Tibetan Studies in India

Final Examination
What is the difference between the Sautrantika and Vaibhashika conceptions of the two
truths and of the nature of perception?
The Vaibhashika and Sautrantika both take realist positions, which believe there
exists a substantial, objective reality. They called this reality ultimate truth, and contrast it
to conventional truth. However, each schools particular conceptions of conventional and
ultimate truths differ, and so do their conceptions of the relationship between these truths.
In this response I will explain the Vaibhashika conception, and then do the same for the
Sautrantika. Lastly, I will remark each schools differing conceptions on the nature of
perception.
The Vaibhashika understood conventional truths to be the gross objects that
people normally perceive and assume to be real in everyday living. These objects may be
physical (e.g. a potted rose, a lit candle) or sensory (e.g. the fragrance of a rose, the
warmth of a candle). Whether an object is indeed a conventional truth can be secured by a
test; if the object is dissected, and none of the smaller parts contain or display the
conventional identity (e.g. the appearance of the object at first glance), then this object
must be a conventional truth. This dissection can be of physical, temporal, or relational
types. For example, a physical dissection might look like separating an apple into its skin,
flesh, and seeds, and then breaking down these parts into even smaller particles. This
process continues until fundamental particles remain. The apparent apple, this round red
fruit, is absent in any of the smaller parts. Therefore, the apparent apple is definitely a
conventional truth. A temporal dissection would be looking at an apparent object
undergoing a process over time and conceiving of this object at smaller units of time. If
this object is a conventional truth, its initial apparent identity will not be found in the

smaller units of time. A relational dissection would be breaking apart an object based on
the parts that depend on or relate to each other.
In contrast, the ultimate truth refers to the fundamental particles that constitute the
apparent objects that are conventional truths. The Vaibhashika understood fundamental
particles to be the smallest particles that cannot be dissected any further. They can be
physical, sensory, or temporal. If physical, fundamental particles may be described in
terms of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water). If sensory, fundamental particles
may be described as basic sensory objects, in terms of the five senses (sight, sound,
smell, taste, and touch). If temporal, fundamental particles may be understood as the
smallest possible units of time.
The Sautrantika understood conventional truth in a very different sense than the
Vaibhashika did. Conventional truths are the concepts, categories, or universals people
cognitively impose onto objects in the world. In contrast, ultimate truth refers to the
actual, concrete instantiations of the objects upon which people impose these concepts or
conventional truths. Ultimate truth exists out there in the world regardless of human
concepts and language.
In this way, the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika schools differed on their conceptions
of not only conventional truth and ultimate truth, but also on the relationships between
them and the ontological statuses of each. The Vaibhashika believed both conventional
and ultimate truths to have the same substantially real ontological status. In this view,
both conventional and ultimate truths can exert causal influence and perform functions.
In contrast, the Sautrantika believed that only ultimate truths have this substantially real

ontological status, whereas conventional truths do not, because they cannot exert causal
influence.
Finally, on the nature of perception, the Vaibhashika believed humans can avoid
conventional truth and access ultimate truth through analytical cessation, whereby a
person cognitively analyzes a gross object, breaks it down conceptually, and correctly
apprehends its fundamental particles and ultimate truth. Normally, people dont engage in
this time-consuming conceptual analysis and instead apprehend the world in its gross
immediacy. In almost direct opposition or reversal of this understanding, the Sautrantika
emphasize that any perception of a conventional truth happens through the intermediate
medium of our cognitive processes. Normally, people experience the world through this
intermediate cognitive medium, so their everyday life occurs in terms of conventional
truth. In order to bypass this cognitive medium, a person must access their instantaneous,
primordial perception, which occurs prior to or in simultaneity with the appearance of the
object, before any cognitive imputation can latch onto the situation and change the
experience. The Vaibhashika require cognition to see ultimate truth, whereas the
Sautrantika require the absence of cognition to attain this same end.