Vasubandhu and the YogCicCirabhumi YogCicCira Elements in the Abhidharmako.§abhCi�ya
SruDIA PHILOLOGICA BUDDHICA Monograph Series XVIII
Vasubandhu and the Yogacarabhumi Yogacara Elements in the Abhidharrnakosabha�ya
Robert Kritzer
Tokyo The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of The International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 2005
Vasubandhu and the Yogacarabhumi Yogacara Elements in the Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Robert Kritzer
Tokyo The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of The International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 2005
Published by the International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the ICPBS:
5-3-23 Toranornon, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001, Japan
© Robert Kritzer 2005
First published
2005
Printed in Japan by Sanyosha Co., Ltd, Tokyo
All rights reserved Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of the book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microform or any other means without written permission. Enquiries should be made to the publishers.
ISBN
4-906267-51-3
Correspondel(lce regarding all editorial matters should be sent to the Director of the International Institute for Buddhist Studies in Tokyo.
Contents Acknowledgements
ix
Introduction
xi
I.
II.
The Yoga.ca.rabhami
xii
The AbhidhannakosabhafYa
xx
Methodology and Results
xxxi
Methodology
xxxi
Distribution and General Characterization of Results
III.
xxxiii
Passages from the Abhidhannakosabha�ya and Related Passages from the Yoga.ca.rabhumi
1
Chapter 1
Dha.tunirde§a
2
Chapter 2
Indriyanirde§a
Chapter 3
Lokanirde§a
132
Chapter 4
Kannanirde§a
172
Chapter 5
Anusayanirdesa
268
Chapter 6
Ma.rgapudgalanirde§a
346
Chapter 7
lfla.nanirde§a
372
Chapter 8
Sama.pattinirde§a
384
36
Concordance of Passages from the Yoga.ca.rabhumi
391
Bibliography
397
Index
407
vii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor Yamabe Nobuyoshi for his constant advice and encouragement at every stage of my project. Both he and Professor Fukuda Takumi patiently explained innumerable difficult Sanslait and Chinese passages. Elizabeth Kenney provided me with many invaluable suggestions regarding the work as a whole. Ian Shortreed of Mercury Software produced the camera-ready copy. I am grateful to Professor Florin Deleanu for suggesting that I publish my work in the series Studia Philologica Buddhica and to the International Institute for Buddhist Studies for accepting my manuscript. The Japanese Ministry of Education funded an early stage of my research, and Kyoto Notre Dame University generously subsidized the cost of preparing the manuscript.
ix
1.
Introduction
Traditionally, Sarvastivada, Sautrantika , and Yogacara are considered to be three clearly separated Buddhist schools. Sarvastivada is seen as highly conservative, HInayanist, and obsessed with its detailed analysis of existence and experience. S autrantika is supposedly more progressive and more concerned with the Buddha' s spiritual message and is said to have Mahayanist tendencies. Finally, Yogacara is firmly on the side of Mahayana, having absorbed the basic Mahayana teaching of dharmasunyata (the emptiness of all the entities comprising existence), which informs its characteristic doctrine of idealism. Fortunately, it would be difficult to find a contemporary scholar of Buddhism who subscribes to such a simplistic scheme. Today, we no longer take for granted that Mahayana Buddhism is more advanced than or superior to HInayana, an appellation that has been largely superseded by non-derogatory ones such as " Sravakayana," and the very definition of Mahayana is coming under scrutiny (see Silk 2002). The occurrence of the term S autrantika before Vasubandhu has been questioned (KatO 1989: 10 1 -109), as has the existence of Sautrantika as an actual school (Kritzer 2003a). Moreover, early Y ogacara texts have been shown to rely on the Mfilasarvastivadin Agama tradition (Schrnithausen 1970), and a connection between meditators such as An Shih-kao, who were perhaps forerunners ofYogacara, and Sarvastivada has been suggested (Deleanu 1993 : 17; Yamabe 1997). Still, traces of the traditional rigid classifications linger in our minds, especially since the sources for historical information about Buddhist schools and their founders (for example Vasumitra' s Samayabhedoparacanacakra and Paramartha' s biography of Vasubandhu) accept these classifications so completely. Preconceptions regarding Sarvastivada, S autrantika, and Yogacara are a particular obstacle in the study of Vasubandhu, the renowned fifth century philosopher (or was it the fourth century? or were there two Vasubandhus, one in each century?), because his name is associated with all three schools.
xi
xii This book is a study of one of Vasubandhu' s works, the Abhidhanna kosabha�ya, which he is said to have written after he had become disillusioned with Sarvastivada and while he favored S autrantika, but before he converted to Maha yana and became a Yogacara Beginning with Hakamaya' s seminal article ( 1 986), Japanese scholars have been finding evidence that Vasubandhu sometimes relies on the Yogiiciirabhami, supposedly a Mahayana text, in his criticisms of Sarvastivada. These discoveries raise doubts about the actual course of Vasubandhu' s career. My systematic comparison of these two texts shows for the first time the extent of Vasubandhu' s dependence on the Yogiiciirabhumi. In order to complete this project, I have extensively referred to the *Nyiiyiinusiira, Sa�ghabhadra' s commentary o n the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya. Below, I introduce the relevant texts and explain the significance of my results. The Yogiiciirabhiimi General Description of the Text
Although the Yogiiciirabhumi is one of the most prominent early texts asso ciated with the Yogacara school, there is nothing even approaching a complete translation in a western language / nor is there a comprehensive monograph on the text. There are several reasons for this, one of which is the sheer length of the work: the Chinese translation is about six hundred TaishO pages. Furthermore, although virtually the entire Yogiiciirabhumi also exists in Tibetan translation, the Sanskrit text is only partially extant. Perhaps most daunting is the fact that the structure of the Yogiiciirabhumi is extremely complicated, and even the individual sections appear to consist of various chronological layers. In what follows, I can hope to give only a very general description of the structure and contents of the text and show its place in Yogacara literature. It is often assumed that two sutras, the Sarrzdhinirmocanasutra and the Mahiiyiiniibhidhannasutra, constitute the earliest Yogacara texts. However, Schrnithausen argues that at least some portions of the Yogiiciirabhumi predate both of these sutras ( 1 987: 1 1 - 1 2) as well as the three siistras associated with Maitreya (Mahayiinasutriilarrzkiira, Madhyiintavibhaga, and Dhannadhannatiivibhiiga) and the three siistras by Asanga (Hsien-yang sheng-chiao [un, Abhidhannasamuccaya, and Mahayiinasarrzgraha) ( 1 969a: 8 1 9-822). A final group of early Yogacara texts includes six siistras by Vasubandhu (Vyiikhyiiyukti, Kannasiddhiprakaral}a, Pratftya samutpiidavyiikhyii, Paiicaskandhaka, Virrzsatikii, and Trirrzsikii). The influence of the Yogiiciirabhi1mi is particularly evident in the Hsien-yang
1 An English translation of Hsiian-tsang' s Chinese translation is planned Tripitaka translation series but has not yet appeared.
� the BDK
xiii
sheng-chiao lun arid the Abhidhannasamuccaya, both of which on occasion quote from or closely paraphrase it. In the Mahiiyiinasal!lgraha and the Tril!lsikii, concepts from the Yogiiciirabhiimi are developed more systematically. In contrast to these works by Asailga, the Maitreya texts contain terms such as abhiitaparikalpa that do not appear in the Yogiiciirabhiimi (Schmithausen 1 987: 98-99), while they do not mention iilayavijfiiina. Furthermore, they were influenced by Tathagatagarbha ideas (Keenan 1 99 3 : 204) . Nevertheless, Schrnithausen asserts that the Maitreya texts "presuppose some elements" from portions of the Yogiiciirabhiimi ( 1 987 : 260-26 1 n. 98). As the title indicates, the Yogiiciirabhiimi deals with the stages (bhiimi) of Buddhist practice. The first section of the text, the MaulfBhiimi, 2 includes seventeen stages, and essentially the entire section exists in manuscript form. However, the S anskrit texts of only some of these stages have been edited. In Table 1 , I list only the editions of complete bhiimis. A complete account of published versions of all portions of the Sanskrit text can be found in Silk 200 1: 153- 1 5 8 . Hattori aptly characterizes the contents o f the Maulf Bhiimi: "The Yogiiciira bhiimi enumerates, classifies, and explains all elements that relate to the practice of each of the seventeen stages in the same manner as that of the Abhjdharma treatises" ( 1 987: 525)? However, the organization according to stages is not typical of the extant abhidharma texts, and it leads to a good deal of repetition, since similar topics often pertain to more than one stage. An examination of the Chinese translation shows that the individual chapters vary considerably in length. The two longest are the Bodhisattvabhiimi and the Sriivakabhiimi, both of which seem to have also existed as separate texts. At eighty-three Taisho pages, the shorter of these two, the Sriivakabhiimi, is considerably more than twice as long as the combined third, fourth, and fifth chapters (the Savitarkiidi-bhiiml), 4 which comprise the third longest section. Several other bhiimis are only one or two Taisho pages long. The second section, the Vini§Cayasal!lgrahal)� is not extant in S anskrit,
2 Until recently, the S anskrit title of the first section of the text was unclear (see Schrnithausen 1969: 17- 1 8 n. 4). However, Matsuda has discovered a reference to maulyiil!l bhiimau in a Sanskrit fragment of the Viniscayasal!lgrahal)! ( 1988: 1 8), leading Schrnithausen to adopt Maull Bhiimi as the best way of referring to this section (2000: 245).
3 Among others who make similar observations regarding the abhidharma-like nature of the Yogiiciirabhiimi are Wayman ( 1 96 1 : 45) and Rahula ( 1980: xiv). 4 For convenience, I use the designatiolJ Savitarkiidi-bhiimi to refer to the Savitarkii Saviciirii Bhiimi, Avitarkii Viciiramiitrii Bhiimi, and Avitarkiiviciirii Bhiimi.
XIV
although a few manuscript fragments exist.5 In addition to the Tibeta.T1 and Hslian tsang' s
5 The St. Petersburg fragments contain a portion corresponding to Yogilcilrabhamir' zi 3 1a5-59b2; T. 1579: 589b19-600c10 (Matsuda 1988). Furthermore, Matsuda has edited a folio of a manu�cript in Kathmandu containing a portion of the Smrzdhinirnwcanasiltra as quoted in the Vini§Cayasaf[!grahal)z, corresponding to T. 1579: 728c16-730c21 (1995).
xv Table 1 6 Stage
Edition(s)
1. Paficavijfiiinakiiyasamprayuktii Bhiimi 2. Manobhiimi 3 . Savitarkii Saviciirii Bhiimi 4. Avitarkii Viciiramiitrii Bhiimi 5. A vitarkiiviciirii Bhiimi 6. Samiihitii Bf!iimi 7. Asamiihitii Bhiimi 8. Sacittikii Bhiimi
Yogiiciirabhiimi:7 3 - 1 0 Yogiiciirabhiimi: 1 1 -72 Yogiiciirabhiimi: 73-232 Yogiiciirabhiimi: 73-232 Yogiiciirabhiimi: 73-232
9. Acittikii Bhiimi 10. Srutamayf Bhiimi 1 1 . CintiimayfBhiimi 12. Bhiivaniimayf Bhiimi 1 3 . Sriivakabhiimi 14. Pratyekabuddhabhiimi 1 5 . Bodhisattvabhiimi 1 6 . Sopadhikii Bhiimi 1 7 . Nirupadhikii Bhiimi
Wayman 1 960, 1984 (Schmitbausen 1 987: 220-222) Wayman 1 960, 1984 (Schmitbausen 1987: 220-222)
Sriivakabhiiml� Wayman 1 960 Bodhisattvabhiimi (Dutt); Bodhisattvabhiimi (Wogihara) Schmithausen 1 9 9 1 Schmitbausen 1 9 9 1
6 I have followed Wayman (196 1 : 43) in listing th e names of th e Bhiimis as they appear in Bhattacharya's text (Yogiiciirabhiimi: 3.7-12). Note that the third, fourth, and fifth bhiimis are not divided in the text Below, I refer to them as Savitarkiidi-bhiimi. Also, in the Tibetan translation, the Sriivakabhiimi andBodhisattvabhiimi are contained in separate volumes from the remainder of the MaulfBhiimi.
7 Bhattacharya' s edition of the first five bhiimis. 8 Shukla' s edition. A partial edition is found in Wayman 1 96 1 . The Sriivakabhiimi study group at TaishO University (TaishO Daigaku Sago Bukkyo KenkyUjo Shomonji Kenkyillcai *JE*'¥*,i:il-1��1iJfYi;pJfJl'fr.u:lill1iJfYi;f;;) has started publishing a new edition witb a Japanese translation. In addition to some portions published in periodicals (see Silk 2001 : 156), the first chapter of the text has appear$!d in book form (TaishO Daigaku Sago Bukkyo KenkyUjo ShOmonji Kenkyillcai 1 998).
xvi
Chinese translation, there is also a partial translation by Paramartha entitled Chueh ting tsang lun i*'JE��ifu' (T. 1 5 84). 9 Wayman describes the Viniscayasal'J'lgrahal}f as "a commentary on the seventeen bhiimis in their order" ( 1 96 1 : 43) ; in fact, as is noted in both the Chinese (T. 1579: 694c 1 6) and the Tibetan translations (yogiiciira bhiimi(" zi 300a6), the Pratyekabuddhabhiimi is not commented on in the Viniscaya sal'J'lgrahal}l. Wayman ' s description essentially agrees with that of Ui, who, relying on the commentary ofJinaputra (Tsui-sheng-tzu ��+), 10 says that in the Viniscaya sal'J'lgrahal}lvarious obscure but important points from the Maull Bhiimi are examined and authoritative explanations are given, hence the word viniscaya in the title ( 1 9 5 8 : 1 0) . The order of the remaining three sections differs between the Chinese (* Vivaral}asal'J'lgrahal}� Paryiiyasal'J'lgrahal}f, Vastusal'J'lgrahal}i) and the Tibetan editions (Vastusal'J'lgrahal}� Paryiiyasal'J'lgrahal}f, * Vivaral}asal'J'lgrahal}l). 1 1 These sections, too, are not extant in Sanskrit. 1 2 The *Vivaral}asal'J'lgrahalJ-f and Paryiiya sal'J'lgrahalJ-f are both very short, ten and twelve Taisho pages. Again relying on Jinaputra, Ui summarizes the contents of these sections : the *Vivaral}asal'J'lgrahalJ-f 9 The contents of this text correspond to the first part of the Vini§Cayasal'J'lgrahalJ-l on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhiimi ( Yogiiciirabhiimir' zi 1al -60b7; T. 1579: 579a8601 a25). 10 Yu-ch 'ieh shih-ti lun shih ffiii11JoajjJ±1!!. �ifu'flJ (T. 1 580). 11 The Tibetan translation actually contains a sixth section, *Vinayasal'J'lgrahal}f, between the Vastusal'J'lgrahal}f and the P aryiiyasal'J'lgrahalJ-f. In the Chinese translation, most of this section is included in the Vastusal'J'lgrahal}f, although, as far as I can tell, the first several folios of the Tibetan *Vinayasal'J'lgrahal}l(Yogiiciirabhiimi,:yi 1 a 1 -5a8) do not correspond to anything in the Chinese. The corresponding portion in the Chinese begins at T. 1579: 868c6. The end of the *Vinayasal'J'lgrahalJ-l (Yogiiciirabhiimi,:yi 27a2) coincides with T. 1579: 877c2. The Tibetan text abbreviates a list of definitions of five types of powers after the second item (bsam pa 'i stobs, i Ie Ii :tt�1J), while the Chinese goes on to define all five items (through T. 1579: 877c 17). The Sanskrit titles of the *Vinayasal'J'lgrahal}l and the *Vivaral}asal'J'lgrahal}f are not attested. Hakamaya proposes * Vyiikhyasal'J'lgrahal}f- instead of * Vivaral}asal'J'lgrahal}l (200 1 : 89). For the remaining titles, see Schrnithausen 1 969: 1 8 ns. 5-8. 1 2 Matsuda has identified and edited a one-folio fragment of the Paryiiyasal'J'lgrahal}f that is kept in Kathmandu (1 994). In the same article, he also reconstructs a portion of the text, identilies the siitras from which the words under discussion in the text are drawn, and shows the significance of this little-s tlfdied section of the Yogiiciira bhiimi.
xvii
describes in detail the principles for interpreting scripture; the Paryiiyasaf(tgrahmJf collects, classifies, and explains synonyms found in the satras; the Vastusaf(tgrahmJf explains all the significant contents of the tripi!aka (1958: 9). The Vastusaf(tgrahm:Zfis by far the longest and most important of these last three sections. In the Chinese translation, it consists of three main parts, concerning siitra
(ch 'i-ching shih �*,¥$ *Siltravastu), 1 3 vinaya (tiao-fu shih �ftlJ1:71:$ * Vinayavastu), 1 4 and abhidhanna (pen-mu shih *£;1:$ *Miitrkiivastu)Y The [lIst and longest part is to a large extent a commentary on the Saf(tyuktiigama (Mukai 1985). =
=
=
Composition and Authorship
Traditionally, the Yogiiciirabhilmi is considered to be the work of a single author: Maitreya, according to the Chinese translation; Asanga, according to Tibetan sources. However, Chinese sources say that Maitreya descended from heaven to transmit the Yogiiciirabhilmi to Asanga, so in both traditions the text is closely associated with Asari.ga Some modem scholars, notably Wayman (1989: 201c202) and Mukai (see Schrnithausen 1987: 183), insist that Asari.ga was the sole author of the entire Yogiiciirabhilmi. Others, like Hakamaya, maintain that Asari.ga was at least the compiler of the text (see Schrnithausen 1987: 183). However, Schrnithausen thinks that the text is a compilation of material that varies considerably in age and that the authors and compilers cannot be identified (most recently, 1987: 13-14, 184-185). Many scholars today agree with Schrnithausen on this point, including me (see Kritzer 1999: 13-17 for a more detailed discussion of this issue). Among both those who insist that Asanga alone composed the Yogiiciirabhilmi and those who believe that it is a compilation, there is some disagreement about the chronological order of the various sections. Wayman states that Asanga composed the text as follows: 1) the Sriivakabhilmi and the Samiihitii Bhilmi when he was very young; 2) the Paryiiyasaf(tgraha, the Vastusaf(tgrahalJf, the Srutamayf Bhilmi the Cintiimayf Bhilmi, and the Bhiivaniimayz Bhilmi before being converted to Mahayana; 3) the Bodhisattvabhilmi, the remainder of the Maulz Bhilmi, and the Vinitcayasaf(tgrahalJz after his conversion (Wayman 1989: 203). According to Schrnithausen, there are three main layers in the following chronological order: 1) parts of the Maulz Bhilmi, including the Sriivakabhilmi and the Bodhisattvabhilmi, and the Vastusaf(tgrahalJf; 2) the remainder of the Maulz Bhilmi; 3) the Vinitcaya-
1 3 T. 1579: 772b16-868b22. This corresponds to the entire Tibetan Vastusaf(tgrahalJf
(Yogiiciirabhilmi,:'i 143al-381b6).
14 T. 1579: 868c6-878a24. As mentioned in note 11, the [lIst portion (through T.
1579: 877c22) corresponds to the majority of the Tibetan *Vinayasaf(tgrahaIJf (Yogiiciira bhilmi,: yi 5a8-27a2).
1 5 T. 1579: 878a25-8 81c2. This part is entirely lacking in the Tibetan.
xviii
salJ1.grahm:lf ( 1 987: 14). Aramaki, on the other hand, mentions seven layers of the Yogiiciirabhiimi in a list of fourteen strata of early Yogacara texts: 1) the Sriivakabhiimi; 2) the VastusalJ1.grahm}f; 3) the Bodhisattvabhiimi; 4) the Maitreya, Visalamati, ParamaIthasaIp.bhava, and GUI)akara chapters of the SalJ1.dhinirmocana siitra in the ViniscayasalJ1.grahal}i', 5) what Schmithausen refers to as the Proof, Pravrtti, and Nivrtti portions of the exposition of iilayavijiiiina in the Viniscaya salJ1.grahal}i', 6) the Sacittikii Bhiimi of the ViniscayasalJ1.grahal}f; 7) the Maulf Bhiimi excluding the Sriivakabhiimi and Bodhisattvabhiimi (2000: 39 n. 2). While Wayman believes that AsaIiga composed the Yogiiciirabhiimi section
by section, both Schmithausen and Aramaki see the development of the text as a gradual accretion of material from various sources. Thus they do not simply identify sections that are earlier or later; rather they see different strata even within the same section. If one accepts their premises, then hardly any characteristic can be attributed to the Yogiiciirabhiimi as a whole. However, the heterogeneous contents of the text suggest that the Schmithausen-Aramaki approach is correct, even though the exact stratification remains uncertain. Nobody presumes to give an exact date for the Yogiiciirabhiimi or for its various strata. Those who attribute the text to Asanga naturally place the text during AsaIiga's lifetime, usually thought to span the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. However, if the text is a compilation assembled over a period of time, it seems likely that the oldest portions of the text might have been composed somewhat earlier than the end of the fourth century. Doctrinal Content
The Yogiiciirabhiimi is one of the oldest texts, if not the oldest, associated with the Yogacara school, and it contains some of the philosophical concepts distinctive to that school. Schmithausen has shown that the Yogiiciirabhiimi does 16 not contain all of the doctrines characteristic of later Yogacara texts. Nor does it maintain a consistent doctrinal position. Furthermore, the same terms can have somewhat different meanings in different sections of the text. Nevertheless, certain characteristically Yogacara terms and doctrines appear, sometimes for the fIrst time, in the Yogiiciirabhiimi. The most striking of these doctrines is iilayavijiiiina, "the container or store house of the latent residues or Impressions of previous actions (karman) and mind process, or. .. the basic layer of mind processes or even the very basic constituent of the whole living being" (Schmithausen 1 987: 1). The term iilayavijiiiina is completely 16
In addition to abhiitaparikalpa, Schmithausen mentions the term vijiiaptimiitra, which appears, but only once, in a quotation from the Sa1J1.dhinirm,pcanasutra (1987: 32, 297 n. 221).
xix
lacking in much of the Yogiiciirabhilmi, but it is explained in great detail in the ViniscayasalJ'!grahalJlOn the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhilm� which includes a logical "proof' of its existence. The development of the concept of iilayavijiiiina is explored thoroughly in Schmithausen 1987, and studies of iilayavijiiiina will probably rely 17 greatly on his work for some time to come. Another term important for the Yogacara school that is found frequently in the Yogiiciirabhilmi is blja (seed). Although the term blja is used metaphorically in the Agamas, it is first seen as a technical term in the early Yogacara literature, where bljas comprise or are contained in the iilayavijiiiina. Yamabe identifies seven different senses in which the term appears in the Yogiiciirabhilmi: see'ds of the future life; seeds of kle.sas; seeds of karma; seeds of good dharrnas; seeds of the pravrttivijiiiinas; seeds of rilpa; seeds of all dharrnas (1989). These seeds are not considered to be real dharmas; rather, they are designations for the potential of beings to produce good or bad results. Other distinctive Yogacara concepts found in the text include kli�!amanas (defiled mind) and iisrayapariivrtti (transformation of the basis of existence), as well as the three natures, i.e., parikalpitasvabhiiva (imaginary nature), paratantra svabhiiva (dependent nature), and parini�pannasvabhiiva (ultimate nature). But it must be emphasized that these terms appear only sporadically. Unlike in later Yogacara texts, most of them are not systematically presented. In addition, certain Sarvastivadin positions are refuted in the Yogiiciirabhilmi. Most important is the doctrine of sarviistiviida itself, namely the idea that past, present, and future dharrnas all really exist. The real existence, accepted by Sarvasti vada, of various other items, such as the cittaviprayuktasalJ'!skiiras and avijiiaptirilpa, is denied in the Yogiiciirabhilmi, which frequently appeals to the operation of bljas to explain phenomena that according to Sarvastivada result from real dharmas. Finally, much of the contents of the Yogiiciirabhilmi is not specifically Yoga cara at all. As I have mentioned above, a large percentage of the text is non-Mahayana abhidharrna. Wayman argues strenuously that Asanga was a Mahlsasaka before converting to Mahayana and that his abhidharrna is Mahlsasaka abhidharrna (J96l: 26-29; 1989), but his arguments are convincingly criticized by Schmithausen (1970: 18 94-95, 115_119). Certainly, in many cases the Yogiiciirabhilmi is in essential 17 18
An example of a recent study is the psychological discussion in Waldron 2003.
However, Wayman receives some support from Bareau, who points out the similarity between the list of eight asalJ'!skrtadharrnas in texts attributed to Asailga, including the Yogiiciirabhilmi, and a list of nine asalJ'!skrtas attributed to the Mahlsasakas in Vasumitra's Samayabhedo'paracanacakra. Bareau thinks that this proves conclusively that Asailga was a Mahlsasaka before he converted to Mahayana (1993). Hakamaya also points \lut the reliance of the Yogiiciirabhilmi on MahIsasaka here (1990: 254). On the other hand, Schmithausen reasonably maintains that the
xx
agreement with Sarvastivada,.- and it appears that, although it disagrees with Sarvastivada on some extremely important points, the Yogacarabhumi is closely connected to the Sarvastivada tradition.
The Abhidhannakosabhii
Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhao?ya is best known as a compendium of Sarvastivadin abhidharma, but it is also famous for its criticisms of certain points of Sarvastivadin doctrine. In contrast to the Yogacarabhumi, it is completely extant in Sanskrit and is available in two editions.l9 There are two Chinese translations, Hsiian-tsang's (T. 1 558) and Paramartha's (T. 1 559), as well as a Tibetan translation (Tohoku 4090, Peking 559 1). Hsiian-tsang's Chinese translation has been completely translated into French by La Vallee Poussin ( 1 971),20 and this French translation has in turn been translated into English by Pruden ( 1 988- 1 990). Hsiian-tsang's Chinese translation has also been completely translated into Japanese by Nishi in the Kokuyaku Issaikyo series (Eidon-bu 25-26). In addition, several chapters have been translated separately into Japanese from the Sanskrit (Funahashi 1987; Sakurabe and Odani 199 1 ; Sakurabe, Odani, and Honj6 2004) and the Tibetan (Yamaguchi and Funahashi 1 955). Some important resources for the study of the Abhidharmakosa bha,l"yainclude Saeki's annotated edition of the Chinese translation ( 1 978), Hirakawa's index to the Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan ( 1 973-1 978), and Fukuhara's study of
the karikas ( 1 973, 1986).
The Sarvastivadin abhidharma literature can be divided into .several general groupS?l First are the seven canonical texts, listed here in the chronological order suggested by Cox (Willemen, Dessein, and Cox 1 998: 177 ff.): Smigffiparyaya, Dharmaskandha, Prajiiaptisastra, Vijiianaki'iya, Dhatukaya, Prakarmyapada, and fact that the Yogacarabhumi contains some MahIsasaka teachings, including this list of asaYJ'lskrtas, is not enough to prove that the text is largely based on MahIsasaka
( 1 970: 1 1 9).
1 9 Abhidharmakosabha,I"Ya, edited b y P . Pradhan (1967), and Abhidharmakosa and Bha,l"ya of Acharya Vasubandhu with Sphu!artha commentary of Acarya Yasomitm, edited by Swami Dwarkidas Shastri ( 1 973). The Pradhan edition is more widely used by scholars.
20 In an earlier publication (1914-1918), La Vallee Poussin also translated Chapter Three from the Tibetan translation. 21 The following discussion is not intended to be exhaustive, and not all abhidharma
texts will be mentioned.
,
xxi
Jiiiinaprasthiina. 22 Next are three texts entitled Vibhiio!ii, nominally commentaries on theJiiiinaprasthiina, among which the one commonly known as the * Mahiivibhiio!ii
(T. 1545i3 is the longest and most famous. These texts contain discussions of various positions on doctrinal points, and the *Mahiivibhiio!ii establishes the orthodox position for the branch of the Sarvastivada school known as the KasmIra Vaibha�ikas (Willemen, Dessein, and Cox 1998: 237-238). The name Vaibha�ika, which is frequently used more or less synonymously with Sarvastivada, is derived from the title of this text. The Vibhiio!iis are followed by three texts known as *Abhidharmahrdaya: the *Abhidharmahrdayasastra of Dharmasrl or Dharma sre�thin, the *Abhidharmahrdayasiistra of Upasanta, and the *Sarpyuktiibhidharma hrdayasiistra. According to Dessein, these texts are for the most part organized according to the four noble truths, with various topics discussed in an appropriate order (Willemen, Dessein, and Cox 1998: 255-269). The Abhidharmakosabhii�ya closely follows the structure of the * Abhidharma hrdaya texts (Frauwallner 1 995: 1 37- 140; Willemen, Dessein, and Cox 1998: 269274). It purports to give an account of the abhidharma of the KasmIra Vaibha�ika school but frequently adopts unorthodox positions, especially those associated with Sautrantika. (More will be said about this later.) There are several reasons for the enduring fame of the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya. First of all, despite the deviations from orthodoxy, the text gives the clearest and most complete account of the Sarvastivadin system. Furthermore, the arguments for different points of view, orthodox and unorthodox, are skillfully presented so that they reveal the issues that are really at stake. It is also possible that the fact that Vasubandhu's name is associated with Mahayana as well as Sarvastivada added to the prestige of the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya in China, Tibet, Mongolia, and Japan. Finally, among modem scholars, its availability in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese, not to mention the excellent French translation, make it uniquely accessible among abhidharma works. The Abhidharmakosabhii�ya inspired some critical reaction from the defenders of Sarvastivada, notably Sarp.ghabhadra's *Nyiiyiinusiira (extant only in Chinese 4
i
and the Abhidharmadfpa (author unknown, extant only in Sanskrit). In addition, eight commentaries, originally in Sanskrit, are found in the Tibetan Bstan-'gyur, of
22 For complete titles, TaishO text numbers, and detailed discussions of authorship, contents, etc., see Willemen, Dessein, and Cox 1998: 177-229. 23 The term * Mahiivibhii�ii is not attested in Sanskrit, and I use it here only because it is the most common designation for this text. Elsewhere, I refer to T. 1 545 as "the Vibhii¢. " 24 A-p 'i-ta-mo shun cheng-Ii lun �rlJ .mJ!�JII&iDJl.!jjifii (T. 1562).
xxii
which Yasomitra's Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii25 (available in Sanskrit, as well) and Sthiramati's Tattviirtha 26 are particularly noteworthy.27 In China, three of Hsiian tsang's disciples, Shen-t'ai 1$*, P'u-kuang �:7t, and Fa-pao it., also wrote extensive commentaries?8 The Abhidhdrmakosabhii�ya contains nine chapters (see Table 2). The first eight chapters consist of verses, which generally are consistent with Sarvastivada, and commentary on each verse, in which Vasubandhu often discusses and sometimes accepts positions that disagree with Sarvastivada. The ninth chapter, often characterized as an appendix, is entirely prose. Although many commentaries cover all nine chapters, Srup.ghabhadra's *Nyiiyiinusiira ends with chapter eight. Dessein refers to chapters three and nine as "additional chapters," since they do not fit into a division of the entire text according to the four truths, a division that he traces back to the *Abhidharmahrdaya texts (Willemen, Dessein, and Cox 1998: 255-274). Vasubandhu's Career
The traditional account of Vasubandhu's career is found in Paramlirtha's
P 'o-su-p 'an-tou fa-shih chuan �!*�.Rit �ili� (T. 2049; translated in Takakusu
1 904)?9 Vasubandhu was originally a Sarvastivadin, and he composed the verses
(karikiis) of fue Abhidharmakosa from the Sarvlistivadin point of view, in accordance with the teaching of the Vibhii�ii. However, when he wrote his own commentary on his verses (the AbhidharmakosabhilD'a), he frequently rejected orthodox Sarvastivada
in favor of Sautrantika positions. Sarp.ghabhadra, an orthodox Sarvlistivadin from Kashmir, then wrote two works, one of which was extremely critical of Vasubandhu. Later, Vasubandhu converted to Mahayana under the influence of his older brother, AsaiJ.ga, and he wrote a number of commentaries on Mahayana siitras and siistras, as well as some Yogaclira siistras of his own. Like most dates in the history of Indian Buddhism, the date of Vasubandhu is
25 Tohoku 4092; Peking 5593. 6 2 Tohoku 442 1 ; Peking 5875. 27 Regarding Indian commentaries in Tibetan translation, see Mejor
199 1 .
28 Respectively, Chu-she lun shu m%ffii!WiE (Dai Nihon zokuzokyo 1.8.3-4), Chu-she lun chi 1�%ffii!�G (T. 1 821), and CM-she lun shu 1�%ffii!WiE (T. 1 822). The last two of these are frequently referred to in Saeki 1978, on which La Vallee Poussin (1971) often seems to rely in tum. 29 Other accounts are found in the works of Hsiian-tsang and of Tibetan historians, particularly Bu-ston. Cox summarizes the differences among these accounts (1995:
53-55).
;
XXlll
Table
2
Subject-matter
1 . Dhatunirde§a
2. Indriyanirde§a 3 . Lokanirde§a 4. Karmanirde§a 5. Anusayanirde§a 6. Margapudgalanirde§a 7. Jiiananirde§a 8 . Samapattinirde§a 9. Pudgalanirde§a
Elements of existence Sense faculties Cosmology Action and its results Defilements The path and the noble ones (aryapudgala) Knowledge Meditation Refutation of a self or soul
3 0 For the titles of the first eight chapters, I follow Pradhan's Sanskrit text. For the
ninth chapter, I follow common usage, although I have not found any textual attestation ' of Pudgalanirde§a.
xxiv
not known exactly. Since different dates appear in Chinese sources, and since the number of works attributed to Vasubandhu is very large, his date has been a matter of considerable controversy among scholars. In what follows, I give a simplified account of the complex debate about Vasubandhu' s career.31 The source of the problem is that Paramfutha gives (or is reported to give) two different dates, one in the fourth century and one in the fifth. The later date appears in his biography of Vasubandhu, while the earlier date is attributed by K'uei-chi Q£ and Hui-hsiang �lf: to works of Paramfutha that are no longer extant (Frauwallner 1951 : 3-5). In order to make sense of this discrepancy, Frauwallner, in a well-known monograph, On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu, proposes his theory of two Vasubandhus. According to Frauwallner, Vasubandhu the elder was the younger brother of Asanga. Frauwallner identifies this Vasubandhu the elder with the Vrddhacarya Vasubandhu and the Sthavira Vasubandhu mentioned in the Abhidharmakosavyakhya (1951: 2 1-22). This elder Vasubandhu became a believer in Mahayana, and he was the author of many Mahayana works, including the Satasastra, MadhyantavibMga, Dasabhumikasastra, SaddharmapUl:U!£In"Kopadesa, VajracchEdikiip rajfiiiparamitasiistra, and Bodhicittotpiidana siistra (195 1 : 55). Vasubandhu the younger, on the other hand, was a Sarvastivadin who moved in the direction of Sautrantika but never converted to Mahayana. He was the author of the Abhidharmakosa and AbhidharmakosabM�ya. The only other work that Frauwallner attributes to Vasubandhu the younger at this point is the Paramarthasaptatika, and he withholds judgement concerning the Vi'!!satika and Tri,!!sika, saying, "We must therefore employ other means in order to determine the author of these works; we must gain the necessary basis from their contents and the doctrines upheld in them" ( 1 95 1 : 56). He does not mention by name the
Vyakhyayukti, KarmasiddhiprakaralJa, Pratftyasamutpadavyakhya, Pancaskandhaka,
and Trisvabhavanirdeia, or the commentaries on the DharmadharmatavibMga, MaM yanasa,!!graha, and MahiiyanasutraZmrzkara.32 Schmithausen, following the principle stated by Frauwallner, has examined the doctrinal features of the Abhidharmakosabha�ya and the various Yogacara texts attributed to Vasubandhu. In his first publication concerning this issue, he basically agrees with Frauwallner's theory but added the Vi'!!satika and Tri,!!sika to the list of works by the author of the Abhidharmakos�bha�ya ( 1 967: 1 3 6), an 31 Perhaps the clearest account of this controversy is Kajiyama's (Nagao, Kajiyama, and Aramaki 1976: 419-422). A concise English summary can be found in Griffith s 1986: 164-165 n. 9. Other, more detailed accounts include: Jaini 1958b; Wayman 196 1 : 19-24; Hirakawa 1973-1978 v. 1 : ii-x; Kochumuttom 1982: xi-xiv; and Mejor 1991:
3-13. 3 2 This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all the works that have ever been ' attributed to Vasubandhu.
xxv
addition later accepted by Frauwallner (1969: 425). In his most recent statement on this subject, Schrnithausen designates the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya, Vyakhyay ukti,
Karmasiddhiprakarm}a, Pratftyasamutpiidavyakhyii, Paiicaskandhaka, VilJ1satika, and TrilJ1sika as "works of Vasubandhu the Kosakara." Although he indicates that the texts he attributes to the Kosakara contain certain terms and ideas, particularly
salJ1tatipariJ}amavise�a, that are not found in the "Vasubandhu commentaries" (on the Madhyantavibhiiga, etc.) and the Trisvabhavanirdesa, Schrnithausennow refuses to commit himself regarding the authorship of the latter group of texts or the question of two Vasubandhus (1987: 262-263 n. 101). Frauwallner's theory has been attacked by various scholars since shortly after it was published, beginning with a very critical article by Sakurabe (1952), who, like Frauwallner, refers to a wide range of Chinese sources. Addressing the issue from a more doctrinal point of view, Jaini argues that criticisms in the Abhidharmadzpa of Vasubandhu' s "Sautrantika" views show how close these views are to Mahayana. Therefore, Jaini thinks that the account of Vasubandhu's career in Paramartha's biography is reliable and that after writing the Abhidharmakosa bha�ya, Vasubandhu wen t on to compose Mahayana works. Regarding Vasubandhu's date and his relation to Asailga, Jaini is noncommittal. He does not deny the existence of an older Vasubandhu (the Vrddhacarya mentioned in the Abhidharma kosavyakhya), but, unlike Frauwallner, he does not think that Paramartha conflated two Vasubandhus in his biography (Jaini 1958b)?3 Hirakawa challenges Frau wallner's interpretation of his Chinese sources and arrives at conclusions similar to Jaini's (1973-1978). In general, Japanese scholars do not accept Frauwallner's theory;34 instead, they account for differences among the various texts in terms of Vasubandhu's doctrinal development (Nagao, Kajiyama, and Aramaki 1976: 421).35 Most recently, Skilling sharply questions Frauwallner's methodology and attempts to establish the works of the Kosakara on the basis of either cross-references in Vasubandhu's texts (or references by Vasubandhu's commentators) or "the evidence of style, sources used, methodology, and development of ideas" (2000: 299). Skilling includes as works by the Kosakara the same texts as Schrnithausen, as well as the GathasalJ1graha texts36 and the Trisvabhiivanirdda. The authorship of the commen33 Wayman, Kochumuttom, and Griffiths generally agree with Jaini, while Mejor is somewhat ambiguous (1991: 111). 34 Hakamaya (2001: 107) cites works of Harada (1996, 1997, 1998) and Fukuda (1998b) as representative examples. 35 Hakamaya (2001: 107) has assembled an extensive bibliography of recent Japanese studies along this line, including those of Matsuda (1982a, 1982b, 1984, 1985) and Muroji (1993). Another recent contribution is Iwamoto 2000. 36 These include three texts only extant in Tibetan: GathiisalJ1grahaSilstra, Gathiirtha-
xxvi taries on the Mahayana siUras or the Maitreya texts remains a matter about which scholars are reluctant to say anything definite. It is probably fair to say that most scholars today, while admitting the existence of other figures named Vasubandhu, agree on the single authorship of at least the
Abhidharmakosabhii:;ya, Vyiikhyiiyukti, Karmasiddhiprakaral}a, Pratftyasamut piidavyiikhyii, Pancaskandhaka, Viy[!satikii, and TriY[!sikii. My comparison of the Abhidharmakosabhii:;ya and the Yogiiciirabhiimi provides further evidence of Vasu bandhu the Kosakara's affinity for Yogacara and thus supports Jaini's arguments against Frauwallner's theory. However, I do not directly address the issue of the authorship of the works attributed to Vasubandhu.
The Question of Sautrantika
Writers about Buddhism confidently use the term "Sautrantika" to refer to one of the four representative schools of Indian Buddhism (along with Sarvastivada, Madhyarnika, and Y ogacara). In fact, little is known about who the Sautrantikas were and what they believed. In the last twenty years, however, a number of studies, mainly originating in Japan, have begun to question old assumptions about Sautrantika, and a 2003 issue of the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies is dedicated to this topic. The brief discussion in the present book is based on my introduction to the JIABS issue, "Sautrantika Reconsidered" (Kritzer 2003a). As the name suggests, a Sautrantika is one who follows the siitras, and Sautrantikas are generally considered to be people who disagreed with the Sarvasti vadin reliance on siistra, that is to say, on the Vaibha�ika abhidharma texts. What little we know of the history of the school comes from Vasumitra's Samaya bhedoparacanacakra, specifically in Hsiian-tsang's translation (I-pu-tsung lun lun �l'tG*fllii� [T. 2031]), and from several works of Hsiian-tsang's disciple, K'uei-chi. In the Ch 'eng wei-shih lun shu chi nX:Pft�t�:iZ!!�2, K'uei-chi gives the names of two early Sautrantika teachers, Kumaralata, whom he also calls "Dar�tantika" (T. 1830: 274a8-13), and Srllata (T. 1830: 358alO-12). The term Dar�tantika is also used to refer to a dissident group within Sarvastivada, and there are various opinions concerning the relationship between Sautrantika and Dar�tantika In the commentaries on the Abhidharmakosabhiiijya, the terms are very close to being synonymous, but it has also been suggested that Sautrantika and Dar�tantika are, respectively, positive and negative designations for the same group or that there were two distinct groups with these names (Cox 1995: 37-41).
saY[!grahaSiistra, and Ekagiithiib hii.rJu. Despite the fact that the GiithiisaY[!grahaSiistra
was translated into both German and English in the nineteenth century (Skilling 2000: 306 n. 22), these texts are rarely referred to, and I am grateful to Skilling for bringing them to my attention. ,
xxvii
Our main source of information about early Dar��antika/Sautrantika doctrine is the Vibhii�ii, where there are some eighty-six references to Dar��antika ideas (Kata 1989: 70). The term Sautrantika, on the other hand, does not appear to have been used in the original text of the Vibh�ii (Kat51989: 113-119). Nor is Sautrantika found in the *Sarrzyuktiibhidharmahrdaya, although three opinions are attributed there to Dar��antika. Harivarman's *Tattvasiddhisiistra, although it does not mention either Dar��antika or Sautrantika by name, frequently agrees with the Dar��antika positions in the Vibhii�ii (Mizuno 1930). Thus, it seems as though the earliest occurrence of the word Sautrantika is in the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya, where nineteen positions are attributed to "the Sautrantikas" (Kritzer 2003b); Vasubandhu agrees with these positions. Only two positions are attributed to the Dar��antikas,37 on the other hand, and Vasubandhu disagrees with tbese positions (Kat5 1989: 81-84; Cox 1995: 39). This suggests tbat Vasu bandhu does not consider Sautrantika and DarHantika to be identical. Among the Sautrantika opinions of which Vasubandhu approves are rejections of the reality of various dharmas accepted as real by Sarvastivada, including the cittaviprayukta sarrzskiiras (forces not associated with mind), the asarrzs/q"tadharmas (unconditioned dharmas), the anusayas (latent defilements), and vijiiaptirilpa (manifested matter) and avijiiaptiriipa (unmanifested matter). Vasubandhu also agrees with the Sautrantika rejection of the reality of past and future, the insistence that one cannot fall from arhatship, and the theory of seeds (bfja) that appears in many Sautrantika explanations. Many of these positions are also found in Yogacara texts, especially the Yogiiciirabhiimi, and scholars have characterized Sautrantika as a kind of bridge between Hfuayana Sarvastivada and Mahayana Yogacara This explanation fits well with the story of Vasubandhu's career as told by Paramiirtha: Vasubandhu was on his way to accepting Mahayana when he wrote the Abhidharmakosabhii�a. However, some suggest an even closer affinity between Vasubandhu's Sautrantika positions and Yogacara. For example, Jaini points out that the author of the Abhidharmadfpa reviles Vasubandhu as a vaitulika, a believer in Mahayana, and he stresses the similarity between some of Vasubandhu's statements and Yogacara doctrine (1959: 247-248). Hakamaya has shown that the term piirviiciiryiiJ:! (former teachers) in the Abhidharmakosabhii�a refers to Yogacara teachers, with whose explanations Vasubandhu often agrees (1986). Yamabe has identified tbe ViniscayasarrzgrahalJf of the Yogiiciirabhiimi as Vasubandhu's source for his bfja theory (1990) as well as for his idea of the mutual perfuming of niima and rilpa (2000a). In addition, Yamabe has identified the ManobhUmi as the source of a statement, attributed to the piirviiciiryas, concerning the transition from the antarii bhava to birth in the hells (1999). Miyashita (1986) and Harada (1993, 1996) have also noted similarities between the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya and the Yogiiciirabhiimi. 37 VasubandllU mentions the term three times, but two of his references are to tbe same Dar��antika opinion.
xxviii In 1993, on the basis of very limited evidence, I argued that Vasubandhu' s so-called Sautrantika definition of consciousness as a member of the formula of conditioned origination actually reflected Yogadira beliefs, in other words, that Vasubandhu was inserting Yogacara ideas into the Abhidharmakosabhii.rya under the guise of Sautrantika. In a number of publications since then, I have identified a variety of correspondences between the Abhidharmakosabhii.rya and the YogacarabhUmi (1994a, 1994b, 1996, 1998, 1999) Most recently, I have examined all the occurrences of the term Sautrantika in the Abhidharmakosabhii.rya and identified correspondences for a large majority in the Yogacarabhiimi (2003b). 38 It seems as though these corresponding positions in the Yogacarabhiimi can be categorized in two groups. One group consists of ideas that cannot be traced to the Dar�!antikas of the Vibhii�a and are in fact not found in texts earlier than the Yogacarabhiimi. Some examples include the theory of mutual perfuming, mentioned above, and the idea of sal'[ltatiparil}amavise�a. The other group includes ideas (for example, the denial of the reality of the cittaviprayuktasal'[lskiiras) that are also found, frequently in a less developed form, in the Vibha�a, where they are attributed to Dar�!antika. It is Vasubandhu who first calls positions belonging to both of these groups "Sautrantika." However, not all of the Dar�tantika positions are found in the Yogacarabhiimi, and it seems as though Vasubandhu accepts and labels as Sautrantika only ones that are. Furthermore, Vasubandhu also criticizes, without using the term Dar�!antika, a number of positions attributed to individual Dar�tantika teachers, such as Srllata. As Harada points out, in the case of many of these positions, Vasubandhu agrees with the Yogacarabhiimi in favoring the Sarvastivada opinion over the Dar�tantika (1993: 109-110). It must also be noted that Vasubandhu does not accept all the Dar�tantika opinions contained in the YogacarabhUmi. The two positions attributed to Dar�tantika by Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakosabhiirya can both be found in the Yogacarabhiimi. But in each case, the Yogaciirabhiimi elsewhere also contains the Sarvastivadin position, with which Vasubandhu in these cases agrees.39s It is clear that there is a close relation between Vasubandhu' s S autrantika
38 In the same article, I examine a number of positions in the Karmasiddhiprakaral}a characterized by Lamotte as Sautrantika and identify definite or probable correspon dences in the Yogacarabhiimi for all of these positions. 39 Position 1: The Dar�tantikas say that there are four possibilities regarding the experience of the results of karma This statement implies eight types of karma, three of which are determined according to the lifetime in which their results will be experienced but undetermined as to whether they will be experienced at all. Vasubandhu rejects this, saying that ifkarma is determined according to the lifetime in which it comes to fruition, then its result definitely must be experienced (Pradhan: 230: 10-13; La Vallee Poussin 1971, v. 3: li6-117).
XXIX
ideas and the Yogiiciirabhiimi, but the precise nature of that relation is difficult to understand. Yamabe remarks that the passages in the Yogiiciirabhiimi to which the Sautrantika positions in the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya correspond do not appear to presuppose the idea of iilayavijfiiina (2000b: 68) . Furthermore, one idea that appears in several of the passages common to the two texts is saT[ltatipari�iimavise�a, which may be a concept that is superseded by the theory of iilayavijfiiina. If one accepts Schmithausen' s general line of reasoning, one might say that these passages were composed before the idea of iilayavijfiiina was formulated. The notion of saT[ltatipari�iimavise�a (transformation of the life-stream)40 is also found in Vasubandhu' s ViT[lsatikii, where Schmithausen characterizes it as a "trace" of Sautrantika (1967); presumably, he considers it to be a S autrantika element in the Yogiiciirabhiimi as well. Thus, one explanation for the correspondences between Vasubandhu' s Sautrantika positions and passages in the Yogiiciirabhiimi i s that the authors of both texts rely on a common source that represented an intermediate stage between Sarvastivada and fully developed Yogacara, based on the concept of iilayavijfiiina. But we search in vain for any text earlier than the Yogiiciirabhiimi containing ideas The ViniscayasaT[lgraha�f on the Savitarkiidi-bhumi gives the same four possibilities as the Dar�!fu1tikas (Yogiiciirabhiimir' zi 152a3-4; T. 1579: 635c5-6). The Yii-chieh-Iun chi (T. 1828: 362blO-22) discusses this passage and mentions that Sautrantika and Sauryodayika accept the MalIayana interpretation concerning this issue and arriv e at eight types of karma (I am indebted to Yamabe Nobuyoshi for this reference). The Savitarkiidi-bhiimi, on the other hand, gives the traditional explanation, which Vasubandhu accepts: karma can be determined or undetermined regarding whether its result will be experienced, and there are three possibilities regarding the lifetime in which it comes to fruition: in the present life; in the inunediately following life; in a later life (Yogiiciirabhiimi: 189.15-16, 189.19··190.1; Yogiiciirabhiimi,: dzi 1l0a5 , 1l0a8; T. 1579: 319b3, 319b7-9). Position 2: The Dar�!fu1tikas say that abhidhyii, vyiipiida, and mithyiid!�.ti are mental karma. Vasubandhu disagrees and accepts the Sarvastivadin view that they are karmapatha but not karma (Pradhan 237.15-20, 248.2-12; La Vallee Poussin 1971, v. 3: 136, 168-l70; see Kata 1989: 81-84 for detailed analyses of these passages). The Savitarkiidi-bhumi defines the three as mental karma (Yogiiciirabhiimi: 182.9-14; Yogiiciirabhiimi,: dzi 105b5-8; T. 1579: 317b22-29). The ViniscayasaT[lgraha/}f on the Savitarkiidi-bhiimi says that they are karmapatha but not karma (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 153b3; T. 1579: 636a29). Schmithausen discusses these passages (1970: 117). Again, I thank Yamabe Nobu yoshi for the reference. 40 Cox' s translation (1995: 95).
xxx such as saf[!tatiparil'}iimavise�a or the mutual seeding of body and mind, according to which mind contains the seeds of the physical sense organs, and vice versa. And as we have seen, the term Sautrantika is not attested before the Abhidharma kosabhii�ya. My own conclusion is that in lhe Abhidharmakosabhiirya Vasubandhu uses the term Sautrantika to designate positions in the YogiiciirabhUmi that he prefers to those of orthodox Sarvastivada. As I argue elsewhere (1999: 203-204; 2003b), Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya adjusts the traditional Sarvastivadin abhidharma so that it no longer conflicts with the central theories of Yogacara. Unlike in the Yogacara texts attributed to him, his purpose in the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya is not to propound or defend these theories. Therefore, he does not mention iilayavijiiiina, which would be glaringly out of place in a work that is described by its author as being largely based on Sarvastivadin abhidharma, specifically that of the KasmIra Vaibha�ikas. 4 1 Instead, he borrows from the Yogiiciirabhumi ideas like bfja, which do not represent such a radical departure from tradition. Attributing an opinion to S autrantika may simply be Vasubandhu' s way of claiming that it is based on a more valid interpretation of sutra than its Sarvastivadin counterpart.
4 1 prayel'}a hi kiiSmfravaibhii.yikiil'}ilJ?'l nftyijdisiddha e�o 'smiibhir abhidharma iikhyiital} (Abhidharmakosabhiirya : 450.1-2; La Vallee Poussin 197 1 , v. 5: 223).
II.
Methodology and Results
Methodology
Although previous studies have identified a number of passages in the Abhidharrnako§abhii�ya that seem to be based on the Yogiiciirabhiimi, no systematic comparative study of these two texts had appeared before the private pUblication of my results for the first three chapters of the Abhidharrnako§abhii�ya (Kritzer 2001). The present work consists of the results for all eight main chapters of the text.42 This project was made feasible by the fact that we have Chinese translations by Hslian-tsang oftheAbhidharmako§abhii�ya, the *Nyiiyiinusiira, and the Yogiiciira bhiimi. Although these texts were translated over an eight-year period, 43 they contain similar translations of most technical terms. Since the three texts are now available electronically,44 they can be searched in a way that was impossible ten years ago. The first step was to identify passages in the Abhidharmako§abhii�ya that do not concur with Sarvastivada. In order to do this, I referred to Sarp.ghabhadra' s *Nyiiyiinusiira, in which many o f Vasubandhu' s statements are criticized for their deviations from orthodoxy. Conveniently, S arp.ghabhadra uses the appellation ching chu *Jli:.:t to refer to Vasubandhu in these cases. The meaning of ching-chu is not completely clear, and Cox summarizes what other scholars have said about the 42 In Kritzer 200 1 , I included the Chinese text of all relevant passages of the Yogiiciirabhiimi, together with the Sanskrit if edited text was available. Here, I add the Tibetan text of all passages, except for the handful for which no Tibetan translation exists. 43 The Abhidharrnako§abhii�a was translated between 651 and 654 (Lancaster 1979: 346,343), the *Nyiiyiinusiira between 653 and 654 (Lancaster 1979: 343), and the Yogiiciira bhami between 646 and 648 (Lancaster 1 979: 1 87). 44 All three texts are now available from both the Taish6 Shinshfi Daizakya Tekisuto Detabesu XiUJj-i�*$!t�Jli: T .:f- A r j"- Jy « A at Tokyo University (http://www.l.u tokyo.ac.jp/-sat/japan!) and the Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association (Chung hwa tien-tzu fo-tien hsieh-hui rp i'jH[-f-1�:!l1!-thh"j-) at Taiwan National University (htlp:llwww.cbeta.orglcdlindex.htrn). However, when I started this project, the only available text of the Yogiiciirabhiimi was from the Yugagya Shisa Kenkyilkai �{1.J01T }(!H�,pJfJE* at Nagasaki University. -
xxxi
xxxii term: "Some have suggested that this reflects Sa�ghabhadra' s identification of Vasubandhu as a S autrantika. However, a quotation from the * Nytiytinustira in Sthiramati' s commentary on theAbhidharmakosa suggests that the Sanskrit equivalent is siltrakiira. This could refer to Vasubandhu' s role as author of the siltra, in this case the ktirikti of the Abhidharmakosa, or it could be used with sarcasm suggesting Vasubandhu' s lack of familiarity with Buddhist scripture" ( 1 995: 56). This issue is far from settled. Given the fact that the vast majority of Vasubandhu' s departures from Sarvastivada are found in the bhtirya, not in the ktiriktis, it would seem strange for S�ghabhadra to preface his criticisms of what Vasubandhu says in the bha�ya with the epithet siltraktira. In any case, there is no doubt that in the approximately 250 places where SaIpghabhadra uses the term ching-chu he is always criticizing Vasubandhu. Next, I located the passage in the Abhidharmakosabharya on which S�gha bhadra was commenting. Sa�ghabhadra usually follows the order of the Abhi dharmakosabhtirya, but not always, so it was sometimes necessary to search rather far afield to find the corresponding passage. This task was made easier by the notes to the Kokuyaku Issaikyi5 Japanese translation of the * Nytiytinustira, which give the location of quoted passages in the Kandi5 Abidatsumakusharon (Saeki 1 978), the Japanese edition ofHsiian-tsang' s Chinese translation of the Abhidharmakosabhtirya. The final step was to search for a corresponding opinion in the Yogticiirabhilmi. This was made difficult by the fact that the two texts are organized in completely different ways, as we have seen above. Sometimes one can find phrases or sentences identical to those of the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya, used in similar contexts, to make the same argument, but these cases are inconveniently few. Despite the fact that both texts were translated by Hsiian-tsang, translations of S anskrit words can vary, and sometimes different Sanskrit words are used to convey the same idea. Frequently, Vasubandhu makes a statement to which Sa�ghabhadra takes exception that has no obvi.ous parallel in the . Yogticiirabhilmi, but the possibility remains that Vasubandhu' s argument relies on a statement in the Yogtictirabhilmi that appears in a totally different, perhaps seemingly unrelated context. The correspondences I have found are therefore not all equally convincing. Nevertheless, I have included even the more dubious ones, usually in parentheses. Finally, S�ghabhadra attacks many of Vasubandhu' s statements that do not appear to be related to anything in the Yogticiirabhilmi. S ometimes S a�ghabhadra finds fault with Vasubandhu' s presentation of Sarvastivadin positions ; o n other occasions, Vasubandhu may be expressing an idiosyncratic idea of his own that cannot be characterized as S autrantika or Yogacara. However, even some of these cases may upon further investigation reveal a connection to the Yogtictirabhilmi.
xxxiii
Distribution and General Characterization of Results Distribution within the YogacarabhUmi
The corresponding passages that I have found in the Yo gacarabhami are distrib uted approximately as follows:
Maulf Bhami Paftcavijftiinakayasamprayuktii Bhami Manobhami Savitarkiidi-bhami Samiihitii Bhami Asamiihitii Bhami Srutamayf Bhami Cintiimayf Bhumi Sriivakabhumi Bodhisattvabhumi
number of passages 1 8 25 2 1 3 10 5
ViniscayasaytlgrahalJf Paftcavijftiinakiiyamanobhami Savitarkiidi-bhumi Samiihitii Bhumi Sacittikii Bhumi Cintiimayfprajftii Bhami Sriivakabhumi Bodhisattvabhumi (Saytldhinirmocanasatra)
55 8 1 9 4 2 3 2 16
xxxiv As can be seen from this chart, Vasubandhu relies most heavily on portions of the Yogacarabhumi that have no specifically Mahayana content and, as I have mentioned, that do not expound the doctrine of alayavijiiana. Furthermore, I have found relatively few correspondences to what Schmithausen and Aramaki consider to be the oldest sections of the text, namely, the Sravakabhumi and the Bodhisattvabhumi of the Maulf Bhumi and the VastusaY{lgraha!!f. General Classification According to Theme45
Many of the correspondences between the Abhidharmakosabha:;ya and the Yogacarabhiimi can be classified according to a few general themes. In most cases, these involve rejections of major Sarvastivadin doctrines.
sarvastivada In Chapter Five of the Abhidharmakosabha:;ya, Vasubandhu criticizes at length the basic Sarvastivadin principle that past, present, and future dharmas all really exist. Many of his arguments are similar to those found in refutations of sarvastivada in the ViniscayasaY{lgraha!!f on the Paiicavijiianakayamanobhumi and the Savitarkadi-bhumi (items 5 . 1 2- 1 8 and 5.21-27 in Chapter Three of this book). p rajiiapti A number of points concern dharmas that the V aibha�ikas consider to be real entities but that both Vasubandhu and the Yogacarabhiimi classify as provisional (prajiiapn). In Chapter One, Vasubandhu indicates his disagreement with the Vaibha�ika definition of avijiiaptirupa, and S�ghabhadra, looking forward to Chapter Four, states that Vasubandhu does not accept avijiiaptiriipa as being real. Similarly, the ViniscayasaY{lgraha!!fon the Paiicavijiianakiiyamanobhumi defmes both *saY{lvararnpa and * asaY{lvararupa, equivalent to avijiiapti, as provisional, while the ViniscayasaY{lgraha!!f on the Cintiimayfprajiiii Bhiimi includes avijiiapti in a long list ofprajiiaptis (item 1 .2). In Chapter Two, Vasubandhu criticizes at great length the Vaibh�ika definitions of the cittaviprayuktasQY{lSkaras (dharmas associated with neither matter nor mind), calling them all prajiiaptis. Again, the ViniscayasaY{lgraha!!f on the Paiicavijiiana kiiyamanobhiimi also denies the reality of these dharmas, and some of its arguments are reflected in Vasubandhu' s discussion (items 2.7, 2. 13, 2. 15-28).46 Vasubandhu's well known theory of bfja is found in his discussion of the viprayukta, prapti, and Yamabe 45 Much of this section appears in a slightly different form in Kritzer 2000b.
4l; For more details, see Kritzer 1999: 225-248.
xxxv
has shown Vasubandhu' s reliance here on the Viniscayasa1!!graha�f(1 990). Also in Chapter Two, Vasubandhu indicates that he does not accept the reality of the unconditioned dharmas (asa1!!skrtadharmas). Statements in the ViniScaya sa1!!graha�f on the Pancavijniinakiiyamanobhumi and the Vastusa1!!graha�f similarly question the status of the individual asa1!!skrtadharmas (items 2.37-40). In Chapter Four, Vasubandhu declares that sa1!!sthiinarupa (shape) is merely a prajnapti. The definition of sa1!!sthiinarupa in the Pancavijniinakiiyasamprayuktii Bhami is similar to Vasubandhu' s, and the Viniscayasa1!!graha�fon thePancavijniina kiiyamanobhami explicitly says that sa1!!sthiinarupa is a prajnapti (items 4.3-4.6). There is, moreover, another possible correspondence regarding prajnapti. In Chapter One, Vasubandhu maintains that the skandhas, being collections (riiSi), do not have independent reality, and to support his position, he refers back to a sutra that he has quoted earlier. Although the Yogiiciirabhumi does not directly state that the skandhas are prajnapti, the idea that collections are prajnapti can be found in the Vastusa1!!graha�1. The ViniScayasa1!!graha�f on the Pancavijniinakiiyamano bhumi quotes the same sutra as Vasubandhu to show that the meaning of skandha is riisi. This may imply that the skandhas are prajnapti (items 1.5-6).
bfja
In Chapter Two, Vasubandhu relies on the Sriivakabhumi and on the Viniscaya sa1!!gra� on the Pancavijniinakiiyamanobhumi for his statement that bfjas are nothing other than niimarilpa or the iisraya (item 2. 1 1 ; see Yamabe 1990). He explains many of the cittaviprayuktasa/!!Skira i s in terms of bfjas, and in almost every case, a similar explanation can be found in the Viniscayasa1!!graha�f on the Pancavijniina kiiyamanobhumi (items 2.7-2. 16). Outside of the context of the cittaviprayuktasa1!!skiiras, other statements by Vasubandhu explicitly or implicitly rely on the idea of bfja in giving explanations that deviate from Vaibha�ika orthodoxy. For example,. Vasubandhu offers an opinion to the effect that the unperceived mahiibhutas in a composite object exist as seeds. A closely related statement is found in the ViniScayasa1!!graha�f on the Cintiimayfprajnii Bhami (item 2.4). In Chapter Five, Vasubandhu refutes the orthodox Vaibha�ika idea that paryavasthiina (active defJIement) and anusaya (latent defilement) are synonymous, and he insists that anusay as are defJIements in the state of seeds. This idea appears in several different sections of the Yogiiciirabhumi, including the Savitarkiidi-bhumi, the ViniScayasa1!!graha�fon the Savitarkiidi-bhami and the Cintiimayfprajfiii Bhumi, and the Vastusa1!!graha�f (items 5.3-5.4).
xxxvi The Coming Together of Causes and Conditions On a number of occasions, Vasubandhu offers the coming together of causes and conditions to account for events explained otherwise by the Vaibha�ikas. For example, regarding the Vaibha�ika opinion that it is the eye that sees riipa, Vasubandhu says that, according to the Sautrantikas, perception is nothing more than cause and effect: there is nothing that sees or is seen. The Yogacarabhiimi contains a number of similar statements, for eXaIDple, in the Viniscayasa1J1grahal)fOn the Pancavijnana kayamanobhiimi and in the Paramarthagathas and their commentary in the Cintamayf Bhiimi (item 1 . 14). Another example is Vasubandhu's denial of the reality of the reflected image, which, he says, appears due to the power of the coming together of causes and conditions. Although the Yogacarabhiimi does not explicitly state that the reflected image is unreal, a number of statements seem to imply its relative unreality. For example, in the Viniscayasa1J1grahal)f on the Sacittika Bhiimi, the prav.rttivijnanas are said to depend on aZayavijnana as the reflected image depends on the mirror. In the Viniicayasa1J1grahal)f on the Bodhisattvabhiimi (Saf!!dhinirmocanasiitra), the medita tional image is said to be no different from the consciousness in which it is perceived, just as the reflected image depends on the mirror, with the object acting as a condition (item 3 .6). Special People and Their Powers Finally, Vasubandhu makes a number of statements regarding the powers of special people that correspond to similar statements in the Yogacarabhiimi. For example, he says that one cannot fall from arhatship because an arhat has completely destroyed the defilements, including their seeds. The Viniicayasa1J1grahal)f on the Pancavijnanakayamanobhiimi makes the same argument (item 6.9). In his discussion of the cittaviprayuktasa1J1skaras, Vasubandhu states that jfvitendriya is not the result of karma in the case of the arhat, who can prolong his life by the power of his meditation. According to the Viniscayasa1J1grahal)f on the Pancavijnanakayamanobhiim� arhats, Tathagatas, and bodhisattvas have a special type of jfvitendriya that gives them the power to extend their ayuf:tsa1J1skaras. This jfvitendriya is defined as "proceeding due to own-force." All other types are defined as "not proceeding due to own-force." This seems to be equivalent to the distinction made in the Abhidharmakosabha.yya between jfvitendriya that is not vipaka (that of the arhat) and ordinary jfvitendriya, which is vipaka. Furthermore, in the Cintamayf Bhiim� the Buddha is said to obtain mastery of samadhi (samadhivasita), which he uses to discard his former ayuf:tsa1J1skaras and to produce a new body (item 2.3). A related example occurs in a discussion of why the Buddha chose a womb-birth over an apparitional one. One Vaibha�ik.a answer is that it was in order to leave a
xxxvii
body as a relic. Vasubandhu objects that this explanation will not satisfy those who think the Buddha has iidhi.J!hanikr rddhi, by means of which he can prolong his life. This is reminiscent of the Bodhisattvabhiimi, according to which the Buddhas and bodhisattvas can use their magical power to continue to exist after death (item 3.4). With the exception of bfja, one can find none of the characteristic terms of Yogacara among the above correspondences: words such as iilayavijiiiina, vijiiapti matra, and trisvabhava simply do not appear. Nor is there any explicit statement of Mahayana themes, such as the emptiness of dharmas or the three bodies of the Buddha. However, the disagreements regarding these abhidharma issues between Vasubandhu and Sarvastivada are far from insignificant. As Sarp.ghabhadra and the DIpakara often point out, Vasubandhu's criticism of the Vaibha�ika abhidharma system reflects a very different view of the world, one that we can now see is provocatively similar to that of the authors of the Yogiiciirabhiimi.
III.
Passages from the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya
and Related Passages from the Yogaciirabhumi
Abhidharmakosabhii.Jya 2 Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdeia
1.1) Vasubandhu says that the Vaibha�ikas maintain that the Buddha preached the abhidharma for the purpose of investigating dharmas and that KatyayanIputra and others collected the scattered abhidharma sayings of the Buddha and put them all together in the abhidharmapi!aka, just as Dharmatrata put together the Udiinavarga.
atas tadhetos tasya dharmapravicayasyiirthe siistrii kila buddheniibhidharma ukta!} / na hi vinii 'bhidharmopadeiena sirya!} sakto dharmiin pravicetum iti / sa tu prakfn:ta ukto bhagavatii bhadantakiityiiyanfputraprabhrtibhi!} pilJlj.fkrtya sthiipito / bhadanta dharmatriitodiinavargfyakaralJavad ity iihur vaibhii.Jikii!} (Pradhan: 3 . 1-4; T. 1558: Ib22-28; Poussin 1 : 5-6; S mp.ghabhadra criticizes Vasubandhu, whom he calls the sutra-master (ching-chu k:¥:.:E), for not believing that the abhidharmawas really preached by the Buddha and for believing that Katyayamputra and the others actually created it [T. 1 562: 329c 1 8-22] .)47
47 Here and below, I quote from Pradhan' s edition of the Abhidharmakosabhii.Jya, which I refer to as "Pradhan," and I abbreviate "La Vallee Poussin 1971" as "Poussin." For other works by Poussin, I include the date, for eXaIllp le, "Poussin 1936-1937." I have not systematically corrected the texts provided in this comparison. However, I have incorporated Hirakawa ' s corrections to Pradhan' s Sanskrit text. For the Tibetan text of the Yogiiciirabhami, I have generally relied on the Peking edition, but I have made some corrections on the basis of the Derge. The Chinese text of the Yogiiciirabhami is the electronic text provided by the Yugagy6 Shis6 Kenkyiikai , with the punctuation of the printed TaishO edition restored. In a few cases, I have supplied Chinese characters that ' were not included in the electronic version.
Yogaearabhami 3
1 . 1) In the * Vivaral!asay[!grahal!f, the insights of the Buddha' s disciples into, as well as the Buddha' s own understanding of, the nature of dharmas are both included . in the category matrkii, which is equated with the abhidharma. 48
gan du beom ldan 'das kyis mtshan fiid bstan pa dan gan du nan thos gii mthon bas rtogs pa la gnas pas ehos kyi mtshan nid mnon bar bstan pa de yan ma mo yin te ehos mnon pa yan yin no (Yogaearabhami,: yi 64b6-7); ll\!J 1J��JI;i!t� § )J(:J}5JU lli ¥:HI1§ o JZ.1J��JI;�i��r8Jt�lii' jQE o 1£( § pJTWi1!lli 1lu :J}5JU �i¥!G:1§ o J1t* � �)gfDEl),13ll!! o RPJl:t)gfDEl),1iJI1!*� �iiJffi jI )g (T . 1579: 753bl O-14)
48 See also item 8 . 3 .
Abhidharmakosabha:jya 4
Chapter 1 Dhatunirdeia
1 .2) Vasubandhu indicates his disagreement with the Vaibha�ika definition of avijfiaptirupa.
ucyata iti ilcilryavacanalJ1 darsayati (Pradhan: 8.8-9; T. 1558: 3a24-25; Poussin v. 1 : 2 1 ; Sarpghabhadra states that Vasubandhu misrepresents the Vaibha�ika definition and that he does not accept avijfiaptirupa as being real [T. 1 562: 335b1 6-c9].)
Yogacarabhumi 5
1 .2) Accorcting to the ViniscayasaY(!grahalJf on the Paiicavijiianakiiyamanobhumi, rapaskandha consists of both real and provisional rupas. * SaY(!vararapa (lii-i se 1f:{#:e ) and *asaY(!vararapa (pu lii-i se /f1$:{#:e) are defined as provisional. 49 (See also item 4.S.)
tatra sarvasmad rupaskandhasaY(!grhftad rupan navaprakaraY(! dravyasat spra�!avyasaY(!grhftat tu catvari mahabhutani dravyasanti I tadanyat prajiiaptisad veditavyaY(! I dharmayatanaparyapannaY(! puna rupal'(! dvividhaY(! dravyasat prajiiaptisac ca l yatprabhtivataJ:t samadhigocaraI!l nirmitavat tatphalaI!l tadvi�ayaI!l tatpratisaY(!yuktavijiianavi�ayaY(! ca tad dravyasat I say(!varasay(!varasay(!grhftay(! tu p rajfiaptisat; 50 de la gzugs kyi phwi pos bsdus pa 'i gzugs thams cad las mam pa dgu ni rdzas su yod do I reg byas bsdus pa las 'byun ba chen po bii ni rdzas su yod pa yin no I de las gian pa mams ni btags pa 'i yod pa yin par rig par bya 'o I chos kyi skye mched du gtogs pa 'i gzugs ni mam pa giiis te I rdzas su yod pa dan btags pa 'i yod pa 'o I mthu las byun ba 'i tin ne 'dzin gyi spyod yul sprul pa Ita bu de 'i 'bras bu dan I de ' i yul dan de dan mtshuns par ldan pa 'i mam par ses pa ' i yul gan yin pa de ni rdzas su yod pa yin no (Yogacarabhamit: zi 5 1 a7-b l ) ; tzP �-to e ii: Mme � o ft.�.��o . mm � @ *.�.� �o . � M8����o !!! Y!�e7JF�=fio �fj .��� ;S:�%ltf.R\5EpJT1T:ljnMp�1to 1J1,*1J1:tJ[11 1J1t§ ��l!Vi�:tJ[e �.�m� ;S:1$:{#:e /f1$:{#:e � ��� (T. 1579: 597b4-9; see Fukuhara 1 973 : 93) 0
0
According to the ViniscayasaY(!grahalJf on the Cintamayfprajiia Bhumi, avijfiapti is included, along with the cittaviprayuktasay(!skaras, in a long list of saY(!skrtadharmas that are prajiiapti.
'dus byas kyi min can gyi dnos po la skye ba dan I rga ba dan I gnas pa dan I mi rtag pa dan I sa bon dan mam par rig byed dan I mam par rig byed ma yin pa dan I thob pa dan I 'thob pa ma yin pa dan I srog gi dban po dan I ris mthun pa I min gi tshogs dan I tshig gi tshogs dan I yi ge 'i tshogs mams dan so so 'i skye bo fiid dan I tshogs pa dan ma tshogs pa dan I 'jug pa so sor nes pa dan I sbyor ba dan I mgyogs pa dan I go rims dan I dus dan yul dan grans fie bar 'dogs pa dan (Yogacarabhami,: zi 20Sa4-6) ; X:a0�%t��y!��o �.lL.!E�1t�1tfiro � 49 *Say(!vararupa and *asaY(!vararupa here seem to be equivalent to avijfiaptirupa. See Hirakawa 1 990: 1 90- 193.
50 According to Matsuda Kazunobu (private communication), this passage appears in a Sanskrit manuscript fragment of the ViniicayasaY(!grahalJf preserved in St. Petersburg, andMatsuda has reconstructed it as above (non-italicized portions represent • Matsuda' s reconstruction).
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 6 Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdeia
Yogacarabhiimi
7
1 .2 continued) *�*1�W;fJUt<: [l§J 5to 1:; ,Jifiij ,Jif5t,Jif#,t:!::I:1o fO iI7f'fo iItt �5E#;f§!i!§'6I:i!*��:1J.&t51: (T. 1 579: 659a12- 1 6)
Abhidharmakosabhii;ya 8
Chapter 1 Dhatunirdeia
1 .3) Regarding the question of whether avijfiapti is rapa, one Vaibha�ika argu ment maintains that it is rapa because vijfiapti is rapa. Vasubandhu gives an analogy to a tree and its shadow: as the tree moves, the shadow moves. He then says that unlike vijfiapti, avijfiapti is subject to modification, and he points out that the analogy is false because avijfiapti continues to exist even after vijfiapti no longer exists, while a shadow ceases to exist as soon as the tree ceases to exist.
sapi vijfiaptirapal}ad rap ita bhavati /v!k�apracaZane cchayapracaZanavat/navikarat / vijfiaptiniv!ttau cavijfiaptiniv!ttif:! syad v!k�abhiive cchiiya 'bhiivavat (Pradhan: 9 . 18-20; T. 1558: 3c5-8; Poussin v. 1: 26; S3J!lghabhadra states that the analogy is the sutra-master's, not that of the school, i.e., Vaibha�ika, that makes this argument [T. 1562: 338a9-14] .)
Yogiiciirabhiimi 9
1 .3) (The Yogiiciirabhiimi denies the reality of avijfiaptiriipa [see item 1 .2], but it does not contain a discussion of the analogy of a tree and its shadow.)
10
Abhidharmakosabhii�a
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdesa
1 .4) Regarding the question of whether avijiiapti is riipa, another Vaibhfu:;ika explanation maintains that it is riipa because the mahiibhutas that comprise its iisraya are riipa. Vasubandhu objects that, according to that logic, the fIrst fIve vijiiiinas would also be riipa. The Vaibha�ika answer to this is that the relationship between avijiiapti and the mahiibhutas is like that between the shadow of a tree and the tree or the glitter of a jewel and the jewel. Vasubandhu says that it is against the principles of the Vib�ii to say that the shadow and the glitter rely on the tree and the jewel because, according to the Vibhii�ii, the shadow and the glitter rely on their own mahiibhatas. Furthe=ore, he says, even if one says that the shadow and glitter rely on the tree and the jewel, the case of avijiiapti is different because, unlike in the case of the tree and jewel, avijiiapti does not cease to exist at the same time as the mahiibhutas on which it is based. idalJ! tiivad avaibhii�ikfyalJ! vrk�am iiSritya cchiiyii vartate maIJilJ! ciiSritya prabheti / cchiiyiidivaTIJaramiiIJuniilJ! pratyekalJ! svabhutacatu�kiiSritatviibhyupagamiit / saty api ca tadiisritatve cchiiyiiprabhayor niivijiiaptis tathaiviisritii yujyate / niruddhe�v api avijiiaptyiiSraye�u mahiibhute�u tasyii anirodho 'bhyupagamyate (Pradhan: 9.23-10.2; T. 1558: 3c12-17; Poussin v. 1: 26; S�ghabhadra says that the siitra-master misrepresents the teaching of the Vibhii�ii regarding the relationship between avijiiapti and the mahiibhutas [T. 1562: 338a25-b4]; furthe=ore, the siitra-master' s objection that avijiiapti and the mahiibhutas on which it i s based do not perish simulta neously is not relevant to the meaning in the Vibhii�ii [T. 1562: 338b4-22].)
Yogacarabhami
11
(The Yogacarabhami denies the reality of avijfiaptirilpa [see item 1 .2], but 1 .4) it does not contain a discussion of the relationship between avijfiapti and the mahiibhatas. )
12
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdesa
1 .5) Vasubandhu says that the skandhas are merely prajiiapti because a collection is not a real thing. yadi riiSyarthaJ:t skandhiirthaJ:t p rajiiaptisantaJ:t skandhiiJ:t priipnuvanti / aneka dravyasarnuhatviit riiSipudgalavat
(Pradhan 13.21-22; T. 1558: 5al l-12; Poussin v. 1: 37-38; Sarp.ghabhadra does not specify that this is the opinion of the si'itra-master, but he refutes it, saying that skandha means not a collection but that which is the basis of a collection, in other words, the real dharmas that comprise the skandhas [T. 1 562: 343c24-344al ; Poussin v. 1 : 38 n. 2] ; P'u-kuang attributes it to Vasubandhu and distinguishes it from the position of the V aibha�ikas, who say that skandhas, iiyatanas, and dhiitus are all real, and that of the Sautrantikas, who say that, since the iiyatanas are also prajiiapti, only the dOOtus are real [T. 1821: 19a24-29].)
YagilcilrabhUmi
13
There are a number o f statements in the Yagilcilrabhumi to the effect that 1 .5) the meaning of skandha is "collection." See the Vastusaf[lgrahal}f:
'du byed du gtags pa mam pa bcu gcig gcig tu bsdus na 'du byed kyi tshogs 'gyur te / tshags kyi don ni phU/i pa 'i don du rig par bya 'a (YagilcilrabhUmi,: 'i 207a3-4); :fJii *
'1it9;D+-111§*@tmBt1T1L�1T�o !@'9;D����Jt:fiU1; (T. 1579: 796c2-3)
See also the Viniscayasaf[lgrahal}fon the Paficavijfiilnakilyamanabhumi: phU/i pa 'i don ni spuns pa'i don to ies gan gzuns pa de la spuns pa 'i don gan ie na / smras pa / spuns pa 'i don ni bdag fiid sna tshags man pa 'i don dan / de biin du phan tshun 'dres pa 'i dnas pas 'jug pa 'i don dan / de biin du gcig tu mnan par bsdus pa 'i don dan / 'phel ba dan 'bri ba 'i don (Yagilcilrabhumi,: zi 80a4-5); F.Mm mg���.�o M�� �g���o � ••�BH�o �li® •• � o �Jj*,@t I!li5-�o ��1jlifii(. � o �1n�� (T. 1579: 608c16-19)
See elsewhere in the Viniscayasaf[lgrahal}f on the Paficavijfiilnakilyamanobhumi: de fa phun pa 'i don ni gan ci'i phyir na phun po mam par biag pa yans su bstan ce na / gzugs gan yin pa ci yan run ste / 'das pa dan / ma 'ans pa dan / da ltar byun ba nas thag rin ba dan / fie ba 'i bar dan gzugs ji Ita ba biin5 1 mam par ses pa 'i bar du yan de biin te / de dag gcig tu bsdus pa ni mam pa thams cad du bsdus pa yin pa 'i phyir bsdus pa 'i don ni phun pa 'i don to / yan phun po de dag ni bdag fiid sna tshags man po yin pa 'i phyir 'du byed tsam ste de las don gian pa 'i bdag med par yans su bstan pa 'i phyir phun po mam par52 rig par bya ' a ( Yogilcilrabhumi,: zi 4 1 a4-6); 1Jii * .��1ilJ � t.JHilJ�J!1LBt.o BllJpJj-�e ;g=**-4-n��J5:o �Den £�ljfm �D�*,@tl!li5-m-1J.1 .o 1n���.� (T. 1579: 593c1 8-20) 0
0
5 1 Derge reads biin du. 52 Derge inserts giag par here.
14
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdesa 1 . 6) Vasubandhu mentions two alternative Vib�ii definitions of skandha: 1) "that which carnes the burden of an effect"; 2) "a part." He quotes a sLUra to show that these defInitions do not conform with satra and that the meaning of skandha is indeed "collection" and nothing else. kiiryabhiirodvahanarthaJ:t skandhiirtha ity apare Ipracchedartho vii I tathii hi vaktiiro bhavanti tribhiJ:t skandhair deyal'[! diisyama iti I tad etad utsatram I satral'[! hi rii§y artham eva bravfti yat kil'[!cid rnpam atftiinagatapratyufpannam iti vistaraJ:t
(Pradhan: 13.23-26; T. 1558: 5al4-18: Poussin v. 1 : 38; SaIp.ghabhadra comments only on the second of these defInitions, saying that the statement that it does not conform with satra is the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 344a13-15] and criticizes it, saying that Vasubandhu insists too strictly on satra in determining the meaning of skandha, when he should rely more on reason [T. 1562: 344a15-18].)
Yogacarabhumi
15
1 .6) The Viniscayasaf[lgrahal}fon th e Paiicavijiianakayamanobhilmi (see above) quotes the same or a similar sutrain defining skandha as "collection" (Yogacarabhilmir' zi 41a4-6; T, 1579: 593c18-20; [see Fukuhara 1973: 1 14, where the page number is mistakenly given as 592]),53
53 See also the Vastusaf[lgrahalJf, which comments on this sutra (Yogacqrabhumir' 'i 207a3-4; T. 1579: 796c2-3),
16
Abhidhannakosabhti.rya
Chapter 1 Dhtitunirdeia
Vasubandhu says that the teachings of the skandhas, iiyatanas, and dhiitus 1 .7) are directed variously at people who have differing degrees of ignorance, faculties, and faith. trayaJ:!prakariis traidhamltriprakaraJ:! kila sattviiniil'J'l mohaJ:!lkecic caitte-?u sal'J'lmurjhtiJ:! pil}rjiitmagrahal}ataJ:! I kecid riipa eva I kecid riipacittayoJ:! I indriyiiny api trividhtini I tf�l}amadhyam!dvindriyatvat I rucir api trividhti I sal'J'l�iptamadhyavistaragrantha rucitviit I te-?iil'J'l yathtikramal'J'l tisraJ:! skandhtiyatanadhtitudeianii iti
(Pradhan: 14. 10-13; T. 1558: 5b4-8; Poussin v. 1 : 40; Sarp.ghabhadra says that the siitra-master has abbreviated the explanation [T. 1562: 344a24-27] and gives an expanded explanation [T. 1562: 344a27-b2; see T. 1545: 366c26 ff.] .)
Yogiiciirabhami
17
1 .7) (The Yogiiciirabhami does not seem to contain a discussion relating the teaching of skandha, iiyatana, and dOOtu to the three types of people.)
18
Abhidharmakosabhii.Jya
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirde1a
1 .8) An alternate explanation is given for why the asa1'[lSk.rtadharmas are included in the iiyatanas and dhiitus, but not in the skandhas: like a pot which, when broken, is no longer a pot, the asa1'[lSk.rtadharmas are the cessation of the skandha, and hence are not theskandhas. 54 Yasubandhu refutes this explanation by saying that the same argument would apply to the iiyatanas and dhiitus. yathii gha!oparamo na gha!a eval!1- skandhoparamo apare I te.Jiil!1- dhiitviiyatane.JV apy e.Ja prasarigaJ:!
na
skandho bhavitum arhatfty
(Pradhan: 15.4-6; T. 1558: 5b26-28; Poussin v. 1 : 42; Smp.ghabhadra identifies the objection as that of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 345alO-ll] and criticizes it, justifying the simile of the pot [T. 1562: 345al l-20].)
54 This explanation is found in the Vibhii.Ja, where it does not seem to be an alternate opinion but rather a further reason in support of the standard Yaibhi1'!ika position (T. 1545: ; 385b17-18).
Yogacarabhiimi
19
1 .S) (I have found no similar discussion in the Yogacarabhiimi. However, various passages imply that the asarrzskrtadharmas are not included in the skandhas because, unlike the entities that comprise the skaJidhas, they are not reaL First, the Viniscayasarrzgraha"(ll on the Cintamayfprajiia Bhiimi defines real dharmas as entities belonging to the five skandhas. de la gzugs la sogs pa 'i phUli po 'i mbi can gyi dilOS po ni rdzas su yod pa yin pa 'o [Yogacarabhiimi,: zi 20Sal-2] ; Jl:t >p ���tg;m�:t&l'�m [T. 1579: 659a7-S])
Then it goes on to include the asarrzskrta, akasa, among those items that are merely prajiiapti [Yogacarabhiimi,: zi 20Sa7; T. 1579: 659a16-l7]. In the ViniScayasarrzgraha"(lIOn the Paiicavijiianakiiyamanobhiimi, akiisa and aprati sarrzkhyanirodha are said to be mere appellations [see items 2.3S and 2.40], while in the Vastusarrzgraha"(ll, pratisarrzkhyanirodha is said to be simply a designation [see item 2.39] .)
20
Abhidharmakosabhii.Jya
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdeia
1 .9) Vasubandhu says that the physical position of the organs (eye highest, body lowest, mind without a physical position) is a possible reason for the order in which the sense organs are traditionally listed.55 athavii asmin san-re calqwjo 'dhi.J!hiinam upari.J!iit nivi.J!aml tasmiid adhaJ:! srotrasya l tasmiid adho ghrii"(U1sya I tasmiit jihviiyii/:! I tasyii/:! kiiyasya biihulyena I mana/:! punas tiiny eva nisritam adesasthalJ'! ceti yathiisthiinam e.JiilJ'! krama/:! syiit
(Pradhan: 16. 1 1-13; T. 1558: 6a5-7; Poussin v. 1 : 44-45 ; Sarpghabhadra quotes this passage in a slightly expanded form [T. 1 562: 345c27-346a2], says that the sutra-master is either speaking provisionally or following some "other" interpretation, and points out that the organs of seeing, hearing, and smelling are arranged like a garland, with none higher or lower [T. 1562: 346a2-5]. i6
55 The same explanation is given in the Vibhii.Jii, where, as in theAbhidharmakosa bhii.Jya, it is one of several possible explanations (T. 1545: 63a22-23). 56 In a different context, the Vibhii.Jii states that these three organs are arranged like a garland (T. 1545: 380c28-38 1 a3), but in its discussion of the order of the organs, it does • not refute the opinion attacked by Sarpghabhadra.
Yogacarabhumi
21
1 . 9) (The Yogacarabhami does not seem to contain a discussion o f th e order of the sense organs. However, in the Manobhumi, consciousness at the moment of death is said to leave the body from the top down or from the bottom up, with rnanas being the last ayatana to be abandoned in either case57 [see also the ViniscayasaY(lgrahalJl On the Paiicavijfianakiiyarnanobharni, where a departing consciousness other than rnanovijfiana is adduced as proof of alayavijfiana] . 58 This perhaps suggests a correlation between the physical placement of the organs and the order in which they are traditionally listed.)
57 tataS cyutikiile aku§al£lkarrnakiirif.IiiT!! tavaa urdhvabhagad vijfianarn asrayaY(! rnuiicati / urdhvabhagaS ciisya Sitibhavati / sa (taY(!?) punas tavan rnuiicati tavad dhrdayapradesarn / sulqtakiirif.IiiT!! punar adhobhagad vijfianarn asrayaY(! muiicati /adhobhagaS ciisya Sitibhavati tavad yavad dhrdayapradesaY(! / hrdayadesiic ca vijfiiinasya cyutir veditavya / tataJ:t lqtsna evasrayaJ:t Sittohavati (YogiicarabhUrni: 18.16-20, incorporating Schmithausen's corrections [1987: 3 1 1 n. 278]); de bas na re fig mi dge ba 'i las byed byed pa marns ni 'chi 'pho ba 'i tshe mam par ses pas ro stod nas Ius 'dor bar byed de / de 'i ro stod gran mor 'gyur ro / de yan siiin gar thug pa 'i bar du 'dor bar 'gyur ro / legs pa byed byed pa mams kyi mam par ses pas ni / ro srnad nas Ius 'dor bar byed de / de 'i ro smad gran mor 'gyur ro / de yan siiin gar thug pa 'i bar du 'dor bar 'gyur te / siiin ga nas mam parsespa 'pho bar rigpar bya' 0 (Yogacarabhiimi,: dzi l la2-4); JZ��H�it¥o fFflM�1lt �}j�fiJT1it1;Lt5tM:o f1D1J£J:.5ti%�® ll;U9o RQ lf:tiiM:JJ �'L'�o :@��1lt rllZ}j� fiMit1J£T 5tM:o f1D1J£T5ti%�® JliI�o RQlf:tjiM:JJ�'L'�o 'i"9;Q1&��Pit'L'�M:o 1Uti%�UftijlfqfiJTfit (T. 1579: 282a7-12) 0
0
5 8 ci'i phyir kun bfi mam par ses pa med na 'ci 'pho mi run ie na / 'di ltar 'pho
(Derge reads ' ci 'pho) ba 'i tshe 'i mam par ses pas lu ro stod darn / ro smad du drad
yal bar byed cin sbon la yid kyi mam par ses pa ni nam yan mi 'byun ba rna yin pas / de 'i phyir Ius len par byed pa 'i kun gii mam par ses pa kho na dan bral bas Ius kyi drad yal pa dan / Ius la tshor ba med par snan bar zad kyi / yid kyi mam par ses pa dan bral bas ni rna yin te / de 'i phyir yan mi run no ( Yogacarabhami,: zi 4a2-4); fliJ w.: � � �.��o �.��� .��o � •• ���J:. � 5t o �.M:ei% • • � o ��T #5to �*.�� ��.o w.:�Pit� �.���.� � o � � M: eo f1D:IJ� � 5ti%�®1iJ1�o � �:W;�o .�� m o ;l'ikw.:� � �iiJwJr!f���.�):ll •
(T. 1579: 579c17-22)
22
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 1 Dhatunirdeia 1 . 1 0) According to the Vaibha�ikas, gandhadhatu, rasadhtitu, ghrti"(lavijiitina dhatu, and jihvtivijiitinadhatu are lacking in rupadhatu because the only function of gandha and rasa is to be kavar/fkartihtira, from which beings in rapadhatu are detached. Vasubandhu objects that, if gandha and rasa serve no purpose in rapadhtitu, then the corresponding organs, ghrti"(la and jihvti, also serve no purpose and should be similarly lacking. However, according to the Vaibha�ikas, the organs ghrti"(la and jihvti are
present since they are needed to beautify the body and for speech. Vasubandhu maintains that the basis for the organs, i.e., the nose and tongue, are adequate for these purposes; there is no need for the organs. There follows an argument about the functions of these organs and their difference from the sexual organs, which all parties admit are lacking in rapadhtitu. The point of Vasubandhu' s argument is hard to figure out, especially since in the Paiicaskandhaka (si 1 8bl-2), he simply states that these four dhtitus are lacking in rupadhatu. However, the logical implication in the Abhidharmakosabha�a seems to be that in fact gandha and rasa must somehow be present.
eval!1 tarhi ghrti"(lajihvendriyayor abhtivaprasmigo ni�prayojanatvtit I asti prayojanam I tiibhyiil!1 hi vinti 'srayasobhaiva na sytid iti vyavaharas ca I yady etat prayojanam adhi�!hanam evtistu sobhtirthal!1 vacantirthal!1 ca mti bhad indriyam
(Pradhan: 21.4-6; T. 1558: 7c9-12; Poussin v. 1 : 56; SaI[1ghabhadra identifies the objection as the sutra-master's [T. 1562: 349b22-24] and basically quotes the Vaibha�ika answer provided by Vasubandhu, without further discussion of ghrti"(la and jihvii [T. 1562: 349b24-25 }9
59 In the Vibhti�ti, the argument goes as follows: There is no masculine or feminine organ in rapadhatu and tin7pyadhatu because there is no lust there, because one is born having abandoned those organs, and because in rapa and tirapyadhtitus there is no kavar/fkartihara, which is necessary to cause the arising of those organs. And because these organs arise only in the absence of hrz and apatrapti, they do not exist in rapadhtitu and tirapyadhatu because they would have no function there. Objection: If this is so, then there are likewise no organs of smell or taste, since there is no gandha to smell or rasa to taste. Reply: The organs of smell and taste have a function there since they beautify the body and give rise to speech. The masculine and feminine organs, however, render the body disgusting. Those with hrfand �patraptimust hide them (T. 1545: 463c15-21).
Yogaearabhumi 23
1 . 1 0) According to the Viniseayasa1'[!graha1}f on the PaiieavijiianakiiyamanobhUmi, although there are no actualized smells or tastes in riipadhatu, gandhadhatu and rasa. dhiitu exist there.
de la gzugs kyi khams na ni dri dan ro ni med la de dag gi khams ni yod do / de ci 'j phyir ie na / de giiis ni kham gyi zas kyis bsdus pa yin pa 'i phyir ro / de dag med pas sna ' i mam par ses pa dan / lee ' i mam par ses pa yan med de / kun tu 'byun ba kho nar med kyi khams las ni ma yin no (YogacarabhUmi,: zi 5 1 a5-7); :f£ *-g,W r:p Ji!Ii;m�p*��1JtWo 1iiJrJ,t5co llt=.1§'�.jtmt5co EE �J1:t=.%=�v:rJi!lio J1:t g,t;m:fTm::}Fg,tW�R. (T. 1579: 597b l-3)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 24 Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdesa
1 . 1 1) Vasubandhu says that the reason why the first five vijfiiinas are always associated with vitarka and viciira is that these vijftiinas are gross since they are directed toward external (objects)o
nityam ete vitarkaviciiriibhyiiJ?1 saJ?1prayuktii/:t / avadhiirm;iirtho hisabda/:t60 (Pradhan: 2204; To 1558: 8a12-14; Poussin vo 1 : 59; 0 Srupghabhadra says that this is the reasoning of the siitra-rnaster [To 1562: 350a7-8], and he refutes it, saying that mano vijftiina, even when directed internally, is sometimes associated with vitarka and viciira. According to Srupghabhadra, the real reason is that the five vijftiinas occur only in realms in which vitarka and viciira are present [To 1 562: 350a8- 12].)
60 Note that the reason, which is omitted from the Sanskrit, is stated in the Tibetan and Chinese translations : 'di dag ni rtag tu rtog pa daTi dpyod pa dag daTi mtsuTis par ldan pa yin te / 'di ltar kha phyi rol du bltas pa'i phyir rtsiTi ba yin no / ni zhes bya ba ni Ties par gzuTi ba 'i phyir ro (Abhidharmakosabh�at: gu 45a4); E8 :W-�1iij '1'§j�1§� o J2J,1T1§1i)i'f.Fn;t)co t.J!�r;lc5Eo t)cmlli i3 (To 1558: 8a i2-14)0
YogacarabhLtmi 25
1 . 1 1) In the Sravakabhumi it: is stated that vitarka and vicara arise internally and encompass the external objects.
ete punar vitarkavicariiS caitasikiiS cetasy utpadyamiinti utpadyante / sahabhuvaf:z sal'J'lprayuktaf:z / ekiilambanavrttayaf:z / evam ete adhyatmam utpadyante / bahyayatana sal'J'lgrhftiiS ca (Sriivakabhumi: 448.9- 1 3 ; see also Wayman 196 1 : 127- 128)6 1 ; rtog pa dan / dpyod pa de dag kyan sems las byun ba ste / sems skyes na skye bar ' gyur sin lhan cig 'byun ba mtshuns par ldan pa dus gcig tu 'jug pa yin no / de !tar na de dag ni nan nas skyes pa dan phyi rol gyi skye mched du gtogs pa yin te (Sravakabhumi,: wi 203a4-5); x.lE T 9;D�Q��1ii] �'IA*tt.o , c.,±a:f±o *1'f1§� ijjj -*�'�o X. lE T 9;D�D��1ii] 1t( P'l fi'iJ ±7f-�'pJT Jj!f (T. 1579: 467a26-29)
6 1 In general, I rely on Wayman' s edition. I have given Shukla' s text here . . because Wayman does not provlde the whole passage.
Abhidharmakosabhii-!ya 26
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdesa
1 . 1 2) According to Vasubandhu, the reason that vitarka is never associated with vitarka is that it is impossible for two vitarkas to exist at one time.
vitarkas tu nityam avitarko viciiramiitro dvitfyavitarkiibhiiviit viciirasa1J1prayogiic ca (Pradhan 22. 10; T. 1558: 8a19-20; Poussin, v. 1 : 60; S:up.ghabhadra says that this is the reasoning of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 350a20], and he refutes it, saying that it is not impossible for two vitarkas to exist at one time, but only for two of the same thing to be associated [T. 1562: 350a20-27].)
Yogiiciirabhami
27
1 . 1 2) (The Yogiiciirabhami does not include a similar statement regarding vitarka. However, the VastusaJTlgrahalJf says the following regarding the simultaneous occurrence of two dharmas of the same type: each dharma has one nature, not two, and no two dharmas of the same type can be associated at one time because there is no. second nature. This statement seems, if anything, to agree with Srurtghabhadra. On the other hand, the phrase "at one time" seems superfluous: how can two things be associated if they are not simultaneous? Perhaps the intention here is the same as Vasubandhu's.
62
This portion of the Vastusal'(!grahalJfis not included in the Tibetan translation.
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 28
Chapter 1 Dhatunirdeia
1 . 13) Vasubandhu says that the six organs and the six consciousnesses are internal since citta is the basis for the idea of an a.tman. The six vi�ayas are external.63
�a¢ vijfia.na.ni �a¢ a.sraya. ity ete dva.dasa dhatava a.dhya.tmika.J:t I rupa.dayas tu �a¢ vi�ayadhatavo bahya.J:t I a.tmany asati katham a.dhya.tmikarrz bahyarrz va. I aharrzka.ra sannisrayatva.c cittam a.tmety upacaryate I a.tmana. hi samuda.ntena svargarrz pra.pnoti palJ¢ita ity uktam I cittasya ca.nyatra damanam uktarrz bhagavata. I cittasya damanarrz sa.dhu cittarrz da.ntarrz sukha.vaham iti l ata a.tmabhutasya cittasya.srayabha.vena pratya.sannatva.tl cak:jura.dfna.m a.dhya.tmikatvarrz rupa.dfna.rrz vi�ayabhava.d bahyatvam I evarrz tarhi �a¢ vijfia.nadha.tava a.dhya.tmika. na pra.pnuvantilna hy ete manodha.tutvam apra.pta.s citta syiiSrayfbhavantilyada. tada. ta eva te bhavantfti lak�alJarrz na.tivartante I anyatha. hi manodha.tur atfta eva sya.n na.na.gatapratyutpannnaJ:t I i�yante ca.�ta.dasa dha.tavas traiyadhvika.J:t I yadi ca.na.gatapratyutpannasya vijfia.nasya manodha.tu lak�alJarrz na sya.t atfte 'py adhvani manodha.tur na vyavastha.pyate I na hi lak�alJasya.dhvasu vyabhica.ro 'stfti (Pradhan: 27.5- 15; T. 1558: 9c17- lOal ; Poussin v. 1 : 73-74; Stcherbatsky 1988: 58-59; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 360b21-c4] and criticizes it, largely on the grounds that the caitasikas, which are included in dharmadhatu and are thus classified as external, should also be considered as the basis for the idea of an a.tman [T. 1562: 360c4-36 1 a8] 64 He then devotes a long section to a criticism of the Sthavira's position that all dharmas are included in dharmadhiitu65 [T. 1562: 361a17-362a7].)
63 Vasubandhu' s position seems to be almost identical to an alternate position in the Vibha�a. (T. 1 545: 3 8 1 a26-b3). 64 The *Sarrzyuktabhidharmahrc!aya seems also to include the caittas (T. 1552: 887b12-18). 65 See the Vibha�a. (T. 1 545: 383b15 ff.).
Yogacarabhumi 29
1 .13) (I cannot find anything in the Yogiiciirabhumi directly relevant to the question of whether the caitasikas should also be considered as the basis for the idea of an iitman. However, the following pertain to the distinction between internal and external and the mistaken idea that the internal is a self. From the Savitarkiidi-bhumi pratftyasamutpiida exposition:
adhyiitmamajfiiina7[!katamat/pratyiitmikiin sa7[!skiiriin ayonisa iitmat066 manasikurvato yad ajfiiinam / bahirdhiijfiiina7[! katamat / biihyiin asattvasa7[!khyiitiin67 sa7[!skiiriin iitmfyato 'yoniso manasikurvato yad ajfiiina7[! / adhyiitmabahirdhii 'jfiiina7[! katamat / piirasiintiinikiin sa7[!skiiriin mitriimitrodiisfnito 'yonisaJ:z kalpayato yad ajfiiinam [Yogiiciirabhumi: 204. 1 0-15]; nali mi ses pa gali ie na / so so ran gi 'du byed rnams la tshul biin ma yin par bdag tu yid la byed pa 'i mi ses pa gan yin pa 'o / phyi rol mi ses pa gan ie na / phyi rol gyi 'du byed sems can du ston pa ma yin pa rnams la bdag gi bar tshul biin ma yin par yid la byed pa ' i mi ses pa gan yin pa ' 0 / nan dan phyi rol mi ses pa gan ie na /pha rol gyi gyud la yod pa 'i 'du byed rnams la mdza ' bses pa dan / dgra dan / tha mal par tshul biin ma yin par rtog pa ' i mi ses pa gan yin pa'o [Yogiiciirabhumi,: dzi 1 1 9a5-8 ] ; :a� i*J f!lHD:z:: 1PJ �\U�45-glj �qTo itS/!' 0
�D�fF�o �j!j Z � :flt o pJT;ff #!lHD o :a�5i-�9;D :z:: 1PJ �\U�5J�?I=;ff fii tk�lHT itS /!' � ���o � � :fltM o M;ff � � o �i*J5i-�� :Z:: M o � ��ffi.�fto itS /!,�D l'j[:5tglj �j!j t��t!1: r:p M;ff � 9;D [T. 1579: 322b l l - 17] 0
0
From the Paryiiyasa7[!graha/Jf [the last part of this passage points out the ambiguous status of dharmadhiitu, which is external in one sense but internal in another] :
snon gyi mtha ' dan phyi ma 'i mtha ' ni ma 'ons pa rnams skye pa 'i chos fiid dan skyes pa rnams zad pa 'i chos fiid du mi ses pa gan yin pa 'o / de de ltar ma ses pas snon gyi mtha ' la sogs pa las rtsams nas ci bdag 'das pa 'i dus nas byun bar gyur ram ies bya ba rgyas par tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed de /ji Itar 'dug ji Ita bur gyur / sems can 'di dag ga las 'ons / 'di nas si 'phos nas gan du 'gro bar 'gyur ba ies bya ba 'di ni snon gi mtha ' dan phyi ma 'i mtha las brtsams nas tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa '0 / de de ltar mi rtag pa fiid la kun du rmons pas 'du byed rnams la bdag tu Ita ba 'i rjes su 'brel cin nan dan phyi dan gfii ga dag la chos tsam du mi ses te / nan ni nan gi skye mched la ' 0 /phyi ni phyi 'i Ina po dag la ' 0 /
66 Corrected by Schmithausen (1987: 5 1 8 n. 142 1 ) from iitmanii on the basis of the manuscript. 67 Corrected by Schmithausen ( 1987: 5 1 8 n. 421) from biihyiin sattvasa7[!khyiitiin on the basis of the Chinese and tibetan translations.
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 30
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdeia
Yogiiciirabhilmi 31
1 . 1 3 continued) phyi dan nan' n i dban po 'i rten de dag Rid dan chos ky i skye mched la ste / chos de dag ni nan gi yin par yan dmigs sin phyi 'iskye mched dag gis bsdus pa yin no [Yogiiciirabhilmi,: yi 54b2-6] ; n-0-*H&��H!lIi,,§,� �i1l n-0-**� 0
fi � �$tt& � � B �.$tto � T ��o �$� �� T � � o � �� . � �����mo ft$�*� • • � � o ��.mo ft.��o ���fto � JEt�'li1J£fPJffiJ*o n-HU9: B '£1i1PJpjf frD�1tc�1&.�frD :EJ!WF:W;�)c o n-0-frD � $.li1lt¥*'li o ,� ��T n-NlHr 9=J ftJW., Jlj!� o n-N9 n-0-1'HJU0-=1Io Pt�¥*'li� � T � o � � � . o ����o ��ep ����. & U $ . o ���$$� PJ1�o X �1''f.. Zpjfm�)c [T, 1 579: 77 1b26-c8]) 0
0
AbhidharmakosabhiiCjya 32
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirde§a
1 . 14) In verse 42, Vasubandhu gives the accepted Vaibhlliiika opinion that it is the eye that sees n7pa, but, according to Sarpghabhadra, he uses the word kila to indicate that he disagrees.6 8 Vasubandhu then examines a number of other opinions found in the VibhiiCjii, most prominently that of Dhannatrata, to the effect that it is the visual consciousness that sees rilpa. As Kat6 points out (1989: 24), the commentators think that Vasubandhu favors Dhannatrata' s opinion, but in fact Vasubandhu may just be using it to refute the V aibha�ikas. At the end of the discussion, he ascribes to the Sautrantikas the opinion that there is nothing that sees or is seen; consciousness simply arises in dependence on the organ and the object.69
atra sautriintikii iihu�/kim idamiikiisaf[l khiidyate/ cakCjur hi pratftya rLlpii,!-i cotpadyate cakCjurvijfiiinam / tatra ka� pafyati ko vii drsyate / nirvyiipiiraf[l hfdaf[l dharmamiitraf[l hetuphalamiitraf[l ca / tatra vyavahiiriirthaf[l cchandata upaciirii� kriyante / cakCjub pasyati vijfiiinaf[l vijiiniitfti niitriibhiniveCj!avyam / uktaf[l hi bhagavatii janapada niruktif[l niibhinivesata saf[ljfiiif[l ca lokasya niibhidhiived iti (pradhan: 3 1 . 1 1-16. The references for the entire discussion are Pradhan: 30.3-3 1 . 17 ; T. 1558 : l Oc8-1 1b8; Poussin v . 1 : 8 1-86; T . 1562: 363cl2-368al l ; Kat6 1989: 23-24.)
6 8 Sarpghabhadra uses the appellation ching-chu *�.± here (T. 1562: 365al l), as well as several other times during this discussion (365b19, 365c25, 366c18, 366c19, 367a6, 367a7). 69 Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the Dar�tantikas (T. 1562: 367b24). He does not use the appellation ching-chu. Fukuhara comments that Jhis is very close to a Mahayana way of thinking (1973 : 159).
YogacarabMimi 33
1 . 1 4) The Yogacarabhumi c ontains a number of statements to the effect that cognition is really the result of the laws of cause and effect, not of something seeing and something else being seen. See especially the Viniscayasa1J"lgraha':11 on the Paficavijfianakayamanobhumi on the question of what sees rapa:
mig gis gzugs mams mthon ba nas yid kyis chos mams mam par ses so ies bya ba 'i bar du ji skad gsuns pa de la I ci mig la sogs pas mthon ba nas mam par ses pa 'i bar du yin nam I 'on te de dag gi mam par ses pa dag gis mthon ba nas mam par ses pa 'i bar du yin ie na I smras pa I don dam par ni mig la sogs pas kyan ma yin la I de dag gi mam par ses pa dag gis kyan ma yin no I de ci 'i phyir ie na I dnos po mams ni rten cin 'brei bar 'byun ba 'i phyir dan skad cig pa'i phyir dan I g. yo ba med pa 'i phyir ro I brda 'i tshul du ni gtso bo yin pa 'i mig la sogs pa la mthon ba po la sogs pa fie bar gdags pa ches rigs so I de ci 'i phyir ie na I mig la sogs pa dban po mams yod na ni mam par ses pa 'byun ba ma tshan pa med par nes kyi I mam par ses pa 'i rgyun ni yod du zun kyan dmig la sogs pa dban po mams tshan ba 'am ma tshan bar dmigs pa 'i phyir ro I Ita ba la sogs pa tsam la mthon ba la sogs pa fie bar gdags pa gan yin pa de ni don dam pa yin no (Yogacarabhumi,: zi 83a6-b3) ; F�� PQ m m � R � � � . T R � o � . m� � � � � � � T � � o . � . � o � *'J Mf�Jl:l:Jl!L �F� �[�ljf �F11t.o 1PJ w' !5)co �iHt; El 'Ij: **��!5)C o *U jj� i!J.lt!5)C o .�ffl � o � � � Jl:l: � o m�.Mf�m�� � � � � o M w' � o � � m� R � o . � � � . � � . o � � . � # m� � o � ���m m � � o � � 'l'� pU�'��m��� (T. 1579: 61OaI9-27; cited in Saeki 1978, v. 1 : 88)
See also the Paramarthagathas and their commentary (Wayman 1961: 168, 174, 178; Yogacarabhiimi,: dzi 236b3-4, 238a4-6; T. 1579: 363a27-bl, 364a27-bl).
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 34
Chapter 1 Dhiitunirdesa
1 . 15) Vasubandhu states his opinions regarding the nature of atoms: 1) he agrees with the Bhadanta that they do not touch one another, but they are conventionally said to do so because there is no interval between them; 2) there is no "mass" that is different from the atoms of which it consists [and, therefore, the Vaibha�ika statement that masses touch, while atoms do not, is illogical] ; 3) whether or not atoms have spatial division, it does not make sense for them to touch one another (if they have spatial division, they must have parts, whether or not they touch, while if they have no spatial division, the [idea that atoms] touch would not lead to the fallacy that they have parts) ?O
na sprsanti / nirantare tu Spr�!asaY[ljiieti bhadantal} / bhadantamataY[l cai�!avyam / anyathii hi siintarii,!iim paramii,!ilniiY[l silnye�v antare�u gati1} kena pratibiidhyeta / yatal} sapratighii i�yante / na ca paramii,!ubhyo 'nye saY[lghiitii iti / ta eva te saY[lghiitiil} sprsyante yathii rilpyante /yadi ca paramii,!or digbhagabhedal} kalpyate spr�!asyiisPN!asya vii siivayavatvaprasmigal} / no cet spr�!asyiipy aprasmigal} (Pradhan: 33 .2-7; T. 1 558: Poussin v. 1 : 9 1 -92; Sa:qlghabhadra discusses these issues and attributes the first and third opinions to the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 373b I4- 1 6, 373c5-7; the reference for the entire discussion is T. 1 562: 373b I4-373c 14] .)
70 I find this discussion rather confusing. It seems as though Vasubandhu is attacking the V aibha�ika idea of the special reality and independence of atoms as he does more explicitly in the ViY[lsatikii (6.27-8.24; Kochumuttom 1982: 174-181; see also Ch'eng wei-shih lun [T. 1585: 4a1-c5; Poussin 1928-1929: 38-47]).
Yogaearabhami 35
1 . 15) (What Vasubandhu says certainly does not contradict the following passages from the Yogaearabhami, but it is not clear that there is a direct connection.
In the Manobhami, it is said that an atom is a designation for the smallest unit into which the mind can analyze rapa. Rapa has place [saprade§a fl but no parts.
na ea nlpasamudaye kadacit paramalJ-ur utpadyate / utpadyamanas tu svabiJat samudaya evotpadyate 'IJ-ur va madhya va mahan va / na ea puna(l parmalJ-ubhiJ:t samudayas efyate / buddhya tu parimalJ-aparyantaparieehedatal}. paramalJ-ul}. prajiiapyate/ tatra samudayo 'pi saprade§al}./paramalJ-ur api saprade§al}./samudayas tu savayavo na paramalJ-ul}. / tat kasya hetol}. / paramalJ-ur eva hy avayaval}. / sa ea samudayasyaivasti na paramalJ-0l}. /punar anye parama/1aval}. / tasman na savayaval}. paramalJ-ul}. [Yogaearabhami: 53.9- 1 5 ] ; gzugs 'dus pa la ymi rdul phra rab ni nams kymi skye bar mi 'gyur te / skye ba na ran gi sa bon las 'dus pa iiid ehun nu 'am / 'brin nam chen po skye par zad kyi / rdul phra rab rnams kyis 'dus pa bskyed par ni ma yin no / rdul phra rab ni blos tshad kyi mtha ' yons su bead pa las 'dogs pa zad de / de la 'dus pa yan phyogs dan beas pa yin la / rdul phra rab kyan phyogs dan beas pa yin te / 'on kyan 'dus pa ni yan lag dan beas pa yin gyi / rdul phra rab ni ma yin no / de ci 'i phyir ie na / rdul phra rab iiid yan lag yin la / de yan 'dus pa iiid la yod kyi / rdul phra rab rnams ni rdul phra rab gian gyi ma yin te / de bas na rdul phra rab ni yan lag dan beas pa ma yin no [Yogaearabhamir· dzi 29b4-8]; qil *�� � � o •• �.�o �� m m����.�o ��� � �* o X�� •• � � o �@ � �.�mH� �� •• o �jUfi�� ••• o X� ��� 1f�o tilli 1*X��1f�o i'!.<; � �,t��?Ftilli 1*X o 1PJ �J �to � tilli1*xflP��o J1t �� �pfi�?Ftilli1*X o :fJ[�tf
rdul phra rab dan rdul phra rab phrad pa dan / 'bral bar 'dzin pa dan [ YogCieara bhami,: zi 53b l -2] ; ���tilli1�W.tf
7 1 The Chinese translations for digbhagabheda and saprade§a are identical: yu ' fangfen �1f�.
Abhidharmakosabhii:jya 36
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeia
2.1) In verse 4, the last of a group of three kiirikiis that represent the opinion ,, of "others, n Vasubandhu uses the word tathii with respect to the three aniisrava indriyas (aniijiiiitamiijiiiisyamfndriya, iijiiendriya, iijiiiitiivfndriya) and explains in the Bhii�ya that it means that these three, like the preceding nineteen items on the list of twenty-two indriyas, are separate indriyas.
pratyekam indriyam ity upadarsaniirthaf!l tathiisabdaf:r. (Pradhan: 40.3; T. 1558: 14a17; Poussin v. 1 : 109; SaI]1ghabhadra attributes this explana tion to the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 378b21 -22] and criticizes it, saying that the word tathii should mean: "like strfndriya and puru�endriya, which do not exist separately from kiiyendriya" [T. 1562: 378b22-c3] . ) 73
n There is some disagreement regarding who these "others" are. According to Paramartha, they are Sautrantikas (Kokuyaku Issaikyo Bidon-bu 25: 1 1 8 n. 50).
73 The Vibhii�ii emphasizes that the three aniisrava indriyas, like strfndriya and puru�endriya, lack separate reality (T. 1545 : 730a29-b 1 3 ; see also Abhidharmadfpa Chapter Two verse 73 and commentary [Abhidharmadfpa 44: 1 1-15]);
Yogiiciirabhami 37
2. 1 ) The Yogiiciirabhami, although it equates the three aniisrava indriyas with the group of five indriyas starting with sraddhii, 74 never denies their real existence. See the Viniscayasal'[lgrahal'}f on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhami:
pho dan mo 'i dban po gfiis kyi don gan ie na / smras pa / reg byas bsdus pa kho , na ?5 'khrig pa sbyor ba 'o / tshor ba 'i dban p076 lna 'i don gan ie na / smras pa / bde ba dan sdug bsnal ba dan yid bde ba dan mi bde ba dan btan sfioms kyi gnas Ita bu dag ste dban po drug po de dag fiid kyi don rnams so / dad pa 'i dban po 'i don gan ie na / smras pa / span bar bya ba dan / thob par bya ba 'i yul lo / brtson 'grus kyi dban po 'i don gan ie na / smras pa / de gfiis kho na 'i thob par bya ba la ium pa med pa dan span bar bya ba la ium pa med pa ' 0 / dran pa ' i dban po ' i don gan ie na / smras pa / mfiam pa dan bsam pa dan bsgom pa nes par 'dzin pa 'o / tin ne 'dzin gyi dban po'i don gan ie na / smras pa / ii gnas dan lhag mthon no / ses rab kyi dban po 'i don gan ie na / smras pa / ses bya 'i de kho na 'o / mi ses pa kun ses par byed pa 'i dban po 'i don gan ie na / smras pa / bden pa mnon par rtogs pa la brtson pa dge ba 'i chos la 'dun77 pa nas bzun ste / sbyor ba 'i lam78 thams cad la dban po lna 'i don gan yin pa de fiid 'di 'i don yin par blta bar bya 'o / kun ses pa 'i dban po 'i don gan ie na / smras pa / rgyun du iugs pa 'i 'bras bu nas bzun ste / rdo rje Ita bu'i tin ne 'dzin gyi bar du dban po llia 'i don gan yin pa de fiid 'di 'i don yin par blta bar bya 'o / kun ses pa dan ldan pa 'i dban po 'i don gan ie na / smras pa / mi slob pa 'i lam nas bzun ste / phun po 'i lhag ma med pa 'i mya nan las 'das pa 'i dbyins kyi bar du dban po lna 'i don gan yin pa de fiid 'di 'i don gan yin par blta bar bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 97b2-8); F,,� � fr�N:1PJtto i§: 1!I 'P:k �§!lf.E!p�!U pJfmo F,,� .li��N:1PJtto i§:�}II:&E�iI**�o E!P/\�N:tto F,,� 1�i'N:1PJtt o i§:!lf.:f� (l!* ���Wo � M��Mtto i§:E!P =.���*m_��o � ��Mtt o i§:� F>!i }�, 1It'liltt� /f' ;f,;, o F,,� JEi'N:1PJtt o i§:� J.t1m IM*�1J�o F,,� � i'N: 1PJ tt o �pJf92o ;l: � a F,,� * 920'P:k920 i'N:1PJ tt a �11t �jff :ffl il *1Jt 'i!f yHK8:t: a :O�'-1IJ 17 1!J1! r:p E! P :fit .lii'N:tt�HoJlk .Jlt tt o F,,� e 920i'N:1PJ tt o �1JtfJi1frE:�OJ �i1irmJlj �m<JEo E!P:fit.lii'N: tt � 920 Jlkll:t tt a F,,� JHo i'N: 1PJ tt a �:ft£fJJ _,*J1!]J � _tj
74 sraddhendriya, vfrendriya, smrtfndriya, samiidhfndriya, prajfiendriya. 75 The Derge edition includes the phrase pho dan mo 'i dban po phan tshun between kho na 'i and 'khrig. 76 The Peking edition repeats the word dban po here. I omit it on the basis of the Derge.
77 Corrected from bdun on the basis of the Derge. 78 Corrected from las on the b �sis of the Derge.
Abhidharmakosabha:;ya 38 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdesa
2.2) Vasubandhu says that the word adi in verse 4 indicates an alternate explanation (to the one given first in the Bha:;ya) of the ascending order of the three anasrava indriyas: 1) anajfiatamajfiasyamfndriya is instrumental in the destruction of darsanaheyaklesas; 2) ajfiendriya is instrumental in the destruction of bhilvanaheyaklesas; 3) ajfiatavfndriya is instrumental with respect to dr:;!a
dharmasukhavihara.
adisabdo 'nyaparyayadyotanartha� / katamo 'nya� paryaya� / darsanaheya klesaparihillJ-a1!l praty ajfiasyamfndriyasyadhipatyam / bhilvanaheyakletaprahillJ-a1!l praty ajfiendriyasya / dr:;!adharmasukhavihara1!l praty ajfiatavfndriyasya / vimukti prftisukhasa1!lvedanad iti (Pradhan: 40.5-7; T. 1558: 1 4a2 1-24; Poussin v. 1 : 1 10; Sarp.ghabhadra attributes this explanation to the sutra-master [T. 1562: 378c3-5], criticizes it, saying that it would result in many problems regarding the order of accomplishments on the Path [T. 1562: 378c5-1O], and gives his own explanation [T. 1562: 378c10-379a3]. In the course of this, he again refers to the sutra-master, who, he says, would disagree with Sarp.ghabhadra' s mentioning, with respect to ajiiatavfndriya, the visa1!lyogaprapti of the kletas that are destroyed by vajropamasamildhi [T. 1562: 379al-3]; this must be an allusion to Vasu bandhu's rejection ofprapti as a real dharma. f9
7 9 This discussion is very intricate. However, it seems as though Sarp.ghabhadra feels that Vasubandhu is ignoring the complicated structure of the Vaibha�ika marga, particularly the distinction between anantaryamarga, in which the kletas are abandoned, and vimuktimarga, in which their visa1!lyogaprapti arises (see Cox 1995: 89). The V aibha�ika understandin& of anantaryamarga and vimuktimarga is specifically refuted in the Ch 'eng wei-shih lun (T. 1545: 52b26-c 1 ; Poussin 1 928- 1 929: 641).
YogiiciirabhL"lmi
39
2.2) The Viniscayasa7[!grahal}f on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhiimi defines these three indriyas: 1) aniijfiiitamiijfiiisyamfndriya is the five indriyas (beginning with sraddhii) of one who has abandoned kuialadharmachanda and is in the midst of prayoga-miirga; 2) iijfiendriya is the five indriyas of one who is at a stage between. attaining srota-iipattiphala and vajropamasamiidhi; 3) iijfiiitiivfndriya is the five indriyas of one who is at a stage between attaining arhatship and nirupadhise�anirviil}a.
ses rab kyi dban po 'i don gan ie na I smras pa I ses bya 'i de kho na 'o I mi ses pa kun ses par byed pa 'i dban po'i don gan ie na l smras pa l bden pa mnon par rtogs pa la brtson pa dge ba 'i chos la 'dun80 pa nas bzun ste I sbyor ba 'i lam 8 1 thams cad la dban po lna 'i don gan yin pa de fiid 'di 'i don yin par blta bar bya 'o I kun ses pa 'i dban po 'i don gan ie na I smras pa I rgyun du iugs pa 'i 'bras bu nas bzun ste' I rdo rje Ita bu'i tin ne 'dzin gyi bar du dban po lna 'i don gan yin pa de fiid 'di 'i don yin par blta bar bya 'o I kun ses pa dan ldan pa 'idban po 'i don gan ie na I smras pa I mi slob pa 'i lam nas bzun ste I phun po 'i lhag ma med pa 'i mya nan las 'das pa 'i dbyins kyi bar du dban po lna 'i don gan yin pa de fiid 'di 'i don gan yin par blta bar bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 97b5-8); r,maf�1'ilJft 9 �PJT9;D �Ji:'o r", *9;DflHD f�1'ilJiRo �11��j'ifm.*qtE�¥!i:tXe*o :fj{\ _W1Jft:� r:p �p qlU1i;fl� i" 9;D � JJt ft o r", e 9iDf�fliJiR o �tEfl[ i.ilE * )J � J1t f,'fi]IJ Pf« 5:Eo �P11U1i;fliRi"9;D � lI:t :i] o r", /� 9iD f�1liJ :i] o �qtE19J1WiJj!:�)J�1Wi�i��Wo � P 11U1if�:i]i"9;D �lI:t iR (T. 1579: 6 15c26-6 1 6a3) 82
The Viniicayasa7[!grahal}f on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhiimi also explains the purpose (so-i ch 'u m1t<:�, ched du) of each of these three indriyas: 1) aniijfiiitam iijfiiisyamfndriya is for the purpose of obtaining the first three sriimal}yaphalas; 2) iijfiendriya is for the purpose of obtaining the sriimal}yaphala of the asaik�a up to vajropamasamiidhi; 3) iijfiiitiivfndriya is for the purpose of permanently destroying the basis (so-i mft<:, phun po) of dr�tadharmasukhavihiira immedi ately upon obtain ing permanent destruction of the kle§as.
mi ses pa kun ses par byed pa 'i dban po ci iig gi ched du ie na I smras pa I dge sbyon gi tshul gi bras bu dan po dan gfiis pa dan gsum pa 'thob pa 'i ched du 'o I kun ses pa 'i dban po ci iig gi ched du ie na I smras pa I rdo rje Ita bu 'i tin ne 'dzin gyi bar dan mi slob pa 'i dge sbyon gi tshul gyi 'bras bu 'thob pa 'i ched du ' 0 I kun 80 Corrected from bdun on the basis of the Derge. 8 1 Corrected from las on the basis of the Derge. 82 This is a portion of the passage quoted in the previous item; it has been . . reproduced here for the sake of convemence.
Abhidharmakosabhii-?ya 40
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdesa
YogileilrabMimi 41
ses pa dan ldan pa 'i dban po ei zig gi ehed du ze na / smras pa / bar chad med par non mons pa span ba mnon du bya ba dan / tshe 'di la bde bar gnas pa dan ph un po 'gag pa 'i ehed du 'o (Yogileilrabhiimi; zi l OOb3-5); r"� *�D 2.2 continued)
��.�m*.o �mW . = . � � M * Zm*.o � B � .�m*. o � � � � � � � •• � M *mZm*.o � A�.�m*.o �. � m � � E 1'F�lnll, ¥t�1HJT11X7i(imtZpfi1:&. (T. 1579: 6 1 6c26-6 17a1)
Abhidharmako§abha�ya 42 Chapter 2 lndriyanirdeia
2,3) According to Vasubandhu, jfvitendriya is not the result of karma in the case of the arhat, who can prolong his life by the power of his meditation, 83
samadhiprabhava eva sa te�aY[! tadr§o yena purvakarmajaY[! ca sthitikalavedham indriyamahabhutanaY[! vyavartayanty apurvaY[! ca samadhijam avedham ak�ipanti / tasman na tajjfvitendriyaY[! vipakaY[! tato 'nyat tu vipakaJ:t (Pradhan: 43 .20-22; T. 1558: 15b27-29 ; Poussin v, 1 : 121 ; Sarp.ghabhadra attributes this explanation, to the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 380c2 1-23] and criticizes it, alluding to Vasubandhu' s arguments against the reality of the cittaviprayuktasarrlSkara, jfvitendriya [T, 1562: 380c23-38 1 a4l r
83 This position is found in the Vibha�a, where it is criticized (T. 1 545 : 657b l-5), 84 For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Jaini 1958a, Jaini points out that the position adopted by Vasubandhu is the same as the Mahasarp.ghika position criticized in the Kathavatthu, and he refers to the Abhidharmadfpa, which condemns Vasu , bandhu for holding a Mahayana view (550-551),
Yogiieiirabln7mi 43
2.3) According to the ViniseayasalJ1grahal!-f on the Paiieavijiiiinakiiyamanobhflmi, arhats, Tathagatas, and bodhisattvas have a special type of jfvitendriya that gives them the power to extend their iiyuf:1salJ1skiiras. This jfvitendriya is defined as "proceeding due to own-force." All other types are defined as "not proceeding due to own-force." This seems to be equivalent to the distinction made in the Abhidharmakosabhii0la between jfvitendriya that is not vipiika (that of the arhat) and ordinary jfvitendriya, which is vipiika.
dgra beom pa dan de biin gsegs pa dan byan chub sems dpa ' gan dag tshe 'i 'du byed gton ba dan / spel bar spyod pa dag ni srog gi dban po la ran gii5 dban bsgyur ba yin no / de las gian pa dag ni ran gis dban bsgyur ma yin par rig par bya 'o (Yogiieiirabhflmir' zi 26al-2); � �iiJ*ii����MQ *��ii!fJli o nN';::fT J:j:! Jj£1.@ § 1:EPJT1ffr;-1'�o :is § �:1J *' o ¥9;DPJT�:iS :JF § � :1J *, (T. 1 579: 587b7-9)
According to the CintiimayfBhflmi, the Buddha obtains mastery ofsamtidhi (samiidhi vasitii), which he uses to discard his former iiyuf:tsalJ1skiiras and to produce a new body.
gan gi tshe de biin gsegs pa nan du dgyes par mdzad ein dge sbyon du 'gyur ba la brten nas / tin ne 'dzin de la mna briie d pas na /ji ltar thugs miiam par giag pa yin biin du / sku tshe 'i 'du byed rnams ies bya ba srid pa 'i 'du byed rnams spans te / de dag spans pas mtshuns pa 'i gzugs kyi sku 'byun ba de dag mtshuns pa ma yin pa 'i min gi sku 'byun ba Mad ste (Yogiieiirabhflmi dzi 292a5-7); X1�7F:m i*J ;f,z •• & � � • • ���o � � § 1:E o � � G :1J fflS.ff&K1fffo �*.� �J>e :3r :1:. o :W-ltJlE�;!t:iS :3r :1:. o :W-ltJ/f�tf<:1fi!tlllj (T. 1 579: 383c7- 1 1 )
85
Corrected from ran gi o n the basis o f the Derge.
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 44 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeia
2.4) According to Vasubandhu, the Vaibha:�ikas say that mahiibhutas manifest their existence by their activity: the activity of a certain mahiibMita in a substance (mass) is stronger; therefore, only that one mahiibhata is perceived, although the other three mahiibhatas also exist in the substance.
yady atra pa!utamalJ'l prabhiivata udbhatalJ'l tasya tatropalabdhib / sacfn7nfkaliipa sparsavat saktulaval)acan:zarasavac ca / kathalJ'l punas te�u s9iistitvalJ'l gamyate / karmataJ:t salJ'lgrahadhrtipaktivyahaniit (Pradhan: 53.9- 1 0 T. 1 5 5 8 ; 1 8c4-6; Poussin v. 1 : 146; but according to Sarp.ghabhadra [who discusses this in his comment on Chapter One verse 35], Vasubandhu misrepresents Vaibha:�ika doctrine [T. 1562: 355b 15-18]. The true Vaibha�ika position is that a given mahiibhata is perceived because its substance is greater than that of the other mahiibhatas [T. 1562: 355b1 8-23 ] . A bit later, Sarp.ghabhadra again accuses Vasubandhu of not recognizing the true Vaibha:�ika position regarding this question [T. 1562: 355c27-29] . In fact, the Vibhii�ii includes both opinions [T. 1545 : 682c23683a15l . Vasubandhu offers another opinion, which Yasomitra labels "Sautrantika" [Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii 1 25 .6] , to the effect that the unperceived mahiibhatas exist as seeds : bfjatas te�u te�iilJ'l bhiivo na svarapata ity apare / santy asmin diiru skandhe vividhii dhiitava iti vacaniif6 [Pradhan 53 . 14-15; T. 1558: 1 8c9-1 1 ] .)
86 The source of this quotation is SalJ'lyuktiigama (T. 99 [sutra no 494] : 129a3 ; see , Pasadika 1 986: 3 1).
Yogiiciirabhami 45
2.4) According to the Vin l§cayasa1!lgrahalJ-l on the Cintiimayfprajfiii Bhami, all the mahiibhatas and upiidiiyarapas are present simultaneously, but only one is active at a given time; the others are present in the form of seeds that can become active when changing conditions warrant.
ran gi sa bon de las grub pa gan dag yin pa de dag ni ran gi las byed pa dag yin no / de dag kyan rgyur byas pa 'i gzugs dali lhan cig gi dnos pos tha mi dad par 'jug pa dag yin te / de dan 'bra ba 'i rgyu las grub pa yin pa 'i phyir ro / thams cad du yan thams cad 'dres sin ro gcig pa 'i gon bu Ita bu yin gyi / phye dan 'bru dan / nor bu 'i phun po Ita bu ni ma yin no / 'dod pa 'i khams na ni gzugs 'dus pa gcig tu sra ba gan yin pa de la sa 'i khams dan / gzugs dan dri dan ro 'i khams dag las byed pa yin no / gzugs kyi khams na ni gzugs kyi khams kho na las byed pa yin no / lhag ma chu dan / me dan / rlun dan / sgra 'i khams sa bon du gyur pa de dan 'breI pa dag ni rkyen dag la bltos pa yin te / de ltar na chu dan / me dan / rlun gi min can 'dus pa dag la go rims ci rigs par blta bar bya ' 0 / de la nan gi gzugs 'dus pa la ni skra dan / spu la sogs pa 'i rab tu dbye bas / sa la sogs pa 'i khams thams cad las byed pa dan bcas par snan ste / mdo las ji skad gsuns pa biin no / phyi rol la ni sa la sogs pa 'i 'dus pa so sor ci rigs par blta bar bya 'o / de dag kyan rkyenji lta ji Ita bu dag dan phrad pa 'i 'bras bu de lta de Ita bu 'i rgyur gyur pa yin te / 'di Ita ste / dper na sin skam po legs par gtsubs pa las me 'byun ba dan / tshon mo sten dan / ro fie dan / lcags dan / dnul la sogs pa b�bar 'gyuc. b9 Ita bu 'o f[ogiiciirabham�: zi 2�9a3-b l ) ; !\!l1� El Of! TPJT� *mo x � *m���� o m�@�li�� . o � *m. � � ��o � - � lII ]1!t§ l!J;:A�-�Jjgo �F�U�ID*FtA$�o X1J�'- rPJ �� � r:p o pjE� ±m JT!. §� 1t* ffl * 1J�'ilxJT!.i)j;��'i1FP*JT!.1t * o 1J�'� JT!. r:p 1.§.� E§, JT!. §� 1t*ffl tf<7k)( .&�.JT!.o ��.T�m g � o ]l!m�. � � � * o � £�**.� � � r:p o � . �m*.i)j;.o � � � r:p - � ±m�HJT!.�**A��o � � ��m Of! i!f:5JiJ o fJf�Mu *,l[o 'i 9:a 1J�)7H��%5JiJ ±1f1�Hl �o 1lt*1l��u £�u £�*�i!f: 5JU o J'!P 1UNt�u £�a £ * y*� � o '2'�afp:J}t1!UZ:*J'!P1��*o Xfrp s iJl\;ll& ;ll£ 3i:jl� �?lJ i%�y�J'!P iJiE (T. 1579: 666b 13-26) 0
0
Abhidharmako§abha�ya 46
Chapter 2 lndriyanirde§a
2.5) Vasubandhu objects to the Vaibha�ika definition of the ku§alamahabhamika, upek:ja, as the non-turning of the mind toward an object, pointing out that this would be a case of a dharma coexisting with its opposite, namely manaskara, which is the turning of the mind toward an object and which is present at every moment of consciousness. He seems to be making the point that these dharmas must not exist, or be active, at the same moment (see Poussin v. 1: 1 60).
katham idanfm etad yok�ate ! tatraiva citte abhogatmako manaskaro 'ntibhogatmakti cope�eti ! nanu coktaf!! durjfiana e�af!! vi§e�a iti ! asti hi nama duljfianam apijfiayate ! idaf!! tu khalv atidurjnanaf!! yad virodhe 'py avirodha iti! anyatrabhogo 'nyatranabhoga iti ko 'tra virodha ! na tarhldanfm ektilambana� sarve saf!!prayukta� prapnuvanti ! evaf!!jatryakam atranyad apy ayasyatfti yas tasya naya� so 'syapi veditavya� (Pradhan: 55. 17-2 1 ; T. 1558: 19b1 8-24; Poussin v. 1 : 159- 1 60; Saq1ghabhadra, in his comment on a later verse [Chapter Two verse 28] , attributes this objection to the siltra-master [T. 1562: 392b 12- 1 3] and explains that, like the pair, vfrya, which is not resting while doing good, and upek�a, which is equanimity while abstaining from doing bad, manasktira and upe�a are not really opposites [T. 1562: 392b8-12].)
Yogiieiirabhami 47
2.5) According to the Pafieavijiiiinakiiyasamprayuktii Bhami, all of the five mahiibhamika dharmas accepted by Yogacara coexist with the five consciousnesses, but they are active one by one; furthermore, they all arise from their own seeds.
sahiiyaJ:! katamaJ:!/ tatsahabhasamprayuktiii eaitasii dharmiiJ:!/tadyathii/manaskiiraJ:! spario vedanii sal?1jiiii eetaneti / ye 'py anye eak�urvijiiiinena sahabhasal?1prayuktiiS eaitasii dhiirmiis te punar ekiilambanii anekiikiiriiJ:! sahabhuvai eaikaikavrttayas ea / sarve ea svabfjiin nirjiitiiJ:! samprayuktiiJ:! siikiiriiJ:! siilambaniiJ:! siisrayiiJ:! (Yogiieiira bhami: 5. 12- 1 5) ; grogs gmi fe na / de dan lhan eig 'byun fin mtshuns par ldan pa sems las 'byun ba 'i ehos rnams te / 'di Ita ste / yid la byed pa dan / reg pa dan / tshor ba dan / 'du ses dan sems pa'o / sems las byun ba 'i ehos gfan gan dag mig gi rnam par ses pa dan / lhan cig 'byun fin mtshuns par ldan pa de dag ni / dmigs pa geig pa rnam pa du ma ste / lhan eig gi 'byun ba dag kyan re re 'byun la / thams cad kyan ran gi sa bon las nes par 'byun ba / mtshuns par ldan pa / dmigs pa dan beas pa / rnam pa dan beas pa / gnas dan beas pa dag go (Yogiieiirabhami : dzi 3b3-6); jrfo FHobU # -IRWJlr-B
=rejrfo § *t 'llli' '''''' ' 'h'*.)+ ,h'''"' llc"''''- ffi''' "",i'§ EI3 li1. PAh B =;lliJ§ -io;-t i:i � IR{x/fj 1['§ )}� a'El {}.FY1 fA l :Z:; O Btl iJF,1 o -I F ,'5�}'j!if) X .."' t..::.. ..., a })(.. I[,f;: SJ..'
,l:
A similar statement is made in the Manobhami regarding manovijiiiina (Yogiieiira bhami: 1 1 . 14-2 1 ; Yogiieiirabhami,: dzi 6b5-7a3 ; T. 1579: 280bI3-21).88
87
This example is in the case of eak�urvijiiiina, but the same applies to the remaining four vijiiiinas. 88
According to the Viniscayasal?1grahal}f, upek�ii is not a real entity; because it is composed of alobha, adve�a, amoha, and vfrya, upek�ii is simply a designation for the klesa-removing quality of those dharmas ( Yogiieiirabhami,: zi 63b8-64a2; T. 1579: 602b22c27). I am not sure whether there is any relation between this statement ' and Vasubandhu' s argument.
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 48 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdesa
2.6) Vasubandhu mentions the opinion of others that ahrfkya is lack of shame with respect to oneself, while anapatrapya is lack of shame with respect to others. He cites an objection, namely that it is impossible to think simultaneously about oneself and others, but he defends the opinion of others, saying that ahrfkya and anapatrapya are not intended to be simultaneous .
anye punar ahuJ:! I atmapek�aya do�air alajjanam ahrfkya/'[! parapek�aya 'napa trapyam iti I evam api dye apek�e yugapat katha/'[! setsyataJ:! Ina khalucyate yugapad atmanal?� para/'[! copek�ata ity api tv asty asau kadacid alajja ya atmanam apek�ama1}asyapi pravartate sa ahrikyam l asti ya param apek�amalJasya pravartate sa 'napatrapyam (Pradhan: 59.24-60.3; T. 1558: 21 a17-2 1 ; Poussin v. 1 : 17 1 ; Sarpghabhadra says that the objection to this opinion cited by the siltra-master reflects his misunderstanding [T. 1562: 393b23-24] because the real problem with the opinion is that it does not treat ahrfkya and anapatrapya as completely separate dhannas [T. 1562: 393b25].) 89
8 9 The Vibhii�a (T. 1 545 : 179c 13- 15) inc1udes this as one of many explanations of the difference between ahnkya and anapatrapya. The proviso in the . case of the immediately preceding separate definitions of each dharma (T. 1545: 179a17-18; 179b1314), that they differ in wording but not in essence, may also apply here. For similar definitions, see Abhidhannam.rta, Upasanta' s *Abhidhannahrdaya, and *Sa/'[!yuktabhi dhannahrdaya (T. 1553: 972b24-25; T. 1552: 88 1bl-2; T. 155 1 : 847b19-20). DharmasrI's ""Abhidhannahrdaya is somewhat different and seems to reverse the definitions (T. 1550: 8 1 7b21 -22; Willemen 1 975: 62). See also the *Tattvasiddhisastra (T. 1 646: 3 1 9b22-23). Poussin notes ( 1 97 1 , v. 1: 171 n. 2) that Vasubandhu adopts' this definition in the Paiicaskandhaka (si 15b5-6).
Yogiiciirabln7mi 49
2.6) The ViniicayasaYJ1.grahGl;rl on the Samiihita Bhami defines iihrfkya as lack of shame with respect to oneself and anapatriipya as lack of shame with respect to others.
ji ltar na no tsha med pa dan / khrel med pa yin ie na / bdag Hid dam gian las brten te / no tsha med pas / bsams biin du fies pa byed pa dan / fies pa byun na yan chos biin du phyir mi phyed pa dan / 'thab krol byed pa dan / mtshan90 'dru bar byed pa dan / rtsod par phyed pa dan / 'gyec! 1 par byed pa yin no (Yogiicarabhiimi,: zi 174b3-4); :z:;; ro.m.m o n . � � ��.�.�.%o �� �mo m B � � � � W .o H::f.iHi�i[��JWlll ;@ �� (T. 1579: 644c8-1O)
90 Corrected from 'tshan on the basis of the Derge. .
I 9 1 Corrected from ' gyid on the basis of the Derge.
Abhidhannako§abhii�ya 50 Chapter 2 Indriyanirde§a
2.7) Vasubandhu questions the reality of the cittaviprayuktasalJ1skiira, prapti, which is accepted by the Sarvastivadins .
praptir namasti kilJ1cit bhavantaram iti (Pradhan: 63 .3 ; T. 155 8 : 22a26; Poussin v. 1 : 1 8 1 ; Saqlghabhadra attributes this question to the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 397a12- 1 3 ; Cox 1995: 1 87] and embarks on a long defense of the reality of prapti and refutation of the bfja theory [T. 1562: 397a13-398c1 ; Cox 1995: 1 87-197].)
·
YogiieiirabhL7mi 51
2.7) The ViniseayasalJ1-graha1Jlon thePaneavijniinakiiyamanobhami states that priipti is only a prajnapti, not a real dharma.
'thob pa dan rned pa dan ldan pa gan ze na / mdor bsdu na 'byun ba 'i rkyen gyis yons su zin ein sa bon yons su rtag pa ni 'thob pa zes bya ba ste / mam grans des na 'thob pa yan btags pa 'i yod pa yin par rig par bya 'o ( Yogiieiirabhamir' zi 24b7-8); m*�M�.�.o � � _m o � •• ��. � � m � a � o � � � � . � 1�:¥:�1f (T. 1579: 586c25-27)
It goes on to explain priipti in terms of bfja. thob pa de yan mdor bsdu na mam pa gsum du rig par bya '0 / sa bon dan ldan pa dan / dban dan ldan pa dan / kun tu 'byun bar ldan pa '0 / de la re zig non mons pa can dan lun du ma bstan pa dan / skyes nas thob pa 'i ehos ma btsal bar kun tu 'byun ba gan yin pa de dag ni sa bon re zig gi gnas kyi nams pas kyan nams par ma byas la / 'phags pa 'i lam gyis kyan yan dag par ma beom pa dan / dge ba mams kyi yan 'di Ita ste / dper na dge ba 'i rtsa ba kun tu bead pa mams kyi ltar log par Ita bas nams par ma byas pa gan yin pa de ni sa bon dan ldan pa zes bya ste / 'di ltar ji srid du de 'i sa bon de nams par ma byas zin yan dag par ma beom pa de srid du de non mons pa can la sogs pa 'i ehos kun tu 'byun ba 'am / kun tu 'byun ba ma yin pa de92 dang dan ldan pa zes bya ba 'i phyir ro / dge ba 'i ehos mnon par 'du bya bas bskyed pa mams dan lun du ma bstan pa de dag kha eig gi 'byun ba 'i rkyen gyis rgyu sa bon yons su rtas pa yons su zin pa ni dbali dali ldan pa zes bya '0 / da ltar gyi chos mams mlion sum gyi dlios pos rali gi mtshan nid kyis 'grub pa ni kun tu 'byuli ba dali ldan pa zes bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhamir' zi 25a5-b2); . J;D Jl:t1�_1f=flo -1'1+ �.o = @ ��.o =���.o ��1f�ffl$R.�$��o �$� � � ffl ®���o �R8+�*a�.�� �m�o � * a � � � ��w��a ;r� J'?:jJ!1:k����D IitIi�tR�o �D:¥:� a fl+$;J7,t o pJT£J, �1iiJo �.£J1:tfl+*1&: t�1:ko *r&:lkWo m a,*1&:�ffl�1! o ��1T���1T � m � � J7,to t$c�1JD1T � � � $ o & -%.�$�.�.�� . � 8+o � @ � �.o ���R$ @ t§ �1ltr"'o � m1T$;J7,t (T. l579: 587al O-20)
92 Corrected from kun tu ' byUli ba de on the basis of the Derge and the Chinese.
Abhidharmakosabhii.Jya 52 Chapter 2 Indriyanirde1a
2.8) According to Vasubandhu, when the seeds of kle1as are damaged either in the iirya or by the laukikamiirga, just like seeds burned by fire that change and cannot produce fruit, then that person is called prahll/-akle§a.
ato 'gnidigdhavrfhivad abfjfbhUte iisraye kle1iiniil'[! prahfl/-akle1a ity ucyate / upahata bfjabhave vii laukikena miirgel/-a (pradhan: 63.20-2 1 ; T. 1558: 22b26-28 ; Poussin v. 1: 1 83-1 84; this statement is quoted by Sarpghabhadra [T. 1562: 3 98a28-b2; Cox 1995: 1 95], who questions Vasubandhu' s use o f the simile o f burned seeds in th e case o f both the iirya and the ordinary person [T. 1562: 398b2-9; Cox 1 995 : 1 95-1 96] . This is one of several statements about bfja that Sarpghabhadra later identifies as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 398b2 1 ; Cox 1 995: 197] .)
Yogiiciirabhumi 53
2.8) The ViniScayasalpgrahalJf on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyarnanobhumi compares seeds burned by fire, which are pennanently rendered unproductive, with the seeds of internal dharmas that have been destroyed by the iirya.
'phags pa nan thos 'jig rten las 'das pa 'i lam gyis 'dod pa 'i 'dod chagsi3 dan bral ba dan I khams gsum pa'i 'dod chags dan bral pa 'i bar thob pa ni de ltar des khams gsum na spyod pa 'i chos non mons pa can de dag thams cad kyi sa bon thams cad kyi thams cad du yan dag par beam pa yin no I de ci'i phyir ie na I 'di ltar 'phags pa nan thos de ni tshe 'di nid la 'dod chags dan bral ba de las yons su nams sin I sa 'og rna pa 'i kun nas non mons pa snon du byed mi srid pa dan I sa gon ma dag tu skyes pa de nas si 'i phos nas yan sa 'og ma mams su skye ba yan mi srid pa 'i phyir ro l 'di lta ste dper na 'bru nas la sogspa 'i sa bon nam mkha ' 'am i sa gii skam par giag pa mams ni mi skye yan sa bon nid med pa ni ma yin no I de dag nid mer kun tu gduns na thams cad kyi thams cad du sa bon nid med pa biin du I sa bon mams kyi nams pa dan yan dag par beam pa 'di 'i tshul yan de biin du rig par bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhumfj, zi 17al-5); ::5'�� .::r- EI3 /:1:H!!: :@: JIlt�w.� o JJ £
*1� JIlt =w.il'X o jJ � - W = gr.*i'5���i.::r- � (Jbk�o 1iiJw'ttco EI3 � � .::r- 1J'" ;m it 9=J /f«tlHf:1t£JIlt � ;if!£j@ T i&�JH� ;m Wi !!lZ1:.J:: � ul'/ft£1:f1t£1BUi E. Jl 1:. T � o "j(o���H1iJ1.1i.::r- * iI:��!!lZm-'t:�o !ilft/f1:.:5f�F/f1i.::r- o ::5' )( PJft�jJ ���/fM1i.::r- o i*I �1i.::r- t�17t7k�:@:�ijJ;jJ (T. 1579: 5 84a2- 1 0) 0
93 Corrected from
0
lam gyi 'dod chags on the basis of the Derge and the Chinese. 4
94 Corrected from med on the basis of the Derge and the Chinese.
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 54
Chapter 2 lndriyanirdeia
2.9) According to Vasubandhu, even in the samucchinnakusalamala, the seeds of the kusalamalas are not completely destroyed.
tatrayatnabhavibhir asrayasya tadbljabhavanupaghatat samanviigata upaghiitad asamanvagata ucyate samucchinnakusalamalaJ:t / tasya tapaghato mithyad!�.tya veditavya/:! / na tu khalu kusalaniil'J1 dharmaIJal'J1 bljabhavasyatyantal'J1 santatau samudghata/:! (Pradhan: 63 .23-64.2; T. 1558: 22c6-7; Poussin v. 1 : 1 84; the last part of this statement is quoted by Sarp.ghabhadra [T. 1562: 398a9; Cox 1995 : 193- 194] , who argues that Vasubandhu should not refer to the destruction of seeds, which are merely prajiiapti and hence do not exist to be destroyed, and mentions a satra that says that the kusalam(ii£ls are in fact completely destroyed [T. 1562: 398a9- 19; Cox 1995: 1 94] . It is one of several statements about blja that Sarp.ghabhadra later identifies as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 398b2 1 ; Cox 1995 : 197].)
Yogacarabhumi 55
2.9) The Manobhfimi defines samucchinnakusalamula, specifying that the destruction of the kusalamulas does not include the destruction of their seeds. (See also item 2.42.)
katharJl kusalamL7lani samucchinatti / tfk�lJendriyasyadhimatralJ� papasayadhyacara dharmasamanvagatataya tadanulomamitralabhataya tasya ca mithyadr�!i paryavasthanasya ghanfkaralJaparyantopagamanataya sarvapapadhyacare�v asarJlkocakaukrtyapratiiabhataya ca / tatra bljam api kusalamalarJl / alobhadayo 'pi kusalamalarJl / kusalamL7lasamudacaravirodhena santanasthapanakusalamL7la samucchedana95 bljoddharalJataya ca ( YogacarabhL7mi: 1 4 . 1 8 - 1 5 . 3 ) ; ji Itilr dge ba 'i rtsa ba rnams rgyun 'chad par byed ce na / dbmi po rno la sdig pa 'i bsam pa sas chen po la Ihag par spyod pa 'i chos dan Idan pa dan / de dan mthun pa 'i grogs rfied pa dan / log par Ita ba 'i kun nas dkris pa de Ihun stug par byed pas / mthar thug par 'gro ba daJi / sdig pa thams cad la Ihag par spyod pa dag la mi Idog cin / 'gyod par96 mi byed par 'gyur ro / de la sa bon yan dge ba 'i rtsa ba yin la / ma chags pa la sogs pa yan dge ba 'i rtsa ba yin te / dge ba 'i rtsa ba kun tu spyod pa dan mi mthun pas rgyud gnas par byed Gin / dge ba 'i rtsa ba gcod pas sa bon 'byin parJ7 byed do (YogacarabhL7mi,: dzi 8b8-9a3); �1jiJlWf�1�o �\!l fIj 1�:1§" ]jJtgJtJ: 0
� R� •• mfi��o � •• ����o �$�.�. OO �� � . � o �� -���fi $ � •• �o .a��o � IWf��o � $ ���� ��o ••• ��� �t*o i]. EtI'g;;· :lL �1T�1�o i'§ )lM§ *-i � 1Wf�1�o ?F 8vk=ljtlElfl:�px (T. 1579: 2 8 1 a22 28)98 -
95 The manuscript reads samucchedo na bljoddharaitaya. 96 Derge reads pas. 97 Derge reads pas. 98 However, there is a textual problem. The Tibetan translation states that by destroying the kusalamalas one destroys their seeds. The Sanskrit, as emended by Bhattacharya, seems tp agree with the Tibetan. But the manuscript, as Bhattacharya represents it in the note, would appear to agree with the Chinese.
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 56 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeia
2. 1 0) Vasubandhu says that a person is said to be endowed (samanviigata) with good dharmas produced by effort, once they have been produced, since the power (vasitva) to reproduce these dharmas is not damaged.
ye punar yatnabhiivinas tair utpannais tadutpattir vasitviivighiitiit santateJ:! samanviigata ucyate (Pradhan: 64.2; T. 1558: 22c7-9; Poussin v. 1 : 1 84; this statement is quoted by Sarp.gha bhadra [T. 1562: 398a20-21 ; Cox 1 995: 1 94] , who claims that Vasubandhu' s statement is inconsistent with his denial of the existence of future dharmas [T. 1562: 398a22-26; Cox 1995: 194- 195]. It is one of several statements about bija that Sarp.ghabhadra later identifies as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 398b2 1 ; Cox 1 995: 197].)
Yogacarabhiimi 57
The Viniscayasaf[lgrahal)f on the Paficavijfianakayamanobhiimi defines *vasitvasamanvagama as follows : it is the grown (matured?) seeds that are the cause comprising the condition (hetupratyaya?) for the arising of good dharmas produced by effort and a portion of neutral dharmas. 2. 1 0)
dge ba 'i chos mfwn par 'du bya bas bskyed pa rnams dan [un du ma bstan pa de dag kha cig gi 'byun ba 'i rkyen gyis rgyu sa bon yons su rtas pa yons su zin pa ni dban dan [dan pa ies bya 'o (Yogacarabhamif" zi 25a8-b l); ::s:1J01T?JTc'ti'yto lJ.. -5t$li�c.ytc't*,�?JTm5tj:(li � lN fITo 1:; § :tt gj(; R,it (T. 1579: 587a1 8 - 1 9)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 58
Chapter 2 IndriyanirdeSa
2. 1 1 ) Vasubandhu defines bfja as nothing more than niimariipa that is capable of producing result immediately (in the future) or later.
kif!1. punar idaf!1. bfjaf!1. niima / yan niimariipaf!1. phalotpattau samarthaf!1. sii�iit piiraf!1. paryel)a vii (Pradhan: 64.4-5; T. 1558: 22c12-13; Poussin v. 1: 185; this statement is quoted by Smp.ghabhadra [T. 1562: 398b l l ; Cox 1995: 196] and refuted [T. 1562: 398b 12; Cox 1995: 196] . It is one of several statements about bTja that Smp.ghabhadra later identifies as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 398b2 1 ; Cox 1995: 197].)
YogiiciirabhLlmi
2. 1 1 )
59
The Sriivakabhiimi identifies bfja with the �atj.iiyatanas or iisraya.
' 0 na rigs de 'i ran biin ji ita bu ie na / de ni ius las khyad par du gyur pa dan / skye mched drug gis zin pa dan / chos fiid kyis thab pa dan / thog ma med pa 'i dus nas brgyud de 'ons pa de ita bu yin te / gan la 'di ita ste / rigs dan I sa bon dan / khams dan / ran biin ies bya ba 'i min gi rnam grans 'di dag yod pa de ni rigs ies bya 'o (Y�iiciirabhiimii wi 2b l-3); rp� �jt}l�i�1iiT G:o ;,g: �it1±?Ji'iR¥�U ;llk 1§ 0 fr. . .�mo ��� � ••• *$.��o ������ � � o �� .�.�W '1'1 0 ;llk � �l �i (T. 1579: 395c24-27)99
�
sa bon de ni skye mched drug po de dag las logs sig na tha dad pa 'i mtshan fiid med do / thog ma med pa 'i dus nas brgyud de 'ons pa dan / chos fiid kyis thob pa 'i skye mched drug po de ita bur gyur pa 'i gnas skabs de la rigs dan / sa bon dan / khams dan / ran biin ies bya ba 'i min dan tha sfiad de dag btags par zad pas (YogiiciirabhLlmi,: wi 2b6-8); tlP.ot�u ;llk ;ri Jj;Jl:5t{sLfr..J-*llf o 11t � �5�.*${f* 1!m?Ji'1�0 ��Q ;llk ;1'lt& J-� § mo �U MI�ifl�W'I'1 (T. 1579 : 39 6a6 -9) 1 00 The ViniscayasalJ'lgrahal)f on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhiimi identifies bfja with the salJ'lskiims and says that it is not a separate entity. It also says that bfja and phala (result) are different words for the same thing.
de la sa bon gan ie na / sa bon 1 0 1 ni 'du byed rnams las logs sig na rdzas gian med de / 'du byed de ltar gyur pa dan / de ltar byun ba dan / de ltar gnas pa de dag fiid la sa bon ies bya bar zad de / 'bras bu ies kyan bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 29b l -2) ; 1jFx�I�:L:1iiT:J1=1Jf31Hr7.JU�l:'�m � ffiMI� 0 vl' :Jl=ti'<.o ?'!!; tl P �tqT�U ;llk �ltHu ;llk � :�tjQ ;llk * l!'iJo � 1.iMI�vl' � � * (T. 1579: 588c10- 1 2) 102
99 See Yamabe 1990. 1 00 Neither of these passages is extant in Sanskrit. 101 Corrected from sa la sa bon on the basis of the Derge and the Chinese.
�
102 See Yamabe 1990
Abhidharmakosabha(fya 60
Chapter 2 lndriyanirdesa
2. 1 2) Vasubandhu says that the means of producing result is a specific feature of the transformation of the series (sa1J1tatipari,!amavise(fa). He defines transformation as the change-in-state of the series, and he defines the series as the sa1J1skaras as causes and results in the three times. Finally, the Chinese translations 103 define specific feature as the capacity to produce a result immediately.
santatipari,!amavise(fat / ko 'yam pari,!amo nama / santater anyathatvam / ka ceya1J1 santatiJ.z / hetuphalabhrltas traiyadhvikaJ:t sa1J1sktiraJ:t (Pradhan: 64.5-6; T. 1558: 22c 1 3 - 1 5 ; Poussin v. 1 : 1 8 5 ; this statement is quoted by Sarp.ghabhadra [T. 1 562: 398b 1 2- 1 5 ; Cox 1 995: 1 96] , who says that Vasubandhu' s idea o f sa1J1tatipari,!amavise(fa i s inconsistent with his denial of the reality o f past and future [T. 1562: 398b15-17; Cox 1995: 196 ] . It is one of several statements about bfja that Sarp.ghabhadra later identifies as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 398b2 1 ; Cox 1 995: 1 97] .)
103 1PJ� il�J5 U B� * � rI3H:.:51tr1Ji� � (T. 1 5 5 8 : 22c 1 ; 1PJ€���**� r ' * 5) l3 �* �� (T. 1559: l 8 1b 17). This explanation is found neither in the Sanskrit nor in the Tibetan translation'.
Yogacarabhumi
61
2. 12) TheSavitarkadi-bhanii uses the phrase viSi�!a saY[!skarasantatif:t pravartate in explaining how good or bad actions produce desired or undesired results.
ye�u saY[lSkiire�u yac chubhiisubhaY[! karmotpannaniruddhaY[! bhavati tena hetunii tena pratyayena visi�!a sarrzskiirasantatiJ:r pravartate sa vasanety ucyate / yasyaJ:r prabandha patitayii i�!ani�!aphalarrz nirvartate (Yogacarabhumi: 128.2-4); 'du byed gan dag la dge ba dan mi dge ba 'i las skyes nas 'gags pa yod la / rgyu de dan rkyen des 'du byed bye brag can gyi rgyud 'jug pa de la ni bag chags ies bya ste / de rgyun du gnas pa las sdug pa dan mi sdug pa'i 'bras bu grub par 'gyur ba 'i phyir ( Yogaciirabhami,: dzi 75b4-5); ��:aNf1T i:j:l o iW1fi*7fi*-¥it, ;S:1:.;S:iffX; EI3 Jl:t lZSl *�1m1TJlJH'!}.1!�HJ:fiTI"t& iS � �o E8Jl:t1§*J:Pfim� �tto �7f�:!f!& cr. 1579: 305b3-6i04
104
See Yamabe 1 990.
Abhidharmako§abha�ya 62
2. 1 3)
Chapter 2 Indriyanirde§a
Vasubandhu approves of the Sautrantika definition of prthagjanatvam as the
saJ?'ltati in which the aryadharmas have not yet arisen.
evaJ?'l tu sadhu yatha sautrantikanam / kathaJ?'l ca sautrantikanam / anutpannarya dharmasantati/:t prthagjanatvam iti (Pradhan 66. 16- 1 8 ; T. 1558: 23c2-3; Poussin v. 1: 193; S arytghabhadra identifies the last sentence as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 399blO-1 1 ; Cox 1995: 203] and criticizes Vasubandhu for denying the real existence of prthagjanatvam [T. 1 562: 399b l l -c7; Cox 1995: 203_206] .) 105
105 Cox points out that Vasubandhu does not specifically state here that prthag janatvam is unreal, but she says that its unreality is implied in its definition as a saJ?'ltati, "which, as a composite entity, cannot be real" ( 1 995: 224 n. 1 09).
Yogacarabhumi 63
2. 1 3 ) The ViniscayasalJ'lgrahal}-lOn the Paficavijiianakiiyamanobhami defines P.rthag janatvam as a designation for the state in which the lokottara aryadharmas have not yet arisen.
so so 'i skye bo gnas skabs gali la gdags / mam pa du yod ce na / smras pa / 'jig rten las 'das pa 'phags pa 'i chos ma bskyed pa 'i gnas skabs la '0 ( Yogacarabhami,: zi 77a8);
F,M1t1PJ5HLJt3L��.'I1o Jl:tT��flo :g:11t*�€-1J.J i:B itt M¥*5J-15l o Jt3L�� 106 '11 (T. 1579: 607c8-9)
106 The other passage in the Vini.scayasalJ'lgrahal}-l that deals with the citta viprayuktasalJ'lskaras says that prthagjanatvam refers to the seeds of darsanaheya dharmas in the three worlds that have not yet been destroyed (Yogacarabhami; zi 26b l -2; T. 1579: 587b25-26). I have argued that there is no contradiction between the two definitions in the Yini.scayasalJ'lgrahal}-� or between this and the defInition favored by Vasubandhu in theAbhidharmakosabha?ya (Kritzer 1 999: 246-248).
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 64
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeia
2. 14) Vasubandhu quotes the opinion of the purviiciiryas, who say that the moment of consciousness after an unconscious trance arises from the body that is endowed with the sense organs because consciousness and the body endowed with the sense organs contain each other's seeds.
apare punar iihul} / katha,!! tiivad iirupyopapanniinii,!! ciraniruddhe 'p i rape punar api rapa,!! jiiyate / cittiid eva hi taj jiiyate na rupiit / eva'!! cittam apy asmiid eva sendriyiit kiiyiij jiiyate na cittiit / anyonyabfjaka,!! hy etad ubhaya,!! yad uta citta'!! ca sendriyas ca kiiya iti purviiciiryiil} (Pradhan: 72. 1 8-2 1 ; T. 1 5 5 8 : 25c22-262. 14; Poussin v. 1 : 212; Sarpghabhadra identifies this, without quoting it completely or exactly, as the opinion of the siltra master [T. 1562: 404a2-3 ; Cox 1 995 : 273] and criticizes it along with the seed theory that underlies it [T. 1562: 404a3-20; Cox 1 995: 273-274] .)
Yogliclirabhami 65
2. 14) The Viniscayasar!'lgraha/Jl on the Paiicavijiilinakiiyamanobhami states that, if the indriyas and the mahlibhatas that support them did not contain the seeds of consciousness and of the caittas, consciousness could not resume after the unconscious trances or birth in heaven.
gal te dban po gzugs can ran gi 'byun ba chen po dan bcas pa dag sems dan sems las byun ba 'i chos mams kyi sa bon dan ldan pa ma yin du zin na / 'di na 'gog pa la siioms par tugs pa dan / 'du ses med pa la siioms par tugs pa dan / 'du ses med pa 'i sems can lha mams kyi nan du skyes pa 'i mam par ses pa phyis yan 'byun bar mi 'gyur ba tig na 'byun ste / de Ita bas na dban po gzugs can sems dan / sems las byun bai sa bon dan ldan pa las brten te 'byun bar rig par bya ' 0 ( Yogliclirabhami,: zi 16a2-4); 11*;:S:�1I"fu;fJt&. § :k�lo ��,�,,�,pmITPJfjlj!�1lr Ai�-!i7EA1l\li ;to5! 7E�1l\li:m :xo 1ft a;f/f!l!�Wt� "§!! � o ?'f.;£, "§!! � o ;ljH)(&"9:D , �, , �,pmITjIj!�"fu ;flo .DJ Jl:t�if%i:1Ei:1�"§!! � (T. 1 579: 583c2_6) 107 0
107 Yamabe has identified the longer passage from which this is taken as the basis for the theory of the mutual perfuming of rapa and vijiilina i!1 the Abhidharmakosa bha�ya (2000a: 1 3 1 - 132).
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 66 Chapter 2
Indriyanirdda
Vasubandhu says that asa7J'ljiiisamiipatti and nirodhasamapatti are prajfiaptis, dharmas. What prevents thoughts from arising is not asa7J'ljfiisamiipatti or nirodhasamapatti but the samapatticitta (the moment preceding the trance state). Asa7J7.jfii samapatti and nirodhasamapatti are nothing more than the non-operation of thought 2. 1 5) not real
samapatticittenaiva tatpratibandhaniit /samapatticittam eva hi tac cittiintaraviruddham utpadyate yena kiiliintara7J7. cittasyiiprav[1timiitra7J'l bhavati / tadviruddhiisrayiipiidaniit / yii 'sau samapattir iti prajfiapyate tac ciiprav[1timatram na purvam iisfn na paSciit bhavati vyutthitasyeti sa7J7.sk!fii 'sau samiipatti/:t prajfiapyate / athavii iiSrayasyaiva tathii samiipiidana7J'l samapatti/:t (Pradhan: 73.6- 1 0 ; T. 1 5 5 8 : 26a1 3 - 1 9 ; Poussin v. 1 : 214; Srup.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the slitra-master [T. 1 562: 403c25-404al ; Cox 1 995: 272-273] and criticizes Vasubandhu' s statement that something can be sa7J'lS/q"ta while at the same time being merely provisional [T. 1 562: 404a21 -27; Cox 1995: 274-275] .)
Yogiiciirabhami 67
The ViniscayasaJT!grahaT}f on the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhami states that asaJT!jiiisamiipatti and nirodhasamiipatti are the mere suppression and paciiication, the mere non-operation, of citta and the caittas, and that they are prajiiaptis, not real things. 2. 1 5 )
de La 'du ses med pa'i siioms par 'jug pa gan ie na I dge rgyas kyi 'dod chags dan braL la I gon ma 'i 'dod chags dan ma bral ba ' i 'byun ba ' i 'du ses snon du btaTi ba ' i yid la byed pas sems dan sems las byun ba 'i chos mams 'gog pa tsam dan I iie bar ii iin mi 'byun ba tsam ni 'du ses med pa 'i siioms par 'jug pa ses bya ste I de yan ? taff..s pa 'i Y0;LpaJ.!n gyi !... ��zc;;. su� ni m� yin no (Yogiicii�';!; amii zi} 8�4�62; tl , *:z:;; {iiI $.Ii;tEl. JE jj Fl C'. 1'llbJ![ l� jl! * 1'llt.t jl! EE I±l JIlt;tEl. f'F ,w, �.7'G tIx pi, LA' pffPt iffX:lWpt/f'�o �::g $.li��;(Eo Jl:t�1�1f:JF'l'�m 1f (T. 1579: 592c 1 3 - 1 6) 0
0
0
de la 'gog pa 'i siioms par 'jug pa gan ie na I ci yan med pa 'i skye mched kyi 'dod chags dan bral gon ma 'i 'dod chags dan ma bral yan run I 'dod chags dan bral yan run ba 'i gnas pa 'i 'du ses snon du btan ba 'i yid la byed pas sems dan sems las byun ba 'i chos mams 'gog pa tsam dan I iie bar ii iin mi 'byun ba tsam ni 'gog pa 'i siioms par 'jug pa ies bya ste I 'jug pa 'i mam par ses pa tsam iie bar ii bar zad kyi I kun gii mam par ses pa iie bar ii ba ni ma yin no I de yan btags pa 'i yod pa yin gyi rdzas su ni ma yin par rig par bya 'o ( Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 39a3-6); 11[* �ro •• ;(Eo a C'..$.Iim1f •• *.�.o �tl C'. . EE k��� •• ��o �i'L"L,pffPt iffX: lW pt/f'"o �::g iffX:.;(Eo Jl:t ;(EPU� iffX: lW "�lo /f' �bffX: lW �iiJJ!iJU!� �o � 5;D Jl:t;(E7JJ' �1�1f:JF.�1f (T. 1 579: 593al -5) 108
lO 8
Schmithausen suggests that the occurrence of the term iilayavijiiiina here is a later addition,. perhaps made by the compiler(s) of the Yogiiciirabhami ( 1 987: 27 1 -272 n. 1 3 1 ) . •
Abhidharmako.§abha�ya 68 Chapter 2
Indriyanirde.§a
2. 1 6) Vasubandhu says that iiyus (jfvitendriya) is not a real dharma but merely a (provisional) tenn referring to the force resulting from past kanna that determines the duration of the nikiiyasabhiiga. He compares it to the force contained in the seed that determines the time of the fruition of grain and to the force that determines the . duration of the flight of an arro w.
na hi niistfti brumo na tu dravyiintaram / kif!! tarhi / traidhiitukena karma1J.ii nikiiya sabhagasya sthitikiiliivedhaJ;. / yiivad hi karma1J.ii nikiiyasabhagasyiivedhaJ:t krto bhavaty etiivantaf!! kiilam avasthiitavyam iti tiivat so 'vati�rhate tad iiyur ity ucyate / sasyiiniiY(! piikakiiliivedhavat lqipte�u sthitikiiliivedhavac ca (Pradhan: 74.3-5 ; T. 1 5 5 8 : 26b l4-20; Poussin v. 1 : 2 1 6-21 7 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 404b26-c3 ; Cox 1 995: 29 1 ] and criticizes it, denying that the force referred to by Vasubandhu can continue without interruption and showing that the suggested similes are not apposite [T. 1 562: 404c3-22; Cox 1 995 : 29 1 -292] .)
Yagiiciirabhumi 69
2. 1 6) The Viniscayasal'!!grahm;'lon the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanabhumi states that jfvitendriya is the force that, due to previous karma, determines the duration of . an iitmabhiiva born in a particular place.
de la srag gi dbmi po gmi ie na snan gyi las kyis de dan der Ius mnon par grub pa gnas pa 'i 'dus nes pa 'phans pa ni tshe dan srog109 dan srag gi dban po ies bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 25b2-3); 1l;xidllJfrJ1'lZo jj� EB X;¥UNJ11J1Ji1g.o PJT� § flm ;ff {11l'!r �lZ:i:�5to �5I.� � . ��frJ1'lZ (T. 1579: 5 87a2 1 -23)
For a similar definition, see
also Yogiiciirabhumi,: zi 76b7-8 ; T. 1579: 607b 1 5 - 1 6 .
Elsewhere in the Viniscayasal'!!grahar.rl o n the PaiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhUmi, jfvitendriya is explicitly stated to be a prajiiapti.
smras pa l srog gi dban po de iiid yin te btags pa 'i chos yin pa 'i phyir ra (Yogiiciira bhumi,: zi 98a2) ; �IlPJl:tfrJ1'Jt!Jk1JiU*�)( (T. 1 579: 6 1 6a6-7)
109 Corrected from srogs on the basis of the Derge.
Abhidharmako§abha�ya 70 Chapter 2
2, 1 7)
Vasubandhu
attributes
to
Indriyanirdeia the S autrantikas
the
opinion
that the
sal'(lsk!talak�aJJDs are not real entities since, unlike real dharmas such as rilpa, they cannot be known by perception, inference, or scripture,
tad etad akilSal'(l pa,tyata iti sautrantikaJ:t I na hy ete jatyadayo dharma dravyataJ:t sal'(lvidyante yatha vibhajyante1 lDI kil'(l karalJ-amlpramalJ-abhavat Ina hy e�al'(l dravyato 'stitve kil'(lcid api pramalJ-am asti pratyak�am anumanam aptagamo vayatha rilpadfnal'(l dharmillJ-am iti (Pradhan: 76.20-23 ; To 1 5 5 8 : 27b24-26; Poussin v. 1 : 226; S arp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [To 1 562: 406b 1 6-20; Cox 1 995: 3 1 1 -3 1 2] and criticizes it on the grounds that Vasubandhu must accept the provisional reality of the sal'(lsk!talak�alJ-as; however, according to Sarp.ghabhadra,. their provisional reality cannot be proven by perception or scripture, while proof by inference of their provisional reality would imply proof by inference of their ultimate reality [T. 1562: 406b20-29 ; Cox 1 99 5 : 3 12] .)
1 lD Emended from abhivyajyante by Shastri (v, 1: 257.2), presumably on the basis of Yasornitra ( 1 7 3 ,26). This emendation is not made by Hirakawa, but it is accepted • by Cox ( 1 99 5 : 3 5 8 n, 3 1 ) ,
Yogiiciirabhami 71
2. 17) The Viniscayasal'[!grahal}f on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhami asks why the four sal'[!skrtalak�al}Qs, including jiiti, are not real entities, separate from riipa skandha, etc.
ci'i phyir gzugs la sogs pa 'du byed rnams las skye ba dan / rga ba dan / gnas pa dan / mi rtag pa fiid dag rdzas gian du yod pa ma yin par khon du chud par bya ie na (Yogiiciirabhiimif: zi 2 1 b l -2) ; 1l*i':1ilJJJHa 1:::IS1i�1tJllt ��i\l�5.lJj.:ff (T. 1579: 5 85c9- 1 O) This question is answered in the passage that follows (Yogiiciirabhami ,: zi 2 1 b2-22a4; T. 1 579: 585c 1 0-28).
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 72 Chapter 2
Indriyanirdesa
2. 1 8) Vasubandhu s ays that the purpose of the sutra statement that there are three saY[lskrtalak�m:!Gs is to show that the stream of saY[lskiiras is conditioned and has originated conditionally, not to say that the saY[lskrtalak�a'}as belong to each moment (i. e . , that each saY[lskrtadharma is simultaneously associated with all three saY[lskrtalak�G'}as) . This is because one cannot know the three lak�a'}as of a moment.
granthajfio deviiniiY[l priyo na tv arthajfia�/arthas ca pratisara,}am uktaY[l bhagavatii / ka� punar asyiirtha� / avidyiindhii hi biilii� saY[lskiirapraviiham iitmata iitmfyatas ciidhimuktii abhi�vajante / yasya mithyiidhimok�asya vyiivartaniirthaY[l bhagaviiY[ls tasya saY[lskiirapraviihasya saY[lskrtatvaY[l pratftyasamutpannatiiY[l dyotayitukiima idam iiha trfr}fmiini saY[lskrtasya saY[lskrtalak�a'}iini / na tu k�a'}asya / na hi k�a'}asyotpiidiidaya� prajfiiiyante / na ciiprajfiiiyamiinii ete lak�a'}aY[l bhavitum arhanti / ata eviitra satre saY[lSkrtasyotpiido 'pi prajfiiiyata ity uktam (Pradhan: 76.24-77. 3 ; T. 1 55 8 : 27b28-c5 ; Poussin v. 1 : 226-227 ; S arpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 406c23-407a2; Cox 1 995: 3 1 5] and argues at length that in fact the Buddha taught the three saY[lskrtalak�a'}as with respect to the moment and not to the stream [T. 1 562: 407a2-b5 ; Cox 1 995: 3 1 5-3 17] .)
Yogaearabhami 73
According to the Viniseayasal'}'lgrahalJf on the PaHeavijHanakayamano bhami, the Buddha mentioned only three sal'}'lskrtalak�alJas because the sal'}'lskaras are analyzed in terms of the three times: jati refers to sal'}'lskrtadharmas in the future, maralJa to sal'}'lskrtadharmas in the past, and sthiti (together with anyathtitva) to sal'}'lskrtadharmas in the present. 2. 1 8)
gal te 'dus byas la 'dus byas kyi mtshan fiid bii po skye ba dan / rga ba dan / gnas pa dan / 'jig pa 'di dag dmigs na ei 'i phyir beom ldan 'das kyis skye ba dan / 'jig pa dan gnas pa las gian du 'gyur ba Hid dan gsum kho na gsuns se na / 'du byed rnams ni dus gsum gyis rab tu phye ba yin te / des na ma 'ons pa 'i dus na ma byun ba las 'byun bar 'gyur bas / de 'i phyir beom ldan 'das kyis ma 'ons pa 'i dus las brten te 'byun ba yan 'dus byas kyi mtshan Hid yin par gsuns so / 'byun ba rnams 'das pa 'i dus su iig par gyur pas de 'i phyir beom ldan 'das kyis 'das pa 'i dus las brten te iig pa yan 'dus byas kyi mtshan fiid yin par gsuns so / gnas pa gan yin pa dan / gian du 'gyur ba Hid gan yin pa 'i mtshan fiid gHis ni da ltar gyi dus kyi rab tu phye ba yin te / 'di ltar gnas pa YaJi da ltar gyi dus fiid na dmigs pa yin la / sna ma las phyi ma gian Hid dulll gyur pa Hid kyan da ltar kyi dus Hid na dmigs pa yin pas / de 'i phyir beam ldan 'das kyis da ltar byun ba 'i dus las brten te / gnas pa dan / gian du 'gyur ba Rid geig tu bsdus nas 'dus byas kyi mtshan Rid yin par gsuns so (Yogaearabhami,: zi 22a4-b 1 ) ; F��S=��1:t:o ��1!imt llli ��1ILI3, }E.PJ1� o 1PI ��.ilim � . o -�o = � o �tt.tto � � -W�� ��.�o �** �*�rm�o ;JjM)[�. � **���'��1:t:o m���1§ o 11Ul�c;{E�jj®*o ��� . � �*��� � $ o m���ffi o ���$=ffi�.o . tt & � o � m �Mo �����ttPJ�o �� •• �����o ��. � ����� l I2 � 1:t: o *,@, m1!.�-��1§ (T. 1 579: 585c29-586a8)
III Corrected from Chinese. 1 12
gian Hid du gian du gyur pa o n the basis o f the Derge and the
Although the focus of this explanation is different from that of Vasubandhu' s explanation, the substance i s the same. •
Abhidharmakosabha.Jya 74 Chapter 2
Indriyanirdeia
2. 1 9) According to Vasubandhu, when the Buddha said that the arising, etc., of conditioned things is known, he was referring to the series, not to the moment, because the arising, etc., of a moment is impossible to know. (Later [see item 2.24] , he says that the lak.Jm:zas can be applied to the moment, as long as they are understood not to be real dharmas.) 1 1 3
bhagavalJ1s tasya salJ1skarapravahasya salJ1skrtatvalJ1 pratftyasamutpannatalJ1 dyotayitukama idam aha trflJfmani salJ1skrtalak.JalJani / na tu k.JalJasya / na hi k.JalJasyotpadadaya!:z prajfiayante
(Pradhan: 76.26-77.2; T. 1 5 5 8 : 27c3-5 ; Poussin v. 1 : 226-227 ; Rospatt 1995: 60-64; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 406c28-29 ; Cox 1 9 9 5 : 3 1 5] and contradicts it, as mentioned in item 2. 1 8 [T. 1 562: 407aI3-20; Cox 1995: 3 1 6] . )
i
1 1 3 Note that this is a portion of the passage mentioned in item 2. 1 8 .
Yogacarabhami 75
2. 1 9) The Yogacarabhami does not seem to contain an argument similar to Vasubandhu's. Rospatt points out that the Bodhisattvabhami refers only to individual entities ( 1 995: 64-65). However, there are several passages in which the sal"[lskrta lak�al}ll s are taken to refer to the series. The Viniscayasal"[lgrahm:zzon the Paficavijfianaktiyamanobhami, in a list of varieties of the la�m:zas, mentions two types of jiiti, at least, that apply to the series, *prati saIJ7dhijiiti and *abhinirv.rttijiiti.
kun tu sbyor ba mtha 'dag yod pa 'am I kun tu sbyor ba ma tshan ba yan run sems can gyi ris de dan I de nas si 'phos nas sems can gyi ris de dan der phun po mnon par ' grub pa ni mtshams sbyor ba 'i skye ba ses bya ' 0 I thor bu dan gion nu la sogs pa 'i gnas skabs dag1 1 4 nas rgas pa 'i gnas skabs kyi bar du 'gyur ba ni mnon par 'grub pa 'i skye ba ies bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhamii zi 23al-3); * J3. �1Ha!lli: /f }Ua 0
���� m� &tt���m�o R •• � � m . � o *�¥�.���o � �fi�jlt��{1L o � j:�H�t� (T. 1579: 586a22-25)
Similarly, it mentions
*sal"[ltatisthiti.
de dan der mnon par 'grub pa 'i Ius de dan de dag zas de dan de la brten nas tshe ji srid par gnas pa dan I phyi rol gyi snod kyi 'jig rten rnams bskal pa chen po 'i mthar thug par gnas pa ni rgyun gnas pa ies bya 'o (Yogacarabhami,: zi 24a4-5) ; * R�����.�� � .o � ���.���o � ��tto �*� � *� ;, 1i o � :f§ *,jHi (T. 1 579: 5 86c2-4)
In addition, the Vastusal"[lgrahm:zr specifically states that the lak�alJ.as are established with respect to two contexts, that of rebirth and that of moments, but in both cases the text refers to the series (rgyun).
mtshan fiid gsum po de dag kyan 'du byed kyi rgyun gfiis la brten nas ses par ' gyur te I 'di Ita ste tshe rabs gcig nas gcig tu brgyud pa 'i rgyun dan skad cig pa gcig nas gcig tu brgyud pa 'i rgyun no I de la rgyun sna ma sos kyi sems can gyi ris de dan der skye ba gan yin pa de ni skye ba ' 0 I tha mar ' chi ba ni 'jig pa ' 0 I thog ma dan tha ma 'i bar gion nu la sogs pa 'i gnas skabs rnams su ni gnas pa las gian du 'gyur ba ste I tshe 'i tshad ji tsam par gnas pas na gnas pa '0 I gnas skabs phyi ma phyi ma 'i bye brag yod pas na gian du 'gyur ba 'o I de nas rgyun phyi ma sos kyi skad cig skad cig la 'du byed rnams sar pa sar pa skye ba gan yin pa de ni skye ba 'o I skye ba 'i skad cig pa de las lhag par mi gnas pa ni 'jig pa 'o I skye ba 'i skad cig pa tsam la gnas pa ni gnas pa 'o ( Yogaciirabhamir' 'i 204b 8-205a4) ; frQ:tik':=:f§ I
1 1 4 Corrected from dags on the basis of the Derge.
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 76 Chapter 2
Indriyanirdesa
Yogtictirabhumi
77
1 15 Rospatt points out that both the Abhidharmasamuccaya ( 1 8 . 3 1 - 19 . 1) and the Hsien-yang sheng-chiao lun (T. 1 602: 550c 1 6-20) apply the lalqal}as to the series. However, in another passage, the Hsien-yang sheng-chiao lUI; applies them to all sal'(lskrtadharmas (T. 1602: 484b I 5 - 1 8).
AbhidharmakosabhiioJya 78 Chapter 2
2.20)
Indriyanirdesa
Vasubandhu says that that which is not known should not be called a lakoJa/Jil..
na ciiprajiiiiyamiinii ete lakoJa/:wl!l bhavitum arhanti
(Pradhan: 77.2-3 ; T. 1558: 27c6; Poussin v. 1 : 226-227; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 407b5-6; Cox 1 995: 3 17] and says that certain lakoJa/:zas that are unknowable to the ordinary mind actually exist [T. 1562: 407b6-8; Cox 1995: 3 17].)
Yogiiciirabhumi 79
2.20) The Bodhisattvabhami says that at every moment only the sa'!!skiira can be perceived; none of the sa,!!skrtalak�a!las can be separately perceived. (However, a connection with Vasubandhu' s statement here is doubtful.)
tatra bodhisattvaJ:! sa'!!skiiramiitra'!! sthiipayitvii na tasya jiiti,!! na sthiti,!! na jariirp niinityatii,!! sarvakiila,!! dravyasvabhiivaparini�pattitaJ:! pa§yati / tat kasya hetoJ:! sal?lskiiramatram utpadyamanam upalabhate niisyiinyii,!! jiiti,!! na sthiti'!! na jarii,!! niinityatii,!! (Bodhisattvabhami: 279.6- 1 1 ) ; de la byan chub sems dpa ' ni 'du byed tsam ma gtogs par de 'i skye ba dan gnas pa dan / rga ba dan / mi rtag pa 'i rdzas kyi no bo fiid yons su grub pa rtag tu ma mthon no / de ci 'i phyir ie na / des 'du byed tsam iig 'byun bar dmigs par zad kyi / de 'i skye ba dan / gnas pa dan / rga ba dan / mi rtag pa gian ni ma dmigs te (Yogiiciirabhfimi; ii 1 67b l -2) ; J1:� q:o *iii W1. -W ���Rfi �����tt��o m�.� @ tt�.o M��o Rfi � � PftftPfrp jHt1TPJ1�o �3Jj �i#&f1�i� (T. 1 5 7 9 : 544b 1 7-20; Rospatt 1 995 : 64)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 80 Chapter 2
Indriyanirdeia
2.2 1 ) Vasubandhu explains that the fact that the sutra uses the word sa"fTlSk.rta twice does not indicate that the sa1!lskrtas and the s�krtala�a1J.as are different entities.
punaf:z s�skrtagraha1J.a1!l sa1!lskrtatve la�a1J.iinfti yathii vijiiiiyeta / maiva1!l vijiiiiyi sa1!lskrtasya vastuno 'stitve la�a1J.iini jalabaliikiivat siidhvasiidhutve vii kanyii lak�a1J.avad iti (Pradhan: 77.4-5; T. 1558: 27c8-9; Poussin v. 1 : 227; S�ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 407b 12-14; Cox 1 995 : 3 1 8] and gives several different reasons why the fact that the word s�s/q1a is used twice must indicate that sa"fTlSkrtadharmas and the s�krtala�a7J.as are not identical [T. 1562: 407b14-24; Cox 1995: 3 1 8-3 1 9] .)
YogtictirabhL7mi
81
2.21) (Although the Yogtictifabhami does not mention that the sal!1sk.rtalak�al'}as have a separate existence, I cannot find anything resembling this argument of Vasu bandhu' s in the YogtictirabhL7mi. ) 1 l6
1 1 6 However, a similar argument can be found in the Ch ' eng wei-shih lun, although without the same examples cr. 1585: 5c23-25 ; Poussin 1928- 1929 : 64) .
Abhidharmako§abha�ya 82 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeia
2.22) Vasubandhu gives his own explanation of the four lak�a1:zas: the first arising of the series of saY[lskaras is jati; the series in the state of cessation is called vyaya (here equivalent to anityata); the procession of the series is called sthiti; the difference between earlier and later moments of the stream is called anyathatva.
tatra pravahasyadir utpado niv[ftir vyaya!z / sa eva pravaho 'nuvartamana!z sthiti!z / tasya parvaparavi§e�a!z sthityanyathatvam (Pradhan: 775-7; T. 1558: 27c 1 l-12; Poussin v. 1 : 227 ; Satp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master, who, Satp.ghabhadra says, is following the school of the Sthavira [T. 1 562: 407c9-1 1 ; Cox 1995: 320], and criticizes it at length, refuting Vasubandhu' s defInitious of each of the four lak�alJOS in tum [T. 1562: 407 c17 -408b28 ; Cox 1 9 9 5 : 32 1 -326].)
Yagtictirabhiimi 83
2.22) According to the ViniScayasaJ?'lgraha1J.z on the Paficavijiiiinakiyi amanabhiimi, 1 17 when, due to causes, fonnerly nonexistent sal'f'lskrtadharmas arise, this is called jliti When the sal'f'lslq1adharmas that arise later are different from the earlier ones, this is calledjarti. When these sal'[lSlq1adharmas, having been produced, persist for a limited time, this is called sthiti. And when, after the moment of production, the characteristics of these sal'[lSkrtadharmas are destroyed, this is called cessation or anityatti. .
de Ita bas na skye ba la sags pa ymi 'du byed mams la brtags pa 'i yad pa yin par rig par bya ' a / de la rgyu yad na ran gi mtshan fiid snon ma byun ba 'grub pa ni 'du byed mams kyi skye ba ies bya ' 0 / sna ma las phyi ma gian Hid du gian du 'gyur ba Hid ni 'du byed mams kyi rga ba ies bya 'o / skye ba 'i dus tsam la gnas pa ni 'du byed mams kyi gnas pa ies bya ste / de Ita bas na skye ba 'i skad cig gi 'og tu 'jig pa 'i skad cig ni 'du byed mams kyi 'jig pa ies bya 'o (Yogtictirabhiin:!J : zi 22a2-4) ; M:ffi��;fj"' �1T � 1Et;%J�o 1ntrff � M:�i1T��:<$: § mMlj@�#A'l � � o 1&j@� 1T �IlfH�7JU m � � � o HP1Jt�1T�fsLt!t1*m� � fl o �*U 1J�1&�1T*IU1'im� 1..b �o ljJ-� 1Wi1t (T. 1579: 585c24-28; see Kritzer 1 999: 234--235)
117
Miyashita finds in th� Yogtictirabhiimi the origin of the pen-wu chin-yu (:<$:1Wi
4--m theory in the Abhidharmakosabhti�a ( 1 986).
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 84 Chapter 2 lndriyanirdesa
2.23) In support of his understanding of the sal!lskrtalak�aJ!as (see the previous item), Vasubandhu quotes a sutra passage in which Nanda is commended for knowing the arising, the abiding, and the destruction of feelings. 1 1 8
evarrz ca krtvoktal!l vidita eva nandasya kulaputrasya vedana utpadyante vidita avati�!hante viditii astal!l parik�ayal!l paryadanal!l gacchantfti (Pradhan: 77.7- 8 ; T. 1558: 27c 13- 14; Poussin v. 1 : 227 ; 5rupghabhadra quotes the same sutra passage [T. 1562: 407c12- 1 3 ; Cox 1995: 320J and says that Vasubandhu' s position i s not supported b y th e satra, which suggests that Nanda knows past and future feelings, while Vasubandhu denies the existence of past and future dhannas [T. 1 562: 408b28-c5 ; Cox 1995: 326-327] .)
1 18 Sarrzyuktagama satra no. 275 (T. 99: 73a22-c21 , specifically 73b23-25 ) . For parallels, see Pasadika 1 � 8 9 : 39.
Yogiiciirabln7mi 85
(The same sL7tra passage is commented upon in the VastusaY[tgrahm:Zf [YogiiciirabhL7mi,: 'i 269a3-270a3 ; T. 1 579: 82 1 a1 9-b21]. 1 1 9 However, the context is
2.23)
different, and it does not appear to have any relevance to the discussion in· the
Abhidharmako§abhii�ya. )
1 1 9 Specifically YogiiciirabhL7mi,: 'i 269a8-b 1 ; T. 1579: 821 a29-b2. See Mukai 1985: TI.
'
Abhidharmakosabhil�ya 86 Chapter 2 Indriyanirde§a
2.24) Vasubandhu says that the lak�al}as can be applied to the moment, as long as they are recognized as not being real dharmas: ji'iti is the existence of that which formerly did not exist; vyaya is the nonexistence of that which existed; sthiti is the connection between earlier and later moments; and sthityanyathiitva is the difference between earlier and later moments.
pratik�al}alJ1 ciipi salJ1skrtasyaitiini lak�al}iini yujyante vinii 'pi dravyiintarakalpanayii
/ katham iti /pratik�al}am abhiltvii bhiiva utpiida{! / bhiltvii 'bhiivo vyaya{! / pilrvasya pilrvasyottarak�al}iinubandha{! sthiti{! / tasyiivisadrsatvalJ1 sthityanyathiitvam iti /yadii tarhi sadrsii utpadyante / na te nirvise�ii bhavanti
(Pradhan: 77. 1 8-22: T. 1558: 27c28-28a3 ; Poussin v. 1 : 229; S�ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 408c7- 12; Cox 1 995: 327] and argues that callin g the salJ1skrtala�al}as provisional in this context leads to contradictions that can only be reconciled by admitting that the la�al}as are real dharmas [T. 1562: 408c12-409a2; Cox 1 995: 327-329] .)
Yogacarabhiimi 87
2.24) The ViniScayasaT(lgraha!/f on the Pancavijnanakayamanobhiimi defines jiiti and vyaya in terms identical to those of Vasubandhu.
ma byun ba las 'byun ba ni 'byun ba yin la / byun nas med par 'gyur ba ni 'jig pa yin no ( Yogacarabhiimi,: zi 22b6-7); *�4-� R::ll ��o �G��R:: ll � iJil(; (T. 1 579: 586a17- 1 8) At the end of an enumeration. of different types ofjara, the ViniscayasaT(lgraha!/f on the Pancavijfiiinakiiyamanobhumi states that there is, in addition, one type that can accomplish (become?) all the others, namely jara that is the nature of all saTflS/q"ta dharmas to change from moment to moment
gan la rten nas rga ba 'i mam pa ji skad bstan pa de dag thams cad 'byun bar 'gyur ba 'i rga ba gcig pa yan yod de 'du byed mams kyi skad cig skad cig la gian fiid du 'gyur ba rga ba gan yin pa 'o (Yogacarabhumi,: zi 24a2); :fl� -���o ��n\(;:!!o J:mm-��i�o m�� �1T�U 1J��U 1J�" �tt� (T. 1 579: 586b26-28) (I cannot find a definition of sthiti in the Yogacarabhiimi that closely resembles Vasu bandhu' s in wording.)
Abhidharmakosabhiirya 88 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeia
2.25) Vasubandhu argues that, if the sarrzskrtalak�a!las were real, the production, cessation, etc., of the sarrzskrtadharmas would be simultaneous.
athiipi nama dravyantara!lyeva jatyadfni bhaveyul:z / kim ayuktarrz syat / eko dharmal:z ekasminn eva kale jatal:z sthito jfTl}O na�!al:z syad e�arrz sahabhatvat (Pradhan: 7 8 . 1 0- 1 2 : T. 1 5 5 8 : 28a22-23 ; Poussin v. 1 : 23 1 ; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 409a2-4; Cox 1 995: 329] and, as Cox points out [ 1 995: 366 n. 92], relies on the theory of the difference between kiiritra and samarthya in arguing that the activity of the different la�a!las is not simultaneous [T. 1 562: 409a4-c8 ; Cox 1 995: 329-333].)
Yogiiciirabhami
89
2.25) (Although the Yogiiciirabhilmi, like Vasubandhu, denies the reality of the sa1'J'lslqtalak�a1Jas, it does not seem to employ an argument similar to Vasubandhu ' s . )
AbhidharmakosabhiifYa 90 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeia
2.26) In connection with the preceding item, Vasubandhu says that, if the Sarvasti viidins maintain that the last three lalqa"(las perform their function simultaneously, they must admit that a dharma persists, changes, and is destroyed at the same time.
kim ayaJ'!l tatra kale ti�thatv iihosvij jfryatu vinasayatu vii (Pradhan: 78.19;. T. 1558: 28b4; Poussin v. 1 : 232; Srup.ghabhadra identifies this
as the opinion of the siltra-master rr. 1562: 409c17- 1 8 ; Cox 1 995: 333] and criticizes it, although, as Cox notes [1995: 368 n. 1 06], the point th�t Srup.ghabhadra makes is unclear rr. 1562: 409cI 8-2 1 ; Cox 1 995: 333-334].)
Yogiiciirabhami 91
2.26) (As in the case of item 2.25, the Yogiiciirabhami does not seem to contain a similar argument.)
Abhidhannakosabhil�a 92 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdesa
2.27) Vasubandhu says that anyathiltva, since it describes the difference between earlier and later states, cannot be applied to an individual dhanna, which cannot change.
syilc ca tilvad ekasya dhannasyotpannasyilvinilsaf:t sthitiJ:! vinilSo 'nityatil / jaril tu khalu sarvathiltvena na tathil / parvilparavise�ilt viparir,zilmilc ca / atas tadanyathiltve 'nya eva / uktal[! hi tathiltvenajaril 'siddhir anyathiltve 'nya eva saf:t / tasmiln naikasya bhilvasyajaril nilmopapadyate
(Pradhan: 79.5-9; T. 1 5 5 8 : 28b2 1 -26; Poussin v. 1 : 233 ; S arp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 41Oa19-25 ; Cox 1 995: 336] and again appeals to the reality of the three times and his own theory of kilritra in order to refute Vasubandhu [T. 1 562: 4 1Oa25-c6, Cox 1 995: 336-339] . )
Yogtictirabhumi 93
2.27) here:
The following passage, already mentioned in item 2.24, may be relevant
,
At the end of an enumeration of different types of jarti the ViniscayasalJ1grahal}f on the Pancavijfianaktiyamanobhumi states that there is, in addition, one type that can accomplish (become?) all the others, namely jara that is the nature of all salJ1skrtadharmas to change from moment to moment.
gan la rten nas rga ba 'i mam pa ji skad bstan pa de dag thams cad 'bYUli bar 'gyur ba 'i rga ba gcig pa yan yod de 'du byed mams kyi skad cig skad cig la gian fiid du 'gyur ba rga ba gan yin pa 'o (Yogacarabhamit: zi 24a2); fJl./f'r -:;6��0 ��}jjt "j( D LPJTm -1;7]11::;60 pJT�� �1T*Ij 1J�*Ij 1J�.J!:.'I1.:;6 (T. 1 579: 5 8 6b26-28)
94
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya Chapter 2 lndriyanirde.sa
2.28) Vasubandhu argues that niima, pada, and vyanjana are sound by nature and therefore belong to rupaskandha; thus, they are not cittaviprayuktasa1!lskiiras.
nanu caite viiksvabhiivatviic chabdiitmakii iti rupasvabhiivii bhavanti / kasmiic citta viprayuktii ity ucyante (Pradhan: 80.22-23 ; T. 1 5 5 8 : 29a23-24; Poussin v. 1 : 240; SaIp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 4 1 3c l l - 1 3 ; Cox 1 995: 383] and both quotes from sutra and provides reasoned arguments to show that niima, pada, and vyanjana are different from sound [T. 1 562: 4 1 3 c 1 3-414a l 1 ; Cox 1995: 3 83-385] .)
YogacarabMimi
95
2.28) The Viniscayasa'!lgraha/}f on the Cintamayfprajiia Bhami includes nama kiiya, padakaya, and vyaiijanakiiya , along with the other cittaviprayuktasa'!lskiiras, vijiiapti, avijfiapti, and bfj a, as prajfiapti s, saying that they are nominal designations for sa'!ls/q1adharmas. (This passage denies their reality, but the reasoning is different from Vasubandhu' s.)i 20
'dus byas kyi min can gyi dnos po la skye ba dan I rga ba dan I gnas pa dan I mi rtag pa dan I sa bon dan mam par rig byed dan I mam par rig byed ma yin pa dan I thob pa dan I 'thob pa rna yin pa dan I srog gi dban po dan I ris mthun pa dan I min gi tshogs dan l tshig gi tshogs dan lyi ge 'i tshogs mams dan so so 'i skye bo fiid dan I tshogs pa dan rna tshogs pa dan I 'jug pa so sor nes pa dan I sbyor ba dan I mgyogs pa dan I go rims dan I dus dan yul dan grans fie bar 'dogs pa dan (YogacarabhUmi-f. zi 208a4-6); 1J�;ff1.Ulf 1M,fr$o -w.JL��1:t�1tftTo ;ff * � *���� � � o � � � � � � .�tto W ��W��.�.� �e�*. a;f::1J)'iJk (T. 1579: 659a 1 2- 1 6) The *Vivara/:zasa'!lgrahaJ:!f, in a long discussion about language, gives a number of lists of *lak?afliirthas (hsiang-i t§�), one of which is neng-ch'uan hsiang §���t§, which refers to the ability of speech to indicate. This is said to be synonymous with *parikalpitasvabhiivalak?afUl (pien-chi so-chi tzu-hsing hsiang JJj[ iltpJTfj( § tU§ ), which is further said to have many names, among them, "only consisting of sound" (wei yu yin-sheng Pjt;ff if �) and "not possessing marks" (wu-yu t'i hsiang �;ff� t§) . ! 2 !
1 20 The Ch ' eng wei-shih lun, however, follows Vasubandhu in arguing that they do not exist independently from rapa (T. 1 5 8 5 : 6a2 1 -6b 1 1 ; Poussin 1 928-1 929: 668-70).
! 2 ! This passage is difficult, but a comparison between it and the passage in the Ch ' eng wei-shih lun mentioned directly above shows that they are related in meaning. The passage is lacking in the Tib etan.
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 96
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdefa
2.29) Vasubandhu says that not object can be indicated.
all sound is speech, but only sound by which an
naiva gho�amatraY[l vag yena tu gho�e!larthaf:t pratfyate sa gho�o vak / kena punar gho�e!larthaf:t pratfyate / yo 'rthe�u krtavadhir vaktrbhis (Pradhan: 80.24-25; T. 1558: 29a26-29; Poussin v. 1 : 240; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 414al l - 1 5 ; Cox 1995: 385] and insists that sound is not adequate for conveying meaning; in fact, syllables (tzu *) give rise to namas, which convey meaning [T. 1562: 414a15-24; Cox 1995: 3 85-386].)
Yogacarabhumi 97
2.29) (The YogacarabhUmi does not accept nama as real, but it does not contain a statement similar to Vasubandhu' s, which is a response to a Sarvastivadin argument.)
98
Abhidharmakosabhiirya
Chapter 2 lndriyanirdeia 2.30) Vasubandhu argues that niima cannot logically exist as a separate entity since it is neither produced nor manifested by speech. idalJl cilpi na jiiiiyate kathalJl viili niimni pravartata iti I kilJl tilvad utpiidayaty ilhosvit prakiisayati I yady utpildayati I gho�asvabhiivatvild vilca{l sarvalJl gho�amiitralJl nilmotpiidayiryati yiidrso vii gho�avise�a i�yate niimna utpildaka{l sa eViirthasya dyotako bhaviryatilatha prakiisayatilgho�asvabhiivatviid viica{l sarvalJl gho�amiltralJl niima prakiisayiryati yiidrso vil gho�avise�a iryate niimna{l prakiisaka!:t sa eviirthasya dyotako bhavi�yati
(Pradhan: 8 1 .5-10; T. 1558: 29b7 - 12; Poussin v. 1 : 240-241 ; Sa�ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 4 14a24-26; Cox 1 995: 386] and rejects it, insisting that without nilma, the meaning of speech could not be understood [T. 1 562: 4 14a26-b9; Cox 1995: 3 86-387.])
Yogiiciirabhilmi
99
2.30) (As in item 2.29, Vasubandhu' s statement here is part of his response to the Sarvastivadin argument. A similar statement does not appear in the Yogiiciirabhilmi. )
1 00
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 2 Indriyanirde§a
2.3 1 ) Vasubandhu says that nama cannot be produced (or manifested) by speech because the moments of sound cannot come together, and no dharma is gradually produced in parts. na khalv api sabdanay[! samagryam asti k�a!laikamilanaY[! / na caikasya bhagasa utpado yukta iti katham utpadayantf van namotpadayet / kathaY[! tavad atftapek�aJ:t pascimo vijiiaptik�a!la utpadayaty avijiiaptim / evaY[! tarhi pascima eva sabde namna utpadad yo 'pi tam evaikaY[! S.Tfloti so 'py arthaY[! pratipadyeta / athapy evaY[! kalpyeta vag vyaiijanaY[! janayati vyaiijanl1f!! tu nameti / atrapi sa eva prasango vyaiijananaY[! samagryabhavat / e�a eva ca prasango namnaJ:t prakasakatve vacaJ:t / vyaiijanl1f!! capi vag visi�taprajiia apy avahitacetaska lak�a!lataJ:t paricchetuy[! notsahanta iti vyaiijanasyapi vak naivotpadika na prakilSika yujyate
(Pradhan: 8 1 . 10- 1 6 ; T. 1558: 29b 12-20; Poussin v. 1 : 241 ; SaI:[1ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 415a25-b3; Cox 1 995: 393-394] and claims that Vasubandhu' s argument contradicts his own rejection of the reality of past and future [T. 1562: 4 1 5b3-14; Cox 1 995: 394] .)
Yogiiciirabhilmi
101
2.3 1) The Viniicayasa1'[!grahal}f o n the Paficavijfiiina!diyamanobhilmi says that sound does not travel relying on a series composed of rilpa that has come together: it is not like the light from a fire. I22 de la sgra ni brjod ma thag tu 'jig pa 'i phyir gzugs 'dus pa la rgyun brtan pa ma yin te / yul de dan phyi rol la dmigs pa yin no / de ni de las brten te Zan cig byun ba na yul gan du grag pa 'i yul de thams cad du cig char kho nar khyab par byun ste / me 'i 'od dan 'bra ba yin gyi ches che ba dan che bar 'byun tin 'gro ba ni ma yin no (Yogiiciirabhilmi,: zi 55b4-5); ll*�n�*lgft E�NP lllJi i$;o tft:1J�,g�J� 9='/f'l:g � . o X��.� . � � o •• &� •• ��o n�� .��.�o � •• �:t!MiS 7t l3Jl o �Fj�j��!Uf1±� (T. 1 579: 599a23-26)
.;
122 The context of this passage is a discussion of rilpa, not of speech, but it seems ' relevant to at least the first part of Vasubandhu' s argument.
1 02
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya
Chapter 2 IndriyanirdeSa 2.32)
Vasubandhu suggests that vyafijana has a greater degree of reality than niima or pada, which are merely collections of vyafijanas. 123 astu vii vyafijanamatrasya dravyantarabhavaparikalpana I tatsamaha eva nama kiiyadayo bhavi�yantfty aparthikii tatprajfiaptiJ;
(Pradhan: 8 1 .22c23 ; T. 1558: 29b29; Poussin v. 1 : 242; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 414b9- 1 1 ; Cox 1995: 387] and criticizes it, saying that even though a collection is not real, that which arises depending on it can be real [T. 1562: 414b l l -22; Cox 1 995 : 387-388].)
123 As far as I can tell, the Vibha�a does not state that vyafijana is in any way ' more basic than nama or pada.
Yogiiciirabhiimi
103
2.32) Vyaiijanakiiya is defined in the Viniscayasa'!lgrahal)! on the Paiicavijiiiina kiiyamanobhiimi as the collection of syllables that are the basis for niimakiiya and padakiiya, and it is the most condensed indicator of that which is known and that which is expressed, although it makes known only sound, not meaning.
yi ge 'i tshogs rnams gmi ie na I mili gi tshogs dali I tshig gi tshogs kyi rten gyi dlios por yi ge 'i 'bru 'i tshogs rnams ni yi ge 'i tshogs rnams ies bya ste I ses bya brjod par bya ba 'i dlios po la l thams cad las bsdus pa ni yi ge 'o ( Yogiiciirabhiimi; zi 27a3-4); �M� � o � � �� � m��ttm�* � o ��� � o x�-wm�m�. I'j:l o ;f;,:li�;f§ �� (T. 1 579: 587c1 5- 17) 124
124 For a similar definition, see also the Abhidharmasamuccaya (19.3-4) and the . . Hsien-yang sheng-chiao lun (T. 1602: 484b20-21).
1 04
2.33)
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 2 Indriyanirde.sa Vasubandhu criticizes an objection to the Vaibha�ika statement that future
dharmas cannot be sabhagahetu. According to this objection, future dharmas in the state of being produced are sabhagahetu, and thus the statement in the Jfianaprasthana, that a dharma that is a cause is always a cause, is not contradicted. Vasubandhu says that another statement in the Jfianaprasthana, that something cannot be samanantara pratyaya when it has not been produced, applies also to sabhagahetu.
tasyayam apariharo yasmat sa dharma utpadyamanavasthayaJ:! piIrval!1sabhagahetur abhiItva pascat bhavati / ihapi ca prasne yo dharmo yasya dharmasya samanantaraJ:! kadacit sa dharmas tasya dharmasya na samanantara iti sakymanaya kalpanaya vaktul!1 syan na kadacid iti / kasmad evam aha / yadi sa dharmo notpanno bhavatfti
(Pradhan: 86.6-9; T. 1558: 3 1b26-c2; Poussin v. 1 : 258; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 422c23-25] and criticizes it on the grounds that sabhiigahetu, which, like a seed, continues to exist while being produced and has the ability to yield result after it already has been produced, actually does not resemble samanantarapratyaya, the efficacy of which is based on its departure, and which must therefore be produced before it can be called pratyaya [T. 1562: 422c25-423a4].)
Yogiiciirabhilmi
1 05
2.33) (I have not been able to find any basis for Vasubandhu' s opinions regarding sabhiigahetu [items 2.33-2.35] in the Yogiiciirabhilmi, which does not recognize sabhiigahetu.) 125
'
125 The Hsien�yang sheng-chiao [un contains a criticism of the concept of sabhiigahetu (T. 1 602: 470a15-22). •
1 06
Abhidharmakosabhiirya
Chapter 2 IndriyanirdeSa
2.34) Vasubandhu accuses the author of the Jiiiinaprasthiinasiistra of being bad at words, presumably for making statements that allow contradictory interpretations. evarp. sati ko gUlJ-o labhyata ity akauSalam eviitra siistrakiirasyaiva sarp.bhiivyeta
(Pradhan: 86. 10- 1 1 ; T. 1558: 3 1c4; Poussin v. 1 : 259; Smp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sfitra-master [T. 1562: 423a8-9] and defends the Jfliinaprasthiina [T. 1562: 423a9-18].)
Yogacarabhumi
2.34)
(see item 2.33)
1 07
108
Abhidharmakosabhii�a
Chapter 2 Indriyanirde.sa 2.35) As an example of a case in which a previously produced anasravadharma ' is not sabhagahetu with respect to a subsequent one, Vasubandhu says that when a person falls from a higher attainment (phala) and realizes a lower one, the higher attainment is not the cause of the lower. syat purvotpanno 'nasravo dharmaJ:t pascad utpannasyanasravasya na hetuJ:t
(Pradhan: 88. 10; T. 1558: 32b22; Poussin v. 1 : 266-267; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 424c25-26] and criticizes it, saying that Vasubandhu should have simply stated that sabhiigahetu is unlike vipakahetu in that it does not necessarily yield result, or at a fixed time; for example, an arhat may have sabhagahetus that have not yielded result, and yet he may enter nirvana [T. 1562: 424c26-425a15].)
Yogiiciirabhumi
2 . 35)
(see item 2.33)
109
1 10
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeia 2.36) In a discussion of the meaning of vipakahetu, Vasubandhu criticizes the Vaibha9ika understanding, which, according to him , states that any cause that produces a result that is necessarily morally different from it (i.e., a good or bad cause that produces a neutral result) is vipakahetu. He says that this implies that the other causes give result, albeit result that is not necessarily morally different. But Vasubandhu insists that vipaka must be produced by sa7[ltatipari1Jamavise�a and it must be "result bound," which Hsiian-tsang explains as limited in duration according to the strength or weakness of the cause.126 visadrsaJ; pako vipakaJ; I anye�a7[l tu hettlna7[l sadrsaJ; pakaJ; I ekasyobhayatheti vaibha�ikaJ; I naiva tu te�a7[l pako yuktaJ; I pako hi nama santatipari1Jamavise�ajaJ; phalaparyantaJ; I na ca sahabhusa7[lprayuktahetvoJ; santatipari1Jamavise�aja7[l phalam asti I na capi sabhagahetvadfna7[l phalaparyanto 'sti I punaJ; punaJ; kusaladyasa7[lsaraphalatvat
(Pradhan: 89.24-90.3 ; T. 1558: 33a10-26; Poussin v. 1 : 272 n. 1 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 427b 18-22] and criticizes Vasubandhu' s representation of the Vaibha9ika position, saying that the Vaibha9ikas do not say that everything resulting from the six causes is paka; even if they did, paka would not be a synonym for phala, and it would not imply vipaka [T. 1562: 427b22-24] . i27
126 E8 � IZSl �:1J Il9¥g;EiJ�5.Hl (T. 1558: 33a20, 23) 127 There is a problem with the text here. Neither Paramartha' s nor the Tibetan translation includes the passage referred to here. Sarp.ghabhadra quotes only the portion of this passage that presents Vasubandhu' s understanding of the Vaibha9ika position, and he criticizes it. Sarp.ghabhadra does not comment on the portion in which Vasu' bandhu expresses his own opinion.
Yogacarabhumi
111
2.36) There are a number of statements in the Yogacarabhumi according to which vipakaphala is the new entity born as a result of the good or bad karma of the previous life. In the Manobhumi, the beginningless stream of bljas proceeds by renewing itself through repeatedly seizing the vipakaphala due to perfuming by good and bad karma. sa ca bljasantiinaprabandho 'nadikalikaJ:t I anadikalikatve 'pi subhasubhakarma vise�aparibhavanaya punaJ:t punar vipakaphalaparigrahan navfbhavati ) 2 8 pradur bhute ca phala upayuktaphalaf[! bhavati tad bljaf[! I evaf[! hi saf[!saraprabandhaJ:t pravartate yavan na parinirvati (Yogacarabhumi: 25.20-26.2) ; sa bon gyi rgyud kyi rgyun de ymi thog ma med pa 'i dus nas yod la I thog ma med pa 'i dus nas yod pa iiid du zin yan I dge ba dan mi dge ba 'i las kyi bye brag gis yons SU129 bsgos pas I yan dan yan rnam par smin pa 'i 'bras bu yons su 'dzin pa 'i phyir sar par 'gyur ro I 'bras bu byun nas sa bon de 'bras bu spyad zin pa yin te I de ltar yons su mya nan las ma 'das kyi bar du 'khor ba 'i rgyun 'jug go (Yogacarabhumi,: dzi 14b3-5); X flFfH':?Wi �t rF.f 3IZi'§ fJf::f *§ '11 iHft?Wi �t � Z � Ii! if!-::f if!-*�!8U ;t; �� � tkt� � • • * o m�.�o � * B � o m�.�. B � * o Ii! � � ����.� fJf::f*§ o 7J�*��¥1il� (T. 1 579: 284b 1 9-23) 0
0
0
In the pratftyasamutpada exposition of the Savitarkadi-bhumi, the vipakaphala that is the fruition of karma from the past life that must result in rebirth is identified with vipakavijiiana in the present life. saha pratisandhibandhac ca tasya vijiianasya yat tadupapattisaf[!vartanfyam karma tad dattaphalaf[! bhavati vipakataJ:t (Yogacarabhumi: 1 99.5-7); 1 30 rnam par ses pa de iiid iiin mtshams sbyar ma thag tu skyes nas myon bar 'gyur ba 'i las gan yin pa de I rnam par smin pa 'i tshul gyis 'bras bu 'byin par 'gyur te (Yogacarabhumi,: dzi 1 l 6a1-2); m a;f���*15 B���A* (T. 1 579: 321a29-b l)
In the Viniscayasaf[!grahalJfon the Paiicavijiianakayamanobhumi, it is said that when a sravaka enters nirupadhise�anirvalJa, his seeds of good and neutral dharmas have been damaged because his seeds of defiled dharmas have been destroyed, and he can no longer produce vipakaphala in the future.
128 There is some question about the last two words of this sentence. See Yogacara
bhumi: 26 n. 1 ; Schmithausen 1987: 336 n. 417).
129 Corrected from Ions su on the basis of the Derge and the Chinese. 1 30 I have incorporated Schrnithausen's corrections based on the manuscript (1987: ' 329 n. 374).
Abhidharmako§abhil�ya 1 12
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdda
Yogaearabhami
1 13
2.36 continued) 'phags pa nan thos phUli po 'i lhag ma med pa 'i mya nan las 'das pa 'i dbyins su yons su mya nan las 'das pa de 'i dge ba dan / lun du ma bstan pa 'i ehos kyi sa bon gan yin pa de ni kun nils non mons pa can gyi sa bon yan dag par beom pa 'i phyir nams pa yin pas des ni phyi ma la mam par smin pa mnon par 'grub par byed pa dan / ran fiid skye bar yan mi nus te (Yogileilrabham£ : zi 17a5-7); :E'� ��*� •• �.w�o m�-W � �.�R*.�fi.�. o � �ffl*. �iffX:ttco /G1l���'!i\"*Jk.��*o ijj; /G 1l��:§:' § �Jl* (T. 1579: 584alO-13)
1 14
2.37)
Abhidhannakosabha�ya
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdeta Vasubandhu mentions the opinion of the S autrantikas that the asalJ'!skrta
dharmas are not real and separate dhannas.
sarvam evtisalJ'!sk.rtam adravyam iti sautriintikti/:t I na hi tad rilpavedaniidivat bhiivtintaram asti
(Pradhan: 92.3-4; T. 1558: 34a12-14; Poussin v. 1 : 278; S�ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 429a21-23] and says that he will refute Vasubandhu by proving the reality of pratisalJ'!khyiinirodha and the other two asalJ'!skrtadhannas [T. 1 562: 429a20-21].)
Yogacarabhumi
1 15
2.37) (I have not found any passage in the Yogacarabhumi that explicitly states that the category of asa1!lskrta is not really existent. However, in various places the text questions or denies the real existence of pratisa1!lkhyanirodha, apratisa1!lkhya nirodha, and akasa [see below].)
1 16
AbhidharmakosabhiilfYa
Chapter 2 lndriyanirdesa
2.38) In the continuation of the passage immediately above, Vasubandhu explains that akasa is merely an appellation for the absence of touchable things. If, in the dark, one does not touch anything, one says that there is akasa. kiT[! tarhi I spra�!avyabhavamatram iikasa.m I tadyathii hy andhakare pratighiitam avindanta akasam ity ahu[t
(Pradhan: 92.4-5 ; 34a14- 16; Poussin v. 1 : 279 ; SaIp.ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 429a23-25] and agrees that the absence of touchable things is called akasa, but he insists that akasa is nonetheless an indepen dent entity [T. 1562: 429a27-430a7].)
Yogacarabhilmi
1 17
2.38) The ViniscayasalpgrahcJ/;.l on the PaficavijiianakayamanobhUmi says that iiktiSa is simply an appellation expressing the absence of rilpa. If some place does not contain anything, the notion arises that the place contains iikiisa. Therefore, iikii§a is only a prajiiapti and is not real. (Yamabe Nobuyoshi has noted the similarity between this passage and the Sautrantika opinion in the AbhidharmakosabhiifYa [personal communication] . )
de la nam mkha ' gan ie na / gzugs med pa tsam gyis rab ti phye ba ni nam mkha ' yin te / 'di ltar gan la gzugs yi rnam pa mi dmigs pa de la nam mkha 'i 'du ses 'byun bar 'gyur pas de 'i phyir de yan btags pa 'i yod pa yin par rig par bya 'i rdzas su ni ma yin no (YogiiciirabhUmi,: zi 39bl- 2); 1i*lJjt�i:: 1liJ �1ll 11!U�-g,, �F�pJf'J!o 1l'k � lJjt � o m0*Mo �.m�fi.m�o 1l'k.��lJjt��.o 1l'k�. � � � lIK��Flf�m� (T. 1579: 593a15- 1 8) 0
See also Vastusaf!lgraha!lf: .�lIK�*o a lJjt�� • • � o lJjt�.��R-g". �lIKm� o ��1l'k.-g". ��lIK�lJjt� o �.-g".m.$o ��U � lJjt�lfft�� o #.m.�� lf�
(T. 1579: 879a14-1 8).1 3 l
, 1 3 1 Not in the Tibetan.
118
Abhidharmakosabharya
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdesa
2.39) In the continuation of the same passage, Vasubandhu explains that prati saT[lkhyiinirodha is the non-arising due to wisdom of a new anusaya or birth when the present anusayas and birth have ceased. utpanniinusayajanmanirodha(t pratisaT[lkhyiibaleniinyasyiinutpiida(t pratisaT[lkhyii nirodhaJ:t
(Pradhan: 92.5-6; T. 1558: 34a17; Poussin v. 1 : 279; SaI11ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siitta-master [T. 1 562: 429a25-26] and criticizes it in very great detail, thus indicating how important the real existence of pratisaT[lkhyiinirodha is to the Sarvastivadin system [T. 1 562: 430a18-434b6].)
Yogacarabhiimi
1 19
2.39) The VastusarrrgrahalJ-f, in a definition of *phalaprajnapti (kuo chia-yu *1IX m, mentions pratisarrrkhyanirodha, which, it says, is not nonexistent, since it is an attainment of the path, but is not really existent, since it is simply a designation for the total non-arising in the future of klesas that have already been destroyed.
132
Not in the Tibetan. The Hsien-yang sheng-chiao lun gives a definition of prati sarrrkhyanirodha that is similar but mentions prajfia: �"i�* �� E!:ntij] 1£ifiJmt:lH'r
"'�/f�i$:.:;ljkJll �'I1=. (T. 1602: 484c3�4).
0
Abhidharmakosabha0ia
120
2.40)
Chapter 2 lndriyanirdeia In the continuation of the same passage, Vasubandhu explains that
apratisaf!lkhyanirodha is non-arising, due not to wisdom but to an insufficiency of
conditions.
vinaiva pratisa1'(!khyaya pratyayavaikalyad anutpado yaJ:t so 'pratisa1'(!khyanirodhaJ:t / tad yatha nikayasabhagase�asyantaramara!le
(Pradhan: 92.7-8; T. 1558: 34a18; Poussin v. 1 : 279; SaJIlghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 429a26-27J and again criticizes it in detail, questioning Vasubandhu's reduction of apratisal'(!khyanirodha to "an insufficiency of con ditions" and insisting that it is a real and independent dharma [T. 1562: 434b9-435b2].)
Yogiiciirabhiimi
121
2.40) Th e Viniscayasal'[tgrahm)f o n the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhiimi says that apratisal'[tkhyiinirodha is simply an appellation expressing destruction or pacification when a certain dharma, its conditions for arising having been actualized, does not arise because another dharma arises. Whenever the time for a dharma to be produced is exceeded, that dharma is destroyed and will not arise. (However, if the conditions
for arising are encountered, it may arise in the future, so this is not an absolute destruction.) Because it has no separate svalak�al)l1, apratisal'[tkhyiinirodha is a prajfiap/i, not a real entity. so sor btags pa ma yin pa 'i 'gog pa gan ie na / de las gian pa skye ba 'i rkyen mnon du gyur pa na de las gian pa skye bas / de las gian pa mi skye iin fie bar ii ba 'i 'gog pa tsam ni so sor btags pa ma yin pa 'i 'gog pa ies bya ste / gan de 'i tshe na ma skyes sin skye bas ' i dus las thai ba de ni de 'i tshe na ma yan skye bar rni 'gyur bas / de 'i phyir de yan btags pa 'i yod pa yin gyi rdzas su yod pa ni ma yin te / de 'i ran gi mtshan iiid ni gian cun zad kyan mi drnigs so / de yan chos kyi mam pa dan rna bral ba 'i phyir dus gian gyi tshe rkyen dan phrad na 'byun bar 'gyur bas de 'i phyir so sor btags pa ma yin pa 'i 'gog pa de ni gtan du ba rna yin no (Yogilciirabhiimi,: zi
39b2-5); 1l*£:1PJ;JFjfi�o �1!l;s:t�Y:t:��:m§fr a i#<¥!�ti3:$#n�1�':to �li�P1EiW
� �jf�o �m����.':to M� ����� �.���o ������ ���.��o m�*Mo �.�i#< � ����o �Y:t: •• � •• �o 1l� i#
•
133 Not in
the Tibetan.
1 22
Abhidhannakosabha�ya
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdda 2.41) In a definition of puru�akiiraphala, Vasubandhu says that the efficacy (kiiritra) of a dhanna is calle d puru�akiira. ko 'yal'J1 puru�aki'iro ni'ima I yasya dhannasya yat kiiritram
(Pradhan: 95.2; T. 1558: 35a28-29; Poussin v. 1 : 289; Srurtghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 436a7-8] and criticizes it at length, saying that puru�akiira is si'imarthya, not kiiritra, which is restricted to the result-projecting force of a present dharma; the types of simultaneous causes (sal'J1prayuktahetu and sahabhuhetu) that produce pu�akiiraphala do not project result [T. 1562: 436a8-26].i34
134 For a discussion of the distinction between kiiritra and si'imarthya in (neo) Sarvasti-vada, see Cox 1995: 141-146. I am grateful to Fukuda Takumi for this reference, as well as for help in understanding Srurtghabhadra's objection.
Yogacarabhumi
123
2.4 1 ) (The system of causality in the Yogacarabhumi does not use the term karitra, in contrast with samarthya, to refer to the present activity of a dharma; for one thing, it does not admit the real existence of past and future dharmas, so it does not have to assign a special type of causal function to present dharmas to
distinguish them from past or future ones [see the refutation of the reality of the past and future in the Viniscayasal[!grahal)f of the P ancavijnanakayamanobhumi] . 135 Although the Yogacarabhumi does not use the term karitra in this context, the explanation of the svakarmakaral)a of dharmas in the Savitarkadi-bhumi 136 and of karyakaral)ayukti in the Sravakabhumi137 both suggest that the role of the organ in 13 5 Yogacarabhumi,: zi 14a6-1 5b4; T. 1 579: 583a5-b 17. 136 svakarmakaral)al[! tadyatha cak�u�o darsanal[! I evam avasi�!anam indriyal)al[! svakasvakal[! karma veditavyal[! I tatM p.rthivf dMrayati I apaT:t kledayanti I agnir dahati I vayuT:t so�ayatfty eval[!bMgfyal[! bahyanam api bMvana/'f'l svakasvakal[! karma veditavyal[! (Yogacarabhumi: 106.6-9); ran gi las byed de I 'di Ita ste I mig gi las ni Ita ba '0 I de biin du dban po lhag ma rnams kyan ran ran gi las byed par rig par bya' 0 I de biin du sa ni rten par byed chu ni rlan par byed I me ni sreg par byed I rlwi ni skems par byed I de Ita bu dan mthun pa 'i phyi rol gyi dnos po rnams kyan ran ran las byed par rig par bya 'o (Yogacarabhami,: dzi 63b5 -7); 1iiJ�1l� § *1tffl �'I,J §lV:J
Jil.�*o �D�tf<1�-* § *fflJ.f!\9;Oo X±1hflN�7kfl�:tr® *fl�t��fl�r*o �lJ���'& 9;D51i-5J- § *�HU (T. 1579: 301bl-4)
137 karyakaral)ayuktir (Wayman [196 1 : 79] gives karya-karal)a-yukti[T:t katama I ]) ya [ta]d utpannanal[! skandhanal[! svena hetuna svena pratyayena tasmi/'f'ls tasmin svakaryakaral)e viniyogas tadyatM I cak�u�a rnpal)i dra�!avyani I srotrel)a sabda[T:tJ srotavyaT:t I yavan manasa dharma vyneya iti I rnpel)a cak�u�o gocare avasthtitavyal[! I sabdena srotrasya eva/'f'l ya[va]d dharmair manasa iti I yad va punar anyad apy eva/'f'lbMgfyal[! I tatra tatra dharmal)al[! anyonyaIp. karyakarel)a pratiyuktir yoga upaya iyam ucyate I karyak[a]ral)ayuktiT:t (Sravakabhumi: 142.3- 1 1 ; non-italicized portions represent my corrections); bya ba byed pa 'i rigs pa gan ie na I phun po ran gi rgyu dan I ran gyi rkyen gyis bskyed pa gan yin pa rnams ni ran gi bya ba byed pa de dan de dag la sbyor bar byed pa yin te I 'di Ita ste I dper na mig gis [corrected from gi on the basis of the Derge, Sanskrit, and Chinese] gzugs rnams la Ita bar byed pa dan I rna bas sgra rnams nan par byed pa dan I yid kyis [corrected from gi on the basis of the Derge, Sanskrit, and Chinese] chos rnams ses par byed pa 'i bar Ita bu dan gzugs kyis mig gi spyod yul du gnas par byed pa dan I sgras rna ba 'i spyod yul du gnas par byed pa dan I de biin du chos rnams kyis yid kyi spyod yul du gnas par byed pa 'i bar Ita bu dan I gian yan de Ita bu dan I mthun pa 'i chos rnams dan I de dan de dag gcig la Gig bya ba byed pa 'i rigs pa dan I sbyor ba dan thabs su gyur pa ian yin pa de Iii bya ba byed pa 'i rigs pa ies bya ' 0 (Yogacarabhumi,: wi 68�7-b3);
�W1l .�ffl ��o . H.�B � § .�o � § �ffl -*-*�� o . m�Jil.�
124
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya
Chapter 2 IndriyanirdeSa
Yogilcilrabhiimi
125
2.41 continued) producing senSe consciousness is its actIVIty. This is denied elsewhere by SaI1Ighabhadra,1 38 for whom this role is only the organ's silmarthya.)
1 38 See Cox 1 995: 142- 143 .
1 26
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 2 Indriyanirdefa
2.42) According to the Vaibha�ikas, the praptis of the kusalamulas that are obtained when someone first regains the kusalamulas give result but do not project it. 1 39 Vasubandhu corrects this statement: "only the praptis of the kusalamulas that were given up at the moment of destroying the kusalamulas give result at the time of regaining the kusalamulas but do not project it." Yasomitra explains this, saying that the Vaibha�ikas do not make the necessary distinction between the past praptis that are obtained when one regains the kusalamulas and present praptis that are also obtained at the same time. These present praptis, unlike the past ones, also project their result (,4bhidharmakosavyakhya: 227.6-19; Poussin v. 1: 295 n. 1). dvitfya kusalamUZani pratisarruladhano yalJ. sarvaprathama7J1. pratilabhate / evaT[! tu vaktavyam / syat ta eva pratisarruladhanasya (Pradhan: 96.20-21; T. 1558: 35c20-21 ; Poussin v. 1 : 294-295; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies
this as the statement of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 438a19-20] and defends the Vaibhfu?ika position, saying that the presentp rapti is actually the result projected by the last moment of the past prapti and therefore cannot project a new result [T. 1562: 438a20-25].)
1 39 The root grah literally means "to take," but Yasomitra explains that in this context grah means "to project" by aciliIg as a cause (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 226. 12- 1 3).
Yoga.ca.rabhiimi
127
2.42) According to the Man'obhiimi, the samucchinnakusalamiila destroys the kusalamiilas, but the seeds of the kusalamiilas are not completely destroyed. (See item 2.9.) The implication is that, in the person who regains the kusalamiilas, these seeds give their result in the form of the actualized kusalamiilas. Their result has already been projected, so they do not project it at the moment of regaining the kusalamiilas. kathaf[l kusalamiila.ni samucchinatti / tfkgtendriyasya.dhima.traf[l pa.pa.faya.dhya. ciiradharmasamanviigatatayii tadanulomamitraliibhatayii tasya ca mithyiid!o?!i paryavasthiinasya ghanfkaral}aparyantopagamanataya. sarvapiipa.dhyiiciireo?v asaf[lkociikaukrtyapratiliibhatayii ca / tatra bfjam api kusalamiilaf[l / alobhiidayo 'pi kusalamiilaf[l / kusalamiilasamudiiciiravirodhena santiinasthiipanakusalamiila samucchedana140 bfjoddharal}atayii ca / kathaf[l kusalamiiliini pratisandadhiiti / prakrtyii tfko?l}endriyatayii mitrajfiiitisahiiyakiiniif[l pUl}yakriyiibhisaf[lyoga sandarsanatayii satpuruoJiinupasmikramya saddharmasraval}atayii vicikitsotpatti niscayiidhigamanatayii ca ( Yogiiciirabhiimi: 14. 1 8- 15.6); ji ltar dge ba 'i rtsa ba rnams rgyun 'chad par byed ce na / dbali. po rna la sdig pa 'i bsam pa sas chen po la lhag par spyod pa 'i chos dan ldan pa dan / de dan mthun pa 'i grogs riied pa dan / log par lta ba 'i kun nas dkris pa de lhun stug par byed pas / mthar thug par 'gro ba dan / sdig pa thams cad la lhag par spyod pa dag la mi ldog cin / 'gyod pa ? 41
mi byed par 'gyur ro / de la sa bon yan dge ba 'i rtsa ba yin la / ma chags pa la sags pa yan dge ba 'i rtsa ba yin te / dge ba 'i rtsa ba kun tu spyod pa dan mi mthun pas rgyud gnas par byed cin / dge ba 'i rtsa ba gcod pas sa bon 'byin pa? 42 byed do / ji ltar dge ba 'i rtsa ba rnams mtshams sbyor bar byed ce na / ran biin gyis dban po rna ba dan / mdza ' bSes143 dan / fie du dan / rten grogs rnams bsod nams bya ba la mnon par brtson pa mthon ba dan / skyes bu dam pa 'i thad du son nas dam pa 'i chos fian pa dan / the tshom skye fin nes par rtogs par byed do (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: dzi 8b8-9a4); j;; 1PJIi!i:J!fTlo �l!l :fIjTl:j!f a gX:g,itL Jfu �'If��� � fi�ao � gg���ao �$�.a. oo �� � .ao ��-ID ��fi � ��.ao �a�ao � Ii!i :J!f.o � � .*�� :J!f.o � •• ��� :J!f.o i.§. El3 * .lz: � fi :J!fi'lo i'§ J8;i'§ *:1: � Ii!i :J!fTlo :flo El3 71< t\(:f&:;fi *�)c j;; 1PJ *:1: :J!fi'lo �l!l El3t1:fIjTl�)co �:U�JJ �11�tlli*�)co ��:J!f:st� PfJiEiH)co 1ZSl�1�J*gJfi*5E�)co j�H:I::J!fTl (T. 1 579: 281 a22-b2)
140 The manuscript reads samucchedo na bfjoddharaitayii. 141 Derge reads pas.
1 42 Derge reads pas. 143 Corrected from mdza ' ses on the basis of the Derge.
AbhidharmakosabhiifYa 128 Chapter 2 Indriyanirdesa 2.43) According to the Vaibh1i�ikas, the priiptis of the akusala dharmas that are obtained when someone fIrst falls from kiimavairiigya give result but do not project it. Vasubandhu corrects this statement: "only the priiptis of the akusala dharmas that are abandoned when someone attains to kiimavairiigya give result at the time of fallin g from kiimavairiigya but do not project it." dvitiyii kiimavairiigyiit parihfyamiiIJ-o yiiJ:t sarvaprathama1'[! pratilabhate / eva1'[! tu vaktavyam / syiit tii eva parihfyamiiIJ-asya (Pradhan: 96.23-25; T. 1558: 35c24-25; Poussin v. 1 : 295; Srupghabhadra identifIes this as the statement of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 438c29-b lJ and says that the same arguments apply as in the case of the previous item [T. 1562: 438bl-2J.)
Yogiieiirabhilmi 129
2.43) In the Viniseayasal!lgrahal}! on the Paneavijniinakayamanobhilmi, it is said that a p.rthagjana who attains the fIrst dhyiina by means of laukikamiirga only weakens the seeds of kidas and other kamadhiitu dharmas, and so, when he falls from this dhyiina, the kidas are again actualized. so so 'i skye bo 'jig rten pa 'i lam gyi bsam gtan dan po ia snoms par iugs sin skyes pa nil44 de las gian pa 'dod pa na spyod pa 'i ehos non mons pa can de dag gi sa bon gan yin pa de ni nams pa yin gyi I yan dag par beom pa ni ma yin par rig par bya ' 0 I de ci'i phyir ie na l 'di [tar so so 'i skye bo de ni tin ne 'dzin l 45 de las yons su nams nas yan 'dod pa na spyod pa 'i ehos non mons pa can mams mnon du byed pa dan I bsam gtan dan po 'i snoms par 'jug pa de nas si 'phos nas yan 'dod pa 'i khams su skye bar 'gyur ba 'i phyir ro (Yogiieiirabhilmi,: zi 1 6a6-b 1); 1l*Ell'it�!t El3 iit ra' JltA.:fJJ IWlf. o E1�!t1Blm ltif�xj'f.ll'lt!�� 1"f1*o B".��XJ'f.ll*1*;fi To 1.§.1Blt�1x/f ��.o WU�o El3 �.!t�*���j'f.���� � � o �WIWlf. & 2 o � �!t �j'f.� (T. 1579: 583c l l- 15)
1 44 Corrected from skyes pa 'i on the basis of the Derge. 145 Corrected from tin 'dzin on the b asis of the Derge.
Abhidhannakosabhii�ya 130 Chapter 2 Indriyanirde§a
2.44) Vasubandhu quotes an opinion according to which one, in a moment of kusalacitta, can obtain six types of cittas. He states that this should be corrected to seven, specifying that at the moment of entering the miirga one obtains saik�acitta, while at the moment of attaining arhatship, one obtains asaik�acitta. ,
anye punar abhedeniihuJ:! / kli�!e citte naviiniilJ'! hi liibhaJ:! ity ucyate buddhaiJ:! / �alJ.lJ.iilJ'! tu kusale citte tasyaiviivyiikrte khalu / tatra saptiiniilJ'! kusale citta iti vaktavyam / kiimiivaciirasya kusalasya samyagdr�.tyii kusalamulapratisalJ'!dhiiniit kiimarupiivaciirayor anivrtiivyiikrtayor vairiigyataJ:! rupiirupyiivaciirayoJ:! kusalayos tat asty asamiidhiliibhataJ:! sai�iiSaik�asya ca niyiimiivakriinty arhattvayoJ:! se�am ata eva vyiikhyiiniid avadhiiryam (Pradhan: 109.21- 1 1 0.2; T. 1558: 40c5- 12; Poussin v. l : 330-33 1 ; S3Ip.ghabhadraidentifies this as the statement of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 456a1] and explains that these last two moments are mentioned as one since they are both aniisrava [T. 1562: 456al-2] .)
Yogtictirabhumi
131
2.44) ( I have found no similar enumeration of kusalacittas in the Yogtictirabhumi. However, it is perhaps possible that Vasubandhu' s insistence on listing saik�acittas and asaik�acittas as separate items has something to do with an issue mentioned by Schmithausen [1987: 147- 148], namely the existence of a type of morally .neutral satktiyad!�!i that can "occur even in Sailqas" [ 1 987: 148, 439 n. 28] . 146 To the extent that the saik�a has such a d!�!i, even though it is not akusala, Vasubandhu may have thought that the saik�acitta was significantly different from that of the asaik.Ja and should not be conflated with it.i47
146 See the Viniscayasalflgraha/Jf on the Savitarkadi-bhumi: de la 'jig tshogs la Ita ba gmi ie na / ne bar len pa 'i phwi po bia po dag la bdag gam bdag gir Zta ba dan / mnon par ien pa dan sems la 'jog pa gan yin pa de ni 'jig tshogs la Zta ba ies bya 'o / de 'an rnam pa gnis su rig par bya ste / lhan cig skye pa dan kun brtags pa 'o / de la lhan cig skyes pa ni byis pa so so 'i skye bo thams cad dan tha na ri dags dan bya ba rnams kyi yan yin no / kun brtags pa ni gian mu stegs can rnams kyi yin par blta bar bya 'o ( Yogtictirabhumi,: zi 1 12b61 13al); iii ;WUIlUl!, � n�1iJrJl.�I�A,'fM\!i lIitJi!, :f\i::f\i:pJf1S iii )1I[1)ffi Ji!, J1:tll= o �i �f�:ito =7t7.lU � o f�:it � o - tv ,� :K�1:.JJ��i}\.Jt�;m1T o 7t7.lU � � o �>'i-:@:��tocrm� (T. 1579: 621b6- 1 O) 0
0
See also the Vastusalflgraha/Jf: bdag tu Ita ba rnam pa bii ni na 'o snam pa 'i brgyal skye ba 'i rkyen gyi bya ba byed pa yin te / 'di Ita ste rnam par brtags pa ni 'di las phyi rol pa 'i mu stegs can mams kyi gan yin pa 'o / lhan cig skyes pa 'i tha na ri dags dan bya ba mams la yan yod pa gan yin pa 'o (Yogtictirabhumi,: 'i 1 62a5-7); 1l*� !m�i:f\i:Ji!,;f.&PJf1i\;:ll::J� 1:.:f\i:'I�o -�7t7.lU:f\i:Ji!,o �� �>'i-:@:PJf�o =f�1:.:f\i:Ji!, o �� T��i}\�lj}§�1:.� (T. 1579:
779c1 0-12) 1 47 Elsewhere, as Schmithausen (1987: 439 n. 928) notes, Vasubandhu attributes the assertion of the existence of such a sahaja satkayad!.J!i to thepurviictiryas (Pradhan: 290. 1 9-2 1 ; T. 1558: 102c26-27; Poussin v. 4: 41). 0
Abhidhannakosabha�ya 132 Chapter 3 Lokanirde§a 3.1) According to Vasubandhu, in arnpyadhatu there is no support for consciousness external to consciousness itself. (According to the Abhidh1irmikas, the support is nikiiyasabhaga and jfvitendriya. i48 The projecting cause (a�epahetu) is sufficient to establish consciousness in a new lifetime, regardless of whether the realm contains rnpa or not. tasman nasty arnpil:za1J1 sattvana1J1 cittasantater anya1J1 nisraya iti sautrantikii!:z I api tu yasyas cittasantater ak�epahetur avftat!�l}-o rnpe tasya!:z saha rnpel}-a sa1J1bhavad rnpa1J1 nisritya prav.rttir yasyas tu hetur vftatr�l}-o rnpe tasya anapekrya rnpa1J1 prav.rtti!:z I hetos tadvimukhatvad iti (Pradhan: 1 12. 1 8-20; T. 1588: Poussin v. 2: 6; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 458c1-8] and criticizes it, insisting that nikiiya sabhaga and jfvitendriya are necessary to support consciousness in the absence of rnpa and showing that Vasubandhu' s explanation regarding arnpyadhatu is inconsistent with how consciousness arises in the other realms [T. 1562: 458c8-458c25].)
148 On this occasion, Vasubandhu does not explicitly deny the reality of nikiiyasabhaga andjfvitendriya. However, Sarpghabhadra, using the term ching-chu ("siitra-master"), points out that Vasubandhu' s rejection of the Abhidh1irmika position is based on such a ' denial (T. 1562: 458b 1 9-c 1).
Yogiiciirabhami 133
3 . 1) The ViniscayasalJ1grahal}lOn the Cintiimayfprajiiii Bhami inc1udes nikiiya sabhiiga and jrvitendriya, along with the other cittaviprayuktasalJ1skiiras, in a long . list of salJ1skrtadharmas that are prajiiapti and thus not real (see item 1 .3). ,
dus byas kyi min can gyi dnos po la skye ba dan / rga ba dan / gnas pa dan / mi rtag pa dan / sa bon dan mam par rig byed dan / mam par rig byed rna yin pa dan / thob pa dan / 'thob pa rna yin pa dan / srog gi dban po dan / ris mthun pa dan / min gi tshogs dan / tshig gi tshogs dan / yi ge 'i tshogs mams dan so so 'i skye bo iiid daw tshogs pa dan rna tshogs pa dan / 'jug pa so sor nes pa dan / sbyor ba dan / mgyogs pa dan / go rims dan / dus dan yul dan grans iie bar 'dogs pa dan ( Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 208a4-6); X1J�;ff J.1&�i¥!;W�o 1litrL1:.{s1::t1l!f;1tflTo ;ff £Z1I!f;£H�frJtlU'K IWJ:5to ;t $t1i] $t 3t $t Jl.1:.'11o 5foir /f5fOif1jfE"lE�1§lf!��*�a�:1J&tt (T. 1579: 659a12- 16) The Savitarkiidi"bhami specifies that the saytlSkiiras perfumed by karma, i.e., iik�epahetu, which consists of bfjas, project a new lifetime in all three realms. tatra viisaniihetvadhi�!hiinam adhi�!hiiYiik�epahetuJ:z prajiiiipyate / tat kasya hetoJ:z / tathii hi / subhiiSubhakarmaparibhiivitiil:z saytzSkiiriis traidhiituke�!iini�!agati.rv i�!iini�!iitma bhiiviin iik�ipanti ( Yogiiciirabhami: 1 07.20- 108.2) ; de la rgyu'i gnas bag chags la brten nas / 'phen pa'i rgyu 'dogs par byed de / de ci'i phyir fe na / 'di ltar dge ba dan / mi dge ba 'i las kyis yons su bsgos pa 'i 'du byed rnams kyis khams gsum du sdug pa dan / mi sdug pa 'i 'gro ba rnams su / sdug pa dan mi sdug pa'i Ius rnams 'phen par byed pa dan / de iiid kyi dban gis phyi rol gyi dnos po rnams kyan / phan sum tshogs pa dan / rgud par 'gyur ba 'i phyir te / de bas na 'du byed rnams kyi dge ba dan mi dge ba 'i las kyi bag chags la brten nas 'phen pa 'i rgyu 'dogs so � o,giiciira� amji f!!j 64b5-8); fit� #\' lN fit�o ,Otli��� 5J IN a pJT J2J-1lf1PJ a El3 i$-/f l¥* � � =3'f.a1'i1T o 1J��/f�� 1=jJ � 5 1 �/f � i3 H:o X&P El3 Jl:t:i� ...t 1J �Hi-�m �iito ;llk�J:fit�qT i$-/f i$-*� #\'fit�o :Ml�� 5 1 1N (T. 1 579: 301b28-c3) 149
!
The ViniicayasalJ1grahal}lOn the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhami says that, if conscious ness did not contain the seeds of rnpa, rebirth after falling from iirnpyadhiitu would be impossible. gal te rnam par ses pa gzugs kyi sa bon dan Idan pa ma yin du zin na / so so 'i skye bo gzugs med pa rnams su skyes pa tshe zad cin las zad nas de nas 'ci 'pho fin yan 'og tu skye pa 'i gzugs kyi sa bon med pas 'byun bar mi 'gyur ba fig na 'byun ste / de Ita bas na gzugs kyi sa bon dan Idan pa 'i rnam par ses pa de la brten nas / de 'i gzugs 149 For other relevant definitions of iik�epahetu in the Yogiiciirabhami, see Kritzer 1999: 155-165 . 0
134
Abhidharmako§abhii�ya Chapter 3 Lokanirdeia
Yogiiciirabhiimi 135
3 . 1 continued) 'byUJi bar rig par bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhamit: z i 1 6b4-6; see Schmit hausen 1987: 2 1 , 288 n. 172 b); qj[*;E'�t�MF1Mj+pJTJl.;l�1§- �1!!H�, 3'f. ��o �� •••• &�.� T � o � •• +.���o ����o ��.�.� fj+Jl.;l�D�\�o .tlJl:t:11& � -E. yt�� (T. 1 579: 5 83c7- lOi50 0
150 The Vastusa'!lgraha':!f also says that the bfjas of riipa exist in iirilpyadhiitu consciousness : gzugs med pa dag ni mam par ses pa med la yan brten la gzugs kyi sa bon la yan brten to / min dan gzugs kyi sa bon yan mam par ses pa la brten cin 'dug ste / gzugs kyi rgyun chad zin pa las kyan gzugs kyi sa bon de las phyi ma la 'byun bar 'gyur te (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: 'i 285b7-286al); tE.-E.3'f.o �t:ff 'I�;!;Jf �o *�� & -E. .+o � &-E..*�® . o � � � � :ff -E. .�o -E. . � E� . � � (T. 1579: 827c29-828a2). This would appear t o b e an example o f a case in the Yogiiciirabhiimi in which consciousness in iiriipyadhiitu maintains a connection with matter (see Schmithausen 1987 : 47-50). 0
Abhidharmakosabhii0la 136
Chapter 3 Lokanirde§a
3 .2i 51 In a discussion of the vijiiiinasthitis, Vasubandhu mentions the opinion of the Sautriintikas that the Abhasvara gods are said to have different ideas because, at the time of destruction of the universe, some of them have the idea of fear, while others do not. (According to the Vaibh�ikas, it is because their feelings alternate between pleasant and neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant.) sautriintikii vyiicak�ate I sutra uktarrr yathii te niiniitvasarrrjiiinaJ.!. I tatra ye sattvii iibhiisvare devanikiiye 'ciropapannii bhavanti naiva sarrrvartanikufalii na vivartanf kusalii asya lokasya te tiim arci�arrr dr�.tvii bhftiiJ.!. santa udvijante sarrrvegam iipadyante I sahaivai�ii 'rciJ.!. sunyarrr briihmarrr vimilnarrr dagdhvii 'rviig iigami0latfti I tatra ye sattvii iibhiisvare devanikiiy e ciropapanniiJ.!. sarrrvartanfkusalii vivartanfkusala§ ciisya lokasya te tiin sattviin bhftiin iisviisayanti I mil bhai�!a milr�iiJ.!. mil bhai�!a miir�iiJ.!. I purvam apy e�ii 'rciJ.!. sunyarrr briihmarrr vimiinarrr dagdhvii 'traiviintarhite ti I ato 'rciJ.!. iigamavyapagama sarrrjiiitviit bhftii bhftasarrrjiiitviic ca te niiniitvasarrrjiiino na sukhiiduJ.!.khiisukhasarrrjiiitviid iti (Pradhan: 1 1 6. 16-23 ; T. 1 5 8 8 : 43alO- 1 9 ; Poussin v. 2: 20; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the position of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 463b5], with which the Sthavira' s position is said to agree [T. 1 562: 463b l l - 1 3 ] , and he rejects it, saying that fear is inconsistent with vijiiiinasthiti, which implies pleasant feelings and mental stability [T. 1 562: 463b6- 1 1].)
1 5 1 Before this item, in the context of a discussion of whether antariibhava is a gati, Vasubandhu mentions the opinion of "others" that the gatis can be kusala and kli�!a. According to the Vaibha�ikas, they must only be avyiikrta (Pradhan: 1 15 .3-6; T. 1558: 42b 1 3 - 1 6 ; Poussin 2: 14). S arpghabhadra identifies the opinion mentioned by Vasubandhu as the argument of the siitra-master (T. 1 562: 459c2-5) and criticizes it (T. 1 562: 459c5-460a21). But P' u-kuang says that this is a Mahasarpghika position (T. 1 8 2 1 : 1 52a14). I have found nothing in the Yogiiciirabhilmi to suggest disagreement with the Vaibha�ika position on this issue. Sarpghabhadra refers to the sutra-master three more times (T. 1562: 460b 1 1 , 26, 29) in the remainder of the discussion (Pradhan: 1 15.6-13; T. 1558: 42b 17-28; Poussin 2: 14; T. 1562: 460a21-460b29). 0
Yogileilrabhami 137
3 .2) According to the Srutamayf Bhumi, the Abhasvara gods have different ideas because when they see Brahma' s conflagration, some are afraid and some are not. 'od gsal gyi Zha gnas na ni sria phyir skyes pa mams / tsharis pa 'i 'jig rten tshig pa '; me lee mthori ba las 'jigs pa dmi / mi 'jigs pa 'i 'du ses su 'gyur bas / de dag ni 'du ses mi 'dra bar rig par bya 'o (Yogileilrabhumir-' dzi 2 1 1 aS-6); :7t11fJ"::: ,*7t1&1:.1lf EB flJ;tiltJii:t1S1��o fjjjJ a��:1f'I'l1l/f'I'l1l�o �ti$c:aN!t:1f ��Ji� (T. 1 579: 354c20-22) 0
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 138 Chapter 3 Lokanirdda 3 .3) One ofVasubandhu' s explanations forwhy there are only fourvijiiiinasthitis (i.e., why vijiiiinaskandha is not also a vijiiiinasthiti) compares vijiiiina to a seed and vijiiiinasthiti to a field: these two must be different. api ca lqetrabhiivena bhagavatii catasro vijiiiinasthitayo dditiiJ:t / bfjabhiivena ca sopiidiina1']'! vijiiiina1']'! krtsnam eveti na punar bfja1']'! bfjasya k�etrabhiivena vyavasthiipayii1']'! babhuvety abhipraya1']'! parikalpayiimiisa /ye dharmiiJ:t sahavartino vijiiiinasya te ' sya lqetrabhiivena siidhfyiil'J'lSO bhavantfti ta eviisya sthitaya uktiiJ:t (Pradhan: 1 1 8 . 10- 1 3 ; T. 1588: 43c8-c 14; Poussin v. 2: 25-26; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 465b7-14] and says that the simile of seed and field is valid since it does not contradict sutra, but he rejects Vasubandhu' s explanation o f th e simile for several reasons [T. 1562: 465b 14-c9] .)
YogiiciirabMimi 139
3 .3) Th e VastusaJ?1grahalJ-f(Yogiiciirabhiimir' 'i201a2-b2; T. 1579: 794b6-24; Mukai 1985: 30) comments on SaJ?1yuktiigama, sutra 39 (T. 99: 8c26-9a27), in an explanation of how the sprout of the next life arises from the seed, which is vijiiiina. In this passage, vijfiiina is said to be the hetu and the four vijiiiinasthitis, which are compared to a field, are said to be pratyayas. ymi srid par skye ba 'i myu gu 'byun ba la ni rgyu gcig dan rkyen gfiis yod de / 'du byed rnam pa lna po dag la fion mons pa sa bon dan ldan pa'i roam par ses pa ni rgyu'o / rnam par ses pa 'i gnas bti tin dan 'dra ba dan / dga ' ba dan 'dod chags des rnam par ses pa skye ba de dan der fiin mtshams sbyar ba 'i phyir rlan par byed pa ni rkyen yin no / de la kha cig ni rnam par ses pa 'i gnas bti phunpor gtogs par 'gyur la dga ' ba dan 'dod chags ni des tshe 'di la gsar du bsags sin bsdus na (Yogiiciirabhumi,: 'i 20l a2- 4) ; Q3[ * - 1ZSl =�%1k1f:!¥ �1�-!t-:&o �\ll 1L �� 1'J 9=t rJH��ITPJfjlj!� ilo m � � lZSl o � 83 15'1§ iW- Jm �lil1! o m � � �� o JZ.. E!:L;; � i�ir,lJ A il o %:Jj� ����-!t.M-!tffi . o � . � � o � � �.o � 9=t 1f - � Jm iltt.��� � ;;; � tJ:o :Jj�:ffl. ¥* 9=t *HJTjM�&JJj:� -:& (T. 1 579:794b6- 12) See also an explanation in the VastusaJ?1grahalJ-f of defilement ( Yogiiciirabhiimi,: 'i 314b2-3 15a2; T. 1579: 840a12-24; Mukai 1985: 36), which comments on SaJ?1yuktiigama, sutra 374 (T. 99: 102c28-103a12).
>
152 Corrected from yin IZSl on the basis of the alternate reading in the TaishO note and the Tibetan translation, tin (Yogiiciirabhumi,: 'i 201a3), which corresponds to" k?etra.
Abhidharmakosabha1Ya 140 Chapter 3 Lokanirdesa
3.4) One Vaibhii�ika answer to the question of why the Buddha chose birth in the womb over an apparitional birth is that it was in order to leave a body as a relic. 1 53 Vasubandhu objects that this explanation will not satisfy those who think the Buddha has adhi�!hanikf rddh i, the power to maintain his body after death. adhi�!hiinikfm rddhi/'fl bhagavata icchatam na yukta e�a parihiiraf:/. (Pradhan: 1 1 9.25-26; T. 1558: 44a27-28 ; Poussin v. 2: 3 1 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 467c25-26] and rejects it in favor of the Vaibha�ika explanation, saying that a body maintained after death by rddhi would not be impregnated with the Buddha' s special powers and so would not be very beneficial to the world [T. 1 562: 467c27-468a15].)
1 5 3 See the Vibhii�a (T. 1 545 : 627c9- 1 5).
Yo gacarabhumi 141
3 .4) The Bodhisattvabhumi says that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas can use their magical power to continue to exist after death. kiT[lcic ca nirmal}am adhiti�thati yad uparate 'pi bodhisattve tathagate va 'nuvartata eva (Bodhisattvabhumi: 64.23-25); byan chub sems dpa ' 'am i de biin gsegs pa 'das pa 'i og tu yan sprul pa la la gnas pa kho nar byin gyis rlob pa dan ( Yogacara-bhUmi; ii 42a4-5) ; D0 � .!lX;1'f��1��ili ijlli�&1� EE 1Hcif:JJ ffift&lljUf (T. 1 5 7 9 : 493b6-7)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 142 Chapter 3 Lokanirdesa 3 .5) According to Vasubandhu, denying the existence of antarabhava by comparing death and rebirth to an object and a reflected image is wrong because the reflected image is not real. pratibimbam asiddhatvad asamyac canidarsanamlpratibimba'!l ntimtinyad evotpadyate dharmtintaram ity asiddham etat (Pradhan: 1 20. 1 9-20; T. 1 5 8 8 :44b28-c l l ; Poussin v. 2: 34-35; Kritzer 2000a: 243247 ; S arp.ghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 470a1 8-b2J and criticizes it at very great length, refuting each of Vasubandhu' s argu ments and insisting that the reflected image is in fact real [T. 1562: 470b2-472a22J .)
Yogiiciirabhflmi 143
3 .5) According to the ViniscayasaT[lgraha1J! on the Paiicavijiiiinakilyamanobhami, the comparison between death and rebirth and object and image is invalid and does not disprove the existence of the antariibhava. bar mdo 'i srid pa yod par rgyu gan gis khon du chud par bya ie na / smras pa / si
� � = � = � � � � �� � � � � � � �
pa ' i phyir dan / mam par 'khrul pa tsam yin pas brag ca lta bur yan mi run ba dan / ma 'gags pa 'i phyir gzugs briian lta bur yan mi run ba dan / 'gro bab med pa 'i phyir dmigs pa 'dzin pa lta bur yan mi run ste / gan gi phyir dpe de dag mi run ba de 'i phyir bar mdo 'i srid pa yod par rig par bya ste (Yogiicarabhami,: zi 55a5-8) ; Fp�1ilJ IEl 1��D� r:p �J1� 0 :@.tiJ£J1:tiQ 80 ��PJT1]1(gt' L" L,pJT 0 � � jl�J;1l[ iI!! � M;h
tto /f!ff. fr D�rIl��Ltto /f!ff. fr D�1�/fi$;tto uF/f�mfrDJf;zpJT*�o ?F1T1:Uto EB frD;ll!:: � pJTm!,Pffii o /f!ff. J!! J1l[o ;ll!:: tt'i"�D5E� r:p � (T. 1 579: 599a9- 14)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 144 Chapter 3 Lokanirdeia
3 .6) According to Vasubandhu, the reflected image, which is not real, appears due to the power of the coming together of causes and conditions. He says that the variety of the capabilities of dharmas is unthinkable. siimagryiis tu sa tasyas tadrsaf:z prabhavo yat tatha darsanafJ1 bhavati / acintyo hi dharma1J.iifJ1 saktibhedaf:z (Pradhan: 121 .4-5; T. 1558: 44c1O- 1 l ; Poussin v. 2: 35; Srup.ghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 472a22-24] and criticizes it bitterly, suggest ing that if one denies the reality of the reflected image, one might as well deny the reality of all dharmas [T. 1562: 472a24-clO] ; see Fukuda 1998a: 3-9; Kritzer 2000a: 243-244.)
Yogiiciirabhilmi 145
3 . 6) According to the ViniicayasalJ'lgrahal}f on the Sacittikii Bhilmi, the prav.rtti vijiiiinas depend on the iilayavijiiiina as the reflected image depends on the mirror; this suggests the relative unreality of the reflected image. 1 54 don dam pa 'i tshul mam par biag pas 'jug pa gan ie na I mdor bsdu na mam par ses pa ni mam pa giiis te I kun gii mam par ses pa dan I 'jug pa'i mam par ses pa 'o I de la kun gii mam par ses pa ni gnas yin no I 'jug pa 'i mam par ses pa ni gnas pa yin te I de yan mam pa bdun te I mig gi mam par ses pa nas I yid dan yid kyi mam par ses pa ' i bar te I chu ' i cho bo dan I rlabs Ita bu ' am I me Ion dan gzugs briian Ita bu yin no (Yogiiciirabhilmi; zi 1 89b l-3; see Schrnithausen 1 987: 325-326 n. 357); 'i:1iiJ.:t���Jf�JjJ!:rr.i£Jjljo �iil �:ff=fJ&o -*�iiJii:Jfl)�o =*�fJ&o �iiJ ii:Jfl)�ilt�pfift{o *$�;llk �Mt{o lI:�qj[-f::Ai: o pJT�iil BR�JY�:f:�o ft�f]7j(,i�1t{1l:Jl: iJlEo ��f]�{�1t{1I::.I31l1� o �f];llk.:t 1t{��j�JIJ1&pfift{�Mt{i£JjIj (T. 1579: 651b13-17) The definitions in the Savitarkiidi-bhilmi of saktivaicitrya hetvadhi�!hiina and siimagrfhetvadhi�!hiina may be relevant here: saktivaicitrya refers to the multiplicity of forces necessary to produce the variety of dharmas associated with kiimadhiitu, rilpadhiitu, and iirupyadhiitu, as well as non-associated (aniisrava) dharmas, while in the case of siimagrf of production, when the totality of causes necessary for the production of any dharma is realized, the dharma arises. tatra saktivaicitryalJ'l hetvadhi�!hiinam adhi�!hiiya pratiniyamahetuJ:t prajiiiipyate I tat kasya hetoJ:t I tathii hi I kiimapratisa1J1yuktii dharmii vicitrasvabhiivii vicitriid svabhiivavi�e§iic chaktivaicitryiid utpadyante Iyathii kiimapratisa1J1yuktii eva1J1 rupa pratisalJ'lyuktii iirilpyapratisalJ'lyuktii apratisa1J1yuktiiJ:t I tasmiic chaktivaicitryam adhi�!hiiya pratiniyamahetuJ:t prajiiiipyate I tatra siimagrfhetvadhi�!hiinam adhi�!hiiya sahakiirihetuJ:t prajiiiipyate I tat kasya hetoJ:t I tathii hi I sviim utpatti siimagrfm iigamya kiimapratisa1J1yuktiinii1J1 dharmiiIJiim utpiido bhiiviiti I yathii kiimapratisa1J1yuktiiniim eva1J1 rilpapratisa1J1yuktiiniim iirilpyapratisa1J1yuktiiniim apratisalJ'lyuktiinii1J1 I yathotpattisiimagry eva1J1 priiptisiimagrf siddhisiimagrf ni�patti siimagrf kriyiisiimagrfI tasmiit siimagrfm adhi�!hiiya sahakiirihetuJ:t prajiiiipyate 1 54 In a similar passage in the Viniscayasa1J1grahaIJf on the Bodhisattvabhilmi �a1J1dhinirmocanasutra), the meditational image is said to be no different from the consciousness in which it is perceived, just as the reflected image depends on the mirror, with the object acting as a condition; this suggests that the reflected image has no independent reality (yogiiciirabhUmi,: 'i 74b6-75a3 ; T. 1579: 724a3-13; Sa1J1dhi nirmocanasiltra,: 90.22-9 1 . 17; T. 676: 698a22-b9). Fukuda thinks that Vasubandhu carefully avoids stating a position similar to the one that underlies this famous passage (1 998a: 9). However, as we can see, SaJ1lghabhadra clearly thinks that Vasubandhu' s statement has radical implications. 0
AbhidhannakosabhiiifYa 146 Chapter 3 Lokanirdeia
Yogiicarabhfimi 147
3 . 6 continued) (Yogacarabhfiini: 109 . 1 9- 1 1 0.7); de Ia rgyu'i gnas dan mthu sna tshogs la brten nas / so sor nes pa 'i rgyu 'dogs par byed de / de ci 'i phyir ie na / 'di Itar 'dod pa Idan pa 'i chos no bo fiid rnam pa sna tshogs pa rnams ni l no bo fiid kyi khyad par rnam pa sna tshogs / mthu rnam pa rna tshogs can las byun ba 'i phyir ro / 'dod pa dan ldan pa rnams ji Ita ba biin du / gzugs dan ldan pa rnams dan / gzugs med pa dan ldan pa rnams dan / Idan pa ma yin pa 'i rnams kyan de dan 'dra ste / de bas na mthu sna tshogs Ia brtenl 55 nas / so sor nes pa 'i rgyu 'dogs so / de la rgyu 'i sna tshogs pa brten nas / Ihan cig byed pa 'i rgyu 'dod par byed de / de ci 'i phyir ie na / 'di Itar ran skye ba 'i tshogs dan phrad nas 'dod pa dan Idan pa 'i chos rnams skye ba 'i phyir ro / 'dod pa dan Idan pa rnams ji Ita ba biin du / gzugs dan Idan pa rnams dan / gzugs med pa dan ldan pa rnams dan / Idan pa ma yin pa rnams kyan de dan 'dra 'o / skye ba 'i tshogs pa ji Ita ba biin du thob pa 'i tshogs pa dan / grub par gyur pa 'i tshogs pa dan / 'grub pa 'i tshogs pa dan / gnas pa 'i tshogs pa dan / byed pa 'i tshogs pa rnams kyan de dan 'dra ste / de bas na tshogs pa Ia brten nas Ihan cig byed pa 'i ryu 'dogs so ( Yogacarabhamit: dzi 66a3-b 1); 1:& � JJIj Jj]
� � *.o ���. � o m��Mo ��.R� � ttJj] ������� •• � ttJj] � o ��.�o � ����.&�.��. o ��*��Jj] �*.o ���. � o 1M015-1ZS11:&.o ���[PJ$lZSIo pfi��1PJo ��3i1� § �5f015-tIto OpJ\. .¥!��DOpJ\. .¥!o �D ����.&�.Y!�. o �D�5fD 15- o �D�1�$;$hfffl 5fD 15-�.o �tIt1MD15-1:&.:Iitil�� [PJ$1ZSI (T. 1 579: 302a2 1 0)1 56 _
1 55 Corrected from rten on the basis of the Derge. 1 56 See the defInition in the ViniscayasaY[!grahal}! on the Paficavijfianaktiyamano bhfimi of samagrf as a cittaviprayuktasaY[!Skara: all the causes and conditions that can produce dharmas are referred to by the single term samagrf(Yogacarabhiimir' zi 26b3-4; T. 1 579: 587b29-c2). See also Kritzer 1999: 249-253. 0
Abhidharmakosabha0'a 148 Chapter 3 Lokanirdeia 3.7) According to Vasubandhu, avidya in the avasthika interpretation ofpratftyasamutpada is accompanied by all the other klesas, like a king by his retinue. sahacaryat tadvasena te�arrz samudacarac ca / rajagamanavacane tadanu yatrikagamanasiddhavat (Pradhan: 1 3 1 . 1 9-20; T. 1588: 48b21-23 ; Poussin v. 2: 63 ; SaJ.1lghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 484a12-14] and, objecting to Vasu bandhu's understanding of the word sahacarya on the grounds that it establishes an improper separation between avidya and the rest of the klesas, refers approvingly to the Vaibha�ika position that avidya here refers to the five skandhas of the past life in the state of defilement [T. 1562: 484a15-27] .)
Yogacarabhumi 149
3 .7) (Perhaps it is relevant that in the Savitarkadi-bhami, avidya is said to be viparyasamula, while satkayadr�!i, part of antagrahadr�!i, srlavrataparamarsa, and raga are viparyasa proper, and mithyiidNP, part of antagrahadr�!i, pratigha, mana, and vicikitsa are viparyasani�yanda. tatra viparyasamulam avidya / viparyasaJ:t 1 57 satkiiyadr�!ir antagrahakadr�!er eka defo dr�!iparamarso ragas ca / viparyasaniryando mithyadr�!ir antagrahadr�!er ekadefaJ:t pratigho mana vicikitsa ca [ Yogacarabhami 166. 16- 1 8 ; see Schmithausen 1987: 449 n. 963 ] ; de la phyin ci log gi rtsa ba ni ma rig pa 'o / phyin ci log ni 'jig tshogs la Ita ba dan / mthar 'dzin par Ita ba 'i phyogs gcig dan / Ita ba mchog tu 'dzin pa dan / tshul khrims dan brtul lugs mchog tu 'dzin pa dan / 'dod chags so / phyin ci log gi rgyu mthun pa ni / log par Ita ba daw mthar 'dzin pa 'i Ita ba 'i phyogs gcig dan / kon khro ba dan / na rgyal dan / the tshom mo [Yogacarabhumi,: dzi 97a8-b2] ; lfH�*�o �iil #!lli l¥3 o ruHftl ill � o �iil lll ]Jl.!UIIU� o jf¥J\�-5to � Jf!l. Il:M�Jf!l.&�o fftl �mE�o �U��jftl\�-5to �'I�&lfl [T. 1579: 3 1 4b14- 1 6])
1 57 Corrected by Schmithausen from viparyasani�yandaJ:t on the basis of the Tibetan and Chinese. 0
Abhidharmako§abhii�ya 150 Chapter 3 Lokanirde§a 3 . 8) Vasubandhu questions the iivasthika interpretation of pratftyasamutpiida: if each member contains all five skandhas, why should the members receive the name, avidyii, etc . ? iivasthika1:r kile�to 'yam yady migam aligaT[! paficaskandhii1:r kiT[! ktiralJam avidyiidfn eva dhanniin kfrtayati smalpriidhiinyiit tv aligakzrtanamlavidyiipradhiiniim avasthiim avidyilT[! jagiida saT[!skiirapradhiinaT[! saT[!sktiran yiivaj jariimaraIJam ity ado�a1:r (Pradhan: 1 3 3 . 1 0- 1 3 ; T. 1 5 8 8 : 48c22-26; Poussin v. 2: 66-67; SaIl1ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master, who uses the word kila to show that he does not accept the Vaibha�ika iivasthika interpretation [T. 1 562: 494b 1 5 - 1 9 ] . SaIl1ghabhadra then presents the first o f the Sthavira' s six detailed objections t o the iivasthika interpretation [494b21-c1 0] and refutes it [494c 1 0-495b 19].)
Yogdcdrabhiimi 151
3 .8) (Although the Yogdcdrabhami does not have a discussion o f this issue, it nowhere states that the members of the formula consist of the five skandhas, and none of the various pratftyasamutpdda expositions in the text resembles the Sarvastivadin dvasthika interpretation.)
152
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya
Chapter 3 Lokanirdesa
3.9) Vasubandhu refutes the Sthavira' s explanation of why ayoniso manasikiira is not mentioned as an anga of the pratftyasamutpiida fOlmu1a. According to the Sthavira, ayoniso manasikiira is said in a sutra to be the cause of avidyii, but another SLUra says that it is produced by avidyii. Thus, the mutual dependence of the two eliminates the need to mention ayoniso manasikiira as a separate anga. According to Vasubandhu, the real reason is that the purpose of the Pratftyasamutpiidasutra was to explain the connections between the past and present lives and the present and future lives; therefore, no furthet members are required. avidyiijariimaraJ}OYo� parelJiingiintariinabhidhaniit saf!1Siirasyiidyantavattvaprasanga� / na ciiparipun:1O nirde§a iti / kilJ1 kiira�am / pravrttisalJ1murjhebhyo vineyebhyal; kathalJ1 paralokiid ihaloka ihalokiic ca puna� paraloka� salJ1badhyata ity etiivato 'triirthasya vivak�itatviit / etasya ca purvam evoktatviit / purviipariintamadhye�u salJ1mohavinivrttaye 15 8
(Pradhan: 135.21-136. 1 ; T. 1588: 49c lO-17; Poussin v. 2: 72; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 497b22-28], and he criticizes Vasubandhu for inventing his own explanation, which differs from the perfectly ade quate Vaibh�ika explanation, which Vasubandhu already has mentioned/59 namely that avid)ii, as a kle§a, arises from kle§a and from karma [T. 1562: 497b28-c12].)
158 The passage quoted contains only Vasubandhu' s explanation of his own position. 15 9 Pradhan: 1 35.2-3 ; T. 1588: 49b 1 3 ; Poussirt v. 2: 69.
Yogiiciirabhiimi 1 53
3 .9) The sarfra portion of the pratftyasamutpiida expositions in the Savitarkiidi bhiimi and the Vastusal'[!grahal}f states that pratftyasamutpiida can be summarized with reference to three aspect�: how one is born into the present from the past;O how one is born into the future from the present; and how one can attain to purification in the present life. sarfral'[! katamat / samiisatas tribhir iikiiraiJ:t pratftyasamutpiidasya vyavasthiinal'[! bhavati / yathii piirviintiin madhyiinte sambhavati / yathii ca madhyiintiid apariinte sambhavati / yathii ca ca madhyiinte sambhiito vartate vyavadiiniiya ca paraiti (Yogiiciirabhiimi: 198. 17- 1 9) ; Ius gan ie na / mdor bsdu na / rten cili 'brei par 'byun ba ni rnam pa gsum du giag pa yin te / snon gyi mtha ' nas ji ftar dbus kyi mthar 'byun ba dan / dbus kyi mtha ' nas ji Itar phyi ma ' i mthar 'byUli ba dan / dbus kyi mthar byun nasji Itar gnas pa dan/ rnam par byan bar 'gyur ba ' 0 (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: dzi 1 15b3-4) ; �� Ell= �t1§�:rr � �o ljl!l1;£� �� r:p W.f-�o fJf r:p W.f-1&���o r:p �� � 8 ;S:Jf!B iJlE:Qo ;S:Jf!Bjtiji-�Jt (T. 1579: 321a17- 1 9) 1 6o
1 60 The remainder of the sarfra portion explains this process in detail (see Kritzer 1999: 82-87). See also Yogiiciirabhiim i; 'i 287b5-6; T. 1579: 828c9- 12.
Abhidhannakosabhiirya 154
Chapter 3 Lokanirdeia
3 . 10) Vasubandhu sees a contradiction between the sutra statement, "I teach pratftyasamutpiida and pratftyasamutpannadhannas, " and the abhidhanna teaching that both terms refer to all saY[lskrtadhannas. Arguing on the Sarvastivadins' own terms, he shows that they would have to include future dhannas among the pratftyasamutpannadhannas, which would not make sense. Instead, he follows the opinion of Vasumitra in the Vibhii�ii (T. 1545: 1 1 8b25-c5; Poussin v. 2: 74 n. 1) in explaining that the migas of the pratftyasamutpiida formula are pran"1yasamutpiida in that they are cause and pratftyasamutpanna in that they are result. tajjtitfyatviit tat tatraivtitideio yathii na ca tiivad riipyate riiparrt cocyate tajjiitfyatviid ity ado�aJ:! / siitriibhiprayas tv ayam ucyate I hetur atra samutpiidaJ:! samutpannaY[l pha1arrt matam / hetubhutam miga[m] 161 pratftyasamutpiidaJ:! samutpadyate 'smiid iti ler"tviiphalabhutam miga[m] 162pratftyasamutpannam I evaY[l sarviilJY migiiny ubhayathii sidhyanti / hetuphalabhiiviit I na caivaY[l satyavyavasthii bhavanty apek�iibhediit I yad apekrya pratftyasamutpiido na tad eviipekrya pratftyasamutpannal'[! hetuphalavat pitTPutravac ca (Pradhan: 136.6- 1 1 ; T. 1 5 8 8 : 49c23-50a3 ; Poussin v. 2: 74; SaJ1lghabhadra discusses Vasubandhu' s explanation at great length [T. 1 562: 498b 1 5-499a1 ] , stating that Vasubandhu misunderstands the sutra, while the A.bhidhiirmikas understand it correctly [T. 1562: 498c26-499alJ.)
161 162
See Hirakawa 1 973- 1 978, v. 1: 420. See Hirakawa 1 97 3 - 1 978, v. 1 : 267.
Yogiiciirabhami 155
3 . 10) In the Savitarkiidi-bhaini, pratftyasamutpiida is defined as the nature of sal!1skiiras to arise, while pratftyasamutpannatii is defined as the fact that they have arisen. katamaJ:! pratftyasamutpiidaJ:! / katamii pratftyasamutpannatti / yii utpattidharmatii163 sal!1skiirii�iim ayal!1 pratftyasamutpiidaJ:! / yii punar utpannataiva sii pratftya samutpannatety ucyate (Yogiiciirabhami: 219.8-1 1); rten cili 'brei par 'byUli ba ni gan / rten cin 'brei par 'byun ba fiid ni gan i.e na / 'du byed mams kyi skye ba 'i chos fiid gan yin pa de ni / rten cin 'brei par 'byun ba 'o / skyes pa fiid gan yin pa de ni rten cin 'breipar 'byun ba fiid ces bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhami,: dzi 128b7-8); :L:1iiJ��o :L:1PJ�l'.o �j'j �1Tl'.�¥:t;'11:ill:::t *��o IlP1BE1'.8m:t �1'. (T. 1579: 325c10-12) In the Vini§Cayasal!1graha�f on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhami, it is said that,
among those dharmas that arise due to conditions, causes are called p ratftyasamutpiida, while results are called pratftyasamutpanna. The same principle is applied to the members of the pratftyasamutpiida formula. de la rgyu gan yin pa de la ni rten cin 'brei par 'byun ba i.es bya 'o / 'bras bu gan yin pa de ni rten cili 'brei par byunl 64 ba i.es bya bar bita bar bya 'o / de la rna rigs pa 'i bag ia fial rna spans pa yod pas rna rig pa 'i kun nas dkris pa 'byun no / rna rig pa 'i kun nas dkris pa skyes pa 'i phyir 'du byed mams kyi 'jug pa skye '0 / de bi.in du 'du byed kyi sa bon rna spans pa yod pas 'du byed mams 'byun no / 'du byed mams skyes pa 'i phyir mam par Ses pa 'jug pa skye ' 0 / de biin du rten Gin 'brei par 'byun ba'i yan lag lhag rna mams kyi 'jug pa 'i tshui yan ci rigs par rig par bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhumi,: zi 86b4-7); �9;aJl:t r:p 12SI :t *��*:t�l'.o J1:t$li J3!j Il;! HR/f IllJT :1iti5co 1BE$li J3!j*I:1i a J1:t $li J3!j rll'.ti5c o 1BE�t1T " o �a :ill:: �:/HT�iT/f lllJT ti5co �MT1�l'. o �t1Tl'.ti5c1�:1i �M'o �a:ill::pJTt��r��3tl1rE"jElJ1.o �aAPJT��9;a7ffm (T. 1 579: 6 1 lb19-24)
1 63 Punctuation corrected from Bhattacharya' s pratftyasamutpannatii yii utpatti dharmatii / on the basis of the Tibetan and Chinese. 1 64 Derge reads 'byuii.
Abhidharmakosabhil.rJa 156 Chapter 3 Lokanirde§a 3 , 1 1) Vasubandhu criticizes the avasthika interpretation as being unjustifiable by sutra because the Pratftyasamutpadasutra is nftartha. atra tu sautrantika vijfiapayanti / kilJ1 khalv eta i:j,taya ueyante ya yasye:j,tir ahosvit sutrarthaJ:z / sutrartha ity aha / yadi sutrartho nai:ja sutrarthaJ:z / kathalJ1 k,rtva / yat tavad uktam avasthika e:ja pratftyasamutpado dvadasapafieaskandhika avastha dvadasaftganfty etad utsutram / sutre 'nyatha nirde§ad / avidyii katamii / yat tat purvante 'jfiiinam iti vistarerza / yae ea nftiirthGlJ'! na tat punar neyalJ1 bhavatfti nai:ja sutriirthaJ:z (Pradhan: 1 3 6 , 1 4- 1 8 ; T, 1 5 8 8 : 50a7 - 1 3 ; Poussin v, 2: 75; S arp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T, 1562: 495c22-27], relates it to the last of the Sthavira' s six detailed objections to the iivasthika interpretation [T, 1562: 494c610], and refutes it, turning Vasubandhu' s argument about nftiirtha and neyiirtha sutras against him [T, 1562: 495c27-496al l] .) 1 65
1 65 See item 3 :8,
Yogacarabhami 1 57
3 . 1 1) In the pratftyasamutpada exposition of the Savitarkiidi-bhumi, the explana tion of the individual members essentially follows and comments upon the Pratftya samutpadasutra (Yogacarabhumi: 204. 1"-212.3 ; Yogacarabhumir" dzi 1 1 9al- 124a6; T. 1 579: 322b2-324a15 ; see Kritzer 1 999: 33-52 for a summary of this section). Due to the length of the passage, I do not provide the text here.
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 158 Chapter 3 Lokanirde§a 3 . 12) Vasubandhu' s defense of the etymology of the word pratftyasamutpiida 1 66 against the criticism of the Grammarians is based on the idea that, although past and future dharmas are nonexistent, the coming together of conditions results in the arising of dharmas. The meaning of pratftyasamutpiida is expressed in the sutra statement: "this being, that exists ; from the arising of this, that arises." nai�a do�a!; / idaf!! tiivad ayaf!! pra�tavya!; siibdika!; / kim avastho dharma!; utpadyate vartamiina utaho 'niigata iti / ki1'(L cata!; / yadi vartamiina utpadyate / kathaf!! vartamiino yadi notpanna!; / utpannasya va punar utpattiiv anavsthaprasaJiga!; / athiiniigata utpadyate / katham asata!; kartrtva1'(L siddhaty akartrkii vii kriyeti / ato yad avastha utpadyate tad avastha eva pratyeti / kim avasthas cotpadyate / utpiidiibhimukho 'niigata!; / tad avastha evapratyayaf!! pratyetfty ucyate / ani�panna1'(L cedaf!! yad uta siibdikfya1'(L kartrkriyiivasthiina1'(L bhavatfty 9a kartiibhutir ity e�ii kriyii / na catra bhavitur arthiit bhutim anyiif!! kriyiif!! pasyama!; / tasmad acchalaf!! vyavahiire�u / qa tu vakyartha!; / asmin saty asya bhiiva!; asyotpiidiid idam utpadyata iti yo 'rtha!; so 'rtha!; pratftyasamutpiida iti (Pradhan: 1 3 8 .9-16; T. 1588: 50b25-c7; Poussin v. 2: 78-79; Sarrtghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 481b23-29] and refutes it, saying that it implicitly accepts that the moment of arising of a dharma belongs to the future; this is inconsistent with Vasubandhu' s denial of the real existence of future dharmas [T. 1 562: 481b29-c4] .)
1 66 Vasubandhu, in response to a question (according to P'u-kuang [T. 1 821 : 169cl8], from the Mahiisarp.ghikas), gives an etymological definition ofpratftyasamutpiida, which Sarrtghabhadra attributes to the sutra-master (T. 1562: 48 1b8-13). Sarrtghabhadra also identifies the Grammarians' objections as hypothetical \lnes posed by the sutra-master (T. 1562: 481bI6- 17).
Yogiiciirabharni 159
3 . 1 2) In the nirukti portion of the pratftyasamutpiida exposition in the Savitarkiidi bhami, the momentary nature of conditioned origination is stressed, since conditions quickly perish, but the efficacy of these conditions, even though they are in the past and no longer existent, is maintained. Furthermore, it is said that the complete meaning of pratrtyasamutpiida is expressed in the satra statement: "this being, that exists; from the arising of this, that arises." punaly. pratyayata utpiidaly. pratzryasarnutpiidaly. / k�a1}ikiirtharn adhikrtya / punaly. pratyayiid atftiid atyaktiit svasantatiiv utpiidaly. pratftyasarnutpiidaly. / asrnin satidaf!! bhavaty asyotpiidiid idam udpadyate niinyathii ity etarn artharn adhikrtyaitan nirvacanaf!! dra�tavyarn (Yogiiciirabharni: 214.7_ 1 0); 1 67 rkyen las skyes pa dan / skad cig rna 'i don gi dban du bya ste / rnyur du 'jig pa dan Idan par skye pa ni rten cin 'brei par 'byun ba'o / gian yan rkyen 'das pa dan / rna btan ba las ran gi rgyud du skye ba ni / rten chi 'grel par 'byun ba ' 0 / 'di yod pas 'di byun / 'di skyes pas 'di skye pa ste / gian du rna yin no / ies bya ba 'i don 'di 'i dban du byas nas / de nes pa 'i tshig tu Ita bar bya 'o ( Yogiiciirabhami,: dzi 125b5-7) ; 1t*1R§f:,*f.&io ��timzBo *ll1'D %��o � . � o �*� � •• o 1t*,*.�*W�*.o * � ffi . W�� ��o � .� o � m����� o �����o �So *�.�o . � . � (T. 1579: 324c3-7)
1 67 Bhattacharya' s notes contain some questionable remarks about both the Tibetan translation and the cOI1tents of the manuscript. I have here reproduced his text without attempting to improve on it.
Abhidharmakosabha�a 160 Chapter 3 Lokanirdeia 3 . 1 3) According to the purvlicliryas, 168 "this being, that exists" refers to the fact that if the cause is not abandoned, the result will arise; for· example, "if avidyli is not abandoned, the saTflskliras will not be abandoned." "From the arising of this, that arises" corresponds to "Due to the arising of [avidyli] , [the saTflSkaras] arise." aprahfrt0tpattijiiiipaniirtham ity iiciiryii!:t / avidyiiyiim aprahfrtiiyiiTfl saTflSkiirii na prahfyante / tasyli evotpiidiid utpadyanta iti vistara!:t (Pradhan: 1 3 9 ; 1 2- 14; T. 1 5 8 8 : 5 1 a6-8 ; Poussin v. 2: 82-83 ; Sa.I11ghabhadra identifies these teachers as the sutra-master' s own teachers, whom he, Sa.I11ghabhadra, does not respect [T. 1 562: 483a7-13], and refutes them, reasoning that their argument would logically imply that avidyii is conditioned by the saTflSkiiras and that, if the saTflskiiras are not abandoned, avidyii will not be abandoned [T. 1 562: 483a13- 1 9].)
168
iicliryii iti p arviiciiryii!:t (Abhidharmakosavylikhyii: 298 . 1 8- 1 9).
Yogiiciirabhumi 161
3 . 13) In the pratftyasamutpiida exposition i n the Savitarkiidi-bhumi, i t i s said that "this being, that exists" means that, from undestroyed conditions, something else arises. katham asmin sandal'[! bhavanty ucyate / aprahfl}iit pratyayiit tadanyotpiidiirthena (Yogiiciirabhumi: 221 . 1 6) ; ci'i phyir 'di yod pas 'di 'byun ies bya ie na / rkyen ma spans pa las de las gian pa skye ba 'i phyir ro (Yogiiciirabhumi,: dzi 1 30a6-7); r,,� � 1PJm B Jl:t�t)c1EFff a 1§: El3 * IIm*�o t�1��¥M)c (T. 1579: 326a27-28) In the Vastusal'[!grahal}f, the sutra (Sal'[!yuktiigama) statement, "this being, that exists" (T. 99 [satra 298]: 85a14; Mukai 1985: 35), is explained as meaning "because this cause is not destroyed, that result is not destroyed." "From the arising of this, that arises" means "Since this undestroyed cause arises, that undestroyed result will arise." rgyu rna spans pa Ita ba las 'bras bu ma spans pa skye bar 'gyur ba gan yin pa 'di ni ji Ita ba biin du yod pa ' 0 (Yogiiciirabhami,: 'i 299b8); JiZ. � Jl:t Iti *lImt)co �11tJ:!�: * limo Jl:t*lIm lti � t)co 1�*IIm*�o �Q ::llk � ��QPJT�'I1: (T. 1579: 833c9- 1 1)
Abhidharrnakosabhil�ya 1 62 Chapter 3 Lokanirdeia
3 . 14) Vasubandhu criticizes another opinion (that of the Sthavira), according to which "this being, that exists" means that, when the effect exists, the destruction of the cause exists. According to Vasubandhu, if the Buddha had had this intention, he would have said, "this being, that does not exist" Furthermore, why would the Buddha, when expounding pratftyasamutpiida, have spoken first about the destruction of the cause? punar tiha asmin satfdaY[! bhavatrti karye sati karal}asya vintiSo bhavaffti / sytin matam ahetukaY[! tarhi ktiryam utpadyata ity ata tiha ntihetukaY[! /yasmtid asyotptidtid idam utpadyata iti / e�a cet sutrtirtho 'bhavi�ad asmin saffday[! na bhavatzty eviicak�ata / purvaY[! ca ttivat karyasyotptidtineviica�ata l 69 pasctid asmin saffday[! na bhavaffti / evaY[! hi stidhuf:t kramo bhavati / itarathil tu pratztyasamutpiidaf:t katama ity tider arthe kaf:t prathamo vintisavacanasya / tasmiin naive�a sutrtirthaf:t (Pradhan: 139: 17-2 1 ; T. 1 5 8 8 : 5 1a12- 1 9 ; Poussin v. 2: 83; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the criticism of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 482c5-28] and condemns Vasubandhu for only criticizing the wording of the Sthavira' s interpretation of the sutra; according to Sarp.ghabhadra, the Sthavira should also be condemned for suggesting that the result can arise before the cause has ceased to exist. 170 Sarp.ghabhadra seems to be implying that Vasubandhu accepts this idea, which, as we have seen, is attributed to Vasubandhu' s teachers.)
169 The reading purvaY[! ca kiiryasyotpiidam in the Abhidharrnakosavyiikhyii (289.3435) seems preferable. 170 At the end of the discussion, Sarp.ghabhadra again criticizes the siltra-master for arguing with the Sthavira about the meaning of the sutra r�ther than completely rejecting his argument (T. 1 562: 483a5-7).
Yogacarabhami 163
3. 1 4) (The following is the same passage that is quoted in item 3 . 1 3.) In the pratftyasamutpada exposition in the Savitarkiidi-bhiimi, it is said that "this being, that exists" means that, from undestroyed conditions, something else arises. katham asmin satfdal'(! bhavatfty ucyate / aprahf1:zat pratyayat tadanyotpadarthena (Yogacarabhumi: 221 . 16); ci 'i phyir 'di yod pas 'di 'byU/i ies bya ie na / rkyen ma spans pa las de las gian pa skye ba 'i phyir ro ( Yogacarabhumi,: dzi 130a6-7); r,,� ;r;; 1PJ m § J1:t:ff il;i1i: &':ff � EI3 *IWT�o �1���M)c (T. 1579: 326a27-28) 0
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 1 64 Chapter 3 Lokanirde§a 3 . 1 5) Vasubandhu mentions an opinion that good prajiia can be mixed with deflled prajiia in the same way that consciousness can be deflled by raga, even when raga is not currently active. kilJ'! punar evalJ'! ne�ate / kli�.taya prajiiaya kusaZa prajiia vyavakJryamal)a na visudhyati I ato 'sau tasya upakZe§a iti / yad vapi ragopakli�.talJ'! cittalJ'! na vimucyate / kilJ'! tad avasyalJ'! ragaparyavasthitalJ'! bhavati I upahatalJ'! tu tat tathii ragel)a bhavati yan na vimucyate I talJ'! punarbhavanalJ'! vyavartayato vimucyate I evam avidyopakli�.ta prajiia na visudhyatfty avidyopahatalJ'! parikalpayamaJ:! (Pradhan: 141. 1 9-23 ; T. 1588; 5 1c29-52a6; Poussin v. 2: 9 1 ; Sarp.ghabhadra says that the sutra-master is presenting a hypothetical argument (chia tso chiu �{tt)c) for the theory that avidya is actually kuprajiia [T. 1562: 501 a5-12] ; Sarp.ghabhadra refutes this argument in detail and concludes by reiterating that avidya is a separate, real dharma [T . 1562: 501a12-c23] . Neither Yasomitra [Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 301 .34302. 1 ] nor the Chinese commentators (T . 1 82 1 : 173c20; T. 1 822: 605b29) think that Vasubandhu agrees with this position.)1 7 l
17 1 La Vallte Poussin says that Fa-pao and P'u-kuang disagree on this point (v. 2: 91 n. 1), but he appears to be mistaken. They both say that Vasubandhu accepts the Sarvastivadin position here, and Fa-pao adds that Vasubandhu does not necessarily adopt the positiop. of any one school: he accepts what reason dictates (T. 1 822: 605b29-c1).
YogacarabhiImi 165
3 . 15) (Although a passage in the Viniscayasal'[lgraha/}f on the Paiicavijiiana kayamanobhiImi implies that avidyii may exist as a bfja [YogiiciirabhiImi,: zi 86b4-7; T. 1579: 6 1 1 b 1 9-24; see item 3 . 1 0] , I have found no discussion in the Yogiiciirab hiImi concerning the mixture of good and defiled prajiiii. )
Abhidharmakosabhii!ya 166 Chapter 3 Lokanirdeia 3 . 16) Vasubandhu mentions the opinion of others that not all the mental vedaniis are manopaviciiras; only the defiled ones are. For example, the arhat has a mental satisfaction, the obj ect of which is a dharma that is good but laukilm. apara iiha l asty eva7[! manopaviciirii1)ii7[! vaibhii�ik'fyo 'rthal}J sutriirthas tv anyathii driyate I na hi yo yasmiid vftariigaJ:! sa tad iilambanam upavicaratfti yuktam I ataJ:! siisravii api na sarve saumansyiidayo manopaviciiriiJ:! I ki7[! tarhi I sii7[!kleiikii yair mana vi�ayiin upavicaratfti I katha7[! copavicarati I anunfyate ca pratihanyate ciipratisa7[!khyiiya copek�ate ye�iim pratipa�e1)a �a! siitatii vihiirii bhavantil cak�u�ii rapii1)i dr�!Vii naiva sumanii bhavati na durmanii upe�ako viharati smrtimiin sa7[!prajiinan eva7[! yiivan manasii dharmiin vijiiiiyeti I na hy arhaflJ laukika7[! niisti kusala7[! dharmiilambana7[! saumanasya7[! yat tu tat sii7[!kleiika7[! manasa upaviciirabhuta7[! tasyaiva prati�edho lak!Jata iti (Pradhan: 149.23 - 1 50.7; T. 1588: 54b3- 12; Poussin v. 2: 1 14- 1 15; Sru:p.ghabhadra says that this alternate opinion is hypothetically offered (chia wei i shuo �%H�m) by the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 508a20-29] and criticizes it, upholding the Vaibhli�ika position that even an undefIled mental vedanii is manopaviciira [T. 1 562: 508b l - 1 8].)
Yogacarabhami 167
3 . 16) (I have been unable to find anything in the Yogacarabhami relevant to this discussion.)
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 168 Chapter 3 Lokanirdda ' 3 . 17) According to Vasubandhu, a moment (k�al)a) endures for as long as a dharma takes to obtain its existence when all conditions are present. k�al)asya tu kil'(t pramiil)am / samagre�u pratyaye�u yiivatii dharmasyiitmaliibhaJ:t (Pradhan: 176. 12; T. 1588: 62a20-22: Poussin v. 2: 177; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the rash explanation of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 521b23-25] and criticizes it from the Vaibhii�ika standpoint, saying that, since past and future dharmas are actually real, it makes no sense to talk of "obtaining existence" [T. 1 562: 521b25-c 14].)
Yogacarabhumi 1 69
3 . 17) The Viniscayasaf!1grahalJ1 0n the PaficavijiUinakiiyamanobhumi, in an expla nation of why the saf!1skrtalak�alJas are prajfiapti, at least strongly implies that the k�alJa of the arising (jiit!) of a saf!1skrtadharma is the very duration of the dharma (Yogiicarabhumi,: zi 21bl-24b7; T 1 579: 585c9-586c25 ; see Rospatt 1 995, especially pages 94-1 10). In particular, vyaya is defined as the destruction of the lak�alJas of all saf!1skrtadharmas after the moment of arising. de Ita bas na skye ba 'i skad cig gi 'og tu 'jig pa 'i skad cig ni 'du byed rnams kyi 'jig pa ies bya 'o (YogacarabhUmi,: zi 22a3-4); �;fU1.l�i'£�t1T1§3\iHlt:t�i�o UF:t�1jt (T. 1579: 585c27-28) *K�alJajati is defined as the fact that all saf!1skrtadharmas arise anew from moment to moment. rnams skad cig skad cig la skye ba ni skad cig gi skye ba ies bya'o (Yogacarabhilmi,: zi 23a1); J1t J:jJ�qT;fiJ1.l�;fU1.l�*Jf*JfmiJ�o i5;fU1.l� (T. 1579: 586a2122)
de la 'du byed
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 170 Chapter 3 Lokanirdda
3 . 1 8) According to Vasubandhu, the reason that the Buddhas do not appear in the world during the period of diminishment, when people' s life spans shrink from one hundred years to ten years, is that the five ka�iiyas become very strong then. kasmiin na satiit / tadii hi paficaka�iiyii abhyutsadii bhavanti / tadyathii 'yu�ka�iiyaf:z kalpaka�iiyaf:z kldaka�iiyaf:z dr�!ika�iiyqf:z sattvaka�iiyas ca (Pradhan: 1 8 3 . 1 -2; T. 1 5 8 8 : 64a20-22; Poussin v. 2: 193; S arp.ghabhadra identifies this as the position of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 523c26-27] and says that the reasoning is wrong; in fact, a Buddha will appear even when lives are short and the ka�iiyas are strong, as long as someone can properly achieve what the Buddha accomplished [T. 1 562: 523c27-524a8].)
Yogtictirabhilmi 171
3 . 1 8) ( I have been unable t o find any discussion in the Yogticiirabhumi i n which the non-appearance of the Buddha is linked to the five ka.Jtiyas. However, it is perhaps relevant that in the Bodhisattvabhumi, tiyu.Jka.Jiiya is defined as the period, like our own, in which the human life span diminishes to less than a hundred years. tadyathti etarhy alpalJ'! jfvitalJ'! manu.Jytil}tilJ'! / yas ciralJ'! jfvati / sa var.JasatalJ'! [Bodhisattvabhumi: 252. 1 9-20] ; 'di Ita ste / da Itar gyi mi rnams ni 'tsho ba 'i yun thUli ste / gan yun rin du 'tsho ba des kyan 10 brgya 1 7 2 thub par zad do [ Yogtictira bhumi,: ii 152a4-5]; frDn�4'�A��}HJEo t�ffi:�*/f':i!WI8$o tr�/f'jjjjJ o J&1S �i� [T. 1579: 538a7-9])
1 72 Corrected from rgya o� the basis of the Derge and the Chinese.
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 172 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia 4. 1) According to Vasubandhu, k�alJika means "possessing a moment," that is, being destroyed immediately after coming into existence. He compares this to the word daJ:uJika, which means "possessing a stick (dalJrJa)." ko 'yal'J'! k�alJo nama / atmalabho 'nantaravinasf/ so 'syastfti �alJikam / dalJrJikavat (Pradhan: 1 93.2; T. 1558: 67c 1 1-12; Poussin v. 3: 4; Srup.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 533b21-22] and criticizes it on the grounds that, unlike a man and a stick, which are different things, there are no two separate things corresponding to �a7Ja and �alJika [T. 1562: 533b22-c4; Poussin 1 936-1937: 146] ; see Rospatt 1995: 105-1 10.)
Yogiiciirabhumi
173
4. 1 ) (I have found nothing in the YogiiciirabhUmi corresponding specifically to this argument, but similar notions of momentariness appear in the text. See,. for example, item 3 . 17.)
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 174 Chapter 4 Karmanirdesa
4.2)
Vasubandhu asserts that destruction is not dependent on a cause.
sal'J1Sk[1asyiivafya1J'l vyayat iikasmiko hi bhiiviinii1J'l viniisaf:1, / ki1J'l kiira1)am / karyasya hi kiira1)a1J'l bhavati / viniisaS ciibhiivaf:1, / yiis ciibhiivas tasya ki1J'l kartavyam / so 'siiv iikasmiko viniiSo yadi bhiivasyotpannamiitrasya na syiit paScad api na syiid bhiivasya tulyatviit / athiinyathfbhataf:1, na yukta1J'l tasyaiviinyathiitvam / na hi sa eva tasmiid vila�ano yujyate (Pradhan: 193.5-10; T. 1558: 67c 17-20; Poussin v. 3 : 5 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 533c6-9] and criticizes it, saying that, because of the validity of the sa1J'lsk[1alak�a1)as, destruction must have a cause [T. 1 562: 533c9-2 1 ] ; see Rospatt 1 995: 1 80- 1 8 1 .)
Yogi'ici'irabhiimi 175
4.2) In the Paiicavijfiiina!diyamanobhiimi of the ViniscayasaT[lgrahm:zf, it is said that all saT[lskiiras are destroyed due to their own nature. tatra si'ikalyena riipaskanda� lqm:zika� vaktavya� I tat kasya heto� I utpannasya vini'isopafambhata� I na cotpi'idakiiral}aT[l vini'isakiiral}aT[l [Il yujyate vilalqal}atvi'it I ni'i-(lacuna) � svarasavini'i§a� sarvasaT[lskiiri'iI}i'iT[l veditavya� I atas ca k�al}ikatvaprasiddhi� (Sanskrit manuscript as quoted by Rospatt [ 1 995: 1 82 n. 399]); de fa gzugs kyi phun po thams cad ni skad Gig pa yin par brjod par bya 'o I de ci 'i phyir i.e na I skyes nas 'jig pa dmigs pa 'i phyir ro I skye ba 'i rgyu ni 'jig pa 'i rgyu yin par mi run ste I mtshan iiid mi 'dra ba ' i phyir ro I skyes pa gnas pa ' i rgyu de las gi.an pa yan mi dmigs pas de 'i phyir 'du byed thams cad ni ran gi nan gis 'jig pa yin par rig par bya ste I de 'i phyir skad cig pa iiid rab tu grub bo ( Yogi'ici'irabhiimi,: zi 58a4-6); 1l*-.jjJg" g � § ���iJ1i�iff!l;'l1.o fliJ.l-.J.ii)co �qT*l��.tlP:t�iff!l;o :ffl, PJ
1�ii)c o JUf!@'��§��z l2Sl.tlP�iff!l; l2SI o ;!t:t§J!,ii)co X¥!�8t�f*{! I2SI /fPJ1�ii)co jH)c��D-tv�tqT.gr{fJIiff!l;o EBJJtl�JUiJ1J��$: (T. 1 579: 600a1 8-22) 1 73
173 This passage is translated by Rospatt, who also provides the Tibetan text and the text from the Sanskrit manuscript (1995: 181-182 n. 399). Rospatt thinks that the argument here is somewhat ?ifferent from that of the Abhidharmakosabhi'i�a ( 1 995: 1 8 1 - 1 82).
Abhidharmakosabhil�a 176 Chapter 4 Karmanirde§a 4.3) Vasubandhu attributes to the Sautrantikas the opinion that sal'[lsthanarilpa is only a p rajiiapti, because if it were real, then a single sal'[lsthanarilpa, for example, length, would be perceived by two rilpfndriyas, for example, the eye and the body. nasti sal'[lsthanal'[l dravyata iti sautrantikiiJ:t / ekadinmukhe hi bhilyasi va'?la utpanne dfrghal'[l rilpam iti prajiiapyate / tam evapek�alpfyasi hrasvam iti / caturdisal'[l bhilyasi caturasram iti / sarvatra same vrttim iti / eval'[l sarvam / tad yatha 'latam ekasyal'[l disi de§antare:jv anantare:ju nirantaram asu drsyamanal'[l dfrgham iti pratfyate sarvato drsyamanal'[l ma':l¢alam iti na tu khalujatyantaram asti sal'[lsthanam /yadi hi syat dvigrahyal'[l syat cak:ju:ja hi dr:j!Va dfrgham ity avasryate kayendriye':lapi spr:j.tveti dvabhyam asya graha':lal'[l prapnuyat / na ca rilpayatanasya dvabhyal'[l graha':lam asti / yatha va spra:j!avye dfrghadigraha':lal'[l tatha va'?le sal'[lbhilvyatam (Pradhan: 1 94. 14-2 1 ; T. 1 5 5 8 : 68b 1 - 1 1 ; Poussin v. 3 : 8-9; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 535c23-536a4] and criticizes it at length, arguing that a single indriya, for example, the eye, perceives two different characteristics, for example, length and whiteness [T. 1 562: 536a4-b5].)
Yogtlctlrabhami 177
4.3) In the Paficavijfitlnaktlyamanobhami of the Viniscayasal!lgraha'!f, sal!lsthtlnarapa (shape) is said to be a prajfiapti because it is nothing more than a conglomeration of rapa with no characteristics of its own. rili po dan thun nu fiid la sogs pa gan dag dbyibs i.es bya ba de dag !ryan ci rdzas su yod pa 'am / btags pa 'i yod pa yin par brjod bar bya i.e na / smras pa / btags pa 'i yod pa yin par brjod par bya 'o / de ci'i phyir i.e na / bsags pa las gnas pa ni dbyibs ses bya ba 'i nes pa 'i tshig yin pa dan bsags pa tsam dmigs pa dan / mtshan fiid las gi.an pa 'i don mi dmigs pa dan / bltos sin bltos na no bo fiid 'dres par ' gyur ba dan - � -k /i5' jp", -k BT1 F'"."-2:lE ,h' =ww a. (Yogtlctlrabhamii zi 56al-3); J�"Ja � P13 =r J(>Fl Jw:T llilVFl -9 P o "'''" Jl.-.rP; J �)J; � o :g-''''1l'l 1l'l a � -w.;ff o M��o g.@tt�� � *o �;ff �'€Sg.��o .*'€S ffi � � � tio JZ.�,t§i'ifo t§i'ifZyt;ff El 'I�� 1�yt�;ff *rt �L�g: (T. 1 579: 599b7- 1 1) 0
See also the Paficavijfitlnaktlyasamprayukttl Bhami, where the definition is the same, but sal!lsthtinarapa is not said to be a prajfiapti (Yogtlctlrabhami: 4. 1 5- 17; Yogtlctlra bhami,: dzi 3a4; T. 1 579: 279b6-7). In a passage in the Paficavijfitlnakayasamprayukttl Bhami Gust after the one mentioned
above), it is stated that sal!lsthiinarapa is a conglomeration of rapa having features distinguished as "long," etc.
sal!lsthtinal!l katamat /yo rapapracayo dfrghadiparicchediikaraJ:r. ( Yogtlctlrabhami: 5.2); dbyibs gan i.e na / gan gzugs rgyas par rin po la sogs par yons su bcad [corrected from gcad on the basis of the Derge] pa 'i mam pa 'o ( Yogtlctlrabhami,: dzi 3a6); * '€S ��'Il ;E''€Sg.i'tJ}f*73'-7.iU t§ (T. 1579: 279b8-9)
Abhidharmako§abha�ya 178 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia 4.4) The Sarvastivadins explain that saYflSthanariipa is not perceived by touch, etc. Instead, the notion of length, etc., arises from our memory when we perceive something, just as when we see a fire, we remember that fire is hot. Vasubandhu argues that this is a false analogy, because fire and heat are invariably associated, whereas touch and shape are not. sm.rtimiitra1!l tatra spra�!avyasiihacaryiit bhavati / sa tu siihacaryiit bhavati na tu siik�iit grahaT}am/yathii 'gniriipa1!l d!�.tvii tasyo�T}atiiyii1!l smrtir bhavatipu�pagandha1!l ca ghriitvii tad vaTTJa iti / yuktam atriivyabhiciiratviid anyeniinyasya smaraT}a1!l na tu ki1!lcit spra�tavya1!l kvacit saYflSthiine niyata1!l yatas tatra smaraT}a1!l niyamena syiit / athiisaty api siihacaryaniyame sa1!lsthanasmaraT}a1!l niyamena syiit / vaTTJe 'p i syiit vaTTJavad vii sa1!lsthane 'py aniyamena syiit / na caiva1!l bhavati / ayuktam asya spr�!avyiit smaraT}am (Pradhan: 1 94.22- 195.3; T. 1558: 68b 1 1-20; Poussin v. 3 : 9- 10; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 536b5-7] and says that Vasubandhu' s argument does not successfully disprove the real existence of sa1!lsthanariipa as a separate entity from vaTTJa [T. 1 562: 536b7- 1 8] .)
Yogiiciirabhfimi 179
4.4)
(Although the Yogiiciirabhi1mi states that sa/'flsthiinari1pa is not a real entity [see item 43], nothing corresponding to this argument can be found in the text.)
Abhidharmako§abka�ya 1 80 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia 4.5) Vasubandhu argues that saYf1Stkananlpa, unlike real nlpa (i.e., va�a), cannot be found in an atom. It is merely a designation for many things arranged in a certain way. yac ctipi kil[!cit pratighal[! nlpam asti tad avaiyal[! paramtilJau vidyate / na ctilJau tat na ca sal[!stkanal[! paramtilJau vidyate dfrghtidi / tasmtid bahu�v eva tatka sal[!nivi�.te�u dfrghtidiprajfiaptiJ:t / atha matal[! sal[!stkanaparamtilJava eva tatka sal[!nivi�!ti dfrghtidisal[!jfitil[! labhanta iti / so 'yam kevalaJ:t pa�aptitas te�tim asiddhatvtit / siddha svala�alJtintil[! hi te�til[! sal[!cayo yujyate / na ca saYf1Stkantivayavtintil[! va�tidivat svabkavaJ:t siddha iti kuta e�til[! sarrzcayaJ:t (Pradhan: 195.6- 1 0 ; T. 1558: 68b22-29; Poussin v. 3 : 1 0- 1 1 ; Sa�ghabhadra identifies this as another "proof' of the umeality of sarrzsthtinarupa, presumably the idea of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 536bI9-26] , and criticizes it, arguing that va�a and sarrzsthtinarupa are in fact two independently existing types of rupa and that, just as atoms of varlJa are proved to exist, so are atoms of sarrzsthtinarupa [T. 1562: 536b26-c2 1 ] . )
Yogiiciirabhami 181
4.5) The Vini§Cayasal'[lgraool}-z on the Paficavijfiiinakii:yamanobhami adduces, as another reason for why sal'[lsthiinaropa is a prajfiapti, the fact that it can be divided . by thought, like a cart de bios bye bas sin rta la sogs pa dan ' dra ba 'i phyir ro ( Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 56a3); X�DlJ�11E:W:PJ��� (T. 1579: 599b l l)
AbhidharmakosabhiI0Ia 1 82 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia 4.6) The Sarvastivadins ask what kayavijiiapti is, if it is not sal[lsthiInarupa. Vasubandhu answers that it is sal[lsthiinarupa but that sal[lsthiinarupa is prajiiapti, not dravya. athedanfl[l kiiyasya gatil[l niriik.rtya sal[lsthanal[l ca tatra bhavanta� sautriintika� kiil[lkayavijiiaptil[l prajiiapayantilsal[lsthiInam eva hi te kiiyavijiiaptil[lprajiiapayanti I na tu punar dravyata� (Pradhan: 1 95. 15-17; T. 1558: 68c8-9; Poussin v. 3 : 12; SaIllghabhadra says that the siitra-master is stating the opinion of his own school [T. 1562: 537a24-26] and criticizes it, suggesting that since Vasubandhu and the Sautrantikas argue that sal[lsthiInarfipa is not different from van:ra, then they must think that va'?la is prajiiapti, too [T. 1562: 537a26_b 13].) 174
174 In the course of this argument, SaIllghabhadra refers to Sautrantika three times (T. 1 562: 537b3, b7, b8). It seems as though he is all but identifY.ing Sautrantika as the school of the siitra-master.
Yogiiciirabhiimi 1 83
4.6) (The Yogiiciirabhiimi does not define kiiyavijnapti as sa'!lsthiinariipa. But see 4.3 and 4.5 for its assertion that sa'!lsthanariipa is prajnapti. )
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 1 84 Chapter 4 Karmanirde.1a 4.7) Vasubandhu defines kiiyavijfiapti as an action that has the body as its object. He equates this action with the volition that initiates the movement of the body. Viigvijfiapti and manovijfiapti are to be understood similarly. tiilJl ca prajfiapayantaJ:! kathalJl kiiyakarma prajfiapayanti / kiiyiidhi�!hiinalJl karma kiiyakarma yii cetanii kiiyasya tatra tatra prCl!letrf/ evalJl viilimanaskarTnCl!lz api yathii yogalJl veditavye / yat tarhi cetanii karma cetayitvii cety uktalJl salJlkalpacetanii purvalJl bhavaty evalJl caivalJl ca kari�iimfti / tathii cetayitvii pasciit kriyii cetanotpadyate / yayii kiiyaJ:! preryate sii 'sau cetayitvii karmety ucyate (Pradhan: 195. 17-2 1 ; T. 1558: 68c10-17; Poussin v. 3: 12- 1 3 ; Sa.rp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 537b13-21] and criticizes it in great detail [T. 1 562: 537b21-539b29] ; in the course of this argument, Sa.rp.ghabhadra attri butes to Sautrlintika the belief that all karma is cetanii, a belief that he refutes from the Sarvastiviidin point of view (T. 1 562: 537c I7-538b7.)
Yogiiciirabhiimi 1 85
4.7) According to the Savitarkiidi-bhiim� both ktiyiibhisal'(lsktira and viigabhisal'(lskiira arise due to, and after, abhisal'(lskiiralakoJaJJa. 175 karmasvabhiivaJ:t katamaJ:tlyo dharma utpadyamano abhisal'(lskiiralakoJanas cotpadyate tasya cotpiidiit kiiyiibhisal'(lskiiro viigabhisal'(lskiiras tad uttarakiilal'(l pravartate I ayam ucyate karmasvabhiivaJ:t ( Yogiiciirabhiimi: 170. 17-19); las kyi no bo nid gan ie na I , chos gan skye ba na mnon par 'du byed pa P6 mtshan nid kyan skye la I de skyes pas de '! rjes ia Ius kyi mnon par 'du byed pa dan I nag gi mrion par 'du byed pa 'jug par 'gyur de I 'di ni las kyi no bo nid ces bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: dzi 99b5-6); * §\ 'i1::r;; Wo � � ���o m�ffi�o & � ���o � � m�*�� �m�@.o � ::6 * §\ 'i1: (T. 1579: 3 15a1 8-20) The Manobhumi says that the activity of cetanii is to arouse vitarka, kiiyakarma, vtikkarma, etc. cetanti kil'(lkarmikii I vitarkaktiyaviikkarmiidisamutthiinakarmikii ( Yogiiciirabhiimi: 60. 1 3 - 1 4) ; sems pa las ci byed ce na I rtog pa dan I Ius dan nag gi las ! 77 la sogs pa bsLon ba'i las byed do ( Yogiictirabhiimi,: dzi 34b 1 ) ; \!t fF 1ilJ * o �lHA:��1PJ � �:g *��* ( 1 579: 29 1 c l l - 12) ,
See also the Viniscayasal'(lgrahalJI On the Pancavijniinakiiyamanobhumi for the same statement (Yogiiciirabhumi,: zi 62b 1 ; T. 1 579: 602a2). The Savitarkiidi-bhumi defines karma as eetanii as well as kiiyakarma and viikkarma, which arise after a volition. k.rtal'(l karma katamat I yae eetital'(l eetayitvii punaJ:t kiiyena vtieti samutthiipital'(l (Yogiieiirabhiimi: 190.6-7); byas pa 'i las gan ie na I bsams pa 'am i bsams nas kyan ius daJi nag gis kun nas bsLan ba gan yin pa ' 0 ( Yogiieiirabhiimi,: dzi 1 l0b4); 1'F*if �� �,IjlSI * o �,1jlSI, 8pJT� �*�:g-* (1579: 3 1 9b13- 14) 0
,
1 75 The Kokuyaku Issaikyo translation equates abhisal'(lskiiraiakoJalJa with manas karma and says that the point of the passage is that karma is eetanii in essence (Kokuyaku Issaikyo Yuga-bu 1: 151 n. 27; the contents of this note are based on the Karmasiddhi prakaralJa [T. 1609: 785c22-28], a portion of which is quoted by P'u-kuang [T. 1 82 1 : 205a6-8]). 1 76 Corrected from pa pa 'i on the basis of the Derge. 1 77 Corrected from nag gi La sogs pa on the basis of all other version s .
Abhidhannakosabhii�a 1 86 Chapter 4 Kannanirdda 4.8) One Sarviistiviidin argument in support of the reality of avijfiaptiriipa is that the sutra says that there are three types of riipa, one of which is invisible and not subject to collision (apratigha). According to Sarviistiviida, this must be avijiiapti (Pradhan: 196.6-9; T. 1558: 68c29-69a4; Poussin v. 3: 14). Vasubandhu, in making what he describes as the Sautrantika argument against Sarviistivada, quotes those who practice yoga (yogiiciirii/:l) as saying that, due to the power of meditation, a riipa that is the object of meditation is produced in meditators. This riipa is invisible because it is not the object of c�rindriya, and it is not subject to collision because it does not cover any place. Vasubandhu defends this statement against a possible Sarviistiviidin objection. yat tiivad uktaT{! trividhariipokter iti I tatra yogiiciirii upadisantil dhyiiyiniilp. samiidhi vi�ayo178 riipaT{! samiidh iprabhiiviid utpadyate I ca/qurindriyiivi�ayatviit anidarsanam I ddiiniivaral)atviid apratigham iti I atha mataml katham idiinfT{! tat rupam iti I etad avijiiaptau samiinam (Pradhan: 1 97.4-7; T. 1558: 69a29-b4; Poussin v. 3: 1 8 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the stitra-master [T. 1562: 540c21-24] and criticizes it, saying that riipa produced by meditation, like other types of riipa, such as riipa in the antariibhava, and riipa in a dream, is based on visible riipa; the implication, I believe, is that in contrast avijiiaptiriipa has no relation whatsoever to visible riipa [T. 1 562: 540c24-541 a8] .)
1 78 The reading in the Abhidhannakosavyiikhyii is better: sa iidhivi�ayariipam "l (355 . 15).
Yogiiciirabhiimi I S7
4.S) The Viniscayasa/pgrarnl1:rJ: on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhiimi includes, in the category of really existent, riipa that is: 1) like a transformation belonging to the domain of samiidhi as the result of supernatural power; 2) the result of that [samiidhi] ; 3) the object of that [samiidhi] ; 4) the object of the consciousness associated with that [samiidhi] . 'This is contrasted with *sal!lvarariipa and *asal!lvarariipa, which are merely prajfiapti. (See also item 1 .2.) dharmiiyatanaparyiipannal!l punii riipal!l dvividhal!l dravyasat prajfiaptisac ca I yat prabhiivataJ:! samadhigocaral1l nirrnitavat tatphalal1l tadvi�ay� tatpratisal!lyukta vijfiiinavi�ayal!l ca tad dravyasat I sal!lvariisal!lvarasal!lgrhftal!l tu prajfiaptisat; 179 chos kyi skye mched du gtogs pa 'i gzugs ni mam pa gfiis te I rdzas su yod pa dan btags pa 'i yod pa 'o I mthu las byun ba 'i tin ne 'dzin gyi spyod yul spruZ pa ita bu de 'i 'bras bu dan I de 'i yut dan de dan mtshuns par idan pa 'i mam par ses pa 'i yui gan yin pa de ni rdzas su yod pa yin no ( Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 5laS-bl); i!! y!!fi1l;e$;ff =:fl o �ilI .;ff � ;ff *;ff mx: 1.W1EPJT1T:tJ[3Mp �1to 1J1:!f;:iJ1:tJ[ & iJ1t§ ���:tJ[ e�. 4m;ff *1tf�1�:)f1t.1S���;ff (T. 1579: 597b6-9)
0
0
1 79 According to Matsuda Kazunobu (private communication), this passage appears in a Sanskrit manuscript fragment of the Vini§Cayasal!lgraha1J-f preserved in St. Petersburg, and Matsuda has transcribed it as above (non-italicized portions represent • Matsuda' s reconstruction).
AbhidhannakosabhtiDJa 188 Chapter 4 Kannanirdeia 4.9) Another Sarvastivadin argument in support of the reality of avijfiaptiriipa is that the satra says that there is an aniisravariipa. Vasubandhu again quotes those who practice yoga, who say that the riipa produced by the power of samiidhi is aniisrava if the samiidhi in which it is produced is aniisrava. yad apy uktam aniisravarapokter iti tad eva samiidhiprabhiivasa1!lbhata1!l riipam aniisrave samiidhiiv aniisrava1!l varl}ayanti yogiiciirii� (Pradhan: 197.7-8; T. 1558: 69b4-6; Poussin v. 3: 18-19; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 541al l-13], questions the identity of these yogiiciiras, expressing surprise that Vasubandhu quotes from them in interpreting satra (T. 1 562: 541a13- 15), and allows that an aniisravarapa, different from both vaTl}a and sa1!lsthiinariipa, may be produced by the power of samiidhi; however, this rapa can actually be nothing other than avijfiaptirapa [T. 1562: 541 aI3-19] .)
Yogiiciirabhumi 1 89
4.9) The Vinisca:yasal?1graha!lf on the Paficavijfiilnakilyamanobhumi says that the rupa that is the object of samildhi arises on the basis of the mahilbhutas associated with that samildhi, and it arises on the basis of laukikasamiidhi, whether silsrava or aniisrava.. However, it does not arise on the basis of lokottarasamiidhi because it is caused by a samildhi in which prapafica is present. tat puna/:! samildhigocaral?1 rupal?1 yatpratisal?1yukta/:! samildhiJ:! tatpratisal?1yuktilny eva tanmahilbhutiiny upiidilya laukikal?1 silsravanasraval?1 samildhim upiidilyotpadyate na tu lokottaral?1 / saprapal?1cilkiirasamildhihetukatvilt tasya; 1 80 tili lie 'dzin gyi spyod yul gyi gzugs de yali tili lie 'dzinl8 1 'byuli ba chen po dag rgyur byas pa 'i gzugs gali dali mtshulis par ldan pa de dag fiid dali de yali mtshulis par ldan pa yin no / 'jig rten pa 'j tili lie 'dzin zag pa dali bcas pa dali zag pa med pa la brten nas skye ba yin gyi / 'jig rten las 'das pa las ni ma yin te / de ni spros pa 'i mam pa dali bcas pa 'i tili lie 'dzin gyi rgyu las byuli ba ' i phyir ro (Yogilciirabhumi,: zi 5 1 b l-3); X.7£PJT1T� 1'!i'1:&Jl:t�7£o l!P EE Jl:t�*flpJT:@o X. Jl:t7£� 1.El�t.!t Fa' 1fi,ffl � i,ffl EE 7£rm1:.o �F I±\ t.!t Fa' EE Jl:t7£� 1fIl�ilB1T7£� IEJ Et (T . 1 579: 597b9- 12)
1 80 According to Matsuda Kazunobu [private communication], this passage appears in a Sanskrit manuscript fragment of the Viniscayasal?1graha!lfpreserved .in St. Peters burg, and Matsuda has transcribed it as above .
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 190 Chapter 4 Karmanirde§a 4. 10) A third Sarvastivadin argument in support of the reality of avijfiaptirupa is that the sutra says that merit increases. Vasubandhu quotes the purvilcilryas, who say that the merit increases when the recipients of a gift use the gift, even though, in the time between the giving of the gift and its use, the giver of the gift might have a bad thought. Due to the nature of dharmas, the sa1!ltatis of the givers of gifts are perfumed by the volition toward the recipient that accompanied the gift, and their sa1!ltatis undergo a gradual transformation until they can give rise to greater results. 1 8 1 yad apy ukta1!l pWJ-yilbhivrddhivacanad iti tatrilpi purvilcilryil nirdisanti dharmatil hy e�il yathil yathil dilf!'1:!il1!l diiyil/:! paribhujyante tathil tatoo bhoktfr}il1!l gUlJavise�ad anugrahavise�ilc cilnyamanasilm api datfr}ii1!l tadiilambanadiinacetanilbhilvitil/:! sG1!ltatayaJ:! s� pari1Jilmavi§e�a1!l prilpnuvanti yeniiyatyillJz bahutaraphaliibhi n�pattaye samartOO bhavanti (Pradhan: 1 97. 14-17; T. 1558: 69b 1 3-20; Poussin v. 3 : 20; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 541 c8-14] , explains the terms sa1!ltati, parilJilma, and vise�a, says that he has already refuted similar ideas that Vasubandhu is now deviously expressing in different words, and proceeds once again to criticize the theory of parilJilmavise�a and the bfja metaphor from the Vaibha�ika standpoint [T. 1 562: 541c14-542b6] .)
1 8 1 Hakamaya mentions this passage and suggests the possibility that the idea of pari1Jilmavise�a here may be that of a Sautrantika group that prec,eded Vasubandhu and that cannot be identified with Y ogacara But he leaves the question open ( 1986).
Yogiiciirabhami 191
4. 1 0) (The Yogiiciirabhumi does not explain the accumulation o f merit in terms of the transformation of the saf!ltati. However, the following passages may be relevant: The Savitarkiidi-bhumi uses the phrase visi�!ii saf!lskiirasantatiJ:z pravartate in explain ing how good or bad actions produce desired or undesired results. [See item 2. 12.] ye�u saf!lskiire�u yac chubhiiSubhaf!l karmotpannaniruddhaf!l bhavati tena hetunii tena pratyayena visi�!ii saf!lskiirasantatiJ:z pravartate sii viisanety ucyate / yasyiiJ:z prabandhapatitiiyii i�!iini�!aphalaf!l nirvartate [Yogiiciirabhumi: 128.2'-4] : 'du byed gan dag la dge ba dan mi dge ba 'i las skyes nas 'gags pa yod la / rgyu de dan rkyen des 'du byed bye brag can gyi rgyud 'jug pa de la ni bag chags ies bya ste / de rgyun du gnas pa las sdug pa dan mi sdge pa 'i 'bras bu grub par 'gyur ba 'i phyir [ Yogiiciirabhumir' dzi 75b4-5] : �\ll DN�1T r:p o iW:1fi$/fi$* o ;S::1:;S:i� El3 J1:t IzsH�1�1TJl¥H3!4§ *"ji'ij*!I\�11 "&�o El3 J1:t;f§*.?JTm"&�tf<:o �/f�*:1: [T. 1579: 305b3-6]
In the Cintiimayf Bhumi, it is said that wealth accrues due to good karma produced by diina and accumulated in former lives.
ji ltar na sbyin pa las Ions spyod can du 'gyur ba yin ie na / 'di ltar 'di na la la snon gyi tshe rabs gian dag tu sbyin pa las byun bai bsod nams bya ba 'i dnos po byas sin bsags par gyur te / de da ltar phyug pa 'i khyim dan / nor che ba nas mdzod dan / ban mdzodkyi tshogs man ba 'i bar gyikhyim du skye bar ' gyurba 'blta bu ' 0 [Yogiiciirabhumi,: dzi 269a2-4] ; �1iiJ;ffJ fftlj �� Jt SM o �\ll � Q:1f-W�:1: r:p &:I:�-:&nlli:t��*o El3 J1:t lZSl � o 4-1: §�*M.*o 7J���J1f1j[��1� [T . 1579: 375b13-16] The idea that certain observable phenomena are attributable to the nature of dharmas [dharmatii] appears in various places in the Yogiiciirabhumi in definitions of dharmatiiyukti, for example in the Sriivakabhumi: dharmatii-yuktiJ:z katamii / kena kiirm}ena tathiibhutii ete skandhii[s 1 tathiibhuto lokasaf!lnivesaJ:z kena kiirm}ena khara-Iak�m}ii p.rthivf drava-Ia�m}ii iipaJ:z u�l}alak.yal}af!l teja[?z 1 samudfral}a-Iak�al}o vayuJ:z / anityiiJ:z skandhii[J:z]/ kena kiiral}ena siintaf!l nirviil}am iti / tathii rupa[l}a]-lak�al}af!l rupam anubhavana-Iak.yal}ii vedanii saf!ljiinanii-Iak�al}ii saf!ljiiii abhisaf!lskaral}a-Iak�al}ii?z saf!lskiirii vijiinanii-Iak�al}af!l vijiiiinam iti / prak.rtir e�iif!l dharmiil}iim idaf!l svabhiiva e�a fdrsaJ:z dharmatai�ii[f!l] caiva ciisau dharmatii / saiviitra yuktir yoga upiiya?z evaf!l vii etasmiit / anyathii vii naiva viismiit sarvatraiva ca dharmataiva pratiprasaral}af!l dharmataiva yuktiJ:z / cittanidhyapaniiya cittasaf!ljiiapaniiya iyam ucyate dharmatii-yukti?z [Wayman 196 1 : 79; Sriivakabhum i: 143 .4- 1 6] ; chos iiid ky i rigs p a gan ie na / ci 'i phyir phun po rnams de Ita bur gyur pa yin / 'jig Hen gnas pa de Ita bur gyur pa yin / ci 'j phyir sa 'j
Abhidharmakosabhli�ya 192 Chapter 4 Karmanirde.1a
Yogilcilrabhumi 193
4. 1 0 continued) mtshan fiid sra ba yin I chu 'i mtshan fiid gser ba yin I me 'i mtshan fiid tsha ba yin I rlwi gi mtshan flid g. yo ba yin I ci 'i phyir phun po mams mi rtag pa yin I ci'i phyir mya nan las 'das pa i.i ba yin I de bi.in du ci'i phyir gzugs kyi mtshan ;lid gzugs su run ba yin I tshor ba 'i mtshan fiid myon ba yin I 'du ses kyi mtshan ftid kun ses par byed pa yin I 'du byed mams kyi mtshan fiid mnon par 'du byed pa yin I mam par ses pa 'i mtshan ftid mam par ses par byed pa yin i.e na I de ni chos ftid yin te I chos de dag gi ran bi.in de yin i.in I de dag gi no bo ftid de Ita bu yin pas chos fiid de gan kho na yin pa de fiid 'dir rigs pa dan I sbyor ba dan I thabs yin no I de bi.in du de lta bu 'am I gi.an nam I gi.an du rna 'gyur pa ni sems la bi.ag par bya ba dan I sems la go bar bya ba 'i phyir thams cad du yan chos fiid kho na la brten pa dan I chos ftid kho na 'i rigs pa yin te l de ni chos ftid kyi rigs pa i.es bya 'o [Yogilcarabhumi,: wi 68b6-69a4] ;
�1PJ;f;�¥tmjiJ'-'. o �\'j1PJlm�tJ3:&P1��*io frQ;l�)flJ.l:l o ��t!t rE'o frlJ�'ti-:trJo M � .����� o *.�� *.��.ffl .����� o M � .��*i� ����ft�.�.o M � .�� •• ��.��o m�T�B��� o . THIJ i'§ o E81��1t*'li �m o § 'Ii�fjjjf o 1t'li�fjjjf o &PJl:t1tm�RA5 jiJ'-'. ij(( {:ba :1J1�o 9.X;&PfrlJ�9.X;�frlJ�9.X;?FfrO�o -tDir .D), 1tm�1t(o -tD.JgHftf1tfjjjf jiJ'-'.o %'L,'ti-1±%'L'�T a frlJ�;f;�1tfjjjf ji :f! [T. 1579: 419b28-c9])
AbhidhannakosabhtifYa 1 94 Chapter 4 Kannanirdeia
4. 1 1) Vasubandhu raises a hypothetical objection to the argument of the purviiciiryas that he supports in 4.10: how can the recipient' s action affect the donor? He answers this objection by saying that the argument would apply equally even if one attributed the increase in merit to avijfiapti. atha matay[! katham idiinfy[! saY[!tiiniintaravise�iid anyamanaso 'pi saY[!tiiniintarasya paril}iimalJ, setsyatlti / etad avijfiaptau samiinam / katham idiinfy[! saY[ltiiniintaravise�iit saY[ltiiniintare dhanniintaram avijfiaptilJ, setsyatfti (Pradhan: 1 97. 1 8-20; T. 1558: 69b20-23 ; Poussin v. 3 : 20; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 542b6- 1 1] and, after complaining that Vasubandhu confuses issues by not properly understanding the reasoning of his own or other schools, explains that the avijfiapti is continually replicated in the donor' s saY[ltiina and that, since all saY[lskrtadhannas depend on external causes, it is not wrong to say that a special quality of the recipient can result in an increase in the donor' s merit [T. 1562: 542b l l -28].)
Yogacarabhumi 195
4. 1 1)
(I can find no corresponding argument in the Yogacarabhumi. )
AbhidharmakosabhaoJya 196 Chapter 4 Karmanirdesa
4. 12) After explaining that merit increases in the case of non-material meritorious actions because the saT(!ttina undergoes a subtle transformation due to the repetition of volitions with the Tathagata and the srtivakas as objects, 1 82 Vasubandhu points out that the Sarvastivadins would say that there is no vijiiapti in the case of non material meritorious actions, and therefore there should be no avijiiapti. nirupadhikeoJv idilnfT(! pUl}yakriytivastuoJu kathaT(! bhavi.JYatfti / abhfkoJ"(lQT(! tad illambanacetanilbhyilstit svapneoJv api til anuoJaliginyo bhavanti / avijiiaptivildinas tu niraupadhike yatra vijiiaptir nilsti tatra katham avijiiaptiJ:t syilt (Pradhan: 1 97.20-22; T. 1558: 69b23-26; Poussin v. 3 : 20-21 ; Saqlghabhadraidentifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 542b28-29] and criticizes it, saying that when one honors the Tathagata and the srilvakas, one does in fact produce vijiiapti as well as avijiiapti because there is a physical manifestation that accom panies the non-material meritorious action; furthermore, the increase in merit would be impossible without avijiiapti [T. 1 562: 542b29-c l2] .)
1 82 See the Abhidharmakosavytikhyil: 356. 1 0- 1 2.
Yogiiciirabhami
4. 1 2)
(I can find no corresponding argument in the Yogiiciirabhami. )
1 97
Abhidharmakosabhii!Ja 198 Chapter 4 KarmanirdeSa 4.13) A fourth Sarviistiviidin argument in support of the reality of avijiiaptirupa is that, if avijiiapti did not exist, it would be impossible for the action of a person who orders someone else to do something to be karmapatha. Vasubandhu responds that the person who gives the orders will have a subtle transformation of his saT[Itiina at the moment the action is carried out TIlls transformation is called karmapatha. yad apy uktal'J'l kiirayataT:t kathal'J'l karmapathiiT:t setsyantfti tatriipy eval'J'l va17)ayanti / tatprayogel)a pare�iim upaghiitavise�iitprayoktuT:t suk�maT:t sal'J'ltatiparil)iimavise�o jiiyate yata iiyatyiil'J'l santatir api1 83 bahutaraphaliibhinirvartanasamarthii bhavatfti svayam api ca kurvataT:t kriyiiphalaparisamiiptiiv e�a eva nyiiyo veditavyaT:t / so 'sau sal'J'ltatiparil)iimavise�aT:t karmapatha ity iikhyiiyate / kiirye kiiral)opaciiriit / kiiyikaviicikatval'J'l tu tatkriyiiphalatviid yathii 'vijiiaptiviidiniim avijiiapter iti (Pradhan: 198 .2-6; T. 1558: 69c6- 1 l ; Poussin v. 3: 21-22; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 542c 12- 1 8 ] and refutes it, yet again criticizing the theory of sal'J'ltatipari1)iimavise�a from the Vaibhii�ika point of view [T. 1 562: 542c1 8-543a17] .)
1 83 Corrected from samante 'pi by Funahashi
In
on
the basis of the Tibetan. (1987: 66 n.
Yogiiciirabhami 199
4. 1 3) (The Yogiiciirabhumi does not contain an argument regarding the karma of one who orders an action to be committed. However, the Viniscayasa'!lgrahaIJ-1 on the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhumi explains how a person belonging to the ranks of those who are asa'!lvara repeatedly accumulates bad thoughts, thereby activating bad actions and increasing unmeritorious karma. When his bad thoughts enable him to actualize karma, and when, due to seeds and due to their actualization, there is a change in his sa'!ltiina, he is called "one who is asa1'[!vara. " sdom pa ma yin pa 'i rigs su skyes pa ji Ita ba biin du gali su yan run ba gan dan gan nas 'Olis kyan run ste I sems skyed par byed pa yan de biin du rgyas par rig par bya '0 I de ni ji srid du sdom pa rna yin pa 'i sems pa spon bar mi byed pa de srid du ma bsdams par brjod par bya ste I de ni fiin gcig biin du sems pa de man du sogs pa dan I las de kun tu sbyor bas bsod nams ma yin pa mnon par 'phel bar rig par bya 'o l de 'i log par smon pa 'i sems pa ma dad pa dan l Ie lo dan brjed nas pa dan I mam par g. yen ba dan I ses rab 'chal pa dan ldan pa las de yan dag par len par byed pa l Ias de kun nas slon bar byed pa de yan ji srid du gton ba 'i rgyu dag gi spon bar mi byed I yons su gton bar mi byed kyi bar du de phyin chad kyan sa bon dan kun tu spyod pa las rgyud du gtogs pa 'byun ba ni sdom pa ma yin pa ies bya 'o [Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 3 1bl-4J ; tm 1=./f1t1�HR�O£o [l;'!£1PJ Ao [l;'! El31PJ$!l:Si*5.i!i:{, o )JU#.�J;D o llt A � �/f1t.m *�B * o ��m� /f1t.�o � B B �W/f.m.g.�o 1El/f .*�t�Hr�to � J;D ?F1� J& J&:lw :&1& *Jlt;'f� �WJL'Gt 'IIU\�/f1�'lI!t&:S � ft�� .�ffo ��W*�.W*o �� B & El3 .����ff�o .ffi . * :ffl. 1f nS�� /f1t1�� � � El3 � I2Sl *�*�** [To 1579: 589c3- 1 1]) 0
0
AbhidhannakosabhiJ.�ya 200 Chapter 4 Kannanirdeia 4. 14) The sixth Sarvastivadin argument for the existence of avijfiapti is that, with ou t avijfiapti, three members of the eightfold noble path, namely · samyagviic, samyak karmiinta, and samyagiijfva, would be lacking in the case of an iirya in samtidhi. Vasu bandhu responds by asking whether the S arvastivadin thinks that the iirya engages in correct speech, etc., while in samiidhi yad apy uktam a�.tiiriga iiryamiirgo na syiid iti / arigaY!l tiivad iicak{va / kathaY!l miirga samiipannasya samyagviikkarmiintiijfvii bhavantfti / kim asau viicaY!l bhii�ate kriyiiY!l vii karoti cfvariidfn vii parye�ate (Pradhan: 1 9 8 . 1 7- 1 9 ; T. 1558: 69c28-70a1 ; Poussin v. 3: 23 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 543a28-b2] and says that Vasu bandhu and the Sautrantikas should be asked the same question [T. 1562: 543b2-5] .)
Yogiiciirabhiimi 201
4. 14)
(I can find no corresponding argument in the Yogiiciirabhiimi. )
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 202 Chapter 4 Karmanirdesa 4. 1 5) Vasubandhu gives his own explanation for how the iirya in samiidhi can be said to have all members of the eightfold path: the iirya has an intention (iiSaya) and an iisraya 1 84 that, after he emerges from meditation, enable him to continue to produce samyagvac, etc. yady evam ihapy evalJ'! kilJ'! na grhyate miirgasamiipanno viniipy avijiiaptyii tadriipam iisayalJ'! ca iiSrayQl'(l ca pratilabhate yasya pratilambhat vyutthito 'pi na punar mithyii viigiidi�u pravartate samyagviigiidi�u ca pravartate / ato nimitte naimittikopaciiralJ'! lq1vii a�!au miirgiiligiini vyavasthiipyanta iti (Pradhan: 198.22-199. 1 ; T. 1558: 70a4-7; Poussin v. 3 : 24; SaITlghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 543b5-8] and argues that, according to Vasubandhu's logic, the same thing could be said about samyagdr�!i. which in fact must be present in samiidhi; according to the A.bhidhamrikas, samyagviic, etc., are actually present in samiidhi in the form of avijiiapti [T. 1 562: 543b8-27] .)
1 84 The Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii glosses iiSraya as iisrayapariivrtti (35 7 . 3 1 ) .
Yogiictirabhiimi 203
4 . 1 5) According to the Paficavijfiiinakiiyarnanobhiimi of the ViniscayasaJ'[lgraha,!-z, tilayavijfiiina is the cause of the activity of klesas and of the non-activity of the Path, 1 85 while iisrayapanv.rtti is the cause of the non-activity of the klefas and the activity of the Path. kun gii mam par ses pa ni fion mons pa mams kyi 'jug pa 'i rgyu dan lam gyi 'jug pa 'i rgyu rna yin la / gnas gyur pa ni fion mons pa mams kyi 'jug ma yin pa dan / lam du 'jug pa 'i rgyu yin te (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 9b6-7); :z.�DJ*M��i;o �;l:JH�" 1!I � J1l/f*, l!I o *,1:K�;l:lH�/f*, l!I o �J1l*,1!1 (T. 1 579: 5 8 1 c12-14; see Schrnithausen 1987: 369 n. 570) 0
1 85 This is according to the Chinese translation. According to the Tibetan translation, iilayavijfitina is the cause of the activity of klesas and is not the cause of the activity of the Path. •
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 204 Chapter 4 Karmanirde.1a 4. 1 6) Vasubandhu says that the reason why vipiikaja citta can be neither the cause (pravartaka) nor the accompaniment (anuvartaka) of karma is that it occurs without effort. 1 86 vipiikajal'{! tu cittal'{! naiva pravartakal'{! niinuvartakal'{! nirabhisa1J1Skiiraviihitviit (Pradhan: 205.2; T. 1558: 7 1 c24-25; Poussin v. 3: 4 1 ; SaJ.1lghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 547b17-1 8] and criticizes it on the grounds that not all things that are not produced by effort fail to give rise to karma. He gives the example of innate kusala, which can cause the production of vijfiaptikanna, and says that the real reason is that vipiikaja citta is too weak: to act as a cause 1 87 [T. 1562: 547b26-29].)
1 8 6 Hsiian-tsang 's Chinese translation explains Vasubandhu' s earlier statement that aniisrava citta is likewise neither the cause nor the accompaniment of karma: he says that this is because aniisrava citta is only produced in meditation (T. 1558: 71c25). Although this explanation is not found in the Sanskrit, the Tibetan, or Paramlirtha 's translation, it is supported by the AbhidhaT7T1£ll«Jsavyiikhyii (366.26-27; see Poussin, v. 3 : 40 n. 1). SaJ.1lghabhadra criticizes Vasubandhu' s reasoning, saying that the citta of siisrava meditation likewise is neither cause nor accompaniment of karma (T. 1562: 547b15-16). 1 87 This is the reason offere d by the Vibhii�ii (T. 1 545 : 61Ob24-26).
Yogiiciirabhumi 205
4. 1 6)
(I have found no corresponding argument in the Yogiictirabhumi. )
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 206 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia 4. 17) Vasubandhu poses the question: does the moral nature of vijfiaptikarma correspond to its pravartaka or its anuvartaka ? He finds · objections with each possibility and concludes that if the pravartaka is bhiivaniiheya, the vijfiapti must correspond to it. But if the pravartaka is darsanaheya, the vijfiapti does not (neces sarily?) correspond to it. According to Vasubandhu, there must be a bhiivaniiheya pravartaka moment between the first pravartaka and the vijfiapti, and the vijfiapti will correspond to this second pravartaka. kim idiinfTJ'l yathii pravartakaTJ'l tathii vijfiaptir iihosvid yathii 'nuvartakam / kiTJ'l clitaJ:t / yathii pravartakaTJ'l cet / ihiipi nivrtiivyiikrtii vijfiaptiJ:t priipnoti / satkiiyiinta griihadr�.tipravartitatvlit / na vii sarvaTJ'l darsanaprahiitavyaTJ'l pravartakam iti vise�a1)aTJ'l vaktavyam / yathiinuvartakaTJ'l cet akusaliivyii/q"tacittasya priitimok�a vijfiaptiJ:t kusalii na priipnoti / yathii pravartaka tathii vijfiaptir na tu yathii darsana prahiitavyam / bhiivaniiheyiintaritatvlit (Pradhan: 205 .2-7 ; T. 1 5 5 8 : 72a1 3- 1 8 ; Poussin v. 3 : 4 1 -42; S rup.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 547c23-29] and accuses Vasubandhu of expressing his own opinion while claiming to be presenting the view of the Abhidhannikas [T. 1 562: 547c29-548a5].)
Yogiiciirabhiimi
4. 1 7)
(I have found no corresponding argument in the Yogiiciirabhiimi. )
207
Abhidharmakosabhii[Ya 20S Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia 4. 1 S) Vasubandhu says that the sutra, when it says that mithyiidr�!i causes vijiiapti, does not contradict his own opinion that vijiiapti does not correspond to a darsana heya pravartaka. Mithyiidr�!i causes another pravartaka, one that is bhiivaniiheya, which causes vijiiapti. (This seems like little more than a restatement of Vasubandhu' s position in 4. 1 6.)
yadi niinuvartakavaiiid vijiiapteJ:t kuSaliiditval'J'l na tarhfdarrt vaktavyam / hetu samutthiinal'J'l sarrufhioiy ktal'J'l sutre na tatlq�amutthiinam / ato niistlha nivrtiiVYiilq1ii vijiiaptir iti / eval'J'l vaktavyam/ anyavyavahital'J'l hetusamutthiinarrt saJ?Ulhiiyoktam iti (pradhan: 205 .7-9 ; T. 155S: 72a20-25 ; Poussin v. 3 : 42-43 ; S aI11ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 54Sa5-S], explains it, and criticizes it, again complaining that Vasubandhu does not accurately present the S arviistivadin position [T. 1 562: 54SaS-23] .)
Yogacarabhumi
209
4. 1 8) (I have found no corresponding argument in the Yogacarabhumi. The sutra to which Vasubandhu refers [Pradhan 203. 1 1-12; T. 1558: 7 1b25; Poussin v. 3: 39] is Sa1J1yuktagama, sutra 749 [T. 99: 198b 1 3 ff.], which is not commented on in the VastusaIJ1grahalJ[)
Abhidharmakosabha�a 210 Chapter 4 KarmanirdeSa 4. 1 9) In verse 26ab, Vasubandhu says that sG1pvara that is produced by dhyana is obtained by means of the dhyanabhilmi, that is to say, at the moment of obtaining the citta of the dhyanabhilmi. dhyanajo dhyanabhilmyaiva labhyate yada dhyanabhilmikaYfl cittaYfl pratilabhyate maulfyaYfl samantakzyaYfl va sasravaYfl tada dhyanasaYflvaro 'pi sahabhiltatvat (Pradhan: 2 1 1 . 1 9-21 ; T. 1558: 74b5-16; Poussin v. 3: 59; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 551a23, referring to what was quoted at 55 1a9- 12] and criticizes it, saying that Vasubandhu should have said "by means of dhyana, " not "by means of dhyanabhilmi" because the word dhyanabhilmi refers to all the dharmas in dhyana. In other words, if I understand correctly, Vasubandhu does not distinguish between the dhyana and the saYflvara obtained therein [T. 1562: 551a20-24].)
Yogdciirabhami
21 1
4. 1 9) (I have found nothing ill the Yogiicdrabhami concerning this question. How ever, an explanation of dhyiinasalJ1-vara can be found in the VinifcayasalJ1-grahalJf on the Paficavijfiiinakdyamanobhami [Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 33b 1-3; T. 1 579: 590])2327] .)
Abhidharmakosabhii!Ja 212 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia
4.20) Vasubandhu objects to the Sarviistiviidin statement that refraining from eating at an improper time is both fasting and a "member of faSting" (upaviisiiJiga). The Sarviistiviidins say that it is analogous to samyagdr�!i, dharmapravicaya, and samiidhi, which are, respectively, miirga, bodhi, and dhyiina and, at the same time, miirgiinga, bodhyanga, and dhyiiniinga. Vasubandhu says that the S arviistiviidin explanation implies that the earlier samyagdr�!i is a member of the later samyagdr�!i, in which case the first moment of the miirga would not have eight members. na tu te�iim eva samyagdr�!yiidfniil]'! ta eviingatviiya kalpanta iti /piirvakii/:t samyag dr�!yiidaya uttare�iim angal]'! yadi syutt prathamak�al)otpanna iiryamiirgo nii�!iinga syiit (Pradhan: 214.20-2 1 ; T. 1558: 75c I4-17; Poussin v. 3 : 69; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 552cI9-12] and criticizes it, saying that Vasubandhu misrepresents the Sarviistiviidin position, according to which samyag dr�!i, etc., do not act as aligas with respect to themselves but only with respect to the other members [T. 1562: 552c12_22].) 1 88
1 88 See Kokuyaku IssaikyiJ Bidon-bu 28: 424 n. 4 1 .
Yogacarabhilmi
4.20)
(I have found no corresponding argument in the Yogacarabhilmi. )
213
Abhidharmakosabhi¥Ya 214
Chapter 4 Karmanirde§a
4.21) According to S arviistivada, one becomes an upiisaka simply by taking the triple refuge: one is thereby endowed with the upiisaka discipline. However, Vasu bandhu points out that this contradicts the Buddha's statement that there are different kinds of upiisakas, who practice varying numbers of the five rules. The S arviisti vadin explanation is that all upiisakas are endowed with the five rules but that some upiisakas do not observe all of them. Vasubandhu says that the Sarviistivadins base their opinion on a satra that is not directly relevant to the definition of an upiisaka. 189 yadi sarva evopiisakii upiisakasaT[tvarasthii/:t katharrt bhagavatii ekade§akiirf prade§akiirf yadbhaya/:tkiirf paripaTlJakiirf copiisaka uktaT:t I tatpiilaniit kila proktii/:t yo hi yacchilqiipadaT[t piilayati sa tatkiirfty ukta/:t I sarve tu samaT[t saT[tvarasthii/:t I idam utsatraT[t vartate I kim atrotsatram / upiisakatviibhyupagamiid eva saT[tvaraliibho yasmiit priiIJiitipiitam ity aheti I na hy evaT[t satrapiitha/:t ukto yathii mahiiniimasatre piitha/:t I tatraiva copiisakalak�a7Jopade§o niinyatra I yatra tv e�a piitho yiivajjfvaT[t priiIJiipetaT[t saraIJagatam abhiprasannam itil tatra te dr�tasatyii avetyaprasiidiinvayaT[t priiIJair api saddharmopagamanarrt sma I jfvitahetor apy abhavyii vayam enaT[t dharmarrt parityaktum iti I na tv e�a l�aIJopade§a/:t saT[tvarasya IpriiIJapetarrt' tu na kvacit pathyate (Pradhan: 2 1 5 . 1 4-22; T. 1558: 76a1 9-28; Poussin v. 3 : 73-74; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 553b3-12] and defends the Sarviistivadin interpretation of satra [T. 1 562: 553b 12-c2] .)
189 Mochizuki suggests that Vasubandhu' s is the standard Buddhist position ( 1 974: ' 2: 1 1 19). I am grateful to Yamabe Nobuyoshi for this reference.
Yogacarabhilmi 215
4.21) (The Yogiiciirabhiimi contains nothing explicit regarding this subject. However, the threefold division of upiisaka salJ1vara in the ViniscayasalJ1grahalJfon the Paficavijfianakiiyamanobhiimi might be relevant: 190 de la dge bsfien gyi sdom pa ni yan lag gsum gyis bsdus pa yin te / yan lag gsum gan ie na / gian la gnod pa 'i dnos p0 1 9 1 spon ba yan dag par blan ba 'i yan lag dan / yan dag par blans pa las fiams pa phyir gso ba 'i yan lag dan / yan dag par blans pa las mi fiams pa 'i yan lag go / de la gian gyi srog la gnod pa dan / Ions spyod la gnod pa dan / chun rna la gnod pa spon ba ni yan lag dan po yin no / brdzun du smra ba spon ba ni yan lag gfiis pa yin no / chan dan bcos pa 'i chan dan sbyar ba 'i chan bag med pa 'i gnas spon ba ni yan lag gsum pa yin par rigpar bya '0 [ Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 34b7-35a2] ; � ••• � � �m.o M�.� o -�� ••• m�.�o =�.m� •• 1'T�o �/f.PJf��o ;E'7j(�J1lU��1mfrJ1ffil):� 1jMtf� 1t!r�l:�o � 1S f)]�[o ] �J1llHH'g: � �=�o �J1l!Ht?@1K1iJ:�ML ���� [T. 1579: 591a9-14] Furthennore, another passage in the ViniscayasalJ1grahalJl on the Paficavijfiiinakiiya manobhiimi clearly shows a gradual obtainment of salJ1vara in the case of the bhik�u. sdom pa yan dag par blan ba de yan rnam pa brgyar gtogs par rig par bya ste / mi dge ba 'i las kyi lam bcu spon ba las1 92 brten te / srog gcod pa 'i phyogs gcig spon ba nas log par Ita ba 'i bar gyi phyogs gcig spon ba 'di dag ni rnam pa bcu 'o / srog gcodpa phal cher spon ba nas log par Ita ba 'i bar phal cher spon ba 'di dag kyan 1 90 This description of the upiisaka salJ1vara does not mention rules, in which respect it differs from the description of the bhik�u salJ1vara, which immediately precedes it: dge slon gi sdom pa ni yan lag tu iig gis bsdus / dge bsfien gi sdom pa ni yan lag tu Zig gis bsdus / bsfien gnas pa 'I sdom pa nl yan lag tu iig gis bsdus par rig par bya ie na / dge slon gi sdom pa ni yan lag biis bsdus par rig par bya ste / yan lag bii gan ie na / bsfien par rdzogs pa 'i yan lag dan / de dan mthun pa 'i chos kyi bslab pa 'i gii yan dag par blan ba 'i yan lag dan / gian gyi sems rjes su bsrun ba 'i yan lag dan / bslab pa 'i tshogs yan dag par blans pa rjes su srun ba 'i yan lag go / de la gsol ba dan bii 'i las bya ba dan /ji ltar bslab pa 'i gii che Ion dag nod pa ni bsfien par rdzogs pa 'i yan lag yin te / yan lag de dan ldan na dge slon de dan po kho nar dge slon [Derge adds gi dnos po 'I] tshul khrims des tshul khrims dan ldan pa ies bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 34a7-M); r,,� Z� J5:.J5:{± •• o ii�D4:l-���pJftilll o :&Z�.{�IZ9�pJfmo 1ilJ
�.lZ9o -�JUE�o =��1:t;�M1�o ��i�i1m,C,�o 1Z9��i�DPJf��M1�o ;E'fFi'Z S � 1Z9��o &1Ilg.m�o �;i:*M1o �1S �Jl.J��o J±U'Ul:t��)co 1Sf)] Z� ,l3, Z�lfl<: (T. 1579: 590c24-29). 1 9 1 Derge reads dnos po chen po. 1 92 Derge reads lao
216
Abhidhannakosabhiiljya Chapter 4 Kannanirdeia
Yogiiciirabhami 217
4.21 continued) gian mam pa bcu 'o / srog gcod thams cad spon ba nas log par ita ba 'i bar thams cad span ba 'di dag kyan gian mam pa bcu 'a / dus yun thwi nu fUn mtshan nam zla ba phyed dam / zla ba ' am lor srag gcod pa spon ba nas log par Ita ba 'i bar span ba 'di dag kyan gian mam pa bcu 'o / dus yun rin po lo phan chad nas ji srid 'tsho'i bar du ni ma yin par srog gcod pa spon ba nas log par Ita ba 'i bar span ba 'di dag kyan gian mam pa bcu 'a /ji srid 'tsho 'i bar du srag gcod pa span ba nas log par lta ba 'i bar spon ba 'di dag kyan gian mam pa bcu 'o / bdag fiid srog gcod pa span ba nas log par Ita ba 'i bar spon ba 'di dag kyan gian mam pa bcu 'o / gian dag de dag fiid yan dag par len du 'jug pa 'di dag kyan gian mam pa bcu ' 0 / de dag gi bsnags pa mam grans du mar rjad par byed pa 'di dag kyan gian mam pa bcu 'o / srog gcad pa sbon ba nas log par blta ba 'i bar spon ba mthon na yid bde bar 'dzin gcin dga ' ba dan yid bde ba skye ba 'di dag kyan gian mam pa bcu '0 / bcu pa mam pa bcu po de dag gcig tu bsdus nas mam pa brgyar 'gyur te / bsod nams skye ba yan de tsam kho nar rig pa bya 'o [Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 32b2-S); 1�* 'i"JD EI3 siTjifi mjffi �1t�o �\ll :tJ0T�I/f�*):ii! :Y:B-�f£jf;£o ]J�:J,' :B-Ji�U�R. o �� W T fl o ��:B-.jf;£� o ]J � � :B-. $ R. o �� .=Tflo ��:B-.jf;£ � o ]J ��:B-.$ R. o �� . � Tfl o � :Y �.jf;£�]J�.$ R. o m � - B -�o � � � - � o ��-$o �� . � T fl o � � �.jf;£�]J �.$ R. o m B -$/f���o �� .ETflo �.�.jf;£�]J � . $ R. o �� .�T fl o � � .jf;£�]J �.$R. o �� . � T fl o ��� •• ��Ao � � . A TiT o �flP :tJN}U)J!� :i: r� oml��JzI!o �� . :fL TiT o � R. �f£jf;£�1lf]J�J1lU� R. 1lf 7�H'�'tit.�*Wz*o �� . T TiT �D � T T iT*.\H5t� s iT jifi �tl\'l ;. 'i"JOvJ;j"jjjJ [T. 1579: 590a13_2S])193 0
1 90 I
am
0
0
grateful to Yamabe Nobuyoshi for bringing this passage to my attention.
Abhidhannakosabhii�ya 218 Chapter 4 Kannanirdda 4.22) According to Vasubandhu, the Sarvastivadin argument that upasakas are endowed with all the rules but break some of them does not make sense. The Sarvastivadins assert that, if upasakas were not always endowed with all the rules, then bhik�us and sramal}eras would likewise not always be endowed with all the rules. Vasubandhu replies that this argument is invalid because, unlike in the case of upasakas, the Buddha has not mentioned bhik� us or sramal}eras who are not completely endowed with the rules. ekaddakaryadfl'(ls tu khal}¢itasik�an adhik.rtya prasna eva na yujyate Ikuto visarjanam avel}ikadharmQl}am I ko hy upasakasal'(lvaral'(l janan etan na jfiasyate yo hi yacchik�apadal'(l na khal}¢ayati sa tatkarf bhavatfti I upasakasal'(lvarasya tu parimal}anabhijfial'(ls tanmatrasi�ak�aman praty e�a prasno yujyate I kiyata bhadantopasaka ekaddakarf bhavati yavat paripuTI}akarf bhavati I yadi tarhi vina sal'(lvarel}Opasakaf:r, syad vikalena va bhik�usramal}eraV api syatam I kathal'(l tavad e�am upasakasal'(lvaradfnam aligapratiniyamo bhavati I sastprajfiaptivaSat I upasakatvadipratiniyamo 'pi sastprajfiaptivaSad iryatam I vinapi hi sal'(lvarel}opasakaf:r, prajfiaptito na tu bhi�sramal}eraV iti te tv etan na gacchanti kasmfraf:r, (Pradhan: 216.1-8; T. 1558: 76a29-b 12; Poussin v. 3 : 74-75 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 553c2-9] and insists that the Sarvasti vadin understanding that upasakas are endowed with all five rules but observe varying numbers of them is correct [T. 1 562: 553c9-554a21].)
Yogilcilrabhami .
4.22)
(See 4.20.)
219
Abhidharrnakosabhii�ya 220 Chapter 4 Karrnanirde§a
4.23) According to the Sarvastivadins, when one takes refuge in the Buddha, one takes refuge in the asaik�adharrnas, not in the physical body of the Buddha. Vasu bandhu objects that, if the Buddha were nothing more than these dharrnas, injuring him would not be a major offense (iinantaryakarrna). 1 94 Vasubandhu discounts the Sarvastivadin answer to this objection and says that their own texts never deny that the Buddha' s iisraya also comprises buddhatva. yady asaik.;ii dharma eva buddhaJ:! kathalJ1 tathiigatasyiintike du�!acittarudhirotpiidaniid iinantaryalJ1 bhavati I iisrayavipiidaniit te 'pi vipiiditii bhavantfti vaibhii�iktiJ:! I siistralJ1 tu naivalJ1 viicakam asaik.;ii dharma eva buddha iti I kilJ1 tarhi I buddhaktirakti iti l ata iisrayasya buddhatviiprati�edhiid acodyam evaitat (Pradhan: 21 6.23-217.2; T. 1558: 76c7- 12; Poussin v. 3 : 78-79; SaJ11ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 556b7- 1 1] and criticizes it, saying that if one took refuge in the Buddha's body, then even those who had not attained the aSaikJa dharrnas could accomplish Buddhahood ; furthe=ore, even if one did take refuge in the Buddha' s body, it would have to be in his paramiirtha body, which is equivalent to the aSaik.;adharmas [T. 1562: 556bll-25].)
1 94 This objection, attributed to Va ubandhu or to the Sautrautikas by P'u-kuang � (T. 1 82 1 : 227b4-5), seems to be a hypothetical one.
Yagaearabhumi
221
4.23) In the Viniseayasaf!Lgrahal)l On the Badhisattvabhumi (Saf!Ldhinirmaeana sutra), the characteristic of the Tathagata' s dharmakaya is defmed as the perfection of his asraya resulting from his practice. beam ldan 'das la byali chub sems dpa ' 'jam dpal gyis iu bius pa I beam [dan 'das de biin gsegs pa mams kyi ehas kyi sku ies bgyi na I beam ldan 'das de biin gsegs pa mams kyi ehas kyi sku 'i mtshan fiidji Ita bu lags I beam ldan 'das kyis bka ' stsal pa l 'jam dpal de biin gsegs pa mams kyi ehas1 95 sku 'i mtshan fiid ni sa dali pha ral tu phyin pa bsgams pa 'i lies par 'byuli bar gyur pa l 96 yali dag par grub pa yin no (Yagaearabhumi,: 'i lOOb6-101 al); oJ:7-*�5fIj i'ff!i ��i1Jf!i �� r,,� 1� i3 t!t�o �D1� pjfm�D*¥i:: !f �D*¥i:: !f 1'ffpJ��§ o 1�troJ:7-*�5fIji'ff!i B '&§i5ro t':aNt±tf1 ¥1tif.ifJ:8-o '&11�I±l �lo Q1itw:iffio �:t �D*¥i:: !f Z�§ (T. 1579: 733c16-20) 0
0
0
This is contrasted with the asrayas of the sravaka and pratyekabuddha, which are not called dharmakaya. beam ldan 'das ei lags nan thas dali rali salis rgyas mams kyi sa gnas gyur pa gali lags pa de yali ehas kyi sku legs par brjad par bgyi'am I 'jam dpal b rjad par mi bya 'a (Yagaearabhumi(" 'i 10la2-3); t!t�o � /ili 1;1l';pjf14Q1ito :t ri:: !f/f'o '&§i5ro /f' :t ¥i:: !f (T. 1579: 733c23-24)
1 95 Corrected from de biin gsegs pa rnams kyi sku 'i on the basis of the Derge and the Chinese. .
.
1 96 Derge reads lies par 'byuli bas gnas gyur pa.
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 222 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia 4.24) Vasubandhu says that if the Buddha is nothing more than the asaik�a dharmas, then the sa7[!gha is likewise nothing more than the sai�adharmas and asai�adharmas of the various monks. Thus, no one with a laukikacitta could be either the Buddha or a monk. anyathii hi laukikacittastho na buddhaf:z syiin na sa7[!ghaf:z (Pradhan: 217.2-3; T. 1558: 76c12-13; Poussin v. 3: 79; Sllipghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 556b25-28] and criticizes it, saying that one does not lose these dharmas simply because one has a laukikacitta [T. 1562: 556b28-c4].)
Yogacarabhilmi
223
4.24) (I can find nothing in the Yogacarabhilmi that corresponds to this part of Vasubandhu' s argument.)
Abhidhannakosabhiirya 224 Chapter 4 Kannanirdefa
4.25) Vasubandhu says that yet another undesirable consequence of the Buddha' s being nothing more than the asaik�adharmas is that the word bhik�u would refer only to the vows and not to the body of the bhi�. sflam eva ca bhik�ukarakaf!1 bhik�u/:t syat (Pradhan: 217.3; T. 1558: 76c 1 3 ; Poussin v. 3: 79; S31pghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 556c4], says that the word bhi�u is provisionally used to indicate the body of the bhik�u because he takes the vows, and criticizes Vasubandhu for misunderstanding the "abhidharma tradition" [T. 1 562: 556c4-7].)
YogiiciirabhTlmi
225
4.25) (I can find nothing in the YogiiciirabhTlmi that corresponds to this part of Vasubandhu' s argument.)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 226 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia
4.26) The Sarvastivadins argue that the umestrained person is umestrained with respect to all beings. But Vasubandhu argues that the sheep-killer has the intention only to kill the sheep, not, contrary to the Sarvastivadins, to kill his own parents, who have been reborn as sheep. He maintains that, if the sheep-killer has the intention to kill his future parents, he is not umestrained in the present with respect to the sheep. yadi ciiniigatiitmabhiiviipek�ayii vartamiiniid asa1'[lvrtal:r- syiid urabhriidfn api te putrfbhutiit sarvathii na hanyur iti na syiit tebhyo 'sa1'[lvaral:r(Pradhan: 221 .20-2 1 ; T. 1558: 78c 1 8-2 1 ; Poussin v. 3: 92; Sat)1ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 563a29-b3] and criticizes it, arguing that the evil intention is pervasive and is directed at all beings [T. 1562: 563b3-1O] . )
Yogiiciirabhami 227
4.26) (The Yogiiciirabhami does not contain a similar argument. However, the explanation of the unrestrained person in the Viniscayasaf!!grahal)! on the Pafica vijiiiinakiiyamanobhami [ Yogiiciirabharni,: zi 3 1 a6-b4; T. 1579: 5 89b24-c 1 1 , partially quoted in item 4. 1 3] suggests that becoming unrestrained is a gradual process resulting from the accumulation of bad actions based on bad thoughts or intentions. If so, it would not be unreasonable for one to be unrestrained toward certain beings and not toward others.)
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 228 Chapter 4 Karmanirde1a 4.27) In order to refute the Sarviistivadin insistence that one who is not restrained is unrestrained with respect to all the infractions, Vasubandhu - gives examples of sheep-killers who logically cannot be unrestrained with respect to all the other infractions: one who does not steal; one who is content to have sex only with his wife; one who is mute (and therefore cannot lie). ya1 caurabhrilw janmaniipy 1 97 Matte svadiirapari�o! miikaS ca / katham asya sarviiJigebhyo198 'sOJ'!lvaraJ:t syiit (Pradhan: 222.2-3 ; T. 1558: 78c25-26; Poussin v. 3 : 93; Srup.ghabhadra quotes this [T. 1 562: 563b l O- l l] after his criticism of the preceding item, obviously treating it as part of the opinion of the sutra-master, and says that, by killing the sheep, the sheep-killer destroys all his good intentions and therefore obtains all the asOJ'!lvaras [T. 1 562: 563b l l - 1 6].)
197 Funahashi says that a negative should be added on the basis of all the translations ( 1 987 : 2 1 9 n. 1).
•
198 Corrected from purviiJigebhyo (lfuakawa 1 973- 1 978, v. 1 : 43 1).
Yogiiciirabhami
229
4.27) (The Yogiiciirabhami contains neither these examples nor the argument in general.)
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 230 Chapter 4 Karmanirde§a
4.28) Vasubandhu, in order to refute the KasmIra Vaibha�ikas, who say that monks who break even the most serious rules do not lose their bhi�u sfla, quotes a passage from the Vinaya that implies that they do. The Sarvastivadins argue that this passage cannot be taken literally: it really means that one who breaks a serious rule is not a "true" bhi�u, that is to say, an arhat. However, Vasubandhu insists that the passage can be taken literally. He refers to another Vinaya passage that mentions four types of bhik�us, the last of whom is the arhat But he says that the first Vinaya passage refers to yet another type of bhi�u, one who has taken the four vows (in other words, the ordinary bhi�u). If a monk were an arhat to begin with, he would not be capable of breaking a rule and losing the quality of being a bhi�u. 1 99 yat tarhi bhagavatoktam bhi�u?OO bhavaty asrammJo 'sakyaputrfyo dhvasyate bhi�ubhavat / katamasya20 1 bhavati sramal'}yam dhvastal!l patital!l parajitam iti / paramiirthabhi�utval!l sal!ldhayaitad uktam / idam abhisahasal!l vartate / kim atrabhisahasam / yat bhagavata nftarthal!l punar anyatha nfyate / daul:iSflyaya ca bahuklesebhyaf:1. pratyaya dfyante / katham etan nftartham / e�a hi vinaye nirde§af:1. / caturvidho bhik�uf:1. / sal!ljfiabhik�uf:1. pratijiiabhik�ur bhik�ata iti bhik�ur bhinna kle§atvat bhi�uf:1. / asmil!ls tv arthe jiiapticaturthakarmopasal!lpanno bhik�ur iti / na casau pilrval!l paramarthabhil�ur asfd yataf:1. pascad abhik�ur bhavet (Pradhan: 223 . 1 1- 1 8 ; T. 1558: 79b 14-24; Poussin v. 3: 96-97; Satp.ghabhadra quotes the portion beginning with idam abhisahasal!l, identifying it as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 565a14-22] , and criticizes it, saying that the Sarvastivadin idea of a "true" bhik�u is correct and that V asubandhu' s argument does not success fully refute it [T. 1 562: 565a22-b 1 2].)
1 99 Mochizuki suggests that Vasubandhu' s is the standard Buddhist position ( 1 974: 5 : 4273). Again, I am grateful to Yamabe Nobuyoshi for this reference. 200 Punahashi ( 1 987: 232 n.3) says that this should be read as abhik�ur on the basis of all the translations and the quotation in the Abhidharmakosavyakhya. ;
201 Punahashi says that katamasya is a mistake for hatamasya ( 1 9 87: 232 n. 4).
'
Yogiiciirabhiimi
23 1
4.28) The BodhisattvabhL7mi states that a bodhisattva who breaks even one piiriijika rule becomes incapable of having the full requisites of the · bodhisattva and of having purity of intention. He is a bodhisattva in appearance only, not a real bodhisattva. If he breaks the rule with a weak or medium paryavasthiina, he does not lose his bodhisattvaSflasaY(lvara, but if he breaks it with a strong paryavasthiina, he does. Furthermore, unlike a bhik�u, who loses his pratimok�asaY(lvara by breaking a piiriijika rule even one time, the bodhisattva only loses his bodhisattvasflasaY(lvara if he repeatedly brealcs a rule badly, without guilt or shame, with pleasure, and thinking it is good to do so. And even this bodhisattva can regain his bodhisattva SflasaY(lvara in the same lifetime, unlike the bhik�u, who cannot. itfme catviiraJ:t piiriijayika-sthanfyii dharmaJ:t ye�iiY(l bodhisattvaJ:t anyatamiinyatamaY(l dharmam adhyiipadya priig eva sarviin a-bhavyo bhavati dr�!e dharme vipulasya bodhi saY(lbharasyopacayiiya parigrahiiya. a-bhavyo bhavati dr�!a eva dharme iisaya visuddhaye. sa bodhisattvaJ:t prati-riipakas ca bhavati. no tu bhiito bodhisattvaJ:t. mrdu madhya-paryavasthanatas ca bodhisattvaJ:t ebhis caturbhiJ:t piiriijayika-sthanfyair dharmair na tac-chfla-saY(lvara-samiidiinaY(l vijahati. adhimiitra-paryavasthanatas tu vijahati. yatas ca bodhisattvaJ:t e�iiY(l catul7}iiT[! piiriijayika-sthanfyiiniiT[! dharma1:ziim abhfk�1:zii-samudiiciiriit parfttam api hrf-vyapatriipyaY(l notpiidayati. tena ca prfyate. tena ca ramate. tatraiva gU1:za-darsf bhavati. iyam adhimiitratii paryavasthiinasya veditavyii. na tu bodhisattvaJ:t sakrd eva piiriijayika-sthanfya-dharmasamudiiciiriid bodhisattva-Sfla-saY(lvara-samii-danaY(l vijahiiti. tad-yatha piiriijayikair dharmair bhi�uJ:t priitimo�a-s�varaYf1. parityakta-samiidano 'pi ca bodhisattvo dme dharme bhavyaJ:tpunar adiiniaiy bodhisattva-slla-s�vara-samiidanasya bhavati. niibhavya eva tad-yatha piiriijayikiidhyiipannaJ:t priitimo�a-s�vara-stho bhi�uJ:t (Bodhisattvabhiimi: 159.3-23); bii po de dag ni pham pa 'i gnas Ita bu 'i chos rnams yin te I de dag las byan chub sems , dpa 202 chos gan yan run ba byas na yan tshe 'di la byan chub kyi tshogs rgya chen po sogs pa dan l yons su 'dzin pa 'i skal ba med par 'gyur na thams cad la byas na Ita ci smos I tshe 'di Hid la bsam pa rnam par dag par 'gyur ba 'i skal pa yan med de I de ni byan chub sems dpa ' ltar bcos pa yin gyi yan dag pa 'i byan chub sems dpa ' ma yin no Ipham pa 'i gnas Ita bu bii po 'di dag gis kun nas dkris pa chun nu dan I 'brin gis ni tshul khrims kyi sdom pa yan dag par blans pa de byan chub sems dpas btan bar mi 'gyur ro I kun nas dkris pa chen pos ni btan bar 'gyur te I gan gi phyir byan chub sems dpas pham pa 'i gnas lta bu 'i chos bii po 'di dag rgyun mi 'chad par kun tu spyod pa dan I no tsha ses pa dan I khrel yod pa chun nu tsam yali mi skyed pa dan I des mgu bar byed cin de la dga ' ba dan I de Hid la yon tan du Ita ba can du gyur pa 'di ni kun nas dkris pa chen po yin par rig par bya 'o I 'di Ita ste I pham pa 'i chos rnams byas pa 'i dge sion gis so sor thar pa 'i sdom pa btan bar 'gyur pa biin du l byan chub sems 202 Derge reads dpas.
232
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya Chapter 4 Karmanirdesa
YogacarabhL7mi 233
4.28 continued) dpa 'i pham pa 'i gnas Ita bu 'i chos can Ian cig tsam lam tu dpyad03 pas ni byaJi chub sems dpa 'i tshul khrims kyi sdom pa yan dag par blans pa btan bar mi 'gyur ro / byan chub sems dpa ' ni yan dag par blans par yons su btan du zin kyan tshe 'di la byan chub sems dpa'i tshul khrims kyi sdom pa yan dag par blans pa phyir mnod pa 'i skal pa yod do / 'di Ita ste / dge slon so sor thar pa 'i sdom pa la gnas pa pham pa byun ba biin du skal pa med pa kho nar 'gyur pa rna yin no (Yogacarabhamit: ii 96b4-97a3); tfill 1f�lZ9{mJlf�it:;o IljHB-�ii}t',:5B--l;)] o /f*J�tl�1f�:mit:; r:p :!:!li *
m��ill !Jtk �:ttBt lio /f*J�tl�1f�:mit:; r:p �� i�i'io �IlP:t f.M§{J;J,�ill o #.�ill o �ill �ffl * r:p �.o .m lZ9 .�Jlf�$o /f*�ill �� •• o � � *1 :5Bo IlP:t ffi&* ��t � ill 3lJ: :5B lZ9 �i{mJlf � it:; t§:t§::m1T1f� �'liWit� a i*1:. �.����o .�m:t � � .mo �.�ill o V-:m��Jlf�$o �*� ill i'i�.{�o RJ].Z� :5B{mJlfiHP��*J]Jj ��H5I.�o :;S:.�ill !±!lI:t31J: :5Bo � :tli�ill i'i�•• o 1f�:mit:; r:pJ�1:E9!�?F/fJ�1:Eo RJ]Z�1UJj��H5I.�:5B1mJlfit:;o 1f�\:mit:; r:p /f1:E9!� (T. 1579: 5 1 5c7-20)204 0
0
The SravakabhL7mi lists five types of bhik�s: the same four that are mentioned in the Vinaya passage quoted by Vasubandhu, as well as one who has taken the four vows. tatra paiica bhiko?avalyJ bhiko?atfti bhiko?ulyJpratijiiiibhiko?ulyJ saJ'[ljiiiibhik?uJ:! / bhinnaklesa tvad bhiko?uJ:! /jiiapticaturthena karmalJ-0pasampadito bhiko?uJ:! (Sravakabhami: 341 . 1012); de la dge slon ni mam pa Ina ste / 'di Ita ste / slon ba 'i2 05 dge sion dan / khas 'che ba 'i dge slon dan / min gi dge slon dan / non mons pa bcom pa 'i phyir dge slon dan / gsol ba dan bii 'i las kyis bsnen par rdzogs pa 'i dge slon no ( Yogacarabhami(" wi 1 52a7-8); Z�*;ff 1L �i-L�Z� o = § :mZ � o =:t;tElZ� o lZ9.pR :t� 1:JH� Z � o 1L B lZ9�l!�Jl.JE�Z� (T. 1579: 447a1 9-2 1 )
203 Derge reads spyad. 204 Elsewhere, the BodhisattvabhL7mi again says that the bodhisattva who breaks one of the parajika rules with a strong paryavasthana loses his sflasarrzvara and has to receive it once again (saeed bodhisattvaJ:! parajayika-sthanfyarrz dharmam adhyapanno bhavaty adhimiitrelJ-a paryavasthanena tena tyaktaJ:! sarrzvaraJ:t. dvir apipunar adatavyaJ:t [Bodhisattvabhami: 1 80.26- 1 8 1 .2] ; gal te kun nas dkris pa chen pos byan chub sems dpa ' la pham [corrected fromphan on the basis of the Derge] pa 'i gnas Ita bu'i chos byun bar gyur na des sdom pa gtan ba lan gnis su slar yan nod par bya 'o [Yogacara bhamir' ii 1 08b2] ; :;S:�t�ill .l-.:J, ��*I:ii;:5 Bo RJ]�1mJlf�¥t:;��.{�o �&'9!� [T. 1579: 521a22-23]). 205 Derge r� ads slon ba 'i phyir.
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 234 Chapter 4 Karmanirdesa
4.29) Vasubandhu invokes the Buddha, who compares the monk who has broken an important rule to a palm tree, the head of which has been cut off. Just as the palm tree cannot continue to grow, the remaining rules cannot thrive if an important rule has been broken. yae eoktam ekadesa�obhad iti atra silstraiva datto 'nuyogas tad yatha tiilo mastakiieehinno 'bhavyo 'likuritatvaya abhavyo virUt;lhim vrddhiY[! vipulatiim iiptum ity upamiiY[! kurvatii (Ptadhan: 223 . 1 8-19; T. 1558: 79b24-27; Poussin v. 3: 97; Sarp.ghabhadra does not discuss this in order but returns to it slightly later, identifying it as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 566a6-10], and criticizing Vasubandhu's understanding of the Buddha's simile, which, according to Sarp.ghabhadra, does not prove Vasubandhu' s contention that b y breaking one rule a monk loses his bhi�u slla [T. 1562: 566a10-b5].)
YogacarabhLlmi
4.29)
235
(The Yogacarabhumi does not contain such a simile in this context.) 206
206 In a note, La Vallee Poussin (1971, v. 3: 96 n. 1) points out that this simile appears in this context in the Sarvastivadin Vinaya (Shih-sung lU [T. 1435: 157a6-9]). He also indicates that the palm tree simile is used elsewhere (he cites theMajjhimanikiiya) in a different context, that of destroying the asravas ( 1 97 1 , v. 3 : 97 n. 3). In the same note, he also mentions the Vibha�a, but he does not make it clear that, in the Vibha�a, too, the simile appears in the context of the asravas, not of the breaking of theparajika rules (T. 1545 : 356b24-26). Pasadikarepeats La Vallee Poussin' s citation of the Vibha�a, without making clear that the context is different from that of the Abhidharmakosa bhii.!ya ( 1 9 8 6 : 8 1 ) . The simile does, in fact, appear in the Cintiimayf BhUmi (Yogacarabhumi,: dzi 302a4, 303a7-8; T. 1579: 387b14,387c19-21) and the Sopadhikii Bhumi (Yogacarabhami,: dzi 329a4-5; T. 1579: 576c10-13), but the context in both plac6s is that of defilement.
Abhidharmakosabhi'i�ya 236 Chapter 4 Karmanirde§a 4.30) Vasubandhu, responding to the Sarvastivadin insistence that the evil (nUirga du�in) sramalJa is still a sramalJa, argues that he is only called a sramalJa because he has the external form of a srama7Ja. Vasubandhu gives a number of similes, e.g., burnt wood, which, once it is burnt, is no longer wood but is still called "wood." sa tv e�a akrtimatravase�atvac chramalJa ukto dagdhaka�!hasu-Jkahradasukana§a putibfjaliitacakramrtasattvavat (Pradhan: 224.9- 10; T. 1558: 79c 12-13; Poussin v. 3: 98; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-rnaster [T. 1562: 565b20-22] and, in support of the idea that even a bad bhik�u is still a bhi�u, argues that the similes are not apposite: for example, wood that is only partially burnt is still called "wood"; only totally burnt wood is no longer called "wood" [T. 1562: 565b22-c12].)
Yogaearabhami
237
4.30) The definition in the Sravakabhami of the margada�in emphasizes this sramaf!a' s alienation from the Buddhist path. tatra yoyaf[! pudgalo duftSflaJ:z papadhanna yiivad abraharnaeiirf [brahmaeiirf} (ri) pratijiiaJ:z I ayam ucyate miirgadil�f dil�itonena miirgo bhavati millata iiditaJ:z I yenayam abhavyo bhavaty apratibalaJ:z I abhajanabhilto miirgasyotpattaye I satyiif[! saf[!vidya miintiyiif[! miirgadeianiiyilf[! sati saf[!vidyamiinedhigame tasmiin miirgad�fty ucyati[Jf (Sriivakabhami: 339. 1 6-340. 1); de la gan zag tshul khrims 'ehal pa sdig pa 'i ehos ean I tshans par spyod pa rna yin par tshans par spyod pa khas 'ehe ba 'i bar gan yin pa de ni I lam sun par byed pa ies bya ste I des ni lam bii dan po nal08 sun par byed pas I des na de lam bskyed par bya ba dan I lam bstan pa yod ein med pa rna yin la rtogs par bya ba yod ein I med pa rna yin na yan I skal pa dan mthu med la snod du gyur pa rna yin pas na de ' i phyir lam sun par byed pa ies bya ' 0 (yogiieiirabhami,: wi 1 5 1 b6-8); ��m*�#� E����0 .m��.#�� e ���6 � .�& M o � .� •• W��� ��*o �� � �#��Bo M���m� �ft&��� �'il:��*0 rm11!{/j'1�0 �ti)l:�ffi1:t� �¥p F� (T. 1579: 446c26-447a2) 209 ill a description of the characteristics of the fifth of six types of people who are without gotra, the Sriivakabhilmi mentions the qualities of a false srama�, who seems to be pure externally, while harboring rottenness inside.
lha 'am lha gan yan run ba dag tu smon pa 'i phyir tshans par spyad pa spyod par byed pa dan I bslab pa phul nas spans pa la 'jug par 'gyur ba dan I tshul khrims 'ehal pa dan I nan myags pa dan I fies 'dzag tu gyur pa dan I sin rul pa Ita bur gyur pa dan I lun bon ltar kun tu spyod Gin dge sbyon ma yin par dge sbyon du khas 'ehe ba dan (Yogiieiirabhilmi,: wi 9a5-7); �� *�7C:BX�7CJJiRo :BX�:i[H%=pJT ��*:BX8!:'P Eo 207 I have simply transcribed Shukla' s text here; I have not attempted to make any emendations. 208 I have emended from the Peking, which reads des ni lam gii dan I dan po nas, on the basis of the Derge. The Tibetan text diverges from both the Sanskrit and the Chinese at this point and includes material found in neither . 209 This is in contrast with the Vibhii�ii, which says that the miirgadil�in possesses a siisrava iiryamiirga: FprJ!!nU� m o 15' JJ:� JJiR � )\Jt���9;o�JJiR� [Z]J ¥p F�o iry�¥p F� EJJ:�PJTmo �u:rJJ:tpJTjlo .lJ-��Jt�.�1�o .�� �?}ffl� Jt�J\o ��� �?}ffl �Jt�)\o ¥ry�¥p F�u:r1�JlX:g,t�?}ffl� Jto ti)l:1ltljj\ � :f. mp F�m (T. 1545: 342a24-28). Furthermore, although he breaks his vows and his preliminary practices, he does not destroy his understanding or his intention: iry�¥pF��ft1JHlt*rm/f1iltJto M1ilttJ01T/f ��� (T. 1545': 342b5-6).
238
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya Chapter 4 Karmanirdefa
Yogiiciirabhumi 239
4.30 continued) p;j'I�tJ�H�:m!i'J.' �Q7.kpJT!t*fH�!l!/'\\ 4!1!Ji:,§"Jfi]1T 'J.':JMp r� § �.jij'¥P r� cr. 1579: 398b9-12/1O see also the Sriivakabhiimi [51 .4-8; Yogiiciirabhumir' wi 25a6-bl; T. 1579: 404c1-6] and the ParyiiyosaJ?1.grahaJ:tf [Yogiiciirabhiimir' yi 5 1b3-52a2; T. 1579: 770b9-22] for similar passages) 0
0
0
21O Most of this passage seems to be missing from the Sanskrit manuscript. Shukla claims to have reconstructed the damaged leaf (Sriivakabhumi: 1 8 n. 4), but, in fact, he does not seem to have understood the extent of the missing portion. Of our passage, the only portion that he includes is asrama':la/:l trama':lapratijnaft, of which all but the final -jnaft is reconstructed ( Sriivakabhiimi: 1 8 . 1 1).
Abhidharmakosabha:jya 240 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia
4.3 1 ) The Sarvastivadins argue that if monks who break a rule lose the quality of being a bhik:ju, then there could be no penitent bhik:jUs. Vasubandhu answers that he is not saying that all rule-breakers are piiriijika, but that no piiriijikas can be bhik:jus. He goes on to explain that, if someone breaks a serious rule but, due to the special l nature of his sa1J1ttina, does not think to hide his transgression, he is not ptirtijika. 21 yadi hi dau/:liflyiid abhik:juft sytit sik:jiidattako na syiit / na vaya1J1 brarnaft sahiidhytipattyii sarvaft piirtijikaft iti /yas tu ptirtijika/.t so 'vaiyam abhik:juft / kaScit tu sa1J1tiinavise:jiin na piiriijika ekacitteniipy apraticchiidaniid iti vyavasthapita1J1 dharrnasviiminii (Pradhan: 224. 10-12; T. 1 558: 79c 14- 1 8 ; Poussin v. 3: 98-99; Srurtghabhadra identifies the passage as far as avaiyam abhik:ju as the opinion of the siItra-master [T. 1 562: 565c24-26] and criticizes it, saying that this is what the Sautrantikas, not the Abhidhilrmikas,212 say [T. 1 562: 565c26-566a5] . Srurtghabhadra does not comment on the reasoning implicit in Vasubandhu' s argument concerning the state of the sa1J1tiina, namely that the volition behind an action causes a change in the sa1J1tiina; in this case, it is concealing the transgression, rather than the transgression itself, that is powerful enough to leave the transgressor no longer capable of being a monk.)
21 l This seems to correspond to the position of the "foreign masters" (wai-kuo chu shih jt��:UjJ) in the Vibhii:jii (T. 1545: 623a13- 16). 212 Srurtghabhadra also uses the term wo-kuo chu shih :f.lt � � �jjj , presumably refer-ring to the KasmIra Vaibha�ikas.
Yogiiciirabhumi
24 1
4.3 1 ) In the Vastusa1f!grahai;f, several cases are mentioned in which there is no serious transgression even though piiriijika rules have been broken. One of these is. the case in which there is no thought of hiding the transgression.
213
This is from the ' portion of the Vastusa1f!grahalJf that is not found in the Tibetan translation.
242
Abhidharmakosabhti!Ja Chapter 4 Karmanirdda
4.32) Vasubandhu says that, as long as someone who has broken rules is still a bhik�u, one should honor his being a bhik�u, even if he is such a bad one. kas ciiyam anarthe nirbandho yady asau tathiibhiito 'p i bhik�ur namo 'stu tasmai tiidrsiiya bhi�utviiya (Pradhan: 224. 15; T. 1558: 79c23-25; Poussin v. 3 : 99; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitta-master [f. 1 562: 566b5-7] and criticizes it, saying that the word bhi�u should be replaced by the word srama1)ll because [see item 4.30] the Buddha said that even the miirgad�n still possesses sua [f. 1562: 566b8-16] .)
Yogiiciirabhiimi 243
(I have not found ariy corresponding statement in the Yogiiciirabhiimi. 4.32) However, see item 4.30 for a possible basis in the Yogiiciirabhiimi for Vasubandhu' s not using the word sramalJa in this passage.)
244
Abhidhannakosabhaijya Chapter 4 Kannanirdeia
4.33) Vasubandhu says that dhyanasarrtvaracan be lost due to birth in a different stage, due to leaving a meditation state, and due to dying (in the case of p.rthagjanas). sarvam eva dhyantiptarrt kusalarrt dvabhyarrt kiirm:lih ib yarrt parityajyate I upapattito va bhamisarrtcartid iirdhvarrt cavaSyarrt2 1 4 parihiiIJito va samiipatter nikiiyasabhiigatvac cd-1 5 kirrtcit (Pradhan: 224. l 9-20; T. 1558: 80al-5; Poussin v. 3: 100; S�ghabhadra criticizes the siltra master for not mentioning another occasion for losing dhyiinasarrtvara, namely at the time of vairagya [T. 1562: 566c6-7] .)2 1 6
214 Punahashi corrects this to cadhas ca ( 1 987: 235 n. 1 ) . 2 1 5 Punahashi corrects this to sabhagatyagac ca ( 1 987: 235 n. 2). 21 6 P'u_kuang gives a long and complicated explanation of the difference between ' Vasubandhu' s and S�ghabhadra' s opinions on this point (T. 1 82 1 : 237c1 5-238b7).
Yogiiciirabhumi
245
4.33) (The Yogiiciirabhumi contains no specific explanation of how one loses dhyiinasa'!lvara. However, the Viniscayasa'!lgrahalJl on the Paficavijfiiinakiiya manobhumi explains the five ways by which bhik:;us can lose their sa'!lvara in general: by losing their sik:jii ; by breaking a piiriijika rule; by being reborn in a different state; by destroying theirkuSalamulas; and by dying. Losing sa'!lvara at the time of vairiigya is not mentioned. de la rgyu dus na dge simi gi sdom pa blans kyan gton bar 'gyur i.e na / mdor bsdu na rgyu llias te bslab pa 'i gi.i 'bul ba dan / ltun ba 'i rtsa ba lhag par spyod pa dan / mtshan nub Gin mtshan gfiis skyes pa dan dge ba 'i rtsa ba chad pa dan / rigs mthun pa spans kyan dge slon gi sdom pa blans pa gton bar 'gyur ro [Yogiiciirabhumi zi 38a7-bl]; rp� � . � . $ .•. � B.�o �d � �� •• �o d � m*+��o d � � i)l=�1:i&o d � �1N.lWitto d Efl* �,* �:5ttt o $ ••{i� B.� [T . 1579: 592b29-c3])
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 246 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia
4.34) Vasubandhu says that there are three ways to lose that which is both good and pure: by obtaining aphala, one loses the previous p ratipannakamiirga; by purify ing one ' s indriyas, one loses the miirga of weak indriyas; by falling, one loses a phala or a higher miirga of a phala. aniisravaJ?'! tu kusa1aJ'!! tribhiIJ. kiirm:taiIJ. paritya�ate /phalapriiptita/:t purvako miirga/:t parity�ate / indriyottiipanena mrdvindriyamiirga/:t / parihii7)ita uttaro miirga/:t / pha1aJ'!! phalavisi�!o va (Pradhan: 224.23-225. 1 ; T. 1558: 80a6-9; Poussin v. 3: 100- 1 0 1 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 566c7-1O] and criticizes him, saying that there are really only two ways, since the first way [obtaining a phala] really includes the second way [purifying one's indriyas] [T. 1562: 566cl0-14] .)
Yogacarabhumi
4.34)
(I cannot find anything relevant to this topic in the Yogacarabhumi.)
247
AbhidharmakosabhiJ�ya 248 Chapter 4 Karmanirde§a 4.35) Vasubandhu says that the last of six ways to destroy avijfzapti that is neither sa1'[lvara nor asa1'[lvara is to begin to destroy the kusalamulas. yada kusalamulani samucchettum arabhata ity (Pradhan: 225. 17- 1 8 ; T. 1558: 80b7-8; Poussin v. 3: 102; Saq:lghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 567a22-23] and criticizes him, saying that Vasubandhu should not have limited his statement to the kusalamulas; the akusala mulas should also be included, and the verse is correct in simply saying mulaccheda [T. 1 562: 567a23-27] .)
Yogiiciirabhami
4. 35)
(J cannot find anything relevant to this topic in the Yogiiciirabhami. )
249
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 250 Chapter 4 Karmanirdesa
4.36) Vasubandhu attributes to the Dar�!3ntikas the statement that the three types of mental misconduct (abhidhya, vyapada, and mithyad!�.tO, which the Sarvastivadins say are essentially kleia, are actually karma 2 17 abhidhyiidaya eva manaskarmeti diir�!antikiJ.J:t I sa1!lcetanfyasutre vacanlit I eva1!l tu sati karmakleiayor aikya1!l syat / ki1!l syad yadi kascit kleso 'p i karma sytit / naitad asti (Pradhan: 237. 17- 1 8 ; T. 1558: 84b3-6; Poussin v. 3 : 136; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 574b28-29J2 1 8 and criticizes it, saying that the causes of karma should not be conflated with karma itself [T. 1562: 574b29-c15J .)
217 As La Vallee Poussin points out, YaSomitra explains that these ''Dar�!3ntikas'' are a type of Sautrantika (Abhidharmakosavyiikhya: 400. 17). La Vallee Poussin also claims that Vasubandhu later attributes the same opinion to the Sautrantikas (1971, v. 3: 169), but in fact both the Sanskrit (Abhidharmakosab�a: 248. 10-1 1) and the Chinese (T. 1558: 88c13) mention Dar�tantika The Tibetan, however, reads mdo sde pa, i.e., Sautrantika (Abhidharmakosabhti�a,: gu 241a5). 21 8 However, Vasubandhu actually rejects this and favors the Vaibha�ika opinion. See the introducvon for a discussion of this passage. A passage in the YogacarabhUmi that agrees with Vaibha�ika appears on the next page.
Yogiiciirabhumi
25 1
4.36) According to the Savitarkiidi-bhumi, abhidhyii, vyiipiida, and mithyiidr�!i consist, at least in part, of mental karma abhidhyii katamii / parasvfkarm:ziibhipriiyasya kli�tacetasal:z parasvfkarm:ziibhipriiye niscayaprayoge tanni�!hiiyiif!1. ca yan manaskarma / vyapiidal:z katamal:z / para vyiipiidabhipriiyasya kli�!acetasal:z paravyapiidiibhipriiyaniscayaprayoge tan ni�!hiiyaf!1. ca yan manaskarma / mithyiidr�ti katama / apaviidabhipriiyasya kli�!a cetaso 'paviidiibhipriiyaniscayaprayoge tanni�!hiiyaf!1. ca yan manaskarma (Yogaciirabhumi: 1 82.9- 14); bmab sems gmi ie na / gian gyi nor bdag gir bya ba 'i bsam pa can non mons pa can gyi sems dan ldan pas / gian gyi nor bdag gir bya ba 'i bsam pa la / nes par sbyor ba byas pa dan / de mthar thug par byas pa 'i yid kyi las gan yin pa ' 0 / gnod sems gan ie na / gian la gnod par bya ba 'i bsam pa can gyi non mons pa can gyi sems dan ldan pas / gian la gnod pa bya ba 'i bsam pa la nes par sbyor ba byas pa dan / de mthar thug par byas pa 'i yid kyi las gan yin pa '0 / log par lta ba gan ie na / skur pa 'debs pa 'i bsam pa can non mons pa can gyi sems dan ldan pas / skur pa 'debs pa 'i bsam pa de la nes par sbyor ba byas pa dan / de la mthar thug par byas pa 'i yid kyi las gan yin pa 'o (Yogiicarabhumi,: dzi 1 05b5-8); � fpJ1i �o ii'll 1JNllii'Jf:1f a � c:1fii''k. ���Yijie.,O ;t:1JNllii'Jf:1f � c1fii''k.� i:R5£JJ1!o & 1JNIHE J[; rp i'Jf :1f :'f. * �fpJBj;� ii'll 1J01lli� ��� �� yij Ie., ;t:1J01lli� �ii''k. � i:R5£:tr1!o &1J�'1lt�J[; rp i'Jf :1f:'f.*o �1ilJ�� R, o ii'll � WF�%,�j(� o �� yij,C" o ;t:1J0�WFWii''k.� i:RJ£JJ1�o &1JNlt�J[; rp i'Jf :1f:'f.* ( 1 579: 3 17b22-29) 0
0
0
0
0
However, according to the Viniscayasmpgrahm:zf on the Savitarkiidi-bhumi, they are karmapatha but not karma. bmab sems dan / gnod sems dan / log par lta ba dag ni las kyi lain kho na yin fa las ni ma yin par blta bar bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhami,: 153b); 1i���R,*Ji:JF* (T . 1579: 636a29)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 252 Chapter 4 Karmanirdda 4.37) Vasubandhu disagrees with the Sarvastivadins regarding the meaning of dr�!am (seen), srutam (heard), vijfiiitam (known), and matam (felt). The Sarvastivadins say that they refer to what is perceived by the eye, ear, mind, and the three organs of smell, taste, ,, and touch, respectively. Vasubandhu attributes to "some people 219 the following opinion: that which is immediately perceived by the five material sense organs is dr�!am; that which is learned from another is srutam; that which is accepted on the basis of proper inference is matam; that which is perceived immediately by mental cognition is vijfiiitam. ill other words, the five material objects are seen, heard, known, and felt, while mental objects are heard, known, and felt, but not seen. Vasubandhu then attributes to the piirvticiiryas a somewhat similar opinion: that which is perceived by the eye is dr�!am; that which is perceived by the ear or which is transmitted by another is srutam; that which is thought by oneself is matam; that which is experienced internally or which is understood is vijfiiitam. 220 siitraJ?'! tttvad ajfiiipakam221 anytirthatvtit / na hy atra siitre bhagaviin vyavahiir&:ziir!Z lalqaJ}OJ!'l siisti sma / kil'[! tarhi / atra ca te �a4vidhe vi�aye catur�u vyavahtire�u dr�!tidivyavahtira mtitraJ?'! bhavi�ati na priyiipriyanimitttidJryiro i pa ity ayam atra siitriirtho drSyate / kirrt punar dr�!aJ?'l kil'[! ca ytivad vijfiiitam / kecit ttivad tihuJ:! / yat paficabhir indriya* pratyalqaJ?'! tad dr�.faJ?'l /yatparata tigamifaJ?'l tae chrutam /yat svayal'[! yuktyanumanato rucitaJ?'! tan matam /yan mana�pratya�abhtivantidhi�!hitaJ?'!222 pratytitmavedyal'[! tad vijiiiitam iti / ete ca 21 9 P'u-kuang identifies "some people" as "some Sautrantikas." It appears as though he is taking this opinion to be one Sautrantika position, not necessarily Vasubandhu' s ( :ff H��jjJ�R.��J.iib �F:fJIl* a *n�:{to :ff M<*�ll'� �jjJ� [T. 1 82 1 : 261a13-14]). He identifies the piirviictiryas as those who study the yii-ch'ieh lun IilIi1nu�ffil (T. 1 82 1 : 261a25-27). This certainly appears t o b e a reference t o the Yogtictirabhiimi, especially since P'u-kuang' s only other use of the term yii-ch'ieh lun clearly refers to the title of a book from which he quotes (T. 1 82 1 : 269c4). I am grateful to Yarnabe Nobuyoshi for informing me that P'u-kuang here seems to be referring to a passage from the Savitarktidi bhiimi of the Viniscayasal'[!grahal}f ( Yogiictirabhiimi,: zi 1 1 1b4- 1 12a1 ; T. 1579: 621 a413). It is quite possible that P 'u-kuang intends to say that the piirvticiiryas are Sautrantikas who study the Yogiiciirabhiimi. 220 This passage is mentioned by Hakamaya, who identifies the corresponding passage in the Yogtictirabhiimi (1986). 221 Funahashi rejects Hirakawa's addition of na before siitram and instead corrects from
ttiva} jiiiipakam ( 1987: 356 n. 4).
222 Corrected by Funahashi ( 1987: 356 n. 5) from manl;�p ratyak�abhtiventidhi�!hital'[!
Yogacarabhiimi 253
4.37) In its explanation of the four vyavaharas, the Manobhiimi gives definitions of d!�tam, srutam, matam, and vijliatam similar to those that Vasubandhu ascribes to the piirvacaryas. catvaro vyavaharaJ; katame / d!�to vyavaharaJ; sruto mato vijiifito vyavaharaJ; / d!�to vyavaharaJ; katamaJ; /yad anena bahirdha pratyakyflqta1!l bhavati cakyu�ii tad upiidaya yat pare�a1!l vyavaluJraty ayam ucyate d!�to vyavaharaJ; / sruto vyavaharaJ; katamaJ; / yat parataJ; sruta1!l bhavati tad upadiiya yat pare�a1!l vyavaluJrati / mato vyavaharaJ; katamaJ; / yad anena na d!�ta1!l bluJvati na srutam api tu svayam eva cintita1!l tulitam upaparfkyita1!l tad upiidiiya yat pare�a1!l vyavaluJrati / vijiifito vyavaharaJ; katamaJ; / yad anenadhyatrna1!l prativedita1!l bluJvaty adhigata1!l sparsitQ1!l siikyiitlqta1!l ca bluJvati tad upadiiya yat pare�ii1!l vyavaharaty ayam ucyate vijliiito vyavaharaJ; (Yogiicara bhumi: 50.9-16) ; tluJ siiad bii gmi ie na / mthon ba 'i tluJ siiad dan / thos pa 'i tluJ siiad dan /bye brag phyed pa 'i tluJ sliad dan / rnam par ses pa 'i tluJ sliad do /mthon ba 'i tluJ sliad gan ie na I gan des mig gij23 phyi rol mnon sum du byas nas de la brten te / gian dag la tluJ sliad du brjod pa gan yin pa de ni mthon ba 'i tluJ siiad ces bya 'o / thos pa 'i tluJ siiad gan ie na / gan gian las thos nas de la brten te / gian dag la tluJ sliad du brjod pa gan yin pa '0 / bye brag phyedpa 'i tluJ sliad gan ie na / gan des224 ma mthon ma thos par bdag liid kyis bsams sin gcal la lie bar brtags nas / de la brten te / gian dag la tluJ siiad du brjod pa gan yin pa ' 0 / rnam par ses pa 'i tluJ sliad gan ie na / gan des nan so sor ran gis rig pa dan / rtogs pa dan / reg pa dan / mnon sum du byas nas de la brten te / gian dag la tluJ siiad du brjod pa gan yin pa de ni / mam par ses pa 'i tluJ siiad ces bya 'o (Yogaciirabhiimi,: dzi 27b3-8); :L:1iiJImTt i§ �o �i'l1:&J! IlfJi';92apfi:1f i§ �o 1:& J! i§ m1f�i'l1:&§�tit mJ!Ji--e o E8 r1:t l2Sl *�:w.;1fh1[�o �:t1:&J! i§ �1:&1lfJ i§ �1f �i'l1Jf1fh llfJ o E8 r1:t l2Sl �:w.;1fh1[mo �:t{:&IlfJ§�o 1:&Jl i§ m1fo �i'l/fJVf llfJ o i.E!. 19:L'l!tHEm';JlIH¥�o E8 r1:t [ZSJ *�:w.;ifh1[�o �:t{:&i'; i§ mo 1Ma i§ �1f �i'l�BU:a"" i*Jpk�pJTgipJT�!\lpJT1�o E8 r1:t l2Sl �:w.;itP.1[�o �:t1MD §�#. (T. 1579 : 289b13-21) 0
0
on the basis of the Tibetan. 223 Corrected from mig gi on the basis of the Derge and the Sanskrit. 224 Corrected from de on the basis of the Derge and the S anskrit.
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 254 Chapter 4 Karmanirde§a
paiica vi�ayiiJ:! pratyekalJ1 dr�.tvii iti krtvii vyavahriyante I srutii matii vijiiiitii iti vii I �a�.to 'nyatra dr�!iid iti niisti gandhadi�u vyavahiiriibhava prasmigaJ:! I tasmiid yuktir apy e�ii yuktir na bhavati I piirviiciiryii evam iihuJ:! I tad dr�!alJ1225 yat pratya�fkrtam c��ii I srutam yac chrotre7}£l parataS ciigamitam'l26 I matGlJ1 yat svayalJ1 cintitam I vijiiiti alJ1 yat pratyiitmapratisGlJ1veditam adhigatalJ1 ca227 (Pradhan: 245.24-246.8; T. 1558: 87c14-27; Poussin v. 3: 161-162; Sarpghabhadraidentifies 4.37 continued)
the opinion of "some people" as that of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 579a28-b8] and, criticizing Vasubandhu for his idiosyncratic interpretation, insists that the intention of the siitra is to match each of the six types of objects of consciousness with one term indicating how it is perceived [T. 1562: 579b8-579c15]. Sarpghabhadra also criticizes the opinion of the piirviiciiryas, which, he says, would lead to a conflation of that which is seen and that which is known, as well as a loss of distinction between that which is perceived and knowledge [T. 1562: 579c15-21].)
225 Corrected by Hirakawa from yad dr�!alJ1 ( 1 973- 1 978, v. 1 : 432). 226 Corrected by Hirakawa from ciikharitam ( 1 973- 1 978, v. 1 : 432). 227 Pradhan' s tex.t reads cotpannam, Funahashi corrects this to ca ni�pannalJ1 and takes ni�pannGlJ1 as the fIrst word of the next paragraph (1987 : 356 n. 8).
Yogiiciirabhumi 255
Abhidharmakosabhii:jya 256 Chapter 4 Karmanirde!a
4.38) According to Sarvastiviida, it is possible to commit murder without moving one's body and to lie without speaking. Vasubandhu rejects this, saying that both would be impossible since in kiimadhitu i , there can be no avijiiapti without vijiiapti, and there would be no vijiiapti in these types of murder or lying.
yady ubhayathii 'p i na pariikrameta na ciivjifiaptikiisty avijfiapti/:! kiimiivacarf kathal'J'l tayoJ:t karmapathaJ:t siddhyati / kartavyo 'tra yatnaJ:t (Pradhan: 246.13-14; T. 1558: 88a4-6; Poussin v. 3: 163 ; SllI]lghabhadra identifies this rejection as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 579c25-28] and criticizes it, showing that there really is a vijiiapti in these cases and mentioning an opinion that not all avijiiapti in kiimadhiitu depends on vijfiapti [T. 1562: 579c28-58Oc 15; partially quoted in Abhi dharmakosavyiikhyii : 408. 13-24; translated in Poussin v. 3: 163-164 n. 5].)
YogtictirabhL7mi 257
4.38)
(The YogtictirabhL7mi does not seem to contain any similar discussion.)
Abhidharmako.§abhii�ya 258 Chapter 4 Karmanirdda
Vasubandhu describes the various combinations of cetaniis and bad karmapathas. According to him, one karmapatha accompanies one cetanii in two cases: 1) when someone has desire, etc., without doing another, physical karmapatha, such as murder; 2) when someone has ordered another person to perform a bad karmapatha but his own mind is akl�!a at the moment that the deed is done. 4.39)
ekena tiivat saha vartate / vinii 'nyeniibhidhyiidisal'J'lmukhtbhiive akli�!acetaso vii tat prayogel)a riipil)iim anyatamani�!hiigamane (Pradhan: 25 1 .9- 10; T. 1558: 89c9- 1 1 ; Poussin v. 3 : 177- 178; Srup.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 581cl l , 13] and criticizes what Vasu bandhu says about both cases: according to Srup.ghabhadra, in the second case, certain kle.§os, such as mana (pride), can indeed be present [T. 1562: 581c12-13]; in the first case, certain non-physical karmapathas should also be included [T. 1562: 581c13-15].)
Yogiiciirabhami
4.39)
(I can find nothing relevant to this issue in the Yogiiciirabhami. )
259
Abhidharmakosabhii0'a 260 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia
4.40) According to Vasubandhu, two karmapathls accompany one cetanii in the following cases: 1) when a man commits murder while his mind is afflicted with anger; 2) when a man who is overcome by desire steals, commits adultery, or speaks nonsense.
dWlbhyaTJ1 saha vartate / vyapannacittasya pralJivadhe abhidhyavi�!asya va 'dattadane kamamithyacare saTJ1bhinnapralape va (Pradhan: 25 1 . 10-1 1 ; T. 1558: 89c 1 1-12; Poussin v. 3: 178; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [f. 1562: 581c24-26] and criticizes what Vasubandhu says about both cases. According to Sarp.ghabhadra, one must specify in both cases whether the person himself does the actions or orders another to do them. If the person himself does the actions, it goes without saying that his mind is afflicted, respectively, with anger or desire. If the person orders another person to do the actions, then any combination of the three mental and the seven material karmapathas may be 228 present [f. 1562: 5 8 1 c26-582a1].)
228 This is summarized by Poussin (197 1 , v. 3 : 178 n. 2), who also gives Vasubandhu' s
hypothetical rejoinders, apparently o n the basis of P ' u-kuang (T. 1 82 1 : 267b 1 6-c4).
Yogiiciirabhami 26 1
4.40)
(I can find nothing relevant to this issue in the YogiiciirabMmi. )
AbhidharmakosabhiirYa 262 Chapter 4 Karmanirdeia
4.41) In an explanation of the ni�yandaphala of the karmapathas, Vasubandhu says that mithyiid!�!i will cause one to be very confused in a future human existence because confusion is predominant in mithyiid!�!i.
mithyiid!�!yii trvramohal,! / tasyii mohabhrlyastviir29 (Pradhan: 254.4; T. 1 5 5 8: 90c5 ; Poussin v. 3: 1 86; Smp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 583b9] and criticizes the explanation, tasyii mohabhayastviit, saying that mithyiid!�.ti is not associated with avidyil [T. 1 562: 0 583b9_ 17].)23
229 Regarding an identical sentence found in the same context in Tatia' s text of the Abhidharmasamuccayabhii�ya (65 . 1 3- 1 4), see Kritzer 2003c. 230 The Vibhil�ii refers to an opinion resembling Vasubandhu' s according to which, even though mithyild!�!i actually destroys the kusalamrllas, confusion associated with mithyiidnti is said to destroy them because of the predominance of confusion at that time: :V[ �m� J1:tm;f� JVj:§ If!:�/f�i'l§�IIDi�i'FPGm%r{sLji� o �ft'� ;f�J U�IIDi�i'lm lft��"liJcfF1f:: m t!Q%{±� (T. 1545: 1 8 1c 1 8-20). 0
Yogacarabhiimi 263
4.41) According to the Cintamayf Bhiimi, one type of mithyadr�!i increases as a result of one's encountering misleading teachings and thus being unable to achieve liberation. Due to confusion with respect to causally produced dharmas, and "as a result of being bound by this type of dr�!i, one cannot escape from sarrzsara.
lta ba 'i kun nas non mons pa gmi ie na / de sred pa de nid kyi kun 'byU/i ba 'i bden pa 'i dbmi du byas nas / gal te kun nas non mons pa la mam par thar pa 'dod pa de la / kun nas non mons pa las mam par thar pa 'i chos phyin ci log tu stan pa'i sdig pa 'i grogs po gan yin pa la brten na de phyin ci log gi ehos bstan pa de la brten nas / thar pa yan nams su mi len la / lta bar gyur pa drug rtsa gnis las gan yan run ba ' i lta ba mam par 'phel bar byed de / de rten Gin 'brel bar 'byun ba rmons pa 'i dban du byas nas / de Ita bu'i kun tu sbyor ba dan de dan ldan pa las 'gro ba lna 'i 'khor ba nas yons su grol bar mi 'gyur ba ' a (Yo gaearabhiimi r dzi 283a5-8) ; 1PJtlBjlSfti;1.1: o � � � •• �.�����o .����gm �.�.��m��o .um *.�m� o � ���m ���o �mm�o �*+=R� . � o a�-a $ � � * o �R.���.���o . � � ��M�.o �E.���*� �1��ijoHR. (T. 1579: 3 80b3-9) However, in the Paneavijntinakayamanobhiimi of the ViniscayasarrzgrahalJf, it is argued that avidya and mithyadr�!i are separate entities and that the two are normally not associated. Nevertheless, it is possible for that which is not avidya in essence to become avidya in the way that prajna becomes defiled by association with other klesas, even though its essence is not defiled.
gal te ma rig pa dan lta ba mams mtshan nid 'dra bar gyur na / des na beam ldan 'das kyis bag la nal bdun po dag tu lta ba 'i bag la nal mam par giag pa mdzad par mi 'gyur la / beam [dan 'das kyis lta ba mams la ma rig pa ies bya ba 'i min ni gan du 'an rna bstan to / gal te non mons pa dan mtshuns par ldan pa 'i log pa 'i ses pa ma rig pa yin par gyur na de ltar na 'jig tshogs Ia Ita ba la sags pa Ita ba Ina po gan dag yin pa de dag kyan ses pa 'i no bo nid yin pas / ses pa 'i rdzas gnis mtshuns par Idan pa ni med pas / de dag ni ma rig pa dan mi Idan pa yin par ' gyur ro / gal te 'dod ehags Ia sags pa non mons pa 'i dban gis ses pa de gti mug nid yin ni / des na 'dod ehags la sags pa 'i dban gis gti mug tu 'gyur gyi / gti mug gi dban dan gti mug snon du 'gro ba las 'dod ehags la sags pa non mons pa mams 'byun ba ma yin par 'byun no /ji Itar non mons pa dan mtshuns par ldan pa 'i ses rab ni mtshuns par Idan pa las non mons pa can yin gyi / de 'i no bo nid ni ma yin pa de biin du / gti mug gi bdag nid ma yin pa de yan gti mug bdag nid du dran bar rjod mi nus te / dper na de las gian pa 'i sems dan sems las byun ba 'i ehos non mons pa can gyi bdag nid ma yin pa / non mons pa dan mtshuns par Idan pa dag lta bu ' a / de Ita bas na ma rig pa ni sems las byun ba 'i ehos sems dan mtshuns pa ldan payin par lta bar bya 'o [ Yogacarabhiimi,: zi 88a4-b2); JZ.:B��W.R�i'§���Ij1'r a ilt��/l! {:; Ilji �F; � :a���)7}:sL � a
Abhidharmako§abha�ya 264 Chapter 4 Karmanirde§a
Yogiiciirabhiimi 265
4.41 continued) Nfi!; o x.15t ift�iW 1!lli - �liNlJLl.*1!lli � :6 0 ��MJ['I'� ;f§ if! :'f� 1i flk1!lli � ff 0 ili iM Iffi �1i;fi :'f� Q 1i J.Hl '11:0 1!lli = 1i H:1�1'f;f§ if! 0 flkJlU �l Q if! �1!lli � 'ffi /f';f§ if! 0 X. �ii�tJH� :1J tP:%;f§ if! 1i PX: ,1!'d�'I1:o � p if!ii �:t� 1::. :1J ti �1'f � . o �.� 1::. o •• ���1'fii� -Wm� o x.if!�m��m�ffiif! Z � o B3;f§if!tP:1�PX:*11j'?F1J1 E3 '11:0 ?F,� .H:PJPX:.'I1:o X. �Q�ttJJ[ 'I·�;f§if! o ?FtJ['I'�'I1:�l' I> L'?JT 0 flktP:�JDJjU1'f1!lli � o flk'L'?kl1:�'L';f§ (T. 1 579: 6 1 2a15-26; see Miyashita 1 992)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 266 Chapter 4 Karmanirdda
4.42) Vasubandhu says that a brief human life span is not in itself the result of a murder committed in a former life, since even a short human life is the result of good karma Rather, the murder acts as an obstructing cause that shortens the life span.
alpam apy iiyurman�e�u kusalaphalamltat kathaT[!prii�iitipiitasyani!Jandaphalam Inocyate tad eviiyus tasya phalaml kiT[! tarhil teniilpiiyur bhavatftil ato 'ntariiyahetu!:t prii�iitipiitas tasyiiyu�o bhavatfti veditavyam (Pradhan: 254.5-7; T. 1558: 90c5-8; Poussin v. 3 : 1 86- 1 87 ; Srup.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 583b1 8-20] and criticizes the explanation, which he characterizes as very difficult to understand, saying that a brief human life is in fact the ni!Jandaphala of an act of murder [T. 1 562: 583b20-clO] .)
Yogilcilrabhami 267
(The Savitarktidi-bhamis of both the MaulfBhami [Yogilcilrabhumi: 1 84.1-5; Yogilcilrabhumi; dzi 106b7-107a2; T. 1579: 3 1 8a14- 1 8] and the Viniscayasa/pgrahal}f [Yogilcilrabhumi,: zi 144a8-b 1 ; T. 1 579: 633b27 -29] contain passages in which a shortened life span is said to be the ni�andaphala of murder. There is no contradiction of this position in the Yogilcilrabhumi. 4.42)
However, the Ch'eng wei-shih lun defmes two types of ni�andaphala: 1) similar dharmas caused by repetition of good, etc. , and 2) subsequent result that resembles the previous action [T. 1585: 42bl-2] .23 1 The notes in the Shindojoyuishikiron say that the fIrst type is really ni�andaphala, while the second type is only provisionally designated as ni�andaphala. They give the example of the short life span resulting from murder in a previous existence: this is actually adhipatiphala, but it is called ni�andaphala since it is a result of karma [poussin 1 928- 1 929: 464; Shindojoyuishikiron: 346] . The Savitarktidi-bhumi mentions an antarilyahetvadhi�!hilna, which is associated with virodhahetu [Yogilcilrabhumi: 1 10.8-12; Yogilcilrabhumi,: dzi 66b 1-4; T. 1579: 302alO14] .232 Furthermore, virodhahetu only establishes adhipatiphala [Yogilcilrabhumi: 1 1 1 .4-5; Yogilcilrabhumi; dzi 67a3-4; T. 1579: 302a25-26]. Perhaps there is some connection between Vasubandhu' s antarilyahetu and the Yogilcilrabhumi' s virodhahetu. If so, then the short life would logically be adhipatiphala, not ni�andaphala.)
23 1 A similar distinction is found in the Bodhisattvabhumi (1 02.20-24; Yogilcilra bhumi,: ii 65al-3; T. 1579: 502b4-6) and in the Hsien-yang sheng-chiao lun (T. 1 602: 571 a6-8). 232 Virodhahetu is defIned in the Bodhisattvabhumi as the cause that prevents arising (utpattilv ilntarilyiko hetur virodhahetuh. [Bodhisattvabhumi: 98.6-7 ; Yogilcilra-bhumi,: ii 62a6; T. 1579: 50 1 a27]). ,
AbhidharmakosabM07ya 268 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5.1) Vasubandhu says that the other five anusayas exist in a latent form with respect to an object due to the force of the first anusaya, riiga.
tathiigrahaIJalJ1 riigavaseniinye07iim iilambaniinusiiyitajiiiipaniirtham (Pradhan: 277. 12; T. 1558: 98c 1 -2; Poussin v. 4: 2; Sarytghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 596c5-7] and criticizes it, saying that the word tatM does not indicate a causal relationship among the anusayas; it is just used to fill out the verse [T. 1562: 596c7- 15].)
Yogiiciirabhami 269
5.1)
(I have found nothing ill the Yogiiciirabhami corresponding to this argument.)
Abhidharmakosabha0'a 270 Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
5 . 2) The Sarvastivadins argue that the anusayas cannot be cittaviprayukta because, if they were cittaviprayukta, they would always be present, and if anusayas were always present, then good could never arise. Vasubandhu refutes this by saying that those who argue that anusayas are cittaviprayukta attribute the functions of defilement to active kleSas, not to anusayas. Since the active kle§as are not always present, the S arvastivadin argument does not prove that the anusayas are sal'[!prayukta.
anusayiiniil'[! cittaklesakaratviid iivara"(latviic chubhair viruddhatviit/yasmiid anusaya* kli�!al'[! cittal'[! bhavaty apiirval'[! kusalal'[! notpadyate utpanniic ca parihfyate tasmiin na viprayuktiiJ:! / atha viprayuktair apy eval'[! syiit / kusalal'[! na kadiicid upalabhyeta te�iil'[! nityal'[! sal'[!nihitatviit / upalabhyate ca / ataJ:! kusalasya copalambhad aviprayuktiiJ:! atha ihiinusayiiJ:! iti / tad idam ajfiiipakal'[! yasmiid yo viprayuktam anusayam icchati sa etat sarvam anusayakrtal'[! necchati / klesakrtam evecchati (Pradhan: 278.9-17; T. 1558: 98c23-99a1 ; Poussin v. 4: 5-6; S3.ll1ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 599b20-23] 233 and criticizes Vasubandhu, saying that he does not do justice to Dharmasrl' s argument and insisting that klesas and anusayas are not separate entities [T. 1 562: 599b23-27.])
233
' S3.ll1ghabhadra discusses this passage somewhat out of order.
Yogiiciirabhumi
27 1
5.2) (The Yogiiciirabhumi does not contain a discussion of why anuiayas are not cittaviprayukta. But it does maintain that anuiaya and kleia are not synonymous, a position that lies behind Vasubandhu' s argument here. See the next item.)
Abhidharmakosabhii�a 272 Chapter 5 AnusayanirdeSa
5.3) Vasubandhu approves of the theory of the Sautriintikas, who define anusaya as kleSa in the state of a seed and say that it is not a separate dravya.
evarp. tu siidhu yathii sautrantikiiniim / katharp. ca sautrantikiinam / kiima ragasyanuSayaJ:t kiimaraganusaya iti / na canusayaJ:t saTflprayukto na viprayuktas tasyadravyantaratvat /prasuto hi kleSo 'nusaya ucyate /prabuddhaJ:t paryavasthiinam / kii ca tasya prasuptiJ:t / asaT(!mukhlbhiitasya bfjabhtivanubandhaJ:t / kaJ:t prabodhaJ:t / saTflmukhlbhtivaJ:t / ko 'yam bfjabhtivo niima / atmabhtivasya kleSaja kleSotpiidana saktiJ:t / yathiinubhavajiiiinaja sm[tyutpadanasaktir yathii calikuradfnaTfl saliphala ja saliphalotpadanasaktir iti (Pradhan: 278 . 17-22; T. 1558: 99al-9; Poussin v. 4: 6-7; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 596c24-597a2] and criticizes it, pointing out that, as Vasubandhu himself admits, anusayas are not real, separate entities and arguing that Vasubandhu' s ideas of anusaya and bfja are illogical [f. 1562: 597a2-15].)
Yogiiciirab hiimi
273
The ViniscayasalJ'lgrahalJf on the Savitarkiidi-bhiimi contains an explana 5 .3) tion of anusaya and paryavasthiina that is almost identical to the one attributed to the Sautrantikas in the Abhidharmakosabhii�ya.
non mons pa 'i kun nas non mons pa 'i rab tu dbye ba mam par biag pa gan ie na / mdor bsdu na non mons pa dan non mons pa 'i ji skad bstan pa mams kyis ni rgyu gnis kyis sems can mams kun nas non mons par byed de / 'di Ita ste / kun nas dkris pa dan bag la nal gyis so / de la non mons pa kun tu 'byun ba mnon du gyur pa ni kun nas dkris pa ies bya ' a / de nid kyi sa bon rna spans sin yan dag par rna beam pa ni bag la nal ies bya ste / gnas nan len kyan de yin no / rna sad pa ' i phyir ni bag la nal yin la sad pa 'i gnas skabs kyi phyir ni kun nas dkris pa yin no (Yogiiciirabhumi,: zi 1 I 8a8-b3); �{ilJJ£JLrJ['i"f£l*(t�*i*�'ii U o �� �DpJTm2f flji = o �1I!t.=�t5c* ��Mo - � .�o = flji m�o �fim�m� � . o � �.�* E * . o � B flji m$�a.o X���� B flji m o ����m� a. � I �� 6TI��� The Yogiiciirabhami in several other places identifies anusayas as being the seeds of kle§as. See the Savitarkiidi-bhumi:
sarvalaukikotkar�abfjiinugamyatviid anusayiiJ:! ( Yogiiciirabhumi: 1 67.6) ; 'jig rten pa 'i yar 'phel ba thams cad kyi sa bon dan ldan pas na bag la nal mams so (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: dzi 97b8-98al); -tviit Fs, :l\!i ...t �l� ZPJT flji�t5c� flji gi\'; (T. 1 579: 3 14b25-26) See also the ViniscayasalJ'lgrahalJl On the Cintiimayfprajnii Bhumi:
de la dan ba 'i gzugs dan / sems dan sems las byun ba 'i chos ji skad bstan pa thams cad la non mons pa 'i sa bon yan dag par rna beam pa dan / rna spans pa gan yin pa de ni bag la nal ies bya ste / gnas nan len kyan de yin no (Yogiiciirabhumi,: zi 21 5a5-6); �:aNwi*�1f-§'o 2H��D§trPJTm -tv, c,,,c" pJT Jil rJ['I·f£l�I�*.*E m� fljigi\';o $ � a . (T. 1579: 661b26-29) 0
0
According to the ViniscayasalJ'lgrahalJf on the Cintiimayfprajnii Bhumi, bfjas are
prajnapti:
'dus byas kyi min can gyi dnos po la skye ba dan / rga ba dan / gnas pa dan / mi rtag pa dan / sa bon dan mam par rig byed dan / mam par rig byed rna yin pa dan / thob pa dan / 'thob pa ma yin pa dan / srog gi dban po dan / ris mthun pa dan / min gi tshogs dan / tshig gi tshogs dan / yi ge 'i tshogs mams dan so so 'i skye bo nid dan / tshogs pa dan ma tshogs pa dan / 'jug pa so sor nes pa dan / sbyor ba dan / mgyogs pa dan / go rims dan / dus dan yul dan grans ne bar 'dogs pa dan (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 208a4-6) ; x:a��a�1f1Ht!¥o 1RJL1:.�1!1Wi1jt�I�o �
274
Abhidharmakosabhii.Jya Chapter 5 Anusayanirdeia
Yogiictirabhumi
5.3 continued)
275
���1�fr;-1�� JI'iJ :53' :t :!it1i] :!it :53' :!it �1:.'I1:o ;fo 15-/F;fO 15-rJiE 1 579: 659a12- 1 6)
" 7E�1§l¥.��*�a;f:1J&:tt (T.
0
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 276 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdefa
5 .4) The Sarvastivaclins insist that the siitra, when it says that a certain person has raganusaya with respect to pleasurable feelings, uses the term as a synonym for raga. Vasubandhu points out that the sutra does not specify that the person has raganusaya at that particular moment. In other words, the siitra may be specifying the person' s latent desire for future pleasurable feelings. Another explanation is that the sutra may be designating the cause (raga) by the name of the effect (raganusaya).
bhavatfti vacanan nfisau tadaivanusaya/:l. / kada tarhi bhavati / yadii prasupto bhavati / hetau va tadupaciira e�a dra�!avya/:l. (Pradhan: 279 .3-4; T. 155S: 99a13-1 5; Poussin v. 4: 7; SaIpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 59Sb 1 6- l S] and criticizes it, saying that: 1) it would not make sense to say that, at the moment of the arising of raga paryavasthana, raganusaya is actualized because saying, "there is raganusaya for pleasurable feelings," means "raganusaya is present among the pleasurable feelings"; 2) anusayas have no intrinsic existence; 3) Vasubandhu' s statement that the sutra designates the cause by the effect is groundless [T. 1562: 59Sb 1 S-c16].)
Yogacarabhami
277
5 .4) The Vastusal'[!graha/}f, commenting on a related satra statement, makes it clear that the anusayas are the latent state of kle.sas. bde ba las ni 'dod chags / sdug bsnal ba las ni ie sdan / sdug bsnal ba yan ma yin bde ba yan ma yin pa las ni ma rig pa rgyas par 'gyur te / 'di ni tshor ba rnams las kun nas fion mons pa 'o / bde ba la sogs pa 'i gnas skabs thams cad la gnas pa 'i ni thams cad ma span?34 bag la fial rgyas par 'gyur mod kyi / 'on kyan dmigs pa ran ran gi spyod yul des kun nas dkris pa skyes pa de dag de 'i rjes la rgyud de nid la fion mons pa dan 'brei pa gfiid235 log pa biin 'dug pas na bag la fial ies bya 'o / de la 'dir tshans par spyod pa spyad pa ni bag la fial giom pa 'i phyir yin gyi / kun nas dkris pa 'i bsal ba tsam gyi phyir ni ma yin no (Yogiiciirabhami,: 'i 340b5-8); :o�� st l=j=l ;ffJii ilj! fiRo :o�*st l=j=l ;ff B�ilj! fiRo :O��F*� 1!!li lJl3 ilj! gR o ��:o�5tPftJt9*l*o 1i1lt236jj���pft;ff �t5tm 1ltr 5HL o -tJ] 5f;;[1�HJiji£l ilj! fiR zpft ilj! fiR ?t; m *�/d� � 53U Pft1T�U! o �Jt9 � •• mm� ilj!.o � � ��ffi. ilj! m o .��.R ilj! m�o �.�fi o � 1ll . )lR*JlItSl*� (T. 1579: 851 a3-9) 0
234 Derge reads ma spans pas.
23 5 Corrected from gfiis on the basis of the Derge and the Chinese. 23 6 The Kokuyaku IssaikyiJ translation corrects nan 1i11t to sui :nit without any com-ment (Yuga-bu 6: 274). This is supported by the Tibetan.
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 278 Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
According to Vasubandhu, bhavariiga is attachment to the iitmabhiiva in rupadhiitu and iirupyadhiitu because the desire for sensual objects has been overcome.
5.5)
iitmabhiiva eva tu bhavaJ:t / te ca sattviiJ:t samiipattif!! siisrayiim iisviidayanta iitma bhiivam eviisviidayanti kiimavftariigatviit (Pradhan: 279. 1 1-12; T. 1558: 99a22-25; Poussin v. 4: 8; SaI11ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 599c29-600a3] but says that it is not significantly different from the Sarvastivadin position [T. 1562: 600a3-7].)
Yogiieiirabhilmi
279
5 .5) (Schmithausen, in connection with a passage in the Manobhilmi that lists synonyms for bfj a, 237 mentions Vasubandhu' s statement that bhava means iitmabhiiva. Schmithausen equates iitmabhiiva with bfja here [1987: 5 1 1 n. 1405]. Furthermore, the Viniseayasa'!'!graha/Jl on the Samiihitii Bhilmi refers to two types of riiga, attachment to the iitmabhiiva and attachment to objects. giiis pas ni Ius dali yul la mTion par zen pa sad par byed pa spoTi bar 'gyur ro [Yogiieiirabhami,: zi 179a3]; * = {ttf-{It'(!§l §{It'(!§l �)C§�IWi{*� P'J �)7i-:ll = 11ii:tlX [T. 1 579: 646c9-1O] 0
However, it is not clear that there is any direct connection between Vasubandhu' s statement and the Yogiieiirabhilmi.)
237 bfjaparyiiyiiJ:t punar dhatur gotra'!'! pralq-tir hetuJ:t satkiiyaJ:t prapaiiea iilaya upiidiina,!,! duJ:tkha,!,! satkiiyad!�.tyadhi�!hanam asmimiiniidhi�!hana,!,! eety evambhagryiiJ:t paryiiyii veditavyiiJ:t (Yogiieiirabhilmi: 26. 18-19); sa bon gyi rnam graTis ni / khams daTi rigs daTi / raTi biin daTi / rgyu daTi / 'jig tshogs daTi / spros pa daTi / kun gii daTi / len pa daTi / sdug bsrial ba daTi / 'jig tshogs la Ita ba 'i gnas daTi / ria '0 snam pa 'i ria rgyal gyi gnas daTi / de Ita bu daTi 'thun pa rnams ni rnam graTis su gtogs par rig par bya 'o (Yogiieiirabh qm�: dzi 15a5:�); X�11-=fo JJ�§1� l3Jj .o ?JT�\lj[ftJ'f.o 1S11�io .
�
1S � o 1S .�� o 1S ti � o 1S �.�o 1S � 1S � o 1S . ����*�.o 1S ft . ·1�?JT1:&�.:\(J];llk��Ji�l3Jj�*J] (T. 1579: 284c1O-14)
Abhidharmakosabhti�ya 280 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdeia
5 .6) Vasubandhu explains the meaning of darsanaheya and bhavanaheya: those anusayas the objects of which can be destroyed by darsana of a certain truth are said to be destroyed by insight into that truth, while the remainder can be destroyed by practice.
ye yaddarsanaheyalambanas te taddarsanaheya avasi�.ta bhtivanaheyafJ, (Pradhan: 280. 1 3 ; T. 1 55 8 : 99b29-c2; Poussin v. 4: 12; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 601b13-15] and criticizes his expla nation of the term dar.sanaheya, saying that anusayas that are destroyed by the dharmajfianak�anti and anvayajfianak�anti regarding a certain truth are said to be anusayas destroyed by insight into that truth [T. 1562: 601 b 1 5-23] .)
Yogiiciirabhumi
28 1
5.6) (The Yogiictirabhumi does not contain a definition of darsanaheya simi lar to Vasubandhu' s . However, in several places, it mentions the obj ects of the darsanaheyaklefas.
In the Viniscayasa1'[!grahalJf on the Savitarkiidi-bhumi, ten darsanaheyaklesas are said to be without substance because their objects are unreal.
non mons pa bcu po de dag las mthon bas span bar bya ba gan dag yin pa de dag ni gii med pa ies bya ste [ Yogiictirabhumi,: zi 1 1 6a3-4]; X +�JH£.R,pJTIWi1l3 0 cg; E1 1Wi .$0 1BlPJT*�$?FJlt'llf i'i)c [T. 1579: 622bI5-16] Also in the Vinifcayasa1'[!grahalJf on the Savitarkiidi-bhumi, the unsubstantial objects of the four groups of darsanaheyaklesas are contrasted with the substantial objects of the bhiivaniiheyaklefas. mthon ba dan bsgom pas span bar bya ba 'i zag pa ji skad bstan pa de dag gi dmigs pa ni mdor bsdu na mam pa lnar rig par bya ste / log par mam par brtags pa 'i dnos po la dmigs pa dan / Ita ba la migs pa dan / tshul khrims dan brtul iugs la dmigs pa dan / ran gi mam par brtags pa 'i min la dmigs pa dan / ran gi nan gis ye yod pa 'i dnos po la dmigspa '0 [Yogticiirabhumi,: zi 122b8-123a2] ; 1�*IlP��pJTm.R,11�pJTJjfJiiHfi)iiUJH£ 0
Ei920 /ll@- ff 1Lfj:pM�0 -��;\f�:5t�JjPJT�$:tjE o =�.R,:tjE o -=J�!lX�:tjE o Im� § :5t� JjpJT�:t:tjE o 1L�1:fJI��.$:lj[ [T. 1579: 624c 12-15])
282
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
5 .7) Vasubandhu gives the following etymological analysis of the word satkayadnti: sat, from the root sad, means "to perish" ; kiiya is a collection (caya, saY[!ghiita, skandha); satkiiya thus means the collection of perishable things, or the paiicopiidiinaskandhas. sfdatfti sat / cayatz kiiyatz say[!ghiitatz skandha ity arthatz / sac ciiyaY[! kiiyas ceti satkiiyatz paiicopiidiinaskandhiitz / nityasaY[!jiiiiY[! pil}rj.asaY[!jiiiiY[! ca tyiijayitum evaY[! dyotitii / etatpiirvako hi te§v iitmagratzatz (Pradhan: 28 1 . 19-2 1 ; T. 1558: lOOalA; Poussin v. 4: 15-17; SaJTlghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the siitra-master [T. 1 562: 606a3-6] and objects to Vasu bandhu's etymology, saying that, according to Vasubandhu' s reasoning, the syllable sat would be superfluous; kiiya by itself is adequate to counter the idea of imperishability [T. 1562: 606a6-9; Poussin v. 4: 1 6 n. 3].)
Yogiiciirabhilmi
5 .7)
283
(The Yogiiciirabhi1mi'does not discuss the etymology of satkiiyadr.J!i. )
284
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5 . 8) The S arvastivadins say that non-Buddhists who think that their non Buddhist path leads to a pleasant rebirth or to purification are afflicted by sflavratapariimarsa that can be destroyed by insight into duf:tkhasatya because these ideas are based on confusion regarding duf:tkha Vasubandhu says that, by this reasoning, all klefas, not just the dr�!is, would be destroyed by insight into duf:tkhasatya, and thus no kleSas would be destroyed by insight into the other truths. duf:tkhe vipratipannatviit I sarve�ii,!! siisraviilambaniinii'!! duf:tkhe vipratipannatviir38 (Pradhan: 282.2 1-22; T. 1558: 1 00b l l- 12; Poussin v. 4: 20; SaJ!lghabhadra identifies this as the objection of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 607b1O l lj 239 and criticizes it, saying that there are two types of sflavratapariimarsa that confuse path with non-path: one is destroyed by insight into duf:tkha, the other by insight into miirga [T. 1562: 607b 1 l- 19j.) _
238 The Sanskrit text is extremely terse here, and it cannot be understood without the help of the Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii (450.32-45 1 .3). 239 SaJ!lghabhadra' s discussion is slightly out of order here, coming after his discussion . of the following argument in the Abhidharmakosabhiirya.
Yogacarabhiimi
285
5 . 8) (I can find nothing in the Yogacarabhiimi that is directly related to this argument.)
286
Abhidharmakosabha:jya Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5.9) According to Sarvastivada, sf!avratapariimarsa is to be destroyed by insight into the truths of du�kha and marga. Vasubandhu suggests that a certain type of Sf!avratapariimarsa, namely following a false path in the belief that it will result in purification, is to be destroyed by insight into the truth of nirodha, not miirga. Vasu bandhu also refers back to his earlier suggestion that other types of S!lavrata pariimarsa, for example the belief that throwing oneself into fire or water will result in rebirth in heaven, are to be destroyed by insight into samudaya, not du�kha. athanyaf(l mok:ja.mfirgaf(l pariimrfya e:ja mok:jamarge niistfty iiha I so 'pi tenaiviinyena suddhif(l pratyeti na tayii mithyiidr:j.tyeti I tasyiipy asau margadarsana prahiitavyiilambano na sidhyati / yas cap! samudayanirodhadarsana prahatavyiilambanayii mithyiidr:j.tyii suddhif(l pratyeti sa kasman na taddarsanaheya� I tasmat parfk:jya e:jo 'rtha� (Pradhan: 283 . 1 -4; T. 1558: 1 00b I 6- 1 8 ; Poussin v. 4: 20-2 1 ; SaJ1l.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 606c2 1 -24] , accuses Vasubandhu of not properly explaining the Sarvastivarnn position, refutes him in detail, and concludes that sflavratapariimarsa can only be destroyed by insight into du�kha and miirga [T. 1562: 606c24-607b8].)
Yogiiciirabhami
287
According to the Viniscayasa1'[!grahal)f on the Savitarkiidi-bhami, sflavrata 5 . 9) pariimar§a specific to confusion regarding samudayasatya, which is predicated on false views arising from confusion regarding samudayasatya, is to be destroyed by insight into samudayasatya. ji ltar na kun 'byun ba 'i bden pa la bag la nal brgyad po log par iugs pa dag yin ie na / dge sbyon dan bram ze rgyu med par smra ba mams kyi log par Ita ba gan yin pa de dan dge sbyon dan bram ze mi mthun pa rgyur smra ba mams kyi dban phyug la sogs pa I dnos po mams kyi byin pa po dan sprul pa po dan byed pa po yin no ies log par Ita ba gan yin pa de dan / sbyin pa med do mchod sbyin med do / sbyin sreg med do legs par spyad pa med do nes par spyad pa med do ies log par Ita ba gan yin pa de dag dge sbyon dan bram ze IhJ40 mi spon bar smras kyi24 1 log par Ita ba de dag las phyogs gcig gan yin pa dan / gian mu stegs can mams kyi kun 'byun ba 'i bden pa la skur pa 'debs pa 'i log par Ita ba dge sbyon gau ta mas nan thos mams la kun 'byun ba 'i bden pa gdags pa byas pa gan yin pa de ni med do ies zer ba gan yin pa 'i log par lta ba de dag ni kun 'byun ba 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa yin no / lta ba mchog tu 'dzin pa gan gis lta ba de dag la dam par mchog tu 'dzin cin de dag gis dag pa dan grol ba dan nes par 'byun bar 'gyur ro ies lta ba mchog tu 'dzin pa de'an kun 'byun ba 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa yin no / lta ba de dag dan rjes su mthun pa dan de dag dan mthun pa 'i chos tshul krims dan brtul iugs yan dag par blan ba de la dam par mchog tu 'dzin cin des dag pa dan grol ba dan nes par 'byun bar 'gyur ro / ies tshul khrims dan brtul iugs mchog tu 'dzin pa gan yin pa de'an kun 'byun ba 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa yin no / lhag ma 'dod chags la sogs pa the tshom gyi mthar thug pa mams ni sna ma biin du blta bar bya ste / de ltar na non mons pa brgyad po de dag ni kun 'byun ba 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa dan kun 'byun ba mthon bas span bar bya ba dag yin no (Yogiiciirabhamic' zi 121a4-b3); �1iiJ�:$:1f)\� �Ro �\Il �iTt':J;'F�;;S:� *i F� � lZ9 :!f� '% o X::ff t':J;' F� ;;S:�*i F� tHH:E � £-12J�m1:�1L�1�Jil�fF� � � lZ9 �m::ff $ .% o X::ff $ .% o .�.��.� � o .:1f���.��o X :1f $ ���.�o ��� M ;;S: � *i M m�-�o X:1f$���.Mo a H� ��� £Mo � � � M .� ••• H��mm.Mo ���:1fo � £ • .% £ �.Mm� $ .% o ;;S::1f'%**��'% � . � - � �M��� ffi M o ��:$M PJT� '% 1fX:o ;;S::iJ��JIr:(iJl:t'% �iTtHJT � IfX: � o 1fX:. � - ��1�i� i�o )J{mftDffiI � �:$MIfX:�*o .� •• � ffiI . � o � �)\.�� � m o ��.M�.mE (T. 1579: 624a15-28) 0
0
0
240 Corrected from lta on the basis of the Derge. 24 1 Derge reads smra ba mams kyi.
288
Abhidharrnakosabhti�ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
Yogiieiirabhiimi
289
5.9 continued) The Viniseayasa1'[!grahal}-fon the Savitarkiidi-bhiimi makes a similar statement about sflavratapariimarsa specific to confusion regarding nirodhasatya. ji ltar na bag la fial brgyad 'gog pa 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa yin ie na / dge sbyon dan bram ze mtha ' dan mtha ' med pa dan lha mi sbon bar smra ba mams kyi Ita ba 'i phyogs gcig gan yin pa dan dge sbyon dan bram ze tshe 'di la mya nan las 'da ' bar smra ba mams kyi log par Ita ba gan yin pa dan / rgyas par 'jig rten na dgra beam pa dag med do ies log par Ita ba gan yin pa las dgra beam pa de dag kyan spans pas rab tu phye ba dan ses pas rab tu phye ba ste / de la spans pa la skur ba 'debs pa'i log par Ita ba gan yin pa dan gian mu stegs can mams kyi 'gog pa 'i bden pa la skur ba 'debs pa mams kyi log par Ita ba sna rna Ita bu gan yin pa dan / de dag gi log pa 'i thar pa yons su brtags pa 'i Ita ba gan yin pa 'i log par Ita ba de dag ni 'gog pa 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa yin no / Ita ba de dag la Ita ba mehog tu 'dzin pas sna rna biin du dam par mehog tu 'dzin pa 'i Ita ba mehog tu 'dzin pa gan yin pa de 'an 'gog pa 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa yin no / Ita ba de dag dan rjes su mthun pa dan de dag dan mthun pa 'i ehos tshul khrims dan brtul iugs yan dag par blan ba de la dam par mehog tu 'dzin cin / des dag pa dan grol ba dan nes par 'byun bar 'gyur ro ies tshul khrims dan brtul iugs mehog tu 'dzin pa gan yin pa de'an 'gog pa 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa yin no / khan khro ba ma gtogs pa lhag ma 'dod ehags la sags pa ni sna rna biin du rig par bya 'o / 'gags pa la skrag pa 'i sems dan kun nas mnar sems kyi sems dan khan khro ba 'i sems dan ldan pa 'i khan khro ba gan yin pa de'an 'gog pa 'i bden pa la log par iugs pa yin te / lhag rna ni sna rna btin no / de ltar na bag la fial brgyad po de dag ni 'gog pa 'i bden pa la logpar iugs pa dan 'gog pa mthon bas span bar bya ba dag yin no ( Yogiieiirabhiimi; zi 121b3-122a2); �1ilJ�i�� A!ljUR;o �; �¥';!t F�*,�*i F� o M�����.�H�-%o X�� M *, �*i M o R m�*��.*m�$ � o X������i!t rs' ��iiJ*ii�o JJ�JJ(mo 1!t�iiJ*ii�=1�pJTru!o �; IWT&�o � � ili�alWT$ � o X�$��a��o R ���JJ(m � � o X�.M�$ mmm� $ � o � ��� ����m� $ � o *,������� �� . - o .m� � o ����m���o *,�DO���*m��.o * • • - o . mJzIJ� ��i��%,�.}fJl.o pJTtf;ii�JzIJ � !l! �lJ o IlfH � Bj;�o �; 1JN��%'�'!m� , C,�:jJ��'C,��'!'� ' C, o JzIJ �Bj;��1JN��%,o M<JzIJ 'ffrI mo JzIJ ;lt:JqIJ]jj� D BR; o �1J�i��%'�i�pJTIWT (T. 1579: 624a29-b14) 0
290
Abhidharmakasabhii�ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirde.§a
5 . 1 0) The Sarvastivadins insist that sattvadr�!i and nityadr�.ti with respect to Brahma are not satkiiyadr�!i and antagriihadr�!i; they are not dr�!i at all, but merely mithyiijftiina, not all forms of which are dr�!i. Vasubandhu questions this, asking why these two dr�!is cannot have Brahma as an object if the other dr�!is can. kuta nu khalv etadanyii tadiilambanii dr�!ir e�ii na dr�!ir (Pradhan: 287. 17; T. 1558: 1 02al-2; Poussin v. 4: 34; SaJTlghabhadra identifies this as the criticism of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 613a5-6] and refutes it, essentially reiterating the Vaibha�ika opinion, recorded in the Abhidharmakasabhiirya, to the effect that, since beings in kiimadhitu i do not identify themselves with Brahma, they cannot be said to have satkiiyadr�.ti and antagriihadr�!i with regard to Brahma [T. 1562: 613a6-12].)
Yogiiciirabhami
5 . 1 0)
29 1
(I can find nothing directly related to this issue in the Yogiiciirabhami.)
292
Abhidhannakosabhti�ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirdeia
5 . 1 1) Vasubandhu quotes the piirvilcilryas as saying that innate satkilyadr�!i, like that of animals and birds, is avyilkrta, unlike vikalpita satki1yadr�!i, which is akusala. sahajil satkilyadr�!ir avyiikrtil ! yii mrgapak�i1Jiim api vartate ! vikalpitil tv akusaleti piirvilciiryil!:t (Pradhan: 290. 19-20; T. 1558: 102c25-27; Poussin v. 4: 41 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 618a17-19] and refutes it, saying that that which is avikalpita cannot be considered a dr�.ti; thus, this innate satkiiyadr�!i should actually be included in the category of akli�!ilvyilkrta mithyiljfiiina [T. 1562: 618a19-29].)
Yogacarabhumi
293
5.11) The ViniscayasarrzgrahclI}! on the Savitarkiidi-bhumi mentions two types of satkayad!�.ti, the innate one of ordinary people, animals, and birds, and the speculative . one of non-Buddhists. de la 'jig tshogs la Ita ba gali ze na / fie bar len pa 'i phwi po bia po dag la bdag gam bdag gir ba Ita ba dan / mnon par zen pa dan sems la 'jog pa gan yin pa de ni 'jig tshogs la Ita ba zes bya 'o / de 'an rnam pa gfiis su rig par bya ste / lhan cig skyes pa dan kun brtags pa 'o / de la lhan cig skyes pa ni byis pa so so 'i skye bo thams cad dan tha na ri dags dan bya rnams kyi yan yin no / kun brtags pa ni gzan mu stegs can rnams kyi yin par blta bar bya 'o (Yogacarabhumi,: zi 1 12b6-1 13a1); Jlii!mJfl)�*o 1J�liJr:iUf,!-L/¥Jl :tf,'i1rrl: � ;ft;ftPJT�Jlii!mJfl)�o J1t11=�lo -*f�1:.o =:5}�U5f.9o f�1:.* a -tv,ii!l\ �J'<1:.JJ ��I*�-§':m1To :5}�U 5f.9* a �'lfYi-���tJ3riITi5f.9 (T. 1 579: 621b6-1 O) The text goes on to say that the first type is avyak[ta, while the second type is akuSala. de la 'dod pa na spyod pa'i 'jig tshogs la lta ba lhan cig skyes pa gan yin pa de ni lun du rna bstan pa yin te /yan dan yan kun tu 'byun ba 'i phyir dan / bdag dan gzan la sin tu gnod pa 'i gnas rna yin pa 'i phyir ro / rtog pas mnon par zen pa gan yin pa de ni mi dge ba yin no (Yogacarabhumi,: zi 1 15b2-3); 11*f�1:.Jli;llll Jfl) � Pl1llli ��'I'1o tt:m1T �o ���� � �.�o �:5}�5f.9Jli i!m Jfl) � � ���.���o ���*� /fff'I'1 (T. 1579: 622a26-28i42
242 This correspondence has been noted by Hakamaya (2001 : 5 10, 5 1 3). The subject of innate satkiiyadr�.ti is discussed,by Schmithausen in relation to the origin of kli�!a manas ( 1 987: 146- 152).
294
Abhidharmakosabhii.rya Chapter 5 Anusayanirdefa
5 . 1 2) Vasubandhu argues that if past and future were real, they would be the same as the present and there would be no need to call them "past" and ''future.'' He counters Vasumitra' s theory of "change of state," according to which the difference between a present dharma and a past or future one is that only the present one is active, with the example of tatsabhiigaca�us, Le., an organ of sight that exists in the present but which is inactive. Furthermore, if activity were equivalent to yielding result, then past causes such as sabhiigahetu would actually have to be present since their activity (of yielding result) takes place in the present yady atftam api dravyato 'asty anagatam iti / kasmtit tad atftam ity ucyate 'ntigatam iti va / nanu coktam adhvanalt ktiritreIJ-a vyavasthita iti / yady evarrt pratyutpannasya tatsabhiigasya ca��alt kirrt ktiritram / phaladanapratigrahalJ-am / atfttinam api tarhi sabhiigahetvtidfnarrt phaladanat ktiritraprasango 'rdhaktiritrasya veti la�alJ-asarrtkaralt (Pradhan: 297.13-17; T. 1558: 105al-5; Poussin v. 4: 55-56; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 63 1cl-5; Poussin 1936-1937: 94] and refutes it, saying that Vasubandhu does not understand the nature of dharmas and that he does not distinguish between the power to project a result [ktiritra] and the other powers of a dharma [samarthya] [T. 1562: 631c5-17; Poussin 1936-1937: 94-96].)
Yogaeiirabhumi
295
5 . 1 2) The Vini§eayasalJ'lgrahd1JI On the Paiieavijiianakiiyarnanobhumi says that, if the salJ'lskiiras of the past and future were real, the Buddha would not have talked about their past or future nature. However, it does not mention tatsabhagaealqus or go into any further detail regarding kiiritra. (See also items 5.14 and 5 . 1 5.) de [tar na beom [dan 'das kyis de yan gal te 'das pa dan rna 'olis pa de 'du byed kyi mtshan fiid dan ldan pa k1w nar 'gyur na 'das pa dan rna 'olis pa 'i dJWs po de med do zes mi bstan pa zig na (Yogaearabhumi,: zi 21a4-5); ��;E'**�qTtt1�£.1'f1lf /fF! EtFlm:**z'!1m i§ £1'f (f. 1579: 585b 27-28)243 0
243 The Tibetan translation differs here from the Chinese: it says that the Buddha would not have said that the past and future nature did not exist (dnos po de med do zes mi bstan pa zig na). But this does not make sense. Pararnartha' s version in the Chiieh-ting tsang lun agrees with Hsiian-tsang' s translation: �� :a�:i.@* EU�:*qT �i'<. ¥.Mt o ;E'**qTA1�.1'f�U�F** (T. 1 584: 1 023a16-17). •
296
Abhidhannakosabhii�a Chapter 5 Anusayanirdefa
5 . 1 3) Vasubandhu argues that if the karitra of a dhanna is the dhanna itself, it would have to exist at all times, and therefore the difference among the three times could not be established. The only way to justify the three times is to say that a dhanna exists after previously not existing and ceases to exist after having existed. yadi dhanna eva karitralJ'! kasmiit sa eva dhannas tenaivatmana vidyamanaJ:! kadacid atlta ity ucyate kadiicid aniigata ity adhvaniilJ'! vyavasthii na sidhyati / kim atra na sidhyati / yo hy ajiito dhannaJ:! so 'niigataJ:! / yo jiito bhavati na ca vina�!aJ:! sa vartamiinaJ:! / yo vina�!aJ:! so 'fftaJ:! iti / etad eviitra vaktavyam /yadi yathii vartamiinalJ'! dravyato 'sti tathii 'tftam aniigatalJ'! casti / tasya tathii sataJ:! / ajiitana:;!atii kena tenaiva svabhiivena sato dhannasya katham idalJ'! sidhyaty ajiita iti yo vina:;!a iti veti / kim asya pilrvalJ'! niisfd yasyiibhiivad ajiita ity ucyate / kilJ'! ca pafciin niisti yasyiibhiiviid vina:;!a ity ucyate / tasman na sidhyati sarvathii 'py atradhvatrayam / yady abhiltva bhavatfti ne:;yate bhiltvii ca punar na bhavatfti (Pradhan: 298.8-17; T. 1558: 105a17-27; Poussin v. 4: 57; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 633a16-19, b7-13; Poussin 1936-1937: 105-106, 107] and refutes it, denying that he says that the kiiritra and the dharma are identical, maintaining that past, present, and future should be explained in terms of states [avasthii] of activity, and accusing Vasubandhu of talking nonsense and being the destroyer of the siltras [T. 1562: 633a19-b7, b13-25; Poussin 1936-1937: 106-107, 107-108li44
244 Sarp.ghabhadra' s discussion here is out of order.
Yogaciirabhilmi
297
5 . 13) The Vinifcayasal'[!grahal}-Ion the Pancavijnanakayamanobhilmi, in explain ing the sal'[!skrtalak.Jal}-as, says that jati means that something previously not existing now exists, while vyaya means that something ceases to exist after having existed. The same argument is relevant to the question of past, present, and future. mi rtag pa fiid kyan rna byun ba las 'byun bas rab tu phye ba dan / byun nas kyan med . par 'gyur bas rab tu phye ba yin te rna byun ba las 'byun ba ni 'byun ba yin la / byun nas med par 'gyur ba ni 'jig pa yin no ( Yogacarabhilmi,: zi 22b6-7); �'ffi tE;f§*�4if fi!::� ffi&1=.o 1fcX[�fi!::� ffi&i� (T. 1579: 586a16-18) 0
298
Abhidharmakosabhii�a Chapter 5 Anusayanirde.sa
5 . 1 4) The Sarvastivadins claim that the fact that the Buddha mentioned the past and the future proves that they really exist Vasubandhu agrees that they exist, but not as something ultimately real like the present24S vayam api bromo 'sty ati1iinligatam iti / ati1aTfl tu yad bhatapurvam / antigatlJT!l yat sati hetau bhavi�ati / evlJT!l ca lq1vii 'stfty ucyate na tu punar dravyataJ:t (Pradhan: 299. 1-3; T. 155 8 : 1 05b4-7; Poussin v. 4: 5 8 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the siltra-master [T. 1 562: 626b20-24; Poussin 1936- 1 937: 60], takes Vasubandhu to task for his understanding of the verb "to exist" and says that Vasubandhu' s real meaning is that the present exists while the past and future do not [T. 1562: 626b29-c19; Poussin 1 936-1 937: 61-62] .)
24S Sarp.ghabhadra criticizes this statement together with another statement that follows shortly afterwards (see 5 . 1 6) .
Yogiieiirabhiimi
299
5 . 1 4) According to the VinikayasafTIgraha!lfon the Pafieavijfiiinakiiyamanobhilmi, when the Buddha mentioned the saf!lSkiiras of the past and future, his intention W1lS to indicate the fact that the sQf!lskiiras of the present are the results of past saf!lSkiiras and the causes of future ones. The fIrst of the two misconceptions that the Buddha intended to eliminate was that past and future really exist.246 beam ldan 'das kyis 'du byed 'das pa rnams ni yod de / 'phags pa fian thos thos pa dail ldan pa ni de dag la mi Ita bar gnas so / 'du byed ma 'oils pa rnams kyail yod de / 'phags pa fian thos thos pa dail ldan pa ni de dag la milan par mi dga ' bar gnas so ies gail gsuils pa de la dgoils pa gail ie na / 'du byed 'das pa rnams ni 'bras bu bskyed pa las yod la / 'du byed ma 'oils pa rnams ni rgyu yoils su 'dzin pa las yod de / 'di ltar da ltar gyi 'du byed rnams ni mtshan fiid gsum gyis rab tu phye ba yin te / 'das pa rnams kyi 'bras bu'i Mas po dail / ma 'oils pa rnams kyi rgyu 'i dilos po dail / rail gi mtshan fiid kyi rgyun mi 'chad pas so / de ltar na beam ldan 'das kyis de yail gal te 'das pa dail rna 'oils pa de 'du byed kyi mtshan fiid dail ldan pa kho nar 'gyur na 'das pa dail ma 'oils pa 'i dilos po de med do ies mi bstan pa iig na (Yogiieiirabhilmi,: zi 21a1-5); r.Mllt!t. § o �;i&*fTo :tiN�qT � ?JU'�. � Iifj�� -=f�1!!IiiD !H±o �**qTo 1JN�fT � ?Ji:J� � 1ifj��-=f�1!!Ii $�f±o lItM!jifi')to �;i&*�1T W*Mc� **�qT� JZ;j Mc� pff J;I. �M ;miE�qT =: ;f§ pff�jo - � ;i&* *'l1:ii5co =�** JZ;j ttMco =: § t! HIHI:IF/WiMco :!1UUt 3'll! Mc f'llt!t . m:lllJ � § Xill. = �Mc1'F�mo - � J!lh /Wi �**yj;; 'W �¥Jtii5co �lllbi 3'll! o �� �**�qT'tH§ �'W�� :IF!¥. EE1�**z'lim § �� (T. 1579: 585b 1 9-28) 0
0
0
0
0
246 Mukai (1 972) points out many correspondences between Vasubandhu' s criticism of sarviistiviida in the Abhidharmakosabhii!Ja and that in the Savitarkiidi-bhilmi, and he refers to the passage in the ViniicayasQf!lgraha!!f on the Pafieavijfiiinakiiyamano bhilmi, as well. He concludes that "the author" of the Yogiiciirabhilmi and Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakosabhf¥ya, basing himself on Sautriintika, share an essenti.ally iden tical position, but he does not suggest that the Yogiieiirabhilmi was Vasubandhu' s source.
300
Abhidharmakosabhti:;ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5 . 1 5) Vasubandhu raises an objection: if the past and the future really exist, then how can they be called "past" or "future"? kathaJ?1 tad atftam anagata1J1 cocyate yadi nityam astfti (Pradhan: 299.3-4; T. 1558: 105b9; Poussin v. 4: 58; SaIp.gbabhadra identifies this as the objection of the siitra-master, who, he says, is following the teaching of the Sthavira here [f. 1562: 625b2-4; Poussin 1936-1937: 52], and turns Vasubandhu' s argument back on those who deny the past and future: if the past and future did not exist, it would be impossible to talk about them [f . 1562: 625M-13; Poussin 1936-1937: 52-53].)
Yogacarabhami
5 . 1 5)
(See item 5 . 1 2.)
301
302
Abhidharmakosabhii:fya Chapter 5 Anusayanirde.§a
5 . 1 6) According to Vasubandhu, the reason that the Buddha said that past and future exist was to refute those who deny the validity of cause and result. In the expressions "the past exists" and "the future exists," the word "exists" in these cases means "existed" and "will exist," respectively. 247 tasmat bhUtapurvasya ca hetor bhtivinas ca phalasya bhutapurvatal[! bhtivitiil[! ca jiiapayitul[! hetuphaliipaviidad!:f!iprati:fedhiirtham uktal[! bhagavatii asty atftam asty aniigatam iti / astisabdasya nipiitatviit / yathti 'sti dfpasya pragabhtivo 'sti pasciid abhiiva iti vaktaro bhavanti yathti ciisti niruddhaf:z sa dfpo na tu maya nirodhita iti / evam atftiiniigatam apy astfty uktam / anyatha hy atftiiniigatabhava eva na siddhyet (Pradhan: 299.4-8; T. 1558: 105b 10-15; Poussin v. 4: 58-59; SaI1lghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 626b24-28; Poussin 1936-1937: 60] and criticizes it, saying that, if past and future are not real, it is impossible to refute those who deny causality [T. 1562: 626c19-627alO; Poussin 1936- 1937: 62-63].)
247 See Abhidharmakosavyakhyii (473 .5-6).
Yogacarabhiimi
303
5 . 1 6) According to the ViniscayasaT[lgrahal}!on the Paiicavijiianakiiyarnanobhiimi, the second of two misconceptions that the Buddha intended to eliminate by mention ing the sa'!1Skaras of the past and future was the negation of the present (which is tantamount to a denial of cause and effect). ji ltar 'das pa dan rna 'olis pa med pa de bfin du / da ltar byun ba yan med do fes mlion par fen pa mams kyi mnon par fen pa de (Yogacarabhiimi,: zi 21a6); jj�1El-�n�o"** i:!tffl,1fl)j.f$1'iB�?JT1f (T. 1579: 585b 29-c1)
304
Abhidhannakosabhii�ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
5 . 17) According to Vasubandhu, when the Buddha said that a past action exists, his meaning was that a potential to yield result, which was placed in the sarrttati in the past, exists in the sarrttati in the present. Furthermore, the Buddha said in the Paramarthasiinyatasiitrcl48 that when ca�urindriya appears, it does not come from
anywhere, and when it is destroyed, it does not go into any collection: it exists after not having existed, and after existing, it does not exist. yat kannabhyatftarrt k�fl}arrt niruddharrt vigatarrt viparil}atarrt tad astfti I kirrt te tasya tasya kannal}o bhiitapiirvatvarrt necchanti sma I tatra punas tadahitarrt tasyam sarrttatau phaladanasamarthyarrt sarrtdhayoktam I anyatha hi svena bhavena vidyamanam atftarrt na sidhyet I ittharrt caitad evarrt · yat paramarthasiinyatayam uktarrt bhagavata cak�ur utpadyamanarrt na kutascid agacchati nirudhyamanarrt na kvacit sarrtnicayarrt gacchati I iti hi bhik�avas cak�ur abhiitva bhavati bhiitva ca pratigacchatftF49 (Pradhan: 299.9-14; T. 1558: 1 05b 16-22; Poussin v. 4: 59; S�ghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 627alO-15; Poussin 1936-1937: 63] and criticizes it, saying that Vasubandhu ignores the obvious meaning of the Buddha' s statement that past actions exist an d tries to twist the Buddha' s words in support of his own theory of biJa, which Sarp.ghabhadra has already refuted [T. 1 562: 627a15-b l l ; Poussin 1936- 1937: 64-65].)
248 Sarrtyuktagama, siitra 335 (T. 99: 92c12-26; see Pasadika 1986: 98). 249 Pasadika emends pratigacchatfti to prativigacchatfti on the basis, of Yasomitra' s
commentary and the Bodhicaryavatarapaiijika (1 986: 98).
Yogaearabhrimi
-
305
'
5 . 17) The Savitarkiidi bhami explains that when the Buddha said that a past action exists, he was really talking about impressions of the action, not the action itself. These impressions endow the sarrrtati with the potential to yield results.25o
yad apy uktam asty atftarrr karma yataJ:! sattvaJ:! savyabaddhii vyabadhiir25rt 1 vedayanti I tatrapi tadviisantiyarrr tadastitvopacaram abhipretyoktarrr I ye:ju sarrrski:jire u yae ehubhiiSubharrr karmotpannaniruddharrr bhavati -tena hetuna tena pratyayena visi:j!a sarrrskiri asantatiJ:! pravartate sa viisanety ucyate I yasyaJ:! prabandhapatitiiyil i:j!ani,y!a phalarrr nirvartate iti na yujyate I tato 'pi niisti do�aJ:! (Yogaearabhiimi: 127. 19-128.4); 'di ltar sems can rnams gnod pa dan beas pa dan I gnod pa med pa 'i tshor ba myon bar byed pa l 'das pa'i las yod do ies gsuns pa gan yin pa de la yan l bag ehags de la l de yodpa'i 'dogs pa la dgons nas gsuns pa yin te I 'du byed gan dag la dge ba dan mi dge ba 'i las skyes nas 'gags pa yod la I rgyu de dan rkyen des 'du byed bye brag can gyi rgyud 'jug pa de la ni bag ehags ies bya ste I de rgyun du gnas pa las sdug pa dan mi sdug pa'i 'bras bu grub par 'gyur ba 'i phyir mi run ste (Yogaearabhiimir' dzi 75b3-5); JZJllm §:1fi@i:t:*o
El3Jl:t*t)c�t:1fflf�:1ftjiiBt�o Jl:tiJF1it1J1��W��m�:1f 0 ��DNt1T $ o 1it :1fi'i/fi'i*o *��iF
The Viniscayasarrrgrahmyf on the Paneavijnanakayamanobhiimi gives a similar explanation, but with the addition of the term *karmablja.
beom ldan 'das kyis las 'das pa ni yod de gal te las 'das pa med du zin na 'di na la las gnod pa dan bcas pa dan I gnod pa med pa 'i tshor ba myon ba mi 'gyur ies gan gsuns pa de la dgons pa gan ie na I 'das pa 'i tshor bas rnams su las dge ba dan mi dge ba bskyed ein 'gags pas phyi ma la 'bras bu 'dod pa dan mi 'dod pa mnon par 'grub par de 'i sa bon gyis 'du byed kyi rgyun phyi ma phyi ma yons su bsgom pa las dgons nas (Yogaearabhiim!i zi 20b4-6); r",ppiit� § 0 :1fi@i:t:*o � i@i:t:*�-'l��* 0 /fl@,
��:1f-.�� m.�o ��/fI@,:1f-.�.m.�o �MW�o �i@i:t:� $ W/fW*2�2�0 ��.*�/f�*o �*.�m�.� o ��� •• *,/f�Jfo i!t��r.�PP�;f§*jo �tRm § :1fi@i:t:* (T. 1579: 585b7- 13)
The Vastusarrrgrahmyr, although not mentioning eako!urindriya, gives an interpretation of the Paramarthasiinyatasiitra (see Mukai 1985: 34) similar to Vasubandhu's, in which it denies the reality of past and future sarrrskaras.
de la ma 'ons pa'i dus na 'du byed rnams 'du byed kyi phun por 'dug ste l de las 'du 250 Mukai points out the similarity between this argument and Vasubandhu' s ( 1 972). 251 Bhattacharya mentions in his n�te that the reading is doubtful.
306
Abhidharmakosabhiio?ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
YogacarabhL7mi
307
5 . 1 7 continued) byed mams skye pa'i tshe 'on bar 'gyur ba med do I gal te yod par 'gyur na ma 'ons pa 'i dus na ran biin gyis yons su grub zin pa de dag ni skyer yan mi run la mi rtag pa iiid du snan bar yan mi 'gyur ba 'i rigs na snan tin yan 'dug ste I de bas na skye ba ' i tshe gan nas kyan mi 'on la med pa las yod par yan 'gyur ba 'di ni phyi ma 'i mtha ' ston pa iiid do l de la 'das pa 'i dus na 'du byed mams phun por 'dug ste I der 'du byed skyes nas 'gag pa mams sogs par 'gyur ba med de / gal te yod par gyur na 'das pa 'i 'du byed kyi tshogs ran gi bdag iiid kyis gnas pa 'i phyir 'du byed 'gag pa yan med pa kho nar 'gyur la 'gag pa med na ni rtag pa iiid du yan snan bar mi 'gyur ba 'i rigs na snan tin yan 'dug ste / de bas na 'du byed mams 'gag pa 'i tshe gan du yan sogs par mi 'gyur la yod pa las 'gag pa 'i rgyu la ma bltos par ran gi nan gis phyir med par 'gyur ba 'di ni snon gyi mtha ' stan pa iiid do ( Yogacarabhami,: 'i 282b4-283a1);
&"9:aJl:t if!1!lIi��qT1f�**i:!to jf�qT� § '11�JL�qT�tJ�1.i£1itrm *0 *� ��1it/f'F!1=.0 1f�**i:!t�tf1T § '11 Bjf�tJ)I:o X/f'F!�1!lIi1jfPJ1�0 &!E �PJ1�0 ��J:&"9:ao �tf1T1=.a�0 1!lIipfifk*0 *1!lIi�� 0 �1S 1&��0 X1!lli�tf1T 1f��*i:!to �jf1T�� § '110 �JLo B1=.Billto �1T1±1it;f1t #erm1±0 *���o /f'F!1fffi�Ji:�tf1T�illto �*1T� § '111�r..:(\1jf�1±tJ)I:o *1!lIi�illto iit1!lli 1jf'11F!/f'ilJ 9:0a�PJ 9:00 ��J:�tf1T1f�lEillt*o li�1!lIipfi1H1t#erm1±0 �Bi;tillt/f'1o;J:�1ZSl 0 § rt;illt±�o �1S lW��� (T. 1579: 826b 12-23)
30S
Abhidharmakosabha�ya Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5 . 1 S) According to the sutra, consciousness is always based on two things, an organ and an object. The Sarvastivadins argue that, since one can think about past or future things, they must be the object of rnanas and hence real. Vasubandhu makes a distinction between those objects that are producing conditions (janakapratyaya), which he implicitly admits are necessarily real, and those that are mere objects, for example, nirvana, which cannot possibly be the cause of the production of anything. Such mere objects are not necessarily real, and so the Sarvastivadin argument does not prove the real existence of past and future. ida7[! tavad iha sa7[!pradkaryam / yan rnanas pratftya dkarmai cotpadyate mano vijfianG7[! ki7[! tasya yatka rnanojanakaJ:t pratyaya eva7[! dharma ahosvid alambanamatra7[! dharma iti / yadi tavat janakaJ:t pratyayo dharmaJ:t katka7[! yad anagata7[! kalpasahasrelJ-a bhavi�ati va na va tad idiin f7[! vijfiana7[!jani�ati /nirvalJ-a7[! ca sarvaprav[ttinirodhajjanaka7[! nopapadyate /athalambanamatra7[! dharma bhavanti / atftanagatam apy alambana7[! bhavatfti brarnaJ:t (Pradhan: 299. 17-21; T. 1 55S: 105b27-c3; Poussin v. 4: 60; Smpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siltta-master [T. 1562: 627c19-25; Poussin 1936-1937: 6S] and criticizes it, arguing that the idea of an unreal object of consciousness is against the teachings of the Buddha [T. 1562: 627c25-62Sa27; Poussin 1936-1937: 6S-71].)
YogtictirabhL7mi
309
5 . 1 8) In the Viniscayasa'!lgrahalJf on the PaneavijfitinakiiyamanobhL7mi, an objection is mentioned: if past and future sa'!lskiiras are not real, why did the Buddha say that they are conditions that produce manovijfitina? The answer is that even unreal things, such as past and future, can give rise to manovijfitina by being its object. 252
bcom ldan 'das kyis yid ni 'das pa 'i 'du byed mams las kyan brten te 'byun la /yid ni ma 'ons pa 'i 'du byed mams las kymi brten te 'byun no ies gan gsuns pa de la / gal te 'das pa 'i 'du byed mams kyan med la ma 'ons pa mams kyan med na gan gi phyir beom Idan 'das kyis yid 'byun no ies gsuns pa 'i yid kyi dmigs pa gan yin / gal te yid dnos po med pa kho na iig la dmigs na ni de la bcom Idan 'das kyis legs par gsuns pa dan / legs par brjod pa gan yin pa 'di Ita ste / mam par ses pa ni gfiis la brten te 'byun no / gfiis gan ie na / mig dan gzugs las rgyas par yid dan chos kyi bar las so ies bcom Idan 'das kyis legs par gsuns pa dan / legs par brjod pa de la ji Itar sin tu gnod par byas par mi 'gyur ie na / yid ni mam par ses pa 'i tshogs Ina po dag gi spyod yul ma yin pa'i don gan yin pa 'dzin par byed de / de la beom ldan 'das kyis ehos gdags par mdzad nas / yid dan ehos mams la brten te yid kyi mam par ses pa 'byun no ies gsuns so / bcom Idan 'das kyis dgons pa de yan rgyu gan gis khon du chud par bya ie na / 'di Itar yid kyi mam par ses pa ni 'das pa 'i mam par ses pa la dmigs pa yan yod / ma 'ons pa 'i mam par ses pa la dmigs pa yan yod med kyi / mam par ses pa ni chos kyi skye mched du gtogs pa ma yin no / gian yan yod pa yan yod pa 'i don gyis mam par gnas sin yodpa 'i don 'dzin par byed la / med pa yan medpa'i don gyir3 mam par gnas sin med pa 'i don 'dzin par byed pas / de la yid kyi mam pa ses pas ni yod pa yan don gan gis mam par gnas pa 'i don de fiid kyis mam par ses par bya la / med pa yan don gan gis mam par gnas pa 'i don de fiid kyis mam par ses par bya 'o / gal te de gfii ga gfii ga 'i don gyis mam par ses par mi byed na ni yid don thams cad la dmigs pa dan / don thams cad 'dzin pa yin par mi 'gyur ro / gan de skad ees zer na / des ni grub pa'i mtha ' la yan sin tu gnod pa byas par 'gyur te /ji ltar yodpa fiid med pa '0 ies brjod du ni tshu! ma yin no / de Ita bas na ji Itar 'das pa dan / ma 'ons pa de dnos po med pa de biin du de la dmigs pa 'i yid kyan med !a / dmigs pa yin par khon du chud par bya 'o (YogtictirabhL7mit: zi 19a2-b4); r,,� 1lQi!t� § ��g'IHT����o **gi1T�� 0
0
��o ��**�1T:JF� fpJt)ci!t�}[�lHBl1T�*���o ;E=�ljH�:JF�*:l:l o @��*o �M��.� § m o � i!t� § o � =.��.��o M� � = � m�� o � �.m����o � � �«��E • • ���.�o . i!t��m � � o ��m § �����.��o � M � ���.i!t���W�o � � � �.vF*,��*�i&�:l:l3'f. i!t�lrPf1� o :JF1Bl:l:l �i&¥t�plTmo x.�'I1:*'ti: :sL�.§� ��.;E= .tt*'ti::sL •• � � • • �fi� �o � ��.��tt.o * � � . @1�'ti::sL o Il P .DJ rtt.jI@�i&T;5lj o :a�\.'I1:.o ;E= � rtt.@1�'ti::sLo Il P .12Ut.jI@
252 Mukai points out the relationship between this argument and Vasubandhu' s ( 1 972). 253 Corrected from gyi on the basis of the Derge.
310
Abhidhannakosabha�a Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
Yogacarabhr7mi
311
5 . 1 8 continued) �arnjJj o *1.i�'=1t/f" i±C�.U� T JjJj�o /f"� ��51U�--W�.lf;Z -to �o �!J:11: :¥: mo ��ji� § ��!i!� JZ./f"� i§ �o:J;t:?fi:ff ?p:ff W' m fiHo 0
0
;E� mo :¥:t5c���\jQ***?PJl.':ff 1§ o *�1���o i±lll:� tHQ��Jjf*�?P:ff � �
(T. 1579: 584c1 8-585a8)
3 12
AbhidhannakosabharYa Chapter 5 AnusayanirdeSa
5 . 1 9) The Sarvastivadin challenges Vasubandhu: how can something nonexistent be an object of perception? Vasubandhu answers that something in the past is remembered with the knowledge that it is past, not present, and that something in the future is imagined with the knowledge that it is future, not present. If the object were existent, it would be perceived as being in the present-in other words, it would not be a past or future object.
yadi nasti katham alambanam / atredanf1!l briimal; / yada tad alambana1!l tathasti katha1!l tad alambanam abhUt bhavirYati ceti / na hi ka.scid atfta1!l riipa1!l vedana1!l va smarann astfti paSyati / ki1!l tarhi / abhiid iti / yatha khalv api vartamana1!l riipam anubhiita1!l tatha tad atfta1!l smaryate / yatha canagata1J1 vartamana1!l bhavirYati tatha buddhya grhyate / yadi ca tat tathaivtisti vartamana1!l prapnoti / atha nasti / asad apy alambana1!l bhavatfti siddham (Pradhan: 299.21-25; T. 1558: 1 05c4- 1 1 ; Poussin v. 4: 60-61 ; Sarpghabhadra identifies this
as the sutra-master's response to his own objection [T. 1562: 628a27-b5; Poussin 1936-1937: 71] and, calling Vasubandhu "the disciple of the Diir�!fu1tika," criticizes it at length, saying that Vasubandhu' s intellectual deficiencies prevent him from contemplating past and future clearly and arguing that Vasubandhu's statement that past objects are remem 254 bered actually proves that they are real [T. 1562: 628b5-27; Poussin 1936-1937: 71-73].)
254 For a discussion of this issue as treated by Vasubandhu and S�rp.ghabhadra, see Cox 1988: 61-68.
YogJcJrabhllmi
313
5 . 1 9) (I am unable to find anything in the YogJcJrabhllmi corresponding to this argument of Vasubandhu's.)
314
Abhidharmakosabha:jya Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
5 .20) Vasubandhu argues that cognition of the absence of sound before the sound is made is based on a nonexistent object, not on a future sound, as the S arvastivadins maintain.
yaS ca sabdasya prilgabhiivam illambate ki/"[! tasyillambanam I sabda eva I eva/"[! tarhi yaf:z sabdilbhiivaY(! prilrthayate tasya sabda eva kartavyaf:z syiit I anilgatiivastha iti cet I sati katha/"[! nastibuddhif:z I vartamiino nastfti cet I na I ekatvilt I yilvatil tasya vise:jas tasyilbhatviibhavasiddhif:z I tasmild ubhaya/"[! vijiiiainasy lambana/"[! bhiivas cilbhavas ca (Pradhan: 300.9-12; T. 1558: 105c23-29; Poussin v. 4: 62 ; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the objection of the sutra-master (T. 1562: 624b4-9; Poussin 1936-1937: 45] and criticizes it, saying that what Vasubandhu sees as the nonexistence of sound is really the supporting conditions (adhi:j!hana) of sound in the state in which no sound is produced; in any case, Sarp.ghabhadra insists that future sound actually does exist and can be the support of the cognition of the absence of sound (T. 1562: 624b9-c1 ; Poussin 1936-1937: 45-47].)255
255 Sarp.ghabhadra discusses this. passage out of order. For a summary of Sarp.gha bhadra' s argument, see Cox 1988: 58-59.
Yogacarabhiimi
5 .20)
315
(The refutations of the' reality of past and future in the Savitarkiidi-bhiimi [Yogacarabhiimi: 122.12-129.4; Yogacarabhiimi,: dzi. 73b3-76a7; T. 1 579: 304b24305b26] and the ViniScayasaT(Lgrahaf:!f on the Paiicavijfiiinakiamarw iy bhUmi [ Yogacara bhiimi,: zi 20b4-21b!; T. 1579: 585b7-c8] do not include this argument. Nor can I fmd it elsewhere in the Yogacarabhiimi.)
Abhidharmakasabhii:jya 316 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5.21) The Sarvastivadins refute Vasubandhu' s assertion that both existent and nonexistent things can be objects of cognition. According to them, if this were so, the Buddha would not have stated that it was impossible for him to know that which does not exist in the world. Vasubandhu responds that the Buddha meant that he does not mistake nonexistent things for existent ones. Furthermore, if all cognition had a real object, there could be no uncertainty about whether something is real and thus no distinction between the Buddha and other people.
apare · iibhimiinikii bhavanty asantam apy avabhiisarp. santarp. paiyanti / aharp. tu santam eviistrti paSyiimfty iiyarp. tatriibhipriiya/:t / itarathii hi sarvabuddhfniirp. sadiilambanatve kuta 'sya vimarsa/:t syiit ka vii vise:ja/:t (Pradhan: 300. 13-16; T. 1558: 106al-4; Poussin v. 4: 62-63 ; S�ghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 622cl l-14; Poussin 1936-1937: 34] and criticizes it, saying that illusory cognitions are simply mistaken cognitions, not cognitions of nonexistent objects [T. 1562: 622c15-27 ; Poussin 1936-1937: 35].)256
256 Again, see Cox 1 988 : 6 1-68 for a general discussion of this issue.
Yogiiciirabhumi 3 17
5.21) In its refutation of the real existence of the past and the future, theSavitarkiidi bhiimi answers the objection that, if past and future are unreal, then there mu�t be cognition of nonexistent objects, which contradicts sutra. The Savitarkiidi-bhumi argues that, if there were no cognition of nonexistent objects, ideas such as the nonexistence of a self, the hom of the hare, or the child of a barren woman would be impossible. 257
eval[! vyiikrte ea punaJ:t saty uttari vadet / saeed atftiiniigatal[! niisti / katham asad iilambanii buddhiJ:t pravartate / sii ea punaJ:t pravartate / tat katham iigamavirodho na bhavati / yad uktaT(! sarvam iti yiivad eva dviidaSltyataniinfti / sa idaJp. syiid vacanfyaJ:t / kaccid ieehasi niistftigriihikityii buddher loke 'pravrttiT(! vii pravrttiT(! vii / saeed apravrttiT(! / tena yii nairiitmyagriihikii saSavi�iir}avandhyiiputriidigriihikii buddhir naiviisti1i na yujyate (Yogiieiirabhiimi: 127.8-13); de skad du Ian btab kyari yan 'di skad ees zer te / gal te 'das pa daTi / ma oris pa med du zin na / dmigs pa med pa la ji ltar blo 'jug par ' gyur / gal te 'jug na yan skye mehed beu gfiis po thams cad yod do / i.es bya ba 'i bar du gsuris.pa 'i luri dari ji ltar 'gal bar mi 'gyur i.es zer ba de la /ji skad ces brjod par bya ste / ci 'jig rten na med do / ies 'dzin pa 'i blo mi Jug gam 'on te 'jug par 'dod / gal te mi 'jug na ni des na bdag med par 'dzin pa dari / ri bori gi rwa dan / mag sam gyi bu la sogs par 'dzin pa blo gari yin pa de yari med pa kho na 'o /i.es byar mi ruri rio ( Yogiieiirabhiim�: dzi75al-4); �nR:: m B11if1f� § ;5=;i&***R::1!!Ii o �1PJ�1!!Ii jj'jj � fU'o ;5=B�1!!Ii jj'jj � fUnfo �1ilJ���ft;i&�o �n m-w� * �l!l +=�o :ft4-F,,' o W:�W:��o ilt FJjljj(1!!Ii Z :Ji;J.1U9l[15o ��€JflS o ;5=� €* ij� *1!!Ii :ft 5R.jfj ::fi:R-7C o �:Jti'$\R::1l!'i o .Il:t�J,¥.3'lI1. (T. 1579: 305alO-l6) 0
0
0
0
257 Mukai points out the relationship between this argument and Vasubandhu' s (1972). •
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 318
Chapter 5 Anusayanirdeia
5 .22) Vasubandhu gives another argument for the cognition of nonexistent objects: the Buddha says that his disciples will know, through his teaching, that existent things exist and that nonexistent things do not exist.258
itthal'[! caitat evam I yad anyatra bhagavatoktam etar59 bhik�ur mama sravako yavat sa maya kalpam260 avoditaJ:! sayal'[! vise�aya parairyati I sayam avoditaJ:! kaZpal'[! vise�aya parairyatil sac ca satojiiasyati asac casataJ:! sottaral'[! ca sottarataJ:! anuttaral'[! canuttarata iti (Pradhan: 300. 16-18; T. 1558: l06a4-8; Poussin v. 4: 63; S;npghabhadra identifies this as the explanation of the siitra-master [f. 1562: 622c28-623a2, 623a8-9; Poussin 1936-1937: 35-36] and criticizes at length Vasubandhu' s misleading understanding of the sutra, saying that in this sutra passage the word sat means "good," not "existent," while the word asat means ''bad,'' not "nonexistent" [f. 1562: 623a2-8, 623a9-b2; Poussin 1936-1937: 36-37].)
2 58 Sal'[!yuktagama, sutra 702 (T. 99: 1 89a22-b9; see Pasadika 1 986: 98-99). 2 59 Citing Honj6 1984, Pasadika emends etat to etu (1986: 98). 260 Pasiidika emends kaZpam to kalyam ( 1 986: 98).
Yogiieiirabhumi 319
5 . 22) In a continuation of die passage mentioned in 5.2 1 , the Savitarkiidi-bhumi quotes the same sutra passage as Vasubandhu as further proof that the cognition of nonexistent objects must be possible.
beom !dan 'das kyis nan thos g. yo med pa ni nas gdams nag byin te /yan dag par grub na / yod pa la yan yod par ses / med pa la yan med par ses sogs gswis pa gan yin pa de yan mi run bar 'gyur ro (Yogiieiirabhiimi,: dzi 75a4-5); Xlt1:lJD 1't�ft�1I!\:�fj� /}fJo �llftm�lE11�1T�o t=lf�lft=1I!\:�Il1l!\:o r1:t/f'�jFi� (T. 1579: 305a161 8)26 1
26 1 There is no corresponding Sanskrit text for this portion or the portion that follows immediately (yogiiciirabhiimi,: dzi 75a5-8; T. 1579: 305a18-24).
Abhidhannakosabhii,Jya 320 Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
5.23) Referring to his refutation of atmavada at the end of the Abhidhannakosa bharya, Vasubandhu attributes to the S autrantikas the opinion that a result does not directly arise from a past action; instead, it arises due to a salptanavise,Ja based on a past action.
naiva hi sautrantika atftat kannw}aly. phalotpattil'[l van:tayanti / kil'[l tarhi / tatpiirvakat sal'[ltanavise,Jad ity atmavadaprati,Jedhe sal'[lpravedayi,Jyamaly. (Pradhan: 300.19-2 1 ; T. 1558: 1 06alO- 1 3 ; Poussin v. 4: 63; SaJ.!lghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sfitra-master [T. 1 562: 629b3-5; Poussin 1 936-1937: 77-78], refers to the end of Chapter Nine, 262 where Vasubandhu gives a longer explanation of sal'[ltatiparil}ama [T. 1562: 629b5-17; Poussin 1 936- 1 937: 78], and criticizes it, objecting to Vasubandhu' s identification of the series of thought with the series of actions and to his comparison of the series of actions with the series of seed, sprout, etc. [T. 1562: 629b 17-630al l ; Poussin 1936-1937: 78-82].)
262 See Abhidhannakosabhiirya: 477.7- 1 8 ; T. 1558: 1 58c25- 159a5 ; Po ssin v. 5 : p. 295-296.
Yo giiciirabhilmi 321
5.23) It is shown in the Savitarkiidi-bhilmi and in the Vini§Cayasaf!lgrahal}! on the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhilmi that the result of a past action does not .arise directly from the action, but rather from a modification of the saf!ltati. (See item 5 . 1 7 . For the sake of convenience, I again include both passages with their summaries.) The Savitarkiidi-bhilmi explains that when the Buddha said that a past action exists, he was really talking about impressions of the action, not the action itself. These impressions endow the saf!ltati with the potential to yield results.
yad apy uktam asty atftaf!l karma yataJ:t sattviih savyiibaddhii vyiibiidhiif!l (see note 25 1) vedayanffti / tatriipi tadviisaniiyiif!l tadastitvopaciiram abhipretyoktaf!l/ye�u saf!!skiire�u yac chubhiisubhaf!l karmotpannaniruddhaf!l bhavati tena hetunii tena pratyayena visi�!ii saf!lSkiirasantatiJ:t pravartate sii viisanety ucyate / yasyiiJ:t prabandhapatitiiyii i�!iini�!a phalaf!l nirvartate iti na yujyate ! tato 'pi niisti do�aJ:t (Yogiiciirabhilmi: 127. 19-128.4). 'das pa 'i las yod do ies gsuils pa gail yin pa de la yail / bag chags de la / de yod pa 'i 'dogs pa la dgoils nas gsuils pa yin te / 'du byed gail dag la dge ba dail mi dge ba 'i las skyes nas 'gags pa yod la / rgyu de dail rkyen des 'du byed bye brag can gyi rgyud 'jug pa de la ni bag chags ies bya ste / de rgyun du gnas pa las sdug pa dail mi sdug pa 'i 'bras bu grub par 'gyur ba 'i phyir mi ruil ste (Yogiiciirabhilmi dzi 75b3-5); J(Jlft m § � :i& *� o J±1lI:t ��!<:���"W��1Jl.%��1Jl.%�0 ll:t !)J'{:&1l!l>g{ �V&i�1N m.�o n��� � o .��� ��o � � �� � � � .��.affi .W. � � >g{ �o � �ffi.�.>g{ ��o ���*�o ���ft�:i&o W��.� )'11[ (T. 1 579: 305bl-6) The Viniscayasaf!lgrahal}! on the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhilmi gives a similar explanation, but with the addition of the term *karmabiJa.
bcom ldan 'das kyis las 'das pa ni yod de gal te las 'das pa med du zin na 'di na la las gnod pa dail bcas pa dail / gnod pa med pa 'i tshor ba myoil ba mi 'gyur ies gail gsuils pa de la dgoils pa gail ie na / 'das pa 'i tshor bas rnams su las dge ba dail mi dge ba bskyed Giil 'gags pas phyi rna la 'bras bu 'dod pa dail mi 'dod pa milon par 'grub par de 'i sa bon gyis 'du byed kyi rgyun phyi rna phyi rna yoils su bsgom pa las dgoils nas :i& * � �*� � � /f. {iiCiira h �m zl � -6); !� D t!t� -, Sv� l'JiffifJ 1'l 1Jl: % x o �1,,,,- �.� l'JiffifJ �1Jl:% x o ll:t1PJ'Ill JOl,o :g-�*� � �� � � B� B .o ��.*���*o ��.�.�.>g{ o ��ffi •• •�lWi'o t!t�. �M D �1§*io ��m § ��*� (T. 1579: 585b7-13)
T!
�
!i
�
�
§�'" �
� J
!! !
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 322 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdda
5.24) Vasubandhu suggests that those who believe in the real existence of past and future are guilty of tIllnking that results are eternal: if the result always exists, then what efficacy does karma have?
yasya tv atftiiniigatarrz dravyato 'sti tasya phalarrz nityam eviistfti kirrz tatra karmalJaJ:r siimarthyam (Pradhan: 300.21-22; T. 1558: 106a13-14; Poussin v. 4: 63; SaIflghabhadra in two places identifies this as the objection of the siltra-rnaster [T. 1562: 630all-13, 634a23-25; Poussin 1936-1937: 82-83, 113] and answers Vasubandhu ' s question: karma makes the result produce its special activity; that is, karma brings the result into the present [T. 1562: 630a13-25, 634a25-b9; Poussin 1 936-1937: 1 13-1 14].)
Yogaearabhami 323
5.24) In the Savitarkiidi-bhami, the fITst of sixteen mistaken theories (among which the third is belief in the real existence of past and futrrre) is hetuphalasadvtida, the belief that the result is always present in the cause. This theory is shown to be mistaIcen because: 1) if cause and result have the same characteristics, there is no clifference between them and hence it is illogical to say that one is present in the other; 2) if they have clifferent characteristics and if the nature of the result is that it has not yet arisen, then it is illogical to say that the result exists in the cause; 3) if they have different characteristics and the natrrre of the result is that it has already arisen, then it is illogical to say that the result arises in the cause. Therefore, the result is not already present in the cause; rather, there being a cause, the result arises in dependence on conditions ?63
sa idal'[! syad vaeanfya!:z kaeeid ieehasi hetulak�al!al'[! phalala�a1!G1'[! hetor va puna!:z phalala�al!am abhinnala�al!al'[! va bhinnala�al!al'[! va I saeed abhinnala�al!al'[! I tena nasti hetuniyarna!:z I phalaniyarna iti nirvi§i�!atvad hetuphalayor hetau phalal'[! vidyata iti na yujyate I saeed bhinnalak�al!al'[! I tena kaecid ieehasi anutpannala�al!al'[! votpannala�al!arj1. va I saeed anutpannala�al!al'[! I tena hetau phalam anutpannam astfti na yujyate I saeed utpannalak�al!al'[! I tena hetau phalam utpadyata iti na yujyate Itasman nasti hetau phalGl'[!lhetau tu satipratyayam apekryotpadyate (Yogaearabhilmi: 1 19. 17-120.3); de la 'di skad ees brjod par bya ste I [ci 'i rgyu 'i mtshan Hid dan 'bras bu 'i mtshan Hid dan I rgyu la 'bras bu 'i mtshan Hid tha dad pa rna yin pa 'i mtshan Hid dam] /264 'on te tha dadpa 'i mtshan Hid du 'dod I gal te tha dad pa rna yin pa'i mtshan fiid gcig yin na ni I des na rgyu dan 'bras bu gHis la bye brag med pa 'i phyir I rgyur nes pa dan 'bras bur nes pa med pas I rgyu las 'bras bu yod ees byar mi run no I gal te mtshan Hid tha da pa zig yin na ni I des na ci rna skyes pa 'i mtshan Hid dam I 'on te skyes pa 'i mtshan Hid du 'dod I gal te ma skyes pa 'i mtshan Hid cig yin na ni I des na rgyu la 'bras bu ma skyes pa zig yod do zes bya bar yan mi run no I gal te skyes zin pa 'i mtshan Hid cig yin na ni l des na rgyu las 'bras bu skyes zin pa zig skye '0 zes byar mi run no I de bas na rgyu la ni 'bras bu med kyi I rgyu yod na rkyen la ltos te skye bar 'gyur ro ( Yogaearabhami(" dzi 7 1b8-72a4); !¥.1ll' F,,' i'Bto 1kiPJfi]fllX o iPJ1lf I!l ;:f'§ o iPJ 1lf*ffi o l!l * ffi ffi o •• �.o ��.ffi o �� I!I *=a��o 1!I *=ao ���U�io 1!I r:p �*o �!¥'j�}llL ��.;:f'§ o i'i� I!I *=TI��o 1!I *=Tlo ���U�o 1!I r:p �*o �!¥'j�}'!o ��.;:f'§ o 1k�idPJo 1!I r:p *'lio .*� 263 Unlike Vasubandhu, the Savitarktidi-bhilmi does not explicitly relate the belief in an eternal result to sarvtistivooa. However, it is highly likely that Vasubandhu' s criticism of sarvastiviida is borrowed, at least in part, from the criticism of hetuphalasadviida in the Savitarktidi-bhilmi.
2 64 The portion in brackets is from the Derge, which agrees more closely with the Sanskrit and the Chinese. The sentence in the Peking appears to be conupt: ci'i rgyu 'i mtshan Hid dan rgyu las 'bras bu 'i mtshan Hid too dad pa rna yin pa'i mtshan Hid dam. •
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 324 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdda
Yogiiciirabhiimi 325
Abhidharmakosabha�ya 326
Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5.25) Vasubandhu accuses the Sarvastivadins of having the same views as the Sfupkhya teacher, Var�agaJ.lya, who says that that which does not exist canno t be produced, while that which exists cannot be destroyed.
var�agQ/Jyavadas caivaY(t dyotito bhavati / yad asty asty eva tat / yan nasti nasty eva tat / asato nasti saY(tbhavaJ:t / sato nasti vinasa iti (Pradhan: 301 . 1-3; T. 1558: 106aI6-1 8 ; Poussin v. 4: 63-64; Srupghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 634a5-6; Poussin 1936-1937: 1 12] and claims that it is Vasubandhu' s theory that actually resembles Var�agaJ).ya' s because for Vasubandhu the present can only be existent, while the past and future can only be nonexistent [T. 1562: 634a6-19; Poussin 1936-1937: 1 12_1 13].)265
265 S rupghabhadra discusses this passage out of order.
Yogiiciirabhami 327
5.25) The Savitarkiidi-bhami attributes to Var�agaI).ya the belief in hetuphaiasadviida, according to which the result exists eternally in the cause.
hetuphaiasadviidaJ:! katamaJ:t / yathiipfhaikatyaJ:t sramalJo briihmalJo vii evarruir�.tir bhavaty eval'(lviidf nityal'(l nityakiiial'(l dhruval'(l dhruvakiiial'(l vidyata eva hetau phaiam iti tad yathii viir�agalJyaJ:t ( Yogiiciirabhami: 1 1 8. 14- 1 1 9.2); rgyu ia 'bras bu yod par smra ba gan ie na / 'di itar 'di na dge sbyon nam bram ze kha cig / rtag pa rtal66 pa 'i dus dan / ther zug ther zug gi dus su / rgyu ia 'bras bu yodpa kho na ies de itar ita iin / de skad smra ba dag yod de / 'di ita ste / khyu mchog pa 'i tshogs ita bu 'o (Yogiiciira bhamit: dzi 71a8-bl); I!I �� * �ilil* 0 ���J]� �;f!f¥j;F� ;f!f�*i F� o ��J]:ijldtJL�J] �ililo 'ffi 'ffi � 'i'§:t§JI� 1f��1!I � *� *'110 �� ffi:Jt5j..)gf"F�J]�n (1'. 1579: 303c810)
266 Corrected from brtag on the basis of the Derge.
Abhidharmako§abM�ya 328 Chapter 5 Anu§ayanirde§a
5 . 26) Vasubandhu says that the Sarvastivadins misunderstand what "all exists" means. He refers to the Buddha's statement, "'all exists' means the twelve ayatanas , 7 exist, , 26 and adds that "all" can also indicate the three times, as long as this is understood according to Vasubandhu' s interpretation?68
tasmiln naivaf!! sarvastiviida� §asane sadhur bhavati / yad atftanagataf!! dravyato 'stfti vadati / eVaf[! tu siidhur bhavati / yatM sutre sarvam astfty uktaf[! tatM vadati / kathaf!! ca sutra sarvam astfty uktam / sarvam astfti brahma'.la yavad eva dvada§ayatananfti / adhvatrayaf!! va / yatha tu tad asti tathoktam (Pradhan: 301 .5-8; T. 1558: 106312-26; Poussin v. 4: 63-64; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the negation of the sutra-master [T. 1 562: 630c14- 19; Poussin 1936-1 937: 88] and criticizes it, saying that the intention of the sutra quoted by Vasubandhu was not to say anything about the essential nature of the three times, whereas the sutras read by S arp.ghabhadra affmn the existence of past and future; furthermore, Sarp.ghabhadra implies that Vasubandhu sides with those who think that all dharmas are either prajnapti or completely unreal [T. 1562: 630c19-63 1 a3 ; Poussin 1936-1 937: 88-89].)
267 Saf!!yuktagama,
sutra 3 1 9 (T. 99: 9 1 314-b3; see Pasadika 1986: 99).
268 P'u_kuang identifies Vasubandhu' s statement as a Sautrantika position, according to which not all of the tiyatanas consist of exclusively real dharmas: some include dharmas that are not ultimately real: �O�pJT/ff ffiHR./ff i§ *'¥f!i��mo ::5=�o ::5=
'j' ::5=wr ::5=&- �O�pJT/ff ffiJm/ff i§ �FiI''j'/ff 5Mo:mtEo :i@J*wr/ff o ** &-/ff :m;l'ik'j'/ff :m + =�)\�'j'/ff [!lJ�Y5.l''j'/ff . 1-'5.l''j'1Wio �O-§.� r:p r.� -§.'j'/ff %-§.'j'1Wio �� r:p 1Wi�G�Ij 1!��'j'/ff ;f§ *jf��t*ff. ���'j'1Wio �j!)� ' r:p [!lJ*'j'/ff o ��j!)f{1Wio Y1� r:p JE;t�*� . �. 1ll . }�'j'/ff o �{,pJT¥1,mL� . :ll. 'j' 1Wio hZ./f';f§.@\Y1o =:1Wi1.l,Y1v1';l'ik'j'1Wi (T. 1 821 : 3 1 4a3-12). 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yogdcdrabhami 329
5.26) The Savitarkiidi-bhami cites the same satra as Vasubandhu in connection with its refutation of past and future. It explains that belief in the real existence of past and future can arise from misunderstanding of satras. For example, the Budciha ' s statement, ' ' ' all exists' means the twelve dyatanas exist," might b e taken t o mean that the twelve ayatanas are real entities.
iha dharmiko va punaf:t satrantan ayonisaf:z kalpayati / tad yatha / sarvam astfti dvadaiiiyatanani!dvadasayatanani lak�al}ato iJidyante ( Yogacarabhami: 124.2-3); chos 'di pa yari mdo sde la tshul biin rna yin par rtogs ste / 'di Ita ste / skye mched bcu gfiis po thams cad yod de skye mched bcu gfiis po mams ni mtshan fiid kyis yod do (Yogiicarabhami/,' dzi 73b6); X1:E.rI:t1*� ,b'�'!lQ*J�/f�Q;f1.5tJ3Ij�to �\!l�Q*� § - W��IlP+=� o .rI:t+=�.t§j&� (T. 1579: 304b28-c2) 0
0
The Savitarkadi-bhami later explains that the satra has a hidden meaning: some "existent" dharmas are really existent, while others are not. Existent dharmas have a mark that shows they are existent, while nonexistent ones have a mark that shows they are nonexistent. Otherwise, yogins would only be able to know existent dharmas; they would not be able to know nonexistent ones ?69 Hence, they would not be able to discern immediately the dharmas that they perceive.
yad apy uktal'J'! sarvam asti yavad eva dvadasayatananfti tad api sati sallak�al}astital'J'! sandhiiyoktal'J'! / asati casalla�al}astital'J'! / tathapi sallak�al}d api dharma sallak�al}al'J'! dharayanti / asalla�al}a api dharma asalla�al}Ql'J'! dharayanti / tasmiid dharma ity ucyante / anyatha tu sato jnanad asatas cajnanad yogino na nirantarajfieyadharma pan�a syad iti na yujyate (Yogdcarabhiimi: 127. 1 3- 1 8); skye mched bcu gfiis po ji sfied pa thams cad yod do ies gsuris pa gari yin pa de yari / [yod pa la yod pa 'i mtshan fiid yod pa dari med pa la med pa 'i mtshan fiid yod pa la dgoris nas gsuris pa yin tel pO 'di ltar yod pa 'i mtshan fiid kyi chos mams kyari / yod pa 'i mtshan fiid 'dzin la / med pa ' i mtshan fiid kyi chos mams kyari med pa 'i mtshan fiid 'dzin te / de bas na chos mams ies bya ' 0 / de Ita ma yin du zin na yod pa mi ses pa dmi / med pa mi ses pas mal 'byor pas ses bya 'i chos la rgyud chags su rtog par mi 'gyur bas mi ruri rio ( Yogdcarabhiimi,: dzi 75a8-b3) ; X91fHR.-W���\!l +=�o �,b'��1*'lti
�m��t§ o ,b'� �1*W�m��t§ o ?fi0,�1ilJo ;E';ff t§ ¥H�t��t§ o ;E'�t§ ¥HM��t§o j&�t{�;g �1*1�;g �� ;E'�.rI:t� �*11�qT�Ill 9;Q,b'� �/f9;D,b'� 0
0
269 The Tibetan, however, reads differently from the Sanskrit and Chinese: "due to ignorance of that which exists and due to ignorance of that which does not exist." 270 The portion in brackets is from the Derge, which agrees more closely with the Sanskrit and the Chinese. The sentence in the Peking appears to be corrupt: yodpa la yari
yodpa 'i mtshan fiidyodpa la dgoris pa yin te.
0
Abhidharmakosabha.rya 330 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
YogiiciirabhUmi 331
Abhidharrnakosabhii�ya 332 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdeia
5 .27) The Sarvastivadin argues that, if the past and future are unreal, it is impossible to explain how one can be bound by a past or future kleia to a thing (vastu) in the past or future. Vasubandhu answers that one is bound by an anusaya produced by a past kleia or by an anusaya that is the cause of a future kleia. One is bound to a thing in the past or future due to the anusaya of a kleia that has had or will have that thing as its object.
tajjataddhetvanusayabhiivat kleiena tadalambane kleianusayabhiivad vastuni sa'!lyukto bhavati (Pradhan : 301.9-10; T. 1558: 106a27-29; Poussin v. 4: 64-65; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 634c9- 1O; Poussin 1 936- 1 937: 1 1 6] and maintains that Vasubandhu is contradicting his own position by callin g past and future things vastu when according to him they do not really exist [T. 1562: 634c 1 0- 1 9 ; Poussin 1936-1937: 1 16-1 17].)
Yogacarabhami 333
5 .27) The Yogacarabhami asserts the nominal existence of anusayas, which are kleSas in the form of seeds (see item 3). The ViniicayasaJ!lgrahalJl on the Savitarkiidi-bhami also addresses the issue . of asso ciation with past and future kle§as, referring to anusayas. It says that one is not associated with past kle§as, because one was already associated with them in the past. In the present, one is associated with the anusayas of this type of (past) kle§a, and, if the klesas are actualized, then one is associated with their paryavasthanas. One is not associated with future anuiayas and paryavasthtinas because one will be associated with them in the future.
de la 'ching ba mtha ' dag dan ldan pa 'i gan zag gis non mons pa 'i kun nas dkris pa bskyed nas 'gog par byed Gin span bar ni mi byed pa 'i tshe na / non mons pa de 'das pa 'am ma ons pa 'am da ltar byun ba 'i dnos po gan dag dan ldan pa yin ie na / 'das pa dan ni ldan par gyur zin pas ldan pa ma yin no / da ltar byun ba dan ni de 'i rigl71 bag la nal dan ldan pa yin te gal te non mons pa mnon du gyur na ni / kun nas dkris pa dan yan ldan no / ma 'olis pa dan ni bag la nal dan kun nas dkris pa dan yan ldan par 'gyur te ldan pa ni ma yin no (Yogacarabhami,: zi 1 1 8b8-1 19a3); r,,� J3. -W�.f1mtf-f11Ja *-i�1JHiU!� iMX:*t1§:;Ijk�1JH�:aNliJ4J� �$; lfI)**J!I5 �1:E J[J) o �� $; 8 � ��� � o ili*�1:E � � •• m � . m o m � . � o � �m������ � *Jlt>co m�:1i&�o :a�**:t!t . �IUUJl tJ, ��t>co ��� � (T. 1579: 623b6-1 1) 0
271
The Derge adds kyi non mons pa 'i here.
'
Abhidharmakosabhti�a 334 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5.28) Vasubandhu says that the Vaibha�ikas, who believe in the real existence of past and future but cannot explain it, say that the nature of dharmas is profound; it canno t be proved logically .
asty eva tv atftanagatam iti vaibha�ikiif.! I yatra netuf!! sakyate tatratmakiitmanaivaf!! veditavyam I gambhfra khalu dharmatal navaiyaf!! tarkasadhya272 bhavatfti (Pradhan: 3 0 1 . 1 0- 1 3 ; T. 1558: 1 06b 1-4; Poussin v. 4: 65; SaJ1lghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the sutta-master [T. 1562: 634c19-22; Poussin 1936-1937: 1 17] , criticizes Vasubandhu for attributing to the Vaibha�ikas words that are not their own, and claims that he has successfully refuted Vasubandhu' s (and the Sthavira' s) denial of the existence of past and future [T. 1562: 634c22-635a9; Poussin 1936-1937: 1 17-1 1 8] .)
272 Corrected from tarhy asadhya (Hirakawa: 1 973- 1978, v. 1 : 433).
Yogiiciirabhiimi 335
5 .2 8) The Yogiiciirabhiimi does not specifically explain the past and future with reference to the profound nature of dha rrno.s . However, the terni gambhfra, like acintya, appears far more frequently ill the Yogiiciirabhiimi than in Sarvlistivlidin texts, often to characterize that which is difficult to explain. .
The Cintiimayf Bhiimi lists four ways in which things are unutterable. One of these is that they are unutterable due to being profound, and one example is the inexpressible nature of dhannas.
zab pa 'i phyir ni 'di lta ste / chos fiid brjod du med pa daft ( Yogiiciirabhiim�: dzi 235a6-7); = ilii*�:If'PJ�o �� § #:;tl: (T. 1579: 363a2) The ViniicayasaT(lgrahaJ:if on the Bodhisattvabhiimi (Sarrtdhininnocanasiitra) says that the dhanna-nature of all dhannas is very profound.
chos roams kyi chos fiid kyan zab ste (Yogiiciirabhiimir· 'i 67b6-7); �#:;#:;tl:ljH�:ilii* (T.l579: 721b4)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 336
Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
5 .29) Vasubandhu says that one who has destroyed a kle§a that is to be destroyed by insight into dubkha is still associated with the remaining defilements that have that as their object, i.e., the other kle§as of the same type as the destroyed kle§a. Yasomitra gives the following example: even if an adhimiitriidhimiitra kle§a has been destroyed, one is still associated with the adhimiitramadhya anusaya, etc. (Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii: 477.33-478.4).
prahf1Je dubkhadrgdheye sal!lyukta(i se�asarvagai(i / priik prahf1Je prakiire ca se�ais tadvi�ayair malai� / dubkhajftiine samutpanne samudayajftiine 'nutpanne du(ikha darsanaprahiitavyo nikiiyab prahf1Jo bhavati / tasmin prahf1Je tadiilambanaib samudaya darsanaprahiitavyai(i sarvatragaib sal!lyuktab (Pradhan: 301 .20-302.3; T. 1558: 1 06b I 2- 16; Poussin v. 4: 66-67; Sarp.ghabhadra objects to the phrase tadvi�aya, which he thinks is unnecessary [T. 1562: 636c7- 1 1], and examines and criticizes the siitra-master' s possible reasons for including it [T. 1562: 636c l l -21].)
YogQcQrabhilmi 337
5 .29)
(I have found nothing in the YogQcQrabhilmi corresponding to this argument.)
Abhidharmakosabhii:;ya 338 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5.30) In an explanation of four synonyms for anusaya, Vasubandhu says that anusayas are called yoga when they are not strongly active, and they are called upiidiina because due to them one grasps objects of desire.
niitimiitrasamudiiciin/Jo 'pi yogii vividhaduJ:tkhasm]1yojaniit I iibhfk:;/Jyiinu:;migato vii I kiimiidyupiidiiniid upiidiiniinfti (Pradhan: 308.20-2 1 ; T. 1558: 108b8-1 1 ; Poussin v. 4: 80-81 ; Sffi1lghabhadra identifies these as the explanations of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 642aI3-19] and criticizes them, saying that, in the case of the first two synonyms (iisrava and ogha), Vasubandhu' s explanation i s actually the same as that o f th e Vaibha�ikas, while hi s explanations of yoga and upiidiina are simply wrong: if the anusayas were not strongly active, they could not bond beings to suffering; if upiidiina were the cause of tr:;1Jii, the pratftya samutpiida formula would be contradicted because upiidiina must be the condition for bhava [T. 1562: 642a19-b8].)
YogacarabhUmi 339
5.30) The explanations of the yogas and upadiinas in the Vastusal'J'lgrahalJf are perhaps more similar to Vasubandhu' s explanations than to the presumably standard Sarvastivll.din explanations that precede them (Pradhan: 30S. 1 6). The Vastusal'J'lgrahalJf states that the yogas are the kle.fas operating together without either increase or destruc tion (or without either duplication or omission).
mtshuris par spyod pa mams kyi lhag chad med pa 'i non mons pa de dag nid la ni sbyor ba mams ses bya 'o (Yogacarabhiimi,: 'i 224b5); ;fl*;S:�:J:JH��:5j-qT1!f�F!��Fi�o !lp1::. jijfm-wm't� o m��� (T. 1579: S03b20-21) The same passage states that the upadanas function to obtain objects of desire and riches.
ga1i gi phyir ne bar len ie na / 'dod pa mams thob par bya ba 'i phyir dan Ions spyod pa 'i phyir ni daTi po 'o (Yogacarabhiimi/ 'i 224bS); r,,� 1PJjijf �*o ��1��w\lit� �JflilR€W* (T. 1579: S03b26-27)
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya 340 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5.3 1 ) In a discussion of the antidotes (pratipa�a) to the kle§as, one of which is distance (darfbhiiva), Vasubandhu objects to the Sarvastivadin explanation of temporal distance. According to Sarvastivada, past and future things are distant because they have no efficacy. Vasubandhu argues that the asal'[lslqtadharmas would likewise have to be distant because they have no efficacy. The Sarvastivadin counters that the two nirodhas are not distant since they are possessed at all times. Vasubandhu then states that past and future dharmas (according to Sarvastivada) can also be possessed at all times and thus could not, according to the Sarvastivadin logic, be distant.
akiiritriit tarhi tad daram / asal'[lsk.rtasya katham antikatvQl'(l sidhyiiti / sarvatra tat priipte!; / atftiiniigate 'p i tat prasaligaf:! (Pradhan: 321. 10-1 1 ; T. 1558: 1 1 1c10-12; Poussin v. 4: 107; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this last as the statement of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 65 1c13-14] and criticizes it, saying that Vasubandhu is wrong to apply the same reasoning to the asal'flSlqtadharmas as to past and future [T. 1562: 65 1c14-21].)
Yogilcilrabhiimi 341
5.3 1 ) (I have found nothing in the Yogilcilrabhiimi corresponding to this argument. But see the next item.)
Abhidhannakosabha�a 342 Chapter 5 Anusayanirde§a
5 .32) In a discussion of four types of distance, Vasubandhu offers his own explanation of temporal distance: the future is distant due to the nature of dhannas because it has not been acquired; the past is distant because it has already departed. 273
evlJT!l tu yuktal'!l syilt I dharmasvalalqaIJiid aniigatlJT{l daram asal'!lpriiptatviit I atft� ca pracyutatviid iti (Pradhan: 321 . 14-15; T. 1558: l l lcI6-18; Poussin v. 4: 107 ; Srup.ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 65 1c25-27] and accuses Vasubandhu of being prejudiced when he implies that "distance" is equivalent to "lacking svabhiiva" and thus insists on his theory of the unreality of past and future [T. 1562: 65lc27-652a3].)
273 P'u-kuang says that, according to Vasubandhu, past and future are distant since they ' have no real existence, while the present, which i ; real, is near (T. 1821: 325c26-27) .
Yogiiciirabhami
343
5.32) Unlike the AbhidhnrmakO§abhiJ..r.ya, the YogiiciirabhUmi does not contain an
explanation of four types of distance (darfbhitva), including pratipalqa. However, the Vini§cayasaJ!lgraJuu:!f on the Cintiimayfprajfiii Bhami, immediately after a discussion of the practice of antidotes ( YogiiciirabhUmi,: zi 230b8-231a4; T. 1579: 667a8-14) , explains past dhnrmas as having causes that are already exhausted and svabhitvas that are already destroyed. 'das pa 'i chos rgyu spyad zinpa ilO bo iiid zig pa (YogticiirabhUmi,: zi 231a6); :f!l ;}i:i::1PJ
�*1to �j!j ESJ8�mo Ej '118i� (T. 1579: 667a20)
The same passage explains future dhnrmas as not yet having received their causes and not yet having received their svabhiivas. ma 'ons pa 'i chos rgyu ma spyad pa / lio bo fiid ma spyad pa (YogticarabhUmi,: zi
231b5); 1J[;}i:z;1ilJ**1to �j!j ESJ*� § '11*st (T. 1579: 667b5-6)
Abhidhannakosabha�ya 344 Chapter 5 Anusayanirdesa
5.33) Vasubandhu says that the person who achieves, after becoming detached from kiimadhatu, the sixteenth and last moment of darsanamarga (margtinvayajfiiin a), which is equivalent to the beginning of bhavantimarga, gives up the five preceding parijiiiis while obtaining avarabhagfyapraharnparijfiii.
pafica tyajati vftartigapurvf mtirgtinvayajfitine / sa hy avarabhtigfyaprahal}aparijfiti ltibhe purvikii1:t pafica parijfitis tyajati (Pradhan: 326.7-8; T. 1558: 1 13b15-17; Poussin v. 4: 1 1 8 ; Smp.ghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 657b9-1O] and criticizes it, saying that Vasubandhu should have said, "the person who achieves margtinvayajfiiina�tinti [the fifteenth moment of darsanamarga]," because the first five parijfiiis are actually given up at this earlier moment [T. 1562: 657b1O-14].)
Yogacarabhumi
5.33)
345
(I have found nothing ill the Yogacarabhami correspondirtg to this argument.)
346
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 6 Miirgapudgalanirdefa
6. 1 )
Vasubandhu objects to the Vaibha�ika definitions of the three types of prajfiii (srutamayf, cintiimayf, bhiivaniimaYl) and mentions the defInitions of "other people": srutamayfprajiiii is a determination produced by means of the speech of an authorita tive person; cintiimayfprajiiii is produced by logical reasoning; bhavaniimayfprajiiii is produced by samiidhi. asyii'!l tu kalpaniiyii'!l cintiimayf prajiiii na siddhyatfty apare / yii hi niimiilambanii srutamayfpriipnoti yii 'rthalambanii bhavantiyayfti / ida'!l tu l�a1:za'!l niiniravadya'!l vidyate / iiptavacanapriimii1:zyajiitaniscaya!:t srutamayf / yuktinidhyiinajas cintiimayf / samiidhijo bhavaniimayfti (Pradhan: 3353-6; T. 1558: 1 16c17-21; Poussin v. 4: 143-144; SaI!lghabhadra identifIes this as the opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 669a12-16], who, according to SaI!lgha bhadra, does not understand the Vibha�ii, and repeats the Vaibh�ika definition given in the Abhidharmakosab�a, according to which srutamayf prajiiii is based on name, cinfiimayfprajiiii is based on both object and name, and bhavaniimayfprajfiii is based
only on an object, with no awareness of name [T. 1562: 669a17-b2].)
Yogiiciirabhumi
347
6.1) A passage from the Paryiiyasa'!1grahalJz concerning the understanding of impermanence suggests defInitions of at least the fIrst two types of prajiiii that are very close to the definitions attributed by Vasubandhu to "other people": srutamayf prajiiii is equated with understanding because knowledgeable people speak thus, a.'1d cintiimayzprajiiii is equated with judgement. However, the definition of bhiivanii mayf prajfiii, which equates bhiivaniimayf prajiiii with investigation or pondering, does not mention samiidhi. lam ses par byed pa ni thos pa las byun ba 'i ses rab kyis te / ses pa gsun ba 'di skad du gsun no ies bya ba '0 / yan dag par ses par byed pa ni bsams pa las bywi ba '0 / lies par rtog pa ni bsgoms pa las byUli ba 'i ste (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: yi 47a5-6); X�IrT1!f 0 /lDp)fmt
,� o �t��iiii 1!f PJ]::@�#.�to ���T1!fo ,\!:,p)fmt�o i'��T1!fo 1J�P)fM� (T. 1579:
768b25-27)
348
Abhidharmako§abhii�ya
Chapter 6 MiirgapudgaZanirdeta 6.2) Vasubandhu rejects the Abhidhamrikas' defInitions of asaY(!tu�!i and mahecchata. According to them, asaY(!tu�.ti is the desire to have more of what one already possesses, while mahecchatii is the desire to get what one does not possess. But Vasubandhu says that asaY(!tu�!i is dissatisfaction with the quantity or quality of what one already possesses, while mahecchatii is desire for things of good quality or great number that one does not possess.
evaY(! tu yujyate / Zabdheniipra1}fjeniiprabhatena paritiiso274 'saY(!tu�!* /aZabdhapra1}fta prabhatecchii mahecchatii (Pradhan: 335.16-17; T. 1558: 1 17a9-12; Poussin v. 4: 145-146; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 669c5-7J and rejects it, defending the Abhidhamrika defInitions [T. 1562: 669c8-24J.)
274 HiJ:akawa corrects this to aparito�o (1973-1978, v. 1: 434), but Sakurabe and Odani
leave it as it stands (1999: 72 n. 3).
Yogiiciirabhiimi
349
6.2) (The Yogiiciirabhiimidoes not contain any explanation of the differences between asa'!ltu�.ti and mahecchatii. )
350
Abhidharmakosabhii�ya
Chapter 6 Miirgapudgalanirdefa
6.3) The Buddha taught the four iiryava'!lfas in order to stop the desire for the object of the notions of "I" and "mine." Vasubandhu equates the object of the notion of "mine" with clothing, the object of the notion of "I" with the body, and desire with thirst. sa eviirtha/:! puna/:! parisgeIJ-ocyate / mamakiiravastu clvariidayo 'harJ1kiiravastv iitma bhiivalJ / tatrecchii tr�1J-ii (Pradhan: 337.4-5; T. 1558: 1 17b1-2; Poussin v. 4: 148; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the
opinion of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 67Oc17-19] and discusses but does not attack it, except to say that the last pada of the verse, on which this is a comment, is superfluous [T. 1562: 67Oc19-27].)
Yogiiciirabhurni
6.3)
(I have found nothlng relevant in the Yogiiciirabhurni.)
351
352
Abhidharmakosabhii:jya
Chapter 6 Margapudgalanirde.fa
6.4) Some teachers say that the meditator follows his exhalation all the way to the far ends of the universe. But Vasubandhu objects: since anapanasmrti is attention to things as they really are (tattvamanasikara), this statement is illogical. (The implication seems to be that a practice such as that ascribed to those teachers would involve imagination, i.e., the adhimuktimanaskara typically associated with practices like asubhabhiivana, rather than observation.) yavad vayumaT;u;lalalJ1 vairambhas ca vayava ity apare / tad etat tattvamanasikara tvan na yuktam
(Pradhan: 340.4-5; T. 1558: 1 1 8b7-8; Poussin v. 4: 155; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 674a12-13] and, after explaining it, disagrees with Vasubandhu's reasoning, saying that, even if what Vasubandhu suggests is true, the meditator who follows his exhalation to the ends of the universe would not thereby emerge from anapiinasm.rti because his intention to practice aniipanasmr!i would not be destroyed [T. 1562: 674a13-17].)
Yogiiciirabhilmi
353
6.4) The Yogiiciirabhilmi does not specify the maximum distance to which the exhalation can be followed. However, the VastusalJ1graha(lfexplains the relationship between iiniipiinasmrti and yoniso manasikiim, which here may be quite similar to tattvamanasikiira : the yogiiciira, when he practices the four smrtyupasthiinas on the basis of iiniipiinasmrti, recognizes his undestroyed internal ayoniso manasikiira, thereby being able to destroy it and produce yoniso manasikiira. rnal 'byor pa ni dbugs niub pa dan 'byun ba dran pa la brten nas dran pa fie bar giag pa gii bsgom pa na tshul biin yid la byed pa la brten nas nan gi tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa ma spans par yod pa la yan tshul biin ma yin par yan dag pa ji Ita ba biin du rab tu ses so I tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa la tshul biin ma yin par ses nas kyan tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa spans nas de span par bya ba 'i phyir tshul biin yid la byed pa 'ba ' iig gcig tu nes par sgom par byed do I de la lam gyi bii mdo chen po Ita bu ni Ius la sogs pa 'i chos bii 'o I niul gyi phun po Ita bu ni tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa ste I mi brtan pa dan I sfiin po med pa dan sems rmons par byed pa 'i phyir ro I sar dan lho dan nub dan byan gi phyogs nas 'ons pa 'i 'khyogs dan bion pa dan I sin rta dan I sin rta phal pa Ita bu ni tshul biin yid la byed pa ste Ius la sogs pa bii la dmigs pa 'i sgo nas 'di Ita ste I niul gyi phun po Ita bu'i tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa de giom pa ' i phyir dan I thams cad kyi thams cad du rgyud rnam par dag par bya ba 'i phyir iugs so (Yogiiciirabhilmi,: 'i 377a8-b4); i;![ * •• � fi o � ffi B�.m�k. � �� o ���.Y.�ko �R* � � ' L,pJT;ff �F �f'F. o fr01fT 9;o �.�P1.o 1J� � pJT;ff fro �1t.o fr o 1f T 9;O �J.Mo 3'1. 0 m; T 9;0 8 1J� � pJT;ff �P1.1t. - riiJ �)lJto 1J� � pJT;ff fr o �1t . o - riiJ 11�'I§I o .iJ:k%1lf7j( � imz�3:0 JZ.1J�li:t rp !r � � 1*fro � *� 0 �P1.1t.frD � ± 1i o /f� $�3:0 /f il1f�3:o jUJL' L'�3: o frO f1.1t.fro � JJ*J!�*}lnl[*,� o !r � � :tJ�J'f· r� *U�t��1lffrO�±1i?Ff1.1t.o iJF%--E:}J:t§*j¥�i* (T. 1519: 866c10-20)
354
Abhidharmako§abhi:i�ya
Chapter 6 Margapudgalanirde§a 6.5) Vasubandhu explains that the element dharmajiiana in the term dharma jiiana�anti expresses the fact that this �anti is anasrava. It is a case of calling something by the name of its niryandaphala. He compares it to the appellations "flower tree" and "fruit tree."
aniisravajiianiirtha1!l niryandena vi§e�alJam / dharmajiianiirtha1!l275 �antily. / p�pa phalavr�avat
(Pradhan: 350.�5; T. 1558: 121b2-4; Poussin v. 4: 180; SaI!lghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 683a27-29] and criticizes it, saying that Vasu bandhu's comparison is invalid, and insists that the real reason dharmajiiana�anti is antisrava is that it is produced immediately after the laukikagradharmas; since they are the highest sasrava state, what follows them must be antisrava [T. 1562: 683a29-b9].)
275 Corrected from ka �ajiianartha1!l (Hirakawa 1973-1978, v. 1: 434).
YogiiciirabhL7mi
6.5)
(I have found nothing relevant in the Yogiiciirabhami. )
355
356
Abhidharmakosabhii�a
Chapter 6 Miirgapudgalanirde1a 6.6) According to Vasubandhu, the k�iintis are iinantaryamiirga because they cannot be impeded from removing the priiptis of kldas, while the jiiiina s are vimuktimarga because, for those who are free from the priiptis of kldas, the priipti of visaT}'tyoga arises at the same time. iinantaryamargii!:t276 �iintaya!:t kldapriiptivicchedaT}'t praty antarayitum asakyatviit / vimuktimiirgiis tu jfiiiniini / kldapriiptivimuktiiniiT}'t visaT}'tyogapriiptisahotpiidiit
(Pradhan: 352. 13-14; T. 1558: 122al4-16; Poussin v. 4: 190; SaI!lghabhadra identifies this as the definition of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 690a3-5] and criticizes it, saying that, by Vasubandhu' s logic, vimuktimarga should also be called iinantarya; according to SaI!lghabhadra, iinantaryamarga is so calle d because there is no interval between it and vimuktimarga [T. 1562: 690aS-1 3].)
276 Corrected from anantaryamiirgiilJ (Hirakawa 1973-1978: v. I : 434).
Yogilcilrabhumi
357
6.6) (The Yogilcilrabhiimi contains several explanations that contrast ilnantarya milrga with vimuktimilrga. However, these passages do not suggest that ilnantarya . means "without impediment." See the Srilvakabhumi: tasya parijnilnilbhyilsild ilnantaryamilrga utpadyate / kle§illJ.ilY(l prahalJ.ilya yena prajahati / prahV}e ca punar vimuktiY(l silk�iltkaroti [Srilvakabhumi: 504. 14-17]; de yons su ses sin goms par byas / non mons pa mams spans pa 'i phyir bar chad med pa 'i lam skye bar byed cin des spon bar byed do / spans pas na mam par grol ba mnon sum du byed do [ Yogilcilrabhumi/ wi 232b7-8]; �D;€:9;a 8ttfl��tft.:� r13H!� lWi�t�Jjj� o ::g; fl�tft.:1Wi �Jjj� 1Wi 8�i1�J!rtER.o ::g; fl�t!)c�i [T. 1579: 476b29-c2] 0
tatrilnantaryamilrgabhavanil yayil prajahati / tatra vimuktimilrgabhilvanil yayil sarnanantaraprahV}e kle§avimuktiY(l sil�iltkaroti [ Srilvakabhumi: 505.21-506.2]; de la bar cad med pa'i lam bsgom pa ni gan gis non moils pa spon bar byed pa 'o / de la rnam par grol ba 'i lam bsgom pa ni gan gis non moils pa spans rna thag tu rnam par grol ba 'i mnon sum du byed pa 'o [ Yogilcilrabhumit: wi 233bl-2]; � r135 :@:fl�1lr �� EB J1:�tft.:lElWi�l'I·� o J!rtER.:@:fl�1lr �� EB JI:�tft.:�IWi� r13' �i1�J!rUR. [T. 1579: 476c19-21J 0
0
See the ViniscayasaY(lgrahalJ.f on the Srilvakabhumi: de rna thag tu spon ba ni lam gnis pa yin no / spans rna thag pa ni lam gsum pa yin no [Yogilcilrabhumit: zi 271a5]; ��� r13' lWio ;€:*=:@:o � r135 1Wi8 o ;€:*=:@: [T. 1579:
683a12]
277 This section is not extant in Tibetan.
358
Abhidharmakosabhil�ya
Chapter 6 Margapudgalanirdesa 6.7) Vasubandhu rejects the opinion of "others," who say that thesabhisarrzskara parinirvayin anagamin reaches nirvana by a marga the object of which is sarrzskrta, while the anabhisarrzskaraparinirvttyin anagamin reaches rurvana by a marga the object of which is asarrzskrta. Instead, he quotes a satraT78 that mentions the anabhi sarrzskaraparinirvayin anagamin before the sabhisarrzskaraparinirvayin anagamin and says that this order is correct because the anabhisarrzskaraparinirvayin anagamin, being more accomplished, requires less time and no effort to attain nirvana 279
sarrzsk.rtasarrzskrtalambanamarganirval}ad ity apare I tat tu na l ati prasangatl satre tv anabhisarrzskaraparinirvtlyrp arvarrz pa!hyate I tathaive ca yujyate I vahyavahimargayor anabhisarrzskarabhisarrzskarasadhyatvad ayatnayatnapraptita/:z
(Pradhan: 359.5-7; T. 1558: 124b24-29; Poussin v. 4: 212; Slli1lghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 696c23-24] and comments on it, saying that there are also some satras that mention the sabhisarrzskaraparinirvayin anagamin [lIst; therefore, there is nothing wrong with the traditional Vaibha�ika order [T. 1562: 696c24-28].)
278 A note to the Kokuyaku Issaikyi5 translation (Bidon bu 26.2: 271 n. 30) identifies this satra as Sarrzyuktagama no. 821 (T. 99: 21 1al-5). 279 P'u-kuang identifies tlns as a Sautrantika explanation (T. 1 82 1 : 361a23).
Yo giieiirabhiimi
359
6.7) The Sriivakabhiimi lists the aniigiimins in the same descending order as Vasubandhu and gives similar defInitions of the siibhisaf!1Skiiraparinirviiyin and anabhisaf!1Skiiraparinirviiyin aniigiimins.
anabhisaf!1SkiiraparinirvayfpudgalaJ:t katarnaJ:t1yo 'niibhisaf!1Skiim}iiprayatneniikhedena miirgC/l?1 sarrzmukhfkrtya tatropapannaJ:t parinirviity ayam ucyiite anabhisaf!1Skiira parinirviiyfpudgalaJ:t I siibhisaf!1SkiiraparinirvayfpudgalaJ:t katarnaJ:t Iyo 'bhisGf!1SkiirelJf1 prayatnena khedamiirgarrz sarrzmukhfkrtya tatropapannaJ:t parinirviity ayam ucyate siibhisiimskiiraparinirvayf pudgalaJ:t (Sriivakabhiimi; 1 80. 15- 1 8 1 .6); gan zag mnon par 'du byed pa med par yons su mya nan las 'da ' ba gan ie na I smra ba I mlion par 'du byed pa med pd80 dan I 'bad pa med pa dan I nal ba med pas281 lam mnon du byas sin I der skyes nas yons su mya nan las 'da ' ba gan yin pa ste I de ni gan zag mrion par 'du byed pa med par yoris su mya rian las 'da ' ba ies bya 'o I gan zag mrion par 'du byed pa beas pas yoris su mya nan las 'da ' ba gari ie na I smra ba I mnon par 'du byed pa dari 'bad pa dan I nal bas lam mnon du byas siri I der skyes nas yons su mya nan las 'da ' ba gan yin pa ste I de ni gan zag mrion par 'du byed pa bcas pa?82 yoris su mya nan las 'da ' ba ies bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: wi 83b8-84a4); �1PJ�1TffiilE�*it'f{tJU If.io �1!I 1:.1�E/fts1Ja1T/f11oJ)jffl o /f EE *f��:mT:ElWjffi ffiilE�o ;l1k::15�1T�JtilE �*it'f{1Jolf.io �1PJ;ff1T�JtilE�*it'f{1Jo lf.io �1!I1�1:. E ��ts1Ja1T11o*J)jffl EE i'uJK * 1��:mT:ElWjffi �JtilE�o ;l1k::15;ff1T�JtilE�*it'f{1Jolf.i (T. 1579: 425a24-29) 0
2 80 Corrected from mrion par 'du byed pa on the basis of the Derge. 2 81 Corrected from rial ba med pa dan on the basis of the Derge. 2 82 The Derge reads gari zag mnon par 'du byed pa med par, but this is clearly
mistaken.
.
360
Abhidhannakosabhii�ya
Chapter 6 Miirgapudgalanirdeia 6.8) According to Sarvastivada, an aniigiimin who has experienced nirodha samiipatti is called kiiyasiik�in because he experiences it directly with his body, not
with consciousness, which is lacking in this state. According to Vasubandhu, however, the aniigiimin, when he emerges from meditation, proclaims that nirodhasamiipatti is like nirvana and acquires a calmness of his conscious body that he has never before attained. He is said to experience this calmness with his body due both to his experience of obtaining a calm body during meditation and to his recognition of this calmness after emerging from meditation. eval'J'l tu bhavitavyam / sa hi tasmiid vyuttht'iyiipratilabdhapurviil'J'l savijii.iinakiil'J'l kiiya siintil'J'l pratilabhate / yato 'syaival'J'l bhavati siintii vata nirodhasamiipattir nirviil)a sadrif vata nirodhasamiipattir iti / evam anena tasyiif:! siintatvaf!! kiiyena sii�iitJq-taf!! bhavati /priiptijfianasii�iitkriyiibhyiif!! praty�fkiiro hi sii�iitkriyii (Pradhan: 363.15-18; T. 1558: 126a21 -25; Poussin v. 4: 224; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies
this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 699b12-16] and criticizes it, saying that the term kiiyasiik�in applies to the aniigiimin both during and after nirodhasamiipatti [T. 1562: 699b16-24].)
Yogiiciirabhiimi
361
6.8) (The Yogiiciirabhami does not explain why the aniigiimin who obtains nirodhasamapatti is called ki1yasiil�in. However, Vasubandhu' s explanation of the term may be related to his rejection, similar to that found in the Yogiiciirabhiimi, of the reality of past and future dharmas: how can the aniigiimin be said to "experience directly" that which occurred in the past? The Viniscayasal'{lgrahalJ-f on the Savitarkildi bhiimi contains a passage in which a person who, being very calm, has arisen from an iiryavihiira that is similar to nirvana, is said to have arisen from nirodhasamapatti. The
temporal relationship between the meditation and the practitioner' s awareness of it [as indicated by the use of the perfect tense in the Tibetan translation] may be similar to that proposed by Vasubandhu. mchog tu rab tu ii iili mya nan las 'das pa dan 'dra ba 'i 'phags pa'i gnas pa las langs pa ni 'di Ita ste / 'gog pa 'i snoms par 'jug pa las lans so [Yogticiirabhiimi,: zi 152b4-5]; =1tt�-;ftlWill!.��1§1J;C�1:l:�o �\ll i���3?: [T. 1579: 635c24-25])
362
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 6 MiirgapudgaZanirdeSa 6.9) Vasubandhu agrees with the Sautrantikas, who say that one cannot fall from arhatship. arhattviid api niisti parihal}ir iti sautriintikii/:! / e�a eva ca nyiiya/:! / katham · idarrr gamyate / iigamiid yuktitas ca (Abhidharmakosab�a: 375. 10- 1 1 [but the whole
argument continues until 377.5]; T. 1558: 130a16-130c16; Poussin 4: 258 [-265]; Saqlghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 7 1 1c2-6] and criticizes it in great detail [T. 1562: 711c6-7 16a13; I have not distinguished here between his brief quotations of Vasubandhu' s opinions and his lengthy criticisms] ; Kat6 1989: 78.)
Vasubandhu argues that the defInition of an arhat is one whose klesas are completely destroyed. This implies that the seeds of his klesas are likewise destroyed, in which case it is impossible for the klesas to arise again. yadi tiivad arhatas tadriipa/:! pratipak�a utpanno yena kleSii atyantam anutpatti dharmatiim iipannii/:! / katharrr puna/:! parihfyate / atha notpanna/:! / katharrr �fl}iisravo bhavati / atyantam anayoddhrtiiyiirrr tadbfjadharmatiiyiim ak�fl}iisravo vii puna/:! katham arhan bhavatfty evarrr yukti/:! (Abhidharmakosab�a: 376.17-20; T. 1558:
130c2-4; Poussin 4: 263-264; Saqlghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra master [T. 1562: 7 15c29-716a4], and, referring to the Vaibha�ika theory of sarrryoga priipti and visarrryogapriipti [see Cox 1995: 89-92], explains how it is indeed possible to fall from arhatship [T. 1562: 7 16a4-13; see also Ivliyashita 1982].)
YagiiciirabhL7mi
363
6.9) The Viniscayasal!lgraluilJf on the PancavijiiiinakttyarnanabhL7mi says that the arhat, who has destroyed the kle§as and their bfjas, cannot fall from arhatship. beam ldan 'das kyis ji skad du dge slmi dag dgra beam pa yan tshe 'di la lhag pa 'i sems las byun ba bde bar gnas pa bii po de dag las gan yan run ba las yans su nams par na smra ies gan gsuns pa de la / gal te de 'i non mons pa can gyi chas thams cad kyi sa bon dag yan dag par beam na ni /ji ltar de la 'ag rna pa 'i non mons pa 'byun bar ' gyur / gal te mi 'byun na ni ji ltar de yans su nams par ' gyur ie na / yans su nams pa ni gftis po 'di dag yin te / span ba'i yans su nams pa dan / gnas pa 'i yans su ftams pa 'a / de la span ba 'i yans su nams pas ni so sa 'j skye bo kho na yans su nams par 'gyur ro / gnas pa 'i yons su nams pas ni 'phags pa dan / so so skye bo yan yons su nams pa 'gyur ro / de la 'jig rten pa 'i lam gyis non mons pa spans pa yan mnan du byed pa ni span ba 'i yons su nams pas yans su nams par 'gyur te / gnas pa 'i yons su nams pas yons su nams par 'gyur ba yan de yin no / 'jig rten las 'das pa 'i lam gyis non mons pa spans nas / de las gian pa 'i phral gyi bya ba dag la rab tu chags pa 'i blo can yid la mi byed pa 'i rgyus de 'i mjug thogs su tshe 'di la bde bar gnas pa la snon ji lta bar phyis kyan de biin du mnon du byed mi nus la / sa 'og rna pa 'i non mons pa ni / mnon du mi byed pa gan yin pa de ni de lta na gnas pa 'i yons su ftams par 'gyur ba yin gyi span ba 'i yans su nams pa ni rna yin no / gal te dgra beam pa non mons pa thams cad spans pa 'i non mons pa can gyi ehas de dag thams cad kyi sa bon yan dag par rna beam na ni /ji ltar na dgra beam pa sems sin tu mam par grol ba dan / zag pa zad par 'gyur / gal te yan dag par beam na ni de 'i sems kyi rgyud non mons pa can gyi ehos thams cad kyi [corrected from kyis on the basis of the Derge] sa bon med pa la tshul biin rna yin pa yid la byed pa tsam yan 'byun bar mi 'gyur na / non mons pa lta smos kyan ci dgos te / de lta bas na 'jig rten las 'das pa 'i lam gyis non mons pa spans pa la ni yons su nams ba med par khan du ehud par bya 'o ( YogiiciirabhL7mi,: zi 17b7-1 8bl); r���Dti!:� 8 0 ftm�iiJ *ii�Z�1J01Z911tIlU::A,'1*:m1*'li:�1t i=j:l JliI- jffi ill o *�-� � R.�fi B�W o �M�� T�m�o ������Mill o �ill � =.o - * Eill o = *�ill o 13 Eill * ��.�0 13 � ill * 0 ��� *��.�o � ti!: OO � E�m���:m�o � � . � Eill � ill o ���ill o � l±l ti!:� Ej:J[ 'I'� B {, �ti!:19J 0 � .w11tW �D fJlH'F� 0 El3 Jl:t� §�1J0 ;tt i=j:l Fa' 0 :m 1* ��.�:m�� %m���� � o �;tt T � B Em���:m� o � � � . � ill � ill o #� Eill o X� B E -� m� � �*i.o jffi � - � � �.�*�W * 0 �1iiJ�.,�, �fljH\HiiJ*i i�*�ti�jk!'io � BjkWo 1JN§ *j i=j:l 7i<.$.li-�� �.�o ��.�����o � �m� o ���� El3 l±l ti!:� Em � * o �$.li � ill (T. 1579: 584b3-19i83
283 See also the Viniicayasal!lgrahalJf on the SriivakabhL7mi, which says that one cannot fall from the four sriirnalJyaphalas: mam par byan ba 'i phyogs dan mthun
pa 'i ehos mams kyis de yons su bstan to / dge sbyan gi tshul gyi 'bras bu bii po daS ni yan" phul yin te / de dag las ltun ba med pa 'i phyir dan /jig rten las 'das pa yin
364
Abhidharmakosabhii�a
Chapter 6 Margapudgalanirdeia 6 . 1 0) The Vaibhii�ikas point out that the Mgarakar�iipamasiitra says that the aryairavaka can produce an akusala thought. Since they identify the aryairavaka with the arhat, they say that this siitra disproves the Sautrantika idea that one cannot fall from arhatship. Vasubandhu counters that the siitra is actually talking about sai�as, who he admits can fall, not arhats, and therefore does not disprove the Sautriintika theory.
ylivat tu caro na supratibaddhas tlivad evarp. carato 'p i sai�asyasti sarp.bhavaJ:t kleiotpattav iti slii�avasthiim adhilqtyaivarp. vacaniid ado�al:t / pratijiiiiyate hi laukikamargapratilabdhiit phaladvayat parihiil)il:t (Abhidharmakosabhii�a: 377.3-4; T. 1558: 130cl l-14; Poussin 4: 265; SaI!1ghabhadra
identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 719a22-26], explains it further [T. 1562: 7 19a26-28] , criticizes Vasubandhu' s understanding of the siitra, and con cludes that the siitra in no way undennines the Vaib�ika position that arhats cannot fall [T. 1562: 719a28-720a3].)
pa 'i phyir TO ( Yogacarabhiimi,: zi 28 1 a2-3); JZ.;j5= �lffirwi$ �'1d:to �; ���f l29 ¥91 r� * 0 1tE1lti*;E���Mco JiJt1±'dlt F",' Mc (T. 1579: 687a17-19)
YogacarabhUmi
365
6 . 1 0) (l can fmd no similar argument in the YogacarabhUmi. The Vastusal'JIgrahaIJI does not co=ent on this sutra.)
366
Abhidharmakoiabhi:i.!Ya
Chapter 6 MtirgapudgaZanirdeia 6. 1 1) Vasubandhu quotes those who deny the possibility of fall from arhatship as saying that, while all arhats possess an immovable, pure liberation, the type of arhat called "immovable" is thus named specifically because he does not fall from meditational states, namely the dr�!adharmasukhavihtiras. In other words, arhats may be said to be subject to fall, even though they are not subject to fall from arhatship itself. As for the immovable arhat, he is immovable with respect to the spiritual states that he has acquired but not with respect to those that he has not yet acquired or the enjoyment of the states that he has acquired. sarvasytintisravti vimuktir akopyti / akopyadharmavyavasthtinal'[! tu yathti tathoktam / ata etad acodyam ity aparihtilJavtidf (Abhidharmakoiabhi:i.!Ya: 378.3-4; T. 1558: 131a7-9; Poussin 4: 268; Srup.ghabhadra
identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master, explains it briefly [T. 1562: 721b14-19], criticizes Vasubandhu's understanding of the various types of arhats, and concludes that Vasubandhu cannot be depended upon regarding the subject of arhals and their fall. [T. 1562: 721b19-722a5] .)
Yogacarabhilmi
367
6. 1 1) The Vastusal'J'lgrahaJ:tz contains a passage that states that, while the only arhats who are not subject to any kind of fall are the immovable arhats, nothing can make any arhat give rise to grief and lamentation by defiling his mind. de la mam par grol ba mam pa giiis ni dus daft sbyor ba 'i sdug pa daft I bskyod du med pa 'i sems rnam par grol ba '0 I de la dgra bcom pa dbail po rtul ba 'i phyir 'jig rten pa 'i siioms par 'jug pa las yofts su iiams par 'gyur ba 'i chos can gyii84 ni siioms par 'jug pa 'i sgrib pa las mam par grol ba 'i phyir dus daft sbyor ba 'i sdug pa sems rnam par grol ba ies bya ste I 'di ltar yofts su iiams par 'gyur ba 'i ehos can yin pas na dus dus su yofts su iiams par 'gyur fift milon sum du yail byed do I tshe 'di la bde ba la rig par gnaspas na sdug pa ies bya 'o l de la bskyod du medpa ni zag pa medpa 'i lam thams ead kyis mam par grol ba ste I de ni gtan du yofts su iiams par mi 'gyur ro I gal te dgra beom pa dbaft po rno ba 'i phyir 'jig rten pa 'i tift fte 'dzin las yofts su iiams par mi 'gyur ba 'i chos ean fig yin na ni de 'i ftes pa 'i don la dus kyi don ies bya bar rig par bya '0 I lhag rna ni sna rna biin no I de la len pa med pa daft Iyofts su yi 'chadpa med pa ni gail la dgra bcom pa 'z sems dga ' bar 'gyur ba daft gaft la rnam par 'gyur iift gian du 'gyur ba las de 'i mya ftan la sogs pa skye bar 'gyur ba 'i .gzugs de gcig kyaft mi dmigs pa 'o (Yogaearabhiimi; 'i 249a2-b1); =m.mtr a -��'L,m.mo =/Ftb , L,m.mo *,, �iiJmi�!MKi��iliMco 1i�itt rJJ 5E;llk ;tt: :iJ! �o * H�m.mJiJf 1f5EIlfMco � ��,L,m.mo P.J.:iJ!itMco � �:iJ!� 0 � �:m�Mco IDt� �o 1i�:m��.Wi.�i ttMco IDt� � o /Ftb,L,m.mtr a �� �iiJm i�UK'tifIj Mco ;llk /F :iJ!ito -W� w. � iklfJi::1J a rm1�m.mo -*-Wfili��:iJ!�o � � ll:t 1ft i*5E�o ;llk = �JfI) � o � t!O � IDt o �m;ii 1'F�;�.'diflj tr 0 �Jia �1f ��1'iJ1� 0 -% �iiJ m iol'L' o -* 1ft �1Jt� �Mco '!£�Jk� (T. 1579: 813aI8-28) 285
284 Corrected from gyi on the basis of the Derge. 285 See also another passage in the Vastus�graha1}i'. sems mam par grol ba iiams pa med pa ni mam par grol ba bla na med pa ste I de mams bsdus pa ni ses pa daft I spoft ba daft l tshe 'di la bde bar gnas pa ies bya bar rig par bya 'o l slob pa 'i ses pa gail yin pa daft I lam gaft yin pa dail I mam par grol ba gail yin pa de dag ni bla na med pa rna yin te bla na yod pa 'i phyir ro I dgra bcom pa 'i lam thams cad ni mfIon par ses pa sla ba daft myur bar rig par bya ste I gnas nan len thams cad beom pa daft bya ba byas pa 'I phyir ro (Yogaearabhiimi,: i 207b7-208al); j§l.m�J::. tr a �/Ftb' L,m.mo 1i�ll:t 1ft *,!J,IDt� IWf:m��tto 1f�WY�iE1TmJmo /F��J::. o 3�1fJ::.Mco �io-W�miol 11'0 �1�����Jj1To -W:i:1t7ki.ootMco -WJiJf1'F8Mc (T. 1579: 796c26-797a2) '
368
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 6 Margapudgalanirdefa
6. 1 2) Vasubandhu says that samiidhi is called rddhipada because, since it is the fulfillment of all good qualities, it is the basis of the rddhis. But he quotes some people286 as saying that samiidh i is in fact rddhi, while the rddhipadas are the parts of rddhi. Vasubandhu refutes this, saying that this would result in a list of thirteen bodhi-pak�adharmas, rather than the eleven accepted by the Vaibhii�ikas. 287 It would also contradict a sutra definition of rddhi, according to which rddhis are multifold magical powers. samiidhi/:! kasmad rddhipada uktaf:! / tatprati�!hatvat sarvaguIJasaJ!1-pattef:! / ye tv ahuf:! samiidhir evarddhif:!288padas chandadaya iti / te�aJ!1- dravyatas trayodasa bodhipa�af:! prapnuvanti / chandacittayor adhikyat sutraJ!1- ca virudhyate / rddhiJ!1- ca vo bhi�avo darsayi�ami rddhipadaJ!1-s ca yavad rddhif:! katama / iha bhik�ur anekavidham rddhivi�ayaJ!1- pratyanubhavati / eko bhutva bahudha bhavatfti vistaraf:! (Abhidharmakosabha�a: 384.4-9; T. 1558: 1 32c6- 1 1 ; Poussin 4: 285-6; SaJ:1lgha
bhadra identifies this as the criticism of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 727a13-1 8] and refutes it, saying that the opinion referred to by Vasubandhu actually identifies both rddhi and the rddhipadas with samadhi [T. 1562: 727a18-b23; see Poussin 4, 286 n. 1 for a partial translation of this passage] .)
286 The V aibhii�ikas, according to the Abhidharmakosavyakhya (602.7). 287 The Vaibhii�ika list of eleven bodhipak�adharmas includes: prajiia, vfrya, samadhi, smrti, prfti, prasrabdhi, upek�a, sraddha, samyaksaJ!1-kalpa, samyagajfva, and samyagvac and samyakkarmanta together as one item (poussin v. 4: 283,,284). The four rddhipadas are chanda, citta, vfrya, and mfmaJ!1-sa. If samadhi were equivalent to these four, two extra bodhipak�adharmas would have to be added to the list, namely chanda and citta. Vfrya is already on the list, and mfmaJ!1-sa duplicates prajiia (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 601 .3 1-602.10). 288 Corrected from samadhir evaddhif:! (Hirakawa 1973-1978, v. 1 : 435).
0
Yogiiciirabhilmi
369
6 . 1 2)
(I have found nothing directly relevant to this discussion in the Yogiiciira bhilmi. However, the explanation of the term rddhipiida in the Sriivakabhilmi seems
more similar to Vasubandhu' s than to the Vaibha�ika explanation, since it suggests thatsamiidhi must be perfected for the rddhis to be experienced. kena kiiralJena rddhipiida ity ucyate / iiha / tadyathii / yasya piidaJ:! saf!!vidyate / so 'bhikramapratikramapariikramasamartho bhavati / evam eva yasyaite dharmiiJ:! saf!!vidyante / e�a ca samiidhiJ:! saf!!vidyate / paripilTIJaJ:! sa evaf!! pariSuddhe citte paryavadiite ana[li]galJe vigatopakle.§e rjubhilte karmalJyasthite iini [fiJiyapriipte abhikramapratikrama{pariikrama]-samartho bhavati / lokottariilJiif!! dharmiilJiif!! priiptaye sparsaniiyai / e�ii hi parii rddhiJ:! parii samrddhiJ:! / yad uta lokottarii dhiirmiis tenocyante rddhipiida iti [Wayman 196 1 : 100 ; see also Sriivakabhilmi: 321.514] ; ci'i phyir rdzu 'phrul gyi rkali pa ies bya ie na / smras pa / 'di ita ste / dper na gali la rkali pa yod pa des 'gro ba dali / ldog pa dali / pha rol gnon par nus pa de biin du / gali la chos de dag gali yod la / tili lie 'dzin de dag kyali yolis su rdzog par yod cili / de de ltar sems yolis su dag pa dali / yolis su byali ba dali / fion molis pa med pa dali / fie ba 'i fion molis pa med pa dali bral ba dali / drali por gyur pa dali / las su ruli bar gnas pa dali / mi g. yo ba thob par gyur na / 'jig rten las 'das pa 'i chos mams thob par bya ba dali / reg par bya ba 'i phyir / 'gro ba dali ldog pa dali / pha rol gnon par nus te / 'di Ita ste / 'jig rten las 'das pa 'i chos de dag ni / rdzu 'phrul dam pa dali / 'byor pa dam pa dali yin pas na / de 'i phyir na rdzu 'p hrul gyi rkali pa ies bya 'o [ Yogiiciirabhilmir' wi 144b7-145a3] ; F,,� 1iiJ [�l*��)l:�:i!J1$JEo ��D1f JE1lf �tt� ••• � .��m� �m1f •• � � o � •• ��:i!J .� o * � � � �)l::i!J 1$ JEo �D�i:i';ff � D��y:1:;1f=Yl±fu [gJ ii1iliJ!X:j\y¥o 1EH}�D�ijlfi@l-�.f: 8 1WiJ�11'filo .nm�����o 1fm��.��� �tt� ••• � . o ���m lli � � 1:1:;0 83 lli �Y:1:;�. § tE o �*.1$1El§��1[Jl:t�:i!J1$JE [T. 1579: 444a29-b8])
370
AbhidharmakosabhafYa
Chapter 6 MargapudgaZanirdesa
6. 13) According to Sarvastiviida, sarrzsk.rta vimukti is adhimok�a. Vasubandhu objects, saying that, according to "other people," this contradicts a sutra. Finally , he states their opinion, that vimukti cannot simply be adhimo�a but must be purity of mind resulting from the elimination of raga, etc., by means of correct knowledge. tasman nadhimo�a eva vimuktif:t / kif!! tarhi / tattvajiianapanfte�u ragadi�u cetaso vaimalyaf!! vimuktir ity apare
(Pradhan: 388. 13- 14; T. 1558: 133c27-29; Poussin v. 4: 298; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this statement and the appeal to sutra that precedes it as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 731b5-13] and criticizes it, arguing that the Sarvastivadin position does not contradict sutra and insisting that vimukti is not purity of mind but rather that which makes the mind pure and that it is in fact adhimo�a [T. 1562: 73 1 b 13-c2].)
Yogiiciirabhiimi
371
6 . 1 3) The Bodhisattvabhiimi explains cetovimukti and prajfiiivimukti as being the complete destruction of all impurities. sarviisraviil}iim a.§e�iinuSayaprahii7Jikl yat tatpriitipalqikmn aniisravarrz cittam a,niisravii prajiiii paramiiilhicittiidhiprajfiasarrzgrhftii iisravii/)iir!z lqayiid aniisravii cetovimuktiJ; prajiiiivimuktir ity ucyate (J3odhisattvabhiimi: 392.8-1 1); zag pa thams cad kyi bag la fial ma Ius par spwis pa'i phyir / de 'i gfien por gyur pa zag pa med pa 'i sems daft / zag pa med pa 'i ses rab lhag pa 'i sems daft / lhag pa 'i ses rab mchog gis bsdus pa ni zag pa mams zad pas / zag pa med pa 'i sems mam par grol ba daft / ses rab mam par grol ba ies bya 'o (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: ii 233a2-3); --wJ�ilmpJf;ff ilJl HIH!\liiff;7kli!lfo �1�§�mJl9J ilm L' Jl9J1!!Ii ilm � :Jik;!t litJl9Jilll c > L' l�V\lLt � 11 EB ilmm ttc m � 1!!Ii ilm L' � m 1M. J
0
(T. 1579: 57Oc18-20)
__
0
J
372
Abhidhannakosabhii�ya
Chapter 7 Jiiiinanirde§a 7.1)
The Vaibha�ikas say that defiled (kli�!a) thought must be unconcentrated (asamiihita), while good (kusala) thought must be concentrated. Vasubandhu argues that this contradicts a sutra that mentions two types of internal thought that are collected (sarrzk�ipta): thought that is accompanied by both middha and styiina and internal
thought that is accompanied by suppression but that does not possess insight. External uncollected thought, on the other hand, is dispersed among the five objects of pleasure. Vasubandhu's reasoning is that this sutra mentions a type of thought that is defiled, yet concentrated.
evarrz tu sutrarrz niinulomitarrz bhavati / e�iirrz ca padiinirrz i niirthavise�a ukto bhavati / katharrz sutrarrz niinulomitarrz bhavati /sutre uktarrz katharrz cittam adhyiitmarrz sarrz�iptarrz bhavati / yac cittarrz styiinamiddhasahagatam adhyiitmarrz sarrznirodhasahagatarrz no tu vipaiyanayii samanviigatam / katharrz bahir vi�iptarrz bhavati / yac cittarrz paiicasu kiimagu1Je� anuvi�iptarrz bhavati anuvis.rtam iti (Pradhan: 397.10-14; T. 1558: 136a21-24; Poussin v. 5: 20-21; Srupghabhadra identifies this
as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 739bI6-19] , mentions that the Pascattyas also refer to a sutrJE9 that is contradicted by the Sruvastivadin position [T. 1562: 739bI9-22], and criticizes both Vasubandhu' s and the Pascattyas' interpretation of satra [T. 1562: 739b22-c6].)
289
See Pradhan: 396. 17-18; T. 1558: 135c27-28; Poussin v. 5: 18.
Yogilcilrabhami
373
7.1) I can frod no similar argument in the Yogilcilrabhilmi concerning the moral value of concentrated or unconcentrated thought. However, there is · a passage in the Asamiihitii Bhami that contrasts distractedness, defined as the flowing out of thought toward the five objects of pleasure, with collectedness, defined as internal collected thought associated with styilna and middha. g.yen ba 'i phyir mfiam par ma btag pa 'i sa yan yod de / 'di Ita ste las dan po pa tin ne 'dzin la brtson pa rnams 'dod pa 'i yon tan Ina la sems rnam par g.yen tin ryes su 'jug pa Ita bu'o / bsdus pa 'i phyir miiam par ma btag pa 'i sa yan yod de 'di Ita ste / las dan po pa tin ne 'dzin la brtson pa rnams kyi sems nan du bsdus na / rmugs pa dan giiid kyis non pa Ita bu 'o ( Yogilcilrabhilmi,: dzi 182a4-5); !&:1f*,:!i:U1Lii)z:� ?F1Efill o �� f)] 11�1E:tf 1JN1l;1i{;Xo 'L' �¥JlEf:Zo :s'x:1f::t:mgc�ii)Z:� ?F 1E iti!, o �� f]]{J�1E:tf 1JN"J 0
mgc'L" I'�lJjpJT� (T. 1579: 344b26-29)
0
374
Abhidharmako§abhii�a
Chapter 7 Jftananirde§a 7.2) The Vaibh�ikas say that the sixteen aspects (amra) of the four truths are prajna by nature. Vasubandhu disagrees, argillng that if they were prajna, then two prajiiis would exist simultaneously (the aspect and the prajna that mows it), which would be impossible. Instead, he says that aMra is the mode of perception of objects on the part of all citta and caittas. 290
evarrz tarhi prajna stiktira na bhav�ati /prajiiiintartisarrzprayogat?91 / evarrz tu yuktar:a syat / sarve�a7J1 cittacaitttintim tilambanagrahal}£lpraMra aMra iti
(Pradhan: 401 . 1 8-19; T. 1558: 137c2-4; Poussin v. 5: 39; Smp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master, who, he says, is relying on "another school" [T. 1562: 741M-5], and criticizes it, argillng that this definition of aMra is umeasonab1e whether alambanagraharzapraMra is understood as the discrimination of the types of marks of objects or as the ability to grasp the distinctive marks of the object [T. 1562: 741b5-13].)
290 YaSornitra identifies this as a SautrfuJ.tika opinion (Abhidharmako§avyiikhya: 629.6). In the Madhyantavibhtiga!fkti, Sthiramati gives an almost identical definition of akara in a completely different context, namely an argument to the effect that things and beings have no real akara and thus cannot be real objects of consciousness :
aMro hy tilambanasyanitytidirilperza grahal}£lpraMraJ:t / sa canayor nasti grahyarilperza prakhyantit / ato 'naMratvtid agrahakatvtid ity arthaJ:t (MadhyiintavibhtigaSii.stra : 16.6-8; see
Kochumuttom 1982: 52).
291 Corrected fromprajnantartisa7J1yogtit (S akurabe, Odani, and Bonjo 2004: 14).
Yogacarabhami
7.2)
(The sixteen akiira s are hot discussed in the Yogaciirabhiimi. )
375
376
Abhidharmakosabha�ya
Chapter 7 Jfiiinanirde§a 7.3) Vasubandhu says that sal'(!vrdjfiiina pertaining to kiimadhatu is wisdom produced by hearing or considering, while sal'(!v.rtijfiiina pertaining to rapadhatu is wisdom produced by hearing. Sal'(!vrdjfiiina is not wisdom produced by meditation because the object of wisdom produced by meditation must belong to a particular bhiimi. (But this sal'(!vrdjfiiina is the realization that all dhannas are aniitman; therefore, it must encompass objects of different bhumis simultaneously.) If this sal'(!v.rtijfiiina were wisdom produced by meditation, it would be possible to gain detaclunent with respect to all bhamis in a single moment, because wisdom produced by meditation has the power to produce detaclunent.292 tae ea kiimia iv earal'(! srutaeintiimayal'(! rapiivaearal'(! srutamayam nd93 bhiivaniimayam / tasya vyavaeehinnabhumyiilamabanatviit / anyatha hi yugapat sarvato vairiigyal'(! syiit (Pradhan: 405.4-6; T. 1558: 138a27-28; Poussin v. 5: 46; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 742c21-22] and criticizes it, saying that wisdom produced by meditation gives rise to joy, not detaclunent, with respect to higher bhamis [T. 1562: 742c22-26; see Poussin v. 5: 4647 n. 1 for a translation of Sarpghabhadra's opinion].)
292 This passage is very difficult to understand. I have relied heavily on the explanation in the note ofKokuyaku Issaikyo (Bidon-bu 26.2: 372 n. 120). 29� This na is missing in Pradhan' s text. I follow Hirakawa (1973-1978, v. 1: 436). the translations include na.
0
All
Yogiiciirabhami
7.3)
(I have found nothlng relevant in the Yogiiciirabhami.)
377
378
Abhidharmakosabhii!ya
Chapter 7 liiiinanirde1a
7.4)
Vasubandhu objects to the Vaibhii�ika explanation that abhisamayiintika sal'!!vrtijiiiina is "obtained because it is obtained," and he says. that this does not explain the practice of sal'!!vrtijiiiina. Instead, he approves of the opinion of the purviiciiryas that sal'!!vrtijfiiina is produced due to the force of darsanamiirga and is realized after emerging from darsanamiirga. That is to say, in darsanamiirga one obtains an asraya that can realize sal'!!vrtijiiiina. yasmiil labdhal'!! tasmiil labdham ity aparvai�ii nirdesajiiti/:t I tasmiin naiv� bhiivanii sidhyati I eval'!! tu sidhyati yad iihu/:t purviiciiryii/:t I kathal'!! ca purviiciiryii iihul:t I lokottaramiirgasiimarthyiit s�rtijfiiinal'!! bhiivyate yad vyutthitaJ:t satyiilambanal'!! visi�!ar� lauki� jfiiiruurt s�ukhfkaroti I e�a eva ca tasya liibho yal94 tat s�f bhiivasamar thyasrayaliibhal:t lgotre hi labdhe labdJuurt gotri� bhavati
(Pradhan: 406. 19-407. 1 ; T. 1558: 1 38c2-7; Poussin v. 5: 52; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 743b29-c4] and criticizes it, saying that obtaining an asraya is not equivalent to realization; furthermore, such an iiSraya would not persist for long enough for realization to occur [T. 1562: 743c4-13].)
294 Corrected from yat (Sakurabe, Odani, and "Honjo 2004: 14).
YogiieiirabhL7mi
379
The Viniseayasa1[lgrahizlJ-1 0n the Sriivakabhami explains that at the time of entering darsanamiirga, the seeds of good sa1[lvrtijiiiin a that has previously been practiced are perfumed by that (darsanafniirga?) and become pure. Therefore, th:is is called abhisamayiintika sa1[lvrtijiiiina. When one emerges from darsanamiirga, one gives rise to this knowledge and one obtains liberation from the darsanaheya dharmas?95
7.4)
mthon ba 'i lam la yan dag par iugs pa de sa bon rnam par dag pas kun rdzob ses pa dge ba zag pa dan beas pa snar yons su bsgoms pa de iiid sgom par byed do / mnon par rtogs pa 'i mtha ' la mthon ba 'i lam lalis pa de 'i mthon bas span bar bya ba 'i ehos gan dag las snon rnam par grol bar ma gyur pa de dag las rnam par grol ba yin pa de yan skye bar 'gyur ro (Yogiieiirabhami,: zi 270b4-5); i'I-JiI.��t!D%PJT1Ii�i:!t1it� PJT �g�o � ••• fi�m�$� •• o �� � • • � •• Ri:!tm� o lli Jil. � B1:�.lf:�"'§' �iJi!,PJTIWi'1ii1H1tH#' (T. 1579: 682c20-23) 0
295 Hakamaya does not identify a passage in the Yogiiciirabhami that corresponds to the position attributed to the pL7rviieiiryas by Vasubandhu but suggests the possibility that a corresponding passage might be found in the Yogadira literature (1986: 99). I believe that this is such a passage.
380
Abhidharmakosabhii.Jya
Chapter 7 iiiiinanirde§a 7.5) Vasubandhu says that two abhijiiiis, namely purvaniviisiinusmrti and iisravak.Jayajiiiinasiik.Jiitkriyii, have the nature of all four smrtyupastht'inas. 296 anirdhiiralJiic che:je catu�smrtyupasthiinasvabhiive iti siddham (Pradhan: 423.8-9; T. 1558: 143b 1 1 Poussin v. 5 : 1 06; Salpghabhadra identifies this as
the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 753c22c23] and criticizes it, saying that purvaniviisiinusm!1i only has the nature of dharmasm.rtyupasthana [more specifically, of dharmasm.rtyupasthana with a "mixed" object, e.g., both the nature of dharmas and the vedanii of a past life], while iisravak:jayajiiiinasiik:jiitkriyii can have the nature of either dharmasm.rtyupasthana or of all four smrtyupasthiinas [T. 1562: 753c23-27].i97
296 Hsiian-tsang adds an explanation: Jifi,mtliii: -tJ]:f:l . Poussin takes this as a general explanation for both abhijiiiis : ''because they have all five skandhas as their objects" (poussin, v. 5: 106 n. 5). P'u-kuang, on the other hand, thinks that there are separate explanations for each abhijiiii: purvaniviisiinusm!1i is included in all four sm.rtyupasthanas because its object is the five skandhas, while iisravak:jayajiiiinasiik:jiitkriyii is included in all four smrtyupasthanas because its object is "everything"(m1±JifiIm�1±m o Jifi*�li ii:tto iJmiEJifiIm�1±nlfo Jifi*�-tJ]tt [T. 1821: 41 1c2-3]). However, it is not clear to me whether P'u-kuang is accurately interpreting Vasubandhu' s intention. 297 As P'u-kuang points out (T. 1 82 1 . 41 lc12-18), Sarpghabhadra' s argument is based on the Vibhii.Jii' s refutation of Gho�aka' s opinion, according to which purva niviisiinusm.rti has the nature of all four smrtyupasthanas (T. 1545: 5 1 8b12-18). 0
Yogacarabhumi
7.5)
(I have found nothing relevant in the Yogacarabhumi. )
381
382
Abhidharmakosabhii�a
Chapter 7 Jfiananirde§a 7.6) According to Vasubandhu, the two abhijfiiis, divyasrotra and divyaca�us, are morally indeterminate (avyalqta) because they are wisdom associated with aural and visual consciousness. An objection is made: if these two abhijfiiis are associated with these two types of consciousness, they cannot pertain to all four dhyanas (and the fact that they do pertain to all four dhyiinas has already been establlshed)?98 Vasubandhu responds that the two abhijfiiis can be said to pertain to the four dhyanas because the sense organs on which they are based are present in the dhyanas. Or one can say that the anantaryamiirga of these abhijfiiis pertain to the four dhyanas. divyaca�ufL§rotrabhijfie avyaTqte / te punaS ca�ufL§rotravijfiiinasa7!1prayuktaprajfie / katharp. tarhi te caturdhyanabhurnike sidhyataJ:t / iiSrayavasena tadbhurninirde§at / tadiiSraye hi cak�ufL§rotre caturdhyanabharnike / anantaryarnargavasena va (Pradhan: 423.6-8; T. 1558: 143b12-17; Poussin v. 5: 107; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T . 1562: 753c29-754a5] and criticizes it, saying that wisdom associated with aural and visual consciousness is not abhijfiii, but rather is caused by abhijfiii [T. 1562: 754a5-10].)
29 8 See Chapter Seven verse 43cd: pafica dhyan�catu�!e (Pradhan: 422.1).
Yogtictirabhami
383
7.6) According to the ViniscayasaJpgrahalJl on the Srtivakabhami, divyasrotra is the name for the prastidarapa that comprises the aural sense organ that is the result of practice. The knowledge that is associated with the consciousness based on that aural sense organ is called "divyasrotra knowledge." The realization of that knowledge is the continuation and growth of the stream of the seeds of that knowledge, which comprise the cause ofits arising?99 ses pa de fiid kyi sa bon skye ba 'i rkyen gyis yons su zin cin l yons su brtdOO pa de 'i rgyud kyi rjes su 'jug pa gan yin pa de ni rdzu 'phrul gyi yul ses pa mlion du bya ba ies bya ste I de dag tha7ns cad gcig tu bsdus pa ni I rdzu 'phrul gyi yul ses pa mnon du bya ba 'i mlion par ses pa ies bya 'o l de la lha 'i rna ba ni gan l lha 'i rna ba 'i ses pa ni gan l lha 'i rna ba 'i ses pa mlion du bya ba ni gan ie na I de la bsgoms pa 'i 'bras bu rnams bsdus pa 'i gzugs dan ba gan yin pa de ni lha 'i rna ba ies bya 'o I rna ba de fa brten pa'i rnampar ses pa dan mtshuns par ldan pa 'i ses pa gmi yin pa de ni lha 'i rna ba ses pa ies bya '0 I ses pa de mnon du bya ba ni sna ma biin du rig par bya ste I de dag thams cad gcig tu bsdus pa ni lha 'i rna ba 'i ses pa mnon du bya ba 'i mnon par ses pa ies bya 'o (rogiictirabhar:. � zi �67b7-2� 8a3); �t �lro �:1Jt�!t§fj 2. JljiQo :Ert$;I);1 s fFoR o ftOlE-to it\".m�-0 :Ert$:Ii s flOoR :z:;;1llJ;R1I=0 :z:;;M ;R 11=� 0 �1llJ;R1I=�1'F�io ��*1It*1I=pJTmj�i'i�0 �:Er ;R1I=0 �1it1l=�jM§�� 0 :Er ;R1I=� 0 J1:t� 1'F�ftO �Ij !l;Ua o fto�-to*�m�-�ftotltrm (T. 1579: 681c5-1 1)
�
:� �
EB1:.!!PJT!�eto
299 The Ch 'eng wei-shih lun says that the scriptures say that these two abhijiias are knowledge associated with visual consciousness and knowledge associated with aural con sciousness (T. 1585: 29a23-24). According to the Shindi5ji5yuishikiron (230), the reference is to this passage in the Yogacarabhami. See Poussin 1928-1929: 3 17. 300 Corrected from rtag on the basis of the Derge.
3 84
Abhidharmakosabhii�a
Chapter 8 Samapattinirde§a =
8.1) Vasubandhu defines one-pointedness of thought (cittaikagrata samadhi) . as the fact that thoughts have a single object. 30 ! keyam ekilgrata nama I ekillambanatil (Pradhan: 432. 16; T. 1558: 145b1; Poussin v. 5: 128-129; Sarp.ghabhadra identifies this as the definition of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 756b25-26] and criticizes it, saying that it would imply that if cakyurvijiiilna and manovijiiilna had the same object, this would be ekilgratii. According to Sarp.ghabhadra, samadhi is actually that which, due to its predominance, keeps in operation the continuity of good cittas and caittas [T. 1562:
302 756b26-c4].)
30 ! Sthiramati's definition in the Tri1J1Sikilbhil�a echoes Vasubandhu's: samildhir
upaparfk�e vastuni cittasyaikilgrata l upaparfk�aJJ7 vastu gUIJato do�ato va l ekilgrata ekillambanata (26.5-6).
302 There is nothing startling about Vasubandhu's definition here. However, Sarp.gha bhadra seems to be particularly sensitive because it precedes the controversy over whether samadhi is a separate dharma. His purpose here seems to be to emphasize that samadhi is more than the mere fact of the mind's having a single object: rather, it is a separate dharma that keeps the mind focused on the object. Poussin, following Saeki (1978: 1 1 68), who was probably following P'u-kuang (T. 1 821: 417b23), portrays the controversy as a debate between the Sarvastivadins and the Sautrantikas. Nishi interprets it the same way (Kokuyaku Issaikyo Bidon-bu 26.2: 412-413). However, while Paramartha attributes the unorthodox position that samildhi is not a separate dharma to the Sautrantikas, both the Sanskrit and Hsiian-tsang simply mention "others." Moreover, although Sarp.ghabhadra does not further discuss this issue here, elsewhere (T. 1562: 390b24-c4) he attributes the opinion that samadhi is not an independent dharma to the Sthavira (see Kato 1989: 204) . The same opinion is favored by the *Tattvasiddhisastra (T. 1646: 334b29-cl3). Therefore, it might be more accurate to identify this as a Diin!tantika position. The question remains whether Vasubandhu agrees with the Sarvastivadin position or the non-orthodox position here. He gives the last word to the Sarvastivadins, who explain how samadhi can be a cittamahilbhumika dharma, despite the obvious fact that most moments of consciousness are not what we call samadhi. However, he does not explicitly approve or disapprove of either position.
Yogiiciirabhumi
385
8.1) The Manobhumi defines samiidhi as one-pointedness of thought based on reflection corresponding to an object that is to be considered. samiidhif:t katamalJ I yat pan�e vastuni [tatra tatraJ?ill tad anugam upanidhyiina saY[!nisritaY[! cittaikiigryay[! (Yogiiciirabhumi: 60.6-7); tili lie 'dzin gali ie na l gali brtag pa 'i dlios po de dali de la de 'i rjes su 'gro iili lies par sems pa la brten nas sems rtsa gcig pa 'o ( Yogiiciirabhilmi,: dzi 34a5); =Jt:l!!!. �1llJ �I!JD�pJTti�:;:o �qEi:qEi:1T. 0
l1:pJT1A,�,-:tjtI1 (T. 1579: 291c3-5)
303 Added by Bhattacharya on the basis of the Tibetan. .
386
Abhidharmakosabhiio?ya
Chapter 8 Samapattinirde§a
8.2) Vasubandhu mentions the opinion of "others," who say that there is no mental sukhendriya in kamadhiitu and the first three dhyanas, only physical?04 The Vaibhii�ikas, on the other hand, say that the sukha in the first two dhyanas is not really sukhavedana, but rather prasrabdhi. This sukha cannot be bodily sukha because the five sense consciousnesses are lacking there. Nor can it be mental sukha, because prfti is already included in these states, and prfti, which is defined as saumanasya, canno t coexist with sukha. In the third dhyana, however, sukhavedana exists?05 At the end of the long discussion of the dhyanangas, of which the above forms a part, Vasubandhu points out that the opinions later attributed by Yasomitra to the Dar�!antikas are different from those of the piirvacaryas and should be examined further (Abhidharmakosabhii�a: 440.4-5). Yasomitra adds, "according to the teaching of the Yogacarabhiiml"' (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 676.7). apare punar ahul:t / nasty eva caitasika1J1 sukhendriya1J1 trio?V api hi dhyaneo?u / kayikam eva sukham angG1J1 vyavasthapitam iti (Pradhan: 439.1-2; T. 1558: 147a6-7; Poussin v. 5: 151; Saxp.ghabhadra says that the
siitra-master, in describing the opinion of "others," is quoting someone else's opinion provisionally or for the sake of argumenf06 [f. 1562: 760b7-9].l07
304 YaSomitra attributes this position to the Dar�!fultikas: diiro?!iiT[!tikanii1J1 ki1aio?apako?al:t / teo?a1J1 hi na dvibhiimikam eva sukhendriyafJ1 / kamaprathamadhyanabhiimikam iti / kim tarhi / caturbhiimikam api sukhendriya1J1 bhavati / kamavacara1J1 yavat trtfyadhyana bhiimika1J1 iti (Abhidharmakosavyakhyii: 673.6-9; Poussin, v. 5: 151 n. 3). P'u-kuang, however, attributes this to Sautrantika (T. 1 82 1 : 423a28). 305 See Pradhan: 438. 1 8-2 1 ; Poussin, v. 5: 150-151. 306 chia yin 'ffiZ 5 1 . 307 Later in the same discussion (T. 1562: 761b21), Sarp.ghabhadra presents the Sthavira' s argument that prasrabdhi cannot be called sukha, and he concludes that this argument can be refuted in the same way as the one quoted by Vasubandhu here.
Yogiiciirabhiimi
387
8 .2) In the Samahitii Bhiimi of the Yogiiciirabhiimi, sukha in the fIrst dhyiina is said to oppose dau�!hulya, while prfti is said to be the experience of a (mental) object. This seems to be in accord with the Vaibh�ika explanation of sukha in stages lower than the third dhyiina. de la bsam gtan dan po 'i rtog pa dan dpyod pa ni dmigs pa 'dzin pa 'i don du 'o / tin ne 'dzin de dag gi rten gyi don du 'o / dga ' ba ni dmigs pa myon ba 'i don du 'o / bde ba ni gnas nan len bsal ba 'i don du 'o (Yogiiciirab!:ziimi,: dzi 143bl-2); fJJ�J[I, J:f:I o �1ii]�.Ify. PJT�o =�±fu�1LZPJT1t(o ��st:t�J'f.o ��bl[ (T. 1579: 33Oc19-21)
388
Abhidharmakosabhi'i�ya
Chapter 8 Samtipattinirde.sa 8.3) Vasubandhu says that, in general, the abhidharma he has explained is the teaching of the Kasmira Vaibha�ikas. However, he adds that he may have made mistakes in including certain things because only the Buddhas and the "sons of the Buddha" are authoritative concerning the interpretation of the Dharma. prtiyera hi ktismfravaibhi'i�iktirtiy[! nftytidisiddha e�a 'smtibhir abhidharma tikhytita� I yad atrtismtibhir durgrhftay[! so 'smtikam apartidha�1 saddharmanftau tu punar buddha eva pramtiray[! buddhaputrtiS ca (Pradhan: 460. 1-3 T. 1558: 152b13-16; Poussin v. 5: 223; Smp.ghabhadra identifies this as
a statement of the general principle of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 775b18-20] and expands on it [T. 1562: 775b20-c2; see Poussin v. 5: 223 n. 1 for a translation].i08 .
308 Vasubandhu mentions both the Buddha and the great disciples as authority. Smp.ghabhadra says that really only the great munis not the srtivakas orpratyekabuddhas, can judge dharmas correctly; therefore, the abhidharma must be the word of the Buddha (But we know that Vasubandhu does not agree [Abhidharmakosab�a: 3.1; Poussin, v. 1 : 5-6; Abhidharmakosavytikhyti: 1 1 .23-12.1].) Fa-pao explains that, for Vasubandhu, the canonical abhidharma texts are authoritative, since they were produced by the great disciples, but .the Vib�ti, which was produced neither by the Buddha nor by the great disciples, is not cr. 1822: 803a2-7) . ,
Yogaearabhitmi
389
8.3) The *VivaralJasalJ1grahalJf contains a definition of upade§a in which miit[kii is explained and is equated with abhidharma. 309 According to this passage, the Buddha's teaching of the characteristics of dharmas, as well as the teaching of sravakas who are established in an understanding based on insight into the truths, are considered to be miit[kii and hence abhidharma. These miit[kii are necessary for a correct understanding and propagation of the characteristics of dharmas. 3 1 0 de la gtan la bab par bstan pa( 'i sde) dag ni / mdo sde las lies par dralis pa 'i rna rna gali dag yin pa ste / de la lies pa('i) don gyi mdo sde thams cad ni rna rno ies bya 'o / gali du beom ldan 'das kyis mtshan fiid bstan pa dali gali du fian thos gii mtholi bas rtogs pa la gnas pas ehos kyi mtshan fiid mnoli bar bstan pa de yali rna mo yin te ehos mlion pa yali yin no /ji ltar yig 'bru dali bzo 'i bstan beos mams kyi da (li) po yi ge 'i phyi mo yin pa ltar ehos kyi mtshan fiid mam par biad pa yali (dag par) rig par bya '0 /ji ltar yi ge 'i phyi mo med pa 'i yi ge mlion par mi gsal ba de biin du mdo sde la sogs pa yan lag beu gfiis kyali ehos kyi mtshan fiid mam par ma biag na mlion par mi gsal ba yin gyi mam par biag na mlion par gsal bar 'gyur ro / mtshan fiid tha mi dad par brjod pa 'i phyir rna mo de fiid ehos mlion pa ies bya ste / rna mo de la brten nas mdo sde gian dag mam par Mad par byed pa gali yin pa de ni gtan fa bab par bstan pa 'i sde ies bya 'o (Yogaearabhitmi,: yi 64b5-65a2); 3 1 1 ffijij�l1Uf �\ll �t*�:JI!!- 1J§�1iJfi3:JtlJlrj :f.l � BJp -tJJ T �M� il':t JtlJlrj :f.l � �\ll 1J0fi1:� iJ:t � El JJ:5t J3U �t¥Hl1'§ Y.. 1J0fi1:����-=r EJ'i!J\t' �o ft( El pfi�i$.li1iu 5tJ3U �t¥t;1\'11'§ Jl:t�:t 1.i1JtlJlrj:f.l� ftD Jl:tJtlJlrj:f.l :ill!! � :t �ilJ J!BJ!� o �Mp iJ:t rB� -tJJ .����ilii � il':ff Jtl Jlrj:f.l �o � 5:0 *� r:p iJ§ �1iJf i3: gt ¥Hl1'§ � 1!I �p fi1: Y.. �p �t "f:;5' $.Ii Jtl Jlrj:f.l � ft 0 /G I¥I T �p fi1: �*�� + =5t��o ;5'/GJ!3Z�t¥H-'U§ o IlD /G I¥I T ;5'J!3Z E Il P i% I¥I T Y.. $.Ii9iUL:§:m¥H§ o fi1:�5cIlPJl:tJtlJlrj:f.l �o �:t �ilJ J!BJ!�o Y.. Il Dft(Jl:tJtlJlrjJ'.I � o pfi��HlJ�%H��:;lf �:t gilii � (T. 1579: 753b9-21) 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
309 See item I I . 3 1O Por a similar defInition of upade§a, see Abhidharmasamueeaya,: li 120b5; T. 1605: 686b23-24; Abhidharmasamuceayabhiirya: 96. 1 1-97. 12. 3 1 1 Portions in parentheses are added from or corrected on the basis of the Derge.
Concordance of Passages from the Yogacarabhumi
=
YBh Bhattacharya' s text of the first five bhumis of the Yogiiciirabhumi SrBh Shukla' s text of the Sriivakabhumi BoBh Wogihara' s text of the Bodhisattvabhumi =
=
Sanskrit
Tibetan
Chinese
YBh: 4 . 1 S-17 YBh: S.2 YBh: S . 12- 1 S YBh: 1 1 . 14-21 YBh: 14. 1 S-1S.6 YBh: 1 8 . 1 6-20 YBh: 2S.20-26.2 YBh: 26. 1 S-20 YBh: SO.9- 1 6 YBh: S3.9- 1 S YBh: 60.6 7 YBh: 60. 13-14 YBh: 1 06.6-9 YBh: 1 07.20- lOS.2 YBh: 1 09 . 1 9- 1 1 0.7 YBh: 1 10.S-12 YBh: l 1 1 .4-S YBh: 1 1 S . 14-1 19.2 YBh: 1 1 9. 17-120.3 YBh: 1 22. 12- 1 29.4 YBh: 1 24.2-3 YBh: 1 27.8- 1 3
dzi 3a4 dzi 3a6 dzi 3b3-6 dzi 6bS-7a3 dzi 8b8-9a4 dzi l l a2-4 dzi 14b3-S dzi ISa5-6 dzi 27b3-S dzi 29b4-S dzi34aS dzi 34b l dzi 63bS-7 dzi 64b5-S dzi 66a3-b l dzi 66b l -4 dzi 67a3-4 dzi 7 1 aS-bl dzi 7 1 b S-72a4 dzi 73b3-76a7 dzi 73b6 dzi 7Sa l -4 dzi 7Sa4-S dzi 7SaS-S dzi 7SaS-b3 dzi 7Sb3-S dzi 7Sb4-S
279b6-7 279bS-9 279b 18-22 280b13-21 281a22-b2 282a7-12 284b 19-23 2S4c lO- 1 4 2S9b1 3-21 290a17-23 29 1c3-S 29 1 c l l - 1 2 301bl-4 301b2S-c3 302a2- 1 O 302alO-14 302a2S-26 303cS- 1 O 303c2S-304a3 304b24-30Sb26 304b2S-c2 30SalO- 1 6 30Sa1 6- 1 S 30Sa1 S-24 30Sa24-b 1 30Sb l -6 30Sb3-6
-
YBh: 127. 1 3 - 1 S YBh: 1 27 . 1 9- 12S.4 YBh: 12S.2-4
391
392 S anskrit
Tibetan
Chinese
YBh: 1 66 . 1 6- 1 8 YBh: 1 67.6 YBh: 170. 17- 1 9 YBh: 1 82.9-14 YBh: 1 84. 1-5 YBh: 1 89 . 15- 1 6 YBh: 1 8 9 . 1 9- 1 90. 1 YBh: 190.6-7 YBh: 198. 17- 1 9 YBh: 199.5-7 YBh: 204. 1-212.3 YBh: 204. 10-15 YBh: 2 1 4.7-1 0 YBh: 219.8- 1 1 YBh: 221 . 1 6
dzi 97a8-b2 dzi 97b8-98a1 dzi 99b5-6 dzi 1 05b5-8 dzi 1 06b7-1 07a2 dzi 1 10a5 dzi 1 l0a8 dzi 1 10b4 dzi 1 15b3-4 dzi 1 16al-2 dzi 1 19al- 124a6 dzi 1 19a5-8 dzi 1 25b5-7 dzi 1 28b7-8 dzi 1 30a6-7 dzi 1 39b8-140a3 dzi 143b l -2 dzi 1 82a4-5 dzi 2 1 1 a5-6 dzi 235a6-7 dzi 236b3-4 dzi 238a4-6 dzi 269a2-4 dzi 283a5-8 dzi 292a5-7 dzi 302a4 dzi 303a7-8 wi 2b l-3 wi 2b6-8
3 14b 14- 1 6 3 14b25-26 3 1 5a1 8-20 3 17b22-29 3 1 8a14- 1 8 3 1 9b3 3 1 9b7-9 3 19b 13-14 321a17- 1 9 321a29-b 1 322b2-324a15 322b l 1 - 17 324c3-7 325c10-12 326a27-28 329b22-28 330c 1 9-21 344b26-29 354c20-22 363a2 363a27-b1 364a27-b 1 375b 1 3- 1 6 380b3-9 3 83c7- 1 1 387b14 3 87c 1 9-21 395c24-27 396a6-9
SrBh: 1 8 . 1 1 SrBh: 5 1 .4-8 SrBh: 1 42.3- 1 1 SrBh: 143.4- 1 6 SrBh: 1 80 . 1 5- 1 8 1 .6 SrBh: 321 .5- 14 SrBh: 339. 1 6-340. 1 SrBh: 341 . 1 0- 1 2 SrBh: 448.9-13 SrBh: 504. 14- 17
wi 9a5-7 wi 25a6-b 1 wi 68a7-b3 w i 68b6-69a4 wi 83b8-84a4 wi 144b7-145a3 wi 15 1b6-8 w i 152a7-8 wi 203a4-5 wi 232b7-8
398b9- 1 2 404c 1-6 4 1 9b 1 6-23 41 9b28-c9 425a24-29 444a29-b8 447a2 447a1 9-21 467a26-29 476b29-c2
393 Sanskrit
Tibetan
Chinese
SrBh: 505.21-506.2
wi 23 3b l -2
476c1 9-2 1
BoBh: 64.23-25 BoBh: 98.6-7 BoBh: 1 02.20-24 BoBh: 159.3-23 BoBh: 1 80.26- 1 8 1 .2 BoBh: 252.1 9-20 BoBh: 279.6- 1 1 BoBh: 392.8- 1 1
zi 42a4-5 Zi 62a6 zi 65al-3 zi 96b4-97a3 zi 1 08b2 zi 1 52a4-5 zi 1 67b 1-2 zi 233a2-3
493b6-7 501a27 502b4-6 5 15c7-20 521 a22-23 538a7-9 544b 17-20 570c 1 8-20
zi 4a24 zi 9b6-7 zi 16a2-4 zi 1 6b4-6 zi 1 6a6-b l z i 17al-5 zi 17a5-7 zi 1 7b7-1 8b l zi 19a2-b4 zi 20b4-21bl zi 20b4-6 zi 2 1al-5 zi 2 1a4-5 zi 2 1 a6 zi 21bl-2 zi 21bl-24b7 zi 2 1b2-22a4 zi 22a2-4 zi 22a3-4 zi 22a4-b l zi 22b6-7 z i 23al zi 23al-3 zi 24a2 zi 24a4-5 zi 24b7-8 zi 25a5-b2 zi 25b2-3
579c17-22 58 1 c 12-14 583c2-6 583c7- 10 583c1 1 - 1 5 584a2- 1 0 584alO- 13 584b3-19 584c 1 8-585a8 585b7-c8 585b7-13 585b 1 9-28 585b27-28 585b29-cl 585c9- 10 585c9-586c25 585c10-28 585c24-28 585c27-28 585c29-586a8 586a1 6- 1 8 586a21-22 586a22-25 586b26-28 586c2-4 586c25-27 587alO-20 . 587a21-23
394 Sanskrit
Tibetan
Chinese
zi 26al-2 zi 26b l-2 zi 26b3-4 zi 27a3-4 zi 29bl-2 z i 3 1 a6-b4 zi 3 1bl-4 zi 3 2b2-8 zi 33bl-3 zi 34a7-b4 zi 34b7-35a2 zi 3 8 a7-b l zi 3 8b4-6 z i 3 9a3-6 zi 3 9b2-5 zi 39b l -2 zi 4 1 a4-6 zi 5 1 a5-7 zi 5 1 a7-b l zi 5 1 a8-b l zi 5 1b l -3 zi 53bl -2 zi 55a5-8 zi 55b4-5 zi 56al-3 zi 56a3 zi 58a4-6 zi 62b l zi 63b8-64a2 zi 76b7-8 z i 77a8 zi 80a4-5 zi 83a6-b3 zi 86b4-7 zi 88a4-b2 zi 97b2-8 zi 98a2 zi I OOb3-5 zi l l lb4- 1 1 2al z i 1 12b6- 1 13al
587b7-9 587b25-26 587b29-c2 587c15-17 588c10- 1 2 589b24-c1 1 589c3-1 1 590a1 3-28 590b23-27 590c24 -29 591a9-14 592b29-c3 592c 1 3 - 1 6 593al -5 593a9-25 593a14- 1 8 593c1 8-20 597b l-3 597b4-9 597b6-9 597b9- 12 598a25-26 599a9- 14 599a23-26 599b7- 1 1 599b l l 600a1 8-22 602a2 602b22-27 607b 1 5- 1 6 607c8-9 608c1 6- 1 9 6 1 Oa19-27 6 1 1b I 9-24 6 1 2a15-26 6 15c20-6 1 6a3 6 16a6-7 6 1 6c26-617al 62I a4- 1 3 621b6-1 0
395 Sanskrit
Tibetan
Chinese
zi 1 15b2-3 zi 1 1 6a3-4 zi 1 1 8a8-b3 zi 1 1 8b8- 1 19a3 zi 1 2 1 a4-b3 zi 121b3-122a2 z i 122b8-123a2 z i 144a8-bl zi 152a3-4 zi 152b4-5 zi 1 53b3 zi 174b3-4 zi 179a3 zi 1 89b l-3 zi 208al-2 zi 208a4-6 zi 208a7 zi 2 15a5-6 zi 229a3-bl zi 230b8-23 1 a4 zi 23 1 a6 zi 23 1b5 zi 267b7-268a3 zi 270b4-5 zi 27 1 a5 zi 28 1 a2-3 'i 67b6-7 'i 74b6-75a3 ' i lOOb6- 101al 'i 101a2-3
622a26-28 622b15-16 623a20-24 623b6- 1 1 624a15-28 624a29-b1 4 624c 12- 1 5 633b27-29 635c5-6 635c24-25 636a29 644c8- 10 646c9- 10 65 1b13-17 659a7-8 659a12- 16 659a16-17 661b26-29 666b 13-26 667a8-14 667a20 667b5-6 681c5-1 1 682c20-23 683a12 687a17- 1 9 721b4 724a3-13 733c1 6-20 733c23-24 75 1 a24-b l 753b9-21 753b lO-14 768b25-27 770b9-22 77 1b26-c8 779c10-12 794b6-24 795c22-29
yi 64b5-65a2 yi 64b6-7 yi 47a5-6 yi 51b3-52a2 yi 54b2-6 'i 1 62a5-7 'i 201a2-b2 'i 204b8-205a4
396 Sanslait
Tibetan
Chinese
' i 207a3-4 'i 207b7-208al 'i 249a2-bl ' i 269a3-270a3 'i 269a8-b l 'i 282b4-283al ' i 285b7-286al ' i 287b5-6 'i 299b8 'i 3 1 4b2-3 15a2 'i 340b5-8 ' i 377a8-b4
796c2-3 796c26-797 a2. 8 1 3a 1 8-28 821a1 9-b21 821 a29-b2 826b12-23 827c29-828a2 828c9-1 2 833c9- 1 1 840a12-24 85 1 a3-9 866c10-20 869b6-8 879a5-8 879a14- 1 8 879a1 8-20 880c14- 1 6
B ibliography Chinese Sources A-p 'i-ta-mo chii-she Iun �iiJm)!� 1�i1f�i\1l (Abhidharmakosabhii�ya). Translated by
Hsiian-tsang :t":'lE. T. 1558.
A-p 'i-ta-mo shun cheng-Ii Iun �iiJ m)!�)III1DlI!Ji\1l (*Nyiiyiinusiira). By
Smp.ghabhadra. T. 1 562.
A-p 'i-ta-mo ta-p 'i-p 'o-sha Iun �iiJ m)!�*m�i':Hi\1l (* Vibhii�ii). Translated by
Hsiian-tsang. T. 1545.
A p 'i-t'an hsin Iun �iiJm�{,�i\1l (*Abhidharmahrdaya or *Abhidharmasiira). T. 1550. A p 'i-t'an hsin Iun ching �iiJ m�'L'�i\1l*� (*Abhidharmahrdaya [sutraD. T. 1 55 l . A p 'i-t'an k 'an-Iu-wei Iun �iiJ m�1f�p*�i\1l (*Abhidharmiim.rta). B y Gho�aka. T. 1 553. Ch 'eng shih [un iltJUi\1l (*Tattvasiddhisiistra) . T. 1646. Ch 'eng wei-shih lun ilt lljt��i\1l . By Dharmapala T. 1 585. Ch 'eng wei-shih Iun shu chi iltlljt�ilUi\1l:Jzt�2. By K'uei-chi �£. T. 1 830. Chil-she Iun chi 1�i1f�i\1l�2. By P'u-kuang w:7t. T. 1821. Chii-she Iun shu 1�i1f�WrE. By Fa-pao it • . T. 1 822. Chiieh-ting tsang [un i:R:JE��. Translated by Paramartha. T. 1 584. Hsien-yang sheng-chiao Iun t.lli:t� �t!z�i\1l. By Asailga. T. 1 602. I pu-tsung Iun [un Jf.f!i�*if!i\1l�i\1l (Samayabhedoparacanacakra). By Vasumitra.
Translated by Hsiian-tsang. T. 203 1 .
Shih-sung Iii +�I1l� (Sarviistiviidavinaya). T . 1435. Tsa a-han cl?ing *� �iiJ -2J*� (Sm!l.yuktiigama). T. 99. Tsa a-p ' i-t'an hsin Iun �� �iiJm�'L'�i\1l (*Sm!lyuktiibhidharmahrdaya). T. 1 552. Yii-ch 'ieh-Iun chi Ii{1Jo�i\1l�2. T. 1 828. Yii-ch 'ieh-shih ti Iun fif:r11Jo ejjJ:!fu�i\1l (Yogiiciirabhumisiistra). T. 1 579.
Sanskrit and Pili Sources Abhidharmadfpa with Vibhii�iiprabhiivrtti. Edited by P. S. Jaini. Tibetan Sanskrit
Works Series 4. Second edition. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1 973.
Abhidharmakosa and Bhii�ya ofAcharya Vasubandhu with Sphu!iirthii commentary of Aciirya Yasomitra. Edited by Swami Dwarkidas Shastri. B auddha B harati
Series 6. Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati, 1 97 1 .
397
398 Abhidharmakosabhii�ya. Edited by P. Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 8.
Patna: K P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1 967.
Abhidharmakosavyiikhyti. Edited by U. Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist
Bookstore, 1 990. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: The PUblishing Association of the Abhidharma-kosa-vytikhyti, 1 932- 1 936). Abhidharmasamuc;caya: "Fragments from the Abhidharmasamuccaya of Asrup.ga." Edited by V. V. Gokhale. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: Bombay Branch 23, ( 1947) [ 1979 reprint] : l3-38. Bodhisattvabhumi, Edited by Nalinaksha Dutt. Tibetan S anskrit Works Series 7. Patna: KP. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1 966. Bodhisattvabhumi: A Statement of Whole Course ofthe Bodhisattva (Being Fifteenth Section of Yogtictirabhaml). Edited by Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo
Buddhist B ook Store, 1 97 1 . Reprint (First edition: 1 936).
Madhytinta-vibhiiga-sastra: Containing the Kiirika-s ofMaitreya, Bhii�a of Vasubandhu, and '[fka by Sthiramati. Edited by Ramchandra Pandeya. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1 97 1 .
Srtivakabhiimi. Edited by Karunesha Shukla. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 14.
Patna: KP. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1 973.
ViT(lsatikli. In Vijfiaptimiitratasiddhi: Deux Traites de Vasubandhu: Virrziatika et Trirrziika.
Edited by Sylvain Levi. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honore Champion, 1 925.
Yogiictirabhiimi. Edited by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya. Part I. Calcutta: University
of Calcutta, 1 957.
Tibetan Sources (Cited by Sanskrit title) '
Abhidharmakosabhii�a. Peking B stan gyur 5591 (mdo 'grel gu). Paficaskandhaprakarana. Peking Bstan gyur 5560 (mdo 'grel si). SaT(ldhinirmocana Siit;a: L ' explication des mysteres. Edited and translated by Etienne '
Lamotte. Recueil de travaux publies par les ,membres des Conferences d'Histoire et de Philologie 2/34. Louvain: Universite de Louvain, 1935.
Yogiiciirabhami:
Peking Bstan 'gyur 5536-5543 (mdo 'grel dzi, wi, ii, zi, 'i, yi) Derge Bstan 'gyur (University of Tokyo edition) 4035-4042 (tshi, dzi, wi, ii, zi, 'i)
Miscellaneous Kokuyaku Issaikyo OO �-.J;;J] *� . Bidon-bu 25-26 (Japanese translation of Abhidharmakosabhii�a) . Kokuyaku Issaikyo OO �-.J;;J] *� . Bidon-bu 27-30 (Japanese translation of *Nytiyiinustira).
399 Kokuyaku Issaikya OO�-tJJ t'¥:. Yuga-bu 1 -6 (Japanese translation of Yogacarabhumi).
Modern Works Aramaki, Noritoshi. "Toward an Understanding of the Vijnaptimatrata. " Wisdom,
Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: The Buddhist Studies Legacy of Gadjin M. Nagao. Ed. Jonathan Silk. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i
Press, 2000. 39-60. Bareau, Andre. 'The List of the Asa1Jlskrta-dharma According to Asailga."
Researches in Indian and Buddhist Philosophy: Essays in Honour ofProfessor Alex Wayman. Ram Karan Sharma ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1 993. 1-6.
Cox, Collett. "On the Possibility of a Nonexistent Object of Consciousness: Sarvastivadin and Dar�!antika Theories." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 1 1 . 1 (1988): 3 1 -87. . Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Studia Philologica Buddhica: Monograph Series 1 1 . Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1 995. Deleanu, Florin. "An Shigao ?ti:-ilt;%'J and the History of the Anban Shouyi Jing ?ti: �lt 9')�j'¥:." Ronsa: Ajia no bunka to shiso. 2 (1993): 1 -47. Frauwallner, Erich. On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu. Serie Orientale Roma 3. Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1 95 1 . Die Philosophie des Buddhismus. 3rd edition. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1 969. "Paficaskandhaka and Paficavastuka." Studies in Abhidharma Literature and the Origins ofBuddhist Philosophical Systems. Trans. Sophie Francis Kidd. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1 995. 135-147. (Originally published as. "Abhidharma-Studien I: Pancaskandhakam und Paficavastukam." Wiener Zeitschriftfor die Kunde SUd- und Ostasiens 7 [ 1 963] : 20-36.) Fukuda Takumi t§i tEl;0\:. "Kyoryobu no Daitoku Rama" �,££ :g:� 0) *:r.&: '7 - 7 . Bukkyashigaku Kenkyu 4 1 . 1 ( 1 998): 1 -36. [ 1998a] . "J6za Seshin to Koshi Seshin" J:: � iltU t il �ifii!tU. Daho Daigaku Ronsa 78 ( 1 998): 55-76. [ 1998b] Fukuhara Ryogon t§iJJA1'Ellit Abidatsumakusharon honshu no kenkyu: kaihon, konbon, sekenhon �ilJ mitJ.@1�w�ili;:ijs: J;j:[ O):PJfjj; : !J'f.J'b . tKJ'b . ilt Fa' o'b . Kyoto: Nagata BunshOdo, 1 973. --,--:---,--:-=:-:- . Abidatsumakusharon honshu no kenkyu: gahon, zuiminhon �ilJ m it J.@{�w�flll* J;j:[ O):PJfjj; : * o'b �jft§R o'b . Kyoto: Nagata Bunsh6d6, 1986. Funahashi Issai 11tm-j\1;':jl}. Kusharon no genten kaimei: Gahon {�w�flll O) JJA � �� � * o'b . Kyoto: Hoz6kan, 1 987. ______
______ .
______ ,.
_____
__
.
400 Griffiths, Paul. On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem. La S alle, ill . : Open Court, 1 986. Hakamaya Noriaki �1t-� BB . ''Purvacarya ko" Piirvacarya �. Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 34.2 ( 1986): 93- 100. Hihan Bukkyo: Critical Buddhism 1Jt*U 1L�: Critical Buddhism. Tokyo: Daizo shuppan, 1 990. --=:=. Yuishiki shiso ronko lll�}GI,;rJl fml� . Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan, 200 1 . Harada Waso J.ili: EB5fO *. "Dignaga no Hastavalaprakara1J.a and Y.rtti. " Ryukoku Daigaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyushitsu Nempo 6 ( 1 993): 92- 1 10. --::::-.' " 'Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon (1)" <*�:g:�O) iQ O)J �O)VlEn> t v ' -? ti�O)�rp' (1). Indogaku Chibettogaku Kenkyu 1 ( 1 996): 1 35- 193. ,. '''Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon (2)" <*��0) i¥Ji O)J �O)VlEn> t v ' -? ti�O)�rp' (2). Indogaku Chibettogaku Kenkyu 2 ( 1997): 22-59. ---,.==. "'Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon (3)" <*G�O) iQ 0)J �o)�1En> t v ' -? ti�O)�r,,' (3). Indogaku Chibettogaku Kenkyu 3 ( 1 998): 92- 1 10. Hattori, Masaaki. "Yogacara." The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Mircea Eliade. New York: Macmillan, 1 987. 16 vols. 1 5 : 523-529. Hirakawa Akira f} I I �. Index to the AbhidharmakosabhiifYa. 3 vols. Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan, 1 973- 1 978. _____ 0
____
____
______
___
______
. A History ofIndian Buddhismfrom Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana.
Translated and edited by Paul Groner. Asian Studies at Hawaii 36. (Honolulu): University of Hawaii Press, 1 990. . Iwamoto Akemi :E*13Jl�. "Daijo Shogonkyoron kara mita Seshin nininsetsu" r * *Ji±�lf.£fmlJ iJ' G J.;.. t::. fE:: �l=A�. Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 49. 1 (2000): 1 16- 1 1 8. Jaini, P. S . �'Buddha' s Prolongation of Life." Bulletin of the School of OrientaJ and African Studies, University of London 2 1 .3 ( 1 958): 546-552. [ 1958a] ______ . "On the Theory of Two Vasubandhus." Bulletin of the School of Oriental andAfrican Studies, University ofLondon 2 1 . 1 ( 1 958):48-53 . [1958b] . ''The Sautrmtika Theory of bfja. " Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 22.2 (1959): 236-249. Kato Junsho 1JO��.o Kyoryobu no kenkyu *�;� O) .jiJfJe (Etude sur les Sautrantika) . Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1 989. Keenan, John. "Yogacara." Buddhist Spirituality: Indian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Early Chinese. Ed. Takeuchi Yoshinori. New York: Crossroad, 1993. 203-212. Kochumuttom, Thomas A. A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience. Delhi: Motilal B anarsidass, 1982. Kritzer, Robert. "Vasubandhu on saT[lskarapratyaya'!l vijiianam. " Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 16. 1 ( 1 993): 24-55 . ______
401 ______
. ''Ak�epahetu and Abhinirvrttihetu: Among the Ten Hetus and in the Pratrtyasatnutpada Formula." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 42.2 ( 1994): 28-33. [1994a] . "Cittaviprayuktasa'!lskaras in the Abhidharma and the Yogacara." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 43 . 1 (1 994): 9- 15. [1 994b] . "On a Sutra Quotation Common to the Yogacarabhumi and the Abhidharmakosabha�a. " Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 45. 1 (1 996): 1 5-20. . "Semen, Blood, and the Intermediate Existence." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 46.2 (1 998): 30-36. Rebirth and Causation in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 44. Wien: Arbeitskreis fiir Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universitiit Wien, 1 999. . "Rupa and the antariibhava. " Journal of Indian Philosophy 28. 3 (June 2000): 235-272. [2000a] . "Preliminary Report on a Comparison oftheAbhidharmakosabha�ya and the Yogiiciirabham i." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 49. 1 (2000): 8-12. [2000b]
______
_____
______
______ .
__�___
______
______ .
A Comparison of the Abhidharmakosabha�a (Chapters I-III) and the Yogiiciirabhumi. (Japanese Ministry of Education Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research C. Project Number 1 1610024) Kyoto: privately printed, 200 1 . "General Introduction [to the issue of the Journal of the International Association ofBuddhist Studies entitled The Sautriintikas] ." Journal of the International Association ofBuddhist Studies 26.2 (2003): 201-224. [2003a] "Sautriintika in the Abhidharmakosabha�a. " Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26.2 (2003): 3 3 1 -384. [2003b] . "The 'Additional Leaf' of the Abhidharmasamuccayabha�ya Manuscript: the Results of the Ten B ad Courses of Action." Journal Asiatique 290:2 [2003] : 465-484. [2003c] La Vallee Poussin, Louis de. Theorie des Douze Causes. Gand: Universite de Gand, 1 9 1 3 . . Vasubandhu et Ya{:omitra: Troisieme Chapitre de L 'Abhidharma ko{:a: Kiirikii, Bhii�a, et Vyiikhyii. B ouddhisme. Etudes et Materiaux: Cosmologie: Le Monde des Etres et Le Monde-receptacle. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, and Trubner, 1 9 14-1 9 1 8 . . L 'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. New edition. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 1 6 . 6 vols. Bruxelles: Institut BeIge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1 97 1 . Reprint (First edition: Louvain: J.B . Istas, 1 923- 1931). Vijnaptimiitratasiddhi: La Siddhi de Hiuan-tsang (French translation of Ch 'eng wei shih lun). 2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1 928- 1 929. "Documents d' Abhidharma: la controverse du temps." Metanges chinois et bouddhiques 5 ( 1 936-1 937): 7- 158. Lancaster, Lewis. The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1 979. ______ .
______ .
______
______
______
______ .
______ ,.
402
Matsuda Kazunobu t� B3 'fD1B . "FunbetsuengishoshOhomongyo (AVVS): ky6ry6bu seshin no engisetsu" r %J3Uff%l:,g:f)] �ytF�*,I (AVVS)j -*,I';'ti�-tlb�1 0) ��
,gm. Bukkyogaku Semina. 36 ( 1982) : 40-70. [1982a] "Seshin engikyoyaku (PSVy) ni okeru arayashiki no teigi" iit:f1 r*� ,g*,IW{ (PSVy) j �: ;J3 ft J., 7 '7 "\" � 0) 7E�. Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 3 1 . 1 ( 1 982) : 63-66. [ 1 9 82b] ---'... "Vasubandhu kenkyu noto ( 1)" Vasubandhu liJfjE .J - r (1)_ Indo gaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 32.2 ( 1 984) : 82-85. _____ . "Vya.khya.yukti no nitai setsu- Vasubandhu kenkyu noto (2)" Vya.khya.yukti O) = �'iif m-Vasubandhu liJf jE .J - r (2) . Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 3 3 . 2 (1 985): 1 14- 1 20. . "Darairama 1 3 sei kizo no ichiren no neparu kei shahon ni tsuite: Yugaron Sh6kecchakubun B onbun dankan hakken ki 1" I If '7 1 '7 "?' 13 iit *�W O) -Jl O) ;t, j \ - )v*�� f: "J v ' "( - r:ij({!JO�ijjU 1�i*tR%�)c1fJf �.Jl3€J! EC-J . Nihon Chibettogakukai KaihO 34 (1988): 1 6-20. _----.,-,---, :-;----, -: . "Yugaron 'ShOimonbun' no Bonbun dankan" r�{!JO�md 11�� r�%J 0) �)C1fJf�.Jl. Indotetsugaku Bukkyogaku (Hokkaido Journal of Indo logical and Buddhist Studies) 9 ( 1 994) : 90- 108. . "Gejinmikkyo ni okeru bosatsujuchi no bonbun shiryo" r�4i** -,--,-*,Ij f: ;J3 ft J., i1f]li -Hfu 0) �)cJtif4 . Bukkyo Daigaku Sogokenkyujo Kiyo 3 ( 1 995) : 59-77. Mejor, Marek. Vasubandhu 's Abhidharmakosa and the Commentaries Preserved in the Tanjur. Institut fur Kultur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets an der Universitat Hamburg,Alt- undNeu-Indische Studien 42. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1 99 1 . Miyashita Seiki ETSIi)\:l. "On the Retrogression o f the Arhat in the Abhidharma kosa." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 30.2 ( 1 982): 12-16. --,- ,- "Kusharon ni okeru hon mu kon u ron no haikei" r f:l'l.�ilifu' j f: ;J3 ft J., ��4-� 0) 1r*. Bukkyogaku Semina. 44 (1 986): 7-37. ---:--::c-:-:--' "Mumyo to Shogy6: Kusharon ni okeru kokoro to katachi" � J:j,EJ (: � 1T - If:l'l.��6ilJ f: ;J3 ft J., 'L' (: %. Nippon Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo 57 ( 1 992) : 1 -28 . Mizuno K6gen 7j(fIlJr.;.l. 5G. "Hiyushi to Jojitsuron" � Il)j{( ejjj !:: Jtt J.' �6il. Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo 1 ( 1 930): 1 34- 1 56. Mochizuki Shink6 �Jj 1B=¥. Mochizuki Bukkyo Dai Jiten � Jj 1�Ujz*�'f�. Tenth edition. Tokyo: Sekai Seiten Kanko, 1 974. Mukai Akira [i'fJ#-;;ft. "Yugashijiron: shOjibun to Zoagongyo" l�f!Jo �jjj :t!!!J6ilJ :J'fli $- 5t !:: 1��iiJ '@J*,IJ . Hokkaido Daigaku Bungakubu Kiyo 33.2 (1985): 1 -4 1 . Muroji Gijin � ;'J:�1=. Vasubandhus Interpretation des Pratftya.samutpa.da. Institut __
-;;-:=-:---,-,-:- ..
_____
_____
__
__
___
_
.
fur Kultur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets an der Universitat Hamburg,
Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 43. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1 993 .
403 Nagao Gajin ft�:fft A , Kajiyama Yuichi i'ffi Lli tl -, and Aramaki Noritoshi y,U& � 13f:. Seshin ronshu i:!bfJl,�ilI�. Daij6 Butten 15. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha, 1976. Nakamura Hajime 9=' tt:7G. Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal B anarsidass, 1 987. First Indian edition (First edition: Japan, 1 980). Piisadika (Bhikkhu). Kanonische Zitate in Abhidharrnakosabhii�ya des Vasubandhu. S anskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan Funden: Beiheft: 1 . Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprech 1986. Pruden, Leo M. Abhidharrnakosabhii�yal'(L by Louis de La Vallee Poussin (English Translation). 4 vols. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1988-1990. Rahula, Walpola. Le Compendium de la Super-doctrine (Philosophie) (Abhidharrna samuccaya) d'Asmiga. Publications de rEcole Fran<;aise d'Extreme-Orient 78. Paris: Ecole Fran<;aise d'Extreme-Orient, 1980. Deuxieme edition. Rospatt, Alexander von. The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness. Institut flir Kultur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets an der Universitat Hamburg, Alt und Neu-Indische Studien 47. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1 995. S aeki Kyokuga 1tc1a;l[g:fft . Kanda Abidatsumakusharon M;¥f;�riJ 1'e.)t�1�'i1r�ilI. 3 vols. Kyoto: H6z6kan, 1 978. Sakurabe Hajime 1Mll'��. "Furauwarunii shi no Seshin nendai ron ni tsuite" 7 '7 '/ '7) v -r--.E\;O) ; i:!JjJl,::9=-1-UilI f :-::J v ,-C. Indogaku Bukkyagaku Kenkyu 1.1 (1952): 202-208. Salcurabe Hajime i'M ll'�� and Odani Nobuchiyo /J':fr113 Tit. Kusha-ron no Genten Kaimei: Genja-bon 1�'i1r�ilI O) )Jj( ��li-J:jFj ��� . Kyoto: H6z6kan, 1 99 1 . Sakurabe Hajime iMll'�, Odani Nobuchiyo /J':fr113 T1t, and Honj6 Yoshifurni * i±.&Jt. Kusha-ron no Genten kenkyu: Chi-bon, la-bon f�'i1r�ilI O) )Jj( �1iJf� t\' � . JE p",& . Tokyo: Daiz6 shuppan, 2004. Schrnithausen, Lambert. "Sautriintika-Voraussetzungen in V�satikii und Trirp.sikii." Wiener Zeitschriftflir die Kunde Sild- und Ostasiens 11 ( 1967): 1 09- 136. -.". . Der Nirviil)a-Abschnitt in der Viniicayasal'(Lgrahal)f der Yogiiciira bhiimiJ:!. Osterreichische Akadernie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 264, Band 2, Abhandlung. Wien: Hermann Bohlaus, 1 969. . "Zur Literaturgeschichte def alteren Yogiiciira-schule." Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenliindischen GesellschaJt, Supplement 1. 3 ( 1 969): 8 1 1823 . [ 1969aJ . "Zu den Rezensionen des Udiinavargal,l." Wiener Zeitschrift flir die Kunde Sild- und Ostasiens 14 (1 970): 47-123 . . Alayavijiiiina. Studia Philologica Buddhica: Monograph Series N. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1 987. .. "Yogiiciirabhiirni: Sopadhikii and Nirupadhikii Bhiimil;1." Ii Xian
_____
______
______
______
______
Lin jiao shou ba shi hua dan ji nian lun wen ji $�**�tst)\ +��U2.1t�ilI
Jt �. Ed. Li Zheng $W and Jiang Zhong Xin �,\E',*Jf. Vol. 2. Nanchang: Jiangxi renrnin chubanshe, 199 1 . 687-7 1 1 .
404 Silk, Jonathan A. "Contributions to the Study of the Philosophical Vocabulary of Mahayana Buddhism." The Eastern Buddhist 3 3 . 1 (200 1): 144- 1 6 8 . . "What, if Anything, is Mahayana Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications." Numen 49 (2002): 355-405. Skilling, Peter. "Vasubandhu and the Vyiikhyiiyukti Literature." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23.2 (2000): 296-350. Stcherbatsky, Th, The Central Conception ofBuddhism and the Meaning of the Word "Dharma. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988. Reprint (First edition: London 1 922). Suguro Shinjo JlJH51��j\-. "Yugaron no seiritsu ni kansuru shiken" Ijjtd�o �ffil O) jjJ(; 1L. �: � T � fj,J�. Osaki Gakuh6 1 29 (1975): 1-50. TaishO Daigaku Sogo Buk:kyo kenkyujo ShOmonji kenkyiikai *lE*�r,i:il"15il iR ______
"
Wi' �pJffo llD ±&Wi'��. Yugaron Shomonji: Daiichi Yugasho: Sanskurittogo tekisuto to wayaku :£ff:i 11Jo�ffilfo llD :f:m : -1T :/ 7/7 1) '/ H@fj- .::t- A r UD�R.
Tokyo: SankibO Busshorin, 1998. Takakusu Junjiro. "The Life ofVasu-bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499-569)." T'oung Pao. Ser. 2, 5 (1904): 269-296. Ui Hakuju +#1B�. Yugaron Kenkyu Iilt{�o�ffil1iJf�.Tokyo: Iwanarni Shoten, 1 958. Waldron, William. The Buddhist Unconscious: The Alaya-vijfiiina in the Context of Indian Buddhist Thought. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003. Wayman, Alex. "The Sacittikii and Acittikii Bhumi and the Pratyekabuddhabhumi. " Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 8. 1 ( 1960): 30-34. . Analysis ofthe Sravakabhiimi Manuscript. University of California Publications in Classical Philology 17. Berkeley: University ofCalifomia Press, 1961. "The Sacittika and Acittika Bhilrni: Text and Translation," Buddhist Insight. Religions of Asia Series 5. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. 327-33 1 . . "Doctrinal Affiliation of the Buddhist Master Asailga." Amalii Prajfiii: Aspects ofBuddhist Studies (B .V.Bapat Volume). Delhi: Indian Books Centre, 1989. 201-22 1 . Willemen, Charles, Th e Essence ofMetaphysics: Abhidharmahrdaya. Serie "Etudes et Textes" 4. Brussels: L'Institut Belges des Hautes Etudes Bouddhiques, 1 975. Willemen, Charles, Bart Dessein, and Collett Cox. Sarviistiviida Buddhist Scholasticism. Leiden: Brill, 1 998. Yamabe Nobuyoshi LlJ :g:� ��lL "Shilji no honnu to shinkun no mondai ni tsuite" �ir 0) :;t;ff !:: ,*Jf� O) rp�Ji!1! �: -::l v ' -C . Nihon Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo 54 (1989): 43-58, "Bfja Theory in Viniicayasa/'(lgrahal}l." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 3 8 . 2 ( 1 990): 1 3 - 1 5 . "An Shigao as a Precursor of the Yogacara Tradition: a Preliminary Study." Watanabe Takao Kyoju Kanreki Kinen Bukkyo Shiso Bunkashi Ronso iJijl �1:�iRtf�M�2.2"1LiR}�'J;l!)C1t5t:�ffil:i: . Kyoto: Nagata BunshOdo, 1997. 153-194. ______
______ '
______
______ ,.
______ '
405 _____ .
"Yugashichiron ni okeru zenaku inka setsu no ichisokumen: iwayuru 'shikishingokun' setsu 0 chushin toshite" I rFitd1Jrr �f!i±ill �ifu' j �::: .:l3 �t i6 '§.fl!HEi *mO) �1HU[ij : v ' ;b � i6 T g,A.'..tiJljl;j m � >p {, t L-CJ Nihon Bukkyo gakkai Nenpi5 65 (2000): 127-46. [2000a] Review of Rebirth and Causation in the Yogacara Abhidharma by Robert Kritzer. Bukkyogaku Semina 72 (2000): 59-69. [2000b] Yamaguchi Susumu LlJ 0 � and Funahashi Issai fltm-� . Kusha-ron no Genten Kaimei: Seken-bon 1�%�ifu' 0) J.lli: �:f!lf J3)3 i:!t r"� Q"b . Kyoto: H6z6kan, 1 955.
______ ,.
406
Index S�veral terms, such as Abhidha1711£lkosabhi'o/Ya, *Nyiiyiinusiira, Poussin, Pradhan, SaIpghabhadra, sutra-master, VasUbaIldhu, and Yogik;iirabhiimi, occur very frequently in ilie body of ilie book Therefore, only occurrences in ilie introduction have been indexed.
tihrfkya 48-49 iijiiiitiivfndriya 36, 3 8 - 3 9 iijiiendriya 3 6 , 3 8 -39 iikiira 374-375 iikasa 1 9 , 32, 1 1 5-1 1 7 aklie!a 258 aklie!iivyiikrta mithyiijiiiina 292 iikeepahetu 1 32- 1 3 3 akusala 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 , 292-293 , 3 64 akusala dharma 128 akusalamula 248 iilambanagrahal:zaprakiira 374 iilayavijiiiina xiii, xviii-xix, xxix-xxx, xxxiv, xxxvi-xxxvii, 2 1 , 67, 145,
Abhasvara gods 1 3 6 - 1 37 abhidharma xiii, xvii, xix-xxi, xxvi, xxx, xxxvii, 2-3 , 1 54, 224, 3 8 8 - 3 8 9 407
Abhidharmadfpa xxi, xxv, xxvii, 36, 42
*Abhidharmahrdaya xxi-xxii, 48 *Abhidharmahrdayasiistra xxi Abhidharmakosabhii�a vii, xii, xxxxii, xxiv-xxxii, xxxiv, xxxvi Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii xxi, xxiv, xxxv, 44, 126, 1 60, 1 62, 1 64, 1 86, 1 96 , 202, 204, 230, 250, 256, 284, 302, 336, 368, 374, 386, 3 8 8
203
Abhidharmiimrta 4 8 abhidharmapi!aka 2 Abhidharmasamuccaya xii, xiii, 77,
alobha 47 amoha 47 anabhisaJ?'lSkiiraparinirviiyin aniigiimin 358-359 aniigiimin 360-3 6 1 aniijiiiitamiijiiiisyamfndriya 3 6 , 3 8 -3 9 iinantarya 356-357 iinantaryakarma 220 iinantaryamiirga 3 8 , 356-357, 3 8 2 iiniipiinasmrti 352-353 anapatriipya 48-49 aniisrava 130, 1 45 , 1 8 8 - 1 89 , 354 aniisrava citta 204 aniisrava indriya 36-3 8 aniisravadharma 1 0 8 aniisravarupa 1 8 8 aniitman 376 ariga 152 Arigiirakareupamasutra 3 64 anityatii 82- 83 antagriihadr�!i 149, 290 antartibhava xxvi� 1 3 6, 142- 143, 1 86
103, 389
Abhidharmasamuccayabhii�ya 262, 389
Abhidhiirmika
1 32, 1 54, 202, 206, 240,
348
abhidhyii 250-25 1 abhijiiii 3 8 0 , 382- 1 0 abhikeu 230 *abhinirvrttijiiti 75 abhisamayiintika saJ?1vrtijiiiina 378-379 abhisaJ?1skiiralakeal:za 1 85 abhutaparikalpa xiii, xviii acintya 3 3 5 Acittikii Bhumi xv adhimokea 3 7 0 adhimuktimanaskiira 352 adhipatiphala 267 adhie!hiina 3 1 4 iidhiethiinikfrddhi xxxvii, 140 adveea 47
407
408 antariiyahetu 267 antariiyahetvadhi�!hiina 267 . anusaya xxvii, xxxv, 1 1 8, 268, 270- 273 , 276, 280, 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 anuvartaka 204, 206 anvayajiiiinak�iinti 280 anyathiitva 60, 73, 82, 86, 92 apatrapii 22 apratigha 1 8 6 apratisal'flkhyiinirodha 19, 1 1 5 , 120121 Aramaki Noritoshi xviii, xxv, xxxiv arhat xxvii, xxxvi, 1 8 , 39, 42 -43 , 108, 1 30, 1 66, 230, 3 62-364, 3 66-367 iirtlpyadhiitu 22, 1 32-13 3 , 135, 145, 278 iirya 52-5 3 , 200, 202 iiryadharma 62-63 iiryaval'flsa 350 iiryavihiira 3 6 1 asaik�a 39, 1 3 1 asaik�acitta 130- 1 3 1 asaik�adharma 220, 222, 224 asamiihita 372 Asamiihitii Bhiimi xv, xxxiv, 373 asal'fljiiisamiipatti 66-67 asal'flskrta 19, 1 15 , 358 asal'flSkrtadharma xix, xxvii, xxxv, 1 81 9 , 1 14, 340 asal'fltu�ti 348-349 asal'flvara 199, 228, 248 *asal'flvarartlpa xxxiv, 5, 1 87 Asanga xii-xiii, xvii-xix� XXii, Xxiv-xxv asat 3 1 8 iisaya 202 iisrava 235, 3 3 8 iisravaqayajiiiinasiik�iitkriyii 3 8 0 iisraya xxxv, 10, 59, 202, 220-221 , 378 iisrayapariiv.rtti xix, 202 iisrayapariv[1ti 203 asubhabhiivanii 352 iitmabhiiva 69, 272, 278-279, 350 iitman 28-29 iitmaviida 320 avarabhiigfyaprahii�aparijiiii 344 avasthii 296
iivasthika 148, 1 50- 1 5 1 , 1 5 6 avidyii 148-150, 152, 156, 1 60, 1 64- 165, 262-263 avijiiapti xxxiv, 5, .8, 10-1 1 , 95, 1 86, 1 94, 1 96, 198, 200, 202, 248 , 256 avijiiaptirtlpa xix, xxvii, xxxiv, 4, 9, 1 1 , 1 86, 1 8 8 , 190, 1 9 8 avikalpita 292 Avitarkii Viciiramiitrii Bhiimi xiii Avitarkiiviciirii Bhiimi xiii avyiikrta 292- 293, 382 iiyatana 12, 16- 1 8 , 2 1 , 328-329 ayoniSo manasikiira 152, 353 iiyuflsal'flSkiira xxxvi, 43 iiyus 68 iiyu�ka�iiya 1 7 1 Bareau,
Andre xix
xv, 55, 155, 159, 305, 385 bhava 279, 3 3 8 bhiivaniiheya 206, 2 0 8 , 280 bhiivaniiheyakleia 3 8 , 2 8 1 bhiivaniimiirga 344 bhiivaniimayf346- 347 Bhiivaniimayf BhUmi xv, xvii bhavariiga 278 bhik�u 215, 2 1 8 , 224, 230 -23 1 , 233, 236, 240, 242, 245 bhi�u sal'flvara 2 1 5 bhik�u Sfla 2 3 0 , 234 bhiimi 376 bfja xix, xxvii, xxx, xxxiv-xxxv, xxxvii, 44, 50-52, 54- 56, 5 8 -60, 64, 95, 1 1 1 , 127, 1 3 3 , 1 3 8 , 165, 190, 272-273 , 279, 3 04, 362- 363 bodhi 2 1 2 Bodhicaryiivatiirapaiijikii 304 Bodhicittotpiidanaiiistra Xxiv bodhipa�adharma 368 bodhisattva xxxvi-xxxvii, 43, 79, 1 4 1 , 23 1 , 233 Bodhisattvabhiimi xiii, xv, xvii-xviii, xxxiii-xxxiv, xxxvi-xxxvii, 75, 79, 1 4 1 , 145, 1 7 1 , 22 1 , 23 1 , 233 , 267, Bhattacharya, Vidhushekhara
409 3 3 5 , 37 1 , 3 9 1 bodhisattvaszlasa,?,vara 23 1 bodhyanga 212 Brahma 137, 290 Bn-ston xxii
2- 3 , 43, 72, 74, 140- 141 , 1 62, 170- 1 7 1 , 2 14, 2 1 8, 220, 222, 224, 234, 242, 295, 298-299 , 302-305, 308 -309, 3 1 6, 3 1 8 , 3 2 1 , 328-329, 350, 3 8 8 - 3 8 9 buddhatva 220 Bnddha xi, xxxvi-xxxvii,
dal}¢ika 172 darsana 280 darsanaheya 3 8 , 63, 206, 208, 280-2 8 1 , 379 darsanaheyakleia 3 8 , 2 8 1 darianamarga 344, 378- 379 Dar�lantika xxvi-xxix, 32, 250, 3 12, 3 84, 386 Dasabhamikasastra xxiv daue!hulya 387 Deleann, Florin xi Dessein, Bart xxi-xxii
caitasika 28-29 caitta 28, 65, 67, 374, 384 cakeurindriya 1 86, 304-305 cakeurvijiiana 47, 384 caya 282 cetana 1 84-1 85, 258, 260 cetovimukti 371 chanda 368 Ch 'eng wei-shih lun JlX:Pl��All 34, 38, 8 1 , 95, 267, 383 Ch 'eng wei-shih lun shu chi JlX: plt ��ilii
J!t§[, xxvi
ching-chu iI:?[j: xxxi-xxxii, 2 Chii-she lun ch d � ��§[, xxii Chii-she lun shu {���i91E xxii Chiieh-ting tsang [un i;k:JEi1t�ilii xvi, 295 cintamayf 346-347 Cintamayf Bhami xv, xvii, xxxiii, xxxvi, 43, 1 9 1 , 235, 263, 335 Cintamayfprajiia Bhami xxxiii-xxxv, 5, 1 9 , 45, 95, 1 3 3 , 273 , 343 citta 28, 64, 67, 130, 1 64, 204, 2 1 0, 270, 368, 372, 374, 384 cittaikagrata 384 cittamahabhamika dharma 384 cittaviprayukta 270-271 cittaviprayuktasa,?,skara xix, xxviixxviii, xxxiv-xxxvi, 5, 63, 94-95, 1 3 3 , 147 Cox, Collett xxii, xxix, 38, 62, 70, 1 22, 1 25, 3 1 2, 3 14, 3 1 6 dana 1 9 1 dal}¢a 172
dharma 128 Dharmadharmatavibhaga xii, xxiv dharmadhatu 28- 29 dharmajiiana 354 dharmajiianakeanti 280, 354 dharmakaya 221 dharmapravicaya 2, 2 1 2 Dharmaskandha xx dharmasmrtyupasthana 380 Dharmasrl xxi, 48, 270 dharmasanyata xi dharmata 190- 1 9 1 dharmatayukti 1 9 1 Dharmatrata 2, 32 dhatu 12, 1 6- 1 8, 22 Dhatukaya xx dhyana 1 29, 2 1 0, 2 1 2, 3 82, 3 86-387 dhyanabhumi 2 1 0 dhyananga 212, 3 8 6 dhyanasa,?,vara 2 1 1 , 244-245 digbhagabheda 35 DIpakara xxxvii
divyacakeus 382 divyasrotra 3 82-3 8 3 dravya 1 82, 272 dre!adharmasukhavihara 38-39, 366 dmam 252-253 dmi 1 3 1 , 263, 284, 290, 292 duF:zkha 284, 286, 336 duF:zkhasatya 284 darfbhava 340, 343 Ekagathabhaeya xxvi
410 Jaini,
ekiigratii 3 8 4 Fa-pao
it. xxii,
P.S. xxiv-xxvii, 42
janakapratyaya 308 jarii 79, 8 3 , 87, 92- 93
1 64, 3 8 8
Frauwallner, Erich xxi, xxiv-xxv
jiiti 71, 7 3 , 75, 79, 82-8 3 , 86- 87, 1 6 9 , 297
Fukuda Takumi xxv, 122, 1 45 Fukuhara Ry6gon xx, 5, 1 5 Funahashi Issai xx, 1 9 8 , 228, 2 3 0 , 244, 252,254
jihvii 22 jihviivijiiiinadhiitu 22 Jinaputra xvi jfvitendriya xxxvi, 42-43, 68-69, 1 32133
gambhfra 335 gandha 22 gandhadhiitu 22-23 Giithiirthasarp.grahasiistra xxvi Giithiisarp.graha xxv Giithiisarp.grahasiistra xxv-xxvi gati 1 3 6
jiiiina 3 5 6
Jiiiinaprasthiina xx-xxi, 104, 106 Kajiyama Yuichi xxiv-xxv
kiimadhiitu 129, 1 45 , 256, 290, 344, 376, 386
kiimavairiigya 128 Kanda Abidatsumakusharon �� JliiJ .m Jt��*� xxii kiiritra 88, 92, 1 22- 123, 294-296
Gho�aka 3 8 0
ghriira 2 2 ghriiravijiiiinadhiitu 22 gotra 237 grah 126
karma xix, xxviii-xxix, xxxvi, 42, 6 8 69, 1 1 1 , 1 3 3 , 1 84- 1 85 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 9 ,
Griffiths, Paul xxiv-xxv
204, 250-25 1 , 266 -267, 322 Hakamaya Noriaki xii, xvi-xvii,
xix,
xxv, xxvii, 190, 252, 293, 379 Harada Was6 xxv, xxvii-xxviii
*karmabfja 305, 321 karmapatha xxix, 1 9 8 , 25 1 , 256, 258, 260, 262
Harivarman xxvii
Karmasiddhiprakarara xii, xxiv-xxvi,
hetu 1 0 8 , 1 3 9 hetuphalasadviida 3 2 3 , 327
kiiryakiirarayukt 123
Hirakawa Akira xiv, xviii-xix, 3 , 5 , 70,
ka�tiya 170- 1 7 1
xxviii, 1 8 5
1 54, 228, 252, 254, 334, 3 4 8 , 354,
KaSmIra Vaibh�ika xxi, xxx, 230, 240, 388
3 5 6 , 3 6 8 , 376
Kathiivatthu 42
Hinayana xi, xxvii Honjo Yoshifumi xx, 3 1 8
Kat6 JunshO xi, xxvii, 32, 362
hrf22
KiityiiyanIputra 2
Hsien-yang sheng-chiao lun
�
!mm��
xii-xiii, 77, 103, 105, 1 1 9, 267
HSiian-tsang �� xii, xiv, xx, xxii, xxvi, xxxi-xxxii, l 1 0 , 204, 295 , 3 80, 3 84 Hui-hsiang
�::t$
xxiv
indriya 3 6 - 3 7 , 39, 65, 176, 246 I-pu-tsung lun lun �g�*fftli� xxvi Iwamoto Akemi xxv
kavarjfkiiriihiira 22
kiiya 1 85 , 282 kiiyiibhisarp.skiira 1 8 5 ktiyakarma 1 84- 1 8 5
ktiyasiik�in 360- 3 6 1 ktiyavijiiapti 1 82- 1 84 kiiyendriya 3 6 Keenan, John xiii
kila 32 klesa xix, 3 8 -39, 52, 1 1 9 , 129, 1 4 8 , 203 ,
411 258, 263 , 270, 273 , 277, 284, 3 3 3 , 3 3 6 , 339-340, 3 5 6 , 362-363
kli�ta 1 3 6, 372 kli�tamanas xix, 293
Kochumuttom, Thomas xxiv-xxv, 34, 374
Kosakara xxv-xxvi
k�alJa 1 68 - 1 69, 1 72 *k�alJajtiti 1 69 k�alJika 172, 175 k�tinti 354, 356 ksetra 139
K' uei-chi R£ xxiv, xxvi
Kumaralata xxvi
kuprajiiti 1 64 kusala 1 3 6 , 204, 372 kusalacitta 1 30- 1 3 1 kusaladharmachanda 3 9 kusalamahtibhiimika 46 kusalamula 54-5 5 , 126-127 , 245 , 248, 262 La Vallee Poussin, Louis de xx, xxii, xxviii-xxx
*lak�alJtirtha 95
Lamotte, Etienne xxviii
laukika 166 laukikacitta 222 laukiktigradharma 354 laukikamtirga 52, 129, 364 laukikasamtidhi 1 89 lokottara 63 lokottarasamtidhi 1 8 9 Madhyamika xxvi
Madhytintavibhtiga xii, xxiv-xxv Madhytintavibhtigastistra 374 Madhytintavibhtigatfkti 374 mahtibhumika dharma 47 mahtibhuta xxxv, 10-1 1 , 44- 45 , 65, 1 8 9
Mahtiytintibhidharmasutra xii Mahtiytinasa'!lgraha xii-xiii, xxiv Mahtiytinasutrtila'!lktira xii, xxiv mahecchatti 348-349 MahIsasaka xix-xx
Maitreya xii-xiii, xvii-xviii, xxvi
Majjhimaniktiya 235 mtina 149 manas 21 manasktira 46-47 manovijiitina 308 Manobhiimi xv, xxvii, xxxiii, 2 1 , 3 5 , 47, 55, 1 1 1 , 1 27, 1 8 5 , 253, 279, 3 8 5
manopaviciira 1 6 6 manovijiitina 2 1 , 24, 4 7 , 3 0 9 , 3 84 manovijiiapti 1 84 marana 73 miirg� 1 30, 2 1 2, 246, 284, 286, 3 5 8 -359 mtirgadu#n 236-237, 242 mtirgtiliga 2 1 2 mtirgiinvayajiiiina 344 mtirgiinvayajiitinak�tinti 344 matam 1 54, 1 62, 1 86, 252-253 mtitrkti 3, 389 *Mtitrktivastu xvii Mats�da Kazunobu xiii-xiv, xvi, xxv, 5, 1 87 , 1 8 9
MaulfBhumi xiii, xv-xviii, xxxiii-xxxiv, 267
Mejor, Marek xxii, xxiv-xxv
middha 372-373 mfmtimsa 368 mithyadr�ti xxix, 1 49, 208, 250-25 1 , 262-263
mithyiijiitina 290
Miyashita Seiki xxvii, 265, 362
Mochizuki Shinka 214, 230
Mukai Akira xvii, 85, 1 3 9, 1 6 1 , 298, 305, 309, 3 1 7
mulaccheda 248
Mahasfup.ghika 4 2 , 1 3 6 , 1 5 8
Millasarvastivadin xi
Mahayana xi-xii, xvii, xix, xxi-xxii,
Muroji Gijin xxv
*Mahtivibhti�ti xxi
xxiv-xxvii, xxix , xxxiv, xxxvii, 32,
42
muni 3 8 8
Nagao Gajin xxv
412
nama 94, 96-98, 100, 1 02 namakiiya 95, 103 namariipa xxxv, 5 8 Nanda 8 4
nikayasabhaga 6 8 , 120, 1 3 2- 1 3 3 , 244 nirodha 286, 340 nirodhasamapatti 66-67 , 360-3 6 1 nirodhasatya 289 nirukti portion of the pratrtyasamutpada exposition 1 5 9 Nirupadhika Bhilmi xv nirupadhise�anirva1}a 39, 1 1 1 nirvana 108, 308, 3 5 8 , 360- 3 6 1
Nishi Giyii xx, 3 84 ni�andaphala 262, 266-267, 354 nztartha 1 5 6 , 230 nityadr�!i 290 *Nyiiyanusara xii, xxi-xxii , xxxi-xxxii Odani Nobuchiyo
ogha 3 3 8
xx
pada 94, 102 padakaya 95, 103 paka 1 1 0 Paiicaskandhaka xii, xxiv-xxvi, 22, 4 8 Paiicavijiianakiiyamanobhiimi xvi, xix ,
Paramarthasiinyatasiitra 3 04-305 paratantrasvabhava xix parijfia 344 parikalpitasvabhava xix *parikalpitasvabhavalak�a1}a 95 pari1}ama 190 pari1}amavise�a 1 90 parini�pannasvabhava xix paryavasthana xxxv, 55 , 127, 23 1 , 23 3 , 272-27 3 , 276, 3 3 3
Paryiiyasa1flgraha1}fxvi, xxxiii , 29, 239,347
Piisiidika (Bhikkhu) 44, 84, 235, 304, 3 1 8 , 328
PiiSciittya 372
pen-wu chin-yu *�4-:ff 83 P 'o-su-p 'an-toufa-shih chuan �l*� Jf¥*aill'/i xxii Poussin See La Vallee Poussin, Louis de
P ' u-kuang ,lb't
xxii , 1 2 , 1 3 6 , 1 5 8 , 1 64 ,
1 8 5 , 220, 244, 252, 260, 328, 342,
3 5 8 , 380, 3 84, 3 8 6
xxxiii-xxxvi, 5, 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 9 , 2 1 , 23 ,
phala 1 1 0- 1 1 1 , 1 54, 246, 3 22-323 *phalaprajfiapti 1 1 9 Pradban, P. xx, xxiii, xxviii-xvi prahf1}aklesa 52 prajfia 1 1 9, 1 64- 1 6 5 , 263 , 346- 347 , 3 6 8 ,
63, 65, 67, 69, 7 1 , 73, 7 5 , 8 3 , 87,
prajfiapti xxxiv-xxxv, 5, 12, 19, 5 1 , 54,
3 3 , 3 5 , 37, 3 9 , 43, 5 1 , 5 3 , 57, 59,
9 3 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 , 1 17 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 ,
129, 1 3 3 , 143, 147, 155, 1 6 5 , 1 69,
175, 177, 1 8 1 , 1 85 , 1 87 , 1 89 , 1 9 9 ,
203 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 , 227, 245 , 263 , 295,
297-299, 3 0 3 , 305, 309, 3 1 5 , 3 2 1 ,
363
Paiicavijiianakiiyasamprayukta Bhami xv, xxxiii , xxxv, 47 , 177 paiicopadanaskandha 282 parajika 23 1 , 2 3 3 , 235, 240- 241 , 245 Paramlirtha xi, xvi, xx, xxii, xxiv-xxv, xxvii, 36, 1 1 0, 204, 295, 384
paramartha 220 Paramarthagatha xxxvi, 3 3 Paramarthasaptatika xxiv
37 1 , 374
66-67, 69, 95, 1 02, 1 17 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 3 , 1 69, 176- 177, 1 80"1 83, . 1 87, 2 1 8,
273 , 328
Prajfiaptislistra xx prajiiavimukti 3 7 1 prajfiendriya 3 7 Prakara1}apada xx prapafica 1 8 9 prapti xxxiv, 3 8 , 50-5 1 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 8 , 356 prasadariipa 3 8 3 prasrabdhi 3 6 8 , 3 8 6
pratigha 149, 1 8 0 pratimo�asa1flvara 23 1 pratipa�a 340, 343 , 362 pratipannakamarga 246
413 *pratisa'!ldhijiiti 75 pratisa'!lkhyiinirodha 19, 1 14- 1 1 5,. 1 1 8119 pratftyasamutpiida 148, 1 50, 152-155, 158-159, 1 62, 338 pratftyasamutpiida exposition 29, 1 1 1 , 1 5 1 , 157, 1 6 1 , 1 63 Pratftyasamutpiidasiltra 1 52, 156- 1 57 Pratftyasamutpiidavyiikhyii xii, xxivxxvi
pratftyasamutpannadharma 1 54 pratftyasamutpannatii 72, 74, 155 pratyaya 1 04, 158, 308 pratyekabuddha 221 , 3 8 8 Pratyekabuddhabhilmi xv-xvi pravartaka 204, 206, 208 pravrttivijfiiina xix, xxxvi, 145 prayogamiirga 39 prthagjana 129, 244 prthagjanatvam 62- 63 prfti 368, 3 8 6-387 Pruden, Leo xx
puru�akiira 122 puru�akiiraphala 122 puru�endriya 36 pilrviiciirya xxvii, 64, 1 3 1 , 160, 1 90, 1 94, 252-254, 292, 378-5, 386 pilrvaniviisiinusmrti 380 riiga 1 49, 1 64, 268, 276, 279, 370 riigiinusaya 272, 276 Rahu1a, Walpola xiii
rasa 22 rasadhiitu 22-23 riiSi xxxv, 1 2 rddhi 140, 368-369 rddhipiida 368- 369 Rospatt, Alexander von 74-75,
77, 79, 169, 172, 174- 175 rilpa xix, xxvii, xxxvi, 5 , 8 , 10, 1 6, 32-3 3 , 3 5 , 64, 70, 95, 1 0 1 , 1 1 7 , 1 3 2- 1 3 3 , 1 3 5 , 154, 177, 1 80, 1 8 6 189, 191, 3 12 rilpadhiitu 22-23, 145, 278 , 376 rilpaskandha 5, 7 1 , 94
rilpfndriya 1 7 6 sabhiigahetu 1 04-105, 1 0 8 , 294 siibhisa'!lskiiraparinirviiyin aniigiimin 35 8-359 Sacittikii Bhilmi xv, xviii, xxxiii, xxxvi, 145 �arliiyatana 59 SaddharmapuIJrlarfkopadeia xxiv Saeki Kyokuga xx, xxii, xxxii, 3 3 , 384 sahabhilhetu 1 22 sahaja satkiiyadr�!i 1 3 1 saik�a 1 3 1 , 364 saik�acitta 130- 1 3 1 saikeadharma 222 saktivaicitrya hetvadhie!hiina 145 Sakurabe Hajime xx, xxv
samiidhi xxxvi, 43 , 1 87- 1 8 9 , 200, 202, 212, 346-347, 368-369, 3 84-385 samiidhfndriya 37 samiidhivieayarilpam 1 8 6 siimagrf 145, 147 siimagrf hetvadhie!hiina 1 45 Samiihitii Bhilmi xv, xvii, xxxiii, 49, 279, 387 samanantarapratyaya 1 04 samiipatticitta 66 siimarthya 88, 122-123, 125, 294, 304, 322 Samayabhedoparacanacakra xi, xix, xxvi
Sa'!ldhinirmocanasiltra xii, xiv, xviii, xxxiii , xxxvi, 145, 221 , 335 S arpghabhadra xii, xxi-xxii, xxxi-xxxii, xxxiv
sa'!lgha 222 sa'!lghiita 282 SaI]1khya 326 sa'!lkeipta 372 sa'!lprayukta 270 sa'!lprayuktahetu 122 sa'!lsiira 263 sa'!lskiira 59-60, 72, 79, 82, 1 3 3 , 155, 160, 175, 295, 299, 303 , 305, 309 sa'!lskrta 66, 80, 358, 370
414 'sa,!,skrtadharma 5, 72-73, 7 7 , 8 0 , 8 3 , 87-88, 93, 95, 1 3 3 , 1 54, 1 69, 1 94 sa,!,skrtalak�alJa 70-73, 75, 79-8 1 , 84, 86, 88-89, 169, 174, 297 sa'!'sthiinariipa xxxv, 176- 1 8 3 , 1 8 8 sa'!'tiina 1 94, 1 96, 198- 1 99, 240, See also sa'!'tati sa'!'tiinavi§e�a 320 sa'!'tati 62, 1 90-1 9 1 , 304- 305, 321 sa'!'tatiparilJiima 198, 320 sa'!'tatiparilJiimavise�a xxv, xxviii-xxx, 60, 1 1 0, 1 9 8 *sa'!'tatisthiti 7 5 samucchinnakusalamiila 54- 55, 1 27 samudaya 286 samudayasatya 287 sa'!'vara 2 1 0, 215, 226, 228, 245 , 248 *sa,!,varariipa xxxiv, 5, 187 sa'!'vrtijiiiina 376, 378-379 samyagiijfva 200, 368 samyagdr�!i 202, 212 samyagviic 200, 202, 368 samyakkarmiinta 200, 368 samyaksa,!,kalpa 368 sa'!'yogapriipti 362 Sa'!'yuktiigama 139 *Sa,!,yuktiibhidharmahrdaya xxi, xxvii, 28, 48 Sa'!'yuktiigama xvii, 44, 84, 139, 1 6 1 , 209, 304, 3 1 8 , 328, 358 Sa/igf!iparyiiya xx sapradesa 35 sarfra portion of the pratftya samutp iida exp o s i ti o n s 153 S arvastivada xi-xii, xix-xxii, xxvi
1 22, 1 86, 214, 256, 286, 340, 360, 370 sarviistivada xix, xxxiv, 298, 323, 328 xxxii, xxxvii,
S arvastivadin xix-xxii, xxiv, xxvi, xxviii, xxx , xxxii, xxxiv,
50, 90, 97, 99, 1 1 8, 1 5 1 , 154, 178, 1 82, 1 84, 1 86, 1 8 8 , 190, 196, 198, 200, 208, 2 1 2, 214, 2 1 8, 220, 226, 228, 230, 240, 250, 252, 270, 276, 278 , 284, 286, 290, 298, 308, 3 12, 3 14, 3 1 6,
326, 328, 332, 335, 339-340, 370, 372 Sarvastivadin Vinaya 235 siisrava 189, 204, 210, 354 siisrava iiryamiirga 237 sat 282, 3 1 8 Satasiistra xxiv satkiiya 282 satkiiyad!�!i 1 3 1 , 149, 282-283, 290, 292-293 sattvadr�.ti 290 saumanasya 386 S auryodayika xxix S autrantika xi-xii, xxi-xxii, xxiv-xxx,
1 2, 32, 3 6 , 44, 62, 70, 1 14, 1 17, 136, 176, 1 82, 1 84, 1 86 , 1 90, 200, 220, 240, 250, 252, 272, 298, 320, 328, 3 5 8 , 362, 3 64, 374, 3 84, 386 Savitarka Saviciirii Bhiimi xiii Savitarkiidi-bhiimi xiii, xv, xxviii-xxix, xxxiii-xxxv, 29, 6 1 , 1 1 1 , 123, 13 1 , 1 3 3 , 145, 149, 1 5 3 , 1 5 5 , 157, 1 59, 1 6 1 , 163, 1 85, 1 9 1 , 25 1 -252, 267, 273 , 28 1 , 287, 289, 293 , 298, 305, 3 1 5 , 3 17, 3 1 9, 3 2 1 , 323, 327, 329, 333, 361 xxxii, xxxvi,
Schmithausen, Lambert xi-xiii, xv
2 1 , 29, 67, 1 1 1 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 5 , 145, 149, 203 , 279 , 293 Shastri, Swami Dwarkidas xx, 70 xix, xxiv-xxv, xxix, xxxiv,
Shen-t'ai
1$� xxii
Shih-sung Iii +�ili� 235 Shindojoyuishikiron *JTiIf;Plfolt�ifii 267, 383 Shukla, Karunesha xv, 2 5 , 2 3 7 , 239 sik�ii 245 ifla 242 Sflasa'!'vara 233 iflavratapariimarsa 149, 284, 286-287, 289 Silk, Jonathan xv
skandha xxxv, 12-19, 148, 150- 1 5 1 , 282, 380
415 Skilling, Peter xxv-xxvi
smrti 368 smrtfndriya 37 smrtyupasthiina 353, 380 Sopadhika Bhami x v , 235 srotaapattiphala 39 sraddhii 37, 39, 368 sraddhendriya 37 sramafla 236-237, 242-243 sramaflera 2 1 8 sramaflyaphala 3 9 , 363 sravaka 1 1 1 , 1 96, 221 , 364, 3 8 8-389 Sravakabhami xiii, xv, xvii-xviii, xxxiii-xxxv, 25, 59, 123, 1 9 1 , 1 9 3 , 2 3 3 , 237, 23 9, 357, 359, 363, 369, 379, 3 8 3 , 3 9 1 S rIHita xxvi, xxviii, See also Sthavira srutam 252- 253 srutamayz 346-347 SrutamayzBhami xv, xvii, xxxiii, 137 Sthavira 28, 82, 136, 150, 1 52, 156, 1 62, 300, 334, 3 84, 3 86, See also S rIlata Sthavira Vasubandhu xxiv Sthiramati xxii, xxxi, 374, 384 sthiti 73, 79, 82-83, 86-87, 92 strzndriya 36 styana 372-373 styanamiddha 372 sukha 3 8 6-387 sukhavedana 386 sukhendriya 386 satrakara xxxi-xxxii *Satravastu xvii svabhiiva 145, 1 80, 1 9 1 , 342- 343 svakarmakarafla 123 svalak�wza 1 2 1
tadvi�aya 336 43 , 196, 221 Tathiigatagarbha xiii
Tathagata xxxvi,
Tatia, Nathma1 262
tatsabhagacak�us 294-295 tattvamanasikara 352-353 *Tattvasiddhisastra xxvii, 48, 3 84
tripitaka xvii trisvabhava xxxvii Trisvabhavanirde§a xxiv-xxv TriJ?1sika xii-xiii, xxiv-xxvi TriJ?1sikabhii�ya 3 84 tmla 338 Udanavarga 2 Ui Hakuju xvi
upadana 338-339 upadiiyarapa 45 upade§a 389 upasaka 2 14, 2 1 8 upasaka saJ?1vara 2 1 5 Upasanta xxi, 48 upavasaizga 2 1 2 upek�a 46-47, 3 6 8 vagabhisaJ?1skara 1 8 5 vagvijfiapti 1 84 2, 4, 8 , 10, 12, 1 8 , 22, 32, 34, 3 8 , 44, 46, 1 04, 1 1 0, 126, 128, 1 3 6 , 140, 148, 1 50 , 1 52, 166, 1 6 8 , 1 90 , 1 9 8 , 250, 290, 3 34, 3 3 8 , 346, 3 5 8 , 3 6 2 , 3 64, 368-369, 3 7 2 , 374, 3 7 8 , 3 86- 3 8 7 vairagya 244-245 vaitulika xxvii Vajracchedikaprajiiaparamitasastra Vaibha�ika xxi, xxvi, xxxiv-xxxvii,
xxiv
vajropamasamadhi 311-39 yak 1 8 5 vakkarma 1 85 vaTfla 178, 1 80, 1 82, 1 8 8 Var�agaI.1ya 326-327 vasitva 56 *vasitvasamanvagama 57 vastu 332 VastusaJ?1grahm:zz xvi-xviii, xxxiiixxxv, 1 3 , 1 5 , 19, 27, 75, 85 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 9, 1 2 1 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 9 , 1 5 3 , 1 6 1 , 209, 24 1 , 277, 305, 339, 353, 357, 365, 367 Vasubandhu xi-xii, xx-xxii, xxiv-xxxii,
416 xxxiv-xxxvii Vasubandhu the elder xxiv
XIX, xxvi abhidharma teacher) 1 54, 294 vedana 166, 380 Vibha�a xx-xxii, xxvii-xxviii, 10, 14, 1 8 , 20, 22, 28, 32, 36, 42, 44, 48, 1 02, 1 40, 154, 204, 235 , 237, 240, 262, 346, 380, 3 8 8 vicara 24-25 vicikitsa 1 49 vijfiana 65, 1 3 8 , 1 3 9 Vijfianakaya xx vijfianaskandha 1 3 8 vijfianasthiti 136, 1 3 8 - 1 39 vijfiapti 8, 95, 1 96, 206, 208, 256 vijfiaptikarma 204, 206 vijfiaptimatra xviii, xxxvii vijfiaptirilpa xxvii, 8 vijfiatam 252-254 vikalpita satkayadr�!i 292 Vil]'lsatika xii, xxiv-xxvi, xxix, 34 vimukti 357, 370 vimuktimarga 3 8 , 356-357 Vinaya 230, 233 *Vinayasal]'lgraha!/f xvi-xvii *Vinayavastu xvii viniscaya xvi Viniscayasal]'lgraha!/f xiii--xiv, xvi xix, xxvii-xxviii, xxxiii-xxxvi, 5 , 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 9 , 2 1 , 23, 33 , 3 5 , 3 7 , 3 9 , 43 , 45, 47, 49 , 5 1 , 5 3 , 57, 59, 6 3 , 6 5 , 67, 69, 7 1 , 7 3 , 75, 8 3 , 87, 9 3 , 9 5 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 , 1 17 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 , 1 29 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 , 143, 145, 147, 155, 1 6 5 , 1 6 9 , 175, 177, 1 8 1 , 1 85 , 1 87 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 9 , 203 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 , 22 1 , 227, 245, 25 1 , 263, 267, 273 , 279, 28 1 , 287, 289, 293 , 295, 297 -299, 303, 3 0 5 , 309, 3 1 5 , 32 1 , 3 3 3 , 3 3 5 , 343, 357, 3 6 1 , 3 6 3 , 379, 383 vipaka xxxvi, 42-43, 1 1 0 vipakahetu 108, 1 1 0 vipakaja citta 204 Vasumitra xi,
Vasumitra (traditional
vipakaphala 1 1 1 vipakavijfiana 1 1 1 viparyasa 149 viparyasamLlla 149 . viparyasani�yanda 149 virodhahetu 267 vfrya 46-47, 368 visal]'lyogaprapti 3 8 , 356, 362 vi�aya 28 vise�a 190 viSi�!a sal]'lskarasantati/:l pravartate 6 1 , 191 vitarka 24-27, 1 85 *Vivara!/asal]'lgraha!/fxvi, xxxiii, 3, 95, 389 Vyakhyayukti xii, xxiv-xxvi vyafijana 94, 100, 102 Vyafijanakaya 103 vyafijanakaya 95 vyapada 250-25 1 vyaya 82, 86-87, 169, 297 Vrddhacarya Vasubandhu xxiv
vfrendriya 37 wai-kuo chu shih )rt��� gl!i 240 Waldron, William xix Wayman, Alex xiii, xv-xix, xxiv-xxv,
25, 33, 123, 193, 369 Willemen, Charles 48 Willemen, Dessein, and Cox xx-xxii
wo-kuo chu shih
���gl!i 240
Yamabe Nobuyoshi xi, xix, xxvii, xxix,
xxxiv, 59, 6 1 , 65 , 1 17, 214, 2 17 , 230, 252 Yamaguchi Susumu xx
44, 70, 1 26, 1 64, 250, 304, 336, 374, 386 yoga 1 86, 1 8 8 , 3 3 8-339 Yasomitra xxi,
Yogacara xi-xii, xviii-xix, xxii, xxiv, xxvi-xxx, xxxii, xxxvii, 47, 1 90, 379 yogacara 188, 353 yogacara/:l 1 8 6 Yogacarabhumi vii, xii-xx, xxvi-xxxvii yoniso manasikara 353
417
Yii-ch 'ieh shih-ti lun shih fifri fvo gjjj :tt!!, �iiB �i xvi yii-ch 'ieh lun fifri{vo�iiB 252 Yii-chieh-lun chi fifri1vo�iiB �c xxix
