Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa and the Commentaries preserved in the Tanjur

Marek Mejor Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa and the Commentaries preserved in the Tanjur

Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien herausgegeben

vom

Institut fUr KuItur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets an der Universitat Hamburg

42

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart

1991

Marek Mejor

VASUB AN DHU'S ABHIDHARMAKOSA AN D THE COMMrnNTARrnS PRESERVED IN THETANmR

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 1991

CIP-Titelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek

Mejor, Marek: Vasubandhu's Abhidjarmakosa and the commentaries preserved in the Tanjur / Marek Mejor. - Stuttgart:Steiner,

1991.

(Alt- und neu-indische Studien; 42)

ISBN 3-515-05535-5

NE:GT

Jede Verwertung des Werkes auBerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist

unzuliissig und strafbar. Die,s gilt insbesondere fUr Ubersetzung, Nachdruck, Mikro­ verfilrnung oder vergleichbare Verfahren sowie fUr die Speicherung in Datenverar­

beitungsanlagen. Gedruckt mit Unterstiitzung der Alexander v. Humboldt-Stiftung.

© 1991 by Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart. Druck: Druckerei Peter Proff, Eurasburg. Printed in the Fed. Rep. of Germany

To the memory of Professor Constantin Regamey (1907-1982)

Preface

This book offers a comparative study of Vasubandhu'sAbhidhannakosa and the commentaries on it which are preserved in the Tanjur. Vasubandhu (5th cent.) is one of the greatest thinkers of Buddhist India and his treatise Abhidhannakosa or· Treasury of Dogmatics has long attracted the attention of scholars, to mention only E. Burnouf, S. Levi, Th. Stcherbatsky, o. Rosenberg. A study of its Chinese and Tibetan versions and the Sanskrit fragments resulted in the magnificent'work by Louis de La Vallee Poussin. His annotated translation: of the Abhidhannakosa in 6 volumes (1923-193 1) became a compendium of the Buddhist doctrine. The discovery of the Sanskrit original of the Abhidhannakosa by Rahula Sliiuqtyayana was a sensational. event. The karikas were published by V. Gokhale in 1946. A new stage in the study of the text was initiated with the edition of the Abhidhannakosa-bhi4Ja by P. Pradhan in 1967. The Abhidhannakosa is a particularly interesting subject for Buddhological research: it has always been regarded as a highly authoritative treatise on Buddhist doctrine and acquired the status of an obligatory handbook in many Buddhist countries; it was translated into many Oriental languages, into Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Uigur, Tokharian, and an abundant exegetical literature on theAbhidhannakosa developed. A group of nine Indian commentaries on theAbhidhannakosa which has been preserved in the Tanjur, volumes 64-70, 129-130 of the Peking edition, has been of particular interest to the present writer. These commentaries have not previously been the subject of a comparative study. Among their authors we find the names of great Buddhist philosophers, Dignaga and Sthiramati. Yasomitra'sAbhidhannakosa-vyiikhyii, a single commentary which has been preserved both in its Sanskrit original and the Tibetan translation, contains abundant details of historical and doctrinal importance. A fully comprehensive treatment of such a bulk of material as that constituted by the set of eleven texts in Sanskrit and in Tibetan is not yet possible. Various problems - historical, doctrinal, textual - have been touched upon. After all, the particular character of each text had dictated that certain problems be studied: e.g. in YaSomitra's commentary it was the problem of two Vasubandhus. The present author is fully aware that in practice the kind of work he has undertaken has no end. Prainiit prainiintaram upajiiyate, repeatedly remarked Vasubandhu in hisAbhidhannakosa (ed. Pradhan, 43.28; 119.26; 164. 12). It was therefore necessary to select a range of problems which would provide a preliminary yet adequate picture of the studied material. Now, it is the academic public which is competent to evaluate this venture. My research on the subject of the present book could not have been carried out without the friendly assistance of many scholars and institutions at home and abroad, to whom lowe a most sincere debt of gratitude. In this place I would like to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Dr. L. Schmithausen, Hamburg University, whose erudite, penetrating, critical yet friendly comments in many points improved an earlier version of this book. I am deeply indebted to Prof. Dr. E. Steinkellner, Vienna University, for his evaluation of the present book as well as his review of my Ph.D. thesis. l owe much gratitude to Professor emeritus J. Chmielewski of Warsaw University for his comments on various aspects of my work and sound advice. My sincere thanks I would like to extend to Prof. M.K Byrski, the Head of. the Indology Department, Warsaw University, for his constant interest and support in my studies. VII

I cannot forget the substantial help which l owe to Prof. Dr. A. Bareau and through his good offices to the late Mgr. Etienne Lamotte, a great authority on Buddhist studies. It is my pleasant duty to acknowledge with warm thanks the assistance I have received from Prof. Dr. K. Sagaster and Dr. H. Eimer, Bonn University. Many thanks are also due to Dr. S. Dietz, Mr. H. Krasser, Prof. Dr. P. Kvaerne, Prof. Dr. J. May, Dr. M.T. Much, Mr. G. Somlai, Dr. M. Van Velthem, Dr. A. Yuyama for their kind assis­ tance in many ways. I would like also to thank Mrs. E. Harris who corrected my English, and Mr. Quessel and Mr. von Rospatt for their help in preparing the final print out. . The essential part of my research was carried out during visits to the libraries of Budapest (January-February 1981, research grant from Warsaw University), Oxford, Cambridge and London (academic year 1981-1982, Michael Coulson Junior Research Fellowship in Wolfson College, Oxford), Bonn (July-August 1985, research grant from the Sonderforschungsbereich 12 "Zentralasien", Bonn University). The final corrections and improvements were made during my stay in Hamburg, as a recipient of the Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship (March 1988September 1989). Last but not least, I would like to express my thanks to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the financial support towards the printing costs of the book and to Prof. Dr. A. Wezler for his recommending it for publication. Marek Mejor Warsaw, September-December 1989

VIII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Select Bibliography

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.-......................

VII

X

I. INTRODUCTION . . .� . . . . . . " 1 1. PROBLEM OF mE DATE OF VASUBANDHU '. . ...... 3 2. BIOGRAPHIES OFVASUBANDHU· " 5 3. VVORKSOFVASUBANDHU 7 4. VASUBANDHU'S TEACHERS, DISCIPLES, COMMENTATORS AND OPPONENTS . . . 13 5. THEABHIDHARMAKOSA. AND mE SARVASTIVADA ABHIDHARMA ........... 1 8 6. THE ABHIDHARMAKOSA. IN DBETAN . . . .. 20 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

•

.

•

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

II. COMMENTARIES ON THE ABHIDHARMAKOSA FROM THE TANJUR . 1. VINITABHADRA'S/SANGHABHADRA'S SUTRANuRUPA . 2. YASOMITRA'S SPHUTARTHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Problem of two Vasubandhus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 GU/;tamati and Vasumitra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Vasubandhu's PaiicaskandhaprakaraJ;ltl . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 The Pratftyasamutpiidasutra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Puru:dagsJ pa'i bs� bco� dah I Ch o; Tcji phuli po'o If. Also the Mahiivyutpatti (1415-1420) mentions only siX bo()ks, but in place of the Vijiiiinakaya has the Dhiitukaya (1418).

" The SUl11l1lary of contents in Takakusu, "Abhidharma Literature of the Sarviistivadins"; cf. Demievme, "Un fragment sanskrit de I'Abhidharma des Sarvastivadin", p. 463f. .. See Hirakawa, Inda AKBh I, s.v., and Wogihara's ed., index. Cf. also the quotations in the Abhidhannadipa. " Cf. Demievme, op. cit., p. 462; Lamotte, Traite, III, p. xxi. " Ibid. rr See Ziircher, 'The Yiieh-chih and Kani�a· in the Chinese sources", pp. 374-387: "B. Passages from Chinese Buddhist sources", and p. 387 where a fragment from Taisho 1545 is quoted: "The story is of no historical value whatsoever, but the first line ['Anciently, king �a of Gandhiira had an eunuch ... '] shows that at least this part of the Mahavibh� is of a later date than Kani�ka"; Lamotte, Traite, III, p .. xxi: "Nous savons seulement que la

19

­ It has been proved that Vasubandhu's Abhidhannakosa is directly dependent on the Abhidharmahrdaya (or Abhidhannasiira, Taisho 1550), an intermediary link between the Mahiivibh�ii and the Kosa itself. According to E. Frauwallner, in a series of systematic presentations of the Sarvastivada doctrine the oldest and, therefore, the basic work is the Abhidhannasiira ( Abhidhannahrdaya) of Dharmasri". There are certain grounds for believing that the Abhidharmasiira of DharmasrI is older than the Jiiiinaprasthiina'9. The latter is the latest among the canonical books of the Sarvastivada Abhidharma. Furthermore, DharmasrI should be regarded as a greater dogmatist of the Sarvastivada school than Vasubandhu; Vasubandhu's Abhidhannakosa is but a new elaboration of DharmasrI's treatise"". The problem of literary development of the Sarvastiviida Abhidharma has also been studied by the Japanese scholars. T. Sakurabe distinguished "three periods in the evolution of the works on Abhidharma, leading to the Kosa", and T. Kimura ''was the first to have established a definite link between the Kosa and the texts of Dharmasri and Dharmatriita"91. A Sanskrit stanza originating from Dharmasri's (Fa-cheng, Pelliotwrongly: Dharmatriita)Abhidhannahrdaya IV.32 is preserved both in the Abhidhannakosa and in Yasomitra's Vyiikhyii'n. In spite of its importance, Vasubandhu's Abhidhannakosa, this Treasury of Dogmatics, was translated into Chinese relatively late: the first translation was made by Paramiirtha in 563567 AD. (Taisho 1559), and the second by Hsiian-tsang in 651-654 AD. (Taisho 1558). There is also a separate translation of the kiirikiis alone by the latter translator (Taisho 1560). =

6. THE ABHIDHARMAKOSA IN TIBETAN

(1) The Abhidhannakosa of Vasubandhu belongs to the group of Sanskrit Buddhist texts which were translated into Tibetan in the first period of the propagation of the Buddha's doctrine in Tibet. In the oldest catalogue of the Buddhist canon in Tibet, the Lhan (d)kar rna (Ldan dkar rna ) catalogue"', which was compiled most probably in 800 or 812 AD."', during

Mahavibh� est posterieure Ii Kani�ka puisqu'elle relate l'historiette bien connue de l'eunuque et des taureaux (T 1545, k. 114, p. 593a) en 1a situant 'autrefois, au Gandhfu'a,

.. Die Entstehwig der buddhistischen Systeme, p.

SOliS

Kani$ka'" .

lOf.

.. Frauw.lIner, "Abhidhanna-Studien ill", WZKS 15, 1971, p. 90

72.

"Abhidhann.-Studien I", WZKS 7, 1963, p. 23ff.

" Quoted after Ch. Willemen, The Essence of Metaphysics. Abhidhann ahrdaya, Brussels, Introduction, p. xxii,

xx,

respectively. On Dhannasri see Willemen's excellent Introduction; on Dharmatrata see Lin Li-kouang, L'aide·memoire

de la vrai. loi, Paris 1949, Appendix ix, pp. 314-351.

92 P. Pelliot, "Les stances d'introduction de I'AbhidharmahrdaYaSastra de Dhannatrata", JA CCXVII, 1930, p. 272f. 93

Ed. by M. Lalou, "Les textes bouddhiques au temps du roi Khri-srOl\-lde-bcan", JA CCXLI:3, 1953, pp. 313-353;

it begins: pho bran stod" thah Idan dkar gyi bka' dah bstan bcos 'gyur ro cog gi dkar chag DpaJ brtsegs dah Nam mkha'i

sfiili pos mdzad do II ("Index of translations of the Agamas and Sastras, [preserved] in the palace Ldan dkar in Stod thai!, compiled by Dpal brtsegs .nd Nam mkha'i siilil po"). The fonn Lhan dkar ma is attested by Ms. Pelliot tibetain 1085, and the fonn Lhan kar rna is confInned by a Ms. from Tun-huang (cf. Steinkellner, Nachweis der Wiede18eburt.

20

the reign of the king Khri srOIi Ide btsan (754-797 A.D.), theAbhidhannako§a-lairilai and bhiiD'a are mentioned among the treatises belonging to the Irmayana·'. The Indian paJ;.lgita Jinamitra and the Tibetan lotsava Dpal brtsegs, the translators of the Abhidhannako§a96, were active at the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth centuries, in the period of the so-called "great revision" of the texts of the Tibetan Buddhist canon. AcCordingly, the date of the Tibetan translation of the Abhidhannako.§a must be put at about 800 A.D.!I1 It was pointed out by N. Simonsson that the method of translation of the Abhidhannako§a is characteristic of "logically constructed" texts, especially philosophical texts, and in general, of all systematic texts. in which slavish literality of transration is regarded as a guarantee of their precision and accuracy". In the Chos 'byun of Bu-ston there are interesting remarks on a history of translations of the Buddhist Sanskrit texts and on special rules provided in order to secure the accuracy of a translation". According to Bu-ston it was paI].gita Smrti who introduced a study of the Abhidharmako§a in Tibet1°O. ilion nu dpal in his Deb ther snon po compiled in 1476-78 A.D.

Prajiiiisenas 'Jig rten pha rol sgrub pa. Ein friiher tibetischer Traktat aus Dunhuang, Part II, note 31; see also Steinleellner, "Paralokasiddhi-Texts", p. 221 n. 7, and Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, II, p. 46 n. 1). • Prof. Ruegg suggests ston as the correct reading. " Frauwallner, "Zu den buddhistischen Texten in der Zeit Khri-sron-Ide-btsan's', W'ZJ.{S 1, 1957, p. 102f. ( =

Kl.

Schriften, p. 714f.) fixed the date of the catalogue at 800 A.D. but later, in his "Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic", W'ZJ.{S 5, 1961, p. 146 ( = Kl. Schriften, p. 868) wrote that "the list itself dates from the year 800 or 812 A.D.' and referred to a "substantial excursus" of G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, Part II, p. 46 n. 1 where the year 812 A.D. was proposed. Bu-ston, Chos 'byun, (trans!. Obenniller, II, p. 191 [with minor changes]): "In the year of the dragon the teachers residing in the palace of Ldan-dkar, the translators Ban-de Dpal-brtsegs, the Ban-de Nagendra (Klu'i-dban-po) and others made a list of the titles of the sacred texts that were translated in Tibet, as well as the number of division (bam-po) and Slokas contained in them, and wrote all this down in the form of a catalogue". Cf. also Tucci, Tombs of the Tibetan Kings, p. 14ff. and Minor Buddhist Texts, II, p. 50 . ., Chapter xxvi (theg pa chun nu'i bstan bcos), Nos. 686-687 (ed. Lalou) . 'dzi [sic] na tstsha bti ba ilde dpal brtiegs Io/i bsgyur em iuS te gtan La phab pa'o If. The Kashmirian

.. The colophon reads (peking Tg, Gu. 27b5-6 (lairikal, Nu. 109a7-8 (bhlilYa)]: rgya gar gyi mkhan po

mi

Ira

dan / iu chen gyi

10

master Jinamitra was a disciple of PiiIJ).avardhana, a conunentator on the Abhidhann akoia, and Dpal brtsegs was one of the compilers of the Lhan lear ma catalogue as well as the Mahiivyulpatti; both were efficient translators. See Naudou,

Les bouddhistes kaimiriens, p. 86f., 89; Simonsson, Indo-tibetische Studien, p. 210, 217. ., There may have been another translation which was not later corrected according to revised rules of translation vide infra, the chapter on Vinitabhadra/Sailghabhadra where a number of lexical samples was collected from Ms. 590 of the Stein Collection from Tun-huang. " Op. cit., p. 234 . .. Trans!. by Obenniller, II, p. 196f. 100

Ibid., p. 214f. When the pBl).c)ita Smrti came to Tibet he did not know the Tibetan language; he studied the

Doctrine with Dpyal se rtsab Bsod nams rgyal mtshan in Sman luJi.s, then went to Khams and "established the school , of the Abhidhannakosa at Dan-Ion-than ( Dan klon than)".

21

queries the date of Smrti. He places his Tantra translations (the "New" Tantras) slightly before those made by Rin chen bzan po (958-1055 A.D.) and says that 'Brom ston (1005-1064 A.D.) learnt the art of translation from SmrtilO!. If so this points to the first half of the 1 1th century as a period of Smrti's activity in Tibet. Elsewhere ilion nu dpal remarks that the translation of theAbhidhannakosa and its numerous commentaries is connected with Bo don monastery but the lineage of its transmission is not preserved!02. (2) Several Indian commentaries on the Abhidhannakosa are preserved in Tibetan translation in the Tanjur. Before we start our pre� entation of the individual· studies of the Abhidhannakosa commentaries in the order in which they are found in the Peking and/or Derge Tanjur, other Tibetan sources will be studied briefly. This is to show the texts as they were incorporated into the Tanjur in the historical perspective. (a) The Lhan kar rna catalogue (ed. Lalou) enumerates together with the Abhidhannakosa­ kiirikii (No. 686) and bhii0'a (No. 687) the following texts: No. 688: a commentary on the Abhidhannakosa-bhii0'a by iiciirya Yasomitra, No. 689: a commentary on the Kosa by iiciirya Sanghabhadra!03, No. 690: a commentary on the Kosa by iiciirya S iintisoma!04, No. 691: a commentary on the Kosa, anonymouslOS, 1 01 The Blue Annals, transl. Roerich, p. 204f. On Rin chen bZafl po see Tucci, Rin e'en bzail po e fa rinas_cita del buddhismo nel Tibet intomo al mille, Roma 1933; Naudou, op. cit., chapter 5. 102 The Blue Annals, p. 346. The monastery was described by Tucci, ' Tibetan Painted Scrolls, p. 205: 'The monastery of Po ton belongs to the sect of the same name. Its monks are ser khyim pa, viz. they marry. The temple is much

damaged and of the ancient decoration very little is left. On the great road between Lha rtse and Tashilunpo, in the environs of Zabs dge Idiit, many times disputed on account of its position, it was exposed to frequent spoliations and ruin. There are two temples. The larger one, with traces of paintings of an excellent epoch, is contemporary with those of the Sku 'bum of Gyantse, although some are perhaps superior in refmed execution and grandeur of composition. The frescoes represent the hundred moments of the Buddha's life and the Sails rgyas rabs bdun. The other temple is now transformed in Mgon khail. In the atrium are dimly to be seen traces of badly damaged paintings, representing Sa skya pa lamas, like Khun dga' siilil po". Another description provided with important notes in Ferrari, Mk'yen bl1se's Guide

to the Holy Places of Central Tibet, p. 67: "At about one day's march from P'un ts'ogs gliit there is the temple of Bo don e, founded by the dge ba'i bSes· giien (kalyiil;Ia-mitra) Mudra c'en po and residence of dPan Lotsawa e'en po and his nephew, and of the Bo don Pal). c'en etc. But today it is occupied by married monks (ser k'yin)". Dpail lotsava Blo gros brtan pa (1276-1342 A.D.) is mentioned in the colophon of Sthiramati's Tattviirtha-fikii, vide infra. Bo don Pal). chen

Phyogs las roam rgyal ( 1306-1386 A.D.), the author of the voluminous Encyclopedia Tibetica (ed. New Delhi 1969-1975, in 137 vols.), wrote an exegesis of the Abhidhann akosa (vol. 19) , but cf. Ferrari, op. cit., p. 156 n. 571.

103 A commentary ascribed to Vinltabhadra alias Sanghabhadra will be discussed in detail later. 104 Mdzod kyi 'grel pa (*Kosa-vrtti) by Santisoma is lost. Taranatha (History of Buddhism in India, transl. Lama Chimpa, A. Chattopadhyaya, p. 252; ed. Schiefner, p. 152.2-4) mentioned 5antisoma as a follower of the Vijiianavada; at that time lived the siddha-nija Sahajalalita, the acarya Vinltadeva of Nalanda, a Sautrantika (?) 5ubhamitra and the acarya 5Uapiilita, a disciple of Dharmottara. One cannot greatly rely on this, but taking all the data into consideration (Vinltadeva, c. 710-770 A.D.; Dharmottara, c. 750-810 A.D.), the approximate date of Santisoma may be put in the 8th century.

'" Mdzod kyi thabs bsdus pa (*Ko§opiiyasaJ?tgroha) bears a title similar to 5amathadeva's Upiiyikii-fikii, but the latter

22

No. 692: Abhidharmiivattira, anonymousU)6, No. 693: Abhidhanniivatiira-t1Kii, anonymous101, No. 694: its [commentary] Siirasamuccaya, anonymous. (b) The fourth part of the Chos 'byun of Bu-ston (compiled in 1322 AD.) contains a systematic catalogue of the texts translated into the Tibetan'08. The Abhidharmakosa and its commentar­ ies are mentioned as follows: No. 486: Abhidharmakosa-kiirikii , No. 487: Vasubandhu's bhtifya on the preceding, No. 488: Yasomitra's Sphutiirthii commentary, No. 489: Lalq�nusiiriT;li-commentary by PiirJ:1avardhana, No. 490: Upiiyikii-commentary by S amathadeva, No. 491: SutriinurUpii-commentary by SaJighabhadra, No. 492: Marmapradpa-commentary by Dignaga. The following four texts have been not found by Bu-ston: No. 493 : S antisoma's Kosa-v{tti , No. 494: *Kosopayasaf?'lgraha, No. 495: Abhidharmiivatiira, No. 496: a tikii on the preceding. (c) Bu-ston compiled the catalogue of the Tanjur during his stay in Za-Iu monastery from 1320 AD. It is reported that his edition of the Tanjur was made under the auspices of Kun dga' don grub (1268-1328 AD.). The index was completed in 1335 AD., after the work of collation was finishedlO'. The Za-Iu Tanjur cataloguellO enumerates the Abhidharmakosa and the related texts almost in the same order as they are found in the Peking and Derge Tanjur and therefore reflects a more advanced stage of the compilation of the Tibetan Buddhist canon than the index attached to the Chos 'byun (vide supra). [fo!. 608.2] vols. Gu-Nu: - Abhidharmakosa-kiirikii, A Vasubandhu, T. Jinamitra, Dpal brtsegs rak�ita;

was translated into the Tibetan later and its size is much larger.

'''' This text will be discussed later. '07

Nos. 693-694 seem to refer to one text only, i.e. the ·Siirasamuccaya-abhidharmiivatiira-pka which is preserved

in the Tanjur, see helow. '10

Ed. S. Nishioka, "Index to the catalogue section of Bu-ston's History of Buddhism", Annual Report of the Instit>, Le. an elder teacher Vasubandhu says so. T)Je term 'element' (bhuta) is to designate the 'elements of support'''. La Vallee Poussin183 informs that the formula iiSrayabhutarilpalJiit refers to the Vibh�ii 75. 14 and ocCurs also in the Mahiivyutpattil84• In a following discussion an adherent of an old Vasubandhu (vrddhiiciirya-Vasubandhu-deSfya/:l kaStit) is accused of his non-Vaibhii�ika interpretations (naitad 1iaib�ikamatamy85. Ultimately it appears that Vasubandhu the Kosakiira agrees with the opinion of an old Vasubandhu: '''rhus, [the explana­ tion that the avijnaptll is rilpa because of 'materialization' is appropriate"186. Sthiramati and Piin;tavardhana give a larger gloss on the passage in question: ''Having their point of support in the elemenfs of the derivative matter, [such as] blue etc., the elements and [ac­ complished ?] pleasure are seen as of one kind; therefore, on account of being � derivative matter, these too, because of materialization [of the matter which constitutes their] support, are subject to materialization. On account of being susceptible to resistance, a quality of materia­ lization in another derivative matter - because of admission [? acceptance] in an object and because of its non-resistance - is subject to materialization due to the point of support"187. This

III YaSomitra [Wogihara, 35.20; Levi, 36.18-19; Shastri, 45.29]: iiirayabhiitarUpaJJ iid ity apara in I vrddhiieiirya­ VasubandhuIJ I bhiitagrahaJJ am iiirayabhiitapradarlantirtham II; [peking Tg, Cu. 37a4-5; Cone Tg, Gu. 29b4-5]: gian dag na re l1en gyi 'byUJi ba la gzugs su yod pa'i phyir IV ies zer IV ies bya ba ni slob dpon Dbyig gnen sna ma'o II 'byun

ba smos pa ni gii'i 'byUJi ba bstan pa'i phyir IV I;' Sthiramati [pek. Tg, To. 71al-2]: gian dag na re l1en gyi 'byUJi ba la gzugs su yod pa'i phyir ies zer IV II ies bya ba ni slob dpon Dbyig gnen sna ma ste ;. Piil1lavardhana [pek. Tg, Ju. 42b1; Cone Tg, Cu. 39a6-7]: gton dag na ies zer IV ies bya ba ni slob dpon Dbyig gnen sna ma ste ;. 183 1M

re

l1en gyi 'byUJi ba la gzugs su yod pa'i phyir IV

LVP, Kosa, I, p. 26 n. 1.

No. 2084 led. Sakaki]: iiiraya-bhiita-riipaJJyiit (tiipaJJyam) I l1en du yod pa'i (l1en du gyur bay gzugs su yod pa'i tu nliL ba'i phyi� II

phyi� rom giig • Sakaki: phir. lIS

I .. •

YaSomitra's Sphutiirtha [Wogihara, 35.23f.; Levi, 36.21f.; Shastri, 46.13; Pek. Tg, Cu. 37a7; Cone Tg, pu. 29b6]. [pradhan, 10.5-6; Shastri, 47.2]: tasmiid asamana/.! prasanga ity ata upapannam etad riiptllJ iid· riipam in I

Pradhan: iiirayatiipaJJiid, against the Tibetan· [pek. Tg, Gu. 35a4]: de Ita bas na 'dra bar thai ba med do II de'i gzugs

su yod pas na gzugs so

ies

bya ba 'di ni 'thad pa yin no (. . .).

IB7 Sthiramati [pek. Tg, To. 71al-4], Piil1lavardhana [pek. Tg, Ju. 42b2-4]: snon po la sogs pa rgyur byas pa'i gzugs sua 'byUJi ba la bl1en pa m� r 'byUJi b et' dan bde ba gcig par mthoil ste I de'i phyir rgyur byas pa'i gzugs yin pas 'di yan l1en gyi 'byUJi ba la gzugs su yod pa'i phyir gzugs su nliL no' II thogs pa dan beas pa'i phyir rgyur byas pa'i gzugs gian la nr gzugs su yod pa dhos su khas blans pa'i phyir la I 'di ni thogs pa med pa'i phyir l1en gyi sgo kho no nos' gzugs su nliL ba'

yin no ies so' II • SthiO om. suo - ' Sthl": na. _ . Piil1lO' om. /. - d Sthi° ad. dan grub pa. sgo kho nas. - ' Piil1lao doubles nliL ba. - i Piil1la': ie 'o.

43

_ .

Sthi':

nliL

ba'o. - f Sthi° om. la ni. - ' StJu�:

is followed by a long discussion in which the opinions of SaIi.ghabhadra are quoted by Sthira­ mati'''. It can be surmised that a solution to the problem of two Vasubandhus may be, perhaps, attained by the way of scrutinizing the doctrinal positions which have been discussed in this passage, however its comprehensive treatment is beyond the scope of the present study. For us it is important to see the name of SaIi.ghabhadra which appears as an opponent of the elder Vasubandhu too. A la rigueur one could assume that here we have an allusion to the earlier doctrinal position of the Kosakiira Vasubandhu since both Vasubandhus appear to be the followers of the Vibhi4iil89• Nota bene the Buddhist tradition claims that there was an interval between the composition of the kiirikiis and the bhii�ya and SaIi.ghabhadra's criticism was directed against the latter part of theAbhidhannakosa. This assumption, however, seems to be invalidated by another reference of Yasomitra where a sthavira Vasubandhu, a preceptor of the iiciirya Manoratha, is mentioned. Fragm. 3 . Vasubandhu in the Abhidhannakosa TIl27 quotes the opinion o f the "others": " It i s said i n the , , other Sutra that avidyii ( ignorance') has as its cause the ayonifo manasikiira ( incorrect judgment'), and, [in the other Sutra it is said that] the incorrect judgment has as its cause ignorance. The others say that it [i.e. the incorrect judgment] was also mentioned in this [Sutra, i.e. in the Prantyasamutpiida-sutra] as being contained in the upiidiin a ('clinging to existence', [the ninth link of the prantyasamutpiida])"1 "'. According to Yasomitra this is the opinion of sthavira­ Vasubandhu, a preceptor of the iiciirya Manorathal91• Sthiramati and Purl)avardhana do not

". Pek. Tg, To. 71a4-73a1 (Sanghabhadra: 71b8f., 72a6ff.). Cf. PUqIavardhana [pek. Tg, Iu. 42b4-43a8]. IS. Cf. C. Vogel, Vagbhara's A.riihgahrdaya-slJl!lhita, Introduction, p. 6: "After the theory of a senior and junior Viigbhata has been deprived of its basis, the question remains to be answered how else the term Vrddha-Viigbhata can be understood. ( ... ) It stands to reason that in these instances (the number of which can probably be increased) the

attnbute vrddha signifies, not a senior writer or an\. older work as oppos�d to a junior writer or a younger work, but rather the author of an enlarged recension as against that of a shorter original or such books themselves". 1 90 [Pradhan, 135.7-8; Shastri, 444.3-5]: ayonisomanaskCirahetuka'vidyokta siitriinlare I avidyahetukaS ciiyonisomanas­ kiiraIJ I sa cehapy upadiiniinltubhiilatvad ukto bhavatity apare I; [pek. Tg, Gu. 147b2-3]: gian dag na '" mdo gian las ma rig pa yah tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa'i rgyu las byah ba yin no II tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa yah ma rig pa'i rgyu las byah ba yin no ies gsahs la I da ni 'dir yah len pa'i nah du 'dus pa'i phyir bSad pa yin no ies zer Ie

f. 1 91

Sphu;iUtha [Wogihara, 289.6]: ity apara iii I slhaviro Vasubandhur aciirya-Manorolhopadhyiiya evam aha I; [pek.

Tg, Cu. 319a6; Cone Tg, Gu. 269a7-269b1]: gian dag na ,.. ies bya ba ni slob dpon Yid 'on gi mkhan po gnas brtan Dbyig gnen de skad zer ba yin no If. NN. Law in his edition of the Abhidhannakosa-vyakhya accepted arbitrarily another / reading [po 43.26]: sthaviro Vasubandhor (sic) aciiryo Manorothopadhyiiya evam aha I, with the following note: "Mss. and To. [ = Tibetan, M. M.] Vasubandhur iiciirya. Ywan Chwang took Manoratha to be a teacher of Vasubandhu. YaSomitra evidently believes in the same tradition and takes the word aparo occuring in the Bh�a to refer to Manoratha. Cf. Kiirikii III.59: aparo iii ..Ihaviro manorolha/:l". Dwarikadas Shastri [po 44431] accepted Law's reading without
44

mention whose opinion it is. An echo of this discussion is found in the Arthaviniicayasutra­ nibandhana of Vrryasridatta who follows Vasubandhu's Pratityasamutpiida-vyiikhyii l'11.. The name of sthavira Vasubandhu is found also in the closing part of Candrakirti's Madhya­ makiivatiira-bfliiD!a where sthavira Vasubandhu, Digniiga, and Dharmapiila are mentioned as the "authors of the siistras"I93. However, in this context it seems very unlikely to take the title sthavira as an indication referring to the elder Vasubandhu. Similarly the name of Manoratha preceded by the title sthavira appears in YaSomitra's Vyiikhyii (ad AK ill. 59) and in PUIl].a­ vardhana's major commentaryl". Sthiramati seems to refer briefly to Manoratha's opinion as to the opinion of the "others"195. It should be added that in Sthiramati's commentary the titles iiciirya and sthavira are used optionally before the name of Sailghabhadra, the most often quoted masterl". Coming back to the passage in question, it should be noted that the opinion ascnbed to the sthavira Vasubandhu introduced a long polemical discussion against the Sautriintika S rilii.ta. Yasomitra, Sthiramati and PiiIl].avardhana comment on it at some length, yet Sthiramati inserts also the opinions of Sailghabhadra197. Since the period of Sriliita's floruit has been put to the period of Vasubandhu the Kosakiira and Sailghabhadral98, this may be at the same time an indication of a presumed date of the elder Vasubandhu, a preceptor of Manoratha.

192 [Samtani, 100.2-5]: ayoniSomanaskiirahetUkii avidyoktii siitnintore I avidyiihetukaS ciiyoniSo manasikiira iii I sa copiidiine 'nttubhiitatviid ukto bhavatity apare I atra ca paiiciihgiini hetubhiitiini I avitiyiist1J1'Skiiratf1lJopiidiinabhaviiilgiini yathiiyogl1J1f kann aklesasvabhiivatviit I sefiitJi saptiiilgiini phalasvabhiiviini ;. The doctrinal and other problems will be discussed in detail in my forthcoming work on Vasubandhu's Pratityasamutpiida-vyiikhyii. '93 [ed. LVP, 407.14-18): gal te gnas brtan Dbyig giien dan IPhyogs kyi glan po dan I Chos skyoit la sogs pa bstan bcos mams kyi mdzad pa po byon zin por gyur pa de dag gyis kyan yi ge tsam thos pas Jigs te I rten cm 'brei por byuit ba'i don

phyin ci log por ston por 'di yons su spaits sam ie na I de skad du smra'o I;' ,94

YaSomitra [Wogihara, 326.28; Shastri, 516.15; Pek. Tg, Cu. 356b3-4), Purt).avardhana [pek. Tg, Ju. 391b2): sthavira­

ManorathaJ.!

=

gnas brtan 17d 'on.

,,, [peking Tg, Tho. lOOb5]: gtan dag na re I dmyal ba'i sdug bsnal las goit mor gyur pa dag gis Joms pa'i phyir /hag pa'o [6J ies zer IV II ('The others say: .Because [they are) oppressed by [the torments which are] higher than the afflictions of the hell, [these are called] 'supplementary [hells]' (utsada)"). Manoratha's opinion, however, has a different form in theAbhidharmakosa [Pradhan, 164.12; Pek. Tg, Gu. 169b2-3]: narakiivarodlriid iirdhvam etqu sjdanty utsadii ity apore I gtan dag na re dmyal ba'i 'chin bu'i 'og tu 'di dag tu 'byin bas na /hag pa'o ies bya'o ies zer IV 1/; but Shastri, 516.3, reads following YaSomitra: ii narakiivarodhiid iirrlhvam etefu sjdanty atas tadutsadii ity apare ;' See LVP, Kosa, p. 152 n. 1. Cf. BHSD s�b utsada.

ill,

,.. E.g. To. 144b1; To. 154b4: gnas brtan 'Dus bzan na re, but in To. 27b2: btsun pa 'Dus bzaii na re (bhadanta) [sic]; slob dpon

=

iiciilya passim.

'97 . YaSomitra

[Wogihara, 289.23ff.; Shastri, 445.23ff.; Pek. Tg, Cu. 320b3ff.], Sthiramati [pek. Tg, Tho. 47b6ff.],

purt).avardhana [pek. Tg, Ju. 344b6ff.]. See my forthcoming study of Vasubandhu's Pratityasamutpiida-vyiikhyii. '91

J. Kato, "Notes sur les deux maitres bouddhiques Kumaraliita, et Srlliita", p. 207ff. ·

45

Fragm. 4. Vasubandhu (AK IV.3) says: "Someone thinks that the flames perish because of absence of a cause of prolongation; this [argument of him] is not appropriate"!99. According to Yasomitra this is the opinion of sthavira-Vasubandhu (gnas brtan Dbyig giien) and others200• Yet the Tibetan translation does not confirm the reading of the Sanskrit text of the Sphuriirthii and has instead sthavira-Vasumitra (gnas brtan Dbyig bSes)"". To our greater confusion, Sthiramati and Piirl).avardhana refer here to a different master, viz. the iiciirya Sriliita (slob dpon Dpal len)202. At the present moment we are not in a position to solve this question and, in consequence, further research on the problem of two Vasubandhus must concentrate on the second and third fragment, with the addition of the fifth fragment. Fragm. 5. Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakosa III. 15 quotes the opinion of the "teachers of yore" (purviiciiryiiJ; ),,13. According to Yasomitra this is the opinion of the Yogacaras iirya-Aswiga and others2ll4. Sthiramati identifies the "teachers of yore" with the Yogacaras to0205. Piifl).avardhana in both version of his Lalqal}iinusiiril}l commentary identifies the purviiciiryiiJ; with the purva-sautriintikiiJ;2D6. -

199 Abhidhannakoia [Pradhan, 193.23-24; Shastri, 571.4-5J:yo 'py arci,iim avasthiinahetvabhtiviid (... ) vinM"'1' manyate sa ciiyuktaf;la II; [Pek. Tg, Gu. 191b3]: gah yah gnas pa'i ®,U med pa'am I (... ) Jig go sflam du sems pa de yah rigs pa .ma yin te l •

Pradhan: tad apy ayuktaf;l. 200

[Wogihara, 347.8-11; Shastri, 571.14-15]: avasthiinahetvabhtivtid bhiiviiniiJrl vinMa iii sthavira·Vasubandhu­

prabhrtibhir ay"'1' hetur uktaf:z I so ciiyuktaf;l /

201 [Peking Tg, Chu. 4a4; Cone Tg, Nu. 3b4]: gah yah gnas pa'i ®,U med pa'am ies bya ba'i gtan tshigs 'di ni gnas brlan (Pek: brlen) Dbyig bies 10 sogs pas gnas pa'i ®,U med pa'i phyir dnos po mams Jig po yin no II (Cone ad.:) ies smras po yin no II ' Sthiramati [Pek. Tg, Tho. 124a7-8]: gah yah gnas po ®,u med pa ies bya ba ®,as par 'byuh ste I slob dpon Dpal len ni skyes pa mams la gnas pa'i ®,U med pas de'i phyir de flid Jig pa'i ®,U yin no sflam du sems so 1/ Piin:tavardhana [pek. Tg, Nu. 6a7; Cone Tg, Chu. 5b1-2]: gah yah gnas pa ®,U med pa ies bya ba (Cone ad.: ®,U med pa ies bya bay ®,as par 'byuh ste I slob dpon Dpal len ni skyes pa mams 10 gnas pa'i ®,U med pas de'i phyir de flid Jig pa'i ®,u yin no sflam du sems so (Pek.: pa'o) 1/ 202

cr. LVP, Kosa, IV, p. 7 n. 1: "D'apres la Vyiikhyii: sthaviravasubandhuprabhrtibhir ay"'1' hetur uktaf;l. - D'apres la glose de l'editeur japonais: 'D'apres l'Ecole des Sthaviras"'. 2m

Pradhan, 170.20; Shastri, 429.9; Pek. Tg, Gu. 141a8.

2!>1

[Wogihara, 281.27; Shastri, 429.22-23]: piirviiciiryiiJ:z /yogticiirii iirytisahga-prabhrtayaf;l I; [Pek. Tg, Cu. 311a6] snon

gyi slob dpon (dag) ni-mal 'byor spyod pa'i slob dpon Thogs med la sags pa'o 1/

20' [Pek. Tg, Tho. 32a8]: mal 'byor spyod pa'i shan gyi slob dpon dog gis Mad do 1/ 206

[Pek. Tg, Iu. 332b6; Thu. 296b4]: shon gyi slob dpon dog ces bya ba ni shon gyi mdo sde po dog go 1/

46

Frauwallner in his study of the date of Vasubandhu interpreted the passage in question with the following words"": "What Vasubandhu means with the expression purviiciiryiilJ , is another question. The opinions of the commentators widely differ in each case. This does not, however, touch our argument, fo� which the only important thing is that YaSomitra sees in Asanga such an old master". "Asailga - continues Frauwallner ·- was therefore for him [i.e. for Yasomitra - M. M.] an old teacher in comparison with the author of the Abhidharmakosa. This is expressed even more clearly iIi a second passage (p. 140. 1 1 [= ed. Wogihara - M. M.J). Here he characterizes an opinion expressed in the Abhidhannakosa as iiciiryamatam, as opinion of the teacher, i.e. as personal opinion of the author Vasubandhil. Two lines later he cites in S1,lpport the old teachers and quotes a formulation which derives from Asangan• As to the first opinion of Frauwallner, it is to be regretted that he did not give the references to the different opinions o( the commentators on the passage in question. However, the equivalence purviiciiryiilJ = yogiiciiriilJ can be established on the basis of the texts. A perusal of all the relevant passages in Vasubandhu's Abhidhannakosa-bhi4Ja and in YaSomitra's Abhi­ dhannakosa-vyiikhyii indicates that the expressions purviiciiryiilJ and yogiiciiriilJ have been used optionallr'8. Now, Haribhadra (8th century) in hisAbhisamayiilal]lkiirili okii says that his commentary follows the commentary of purviiciirya-Vasubandhu and others209. A few lines later Haribhadra describes the transmission of the Prajiiiipiiramitii texts in a lineage Maitreya-Asanga­ Vasubandhu2lo. He tells the story of Asanga who was unable to grasp the high and deep sense ·

2J17

On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu, p. 21 n. 2; 21f. and n. 1 on p. 22.

"" Abhidhannakosa-bht4ya = AKB [ed. Pradhan; Shastri];Abhidhannakosa-vytlkhya = AKV [ed. Wogihara; Shastri]: [94.13; 137.4]: apara iii pfirvaciiryiil) ; (2) AKV [140.13; 20631]: alro piJrvaciirya dhul;l; cf. Hanbhadra's AbhisamayalOl!'kiWIoka led. Wogihara, 293]; (3) AKB [72.24; 246.4]: iii piJrvaciiryiil) ; (4) AKV [281.27; 429.22-23]: piJrvaciiryiil) fyogaciini iiryiisangaprabhrtayaIJ; (5) MY [298.18; 458.27]: aciirya iii IpiJrvaciiryiil) ; (6) AKB [166.18; 520.1]: iii piJrvaciiryiil) ; AKV [328.6; 520.21]: iii yogaciiriil) ; (7) AKB [197.5,8; 583.9,13]: yogactlriil;o ; AKV [355.20,22; 583.26, 584.12]: yogaciiriil) (.•. ) ta aciirya icchanli; (8) AKB [246.6-7; 691.5]: piJrvaciirya ""am dhul;l ; AKv [407.29; 691.20]: tad ""Ol!' yogacaranayenapi; (9) AKB [266.11; 736.14]: iiipiJrvaciiryiil); (10) AKV [45130; 775.26]: anya dhul;l lyogaciirrun alim ape�aivOl!' krtam; (11) AKB [290.21; 794.11]: :i1i piJrvaciiryiil); (12) AKV {492.1; 840.25]: apare /yogactlriil;o ; (13) AKV [497.27; 853.21]: anye (... ) iii I piJrvaciiryiil) [Shastri: -iiI)]; (14) AKB [334.13; 890.11]: iii piJrvaciiryiil) ; AKV [524.28; 891.16]: trividhOl!' hi yogaciiriil) tiJrI sat; (15) AKB [406.22; 1071.7-8]: yad dhul;l piJrvaciiryiil) I kathOl!' ca piJrvaciirya dhul;l ; (16) AKB [4403-4; 1147.5]: naiva tu piJrvaciirya ;-for the Pali see Dfgha Nikiiya 1.1; for the Tibetan version cf. Weller, "Das tibetische Brahmajiilasiitra", ZII 10, 1935, pp. 1-6 1; for the Chinese version see HOBOGIRIN sub Bosatsukai (fasc. 2, p. 146), and Weller, "Das Brahmajalasiitra des chinesische Dlrghagama", Asiatische Studien XXV, 1971, pp. 202-264.

74

5. DIGNAGA'S MARMAPRADlPA

According to the Tibetan historians Bu-ston and Taranatha, Dignaga (Phyogs kyi glail pO)299 was a personal disciple of Vasubandhu""'. M. Hattori questioned the reliability of the Buddhist tradition on account of the fact that Dignaga was uncertain with regard to Vasubandhu's authorship of the Vadavidhi, a treatise traditionally ascribed to Vasubandhu"lI. According to Hattori, all that ' we can say with 'conviction is that Dignaga had an excellent knowledge of Vasubandhu's works. He wrote commentaries on the Vadavidhiina and the'Abhidharmakosa, and in his other works, e.g. Pramiil)asamuccaya; referred often to the works of Vasubandhu. As was proved by Frauwallner, Dignaga must have lived later than Vasubandhu and before Pharmaprua 'because of his relation to the grammarian Bhartrhari. Accordingly, the approximate date of Dignaga was set at 480-540 A.D.3Cl2 Dignaga's commentary on the Abhidharmakosa called Marmapradipa is preserved, only in its Tibetan translation. It was executed by two translators, Rnal 'byor zla ba (*Yogacandra) and 'Jam dpal gion nu (*Mafijusrikumara). According to Cordier's catalogue of the Peking Tanjur, Rnal 'byor zla ba translated two texts: one accompanied by Vibhiiticandra (Rgyud IV.34: GU1)abhara1)i nama �a4angayogapppa1)t), and the other accompanied by 'Jam dpal gion nu (Mdo LXX.2: Marmapradipa ntima Abhidharmakosav[tii). The colophon of the first work was studied by de Jong"'-'. The interpretation of the colophon is difficult. De Jong came to the conclusion that, presumably, Rnal 'byor zla ba made an oral translation and Vibhiiticandra prepared a translation of the text, and then, on request of Chos grags dpal bzail po, Dpal ldan Blo gros brtan pa from Dpail (1276-1342 A.D.) translated and corrected the text finally. But the�e is also a possibility, says de Jong, that Rnal 'byor zla ba is just another name of Vibhiiticandra. Perhaps de Jong's second hypothesis is supported by information found in Cordier's catalogue that the second translator of the Marmapradip a, 'Jam dpal gion nu, accompanied Vibhiiticandra in a translation of Rgyud XIII.59 (Lu yi pa 'i mnon par nogs pa 'i 'grel pa 'i pkii khyad par gsal byed Luhipiida-abhisamayav[tiipkii viS�adyota) 3CJ4. The Tohoku catalogue (No. 1510) mentions only one translator, Vibhiiticandra. Thus, on account of its cl)nnection - direct or indirect - with Vibhiitican dra, whose activity is connected with the greaf S akyasribhadra (1 1271- 1225 A.D., came to Tibet in 1204 A.D.)"'S, it seems probable that Dignaga's commentary on the Abhidhar=

,., Mvy 3481. ,.. Chos 'byuil, tr. Obermiller, II, p. 149ff.; Rgya gar chos 'byuil, tr. Lama Chimpa and A. Chattopadhyaya, p. 181ff.

"" See the introduction "Dignaga and his works" in his Dignoga. On perception ; cf. also FrauwaI1ner's study "Dignaga, sein Werk und seine Entwicklung", WZKS 3, 1959, pp. 83-164, and his book Die Philosophie des Buddhismus, pp. 390-394. "" "Landmarks in the history of Indian logic", pp. 134-136; cf. Hattori, op. cit., pp. "" "La legende de Santideva", 304

IIJ

�.

XVI:3, 1975, p. 166f.

On Lii'i pa cf. Naudou, Les bouddhistes kaimiriens, p. 78ff.

30J On SiikyaSn'bhadra cf. Naudou, op. cit., pp. 196-200, and D.P. Jackson, The Entrance Gate for the Wise, Wien 1987, I, pp. 107-112; on Vibhiiticandra cf. de Jong, op. cit., p. 164f., and FrauwaIIner, "Devendrabuddhi", WZKS 4, 1960, pp.

119-123.

75

makosa was translated into Tibetan in the 13th century. After all, the Marmapradipa is mentioned for the first time in Eu-ston's Chos 'bywi from 1322 A.D. and this is the terminus ante quem of its translation. Digniiga's Marmapradipa is a concise simple abridgement of theAbhidharmakosa. In this respect it much resembles another commentary, the SiitriinurUpa, presumably a work of Sailghabhadra (see above in this study). It has already been observed by Frauwallner and Hattori that the Marmapradipa lacks originality since its author follows the main arguments of the Abhidharmakosa leaving aside all polemics306• On closer inspection of the text it becomes evident that Digniiga's work in fact reproduces word for word the kiirikiis and the basic explanations of the Abhidharmakosa-bhiiFYa, with the result that almost the entire text can be restored into Sanskrit. In his description of Digniiga's ninth chapter, Hattori writes that "Digniiga omits most of the arguments made by Vasubanrlhu in refutation of the Viitslputrlya doctrine of the Ego, and reproduces only a few unessential discussions"307. Hattori calls attention to the fact that Digniiga, according to Tibetan historians, was ordained by a teacher of the Viitslputrlya sect and only later renounced their doctrine ofpudgala and became a disciple of Vasubandhu. Thus, if we combine the testimony of Tibetan tradition and the absence of the arguments against the ViitslputrIyas in Digniiga's Marmapradipa, then - concludes Hattori - "if Digniiga had belonged to the ViitsiputrIya sect and later renounced its doctrine, he surely would have been more serious in pointing out the defect of the Ego theory of this sect"30'. The following analysis of the ninth chapter of Digniiga's Marmapradipa [abbr. DM] compares it with the ninth chapter (Pudgalavinifcaya) of the Abhidharmakosa [abbr. AKBh] and Yasomitra's Vyiikhyii [abbr. AKY]. Fragm. 1. DM, Thu. 284a2-3 AKBh, Nu. 93b7-94a1 [pradhan, 461. 1-5; Shastri, 1 189. 1-6, 1 190.1]; AKV: niisti KapiloliikiidfniiJ?l molqalJ ;. Cf. LVP, Kosa, IX, p. 23 Of. =

306 Frauwallner, "Dignaga, sein Werk und seine Entwicklung", p. 127: liEs ist ein Werk der Art, wie man es schreibt� wenn man ein neues Stoffgebiet zu durchdringen und es sich in eigener Arbeit anzueignen sucht. Und Dignaga hat auch die Arbeit in dieser Richtung nicht weiter fortgesetzt. Er hat sich begniigt, Anregungen zu iibernehmen, ohne sich in die iibrigen Problerne auf diesein Gebi�t weiter Z\l yertiefen'�; Hattori, op. Qt., p� 2: "In the frr�t eight�cltapters, Dignaga faithfully follows Vasubandhu's main arguments, leaving aside passages which deal with topics incidental to the subject matter, which refer to the theories of others scholars, or which are merely quoted from other texts". Cf. Obermiller, Bu­ ston, Chos 'hyuil, II, p. 150 n. 1053: 'The text in the Tangyur represents nothing but an abridged rendering of Vasuban­ dhu's auto-commentary". Hattori, op. cit., p. 8 n. 43 notes that the text was "studied by H. Sakurabe in 'Jinna ni kiserareta Kusharon no IChik6y6sho [An Abridgment of the Abhidharmakosa ascnbed to Dignaga]', Tokal Bukkyo No. 2, 1956,

pp. 33-36". "" Op. cit., p. 2 n. 7: "Dignaga quotes the passage which discusses the omniscience of the Buddha (AKBh, p. 155a.1-3, 9-11, 5-8; De la Vallee-Poussin, L'Abhidh., pp. 254-255), and the passage which treats the question why the Buddha did not deny the existence ofpudgala (AKBh, p. 155c.29-156a.12-156b.6; L'Abhidh., pp. 264-267). The other arguments which Dignaga copied from AKBh, ch. 9, are those aimed at the refutation of the views of the Vais�ikas and the other schools, and not of the Vatsiputriya doctrine". Cf. Y. Ejima, ''Textcritical Remarks on the Ninth Chapter of the AbhidharmakoSa­ bh�a", Bukkyil Bunka, Tokyo UniversIty, No. 20, 1987, pp. 1-40. "" Ibid., p. 2.

76

Fragm. 2. DM, 11m 284a5-7 = AKBh, Nu. 99b5-7 [pradhan, 467. 14-15; Shastri, 1205.4-5]: yady eva/1l tarhi na buddhaJ:i sarvajiiaJ:i priipnoti. .. Cf. LVP, Kosa, IX, p. 254 & n. 3 : "Le Viitsiputriya". Fragm. 3. DM, 11m 284a6-7 = AKBh, Nu. 100al (sic) [pradhan, 467.19·21; Shastri, 1205.9-11]. Cf. LVP, Kosa, IX, p. 255 n. 2: "Buddhabhumi 14. 12 refute cette stance". Fragm. 4. DM, Thu. 284a7-284bl = AKBh, Nu. 99b7-100al [pradhan, 467. 16-19; Shastri, 1205.7-9] (Tib. translation differs). Cf. LVP, Kosa, p. 254f. (a reply of the Buddhists, but not the Mahiisiinghi­ kas). Fragm. 5. DM, Thu. 284b1 = without parallel in AKBh. Fragm. 6. DM, Thu. 284b1-2 = AKBh, Nu. 101b7-8 [pradhan, 469.25-27; Shastri, 1210. 14-16] : kasmiid bhagavatiip i nokta/1l niistyeveti [scil. ]IVa, pudgala) /. Cf. LVP, Kosa, IX, p. 264: "Le Viitsiputriya". Fragm. 7. DM, Thu. 284b2-285a3 = AKBh, Nu. 102a4-102b3 [pradhan, 470.6-471 .5; Shastri, 1211.1-14, 1212. 1-7]: iiha ciitra . . . = AKV: bhadanta-KumiiraliitaJ:i. Cf. LVP, Kosa, IX, pp. 265-267. Fragm. 8. DM, Thu. 285a3-6 = AKBh, Nu. 105bl-4 [pradhan, 474.9-14; Shastri, 1220.4-10]: yadi vijfiiiniid vijfiiinam utpadyate niitmanaJ:i ... = AKV: vaiSeifikasutriinusiiriid vii. Cf. LVP, Kosa, IX, p. 282: "Le SiiIp.khya (d'apres Kiokuga)". Fragm; 9. DM, Thu. 285a6-285bl = AKBh, Nu. 106al-3 [pradhan, 474.22-26, 475.1-3; Shastri, 1222.3-10] : . . .evam hy iihuJ:i ... ; ...ekiyas tirthikalJ. . . . = AKV (respectively): sthavira-RiihulalJ.; vaiSeifikalJ.. Cf. L VP, Kosa, IX, p. 284. Fragm. l0. DM, Thu. 285bl = AKBh, Nu. 108a2 [prad\!.an, 477.7-8; Shastri, 1229.8-9] (Tib. translation differs). Cf. LVP, Kosa, IX, p. 295: "Le VaiSe�ika". Cf. also AKV. Fragm. l 1 . DM, Thu. 285b2-4 = AKBh, Nu. 108a3-5 [Pradhan, 477.9- 13; Shastri, 1229 . 1 1- 14, 1230.1]. Cf. L VP, Kosa, IX, pp. 295-296 (a reply of the Buddhists). Fragm. 12. . . . . . . . . DM, Thu. 285b4-28 6al = AKBh, Nu. i 08a7-108b5 [pradhan, 47'7. 17:27; sh astri, 1230.6�1 6f . . . yathoktam. . . = AKV: sthavira-RiihulelJ.a. Cf. LVP, Kosa, pp. 296-298. Fragm. 13. DM, Thu. 286al-6 = AKBh, Nu. 109a2�6 [pradhan, 478. 10-479.4; Shastri, 123 1.8-11, 1232. 1-6, 1233.1-4] : ... iiha khalv api ... (with these words are introduced four stanzas finishing AKBh). According to LVP, Kosa, p. 300f., the first stanza comes from a work by sthavira Riihula, quoted already above in the text (cf. p. 297 n. 2). Lindtner"" advanced a hypothesis that the last three stanzas of the PudgalaviniScaya chapter were added by Digniiga. His argument is based on the testimony of Dharmendra who in his Tattvasiirasa/1lgraha attributed the first stanza to Digniiga" o. The same stanza, wit\!. some .

.

·

"" "Adversaria Buddhica ill. Gleanings from TattvasiirasaJ?lgraha", '10

WZKS

XXVI, 1982, pp. 184-194.

Dharmendra's TattvasiirasaJ?lgraha (peking Tg, 4534) is dated in relation to the date of SantaraJqita (c. 725-788

77

different readings, was attributed to Dignaga by Bhavya in the Madhyamakaratnapradfpa3 1l. this is so, one should firstly explain the occurrence of these three stanzas (in the same se­ quence) in the Sanskrit manuscript of the Abhidhannakosa, in its Tibetan translation, in the Chinese translation of Hsiian-tsang, as well as in Yasomitra's Abhidhannakosa-vyiikhyii (both in Sanskrit and Tibetan). More plausible seems the explanation that both Dharmendra and Bhavya quoted the stanza in question from Dignaga's Mannapradipa and subsequently ascribed its authorship to Dignaga himself" 2.

If

6. PORl�AVARDHANA'S MINOR COMMENTARY

Piirry.avardhana is also credited with the authorship of a shorter commentary on theAbhidhanna­ kosa3 13 . It is called LalqalJiinusiirilJi too, and was translated by the same two translators, Kanakavarman and Pa tshab Ni rna grags. The LalqalJiinusiirilJi minor is divided into eight A.D.), whom it quotes, and the date Of its Tibetan translation by Rin chen bzan po (958-1055 AD.). The stanza reads [Nu. 97b7-8): de yan slob dpon Phyogs kyi glan po'i ial sna nas kyis I 'di ni mya nan 'das gron lam gcig pu I bde gsegs iii rna'; gsuiJ 'od snail ba can / bdag med ran biin 'phags pa ston phrag Jug I mam par rgyas pa" blo bdman mig mi mthon b II ies Mad pa ... • ? bkral ba, xyL: rgyal ba (I am indebted to Prof. ScJunithausen for this emendation). b · b dman pa'i mig gis mi mthon = na manda-calqur ... i",ate. N.b. Index AKBh III, p. 174 reads: phye yan dman pa'i mig = manda-calqur-vivrtii, which is against the sense; in Skt. AKBh we have: na manda-calqur vivrtam apf/qate, and it is rendered into Tibetan correctly: phye yan (vivrtiim api) dman pa'i mig gis ('manda-calq14ii) mi mthon no (na i",ate) . 311

Bhavya lived c. 490-570 AD. (Lindtner), or c. 500-570 AD. (Kajiyama). Bhavya's authorship of the Madhyamaka­

rotnapmdipa (Peking Tg, 5254) is questioned by the scholars, see D.S. Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School,

p. 66 and n. 214. The stanza reads [Tsa. 343a3-5J: slob dpon Phyogs kyi glan pos kyah I 'di na mya nan 'das lam gron khyer du I de htin gsegs pa'; gs� gi iii ma'i. 'od can gy� / bdag med ses pa'i 'phags pa ston phrag Jug I blo gros ruin pa dag yi yul ma yin II ies gsuns so Ij.

3 12 Marmaprodipa [Thu. 286a4-5): de biin gsegs pa fii ma'i gsuit 'od ky,' I snail ldan mya nan 'das gron lam gcig pa I bdag med 'phags pa ston gis' bgrod pa 'di I phye yan dman pa'i mig gis mi mthon no II

AKBh [Nu. 109a6) reads: • kyis; • gi. Here is the Sanskrit original text [Pradhan, 478.18-21; Shastri, 1233.1-2]: imdJtt hi nirviiJ;Japuroikavartinff!J tathiigatadityavaco ',!,subhasvatim / niriitmatiim iiryasahasraviihitiif!! na mandacalqur vivrtiim api",ate Ij.

=

3J3 The same passages occur both in the LalqQ(liinusiiri(li major and minor, e.g. Ju. 380b4-5 Thu. 296b4.

78

=

Thu. 298a5-6; Ju. 332b6

chapters, which apart from the last one, samiipatti-nirdesa (siioms par 'jug pa bstan pa), bear no titles. It , refers to selected ' topics of the Abhidharmakosa314 and therefore it seems to be an abridgment of the major commentary, polemical in character. There are many references to the opinions of the "others" (gian dag na re, kha cig na re), and among them to those of 'Dul bzail alias Vinitabhadra31'. Nota bene the Cone Tanjur (Nu. 214b1�238a2) reads 'Dus bzail/Sailgha­ bhadra throughout. The problem of identification of 'Dul bzail has been examined above, in the chapter on Vinitabhadra. Below �re presented those passages from PUI1.lavardhana's shorter commentary which refer to 'Dul bzail and were identified as the opinions of 'Dus bzail, i.e. Sailghabhadra. Fragm. 1: rTIIU. 292a4] slob dpon 'Dul bZan316 na re sems gcig la dmigs sin rdzas mnam yan mthu dus gian yin pa 'i phyir 'gal [5] ba med de I tshogs la rtog pa 'i mthu < s > bla lhag na ni dpyod pa 'i mthu iiams pa 'i phyir sems rtsiiI bar 'gyur la I dpyod pa'i mthu bla lhag na ni rtog pa 'i mthu iiams pa 'i phyir iib par wur te I tsha dan chu gran reg biin [6] no II "Acarya Vinitabhadra (Cone: Sailghabhadra) says: «It is not a fault [to accept two kinds of] a thought [eidsting] in one, because of difference in [their] efficacy and ,time [of appearance], notwithstanding [their] common base of support and substance. If vitarka's efficaCy has predominance and vicara's efficacy is diminished, the thought becomes gross; if vicara's efficacy has predominance and vitarka's efficacy is diminished, [the thought] becomes fine; as in the case of a contact of warm and cold water»". This argument is essentially , the same as the opinion of Sailghabhadra which is quoted by Yasomitra in his Sphu{iirthii3l7. Fragm. 2: [Th u . 292a8] slob dpon 'Dul bzan318 ni slar yan sems min ba dan iib pa iiid ni min ba dati iib pa iiid do ies ni mi smra'o II [292b1] '0 na ji ltar ie na / sems min ba ni sems la yod pa 'i rtsin ba 'o II de'i dilOs po ni sems rtsin ba iiid do II sems iib pa yan de dan 'dra 'o us zer TO II "Acarya Vinitabhadra (Cone: Sailghabhadra) says: «And again, I do not say that the 'grossness of thought' and the 'fineness [of thought]' are 'grossness' and 'fineness'. Why? - The 'grossness

, 314

Cf. e.g: AK m:9cd' [pradh.in; 11911ff.;' Sh3Stri, 'W:z..12tf.; Pek. Tg,

[pradhan, 136.2f.; Shastri, 448.2f.; Pek. Tg, Gu. 148a7-148bl]

=

Gu.

133b7-8]

=

'Dlli . 296b1-2; AK ·I11.27

Thu. 289b6.

liS

There are as many as nine passages in which the name of 'Dul bzaitjVinltabhadra is mentioned (all references are to the Peking Tanjur): .(1) Thu. 292a4-6, (2) Thu. 292a3-292bl, (3) Thu. 292b8-293a4, (4) Thu. 293b1-3, (5) Thu. 294a2-5, (6) Thu. 300a2-5, (7) Thu. 300a6-7, (8) Thu. 301a6-301b2, (9) Thu. 310a7..'l. ,,, Cone, Nu. 219a1: 'Dus bzan·. • PC: bzails lI1

Abhidhannakosa-vyiikhyii ad AK II.33a [Wogihara, 140.1ff.; Shastri, 206.19-23; Pek. Tg, Cu. 145a5-8]: atra

SaiJghabhadra iiciilya dha / ekatra ca citte audiirikasiilqmate bhavata/;l / na ca virodha/;l prabhiivakiiliinyatviit / yadii hi cittacaittakaliipe vitarka udbhiitav[1tir bhavati tadii cittam audiirikOJtl bhavali /yadii viciiras tadii siilqmOJtl rrigamohacarita­ vyapadesavat / rrigamohayaugapadye 'pi hi tayor anyatarodbhiitav[1tiyogiid rrigacarito mohacarita iii vii vyapadiiyate / tadvad ihiipi drrlfiavyam iii ;. Cf. LVP, KoJa, II, p. 175 n. 1. '" Cone, Nu. 219a4: 'Dus bzail·.

•

PC: bzaiJs.

79

of thought' it is a grossness which is in thought; [it is said:] 'grossness of thought' [with regard to] its essence. And a similar [explanation is to be applied] foe the 'fineness of thought'»". This is a continuation of the discussion from fragment 1. Fragm. 3 : [Thu. 292b8] slob dpon 'Dul bzan3 19 na re skal b a mnam p a ies [293a1] bya b a n i sems can 'gro ba gcig tu skyes pa mams kyi Ius dan dban po dan dbyibs dan gyo ba dan zas la sogs pa Y rgyur gyur cin phan tshun dga' bar 'breI paY rgyu mtshan yin no II Ums [2] can rna yin pa 'i skal ba mnam (xyL: nams) pa nid kyan d'j phyir mi 'dod32IJ ces gan smras na khyed cag gis 'gro ba dan skye (xyL : skyi) gnas mam pa khas blails pas rtsva (?) dan amra la sogs pa 'i 'gro ba dan I la phug dan mon sran rde 'u skye [3] gnas dag kyan ci ste khas mi len I bcom ldan 'das kyis rna gsuils pa 'i phyir yin na ni sems can rna yin pa 'i skal ba mnam pa yan khas mi len te I bcom ldan 'das kyis rna gsuils pa 'i phyir ro [4] ies zer ro II "Acarya Vinitabhadra (Cone: Sanghabhadra) says: «'Likenessm" i.e. a cause of body, organs of senses, shape, activity, nourishment etc. and reciprocally a mark of relation(s). If someone says why is the likeness of non-living beings not approved, you who acknowledge [two] species, genus and matrix, [reply that] if a genus of a herb and mango etc., and a matrix of radish and peas [etc.], both are not acknowledged, and if it is so because the Bhagavat did not announce [it], [then] the likeness of non-living beings is not acknowledged too. Because the Bhagavat did not announce [it]»". This is the opinion of Sanghabhadra, according to Yasomitra322. Fragm. 8: [Thu. 301a6] slob dpon 'Dul bzan323 ni dran sron dag ni don gyis na mam par rig byed byed (xyL: byid) pa yin [7] te I mi ma yin pa dag gis de dag gi (? sdig pa 'i) bsam pa mnon par (?) tugs pa rtogs nas de dag la dad pa mams gan gis na dran sron de dag la las kyi lam skye ba Ius kyis byed do II gian yan khro ba las ni de'i tshe gdon mi za bar [B] Ius dan nag gi las gyo bar 'gyur bas 'gal ba med do II gso sbyon (xyl.: spyod) la yan ji Itar tshig gi <s > go bar bya ba 'j don la Ius kyis gyo ba la yan las kyi lam skye ba de biin du bdag gis tshe dan ldan pa yoils su [301bl] dag go snam du rig par bya 'o snam du can mi smra bas mi gyo ba la yan yin pas I tshig gi go bar bya ba Y don la can mi smra ba la yan dag gi las kyi lam skye bar 'gyur te de ni yoils su rna dag btin du can mi smra [2] bas bdag Rid dag pa dge bar byad do ies zer ro II

319 Cone, Nu. 219b3:

'Dus bzait'.

•

PC: bzahs.

32' 11tis is a quotation from theAbhidhannakosa-bharya HA1a [pradhan, 68.2; Shastri, 232.1]: api 'ciisattvasabhiigatiipi /d1Jl ne�ate /; [Pek. Tg, Gu. 84a8] gian yah sems can ma yin pa'i skaJ ba mfiam pa fiid kyah ci'i phyir mi 'dod de ;'

,

Pradhan reads: asattva-sattva-sabhiigatii, against the Tibetan. Cf. also Mvy 6456: manUD'iinw,. sabhiigatiiyiim upapannal,l (mi dah skaJ ba mfiam par skyes).

32' skat ba mfiam pa 322

=

sabhiigatii (Mvy 6456); BHSD s.v.

Abhidhann akosa-vyiikhyii ad Ai< II.41a [Wogihara, 159.10ff.; Shastri, 233.16-19; Pek. Tg, Cu. 166bl-2]:

sarirendriyasturJSthiinace.riihiiriidisaubhiigyakiiroJ;am anyonyiibhirabhisambandhanimittlll!l casabhiigatii ity iiciitya-Sahgha­ bhadral,l ;' Cf. also the Abhidhann adipa-v{1ti ad II.134 [Jaini, 89.lff.]. 323

Cone, Nu. 226bl: 'Dus bzahs.

80

"Acarya Vinitabhadra (Cone: Sailghabhadra) says: «In fact the sages do command. The demons'" having known their entering into the [evil] intentions, [as if they were] believing them, act corporally, wherethrough with those sages arises a path of action. Or, out of anger, there is then undoubtedly no violation when [they are] agitated [by] the acts of body and voice. At the confession ceremony"�, as in a matter to be made mown through word(s) as well as in a body movement arises a path qf action (karmapatha), so when [the formula] 'The venerable is pure' is announced, I keep silence and also remain unmoved, [then] in a matter to be made known as well as in [my] keeping silence arises a path of pure action; thiS - like in [on.e who is] ,not pure - by keeping silence 'I am pure', will make merit»". The above fragment refers to the opinion of Sailghabhadra as quoted by Yasornitra'26. The Tibetan text, however, is not a faithful reproduction of the Sanskrit and also shows some differences with the original wording of Sailghabhadra (xxiii. 5, 7a) as translated from the Chinese

'" mi ma yin pa

,25 gso sbyon

=

=

amanlq)/a (Index AKBh IIL206); BHSD S.Y.

po�adha (Index AKBh III306); BHSD s.Y. ('sabbath').

,,.Abhidhannakoia-vyiikhya adAK IV.7S [Wogihara, 408.13ff.; Shastri, 692.18ff.]: atriiciilya-SanghabhadraJ.< samadhim aha / (rayo 'rthata ajfliipayitiiro bhavanti /te$iiJrJ hi sattvaparityagaprav[1tOl!' piiptiiayam avetytimanlq)/iis tadabhipmsanniiIJ kiiyena pariikram ante / yena te$tim f$i{liiJrJ kannapatha utpadyate / katham / parivijflaptyeti / avaiyOl!' lathiividhasya kiiyavagviktinl bhavanti / api ca iapanti Ie tatha / tatra cavaiyOl!' kiiyavacc ses pas ni phyi ma 'i mtha ' la kun tu nnons pa bzlog par byed do // zagpa zad pa 'i mnon par ses pas ni bar la kun tu nnons pa [8] bzlog par byed do ies zer ro // "Acarya Vinitabhadra (Cone: Sanghabhadra) says: «One reverses a future confusion by means of intuition'29 of a fall [from one existence] and rebirth [in another]330; one reverses a 'middle' [i.e. present] confusion by means of intuition of destruction of evil influences»". This corresponds to the opinion of Sanghabhadra as quoted by Yasomitra33l• Our analysis has shown that the opinions ascribed to a certain Vinltabhadra can be recognized as the opinions of Sanghabhadra. Thus we can assume that the name 'Dul bzan/Vinltabhadra is a mere scribal mistake for 'Dus bzan/Sanghabhadra.

3Z7 Kosa, IV, p. 163 n. 5: "SaI)lghabhadra explique: En fait (arthatas), les R�is commandent (rijiiripitiiras) Ie meurtre. Des etres demoniaques (amanUD'a), connaissant (avetya) leur intention pecheresse de destruction des etres vivants

(sattvaparityaga-pravrtta papiiSaya), devoues comme ils sont aux R�is, agissent corporellement contre les etres: en raison de cette action corporelle, il y a chemin de l'acte en ce qui conceme les R�is. - Comment les R�is manifestent-ils (vljiiapti) leur intention? - En raison de la colere, il y a certainement chez eux modification du corps et de la voix; s'lls maudissent, il y a certainement mouvement (ce�!a) du corps et de la voix. - D'autres maitres disent que toute av,yiiapti de la sphere du Kama ne depend pas d'une vijiiapti. Par exemple, les Cinq (paii caka) en obtenant un fruit obtiennent du meme coup la diScipline de Pnitimolqa (ci-dessus, p. 60): de meme une mauyaise avijiiapti peut naitre sans qu'il y ait vijiiapti. Dira-t-on que les Cinq avaient fait vijiiapti auparavant? Il en sera de me-me dans d'autres cas. Voila pour Ie cas des �is. Quant au mensonge a la ceremonie de 1a confession (po�adhamr�iivada), Ie fait que Ie moine coupable (aparisuddha) entre dans Ie SaI)lgha, s'assied, s'y tient (svam ityiipathtlJ?1 ka/payati) et tout ce qu'il peut dire, voila pour lui une vijiiapti anterieure (au moment au il acquiesce par Ie silence)". 328

Cone, Nu. 234a4: 'Dus bzans.

329

mnon par ses pa

3]{)

'chi 'pho ba dail skye ba

=

abhijiiri (Index AKBh III.52); BHSD s.y. =

cyutyutprida, cyutyupapatti (Index AKBh III.69); BHSD s. cyutopaprida.

33 1 Abhidhann akosa-vyiikhyri ad AK VIlAS [Wogihara, 657.28ff.; Shastri, 1113.14ff.]: riciirya-Sailghabhadras tu vyiic�!e /piirwintiidau nivartaniit /piirveniviisribhijiiri hi piirviintastlJ?1mohtlJ?1 vyrivartayati / aparrintastlJ?1mohtlJ?1 cyutyupapiidiibhi­ jiiri / madhyastlJ?1moham iisrovalqayrihhijiieti / ataS ca tiSf1:liim eva vidyritvam / piirvayiitmaparavipaddarianrit stlJ?1vegotpattei,l parayii pare�iim eva / tathri stlJ?1vignasya bhiitiirthiivagamrit trfiyeti / kim atra pratipattavyam / iiciirya­ Sailghabhadro-vyiikhyiinam eva yuktarilptlJ?1 paiyri-mai,l ;. Cf. LVP, Kosa, VII, p. 108 n. 2: "Mais Sarpghabhadra explique: Le souvenir des anciennes' existences met un ,tenne a l' erreur relative au passe; la connaissance de la mort et renaissance met un terrne a l'erreur relative au futur; la connaissance de la destruction des asravas met un terme a 1'erreur relative au present; c'est pourquoi ces trois abrujnas sont vidyiis. Par I. premiere, on yoit la souffrance de soi et d'.utrui; par I. seconde, la souffrance d'autrui; on eprouve Ie saJ11vega, Ie degout; ainsi degoute, on produit la troisieme, on voit Ie bonheur du NirviiIJa. C'est pourquoi ces trois abhijnas sont vidyii. YaSomitra demontre que la pensee de Vasubandhu est correctement interpretee par SaIJ1ghabhadra". Cf. also the Abhidhann adipa-v{tti ad VII.522 [Jaini, 397.18-19].

82

7. ABHIDHARMA,VATARAPRAKARAl:'A AND SARAsAMUCCAYA

Two anonymous works which close the volume Thu of the section mnon pa of the Tanjur, the

SiirasamuccayaAbhidhanniivatiira-pkii and theAbhidhannivi atiiraprakarar;uz, are not commentar. ies on the Abhidhannakosa sensu stricto. The AbhidhanniivatiiraprakaralJa, or in short: Abhidhanniivatiira, was composed by the arhat Skandhila, a Sarvastivada master from Kashmir, a teacher of Sanghabhadra and a contemporary of Vasubandhu. All this we know from the Chinese sources which wer � studied by M. Van Velthem'32. Skandhila's work is a concise commentary on the PrakaralJapiida, one of the seven canonical treatises of the Sarvastivada Abhidharma, ascribed to Vasumitra33'. The PrakaralJa was frequently cited by Vasubandhu in his Abhidhannakosa and by Sanghabhadra in the

Nyiiyiinusiira. The Abhidhanniivatiira is extant only in the Chinese translation by HSiian-tsang from 658 A.D. (Taisho 1554), and in the anonymous Tibetan translation dated c. 800 A.D., since it is mentioned in the Lhan kar rna catalogue (ed. Lalou, No. 692). Moreover, some fragments in Tokharian are preserved'34. The Abhidhanniivatiira in Tibetan33S consists of ten sections. It opens with a . formula of salutation to Mafijusrikumara, followed by an explanation of the purpose of the treatise. The treatise begins with the words: "So there are eight subjects of the Sugatas". The subjects, i.e. the sections of the work are as follows (numbers in brackets refer to the chapter order of the Chinese version) : 2 ( 1 ) gzugs kyi dilos po (rilpa-vastu), 3(2) tshor ba 'i dilos po (vedanii-vastu), 4(3) 'du ses kyi dilos po (sal'{ljiiii-vastu), 5(4) 'du byed kyi dilos po (sal'{lSkiira-vastu), 6 (5 ) mam par ses pa 'i dilos po (vijiiin i a-vastu), 7 *on the causal relations and effects (*hetu-pratyaya-phala), 8(6) nam mkha 'i diIos po (iikiiSa-vastu), 9(7) so sor brtags pas 'gog pa'i dilos po (pratisal'{lkhyiinirodha), 10 ( 8 ) so sor brtags pa ma yin pas 'gog pa'i dilos po (apratisal'{lkhyiinirodha). The treatise offers a concise summary of the Sarvastivada teaching of the dharma theory. Firstly, there is a classification schema of the conditioned elements (sal'{lSlq-ta-dhanna) which are distributed into five aggregates (skandha); then follows a separate section on the operations of the causes (hetu) and conditions (pratyaya), and on their effects (phala); and finally an explanation is given of three unconditioned elements (asal'{lSlq-ta-dhanna). The Siirasamuccaya Abhidhanniivatiira-pkii'36 exists only in · the Tibetan translation executed 33l Le trrlire de La descente dans La Pr% nde £oi (Abhidharmiivatarasiistra) de L'arltat Skandhila, Louvain-Ia-Neuve 1977. cr. also Irnonishi, Fragmente des Abhidharmaprokartll;J abh�am in Text UJld Ub ersetzung, Giittingen 1975. m

Cf. Lamotte, HBI, p. 203f.; LVP, Kosa, Introduction, p.

xxxi.ii

See also Irnanishi, Das Paiicavastukam UJld die.

Paiicavastukavibh�ii. ". Van Velthem, op. cit., p.

xviii.

'" Cf. Van Velthem, op. cit., pp. 81-109 contains the Tibetan text (peking Tanjur) in transliteration. 336

Van Velthem has announced (op. cit., p. xiii) that he will publish a critical edition of the Siirasamuccaya, yet he

83

by Jinamitra, Danaslla and Ye ses sde. It is referred to in the Lhan kar rna catalogue as a commentary on the Abhidharmiivatiira (ed. Lalou, Nos. 693-694). The Sarasarnuccaya is composed on the same pattern as the text commented on - it is divided into ten chapters, and it explains in simple words the compact matter of the Abhidharmavatara. A close relation between the Abhidharmavatara and the Abhidharmakosa is a result of their dependence on the Sarvastivada Abhidharma or, more precisely, on the PrakaralJa. It is possible to trace many identical or very similar passages in the treatises of Skandhila and Vasubandhu as well as of Yasomitra, to the extent that some parts of the Abhidharmavatara or the Siira­ sarnuccaya can be restored into Sanskrit. However, one observes also differences, e.g. in the chapter on causal relations and effects (ch. 7) the Sarasarnuccaya presents the explanations which are parallel to those found in Yasomitra's Sphutartha but the definitions of the SL'{ causes are not the same; the definition of the term sal!1jfia both in the Abhidharmiivatiira and in the Sarasarnuccaya (ch. 4) is different from that of Vasubandhu. These instances will be studied below.

7.1 Six hetus Originally the terms hetu and praryaya seemed to be equivalent. Yasomitra in his answer to the question: "What are these causes? What are these conditions? And what difference is between them?" says that there is no difference. It is only later that the question of the number of the hetus and pratyayas has arisen, as well as the problem of whether six hetus are to be included in four pratyayas or not. According to the Vaibha�ikas, continues Yasomitra, the "Sutra" describing six hetus has been lost. However, it happens that there are sutras which teach about six hetus and Yasomitra quotes the extracts containing their definiti� ns337. Now, the Sarasarnuccaya agrees as to the number of six hetus and four pratyayas, referring to the "Sutra". Here is this fragment: [Tim. 385b2] rndo las rkyen bii ste I rgyu 'i rkyen dan I de rna thagpa 'i rkyen dan I dmigs

pa 'i rkyen dan I bdag pa Y rkyen te I rkyen bii ni gsulis [3J kyi I rgyu mams ni rna gsulis pa rna yin narn I 'di ni fies pa rna yin te I drug pa Y skobs su rgyu'i rndo gsun ba las de ni nub par gyur (xyl.: 'gyur) te I lha mams kyis bsfiad do IIyan na rndo gian dag las rgyu mams gsulis te I [4J §1. rntshulis par ldan pa 'i rgyu gsulis pa ni mthon ba 'i rtsa ba las byun ba 'i dad pa ni rtogs nas ses pa daft mtshulis par ldan . no II ies 'byun ba 'f dadpa· ni dogs nas ses pa dan rntshulis par ldan no ies 'byun ba'o II [5J §2. de biin du lhan Gig 'byun ba Y rgyu bstan te I gzugs gan Gi yan run de thams cad 'byuft ba chen po bii dag ces 'byun ba'o II §3. skal ba mfiam pa Y rgyu yan gsulis te I de dge ba Y rtsa ba chun nu tsam (?) dan ldan pa yod de de'i dge [6J ba 'i rtsa ba de las dge ba 'i rtsa ba gian 'byun ies bya ba 'o II §4. kun tu 'gro ba 'i rgyu yan gsulis te I log par Ita ba la sags pa log par rtog pa 'byun no ies bya ba 'o II

eXpressed his uncertainty as to the actual character of the text. 337 Abhidhann akosa-vyiikhyii [Wogihara, 188.13-189.15; Shastri, 278.28-31, 279.3-32; Peking Tg, Cu. 194b1-195b2] (the fragment is too long to be quoted here in extenso). Cf. Van Velthem, op. cit., pp. 71-74; Lamotte, Trait., V, pp. 2164-

2166; LVP, Douze causes, p. 54f.

84

§5. mam par smin pa Y rgyu yan gsuns te I dge slon dag khyed kyis srog [7J gcod pa'i sems can mthon na de la khyed kyis kye rna 'o II sems can dmyal ba 'am sems can dmyal ba gan yail run ba zig mthon no sfiam du sems (;cyL: nes) par ses par bya 'o II dge slon dag khyed kyis srog gcod pa spans pa'i sems can [8J mtholi na I de la khyed kyis lha 'am lha gan yaiz run ba zig mthon no siiam du sems par ses par bya'o zes 'byun ba'o II ' §6. byed pa 'i rgyu yan gsuizs te / mig (xyL: min) dan gzugs la brten nas mig gi [38OO1J mam par ses pa 'byun ste I dge slon dag de ltar na mig ni bdag po '0 II gzugs mams ni dmigs pa'o zes ' 'byun ba 'o Ir' "In the Siitra [are mentioned] four pratyayas, [i.e.] hetu-pratyaya, samanantara-pratyaya, iilambana-pratyaya, and adhipati-pratyaya. Is it not that the four pratyayas have been announced [in the Siitra], whereas [the six] hetus have not? - This is not a fault for in the chapter on hexades a Siitra on the [six] hetus had been proclaimed and only afterwards it got lost; [this] has been related by the gods. Or, the [six] causes are mentioned in other Siitra. §1. With regard to the mention of the sar[lprayuktaka-hetu, it is said: «A belief rooted in perception and associated with cognition [which is resulting from] penetration», i.e. a belief associated with cognition resulting from penetration. §2. Similarly, the sahabhu-hetu is described in these words: «Whatsoever matter, all these, four great elements» . §3. The sabhiiga-hetu is mentioned too. It is said: «The one associated with that who has only (?) a small root of good; from this root of good originates another root of good» . §4. The sarvatraga-hetu is mentioned too. It is said: «There originate false reflections: false views etc.» . The vipiika-hetu is mentioned too. It is said: «If you, monks, see a living being who is §5. taking life, you should make known to bim having thought in mind: 'Alas, I see a hell or whatsoever is fit for a hell'. If you, monks, see a living being who is abstaining from taking life, you should make known to him having thought in mind: 'I see the gods or whatsoever is fit for the gods'». §6. The kiiraIJa-hetu is mentioned too. It is said: «The visual consciousness originates in dependence on the eye and the elements of matter. Thus, monks, the eye is the organ of sense, and the elements of matter are the objects of sense» ". I cannot enter here into the difficult question Cif the origin of the Siitra quotations. With regard to the question of the lost Siitra, it is interesting to see that the Siirasamuccaya refClrs to . the fact of "divine intervention" ("it has been related by the gods"), whereas Yasomitra refers to the opinion of the Vaibhii.�ikas who claim that "the Siitra has been lost": According to La Vallee Poussin, it seems that Yasomitra borrowed the definitions of the six hetus from Sailghab­ hadra339• The parallel definitions in the Siirasamuccaya must derive from another source, except for the salflprayuktaka-hetu and the kiiraIJa-hetu, which agree with those of Ya§omitra.

,,, Cf. YaSomitra: ad § 1. idam ucyate darlanamiilikii sraddhii'vetyajfliinastllflProyuktii / "yad vijiiniili tat prajiiniili' iii StllflproyuktakahetuJ:< / r · · not in the Siirasamuccaya, seems to stem from another Sutra - L.Schmithausen ]; ad §6. calqul;t pratitya riipiil;i cotpadyate calqurvijfliinam iii fairw;lahetuJ:< / [ef. Dhannaskandha, ed. Dietz, p. 90 (5 .1 :4)].

,,, LVP, Kosa,

n,

p. 245 n. 2 (Saitghabhadra III.79b16).

85

7.2 On the tenn saf!ljflli Let us now study another piece of text, this time showing the relation between the three: the Abhidhannakosa, the Abhidhanniivatiira, and the Siirasamuccaya. For this purpose I have selected the fourth chapter, on "apprehension" (sarr1jiiii-vastu, 'du ses kyi diws po}''''. It has already been noted that the definition of the important term "saf!ljilii"341 is different from that of Vasubandhu. Both the Abhidhanniivatiira [TilU. 396b2-6] and especially the Siirasamuccaya [Thu. 331a8-33 1b8] offer interesting explanations. A comparison between these two texts shows that the latter is a commentary on the work of Skandhila. Below is presented the Tibetan text and the annotated translation of the saf!ljilii-vastu. (a) Abhidharmavatara [Thu. 396b2] mtshan rna dan min dan don gyi (xyl.: dan) brda ses pa ni (xyl. : ies pa Y) 'du ses te I snon po dan ser po dan I rin po dan thun nu dan I dun [3J dan rna dan I padma dan I sna ma Y me (xyl.: ma) tog dan I u tpa la Y dri dan I kha ba dan Ian tshva dan I l'am pa dan rtsub pa dan I bud med dan skyes pa la sogs pa 'i mtshan ma dan I min dan don gcig tu ses pa Y chos [4J gan yin pa de ni mam par rtog pa Y rgyu ste 'du ses ies bya 'o II de yan mam par ses pa Y bye brag gis tshor ba Min du mam pa drUg go IIyan chun nu dan chen par gyur pa dan tshad med pa dan mam pa [5J gsum ste I de la yut chun nu la dmigs pa ni chwi nu 'o II ri rab la sags pa la dmigs pa ni chen par gyur pa 'o II nam mkha ' mtha ' yas skye mched la sags pa dag la ni tshad med pa 'o II 'du [6J ses kyi drios po '0 II Translation "Apprehension"342 is a cognition of a conventional designation343 of [the three:] sign344, name34', thin�. The element which cognises as one [entity] the signs, names and things, e.g. blue and yellow, long and short, [a sound of] conch and drum, smell of white lotus, [smell of] jasmin and of blue lotus, [a taste of] bitter and briny, [a touch of] soft and rough, male and female etc., is a cause of discrimination347, and it is called "apprehension""'. This [apprehen-

"" Cf. Van Velthem, op. cit., p. 85.22-53.

34 1 Cf. Schmithausen, "On some aspects of descriptions or the?ries of 'hberating insight' and 'enlightenment' in early Buddhism", p. 215 n. 51; . BHSD s.v. · 342 'du 5es

=

'43

s<JI?1keta (Mvy 2776). BHSD p. 546: "conventional designation (with implication of unreality)".

bnia

=

'44 mtshan

s<Jl?1jiiii. BHSD p. 551f.

ma

=

nimitta (Index AKBh TII.227). Cf.Abhidhannakosa-vyiikhyii [Wogihara, 37.5-6; LiM, 38.10; Shastri,

48.18]: nimitt<Jl?1 vastuno 'vasthiiviSe�o nilatviidi I; [Pek. Tg, Cu. 39al]: mtshan ma ni dnos po'i gnas skabs kyi khyad par te snon po 10 sogs po yin no If. Cf. Schmithausen, Nin>iiJ;a-Abschnitt, p. 120 n. 67; Van Velthem, op. cit., p. 13 n. 1; LVP, Kosa, I, p. 28 n. 1. "3

min

=

niiman, s<JI?1jiiii (Index AKBh III.210).

346

don

=

anha (Index AKBh III.116).

347 mom

par /tog po

=

vitarka, vikalpa(na) (Index AKBh III.156). Cf. Van Velthem, op. cit., p. 13 n. 3; BHSD sub

86

sian] is sixfold, like a feelin!f49, in consequence of the individualization of [sixfold] conscious­ ness'so. Moreover, it is threefold, [with regard to its object, be it] small, great, and unmeasured. Here, it is [called] "small",sl having as an object of sense a small thing; it is [called] "great,,'S2 having as an object of sense [the mount] Sumeru etc.; it is [called] "unmeasured"'S3 having as an object of sense the stage of infinity . of space etc. [The chapter on the] entity of apprehension [is finished]. (b) Sarasamuccaya [Thu. 331a8] mtshan ma dan min [33 1b1] dan don gyi brda ses pa ies bya ba de fa I mtshan ma

dan mnon rtags (xyl.: brtags) daiI mtshan iiid ni mam gram su gtogs pa 'o II miil ni 'du ses so II don ni skye mched bcu giiis so II brda (xyl. : brda') ni gcig tu [2] bsdus pa 'i gnas so II lam tu ses pa ni 'du ses so II 'di'i yul bstan pa'i phyir I man po daiI ser po daiI I riiI po < dan > thun nu < dan > ies bya ba smras te / mig gi mam par ses pa dan ldan pa ni kha dog [3] daiI dbyibs la dmigs par stan to II dun ies bya ba 'dis ni sgra fa dmigs pa 'o II patima'i dri ies bya ba ni dri la dmigs pa'o II kha ba dan Ian tshva ies bya ba ni ro la dmigs pa'o II Jam pa daiI rtsub [4] pa ies bya ba ni reg bya la dmigs pa'o II bud med dan skyes pa la sags pa ies bya ba 'dis ni yid kyi mam par ses pa'i yul rab tu stan to II mam par rtog pa'i rgyu ies bya ba ni mam par rtog pa 'i rgyu'o II [5] mam par ses pa lam fa yan 'du ses yod de I de'i yul ni spyi'i mtshan iiid do II '0 na chos mnon pa las mig gi mam par ses pa dail ldan pas ni snon par ses kyi (xyl.: kyis) man po '0 (xyL: po 'i) ies bya ba ni rna yin no II [6] yid kyi (xyl.: kyis) mam par Ses pa dan ldan pas ni snon par Ses la I snon po '0 ies bya bar yan ses so ies 'byun ba ni ji Ita bu ie na I mam par ses pa Ina ni mam par rtogpa giiis medpas mi gsal ba'i [7] phyir de skad ces bya 'o II mam pa gsum ste I chun nu ni rdul phra rob fa sags pa la dmigs pa 'o II chen par gyur pa ni ri rab la sags pa la dmigs pa'o II sags pa smos pa ni rgya mtsho la sags pa bstan [B] to II tshad med pa ni nam mkha ' mtha'yas skye (xyl.:

viko.lpa. '" The defInition in theAbhidhann akosa L14cd is as follows [Pradhan, 10.16; Shastri, 48.5]: sClJ?1jiiii nimillodgrahtu;l­ iitmikiiI; [Pek. Tg, Gu. 35bl] 'du ses ni ,;,tshan mar 'dzin pa'i bdag iiid do 1/ Cf.Abhidhannakosa-bh�a ll.24 [Pradhan, 54.20-21; Shastri, 1873]: sClJ?1jiiii SClJ?1jiiiinClJ?1 vi�aylUlimillodgraha/;l I; [Gu. 72a7] 'du ses ni 'dus nas ses pa ste I yul la mtshan mar 'dzin pa'o 1/ Cf. also Vasubandhu's Paiicaskandhaka [Pek. Tg, Si. 13b2-3]: 'du ses gailte na Iyul la mtshan mar 'dZ;n pa';' )1 de ni inam pa gsurn ste I chuii ;,U 'dan ! rgya chen por gyur pa ddil l /shad ;"ed pa'd II. The same defInition is found in Sthirarnati's T,;".sikii-bh�a, Vijiiaptimiitratiisiddhi, Althaviniicayasiitra, Dpal brtseg's Dhanna­ pcuyiiyiibhismlll'tu;l a (Tohoku 4363); but see also Paiicavastuka, Asaitga's Abhidhann asamuccaya. Further cf. my paper "Klon rdol bla rna's explanatory notes on the Abhidhannakosa of Vasubandhu".

"" Cf.Abhidhannakosa-bh�a I.14cd [Pradhan, 10.18; Shastri, 48.7]: sa punarbhidyamiina/;l �at sClJ?1jiiiikiiyti vedaniivat / 3,.

mam par ses pa'i bye brag

'" chun ;,U

=

*vijiiiina-vise�a.

alpa, parillO, mrdu (Index AKBh ID.62); BHSD sub parilla ("small, limited, restricted, minor").

'52 chen por gyur pa parittd'. '53 tshad

=

med pa

=

=

mahadgata (Index AKBh ID.63); BHSD p. 421: "great, extensive, lofty - contrasted with

apramiil;aa, apcuimiil;aa (Index AKBh IlI.221); BHSD s.v.

87

skyes) mched la sags pa fa 'a II sags pas smas pas ni mam ses mtha ' yas skye mched fa sags pa bstan to II 'du ses bsad zin to II Translation "Cognition of a conventional designation of sign, name and thing", here - "sign", clear mark'S na spyod pa'i dge ba'o // de yail chad ni bde ba yail rna yin sdug bsilal yail rna yin pa'i don du'o II •

Tib. om. -iiriipya-.

100

1 1. [Tho. 62a4 Iu. 355a2-3] tshe 'di la bde ba 'i don du ni bsod nams ma yin pa rtsom ste425 I zes bya bar sbyar te I Ius kyi sgo nas srog geod pa la sags pa dan I nag gis brdzun smra ba la sogs pa dan I yid kyis bmab sems la sogs pa dag go II "«Performs an unbe!1eficial [deed] if aiming at pleasure in this life», i.e. by body [actions, such as] taking life etc., by speech, [such as] lying etc. ; by thoughts - covetousness etc.". =

12. [Tho. 62a5 Iu. 355a3] las kyi 'phen pa 'i dban gis"'" zes bya ba la I ji skad bstan pa 'i las dag gis 'phans pa ni las kyi 'phel ba'o42A II =

13. [Tho. 62a6 Iu. 355a3-4] de 'i dban gis na deY rgyu mtshan gyis te I rgyu des mam par ses pa'i rgyun srid pa bar rna dan 'brei pas thag Sin tu rin ba yan 'gro ba de dan der 'gro bar 'gyur ro429 II =

14(a). [Tho. 62a6 Iu. 355a4-355b2]4:l" srid pa bar rna yan rnam par ses pa drug cl.alt_ldan pa'i phyir de ltar bSad na I mam par ses pa gaJi ze na I mam par ses pa 'i tshogs drug go I/, zes bSad pa de 'thad pa yin nom II zes smos so II ji ltar ze na I gal te mam par ses pa 'i rgyun las kyis' yons =

.'" AKBh [pradhan, 140.1; Shastri, 460.5; Gu. 151b5]: aihikasukhiiltham apui;tyam [kanniirabhateJ. Cf. YaSoIl'Jtra [Wogihara, 299.15-17; Cu. 333a3]: aihikasukhiiltham *apUlJyam iti/ihasukhiipetqayii tatkrttllT' niiyatisukhiipetqayety artha/J / tshe 'di la bde ba'i don du ni bsod nams ma yin pa ies bya ba ni 'di la bde ba la bltos nas de by� kyi phyi ma la bde ba bltos te ni ma yin no // ies bya baY tha tshig go // * Shastri ed om. apUlJyam (!).

4Z1 AKBh [Pradhan, 140.2; Shastri, 460.6; Gu. 151b5]: kannii1qepavaJiit/. Cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 299.17; Cu. 333a34]: kannii1qepavaJiid yathokta*·karmiivedhavaJiit / las kyi 'phen pa'i dbah gis te /ji skad Mad pa'i las kyi 'phen pa'i dbah gis /, * Emended aft�r L. Schmithausen. Wogihara and Shastri read: yathokttllT' karma-. '28 Piin)avardhana: 'phen pa'o. Cf. 'phahs pa = alqepa (Index AKBh m.177); 'phel ba = vrddhi (Index AKBh m.178); 'phen pa = iivedha, BHSD: "continuing force ( .. .) . Tib. 'phen pa, something like 'projection'( . .. ). iivedha/J, Mvy

7535

=

Tib. 'phen pa, or sugs, 'inherent power, energy'(J�). In Mvy 6857 iivedha/J (between ii1qepa/J and prasabham),

physical 'projection, penetration'''. '29 AKBh [Pradhan, 140.2-3; Shastri, 460.6-7; Gu. 151b5-6]: vijiiiinastllT' tatis tiiqt tiiqt gati/fl gacchati jViiliigamana­ yogeniintariibhavasambandhiit /. Cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 299.20; Cu. 333a5-6J: ativiprokmadefam api /yut thag rin por

yah /. ,,. der skye bar 'gyur tem I 'dir min dan gzugs ni rga si (xyL: ma si) bar du yan lag tu rigpar bya 'i IIji ltar bye brag tu smra ba mams kyi ltar I min dan gzugs ni de phan chad I skye mched drug dod tshun chad dom ies bya ba ni rna yin no II "The name and form, [i.e.] the five aggregates, originate in such and such a destination; here, in this, if the 'name and form' are understood [as extending] up to the [last] member 'old age and death', as for the Vaibhii�ikas «the name and form [extends] from that [moment] up to the [moment of] ·production of six bases», [such an analogy] does not [fit well]". =

16. [Tho. 63a3 Iu. 355b3-6] yan min da1i gzugs phun po Ina po yin no II ies bya ba 'di ji ltar rtogs par bya ie na I de'i phyir mam par 'byed pa las de skad bstan pa'i phyir ro434 II ies bya ba smos te 1m min dan gzugs mam par 'byed pa'i mdo las min gan ie na I gzugs can. rna yin pa'i phun po bii ste I tshor ba 'i phun po nas mam par ses pa'i phun po 'i bar ro IIgzugs gan yin pa ci yan run ste I 'byun ba chen po bii da1i 'byuil ba chen po bii dag rgyur byas pa de =

02 AKBh [Pradhan,

1405; Shastri, 461.1; Gu. 151b7]: lasyliltl lasyliltl galau namariipt117' jiiyale paiicaskandhakam j.

'" AK III .21d-22a [pradhan, 132.1-2; Shastri, 437.7-8]: namariipam alai;! poram / priik "a4iiyalanolpiidiil /j. "" AKBh [Pradhan, 140.5�; Shastri, 461.1-2; Gu. 151b7-8]: namanlpt117' jiiyale paiicaskandhakam (.. .) Vibhailge Mahiinidiinapatyiiye caivt117' nirdeiiil j. cr. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 29932-300.1; Cu. 333b4-5], quoted ·supra. ill

Pun:tavardhana ad.: rten ci;, 'brei par 'byun ba mam par 'byed pa 'am .

103

thams cad de I gzugs dan snar gyi min 'di gii is ni min dan gzugs ies bya ba Y gram su 'gro 'o ies 'byun no II "Again, [if it is asked] in what manner it is to be understood that the 'name and form' are the five aggregates, therefore it is said: «As it was defined in the Vibhanga [part of the Pratityasam­ utpadasutra]». In the Sutra, in the nama-riipa-vibhanga [chapter, it is said:] «What is 'name'? Four non-material aggregates: from the vedana-skandha up to the vijfiana-skandha. What is 'matter'? - Whatsoever matter, the four great elements and their derivatives, all these [are called 'matter']. The matter [thus characterized] and the previously [described] name; these two are . reckoned with the name and form» ". 17. [Tho. 63a5 Iu. 355b6-7] min dan gzugs yom su smin pa436 ies bya ba ni nur nur po dan I mer mer po dan I nar nar po dan I mkhran 'gyur la sags pa'i no bas dban po bskyed par bya la ches dan I sin tu ches fie ba 'i no bos rim pas so II "[Through] the ripening of name and form [gradually there arise six bases of cognition]», i.e. gradually, through the great and very attached in nature [ripening ? (not clear)], towards producing the organs of senses, according to the nature of [the consecutive embryonic stages:] kalala, arbuda, peS!, ghana etc.". =

[Tho. 63a7

=

18(a). Iu. 355b7] 'dod pa 'i sred pa ni437 'dod pa na spyod pa 'i sred pa 'o II

18(b). [Tho. 63a7 Iu. 355b7-8] bde ba dan bde ba yan ma yin I sdug bsnal yan ma yin pa la ni gzugs kyi sred pa 'o438 II ies bya ba la I bsam gtan gsum na ni tshor ba bde ba la gzugs kyi sred pa gzugs na spyod pa 'o II bsam gtan bii pa ni bde ba yan ma yin sdug bsnal yan ma yin pa la gzugs kyi sred pa 'o II =

18(c). [Tho. 63a8 Iu. 355b8-356al] gzugs med pa 'i khams na tshor [63bl] ba gian medpas bde ba yan ma yin sdug bsnal yan ma yin pa fa gzugs med pa Y sred pa ste I thams cad la sdug bsnal gyis gzir ba439 ies bya bar sbyar bar bya 'o II =

436 AKBh [pradhan, 140.6; Shastri, 461.2-3; Gu. 151b8]; tathii niimariipaparipiikiit / Cf. AKBh ad III.19 (Index AKBh III): nur nur po = kalala, mer mer po = arbuda, nar nar po = peSF, mkhrah 'gyw- = ghana. 437 AKBh [Pradhan, 140.9; Shastri, 461.5; Gu. 152al]; kiimatr�l}ii; cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 300.1-2; Cu. 333b7]; kiimatr�iieti I kiimiivacari tr�l}ii I 'dod pa'i sred pa'o II ies bya ba ni 'dod pa na spyod pa'i sred pa'o 1/ 438

AKBh [Pradhan, 140.9; Shastri, 461.6; Gu. 152al]; sukhiiyiim adul;khiisukhiiyiiJ?t ca nlpatr�l}ii / Cf. Yasomitra

[Wogihara, 300.2; Cu. 333b7-8]; nlpatr,l}eti Iyii sukhiiyii". triw dhyiine�u I adu/:lkhiisukhiiyiiJ?t catwthe I (. . . ) bde ba fa ni bsam gtan gsum pa dag tu'o II (.. . ) bsam gtan bii par ro 1/ '" AKBh [Pradhan, 140.8; Shastri, 461.5; Gu. 152al]; du/:lkhotpiljitasya / Cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 300.3; Cu. 333b8334al]; adul;khiisukhiiyiim iiriipyatr�l)eti I iinlpyiivacari I bde ba yail ma yin sdug bsnaf ba yail ma yin pa fa ni gzugs med pa'i sred pa'o II ies bya, ba ni gzugs med pa na spyod pa'o 1/

104

19. [Tho. 63b1 Ju. 356a1-2] 'dod pa la sags pa fie bar len te440 II ies bya ba la I 'dod pa daiz I Ita ba dan I tshul khrirns dan I brtul tugs dan I bdag tu smra ba marns fie bar len to II =.

20. [Tho. 63b2 Ju. 356a2-3] de la 'dod pa marns ni 'dod pa 'i yon tan ma dag go"] ies bya ba ni gzugs dan sgra daiz dri daiz fie bar len pa ies brjod na I de ni yod pa yan ma yin te I de'i phyir de med par ses <par> bya ba 'i phyir bdag tu smra ba fie bar Zen pa ies Mad do II "« If the body were a 'self, then one would have spoken of a 'clinging to a self» , therefore it is said: 'because of non-[existence of a] self. Although there is an assertion 'if there exists a self, =

silavrotopiidiinam I bram ze dah ies bya ba rgyas par 'byuiJ ba ni bram ze mams ni dbyug gu dah Efjah gii'o II phyugs bdag mams ni rol bu dah thai ba'o II kun tu rgyu mams ni dbyug gu gsum dah sgre ba'o II sogs pa ies bya ba'i sgro gflis Icyi ni thod pa can la sogs pa thod pa thogs pa sdu ste I de dag yah dag par len pa ni thsul khrims dah brtul iugs yah dag par len pa'o Ij. Cf. L VP, Kasa, III , p. 86 n. 3 . .., Ius

=

iitmabhiiva (Index ARBh III.279) .

... ARBh [pradhan, 140.14-15; Shastri, 461.12; Gu. 152aS]: iitmavadaf;l punar atmabhavaf;l I atmeli vado 'sminn ity atmavadaf;l j. Cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 300.12-14; Cu. 334a8-334b2]: atmeli vado 'sminn ity atmavadaf;l I yathoktam I ye kecic chnzmw:ui bnihmaJ:ui va titmeti samanupaiyantal) samanupa.fyanti sarve fa imiin eva paiicopiidiinaskandhiin iti vistaraf;l I de la bdag smro ba yad pas na bdag tu smra ba'o II ie. bya ba ni ji skad du dge slon nam bram ze gah la la dag bdag go I sflam du yah dag par ties su Ita ba na I yah dag par ties su Ita ba de dag thams cad ni phuiJ po Ina po 'di dag kho na la ies bya ba rgyas par gsuns pa Ita bu yin no Ij.

106

then there is a clinging to a self, [yet] there is no [self]. Therefore, in order to make known its non-existence one says: «clinging to an assertion '[there is] self»".

23. [Tho. 64al] byis pa thos pa dan mi ldan pa so so 'i skye bo"'7 fes bya ba go rim bfin du lhan cig skyes pa dan I luil dan rtogs pa las skyes pa'i ses rab mams med pa 'i phyir te I gail fig snon gorns pa 'i bag chags las byun ba skye bas ihob pa'i ses rab med pa de ni byis pa'o II gan fig lun las byun ba med pa de ni thos pa dan mi ldan pa'o II gail fig rtogs pa las byun ba bden pa mnon 'par rtogs pa las skyes pa med pa de ni so so 'i skye bo" o 1/,48 "«A fool, an ignoramus, an ordinary man», i.e. [one who] is lacking in wisdom (prajiiii), respectively, natural (sahaja), [acquired by] tradition (iigama), and [corning from] the spiritual attainment (adhigama). A fool, i.e. one who has no wisdom leading to the acquisition of a [new] state of existence (upapatti-liibhika), originating from [evil] impressions (vasanii) of [his] former wonts (p urviibhyasa) . An ignoramus, i.e. one who is lacking in wisdom [acquired by] tradition. An ordinary man, i.e. one who is deprived of spiritUal attainment and spiritUal realization of the Truth(s) (satyiibhisamaya)". 24. [Tho. 64a4] bdag tu Ita ba dag la ste I de la 'dod pa In sogs pa ma thob pa dag la ni 'dun pa ste (xyL : te) I don du giier ba'o II thob pa dag la ni 'dod chags te [I] mnon par fen pa'a II bdag tu smra ba marns la ste (xyL: te) I de la 'dad pa la sogs pa ma thob pa dag la ni 'dun pa ste I don du gii er ba '0 II thob pa dag la ni 'dod chags te [/1 mnon par fen pa '0 IIyul ma thob pa marns la ni 'dun pa ste I dondu gii er ba 'o II thob pa mams la ni 'dod chags te I 'dod pa la sogs pa de marns la 'dun pa dan 'dod chags gail yin pa de fie bar len pa"" yin gyi I ji skad biad iiid ma rig 441

AKBh [Pradhan, 140.17-18; Shastri, 462.3; Gu. 152a6-7]: btllo 'srotavOn prtagjanal;l prajiiaptim anupatital;l I byis

pa so so'i skye bo thos pa dail mi Idan pa btags pa'i ries su Ihun bar (... ) If. Cf. YaSomitra [Wogiham, 300.16-20; Cu.

334b3-6]: btllo 'srotavOn prthagjana iti I yasya pilrviibhyiisaviisanOniriiitopapattiliihhikii prajiiii niisti I so biilal;l I yasyiigamajii niisti I so 'srotavOn I yasyiidhigamajii satyiibhisamayajii niisti I sa prthagjanal;l I prajiiaptim anupatita iti I yathii Sfll/1jiiii yathii ca vyavahiiral;l I tathOnugata ity arthal;l I byis po so so'i skye bo thos pa dail mi Idan pa ies bya ba ni gail 10 s;lOn goms pa'i bag chags las byun ba skye nas thob pa'i ses rab med de ni byis pa'o II gail !JJ rtogs pa la byuil ba ste I bden pa rtogs pa las byun ba med pa de ni so so'i skye bo'o II gait la lun las byun ba ined pa de ni thos pa dail , mi Idan pa'o II btags (xyl.: brtag) pa'i ries su Ihun ba ies bya ba ni min ji Ita ba dail I tha siiad ji Ita ba de biin du ries su son ba ies bya ba'i tho. tshig go If.

... Piifl.lavardhana [Iu. 356bl-3]: byis pa (xyl.: pas) thos pa dait mi Idan pa so so'i skye bo btags pa'i ries su Ihun ba ies bya ba go rim biin Ihan cig skyes pa dail lun dait I rtogs pa las skyes pa'i ses rab mams med pa'i phyir ro II btags , pa'i ries su Ihun ba ies bya ba ni min ji Ita ba dan tha siiad ji Ita ba de Ita bu'i ries su son ies bya ba'i don to If.

... Cf. AKBh [Pradhan, 140.18; Shastri, 462.4-5; Gu. 152a7]: te�iim upiidOnfll/1 te�u yal;l chandariigal;l I de dag iie bar len pa ni de dag la 'dun pa dait I 'dod chags gail yin pa ste f. Cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 300.20-25; Cu. 334b6-8]: te�iim it kiimiidiniim I chandariiga iti I apriipt�u vi�aye� priirth anii chandal;l Ipriipte�u riigal;l I te�u kiim iid�u yal;l chandariigal;l .

I tad upiidOnam I na tu 'yathoktii eva siividyii dvidhii dmivivecaniid upiidOnOnity' abhipriiyal;l I paunarbhavikam iti punarbhavaphalam I de dag ces bya ba ni 'dod pa la sogs pa'o II 'dun pa dait 'dod chags ies bya ba ni yul ma thob pa dag la don du giier ba ni 'dun pa'o II thob pa dag la ni 'dod chags te I 'dod pa la sags po de dag la 'dun po. dait 'dod ' chags gait yin po. de iie bar len po. yin gyi I 'ji skad Mad iiid ma rig bcas I iier len mams te Ita mam (xyl.: moms) giiis I

, phye ba'i phyir ro' II ies bya ba ni ma yin no II siiam du bsams po. yin no [I/J yail srid po. ies bya ba ni yait srid pa'i

107

beas I fler len mams (xyl.: bcas) te ita mam (xyl.: mams) gni.l' I phye ba'i phyir ro450 ies bya ba ni fie bar len pa rna yin no sflam du bsams pa yin no II srid pa 'i ies bya ba ni yan srid pa 'i 'bras bu can yin no I/'" Sthiramati's text seems to be in disorder but in essentials it agrees with Yasomitra. The Sanskrit may be thus reconstructed in the following way: * iitmadr�NU, te�u kiimiid� apriipte�u chanda!}, priirthanii I priipte�u riiga!}, abhinivesa!} I iitmaviide�u, tqu kiimiid� apriipte�u chanda!}, priirthanii Ipriipte!fu riiga!}, abhinivesa!} I vi:faye� apriipte!fu chanda!}, priirthanii Ipriipte!fu riiga!} I te�u kiimiidi:fu ya!} chandariiga!}. tad upiidiinam Ina tu yathoktii eva siividyii dvidhii dr!ftivivecaniid upiidiiniinfty abhipriiya!} Ipaunarbhavikam iti punarbhavaphalam 1* 25. [Tho. 64a7 Iu. 356b4-5] de ni 'dir srid pa yin nom ies bya ba ni I 'di ni 'dir srid pa'o ies bya ba 'i tha tshig go II gian dag na re I 'di 'dir srid pa'i tshig bla dags sam I mtshan flid do ies zer ro ll "«This is here [the nature of] existence», i.e. designation or characteristic, say the others" (* idam atra bhavasya, adhivacana1!l lalqalJa1!l vii, ity apare )453. =

'bras bu can no II '" - I. AX V. 38a-b, see next footnote. '" AK V.38a-b [pradhan, 307.13-14; Shastri, 833.2-3; Gu. 289a7]: yalhoktii eva 'siividyii dvidhii dr�!er viveeaniil* I upiidiiniini I ji skad Mad ilid rna rig beas I iler len mams Ie 110 ba mam (xyl.: mams) gilis I phye ba'i phyir IV 1/ • - •

Cf. LVP, Koso, V, p. 76 n. 1: siividyii dvidhii dr�{iviveeaniil. But YaSomitra, ed. Shastri, 462.21: sii vidyii (sic) etc. 451 Cf. PUfI)avardhana [Ju. 356b3-4]: de dog 10 'dun po daft 'dod ehags gaft yin po ste ies bya ba ni 'dod po daft 1 110 ba daft I Ishul khrirns daft brtul iugs daft I bdag tu Ita ba dog 10 sle (xyl.: Ie) I de 10 'dod po lil sags po rna Ihob pa dog 10 ni 'dun po sle [11 don du giler ba'o II Ihob po dag 10 ni 'dod ehags Ie [11 mnon par ien pa'o II srid pa'i ies bya ba ni yaft srid po'; 'bras bu can yin no 1/ Piifl)avardhana omits the quotation of AK V 38ab; the Sanskrit should read

(following Prof. Schmithausen) thus: • yalhoktii eva siividyii dvidhii dmer (dr�#-)viveeaniil I upiidiiniini, i.e. 'The [yogas] as they have [just] been explained, together with ignorance (AKBh: sahiividyayii), are the [four] upadanas; [they are four] because dr�!i is divided into two [groups]". 4S2

AKBh [Pradhan, 140.21; Shastri, 462.8; Gu. 152b1]: idam atra bhavasya / Cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 300.21-22;

Cu. 335al]: idam atra bhavasyeti I idam atra bhavasya sval�(lJ:"lJl' svabhiiva ity tuthal; I de ni 'di, srid po yin no ies bya ba ni de ni 'dir srid pa'i rail gi rnlshan ilid de no bo ilid yin no II ies bya ba'i Iha tshig go 1/ '" Is this an indication of Sthiramati's acquaintance with the opinion transmitted by YaSomitra or rather simply contamination of the two texts?

108

26. [Tho. 64a8 Iu. 356b5-6] mam par ses pa 'jug pa 'i tshul du4S4 tes bya ba ni las kyi 'phen pa'i dbun [64bl] gis mum par Ses pa 'i rgyun srid pa bar ma daTi 'brei pa 'i phyir me 'bar ba 'gro ba'i tshul du 'gro ba de dari der 'gro bar 'gyur te / tes sriar ji sTead bSad pa bim no4S5 // =

27. [Tho. 64bl] mdo de las ji sTead bsad pa Ita bU '04S6 // tes bya ba ni rga ba gaTi te na / spyi cer (Pun:zavardhana: cher) daTi mgo skya adaTi giier ma maTi ba daTi riiiils pa dO.Ti rgur ba dari 'khogs pa dan / go bii na sii gyol bo dan dbugs kyi sgra riar riar po 'byuTi ba daTi / Ius mdun du dgu bas Ius mkhar ba la bsten pa daTi Ius .sme ba nag pos khyab pa dari / dha nu dhva manda tvatrl iiams pa daTi dbun po yoils su iiams pa daTi yoils su smin pa dari yoils su bye ba dana 'du byed mums riiiils par gyur pa daTi 'khogs par gyur pa gun yin pa 'eli ni rga ba ies bya 'o // 'chi ba gun te na / sems can gan yin pa de daTi de dag sems can gyi ris de dari de nus 'chi tiri 'pho ba iiid "de tshe dari drod iiams siTi phuri po mams 'dor la srog gi dbaTi po 'gags pab 'chi ba'i dus byed pa gan yin pa 'eli ni 'chi ba tes bya ste / 'chi ba 'di daTi sTiar gyi rga (xyl: dga ') ba 'eli giiis ni rga si ies bya ba 'o //457 Sthiramati quotes the standard definition of 'jarii-mara7;la', the twelfth member of the chain of dependent origination (pratftyasamutpiida), as it is found the Nlilandii text"". Noticeable are the lacunae in PiirI;lavardhana's commentary.

,.. AKBh [pradhan, 140.21-22; Shastri, 462.7-8; Gu. 152bl]: viji'iiiniivakriin liyogena;' Cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 300.2628; Cu. 335al-2]: viji'iiiniivakriin liyogeneti I jviiliigamanayogeniintarribhavasambandhiid aniigatCllT' janma jiiti" pai'icaskandhiktl niimariipasvabhiivatviit / mam par ses pa 'jug pa'i tshut du ies bya ba ni srid pa bar ma dan 'brei pa'i phyir me 'bar ba 'gro ba'i tshul du ma 'oils pa'i skje bo ni skje ba st. I min dan gzugs kyi no bo i'iid yin pa'i phyir phuil po lna pa yin no If.

4S' Refers to the fragments 12 and 13 supra. '56

AKBh [pradhan; 140.23; Shastri, 462.10; Gu. J52b1.-2]: yathii n.ird�t"'l' SUIre;' Cf. supra, chapter· on Yasomitra,

The Pratityasamutpiidasiitra, fragm. 4. Vide supra, analysis of Samathadeva's commentary, fragm.

S

§15-16. Further see

the Dhann askandha [ed. Dietz, p. 68]; NidiinasCllT'yukta [ed. Tripathi, Siitra 16.15]; Niilandii- brick inscription [Epigr. Ind. xxi,

p. 199]; Mahiivyutpatti §§4084-4101. '17

Piill;1avardhana, Ju. 356b6-S, with the omission of , . , and b . b.

'" jarii katamii / yat tat khiilatya!Jl1 piilitya!Jl valIpracuratii' jin;tatii bhugnatii' kubja-gopiinasi-vaiikatii tila-kiilakii'-cita­ giitratii khu!a-khu!a'-pr..sviisa-kiiyatii puratal.1 priig-bhiira-kiiyatii dal).Qa-vi�ambhaJ;latii· dhandhatva!Jl mandatva!Jl hiinil;l parihiil}il:t indriyiil}iiql paripiikal.1 paribhedal.1 sa!J1Skiiriil}iiql pur�ohiival.1 jl1Ijanohiival.1 / iyam ucyate jarii // maraJ;la!Jl katamat' / yii' t�iiql te� satviiniiql' tasmiit tasmiit 'satvanikiiyiit cyutlS cyavanatal.1 bhedontara-hiiJ:lil;tI O iiyu�o hiinil;l ii�maJ;lo hiinil;ljivitendriyasya nirodha\t skandhiiniiql �epo ma�a!Jlkiila-kriyii / idam ucyate maraJ).am / / [Epigr. Ind. xxi, p. 199]. The

NidiinasCllT'yukta [ed. Tripathi] has some better readings:

khiilityam ; , valipracUn2tii; , bhagnatii; , lilakii'fara- ; , khUfU.khwu-, (d. BHSD khumkhUn2-); • -viftambhanatii (d. BHSD �kambhat;la); 7 katarat; , yat; , sattva-; 1 0 bhedo 'ntariJiiI;IiI). 1

109

28. [Tho. 64b5 Ju. 356b8-357al] bye brag tu smra ba 'i lugs ni snar Mad pa gem yin pa de kho na yin no'" tes bya ba ni bcu giiis dan !dan pa 'i phun po Ina pa 'i gnas skabs Icyi yan lag bcu giiis dag yin no lites bya ba'o II =

* * *

<S. AKBh [pradhan, 140.25; Shastri, 462.13; Gu. 152b3]: sa eva III Va!bh�ikanyayo yal;1 piirvam uktal;1 /. Cf. YaSomitra [Wogihara, 30032-301.1; Cu. 335a5-6]: sa eva tu Vaibh�ikanyayo ya/;l piirvam ukra iii/ dviidafa paiicaskandhikii avasthii dvtida!ailgiinili / bye brag tu smra ba'i lugs ni snar Mad pa gan yin pa de kho na yin no // tes bya ba ni bcu gnis dan ldan pa'i phun po In,a'i gnas skabs kyi yan lag bcu gnis tes bya ba yin no /j.

1 10

ill. CONCLUDING REMARKS The following concluding remarks will briefly concentrate on the general character of the commentaries in the context of their relationship to the Abhidharmakrua. Thus, first of. all we can ascertain convincingly that not all the nine texts in question deserve the n!lme of a "commentary". The commentaries of Yasomitra, Sthiramati and PiirI.1avardhana form one group and belong to the class of classical Indian philosophical expository treatises. Within this group Yasomitra should be singled out from the other two for his text is preserved in its Sanskrit original and it offers almost inexhaustible wealth of historical, doctrinal and linguistic data. The relation between Sthiramati and PiirI.1avardhana is not clear. After all, one has good reason for believing that PiirI.1avardhana's LalqaIJiinusiiriIJi major is to some extent subordinate to Sthiramati's Tattviirtha. The latter, in its preserved form, is a compilation prepared by its Tibetan translator on the basis of Sthiramati's original (?) Kosa-commentary, the KarakiiSani, and the commentaries of Yasomitra and PiirI.1avardhana. PiirI].avardhana's smaller commentary seems to be an extract from the major commentary, concentrates on selected topics and is polemical in its character. With this first group may be also reckoned two lost commentaries by GUI].amati and his disciple Vasumitra. The quotations in Yasomitra's Sphu!iirthii seem to leave no doubt as to their character. Among the second group of commentaries one can include the works of SaiIghabhadra and Digniiga: both are simple literal apridgements of the Abhidharmakosa, with the difference that the former seems not to have been subject to a further correction and revision of its language (it agrres fully with a Tibetan manuscript fragment of SaiIghabhadra's Sutriinuriipii discovered in Tun-huang). The third group of texts is represented by S amathadeva's Upiiyikii . In fact, this is a collection or anthology of the Agama and Siitra quotations which was compiled in order to supply the incomplete quqtations of Vasubandhu in hisAbhidhanflakosa with the full texts (here mention may be made e.g. of a complete version of the PratityasamutpiidasUtra). The fourth group is constituted by two texts which are related in their contents to the Abhidharmakosa, viz. Skandhila'sAbhidharmiivatiiraprakaraIJa and an anonymousSiirasamuccaya, the former being in fact a commentary on the PrakaraIJa, a canonical Sarviistiviida Abhidharma book, and the latter being a glos on the Abidharmiivatiira. After having studied comparatively the nine texts from the Tanjur, I am inclined to single out from among them the Sphu!iirthiiAbhidharmakosa-vyiikhyii or a commentary of "Clear sense" of Yasomitra which, in my opinion, is to be regarded as the highest achievement of the commentatorial tradition of the Abhidharmakosa. Finally, a few words should be added on the problem of the two Vasubandhus. As I have already said, explicit mentions of an elder Vasubandhu are found in the commentaries of Yasomitra, Sthiramati and PiirI.1avardhana. The problem of ascertainment of the doctrinal positions of the elder Vasubandhu on the basis of preserved fragments, must be left for more comprehensive future research. Thus, Frauwallner's theory of two Vasubandhus seems to be confirmed. On the other hand, however, Frauwallner's arguments for an identification of the elder Vasubandhu with the brother of AsaiIga have been criticized here on account of the misinterpretation of the textual evidence.

111

Analytical table of the Abhidharmaknsa and the commentaries preserved in the Tanjur

1.

Abhidhannakosa-kiirikii . Chas m;lOn pa'i rndzad kyi tshig le'ur bJias pa. Peking 5590; Tg, milOn pa, Gu. 1-27b6. Tohoku 4089; Tg, Ku. 1bl-25a7. Cordier III . 394. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. 686. Eu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 486. Za lu Tanjur, voL Gu. 1 . Klon rdol bla rn a (Coil. Works, voL 1 3 FA; foL 595). A: Vasubandhu (Dbyig gfien), c. 400-480 AD. (Frauwallner). T.: Jinamitra, Dpal brtsegs, c. 800 AD.

2.

Abhidhannakasa-bhi4Ya. Chas milan pa 'i rndzad kyi Mad pa. Peking 5591; Tg, mnon pa, Gu. 27b6-302a7; Nu. 1-109a8. Tohoku 4090; Tg, Ku. 26bl-258a7; Khu. 1bl-95a7. Cordier III . 394. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. 687. Eu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 487. Za lu Tanjur, vol. Gu-Nu.

Klon rdol bla rna (Coil. Works, vol. 13 PA, fol. 595). A.: Vasubandhu (Dbyig gfien). T.: Jinamitra, Dpal brtsegs. Contents: 1. dhatu-nirdesa (khams bstan pa) 2. indriya-nirdesa (dbail po bstan pa) 3. loka-nirdesa ('jig rten bstan pa) 4. karma-nirdesa (las bstan pa) 5. anusaya-nirdesa (phra rgyas bstan pa) 6. margapudgala-nirdesa (lam dan gail zag bstan pa) 7. jnana-nirdesa (ye ses bstan pa) 8. samapatti-nirdesa (snoms par 'jug pa bstan pa) 9. pudgala-viniscaya (gan zag dgag pa bstan pa)

no. of karikas 48 73 102 127 71 (70) 80(79) 56 43 total:

112

Ookhale

600 598

Commentaries

3.

Abhidharmakosa-siistra-karika-bhi4Ja SutriinurUpii-niima. Chos mnon pa 'i mdzod kyi bstan beos kyi tshig le'ur byas . pa 'i mam par Mad pa Mdo dan mthun pa ie.s bya ba. Peking 5592; Tg, milon pa, Nu. 109a8-304a6. Tohoku 4091; Tg, Khu. 95bl-266a7. Cordier ID.394. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. 689 (?): Sanghabhadra. Sanghabhadra. Bu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 491 (?): Za lu Tanjur, vol. Nu.3 (Sanghabhadra). Tun-huang Tib. Mss. (ed. LVP), No. 591. Klon rdol bla rna (ColI. Works, vol. 13 PA, fol. 595): Sanghabhadra. A: [Peking*] 'Dul bzan (Vinitabhadra); [Derge/Cone] 'Dus bzan (Sanghabhadra). [* incipit reads: 'Dus bzan (sic).] T.: anonymous, between ca. 800-1000 AD.

4.

Abhidharmakosa-vyiikhyii Sphutiirthii-niima. Chos mnon paY mdzod kyi 'grel Mad Don gsal ba ies bya ba. Peking 5593; Tg, mnon pa, Cu. 1-383a8; Chu. 1-394a5. Tohoku 4092; Tg, Gu. 1bl-330a7; Nu. 1bl-347a7. Cordier ID.395. Bendall, Catalogue, No. Add. 104l. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. 688. Bu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 488. Za lu Tanjur, vol. Cu-Chu. Klon rdol bla rna (ColI. Works, vol. 13 PA, fol. 595). A : Rajaputra Yasomitra (Rgyal po'i sras Grags pa'i bses gfien), ca. 7th cent. AD. T.: Visuddhasiilha, Dpal brtsegs, ca. 800 AD.

5.

Abhidharmakosa-tfka Lalqal)iinusiiril)i-niima. Chos mnon pa'i mdzod kyi 'grel Mad Mtshan iiid kyi ryes su 'bran ba ies bya ba. Peking 5594; Tg, mnon pa, Iu. 1-408a8; Nu. 1-39 1a7. Tohoku 4093; Tg, ·Cu. 1bl-347a7; Chu. 1b1-322a7. Cordier ID.395. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. ---. Bu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 489. Za lu Tanjur, vol. Iu-Nu. Klon rdol bla rna (ColI. Works, vol. 13 PA, fol. 595). A: PiirI]avardhana (Gail ba spel ba), ca. 2nd half of the 8th cent. AD. T. : Kanakavarman, Pa tshab Ni rna grags, ca. 1100 AD. 113

6.

Abhidhalmakosa-pkii Upiiyikii-niima. Chos mnon pa 'i mdzod kyi 'grel Mad He bar mkho ba ies bya ba. Peking 5595; Tg, mnon pa, Tu. I-296a3; 11m. 1�144a7. Tohoku 4094; Tg, Iu. Ibl-287a7; Nu. Ibl-95a7. Cordier III.396. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. ---. [* Cf. No. 691 and Eu-ston, No. 494]. Eu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 490. Za lu Tanjur, vol. Tu-Thu. I . Klon rdol bla rna (Coll. Works, vol. 1 3 PA, fo1 595). A : S amathadeva (Zi gnas lha). T.: Iayasri, S es rab 'od zer, before 1322 AD. [* perhaps 2nd half of the 1 1th c., provided this Jayasri is identical with a Kashmirian logician bearing the same name].

7.

Abhidhannakosa-l'{1ti Mannapradipa-niima. Chos mnon pa 'i mdzod kyi 'grei pa Gnad kyi sgron ma ies bya ba. Peking 5596; Tg, mnon pa, Thu. I44a8-286bl. Tohoku 4095; Tg, Nu. 95bl-2I4a7. Cordier III.397. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. ---. Bu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 492. Za lu Tanjur, vol. Thu.2. Klon rdol bla rna (Coll. Works, vo!' 13 PA, fo!' 595). A: Dignaga (Phyogs kyi glan po), ca. 480-540 AD. (Frauwallner). T.: Rnal 'byor zla ba, 'Jam dpal gion nu, 2nd half of the 13th cent. AD.

8.

Abhidhannakosa-pkii LalqalJiinusiiril}i-niima. Chos mnon pa'i mdzod kyi 'grei Mad Mtshan iUd kyi rjes su 'bran ba ies bya ba. Peking 5597; Tg, mnon pa, Thu. 286bl-315al. Tohoku 4096; Tg, Nu. 2I4bl-237a2. Cordier nI.397. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. ---. Bu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. ---. Za lu Tanjur, vol. Thu.3. Klon rdol bla rna (Coll. Works, vol. 13 PA, fol. 595), ---. A: Piirl).avardhana (Gan ba spel ba). T.: Kanakavarman, Pa tshab Ni rna grags. [* Dates as No. 5 supra].

9.

Abhidhanniivatiira-tt7di Siirasamuccaya-niima. Chos mnon pa < la > 'jug pa rgya chef 'grel pa SHin po kun las boo pa ies bya ba. Peking 5598; Tg, mnon pa, Thu. 3 I5a2-393a2. 1 14

Tohoku 4097; Tg, Nu. 237a2-302a7. Cordier ill.398. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. (693-)694. Bu-ston, Chos 'byun, ' Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 496. Za lu Tanjur, voL ThuA. Klon rdol bia rna (CoIl. Works, voL 13 PA, foL 595), ---. A.: anonymous. T. : Jinamitra, Danasila, Ye ses sde, ca. 800 AD. 10.

Abhidharmavatara-prakaraJ)a. Rab tu byed pa chos mnon la 'jug pa ies bya ba. Peking 5599; Tg, mnon pa, Thu. 393a3-417a8. Tohoku 4098; Tg, Nu. 302a7-323a7. Cordier ill.398. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. 692. Bu-ston, Chos 'byun, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. 495. Za lu Tanjur, voL Thu.5. Klon rdol bla rna (CoIl. Works, vol. 13 PA, fol. 595), ---. A : Skandhila*, 5th cent. AD. [* Author's name known from the Chinese version, T 1554]. T. : anonymous, ca. 800 AD.

11.

Abhidharmakosabhtiyya-pkii Tattvartha-nama. Chos milon pa 'i mdzod kyi bSad pa 'i rgya cher 'grel pa Don gyi de kho na iiid ces bya ba. Peking 5875; Tg, sna tshogs, To. 1-385a8; Tho. 1-565a8. Tohoku 4421; Tg, Tho. 1bl-426a7; Do. 1bl-387a7. Cone Tg, ---. Cordier illA99. Lhan kar catalogue (ed. Lalou), No. ---, Bu-ston, Chos 'byun (CoIl. Works, vol. 24 YA, fol. 846.6) : KarakiiSani. Bu-ston, Catalogue (ed. Nishioka), No. ---. Za lu Tanjur, ---. Klon rdol bla rna (CoIl. Works, vol. 13 PA, fol. 595) : KarakiiSani. A: Sthiramati (Blo gros brtan pa), ca. 510-570 AD. (Frauwallner). T.: DharmapaIabhadra (Chos skyon bzan po), 1441-1528 AD. Protector: Chos kyi grags pa Ye ses dpal bzan po, 1453-1528 AD. Scribe: Sans rgyas 'phel, 141 1-1485 AD. Date of transl.: ca. 1480 AD. [* There was an earlier Tibetan translation made by (?) Dpan lotsava Blo gros brtan pa (1276-1342 AD.)]. * * * 1 15