The occurrences across the two hundred fascicles have been classified individually, with the following counts.²

Begin with the largest category. Two-thirds of the verdicts give reasons. At first glance, that proportion seems unfavorable to the claim that adjudication and argument are different things. The crucial part is the other third. Ninety-three verdicts provide no argument, and the three ways of doing without one each have their own form. Sixty-eight offer nothing. What follows "One should say this" is the correct answer, not a reason. Repeating which position is right counts as having finished. Eighteen rely on wording. A position is wrong because it conflicts with the wording of the Jñānaprasthāna or one of the six-foot treatises, or because it does not fit the section's form. Giving wording as a reason is precisely the form of adjudication rather than argument. It appeals to the root treatise's authority, not to reasoning. Seven cite sūtras. These are the work's only verdicts that seek a guarantee outside the system. Their low proportion is itself evidence. The ultimate basis of this orthodoxy lies in its own texts, not in the sūtras.

Of these three categories, sixty-eight is the number to remember. These are not residual oversights. They are a normal form permitted by the format. A treatise speaking in the tone of a resolution can simply announce a conclusion. In this category, the separation of adjudication from argument is literal.

The direction of adjudication. Can we identify preferences in whom the evaluators accept and reject? Three can be established. First, positions that make the form more orderly have the advantage. In the dispute among the four great masters, treated in detail in Chapter 4, the same criterion eliminates three positions: disorder. Second, positions that keep the substance of dharmas fixed have the advantage. In fascicle 76, "The evaluation states: Past and future things do not form aggregates as present things do; each remains separate." This single sentence assigns aggregation to the present and preserves the picture of dharmas abiding in their respective intrinsic natures across all three times.¹ Third, positions that add fewer entities do not necessarily have the advantage. Both the verdict on nine coarising dharmas in fascicle 39 and the verdict on acquisition of acquisition in fascicle 158 choose the side that adds more. The first two tendencies favor order. The third shows that order takes priority over economy. Better to posit more dharmas than to allow disorder in the arrangement.

Who controls the brakes? The last section of Chapter 2 argued that this method cannot supply its own stopping point. This chapter adds that "The evaluation states" does the stopping. We must be clear about what it stops. Acquisition generates nonacquisition, and the four characteristics generate four subsidiary characteristics. Just as the subsidiary characteristics are about to generate a third layer, "The evaluation states" and "Those who say as follows" intervene and announce a halt. "In a single moment there are only three dharmas. Because they acquire one another, there is no infinite regress." "The arising of arising produces only one dharma, so there is no fault of infinite regress."¹ What is stopped is the multiplication of entities that the treatise itself has set in motion, not an opponent's claim. "The evaluation states" is a brake in this book, not an ornament. A philosophical work that must equip itself with brakes has a method with no stopping condition of its own. That last point is the second beam supporting the verdict in Chapter 9.

The status of its truth. An orthodox position fixed by adjudication is a different kind of thing from a conclusion that prevails through argument. The former draws its force from the adjudicator's authority; the latter, from premises and reasoning. The Vaibhāṣikas themselves are aware of this distinction. Fascicle 1 quotes the Buddha telling Ānanda, "I have a profound Abhidharma, difficult to see and awaken to, not to be reasoned out, outside the domain of reasoning. Only those with subtle, acute wisdom can know it."¹ To place Abhidharma outside the domain of reasoning is to declare in advance that the doctrine's ultimate guarantee does not lie within reasoning. The final chapter of Essay 15 recorded Vasubandhu's closing words, "The nature of dharmas is profound, outside the domain of reasoning." It is the same phrase. Both sides bring it out when argument reaches its limit. The difference is that the Vibhāṣā uses it as the system's foundation, while Vasubandhu uses it to cut his losses at one particular point. The truth claim of a system fixed by adjudication and ultimately guaranteed by sacred teaching is declarative. "Orthodox position" means that this view has been selected, not that it has been proved.

On to Chapter 4. We have classified the bases of verdicts and identified their direction. It is time to watch a complete case. The dispute among the four great masters is the work's most famous adjudication. The evaluators choose Vasumitra, giving a reason only eight Chinese characters long.

References¶