The polemics of "Santarakita and Kamala'sila with the mimasakas on the existence and properties of atman in “Tattvasa graha-pa~Njika” (translation of an excerpt)

Śāntarak ita is a Buddhist philosopher of the 8th century, one of the most important Buddhist thinkers of India and Tibet, a representative of the Mahāyāna Yogacāra-svatantrika-madhyamaka school. The most famous work of Śāntarak ita is “Tattvasa graha” (“Collection of Essential [Problems]”, or “Compendium of Categories”) is a large-scale polemical work, in twenty-six chapters of which the author criticizes twenty-six basic concepts of the main philosophical schools of India (Sā khya, Nyāya, Vaiśe ika, Mīmā sa, Lokāyata, Yoga, Vedānta, and also Jainism and Buddhism of other schools). In the section “The Polemics with the Mīmā sakas” of the chapter “Ātmaparīk ā” (lit. “Study of Ātman”) of “Tattvasa graha” of Śāntarak ita with the commentary “Pañjikā” of Kamalaśīla philosophical polemics between Buddhism and Mīmā sa, school of antient Indian philosophy on the question of the existence and properties of the self is taking place. The purpose of the article is introduction to scientific and shcolar circulation the first translation from Sanskrit into Russian of the section “The Polemics with the Mīmā sakas” of the chapter “Ātmaparīk ā” (lit. “Study of Ātman”) of “Tattvasa graha” of Śāntarak ita with the commentary “Pañjikā” of Kamalaśīla. Materials and Methods: in the article the comparativehistorical method, the method of comparative analysis, a widespread methodology of philosophical translation from Sanskrit into Russian is used. The translation was made from the critical edition of S.D. Śastri [18]. The only translation of the text into English by G. Jha was also used [11] alongside with the only translation of the section into French from the Sanskrit by I. Ratié [16]. In the article the method of historical and philosophical reconstruction was applied. Results: in the course of the study the author has shown that according to the Mīmā sakas, atman has a form of consciousness (caitanya) and exclusive and inclusive nature. Exclusive - as the seat of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, etc., which are mutually exclusive states, inclusive - as a sequence of consciousness, essentiality, good qualities, etc. Śāntarak ita criticizes the position of the Mīmā sakas, revealing contradictions in their internal philosophical logic. Discussion and Conclusions: it is concluded that Śāntarak ita’s main argument in the dispute with the Mīmā sakas is that, in his opinion, there is a contradiction between the concept of the eternal and unchanging atman and its properties as a cognizing and acting subject. Indeed, the Buddhists here proceed from experience that says that all our knowledge is transitent and changeable, and we do not find within ourselves any eternal and unchangeable self. Even if it was, it could not have anything to do with the particular changeable facts of the psyche and the moments of consciousness. Thus, Śāntarak ita concludes, the concept of unchanging atman as a reality is only an illusion of the psyche, which is not confirmed by any real experience and enters into a logical contradiction with the facts.