Jiabs 26-2

JIABS
Journal of the International

Association of Buddhist Studies
Volume 26 Number 2 2003
General Introduction
by Robert KRrrzER............................................................................ 201
Nobuyoshi Y AMABE
On the School Affiliation of "Sautrantika" or "Yoga-
- "?
cara ................................................................................................ . 225
Takumi FUKUDA
Bhadanta Rama: A Sautrantika before Vasubandhu........................ 255
Bart DESSEIN
Sautrantika and the Hrdaya Treatises ... ... ... ...... .... ........ ...... ......... .... 287
Yoshifumi HONJO
Sautrantika ........................................................................................ 321
Robert KRITZER
Sautrantika in the 331
Oskar VON HlNDBER
Report on the Xllph Conference of the lABS.................................... 385
Cristina SCHERRER-SCHAUB
lABS Treasurer Final Financial Report............................................ 391
Notes on the Contributors................................................................. 395
nABS volume 26 Number 1 2003 Errata .................................... 397
the watermark
The Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies
(ISSN 0193-600XX) is the organ
of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies, Inc. It welcomes
scholarly contributions pertaining to
all facets of Buddhist Studies.
nABS is published twice yearly, in
the summer and winter.
Address manuscripts (two copies)
and books for review to:
The Editors, nABS, Section de
langues et civilisations orientales,
Universite de Lausanne,
BFSH2, CH-1015 Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Address subscription ordex:s and
dues, changes of address, and
business correspondence
(including advertising orders) to:
Dr. Jerome Ducor,
Treasurer lABS,
Section de langues et civilisations
orientales, Faculte des lettres
Universite de Lausanne, BFSH 2
1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland
email: iabs.treasurer@orient.unil.ch
Web: www.iabsinfo.org
Fax: +41216923045
Subscriptions to nABS are USD 40
per year for individuals and USD 70
per year for libraries and other
institutions. For informations on
membership in lABS, see back cover.
Cover: Cristina Scherrer-Schaub
Copyright 2003 by the International
Association of Buddhist Studies, Inc ..
Printed in Belgium
-------------- -- ----- -- --
EDITORIAL BOARD
SCHERRER-SCHAUB Cristina A.
Tn..LEMANS Tom J.F.
Editors-in-Chief
BUSWELL Robert
COLLINS Steven
Cox Collet
GOMEZ Luis O.
HARRISON Paul
VON H1NOBER Oskar
JACKSON Roger
JAINIPadmanabh S.
KATSURA Shoryu
KUoLi-ying
LOPEZ, Jr. Donald S.
MAcDONALD Alexander
SEYFORT RUEGG David
SHARF Robert
STEINKELLNER Ernst
ZURCHER Erik
GENERAL INTRODUCTION!
ROBERT KRITZER
A. Sautrantika Reconsidered
Although the term "Sautrantika" appears in virtually every general
study of Indian Buddhism, there is little reliable information about who
the Sautrantikas really were and exactly what positions they maintained.
Until recently, scholars confidently referred to Sautrantika ideas without
critically examining the basis on which these ideas were identified as such.
As a result, there was a body of common "knowledge" about Sautrantika,
most of it ultimately drawn from a handful of sources that are often not even
cited. Since about 1980, however, Japan has been the center of a renewed
interest in Sautrantika, and studies have questioned the assumptions that
have been current for so long. The title of the panel of the Thirteenth
Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Bangkok,
2002) at which the papers in this issue were originally read was "Sautran-
tika Reconsidered," and it is largely thanks to recent Japanese scholar-
ship that it is now both necessary and possible to reconsider Sautrantika.
The word "Sautrantika" means a follower of the sutras, and when we
think of Sautrantika, we generally think of a group that came into exis-
tence around the beginning of the Common Era and that, as its name sug-
gests, considered sutra rather than siistra to be authoritative. Sautrantika
is frequently included in a list of four major schools of Indian Buddhism
familiar to all students of Buddhism (the other three being Sarvastivada,
Madhyamika, and Yogacara). Here it should perhaps be emphasized that
Sautrantika is not a sect. Although the terms "sect" and "school" are often
used loosely or interchangeably, Bechert points out that what Frauwall-
ner refers to as "Vinaya sects" are different from the doctrinal schools,
or nikiiyas (9-10). As for the term Sarvastivada, it is used to designate
J I am indebted to Professors Elizabeth Kenney and Yamabe Nobuyoshi for their help-
ful comments and suggestions.
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
202
'ROBERT KRITZER
both a Vinaya sect and the dominant school wIthin that sect. Hence the
doctrinal school referred to as Sarvastivada (or is actually
one of a number of schools that rely on the Sarvastivada vinaya. Although
Sautrantika is generally considered to be another school that developed
within the Sarvastivada sect, Cox suggests that the tenn may be better
understood as referring to a variety of ideas that deviate from mainstream
Sarvastivada, not to a consistent' and fonnal school (Cox Disputed
Dharmas 40-41). In this introduction, as in the papers in this, issue (and
in the literature on Sautrantika, in general), the term Sarvastivada is
generally used-to refer to the orthodox school of the Sarvastivada sect,
namely the KasmIra
Although there is, to my knowledge, only one full-length monograph
(in Japanese) on the subject of Sautrantika (KatO Kyoryobu), western
scholars have written numerous brief descriptions of Sautrantika history
and doctrine.
2
Most of the accounts of the early history of the school are
ultimately based on: 1) Vasumitra's Samayabhedoparacanacakra (espe-
cially Hsiian-tsang's translation [Ipu-tsung lun lun T. 2031]);
2) Hsiian-tsang's disciple, K'uei-chi's, commentary on the Samayabhe-
doparacanacakra, the I pu-tsung lun lun shu chi (Dai
Nihon zokuzokyo 844); 3) K'uei-chi's commentary on the Ch'eng wei-shih
lun, the Ch'eng wei-shih lun shu chi (T. 1830); 4) K'uei-chi's
commentary on the Yogiiciirabhilmi, the Yii-ch'ieh-shi ti lun liieh tsuan
(T. 1829). '
Closely associated with Sautrantika is This name is derived
from the word ("example"), and it appears to refer to the group's
propensity for using examples or similes from the ordinary world to jus-
tify its doctrinal positions. It is not clear whether the tenns Sautrantika
and are, respectively, positive and negative designations for
the same group, different names for the same group at different periods,
or terms for two different groups. However, as we shall see, the commen-
tators on the AbhidharmakosabhiifYa tend to view Sautrantika and Dar-
as essentially synonymous (Cox Disputed Dharmas 37-41).
According to HSiian-tsang's translation of the Samayabhedoparaca-
nacakra, Sautrantika arose as an offshoot of Sarvastivada four hundred
2 A recent example is the entry on Sautrlintika in the Encyclopedia of Religion (Sko-
rupski), which contains a summary of the traditional history of the school and an account
of the major doctrinal positions attributed to it.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION 203
years after the Buddha's death. Sautrantika was also called Sarpkranti-
vada, and it paid special reverence to Ananda (T. 2031: 15b19-20; Masuda
17). On the other hand, K'uei-chi says that one hundred years after the
Buddha's death there lived a teacher named Kumaralata who was called
the He was the founding teacher of the Sautrantikas, although
at that time, Sautrantika did not exist as a school; it did not appear until
four hundred years after the Buddha's death (T. 1830: 274a8-15). Else-
where, K'uei-chi says that there were three Sautrantika teachers: the
mUlacarya, KumaraIata; Sr'Hata, who wrote a Sautrantika and
"one who is only called Sautrantika" (T. 1830: 358alO-12).3
Most descriptions of early Sautrantika doctrines, on the other hand, are
. based on the Sanskrit and Chinese commentaries on the Abhidhannakosa-
bhii:jya, which will be discussed in more detail in the next section. How-
ever, it may be useful to note here that in many cases western scholars, who
rely to a fairly large extent on La Vallee Poussin's translation of the Abhi-
dhannakosabhiiifYa for their information on abhidhanna, may not be aware
of the sources of attributions to Sautrantika. Although his work is a mas-
terpiece that must always be consulted, La Vallee Poussin often inserts,
without comment, explanations from the Abhidharmakosavyakhya. Fur-
thermore, he sometimes attributes a statement to, for example, Sautrantika,
even when neither the Chinese nor Tibetan translation (the Sanskrit text
was not available to him) does so. As I mentionbelow, the attributions are
usually actually those of the seventh-century Chinese commentators, and they
continue to circulate, unidentified, in the scholarly literature. Other sources,
including Tibetan doxographical texts (grub mtha', siddhiinta) and non-
Buddhist Indian texts, are mentioned by La Vallee Poussin (" Sautrantikas ").
Recently, however, some scholars have begun to examine more criti-
cally these traditional accounts of Sautrantika. For example, Kata shows
that KumaraIata was, in fact, later than the and thus could not
be the founder of ("Notes"). Kata also argues
that, although Hslian-tsang uses the expression Ching-liang pu
(Sautrantika) in his translation of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the
3 According to La Vallee Poussin (Vijiiaptimtitrattisiddhi 221-222) and Lamotte (TraUe
163-164), this third teacher is Vasubandhu. La Vallee Poussin, on whom Lamotte relies,
provides a great deal of information about what K'uei-chi says on this subject. However, his
references to K'uei-chi's commentary on Vasumitra are very puzzling since they do not
seem to correspond to K'uei-chi's actual text.
204
. ROBERT KRITZER
other Chinese and Tibetan translations of the text indicate that the orig-
inal Sans1crit was probably" Siltravada" or "Siltrantavada." Furthermore,
only Hstian-tsang's translation mentions Ananda here; the others mention
Uttara or Dharmottara. Kata argues that the original text of the Samaya-
bhedoparacanacakra was not referring to the group later known as Sautriin-
tika but to an earlier and different group, one that predated the
(Kyoryobu 101-109). Thus, accordirig to Kata, Hstian-tsang and K'uei-chi
have made it appear as though Vasumitra were familiar with fl group that
we know as Sautrantika, a group founded by Kumaralata, which did not
accept the abhidharma as authoritative and which subscribed to a doc-
trine of bfjas (/ pu-tsung lun lun shu chi: 577b15-23). Since Vasumitra's
work was first translated into Chinese between 385 and 413 (Lamotte
History 275), his knowledge of such a group would suggest that the
name Sautriintika was current before Vasubandhu was active. However,
Kata's argument strongly undermines any evidence to that effect.
Thus, it is time to reconsider the questions of who the Sautriintikas were,
what they believed, and how they fit into Buddhist history during a period
of intense doctrinal debate and development. ill the remainder of this intro-
duction, I will attempt to provide background information for the papers
that follow, all of which represent new approaches to these questions.
B. Major and'Sautrantika Theories
4
Many theories have been attributed to either or Sautriintika
or, by different authors, to both. Kata's list of the opinions
in the provides a fairly good idea of what these theories are
like. He divides them into nine different categories:
5
1) the denial of the
existence of certain dharmas accepted by Sarvastivada; 2) the assertion
that consciousness can arise without an object; 3) denial of the existence
of mental dharmas (caittas); 4) the assertion of the presence of a subtle
consciousness in "unconscious" samadhis; 5) the denial of the Sarvastivadin
theory of the real existence of the past, present, and future; 6) theories
related to karma; 7) theories related to kldas and their destruction;
8) theories related to dhyana; 9) other theories (Kata Kyoryobu 70-72).
4 Mizuno's is the pioneering work on this subject, and he identifies most of the pas-
sages mentioned below.
S Mizuno and Tokora divide them into nine and eight slightly different groups, respectively.
However, there are, in addition, several important ideas, appearing in
the Abhidharrnakosabhii$ya under the name "Sautrantika," that are not
associated with Below, I list some of the more important
individual Darstantika and Sautrantika theories.
1. Theories Attributed only to
a. There is no derived matter (upadayanlpa) that is different from the
great elements (mahiibhUtani).7
b. There are no mental dharrnas (caitta) different from mind (citta).8
c. Contact (sparsa) is merely the coming together of organ, object, and
consciousness; it is not a separate dharrna.
9
d. There is no pleasurable feeling (sukhavedana); all feeling is suffer-
ing (du/:tkha).I
o
e. All action is reversible (nivartya)Y
6 These theories are not attributed to Sautrlintika in the AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa.
7 This opinion is attributed to by Sa!p.ghabhadra (T. 1562: 356b21 ff.).
The attributes it to Buddhadeva, who, it says, belongs to the same school as
DharmatriHa (T. 1545: 661c16-19, also 730b26-29; La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa
1: 64 n. 2). Vasubandhu also attributes this position to Buddhadeva; he does not mention
Sautrlintika, and he does not accept this opinion (AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa: 24.1-13; La Val-
lee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 1: 64-66).
8 This opinion is attributed to "some by SaIp.ghabhadra (T. 1562: 395a2-
15). The attributes it to Buddhadeva (T. 1545: 8c8-9, also 730b26-29; La Vallee
Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 1: 64 n. 2, 150 n. 2). Vasubandhu does not mention this opinion
and, in fact, accepts the existence of at least some of the caittas. See La Vallee Poussin
L'Abhidhannakosa 1: 150-152 n. 2.
9 This opinion is attributed to DarHantika in the (T. 1545: 760a28-b2).
Vasubandhu does not mention Sautrlintika here, attributing the position to "some," and he
sides with the V He concludes his discussion by seeming to accept spada as a
separate dhanna (AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa: 143.5-21; La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa
2: 96-98). For more details, see Kritzer Rebirth 110-120.
10 I can find no attribution of this position to The on three occasions
attributes this to "some people" (T. 1545: 402c16-17, 402c23-27, 714c2-3; see KatO Kyo-
ryobu 191). Vasubandhu also attributes this position to "some people," and he concludes
that the Abhidharmikas are correct that sukhavedanii actually exists (AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa:
330.9-20; La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 4: 129-130). SaIp.ghabhadra attributes this
to the Sthavira (T. 1562: 663b7). For a detailed discussion, see Kata Ky6ry6bu 183-197;
Kritzer Rebirth 130-136.
Thus, whether one calls this a Darstlintika or a Sautrlintika position depends on whether
one considers Srilata to be Sautrlintika. In any case, this position is refuted by
Vasubandhu.
II The attributes this position to in three places (T. 1545: 359b20-
21, 593blO-ll, 773c29-al). Vasubandhu seems to accept the position that cer-
tain kanna is irreversible (AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa: 125.12-15, 229.12-230.13).
206 . ROBERT KRITZER
2. Theories Attributed to Both and Sautrantika
12
a. The cittaviprayuktasaT[lskiiras are not real dharmas.
b. The asaT[lskrtas are not real dharmas.
c. SaT[lsthiinarupa is merely provisional (prajfiapti).
d. Vijfiapti does not really exist.
e. Avijfiapti does not really exist.
f. Only the present is real. The past and future do not exist. 13
3. Theories Attributed to Sautrantika but not to
a. Merit increases due to a subtle, gradual transfonnation of the stream
of personality (saT[ltatilsaT[ltiina) of the donor.
b. Anusayas are kleSas in the state of seeds, not separate dharmas.
c. A result does not directly arise from a past action; rnstead, it arises
due to a transfonnation of the stream of personality, based on a past
action.
Very broadly, one can identify several tendencies in the opirrions of
Many of the entities that are said by Sarvas-
tivada to be real are reduced in status to mere designations (prajfiapti).
Mlld, which has always been very important in Buddhism, becomes even
more so. Consciousness as an organ of perception is asserted to have
12 For references, see my article, "Sautrantika in the Abhidharmakosabhii:fYa," in which
these items are discussed in detail.
13 At the beginning of its major discussion of the three times, the mentions
the as saying that time is permanent while the sal'[lskiiras are impermanent
(T. 1545: 393alO-15; La Vallee Poussin "La Controverse" 8). Otherwise, the
are not identified as those who deny the existence of past and future. However, since the
Tattvasiddhi clearly denies the reality of past and future, it is probably safe to say that this
position was held by
In the although Vasubandhu clearly agrees with those who
deny past and future, he mentions neither nor Sautrantika until near the end
of the long discussion (298.4-301.10). But there, he is actually introducing a new, ifrelated,
issue, of how past actions produce (see my article in this issue).
14 This group reflects the related theories of bfja and In addi-
tion to the three items mentioned here, Vasubandhu also appeals to these ideas in order to
explain his positions on other subjects. For example, regarding the question of whether
arhats are subject to retrogression, Vasubandhu supports the unorthodox position that they
are not, and he justifies himself by explaining that the arhat has destroyed the seeds of his
klefas and that they therefore cannot arise again.
For references, again see my article, "Sautrantika in the Abhidharmakosabhii:tya."
unreal objects. Bfja replaces the cittaviprayuktasaf!lskiiras, prapti and
aprapti, as the explanation for how a good dharma can arise in an indi-
vidual immediately after a bad dharma, or a bad dharma after a good
dharma (Jaini "Sautrantika Theory" 238-239). The notion of mOmen-
tariness is taken to greater extremes (see Rospatt 40-66; Cox Disputed
Dharmas 94-95), and related to this, as Cox points out, is a special empha-
sis on the operation of cause and effect (Disputed Dharmas 94).
Similarities between ideas, particularly Vasuban-
dhu's Sautrantika positions in the and Yogacara
philosophy, have long been noted. Sautrantika has often been described
as intermediate between Hfuayana Sarvastivada and Mahayana Y ogacara:
Sautrantika posits bfjas but not alayavijfiana; 15 the reality of dharmas
other than citta is downgraded but not denied completely, etc. Recently,
however, the relationship between Sautrantika and Yogacara is being
reconsidered, especially in J apan.
16
C. Sources for Theories
In this section, I discuss the main sources of information about early
theories. Three of these sources predate the Abhi-
while the others are commentaries on it. Thanks to
printed indices and to the electronic versions of almost all of the Chinese
texts, it is possible to know exactly how frequently each of the terms
and Sautrantika appears in most of these texts. The vast major-
ity of occurrences are in connection with a doctrinal position, e.g.: "Further-
more, there is a view that the state of being an ordinary person (Prthagja-
natvam) is not a real entity, as the maintain";17 "For the
Sautrantikas, the future also does not really exist. "18 Knowing the dis-
tribution of the terms is significant since we can see that, at first, only
15 Or, in the case of other texts by Vasubandhu that do mention iilayavijiiiina (e.g., the
Karmasiddhiprakarar;a and the Pratityasamutpiidavyiikhyii), the iilayavijiiana is seen
as being different from that of Y ogacara.
16 See Hakamaya; Harada "Dignaga"; Harada "Kyoryobu"; Kritzer Rebirth; Kritzer
Comparison; Miyashita; Yamabe "Bija Theory"; Yamabe "Yugashichiron." The contri-
butions of Kritzer and Y amabe in this issue are also relevant.
17 (T. 1545: 231b26-27).
18 Chii-she lun chi (T. 1821: 170bl7).
208
. ROBERT KRITZER
was used, while Sautrlintika appeared more and more often
with the passage of time. Vasubandhu clearly distinguishes between the
two terms, but his commentators use them increasingly interchangeably.
The total number of references multiplies drastically in the Chinese com-
mentaries. This perhaps indicates that the concept of a Sautrlintika school
with characteristic doctrines has become more and more ftxed: ideas that
were not previously identifted with Sautrlintika may be labelled as such
because they seem consistent with other positions that were so. designated.
In order to understand more precisely the meaning of Sautrlintika, it
would be useful to study each of the hundreds of references to
and Sautrlintika found in these texts. That, however, is a large-scale
project for the future. I hope that my article in this issue, in which I exam-
ine all the references to Sautrlintika in the will
be a further step, after the works of Miyamoto, Mizuno, and Kat6 (see
Section B of this introduction), in this direction.
1.
The earliest
I9
source for doctrines attributed to the is the
(Cox Disputed Dharmas 37), the date of which is unknown
(Sakurabe ventures an estimate of 150-200 C.B. [68]). KatO counts 86
references to theories, which the refutes as contra-
dicting Sarvastivada doctrine (Kyoryobu 70).21 Many of these theories are
very similar, if not identical, to opinions attributed to Sautrlintika in the
and its commentaries, as well as to opinions in
the *Tattvasiddhisiistra of Harivarman (Mizuno).
;' As for the term Sautrlintika, it appears in connection with only two
discussions in the Kato .shows convincingly that the first example
19 It is well known that the dates of Indian Buddhist texts are generally almost impos-
sible to establish. However, there is some general consensus about the relative dates of cer-
tain texts, including the ones mentioned in this section.
20 Commonly referred to as the on the basis of the title of Hsiian-tsang's
Chinese translation, A-p'i-ta-mo ta p'i-p'o-sha lun (T. 1545). For
information on this and other texts entitled see Cox's discussion in Willemen et
al. 229-239.
21 In the A-p'i-t'an p'i-p'o-sha lun CT. 1546), however, the term Dlir-
(P'i yil che VIIlfl'lft) appears only 46 times.
does not refer to. what is commonly known as the Sautrantika school and
that the second example represents Hsuan-tsang's alteration of the origi-
nal text (Kyoryobu 113-119; Cox Disputed Dharmas 38). One of Kat6's
strongest pieces of evidence is the fact that the older version of the
does not include the term Sautrantika at all.
2. * Sarrzyuktiibhidharmahrdaya
The *Sarrzyuktiibhidharmahrdaya, a text generally considered later than
the but earlier than the does not men-
tion Sautrantika. However, it contains three references to
opinions,22 two of which correspond to opinions attributed to
by the Two earlier texts entitled *Abhidharmahrdaya, one by
Dharmasn (T. 1550) and the other by Upasanta (T. 1551), mention nei-
ther nor Sautrantika.
3. *Tattvasiddhisiistra
Harivarman's *Tattvasiddhisiistra is, after the the richest
source for although it refers to neither or Sautran-
tika by name. Mizuno has identified in the *Tattvasiddhisiistra passages
that agree with a large majority of the positions described in
the The sect to which Harivarman belongs has been a matter
of debate (see Katsura). However, Mizuno's work shows convincingly that
Harivarman belongs to the same doctrinal tradition as despite
the fact that the *Tattvasiddhisiistra also contains ideas that have been
22 The three opinions are: 1) Karma is reversible (T. 1552: 895c22-29; Dessein 1: 207-
208; 593blO ff.). According to Mizuno, the *Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646: 291b6 ff.,
297c6 ff.) implies that karma is reversible.
2) SaTflYojanas (fetters) are real, but pudgala (person) aud vastu (substauce) are not
(T. 1552: 903b7-9; Dessein 1: 269-270; Kokuyaku Issaikyo bidon-bu 20: 202 n. 167;
288b16 ff.) According to Mizuno, the *Tattvasiddhi does not mention this
argument; however, Mizuno refers to Harivarmau's refutation of the pudgala (T. 1646:
259a ff.), which is somewhat related.
3) Space is neither TUpa (matter) nor not-Tupa (T. 1552: 944a8-9; Dessein 1: 604).
Accorrli!Ig to Mizuno, a similar view, that space. is not a real entity, is attributed to Dar-
by Fa-pao (T. 1822: 494a ff.). According to Bareau, this is the staudpoint of the
*Tattvasiddhisiistra (T. 1646: 343b ff., especially 343bI2-14). This opinion does not seem
to be found in the
210
. ROBERT KRITZER
characterized as Mahayana. KatO accepts the Chinese tradition that Hari-
vannan was the disciple of KumaraHita, who is considered the founder of
(Kyoryobu 58; Cox Disputed Dhannas 40), and gives Hari-
varman's dates as 310-390 C.E. (Kyoryobu 64).23
4.
The earliest text in which the word Sautrantika appears is the Abhi-
of Vasubandhu, which is, therefore, to the
study of the subject. Vasubandhu' s dates have been a matter of great con-
troversy; Cox settles on a date of the late fourth or early ftfth century (Dis-
puted Dhannas 53). Vasubandhu uses the term Sautrantika about twenty
times, while he mentions only three times. Kata shows that,
in all three cases, Vasubandhu disagrees with these positions, unlike those
he labels Sautrantika, with which he agrees (Kyoryobu 81-84; Cox Dis-
puted Dhannas 39). Although Vasubandhu's Sautrantika positions gen-
erally correspond to positions in the in a few cases
they do not. More often, Vasubandhu' s arguments contain important ele-
ments not traceable to the of the or to Harivannan.2
4
5. * Nyayanusara
The *Nyayanusara is Sa:rp.ghabhadra's long, fiercely critical work, in
which he attacks many of Vasubandhu's statements in the Abhidhar-
Sa.qlghabhadra, probably a contemporary of Vasubandhu
(Cox Disputed Dhannas 53-55), uses both Sautrantika and
seemingly without making any distinction between them (Kata Kyoryo-
bu 99; Cox Disputed Dhannas 39).25 Sa:rp.ghabhadra also very frequently
(250 times) identilles Vasubandhu as "the Siitra-master" (ching-chu
23 Katsura suggests approximate dates of 250-350 C.E. for Harivarrnan (196).
24 For a detailed treatment of Sautrfultika in the Abhidharmakosabha0'a, see my paper
in this issue.
25 A computer search of the Chinese text indicates that SaI]1ghabhadra uses the terms
with almost exactly the same frequency: Sautrfultika (ching pu 32 times;
33 times (Pi yu che Wllt:tf 25 times; pi yu shih VIltUffi 8 times). In SaI]1ghabhadra's shorter
text, the AbhidharmapitakaprakaraiJasasanasastra (T. 1563), Sautrfultika (ching pu) appears
only once, while (Pi yu che) appears three times.
when criticizinghim for views that disagree with orthodox Sarvastivada.
26
It is by no means certain that this term, the original of which seems to
have been siltrakiira CKatO Ky6ry6bu 268 n. 39), has anything to do with
Sautrantika (Cox Disputed Dharmas 56). However, since it is used by
Sarp.ghabhadra in association with almost all of the opinions in the Abhi-
dharmakosabhii>!ya that are attributed to Sautrantika, the possibility remains
that Sarp.ghabhadra does, in fact, use the term ching-chu to identify
Vasubandhu as a Sautrantika.
27
6. Abhidharmadfpa
The Abhidharmadipa, together with its auto-commentary, Vzbhiio!iipra-
bhiivrtti, is another text that is critical of Vasubandhu' s unorthodox views.
This text is not, strictly speaking, a commentary, although, as Jaini notes
(2), it closely follows the organization of the Abhidharmakosabhiio!ya.
The name of its author, commonly referred to as the Dlpakara, is unknown.
Jaini believes that the Abhidharmadfpa must have been written no more
than about a hundred years after Vasubandhu (135).28 Unfortunately, the
Sanskrit text is only partially extant, and no translation, Tibetan or Chi-
nese, has been found. Nor is the text available for electronic searching.
However, Jaini, in his index, identifies eight occurrences of
and three of Sautrantika. According to Jaini, the two terms are used almost
synonymously in the Abhidharmadfpa (70). Supporting this statement is
the fact that the Dlpakara ascribes to two theories that are
found in neither the *Vzbhiio!ii nor the *Tattvasiddhisiistra: the theory of
bija
29
and a passage that resembles the theory of saYfltatipari"(liimaviseo!a.
30
26 In the Abhidharmapitakaprakaral}asiisanaSiistra, ching-chu is found 26 times.
27 In my ongoing work of comparing the Abhidharmakosabhii.yya and the Yogiiciira-
bhumi, I am identifying all of the occurrences of ching-chu in the *Nyiiyiinusiira (see Krit-
zer Comparison for occurrences in the fIrst three chapters).
28 However, Yoshimoto Shingy6 believes that it may be somewhat later (Willemen et
al.253).
29 evaf!! tu siidhu yathii diir.ytiintikiiniim iti I kathaf!! ca diir.rtiintikiiniim I
etc. (Abhidharmadlpa: 222.3-4). The original
passage mentions Sautrantika, not (Abhidharmakosabhii.yya: 278.17 ff.).
30 khalu brute kiiral}asakti:tu pravartate
(Abhidharmadlpa: 274.26-27). I am indebted to Fukuda Takumi for pointing out the similarity
between this passage and the idea of saf!!tatiparil}iimavise.ya.
212 ROBERT KRITZER
7. Abhidharmakosavyakhya
31
The Abhidharmakosavyakhya of Yasomitra (perhaps early seventh cen-
tury) is the only actual commentary on the that
is extant in Sanskrit. Yasomitra is sometimes described as a Sautrantika
(e.g., Willemen et al. 110), and unlike Sarp.ghabhadra or the Dlpakara, he
does not use the terms Sautrantika or disapprovingly. As Cox
indicates, Yasomitra twice says that the are Sautrantikas
(Disputed Dharmas 39), while on another occasion, he seems to say
that a Sautrantika is a (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 44.14-23;
La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidharmakosa 1: 36 n. 2).
Altogether, Yasomitra]lses the term six times, while Sau-
trantika appears 43 times. He does not describe as any of the
positions that Vasubandhu attributes to Sautrantika. However, a careful
analysis of all the references to Sautrantika is necessary to determine the
extent to which Yasomitra distinguishes the two.
Of particular interest is Yasomitra' s explanation of the meaning of the
term Sautrantika (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 11.24-12.1). This passage is
mentioned in several of the articles in this issue.
8. Indian Commentaries Extant only in Tibetan
Additional sources of information include a number of other com-
mentaries on the originally written in Sanskrit but
now extant only in Tibetan translations (see Mejor). Unfortunately, these
texts are neither indexed nor available in electronic form, so I have been
unable to survey the occurrences in them of the terms Sautrantika and
However, Marek Mejor has been kind enough to look through
portions of two of the most important of these commentaries, Sthiramati' s
Tattvartha and PUn;tavardhana's and his inspection indi-
cates that these texts, like the Abhidharmakosavyakhya, use the term
more frequently than does Vasubandhu himself. Therefore, a
detailed analysis of the references to Sautrantika and in these
texts, too, would be valuable.
31 The full title is Sphutiirthii Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii.
9 .. Chinese Commentaries
Willemen et aI. mention twelve Chinese commentators on the Abhi-
dharmakosa (277), of whom three, Shen-t'ai P'u-kuang and
Fa-pao are considered the most important (Nishi 337). These three
were all students of Hstian-tsang, the second Chinese translator of the
and they were active from the middle of the
seventh century until the very beginning of the eighth (Nishi 338-339).
While Shen-t'ai's commentary is not included in the Taisho Tripitaka
and, as far as I know, is not available in a digital version, P'u-kuang and
Fa-pao's commentaries are (T. 1821, T. 1822).
The occurrences of the terms and Sautrantika are markedly
more numerous in these two texts. P'u-kuang mentions 23
times and Sautrantika 565, while Fa-pao mentions 31 times
and Sautrantika 411. Part of this increase is simply due to the fact that
both commentaries expand greatly on the original text; however, the two
commentators also seem to attribute more opinions to and
Sautrantika than did their Indian predecessors. Cox suggests that Shen-t'ai,
P'u-kuang, and Fa-pao may have all reflected Hsiian-tsang's own inter-
pretations, perhaps including ones that he brought back from India (Dis-
puted Dharmas 60).
Saeki Kyokuga's nineteenth-century Japanese edition and commentary
of the Kanda Abidatsumakusharon, frequently
refers to P'u-kuang and Fa-pao's attributions. As Cox remarks, La Vallee
Poussin often relies on Saeki for information that he includes in the
notes of his French translation (Disputed Dharmas 180), usually without
acknowledgment. In fact, many of the school attributions in the French
translation are actually those of P'u-kuang or Fa-pao.
D. and Sautrantika Teachers
A number of personages, many of them rather shadowy, have been
associated with the development of thought. The
for example, mentions teachings of several teachers linked to
teachings: Buddhadeva, Dharmatrata, and someone identified
simply as Bhadanta (Cox Disputed Dharmas 41).
214
. ROBERT KRITZER
However, the figure traditionally credited with founding the
school is KumaraHita, for whom KatO proposes the dates 280-360 C.E.,32
that is to say, later than the (Kyoryobu 38). The famous poet
who lived at approximately the same time, is sometimes asso-
ciated with or Sautrantika (see Yamabe's paper in this issue).
Slightly later is Harivarman (310-390 c.B.), who is identified in the Ch'u
san-tsang chi chi and the San lun hsiian-i as Kuma-
ralata's disciple (KatO Kyoryobu 58).
According to Kato, SrlHita (330-410 C.E.) was another disciple of
Kumaralata and was Harivarman's contemporary, as well as being the
"Sthavira" whom Smp.ghabhadra (370-410 c.B.) attacks in the *Nyiiyiinusiira
(Kato Kyoryobu 52-53). KatO thinks that Srilata was Vasubandhu's teacher
(Kato Kyoryobu 62), but Cox, following Fukuda, seems skeptical (Dis-
puted Dhannas 51-52 n. 114). KatO refers to Hsiian-tsang's Ta Tang hsi-
yii chi, in which SJilata is said to be the author of a Sautrantika
However, I know of no reference earlier than Hsiian-tsang's to a text
of this name. My own opinion is that these teachers, who all precede
Vasubandhu, would be better described as than Sautrantika
since, as I have mentioned, the term Sautrantika cannot be attested before
Vasubandhu. According to Lamotte (Traite 164),33 K'uei-chi calls Vasu-
bandhu "the Sautrantika easy to know," and it may be this fact to which
K'uei-chi is referring.
Vasubandhu, of course, is one of the most important figures in the
history of Buddhism. According to the traditional account, he began
his career as a Sarvastivadin, wrote the under
the influence of Sautrantika ideas, and was converted to Mahayana by his
brother, Asariga, with whom he founded the Yogacara school. However,
little is certain about Vasubandhu: his dates, as I have mentioned, are
a matter of contention,34 as is the question of whether there was one
Vasubandhu or twO.
35
It is clear, in any case, that when later Buddhist
thinkers refer to "Sautrantika" positions, they are usually talking about
32 For all the dates of Sautrantika and Darstantika teachers in this section, I follow
Kat6's tentative suggestious (Kyoryobu 64). ..
33 See note 2 above.
34 According to Kat6, 350-430 C.E. (Kyoryobu 64).
35 For a clear, brief summary of the controversy, see Cox Disputed Dhannas 53.
the unorthodox opinions that Vasubandhu espouses in the Abhidharmako-
whether or not the same opinions are described as
in the
One more teacher who should be mentioned is Bhadanta Rama, who
is criticized by Srup.ghabhadra in the *Nyiiyiinusiira. According to Fukuda,
Bhadanta Rama was probably later than SrTIata but earlier than Vasuban-
dhu. From the same tradition as and SrTIata, Bhadanta Rama
was even more radically unorthodox, and Fukuda suggests that he may
have been strongly influenced by Y ogacara thought.
E. Important Studies of Dar1?tantika and Sautrantika
Modem studies of and Sautrantika started in the late 1920s,
prompted by the publication of La Vallee Poussin's translation of the
which began to appear in 1923. In 1926, Lliders
published the Sanskrit fragments, together with a study, of the Kalpa-
niimal}4itikii, attributed to Kumaralata. This was followed in 1927 by the
article, "La et son auteur," in which Levi asserts that
is the proper title for the work designated Kalpaniimal}-
tjitikii by Uiders. Levi goes into some detail concerning the identity of
KumaraIata, and he presents an example of a simile in the Abhidharma-
kosabhiirya that Yasomitra attributes to Kumaralata, as well as several
examples attributed to in the
In 1928, Miyamoto published a long article entitled "Hiyusha, Daitoku
Hoggu, Doju, Yumanron no Kenkyii" (Study of Bhadanta
Dharmatrata, Kumaralata, and the in which he identifies
and analyzes passages in the containing opinions of a number
of non-orthodox teachers. In the same year, Takai included in his ShOjo
Bukkyo gairon (An Outline of Hfuayana Buddhism) what Kato charac-
terizes as the most detailed study of the Sthavira (prior to Kato's own
work).37 Finally, La Vallee Poussin inserted into his translation of the
Vijfiaptimiitratiisiddhi a several-page note, in which he summarizes the
36 For a summary in Japanese of research on the Kalpanamw:ujitika, see Okano.
37 The relevant chapter (Takai 264-369) is entitled "Kyoryobu no kyogi" (The Doctrine
of Sautrantika).
216
ROBERT KRITZER
information from several of K'uei-chi's works concerning Sautrantika
and (221-224).
Probably the most important and most useful of all of these early studies
is Mizuno's "Hiyushi to J6jitsuron" and *TattvasiddhiSiistra
1930). Mizuno notices similarities between the positions
in the and Harivarman's in the *Tattvasiddhisiistra, and he
methodically arranges all of the passages (as well as some
Sautrantika passages from the into nip.e groups.
For almost every passage, he locates a corresponding opinion in the
*Tattvasiddhisiistra, thus proving that Harivarman, regardless of his sect
affiliation, was doctrinally very close to
The last of these important early studies was Przyluski's "Sautrantika
et (1931-32). Przyluski argues that there was origirially a
group designated which could be considered to be the
Millasautrantika. Later, this group divided into two, the followers of Sn-
lata and Sautrantika properly speaking. In 1940, Przyluski published a
revised, English version of the same paper, entitled Sautran-
tika, and Sarvastivadin." There he adds the observation that
is a pejorative term, assigned by its opponents, and he speculates that
Kumaralata's pupils adopted the name Sautrantika in reaction. Later, when
Kumaralata's school divided, "the practice was made of describing as
Millasautrantika those who claimed to follow Kumaralata,the other fac-
tions being called by the name of Srllata, or described as Sautrantika
without any more precision" ("Darl?tantika" 251).38
In 1935-1936, Lamotte published the text of Vasubandhu's Karma-
siddhiprakaralJa, together with a French translation and introduction. In
this text, Vasubandhu is generally considered to have further developed
his Sautrantika positions, while not yet having converted to Mahayana
Yogacara. Lamotte analyzes these positions in some detail (Traite 163-
171). Yamaguchi Susumu's Japanese translation of the same work, which
appeared shortly afterwards in 1951, is particularly influential in Japan.
39
The next scholar to study Sautrantika in depth was Jaini, whose intro-
duction to his edition of the Abhidharmadipa (1959) contains discussions
38 This article is also available online: http://sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/FULLTEX'f/
JR-ENG/prz-l.htm.
39 Muroji published a revised edition of the Tibetan text in 1985.
of all the points concerning which the Dlpak1i.ra attacks
Vasubandhu's "S.autrantika" positions. In the same year, lainipublished
several articles based on this material, two of which are particularly rel-
evant: "The Sautrantika Theory of bfja" and "Origin and Development
of the Theory of viprayukta-safTlskiiras." laini notices the similarity
between Vasubandhu's positions and Yogac1i.ra ideas, and he adduces it
as support for the "traditional account" of a single Vasubandhu, who was
the author of the and who later became a Vijiiana-
vadin (Abhidhannadfpa introduction 128).
Whereas 1 aini finds nascent Y ogac1i.ra concepts in the Abhidhanna-
Schmithausen, in his "Sautrantika-voraussetzungen in VifTl-
satikii und TrifTlsika" (1967), sees remnants of Sautrantika ideas in two
post-conversion works of Vasubandhu, particularly the VifTlsatikii. He
characterized Vasubandhu's use of the terms vijiiiinasafTltiina (instead of
iilayavijiiiina) and safTltiinaparir,:ziima, as being based on "the 'one-layered'
mental series of the Sautrantikas" (136).40
Katsura's Ph.D. thesis, A Study of Harivarman's Tattvasiddhi (Uni-
versity of Toronto 1974), includes an outline of the text, a discussion of
the author, his ideas and school affiliation, along with translations of
selected passages. Katsura's is the only substantial work in a western lan-
guage on the Tattvasiddhi. Although it is not published and is not avail-
able from University Microfilms, there are several copies in circulation.
An interesting example of how Buddhists of a much later period
described Sautrantika doctrine can be found in the fourteenth-century
Tibetan doxographical text, the BIo gsal grub mtha'. Mimaki published
an edition, with an introduction, of the relevant portion of this work (1979),
as well as a French translation (1980), both extensively annotated. Relying
on the and on other texts, including a number of
Buddhist epistemological works, the BIo gsal grub mtha' illustrates how
ideas like the self-awareness (svasafTlvedana) of consciousness, which do
not appear in the or the but may have
been implied by early theories, were labelled as
Sautrantika by later authors.
40 Although Schmithausen' s article is in German, it includes a brief English abstract,
on which my summary is based.
218 ROBERT KRITZER
Kajiyama's study of Buddhist theories of cognition; Bukkyi5 ni okeru
sonzai to chishiki (Being and Cognition in Buddhism),41 includes a good
general introduction to Sautrantika, its main doctrines, and the sources of
information about them, as well as a detailed explanation of theSautran-
tika (or viewpoint regarding cognition (v-xi, 31-59). Much
of his discussion is based on later works, mainly epistemological texts.
In 1980, KatO published an article, "Notes sur les deux maltres boud-
dhiques Kumaralata et Srilata," in which he critically reviews the Chinese
sources regarding the lives of these two teachers and establishes more
reliable dates than those suggested by the most commonly quoted source,
K'uei-chi. KatO's Kyi5ryi5bu no kenkyu (Study of Sautrantika), which
appeared in 1989, remains by far the most important work on the subject
of Sautrantika and Centered largely on Salflghabhadra's
account and criticism of the Sthavira (Srilata) in the *Nyayanusara, Kato's
book is divided into two parts dealing with Sautrantika history and thought.
Although the study is in Japanese, a useful abstract in French canbe
found at the end of the volume.
Another very important contribution concerning Vasubandhu's Sautran-
tika positions and the Sthavira is Cox's Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist
Theories on Existence. Published in 1995, this book is a revised version
of her 1983 Ph.D. thesis, Controversies in Dharma Theory. Cox provides
an extensively annotated translation of the section of the *Nyayanusara
in which Sa1f1ghabhadra attacks both Vasubandhu's and the Sthavira's
denial of the reality of the cittaviprayuktasaY(lskaras.
It is probably fair to say that Kato' s work has been a catalyst for further
studies of Sautrantika, particularly in Japan. Since 1980, so many articles
have been published that it is impossible for me to summarize them ade-
quately here. Still, since most, if not all, are in Japanese, it may be useful
at least to mention some of their titles:
42
"Sarvastivadin and Sautrantika
theories of vip aka as seen in the AbhidharmakosabMyya" (Hyodo 1980);
41 I am grateful to Yamabe Nobuyoshi for this reference.
42 If the original titles are in Japanese, I give my own English translations here. Although
many of the journals in which these articles are published supply their own (or the author's
own) English translations, these are typically found at the end of each issue or on the back
cover. In most cases, I possess only offprints, which do not include an English title.
The full Japanese titles can be found in the list of works cited.
"The relationship of and Sautrantika - doctrine of Sautran-
tika in the Abhidhannakosabhii!fYa and Tattvasiddhisiistra - [1]" (Tokoro
1989); "Sautrantika" (Honjo 1992); "Dignaga's Hastaviilaprakara.I).avrtti:
a Japanese translation of the Hastaviilaprakara.I).avJiti with a Sanskrit recon-
struction" (Harada "Dignaga" 1993);43 "The position on the
difference between citta and caitta as seen in the Mahiivibhii:jii" (Fukuda
"Daibibasharon" 1997); "The Sautrantika Bhadanta Rama" (Fukuda
"Kyoryobu" 1998).
Other studies are concerned more specifically with the relationship
between Sautrantika and Yogacara: "Adi-vise:ja-vibhiiga-siltra: Vasuban-
dhu the Sautrantika's theory ofpratItya-samutpada" (Matsuda "Funbetsu"
1982); "The deftnition of iiZayavijfiiina in Vasubandhu' s Pratltyasamut-
piidavyiikhyii" (Matsuda "Seshin" 1982); "Research note concerning
Vasubandhu [1]" (Matsuda "Vasubandhu" 1984); "The theory of two
truths in the Vyiikhyiiyukti - Research note concerning Vasubandhu [2]"
(Matsuda "Vyiikhyiiyukti" 1986); "The background of the theory of abhiltvii
bhavati in the Abhidharmakosabhii:jya" (Miyashita 1986); "Research on
Pilrvacarya [in the Abhidhannakosabhii!fYa]" (Hakamaya 1986); "Bfja the-
ory in ViniscayasaY(lgrahm;l" (Yamabe 1990); "Vasubandhu on saY(lskiira-
pratyayaY(l vijfiiinam" (Kritzer 1993); "Questions concerning the con-
cept of a 'Sautrantika single-layered stream of vijfiiina' [I]" (Harada
"Kyoryobu I" 1996); "Questions concerning the concept of a 'Sautran-
tika single-layered stream of vijfiiina' [II]" (Harada "Kyoryobu II" 1997);
"Questions concerning the concept of a 'Sautrantika single-layered stream
ofvijfiiina' [ill]" (Harada "Kyoryobu ill" 1998); Rebirth and Causation
in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma (Kritzer 1999); "One side of the theory of
causation of good and evil in the Yogiiciirabhilmi: the so-called theory of
'mutual impregnation of rilpa and citta'" (Yamabe "Yugashichiron" 2000);
A Comparison of the Abhidharmakosabhii:jya (Chapters I-III) and the
Yogiiciirabhilmi (Kritzer 2001).
43 A discussion of Sautrantika is included in an appendix to Harada's article.
References
Primary Sources
Abhidharmadfpa with Ed. P.S. Jaini. Tibetan Sanskrit Works
Series 4. Second edition. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute,
1973.
*Abhidharmahrdaya (A-p'i-t'an hsin lun DhannasrI (or Dharma-
T. 1550.
*Abhidharmahrdaya (A-p'i-t'an hsin lun ching Upasanta. T. 1551.
Ed. P. Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series VIII.
Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.
Abhidharmakosavyakhya. Ed. U. Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Bookstore,
1990. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: The Publishing Association of the
. Abhidharma-kosa-vyakhya, 1932-1936).
Ch'eng wei-shih tun shu chi K'uei-chi T. 1830.
Chu-she lun chi P'u-kuang tf*. T. 1821.
Chu-she lun shu Fa-pao ttJf. T. 1822.
I pu-tsung lun lun shu chi K'uei-chi Dai Nihon zokuzokyo
844
*Nyayanusara (A-p'i-ta-mo shun cheng-li lun Sarp.ghabhadra.
T.1562.
Samayabhedoparacanacakra (I pu-tsung lun lun Vasumitra. Trans.
Hstian-tsang. T. 2031.
*SaJ?fYuktabhidharmahrdaya (Tsa a-p'i-t'an hsin lun Dhannatriita.
T.1552.
*Tattvasiddhisastra (Ch'eng shih lun Harivannan. T. 1646.
(A-p'i-ta-mo ta p'i-p'o-sha lun Trans. Hstian-
tsang. T. 1545. .
(A-p'i-t'an p'i-p'o-sha lun Trans. Buddhavannan.
T.1546.
fij-ch'ieh-shi ti lun lueh tsuan . K'uei-chi T. 1829 .
.-;.r
Modem Works
Bechert, Heinz. "Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins
of Mahiiyiina." German Scholars on India: Contributions to Indian Studies.
Ed. Cultural Department of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany,
New Delhi. Vol. 1. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 6-18.
Cox, Collett. Controversies in Dharma Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Uni-
versity. 1983.
-. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Studia Philologica
Buddhica: Monograph Series 11. Tokyo: The International Institute for Bud-
dhist Studies, 1995.
Dessein, Bart. Sa'!lyuktiibhidhannahrdaya: Heart of Scholasticism with Miscel-
laneous Additions. Buddhist Tradition Series 33. Vol. 1. Delhi: MotilaI Banar-
sidass, 1999. .
Fukuda Takumi "Daibibasharon ni mieru hiyusha no shinshinsho bettai
setsu" Indogaku Bukkyo-
gaku Kenkyii 45/2 (1997): 913-910.
"Kyoryobu no Daitoku Rama" --c{. Bukkyoshigaku Kenkyii
41/1 (1998): 1-36.
Hakamaya Noriaki "Purviiciirya ko" Pfirvacfuya;fi[;. Indogaku Bukkyo-
gaku Kenkyii 34/2 (1986): 93-100.
Harada Waso ffif,EBfD*. "Dignaga no HastaviilaprakaralJa & Vrtti." Ryukoku
Daigaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyushitsu Nenpo 6 (1993): 92-110.
-. "Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon [I]"
rll!J!O)J t (1). Indogaku Chibettogaku Ken-
kyu 1 (1996): 135-193.
-. "Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon [ll]"
r J t ? (II). Indogaku Chibettogaku Ken-
kyu 2 (1997): 22-59.
"Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon [III]"
t (III). Indogaku Chi-
bettogaku Kenkyu 3 (1998): 92-110.
Honjo Yoshifumi *Jl1r:st. "Sautrandka." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyfl40/2
(1992): 148-154.
Hyodo Kazuo "Kusharon ni mieru setsuissaiubu to kyoryobu no ijuku
setsu" Bukkyo Shiso Shi
3 (1980): 57-88.
Jaini, P.S. Introduction. Abhidhannadlpa with Vzbhii:fiiprabhiivrtti. Ed. P.S. Jaini.
Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 4. Second edition. Patna: Kashi Prasad JayaswaI
Research Institute, 1973. 1-136.
"Origin and Development of the Theory of viprayukta-sa'!lskiiras." Bulletiri
of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 22/3
(1959): 531-547.
"The Sautrantika Theory of blja." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London 22/2 (1959): 236-249.
Kajiyama YUichi Bukkyo ni okeru sonzai to chishiki :?;,:tn'
t Tokyo: Kinokuniya Shoten, 1983.
Kato JunshO Kyoryobu no kenkyfl (Etude sur les Sautriin-
tika). Tokyo: Shunjiisha, 1989.
"Notes sur les Deux Maitres Bouddhiques: Kumaralata et Srllata," in India-
nisme et Bouddhisme: Melanges offerts a Mgr Etienne Lamotte. Publications
de l'Institut OrientaIiste de Louvain 23. Louvain-Ia-Neuve: Universite Catho-
lique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1980.
Katsura, Shoryu. A Study of Harivarman's Tattvasiddhi. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Toronto, 1974.
222 ROBERT KRITZER
Kritzer, Robert. A Comparison of the Abhidharmakosabhii&a (Chapters I-Ill)
and the Yogiiciirabhami. (Japanese Ministry of Education Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research C. Project Number 11610024.) Kyoto: privately printed,
2001.
-. Rebirth and Causation in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma. Wiener Studien zur
Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 44. Wien: Arbeitskreis fiir Tibetische und
Buddhistische Studien, Universitat Wien, 1999.
-. "Vasubandhu on sarrzskiirapratyayarri vijfi.iinam." Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 16/1 (1993): 24-55.
La Vallee Poussin, Louis de, trans. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. 6 vols. New
edition. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 16. Bruxelles: Institut BeIge
des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1971. Reprint (First edition: Louvain: J.B. Istas,
1923-1931).
-. "Documents d'Abhidharma: la controverse du temps." Melanges chinois et
bouddhiques 15 (1936-1937): 7-158.
-. "Sautriintikas." Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Ed. James Hastings.
13 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908-1926.
-. trans. Vijfi.aptimiitratiisiddhi: La Siddhi de Hiuan-tsang (French translation of
Ch'eng wei shih lun). 2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1928-1929.
Lamotte, Etienne. History of Indian Buddhism. Trans. Sara Webb-Boin. Publica-
tions de I'Institut OrientaIiste de Louvain: 36. Louvain-Ia-Neuve: Universite
Catholique de Louvain, 1988.
-, trans. Traite de la demonstration de ['acte de Vasubandhu: Karmasiddhipra-
karalJa. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 4 (1935-36).
Levi, Sylvain. "La et son auteur." Journal asiatique 211 (1927):
95-127.
Liiders, Heinrich. Bruchstucke der KalpaniimaIJ4itikii des Kumiiraliita. Mono-
graphien zur indischen Archaologie, Kunst und Philologie; Bd. 1. Kleinere
Sanskrittexte; Heft 1-2. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1979. (Reprint of the 1926
ed. published by the Deutsche Morgenliindische Gesellschaft, Leipzig.)
Matsuda Kazunobu "Funbetsuengishoshohi5mongyo (AWS): kyo-
C ryobu seshin no engisetsu" r (AVVS) -*I:1ilmi!!:fto)
Bukkyogaku Seminii 36 (1982): 40-70.
-. "Seshin engikyoyaku (PSVy) ni okeru arayashiki no teigi"
(PSVy) J Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 31/1
(1982): 63-66.
-. "Vasubandhu kenkyil noto (1)" Vasubandhu - }- (1 ). Indogaku Buk-
kyogaku Kenkyu 32/2 (1984): 82-85.
-. "Vyiikhyiiyukti no nitai setsu - Vasubandhu kenkyii noto (2)" Vyiikhyiiyukti
Vasubandhu (2). Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 33/2
(1985): 114-120.
Mejor, Marek. Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa and the Commentaries Preserved
in the Tanjur. Institut fiir Kultur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets an
. der Universitat Hamburg, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 42. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag, 1991.
Mjmaki Katsurni m!&51B. "Le chapitre du Bio gsal grub mtha' sur les Sautriin-
tika: Un essai de traduction." Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute
for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University 16 (1980): 143-172.
_. "Le chapitre du Blo gsal grub mtha' sur les Sautrantika: Presentation et edi-
tion." Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies,
Kyoto University 15 (1979): 175-210.
Miyamoto ShOson '8*1#. "Hiyusha, Daitoku Hoggu, Doju, Yumanron no Ken-
kyii" VPt=tt :fdil!itlliJ(, Nihon Bukky6 Gakkai Nenpo 1
(1928): 115-192.
Miyashita Seiki "Kusharon ni okero hon mu kon u ron no haikei"
Bukky6gaku Semina 44 (1986): 7-37.
Mizuno Kogen 7l<!l!ts15r;. "Hiyushi to J6jitsuron" Komazawa-
daigaku Bukky6 Gakkai Nenpo 1 (1930): 134-156.
Muroji Gijin J6g6ron chibetto yaku k6tei hon *"'" ") r
Kyoto: privately printed, 1985.
Nishi Giyii trans. Kusharonki Kokuyaku issaikyo wakan sen-
jutsubu. Ronsobu 5. Revised edition. Tokyo: Dait6 Shuppansha, 1981.
Okano Kiyoshi 1M1!1!t?ili. "Indobukkyobungaku kenkyil shi 6: laatakamaalaa bun-
gaku no kenkyU shi: Kumaaralaata no Kalpanaama.n.ditikaa D.r.s.taan-
tapa.nkti" r -( / laatakamaalaa Kumaar-
alaata 0) Kalpanaama.n.ditikaa D.r.s.taantapa.nkti. Kyushu Indo Bukky6gaku
22 Feb. 2002. 24 Feb. 2003 <htlp://member.nifty.ne.jp/
OKANOKIYOSIll/ kurnaralata.html>
Przyluski, lean. Sautriintika, and Sarvastivadin." Indian Historical
Quarterly 16 (1940): 246-254. .
_. "Sautriintika et Rocznik Orientalistyczny 8 (1931-1932): 14-24.
Rospatt, Alexander von. The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness. Institut fUr Kul-
tur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets an der Universitat Hamburg, Alt- und
Neu-Indische Studien 47. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995.
Saeki Kyokuga Kand6 Abidatsumakusharon 3 vols.
Kyoto: Hozokan, 1978.
Sakurabe, Hajime. "Abhidharma." Buddhist Spirituality: Indian, Southeast Asian,
Tibetan, and Early Chinese. Ed. Takeuchi Yoshinori. New York: Crossroad,
1993. 67-78.
Schmithausen, Lambert. "Sautriintika-voraussetzungen in Virrz,atika und Tril'{1sika."
Wiener Zeitschriftfiir die Kunde Siid- und Ostasiens 11 (1967): 109-136.
Skorupski, Tadeusz. "Sautriintika." The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Mircea Eli-
ade. New York: Macmillan, 1987. 16 vols.
Takai Kankai ii!ii#Wli1ij. ShOj6 Bukky6 Gairon. Kyoto: Fujii Bunseido, 1928.
Tokoro Rie mJIll!r.. "J6jitsuron Kusharon to hiyusha, kyoryobu to no kakawari
ni tsuite [1]" fPi cVPt=tt tJ (-)
Bunka 170 (1989): 48-69.
224 ROBERT KRITZER
Willemen, Charles et al. Sarviistiwida Buddhist Scholasticism. Handbuch der Orien-
talistik. Zweite Abteilung. Indien. 11 Bd. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Yamabe Nobuyoshi unlB"g1[. "Bija Theory in ViniscayasaJ'{lgraha7;lz." Indogaku
Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 38/2 (1990): 13-15.
-. "Yugashichiron ni okeru zenaku inka setsu no ichisokumen: iwaytiru 'shiki-
shingokun' setsu 0 chiishin toshite" o1!i']!,/t9JIUlt (})-
OO/iii - .. C Nihon Bukkyogakkai Nenpo
65 (2000): 127-146.
Yamaguchi Susumu Seshin no Jogyoron i:!tU (})JiltU. Kyoto: Hozo-
kan, 1975. (Reprint. First edition: Kyoto 1951).
ON THE SCHOOL AFFILIATION OF
"SAUTR.ANTIKA" OR "YOGACAAA"?*
NOBUYosm YAMABE
Introduction
Traditionally it was understood that Sarvastiviida, Sautrantika, and
Yogiicara were three distinct traditions, but this framework has been seri-
pusly questioned in recent years.
. Owing to the efforts of Paul Demieville, Nishi Giyu (Abidatsuma,
"Buha"), and other scholars, it is becoming clear that there were tradi-
tions of meditators called yogiiciiras within the Sarviistiviida 90mmunity
before the establishment of the philosophical Yogiicara school. Further,
Lambert Schmithausen has compared the magnum opus of the Yogiicara
school, the YogiiciirabhUmi, with the Sarviistiviida/Millasarvastiviida recen-
sions of the Buddhist canon and has found that the Yogiiciirabhiimi was
specifically based on the Millasarvastiviida canon ("Beitrage," "Zu dem
Rezensionen"). Conceming the exact relationship between the appellations
TIlls paper was originally prepared to satisfy a pre-dissertation requirement at Yale
University and was submitted to the graduate school in 1991 (unpublished). In the first half
.of the original version, entitled, "On the School Affiliation of A Comparative
Study of the Saundarananda and the Sriivakabhumi," I discussed relevant meditative ele-
ments, while I concentrated on doctrinal elements in the second. Later, I organized a study
group of the Saundarananda at the Institute of Buddhist Studies, Kyushu Ryukoku Junior
College, with Fujitani Takayuki and Harada Yasunori, and, based on our discussion, we
.published a revised and enlarged Japanese version of the first half of the aforementioned
paper in 2002. The present paper is a concise version originally meant for the IABS con-
ference at Bangkok in 2002, where I selectively discussed both meditative and doctrinal
elements. I thank Professors Stanley Weinstein, Lambert Schmithausen, Jens-Uwe Hart-
mann, Lance Cousins, Robert Kritzer, Aramaki Noritoshi, Honjo Yoshifumi, Iwata Takashi,
Miyashita Seilci, Muroji Yoshihito, and Harada Waso for their helpful comments on earlier
versions of this paper. My particular thanks are due to Robert Kritzer for his organization
of the panel at the IABS conference and for kindly editing my English. Professor Hoka-
zono Koichi has referred me to some of the relevant studies. I further thank my former colla-
borators Fujitani Takayuki and Harada Yasunori for their input during the period in which
we read the relevant texts together.
226 . NOBUYOSHIYAMABE
. "Sarvastivada" and "Mfilasarvastivada," Enomoto Funiio has recently
suggested that the word "Mfilasarvastivada" represents the Sarvastivadin
claim that Sarvastivada was the root (mula) of the other sects; thus,
according to him, "Mfilasarvastivlida" does not refer to a subsect of the
Sarvastivada tradition ("Konpon Setsu 1ssai Ubu," "Mfilasarvastivadin").
Taken together, these points seem to suggest that the Y ogacara school
did not exist as a distinct school separate from Sarvastivada. Rather, it
appears that meditators practicing within the Sarvastivada CO!lliIluniiy
gradually systematized their views and eventually formed their own philo-
sophical tradition.
Similarly, as early as 1953, Sakurabe Hajime doubted whether Sautran-
tika was an independent school with its own canon.! Rather, according to
him, Sautrantika seems to have been a philosophical tradition that existed
within the Sarvastivada community.2 Further, several Japanese scholars,
such as Mukai Akira, Matsuda Kazunobu, Hakamaya Noriaki, Miyashita
Seiki ("Kusharon," "Genkanhenchitai"), and myself ("Purvacarya,"
"Yugashijiron") have noted that many of the theories attributed to "Sau-
trantika" or "PUrvacarya" in the AbhidharmakosabhiifYa can be traced
back to the YogiiciirabhUmi.
3
A major breakthrough in Sautrantika studies was brought about when
Kato JunshO published his comprehensive study of Sautrantika in 1989
(Ky6ry6bu). In this important work, Kato demonstrates that a verifiable
reference to the word "Sautrantika" cannot be attested in any extant text
older than the AbhidharmakosabhiifYa (hereafter, Kosa). He further com-
pared the Sautrantika positions mentioned in the Kosa with the
positions found in the (hereafter, and
thi/*Tattvasiddhi, and Srllata's views recorded in the *Nyiiyiinusiira. KatO
observes that, although Vasubandhu's "Sautrantika" positions are in many
cases closely related to the earlier positions, Vasubandhu does
not always agree with the views.
After these significant findings of KatO, the close relationship between
the Kosa and the YogiiciirabhUmi came to be seen as even more important
than before. Recently, Robert Kritzer ("SaT{1skiirapratyayaT{1 vijiiiinam,"
I See also Lamotte (Histoire 582).
2 See also Schmithausen ("Zu den Rezensionen" 97), Kato (Ky6ry6bu, 86-93).
3 See also Yamabe ("Bfja" 929; 931).
ON THE SCHOOL AFFILIATION OF ASVAGHO$A 227
"Rebirth and Causation," "Vasubandhu") and Harada Waso ("Dignaga,"
"Kyoryobu") have been working very actively on this issue. In addition
to the fact that Vasubandhu sometimes rejects the theories
recorded in the earlier texts (such as the denial of the existence ofa real
sukha and of caittas), Harada notes that some of the Sautrantika posi-
tions of Vasubandhu (especially the bfja theory) cannot be traced back
to the tradition but are found in the Yogiiciirabhiimi. Thus,
Harada speculates that when Vasubandhu discusses" Sautrantika," his
real source is actua.lly the Yogiiciirabhiimi. Kritzer, based on his own
observations, also suspects that Vasubandhu was already Y ogacara when
he composed the Kosa. This hypothesis will be discussed in detail by
Kritzer himself in a separate paper in this issue.
Other noteworthy attempts are found in a series of papers of Honjo
Yoshifumi ("Memyo no gakuha," "Memyo saku," "Memy5 shi"). In these
papers, Honjo points out that there are many Sautrantika-like elements in
the two major kiivyas of namely the Buddhacarita and the
Saundarananda, and argues that was close to the Sautrantika
tradition.
4
Since the school-affiliation of this celebrated Buddhist poet
has long been an unsolved problem among Buddhist scholars,s Honjo's
study is an important contribution, not only in the context of Sautrantika
studies, but also as a study of himself.
Bonjo's arguments are based on his extensive knowledge of abhidharma
literature and are very solid. From my own point of view, however, there
still seem to be significant points concerning that are not ade-
quately covered by Honjo. First, the methods of meditation practice
described in the latter portion of the Saundarananda are closely related
to those in the Sriivakabhiimi section of the Yogiiciirabhiimi. Second, as
we might expect from the foregoing discussion, most of the Sautrantika-
like elements found in works are also found in the Yogii-
ciirabhiimi. Thus, works, especially the Saundarananda,
seem to hold an important key for clarifying one aspect of the intricate
relationship among Sarvastivada, Sautrantika, and Yogacara.
From this point of view, in this paper I would like to discuss Asva-
works with regard to their practical and doctrinal aspects. For
4 See also Honj6, "Sautrantika," for his view of this tradition.
228 NOBUYOSHI YAMABE
the reasons stated above, my main focus will be on the Saundarananda.
Since I cannot cover all the relevant points in a single paper, I confine
my discussion here to a few representative points.
1. Systems of Meditation
The latter half of the Saundarananda consists of the Buddha's expo-
sition of the way of practice (Cantos 12-16), a description of Nanda's
actual process of practice (Canto 17), and the approval of his achievement
by the Buddha (Canto 18). Many elements of these portions have close
parallels in the Sravakabhiimi, as shown in tables 1-6 in the appendix.6
We should note here that not only at the level of general structure but
also at the level of wording, the Saundarananda and the Sravakabhiimi
are closely related. I give a few examples of their correspondences, together
with their possible Nikaya sources below. The fIrst correspondence is from
the section on sUa (in Table 1, item 2).7
Evrup. pabbajito samano patimokkha-srup.vara-srup.vuto viharati acara-gocara-
sampanno anumattesu vajjesu bhaya-dassavl. .. (Samafifiaphala-sutta 63.13-
15)
The one who has thus become a recluse stays restrained in the restraints of
precepts, maintains a good realm of conduct, and sees fear in minor faults ...
etavac chIlam ity uktam acaro 'yrup. samasatalj I
asya nasena naiva syat pravrajya na grhasthata II
tasmac caritrasampanno brahmacaryam idrup. cara I
anumatresv avadyesu bhayadarsl drQl1avratalj II (Saundarananda 13.19-20)
5 I have summarized some of the representative arguments about school
affiliation in Yamabe, Fujitani, Harada (5-10). In addition to the works mentioned there,
Dieter Schlingloff's paper, which points out that the pictorial representation of Nanda legend
in Ajanta Cave 16 is based on the Saundarananda, is noteworthy, although it is not directly
relevant to doctrinal issues. J.W. de Jong's review of Biswanath Bhattacharya's Asvagholfa
is also helpful.
6 I refer to the Saundarananda and the Buddhacarita by canto and verse numbers.
Other Sanskrit and Pili texts I refer to by page and line numbers. In order to save space,
I have omitted some of the relatively unimportant details. Therefore, these tables are not
complete; for more comprehensive tables, I refer the reader to the Japanese paper that I
published with Fujitani and Harada.
7 In this paper, in principle I quote the original texts in the notes. Here, however, in order
to facilitate the comparison of the original passages, I quote them in the main text.
ON THE SCHOOL AFFILIATION OF 229
.This-much is called morality, and in sum, this is good conduct. If this is lost,
there would be no life as a recluse or as a householder.
Therefore, one who maintains good conduct should follow this pure practice.
One who firmly adheres to one's vow sees fear in minor faults.
acaragocarasampannah, anumatresv avadyesu bhayadarSi (Sravakabhumi,
ed. ShOmonji Kenkyiikai 16.18-19)
One who maintains a good realm of conduct sees fear in minor faults.
The next correspondence is from the section on "knowing the right
amount when eating," bhojane mtitrajiia/J (Table I, item 4).
patisaiIkha yoniso iiharam iihiirissama, n'eva davaya na madaya na
naya na vibhfisanaya, yavad eva imassa kayassa thitiya yapanaya, vihim-
siiparatiya brahmacariyanuggahaya (Mahiissapura-sutta 273.23-26)
I shall take food circumspectly and properly. It is not for play, sensual pleas-
ure, adornment, or It is just for the sustenance and support of this
body, for the cessation of harm, and for the promotion of pure practice.
evam abhyavahartaVYaq1 bhojanaq1 pratisamkhyaya I
na bhiisartham na na madaya na drptaye II
sarIrasya bhojanaq1 hi vidhIyate I
yogacaras tathiiharaq1 sarIraya prayacchati I
kevalaq1 ksudvighatarthaq1 na rageI;1li na bhaktaye II (Saundarananda, 14.14-19)
Thus, food should be taken circumspectly. It is not for the sake of beauty,
a nice-looking body, sensual pleasure, or arrogance, since food is provided
for the maintenance of the body.
A yogiiciira gives food to the body in this way. It is merely for the sake of
removing hunger and not for the sake of lust or reverence.
sa tatha saq1vrtendriyal}. pratisamkhyayiiharam iiharati, na darparthaq1 na
madartham na na vibhiisanartham, yavad evasya kayasya
sthitaye *yapanayai jighatsoparataye, brahmacaryanugrahaya*8 iti I (Srava-
kabhumi, ed. ShOmonji Kenkyiikai 18.8-11)
The [practitioner], having thus guarded the senses, takes food circumspectly.
It is not for the sake of arrogance, sensual pleasure, adornment, or beauty.
It is just for the sustenance and support of this body, for the cessation of
hunger, and for the promotion of pure practice.
8 The part between asterisks is lost due to a damage of the manuscript and is recon-
structed by the editors based on parallel passages. SlIlp.dhi is not observed between the last
-hiiya and the following iti, but I follow the text here.
230 NOBUYOSIDYAMABE
Again, due to limited space I cannot give too many examples, but even
these few examples suggest that the Saundarananda and the Sriivaka-
bhiimi are significimtly related.
9
Of course, as I myself have shown, we should keep in mind that these
two texts seem to have had common sources in the Agamic literature.
Nevertheless, I think it is significant that almost all the items of the
Saundaranandaalso appear in the Sriivakabhiimi in a similar order. Thus,
I think that the similarities are too extensive for us to assume that these
two texts separately relied on common sources.
Rather, I suspect that there were efforts to systematize the various med-
itative methods found in Agamic sources into a comprehensive system.
The Yogiiciirabhilmi seems to represent a fairly developed stage of such
systematization, while the Saundarananda appears to show a relatively
early one. The meditation system recorded in the Saundarananda may well
preserve an early form of the manuals of the yogiiciira meditators that
eventually culminated in the voluminous Yogiiciirabhiimi.
lO
On the other hand, although the correspondences are not as extensive
as those between the Saundarananda and the Sriivakabhilmi, we should
note that there are some partial agreements between the *Tattvasiddhi
and the Saundarananda as well (Tables 1 and 2). Since the *Tattvasid-
dhi is considered to be a work (Mizuno), this may suggest that
these meditative methods were to some extent also shared by the
tika tradition.H
9 In the aforementioned paper (Yamabe, Fujitani, Harada), I have given the examples
of correspondences more systematically and comprehensively. Therefore, interested readers
are referred to that article.
10 Honjo ("Memyo shi" 390) regards the Saundarananda as a Yogiiciirabhiimi of the
Sautriintika tradition.
In this connection, we should perhaps also recall that the word yogiiciira appears twice
in the Saundarananda (14.19, 15.68), as has been already noted by Shastri (xi-xii). It is
of course widely recognized that the word yogiiciira is a common noun that appears in a
wide range of Buddhist literature. Therefore, the mere occurrence of the word itself does
not mean much for determining the school affiliation of a text. Nevertheless, taken together
with the structural similarities between the Saundarananda and the Yogiiciirabhiimi, this
word could appear once again as a symbolic word.
II Saundarananda 14.14-15cd are quoted as "verses composed by in the
*Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646: 372aI5-16). See Johnston xxxii, Fukuhara Ryogon (51-52). There-
fore, it is imaginable that the standpoints of the *Tattvasiddhi and are rather
close, though we should note that there are also significant differences between them. See
2 .. Doctrinal Elements
We now turn to the doctrinal side. In his study of Asvaghol?a, Honjo
raises several points that appear to link Asvaghol?a to the Sautrantika tra-
dition ("Memyo shi"). However, since a comprehensive discussion of all
these points would make this paper too long, let us here discuss just a cou-
ple of the most significant ones .
. (1) The interpretation of anusaya (Honjo, "Memyo shi" 394-95)
At the beginning of the Anusayanirdesa of the Kosa, there is a famous
controversy over the interpretation of the compound kiimariigiinusaya;
This controversy is related to the extensive argument among various Bud-
dhist schools over whether or not anusaya is identical to paryavasthiina.
12
According to the available sources, Mahasanghika, MahIsasaka, and
Vibhajyavada claim that anusaya is the latent form of paryavasthiina. 13
In contrast to these traditions, Sarvastivada does not accept the exis-
tence of such a latent form of klda. Thus, in the Abhidharmakosabhii:rJa,
orthodox Sarvastivada interprets the term kiimariigiinusaya as an apposi-
tional compound (karmadhiiraya) and says that kiimariiga is identical to
anusaya.
14
Vasubandhu, however, does not accept this interpretation and supports
the Sautrantika view, which considers the compound kiimariiga-anusaya
to be a dependent compound meaning "the anusaya (or evil
potential) of kiimariiga":
However, it is good [to understand the compound ldimartigtinuSaya] as the
Sautrantikas do. But how do the Sautrantikas [understand this]? [TIley under-
stand] that ktimartigtinusaya means the anusaya of ktimariiga. And the
anusaya is neither associated with nor dissociated from [the mind], because
it [i.e., anusaya] is not a distinct entity. [TIle reason why anusaya is not a
distinct entity is merely that] the dormant klda is called anusaya. and the
awakened one. Daryavasthtina. Then what is the dormancy (prasupti) of that
Louis de la Vallee Poussin ("Notes" 264). For quotations from the Saundarananda in
other Buddhist texts, see Jens-Uwe Hartmann (70-73).
12 See Jaini ("The Sautrantika" 239-44).
13 See KatO ("Zuimen" 10-20), and Fukuda ("Jojitsuron" 152). A reference to the
Vibhajyavadins in the will be discussed later in this paper.
14 kamaraga evanusaya iti (278.6)
232 NOBUYosm YAMABE
[kleSa]? The continuum of the latent [klesa] in the state of seed (bfjabhava).
What is the awakening (prabodha)? [The klesa] in the manifest state. What
is this state of seed? The capacity (sakti) of personal existence (atmabhiiva)
that has arisen from [past] kleSas and that generates [future] kleSas, like the
capacity that derives from [the past] perception and that generates [the future]
memory, or like the capacity of sprouts and so forth that derive from [past]
fruits of rice and that generate [future] fruits of rice. (278.18-24)15
According to this position, paryavasthana is the manifest klesa, while
anusaya is the dormant klesa, which, as a seed, generates future kleSa.
As Honj6 points out ("Memy6 shi" 395), this theory is also quoted in
the AbhidharmadJpa (as a theory)16 and in the *Nyayanusara
(as a theory of the *Siitrakiira [Ching-chu
Honj6 attempts to connect this theory to the following verses of the
Saundarananda.
Their potential (anusaya, i.e., the potential of the kamas) remains, like a fire
covered up with ashes. 0 friend, you should quench that [anusaya] with
practice, like fire with water. (15.5)
For those [kamas] arise again from that [anusaya], like sprouts from a seed
(bija). [But] those [kamas] would not exist when that [anusaya] is destroyed,
as sprouts [do not exist] when the seed is destroyed. (15.6)18
These verses regard anusaya as the latent form of kama and equate
the anusaya with a seed from which the kamas arise again in the future.
Though "seed" (blja) in the Saundarananda seems to be a figurative
expression and not a well-established technical term, the similarity of
the wording between the Saundarananda and the Kosa seems evident
to me.
IS evrup. tu siidhu yathii Sautriintikiiniim I kathrup. ca Sautriintikiiniim I kiimariigasyiinusa-
yal). kiimariigiinusaya iti I na ciinusayal}. srup.prayukto na viprayuktas tasyiidravyiintaratviit I
prasupto hi kleso 'nusaya ucyate I prabuddhah pru:yavasthiinam I kii ca tasya prasuptiJ:]. I
aS3Ip.IIluklu"bhiitasya .biJ;lbhiiviinubandhal}. / kal}. prabodhal}. / s3Ip.IIluklu"bhiival}. I ko 'yrup.
.biJ;lbhiivo niima I iiturabhiivasya klesajii klesotpiidanaSaktiJ:]. I yathiinubhavajiiiinajii slIlftYUt-
piidanaSaktir yathii ciiIikuriidiniim siiliphalajii siiliphalotpiidanaSaktir iti I
16 222.3-223.1.
17 T. 1562: 596c24-597a2.
18 anusayas channo ' gnir iva bhasmanii I
sa te bhiivanayii saumya praSiimyo ' gnir iviimbunii /I (15.5)
te hi tasmiit pravartante bhiiyo bljiid iviiIikuriih /
tasya nasena te na syur IDLaniisiid ivfuikuriil;t /1 (15.6)
However, as has been pointed out by Harada ("Dignaga" 108, "Kyoryo-
bu" 153), the same theory also appears in the Yogacarabhiimi (Savitar-
kasavicaradibhiimi in the Viniscayasarp.grahar:n) in the following way:
There the active (kun tu 'byun ba, :t3iJr, *samudaearita) and manifest' (mnon
du gyur pa, m, *sal'(lmukhfbhiUa) klda (non mons pa, 11i'I1l) is called
paryavasthiina (kun nas dkris pa, Its seed (sa bon, fj-r-, *bfja), which
has not been abandoned (ma spans, *IWT, *aprahflJa) or destroyed (yan dag
par ma beam pa, *asamudghiitita), is called anusaya (bag la nal,
and (gnas nan len, iltJl!). Because it is [in thel dormant
[statel (rna sad pa, 7f'Ji;fft, *aprabuddha[-avasthiiJ), it is anu.sava. and because
it is in the awakened state (sad pa'i gnas skabs, ttJtfft, *prabuddhavasthii),
it isparyavasthiina. (Pek. 5539: Zi 118bl-3; T. 1579:623a22-24)19
Needless to say, this system is exactly the same as the Sautrantika
theory in the Kosa quoted above. Considering the aforementioned studies
that point out the close relationship between the Kosa and the Yogacara-
bhiimi, I think it is quite likely that Vasubandhu directly based his descrip-
tion of this Sautrantika theory on this passage from the Yogacarabhiimi.
At this juncture, we should note that this theory, identified as a "Dar-
position in the Abhidharmadipa, cannot be confirmed in the
earlier sources (i.e., the theories recorded in the
and the *Tattvasiddhi). In the a similar theory is not
attributed to the but to the Vibhajyavadins:
The Vibhajyavadins also say that anusaya is the seed of paryavasthiina.
The essence of anu.saya is not associated with mind, [while] the essence of
paryavasthana is associated with mind. Paryavasthana arises from anusaya.
Because paryavasthana manifests itself, arhats retrogress. [If] the anusaya
is already severed, paryavasthana does not arise; how can he retrogress?
Therefore, they say that [arhats] do not retrogress. (T. 1545: 313al-4)Z
Here, one might note that the words and "Vibhajya-
vadins" appear together in compounds on three other occasions in the
19 de la non mons pa kun tu 'byun ba mIi.on du gyur ba ni kun nas dkris pa :les bya'o II
de iiid kyi sa bon rna spans sm yan dag par rna bcorn pa ni bag la nal :les bya ste I gnas
nan len kyan de yin no II rna sad pa'i phyir ni bag la nal yin la sad pa'i !mas skabs kyi
phyir ni kun nas dkris pa yin no II
Harada presents a Sanskrit reconstruction of this passage in his "Kyoryobu" (153).
20

VibhiioJii. So these traditions apparently shared a few same tenets,2! but we
should not overemphasize this point.
22
(We should note that the common
tenets do not include the ariusaya or bfja theory.) Fukuda (156-58) claims
that the denial of the retrogression of arhats in the *Tattvasiddhipresup-
poses the theory of latent anusaya, although anusaya is not expressly
equated with bfja.
23
Perhaps were not completely ignorant of the theory of
latent anusaya, but this point is not at all certain at this stage ..
(2) The Denial of the existence of a real sukha (Honjo, "Memyo shi" 392-94)
The Margapudgalanirdesa of the Kosa refers to a theory held by "some
people" who negate the existence of real pleasant sensation (sukha-
vedanii), as follows:
Some people say that there is no pleasant sensation at all and that all [sen-
sation] is painful. How should this be uuderstood? From scripture and from
reason .... How [does one understand it] from reason? It is because [what is
normally regarded as] the cause of pleasure is [actually] not fixed; for, if
some drink, food, coolness, or warmth, and so forth, which are regarded as
the causes of pleasure, are applied in excess or at an inappropriate time, the
same things tum out to be the causes of pain. And it is not reasonable that
pain arises because the causes of pleasure increase, or because the moder-
ate [amount of the causes of pleasure are applied] at another [inappropriate]
time. Therefore, they [i.e., what appeared to be the causes of pleasure] were,
from the very beginning, the causes of pain and not of pleasure. But when
that pain becomes great, it eventually becomes manifest [that they were
the causes of pain]. Change in the positions of the body should be under-
stood in the same way. [The second reason is that w.e] feel pleasure from
the remedy for pain or from the modification of pain; for, as long as one
21 T. 1545: 393all, 772c21-22, 774aI4-15.
22 Yin Shun notes that, though Vibhajyavada and were two distinct
traditions, they shared certain common tendencies (Shuo i-ch'ieh yu-pu 410, 419-28).
Concerning Vibhajyavada, see also Andre Bareau 167-80; Louis de la Vallee Poussin,
L'Abhidharmakosa lv-lviii; and Kimura Taiken.
23 I find Fukuda's argument on this point reasonably plausible, but there are certain
things that still need to be considered. First, in one of the passages Fukuda quotes from the
*Tattvasiddhi in this connection (T 1646: 334a5-6), what is compared to a burnt seed is
karma and not klda. Therefore, this passage is not directly relevant to anusaya. Second,
this sort of seed-image is not uncoITunon in Buddhist literature, and, though I carmot find
the image of a "burnt seed" in the Orthodox Sarvastivada theories in the Vibhiio$ii, the image
of a "rotten seed" is found in T. 1545: 98c1-2.
,has not been [previously] afflicted by another type of pain caused by hunger,
thirst, cold, hel!-t, fatigue, or lust (kamariiga), nothing is felt to be pleasant.
Therefore, ignorant people feel pleasure merely from the remedy [for pain]
and not from [the real] pleasure. Also, foolish people feel pleasure from the
modification of pain, such as moving the load from one shoulder 'to the
other. Therefore, there is no pleasure. (330.10-22)24
This theory is, attributed to "SrIlata and so forth" (Srlliitiidaya!:t) by
commentators (yaomitra
25
and Pfu.t.J.avardhana
26
) and is refuted by Vasu-
bandhu. Honj5 points out several verses of the Buddhacarita and the
Saundarananda that convey similar ideas. Indeed, all the major points of
the above discussion are found in these kiivyas, as is shown below.
[1] There is no pleasant sensation:
For [a man] who is dragging around an afflicted and unstable body,
there is no pleasure whatsoever from the standpoint of the highest truth.
One considers [something] to be pleasant when a remedy for pain is
applied, or when there is [only] a small pain. (Saundarananda 9.40)21
[2] The cause of pleasure is indefinite:
And because the objects of desire are not fixed [as the cause of pleasure],
I do not think such objects enjoyable, for the very things that bring about
pleasure also bring about pain. (Buddhacarita 11.41)28
Thick garments and fragrant aloe wood entail pleasure when it is cold,
but pain when it is hot. The rays of the moon and sandalwood entail
pleasure when it is hot, but pain when it is cold. (Buddhacarita 11.42)29
24 nasty eva sukhii vedanety ekIya duhkhaiva tu sarva I katham idazp gamyate I siitriid
yuktitas ca I ... / kathazp yuktita1;t / sukhahetvayYavasthiiniit / ya eva hi kecit piinabhojana-
sukhahetavas ta eviityupayuktli akiilopayuktiis ca punar dul}khahetava1;t
saIp.padyante I na ca yuktii sukhahetuvrddhya samena vii 'nyasmin kiile dul:,lkhotpattir ity
lidita eva te dul:,lkhahetavo na sukhasya I ante tu taddul:,lkhaIp. vrddhim apannazp vyaktim
apadyata iti / evam iryapathavikalpe 'pi vaktavyam I dubkhapratikiire ca sukhabuddher
dul:,lkhavikalpe ca / na hi tlivat sukham iti vedyate kiiicid yiivan na dul:,lkhiintareQ.opadruto
bhavati / tasmiit pratikiira sukha-
buddhir na sukhe dul:,lkhavikalpe ca biiliil;t sukhabuddhim utplidayanti yatbiiIp.Slid azpsazp
bhiirazp sazpciirayanta1;t / tasmiin nasty eva sukham iti /
2S Abhidharmakosavyakhya 518.21.
26 Pek. 5594: Nu 186b3. See Kato, Kyoryobu 190.
27 swam iirtaIp. calazp na ciisti kUpcit paramiirthata1;t sukham /
sukhaIp. hi dul:,lkhapratikarasevaya sthite ca dul:,lkhe tanuni vyavasyati /I
28 anaikiintikatii ca yasmiid ato 'pi me na bhogasaIp.jiia /
ya eva bhlivii hi sukhaIp. disanti ta eva dul:,lkhazp punar avahanti 1/
29 vasiiIp.sy agurii1].i caiva sukhiiya Site hy asukhaya gharme /
candriiIp.savaS candanam eva sukhaya dul:,lkhiiya bhavanti Site /I
[3] That which is in fact merely the remedy for pain is felt as pleasure:
If [you] think that the objects of desire are enjoyable, [you should under-
stand that] none of these [objects of desire] is considered to be enjoyable.
For in [this] world, things and qualities,30 such as clothes [and warmth],
should be considered to be the remedy for pain. (Buddhacarita 11.36)31
Therefore, people's [sense-] objects are the means of the remedy for pain
and are not enjoyable things. What wise man applying the remedy [for
pain] would think that he is enjoying something enjoyable? (Buddha-
carita 11.39)32
Someone [a foolish person], who is burning with bilious fever and
would consider a cold treatment to be an enjoyable thing, would imag-
ine that the objects of desire are enjoyable things[, when in fact he is
merely] applying the remedy for pain. (Buddhacarita 11.40)33
Because the exertion by a creature for the application of the remedy for
pilln, [which is] called pleasure, turns out to be the cause of bondage and
destruction, he saw that [worldly] existence is painful. (Saundarananda
17.19)34
Here again Honjo's argument is very persuasive, and the similarities
between these verses and the theory quoted in the Kosa should be obvious.
In this case, this theory is well attested in a source, *Tattva-
siddhi (chapter 78, "The Chapter on the Characteristics of Vedanil," and
chapter 79, "The Chapter on SaJ?1skilradubkha"),35 but not in the Yogil-
cilrabhiimi. SaJ?1skilradubkhatil is highly emphasized in the Yogilcilrabhiimi,
and somewhat similar arguments are also found there,36 but a flat negation
30 I follow Honjo's interpretation of dravyagw}a ("Memyo shi" 393).
31 kamas tu bhoga iti yan mati!). syad bhoga na kecit parigaI).yamanal). I
vastradayo dravyaguI).a hi loke duhkhapratikara iti pradh1iryal). II
- 32 duhkhapratikaranimittabhiitas tasmiit prajan1irj1 na bhogal). I
asnami bhogan iti ko 'bhyupeyat prajfia/:I pratlkaravidhau pravrtta/:I II
33 ya/:I pittadahena vidahyamana/:I sItakriy1irj1 bhoga iti vyavasyet I
duhkhapratlkaravidhau pravrtta/:I kuryat sa hi bhogasrup.jfiam II
34 yata/:I prasiitasya ca karmayoga/:I prasajyate bandhavighatahetul). I
dul).khapratlkaravidhau sukhakhye tato bhavrup. dul).kham iti vyapasyat II
35 T. 1646: 281c-282c. Honjo ("Memyoshi" 393) points out that similar arguments
appear also in the Pratityasamutpadavyakhya (pek. 5496: Chi 40a6ft). Further, Kat6 (Kyo-
ryobu 191) points out that similar arguments are found in the (without specifying
who claimed them; T. 1545: 402c16-29; 714c2-3) and in the Pancavastukavibhaea (T. 1555:
994c5-18).
36 Cintamaylbhiimi of the Viniscayasrup.grahru.il (Pek. 5539: Zi 220b4-221a6; T. 1579:
663b12-27), which states that from the standpoint of salJlskaraduf:zkhata, all vedana is
considered duf:zkha. Cf. AbhidharmakosabhaITa (329.22-330.2).
ON THE SCHOOL AFFILIATION OF A5VAGHO,sA 237
of sukha-vedanais, as far as I can see, not found anywhere in the Yoga-
carabhumi. The Yogacarabhumi seems to subscribe to the traditional
tri-vedana theory,37 and Harada ("Dignaga" 109-110) suspects that this
is the reason why Vasubandhu rejects this theory in his
KoSa.
On the other hand, it is worth noting that a very similar argument is
also found in the Tso-ch'an san-mei ching, a Chinese meditation manual
compiled by KumarajIva based on several Indian meditation manuals.
The passage in question runs as follows:
One should realize that in fact pleasant sensation cannot be recognized. How
so? Owing to clothing and food, pleasure is brought about. Excessive pleas-
ure. however. gives rise to pain,38 because [what appears to be pleasure] is
not truly pleasure. When the pain of a wound is stopped by applying medi-
cine (i.e., a remedy)' it is called comfort. Because of a great pain, a small
pain is considered to be pleasant, but it is not real pleasure. Also, because
of an old pain, a new pain is considered to be pleasant. When one carries a
heavy load, and when one moves it from one shoulder to the other, the new
weight is felt to be pleasant,39 but it is not real, lasting pleasure. In the case
of the nature of fire, it is always hot and does not cool down even for a
moment. If these [examples] were truly pleasant, they should not become
unpleasant.
[Another point is that] we [merely] regard a small pain in [the face of] a lar-
ger pain as pleasant. For example, when a person is facing execution, if he
[manages to] keep his life and is [merely] whipped, he regards this [being
whipped] as pleasure.
4o
." (T. 614: 278c12-25)41
According to the preface to this text by KumarajIva's disciple, Seng-
jui 1i i.z, preserved in the Ch'u san-tsang chi chi (T. 2145: 65aI9-b20),
KumarajIva's sources were the "teachings on the essence of medita-
tion" (ch'an-yao of "various masters" (chung-chia **), such as
Vasumitra, Upagupta, Sanghasena, Parsva, and
37 E.g., Savitarkasavicliradibhumi (208.1-7).
38 Cf. *Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646: 282b2-4).
39 Cf. *Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646: 282b20).
40 A very similar line is found in the *Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646: 282b6-7).
41
);<::*.:1'1'02, ftov<
.... ....
238 . NOBUYOSHIYAMABE
KumaraHita.
42
Unfortunately Seng-jui does not specify the source of
this particular portion. Though not mentioned in his list, a relationship
with Harivarman's *Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646: 281cI6-282c22) should per-
haps be considered, for the relevant portions of these two texts share
many similar elements. Since the *Tattvasiddhi was also translated by
KlimarajIva, he must have been familiar with its content. Kato (Kyoryobu
46, 52) argues that Harivarman was a disciple of Kumaralata. If so,
we might also consider the possibility that the passage in from
the Tso-ch'an san-mei ching is derived from Kumaralata's meditation
manual.
In any case, this theory must have been included in the "teachings on
the essence of meditation" of some master. Thus, although this theory was
not admitted into the Yogiiciirabhumi, it seems to have been propounded
by some of the earlier meditators.
(3) Parikalpa (Honjo, "Memyo shi" 390, supplement)
The Saundarananda (13.49-53) states as follows:
Even if a sense faculty (indriya) is directed to an object (vi,yaya), as long as
no mental discrimination (manasas parikalpa) is directed there, it [Le.,
indriya] does not adhere to it [Le., vi,yaya]. (13.49)
As fire blazes when there are firewood and wind, so the fire of kleSa arises
from the object and from the discrimination. (13.50)
For a man is bound by the erroneous discrimination (abhUtaparikalpa) of
an object. When he sees the same object as it is (bhutatal)), he is liberated,
. .,; (13.51)
..;."
Having seen one visible thing (rnpa), one person is attached [to it] (rajyate),
another is offended (pradu.yyati), a third person stays neutral (madhyastha),
yet another becomes compassionate (ghfl)iiyate) with regard to the same
[object]. (13.52)
42 Since the incorporation of and texts into the Tso-ch'an
san-mei ching can be confinned at the places where Seng-jui specifies, this preface should
be considered to be a reliable one. See Matsunami, Memyo Tansei 162-168; "Yugagyoha"
131-144; Yamabe, The Satra 78-79. It should be noted that "various masters" might
include some other masters not expressly mentioned by Seng-jui.
. Therefore, the object is not the cause of bOIidage or liberation. Whether there
is attachment qr not depends on the type of discrimination
(13.53)43
Honj6links these verses to the following passage from the *Nyayanu-
sara (Anusayanirdesa):
The say as follows: Because pain and pleasure arise depending
upon discrimination, we know that the nature of objects cannot be sub-
stantially established. As is said by the Buddha in the Miigandiya Siitra:
44
"Lepers feel pleasant when they touch painful fIre." He also says, "A visi-
ble thing is regarded as a pleasing object by one sentient being. but not by
another." .
Also, because the [distinction between] cleanliness and dirtiness, etc. can-
not be substantially established[, the nature of objects cannot be substantially
established]. This means that different types of sentient beings judge the
cleanliness and the dirtiness of the same thing differently.45 Because we
recognize that the characteristics, clean and dirty, are relative, [the distinction
between] clean objects and dirty objects cannot be substantially established.
(T. 1562: 639b4-10)46
Here the theory is attributed to the In this regard, we
should note that a theory very similar to Saundarananda 13.52 is men-
tioned as a theory in the Vibhii-ra as follows:
43 nendriyam tavat pravrttam api sajjate I
yavan na manasas tatra parikalpah pravartate /I (13.49)
indhane sati vayau ca yatha jvalati pavaka\:ll
parikalpac ca klesagnir jayate tatha /I (13.50)
abhiitaparikalpena hi badhyate I
tam eva paSyan bhiitata\:l parimucyate /I (13.51)
dmvaikaql rupam anyo hi rajyate 'nya\:l pradusyati I
kas cid bhavati madhyasthas tatraiviinyo ghmayate /I (13.52)
ato na hetur bandhaya na vimuktaye I
saqlgo bhavati va na va /I (13.53)
44 For the Miigandiya Sutra, see the Hsu-hsien-t'i ching filMtJHl11 (Madhyamiigama,
no. 153) T. 26: 670a-73a; the Miigandiya-suttanta (Majjhima-nikiiya, no.75) 1: 501-13.
4S This would mean that, for example, what is dirty for a human being can be clean for
certaiIi. animals.
46 .
.m1!f, Mi!!f!k1Wi 1iJ;@:!ll, JjjJlj1:JmIliJ
7J'1i1i\"
47 It is well known that SaiJ.ghabhadra (the author of the *Nyiiyiinusiira), YaSomitra, Sthi-
ramati, and the Abhidharmadipa do not distinguish from Sautriintika (e.g.,
Kata Kyoryobu 68-85, Honja "Sautriintika" 937, Tokoro 49; 62-63).
240 NOBUYosm YAMABE
The Darl?tiintikas say ... since defiled and undefiled objects are indetermi-
nate, one knows that objects are unreal. For example, [when] a colorfully
adorned, beautiful woman enters an assembly, upon seeing her, some give
rise to respect, others give rise to lust, yet others give rise to hatred, envy,
disgust, compassion, or equanimity. One should know that among these peo-
ple, [her] children see her and give rise to respect. Those who indulge in
desire see her and give rise to lust. Enemies see her and give rise to hatred.
Those who share the same husband see her and give rise Those who
have practiced the meditation on impurity give rise to disgust. Detached
sages see her and give rise to compassion, thinking thus: "These beautiful
appearances will soon perish due to impermanence." Arhats see her and
give rise to equanimity. Therefore, one knows that objects have no reality.
(T. 1545: 288b16-27)48
However, these verses of the Saundarananda seem to me to be also
closely linked to the Y ogaciira tradition. First, we should consider that the
expression (abhUta-)parikalpa ([erroneous] discrimination) is strongly
reminiscent of the Yogaciira tradition.
49
Second, the whole line of the
48 . fl.ltiiiJI:.
fl.lti1\:. fl.ltiQiR:. ff.ltiMit. fl.lt1::l*.
MD:l!i:.

Further, a very similar theory appears in the *MahiiprajiiiipiiramitiiSiistra as well, where
it is not attributed to any particular person or group. As Yin points out, judging from the
close similarity to the theory in the this theory should probably also
be attributed to the (Dai chido ron 52-53).

fi'

iil':I!D:l!. (T. 1509:148a13-20; Lamotte, Le traite 2: 732-33)
in the case of the beautiful awearance [of a woman], a lustful person sees her,
considers her to be wonderful, and is attached to her. One who practices the meditation
on impurity sees her [and thinks that she is filled with] various filthy things and that not
a single spot is clean. Fellow wives (*sapatn/) see her and [are driven by] envy and hatred.
They do not want to look at her and consider [her] to be impure. A lustful man looks at
her and considers her to be pleasing. An envious person looks at her and considers her to
be unpleasant. A practitioner looks at her and attains the way. One who has completed the
way looks at her and is indifferent, as if he were looking at soil or wood. If this beautiful
appearance were really pure, the four types of people should see it as pure. If really impure,
the four types of people should all consider it as impure. Therefore, one should know that
beauty and ugliness exist in one's mind; they are not fixed outside of the mind. One observes
emptiness in the same way.
49 Consider, for example, the famous verse 1.1 of the Madhyiintavibhiiga. See also
Matsunarni ("Memyo saku" 127-28), who attempts to connect Saundarananda 13.41-53
ON THE SCHOOL AFFllJATION OF 241
argument is quite similar to that of the tradition, and indeed an
idea comparable to that of Saundarananda 13.52 appears in the *Mahii-
yiinasarrzgrahopanibandhana (pek. 5552: Li 276a2-3; T. 1598: 402c26-
27), as follows:
A mendicant, a lustful one, and a dog have three [different] concepts (vikaZ-
pana) regarding a beautiful woman's body; namely, [they see it] as
as a lovely woman, and as food. so
Further, here again I would like to reiterate the importance of structural
comparison. In Table 1, these verses of the Saundarananda fall in the
section on indriyasarrzvara (no. 3). Then, obviously the first thing to do is
to compare them with the corresponding part of the Sriivakabhiimi, where
we find the following passage:
Visual consciousness arises dependent on the eye
and visible things (rilpiilJ1). Following the visual consciousness, discriminating
mental consciousness (vikaZpakaT(l manovijfiiinaT(l) arises, and it is through
this discriminating mental consciousness that one clings to (saT(lrajyate) a
visible thing of attractive appearance and hates (vyiipadyate) visible things
of unattractive appearance. (ShOmonji KenkyUkai ed. 102.2-5)51
This passage should be compared, in particular, with Saundarananda
13.49 quoted above. These two passages express fairly similar ideas using
similar words.
to the later trisvabhava theory. On the other hand, it is notable that the expression abhUta-
parikalpa seems to be missing in the YogiiciirabhUmi . . See Schmithausen ("Zur Litera-
turgeschichte" 820).
We should also keep in mind that abhUtaparikalpa is found in some Mahayana siitras,
e.g., Ugradattapariprcchii (quoted in the 110.14-15), and Vimalakir-
tinirdda (ibid. 140.20). See also Aramaki Noritoshi ("Miroku ronjo"), who emphasizes
the importance of the lfiiiniilokiiltrf{lkiirasutra in the development of this concept.
I thank Professors Iwata Takashi and Harada Waso for their suggestions and informa-
tion on some of these points.
50 Lamotte (La somme 2: 106; Le traitt2: 733) points out that the Sanskrit text of this
verse is quoted in the SarvadarsanasaT[lgraha (12.7-8) as follows:
parivralkiimukasuniim ekasyiiIp. pramadiitanau /
kunapah kiiminI bhaksya iti tisro vikalpaniil;t II
The similarity with the above passage from the * Mahiiprajfiiipiiramitiisiistra is also
noted by Lamotte (Le traitl).
51 pralltya riipiir.rl cotpadyate utpadyate
vik;alpakam manovijfianam, yena vikalpakena manovijfianena
/ yyapadyate /
This passage is found in SriivakabhUmi (C) in the table.
ill the Saundarananda, in the same section on indriyastlf!lvara just prior
to the aforementioned verses, there appears another noteworthy verse:
Inevitably, here in this world, the sense faculties would function in their
respective spheres. But there [in their spheres], the primary charaCteristics
(nimitta) or the secondary characteristics (anuvyaiijana) should not be
grasped (na griihya). (13.41)52
This verse is reminiscent of the following passage from the SriivakabhUmi:
Having seen visible things with his eye, [the practitioner] does not 'grasp their
primary or secondary characteristics. (ShOmonji Kenkyiikai ed. 16.22-23)53
It should be noted that: (a) in both the Saundarananda and the Sriivaka-
bhumi, grasping the nimitta and the anuvyafijana is discussed; (b) in both
texts, the emphasis is on the discriminating manas or manovijfiiina that
works with or after sensory perception (see Saundarananda 13.49). The
Saundarananda and the Sriivakabhumi seem to be closely related on these
points.
Therefore, and Yogaciira seem to share the same
position on this matter. It is clear that this view is not shared by the ortho-
dox Sarvastivada, since it is expressly rejected in the (T. 1545:
288b27-c1).54
Provisional Conclusions
Thus far we have examined the relationship among Sautran-
tika, and Y ogaciira from the meditative and theoretical points of view.
Admittedly, we have only been able to discuss a few of the relevant
points, but even this limited examination has revealed that these traditions
were intricately intertwined.
52 avasymp. gocare sve sve vartitavyam ihendriyaiJ:.! /
nimittam tatra na grahyam anuvyafijanam eva ca II
53 sa rii'pani na nimittagraru bhavati, nanuvyamjanagraru.
This line is in SriivakabhUmi (A) in Table 1. See Yamabe, Fujitani, and Harada (11,
16-17).
54 It is noteworthy that a somewhat similar theory appears in the Vibhanga!thakathii (9.28-
10.10; Mori 182) as a theory of the VitaI).Qavadin. Concerning the identity of the VitaI).Qavadin,
see Mori and Silk. I thank Professor Lance Consins for bringing this point to my attention.
On the one hand, it seems very likely that was close to the
meditative tradition that later formed the Y ogacara school. On the other
hand, texts contain many points that are akin to the Dar-
or Sautrantika tradition. Further, as I have mentioned, many of
these Sautrantika-like elements are also found in the Yogiiciirabhilmi.
Considering these points, it appears that the Yogacara tradition and the
Sautrantika-like elements were almost inseparably interconnected long
before the compilation of the Yogiiciirabhilmi.
This, however, does not mean that we can trace a single line of develop-
ment from via the Yogiiciirabhilmi to Vasubandhu. As we have
seen, the matter is far more complex. See Table 7 in the appendix. One
point of which approves (i.e., the denial of the existence of
real sukha) is neither found in the Yogiiciirabhilmi nor accepted by Vasu-
bandhu. Nevertheless, this point is attested in an early text
(*Tattvasiddhi) and a few other relevant sources. Another point
propounds (i.e., anusaya = bfja theory) is attested in the Yogiiciirabhilmi
and is also accepted by Vasubandhu but is not (at least clearly) attested
in the early sources. The same theory is attributed to the
Vibhajyavadins in the Things are very complicated, and we need
to do much more research before we can paint a more reliable picture.
One point that seems relatively certain at this moment is that the Dar-
or Sautrantika tradition was fairly closely linked to meditative tra-
ditions.
55
Therefore, my (admittedly very tentative) working hypothesis
at this stage is that the critiques of the orthodox Sarvastivada theories
transmitted to us as or Sautrantika views were perhaps the
opinions of more practice-oriented people who found the Sarvastivada
system at times too artificial to follow. Of course, there would have been
variant opinions even among these practice-oriented people, and so it is
not surprising that scholars have noticed many different opinions within
the or Sautrantika tradition. Needless to say, at this stage this
is nothing but an untested hypothesis, and I would like to examine its
validity in my future research.
55 Cf. Yin Shun, who observes that the emphasized the practice of medi-
tation (Shuo i-ch'ieh you-pu 374-75),
References
Primary Sources
(A-p'i-ta-mo Ta-p'i-p'o-sha lun
T.1545.
Abhidharrnadipa. Abhidharrnadipa with Ed. Padmanabh S. Jaini.
2nd. ed. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 4. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal
Research Institute, 1977.
Abhidharrnakosabhii.fja. Vasubandhu. Abhidharrnakosabhii.fjam ofVasubandhu.
Ed. P. Pradhan. 2nd. ed. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 8. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal
Research Institute, 1975.
Abhidharrnakosavyakhya. Yasomitra. Sphutarthii Abhidharrnakosavyakhya. Ed.
U. Wogihara. 1936. Reprint. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1990.
Anguttara-nikaya. PTS ed.
Bodhisattvabhumi. BodhisattvabhUmi: A Statement of Whole Course of the Bodhi-
sattva (Being Fifteenth Section ofYogacarabhUmi). Ed. Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo:
Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1971.
Buddhacarita. The Buddhacarita: Or, Acts of the Buddha. Ed. and trans. E.H. John-
ston. 1935-36. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984.
Ch'u san-tsang chi chi Compiled by Seng-yii {Illtti. T. 2145.
Cu{ahatthipadopama-sutta. Majjhima-nikiiya, no. 27; Hsiang-chi-yu ching
(Madhyarniigama, no. 146).
Dlghanikaya, PTS ed.
Ekottarikagama (Tseng-i a-han ching T. 125.
Hsil-hsien-t'i ching Madhyamagama, No. 153.
Madhyamagama (Chung a-han ching 'PilRJi3*!ll.). T. 26.
Madhyantavibhiiga. Madhyantavibhiiga-bhii.fja. Ed. Gadjin M. Nagao. Tokyo:
Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964.
Magandiya-suttanta. Majjhima-nikaya, no. 75.
Mahiiniddesa. In Niddesa. PTS ed.
*Mahiiprajiiaparamitasastra (Ta chih-tu lun T. 1509.
Mahiissapura-sutta. Majjhima-nikiiya, no. 39; Ma-i ching (Madhyama-
gama, no. 182); Ekottarikagama, no. 49.8.
*Mahiiyanasarrtgrahopanibandhana. Asvabhava. Pek. 5552; T. 1598.
Majjhima-nikaya. PTS ed.
*Nyayanusara (Shun cheng-li lun Sarighabhadra. T. 1562.
(Wu-shih p'i-p'o-sha lun Dharmatrata.
T. 1555.
Pratftyasamutpadavyakhya (Pratftyasamutpiidadivibhanganirde.sa). Vasubandhu.
Pek. 5496.
Samaiiiiaphala-sutta. Dfghanikiiya, no. 2.
Sarrtyuktagama (Tsa a-han ching T. 99.
Sarvadarsanasal'{lgraha. AnandasramasrupsIqiagranthavali, 51.
AnandiiSrama, 1977.
Saundarananda. The Saundarananda of Ed. E.H. Johnston. London:
Oxford University Press, 1928.
Savitarkasaviciiradibhfuni. The Yogiiciirabhami of Aciirya Asanga. Ed. Vidhushe-
khara Bhattacharya. Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1957.
in the Pek. 5539; T. 1579.
ofSiintideva. Ed. P.L. Vaidya. Buddhist San-
skrit Texts 11. Darbhanga: Mithila fustitute, 1961.
Sriivakabhilmi. Sriivakabhami of Aciirya Asanga. Ed. Karunesha Shukla. Tibetan
Sanskrit Works Series 14. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research fustitute, 1973;
Yugaron ShOmonji daiichi yugasho: Sansukurittogo tekisuto to wayaku
: "!t:/ A !;l) 'Y "i!5'"::f-A l- c ;fDlIR (Sriivakabhumi:
Revised Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation, the First Chapter). Ed. ShO-
monji Kenkyiikai (Sravakabhfuni Study Group). Tokyo: San-
kiM Busshorin, 1998.
*Tattvasiddhi (Ch'eng-shih lun Harivarman. T. 1646.
Tso-ch'an san-mei ching Compiled by Kumiirajlva. T. 614.
Vibhangatthakathii. Sammoha-vinodanf Abhidhamma-pitake Vibhangatthakathii.
PTS ed.
ViniscayasrupgrahaI)I. Part of the Yogiiciirabhami. Pek. 5539; T. 1579.
Yogiiciirabhumi. See Bodhisattvabhami; Savitarkasaviciiradibhfuni; Savitarkasavi-
ciiradibhiimi in the ViniscayasrupgrahaI)I; Sravakabhumi.
*Yogiiciirabhumi of (Hsiu-hsin tao-ti ching T. 606.
Modem Works
Aramaki Noritoshi "Miroku ronjo ni okero 'komB funbetsu' no kigen ni
tsuite" Bukkyogaku seminii
j-- 75 (2002): 1-28.
Bareau, Andre. Les sectes bouddhiques du petit vehicule. Saigon: Ecole Fran9aise
d'Extreme-Orient, 1955.
de Jong, J.w. Review: Biswanath Bhattacharya, Santiniketan, 1976.
Indo-Iranian Journal 20.1/2 (1978): 124-27.
Demieville, Paul. "La Yogiiciirabhami de Bulletin de l'Ecole Fran-
faise d'Extreme-Orient 44.2 (1954): 339-436.
Enomoto Fumio "'Konpon Setsu Issai Ubu' to 'Setsu issai ubu'" r m *
c Indogaku Bukkyogaku kenkyu
47.1 (1998): 392-400.
'''Mi.ilasarvastivadin' and 'Sarvastivadin. '" Vividharatnakaral:u!aka: Fest-
gabe for Adelheid Mette. Ed. Christine Chojnacki, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, and
Volker M. Tschannerl. fudica et Tibetica 37. Swisttal-Odendorf, 2000. 239-
250.
246 . NOBUYOSHI YAMABE
Fukuda Takumi "Jojitsuron no zuimen ron" Kato
JunshO Hakushi kanreki kinen ronshU: Abidaruma Bukkyo to Indo shiso.
/ Ed. Kat6 Junsh6
Hakushi Kanreki Killen Ronshii Kankokai
Tokyo: Shunjiisha, 2000. 151-65.
-. Review: Kat6 JunshO cho, Kyoryobu no kenkyu
Bukkyogaku semina T- 50: 46-52, 1989.
Fukuhara Ry6gon Bukkyo shoha no gakusetsu hihan Jojitsuron no
kenkyu Kyoto: Nagata BunshOdo, 1969.
Hakamaya Noriaki "Piirvacarya k6" Indogaku Bukkyo-
gaku kenkyu 34.2 (1986): 859-66.
Harada Waso .@:83fo,*,. "Dignaga no HastavalaprakarmJa & Vrtti: Wayaku to
Skt. kangen'yaku no kokoromi," Dignaga 0) HastavalaprakaraI).a & Vrtti:
c Skt. Ryukoku Daigaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyushitsu nenpo
6 (1993): 92-110.
"<Kyory6bu no 'tans6 no' shiki no nagare> to iu gainen eno gimon" <1l:II:
B'BO) rlji.!fi!iO)J mlMmtn>c part 1. Indogaku Chibettogaku
kenkyU1 / 1 (1996): 135-93.
Hartmann, Jens-Uwe. "Neue und Matrceta-Fragmente aus Ostturkis-
tan." Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschajten in GOttingen I. Philolo-
gisch-Historische Klasse 1988.2: 53-92.
Honj6 Yoshifumi *El:.&Jt. "Memyo no gakuha ni kansuru senko gakusetsu
no ginmi: Jonsuton setsu" 3 / A l-
/il)l-. Watanabe Fumimaro Hakushi tsuito kinen ronshU Genshi Bukkyo
to DaijO Bukkyo 71t<:! .@:.tztlWb.c * vol. 2.
Kyoto: Nagata Bunsh6d6, 1993.
"Memy6 saku Saundarananda dai 13 shO, 22-26" W-B-':7 /:$"5T/
:$".! m13:$:, 22-26. Bukkyo ronso 37 (1992): 19-22.
"Memyo shi no naka no Ky6ry6bu setsu" Indo-
gaku Bukkyogaku kenkyu 36.1 (1987): 390-95.
"Sautrantika." Indogaku Bukkyogaku kenkyu 40.2 (1992):
933-39.
Jalli, Padmanabh S. "The Sautrantika Theory of BVa." Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 22.2 (1959): 236-49.
Johnston, E.H. The Buddhacarita: Or, Acts of the Buddha. Reprint (3 pts. in 1)
Delhi: MotHaI Banarsidass, 1984.
Kato Junshoj]OilU!ii'i[. Kyoryobu no kenkyu *Iit$O)'lilfll;. Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1989.
-. "Zuimen: anusaya" anusaya. Bukkyogaku 28 (1990): 1-32.
Kimura Taiken *H*'.fi. "Funbetsu Ronja to buha no shozoku ni tsuite" :5:J'551J
ShUkyo kenkyu n.s. 2.6 (1925): 25-56.
Kritzer, Robert. "Sar[1skiirapratyayaJ?'! vijfianam in the Abhidharmakosa." Indo-
gaku Bukkyogaku kenkyu 41.1 (1992): 519-523.
ON THE SCHOOL AFFILIATION OF ASVAGHO!?A 247
-. Rebirth and Causation in the Yogacara Abhidhanna. Wiener Studien zur
Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 44. Vienna: Arbeitskreis fUr tibetische und
buddhistische 'Studien, Universitat Wien, 1999.
"Vasubandhu on sal]1skiirapratyayal]1 vijiiiinam." The Journal of the Interna-
tional Association of Buddhist Studies 16.1 (1993): 24-55.
Lamotte, Etienne. Histoire du bouddhisme indien, des origines a l' ere Saka. Lou-
vain: Bibliotheque du Museon, 1958.
-. La somme du Grand Vehicule d'Asanga (Mahiiyanasal]1graha). Tome 2.
Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 8. 1938. Louvain-La-Neuve:
Universite de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1973.
-. Le traite de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nagarjuna (Mahiiprajfiaparami-
tiiSastra). Tome 2. Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 26.
1949, Louvain-La-Neuve: Universite de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1981.
La Vallee Poussin, Louis de. L'Abhidhannakosa de Vasubandhu: traduction et
annotations. Tome 1. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 16. Brussels: Insti-
tut BeIge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1980.
-. Notes de bibliographie bouddhique. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 5
(1937): 243-304.
Matsuda Kazunobu "Vyakhyayukti no nitai setsu: Vasubandhu kenkyfi
nato (2)" Vyakhyayukti Vasubandhu - r (2). Indogaku
Bukkyogaku kenkyii 33.2 (1985): 750-56.
Matsunami Seiren "Memyo saku Tansei naru Nanda to sono shiso"
Shiikyo kenkyii n.s. 13.3 (1936):
115-29.
-. Memyo Tansei naru Nanda iJiiijIEtt Ed. Matsunami Seiren Sen-
sei IkoshU Kankokai Tokyo: SankibO Busshorin,
1981.
"Yugagyoha no so to shite no Memyo" TaishO
Daigaku kenykii kiyo 39 (1954). Reprint in Matsunami
Seiren, Bukkyo ni okeru shin to gyo 7.lFa efT, 123-71. Kyoto:
Heirakuji Shoten, 1967.
Miyamoto ShOson "Hiyusha, Daitoku Hokku, Doju, Yumanron no ken-
kyii" Nippon Bukkyogaku Kyokai
nenpo B 1 (1929): 115-92.
Miyashita Sew '8"TIlW)\lJ. "Genkanhenchitai genkan" Bukkyo-
gaku semina T- 47 (1988): 47-56.
-. "Kusharon ni okeru honmu kon'u ron no haikei: ShOgi kUshOkyo no kaishaku
o megutte"
<"? L. Bukkyogaku semina T- 44 (1986): 7-37.
Mizuno Kogen 7l<!Ilfsb.51;. "Hiyushi to Jojitsuron" e 1931.
Reprint in Mizuno Kogen chosakushii vol. 2. Tokyo:
Shunjiisha, 1997. 279-300.
Mori Sodo. "The VitaI).qavadins (Sophists) as seen in the Pali Anhakathas."
Essays on the Piili and Buddhist Civilization. Ed. The Society for the Study
of Pali and Buddhist Civilization. Tokyo: SankibO Busshorin. 171-88.
Mukai Akira ",Yugaron ni okeru kako mirai jitsuu ron ni tsuite" Hffi(1IJOfHli.n
1;:11Nt Indogaku Bukkyogaku kenkyu
20.2 (1972): 140-41.
Nishi Giyfi Abidatsuma Bukkyo no Tokyo:
Kokusho Kankokai, 1975.
-. "Buha Bukkyo ni okeru yugashi to sono yakuwari" .::,:rm1lJUBiP
c{-0)1!iJliij, Bukkyo 3.1 (1939): 1-48.
Sakurabe Hajirue "Kyoryobu no keitai" Indogaku Bukkyo-
gaku kenkyu 2.1 (1953): 115-16.
Schlingloff, Dieter. Saundarananda in Ajanta." Wiener Zeitschrift for
die KMnde Siidasiens 19 (1975): 85-102.
Schmithausen, Lambert. "Beitriige zur SchulzugehOrigkeit und Textgeschichte
kanonischer und postkanonischer buddhistischer Materialien." Zur Schulzu-
gehOrigkeit von Werken der Hinayiina-Literatur. Ed. Heinz Bechert. Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987.2: 304-406
"Zu dem Rezensionen des Udanavargal.J.." Wiener Zeitschrift for die Kunde
Siidasiens und Archiv for indische Philosophie 14 (1970): 47-124.
"Zur Literaturgeschichte der Alteren Yogacara-Schule." Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft, Supp1ementa 1.3 (1969): 811-23.
Shastri, Haraprasad. Saundarananda Kiivya of Arya Bhadanta Biblio-
theca Indica 192. Calcutta: The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1939.
Silk, Jonathan A. Cui bono? or Follow the Money: Identifying the Sophist in a
Pili Commentary. Buddhist and Indian Studies in Honour of Professor Sodo
Mori. Ed. Publication Committee for Buddhist and Indian Studies in Honour
of Professor Dr. Sodo Mori. Tokyo: Kokusai Bukkyoto Kyokai, 2002. 129-
83.
Tokoro Rie mJ'Jl!J$. "]ojitsuron, Kusharon to Hiyusha, Kyoryobu tono kakawari
ni tsuite" W{ll,11fiffili.! *I:l:lfilcO)jl.!j:b tJ part 1. Mik-
kyo bunka 170(1989): 48-69.
Yamabe Nobuyoshi "Bfja Theory in Vini.scayasa7[lgrahalJl." Indogaku
Bukkyogaku kenkyu. 38.2 (1990): 929-31.
"Piirvacarya no ichi yorei ni tsuite". Piirvacarya KyushU
Ryukoku Tanki Daigaku kiyo. 45 (1999): 203-17.
The Sutra on the Ocean-Like Samiidhi of the Visualization of the Buddha: The
Interfusion of the Chinese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected
in a Fifth Century Apocryphal Sutra. Ph.D. Dissertation. Yale University. Ann
Arbor: UM1 Dissertation Services, 1999.
"Yugashijiron ni okeru zen'aku ingasetsu no ichi sokumen: Iwayuru 'shiki-
shin gokun' setsu 0 chiishin to shite"
ON THE SCHOOL AFFILIATION OF ASVAGHO,sA 249
llii: vlvlg)':@ r@{.-:B:Ii;J m:a=:g:,Ic"cG'"C. Nihon Bukkyo Gakkai nenpo B;;is:
127-146,2000.
Yamabe Nobuyoshl Fujitani Takayuki Harada Yasunori
"Memyo no gakuha shozoku ni tsuite: Saundarananda to ShOmonji
no hikaku kenkyli" Saundarananda c WJlfr.IJ:f:{!U
part 1. Bukkyo bunka 12:1-65,2002.
Yin Shun "Dai chido ron" no sakusha to sono hon'yaku
Translated into Japanese by Iwaki Hidenori Taiwan:
Cheng-kuan Ch'u-pan She, 1993.
-. Shuo J-ch 'ieh yu-pu wei-chu te tun-shu yii tun-shih chih yen-chiu m-1;!i];"tfl)
1968. Taipei: Cheng-wen Ch'u-pan She, 1992.
250 . NOBUYOSm YAMABE
Appendix
Table 1. Prerequisites to Meditation
Cf. Mahiissapura-sutta; Cu!ahdtthipadopama-sutta, Siimaiiiiaphala-sutta.
1
Sriivakabhumi (A) Srlivakabhumi (C)
Saundarananda
*Tattvasiddhi (ShOmonji Ken- (ShOmonji Ken-
(T.1646) kyiikai ed.) kyiikai ed.)
(T. 1579) (T. 1579)
atmasampad atmasarppad (62.8)
(10.2-12.11) l!JiiI1i (402a19)
l!JiiI1i (396b15-c9)
parasampad parasarppad (62.8)
(12.13-16.2) 1illl!JiiI1i (402a19)
filll!liil1i (396c9-397a7)
1. sraddha kusalo dharmacchandal). kusalo dharmacchandal).
(12.30-43) (16.4-11) (62.8)
dharmacchanda (397a7-14) (402a19)
(12.31a) Cf. sraddha (16.5)
(397a9)
pravrajya
JEIl* (397a14-16)
2. sila w.mJiX silasarpvara (16.17-19) silasamvara
(13.10-29) (351a23-b29) (397a16-19) (62.11-98.19)
(402a21-406blO)

(351 b29-c20)
3. indriyasarp- indriyasarpvara indriyasarpvara
vara (13.30-56) (361c21-26) (16.21-18.6) (100.2-114.24)
(297a19-b1) (406b20-408a14)
4. bhojane
bhojane matrajiiata bhojane matrajiiata
matrajiial). (18.8-13) (116.2-148.7)
(14.1-19) (397b1-7)
.. , (408a14-411b22)
5. piirvarp yamarp 1911X:{&1X::fliliB; piirvaratrapararatrarp piirvaratrapararatrarp
triyamayal). (352a18-28) jagarikanuyogal). jagarikanuyuktata
prayogeI;lati- (18.15-20.2) (150.2-170.17)
namya ... 1911X:{&1X:'ffiiIJ@:i!l' :rJJ1X:{&1X:'ffiiIJ@:i!l'
(14.20-34) (397b7-16) (411b8-413c29)
6. sarpprajanan ... sarpprajanadviharita sarpprajanadviharita
smrtim adhatum (20.4-8) (172.2-210.8)
(14.35-45) :iE;;nllif{i: (397b16-22) :iE;;nllif{i:
(413c29-417a17)
7. kayasya/ pravivekya (20.10-13) pravivekyantaraya
manaso vivekal). (397b22-26) (248.7-250.7)
(14.46-52) (420a15-420b5)
ON THE SCHOOL AFFILIATION OF ASVAGHOSA 251
Table 2. Abandoning the Six Vitarkas
Cf. Ahguttara-nikii'ya, no. 3.100; Sal'J'lyuktiigama, no. 1246
Saundarananda
* Tattvasiddhi
SriivakabhUmi Bodhisattvabhiimi
Tso-ch' an san-mei (Shukla ed.) (Wogihara.ed.)
ching
2
(T. 614)
(T. 1646)
(T. 1579) (T. 1579)
8. vitarkaprahfu,1a
vitarka (399.4)
(15.1-69) (352bl-353a22)
fct ,\!I (457b11-12)
(273aI2ff.)
8.1. kama (15.3-11) WtJi\ kamavitarkadayai). kamavitarka
Wt-l: (273b8-12) (352b5-7) (399.4-5) (145.12)
Wt$,\!I (512cl7)
(457bI2)
8.2. vyapada, Ji\, 11M Ji\ [vyapada, vihirpsap vyapada, vihirpsa
vihirpsa (15.12-17) (352b7-9) (145.14)
11M ,f;, (512cl8)
(Z73bZZ-c3)
8.3. akuala
(15.18-Z9)
(Z73c4-8)
8.4. jfiatijana

jfiati[ -vitarkaJ jfiati (145.14)
(15.30-41) (352b 16-c1) (400.4) (51Zc19)
*!l.mJi\ (274a5-20) (457b27)
8.5. janapada

janapada[ -vitarkaJ janapada (145.14)
(15.4Z-51) (35ZcZ-13) (400.4) (512c19)
(274b3-15) 13'!l (457b27)
8.6. amaraJ;la
7F9EJi\
amaravitarka (400.4) amara (145.14)
(15.52-63) (35Zc13-353a5) /F;9E (457bZ7) 7F9E (512c19)
(Z74bI9-c3)
8.7. pratipakp (400.15)
(15.64-69) (457c6-7)
(273a13, a27-b2)
Table 3. Exposition of the Four Noble Truths
SriivakabhUmi
Saundarananda (Shukla ed.)
(T. 1579)
9. iiryasatyavyiikhyiina (16.1-98)
9.1. iiryasatya (16.1-48) (251.14-253.1 )
( 424c10-17)
252
NOBUYOSHI YAMABE
Table 4. Timely Practice
Cf. Anguttara-nikaya, no. 3.100; Sarrzyuktagama, no. 1247
Saundarananda
Sravakabhumi
Tso-ch'an san-mei ching (T. 614)
(Shukla ed.)
(T. 1579)
9.2. kala and abhyupaya of yoga kiilaprayogatii (391.9?4-394.1)
(16.49-67) JJ!1f.f1Jorr (456a9-b14)
If.f . 111f. (285c1ff.)
9.2.1. uddhanyamane: samaya nimittam uddhate dtte uddhatatvabhisarrzkini:
(16.53-54) samathanimitta (391.18-392.19)
W!JjIj: )1': (285c9-12) ll:.W (456a16-b4)
9.2.2. lIyamane: pragrahakrup. nimittam lInam cittam lInatvabhisamkini:
(16.55-56) pragi-ahaniriritta (392.20-393.5)
(285c13-16) iL,ttTIf.f, : (456b4-8)
9.2.3. samyam gate:
nimittam (16.57-58) vinirmukte cetasi:
(285c17-20) (393.6-394.1)

BJWJllI. : (456b8-11)
Table 5. Practice Suitable for One's Temperament
Cf. Mahiiniddesa 2: 239, etc.
YogaciirabhUmi of Saundarananda Sravakabhumi
Tso-ch' an san-mei ching (Shukla ed.)
(T.606) (T.614) (T. 1579)
anuriipe alambane cittam
upanibadhnati (198.15)
anuriipaprayogata (389.14)
(428all)
;j:Ji!1.Joli (455b27-28)
9.2.4. raga: asubha ragacarita (198.13; 207.2;
(191c17-20) (16.59-60) 389.14): asubha (198.14;
202.6; 389.4-5)
(285c21-24) 1i:rr (428all-12; 429c1;
455b28): (428a12;
428c20; 455b28)
9.2.5. vyapada: maim (198.15; 209.14;
(191c20-192a18) (16.61-62) 389.15): maim (198.16;
207.7; 389.15)
(285c25-28) (428a13; 429c25;
455b29): (428a13; 429c3;
455b29)
YogacarabhUmi of Saundarananda SravakabhUmi
Tso-ch' an san-mei ching (Shukla ed.)
(T. 606) (T.614) (T. 1579)
$l!t.: +=IZSli!ll 9.2.6. moha: idaI!lpratyaya- mohacarita (198,16; 210.9-10):
(192a19-25) tii (16.63-64) idaI!lpratyayatiipratItyasa
$l!t.: iiJl.1ZSli!ll mutpiida (198,16; 210.3)
(285c29-286a3) .1T (428a14; 430all; 455b29):
(i!ll1:.)i!llial (428a14; 430a7;
455b29-c1)
$iill: miinacarita (198.17; 218.9):
(192bl-14) *dhiituprabheda (198.17; 211.1)
(ii)1I1T (428a15; 430c1;
455c1-2): (428a15;
430a14; 455c1-2)
$tl:t$: vitarkacarita (198.18; 236.15;
(192a26-29) 389.16): iiniipiinasmrti (198.18;
219.1; 389.16)
(428a16; 433b24;
455c2): (428a16;
430c5; 455c2-3)
9.2.7. Concluding remarks
about kala and abhyupaya
(16.65-67)
(286a4-9)
9.3. Concluding remarks
about abandoning the
vitarkas (16.68-85)
(286alO-11)
9.4. vfrya (16.86-98)
Table 6. Attainment of Arhatship
*YogacarabhUmi of Sravakabhiimi
Saundarananda (Shukla ed.)
(T. 606) (T. 1579)
(217a3-223a14) 10. amrtadhigama (437.16-508.4)
(17.1-73) (465b15-477a13)
254 NOBUYOSm YAMABE
Table 7
Points
Saundara- Vzbhiisii *Tattvasiddhi Yogiiciira- Abhidharma-
nanda (T.1545) (T. 1646) bhumi
etc.
anusaya 15.5-6 "Vibhajya- - Savitarka- "Sautriintika"
= bija
vadin" (?) savicaradi- 278.18-24
313al-4 bhiimi-
Viniscaya
Pek.5539:
ZUI8bl-3.
denial of the 9.40, 17.19 402c16-29; 282b-c - "Sn1ata"
existence of Buddhacarita 714c2-3 330.10-22
a real sukha 11.36-42 (without
specification
of the
proponent)
parikalpa. 13.49-53 "Darstiintika" - Sriivakabhumi "
288b16-27 ShOmonji (Nyiiyiinusiira )
Kenkyiikai ed. T.1562:
102.2-5, etc. 639b4-1O
1 I thank Professor Miyashita Seiki for drawing my attention to J:he Siimaiiiiaphala-sutta.
Tables 1-6 show the correspondences among the Saundarananda, Sriivakabhilmi, and other
relevant texts. In these tables, when the breaks of the relevant sections are clear, I refer
to the beginning and the end of each section. Otherwise, I refer to the line where each key
word appears. In this respect, these tables are not entirely consistent. I omit minor anno-
tations to the following tables. For more detailed annotations, the reader is referred to
Yamabe, Fujitani, Harada (HMemyo" 44-65).
2 Since this portion of the Saundarananda is incorporated into the Tso-ch' an san-mei
ching, I also show the corresponding portions of that text in this table, as well as in Tables
4 and 5. However, it should be noted that not all the verses in the respective sections are
incorporated into the Tso-ch'an san-mei ching. For more details, see Matsunarni (HYuga_
gyoha" 131-44).
3 Vyiipiida and vihirrzsii are not mentioned here. However, comparisons with the list in
the Bodhisattvabhumi shown in the right-most column and with similar lists elsewhere in
the Yogiiciirabhilmi conflITll that kiimavitarkiidayah implies vyiipiida and vihirrzsii.
4 The expression, "kiilaprayogatii, " is missing here, but it is attested at the conclud-
ing line of this section (394.1).
BHADANTA R.A.MA:
A SAUTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHUI
TAKUMI FUKUDA
I. Introduction
The full text of Sanghabhadra's *Abhidharmanyrlyrlnusrlra, or "Con-
formance to the Correct Principle of Abhidharma," is, like many other Sar-
vastivada Abhidharma texts, preserved only in the Chinese translation
by Hstian-tsang (T. 1562). It is a controversial work that attempts to
defend KasmIra Sarvastivadin doctrine against the objections of oppo-
nents, especially of the Sautrantikas, who are frequently cited and agreed
with by Vasubandhu in his Abhidharmakosabhrlrya. Following the exam-
ple of the Abhidharmakosa in its compact and highly organized style of
doctrinal presentation, Sanghabhadra refutes Vasubandhu's so-called
Sautrantika positions, which deviate from Sarvastivadin orthodoxy.2 In
addition, Sarighabhadra also quotes and criticizes the opinions of other
I An earlier version of this paper was published in Japanese under the title, "Kyoryobu
no daitoku Rama," Bukkyo shigaku kenkyu 41/ 1 (1988): 1-36. I am grateful to Prof. Robert
Kritzer for correcting my English, as well as for many helpful comments and suggestions.
I have also benefited from the kind advice of Prof. Waso Harada. Any inaccuracies in the
present paper are, of course, solely my own responsibility.
2 For a general survey of the *Nyayanusara, see Cox (1995: 56-58); Willemen, Des-
sein, and Cox (1998: 240-249). Other extant works attributed to Sanghabhadra are: (1)
* Samayapradfpika, the condensed version of the * Nyayanusara preserved in the Chinese
translation by Hsiian-tsang (T. 1563); (2) *Si1tranurupa SastrakarikabhafYa, a text that is
preserved in the Tibetan tanjur as one of the commentaries on the Abhidharmakosa (peking.
5592; sDe dge 4091). The *Si1tranurupa commentary used to be considered the work
of slob dpon 'Dul bzan (= acaryaVinftabhadara), but Marek Mejor has asserted that this
name is supported only by the Peking edition, and, according to other sources, it should
be corrected to slob dpon 'Dus bzan (= acaryaSanghabhadra). Further, Mejor assumes that
the *Si1tranurupa might be an abridgment of the *Samayapradfpika edited by the Tibetan
translator(s). This identification of the text itself cannot be accepted, because the *Si1tra-
nuri1pa is, in fact, an abridgment of the AbhidharmakosabhafYa, not of the * Nyayanusara.
On the other hand Mejor's identification of the author seems to me to be correct. See Mejor
(1991: 29-38).
256 TAKlJMI FUKUDA
Sautrantikas preceding Vasubandhu who are not referred to in the Kosa,
claiming that they are merely and are not worthy of being
called Sautrantikas.
3
Although Vasubandhu mentions nothing about the identity of his own
Sautrantika positions, or their relationship to the views, which
appear in the Kosa three tirnes,4 Sanghabhadra's above statement is
3 In the opening section of the * Nyiiytinustira, where the distinction between defiled
(stisrava) and undefiled (antisrava) factors is discussed, Sanghabhadra refers to an opinion
that the factors that constitute the body of an arhat are undefiled. According to Sangha-
bhadra, this view is attributed to the including SrUiita. The same opinion is
mentioned in a Sautrantika passage in Chapter Four of the Kosa (Abhidharmakosabhii.va:
197.8; La Vallee Poussin 1980. v. 3: 19; Pruden 1988-1990. v. 2: 563), not as the opinion
of Sautrantikas themselves but cited as an opinion of others (a pare ). The * Nyiiytinustira
has a long discussion on this, and concludes with the following passage: "Besides, [to jus-
tify theii doctrine] make a vain effort, like stirring empty space. [Whatever
they may say,] it is determined by Scripture (sutra) that the first fifteen of the eighteen ele-
ments (dOOtu) are, without exception, defiled (stisrava), [and, therefore, the body of an arhat
must be considered as defiled] ..... They say 'We do not recite such Scripture.' [However,]
it is impossible to achieve their aim without reading Scriptures. Read Scriptures diligently
if you want to accomplish your aim. Further, since they do not take all Scriptures as author-
ity, how can they address [themselves] as the 'Scripturalists' (Sautrtintika). Indeed, when
they look at a Scripture and find that it does not accord with their doctrine, then they reject
it, or interpolate a passage which is suitable for their doctrine, and say 'the original pas-
sage has been corrupted by the transmitters.' Otherwise, as in the case of the *Ayatana-
paryiiya (Shun pieh chu ching, Sarrzyukttigama No.322, T. 99: 91c1-22), they do not believe
in the whole [Scripture] at all and claim that it is not a holy teaching since it has been cre-
ated and added to the corpus of canonical works (tigama) by Abhidhiirmikas, who adhere
to their own doctrine. Thus, they revolt against numerous Scriptures, violate the holy teach-
ings, and assert various heterodoxies. In the present treatise I shall reveal them one by one"
CT. 1562: 332a18-29). As Cox has noted (1995: 50 note 98), this is the only example of
an identification of with Sautrantikas in the *Nyiiytinustira. However, in my
opiI)ion, Sanghabhadra's stance is clearly stated in this one and only proclamation: Sautriin-
tikas are nothing else but and they are the primal opponent of this polemical
work.
4 All of these three references to views are found in Chapter Four of
the Kosa: (1) The argument about the classification of determinate action (niyatakarman)
and indeterminate action (aniyatavedanzyakarman) (Abhidharmakosabhii.va: 229.17-31; La
Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 3: 116-117; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 626). Their mode of classi-
fication is rejected by both the Kosa and the * Nyiiytinustira. It is notable that SaIighabhadra
does not ascribe this view to Vasubandhu (T. 1562: 570b28-c28), while
says are Sautrantikas" Sautrtintikal} [Abhidharm-
kosavytikhyti: 392.21]); (2) state that greed (abhidhyti), wickedness (vytiptira),
and false view are nothing but mental action (manaskarman) (Abhidhar-
makosabhti.va: 237.13-19; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 3: 136; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2:
639). This to correspond to Sriliita's view (T. 1562: 339b14-20, 340b18-19), and,
BHADANTA RAMA: A SAUTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 257
reliable enough, since all the bIographical information con-
cerning Sanghabhadra agrees that he was a learned KiiSmIra Sarviistivada
master contemporary with Vasubandhu.
5
This suggests that Sanghabhadra
should have known much about the background of the term Sautrantika
used by Vasubandhu. Later commentaries and the historical documents
also agree that and Sautrantikas belong to the same lineage.
6
Besides, it should be noted that Sanghabhadra's statement supports the
hypothesis shared by many modern scholars that the name Sautrantika is
used by the group itself as a self-designation since it has a positive
connotation, while their opponents call them which has a
pejorative connotation.
7
Thus, there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the later Sautrantikas are the descendants of the
who appear in the*Vibha,s-tZ Compendia
8
as the prime opponents of the
KiiSmIra Sarviistiviidins.
9
while Vasubandhu does not state his position on this topic, Sailghabhadra criticizes it as
if it were also supported by Vasubandhu (T. 1562: 574b29). Yasornitra mentions that
"D3ni!iintikas are a variety of Sautriintikas" ity arthalJ
[Abhidharmkosavyakhya: 400.17]); (3) The same opinion as above (2) is repeated in the
interpretation of the term "course of action" (karmapatha)
248.10-12; La Vallee Poussin 1980, y. 3: 169; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 658-659; Note
that Poussin's translation takes this as the opinion of "Sautriintikas," while both Chinese
translations attribute it to "Daqrantikas." See T. 1558: 88c13; T. 1559: 243c8). There-
fore, this, too, cannot be considered as Vasubandhu's own view, although Yasornitra
explains that this opinion is accepted by Vasubandhu (Abhidharmkosavyakhyii: 400.17).
The *Nyiiyanusara ignores this argument. On the basis of these passages, the following
explanation is suggested: Vasubandhu attributed to the "D3ni!iintikas" those views of the
earlier that were unacceptable to him, and distinguished them
from his own "Sautriintika" positions. Sailghabhadra was indeed aware that Vasubandhu
distinguished between the two names, although, following the standpoint of orthodox Sar-
vastivada, Sailghabhadra claimed that the D3ni!iintikas were none other than Sautrantikas.
Yasornitra, who commented on the Kosa several centuries later, was less aware of the dif-
ference. See Kato (1989: 81-85). For the period of Yasornitra, see Mejor (1991: 38-39).
5 For a review of the biographical information of Sailghabhadra, see Cox (1995: 53-55);
Willemen, Dessein, and Cox (1998: 241-243).
6 See Cox (1995: 49-50, note 86).
7 See Przyluski (1940: 250); Cox (1995: 39).
8 There are three extant translations of the commentaries preserved in the
Chinese Tripi!aka: (T. 1545) translated by Hsiian-tsang,
(T. 1546) translated by Buddhavarman, Tao t'ai, and others, and (T. 1547) trans-
lated by SaJ}.ghabhiiti. They clearly are not translated from the same original text but from
three different recensions. For the complicated ramification of the Sarvastivadins and of
the transmission of texts, see Enomoto (1996); Willemen, Dessein, and Cox (1998:
258 . TAKUMr FUKUDA
Nevertheless, recent studies have raised the question of whether
Vasubandhu's Sautrantika views can be traced to the Jndeed,
there are certain similarities between the in the
and the in the *Nyayanusara that indicate a con-
sistent doctrinal development, at least in the case of SrUata, a Sautrantika
master who is called "Sthavira" in the *Nyayanusara.
lO
But the opinions
229-237). In this paper, I shall refer to Hsiian-tsang's version as the representative one (and
often refer to the corresponding part of Buddhavannan's version). Although Hstian-tsang
renders the title as A-p 'i-ta-mo ta-p 'i-p' a sha lun (* I am unable
to find a Sanskrit source that suggests the term "maha." Therefore, the original text that
Hsiian-tsang translated can be considered to have been entitled not
Similarly, when Hsiian-tsang translated the title of the Abhidharmasamuc-
caya as Ta-ch'eng a-p'i-ta-mo chi lun [Mahiiyanabhidharmasamuccayal, he added the
element "mahiiyana."
9 For an extended review of the relation between the DiiTIitantikas and the Sautrantikas,
see Cox (1995: 37-41). ,
\0 For the thought of SrIliita the Sautriintika master, see Kato (1989). Although Kato's
study of SrIliita is comprehensive, he does not investigate the reason why SrIliita is addressed
as "Sthavira" throughout the *Nyiiyanusara. Yin shun (1980: 562) suggests the possibility
that Saitghabhadra applies this title ("the venerable monk") to SrIliita with a sense of irony,
since there are several passages in the * Nyiiyanusara in which Saitghabhadra taunts SIi-
liita for his senility (see note 25 below). On the other hand, in the commentaries of the Kosa,
there are some (or Sautriintikas) who are also called "Sthavira."
One of these is the "Bhadanta" who appears in Chapter One of the Kosa (Abhidhar-
13.12-15; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 1: 36; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 1: 78).
Yasomitra comments that he is "Sthavira" or a Sautriintika who is called by such a name
(Bhadanta iti Sthaviral) / kascit Sautrtintikas tannamti va [Abhidharmkosavyakhya: 44.14-
15]), while Sthiramati (peking. 5875: To 84a7) and PUn;tavardhana (peking. 5597: Iu 51a8)
call him sthavira Dhannatrata" (dpe stan sde pa'i gnas brtan Chos skyob /
dpe stan pa gnas brtan Chos skyob). The *Nyiiyiinusiira does not comment here.
Probably the same "Bhadanta" appears again in Chapter Two of the Kosa (Abhidhar-
98.14-15; La Vallee POUssin 1980, v. 1: 301; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 1: 298).
He is described as "Sthavira who is a Sautriintika" by Yasomitra (Bhadantal) Sthaviral)
Sautriintikal) [Abhidharmkosavyiikhyii: 232.28]), and as sthavira Dhanna-
triita" by Sthirarnati (Peking. 5875: To 357a4) and PiiIVavardhana (Peking. 5597: Iu
287b3). The *Nyiiyiinusara does not mention who he is but instead refers to the opinion
of the which seems very similar to this position of Bhadanta's (T. 1562:
445b12-15).
The opinion of "others" (apare) is mentioned in Chapter Three of the Kosa (Abhidhar-
135.6-7; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 2: 71; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 408).
YaSomitra glosses apare:"SthaviraVasubandhu, who is the teacher of iiciiryaManoratha,
says so" (sthaviro Vasubandhur iiciiryaManorathopiidhyiiya aha; [Abhidharmkosavyiikhyii:
289.6]). Sthiramati, PUn;tavardhana, and Saitghabhadra do not mention who this is. The Chi-
nese commentator, P'u-kuang, says that he is "Vasubandhu the elder, a dissident Sarviis-
tiviidin" (T. 1821: 167c20-22). It is notable that, as Mejor (1991: 44) has pointed out, the
BHADANTA RAMA: A SAUTAANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 259
ascribed to Sautrantikas in the Kosa have no such obvious resemblance
to this lineage, not even to Srilata, the older con-
temporary of Vasubandhu. Other modem scholarly studies have pointed
out that the Sautrantika views in the Kosa correspond more closely to
early Yogacara doctrine as seen in the YogacarabhUmi than to any other
preceding lineage. Therefore, a number of schol-
ars suspect that Vasubandhu already was a Yogacara when he composed
the Kosa, and that his appellation "Sautrantika" was only a disguise for
his actual affiliation.ll
The aim of this paper is to reconsider this issue by examining the
thought of another Sautrantika master contemporary with Vasubandhu,
Bhadanta Rama. His opinions are fragmentarily referred to in the *Nya-
yanusara, and Sailghabhadra says that he is a disciple of SrlHita.
12
On the
other hand, as is mentioned below, some of his arguments are adopted in
the Kosa. Hence, Bhadanta Rama can be placed chronologically between
Srlliita and Vasubandhu, and therefore an analysis of his arguments may
Kosa, following the opinion of this "sthavira Vasubandhu," refers to a similar but more
complicated view which is ascribed to Sn1ata by Yasomitra (Abhidharmkosavyiikhyii:
289.23), Sthiramati (peking. 5875: To 47b6), and Piin).avardhana (peking. 5597: Iu 344b6).
The opinion of "some" (anye) is mentioned in Chapter Four of the Kosa (Abhidhar-
makosabhiirya: 193.21-22; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 3: 7; Pruden 1988-1990 v. 2: 554).
According to the Sanskrit text of Yasomitra's commentary (Abhidharmkosavyiikhyii: 347.9),
they are "sthavira Vasubandhu and others," but the Tibetan translation (peking 5593: Chu
4a) renders it as sthavira Vasumitra (gnas brtan Dbyig bses). Further, Sthiramati (peking.
5875: Tho l24a7) and PUmavardhana (peking. 5597: Nu 6a7) refer to him as bhadanta
Srilata (slob dpon The *Nyiiyiinusiira (T. 1562: 534a18) only says "some."
The Chinese commentators P'u-kuang (T. 1821: 202cll) and Fa-pao (T. 1822: 628c4-5)
ascribe this opinion to "Sthavira." See Mejor (1991: 46).
Thus, in the first two cases, the commentaries agree on the fact that Bhadanta is also
called Sthavira (Dharmatrata) and he is a or Sautrantika. The last two cases
suggest that the positions of sthavira Vasubandhu (or sthavira Vasumitra) and Srilata (who
is called Sthavira in the * Nyiiyiinusiira) are so close that they caused misidentification by
later commentators (l do not accept Frauwallner's hypothesis that this sthavira Vasubandhu
was the "old Vasubandhu" who composed the commentaries on the works of Asanga).
From this evidence, I suppose that there was a subset or small group of or
Sautrantikas who are distinguished by the appellation "sthavira" and that the *Nyiiyiinusiira
used the appellation to refer to Srilata because he was the most renowned master in this
group.
11 See Kritzer (1999: 20,202); Harada (1996: 148-160). The current state of the subject
is surveyed by Robert Kritzer in his article in this issue. See also note 51.
12 A Chinese source calls him "the third master of Sautrantika." See note 19.
260 TAKUMI FUKUDA
provide some new infonnation on the problem of doctrinal discontinuity
between the preceding lineage and the Sautran-
tika Vasubandhu.
ll. Fragments Concerning Rama
Fragments of Rama's arguments appear eight times in the *Nyayanu-
sara. Seven of these are found in the third chapter or *Pratltya-
samutpadanirdda, corresponding to the Lokanirdesa of the Kosa, while
the last one is in the beginning of the next chapter, the Karmanirdesa. Fur-
thennore, there are two cases in which the opinions of "others" (a pare)
in the Kosa are ascribed to "Rama" by later commentators. However, in
these cases SaIighabhadra says little and does not mention who those
"others" are.13 Therefore, they are not taken into consideration here, except
13 There are two cases in which the opinion of "others" (apare) in the Abhidharma-
kosabhiieYa is ascribed to Rama by the commentaries. One is found in Chapter Four (Abhi-
dharmakosabhiieYa: 292.19-293.4; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 4: 45; Pruden 1988-1990,
v. 3: 801-802). Here, Sarvastivadins present their classification of four types of answers
to questions: categorical answer (ekal[lsavyakaralJa), answer by distinguishing (vibhaj-
yavyakaralJa), answer by question (parip!cchavyakaralJa), and no answer (sthiipanfya).
Against this, "others" claim that such a division is meaningless, since "no answer" can-
not be understood as a type of answer, while the remaining three can be integrated into
the first type,"categorical answer." While Sailghabhadra does not treat this opinion or
mention who those others are, Sthiramati (Peking. 5875: Tho. 267b5), PUfI.lavardhana
(peking. 5594: Nu. 137b5, 138al), and Yasomitra (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 465.24,31)
ascribe this view to Rama. In the following argument, Abhidharmikas say that a question
such as "Teach. me dharmas" should be classified according to the interrogator's inten-
tion. If the question is asked with a sincere mind, then it should be answered by determining,
./'There are a lot of dharmas." However if the question is ill-intentioned, then one should
respond with the question, "Which dharmas shall I teach you?" Then the opponent raises
an objection that such dialogues cannot be considered as a kind of question and answer
(Abhidharmkosabhaiiya: 293.14-15; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 4: 46-47; Pruden 1988-
1990, v. 3: 803). This opponent is also identified as Rama by Sthiramati (Peking. 5875:
Tho. 268a3), PUfI.lavardhana (Peking. 5594: Nu, 138b2), and Yasomitra (Abhidharma-
kosavyakhya: 466.15). At the end of the argument,Vaubandhu supports the
position.
The other case is found in Chapter Six (AbhidharmakosabhiieYa: 375.17-18; La Vallee
Poussin 1980, v. 4: 260-261; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 3: 1006-1007). The topic is the meaning
of the term "temporary and cherished deliverance" (samayiki kanta ceto-vimukuti). The
V interpret the term literally, for they think this term is evidence for their doc-
trine that even arhats have the possibility of retrogression: the deliverance attained by
arhats is not always permanent, but sometimes temporary. However, Sautrautika Vasubandhu
to note the fact that later commentators also accept that there was an
abhidhanna master called Rfuna before Vasubandhu who opposed Sarva-
stivada orthodoxy. Below, all the fragments of Rfuna in the *Nyiiyiinusiira
will be examined according to their order of appearance in the text.
Argument 1. Reflected Images
Against the Sarvastivadins, who accept the existence of antariibhava
or the intennediate state between death and rebirth, an opponent makes
the objection that there is no antariibhava since sentient beings are reborn
immediately after death, just as a mirror immediately reflects the image
of the object at a distance.
14
Vasubandhu criticizes this saying that the
offers another interpretation, for he does not accept the retrogression of arhats: "it is
described as temporary [deliverance] on the basis of the fact that the fundamental state of
meditation (maulo dhyiinasamiidhi) is realized on an appropriate occasion, and it is also
called 'cherished [deliverance],' since [one who has experienced this meditative state]
desires repeatedly to stay in the true joy [of this meditative state]. Others [state] that [it is
called 'cherished deliverance '] because it is luscious. " Yasomitra ascribes to Rama the opin-
ion, that it is called cherished because it is luscious (iisviidanfyatviid ity apara iti bhadan-
taRiimal; [Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii: 589.17]). However, Sthiramati (Peking. 5875: Tho.
413b6) and Piin).avardhana (peking. 5594: Nu, 249a3-4) do not mention who these apare
are. The * Nyiiyanusiira (T. 1562, 714a14-c1 0) completely ignores this interpretation.
J4 The in the negate the existence of reflected images (T. 1545:
390c4-6). See Cox (1988: 53). However, their argument is not related to the issue of an
intermediate state. Harivarman's *Tattvasiddhi argues against the existence of the inter-
mediate state but without using the simile of the reflected images (T. 1646: 256c21-
257a14). On the other hand, the refers to the opinion of the Vibhajyavadins that
rebirth comes immediately after death so there is no intermediate state, just as light imme-
diately destroys shadow, and shadow immediately destroys light (T. 1545: 356c24-25).
I am not certain about the identity of the Vibhajyavadins, the opponents of the V
whose frequency of appearance in the is secondary to that of the
See Bareau (1955: 169). However, a similar view is found in the *Siiriputriibhidharma
(T. 1548: 608a19), a text probably belonging to the Dharmaguptakas, a branch of the
Mahlsasakas (Bareau 1955: 193). The *Misrakiibhidharmahrdaya also refers to a similar
opinion: From death rebirth arises, just as the moon's image is reflected in the distant
water, while the moon itself does not move into the water. Hence, an intermediate state is
not necessary for the rebirth of sentient beings (T. 1552: 963a14-20)*.
*The Sanskrit title of T. 1552 (Tsa a p'i fan s'hin hsin fun) is usually reconstructed
as Sa1"[lyukta- (or abhidharmahrdaya (-siistra). However, Harada (1993: 107) con-.
siders the original title to have been *Misrakiibhidharmahrdaya for two reasons: (1) the Uighur
version of Sthiramati's Tattvarthii, a commentary on the Kosa, mentions this text as Misra-
kahrdayasiistra; (2) Kosa II.73d 109.21-23) refers to a verse of
"others" (anye) that exactly corresponds to T. 1552 (945al-2), and Yasomitra explains that
"others" refers to the "author of the Misraka" (Misrakakiira [Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii:
262 TAKUMI FUKUDA
simile of the reflection is inappropriate here, for the reflected image is,
unlike the next life, nonexistent. Then the Kosa presents some examples
which disprove the reality of reflected images.l
5
SaIighabhadra agrees with Vasubandhu that there is an antariibhava,
but unlike Vasubandhu, he insists on the existence of the reflected images.
It is a basic Sarvastivada doctrine that only existent objects can give rise
to perceptions, and hence the reflected images on the mirror or on the
water must be existent elements, produced from the original .objects.
Therefore, SaIighabhadra enters into a long discussion about whether the
reflected images exist as entities or not.
Here, while refuting Vasubandhu, the *Nyiiyiinusiira also refers to the
opinion of Bhadanta Rama, which bears some similarity to the argument
of the Kosa. Rama presents five examples that prove the nonexistence of
reflected images.
a) Example of the moon in the water. If the cause of one's visual per-
ception of the moon were an image of the moon that exists in a limited
area of the water, it should be fixed there, while if it were spread over
the entire surface of the water, it should be seen everywhere in the water
at the same time. However, the moon, in fact, appears in a limited area
of the water, and it is not fixed, since when the viewer changes his posi-
tion, the moon also moves (T. 1562: 470c9-14).
251.15]). Yasomitra also mentions "Vasubandhu's own interpretation of the Misrasloka"
(iiciiryenaiva misrasrokavyiikhyiina [Abhidhannakosavyiikhyii: 250.26-27]). The corres-
ponding verse is found in the Tsa (k!fudraka or misraka) chapter of T. 1552, so that one
may assume that here the word misraka designates the name of the chapter, not the title
oUhe text. However, Harada claims that in such cases it is rare for the commentator to
refer to the name of the chapter directly, without introducing the name of the whole text.
Therefore, its original title is to be reconstructed as Misrakiibhidharmahrdaya. In my opin-
ion, of these two reasons, the first is less convincing, since the Uighur version of the Tattvarthii
is a re-translation of the Chinese translation, and, a partial comparison with the extant Chi-
nese fragment of the Tattviirthii (T. 1561) suggests that the Sanskrit nouns inserted in the
Uighur version were added by the Uighur translator(s), and this reconstructed Sanskrit
is sometimes questionable, for example, when the Abhidharmakosa is referred LO as
"Kosavrttisiistra" in the Uighur version. However, the second reason, the evidence of
Y asomitra, is strongly convincing. Therefore, I agree with Harada that the Sanskrit title
of Tsa a p'i t'an s'hin hsin lun (T. 1552) is Misrakiibhidharmahrdaya. For a description
of the Uighur version of the Tattviirthii, see Mejor (1991: 93).
15 For a detailed examination of the argument about the intermediate state and reflected
images in the Kosa, see Kritzer (2000).
BHADANTA RAMA: A SAU'IRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 263
b) Example of light and shadow. When there are two mirrors hanging
opposite each other, one in a dark place and the other in a light place, the
mirror in the light shows the dark spot while the mirror in the shadow
reflects the light. However, real light and shadow cannot occupy the same
space (T. 1562: 470c14-17).
c) Example of a variety of colors. The image of Devadatta (i.e., any
person) on the water changes its colors according to the standpoint of the
viewer: from one angle, it appears blue, and from another yellow, red, or
white. If there were a real image of Devadatta in a variety of colors, the
image should appear to a single viewer as a mixture of miscellaneous
colors (T; 1562: 470c17-21).
d) Example of vision in perspective. Seeing Devadatta in the mirror,
one can recognize whether he is approaching or departing. If this per-
ception arose from the real material existing on the surface of the mirror,
the viewer would not be able to comprehend such (T. 1562:
470c21-23).
e) Example of depth perception. If the reflected image of the moon has
the water as its material basis, then the viewer could not have depth
perception: the moon would appear on the surface of the water. However,
indeed, one who sees the moon in the water perceives it as if it were
in the depth of the water, not on the surface of the water (T. 1562: 470c23-
26).
After reciting these five examples, Rlima concludes his discussion as
follows:
[Question:] If it is true [that no reflected image really exists,] then what
does one see there [in the mirror or the water]? [Answer: ill those cases,]
the arising of visual perceptions are supported by "the form in itself"
(bimba). Therefore, it is the same as the case of [ordinary] visual percep-
tion arising from the eyes and the material forms. Thus, with the eyes and
the mirror (or the water), etc., as conditions, the visual perception [of the
reflected image] is produced from the form in the mirror, etc. illdeed, it is
said that one sees an image different [from the original object], when one
sees the form in itself (T. 1562: 470c26-29).
As Sarighabhadra says, Rlima's argument has some similarity to the
Kosa. For example, the Kosa states that: a) while the real light and shadow
264 TAKUMI FUKUDA
cannot coexist in the same place, the mirror in the shadowy place can
reflect the light of the sun; 16 b) the moon in the mirror appears with depth
perception as if it were in the depth of the mirror, not on the surface.
I7
These statements exactly correspond to Rfuna's examples a) and e), respec-
tively. Moreover, Vasubandhu also gives an explanation similar to Rfuna's,
that the reflected image is nothing else .but an assemblage (samagrl) of
the mirror and the object that produces the visual perception of an image
resembling the original object.
However, in his conclusion, Vasubandhu makes a vague statement:
"Indeed inconceivable is the variety of the forces of the dharmas. "18
On the other hand, Rama states clearly that it is "the form in itself"
(bimba) of the original material form that makes possible one's visual
perception of the reflected image. And for the same reason, he claims that
there is no difference between the perception of the reflected image and
of the original object. As Yin shun (1980: 573) has already pointed out,
this view of Rfuna's seems strikingly similar to a passage in a Mahayana
scripture, the SaT(ldhinirmocanasutra:
For example when, supported by the [original] form, the form in itself
[appears] in a polished mirror, one who sees it may think., "I am looking
at a mere reflected image." In this case the [original] form and its
reflected image appear in one's sight as if they were different from each
other. 19
16 chiiyatapayos ca davayo1;. sahaikatrabhiivo na
120.26; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 2: 35; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 384)
17 anyatraiva hi deie bhavety anyatraiviintargatarrz candrapratibimbakarrz
121.3; La Valiee Poussin 1980, v. 2: 35; Pruden 1988-
1990, v. 2: 384)
18 acintyo hi dharmiilJiirrz saktibheda1;. I 121.5; La Vallee
Poussin 1980, v. 2: 35; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 385). Kritzer (2002) has examined Vasuban-
dhu's using of the term "unthinkable" (acintya) in the Kosa and concludes that it implies
his acceptance of Y ogacara views on the topic.
19 dper na gzugs la brten nas me Ion gi dkyil 'khor sin tu yons su dag pa la gzugs fiid
mthon yan I gzugs brfian mthon no sfiam du sems te I de la ni gzugs de dan gzugs brfian
snan ba de don tha dad par snan no /1 (Lamotte 1935: 91). See also Hsiian-tsang's trans-
lation (T. 676: 698b6-9). The Chieh-shen mi ching su, a Chinese commentary on Hsiian-
tsang's version of the Sarrzdhinirmocanasutra by Yuan-t'se, quotes the arguments about
reflected images from the Kosa and the *Nyiiyiinusiira as relevant remarks on this siltra pas-
sage. Here, Yuan-t'se refers to Rama as "the third master of Sautrantika," later than Kumara-
lata and Sruata (Dainihon Zokuzokyo 34.1: 426).
Here the Sutra states that it is the form in itself (gzugs fiid = bimbam
eva) 20 of the original form that is reflected in the mirror, and though
it does not really exist, it supports the arising of visual perception. This
. view implies that there is no distinction between the visualperception of
existent objects and of nonexistent objects (e.g., the reflected image), and
hence, that all objects of perception, like reflected images, are nonexistent.
Indeed, Asariga's Mahayanasaf!1,graha quotes this passage of the Saf!1,dhi-
nirmocanasutra as scriptural evidence for the Y ogacara doctrine of mind-
only (vijiiaptimatrata).21
However Rlima does not propose the mind-only doctrine here. Instead, he
only follows the view, which accepts the existence of the objects
of perception in general but makes an exception for certain objects, such as
reflected images. And, as Sarighabhadra suggests in the following portion of
the *Nyayanusara, Rlima is not successful in explaining how the mirror or the
water can act as a special condition that produces visual perception without
any existing object. From this point of view, it is interesting that Vasubandhu
in the Kosa, though sharing a very similar view with Rama, finally makes
the ambiguous statement, "inconceivable is the variety of the forces of the
dharmas." In my opinion, Vasubandhu here carefully avoids committing
himself to the Y ogaclira since he anticipates that it may conflict with the sta-
tus of the Kosa as an abhidharma treatise. Rllma, on the other hand, does
not seem aware of the consequences of approaching Yogaclira too closely.
Argument 2. Four Characteristics
Analyzing the meaning of the word "pratftyasamutpada," Vasubandhu
explains the term "arising" (samutpada) as meaning, "the forthcoming
(utpiidabhimukho) future dharma attains the conditions (pratyayam prapya)
and then comes to exist (samudbhiiva). "22 Sarighabhadra criticizes this
20 While Lamotte renders this "gzugs" as "rupa," Ito Shiiken has proved that it should
be restored as "bimba" (Ito 1972). See also the use in the Kosa (Abhidharmakosabha.rya:
120.17-18; 121.9-10,12), of the terms "bimba" and "pratibimba," which are translated as
"gzugs" and "gzugs brnan" in Tibetan (Peking. 5591: 135al; 135b2,4).
21 Mahiiyanasarrzgraha, II.7 (Nagao 1982: 61-63).
22 pratyayarrz prapya samudbhava/:l pratltyasamutpada/:l I
138.3-4; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 2: 78; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 413); kirrz avasthas
cotpadyate I utpiidabhimukho 'nagatga/:l I 138.12; La Vallee
Poussin 1980, v. 2: 79; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 414).
266 TAKUMI FUKUDA
(T. 1562: 481b24-c4): Since Vasubandhu does not allow the existence of
the future, how can a nonexistent future factor" attain" the conditions? Then
Sailghabhadra also refers to Rama's interpretation of the word "arising."
Riima presents his opinion: a) The act of speech (sabda) is done to denote
specific meanings. Spoken words such as "arising" or "passing away" are
applied to each phase of the stream of conditioned forces (SaTJ1skiirasClT(ltana),
and the essential [meanings of those words] are derived out of the wide
range of meanings. [The word "arising" or "passing away"] carinot be applied
to a single moment since it is subtle and hence cannot be discerned;
b) however, when the definitions [of those words] have been established in
terms of the phases of the stream, they can also be applied by analogy to a
single moment (T. 1562: 481cll-14).
This interpretation of Rama's is similar to a Sautrfultika view presented
in the second chapter of the Kosa (Indriyanirdda), where the three or
four characteristics of the conditioned factors (sar(l,slqtadhanna)
are discussed. On the basis of the sutra passage that states the three char-
acteristics of all conditioned factors, arising (utpiida), passing away
(vyaya), and changing in continuance (sthityanyathiitva), the Sarvastiva-
dins assume that there are four existing "conditioned characteristics"
(sa7[lslqtalah;a1'}a), which act as the cause of "birth" (jiiti), "continuance"
(sthiti), "change in continuance" (sthityanyathiitva), and "extinction"
(anityatii), of every single conditioned factor at each moment.
23
However, Vasubandhu argues against this:
For the sake of removing their belief in false [views], the Lord, wishing to
indicate that the stream of conditioned forces has the nature of being condi-
,:"tioned and dependently originated, made the following statement: "There
,< are three conditioned characteristics of conditioned [factors]." [Therefore,
these characteristics] do not belong to a single moment, since "birth," and
so on, belonging to a single moment, cannot be discerned, and that which is
not discerned does not deserve to be established as a characteristic;:.24
23 For a detailed explanation of the Sarviistiviidin interpretation of the four character-
istics, see Cox (1995: 133-158). .
24 tasya mithyiidhimolqasya vyiivarttaniirthOJfl bhagaviiTf!s tasya saTf!skiirapraviihasya
saTflS!qtatvaTf! pratityasamutpannatiiTf! dyotayitukiima idam iiha "trilJimiini saTf!s!qtasya
sOJfls!qtalalqalJiini" / na tu / na hi lqalJasyotpiidiidayal} prajiiiiyante / na ciipraj-
fiiiyamiinii ete lalqa1JOJ{l bhavitum arhanti / 76.26-77.3; La Vallee
Poussin 1980, v. 1: 226; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 1: 241). The English translation presented
here is based on Cox (1995: 360, note 49).
BHADANTA R.AMA: A SAUTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 267
Then the Kosa gives the Sautdintika definition of the four characteris-
tics:
In that case, the beginning of the stream [of conditioned factors] is arising, its
extinction is passing away, that very stream [of conditioned factors], which
is occurring, is continuance, and the distinction between the successive
[moments] of this [stream of conditioned factors] is change in continuance.
(Translation by Collett Cox)25
Thus for Vasubandhu, those four characteristics are provisionally estab-
lished with respect to the "stream" (praviiha), not a single moment. This
view clearly resembles Riima's opinion a). Srilata, too, seems to have the
same opinion, since Sanghabhadra refers to this interpretation of Vasuban-
dhu's with the statement, "the Sutra Master (Vasubandhu), conforming to
the accepted doctrine of Sthavira's (Sniata's) school, makes the following
statement" (T. 1562: 407c9; Cox. 1995: 320). Further similar passages
are also found in the (T. 1545: 200a6-7), where the opinion is
attributed to the in Harivarman's *Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646:
289bI8-21), and in the ViniscayasaT(lgraha7;l1 of the Yogaciirabhumi
(T. 1579: 585c24-28; Kritzer 1999: 234-235).
However, in the following portion, the Kosa gives another explanation
similar to Riima's argument b).
These characteristics of conditioned factors can also be applied to a single
moment if one does not imagine them to be discrete real entities. How so?
Arising [as applied] to each moment [refers to the fact that it] exists not
having existed. Passing away [refers to the fact] that having existed, it no
longer exists. Continuance [refers to] the connection of each prior [moment]
with subsequent moments. Change in continuance [refers to] the dissimilarity
in that [connection]. (Translation by COX)26
Here, Vasubandhu presents his secondary interpretation that the four
characteristics can be applied not only to the stream of conditioned forces
25 See Cox (1995: 362, note 64): tatra pravahasyadir utpado nivrttir vyayal;t / sa eva
pravaho 'nuvarttamanal;t sthitil;t / tasya sthityanyathiitvam / (Abhidhar-
makosabha:jya: 77.5-7; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 1: 228; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 1: 242).
26 See Cox (1995: 365, note 85): pratik:jalJalfl capf salflskrtasyaitani lak:jalJani yujyante
vina 'pi dravyantarakalpanaya / katham iti / pratik:jalJam abhiltva bhiiva utpadal;t / bhiltva
'bhiivo vyayal;t / pilrvasya pilrvasyottarakijalJanubandhal;t sthitil;t / tasyavisdrsatvalfl
sthityanyathiitvam iti/(Abhidharmakosabhiirya: 77.18-21; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 1:
229; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 1: 243).
268 . TAKUMI FUKUDA
but also to a single moment. This view is also found in the Yogacara-
bhami,27 which, like Vasubandhu, bases its position on a passage from the
Paramarthasiinyatasiitra: "that which not having existed now exists, and
after having existed, it no longer exists" (abhiitva bhavati bhiitva ca prati-
gacchati).28
Further, an explanation of the three characteristics found in the Vastu-
saf!1grahar;i of the Yogacarabhiimi seems to resemble that of Rama and
Vasubandhu in applying these characteristics first to the moment and
then to the stream of forces.
29
Thus, this fact suggests a close relationship
between Rama and Vasubandhu, as well as between these Sautrantika
masters and Y ogacaras.
Argument 3. The Formula of Dependent Origination
This passage provides a clue for determining the chronological order
of SrTIata Rama and Vasubandhu. The topic under discussion is the well-
known formula of the teaching of dependent origination (pratityasamut-
pada). Why does it begin with the two tautological phrases, "When this
exists, that exists; from the arising of this, that arises (imasmin satfdaf!1
bhavati, asyotpadad idam utpadyate)"? First, the *Nyayanusiira refers
to the opinion of SrTIata. According to Sanghabhadra, those two phrases
imply the dependent origination of factors constituting sentient beings
(sattvakhya) and of those not constituting sentient beings (asattvakhya),
respectively, while the following teaching of the twelve-membered for-
mula of dependent origination, "depending on ignorance, conditioned
forces [arise] (avidyapratyayaJ:t sal]'lskaraJ:t), " and so on, is applied
only to factors constituting sentient beings (T. 1562: 482a6-8). Then a
disciple of Srllata expresses his objection: since the twelve-membered
formula of dependent origination denotes only the factors constituting
sentient beings, it is improper to think that the introducing formula can
27 paiicavijiiiil}akiiyasaT(lprayuktamanobhami of the ViniscayasaT(lgrahal}i. (T. 1579,
586a19; Peking 5539: Zi 22b7).
28 For the text and translation of the Paramiirthasunyatiisiitra (T. 99: 92c; T. 125:
713c-714b; T. 655: 806c-807a), see Lamotte (1973). For an exanrination ofVasubandhu's
interpretation of this siitra, see Miyashita (1986).
29 Sutravastu of the VastusaT(lgrahal}f. (T. 1579, 795c20-29). I am grateful to Was6 Harada
for this reference.
BHADANTA RAMA: A SAUTR.ANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 269
be applied to both kinds of factors. On this topic, Sarighabhadra supports
Srllata, warning that a disciple should not lightly criticize his teacher
(T. 1562: 482a8-b5). Next, Rama's opinion is cited:
Bhadanta Rama, who is not content to accept the explanation of Ills own
teacher, also offers another interpretation of his own: a) if it is permissible
for the twelve members to be classified into three lifetimes, then [this open-
ing formula] would be the summary of the teaching of dependent origina-
tion over the course of three lifetimes: "When this (i.e., the former life)
exists, that (the present life) exists, and, from the arising of this (present life),
that (future life) arises"; b) if it is not permissible, then these two phrases
should indicate immediate and mediate causation, respectively (T. 1562:
482b5-8).
From the context, it is evident that Sarighabhadra thinks of Rama as
one of the disciples of Sillata who are not completely obedient to their
master. Here, Rama presents two different explanations. The first is based
on the Sarvastivada orthodox view of twelve-membered dependent origi-
nation, which is known as "three lifetimes with twofold causation": the
past life as the cause produces the resultant aspect of the present life, and
the causal aspect of the present life produces the future life as the result.
The second, Rama says, is offered for those who do not accept this the-
ory. This suggests the possibility that Rama himself tends to accept another
way of dividing the members of dependent origination according to life-
times, the two lifetimes and singlefold causation system developed by
the Y ogacara tradition.
30
Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakosa, on the other hand, simply presents
his own views without mentioning these arguments between Sillata and
his disciples. However, his interpretation implicitly includes Rama's view:
Then, for what reason has the Lord taught [the discourse of dependent origi-
nation] with two phrases: "When this exists that exists, from the arising of
this that arises"? A) For the purpose of defIning [the specifIc cause], since
it is said in other [scriptures] "When ignorance (avidyii) exists, conditioned
forces (sarrzskiiras) exist, and conditioned forces never [arise] from else-
where other than ignorance." [Thus the former phrase indicates the specifIc
30 For the YogacMa theory of two lifetimes and singlefold causation, see Kritzer (1999:
69-71). Kritzer points out that Vasubandhu' s interpretation of dependent origination in the
Kosa is much closer to the two-lifetimes singlefold causation theory of the Abhidharma-
samuccaya than to the Sarvastivada three-lifetimes twofold theory.
270 TAKUMI FUKUDA
cause, and the latter phrase postulates that there is no other cause]. B) Other-
wise, in order to indicate the succession of the members: "When this (igno-
ranee) exists, those (conditioned forces) exists, and from the arising of these
(conditioned forces) that (consciousness) arises." C) Or [in order to indicate]
the succession of the lifetimes: "When the former life exists, the preserit life
exists; from the arising of the present life, the next life arises." D) Or in order
to indicate the difference between immediate and mediate causation. In some
cases the conditioned forces arise immediately after ignorance, but in other
cases, not immediately.3!
Among these four explanations, the latter two are almost identical
to Rama's. The commentaries interpret the last explanation as follows:
When ignorance produces defiled conditioned forces directly, it is called
"immediate" causation. On the other hand, ignorance can also produce
undefiled conditioned forces, but not successively, since their natures are
different from each other.
32
Alternatively, ignorance produces conscious-
ness through conditioned forces. In those cases, it is called "mediate"
causation.
33
Rarna's chronological position can be determined on the basis of this
data. First, as mentioned above, it is clear that Rama is a disciple of Srl-
lata. Next, the similarity between Rarna's passage and the Kosa suggests
three possible explanations: a) Vasubandhu has followed Rarna's opinion
and expanded upon it; b) Rarna has quoted a part of Vasubandhu's inter-
pretation to criticize Srllata; c) there was a common source of interpreta-
tion preceding both Vasubandhu and Rama.
Here the fact should be noted that Sanghabhadra does not refer to Vasu-
bandhu with respect to this topic. Needless to say, the *Nyayanusiira was
31 kathal!l arthal!l punar bhagavatii paryiiyadvayam iiha "imasmin satfdal!l bhavati
asyotpiidad idam utpadyate" iti I avadhiiraJ;ziirtham, yathii 'nyatriiha "avidyiiyiiTfl satyiil!l
sal!lskiirii bhavanti niinyatriividyiilJ sal!lskiirii" iti I aligaparaTflparQf!Z vii darsayitum, asmin
ange satfdal!l bhavati asya punar angasyotpiidiid idam utpadyata iti I janmaparal!lparal!l
vii, purviinte sati madhyiinto bhavati madhyiintasyotpiidiid apariinta utpadyata iti I
piiral!lparyena pratyayabhiival!l darSayanti I kadiicid dhi samanantaram avidyiiyiilJ
sal!lskiirii bhavanti kadiicit piiral!lparyelJeti I 138.24-139.6; La
Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 2: 81-82; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 415-416)
32 tatra yadiividyiiyiilJ samanantaral!l utpadyante I paral!l-
paryelJa tu yada kusaia utpadyante I kusaiavasthiiyam avidyaya abhiivat I (Abhidharma-
kosavyiikhya: 297. 21-23).
33 avidya sal!lskiiriilJiil!l pratyayo vijfianadfnaTfl paraTflparyelJa I (Abhidharma-
kosavyakhyii: 297.23-24).
BHADANTA RAMA: A SAUTRANTlKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 271
intended to be a polemical book directed mainly against Vasuban-
dhu's Kosa. Therefore, if the above-mentioned view indeed originated
with Vasubandhu, and Rama was only a follower, SaiJ.ghabhadra ought
to quote it as an opinion of Vasubandhu. In fact, however, he does not
ascribe the opinion to Vasubandhu, but he refers to Rama, saying that it
is "his own interpretation." This suggests that the view was stated origi-
nally by Rama and followed by Vasubandhu.
34
Thus, the probable order
of the three masters is Snlata - Rama - Vasubandhu. However, since
it is suggested by SaiJ.ghabhadra that SnHita was still living at the time
when the *Nyayanusara was written,35 they belong to the same general
period.
36
34 P'u-kuang states that this passage can be ascribed to Rama since it is based on
Rama's view with some enlargement by Vasubandhu (T. 1821: 171b29-clO). On the other
hand, Yasomitra says that they are all acarya's (i.e., Vasubandhu's) thought (etat sarvam
iiciiryamatam [Abhidhannakosavyiikhyii: 297.26]). However neither commentary seems
to contradict the fact that Vasubandhu accepted Rama's interpretation and improved it. Sthi-
ramati (peking. 5875: Tho 59b1-60a1) and ~ a v a r d h a n a (peking. 5597: Iu 352b5-353a6)
do not mention whose opinion this is.
35 The * Nyayiinusiira sometimes says things like "Sthavria (Srilata) makes a confused
statement because of his senility" (T. 1562: 445b6-7), or "The time has passed, and he
(Srilata) has became a decrepit man who can hardly maintain rational thought" (T. 1562:
450b16-17). These expressions suggest that at the time when SaIighabhadra wrote the
*Nyiiyiinusiira, Srilata was still living but had grown old. See Kata (1989: 56-57).
36 After having discussed Rama's interpretation presented here, the * Nyayiinusiira refers
to some other opinions by "some followers of Sthavira" and Sthavira himself, which have
already been criticized in the Kosa. Then SaIighabhadra says, "Thus, when Sthavira says
something, it is not accepted even by his disciples and his fellow believer, much less by
persons who are obedient to the holy teachings and conform to the correct principle. How
strange it is that such a person is held in honor in the eastern area!" (T. 1562: 482c12-
14). From the context it seems that the phrase "his disciples" implies Rama and others who
are referred to in the *Nyayiinusiira, while "fellow believer" designates Vasubandhu. Thus,
SaIighabhadra thinks of Vasubandhu as Srll1ita's "fellow believer," not as his disciple.
Further, in the following portion, the Kosa refers to an interpretation of the "teachers"
(iiciiryii/:!). SaIighabhadra objects, "Next, the Sutra master (Vasubandhu) presents his own
teacher's interpretation of these two phrases [of dependfmt origination] to indicate his alle-
giance and does not reveal its fault. The relationship between the teacher and pupil ought
to be like this, [not like that between Srilata and his disciples]. However, I have no loyalty
to his teacher" (T. 1562: 483a8-9). Then SaIighabhadra refutes the interpretation of
Vasubandhu's "teacher." This is another piece of evidence that SaIighabhadra does not think
of Vasubandhu as a disciple of Srllata. Therefore, Kat6' s identification of Srll1ita as
Vasubandhu's "teacher" based on this passage cannot be accepted. See Kat6 (1989: 58)
and my objection, which is discussed by Cox (1995: 51 note 114). Kat6 has accepted my
opinion and revised his hypothesis in a recent paper written in Japanese, in which he writes
272 TAKUMI FUKUDA
Argument 4. Meditative State of Cessation
According to the Sarvastivada interpretation of the twelve-membered
dependent origination in terms of rebirth, the formula "depending on
consciousness, name-and-form [arises] (vijfianapratyaya1'(l namanlp'am)"
designates the moment when the present life of a sentient being arises from
the former life, namely the moment when the primordial consciousness
(vijiiana or pratisa1J1dhivijiiana) of the present life is implanted in the
embryonic body (namariipa). Then the formation of sense organs.begins,
and when those organs are completed, it is said, "depending on name-and-
form, the six sense bases [arise] (niimariipapratyayarrt !ja<f,iiyatanam)."
However, since it is stated that consciousness and body are obtained
in the state of nflmariipa, the mental (manas) and tactile (kiiya) faculties
should have already been established there. Then why do the scriptures
not say, "depending on niimariipa, which has two sense bases, the remain-
ing four sense bases arise"? Concerning this question Sanghabhadra refers
to the opinion of Rama:
Here Bhadanta Rfuna presents his own interpretation: [The mental and the
tactile faculties] are established [as sense bases], when they have passed
over [the state of] name-and-form. Indeed, mind (manas) exists permanently
[from the beginning of one's life], but it is not equivalent to the mental base
(mano-ayatana) , [since] it (mind) necessarily has to contact the [external
sense] base (Le., the object) to be called a "[mental] base." [For example,]
in the meditative state of cessation (nirodhasamapatti), one's mental base
does not vanish. Therefore, it is allowed that mental perceptual conscious-
ness (mano-vijfiana) will be produced once again [after one exits the medi-
tative state of cessation]. However, it (i.e., mind in the state of cessation)
" "cannot contact [external objects] due to the absence of other conditions [that
make the activity of mental perceptual consciousness possible]. For the same
reason, the two faculties (indriya) of body and mind in the state of "con-
sciousness" and "name-and-form" cannot be accepted as [sense] bases. Hence
that "Vasubandhu was not a direct disciple of Snlata but was familiar with him both doc-
trinally and personally" (Kata 1997: 59). Therefore, the statement in Willemen, Dessein,
and Cox (1998: 107) that refers to Kata's identification of Sruata as Vasubandhu's teacher
should be corrected. According to Yasomitra, these "teachers" of V asubandhu are "the old
teachers" (purviiciiryii1;z). And, as in the case of other references to the old teachers in the
Kosa (Hakamaya 1986; Mejor 1991: 46-48), a parallel passage to this interpretation of
Vasubandhu's teacher is found in the Savitarkiidibhiimi of the basic section (Maulfbhumi)
of the Yogiiciirabhiimi (Yogiiciirabhumi: 221.16-17). Thus, this seems to be further evidence
suggesting a relationship between the Kosa and the Yogacara. See Harada (1996: 142-145).
. it is said [by the scriptures] that name-and-fonn precedes the six sense bases,
and that depending on name-and-fonn, the six sense bases arise (T. 1562,
485c21-486al).
Thus Rfuna explains that the mind '(i.e., consciousness) and the body
of an embryo cannot be regarded as sense bases, not because they do not
exist but because they do not contact external objects. He also says that
it is the same as in the case of the meditative state of cessation (niro-
dhasamiipatti), in which one does not perceive external objects but does
not lose consciousness itself.
Rfuna's interpretation of nirodhasamiipatti clearly corresponds to the
opinion of the in the (T. 1545: 775a22-24) or
Sn1ata in the *Nyiiyiinusiira (T. 1562: 420b17-20). Against the Sarvasti-
viidins, who assert that consciousness must be extinguished in the state
of cessation since there is no activity of mind, they claim that in this state
one only extinguishes concomitant factors of consciousness (caitta, cai-
tasika), such as conception (saf!ljfiii), feelings (vedanii), and so on, but not
consciousness itself.37
The Kosa also attributes the same view to Vasumitra, the author of the
treatise entitled Pariprcchii.
38
However, it seems that Vasubandhu does
37 This interpretation of the is based on the fact that, in the scriptures, the
meditative state of cessation is usually called "the cessation of conception and feelings"
(saf!!jiiiivedayitanirodha). Therefore, the assert that in this state one only
extinguishes conception (saf!!jfiii) and feelings (vedanii) but not consciousness itself.
It implies that, at least, conception and feelings must exist as entities distinct from con-
sciousness itself. This corresponds to the view which is ascribed to Sautrantikas in the
later tradition: According to theBlo gsal grub mtha', a compendium of the doctrine of the
fundamental Buddhist schools written in the fourteenth century, the Sautrantikas in general
state that the concomitant faculties of consciousness (caitta, caitasika), with the exception
of conception and feelings, are nothing else than the various appearances of consciousness
itself. See Mirnaki (1979: 198; 1980: 151). The *Nyiiyiinusiira also refers to this
tika opinion. See Cox (1995: 267). For a detailed discussion of the issue of niro-
dhasamapatti, see Hakamaya (1975); Griffiths (1986: 122-128); Schrnithausen (1987: 19-
20); Cox (1995: 113-124).
38 bhadanta Vasumitras tv iiha Pariprcchiiyiif!! yasyiicittikii nirodhasamiipattis
mama tu sacittikii samiipattir WI 72.21-22; La Vallee
Poussin 1980, v. 1: 212; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 1: 231). Yasomitra identifies this "Vasumi-
tra" as the author of the Pafzcavastuka (Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii: 167.22). However, both
Chinese translations of the Paficavastuka (the first chapter of the PrakaralJ.a) clearly state
that the consciousness and concomitant factors are extinguished in nirodhasamiipatti, as
well as in asaf!!jfiisamiipatti (T. 1541: 628c13-17; T. 1542: 694a19-21). Furthermore, this
274 TAKUMI FUKUDA
not simply accept this theory, since he offers another explanation, that of
the "old teachers" (pilrvacarya), which is known as the mutual seed the-
ory: the body possessed of sense organs and consciousness contain each
other's seeds,39 and therefore, consciousness can arise once again, after
one exits the meditative state, from its seeds latent within the corporal
basis. From this point of view, Rama's position here seems to be closer
to that of the who preceded him than to that of V asubandhu. 40
Argument 5. Definition of Ignorance
According to Sarvastivada orthodoxy, the nature of ignorance, the first
member of the formula of dependent origination, is identified with delu-
sion (moha). Against this, SrTIata in the *Nyayanusara presents three
different definitions: a) Ignorance is the name for the causes by which
the arising of insight (vidya) is interrupted (T. 1562: 499a24-25); b) it is
the name for the ensemble of consciousness and concomitant factors
which prevent the arising of insight (T. 1562: 499c27-28); c) the oppo-
site of insight is called ignorance (T. 1562: 500a8-9). The last definition
passage is referred to in the as the opinion of Vasumitra (T. 1545: 774a22-24;
see also Cox 1995: 285 note 70). Therefore, Yasomitra's identification of these two Vasumi-
tras seems incorrect. For a treatment of the various Vasumitras, see La Vallee Poussin
(1980, v. 1: xliii-xlv; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 1: 29-31).
39 anyonyabijakarp hy etad ubhayarp yaduta cittarp ca sendriyas ca kiiya / (Abhidhar-
72.20; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 1: 212; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 1: 231).
It is known that this theory of seeds is also found in the ViniscayasarpgrahalJl of the
YogacarabhUmi. See Schmithausen (1987: 21). The explanation of the piirvacaryas in the
Kosa, which is attributed to the Sautriintikas by the commentaries, seems more primitive
than. the version in the YogacarabhUmi. However, Nobuyoshi Yamabe has analyzed the
Yogacarabhiimi passage and concluded that this theory was probably formed within the
Y ogacara tradition as a compilation of their earlier conceptions of seeds, and that it is very
unlikely that the Y ogacaras introduced this theory from some other tradition, such as
Sautriintika. Therefore, Yamabe suggests, this theory is considered to be derived from the
Yogacarabhumi and quoted in an abridged form in the Kosa. See Yamabe (2000 a).
40 However, it is notable that here Rama says, "Therefore it is allowed that con-
sciousness will be produced once again." This suggests that Rama relates this argument
to the issue of re-arising of the consciousness after the meditative state of cessation. On the
other hand, the in the seemingly have no interest in explaining the
process of how consciousness can arise again after the meditative state of cessation: the
s aim in asserting the existence of consciousness in the state of cessation
appears simply to be to distinguish this meditative state from the state of death. From this
viewpoint, Rama's position is considered to be closer to Vasubandhu and the Yogacaras
than to the earlier
has two meanings: since the scripture states, "false view activates delu-
sion (moha)," ontl can see that it is false view or false knowledge (mithya-
jfiana) that opposes insight. On the other hand, delusion or darkness
(andhakara or tamas), which is activated by false view, can also be con-
sidered as the opposite of insight (T. 1562: 500a8-12).41 The *Nyiiyanusara
replies that false view indeed increases the force of ignorance; however,
it is therefore not identical to ignorance itself, but it coexists with igno-
rance. Next, Sanghabhadra refers to the opinion of Rama:
Bhadanta Riima says: The nature of false view is not ignorance. It is a fact
that greed (abhidhya), malice (vyapiida), and false view have
different kinds of desire (raga), hatred and delusion (moha) as their
own roots individually and are increased by them, respectively (T. 1562:
500blO-ll).
While the meaning of the argument is not clear, it is another piece of
evidence that Rama does not always agree with his teacher SrTIata. The
argument seems to be related to the Sarvastivadin view found in the Kosa,
that the three kinds of unvirtuous mental action (manaskarman) - greed
(abhidhya), malice (vyapada), and false view - have desire
(raga), hatred and delusion (moha) as their own roots, because
the former three appear immediately after the latter three respectively.42
R1ima seems to be saying that false view is thus distinguished from delu-
sion, and delusion is to be identified with ignorance. If this understanding
is correct, R1ima's opinion above is closer to that of the Sarvastivadins
than to that of SrTIata, since it is based on the premise that ignorance is
synonymous with delusion.
43
41 The Kosa also refers to the opinion of Sdlata here, but it is not exactly the same as
the citation in the * Nyayanusara. According to the Kosa, someone states that "all the
defilements are ignorance" (sarvakleSa avidya), and the commentaries attribute this view
to SIilata. See Kosa III 29d (AbhidharmakosabluieYa: 141.24; Poussin 1980, v. 2: 91; Pru-
den 1988-1990, v. 2: 421); Sthiramati (peking. 5875: Tho 65a7); Pilf1.1avardhana (Peking.
5597: Iu 358a8); Yasomitra ( Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 302.2). For a survey of this argu-
ment of Sdlata's, see Miyashita (1992:8-9).
42 See Kosa VI 69ab (Abhidharmakosabluiifya: 241.18-21; Poussin 1980, v.3: 148;
Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 646-647). I am grateful to Robert Kritzer for this reference.
43 However, SaiIghabhadra does not accept this opinion of Rama for two reasons: (1)
It is impossible to say that greed (abhidhya) is a "different kind" of desire (raga), Of malice
(vyapada) a "different kind" of hatred (dveifa); (2) Delusion increases not only the force of
false view but also the forces of greed and malice as their "root," and desire and hatred,
276 TAKUMI FUKUDA
Argument 6. Impressions
In the next portion of his definition of ignorance, Vasubandhu refers
to another opinion, that the natUre of ignorance (avidyii) is defiled insight
prajiiii) since it is opposed to knowledge (vidyii), which is identified
with pure insight (aniisravii prajiiii). But, says Vasubandhu, this defini-
tion conflicts with the sutra passage, "insight is defiled by ignorance and
becomes impure": If the nature of ignorance were defIled insight, it would
not exist together with pure insight, for Sarvastivadins do not alloW more
than one of the same kind of mental factors (i.e., insight) to coexist within
one's mind at a single moment. Hence it is impossible for insight to be
defIled by "defIled insight." Concerning this issue, the opponents propose
two answers: a) Ignorance does not coexist but alternates with insight
from moment to moment (vyavaklryamiilJa), and this condition is called
"defiled"; 44 or b) insight is not directly defiled by ignorance itself but is
damaged (upahata) by the impression (viisanii) of ignorance, and there-
fore, there is no contradiction between their definition of ignorance and
the sutra passage.
45
After referring to their opinions without making any
detailed examination, the Kosa simply concludes the argument with the
Sarvastivada statement that the nature of ignorance is different from
insight.
46
Here Vasubandhu seems to have little interest in the topic. Or
perhaps he does not want to discuss conceptions like viisanii, which are
evocative of Y ogacara doctrine.
too, can be considered as the "roots" of false view (T. 1562: 500b13-16). While I am not
sure that I correctly understand Sailghabhadra's passage, it seems that Sailghabhadra aims
to criticize the inadequacy of Rama' s distinction between the three unvirtuous mental
actions and the three fundamental defIlements in the first response, and to refute Rama's
usage of the term "root," which means "to increase the force," in the second response.
44 prajiiaya kusala prajiia vyavakfryamalJa na visudhyati I ato 'sau tasya upa-
klda itil (Abhidharmakosabhiirya: 141.19-20; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 2: 91; Pruden
1988-1990, v. 2: 421); vyavakfryamiilJa na visudhyatlti I antarantarotpadyamiinaya
prajiiaya vyavakfryamiilJa kusala prajiia na visudhyatlty arthal; I (Abhi-
dharmakosavyakhya: 301.28-30).
45 yad vapi eittal]1 na vimueyate I kil]1 tad avasyal]1 ragaparyavasthital]1
bhavati I upahatal]1 tu tat tatha ragelJa bhavati yan na vimueyate I tal]1 punar vasana
vyavartayato vimueyate I (Abhidharmakosabhiirya: 141.20-22; La Vallee Poussin 1980,
v. 2: 91; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 421); kil]1 tad avaryal]1 ragaparyavasthital]1 iti raga-
sal]1prayuktam ity arthal; I upahatal]1 tu tat tatka ragelJeti I na samudaearata ragelJa I
vasanadhiinena tad upahatal]1 bhavati I tal]1 vasaniil]1 tad vyiivartayato yoginal;
tae cittam vimucyate I ( Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 301. 30-33).
46 For a review of these arguments, see Miyashita (1992: 7-12).
BHADANTA RAMA.: A SAUTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 277
The *Nyiiyiinusiira, on the other hand is concerned with the concep-
tion of impression and continues the argument: Ignorance is defined as
unwisdom (ajiiiina), and it is classified into two types. In a narrow sense,
it is def:tled (kli>$ta) unwisdom or delusion (moha) , the existing factor
opposed to wisdom ljiiiina), while in a broad sense, it is undef:tled (akli>$ta)
unwisdom, which designates the lack of wisdom but is not an existing
entity. For example, saints such as arhats or praty'ekabuddhas have already
abandoned delusion, so they have no def:tled unwisdom. However, com-
pared with that of the Lord Buddha, the wisdom they have attained is
still imperfect, and. such "insufficiency" or "lack" of wisdom is called
undef:tled unwisdom, or the impression (viisanii) of ignorance (T. 1562:
501c22-502a3).
Based upon these speculations, Sanghabhadra gives his own definition:
"impression is a general name for the mental factors that arise together with
lesser wisdom" (T. 1562: 502a25-26). Thus, Sanghabhadra accepts the
conception of impression as a provisional (prajiiapti) existent.
47
Then Sanghabhadra refers to Rama' s interpretation of impressions:
Bhadanta Rama makes this sort of statement: there are undefIled factors
called impressions, which are like the matured effects (vipiika) produced
from unvirtuous causes (akusalahetu). When the Blessed One was a bodhi-
sattva, he did various preparatory practices (prayoga) for an astronomically
long period of time. Although he had afflictions (kleSa), he gradually aban-
doned the undefiled impressions produced from the afflictions and instead
gradually increased the impressions of white factors (sukladharma). After-
ward, when the lasting abandonment of all defIlements (iisrava) had been
accomplished, some of those impressions disappeared, but others remained.
[That is to say,] even when the supreme and everlasting abandonment of all
47 According to Yamabe (1989: 212-213), the original meaning of the term viisanii
in the early Yogiicara tradition is limited to "the impression of defilements (kleia)" or "the
impression of action (karman)." Sailghabhadra's explanation here seems to correspond to
the former. Compare it with the passage in the Bodhisattvabhiuni: "Activities similar to
affliction never occur to the Thus Come One, whenever. he moves, looks, talks, or stays.
It is said 'The Thus Come One has abandoned the impressions absolutely.' On the other
hand, in the case of arhats, activity similar to affliction occurs when they move, look,
talk, or stay, though they have already abandoned the defilements themselves" (tatra yii
tathiigatasya spandite vii prek:jite vii kathite vii vihare vii samudiiciira-
pracuratii / ayaTfl tathiigatasya viisaniisamudghatii ity ucyate / arhatiiTfl punalJ prahzlJakle-
saniim api kleiasadbhavasadrsz spanditaprek:jitakathita vihrtesu bhavaty eva / [Bodhi-
sattvabhUmi: 404.18-22] ).
278 TAKUMI FUKUDA
defilements had been achieved as a result of extended practice, the impres-
sions of white factors still remained with the Buddha [while the undefiled
impressions had disappeared], since it is said that there are both perishable
impressions (i.e., impressions of defIlements) and imperishable ones (i.e.,
impressions of virtuousness). [Sanghabhadra answers:] Of course, such an
explanation may also be possible, but he (Rama) could never demonstrate
their nature as truly existent (T. 1562: 502b13-20).
Thus, Rfuna states that there are "impressions of white factors" opposed
to undefiled impressions which are matured effects of affliction. 'As Yin
shun (1980: 572) has pointed out, this idea seems similar to the concept
of the "seed of the impression produced by hearing [the teaching of the
Buddha] that flowed from the realm of purest truth" (suvisuddhadhar-
found in the Mahiiyiinasa1!lgraha.
48
At
least it is not difficult to fmd here the influence of Y ogacara doctrine, as
in the case of the bfja theory ofVasubandhu, the Kosa master, or the *anu-
dhiitu of Sthavira Sruata. Therefore, the *Nyiiyiinusiira sometimes refers
to the terms viisanii, bfja, and anudhiitu as variations of a single concept:
In the arguments among the various Abhidhfumikas, the often
appeal to their own [theory] of seeds (bfja), and thereby, pervert the correct
meaning and cause it to become unclear. There are certain masters who give
different names to these seeds, each according to his own understanding.
Some call them subsidiary elements (*anudluitu), others call them impressions
(viisanii); still others call them capability (siimarthyii), non-disappearance
(avipra/Jiisa), or accumulation (upacaya) (T. 1562: 398b25-29; translation
by Cox 1995: 197).49
Vasubandhu states that the seed (bfja) is one's psycho-physical stream
itself, which conveys the potency of past action into the future. Yamabe
48 MahiiyiinasaT[lgraha, I.45 (Nagao 1982: 44-45). As concerns the Yogiiciirabhiimi,
such a purificatory function of seed is found only in an interpolated paragraph in the Niv,ru
portion of the ViniscayasaT[lgrahaIJi. See Schmithausen (1987: 77-81).
49 Statements similar to this are repeated in the *Nyiiyiinusiira several times: "Concep-
tions like accumulation (upacaya), capability (siimarthyii), subsidiary elements (*anudhiitu),
impressions (viisanii), or seeds (bfja) of the force of mind have already been rejected"
(T. 1562: 535a23-26); "Subsidiary elements (*anudhiitu), capability (siimarthyii), impres-
sions (viisanii), seeds (bfja), accumulation (upacaya), non-disappearance (avipraIJasa), and
so on, which are asserted by the artful deceivers (i.e., the have been denied"
(T. 1562: 627aI9-20). However, among these conceptions, accumulation (upacaya) and
non-disappearance (avipraIJiisa) can in fact be ascribed to Mahasarpghika and SarpmitIya
respectively. See Lamotte (1936: 230-231); Yin shun (1980: 558).
BHADANTA RAMA: A SAUTRANrIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 279
(1990) has pointed out the possibility that Vasubandhu's theory of seed
can be traced back to the Yogtictirabhilmi. Sthavira SrlH'ita offers a con-
ception of subsidiary element (*anudhtitu or *purvtinudhtitu) which, as
KatCi (1989: 250-260) has shown, generally corresponds to Vasubandhu's
seed. 50 It is notable that the term dhtitu has been used as a synonym for
blja in the Yogacara tradition from the earliest stage (Yamabe 1997: 212-
213). And Rama explains that the effect of the past practice is preserved
in the fOID1 of impression (vtisanti). Here, Sailghabhadra seems not only
to reveal their lack of consistency in teIDlinology but also to suggest that
they are all in imitation of Yogacara thought.
However, at the same time it should be noted that, while both Vasuban-
dhu's seed and Snlata's subsidiary element seem to have originated from
early Yogacara theory, Rama's conception of impression evidently reflects
more highly developed Yogacara thought, such as that seen in the Mahti-
ytinasarrzgraha.
Argument 7. Mutual Relationship of Cause and Effect
Anlong the various teachings of dependent origination, there are some
siitras, such as the Nagarasutra and the Mahtinidtinaparytiyasutra, that,
following the formula, "depending on consciousness, name-and-form
[arises]" (vijfitinapratyayarrz ntimaruparrz), insert the reversed phrase,
"depending on name-and -form, consciousness [arises]" (ntimarupa-
pratyayarrz vijfitinarrz). SaIighabhadra explains that these sutras indicate
the fact that the body (i.e., name-and-form) and mind (consciousness) of
an embryo should arise together: body depends on mind in the sense that
body cannot exist without mind, while mind similarly cannot exist inde-
pendently from body. Therefore, Sailghabhadra says, these sutras explain
that consciousness and name-and-form have a simultaneous cause and effect
relationship with each other (T. 1562: 502al-1O).51 Next, Sailghabhadra
refers to another interpretation presented by Rama:
50 Therefore, the * Nyayanusara says that *pilrvanudhiitu is just an alternative name for
Vasubandhu's conceptions of bija (T. 1562: 440b9-1O) or sarrztatiparilJamaviseea (T. 1562:
541c26-27).
51 The Kosa does not take up this topic. For the significance of the Nagarasiltra iu the
doctriual development of early Buddhist conceptions of dependent origination, see Kajiyama
(1985). The Mahtinidanaparyayasiltra (T. 1, No. 13; T. 14; T. 26, No. 97; DN No. 15)
seems to be more important for the Sarvastivadius, for it contaius a passage that evidently
280 TAKUMI FUKUDA
Bhadanta Rama presents his own opinion: When the new existence (upa-
pattibhava) arises from the intermediate state (antariibhava), depending
on the name-and-form (niimanlpa) of the intermediate state, the primal
consciousness of the new eXistence (pratisaf{ldhivijiiiina) and other [mental
factors] are produced. Then the name-and-form of the intermediate state is
destroyed, leaving that consciousness, and from it, the name-and-form of the
new existence is produced (T. 1562: 504alO-13).
Thus, according to Rama, the passage "depending on name-and-fonn,
consciousness [arises]," connotes that the consciousness of the new exis-
tence is produced from the body of the intennediate state, while the follow-
ing and reversed phrase, "depending on consciousness, name-and-fonn
[arises]," connotes that the body of the new existence is born from the first
moment of consciousness of the new existence. The reason for the argument
is not clear, but comparing this with the following objection raised by Sarigha-
bhadra, we can infer that here Rama would like to follow Srilata's view,
which does not allow a simultaneous relationship between cause and effect.
52
Argument 8. Nature of Action
In the second verse of Chapter Four of the Kosa (N 2bc), the V
kas state their definition of vijfiapti, according to which the intrinsic
nature (svabhava) or the ethical subject of manifested bodily action
suggests the so-called "embryogenetic" interpretation of dependent origination. Besides,
this sutra has no reference to ignorance (avidya), conditioned forces (sal'{lskaralJ), or the
six sense bases in its original version: the formula begins with the inter-
active cause-effect relationship between consciousness (vijfiana) and name-and-form
(namarupa), and there is no six sense bases (eaq.ayataniini) between name-and-form
(niimarupa) and contact Therefore, the Dharmaskandha (T. 1537; Dietz 1984),
one of the earliest works of the Sarvastivadins, inserts the phrases "depending on name-
and-form, consciousness arises" and "depending on name-and-form, contact arises" in its
interpretation of the dependent origination. It seems that Sanghabhadra here treats the
problem of interactive causation between consciousness and name and form with reference
to the explanation of the Dharmaskandha.
52 Srilata clearly states, "conditioned factors can never be simultaneous causes" (T. 1562:
421b18-22). This refusal to accept the simultaneity of cause and effect (e.g., contact of eyes
and visible material form, and the arising of visual perception) results in a successive
model of perception. See Cox (1988: 40-41). Though tradition says that this model of suc-
cessive perception is common to the view, Vasubandhu in the Kosa
does not accept it and supports the view of a simultaneous cause-effect rela-
tionship 146.18-20; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 2: 107; Pruden
1988-1990, v. 2: 430).
BHADANTA R..AMA: A SAUTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 281
(kayavijiiapti) is appearance (sal'{lsthana) as an existent visible material
fonn (rilpa). Vasuoandhu refers to the opinion of "others," identified by
the commentaries as VatslputrIyas or SaqunitIyas, according to whom
the nature of manifested action is "movement" (gati). However, the Kosa
immediately rejects this view:
Indeed, every conditioned factor, after having attained its existence, no
longer exists. It vanishes at the place where it arises, and hence it cannot
transmigrate to another place. Therefore, bodily action is not movement.
53
The conditioned factor arises at one moment and passes away into non-
existence at the next, without enduring for even one moment. And when
a series of factors arises moment by moment, gradually shifting its locus,
the phenomenon is called "movement." Thus, there is, in fact, no move-
ment. This view bears some similarity to argument of the Viniscayasal'{l-
grahalJl of the Yogacarabhilmi (T. 1579: 598aI8-19, 600alO-13).
On the other hand, the *Nyayanusara does not cite this passage of the
Kosa, but instead refers to Rama:
Bhadanta Rama gives his opinion: The stream of conditioned factors, by
attaining its existence, arises at a certain place and then goes out of existence
at that very place. Therefore, there is no movement CT. 1562: 533a26-28).
Then SaiJ.ghabhadra criticizes this: since Rama does not admit the exis-
tence of the past and future factors, how is it possible for the nonexistent
future factor "to attain its existence"?
It seems that Vasubandhu's passage corresponds more closely to that
of Rama than to that of the Yogacarabhiimi. This fact suggests that
Sanghabhadra thought of Rama as a precursor of the Sautrantika
Vasubandhu, at least with respect to the present topic; therefore, SaiJ.gha-
bhadra quotes Rama here, instead of Vasubandhu.
m. Conclusion
On the basis of the passages discussed above, the thought of Bhadanta
Rama can be outlined as follows:
53 sarva/'f1 hi sa/'f1skrtam atmaiabhad urdhva/'f1 na bhavatfti yatraiva jata/'f1 tatraiva
dhvasyate / tasyayukto desantarasa/'f1krantif:z / tasman na gatif:z kayakarmaf:z / (Abhidharma-
k o s a b h a ~ a 193.3-4; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 3: 4-5; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 553). See
also Vasubandhu's KarmasiddhiprakaralJa (Lamotte 1935-1936: 212-219).
282 TAKUMI FUKUDA
a) Following the views in the *Vzbhii>!ii, Rarna maintains
the existence of consciousness in the meditative state of cessation (argu-
ment 4) and refutes the simultaneous arising of cause and effect (argu-
ment 7). These opinions are also accepted by Sruata, and this confirms
Sanghabhadra's account that Rama was a disciple of Sruata. However,
Rama is not always an obedient pupil; for example, he objects to Sruata's
interpretation of the term "ignorance" (argument 5).
b) Furthermore, concerning topics such as the interpretation of the
opening formula of the teaching of dependent origination (argument 3)
or the negation of the VatSlputriya definition of the nature of manifested
bodily action (argument 8), Rama's accounts closely resemble passages
in the Abhidharmakosa. Considering the fact that Sanghabhadra chooses
to refer to Rama rather than Vasubandhu in both cases, it is possible to
assume that Vasubandhu inherited these arguments from Rarna. Rama's
interpretation of the term "arising," which is similar to Vasubandhu's
definition of the four characteristics in the Kosa (argument 2), should
perhaps be added here.
c) In addition, regarding other topics Rama's opinion indicates the
influence of the Y ogacara school. As has been suggested by the studies
of some modem scholars, Vasubandhu also seems to have been familiar
with Y ogacara ideas at the time when he wrote the Kosa and introduced
some of them into the Kosa as the opinions of the Sautrantikas or the
pilrviiciiryas. However, according to those studies, the Yogacarasource
materials for the Sautrantika opinions in the Kosa are limited to early
texts that do not necessarily presuppose the conception of iilayavijfiiina.
54
54 According to Schmithausen, the Yogacarabhiimi consists mainly of three heteroge-
neous or chronologically distinct layers: (1) the oldest layer, which refers neither to iilaya-
vijiiana nor to the Sarrzdhinirmocanasiitra; (2) a middle layer, which refers occasionally
to alayavijfiiina, but not to the Sarrzdhinirmocana; (3) the newest layer, which cuntains both
material from the Sarrzdhinirmocana and detailed treatments of alayavijiiana. Further,
each of these layers is not homogeneous in itself: the ViniscayasarrzgrahQlJ! also include
some old material. See Schmithausen (1987: 13-14). For a different analysis of the layers
of the Yogacarabhiimi, see Aramaki's hypothesis (unpublished) which is summarized by
Kritzer (1999: 12 note 17; 200). At any rate, it is certain that the arguments found in the
Yogacarabhiimi do not always presuppose the conception of alayavijiiana. Therefore, the
relationship between the Sautrantika opinions in the Kosa and the Yogacarabhiimi does not
imply immediately that Vasubandhu as the author of the Kosa has already accepted the
BHADANTA RA.MA: A SAUTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 283
On the other. hand, Rama's arguments regarding the nonexistence of the
reflected image, which would inevitably result in the mind-only theory
(argument 1), and his explanation of the impressions of the white factors
(argument 6), are apparently based on more highly developed Yogaciira
scriptures, such as the Saf!ldhinirmocanasutra, or treatises like the Mahii-
yiinasaf[lgraha.
In brief, the doctrine of Raffia is a blend of the views of the Diirstantikas
in the and Sruata the Sthavira in the *Nyiiyiinusiira a;'well as
some Y ogiiciira ideas. This fact suggests that the Sautrantikas are definitely
descended from the lineage, but, as Yin shun says, "It seems
that in the period of Bhadanta Rama, the Yogaciira Mahayanists flour-
ished, so they would have influenced the (Yin
shun 1980: 572-573). The Sautrantika positions of Vasubandhu in the
Abhidharmakosa should also be considered in this context.
However, while Rama's arguments appear to be an indiscriminate com-
bination of and Yogaciira views, Vasubandhu seems more
deliberate in introducing Yogaciira theory into the Kosa. On the one hand
he rejects certain opinions of the such as the negation of the
simultaneous cause-effect relationship, since they conflict with the Y oga-
ciira views that he accepts, and on the other hand, unlike Rama, he care-
fully avoids introducing fully developed Yogaciira conceptions, for they
might conflict with the scheme of abhidharmic philosophy that forms the
iilayavijiiiina. Regarding this issue, Kritzer has examined Vasubandhu' s interpretation of
the term "consciousness" (vijiiiina) as a member of the formula of dependent origination
and has concluded that the Kosa presupposes the conception of iilayavijiiiina, while
Vasubandhu does not actually use the term in the Kosa because it is not required in its
exegetical context (Kritzer 1999: 175-207). On the other hand, Yamabe, in his review of
Kritzer's book, says that the main sources for the Sautriintika views in the Kosa seem lim-
ited to the Savitarkiidibhilmi of the MaulibhUmi of the Yogiiciirabhilmi, a portion in which
there is little reference to iilayavijiiiina, and the parts of the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhilmi
of the Vmisicayasa7[lgrahaJ;zi in which the conception of iilayavijiiiina is not necessarily
required. This suggests the possibility that the author of the Kosa has not yet "discovered"
iilayavijiiiina. Hence, Yarnabe reserves judgement on whether Vasubandhu already accepted
iilayavijiiiina when he wrote the Kosa (Yamabe 2000 b: 68). I am not in a position to
decide this issue, but if my conclusions in this article are correct, other Sautrantikas, con-
temporary with Vasubandhu, were familiar with developed Yogaclira scriptures like the
Sa7[ldhinirmocanasutra and with treatises like the MahiiyiinasQ7[lgraha, which discuss the
conception of iilayavijiiiina. Therefore it is not impossible to suppose that Vasubandhu
knew iilayavijiiiina, although, at the time of composing the Kosa, he did not want to refer explic-
itly to such a novel idea, which never appears in the traditional exegetical abhidharma works.
284 TAKUMI FUKUDA
substructure of the Kosa. Thus he succeeds in formulating' a coherent,
high-level abhidharrna theory of his own, under the name of "Sautran-
tika." Perhaps this is the reason why Vasubandhu' s fate was different
from that of his contemporary Sautrantikas, whose works are no longer
extant. There must have been more Sautrantika masters at the time of
Vasubandhu, but, like Rama, they could not establish a method to har-
monize their abhidharmic views with Yogaciira theory, and therefore,
their works are lost to history. The Abhidharrnakosa is a rare example of
a Sautrantika work that achieved such harmony and therefore survived.
As for Vasubandhu himself, the composition of this treatise probably
served as a springboard for his conversion to Y ogaciira.
References
Primary Sources
Edited by P. Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Work Series
Vol. VIII, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.
Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii. Edited by U.Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book
Store, 1971. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: The publishing Association of
the Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii, 1932-1936).
BodhisattvabhUmi. Edited by U. Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store,
1971. Reprint (First edition: 1936).
Chu-she [un chi. P'u-kuang. T. 1821.
Chu-she lun shu. Fa-pao. T. 1822.
abhidharmakosatzkii. Pi.irr).avardhana. Peking Bstan 'gyur 5594.
Nyiiyiinusiira (Ap'i-ta-mo shun cheng-li lun). Sanghabhadra. T. 1562.
Tattviirthii abhidharmakosatzkii. Sthiramati. Peking Bstan 'gyur 5875.
Tattvasiddhi (Ch'eng shih lun). Harivarrnan. T. 1646.
(Ap'i-ta-mo ta-p'i-p'o sha lun). Translated by Hsiian-tsang. T. 1545.
Yogiiciirabhiimi. Edited by Vidhushekhara Bhattacarya. Part 1. Calcutta: University
of Calcutta, 1957.
Yogiiciirabhiimi (Yu-ch'ieh-shih ti lun). Translated by Hsiian-tsang. T. 1579.
Modern Works
Bareau, Andre. Le sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule. Publications de rEcole
d'Extreme-Orient XXXVIII. Paris: Ecole d'Extreme-
Orient 1955.
Cox, Collett. "On the Possibility of a Nonexistent Object of Consciousness: Sar-
vastivadin and Theories." Journal of the International Associa-
tion of Buddhist Studies 11/1 (1988): 31-87.
BHADANTA RAMA: A SAVTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 285
-. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Studia Philolo-
gica Buddhica: .Monograph Series 11. Tokyo: The International Institute for
Buddhist Studies, 1995.
Dietz, Siglinde. Fragmente des Dharmaskandha. Ein Abhidharma-Text in Sanskrit
aus Gilgit. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenshaften in Gottingen: Pirilolo-
gisch-Historische Klasse 2/142. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.
Enomoto Furnio. "A Sanskrit Fragment from the Discovered in Eastern
Turkestan." In Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon Neuentdeckun-
gen und Neueditionen ill Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus
den Turfan-Funden, edited by Heinz Bechert. Supplement 6. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, 135-143.
Griffiths, Paul J. On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body
Problem. La Salle, illinois: Open Court, 1986.
Hakamaya Noriaki. "Nirodhasamapatti - Its Historical Meaning in the Vijiiapti-
matrata System." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 23/2 (March 1975): 1084-
1074.
"Piirvacarya ko." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 34/2 (March 1986): 93-100.
Harada Waso. "Dignaga no & Vrtti." Ryukoku Daigaku
Bukkyogaku Kenkyushitsu Nempo 6 (March 1993): 92-110.
-. "Kyoryobu no tanso no shiki no nagare to iu gainen eno gimon I." Indogaku
Chibettogaku Kenkyu 1 (1996): 135-193.
Ito Shiiken. "Honzetsu no gengo ni tsuite." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 21/1
(December 1972): 134-135.
Kajiyama YUichi. "Rinne to chOetsu - JOyi.ikyo no engi setsu to sono kaishaku. "
Tetsugaku Kenkyu 550 (1985): 324-359.
Kato JunshO. Kyoryobu no kenkyu. Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1989.
"Higashi ajia no juyo shita abidarumakei ronsho - jojitsuron to kusharon no
bili." In Bukkyo no tozen: higashi asia no bukkyo shiso I, ShirIzu Higashia-
jia bukkyo, edited by Takasaki Jikido and Kimura Kiyotaka. Tokyo: Shun-
jusha, 1997,37-78.
Kritzer, Robert. Rebirth and Causation in the YogtictiraAbhidharma, Wiener Stu-
dien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 44. Wien: Arbeitskreis fUr
Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universitat Wien, 1999.
"Rupa and the antartibhava." Journal of Indian Philosophy 28/3 (June 2000):
235-272.
"Unthinkable Matters: the Term acintya in the
In Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought: In Honor of Dr. Hajime
Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh Birthday. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 2002,
65-86.
Lamotte, Etienne. Sarrzdhinirmocana Sutra: L'explication des mysteres. Recueil
de travaux publies par les membres des Conferences d'Histoire et du Philolo-
gie 2/34. Louvain: Universite de Louvain, 1935.
"Le Traite de l'Acte de Vasubandhu: Melanges
Chinois et bouddhiques 4 (1936): 151-263.
286 TAKuMI FUKUDA
-. "Trois Sutra du Sarp.yukta sur la vacuite." Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies, 36/2 (1973): 313-323.
La Vallee Poussin, Louis de. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. New edition.
Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques 16. Bruxelles: Institute BeIge des Hautes
Etudes Chinoises, 1980. Reprint (First edition: Louvain: J.B. Istas, 1923-1931).
Mejor, Marek. Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa and the Commentaries Preserved
in the Tanjur. Alt-und Neu-Indische Studien 42, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 1991.
Mimaki Katsumi. "Le chapitre du Blo gsal grub mtha' sur les Sautrantika: Presen-
tation et edition." Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanis-
tic Studies, Kyoto University 15 (1979): 175-210.
"Le chapitre du Blo gsal grub mtha' sur 1es Sautrantika: Un essai de traduc-
tion." Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies,
Kyoto University 16 (1980): 143-172.
Miyashita Seiki. "Mumyo to shogyo - kusharon ni okeru kokoro to katachi"
Nihon Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo 57 (1992): 1-28.
Nagao Gajin. Shodaijoron wayaku to chiikai Go). Tokyo: Kodansha, 1982.
Pruden, Leo M. Abhidharmakosabhii-rYa7[l by Louis de La Vallee Poussin (Eng-
lish Translation). 4 vo1s. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1988-1990.
Przyluski, Jean. Sautrantika and Sarvastivadin." Indian Historical
Quarterly 16 (1940): 246-254.
Schmithausen, Lambert. A.layavijiiiina: On the Origin and Early Development of
a Central Concept of Yogiiciira Philosophy. Studia Philologica Buddhica
Monograph Series 4. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies,
1987.
Willemen, Charles, Bart Dessein, and Collett Cox. Sarviistiviida Buddhist Scholas-
ticism. Handbuch der Orientalistik: Abt. IT, Indien, Band 11. Leiden: Brill,
1998.
Yamabe Nobuyoshi. "BIja Theory in ViniScayasa7[lgraha/J-f." Indogaku Bukkyo-
gaku Kenkyii 38/2 (March 1990): 13-15.
"Shilji no honnu to shinkun no mondai ni tsuite." Nihon Bukkyo Gakkai
Nenpo 54 (May 1989): 43-58.
"A Critical Exchange on the Idea of Dhatu-vada: Riposte." In Pruning the
Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism, edited by Jamie Hubbard and
Paul L. Swanson, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press (1997): 208-219.
"Yugashijiron ni okeru zen aku ingasetsu no ichisokumen." Nihon Bukkyo
Gakkai Nenpo 65 (May 2000): 127-146. [2000a]
-. Review of Rebirth and Causation in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma by Robert
Kritzer; Bukkyogaku Seminii 72 (October 2000): 59-69. [2000b]
Yin shun. Shuo yi ch'ieh yu pu wei chu te lun shu yu lun shih chih yen chiu. Tai-
pei: Cheng wen chu pan she, 1980. Reprint (First edition: Taipei: Hui jih
chiang t'ang, 1968).
SAUTRANTIKA AND THE III.IDAYA TREATISES
BART DESSEIN
O. Introduction
P'u-kuang's Chii-she Lun Chi, a 7th century commentary on Vasuban-
dhu's Abhidhannakosa, contains a passage on the origin of the Sautran-
tikas, in Which also the philosophical position of Vasubandhu's Abhi-
dhannakosa and of a section of Dhannatrata's *Sal'{lyuktiibhidhannahrdaya
are explained.
l
In this passage, P'u-kuang states that the Sautrantika tra-
dition goes back to Kum1iralata and that these Sautrantikas issued from
the Sarvastivadins (or, alternatively, that they owe their origin to the
concept of the three time periods
2
). P'u-kuang further claims that the
Abhidharmakosa and the section of the *Sal'{lyuktiibhidharmahrdaya
that contains the set of four alternatives on the three forms
of obstruction (iivaralJa) agree with the philosophical position of the
Sautrantikas. As the section of the Chinese *Sal'{lyuktiibhidhannahrdaya
under scrutiny here
3
disagrees with "the Sanskrit version," this, still
according to P'u-kuang, implies that the Chinese translator made a mistake
here.
4
This *Sal'{lyuktiibhidharmahrdaya is one of three Hrdaya treatises
contained in the TaishO edition of the Tripitaka, i.e., in its translation by
SaJ:p.ghavannan, titled Tsa A-p'i-t'an Hsin Lun (T. 1552). The other two
Hrdaya works are Sarp.ghadeva's translation *Abhidhar-
mahrdaya, titled A-p'i-t'an Hsin Lun (T. 1550), and the A-p'i-t'an Hsin
1 T. 1821: 35c4-14. A translation of the passage is given further on in this article. Fa-
pao's ehU-she Lun Shu (T. 1822: 496a9-17) contains a similar passage.
2 See note # 88.
3 See T. 1552: 875b5-1O.
4 Nishi (1978: 134, note # 33) explains that, probably, the Chinese version of the *Sarrz-
yuktiibhidharmahrdaya used by P'u-kuang differs from .the present Chinese translation.
He suggests that the catu.rkori of the present Chinese version was probably revised, based
on the Sanskrit. See also note # 13.
288 BART DESSEIN
Lun Ching (T. 1551), the translation of Upasanta's *Abhidharmahrdaya
by Narendrayasas. These three Hrdaya treatises led to the compilation of
the Abhidharmakosa by Vasubandhu. Two Chinese translations of this
work are included in the Taish6 edition: one by Paramartha (500-569),
titled A-p'i-ta-mo Chit-she Shih Lun (T. 1559), and one by Hsuan-tsang,
titled A-p'i-ta-mo Chit-she Lun (T. 1558).
The authors of the above works are ail from the same geographical
region. Judging from P'u-kuang's Chit-she Lun Chi,
(= Dharmasp) was a Tocharian from Bactria.
5
Upasanta refers to the
Kasrplri masters repeatedly6 and disagrees with them. This implies that
he most likely did not belong to this group. In the Ta Tang Hsi-yit Chi,
Dharmatrata is said to have written his work in Gandhara, more pre-
cisely in the neighborhood of Vasubandhu was from
pura in Gandhara.
8
This explains the tradition that says that Vasubandhu
was invited to send his stanzas (kiirikii) to Kaslra.
9
Commentating on
Gandhara, Stefan Anacker (1984: 12) views the above works as belong-
ing to the same geographical line of Sarvastivada philosophy, and he
claims that "this birthplace of the Sarvastivada masters Dharmasp and
the Bhadanta Dharmatrata, kept up its old tradition of scholastic Buddhist
learning."
As for textual format, the treatises enumerated above form a separate
group within Sarvastivada literature. They are composed of verses with
an accompanying prose auto-commentary.1O In this respect, they resemble
the Abhidharmasangftiparyiiyapiidasiistra (T.1536) and the Abhidhar-
madharmaskandhapiidasiistra (T.1537), the earliest works of what became
known as the Sarvastivada Satpiidiibhidharma. The two latter works were
translated by Hsuan-tsang's translation team,u
5 T. 1821: llel2-13. See also Kawamura (1974: 40) and Willemen (1975: ii and xxix,
note # 16). See also note # 19.
6 T. 1551: 841c17, 855a28, 855c27.
7 T. 2087: 881a17-19.
8 T. 2049: 188alO-l1. See also Takakusu (1904: 269); Hirakawa (1973: iii).
9 T. 2049: 190bl1. See also Takakusu (1904: 287); Anacker (1984: 15).
10 See Willemen, Dessein, Cox (1998: 174). Dhammajoti (1995: 20) remarks that the
use of 'simile of proof' (avadana) to explain stanzas started in the western region, particu-
larly Gandhara, which had become the center of missionary activities of the
masters. See also note # 33.
lIOn these two works, see Willemen, Dessein, Cox (1998: 177-189).
SAUTRAN'rlKA AND THE TREATISES 289
1. The Hrdaya works as a set of Sarvastivada works
There is textual evidence that, indeed, the Hrdaya works form a series.
In the introduction to Srupghavarman's translation of the *SaT(lyuktabhi-
dhannahrdaya, we read:
When explaining the meaning of *Abhidharmahrdaya,
different instructors have been unequal as to conciseness.
[own] explanation is the most concise [one]. Upasanta has an explanation
of 8,000 stanzas in length.12
. As the total number of stanzas contained in Upasanta's work amounts
to 249, as opposed to the 250 of s work, Srupghavarman
here undoubtedly refers to the prose auto-commentary, Upasanta's work
consisting of six volumes, and of four. In Seng-yu's
Ch'u San-tsang Chi Chi too, we find evidence that Dharmatrata's work
is related to *Abhidhannahrdaya. One passage suppor-
ting a connection between the two texts is contained in the TsaA-p'i-t'an
Hsin Hsii, an anonymous introduction to GUI;laVarman's Chinese transla-
tion ofthe *SaT(lyuktabhidhannahrdaya. GUI).avarman's translation is the
third translation that was made of the text, Srupghavarman's version being
the fourth.
13
The passage concerned reads as follows:
After a hundred years had passed since the parinirvclI}a of the Tathagata, there
was the venerable From the collection of scriptures proclaimed
by the Buddha, he selected the essentials (shih-yao amounting to 250 stan-
zas. He called [this work] *Abhidharmahrdaya. Later, there was the vener-
able Dhannatriita. When he took over what had been composed, he regarded the
essence of the words as incomplete and the meaning as having shortages. He
thereupon also selected from the scriptures and made 350 stanzas more. He com-
pleted what was lacking, and called [this work] * Sal'{lyuktabhidharmahrdaya.
14
12 T. 1552: 869c18-19.
13 The first translation of the *Sarrzyuktabhidharmahrdaya mentioned in Chih-sheng's
K' ai-yilan Shih-chiao Lu is the work of Srup.ghadeva. This translation has to be dated between
AD 385 and 397. However, it is not unlikely that this translation actually is a translation
of work. See Dessein (1999, voL 2: 25, note # 360). A second transla-
tion mentioned inChih-sheng's catalogue is the work of Fa-hsien and Buddhabhadra. This
translation is to be dated ca. AD 418. The third translation was started by lsvara and com-
pleted by GUl,lavannan. It is to be dated ca. AD 426. Srup.ghavannan's translation is dated
AD 434. See Dessein (1999, voL 1: lxxvii-lxxxi); T. 2154: 648a8-9 and 649b23-c7; and
T. 2157: 954b18-29 and 985c20-986a3.
14 T. 2145: 74b5-9. On the interpretation of the title *Sarrzyuktabhidharmahrdaya, see
Dessein (1999, voL 1: xix-xxii).
290 . BART DESSEIN
A second passage in the Ch 'u San-tsang Chi Chi is found in Chiao-
ching's preface to Sarp.ghavarrnan's translation of the *Sarrtyuktabhidhar-
mahrdaya, dated AD 435.
15
Here we read:
Later, after the parinirviil}a of the Tathagata,in the time of the Ch'in and
the Han, there was the venerable He made the work [titled]
*Abhidharmahrdaya. It totals 250 stanzas that form ten chapters. Later,
having come to the time of the heyday of the Chin, there further was the
venerable Dhannatrata. He added 350 stanzas to form eleven chapters, and
called [ this work] * Saf(lyuktiibhidharmahrdaya.16 .
That Dharmatrata sees his work merely as an expansion of Dhar-
is stated in the preface to his work as follows:
I pay homage to the venerable I humbly accept what he has
said. I, Dhannatrata, explain what has not yet been explained by him; 17
as well as in the work itself, where we read:
Deliberating with little wisdom on what the honored has
said, I now compile chapters and sentences to comment on and complete the
doctrine as it has been transmitted. It is not because of wishing for pride and
seeking for glory. He has said the same.
18
In the above passages from the Ch 'u San-tsang Chi Chi, two opinions
on dates appear: one hundred years after the demise of
the Buddha, and in the time of the Ch'in and theHan. In P'u-kuang's Chil-
she Lun Chi, we find the following formulation:
In the five hundred years following the Buddha's parinirviilJa, the philoso- .
pher a Tocharian from the land of the OXUS,19 composed
the *Abhidharmahrdaya. [In this work,] it is explained that [when afflictions
(kleSa)] 'arise' successively [to certain factors (dharma), these factors] are
impure (siisrava)20. Six hundred years [after the Buddha's parinirvl1lJa],
Dhannatrata changed [the phrase "to arise successively"] into "to increase
15 See Lin (1949: 341).
16 T. 2145: 74b23-26.
17 T. 1552: 869c22-23.
18 T. 1552: 963c8-10.
19 T. 1821: 11c13 reads,jl1j: 'Ill: most likely (cf. Soothill and Hodous, 1987: 449).
has been identified with the Oxus River (Edgerton, 1985: 466-467; Monier-Williams,
1990: 911).
20 See T. 1550: 809blO-12.
SAU'TRANTIKA AND THE TREATISES 291
successively," 1;>ecause the meaning of "arising" is erroneous, since although
impurities [may} arise in succession to the truth of cessation (nirodhasatya)
and that of the path (miirgasatya), [these factors] are not said to be impure.
21
Since this [last opinion] is not erroneous, the master of this treatise follows
this explanation.
22
.
As is the case in the passage of the Chu-she Lun Chi referred to in the
beginning of this article, this passage too connects Vasubandhu with Dhar-
matrata. This passage further corroborates the version of Chiao-ching's
preface concerning the dates of placing this author
between the beginning of the common era and the 3rd century AD. More-
over, placing as far back in time as "one hundred years
after the Buddha's parinirvii1}a"23 is highly unlikely, as one hundred
years after the Buddha's demise, Abhidharma literature cannot have
reached that degree of development yet. 24 Providing more exact dates
for the author of the *Abhidharmahrdayi:;z remains a highly difficult task.
The biography of Dharmakiila in the Kao Seng Chuan informs us that
when Dharmakiila was twenty-five years of age, he entered a Buddhist
monastery where he saw Abhidharma.
25
The same bio-
graphy informs us that Dharmakiila arrived in Lo-yang in the Chia-p'ing
era (AD 249-254).26 It is not clear how much time elapsed between his
acquaintance with work and his arrival in Lo-yang.
However, as in the first half of the 3rd century AD the *Abhidharma-
hrdaya was already spread among the monasteries of India, it is not
unlikely that the work is anterior to the 3rd century AD. Upasiinta must
have lived later than the compilation of the More pre-
cisely, he most likely lived one generation prior to Dharmatrata,21 author
of the *Sa7fZyuktiibhidharmahrdaya, who lived in the beginning of the
21 See T. 1552: 871a15-22.
22 T. 1821: llc12-16. The same inforrnation is found in Fa-pao's commentary on the Abhi-
dhannakosa, T. 1822: 469a28-b3. For the Abhidharmakosa opinion, see T. 1558: 1c6-1O.
23 T. 2145: 74b5.
24 See Willemen, Dessein, Cox (1998: 170-176).
2S T. 2059: 324c19-20. The same information is found in the Li-tai San-pao Chi,
T. 2034: 56b12-13. See also Shih (1968: 18).
26 T. 2059: 324c27-28. The same information is found in the Li-tai San-pao Chi,
T. 2034: 56b20. See also Shih (1968: 18).
27 See Watanabe, Mizuno and Oishi (1932: 124); Kimura (1974: 230); Dessein (1999,
vol. 1: xxxvii).
292 . BART DESSEIN
4th century AD.28 As Dhannatrlita is dated approximately 'one hundred
years after in the above quotation from the Chu-she Lun
Chi, this would place around the beginning of the 3rd cen-
tury AD.29 This implies that the three Hrdaya works were written in the
time span of about one hundred years.
Much controversy exists on the dates of Vasubandhu, generally accepted
to be a Sautrlintika philosopher who, in his
criticized the V doctrinal viewpoint. The earliest proposed date
of "around 316 AD"30 would make Vasubandhu a contemporary of the
author of the *Sarrzyuktiibhidharmahrdaya. The textual format of the
Abhidharmakosa, as well as the philosophical position of its author, how-
ever, force us to date Vasubandhu later than Dharmatrlita. It has been
shown that Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa is a rewriting of Dharma-
trlita's work.
31
The fact that the three Hrdcrya works themselves, as well
as the Chinese tradition as included in the Buddhist catalogues of trans-
lations, see the three texts as closely related and the fact that a compari-
son of Dhannatrlita's work with and with Upaslinta's
*Abhidharmahrdaya shows that the *Sarrzyuktiibhidharmahrdaya was
influenced by the seem to suggest that Vasubandhu wanted
to accomplish two aims in one text: perfecting the structure of the Hrdcrya
works, and criticizing the influence in these works. As the
commentators of Vasubandhu' s work, having started their argument by
mentioning Kumlirallita, explain that Vasubandhu took the development of
philosophical ideas into account when composing his treatise, and as they
seem to suggest that at least parts of the original version of Dhannatrlita's
agreed with the Abhidharmakosa, it appears that, in the Chinese tra-
dition, the Hrdcrya works were seen as a series, ending with Vasubandhu's
Abhidharmakosa.
32
Also geographically, these works form a unit.
28 T. 2145: 74b25 dates him in the beginning of the Eastern CbinDynasty (ie. AD 317).
See also Dessein (1999, vol. 1: xxiii).
29 Kimura (1974: 223) situates around 200 AD. Yamada (1959: 113)
states that the *Abhidharmahrdaya was written simultaneously with the This
date is contradicted by the fact that is referred to in the Ch'u Yao Ching.
See also note # 34, # 35, # 37, and # 39.
30 Anacker (1984: 11). See also Schmithausen (1992: 396-397).
31 See Kimura (1974: 259-261); Dessein (1999, vol. 1: 1v-Ivi).
32 See Dessein (1999, vol. 1: xxxv, xxxviii-xl, xlv-I, lv-lxvi).
SAUTRANTIKA AND THE HI.IDAYA TREATISES 293
Now that we know that the above four texts (T. 1550, T. 1551, T. 1552
and T. 1558(T. 1559) fonn a series, we can investigate the nature of these
texts. Hui-yiian's introduction to the Chinese translation of
thin's work in the Ch 'u San-tsang Chi Chi calls the *Abhidharmahrdaya
the "Essential stanzas (giithii) of the Tripitaka," (san-tsang chih yao-sung
.=:. it z t':W).33 This meaning is parallel to the meaning of hrdaya, and
is reminiscent of the passages quoted above on the compilation of the
*Abhidharmahrdaya: "He selected the essentials," and of the *Sarrzyuk-
tiibhidharmahrdaya: "He selected from the scriptures and made 350 stan-
zas more. "34 It may be very noteworthy that is quoted
in the Chinese translation (4th century AD) of Bhadanta Dhannatrata's
Ch'u Yao Ching: "Therefore, the venerable (T'an-mo-
shih-Ii i:!t fU) said the following stanzas: [ ... J. "35
33 T. 2145: 72cl. 1i!i is the standard Chinese translation of 'Udana.' Rockhill (1975:
vii) explains "udana" as follows: "[ ... J the word udana must [ ... J be understood [ ... ]
something nearly approaching 'gatha,' verse, or stanza." On the same page, note # 2, he
continues: "It would be perfectly admissible to call this work 'a sutra,' using, however,
that word in its habitual sense of 'series of aphorisms.' He further remarks (op. cit.: viii),
"It appears to me that the founder of Buddhism must have attached great importance to
these verses [ ... J As a natural consequence of the importance attributed to these verses, it
appeared desirable to the fIrst successors of the Buddha to collect in separate works all such
utterances of the Master as might prove especially instructive, and as best answering the
purposes of their schooL" See also Dharnmajoti (1995: 8).
34 In the introduction to the Ch'u Yao Ching, T. 212: 609b27-29, we read that Dharma-
rata compiled the work by collecting 1,000 stanzas and forming 33 chapters. The work was
called Dhannapada. Together with their commentary, this work is said to have been called
Udiina. Dhammajoti (1995: 17) further remarks that "No other extant source confirms the
assertion that the stanza portions alone of this Sarvastivada version, without the commen-
tary, was called a Dharmapada; though it does seem that when stanzas from this version
were quoted by other schools, they are mentioned as being from the 'Dhannapada.''' See
also T. 1545: IbI8-20. It may be reiterated here that the Chinese version of the Ch'u Yao
Ching also dates from the end of the 4th century. See also in this regard Dhammajoti (1995:
17-18). See also note # 10. According to Nakamura, "The Udanavarga composed by the
Sarvlistivadins seems to be collation of the Pali Dhammapada and the Udana with some
verses from the Sagatha-vagga of the SaIpyutta-nikliya and from the Suttanipata in Pali. There
is a legend that the Udlinavarga was compiled by Dharmatrata, a contemporary of king
The Ch'u-yao-ching (30 vols.) and the Fa-chi-yao-sung-ching (4 vols.) are con-
sidered to be Chinese translations of this text, which corresponds to the Dhammapada of
other sects. Legend has it that the Ch'u-yao-ching translated into Chinese by Buddhasmrti,
was composed by Dharmatrata who lived about 300 years after the death of the Buddha.
'This is earlier than the Dhammapadattbakatha of Buddhaghosa," (1980: 42-43).
35 T. 212: 626a17-21. On the compiler Dharmatrata, see AKV: 12,2-4.
294 BART DESSEIN
is further referred to in the following passage of the Ch'u Yao Ching:
"Those who reflect on [the calamities]36 of the body, explain things as in
the scriptural texts. The venerable (T' an-mo-shih-li
!!: ? also said this.'>37 This Bhadanta Dharrnatrata of the Ch'u Yao
Ching is generally accepted to be a and is also referred
to in the *Sal"{lyuktiibhidharmahrdaya, i.e., as the "Dharrnatrata offorrner
times. "39
Judging from the above, the purpose of the *Abhidharmahrdf!-ya was
similar to the purpose of the / Jfiiinaprasthiina: summarizing
the doctrine. It has been proven that the Jfiiinaprasthiina is more recent
than s *Abhidharmahrdaya.40 As we know that the Jfiiina-
prasthiina served as basis for the of the Sar-
vastivadins, the * Abhidharmahrdaya appears to be a summary digest of
non- Sarvastivada.
2. The origin of the Dar1iitantika-Sautrantikas
Above, has been connected with the Dhar-
matrata, author of the Ch'u Yao Ching, a work similar in purpose to the
*Abhidharmahrdaya. We hence need to investigate who these
Sautrantikas are.
41
The Samayabhedoparacanacakra places their origin
in the beginning of the fourth century after the Buddha's parinirviilJ.a.42
Hsiian-tsang's Chinese translation of this text, I-pu Tsung Lun Lun
(T. 2031), calls them Ching-liang Pu ]Ii: l&B. The text further states that
they are also called" Sarpkrantivadin" (Shuo-chuan Pu "l&B), and that
36 Cf. T. 212: 642c28.
37 T. 212: 643a2-3. See also Lin (1949: 51 ff.); Annelin (1978: 241-242, note # 19).
38 See Lin (1949: 322 ff.).
39 T. 1552: 946b15. Lin (1949: 351) dates this Dargantika Dharmatrata around the
2nd century BC. This approximately agrees with the traditional date given by P'u-kuang,
T. 1821: 11a7-8: "Dharmatrata [ ... ] was born three hundred years after the Buddha's Nir-
vana." See also Dhammajoti (1995: 19).
40 Yamada (1959: 113); Frauwallner (1971: 7l); Willernen (1975: viii); Dessein (1996:
643). For a review of scholarly opinions on the relative dating of the *Abhidharmahrdaya
and the see Kawamura (1974: 39 ff.).
41 Cf. AKV: 400.17: ity arthaJ;". On the identity of
Darstantikas and Sautrantikas, see Willernen, Dessein, Cox (1998: 106-110).
42 T. 2031: 15b18-19.
SAUTRANTIKA AND THE TREATISES 295
they claim to have Ananda (Ch 'ing-hsi as their teacher.
43
This is
confirmed in the Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun Shu-chi, where K'uei-chi (632-
682) says that a master called PilfI.1a developed especially the Abhidharma
and Vinaya, and that this invoked a reaction of some monks who took
Ananda as their patron and followed only the sittras.
44
In the I-pu-tsung
Lun Lun Shu-chi, the same K'uei-chi comments. on the origin of the
Sautrantikas. He states the following:
These masters only rely on the scriptural texts as true measure (cheng-liang
JE :1:); they do not depend on the Vinaya and on the Abhidharma. In every-
thing they claim, they depend on the scriptural texts as proof. This is why
they are called "Sautrantika"-masters (Ching Pu Shih They also
obtained the name "Sautrantika" (Ching-liang Pu $) because they
follow what was established. They are also called "Sfupkrantivada" (Shuo-
chuan Pu $). These masters acknowledge the existence of seeds (bija).
[They say that] there is only one seed that, in its course, evolves from the
present (pratyutpanna) to reach a later period of time. Therefore it is said
that, when evolving, a later [period of time] is reached. It should be known
that formerly they were called "Sarpkrantivilda" (Shuo-tu Pu J3t $). How-
ever, when Gautama's words were edited, the honored Ananda especially
emphasized the collection of scriptural texts. It is precisely because [the
Sautrantikas] take the scriptural texts as norm that they claim that Ananda
is their teacher and that their present name was formed [because] they fol-
low what was established. They are full of sympathy for an emphasis on the
Abhidharma, and do not neglect an emphasis on the Vinaya, but since they
do not depend on the Abhidharma and on the Vinaya, they now only accept
Ananda as their teacher.
45
Paramartha, who made the first translation of the Abhidharmakosa,
also made a translation of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra. This text,
titled Shih-pa Pu Lun (T.2032),46 also places their origin in the fourth
century. The text further says that they obtained their name 'Sarpkran-
tivada' (Seng-chia-lan-to $-) from their master Dharmottara
(Yii-to-lo $-m),47 and that they are also called Hsiu-to-lo-lun Pu
43 T. 2031: 15bI9-20. See also Bareau (1954: 237-238).
44 T. 1830: 274a8 ff. See also K'uei-chi (l-pu-tsung Lun Lun Shu-chi: 22a2-3); Bareau
(1955: 155); Bechert (1985: 44).
45 K'uei-chi (I-pu-tsung Lun Lun Shu-chi: 22a2-8). I will return to this in my discus-
sion of the explanation of the three time periods. See also note # 88.
46 See Masuda (1920: 1) and Demieville (1925: 48, note # 1).
47 T. 2032: 18b4-5. See also Bareau (1954: 238, note # 1).
296 . BART DESSEIN
{i$?,,ill ilffil 1m.
48
When we interpret this in the light of the above quoted
passage from the I-pu-tsung Lun Lun Shu-chi, it appears that Dharmot-
tara is credited with the seed,:theory.49 Paramartha's translation of the
Samayabhedoparacanacakra, titled Pu Chih I Lun (T. 2033), calls them
Tu Pu or, alternatively, Shuo-ching Pu 1m.
50
As is evident
from the I-pu-tsung Lun Lun Shu-chi, the first of the latter two names is
a translation of "Sarpkrantivada." Also the Mafijus(fparipTcchiisutra
places the origin of the Sautrantikas in the fourth century after the Bud-
dha's parinirvaf}a.
51
According to the SariputraparipTcchasutra, finally,
the Sautrantikas only recognized the authority of the sutra literature.
52
This latter opinion is corroborated in the Chinese names Ching-liang Pu
Hsiu-to-lo-Iun Pu {i$?,,ill ilffil 1m, and Shuo-ching Pu
The second of these three names, further, is a combination of sutra and
sastra.
Must we conclude from all this that the history of the Sautrantikas goes
back to a master Dharmottara
53
who lived around the fourth century after
the Buddha's parinirvaf}a,54 and that his followers took kanda - the one
who, according to tradition, heard the sutras from the mouth of the Bud-
dha
55
- as their example? Must we further assume that this Dharmottara
summarized the doctrine in stanzas that were selected from the sutras?
Theoretically speaking, this is not impossible. It is undoubtedly true that
the development of Abhidharma literature is related to the schismatic
development of Buddhist sects, and that this kind of literature has, at a cer-
tain moment in its history, served to express the own sectarian viewpoints
48 T; 2032: 18b5.
491'. 1821: llc12. It must be recalled here that "Dharmottara" is also found as an
interpretation of 1:t< i.e., author of the *Abhidharmahrdaya (T. 1550)
in Fa-paa Tsung-mu-Iu 1: 696a20-22. For "uttara," Wogihara (1974: 243) gives as a
possible translation. However, a date for Dharmottara of the fourth century after the Bud-
dha's parinirvt'ilJa does not correspond to the different alternatives given for the lifetime
of in the Chinese catalogues.
50 T. 2033: 20b18-20.
51 T. 468: 50la19-b25, esp. 501b23-24.
52 T. 1465, p. 900c12-13. See also K'uei-chi (I-pu-tsung Lun Lun Shu-chi: 22a2); and
Takakusu (1956: 42).
53 T. 2032: 18b4-5.
54 T. 2031: 15b18-19; T. 2032: 18b3-4; T. 468: 501b23-24.
55 T. 2031: 15b19-20; T. 1830: 274a8 ff.
in defense against the opinions of other sects. However, it is highly
unlikely that the Abhidhanna literature arose precisely as such an instru-
ment of philosophical dIscussion. It is far more plausible that the early
Abhidhanna works were non-sectarian. This implies that, at a later- date,
texts may have been claimed by one school or another. 56 Sometimes, as
has been the case for the a school was called after a text
or set of texts. It can be recalled here that also the fIrst reference to the
Sarvastivada $atpiidiibhidharma as a "set" of texts dates from after the
publication of the MahiiprajiiiipiiramitopadeSa (translated AD 402-405).57
It would thus not be unlikely that the Hrdaya treatises were also only
at a later date (i.e. from the time of Dhannatrata - 4th century AD -
onwards) presented as embodying a separate lineage, leading to the "Sau-
trantika" Abhidharmakosa.
58
This may explain why - at least in the Chi-
nese tradition - the Hrdaya works were seen as "summaries" of the doc-
trine as it had been proclaimed by the Buddha.
59
This may also explain
why the introduction to GUl).avannan's translation of the *Sarp,yuktii-
bhidharmahrdaya places "one hundred years after the
Buddha's and, analogously, why Ananda is claimed to be
the founder of the Sautrantikas. It may also be reiterated here that the
Sarvastivada tradition places the synod of VaislilI, the synod that is related
to the fIrst schism in the Buddhist community, in 110 AB.60 With this,
the Chinese tradition places the origin of the Hrdaya works (Dhar-
in the beginning of Sarvastivada history.
Must we further assume that these Sautrantikas, named after the sutra
literature, had "sarrzkriintiviida" as one of their major doctrinal points?
, I
3. The Sautrantika theory of 'resisting' (pratigha)
For any investigation into the doctrines and the doctrinal affiliation of
Abhidhanna schools, we are lucky to possess such a major work as the
56 See Willemen, Dessein, Cox (1998: 10-11, 143-144).
57 See Dessein (1999, vol. 2: 9, note # 94).
58 See T. 1821: 35c4-14 and T. 1822: 496a9-17.
59 Cf. T. 1821: 35c6-7: "Because they took the siitras as nonn, they are called Sautrlin-
tika."
60 T. 1435: 450a28; T. 1451: 411c2-3. See also Hofinger (1946: 23, 131).
298 BART DESSEIN
(T. 1545). In this work, "many Abhi-
dharma schools and masters are mentioned, and various doctrinal stand-
points are attributed to different schools or teachers. The
contains only two references to the Ching Pu Shih {f rm "the mas-
ters of the school that holds to the sutras." The first of these is an indi-
rect reference: "Some say that this is what the Sautrantikas (Ching Pu
{f rm)61 claim. The Sautrantikas also, in order to refute such assertions
of the Vibhajyavadins as [mentioned] above, say the following [, ... ]"62
In the second reference, the Sautrantikas are contradicted.
63
It has been
remarked by Louis de La Vallee Poussin that the portions attributed to
the Sautrantikas in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa are attributed to
the in the The in total
contains 86 references to these Keeping in mind the fact
that the is a sectarian (Vaibh1i1?ika)
work, we can observe that the term appears to be a
tive term, used in contempt by an opponent, while the term Sautrantika
holds a positive connotation.
65
This is affirmed by the fact that the
repeatedly reproaches the for relying on the
sutras.
66
The fact that the compendia were compiled in a period
of sectarian self-consciousness,67 and that the term "Sautrantika" appears
later than the term further sustains our assumption that
a Sautrantika self-consciousness arose in a period posterior to the com-
pilation of the more precisely, around the 4th to 5th cen-
tury AD.68
Fa-pao, in his CM-she Lun Shu, states the following regarding the ori-
gin of the Sautrantikas:
61 Cf. Nakamura (1985: 237).
62 T. 1545: 8b6-7.
63 T. 1545: 189b3.
64 La Vallee Poussin (1971, vol. 1: lii-liii).
65 See Przyluski (1940: 250); Willemen, Dessein, Cox (1998: 106-110).
66 T. 1545: 283a23-24; 309a12; 680b28; 760a29-bl.
67 See Willemen, Dessein, Cox (1998: 229).
68 We can further recall here that in the *Mahiivibhiisa, the term Darstiintika is trans-
lated as 'If 1lf. It seems highly unlikely that when H;iian-tsang
as 'If 1lf, he was unaware that is also used as translation of "avadana," one of the
twelve constituent parts of the word of the Buddha. See also Lamotte (1967: 160, 176) and
Dharnrnajoti (1995: 20).
SAUTRANrlKA AND THE TREATISES 299
Kumaralata, in Chinese Hao-fung, is the founder (Tsu-shih of the
Sautrantikas. In this school, he composed the Drlftantapahkti and other
works. In these [works], there is this stanza that makes clear that they do
not agree with the Sarvastivadins concerning [the notion of] "resisting"
(sapratigha).69 .
There is no scholarly agreement on the dates of Kumaraliita, opinion vary-
ing from 100 years after the Buddha's parinirviily.a
70
to the 4th century AD.71
According to tradition, this Kumaraliita, who is also referred to as 'Bhadanta'
in Upaiinta'sA-p'i-t'an Hsin Lun Ching,72 was the teacher of Harivarman
73
and SrTIiita.7
4
SrTIiita was the direct teacher of Vasubandhu.
75
Precisely the
fact that Fa-pao, who claims that Vasubandhu agrees with the Sautriin-
tikas,76 was a disciple of Hstian-tsang who translated the Abhidhannakosa
may be the reason why Fa-pao claims that Kumaraliita, a native of Gan-
dhara, is the founder of the Sautriintikas, and that SrTIiita was a Sautriintika.
77
The passage of the A-p'i-t'an Hsin Lun Ching referred to above, deals
with the notion of "resisting" (pratigha). It runs as follows:
As Bhadanta Kumaralata said: "That which, at the moment an idea (manas)
is about to arise, is resisting, should be known as 'resisting' (sapratigha).
In the contrary case, it is umesisting (apratigha)."78
69 T. 1822: 496all-12. See also Kato (1980: 199).
70 Cf. T. 1830: 274a8-14: "One hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvii1;za, in the
country (t. ,f,i), there was Kumaralata [ ... ] As he was compared with the
sun, he was named "the master of comparison" Or he was named
because he had composed the DNtiintapankti. [ ... ] Because [they depended] on the line-
age (gotra) of the section of siitras, the Sautrantikas took this as the name af their school.
At that moment, there were no Sautrantikas yet, since the Sautrantikas appeared 400 years
after the Buddha's parinirviiIJa." See also Hahn (1985: 255-256). On the relation between
the Dmantapruikti and the term "Diir:ftiintika," see Przyluski (1940: 247).
71 T. 2145: 78c3-4: "[ ... J nine hundred years after the Buddha's parinirviiIJna." See also
Kato (1980: 197; 1989: 37 ff.).
72 T. 1551: 835b27. The Chinese translation by Narendraya:las was done between AD
550 and 558. See Dessein (1999, voL 1: xxxviii).
73 Cf. T. 1545: 78c9-1O; T. 1852: 3cll-14.
74 See Kato (1989: 59 ff.).
75 See Frauwallner (1971: 103); Cox (1995: 41).
76 T. 1822: 496aI6-17.
77 T. 1822: 604a5-6. See also T. 1821: 168a8-9. Yasomitra (AKV: 307.17) identifies
the speaker in the following passage of the AKB (146.3-5) as SrIlata: "sittrapramiiIJakii
vaya/'(! na siistrapramiiIJakii/:z. ukta/'(! hi Bhagavatii sittriintapratisaranair bhavitavyam iti."
See Cox (1995: 6 and 17, note # 20).
78 T. 1551: 835b27-28. See also Kato (1980: 200).
300 BART DESSEIN
The idea of "resisting" was first formulated in the Prakaral}apada,
where ten elements (dhatu) - five faculties (indriya) and five objects
- are said to be resisting.
79
In work, the idea
of the PrakaralJapada is adopted. so The is the first Sar-
vastivada work that differentiates three forms of "resisting": "resisting
by way of being an obstruction" (avaralJapratighata): the quality that
enables a body to obstruct the arising of another body; "resisting of the
object" the object of a faculty that ,strikes
its respective faculty; and "resisting of the supporting object" (alamba-
napratighata): the striking of the mind and mental states by their proper
object (svalambana).Sl These three forms are also mentioned in Upasanta's
*Abhidharmahrdaya. The passage goes as follows:
There are three fonns of "resisting": "resisting by way of being an obstruc-
tion" (iivarmJapratighiita), "resisting of the object" and
"resisting of the supporting object" (iilambanapratighiita). "Resisting by
way of being an obstruction" is [as in the case of] one's hands: the left and
the right hand are opposed to each other. "Resisting of the object" is that a
faculty (indriya) and its object are opposed to each other. "Resisting
of the supporting object" is [the relation between] mental consciousness
(manovijiiiina) and all factors (sarvadharma). Of these, only "resisting by
way of being an obstruction" [can be] accepted. Because ofmutual
82
obstruc-
tion, something is said to be "resisting." All these ten elements are mutually
obstructing. When it is not so, it is impossible for [consciousness] to arise.
As Bhadanta KumaraUita said, "That which, at the moment an idea (manas)
is about to arise, is resisting, should be known as 'resisting' (sapratigha).
In the contrary case, it is umesisting (apratigha)."83
It thus is clear that Upasanta here refers to Kumliralata to deny the
development of the notion of 'resistance' as we find it in the
79 T. 1542: 756c9-1O, 762c9-1O.
80 T. 1542: 762c5-1O: "Of the eighteen elements (dhiitu) [ ... ] one is visible (sanidar-
sana) and seventeen are invisible (anidarsana). How many are resisting? Ten are resist-
ing (sapratigha) and eight are unresisting (apratigha)"; T. 1550: 809c19-22: "Of the
[eighteen] elements, one is visible (sanidarsana) [ ... ] It shonld be known that seventeen
are invisible (anidarsana). Ten are then said to be resisting (sapratigha). The ten elements
that are resisting are the eye and matter (nipa), the ear (srolra) and sound (sabda),
the nose (ghriil}a) and smell (gandha) , the tongue (jihvii) and taste (rasa), and the body
(kiiya) and the tangible
81 T. 1545: 391a8-c20.
82 On the interpretation of 1;[ in this passage, see Willemen (1975: 202, note # 11).
83 T. 1551: 835b22-29.
In fact, the interpretation of 'resisting' in the second and
third fonn differs from the interpretation of resisting in "resisting by way
of being an obstruction," and can be seen as derived from the first mean-
ing. By retracing the elaboration on "pratigha" to the basic meaning of
"obstruction" (iivaralJa), Upasanta retains the position of the PrakaralJa-
piida and *Abhidharmahrdaya. It is possible that, as
Upasanta knew the KilsIpIri he tried to use the argument of
the Sautrantika master Kumaralilta, against the development of the KilsIri

The *Saf!lyuktiibhidharmahrdaya also mentions the three fonns of "resist-
ing." Here, the KiiralJaprajfiapti84 is referred to to justify the second of the
three aforementioned fonns,85 i.e., the fonn that deals with the five facul-
ties and their respective objects. This is the fonn of "resisting" that was
mentioned in the PrakaralJapiida. Vasubandhu too, in the Abhidharmakosa,
differentiates three fonns of "resisting." In line with Upasanta, he refers
to Kumaralilta for a correct interpretation, i.e. a denial of the existence of
the second and third fonn of "resisting" listed in the
Kumaralilta is, more precisely, quoted as referring to the KiiralJaprajfiapti.87
It is on this issue that P'u-kuang comments with the passage referred to
in the beginning of this article. The passage runs as follows:
KumaraHita, in Chinese Hao-t'ung, is the founder of the Sautrfultikas. In this
school, he has composed the [ ... ] and other works. Originally,
the Sautrfultikas followed the Sarvastivadins and issued from them.
88
Because
84 See T. 1538: 523c24-524a9. Notice that the *Sa1J1yuktiibhidhannahrdaya (T. 1552:
875a26) calls this work Prajfiaptisiltra.
85 T. 1552: 875a16-bI2.
86 T. 1558: 7a13-b23.
87 See also Kata (1980: 207), who further claims: "Cela nous arnene a conclure que
la karika de Kumaralata fut composee apres la creation des deux derniers sapratigha dans
la c'est-a-dire que Ie Bhadanta Kumaralata est posterieur a la
For a complete analysis and discussion of the passage, see Kata (1980: 203-207). See also
de La Vallee Poussin (1971, vol. 1: 52).
88 Kata (1980: 199) translates this passage as: "Les Sautrantika viennent des Sarvas-
tivadin." As only the variant reading of the version of this text written in Tennin ;R t:: 2
(AD 1109) and preserved in Tadaiji * ;k ! and of the version published in Genroku j[; iii!k
15 (AD 1702) read - -IjIJ fl $ instead of - -IjIJ fl, another possible translation of this
passage would be: "The origin of the Sautrantikas derives from the explanation of [the
notion that] everything exists." This interpretation makes sense in the light of the discus-
sion that follows on the explanation of the three time periods.
302 BART DESSEIN
they [only] take the sutras as norm, they are called Sautrantika. Those who
take what is proven (yukta) as norm, are called the Sarvastivadins. When,
in this stanza, (avarana) is mentioned, the idea is that it is so
that because something is hindered 'by something else, it does not succeed
in arising.
89
When properly taking the specific object (svavi.yaya) as sup-
porting object (alambana), what is then said to be obstructing? It is as
when visual consciousness (cak.yurvijiiiina) wants to arise regarding matter
(rupa) as object (vi.yaya), its arising would be hindered by such other things
as sound (sabda). When it would be obstructed by other things, it should be
known it is "resisting" (sapratigha); when properly taking matter as sup-
porting object, it is said to be "unresisting" (apratigha).90 On this point,
not all schools agree. The master of this treatise agrees with the Sautrantikas.
Therefore, it is said that this [explanation] can be allowed. The phrasing of
the set of four alternatives (catu.ykotz) of the *Sa7J1Yuktiibhidharmahrdaya91
corresponds with the Sautrantikas.
92
[Since] this does not agree with the
Sanskrit version, the translator must be wrong. As there is an explanation
by on old virtuous [master],93 it is the case that this stanza does not
with the Sarvastivada [viewpoint].94
The idea forwarded by P'u-kuang here seems to be the following.
In the early Abhidharma literature, "resistance" was explained to be the
89 Judging from the further philosophical elaboration of this issue in terms of "appro-
priatedness" (upiitta), this "something else" is likely to refer to the object of
another faculty (indriya). See below.
90 This contradicts the second (and by expansion also the third) form of "resisting" dif-
ferentiated in the The argument is based on the interpretation of the word
"resisting" .
91 T. 1552: 875b5-10: "Four alternatives should be mentioned. Sometimes, resisting
of the object is not resisting by way of being an obstruction: the seven elements of aware-
ness (sa pta cittadhiitaval;) and what is associated with awarenesses (cittasaTflprayukta) of
the element of factors (tfharmadhiitu). Sometimes, resisting by way of being an obstruction
is not resisting of the object: five outward elements. Sometimes, there are both resisting
of the object and resisting by way of being an obstruction: five inward elements. Some-
times, there are neither resisting of the object nor resisting by way of being an obstruction:
matter that is included in the factor sense-field, that what is unconditioned (asaTflskrta),
and formations dissociated from awarenesses (cittaviprayukta saTflskiiriilJ)." See also Des-
sein (1999, vol. 1: 46). See also note # 4.
92 This item is not discussed in *Abhidharmahrdaya.
93 The Chinese;{if ",5" til! (T. 1821: 35c13-14) most likely refers to 'Kumiiralata,' as the
quoted passage is preceded by Jlt <j:t *- Jlt;li!: m Wf 1f (T. 1821: 35c4-5). Also in Fa-
pao's eM-she Lun Shu, T. 1822: 496a9 we read: 9' *- Ii&: tr;;Ii!: m Wf. In the Abhidhar-
tnakosa, Kumaralata is referred to as *- til! l.iI '$ ) in the passage concerned (T. 1558:
7bll).
94 T. 1821: 35c4-14. See also T. 1822: 496a9-17.
SAUTRANrlKA AND THE HI.IDAYA TREATISES 303
relation between a faculty and its respective object. In the course of philo-
sophical development, three forms of 'resistance' came to be distinguished:
"resisting by way of being an obstruction," "resisting of the object," and
"resisting of the supporting object." Of these, "resisting of the object"
corresponds to the interpretation of 'resisting' presented in early Abhi-
dharma literature. Therefore, Vasubandhu as well as Dharmatrata explain
this form by referring to the Kiiral}aprajfiapti, and Vasubandhu further
relates the Kiiral}aprajfiapti to KumaraIata. That they do not refer to the
Prakaral}apiida may be explained by the fact that the latter work had, in
the course of time, been claimed by the as one of the $atpii-
diibhidhanna works. By expansion, the same reasoning can be applied
to "resisting of the supporting object," the specific case of mental con-
sciousness (manovijfiiina). 'Resisting by way of being an obstruction' is
then explained as "something else" that hinders the arising of a specific
form of consciousness. In that specific case, this other thing is "resisting"
in the sense of "obstruction" (iivaral}a); in the contrary case, this other
thing is "unresisting," in the sense of "no obstruction." As stated above,
the explanation of P'u-kuang further suggests that (1) the Sautrantikas
issued from the Sarvastivadins; that (2) Vasubandhu agrees with the
Sautrantikas; and that (3) Dharmatrata too should, at least on this issue,
be considered as agreeing with Vasubandhu's Sautrantika viewpoint.
4. The arising of perceptual consciousness (vijiiiina)
Related to the above subject, is the problem of the arising of perceptual
consciousness (vijfiiina). ill the sutra literature, perceptual consciousness
is said to arise in dependence upon a sense organ (indriya) and its respec-
tive object
What arises because of the eye and matter (rupa) is visual conscious-
ness The combination of [these] three things, makes feeling
(vedanii), conceptual identification (sa7!ljfiii), and reasoning (cintii) arise.
95
One interpretation of the idea expressed in this passage, is that per-
ceptual consciousness (viz. visual consciousness) needs two conditions to
95 SA 13, NT. 306, T. 99: 87c26-27; MA 54, NT. 201, T. 26: 767a24-26. See also Cox
(1988: 72, notes # 14 and # 15) and Cox (1995: 120); T. 1545: 449a13-22.
304 . BART DESSEIN
arise: a faculty (indriya) and an object (vi,yaya). These tWo in the fIrst
moment condition the arising of perceptual consciousness in the subsequent
moment. The combination of this faculty (viz. the eye), its object (viz.
matter), and the form of perceptual consciousness (viz. visual conscious-
ness) of this second moment in its tum leads to thought concomitants
(caitasika) in the third and following moments.
96
In this formulation, a
cause-effect relationship, whereby causes (hetu) exist prior to their effects
(phala), is understood. The Abhidharmakosabhii.yya and the SphlJ,tarthii
Abhidharmakosavyakhya attribute this interpretation to the
kas.
97
P'u-kuang and Fa-pao attribute this idea to the Sautrantikas.
98
Satp.-
ghabhadra attributes it to the master Sp.1ata.
99
The earliest definitions of perceptual consciousness in Sarvastivada
Abhidharma literature are provided in the Dharmaskandha and SaTflgf-
tiparyaya.
100
These defInitions are in line with the definitions we read in
the Sutra literature. The Dharmaskandha defInes visual consciousness as
follows:
Visual consciousness arises because of the eye and
matter (riipa). Because of the combination of [these] three, contact (sparsa)
arises. Because of [this] contact, feeling (vedanii) arises. Among these, the
eye is the dominant [sense organ]. Matter is what is taken as object (iilam-
bana). Contact of the eye is the cause (hetu) [for visual
consciousness]. [The form of consciousness that] is produced because of
contact of the eye, belongs to the class of contact of the eye. What arises
through contact of the eye, is associated with attention (manaskiira) arisen
through contact of the eye. All feeling of matter of which visual conscious-
ness is conscious, belongs to feeling. This is what is understood as feeling
arisen through contact of the eye.101
-.,,,i
96" See also Cox (1988: 41).
97 AKB: 145.5 ff; AKV: 306.27 ff. See also Kajiyama (1977: 117).
98 T. 1821: 176c4-6; T. 1822: 608a15-16. This idea is seen as contradicting the Vai-
bhiiliika opinion (T. 1821), alternatively the Sarvastivada opinion (T. 1822), according to
which simultaneity of cause and effect is also possible. On the model of per-
ception, see Cox (1988: 38-43).
99 T. 1562: 385b15 ff. I.e., provided we accept Junsh5 Kat5's interpretation that, with
Sthavira, SaIp.ghabhadrameans Splata. See Kat5 (1976; 1980; 1989: 52 ff.). See also AKB:
145.20 ff; AKV: 307.17 ff. T. 1562: 386b16 ff and 504a29 ff;
100 On the dating of the Sarvastiviida AbhidhamJa works, see Willemen, Dessein, Cox
(1998: 166-176).
101 T. 1537: 501b9-14. The definition provided in the SaT{lgftiparyaya, T. 1536:
429a15-18 ("What is caused by the eye (calqus) and matter (rapa) is visual consciousness
SAUTRANTlKA AND THE TREATISES 305
The first treatIp.ent of this subject in the Hrdaya treatises is found in
Upasanta's A-p'i-fan Hsin Lun Ching, i.e., in connection with a discus-
sion of how many elements are appropriated (upiitta) and how many are
unappropriated (anupiitta). The latter discussion is also found in Dhar-
work. Here, matter (rupa) that comprises faculties (indriya)
and matter that is not separated from these faculties are explained to be
appropriated when thoughts (citta) and thought concomitants (caitasika)
dwell within this matter and, hence, proceed in it. This implies that the
eye ear (srotra), nose (ghrii1)a), tongue (jihvii), and body (kiiya)
are appropriated when they are present, because at this time, thoughts
and thought concomitants dwell in them. When past or future, they are
unappropriated.102 Upasanta adopts this passage and applies the idea of
appropriatedness to the forms of consciousness, claiming that "the five
inward elements are appropriated when they are present, [and that,] some-
times, a form of consciousness (vijfiiina) that is present [remains] idle,
whereby [the five inward elements] are still said to be appropriated. "103
In the the argument of the "idle"
form of consciousness is included in a discussion on the exact locus of
vision.104 Five alternatives for this are given. The opinion attributed to the
Venerable Dharmatrata is that vision is located in visual consciousness.
The idea that it is wisdom associated with consciousness of the eye
that sees is attributed to The are said to adhere to
the opinion that it is a combination that sees matter. lOS The Vatslpuqiyas
are credited with the idea that it is one eye that sees matter. These four
In this case, the eye is the dominant [sense organ] and matter is the object
(iilambana). Discernment regarding matter where the eye is conscious of, extreme discern-
ment, the discernment that it is 'matter,' this is called 'visual consciousness. ''') appears as
a surnmary of the defmition in the Dharmaskandha. On the problem of dating the Dhar-
maskandha vis-a-vis the Sarrtgitiparyiiya, see Willemen, Dessein, Cox (1998: 172). See also
Stache-Rosen (1968, vol. 1: 160). The definitions in the Dhiitukiiya (T. 1540: 615c4-7)
and in the PrakaraQapiida (T. 1542: 701a3-5) are parallel to the one in the Sarrtgitiparyiiya.
102 T. 1550: 81Oa24-bl. See also Willemen (1975: 9-10); Armelin (1978: 58-59).
103 T. 1551: 836a26-27.
104 T. 1545: 61c7-24.
IDS It should be remarked that Kam (1989: 23-24) notes that the "combination" mentioned
here, is different from the "combination" identified as Sautriintika in the Abhidhannako-
(AKE: 31.12). From what follows, it appears that the "combination" attributed to
the in the is understood as a combination of a faculty with a
form of consciousness related to another faculty. See also notes # 97-99.
306 BART DESSEIN
alternatives are denied, and the compilers of the claim
that only a fifth alternative, viz., the two eyes see matter, is the correct
idea. To the objection that if, indeed, it is the two eyes that see matter,
matter should also be seen when these eyes are combined with another
form of perceptional consciousness, the compilers of the *
argument that there are two kinds of eyes: eyes that are combined with
their specific form of perceptual consciousness, and eyes that are com-
bined with an idle form of perceptual consciousness. It is when coipbined
with their specific form of perceptual consciousness that they see, not
when together with an idle form of perceptual consciousness. This, in
fact, is the explanation alluded to in Upasanta's work, and discussed elab-
orately in Dharmatrlita's work under the topic of "homogeneity."
As stated, the denies the possibility that it is a combi-
nation (siimagrf) that sees matter. This opinion is attributed to the Dlir-
The arguments that "vision as a combina-
tion" is erroneous because, in that case, "there should always be vision
of matter, because there is no moment in which there is no combina-
tion. "107 In the light of the argument given in the in favor
of the eyes as locus of vision, i.e., the idea that it is only when combined
with their specific form of perceptual consciousness that the eyes see,
not when combined with an idle form of perceptual consciousness, one
possibility would be that the compilers of the claim that
the argument is that the eyes would see matter, even when
they are combined with a form of perceptual consciousness other than
visual consciousness. This interpretation of "combination" differs from
the id,ea of a "combination" acknowledged as Sautrantika. Another pos-
sible interpretation would be that the refused to designate an
isolated factor as having prominent causal capability in perception. A "com-
bination" would thus have to be understood as that perceptual conscious-
ness is a stream of experience, i.e., a stream of cause and effect.
108
This
106 T. 1545: 61c10-11. The fact that another opinion is attributed to the
Bhadanta Dhannatriita is evidence that the names of teachers in the may
only have been given for the sake of tradition. This then makes conclusions based solely
on these names highly conjecturable.
107 T. 1545: 61c17.
108 See ADP: 31.6 ff; AKB: 473.25 ff; AKV: 712.31 ff.; T. 1821: 448b19 ff.; T. 1822:
810a1 ff. Cox (1988: 39): "Therefore, as in the Vasubandhu suggests
interpretation is likely to be closer to the idea suggested in the early Siitra
literature and in the early Sarvastivada treatises.
As stated above, it is evident from and Upasanta's
works that the eye (cak:;us), ear (srotra), nose (ghriilJa), tongue (jihvii),
and body (kiiya) are thought to be appropriated when they are present,
because thoughts and thought concomitants dwell in them then. Wilen
past or future, they are unappropriated.
109
This explains why Sp1.ata is
credited with the idea that past and future are known through deduction,l1O
and it also explains why the accept that "nonexistent [objects]
also are able to serve as object-fields that produce cognition. "lll
Dharmatrata's *Sar!1yuktiibhidhannahrdaya also contains a section on
the locus of vision. In this work, the passage analogous with the above-
mentioned section of and Upasanta's work is followed
by the following question:
What sees? Is it the eye that sees? Is it visual consciousness that sees? Is
it wisdom associated with visual consciousness that sees? Is it a combination
that sees? 112
After claiming that all above proposed possibilities are erroneous, 113
Dharmatrata formulates the answer that "the eye sees matter when it is
homogeneous (sabhaga)." 114 This position explains why the fIrst alter-
native quoted above (vision of the eye) is denied: homogeneity is a nec-
essary condition for a faculty to operate. Dharmatrata's argument can be
summarized as follows: each faculty has to be homogeneous (sabhiiga)
that one cannot sharply distinguish the activity of the object from that of the perceptual
consciousness that is said to apprehend it; instead, one must view perception as a causal
process." See also Cox (1988: 76-77, note # 41 and # 45). The latter interpretation is likely
to be closer to the opinion in the early Siitra literature. .
109 T. 1550: 8l0a24-bL See also Willemen (1975: 9-10); Arrnelin (1978: 58-59). For
the Sarvastivadins, this does not apply to mental consciousness, as this form of con-
sciousness is not restricted to the present moment only but can apprehend factors of any
of the three time periods. See Cox (1988: 35-38). See also T. 1545: 390blO-c16.
110 See T. 1562: 628c6-8. See also T. 1562: 447b29-c9. See note # 99 on the identity
of Sthavira with Sri1ata.
111 T. 1562: 622a17-18. See also Cox (1988: 31-33). For SaqJ.ghabhadra's objection
to this opinion, see T. 1562: 384c2 ff; 420c18 ff; 447b16 ff. See also Cox (1988: 43).
112 T. 1552: 876bl2-13. See also Dessein (1999, vol. 1: 55 ff.). The same discussion
is also found in the Paiicavastukavibht'ieii, see Irnanishi (1969: 24-26).
Il3 T. 1552: 876b14.
114 T. 1552: 876b20.
308 . BART DESSEIN
with its specific form of consciousness in order to. be able' to function.
In this case, the perceptual activity itself lies within the faculty, but dis-
cernment belongs to the domain of consciousness.u
s
Applied to visual
consciousness, this means that the eye can only function when it is linked
to (is homogeneous with) visual consciousness. In this case, the visual
activity is situated in the eyes. Although the eyes are linked to visual con-
sciousness, this does not imply that consciousness takes over the funr;tion
of the eyes (i.e. seeing), or that the eyes and consciousness attain a, com-
bined function. This is also in line with the above suggested
idea that perceptual consciousness is a stream of experience.
In the period of Sautrantika self-awareness, Vasubandhu, in his Abhi-
dharmakosa, follows Dharmatrata's explanation: "The eyes see matter
when it is homogeneous."116 Vasubandhu gives the following quotation
from the Siitra literature: "The briihmalJ-a should know that the eye is like
the gate through which matter is seen. Therefore it should be known
that visual consciousness depends on the gate that is the eyes to see."117
This quotation is paraphrased in the *Sarrzyuktiibhidharmahrdaya: "Oh
briihmalJ-as, the eye is a gate because it sees matter." 118 The Abhidharma-
kosa concludes with the Sautrantika position: "All masters of the Sautran-
tika say that the above is a senseless discussion. Visual consciousness
arises because of the eye and matter. Here, there is no act of seeing; there
are only causes and fruitions, no function. For the sake of ordinary dis-
course, it is said that the eyes see and that consciousness discerns. The wise
one does not adhere to this saying. As the World-honored one has said,
one should not adhere to popular sayings, one should not take serious the
expressions of common use. "119 The statement that visual consciousness
ariser because of the eye and matter, with no act of seeing, indeed points
to the fact that, according to Vasubandhu, it is impossible to designate an
isolated factor as having prominent causal capability in perception.
115 Complete discussion: T. 1552: 876b12-877a3. See also Dessein (1999, voL 1: 55-59).
U6AKB: 29.24; T. 1558: 10c23-24. See also de La ValleePoussin (1971, voL 1: 81-86).
117 AKB: 30.23; T. 1558: lla15-16.
U8 T. 1552: 876c28-29. Quotation from SA 9, Nr. 255, T. 99: 64alO-ll. Pasadika
(1989: 26): "cakyur brtihmaiJa dvtiral'{l ytivad eva rilptiT)iiI'{I darianaya ity." See also Dessein
(1999, voL 2: 78, note # 682).
119 T. 1558: llbl-6.
5. The three time periods (trikiila)
The facts that the interpretation of the arising of percep-.
tual consciousness involves different time periods and that, according
to Vasubandhu, "there are only causes and fruitions, no function," relates
this topic to the interpretation of the existence of the time periods them-
selves.
One of the five theses that Vasumitra enumerates as fundamental for
the Sautrantikas in the Samayabhedoparacanacakra is as follows:
All aggregates transmigrate (sarrzkriimantz) from a previous existence to a
later existence. This is why they are called Sarrzkriintiviida.
120
The opinion that all aggregates transmigrate from a previous to a later
existence is, in fact, not peculiarly Sautrantrika. It probably is the most
fundamental doctrine of the Sarvlistivadins in general.
121
Within Sarvlis-
tivlida, however, there are different explanations for this passing of the
aggregates through the periods of time. The contains a
famous passage on this issue:
There are four great Sarvastivada masters, each of whom established the
difference of existence in the three time periods (trikiila) in a different way.
The Venerable Dharmatrata said that there is difference in mode (bhiiviinya-
thiitva). The Venerable said that there is difference in characteris-
tic marks (lak:;aTJiinyathiitva). The Venerable Vasumitra said that there is
difference in state (avasthiinyathiitva). The Venerable Buddhadeva said that
there is mutual difference (anyonyathiitva).
Those who say that there is difference in mode claim that when the factors
proceed through time, it is their mode (bhiiva) that is different, but not their
substance (dravya). It is just as when a golden vessel is broken and other
objects are made of it, the form (sarrzsthiina) is different, but not the color
(varTJa). It further is just as when milk changes to koumiss, the power of
its taste is abandoned, but not the color. In this way, when factors reach the
120 T. 2031: 17b3-4; T. 2032: 19c11; T. 2033: 22b21. See also Bareau (1954: 265).
This is also found in Bhavya's treatise Nikayabhedavibhaligavyiikhyiina. See A. Bareau
(1956: 182). In Vinitadeva's SamayabhedoparacanacakrenikiiyabhedopadarsanaslllfIgraha,
this is fonnulated thus: "Beings (sattva) transmigrate (saTfikriintl)." See also Demieville
(1931-1932: 23,63); Bareau (1955: 156); Frauwallner (1973: 104-105); Dutt (1977:
186-187); Riiegg (1985: 111). Bareau (1955: 155): "Le SariputrapariPfcchasiitra distingue
les Sautrantika des Sailkrantivadin [ ... ], mais toutes les autres sources les identifient." See
Demieville (1931-1932: 23, 63).
121 See also note # 88.
310 BART DESSEIN
present from the future, although they leave the mode of,the future and
attain the mode of the present, it is not their substance that is obtained or
left. When they further reaGh the past from the present, they leave the mode
of the present and attain the mode of the past, but it is not the substance of
these factors that is obtained or left.
Those who say that there is difference in characteristic marks claim that
when the factors proceed through time, their characteristic marks are different
but not their substance. All factors in time have the characteristic marks of
the three periods of time. They are combined with one kind of characteris-
tic marks but are not free from the two other kinds of characteristic marks.
It is just as when a man is afflicted by one woman, he cannot be called free
from affliction regarding other women. In this way, when factors abide in
the past, they are properly combined with the characteristic marks of the past,
but it cannot be claimed that they are free from the characteristic marks of
the other two periods of time. When abiding in the future, they are properly
combined with the characteristic marks of the future, but it cannot be claimed
that they are free from the characteristic marks of the other two time periods.
When abiding in the future, they are properly combined with the character-
istic marks of the future, but it cannot be claimed that they are free from the
characteristic marks of the other two time periods.
Those who say that there is a difference in state claim that when all fac-
tors proceed through time, it is their state that is different, but not their
substance. Just as when a counter is placed in the units [column], it is one;
when placed in the tens [column], it is ten; when placed in the hundreds
[column], it is one hundred. Although the respective positions are different,
the substance of the counter does not change. In this way, factors proceed
through the positions of the three time periods. Although they attain three
time periods, their substance does not change. The establishing of the time
periods by these masters is not in disorder. They depend on activity Ckiiri-
tra) to establish the difference of the three time periods, and say that when
a conditioned (sa'!ls/q"ta) factor does not yet have activity, it is said to be of
:;l:he future time, when properly having activity, it is said to be of the pres-
ent time, and when its activity has already disappeared, it is said to be of a
past period of time.
Those who say that there is mutual difference claim that when factors proceed
through time, their name differs depending on what comes before and after,
just as a woman is called "daughter" depending on the mother and is called
"mother" depending on the daughter. Although their substance is not differ-
ent, they are called "daughter" or "mother" depending on what is differ-
ent. In this way, it is the case that factors are "past" when depending on what
comes later, are "future" when depending on what is before, and "present"
when depending on both. The establishment of the periods of time by these
masters is in disorder [ ... ]
SAuTRANrIKA AND TIlE HI.IDAYA TREATISES 311
Establishing the three time periods by claiming that there is difference in
characteristic marks is also disorderly [ ... ]
Those who clalin that there is difference in mode also are unreasonable [ ... J
Only the third establishment of the periods of time is good. 122
The question that is raised in this passage is the following: when things
are really existing in the three time periods, what is it then that differen-
tiates them as being past, present, or future? According to Erich Frauwall-
ner, who has made an extensive study of this issue, the first of the above
opinions, the theory attributed to Dharmatrata, is the oldest one.
123
It dif-
fers from the other three opinions, as it is the only theory that implies a
changing mode (bhiiva). The reason this theory is rejected is that mode
cannot exist free from specific nature (svabhiiva), i.e., free from substance
(dravya). The argument against this theory is as follows:
What can the mode (bhiiva) of something be, free from its specific nature
(svabhiiva)? [ ... ] When a conditioned factor (saf{lskrta dharma) reaches
the present from the future, its previous mode has to be extinguished. When
[a conditioned factor] reaches the past from the present, its later mode has
to arise. How can the past be [characterized by] arising and the future be
[characterized by] extinguishing? 124
The argument here is as follows: when something is future, it by defi-
nition has not yet arisen. When it is claimed that something changes
mode when becoming present, this implies that its future mode has to be
extinguished, without ever having arisen. As the specific nature of this
thing has never existed as future yet, it can hence have no effect on the
present. This implies that the present mode has to exist free from its pre-
vious (i.e. future) specific nature. A change in mode would thus imply a
change in substance. This is impossible. The same is true for the present
mode with respect to the past mode.
As the idea of a changing substance was not acceptable, other expla-
nations that derive the difference of things in the three time periods from
external conditions were sought. The first of these alternative explanations
is attributed to According to this theory, objects always possess
122 T. 1545: 396a13-b23. See also T. 1546: 295c6-296a2 and T. 1547: 466b7-28. See
also de La Vallee Poussin (1936-1937: 22-25), Frauwallner (1973: 99).
123 Frauwallner (1973: 101).
124 T. 1545: 396b18-22.
312 BART DESSEIN
the characteristic marks of the three time periods, whereby 1bey are com-
bined with one of them without being disconnected from the other two.
This theory was refuted because the three time periods would become
one.
125
The fourth theory was unacceptable because past, present, and
future are also applicable to the past, present, and future themselves, i.e.,
there is earlier and later in the past, also, and this theory would - aswith
s theory - imply that the difference between the three time peri-
ods was IOS1.
126
The third theory, the one attributed to Vasumitra, claims
that the passing of things through time is like the placing of a counter in
the units, tens, or hundreds columns. This theory solves the problem of
a changing mode and substance: objects of which the mode is not chang-
ing in itself are placed in another state (avasthii). This solution appears
to be the most logical solution to the problem invoked by the first option.
It is this theory that is accepted by Vasubandhu as "the most correct one"
in his Abhidharmakosa.
127
It is most remarkable that in the this theory of Vasum-
itra that does not accept a change in substance, is explained with the
concept of "activity" (kiiritra). Vasumitra is credited with the following
explanation: "When a conditioned factor does not yet have activity, it is
said to be of the future time; when properly having activity, it is said to
be of the present time; and when its activity has already disappeared, it
is said to be of a past period of time." 128 The claim is that it is the activity
of the future time that is extinguished to become the activity of the pres-
ent, and that it is the activity of the present that is extinguished to become
the activity of the past. Such a theory, in fact, accepts a change in mode
(bhiiva). This means that in the explanation of the third theory, the mis-
take Of the first theory is reintroduced. How is this possible? As already
remarked by Erich Frauwallner, this passage on the three periods of time
is anterior to the compilation of the and merely serves as
a "doxographical appendix." 129 It is this that must have made it possible
for the theory of "difference in state" to become linked to the explanation
125 See Frauwallner (1973: 101).
126 See Frauwallner (1973: 102).
127 T. 1558: 104c25-26: See also de La Vallee Poussin (1971, vol. 4: 55).
128 T. 1545: 396b7-8; T. 1546: 295c21-22; T. 1547: 466b22-247.
129 Frauwallner (1973: 100).
SAUTRANTlKA AND THE TREATISES 313
of the theory of "activity," both theories being attributed to a certain
V asurnitra. 130
As the theory of "activity" implies that something is past, present, or
future depending on its functioning, one in fact accepts that the concept
of time is inherent in the thing itself, and the whole concept of "time"
loses importance. This precisely is the standpoint of the in
the following passage of the
There are three kinds of factors: past, future, and present factors. Question:
"Why this discussion?" Answer: "In order to stop other schools and to
manifest the correct principles. Some adhere to [the theory] that time (kala)
and conditioned factors (saJ?1skiira) are different, such as the
and the Vibhajyavadins. They say that the substance of time is permanent
and that the substance of the conditioned factors is not permanent. The con-
ditioned factors pass through the periods of time (adhvan) like a fruit in a
utensil. It is taken from this utensil and transferred into another utensil. They
are also like people who leave this abode and enter another abode. The same
is true for conditioned factors. They enter the present period of time from
the future period of time, and they enter the past period of time from the pres-
ent period of time. [This issue is raised] in order to stop this idea and to show
that time and conditioned factors do not have a different substance. Time is
[none other than] the conditioned factors, and the conditioned factors are
[none other than] time."131
The statements, "the conditioned factors pass through the periods of
time like a fruit in a utensil" and "like people who leave this abode and
enter another abode," parallel the statement that factors that proceed
through time are "like when a counter is placed in the units [column],
it is one; when placed in the tens [column], it is ten; when placed in the
hundreds [column], it is one hundred." This connects the theory ofVasu-
rnitra to the opinion that is attributed to the in the above sec-
tion of the and explains why Vasubandhu claims that this
theory is the most Correct one. It is remarkable that while this theory of
130 See Frauwallner (1973: 104). Frauwallner (1973: 105) concludes that it can only be
that a Vasumitra, master of the theory of the fruits was thought to be the same person as a
Vasumitra, master of the theory of "activity." See also Kajiyama (1977: 122); Cox (1995:
139-145).
131 T. 1545: 393a9-17. See also T. 1546: 293c20-26. T. 1547 does not contain this
passage. An abridged version of this passage can be found in T. 1545: 700a26-b2. See also
T. 1545: 696b24-29 and Frauwallner (1973: 104).
314 . BART DESSEIN
Vasumitra does not accept a change in substance, the are, in this
passage, reproached for claiming that "the substance of the conditioned
factors is not permanent." This, in fact, is the position of the fIrst theory.
As the accepts the theory of "activity," it is not to be excluded
that the at fIrst adhered to the theory that is attributed to the
Venerable Dharmatrata. When the problems this theory invoked were
acknowledged, they changed their opinion in line with Vasurnitra's theory.
The discussion on the explanation of the existence of the thret? time
periods is also taken up in the *Sarrzyuktabhidharmahrdaya in the
chapter "Investigations," which is not contained in
work. This work, too, agrees with the third theory. As Dharmatrata wrote
his *Sarrzyuktabhidharmahrdaya in the 4th century AD, i.e. later than the
this implies that here, too, this passage
may only have been included as a "doxographical appendix." We should
further remark that in the *Sarrzyuktabhidharmahrdaya, the theory of "dif-
ference in mode" (bhavanyathiitva), claiming that things change mode
without change in substance when they proceed through the periods of
time, is attributed not to a particular Sarvastivada master, but to the Chuan-
pien Sa-p'o-to (the "Sarvastivadins of Change").132 It is
not impossible that "chuan-pien hereby refers to a change in mode.
This would explain why Dharmatrata agrees with the third theory.
K'uei-chi's statement in the passage from the I-pu-tsung Lun Lun Shu-
chi, quoted above, "These masters acknowledge the existence of seeds
(bija). [They say that] there is only one seed that, in its course, evolves
from the present (pratyutpanna) to reach a later period of time," 133 pos-
sibly should be interpreted in the light of Vasurnitra's theory.u
4
It is also
not to be excluded that Vasurnitra, in his Samayabhedoparacanacakra,
refers to this viewpoint in the theory he attributes to the Sautrantikas,
quoted in the beginning of this section.
[32 T. 1552: 962a4-5. See also Dessein (1999, vol. 1: 749; vol. 2: 548, note # 1132).
According to the Abhidharmakosa (T.1558: 104c20-21), this opinion is to be refuted
along with the SlUpkhya theory. See de La Vallee Poussin (1971, vol. 4: 54-55, note # 3).
!33 K'uei-chi (I-pu-tsung Lun Lun Shu-chi: 22a4-5). Regarding this, see Jaini (1959);
de La Vallee Poussin (1936-1937: 131); Cox (1992: 80).
[34 See also San-lun Hsuan I Chien Yu Chi T. 2300: 466b25-28, where it is formulated
thus: "They hold to it that there are seeds (blja) in the present that are continued and reach
a later existence."
References
Primary Sources
[Abhidharma]dharmaskandhafpiidasastra] (A-p'i-ta-mo Fa-yun Tsu-Iun 1D1t.i
7* a Jf: T. 1537.
[Abhidharma]dhiitukiiyafpiidasastra] (A-p'i-ta-mo Chieh-shen Tsu-lun IIIft.i
fff-,!it Jf: T. 1540.
Abhidharmadfpa (ADP). Jaini, P.S. (ed.), Abhidharmadfpa with
Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, Vol. 4. Pa1na: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research
Institute, 1977.
*Abhidharmahrdaya[Siistra] (A-p'i-t'an Hsin Lun 1D1t,. 'L'
T.1550.
* Abhidharmahrdaya (A -p 'i-t' an Hsin Lun Ching 1D1t,. 'L' ff,lg). Upasanta.
T. 155l.
(A -p 'i-ta-mo Chu-she Lun Illlt.i iJ'!: 1!!t Vasu-
bandhu. Hsiian-tsang T. 1558.
(A-p'i-ta-mo Chu-she Shih Lun
Vasubandhu. Paramiirtha. T. 1559.
(AKE). Pradhan, P. (ed.),
ofVasubandhu. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, Vol. 8. Pa1na: Kashi Prasad
Jayaswal Research Institute, [1967] 1975.
(A-p'i-ta-mo Ta-p 'i-p' o-sha Lun /IpJ IIIlt.i *
T. 1545.
*[Abhidharma]Nyiiyanusarasastra (A-p'i-ta-mo Shun Cheng-Ii Lun 1D1t
IE:Jm Sarp.ghabhadra. T. 1562.
[Abhidharma ]prakaraJ;zapiida[ sastra] (A -p' i-ta-mo P'in-lei Tsu-lun IIIlt J'o
Jf: T. 1542.
[Abhidharma]saYflgitiparyayafpadasastra] (A-p'i-ta-mo Chi-i-men Tsu-Iun 1D1t
T.1536.
(A-p'i-t'an P'i-p'o-sha Lun
T.1546.
[Af;hidharma]vijiianakiiyafpiidasastra] (A-p'i-ta-mo Shih-shen Tsu-Iun 1D1t
..@ lfilll). T. 1539.
Chen-yuan Hsin-ting Shih-chiao Mu-Iu 5CtJr Yiian-chao []
T.2157.
Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun Shu Chi K'uei-chi T. 1830.
Ch'u San-tsang Chi Chi Seng-yu T. 2145.
Chu-she Lun Chi ij!, P'u-kuang >If 7\:;. T. 182l.
Chu-she Lun Shu ij!, 1!!t if.m. Fa-pao . T. 1822.
Dasadhyayavinaya (Shih Sung Lu T. 1435.
Fa-pao Tsung-mu-Iu 1. Taisho Shinshii Daizokyo.
I-pu-tsung Lun Lun Shu-chi '* lfilll llB. K'uei-chi lIS. Dainihon Zoku-
zokyo.
316 . BART DESSEIN
K'ai-yiian Shih-chiao Lu Chih-sheng T. 2154.
Kao Seng Chuan Hui-chiao T. 2059.
Li-tai San-pao Chi Chi =: Fei Ch'ang-fang "*m. T. 2034.
Madhyamagama (Chung A-han Ching r:p T. 26.
Maiijusripariprcchiisutra (Wen-shu-shih-li Wen Ching X flJ f'",,] *&i). T. 468.
(Ken-pen Shuo-i-ch'ieh-yu Pu Pi-nai-
yeh Tsa-shih tl!;;$: - -I;W 1'Hffi iHIt; If[5 *IE *). T. 145l.
Prajiiaptisastra (Shih-she Lun 1Jljj; ll6li). T. 1538.
P'o-sou-p'an-tou Fa-shih Chuan {1:, Paramartha. T. 2049.
Samayabhedoparacanacakra (I-pu-tsung Lun Lun J'< tm * $iili Vasumitra.
Hsuan-tsang T. 203l.
Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Shih-pa-pu Lun tffi J'< Vasurnitra. Paramartha.
T.2032.
Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Pu-chih-i Lun tffi J'< Vasurnitra. Paramartha.
T.2033.
*Saf!lyuktabhidharmahrdaya (TsaA-p'i-t'an Hsin Lun *1E ,L., Dhar-
matrata. T. 1552.
Saf!lyuktagama (Tsa A-han Ching *IE T. 99.
San-lun Hsiian I -=- Chi-tsang 5" iJliii1:. T. 1852.
San-lun Hsiian I Chien Yu Chi Cheng-ch'an T. 2300.
Sariputrapariprcchiisutra (She-li-fu Wen Ching *f!J f'",]@l<:). T. 1465.
Sphutarthii Abhidharmakosavyakhya (AKV). Wogihara, U. (ed.), Sphutarthii
Abhidharmakosavyakhya: The Work ofYaSomitra. Tokyo: The Publishing Asso-
ciation of the Abhidharmakosavyakhya, 1932.
Ta Tang Hsi-yii Chi:7cm Pien-chi T. 2087.
*Udana (Ch'u-yao Ching I\ lliU&i). Chu Fo-nien 1& T. 212.
(P'i-p'o-sha Lun T; 1547.
Modern Works
Anacker, S. Seven Works of Vasubandhu - the Buddhist psychological Doctor.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1984.
Armelin, I. (trans.). Le Cceur de La loi supreme. Traite de Fa-cheng. Abhidharma-
hrdayasastra de Dharmasri. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner,
1978.
Bareau, A. Les sectes bouddhiques du petit vehicule. Paris: Ecole Fran9aise d'Ex-
treme-Orient, 1955.
-. "Trois traites sur les sectes bouddhiques attribues a Vasurnitra, Bhavya et
VinItadeva." Journal Asiatique CCXLTI (1954): 229-66.
-. "Trois traites sur les sectes bouddhiques Attribues a Vasumitra, Bhavya et
VinItadeva. TIe Partie: L'explication des divisions entre les sectes (Nikiiya-
bhedavibhangavyakhyana) de Bhavya." JoumalAsiatique CCXLIV (1956):
167-200.
Bechert, H. Zur SchulzugehOrigkeit von Werken der Hinayana-Literatur. (Sym-
posien zur Bud9hismusforschung IIIl). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1985.
Buswell, KE. Ir. and KM. Gimello (eds.). Paths to Liberation - The Marga and
its Transformations in Buddhist Thought. Studies in East-Asian Buddhism
7, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992.
Cox, C. "Attainment through Abandonment: the Sarvastivadin Path of Removing
Defilements." Paths to Liberation - The Marga and its Transformations in
Buddhist Thought. Ed. R.E. Buswell II. and R.M. Gimello. Studies in East-
Asian Buddhism 7, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992,63-105.
-. Disputed Dharmas. Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. An Annotated
Translation of the Section on Factors Dissociatedfrom Thoughtfrom Sang-
habhadra's Nyayanusara. Studia Philologica Buddhica. Monograph Series XI.
Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1995.
-. "On the Possibility of a Nonexistent Object of Consciousness: Sarvastivadin
and Theories." Journal of the International Association of Bud-
dhist Studies 11.1 (1988): 31-87.
Demieville, P. "Les versions chinoises du Milindapaiiha." Bulletin de l'Ecole
Franf:aise D'extreme-Orient XXIV (1925): 1-253.
-. "L'origine des sectes bouddhiques d'apres Paramartha." Melanges chino is et
bouddhiques I (1931-1932): 15-64.
Dessein, B. "Dharmas associated with Awarenesses and the dating of Sarvasti-
vada Abhidharma Works." Asiatische Studien L.3 (1996): 623-51.
-. (trans.). Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous Additions. Sa1?lyuktabhi-
dharmahrdaya. 3 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999.
Dhammajoti, K. The Chinese Version of Dharmapada. Translated with introduc-
tion and annotations. Sri Lanka: Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist
Studies, University of Kelaniya, 1995.
Dutt, N. Buddhist Sects in India. Calcutta: Firma KLM Private, Ltd, 1977.
Edgerton, F. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vols. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1953. Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985.
Frauwallner, E. "Abhidharma-Studien. III. Der Abhisamayavadal;1." Wiener
Zeitschrijt for die Kunde Siid- und Ostasiens XV (1971): 69-121.
-. "Abhidharma-Studien V. Der Sarvastivadal;1." Wiener Zeitschrift for die Kunde
Siid- und Ostasiens XVII (1973): 97-121.
Hahn, M. "Vorlaufige Uberlegungen zur SchulzugehOrigkeit einiger buddhisti-
schen Dichter." Zur SchulzugehOrigkeit von Werken der Hfnayana-Literatur.
Ed. H. Bechert. Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung III 1 , Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985,239-57.
Hirakawa, A. Index to the Abhidharmakosabhar;a. Part I: Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chi-
nese. Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan Kabushikikaisha, 1973.
Hofinger, M. Etude sur Ie concile de Vaisali. Louvain: Bibliotheque du Museon.
Vol. 20, 1946.
318 . BART DESSEIN
hnanishi, 1. Das Paiicavastukam und die Paiicavastukabvibhi4ii. Abbidhannatexte
in Sanskrit aus den Turfanfunden I. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1969.
Jaini, P.S. "The Sautrantika Theory of blja." Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies XXII.2 (1959): 236-49. .
Kajiyama, Y. "Realism of the Sarvastiviida School." Buddhist Thought and Asian
Civilization. Essays in Honor of Herbert V. Guenther on his Sixtieth Birth-
day. Ed. L.S. Kawamura and K. Scott. Emeryville CA: Dhanna Publishing,
1977, 114-31.
KatO, J. Kyoryobu no Kenkyii. Tokyo: Shunjiisha, 1989.
-. "Kyoryobu Shuprata.", Bukkyogaku 1 (1976): 45-65.
-. "Notes sur les deux Maitres bouddhiques Kumiiralata et Sp.1ata." Indianisme
et Bouddhisme: Melanges offerts a Mgr Etienne Lamotte. Publications de
l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 23. Louvam-Ia-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste,
1980, 197-213.
Kawamura, K. Abidatsumaron no Shiryoteki Kenkyii. Kyoto: Nihon Gakujutsu
Shinkokai, 1974.
Kawamura, L.S. and K. Scott (eds.). Buddhist Thought and Asian Civilization.
Essays in Honor of Herbert V. Guenther on his Sixtieth Birthday. Emeryville
CA: Dhanna Publishing, 1977.
Kimura, T. Kimura Taiken Zenshu IY.. Abidatsumaron no Kenkyii. Tokyo: Daiho-
rinkaku, 1974.
La Vallee Poussin, L. de. "Documents d' Abhidhanna - La Controverse du Temps;
les deux, les quatre, les trois Verites." Melanges chinois et bouddhiques V
(1936-1937): 1-187.
-. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. Traduction et Annotations. 6 vols.
Bruxelles: Institut BeIge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1971.
Lamotte, E. Histoire du bouddhisme indien des origines a l' ere Saka. Louvain:
Bibliotheque du Museon, [1958] 1967.
Lin, L.-k. L' aide-memoire de la vraie loi - Introduction au compendium de la loi.
~ ; n i s : Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient, 1949.
Masuda, J. "Early Indian Buddhist Schools. A Translation from the Hsiian-
Chwang Version of Vasurnitra's Treatise." University of Calcutta: Journal
of the Department of Letters I (1920): I-II.
Monier-Williams, M. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Etymologically and Philo-
logically Arranged, with special reference to Cognate Indo-European Lan-
guages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1899] 1990.
Nakamura, H. Bukkyogo Daijiten. Tokyo: Tokyo Shojaku Kabushikikaisha,
1985.
-. Indian Buddhism. A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Tokyo: Kufs Publica-
tions, 1980. Reprint Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, [1987] 1996.
Nishi, G., Abidatsumakusharon. Kokuyaku Issaikyo, Bidonbu, Vols. 25-26, [1935]
1978.
Paslidika (Bhikkhu). Kanonische Zitate des Vasuban-
dhu. Sanskrit-'worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden.
Beiheft 1. Gottlngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.
Przyluski, I. Sautrantika and Sarvastivlidin." The Indian Histori-
cal Quarterly 16 (1940): 246-54.
Rockhill, W.W. Udanavarga. A Collection of Verses from the Buddhist Canon
compiled by Dharmatrata. London. Reprint Amsterdam: Oriental Press,
[1883] 1975.
Riiegg, D.S. "Uber die Nikayas der Sravakas und den Ursprung der philosophi-
schen Schulen des Buddhismus nach den tibetischen Quellen." Zur Schul-
zugehOrigkeit von Werken der Hinayana-Literatur. Ed. H. Bechert. Sympo-
sien zur Buddhismusforschung, IIIl, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1985,111-26.
Schmithausen, L. "A Note on Vasubandhu and the LaiJkavatarasiitra .. " Asiatische
Studien XLVI.1 (1992): 392-397.
Shih, R. (trans.). Biographies des Moines eminents (Kao Seng Tchouan) de Houei-
kiao. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1968.
Soothill, W.E. and L. Hodous. A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms. With
Sanskrit and English Equivalents and a Sanskrit-Pali Index. London: Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1937. Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1987.
Stache-Rosen, V. Dogmatische Begriffsreihen im Alteren Buddhismus II. Das
Sa/igftisiltra und sein Kommentar Sangftiparyaya. 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1968.
Takakusu, I. The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1956.
-. "The Life of Vasu-bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499-569)." Toung Pao
Serie II, vol. 5 (1904): 269-96.
Watanabe, B., K. Mizuno and H. Oishi (trans.). Abidonshinronkyo. Kokuyaku
Issaikyo Bidonbu Vol. XXI, 1932.
Willemen, Ch. (trans.). The Essence of Metaphysics. Bruxelles: Publications de
l'Institut BeIge des Hautes Etudes Bouddhiques, 1975.
Willemen, Ch., B. Dessein and C. Cox. Sarvastivada Buddhist Scholasticism.
Leiden: E.I. Brill, 1998.
Wogihara, U. Bonwa Daijiten. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1974.
Yamada, R. Daijo Bukkyo Seiritsuron Josetsu. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1959.
THE WORD SAUTRANTIKA
YOSlllFUMI HONIG
As KatO JunshO points out in his epoch-making work on Sautriintika
(Kyoryobu no kenkyu 91), both Vasubandhu and Srilata seem to have
referred to themselves as "Sautriintika" in spite of their obvious doctrinal
differences.
1
There are those students of Buddhism, however, who refuse
to admit that Srilata was a Sautriintika, but they underestimate the impor-
tance of, or completely ignore the occurrence of, one passage in the
Nyiiyiinusiira (T. 1562: 332a24), where the author Sailghabhadra accuses
the including Srilata, of not accepting what is taught in the
sutra but still calling themselves" Sautriintikas. "2 Thus the question arises
as to why such thinkers who are doctrinally different coUld be called by
the same appellation.
De la Vallee Poussin's explanation is as follows:
The philosophers of the Little Vehicie were divided into two schools: on the
one hand, the V who accepted the Abhidharma books of the Sar-
viistiviidins (the seven Abhidharmas) as "revealed" scripture (ipsissima
verba), and the commentary on them, as the oldest and the most
authoritative "treatise" (siistra); on the other hand, the Sautriintikas, who con-
sidered the seven books simply as "treatises" (siistra) of human inspiration
and therefore liable to error, who maintained that Buddha had not composed
treatises dealing with Abhidharma or given indications for the composition
of .such treatises under his authority (a working hypothesis in Pili scholasti-
cism), but had taught Abhidharma doctriries in certain Siltras (or Siltriintas).
According to them, these Siltras, the Arthavinischaya, etc., constitute "the
1 As we discuss later in this paper, the Sautrantika theories of Vasubandhu in the Abhi-
have their origin in the Yogacarabhihni. Therefore, it is highly proba-
ble thatVasubandhu was a Mahayanist already at the time of writing the Abhidharmakosa.
SIilata and others, on the other hand, seem to have been "Hinayiinists."
2 See de la Vallee Poussin's Introduction: "Le rejette certains Siitras: com-
ment pretend-il au nom de Sautrantika?" (L'Abhidharmakosa 1: liii n. 1). See also Kato (99).
Harada insists that the first person to refer to himself as "Sautrantika" was V asubandhu (138).
Harada does not seem to take this passage into consideration.
322 YOSHIFUMI HONIG
Basket of Abhidharma." Hence their name Sautrantikas, the philosophers
who recognize the authority of the Sutrantas alone. (de la Vallee Poussin
"Sautrantika" 214)
KatO suggests that, to both SrTIata and Vasubandhu, the word" Sautran-
tika" might have meant "opponents of Sarvastivada theory," "rational," or
"new-fashioned" (ii).
Before commenting on these explanations, I would like to take. a look
at Yasomitra's definition of that school, upon which de la Vallee :roussin
obviously depended.
I. Yasomitra
Yasomitra's definition of the word Sautrantika appears in the fIrst chap-
ter of the Vyakhya, where he comments on a passage of the Abhidharma-
which states with the word kila that Abhidharmasastras were
fIrst expounded by the Buddha 2.17-3.4).
The word kila indicates the statement of others. It means, "This is what is
understood by the AbhidhiirInikas, not by us Sautrantikas", since the authors
[other than the Buddha] of the Abhidharmasiistras are handed down to us;
i.e., the author of the Jfiiinaprasthiina is Arya KatyayanIputra, the author of
the PrakarmJapada is Sthavira Vasumitra, [the author] of the Vzjfiiinakiiya
is Sthavira Devasarman, [the author] of the Dharmaskandha is Arya Sanpu-
tra, [the author] of the Prajfiaptisiistra is Arya Maudgalyayana, [the author]
of the Dhiitukaya is Piin).a, [the author] of the Sang/tiparyiiya is
!hila. What is the meaning of [the word] "Sautrantika"? Those who recog-
nize the authority of sutriinta and do not recognize the authority of sastras
are Sautrantikas.
3
The first thing I would like to mention here is that the second half of
the definition, na sastra-pramafJikab, is far more important than the first
half, sutranta-pramafJikab, since no one can imagine any Buddhists who
do NOT recognize the authority of siltrantas.
3 kila-sabdal). parabhiprayarp. dyotayati / Abhidhannikfu:Jam etan matarp. / na tv asmakarp.
Sautrantikanam iti bhaval) / sriiyante hy Abhidharma-sastrfu:Jfup. kartaral) / tadyatha Jfiana-
prasthanasya arya-KatyayanIputral) karta / Prakar3!).apadasya sthavira-Vasumitral) / Vijiiana-
kayasya sthavira-Devasarma / Dharmaskandhasya arya-Sariputral) / Prajiiapti-sastrasya
arya-Maudgalyayanal). / Dhatukayasya PiiIT.lal). / SangItiparyayasya / kal).
Sautrantikarthal). / ye na te (Abhi-
dharmakosavyakhya: 11.25-30).
THE WORD SAUTR.ANrIKA 323
Second, only the seven Abhidharmasastras of the Sarviistiviidins are
meant here by the word sastra. Therefore, it seems clear that the Sautran-
tikas belong to the Sarviistiviida sect. This does not contradict the views
of Sakurabe Hajime ("Kyoryobu no keitai" 115) and KatO (7).
Third, when discussing the meaning of the word "Sautrantika," of
utmost importance is the Sautrantikas' attitude toward the tripi{aka, espe-
cially toward the Abhidharmapitaka (Abhidharmasastras), not their indi-
vidual theories, since .the name of this school comes from the position
it takes toward the scripture (or the text) on which it depends most, as in
the cases of V Y ogiiciira, and Miidhyamika, not from its doc-
trinal standpoint, as in the cases of Sarvastiviidin and Vijfianaviidin (Mukai
"Yogiichiira-ha no gakuha-mei no yurai"; . Saito "On Bhavya's Interpreta-
tion of 'Madhyamaka' as Found in the Tarkajviilii").
ll. The Sautrantika attitude toward the tripi{aka
What, then, is the Sautrantika attitude toward the tripitaka, especially
toward the Abhidharmasastras? As is evident from Yaomitra's state-
ment, they did not accept the view of the Sarvastiviida orthodoxy that the
Abhidharma was expounded by the Buddha. Hence the expression, na
sastra-pramalJikal} (Lamotte Histoire du Bouddhisme indien 199).
As Kato points out (19,105,208), Yasomitra's definition of Sautrantika
is closely linked to a passage quoted by Vasubandhu in the third chapter
of the
We recognize the authority of the sutras, but we do not recognize the authority
of the siistras, for the Blessed One said, " You should rely on sutriintas, [not
on other scriptures]."4
This statement is ascribed to Srlliita (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 307.17;
Tattvarthii: Tho 74b3; Kato 105), and, as Sanghabhadra reports, the phrase
from MahaparinirvalJasiUra: sutranta-pratisaralJair bhavitavyam is
one of the grounds on which Sautrantikas claim that the Abhidharma is
not the words of the Buddha (T. 1562: 329c21; KatO 106; Waldschmidt
238).
4 siitra-prilmfu).aka vaYIlql, na sastra-prfunfu).akiil;t. uktllql hi Bhagavata, siitranta-pratisa-
TaJ}.air bhavitavyam iti (AbhidharmakosabhlifYa: 146.3-4).
324 YOSHIFUMI HONJO
Another passage that apparently has a close connection with this defini-
tion of Yasomitra's is in Chapter VIII of the
It reads as follows: "Disagreement with sastra is better than disagreement
with siitras.,,5 This statement is ascribed by SaIighabhadra to Vasuban-
dhu,6 and Yasomitra comments on it: "The import [of the passage) is:
Abhidharmasastra was not expounded by the Buddha."7
What about the Vinaya? In a controversy between the Sautrantikas and
SaIighabhadra about whether the Abhidharma is the word of the Buddha
or not, SaIighabhadra states: .
If [the Abhidharrna] is not words of the Buddha, because [the Blessed one]
did not tell the disciples to rely on Abhidharrna, then the Vinaya also is not
the word of the Buddha, because [the Blessed One], just before his parinir-
val}a, did not advise the disciples to rely on [itJ.8
It follows, therefore, that Sautrantika admitted that the Vinaya, like
siitra, is the word of the Buddha.
Thus we can conclude that the Sautrantikas are those scholars who
belong to the Sarvastivadin sect, and who claim that Abhidharma was
not expounded by the Buddha.
9
III. The attitude toward the tripitaka
The characteristic attitude of Sautrantika toward the tripitaka can be
understood more clearly in comparison with that of the At
. the beginning of the a vast commentary on the Jfianaprasthiina
(T. 1544), one of the seven Abhidharma treatises of Sarvastivada, it is
claimed that the Jfiiinaprasthana was expounded by the Buddha; after this,
there is a discussion of the difference among the three baskets, i.e., Sutra,
Vinaya, and Abhidharma.
First, the introduces an opinion of some scholars who deny the
differences, saying that all the teachings of the Buddha are the product
5 vararp sastra-virodho, na siltra-virodhal.J 397.16; Kato 19).
6 Not to the Pascatyas, as Kato once understood (Kato 19; Fukuda "Shohyo, Kato Jun-
sM cho, Kyoryobu no kenkyil" 48-49).
7 abuddhoktam Abhidharrnasastrarn ity abhiprayaJ:! (Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii: 621.19-20).
8 ;5'/f'rutft\ /f'iIlft\t& (T. 1562: 329 c26-27).
9 This conclusion is almost identical to Kato's (19, 105).
THE WORD SAUTRANTIKA 325
of one and the same ocean of knowledge [of the Buddha], one and the same
pond of [of the Buddha], etc.
lO
Then it discusses the dif-
ferences in the name the base that which is clarified (mM),
the origin that which is taught (miR), the object (m:$), the level
(?fUr) [of the followers], and the progress [of the practitioners] of
each basket (T. 1545: 1c1-2all). To summarize the last three discussions
on the object, etc., the Sutra-pitaka is for beginners, the Vinaya-pitaka is for
intennediate followers, and the AbhidJumna-pi{aka is for the most advanced
practitioners, whose object is to salvation (T. 1545: 2a1-11).
In the Vibhii,yii, therefore, the Abhidharma-pitaka is not only regarded
as the words of the Buddha, but it is counted as the most important teach-
ing of the Buddha, which leads practitioners to enlightenment.
ll
We can
see how sharply in contrast are the attitudes of the two schools, Sautrlin-
tika and V toward the three baskets.
rv. and Sautrantika
In the Vibhii,yii, theories are cited and attacked no less than
80 times (Akanuma Chizen Indo Bukkyo koyu meishijiten 145-148). The
two occurrences of Ching pu r.!lfB in Hsiian-tsang's translation do not
. seem to indicate occurrences of Sautrlintika in the original Sanskrit, but
are the interpolations of the translator (Kato 113-119).
Most of the other extant Indian sources, with the exception of the
Abhidharmakosabhii.yya,12 do not distinguish from Sautrlintika.
For example:
10 PJTw'f:fiiI. __ /Ili-1t
li!!ZPJTIflt&. (T. 1545: 1b27-29).
11 TIris reminds us of the interpretation of the word in the Abhidharma-
kosabhiilfYa, where this word is explained as amalii (= aniisravii) prajiiii, which stands
face to face (abhimukha) with nirvii1JCl (nirvii1JCllTZ pratl). Abhidharrna treatises are so called
because they give rise to siisravii prajnii, which is the base of aniisravii prajiiii (Abhi-
t{harmakosabhiilfYa: 2.2-10). Also, it is interesting to note that there is a passage in the
Sro1JClko{fkarl)iivadiina that states the following: "When he was living an ordinary life, he
attained srotaiipatti-phala. After he studied the four iigamas, he gained sakrdiigiimi-
phala. In the course of learning miitrkii as a sriimafJera, he became an aniigiimin. And
as a who received the upasampadii, he became an arhat after acquiring knowledge
of the three baskets" (Divyiivadiina: 17 ff.).
12 Vasubandhu refers to Sautriintika theories when he agrees and to ones
when he does not agree (Kato 84).
326 YOSHIFUMI HONIG
(1) Sanghabhadra calls SrTIata and his followers by both of the names,
and "Sautrantika." 13
(2) Sthiramati comments on the word as follows: "[What
is the meaning of] 'the [?] Those who make. [vocal]
expressions [using] examples i.e., *kalpanii are
namely, Sautrantikas."14
(3) Y asomitra repeatedly insists that the are no other than the
Sautrantikas (Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii: 392.21; 400.17; KatO 99).
(4) The author of the Abhidharmadfpa cites a "Sautrantika" theory referred
to in the Abhidharmakosa as a theory in his work.IS
In the Abhidharmakosabhii0'a, however, the author Vasubandhu agrees
with "Sautrantika" theories but never with ones (Kato 74-85).
The best way to explain this situation is to accept the idea of Przy-
luski, who argues that has a comparatively pejorative nuance
and siltriinta an honorific one.
16
V. The Rise of the Sautrantikas
Since the earliest occurrence found so far of the word "Sautrantika"
belongs to a lost work of SrTIata, Kato conservatively concludes that
SrIIata was the first to call himself" Sautrantika" (88). However, there is
evidence to believe that the name "Sautrantika" dates back to the pre-
period.
13 See note l.
14 dpes ston pa mams fes bya ba ni / gail dag dpes te rtog gis tha sfiad byed pa, de dag
ni dpes ston pa ste mdo sde pa mams so (Tattviirthii ad Abhidhannakosabhii:rJa: 230.8 [Tho
175 b6]. A Sanskrit restoration would be: iti, ye dmantena kalpanaya vyava-
hararp kurvanti, te Sautrantika!;t. I propose restoring rtog pa as kalpanii, since
there is a correspondence between and kalpanii in the title(s) of a work by Kumar-
alata: the and the KalpaniimaTJ4itikii (see Liiders Bruchsrncke der Kalpaniimar;-
tfitikii des Kumiiraliita 17-19).
15 The corresponding passages are as follows: evaIp tu sadhu yatha Sautrantikanam
278 .17); evaIp tu sadhu yatha iti Kosakaral;t
(AbhidhannadJpa: 222.3).
16 "The word could only have been applied to them by their opponents. In
the same way, the deprecative expression Hfuayana was probably used only in the Maha-
yana school" (Przyluski Sautrantika and Sarvastivadin" 250; de la Vallee
Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 1: Iii; Kato 69). Przyluski's view on Sautrantika and
is of course not as simple as the passage cited here suggests.
(1) Sailghabhadra, Sthiramati, Yasomitra, and the Dlpakara do not dis-
tinguish Sautrantika from
(2) If we are to accept Przyluski's view, it is unnatural that the Dar-
in the should have had only a pejorative name.
(3) It is true that no schools are attested in the that refused explic-
itly to recognize the authority of Abhidharma, but the
attack on the orthodoxy is so severe that they substantially
claim that Abhidharma is not the word of the Buddha.
(4) Shiratate Kaiun points out that there is a passage in the Abhidhar-
makosavyiikhyii stating that a certain theory of a Sautrantika master
is cited in the In addition, another similar example can be
found in the same text. 18 Unfortunately, no parallel passage is found
in the extant Chinese translations of the but these quotations
from the Vyiikhyii are worthy of consideration.
VI. Vasubandhu
Recently more and more evidence has come to light suggesting that
many "Sautrantika" theories of Vasubandhu presented in the Abhidhar-
have their origin in the YogiiciirabhUmi (see Kritzer A
Comparison of the (Chapters I-III) and the
Yogiiciirabhumi). This has led an increasing number of scholars to believe
that Vasubandhu already belonged to the Y ogacara school at the time of
writing the Abhidharmakosa and that he did not undergo any substantial
changes in his doctrinal standpoint.
19
If this is the case, which is highly
probable, Vasubandhu was a Sautrantika and a Yogacara at the same
time.
Setting aside the question of Vasubandhu' s acceptance of Yogacara, let
us see in what sense Vasubandhu was a Sautrantika. First of all, when he
quotes "I-rmayana" canonical sources without any citation, these sources
17 Bhadantena Sautrantikenoktam (Abhidharrnakosavyakhya: 673.9-10;
see Shiratate "Kenkyii zakkan").
18 SautrantikadarsanavalambI cayarp Bhadanto (Abhidharrnako-
savyakhya: 44.19-20).
19 This view has developed so gradually that it is difficult to say who was the fIrst to
propose it.
328 . YOSHIFUMI RONID
belong to the Sarvastivadin sect.
20
Furthermore, when he 'uses the word
Nikiiyiintarzya, it means "one who belongs to a sect other tha.lJ. the Sar-
vastivadins."21 Finally, he Qoes not believe that the Abhidharmasastras
are the word of the Buddha.
22
Thus, Vasubandhu belongs to the Sarvastivada sect but does not recog-
nize the authority of Sarvastivada Abhidharmasiistras. This seems to be
the basic definition of "Sautriintika."
References
Primary Sources
Abhidharmadfpa with Edited by P.S. JaUri. Tibetan Sanskrit
Works Series. IV. Second edition. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research
mstitute, 1973.
Edited by P.L. Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series XIII.
First edition. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research mstitute, 1967.
Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii. Edited by U. Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book
Store, 1990. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: The Publishing Association of
the Abhidhilrma-kosa-vyakhya, 1932-1936).
Tattviirthii niima (= Tattviirtha). Sthiramati. Peking
Bstan 'gyur 5875 (mdo 'grel to, tho).
(A-p'i-ta-mo ta p'i-p'o-sha lun
T.1545.
Divyiivadiina. Edited by E.B. Cowell and R.A. Neil, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1886.
MahiiparinirviilJasutra. Edited by E. Waldscmidt. Das MahaparinirviiI:Iasutra,
Text in Sanskrit und Tibetisch, verglichen mit dem Pili nebst einer Uber-
.; ;setzung der chinesischen Entsprechung im Vinaya der MUlasarvastivadins,
20 In the last kiirikii of Chapter Eight of the Abhidharmakosabhii.rya, the author Vasu-
bandhu declares that the theories of the Abhidharmakosa are mainly (priiyel)ll) based on
the Kashmir standpoint. Reading through the entire text of the Abhidhar-
mako.ropiiyikii of Samathadeva, I have never come across any evidence that the Agama pas-
sages cited in both the Abhidharmakosa and the do not belong to the Sarvlistivlida sect
(Honja A Table of Agama-citations in the Abhidharmakosa and the Abhidharmako.ropiiyikii).
21 For occurrences of the term, see Hirakawa Index to the Abhidharmakosabhii.rYa 424.
22 See Abhidharmakosa I 3 (Abhidharmakosabhii.rYa: 2.19-22); Pratityasamutpiidiidi-
vibhangabhii.rYa: Chi 62b2-63a2; Matsuda" Abhidharmasamuccaya ni okero jUnishi engi
no kaishaku" 33ff.
auf Grund von Turfan-Handschriften hrsg. und bearbeitet. Teil I-ill. Berlin
1950-1951. .
Nyliyiinusiira shun cheng-li lun T. 1562.
(Rten cm 'breI bar 'byun ba dan po dan
mam par dbye ba bsad pa), Peking Bstan 'gyur 5496 (mdo 'grel chi)
Modem Works
Akanuma Chizen Indo Bukkya koyu meishijiten
Kyoto: Hozokan, 1979. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: 1931).
de la Vallee Poussin, Louis. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. New edition.
Melanges chinois et bouddhique 16. Bruxelles: Institut BeIge des Hautes
Etudes Chinoises, 1971. Reprint (First edition: Louvain: J.B. Istas, 1923-31).
"Sautrantikas." Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Ed. James Hastings.
13 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908-1926. 11: 214-215.
Fukuda Takurni rliiB3Jffi. "Shohyo, Kato JunshO cho, Kyoryobu no kenkyfi"
Buddhist Seminar 2. 7- 50 (1990): 46-
52.
Harada Waso .ffi{B3:fU;-. "Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare' to iu gainen
e no gimon [I]" r !i!P.!i0) J > 1:: It' ? Jour-
nal of Indian and Tibetan Studies -("/ 1 (1996): 134-193.
Hirakawa Akira. Index to the AbhidharmakosabhiifYa. Part one. Tokyo: Daizo
Shuppan Kabushikikaisha, 1973.
Honjo Yoshifurni *!&X. A Table of Agama-citations in the Abhidharmakosa
and the Part I. Kyoto: privately printed, 1984.
Shiratate Kaiun "Kenkyfi zakkan." Buddhist Seminar 2. 7-
49 (1989): 66-67.
Kato JunshO Kyaryabu no kenkyu (Etudes sur les Sautr1in-
tika). Tokyo: Shunjiisha, 1989.
Kritzer, Robert. A Comparison of the (Chapters I-ill) and
the Yogacarabhiirni. (Japanese Ministry of Education Grant-in-Aid for Scien-
tific Research C. Project Number 11610024.) Kyoto: privately printed, 2001.
Lamotte, Etienne. Histoire du Bouddhisme indien. Publication de l'Institut Ori-
entaliste de Louvain, 14, Universite de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, Lou-
vain-La-Neuve, 1976 (Reproduction anastatique de l'edition originale, parue
en 1958 dans la "Bibliotheque du Museon" no 43).
Liiders, Heinrich. BruchstUcke der Kalpaniimal}tjitikii des Kumiiraliita. Mono-
graphien zur indischen Archiiologie, Kunst und Philologie; Bd. 1. Kleinere
Sanskrittexte; Heft 1-2. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1979. (Reprint of the 1926
ed. pubiished by the Deutsche Morgenliindische Gesellschaft, Leipzig.)
Matsuda Kazunobu. "Abhidharmasamuccaya ni okeru jiinishi engi no kaishaku"
Abhidharmasamuccaya f;:Svt Otani Daigaku ShinshU
sago kenkyu-jo Kenkyujo-kiyo 1 (1983): 29-50.
330 . YOSinFuMI HONIG
Mukai Akira "Yogiichiira-ha no gakuha-mei no yurai""3-:ti-'f-\'-
Sanzoshil 4 4. Tokyo: Daito shuppan-sha, 1978.
267-273.
Przyluski, Jean. Sautriintika and Sarviistiviidin", Indian Historical
Quarterly 16 (1940): 246-254. .
Saito Akira. "On Bhavya's Interpretation of 'Madhyamaka' as Found in the
Tarkajviilii." Abhidharma bukkyo to Indo shiso: Kato JunshO hakushi kan-
reki kinen ronshu 7 E 51 -1:/ r :
(Abhidharma and Indian Thought: Essays in Honor of Professor Doctor
JunshO Kato on His Sixtieth Birthday). Tokyo: Shunjiisha, 2000. 267-279.
Sakurabe Hajime. "Kyoryobu no keitai" Indogaku Bukkyogaku
Kenkyu 2.1 (1953): 115-116.
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Robert Kritzer
for help with my English.
SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHA.SYA
ROBERT KRITZER
I. Introduction
The tenn "Sautrantika" appears in the Abhidharmakosabhii.yya approxi-
mately twenty times. In almost every case, the opinion attributed to the
Sautrantikas contradicts the orthodox position,
and, as Kato shows (75-78), represents Vasubandhu's own opinion. Sau-
trantika is closely associated with which is often considered
to be either the same as Sautrantika or its immediate predecessor, and
many of Vasubandhu's "Sautrantika" opinions strongly resemble ones
attributed to by the Recently, however, scholars
have begun to notice that some of the same opinions can also be found
in the YogiiciirabhUmi. In this paper, I examine the occurrences in the
Abhidharmakosabhii.yya of the tenn "Sautrantika," refer to relevant pas-
sages in the and Harivarman's *Tattvasiddhi, and show that the
majority of the positions labelled Sautrantika have correspondences in
the Yogiiciirabhumi, most frequently in the Viniscayasal'f'lgraha1}1 on the
PaficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhUmi. I also discuss the possible implications of
Vasubandhu's evident reliance on the Yogiiciirabhumi.
I limit myself here to those passages in which the word "Sautrantika"
actually appears in the Sanskrit text. There are many other positions that
have been identified by commentators such as P'u-kuang and YaSomitra
as Sautrantika, not to mention the more than 200 references by Satp-
ghabhadra to the ching-chu or "siitra-master,"2 a tenn used to sig-
nal Vasubandhu's departure from Sarvastivadin orthodoxy (see Kritzer
1 On the other hand, Vasubandhu does not agree with all the positions.
It seems, in fact, as though he himself uses the term pejoratively. When he agrees
with a opinion, he labels it Sautrantika (see Cox 37-39, which is
based largely on Kato; see also Harada).
2 I borrow Cox's translation (56).
332 ROBERT KRITZER
Comparison, "Preliminary Report").3 I also ignore references to yogiiciiras
(practitioners of yoga) and purviiciiryas (earlier teachers), except when
they occur within a larger argument attributed to Sautrantika.
II. Summary of Results
Of the nineteen positions that I have isolated,4 eleven involve Vasuban-
dhu's rejection of dharmas that the Sarviistiviidins classify as 'real and
independent entities, including a number of the cittaviprayuktasarrzskiiras
(forces not associated with mind), the asarrzskrtadharmas (unconditioned
dharmas), the anusayas (latent defilements), and vijiiaptirupa (manifested
matter) and avijiiaptirflpa (unmanifested matter). Vasubandhu often asserts
that the functioning of bijas (seeds), themselves merely prajiiapti (pro-
visional entities), is sufficient to explain the phenomena in question. Other
positions concern the process of perception, the nature of the Buddha's
knowledge, the reality of the past, and the possibility of a fall from arhat-
ship. In a number of these cases, too, Vasubandhu appeals to either bija
or the closely related idea of (transformation of the
life-stream)5 in his unorthodox statements.
One of the nineteen positions seems to have nothing at all corre-
sponding to it in the Yogiiciirabhumi. In two other cases, the Yogiiciira-
bhumi contains no argument similar to Vasubandhu's, but its general
position on the subject is in agreement with his. In the remaining
sixteen cases, a correspondence between the two texts is more or less
clear.
of the positions identified as Sautrantika by Vasubandhu are attrib-
uted to Darl?tantika by the in three other cases, statements
related to the Sautrantika positions are attributed to Diirl?tantika. How-
ever, there is no mention of bija or in the relevant
3 In an ongoing project, I am comparing every passage that S3J!1ghabhadra identifies
as the position of the ching-chu with the YogiiciirabhUmi and compiling a list of correspon:
dences. So far, I have completed the comparison for the first four chapters of the Abhi-
the results of the first three chapters have been published (Kritzer
Comparison).
4 Kato identifies 17 (74-78).
5 For this translation, see Cox (95).
SAUTRANTlKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHAsYA 333
passages in the In other words, the maintains the
same general position as Sautrantika but its reasoning is either unstated
or different.
Similarly, Harivarman's positions in the *Tattvasiddhi, many of which
probably can be considered (see Mizuno), frequently agree in
general with those of Vasubandhu. However, the reasons given by Hari-
varman are often different, and, again, Harivarman does not use the terms
blja or
m. Sautrantika Opinions in and Correspon-
dences in the *Tattvasiddhi, and the Y ogiiciirabhumi
1. There is nothing that sees or is seen in perception: consciousness arises
in dependence on organ and object.
Abhidharmakosabhiif!ja
7
- In the verse (Abhidharmakosa I 42), Vasuban-
dhu gives the accepted opinion that it is the eye that sees rupa
(matter), but he uses the word kila ("so it is said"), according to Sarpgha-
bhadra, to indicate that he disagrees.
s
Vasubandhu then examines a num-
ber of other opinions found in the most prominently that of
Dharmatrata, to the effect that it is the eye-consciousness that sees rupa.
As Kato points out, the commentators think that Vasubandhu favors Dhar-
matrata's opinion, but in fact, he may simply be using it to refute the
(24). At the end of the discussion, Vasubandhu ascribes to
the Sautrantikas the opinion that there is nothing that sees or is seen;
consciousness simply arises in dependence on the organ and the object.
6 Nishi states that there is not a single attribution of bfja theory to Sautrantika in the
entire *Vibhii:fii (484), and an examination of the passages concerning bfja that he has
collected from the *Vibhii:fii suggests that there is no attribution to either (490-
494).
7 atra sautriintikii iihuf; I kim idam iikiisal'{l khiidyate I cak:fur hi pratftya rupiil}i cotpa-
dyate cak:fur-vijiiiinam I tatra kaf; paSyati ko vii drsyate I nirvyiipiiral'{l hfdal'{l dharmamii-
tral'{l hetuphalamiitral'{l ca I tatra vyavahiiriirthal'{l cchandata upaciiriif; kriyante I cak:fuf;
pasyati vijiiiinal'{l vijiiniitfti niitriibhinive:;tavyam I uktal'{l hi bhagavatii janapadaniruktil'{l
niibhiniveSata sal'{ljiiiil'{l ca lokasya niibhidhiived iti (Abhidharmakosabhiirya: 31.11-16).
The references for the entire discussion are Abhidharmakosabhiirya: 30.3-31.17; T. 1558:
10c8-11b8; La Vallee Poussin 1: 81-86; T. 1562: 363c12-368all; Kat6 23-24.
8 Saqlghabhadra uses the appellation ching-chu *![.:=. here (T. 1562: 365all).
334 ROBERT KRITZER
There is no action here, merely dharmas, merely causes and results. How-
ever, in worldly discourse one can say that the eye sees.
9
- The attributes to the the position
that the coming together of certain factors is equivalent to "seeing rilpa."ll
*Tattvasiddhi
12
- Consciousness sees, not the organ.
Yogiiciirabhumi
13
- The Yogiiciirabhumi contains a number of statements
to the effect that cognition is really the result of the laws of cause and
effect, not of something seeing and something else being seen. In particu-
lar, the Viniscayasal'flgrahm:zi on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhumi says
that, at the highest level, neither the organ nor the consciousness per-
ceives. It gives three reasons: because the svabhiiva (real nature) of all
9 Srupghabhadra identifies !his as the opinion of the He does not use the
appellation sutra-master (T. 1562: 367b25; see KatO 75). Fukuhara comments that !his is
very close to a Mahayana way of thinking (159).
10 (T. 1545: 61c10-11).
11 However, KatO shows that the position in the which is fully
explained in the is actoally completely different from the
Sautrantika position in the since the factors that corne together in
the Darstantika position are consciousness and dharmas associated with mind, not organ,
object, and consciousness (23-24).
12
(T. 1646: 267a7-9; the argument continues until
268alO).
13 mig gis gzugs rnams mthon ba nas yid kyis ehos rnams rnam par ses so zes bya ba'i
bar du ji skad gsuns pa de la I ci mig la sags pas mthon ba nas rnam par ses pa'i bar du
yin nam I 'on te de dag gi rnam par ses pa dag gis mthon ba nas rnam par ses pa'i bar
du yin ze na I smras pa I don dam par ni mig la sags pas kyan ma yin la I de dag gi rnam
par ses pa dag gis kyan ma yin no I de ei'i phyir ze na I dnos po rnams ni rten cin 'brei
bar 'byun ba'i phyir dan skad cig pa'i phyir dan I g.yo ba med pa'i phyir ro I brda'i tshul
du ni gtso bo yin pa'i mig la sogs pa la mthon ba po la sogs pa fie bar gdags pa ehes rigs
so I de ci'i phyir ze na I mig la sogs pa dban po rnams yod na ni rnam par ses pa 'byun
ba ma tshan pa med par nes kyi I rnam par ses pa'i rgyun ni yod du zun kyan dmig la sogs
pa dban po rnams tshan ba 'am ma tshan bar dmigs pa 'i phyir ro I Ita ba la sogs pa tsam
la mthon ba la sogs pa fie bar gdags pa gafz yin pa de ni don dam pa yin no (Yogiieiira-
bhiimi: zi 83a6b3). 151b!l
fiiJUn!L
fflil}(o *'.Jt!tf1:ii!!tI0 fjiJI-jil}(o
liA:ifito
(T. 1579: 6IOa19-27; cited in Saeki 1: 88). See also the Paramiirthagiithiis and their
commentary (Wayman 168,174,178; Yogiieiirabhiimi,: dzi 236b3-4, 238a4-6; T. 1579:
363a27-b1, 364a27-b1).
SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHASYA 335
dharmas arises due to a multiplicity of causes; because nothing endures
for more than a moment; because there is no real action. At the worldly
level, however, one can say that the eye sees, because whenever there is
an organ, consciousness will defInitely not be lacking. On the other-hand,
it is possible for the organs to be lacking even when the stream of con-
sciousness exists.
Comment - Here the Sautrantika argument closely follows the Yogiiciira-
bhilmi in its ultimate rejection of anything that perceives and its accep-
tance on the worldly level of the notion that it is the organ that perceives.
The conclusion of the*Tattvasiddhi is completely different.
2. Prthagjanatvam (the state of being an ordinary person) is not a real
dharma. It is simply the saf[ltati (life-stream) in which the iiryadhar-
mas (the attributes of a noble or spiritually accomplished person) have
not yet arisen.
- Vasubandhu approves of the Sautrantika
definition of prthagjanatvam, according to which prthagjanatvam is the
saf[ltati in which the iiryadharmas have not yet arisen.
I5
- The attributes a denial of the real existence of
prthagjanatvam to the
*Tattvasiddhi
I7
- There is no prthagjanatvam different from the prthag-
jana, the ordinary person himself. (The *Tattvasiddhi says that all of the
cittaviprayuktasaf[lskiiras are prajnapti.)lS
14 evarrz tu siidhu yathii sautriintikiiniim / katharrz ca sautriintikiiniim / anutpanniirya-
dharmasantatiJ:t prthagjanatvam iti 66.16-18; T. 1558: 23c2-3;
La Vallee Poussin 1: 193; Srup.ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master
and criticizes Vasubandhu for denying the real existence of prthagjanatvam [T. 1562:
399blO-c7; Cox 203-206; Kata 75].)
15 Cox points out that Vasubandhu does not specifically state here that prthagjanatvam
is unreal, but she says that its unreality is implied in its definition as a sarrztati, "which,
as a composite entity, cannot be real" (224 n. 109).
16 (T. 1545: 231b26-27; see Cox 224 n. 109).
17 MB. (T. 1646: 289c3-4; the
argument continues until 289c13).
18 Katsura (86) cites T. 1646: 289a-c, in which various cittaviprayuktas are said to lack
separate existence.
336 ROBERT KRITZER
Yogiiciirabhiimi
19
- The Viniscayasa7(lgrahar}'z on the Paiicavijiiiinakiiya-
manobhUmi defines prthagjanatvam as a designation for the state in which
the lokottara (supennundane) iiryadharmas have not yet arisen.
Comment - The definitions of PTthagjanatvam in the Abhidharmako-
sabhiifYa and the YogiiciirabhUmi are essentially identical. While it is pos-
sible that the position is the source for the common defini-
tion in these two texts, the does not give us any details.
3. The sa7(lskrtala.JqalJas (marks of the conditioned) are not real dharmas.
AbhidharmakosabhiifYa
20
- The are not real entities since,
unlike real dharmas such as rupa, they cannot be known by perception,
inference, or scripture.
- The attributes a denial of the real nature of the
to the
*Tattvasiddhi
22
- Jiiti (birth), vyiiya (destruction), sthiti (continued exis-
tence), and anyathiitva (change of state, i.e., aging) simply refer to the five
skandhas at various points. They are not separate dharmas.
19 SO so'i skye bo gnas skabs gan la gdags / mam pa du yod ce na / smras pa / 'jig rten
las 'das pa 'phags pa'i chos ma bskyed pa'i gnas skabs la'o (Yogacarabhiimi,: zi 77aJ3).

(T. 1579: 607c8-9). The other passage in the ViniscayasaTflgrahalJi that deals with the
cittaviprayuktasaTflskaras says that prthagjanatvam refers to the seeds of darsanaheya
dharmas in the three worlds that have not yet been destroyed (Yogacarabhiimi,: zi 26b1-2;
T. 1579: 587b25-26). I have argued that there is no contradiction between the two defi-
nitions in the ViniscayasaTflgrahalJi, or between this and the one favored by Vasubandhu
in the (Kritzer Rebirth 246-248).
20 tad etad akasaTfl patyata iti sautrantikiiJ;. / na hy ete jatyadayo dharma dravyataJ;.
sQT{lVidyante yathii 'bhivyajyante / kiTfl kiiralJam / pramiilJiibhiivat / na hy dravyato 'stitve
kiTflcid api pramiilJam asti pratyalqam anumiinam aptagamo va yathii riipadiniiT{l dharmiilJam
iti 76.20-23; T. 1558: 27b24-26; La Vallee Poussin 1: 226; Smp.-
ghabhadra iden,tifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 406bI6-20; Cox 311-
312] and criticizes it on the grounds that Vasubandhu must accept the provisional reality of
the saTflSkrtalalqalJas; according to Smp.ghabhadra, their provisional reality cannot be proven
by perception or scripture, while proof by inference of their provisional reality would imply
proof by inference of their ultimate reality [T. 1562: 406b20-29; Cox 312]; Kato 75.)
21 all9.lt::tffJI. it::tf$ffl3-l'.::tftl. 'Fffi
itl(it::tf$ffl3-l'.::tffl (T.1545: 198aI4-17; see also Cox 358 n. 32).
22 fflaitl(!1.

SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHA$YA 337
Yoga,ciirabhiimi
23
- The ViniscayasaTflgrahalJl on the Paficavijfiiinakiiya-
manobhiimi says that the four saTflslq-talalqalJas, inc1udingjiiti, are not real
entities, separate from rilpa and the other skandhas.
Comment - Later in his presentation of the Sautrantika argument, Vasu-
bandhu gives his own explanation of the four lalqalJas: the flrst arising of
the series of saTflskiiras is jiiti; the series in the state of cessation is called
vyaya (=anityatii [impermanence]); the procession of the series is called
sthiti; the difference between earlier and later moments of the stream is
called anyathiitva.
24
This explanation is very similar to one found later in
the passage from the ViniscayasaTflgrahalJl on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyama-
nobhiimi mentioned above:
25
when, due to causes, formerly non-existent

x+=ltSJm<po 19i1ElIDl':ti-'1o
(T. 1646: 289bI8-29).
This position closely resembles Vasubandhu's, except that Vasubandhu refers to sa1'/1skrta-
dharmas, not skandhas: tatra pravahasyadir utpado niv,-ttir vyaya!) / sa eva pravaho 'nuvart-
tamana!) sthiti!) / tasya pilrvaparavise:ta!) sthityanyathiitvam (Abhidharmakosabhii:tya:
77.6-8; T. 1558: 27c11-12; La ValleePoussin 1: 227; SaqIghabhadraidentifies this as the
opinion of the siitra-master, who, he says, is following the school of the Sthavira [T. 1562:
407c9-11; Cox 320] and criticizes it at length [T. 1562: 407c17-408b28; Cox 321-326]).
V asubandhu' s position, in turn, resembles that of the Viniscayasa1'/1grahal}l on the Pafica-
vijfianakayamanobhilmi: de Ita bas na skye ba la sogs pa yan 'du byed roams la [bta]gs
pa'i yod pa yin par rig par bya' 0/ de la rgyu yod na ran gi mtshan fiid snon ma byun ba
'grub pa ni 'du byed roams kyi skye ba ies bya'o / sna ma las phyi ma gian fiid du gzan
du 'gyur ba fiid ni 'du byed mams kyi rga ba ies bya'o / skye ba'i dus tsam la gnas pa ni
'du byed roams kyi gnas pa zes bya ste / de Ita bas na skye ba'i skad cig gi 'og tu 'jig pa'i
skad cig ni 'du byed roams kyi 'jig pa ies bya'o (YogacarabhUmi
t
: zi 22a2-4).
I'!Pllii
(T. 1579: 585c24-28; see
Kritzer Rebirth 234-235).
23 ci'i phyir gzugs la sogs pa 'du byed roams las skye ba dan / rga ba dan / gnas pa
dan / mi rtag pa fiid dag rdzas gian du yod pa ma yin par khon du chud par bya ie na
(Yogacarabhilmi
t
: zi 21bl-2). (T. 1579: 585c9-
10 [this question is answered in the passage that follows: T. 1579: 585clO-28; Yogacara-
bhUmi
t
: zi 21b2-22a4]).
24 tatra pravahasyadir utpado niv,-ttir vyaya!) / sa eva pravaho 'nuvarttamana!) sthiti!) /
tasya pilrvaparavise:ta!) sthityanyathiitvam (Abhidharmakosabhii:tya: 77.6-8; T. 1558:
27cll-12; La Vallee Poussin 1: 227; SaqIghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the
siitra-master, who, he says, is following the school of the Sthavira [T. 1562: 407c9-11; Cox
320] and criticizes it at length [T. 1562: 407cI7-408b28; Cox 321-326].) See Kritzer Com-
parison 39.
25 de Ita bas na skye ba la sogs pa yan 'du byed roams fa [bta]gs pa'i yod pa yin par
rig par bya'o / de la rgyu yod na ran gi mtshan fiid snon ma byun ba 'grub pa ni 'du byed
sa/?1skrtadharmas (conditioned dharmas) arise, this is callei:ljati.
26
When
the sa1?1skrtadharmas that arise later are different from the earlier ones,
this is calledjara (old age). When these sa1?1skrtadharmas, having arisen,
persist for a limited time, this is called sthiti. And when, after the moment
of arising, the characteristics of these sa1?1skrtadharmas are destroyed,
this is called cessation or anityata.
Again, the basic positions of the Sautrantika in the Abhidharmakos-
and of the Yogacarabhiimi agree with those of and
Harivarman. However, we have no record of the explanation
of the individual and Harivarman does not use expressions like
abhiitva bhavati ("not having existed, it exists"), which are found through-
out the discussions in the Abhidharmakosabharya and the Yogacarabhiimi.
4. The Buddha did not say that an asa1?1skrtadharma can be a cause.
Abhidharmakosabharya
27
- The Sautrantikas deny that the Buddha said
that an asa1?1skrta could be a cause. On the contrary, he said that all causes
are impermanent and hence sa1?1skrta.
- The mentions an opinion that asa1?1skrtas cannot
be karar.zahetu, but it does not attribute it to any specific group.
*Tattvasiddhi - (nothing relevant)
Yogacarabhiimi - (nothing relevant)
rnams kyi skye ba ies bya' 0 I sfza ma las phyi ma gian Rid du gian du 'gyur ba fiid ni 'du
byed rnams kyi rga ba ies bya'o I skye ba'i dus tsam la gnas pa ni 'du byed rnams kyi
gnas pa ies bya ste I de Ita bas na skye ba'i skad cig gi 'og tu 'jig pa'i skad cig ni 'du
byed rnams kyi 'jig pa ies bya'o (Yogacarabhilmi,: zi 22a2-4).

(T. 1579: 585c24-28; not in Tibetan;
see Kritzer Rebirth 234-235). See Kritzer Comparison 39.
26 Miyashita fInds in the Yogacarabhilmi the origin of the pen wu chin you
theory in the Abhidharmakosabhiirya.
27 naiva hi kvacid asal'(lslcrtal'(l bhagavata hetur ity uktaml uktal'(l tu paryayer:za hetur
iti sautrantika!; I katham uktam lye hetavo ye pratyaya rilpasyotpadaya te 'py anitya!; I
anityan khalu hetupratyayan pratftyotpannal'(l rilpal'(l kuto nityal'(l I eval'(l yavad
vijfianam iti (Abhidharmakosabhiirya: 91.13-17; T. 1558: 33c22-26; La Vallee Poussin 1:
277; not mentioned in Kato).
28 II:fi.il. (T. 1545: 103c21-
23).
SAuTRANTlKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHASYA 339
Comment - This sentence marks the begillning of a very long passage
in which Vasubandhu criticizes the V definitions of asarrzskrta-
dharmas as real entities. Although the Yogacarabhiimi does not seem
to include any statement similar to this one, see the following item for
correspondences between the and the Yogacara-
bhiimi regarding the unreality of the asarrzskrtas.
5. The asarrzskrtas are not real and separate dharmas.
- According to the Sautrantika, the asarrzskrtas
are not real and separate dharmas like riipa, vedana (feeling), etc.
(1?O - The quotes the Bhadanta as saying that akasa
(space) is prajfiapti
3
! and refutes him.
(2)32 - The attributes to the the opinion
that three types of nirodha (cessation), including pratisarrzkhyanirodha
(cessation resulting from knowledge) and apratisarrzkhyanirodha (cessa-
tion not resulting from knowledge), are not real and refutes them.
*Tattvasiddhi
33
- Akasa and nirv(1)a are not real dharmas.
29 sarvam evasafTlskrtam adravyam iti sautrantikalJ I na hi tad rupavedanadivat bhti-
vantaram asti (Abhidharmakosabhtieya: 92.3-4; T. 1558: 34a12-14; La Vallee Poussin 1:
278; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the statement of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 429a21-
23] and criticizes it [T. 1562: 429a28]; Kata 75-76).
30
f!Hi!:i!!:r.'7}l.l'l1N1l:.o
(T. 1545: 388c24-29). The other *Vibhtiea texts (T. 1546
and T. 1547) attribute this position to Buddhadeva and Dharmatrata, respectively (Kata 22,
128 n. 47).
31 The Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya attributes a similar opinion to VIlif:t!
(T. 1552: 944a7-9).
.M#.M.MM#.:fiH.
(T. 1545: 161alO-12).
33 ra'Bo :fra CT. 1646: 343c12-
14 [the argument is similar to that of the ViniscayasafTlgrahaJ;l1 on the Pafzcavijfzanakaya-
manobhumi; see below]); :;;;80
it; (T. 1646: 343c17-18). :frB. *F.iJB;ft f!!.'iiflt;o :fi.iJ1ll\!!llM.IlI&j:Jb"k.Hil.lIJJ
(T. 1646: 369a23-25 [a similar denial of the real existence of nirodhasamapatti together
with an admission that it is not totally nonexistent is found in the VastusafTlgrahaJ;lz; see
below]).
Yogacarabhilmi (1)34 - The ViniscayasarrzgrahmJl on the Paficavijfiana-
kayamanobhilmi says that akiisa is simply an appellation expressing the
absence of nlpa. If some place does not contain anything, the notion
arises that the place contains akasa. Therefore, akasa is only a prajfiapti
and is not real.
Yogacarabhumi (2)35 - The Vastusarrzgrahm;l, in a definition of *pha-
laprajfiapti provisionally real by way of being a result), mentions
pratisarrzkhyanirodha, which, it says, is not non-existent, since it is 'a result
of the path, but is not really existent, since it is simply a designation for
the total non-arising in the future of kldas (defilements) that have already
been destroyed.
Yogacarabhumi (3)36 - The Viniscayasarrzgrahm;l on the Paficavijfiana-
kiiyamanobhumi says that apratisarrzkhyanirodha is simply an appellation
expressing destruction or pacification when a certain dharma, its condi-
tions for arising having been actualized, does not arise because another
34 de la nam mkha' gan ze na I gzugs med pa tsam gyis rab ti phye ba ni nam mkha'
yin te I 'di ltar gan la gzugs yi mam pa mi dmigs pa de la nam mkha'i 'du ses 'byun bar
'gyur pas de'i phyir de yan btags pa'i yod pa yin par rig par bya'i rdzas su ni ma yin no
(YogacarabhUmi,: zi 39bl-2). PJTJ..J=lIfiiIo ;fi
PJTflJ.o (T. 1579: 593a15-18).
See also Vastusaf!lgrahal).l (T. 1579: 879a14-18; not in Tibetan). Yamabe has noted the
similarity between this passage and the Sautrantika opinion in the Abhidharmakosabha:;ya
(personal communication).
35 PA#Jf:ffo
(T. 1579: 879a5-8; not in Tibetan). The Hsien-yang sheng-chiao lun
gives a defInition of pratisaf!lkhyanirodha that is similar but mentions prajiia: f)il1ll=ll 0
(T. 1602: 484c3-4).
36 so sor btags pa ma yin pa'i 'gog pa gan ze nal de las gzan pa skye ba'i rkyen mnon
du gyur pa na de las gzan pa skye bas I de las gzan pa mi skye iin fie bar ii ba'i 'gog pa
tsam ni so sor btags pa ma yin pa'i 'gog pa zes bya ste I gan de'i tshe na ma skyes sin
skye bas'i dus las thai ba de ni de'i tshe na ma yan skye bar mi 'gyur bas I de'i phyir de
yan btags pa 'i yod pa yin gyi rdzas su yod pa ni ma yin te I de 'i ran gi mtshan iiid ni gzan
cun zad kyan mi dmigs so I de yan chos kyi mam pa dan ma bral ba'i phyir dus gzan gyi
tshe rkyen dan phrad na 'byun bar 'gyur bas de'i phyir so sor btags pa rna yin pa'i 'gog
pa de ni gtan du ba ma yin no (YogacarabhUmi,: zi 39b2-5).
mfpfT:ffiMtBif!i!:.o
0 PJTt.J:=lIfiiJo ffii'iTl!Jl&o tttii;fnJi#1ilt
ll1.i1'ti\Bif (T. 1579: 593aI9-25). See also Vastu-
sal'{lgrahal).f CT. 1579: 879a18-20; not in Tibetan). Yamabe has noted the similarity between
this passage and the Sautrantika opinion in the Abhidharmakosabha:;ya (personal commu-
nication).
SAU'TRANTIKA IN TIIE ABHlDHARMAKOSABHASYA 341
dha.rma arises. Whenever the time for a dharma to arise is exceeded, that
dharma is destroyed and will not arise. (However, if the conditions for
arising are encountered, it may arise in the future, so this is not a perma-
nent destruction.) Because it has no separate (characteristic
mark), apratisaf{lkhyanirodha is a prajnapti, not a real entity.
Comment - I have not found any passage in the YogacarabhUmi that explic-
itly states that the category of asaf{lskrta is not really existent. However,
in the passages referred to, the YogacarabhUmi questions or denies the real
existence of akasa, pratisaf{lkhyanirodha, and apratisaf{lkhyiinirodha. Its
definition of akiiSa is very similar to that of the Sautrantika, according to
whom akiisa is nothing more than the absence of that which is tangible.
37
The
definitions of pratisaf{lkhyanirodha are also similar, although the Sautrantika
definition stresses the role of knowledge,38 which is not mentioned in the
YogacarabhUmi. Finally, the Sautrantika defines apratisaf{lkhyanirodha as
the non-arising of dharmas due not to knowledge but to a lack of causes
for their arising.
39
Like the definition in the YogacarabhUmi, this insists that
apratisaf{lkhyanirodha, as the non-existence of something, can only be a
prajnapti, not a real dharma. However, the phrasing is somewhat differ-
ent, and I am not sure that the two defInitions are completely in agreement.
6. The Buddha knows the future directly.
- Concerning the question of the Buddha's
knowledge of the future, the Sautrantikas say that the Buddha knows it
37 iikiisam / tadyathii hy andhakiire pratighiitam avindanta
iikiisam ity iihul} 92.4-5; 34aI4-16; La Vallee Poussin 1: 279;
identifies this as the statement of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 429a23-25] and
criticizes it at great length [T. 1562: 429a28-430a7]). See Kritzer Comparison 53.
38 utpanniinusayajanmanirodhal} pratisaT[1khyiibaleniinyasyiinutpiidal} pratisal'{lkhyii-
nirodhal} 92.5-6; T. 1558: 34a17; La Vallee Poussin 1: 279;
identifies this as the statement of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 429a25-26] and
criticizes it at very great length [T. 1562: 430aI8-434b7]). See Kritzer Comparison 54.
39 vinaiva pratisal'{lkhyayii pratyayavaikalyiid anutpiido yal} so 'pratisal'{lkhyiinirodhal}
/ tad yathii 92.7-8; T. 1558:
34a18; La Vallee Poussin 1: 279; identifies this as the statement of the sutra-
master [T. 1562: 429a26-27] and criticizes it at great length [T. 1562: 434b8-435b2]). See
Kritzer Comparison 55.
40 naimittiko hi niima bhagaviin syiid eval'{l sati na punal} / tasmiit sarvam
icchiimiitrelJa bhagaviin jiiniititi sautriintikiil} / acintyo hi buddhiiniil'{l ity
342 ROBERT KRITZER
directly. Vasubandhu adds that the Buddha knows by merely wishing and
explains that the Lord has said, "the Buddha-range of the Buddhas is
acintya (unimaginable)."
- The refutes two other theories, which it does
not attribute to a specific group, of how the Buddha knows the future (by
inference or by means of a mark in beings' saf!ltatis that indicates the
future results of their actions) and accepts the idea that he knows it
directly.
*Tattvasiddhi
42
- Knowledge of the causes and effects of actions is very
profound because the Buddha knows past and future dharmas even though
they do not exist.
Yogtictirabhiimi
43
- ill the Viniscayasaf!lgrahaf}lon the Bodhisattvabhiimi,
the Tathiigata is said never to have an unconcentrated thought, while the
arhat is said to be concentrated when he is in samtipatti (meditative trance)
but not after he exits.
ukta'fl bhagavata (Abhidharmakosabhii:fYa: 99.9-11; T. 1558: 37a2-4; La Vallee Poussin
1: 304-305; Kat(76).
41 It9:0**,
i1l:
EEJ[ttmJ!.

*i!!:.
:fif'F:!H.ll.. tl:t::f!l!fI.
!l!f'FJH.ll., J!BJlijjlflJ.
m9:ll,
(T. 1545: 51b15-e6).

tE,
r,m,
_*f_n,
9:0_mJJ,
n, PJTU:f3fnJ, ::z
(T. 1646: 240a26-blO). See Kritzer "Unthinkable"
69-71.
43 gihan yan dgra beam pa ni snams par iugs na mfiam par biag pa yin la lans na mfiam
par ma biag pa yin gyi / de biin gsegs pa la ni gnas skabs thams cad du sems mnam par
ma bZag pa med pa dan (Yagacarabhiimi,: 'i l14a5-6); :fi
(T. 1579: 738c7-9).
SAlITRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHA$YA 343
COII\Il1ent - The. position that the Buddha knows the future directly is in
agreement with the and Saq1ghabhadra does not attack it. How-
ever, P'u-kuang notes that there are two possible Sautrantika explana-
tions of knowing by merely wishing. One of these is based on the notion
that the Buddha never has an unconcentrated thought (T. 1821: 135bI5-
c6). This position is unacceptable to the For a more detailed
analysis of this passage, see Kritzer "Unthinkable."
7. In iirilpyadhiitu there is no support for consciousness external to con-
sciousness itself.
- According to Vasubandhu, in iirilpyadhiitu
(the immaterial realm) there is no support for consciousness other than
the stream of consciousness itself. According to the Abhidharmikas, the
support is nikiiyasabhiiga (the homogeneous character of beings)45 and
jivitendriya (life-force). The (projecting cause) is sufficient
to establish the stream of consciousness in a new lifetime; if this cause
is an action that is free from desire pertaining to rilpa, the stream of con-
sciousness will evolve without requiring rilpa as its support.
- The mentions an opinion that the stream of con-
sciousness in iirupyadhiitu does not have a support. It does not attribute
this opinion to a specific school but simply refutes it with the Abhidhar-
mika position mentioned above.
*Tattvasiddhi
47
- Rebirth in rilpadhiitu (the subtle material realm) after
the rilpasaT{ltati (material continuity) has been interrupted by birth in
44 tasmiin niisty arupilJiiT{l sattviiniiT{l cittasantater anyo [The first edition gives anYQT{I,
while the second edition gives anyonYQT{I. I have corrected this on the basis of the Chinese
and the Tibetan translations] nisraya iti sautriintikiil; / api tu yasyiis cittasantater iilqepa-
hetur rope tasyiil; saha ropel}Q saT{lbhaviid ropaT{l nisritya pravrttir yasyiis tu hetur
rupe tasyii ropaT{l pravrttil; / hetos tadvimukhatviid iti (Abhidhar-
112.18-20; T. 1558: 41bI7-20; La Vallee Poussin 2: 6; Srup.ghabhadra
identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 458c4] and criticizes it [T. 1562:
458c4-458c25]; Kato 76).
4S For this translation, see Cox (107).
46

,C.,ffliIJ1l.'i:JiiJQlIIl. (T. 1545: 137a23-29).
47
tlD?1ffliiA.
344 ROBERT KRITZER
iirilpyadhiitu is mentioned as an example of something arising without a
cause. Consciousness in iinipyadhiitu is said to be without support: dhar-
mas are able to exist without support.
YogiiciirabhUmi (1)48 - The Viniscayasal'J1grahaf.lz on the Pancavi}niina-
kayamanobhUmi says that, if consciousness did not contain the seeds of
riipa, rebirth after falling from iiriipyadhiitu would be impossible.
YogiiciirabhUmi (2)49 - The SavitarkiidibhUmi specifies that the sal'J1Skiiras
perfumed by kanna, i.e., which consists of bijas, project a new
lifetime in all three realms.
(T. 1646: 262b1O-15). t..:i:
PJi'ft{. ffij!jJIJMc.
fi. tl:fiiJPJi'ft{. *
{,li!3tt (T. 1646: 266b7-12).
48 gal te mam par ses pa gzugs kyi sa bon dan ldan pa ma yin du zin na I so so'i skye
bo gzugs med pa mams su skyes pa tshe zad cin las zad nas de nas 'ci 'pho zin yan 'og
tu skye pa'i gzugs kyi sa bon med pas 'byun bar mi 'gyur ba zig na 'byun ste I de Ita bas
na gzugs kyi sa bon dan ldan pa'i mam par ses pa de la brten nas I de'i gzugs 'byun bar
rig par bya'o (YogiiciirabhUmi,: zi 16b4-6; see Schmithausen 21, 288 n. 172 b).ll:t<:.:6'iff

(T. 1579: 583c7-1O). An
explanation of the mutual dependence of vijfiiina and niimarupa in the Savitarkiidibhumi
pratityasamutpiida exposition contains a somewhat similar explanation of how rupa can
resume: punar niimiisritaT(! rupal'{l bijiisrital'{l (corrected fromjiviisrital'{l on the
basis of the manuscript by Schmithausen [ 469 n. 1135]) ca vijfiiinal'{l vijfiiiniisrital'{l
niimarupabijal'{l ca pravartate I yatal} punar bijiit samucchinnasyiipi rupasyiiyatyiil'{l
priidurbhiivo bhavaty ayam atriipi (Yogiiciirabhami: 200.1-3). gzugs med pa mams
na ni mam par ses pa min la brten cin I gzugs kyi sa bon la yan brten la I gzugs kyi sa
bon dan min yan mam par ses pa la brten cin 'jug ste I 'di ltar gzugs yons su chad pa las
phyis sa bon las 'byun bar 'gyur te I 'di la yan bye brag de yod do (Yogiiciirabhami,: dzi
116bl-2). &f!!. r,ttll:
fir. iSIIUI,l[{@. (T. 1579: 321b14-17; see Yamabe Yugashichiron). The Vastu-
sal'{lgrahaQi also says that the bijas of rUpa exist in iirUpyadhiitu consciousness: gzugs
med pa dag ni mam par ses pa min la yan brten la gzugs kyi sa bon la yan brten to I min
dan gzugs kyi sa bon yan mam par ses pa la brten cin 'dug ste I gzugs kyi rgyun chad zin
pa las kyan gzugs kyi sa bon de las phyi ma la 'byun bar 'gyur te I 'di la yan bye brag ni
[Derge adds de] yod do (Yogiiciirabhumi,: 'i 285b7-286al).
&f!!.ilr.
(T. 1579: 827c29-828b3).
49 tatra prajiiiipyate I tat kasya hetol} I
tathii hi I subhiisubhakarmaparibhiivitiil} sal'{lskiiriis
bhiiviin iik#panti. (Yogiiciirabhami: 107.20-108.2). de la rgyu'i gnas bag chags la brten
nas I 'phen pa'i rgyu 'dogs par byed de I de ci'iphyire nal 'di ltar dge ba dan I mi dge
SAUTRANrIKA IN THE 345
Yoga,ciirabhumi (3)50 - The ViniScayasaJ?1-grahalJi on the Cintiimayi BhUmi
includes nikiiyasabhiiga andjivitendriya, along with the other cittavipra-
yuktasarrzskiiras, in a long list of sal'{lslqtadharmas that are prajfiapti and
thus not real.
Comment - The issue here is the support of consciousness in iirupya-
dhiitu, where its usual support, the body, cannot exist. The
solution is that two cittaviprayuktasal'{lskiiras, nikiiyasabhiigatii and jivi-
tendriya, ensure that the disembodied consciousness doesn't simply die
in this realm. In the Yogiiciirabhumi, on the other hand, consciousness
itself is the support. However, as Schmithausen points out, the explanation
of how consciousness acts as a support develops over the course of the
compilation of the text. In YogiiciirabhUmi (1), quoted above, conscious-
ness is taken to mean the six ordinary types of consciousness, which are
said to contain the seeds of rupa. Schmithausen thinks that the concept
of bija here, according to which consciousness and the material sense
faculties contain each other's seeds, predates the theory of iiZayavijiiiina
(21,285-288, ns. 170-172).
Schmithausen, on the other hand, also refers to two other passages, one
in the Sal'{ldhinirmocanasUtra,51 the other in what he calls the "Pravrtti Por-
tion" of the ViniscayasaJ?1-grahalJi on the PaficavijiiiinakiiyamanobhUmi.
52
ba'i las kyis yons su bsgos pa'i 'du byed roams kyis khams gsum du sdug pa dan / mi sdug
pa'i 'gro ba mams su / sdug pa dan mi sdug pa'i Ius mams 'phen par byed pa dan / de
iiid kyi dban gis phyi rol gyi dADs po mams kyan / phan sum tshags pa dan / rgud par' gyur
ba'i phyir te / de bas na 'du byed mams kyi dge ba dan mi dge ba'i las kyi bag chags la
bnen nas 'phen pa'i rgyu 'dogs so (Yogiiciirabhumi,: dzi 64b5-8).
IrtSI. PJTJ.:J.:lfW.
(T. 1579: 301b28-c3). For other
relevant definitions of iiqepahetu in the Yogiiciirabhami, see Kritzer Rebinh 155-165.
50 'dus byas kyi min can gyi dnos po la skye ba dan / rga ba dan / gnas pa dan / mi
rtag pa dan / sa bon dan mam par rig byed dan / mam par rig byed rna yin pa dan / thob
pa dan / 'thob pa ma yin pa dan / srog gi dban po dan / ris mthun pa dan / min gi tshogs
dan / tshig gi tshogs dan / yi ge'i tshogs roams dan so so'i skye bo iiid dan / tshags pa
dan ma tshogs pa dan / 'jug pa so sor nes pa dan / sbyor ba dan / mgyogs pa dan / go
rims dan / dus dan yul dan grans iie bar' dogs pa dan (Yogiiciirabhami,: zi 208a4-6).
.
(T. 1579: 659aI2-16).
51 Lamotte Sll1(ldhinirmocana 55 (5.2); Yogiiciirabhumi,: 'i 58a2-5; T. 1579: 718a17-
23; see Schmithausen 47,320 ns. 329, 330.
52 Yogiiciirabhumi,: zi 4a8-4b5; T. 1579: 580a2-12; Schmithausen 5(
346 ROBERT KRITZER
He infers that in both passages the iilayavijfiiina (store-consciousness) acts
as the iisraya (support) of the new being in iirupyadhiitu. If I understand
him correctly, he thinks these passages are significant because they are on
different sides of a dividing line in the development of the concept of
iilayavijiiana. The relevant chapter of the Sa'Tldhininnocana, according to
Schmithausen, still conceives of the alayavijiiiina (or adanavijfiana [the
appropriating consciousness]) as "sticking in the body" (50). However, it
also states that, in arupyadhatu, the adiinavijfiana does not appropriate the
body, which does not exist there. Thus, the adanavijfiana mentioned here
represents an intermediate stage between the six ordinary consciousnesses
containing the seeds of rupa and the more fully developed iilayavijiiana of
the "Pravrtti Portion," in which the association of the alayavijiiana with
the physical body no longer applies (51). This alayavijiiana supplants the
physical body as the asraya of all beings in the realms in which a physi-
cal body exists, as well as providing an asraya for beings without bodies.
Vasubandhu's claim that the cittasa'Tltati (mental continuity) is a suffi-
cient support for beings in arilpyadhiitu shows that he thinks that con-
sciousness can function as asraya. However, it is difficult to show a clear
connection between Vasubandhu's statement and the passages I have
identified in the Yogacarabhami. His statement about the projecting cause
is perhaps related to Yogacarabhami (2), but the context of that passage,
an explanation of the ten types of causes, is quite different. As for
Yogacarabhami (3), Vasubandhu's implicit denial of nikayasabhiiga and
jfvitendriya is in line with the Yogiiciirabhumi's denial of the reality of
cittaviprayuktasa'Tlskiiras. However, his focus here is not on nikayasa-
bhiiga and jfvitendriya.
(The term cittasa'Tltati suggests the six ordinary consciousnesses, which
points to Yogacarabhami (1), but Vasubandhu does not explain the mech-
anism by which ordinary consciousness could again produce a physical
body when a being is reborn in a lower realm. Elsewhere, in a well-known
passage concerning the question of how consciousness can resume after
unconscious states like nirodhasamiipatti (trance of cessation), Vasuban-
dhu quotes the opinion of the purviiciiryas, who make an analogy to the
question of how the sense faculties and body can resume when one is
reborn in a lower realm after a period in iirupyadhiitu. According to these
pilrviiciiryas, the fact that consciousness and the sense faculties contain
SAuTRANTIKA IN THE ABHlDHARMAKOSABHA$YA 347
each other's s e ~ d s answers both questions. 53 This is the same theory of
bija that underlies Yogacarabhumi (1). However, in our current passage,
Vasubandhu does not mention mutual seeding.
Nor does Vasubandhu refer to mutual seeding in yet lL'1other passage
in which he explains the resumption of rupa after rebirth from arupya-
dhatu into a lower realm. Here he states that the arising of rupa is due
solely to consciousness, the consciousness that was impregnated by the
vipakahetu (cause of fruition) of that rupa.
54
Kat6, who points out that
PilTIfavardhana identifies this as a Sautrantika opinion, thinks that this
passage is another expression of a theory of mutual seeding (261), and
Yamabe(Yugashichiron) seems to agree with Kat6. However, the word
bija does not appear. Nor does Vasubandhu refer to the other aspect of
mutual seeding, the arising of consciousness from rupa. I think that this
passage is more similar to the Sautrantika statement under discussion here
(that there is no support for consciousness in arupyadhatu besides con-
sciousness itself) than to the opinion of the purvacaryas.
Therefore, it is possible that Vasubandhu distinguishes between the
idea of the purvacaryas and that of the Sautrantikas. Since Vasubandhu
does not use the terms alayavijfiana or adanavijfiana, there is no obvious
connection between the Sautrantika position here and the passages men-
tioned by Schmithausen. Nevertheless, Vasubandhu says that the beings
in arupyadhatu have "no support other than the stream of conscious-
ness"; he does not say that their support is the seeds of rupa contained
in the stream of consciousness. Thus it seems as though the Sautrantika
statement is based on a notion of a consciousness that has already "tran-
scended its original feature of essentially being bound, and somehow
subordinate, to corporeal matter, and has rather in its tum become a fun-
damental constituent of personality" (Schmithausen 51). Furthermore, in
53 apare punar iihu/:t / kathal!! tiivad iirupyopapanniiniil!! ciraniruddhe 'pi rupe punar
api rilpal!! jiiyate / cittiid eva hi taj jiiyate na rilpiit / eval!! cittam apy asmiid eva sendriyiit
kiiyiij jiiyate na cittiit / anyonyabijakal!! hy etad ubhayal!! yaduta cittal!! ca sendriyas ca
kiiya iti purviiciiryii/:t (Abhidharmakosabhii:rya: 72.18-21; T. 1558: 25c22-26; La Vallee
Poussin 1: 212; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master and criti-
cizes this statement along with the seed theory that underlies it [T. 1562: 404a2-20; Cox
273-274]).This passage and its relationship to the YogiiciirabhUmi have been discussed by
Hakamaya, Schmithausen (285 n. 170), and Yamabe (Yugashichiron).
54 rilpasyii cittiid evotpattis tadvipiikahetuparibhiivitiil labdhavrttitas (Abhidharmako-
sabhiieya: 435.20: T. 1558: 146b2-3; La Vallee Poussin 5: 142).
the KarrnasiddhiprakaralJa, Vasubandhu adduces the inability of nikti-
yasabhiigatii and fivitendriya to act as a support for consciousness in
iirupyadhiitu as proof that there exists a consciousness that can contain
seeds and that is different from the six ordinary consciousnesses, namely
the vipiikavijfiiina (maturation consciousness) or iilayavijfiiina (Lamotte
Traite 198.34-199.13, 248-249.)55 If we admit the possibility that the term
cittasaf{ltati can stand for iiZayavijfiiina,56 the connection between the pas-
sage in the Abhidharrnakosabhii:jya and the YogiiciirabhUmi becomes more
likely. However, I shall have more to say later about the absence of the
term iilayavijfiiina in the
8. The Abhasvara gods
57
have different ideas because some of them have
the idea of fear, while others do not.
- The Abhasvara gods are said to have dif-
ferent ideas because, at the time of the destruction of the universe, some
of them have the idea of fear, while others do not. (According to the
it is because their feelings alternate between pleasant and nei-
ther-pleasant-nor-unpleasant.)
55 The same argument also is found in the Mahiiytinasarrzgraha (Lamotte La Somme 1:
39.1-4; 2: 61-62).
56 Schrnithausen takes Odani to task for equating cittasarrztati with tilayavijfttina in the
context of the Maulfbhami of the Yogtictirabhami on the grounds that this is "inadmissi-
ble if we are to understand the materials of the YogtictirabhUmi in their original sense, and
not from the point of view of later systematization" (342 n. 442). However, in the case
of the Abhidharmakosabhti$Ya, Vasubandhu, unlike the author of the Maulfbhilmi, was
presumably familiar with a concept of tilayavijfttina that was systematized to at least some
degree. Therefore, it is not impossible that he intentionally substituted the term cittasarrztati,
which was current in abhidharma texts, for tilayavijfttina., which, of course, was not.
57 These are gods living in the second dhytina heaven of rilpadhtitu. See La Vallee
Poussin 2: 18-20.
58 sautrtintikti vyticak$ate / sutra uktaY(! yathti te ntintitvasarrzjftinal;! / tatra ye sattvti tibhtis-
yare devanikiiye 'ciropapannti bhavanti naiva saTJ1VarttanfkuSalti na vivarttanfkuSalti asya lokasya
te ttim arciearrz dretvti bhfttil;! santa udvijante saY(!vegam tipadyante / sahaivaieti 'rci(l sunyarrz
brtihmaY(! virnanay(! dagdhvti 'rvtig tigamieYatfti / tatra ye sattvti tibhtisvare devanikiiye ciropa-
panntil;! sarrzvarttanfkuSalti vivarttanfkuSaltis ctisya lokasya te ttin sattvtin bhfttin tiSvtisayanti / rna
bhaieta rnaretil;! rna bhaieta rnaretil;! / p!irvam apy eeti 'rcil;! silnyaY(! brtihmarrz virnanarrz dagdhvti
'traivtintarhite ii / ato 'rcil;! tigamavyapagama saY(!jiiitvtit bhftti bhftasay(!jftitvtic ca te ntintit-
vasaY(!jiiino na sukhtidul;!khtisukhasaY(!jftitvtid iti (Abhidharrnakosabhti$Ya: 116.16-23; T. 1558:
43alO-19; La Vallee Poussin 2: 20; SaIjlgbabhadra identifies this as the position of the siitra-
master [T. 1562: 463b5] and criticizes it [T. 1562: 463b6-11]; KatB 76).
(1)59 --: The says that the Abhasvara gods have diffe-
rent ideas, because their feelings alternate between pleasant and neither-
pleasant-nor-unpleasant.
(2)60 - The also mentions the sutra
61
that states that
some Abhasvara gods are not afraid of the conflagration.
(3)62 It quotes the same sutra describing Abhasvara gods as
being afraid.
Yogiiciirabhami
63
- According to the Srutamayi Bhami, the Abhasvaras
have different ideas because when they see Brahmii's conflagration, some
are afraid and some are not.
Comment - Vasubandhu and the Yogiiciirabhami clearly agree here. The
does not seem to recognize a controversy about what it means
for these gods to have different ideas.
9. The iivasthika (static) interpretation of pratityasamutpiida
64
cannot be
justified by sutra.
Abhidharmakosabhii.yya
65
- Vasubandhu criticizes the iivasthika inter-
pretation of pratityasamutpiida. He says that it cannot be justified by
S9
1f-mlt. (T. 1545: 707b2-6).
60 ZlS"iim.
ffii:l'tllt-g. ::k1il1mMi::k1il1mMi. (T.1545:
386b5-9).
61 The Saptasilryaviikara1Jll of the Dfrghiigama (T. 1: 429a22-29; see La Vallee Poussin
2: 20).
62 r"Uim.

(T. 1545: 690b21-25).
63 'od gsal gyi lha gnas na ni snaphyir skyes pa mams Itshans pa'i 'jig rten tshig pa'i
me lee inthon ba las 'jigs pa dan I mi 'jigs pa'i 'du ses su 'gyur bas I de dag ni 'du ses
mi 'dra bar rig par bya'o (Yogiieiirabhilmi,: dzi 211a5-6).
tiUm?!.\. (T. 1579: 354c20-22).
64 Pratftyasamutpiida is the principle of conditioned origination, often expressed in a
twelve-membered formula; according to the iivasthika interpretation, each member of the
formula represents a different state (iivasthii) of the five skandhas.
6S atra tu sautriintikii vijiiiipayanti I kiTfi khalv etii i#aya ucyante yii yasyeiftir iihosvit
siltriirthal;t I siltriirtha ity iiha I yadi siltriirtho naiifa siltriirthal;t I kathGTfl lertvii I yat tiivad
350 ROBERT KRlTZER
siitra because the Pratityasamutpiidasutra is nftiirtha (of explicit mean-
ing).
- (nothing relevant)
YogiiciirabhUmi - (In the exposition of pratityasamutpiida in the Savitar-
kiidibhUmi, the explanation of the individual members essentially follows
and comments upon the Pratityasamutpiidasutra [T. 1579: 322b2-324a15;
YogiiciirabhUmi: 204.1-212.3; see Kritzer Rebirth 33-52 for a summary
of this section]. Due to the length of the passage, I do not provide the text.)
Comment - Although the Yogiiciirabhumi does not contain an explicit
criticism of the V iivasthika interpretation, Vasubandhu seems
to follow the SavitarkiidibhUmi in relying on the Pratityasamutpiidasutra.
66
10. The SaTflgUiparyiiya is criticized for its statement that large sea-
beings, after they lay their eggs on the shore, provide nourishment in
the form of manaf:tsaTflcetanii (mental action or volition) by thinking
of their eggs.
- Vasubandhu criticizes the SaTflgftiparyiiya
for its statement that large sea-beings, after they lay their eggs on the shore,
provide nurture in the form of manaf:tsaTflcetanii by thinking of their eggs.
The Sautrantikas say that one being's thought cannot be nourishment for
uktam iivasthika pratftyasamutpiido dViidasapaficaskandhiki'i avasthii dviidasiiiigiinity
etad ptsiitram / siltre 'nyathii nirdeiid / avidyii katamii / yat tat pilrviinte 'jfiiinam iti vista-
rel}a / yac ca nitiirtha1'(l na tat punar neya1'(l bhavatiti siltriirthal; (Abhidharmakosa-
136.14-18; T. 1558: 50a7-13; La Vallee Poussin 2: 75; Srup.ghabhadra identifies
this as the opinion of the sutra-master, relates it to the last of the Sthavira's six arguments
against the iivasthika interpretation, and refutes it [T. 1562: 495c22-496a10; KatB 76]).
66 See Kritzer Rebirth 183-189.
67 saiigitiparyaye cokta1'(l mahiisamudriid audarikiil; pral}ino jaliit sthalam abhiruhya
sikatiisthale 'I}t;iani sthiipayitvii sikatabhir punar api mahiisamudre 'vataranti /
tatra yiisa1'(l miittl}iim al}t;iiiny iirabhya smrtir na tiiny al}t;iiini na piitfbhavanti
yasii1'(l tu tiini piltibhavanti / tad etan na varl}ayanti sautrantikiil; / mii bhilt para-
kiyel}iihiirel}iihiira iti / eva1'(l tu varl}ayanti al}t;iiinii1'(l mataram arabhya smrtir na
tiini na piltfbhavanti / tu tiini piltfbhavanti / tasyiil; sparsiivasthiiyiil;
smarantfti 154.4-7; T. 1558: 55b28-cl; La Vallee Poussin 2: 125;
Kato 76-77).
another being. Instead, the eggs, by thinking of their mother, provide such
nourishment for themselves.
68
- The quotes the same passage from the SaJpgitipa-
ryiiya and refutes it using the same argument as Vasubandhu.
Yogiiciirabhitmi - (nothing relevant)
Comment - Most texts do not consider this a Sautrantika opinion; fur-
thermore, the actual position of the SalJlgitiparyiiya is not clear. There-
fore, it is hard to know what to make of this passage.
11. SalJlsthiinaritpa is a prajfiapti.
- SalJlsthiinaritpa (matter as shape) is only a
prajfiiipti, because if it were real, then a single salJlsthiinaritpa would be
68 La Vallee Poussin says that some commentators specify "Sautrantika" here, but so far
the only texts that I've found that use the word are the Sanslait text of the Abhidhannakos-
and Paramartha's translation (T. 1559: 212c8). Neither the Tibetan (gu 162bl-4)
nor Hsiian-tsang's translation mentions whose opinion this is. Yasomitra, S:up.ghabhadra,
and Pu-kuang likewise fail to attribute the position to any teacher or school. Fa-pao men-
tions only that it is Vasubandhu's preferred opinion (T. 1822: 612b14-15). According to
Yamaguchi and Funahashi, none of the commentators attributes it to Sautrantika (343 n. 8).
Kata notes that Hsiian-tsang omits "Sautrantika" for reasons unclear. He also mentions
that Sa!p.ghabhadra does not identify whose opinion this is (76-77).
As Saeki notes (2: 450), the opinion that Vasubandhu quotes from the Sal'(!gftiparyaya
is an alternate opinion in the *Vibhii-rii (T. 1545: 676b20-21). But Saeki does not note that
the opinion that Vasubandhu prefers, which is attributed to the Sautrantikas in the Sanslait
and in Paramartha's translation, is actually the preferred opinion of the *Viblui-rii (T. 1545:
676b16-20) and is what is said in the Sal'(!gftiparyiiya (T. 1536: 400c7-11). The
(T. 1545: 676b21-23) refutes the alternate opinion with the same argument as Vasubandhu's.
Yamaguchi and Funahashi do not mention this discrepancy.
The opinion favored by Vasubandhu is also given in the *Sal'(!yuktiibhidharmahrdaya
(T. 1552: 952c8-9).
Vanden Broeck suggests that Hsiian-tsang altered the text of the Sal'(!gftiparyiiya on the basis
of Vasubandhu's opinion, but he does not give any real basis for his suggestion (100 n. 7).
69 ijijlf':fliJtB'l'teljijliL J-.J?'P
;f;llHiJiitAljijlf'o ;fi$!I;B}ltl
jMt1L rfTl-.J:ttfflo
(T. 1545: 676b16-23).
70 niisti sal'(!sthiinal'(! dravyata iti sautriintikiil,t / ekadiilmukhe hi bhilyasi vanJa utpanne
dfrghal'(! rilpam iti prajiiapyate / tam hrasvam iti / caturdisal'(! bhilyasi
352 ROBERT KRITZER
perceived by two rupindriyas (material sense organs), i.e., the eye, which
would see the shape, and the faculty of touch, which would feel it. In fact,
it is simply a designation for quantities of (matter as color) arranged
in various ways.
- (see the following item)
*Tattvasiddhi - (see the following item)
Yogiicarabhilmi - (see the following item)
Comment - (see the following item)
12. Kayavijfiiipti (physically manifested matter) is saf(lsthiina, which is
a prajfiapti.
- The Sautrantika answer to the Sarvastivadins'
question regarding the nature of kiiyavijfiapti is that it is saf(lsthiina, which
is, however, prajfiiipti, not dravya (substantially real).72
- The objects: "Ifvijfiapti and avijfiapti are riipa,
then what are blue, yellow, red, and white?" The answers that
caturasram iti / sarvatra same vrttim iti / eva7[l sarvam / tad yathii 'liitam ekasyii7[l disi
anantare:fu nirantaram iisu drsyamiina7[l dfrgham iti pratfyate sarvato drsya-
miina7[l ma1:u!-alam iti na tu khalujiityantaram asti sa7[lsthiinam / yadi hi syiit dvigriihyam
JJ!ii1. hi dretvii dfrgham ity avasfyate kiiyendriyel}iipi dViibhyiim asya
grahal}a7[l priipnuyiit / na ca nlpayatanasya dviibhyii7[l grahal}am asti / yathii vii spra:ftavye
mrghiidigrahal}a7[l tathii varl}e sa7[lbhiivyatiim (AbhidharmakosabhiiifYa: 194.14-21; T. 1558:
68b 1-11; La Vallee Poussin 3: 8-9; SaJTIghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-
master [T. 1562: 535c23-536a4] and criticizes it at length [T. 1562: 536a4-b5]; not men-
tiom;d in Kato).
71 athedanf7[l kliyasya gati7[l nirii/qtya sa7[lsthiina7[l ca tatra bhavantal;! sautriintikiil;! kii7[l
kliyavijfiapti7[l prajfiapayanti / sa7[lsthiinam eva hi te kliyavijfiapti7[l prajfiapayanti / na tu
punar dravyatal;! (AbhidharmakosabhiiifYa: 195.15-17; T. 1558: 68c8-9; La Vallee Poussin
3: 12; SaJTIghabhadra says that the siitra-master is stating the opinion of his own school
[T. 1562: 537a25-26] and criticizes it at length [T. 1562: 537a27-b13]; Kato 77). In the
course of this argument, SaJTIghabhadra refers to Sautrantika three times (T.1562: 537b3, b7,
b8). It seems as though he is all but identifying Sautrantika as the school of the siitra-master.
72 As Kat6 points out (77), the implication of the whole Sautrantika argument about
vijfiapti (AbhidharmakosabhiiifYa: 195.15-196.2) is that all karma is cetanii. The *Vibhiieii
attributes such a position to the ::SUIlIlffi=llm. (T. 1545:
587a7-8; see Kat6 71).
73 'Ri
(T. 1545: 634c26-28). We know that 1& refers to the because
SAUTRANTIK.A IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHkiYA 353
it is npt the case that there is no rupa besidesvarlJa. Kiiyavijfiapti is sarrz-
sthiina, not varlJa. .
*Tattvasiddhz7
4
- Sarrzsthiina is nothing other than rupa (i.e., varlJa).
If there is no color, there can be no perception of shape, wJ.-ille if shape
were different from color, there could be a perception of it, even without
a perception of color.
Yogiiciirabhiimi (1)15 - In the ViniscayasarrzgrahalJi on the Paficavijfiiina-
kiiyamanobhiimi, sa1'{lsthiinarupa (shape) is said to be a prajfiiipti because
it is nothing more than a conglomeration of rupa with no characteristics
of its own.
Yogiiciirabhumi (2)16 - In a passage in the Paficavijfiiinakiiyabhiimi Gust
after the one mentioned above), it is stated that sarrzsthiina is a conglome-
ration of rupa having features distinguished as "long," etc.
Yogiiciirabhiimi (3)17 - The ViniScayasarrzgrahalJi on the Paficavijfiiinakii-
yamanobhiimi adduces another reason for why sarrzsthiinarupa is a pra-
jfiapti: the mind can break down sa1'{lsthiinarupa, like a cart, into compo-
nent parts.
the stated purpose of the whole section is to refute the opinion that vijiiapti
and avijiiapti are unreal (T. 1545: 634c9-10).
74 1IlJ...ll!ttsfflmlt. r"m. :ll
(mistakenly for il!J)\NotsJ....
fiiIJ;(mz. t&:m
(T. 1646: 273a23-28).
75 rin po dan thun nu iiid la sogs pa gan dag dbyibs ies bya ba de dag /cyan ci rdzas
su yod pa 'am / btags pa'i yod pa yin par brjod bar bya ie na / smras pa / btags pa'i yod
pa yin par brjod par bya'o / de ci'i phyir ie na / bsags pa las gnas pa ni dbyibs ses bya
ba'i nes pa'i tshig yin pa dan bsags pa tsam dmigs pa dan / mtshan iiid las gian pa'i don
mi dmigs pa dan / bltos sin bltos na no bo iiid 'dres par 'gyur ba dan (Yogiieiirabhumi,:
zi 56al-3). fiiI,l..:.I.t&:.

m3lLi/!$IC (T. 1579: 599b7-11). Yamabe has noted the similarity between this passage and
the Sautriintika opinion in the (personal communication).
76 sarrzsthiinarrz katamat / yo riipapraeayo dirghiidi-parieehediikiiralJ (Yogiieiirabhiimi:
5.2). dbyibs gan ze na / gan gzugs rgyas par rin po la sogs par yons su bead [corrected
from gead on the basis of the Derge] pa'i mam pa'o (Yogiieiirabhumi,: zi 3a6).
(T. 1579: 279b8-9).
77 de bios bye bas sin rta la sogs pa dan 'dra ba'i phyir ro (YogiieiirabhUmi,: zi 56a3).
(T. 1579: 599bll).
354 ROBERT KRITZER
Comment - Vasubandhu and the YogiiciirabhUmi1
s
agree that vijfiapti
is a prajfiapti, and the reasolling (see item 11) is essentially the same.
The also deny the reality of vijfiapti, but the gives
no further details about their argument.
79
As for the nature of karma,
the Yogiiciirabhumi does not say, in so many words, that karma is essen-
tially volition. However, a definition in the Savitarkiidibhumi of the
real nature of karma seems to suggest the primacy of volition: "What is
the real nature of karma? When a dharma arises, that which is cbarac-
terized as (mental) determination also arises, and due to its arising, phys-
ical and vocal determination proceed later. This is the real nature of
karma."so
13. Avijfiapti does not really exist, for three reasons.
- Vasubandhu attributes to the Sautrantikas
the statement that avijfiapti does not really exist, for three reasons: it is
simply the non-performance of an action that one has undertaken not to
do; it is a prajfiapti based on past mahiibhutas (great elements, i.e., the
78 Yamabe has identified another passage from the PaiicavijiiiinakayamanobhUmi of
the ViniscayasaTflgraha1}i, according to which all vijiiaptikarma, including kiiyavijiiapti, is
merely prajiiapti (Yogiiciirabhilmi,: zi 30b8; T. 1579: 589bllff.) He notes the similarity
between this passage and the Sautrantika opinion in the (personal
communication).
79 The Karmasiddhiprakara,!a describes the theory of the Sauryodayikas (Lamotte
Traite 188.33-189.11; 219-220), who may be the same as the (Lamotte Traite
219 n. 31). However, it is completely different from the Sautrantika argument in the Abhi-

80 .karmasvabhiival} katamal} / yo dharma utpadyamiino abhisaTflskiiralah;anas cotpa-
dyate tasya cotpiidiit kiiyiibhisaTflskiiro viigabhisaTflskiiras tad uttarakiilaTfl pravartate /
ayam ucyate karmasvabhiival} (Yogiiciirabhilmi: 170.17-19); las kyi no bo iiid gan ie
na / chos gan skye ba na mnon par 'du byed pa'i mtshan iiid kyan skye la / de skyes pas
de'i rjes la Ius kyi milOn par du. 'byed pa dan / nag gi mnon par du 'byed pa 'jug par' gyur
te / 'di ni las kyi no bo iiid ces bya'o (Yogiiciirabhilmi,: zi 99b5-6); IDtfii!jo
R;fo mf'F11U.9o .&E131Jtjoi\'l(o (T. 1579: 315aI8-20;
see Kokuyaku Issaiky6 Yuga-bu 1: 151 n. 27).
81 sii 'pi dravyato niistiti sautriintikiil} / abhyupetyiikara,!amiitratviit / atitiiny api mahii-
bhiltiiny upiidiiya prajiiaptes ciividyamiinasvabhiivatviid ca
196.5-6; T. 1558: 68c26-28; La Vallee Poussin 3: 14; Sarp.-
ghabhadra quotes this passage [T. 1562: 539c9-11] and criticizes it at very great length;
however, he does not mention the siitra-master but simply attributes it to the Sautrantikas
[T. 1562: 539cll-540a25]; Kat677).
four types of matter [earth, etc.] in its most basic form), which them-
selves do not exist; .it lacks the characteristics of riipa.
- The attributes to the the argument
that avijftapti is not real because, like vijftapti, it is not riipa in the way
that is.
*Tattvasiddhi
83
- Avijftapti is a cittaviprayuktasaT(lskiira, and thus it has
no separate existence.
Yogiiciirabhiimi (1)84 - The on the Paftcavijftiinakii-
yamanobhiimi says that saT(lvarariipa (a form of matter produced by taking
a virtuous vow) and asaT(lvarariipa (a form of matter produced by taking
an evil VOW)85 are merely prajftapti.
Yogiiciirabhiimi (2)86 - The on the Cintiimayf
Bhiimi includes avijftapti, along with the cittaviprayuktasaT(lskiiras,
vijftapti, and bfja, as prajftaptis, saying that they are nominal designa-
tions for saT(lskrtadharmas.
Yogiiciirabhiimi (3)87 - The on the Paftcavijftiina-
kiiyamanobhiimi denies the reality of past dharmas.
82 (T. 1545: 634c6-7; see above).
83 r"m. E.m:ff!Pf.f'J=tMf,L,. (T. 1646:
290b9-1O). [t;ff'J=P!T#<W1;-&'li. (T. 1646: 304a17-18). See Katsura
88.
84 dharmayatanaparyapannaJTl puna rupaJTl dvividhaJTl dravyasat prajiiaptisac ca I yat
prabhiivata/:t samadhigocaraip. nirrnitavat tatphalaIp. tatpratisaJTlyuktavij-
iianavieayarrz ca tad dravyasat I saJTlvarasarrzvarasaJTlgrhftarrz tu prajiiaptisat (according
to Matsuda [personal communication], this passage appears in a Sanskrit manuscript frag-
ment of the ViniscayasaJTlgrahaiJi preserved in St. Petersburg, and Matsuda has recon-
structed it as above [non-italicized portions represent Matsuda's reconstruction]). chos kyi
skye mched du gtogs pa'i gzugs ni mam pa giiis te I rdzas su yod pa dan btags pa'i yod
pa'o Imthu las byun ba'i tin ne 'dzin gyi spyodyul sprul pa Ita bu de'i 'bras bu dan I de'i
yul dan de dan mtshuns par Idan pa'i mam par ses pa'i yul gan yin pa de ni rdzas su yod
pa yin no zi
(T. 1579:
597b6-9).
85 These are special types of avijiiapti (Hirakawa 191-193).
86 Yogaciirabhilmi,: zi 208a4-6; T. 1579: 659a12-16. See note 50 above.
87 YogacarabhUmi,: zi 19a1-21b1; T. 1579: T. 1579: 584c18-585c8. Due to the length
of the passage, I have not included the text.
356 ROBERT KRITZER
Comment - As in the case of vijfiapti, Vasubandhu and the Yogiiciira-
bhumi agree that avijfiapti is a prajfiapti. Although the Yogiiciirabhumi does
not give any reasons, Vasubaridhu bases his second argument on a denial,
which he shares with the Yogiiciirabhami, of the reality of the past.
14a. When the sutra mentions rupa that is invisible and not subject to
collision (apratigha), it is referring not to avijfiapti but to rupa that
is produced by meditation.
Abhidharmakosabhii$ya
88
- The give many different types
of arguments in support of the real existence of avijfiapti, but they are
wrong. One argument in support is that the sutra says that there are three
types of rupa, one of which is invisible and not subject to collision
(apratigha). According to the this must be avijfiapti (Abhi-
dharmakosabhii$Ya: 196.9-11; T. 1558: 69a2-4; La Vallee Poussin 3: 14).
Vasubandhu, in making what he describes as the Sautrantika argument
against quotes those who practice yoga (yogiiciiriilJ,) as saying
that, due to the power of meditation, rupa that is the object of meditation
is produced in meditators. This rilpa is invisible because it is not the
object of cak$urindriya, and it is not subject to collision because it does
not cover any place. Vasubandhu defends this statement against a possi-
ble Sarvastivadin objection.
*Vibhii$ii - (nothing relevant)
Yogiiciirabhilmi
89
- The Viniscayasal'{lgrahm/i on the Paficavijfiiinakiiya-
mdhobhumi includes, in the category of really existent, rupa that, due to
supernatural power, is the object of samiidhi (meditation), like a magical
creation, rupa that is the result of that samiidhi, rupa that is the object of
88 atra sautriintikii iihuJ; bahv apy etac citram apy etat / naival'{l tv etat / yat tiivad
uktal'{l trividharilpokter iti / tatra yogiiciirii upadisanti / dhyiiyiniil'{l rilpal'{l
samiidhiprabhiiviid utpadyate / anidarsanam / deSiiniivaralJatviid
apratigham iti / atha matam / katham idiinfl'{l tat rilpam iti / etad avijfiaptau samiinam
197.3-7; T. 1558: 69a29-b4; La Vallee Poussin 3: 18; SaI)lgha-
bhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 540c22-24] and criti-
cizes it [T. 1562: 540c24-541a8]).
89 Yogiiciirabhilmi,: zi 51a8-bl; T. 1579: 597b6-9. See note 84 above.
SAUTRANrIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHAsYA 357
that samiidhi, and rupa that is the object of the consciousness associated
with that samiidhi: .This is contrasted with sarJlvararilpa and asarJlvara-
rilpa, which are merely prajfiapti.
Comment - There is a clear correspondence here between the statement
of those who practice yoga, quoted by Vasubandhu, and the Yogiiciira-
bhilmi.
14b. Aniisravarilpa ( undefiled matter) is not avijfzapti. The rilpa produced
by the power of samiidhi is aniisrava if the samiidhi in which it is
produced is aniisrava.
AbhidharmakosabhiifYa
90
- Another Sarvastivadin argument in support
of the reality of avijfiaptirilpa is that the siltra says that there is an aniis-
ravarilpa. Vasubandhu again quotes those who practice yoga, who say that
the rilpa produced by the power of samiidhi is aniisrava if the samiidhi
in which it is produced is aniisrava.
- (nothing relevant)
* Tattvasiddhi
91
- The *Tattvasiddhi does not make this argument con-
cerning avijfiapti, but in another context it refers to the fact that an iirupya
samiidhi can produce an aniisrava rilpa.
Yogiiciirabhilmi
92
- The ViniscayasarJlgrahalJl on the Paficavijfiiinakiiya-
manobhilmi says that the rilpa that is the object of samiidhi arises on the
90 yad apy uktam aniisravarupokter iti tad eva samiidhiprabhiivasafllbhUtafll rupam
aniisrave samiidhiiv aniisravafll van:zayanti yogiiciiriif:z (Abhidharmakosabhiirya: 197.7-8;
T. 1558: 69b4-6; La Vallee Poussin 3: 18-19; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion
of the siltra-master [T. 1562: 541all-13] and criticizes it [T. 1562: 541a13-19]). Sarpgha-
bhadra questions the identity of these yogiiciiras and expresses surprise that Vasubandhu
quotes from them in interpreting sutra (T. 1562: 541a14-15).
91 :1& 9=':'1\I;;fMHii: flliJl1!1
(T. 1646: 343b17-19).
92 tat punaf:z samiidhigocarafll rilpafll yatpratisafllYutaf:z samiidhif:z tatpratisafllyuktiiny
eva tanmahiibhUtiiny upiidiiya laukikafll siisraviiniisravafll samiidhim upiidiiyotpadyate na
tu lokottarafll / saprapafllciikiirasamiidhihetukatviit tasya (according to Matsuda [personal
communication], this passage appears in a Sanskrit manuscript fragment of the Vinisca-
yasafllgrahw;zf preserved in St. Petersburg). tili lie 'dzin gyi spyod yul gyi gzugs de yali tili
lie 'dzin 'byuli ba chen po dag rgyur byas pa'i gzugs gali dali mtshulis par ldan pa de dag
fiid dali de yali mtshulis par ldan pa yin no / 'jig rten pa'i tili lie 'dzin zag pa dali
bcas pa dali zag pa med pa la brten nas skye ba yin gyi / 'jig rten las 'das pa las ni ma
basis of the mahiibhittas associated with that samiidhi, and it arises on
the basis of laukikasamiidhi (mundane meditation), whether siisrava or
aniisrava. However, it does not arise on the basis of lokottarasamiidhi
(supermundane meditation) because it is caused by a samiidhi in which
prapafica (conceptual proliferation)93 is present.
Comment - The passage in the Yogiiciirabhiimi implies what Vasubandhu
states more clearly, that aniisravariipa can arise due to samiidhi.
14c. Merit increases, not due to avijfiapti, but due to a gradual transfor-
mation of the saf!ltati of the giver.
Abhidharmakosabhiirya
94
- A third Sarvastivadin argument in support of
the reality of avijfiaptiriipa is that the siitra says that merit increases.
Vasubandhu quotes the piirviiciiryas, who say that the merit increases
when the recipient of a gift uses the gift, even though, in the time between
the giving of the gift and its use, the giver of the gift might have a bad
thought. Due to the nature of dharmas, the saf!ltati of the giver of a gift
is perfumed by the volition towards the recipient that accompanied the gift,
and his saf!ltati undergoes a gradual transformation until the saf!ltati can
give rise to greater results.
*Vzbhii:jii - (nothing relevant)
Yogiiciirabhiimi (1)95 - The Savitarkiidibhitmi uses the phrase visi:jtii
saf!lskiirasaf!ltati/:t pravartate ("a distinguished series of conditioning
yin te f de ni spros pa'i mam pa dali bcas pa'i tili lie 'dzin gyi rgyu las byuli ba'i phyir TO
(Yogiiciirabhumi,: zi 51bl-3).
(T. 1579: 597b9-12).
93 For this translation, I follow Nfu).ananda as quoted in Schmithausen's long note on
the term (509 n. 1405).
94 yad apy uktaf!! pU/}yiibhivrddhivacaniid iti tatriipi purviiciiryii nirdisanti dharmatii
hy eifii yathii yathii diitfl}iif!! diiyiilJ paribhujyante tathii tathii bhoktfl}iif!! gUl}aviseifiid anu-
grahaviseifiic ciinyamanasiim api datfl}iif!! tadiilambanadiinaeetaniibhiivitiilJ saf!!tatayalJ
sukifmaf!! paril}iimaviseifaf!! priipnuvanti yeniiyatyiif!! bahutaraphaliibhiniifpattaye samarthii
bhavanti (AbhidharmakosabhiiifYa: 197.15-19; T. 1558: 69b14-20; La Vallee Poussin 3:
20; Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 541c8-14]
and explains and criticizes it at very great length [T. 1562: 541cl4-542b6]).
95 yeifu sal'[lskiireifU yae ehubhiisubhal'[l karmotpannaniruddhal'[l bhavati tena hetunii tena
pratyayena visiiftii sal'[lskiirasantatib pravartate sii viisanety ucyate / yasyiilJ prabandhapatitiiyii
SAUTR.A.NTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHASYA 359
forces proceeds") in explaining how good or bad actions produce desired
or undesired results.
Yogiiciirabhilmi (2)96 - In the Cintiimayf Bhilmi, it is said that wealth
accrues due to good karma produced by diina (charity) and accumulated
in former lives.
YogiiciirabhUmi (3)97 - The idea that certain observable phenomena are
attributable to the nature of dharmas [dharmatii] appears in various places
i:jtani:jtaphalarrz nirvartate (YogacarabhUmi: 128.2-4). 'du byed gan dag la dge ba dan mi
dge ba'i las skyes nas 'gags pa yod la I rgyu de dan rkyen des 'du byed bye brag can gyi
rgyud 'jug pa de la ni bag chags zes bya ste I de rgyun du gnas pa las sdug pa dan mi sdg
pa'i 'bras bu grub par 'gyur ba'i phyir (Yogacarabhilmi
t
: dzi 75b4-5).
f>fiUL
(T. 1579: 305b3-6).
96 ji ltar na sbyin pa las Ions spyod can du 'gyur ba yin ze na I 'di ltar 'di na la la
snon gyi tshe rabs gzan dag tu sbyin pa las byun bai bsod nams bya ba'i dnos po byas sin
bsags par gyur te I de da ltar phyug pa'i khyim dan I nor che ba nas mdzod dan I ban
mdzod kyi tshogs man ba'i bar gyi khyim du skye bar 'gyur ba 'blta bu'o (YogacarabhU-
mit: dzi 269a2-4). -1:if,8& q:,
(T. 1579: 375bI3-16).
97 dharmata-yuktiJ:t katama I kena karal:zena tathabhilta ete skandha(s) tathiibhilto
lokasarrzniveSaJ:t kena karal:zena khara-lak:jal:za prthivf dravalak:jar.za apaJ:t u:jr.zalak:jar.zarrz
teja(J:t) samudfrar.zalak:jar.zo vayuJ:t I anityaJ:t skandhii(J:t) I kena karar.zena santarrz nirvar.zam
iti I tathii rilpa[r.za]lak:jar.zarrz rilpam anubhavana-lak:jar.za vedana sarrzjananalak:jar.za sarrzjiia
abhisarrzskarar.za-lak:jar.zaJ:t sarrzskiira vijananalak:jar.zarrz vijiianam itj I prakrtir e:jarrz
dharmar.zarrz idarrz svabhava e:ja fdrsaJ:t dharmatai:jii(rrz) caiva casau dharmata I saivatra
yuktir yoga uptiyaJ:t evarrz va etasmiit I anyathii va naiva vasmiit sarvatraiva ca dharmataiva
pratiprasarar.zarrz dharmataiva yuktiJ:t I cittanidhyapantiya cittasarrzjiiapanaya iyam ucyate
dharmata-yuktiJ:t (Sriivakabhilmi: 143.4-16; Sravakabhilmi
t
: Wayman 79). chos iiid kyi
rigs pa gan ze na I ci'i phyir phun po rnams de Ita bur gyur pa yin I 'jig rten gnas pa de
Ita bur gyur pa yin I ci'i phyir sa'i mtshan iiid sra ba yin I chu 'j mtshan iiid gser ba yin I
me'i mtshan iiid tsha ba yin I rlun gi mtshan iiid g.yo ba yin I ci'i phyir phun po mams
mi rtag pa yin I ci'i phyir my a nan las 'das pa zi ba yin I de bihin du ci'i phyir gzugs kyi
mtshan iiid gzugs su run ba yin I tshor ba'i mtshan iiid myon ba yin I 'du ses kyi mtshan
fiid kun ses par byed pa yin I 'du byed rnams kyi mtshan iiid mnon par 'du byed pa yin I
rnam par ses pa'i mtshan iiid rnam par ses par byed pa yin ze na I de ni chos fiid yin
te I chos de dag gi ran bzin de yin zinl de dag gi no bo iiid de Ita bu yin pas chos iiid de
gan kho na yin pa de iiid 'dir rigs pa dan I sbyor ba dan I thabs yin no I de biin du de lta
bu 'am I gzan nam / gzan du rna 'gyur pa ni sems la biag par bya ba dan I sems la go bar
bya ba 'i phyir thams cad du yan chos iiid kho na la brten pa dan I chos iiid kho na'i rigs
pa yin te I de ni chos iiid kyi rigs pa zes bya'o (Yogacarabhilmi
t
: wi 68b6-69a4).
iHiiitJI. 71<

fiff!m. i*fi!i!m.
360 ROBERT KRITZER
in the YogacarabhUmi in definitions of dharmatayukti (reasoning with
respect to the nature of dharmas), for example in the SravakabhUmi.
Comment - Although the Yogiicarabhiimi does not explain the accuulU-
lation of merit in terms of (the transformation of
the saf[ltati), Vasubandhu's theory of such a transformation may be based
on the Yogacarabhiimi (see Yamabe "Ega"). Hakamaya mentions this
passage and suggests the possibility that the idea of here
may be that of a Sautrantika group that preceded Vasubandhu and that
cannot be identified with Yogacara. However, Hakamaya does not pro-
vide any evidence from, for example, the the *Tattvasiddhisas-
tra, or the *Nyayanusara, and he leaves the question open.
15. Asaf[lvara does not really exist separately (from volition).
- The Sautrantikas say that asaf[lvara does not
really exist separately (from volition). It is the intention to do something
bad, an intention that continues until it is destroyed.
- The does not deal with this issue directly. How-
ever, it mentions that those who assert the unreality of vijfiapti and
avijfiapti would be unable to establish the differences between those who
are established in saf[lvara, asaf[lvara, or naivasaf[lvarasaf[lvara (neither
saf[lvara nor asaf[lvara).
*Tattvasiddhi - Avijfiapti is a cittaviprayuktasaf[lskiira, and thus it has no
separate existence (see above).
YogacarabhUmi
lOO
- The long explanation of asaf[lvara in the ViniScaya-
saf[lgraharzl on the Paficavijfianakayamanobhiimi (T. 1579: 589b24-c20)

(T. 1579: 419b28-c9).
98 avijfiaptivad asalflvaro 'pi nasti dravyata iti sautrantika/:! / sa eva tu piipakriyabhi-
salfldhir asalflvara/:! / sanubandho yata/:! kusalacitto 'pi tadviin ucyate (Abhidhannakosa-
bhiieya: 213.8-9; T. 1558: 75a12-14; La Vallee Poussin 3: 64; Kat6 77; Sarpghabhadra
does not quote this statement).
99
(T. 1545: 634c24-26).
100 sdorn pa rna yin pa'i rigs su skyes pa ji Ita ba biin du gan su yan run ba gan dan
gan nas 'ons kyan run ste / serns skyed par byed pa yan de biin du rgyas par rig par bya' 0/
SAUTRANTlKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHAsYA 361
contains a definition very similar to that of the Abhidharmakosabhii-
.fja.
Comment - Both Vasubandhu and the Yogiiciirabhilmi explain asaf!l-
vara in terms of volition. Harivarrnan's explanation is quite differeIit.
16. Saf!lvara and asaf!lvara can be incomplete or partial.
- The Sautrantikas say that saf!lvara and
asaf!lvara can be incomplete or partial.
- According to the the Gandhara teachers say
that asaf!lvara can be incomplete, while the Kasnlira teachers say that it
cannot.
*Tattvasiddhi
103
- The *Tattvasiddhi says that safTlvara cannot be partial.
Yogiiciirabhumi
104
- The explanation of the unrestrained person in the
ViniScayasaf!lgrahm;t1 on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhumi suggests that
becoming unrestrained is a gradual process resulting from the accumula-
tion of bad actions based on bad thoughts or intentions.
de ni ji srid du sdam pa ma yin pa'i sems pa span bar mi byed pa de srid du ma bsdams
par brjad par bya ste / de ni fiin gcig biin du sems pa de man du sags pa dan / las de kun
tu sbyar bas bsad nams ma yin pa mnan par 'phel bar rig par bya' a (Yagacarabhumi,:., zi
31bl-3).
*Mi3JKo 0 11: B B -&;\;u#
(T. 1579: 589c3-7). See note 104 below.
101 yathiibhyupagamal?l vikala 'pi syat praddiko 'py asal?lvara/:! sal?lvaras eanya-
iti sautrantika/:! tanmatrasfladauSflyapratibandhiit (Abhidharmakosabhii:;ya:
222.5-6; T. 1558: 79a3-6; La Vallee Poussin 3: 93); SaIp.ghabhadra quotes this statement
[T. 1562: 563b17-19] and criticizes it [T. 1562: 563b20-24]; Kat(77).
102
J!, 0 frf!f!/fltii*o !t /fiW5"N.!io =:

x/fJ!" (T. 1545: 608b20-27).
103 ramo
/frio :fi51!!lj/fJ!,.lEo
(T. 1646: 303a20-25).
104 de la sdom pa ma yin pa'i rigs su skyes zin pa gan la la 'tsho ba 'dis 'tsho bafr]
bya'o ies ran gi sems mnon par 'du byed cin / de 'tsho ba de la 'dod pa bzod par byed
pa ni de'i tshe na ma bsdams pa yin par brjod par bya'a / sdom pa ma yin par gtogs pa'i
tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa rab tu dam pos beom pas sems bsdus pa'i phyir ji srid
du / srog geod pa las byun ba 'am de las gian pa'i mi dge ba'i las kyi lam las byun ba
362 ROBERT KRITZER
Comment - Although the Yogacarabhilmi does not contain a similar
argument or an explicit statement that saJ?1vara or asaJ?1vara can be par-
tial or incomplete, its description of the gradual process of becoming
asaJ?1vara may imply that one can be unrestrained toward certain beings
and not others or with regard to certain rules and not others. In this case,
Harivarman seems to disagree with Vasubandhu and perhaps the Yoga-
carabhumi.
17. Anusayas are kleas in the state of seeds, not separate entities (dravyas).
- The Sautrantikas define anusayas as klesas
in the state of seeds and say that they are not separate dravyas. Anusayas
are dormant, i.e., not actualized, while paryavasthiinas (active defIlements)
are awakened.
mi byed pa de srid run (Derge reads spyod pa de srid du) yan mi dge ba'i rtsa ba rgya
chen po dan Idan pa yin no / gan las dan gan dan ji tsam du spyod par byed pa ni des na
de tsam du sas cher mi dge ba dan Idan pa yin no / sdom pa rna yin pa 'i rigs su skyes pa
ji Ita ba biin du gan su yan run ba gan dan gan nas 'ons kyan run ste / sems skyed par
byed pa yan de biin du rgyas par rig par bya'o / de niji srid du sdompa rna yin pa'i sems
pa spon bar mi byed pa de srid du rna bsdams par brjod par bya ste / de ni iiin gcig biin
du sems pa de man du sogs pa dan / las de kun tu sbyor bas bsod nams rna yin pa mnon
par 'phel bar rig par bya'o / de'i log par smon pa'i sems pa rna dad pa dan / Ie 10 dan
brjed nas pa dan / mam par g.yen ba dan / ses rab 'chal pa dan Idan pa las de yan dag
par len par byed pa / las de kun nas slon bar byed pa de yan ji srid du gton ba'i rgyu dag
gi spon bar mi byed / yon su gton bar mi byed kyi bar du de phyin chad kyan sa bon dan
kun tu spyod pa las rgyud du gtogs pa 'byun ba ni sdompa rna yin pa ies bya'o (Yogacara-
bham!,: zi 31a6-b4).

milH,mtlMc. 7Y
1&;filJl.lr.

fj';' B B fg

(T. 1579: 589b24-cll).
105 eva'!l tu sadhu yatha sautrantikanam / katha'!l ca sautrantikanam / kamaraga-
syanusayalJ kiimaraganusaya iti / na canusayalJ sa'!lprayukto na viprayuktas tasyadravyan-
taratvat / prasupto hi kleSo 'nusaya ucyate / prabuddhalJ paryavasthanam / ka ca tasya
prasuptilJ / asa'!lmukhibhutasya bfjabhavanubandhalJ / kalJ prabodhalJ / sa'!lmukhibha-
valJ / ko 'yam bfjabhavo nama / atmabhavasya kldaja klesotpadanasaktilJ / yathanubha-
vajiianaja smrtyutpadanasaktir yatha cankuradfna'!l saliphalaja saliphalotpadanasaktir
iti (Abhidharmakosabha,ya: 278.17-22; T. 1558: 99a1-9; La Vallee Poussin 4: 6-7; Satp.-
ghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 596c24-597a2] and
criticizes it [T. 1562: 597a2-15]; KatO 78).
SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHA.SYA 363
- According to the Vibhajyavadins, anusayas are the seeds
ofparyavasthiinas; and they are dissociated from mind (cittaviprayukta).
*Tattvasiddhi
lO7
- Anusayas are cittasafTLprayukta.
108
Yogiiciirabhiimi (1)109 - The ViniscayasafTLgrahalJz on the Savitarkiidi-
bhilmi contains an explanation of anusaya and paryavasthiina almost
identical to that in the
Yogiiciirabhilmi (2)110 - The Savitarkiidibhiimi identifies anusayas as
being the seeds of kldas.
Yogiiciirabhiimi (3)1ll - In the Cintiimiiyzprajfiiibhilmi of the Viniscaya-
safTLgrahalJz, the undestroyed seeds of kldas are called anusayas.
Yogiiciirabhiimi (4)112 - According to the Cintiimiiyzprajfiiibhiimi of the
ViniscayasafTLgrahalJl, bfjas are prajfiiipti.
Comment - Vasubandhu and the Yogiiciirabhilmi explain anusayas in
the same way. Harivarman's explanation is very different.
106 i1lf1l1.ilE![j:,L,:;Ff!3D!. ftW,L,;f{Iff!.
fI1ill1.il (T. 1545: 313al-3).
107 (T. 1646: 258c7-8).
108 Katsura points out that, according to the *Tattvasiddhi, caittas are not real dharmas (44).
109 non mons pa'i kun nas non mons pa'i rab tu dbye ba rnam par giag pa gan ie na /
mdor bsdu na non mons pa dan ne ba'i non mons pa ji skad bstan pa rnams kyis ni rgyu
gnis kyis sems can rnams kun nas non mons par byed de / 'di Ita ste / kun nas dkris pa
dan bag la nal gyis so / de la non mons pa kun tu 'byun ba mnon du gyur pa ni kun nas
dkris pa ies bya'o / de nid kyi sa bon ma spans sin yan dag par ma beam pa ni bag la
nal ies bya ste / gnas ngan len kyan de yin no / ma sad pa 'i phyir ni bag la nal yin la sad
pa'i gnas skabs kyi phyir ni kun nas dkris pa yin no (Yogacarabhilmi,: zi U8a8-b3).
-EI:!illitt.
itt. mrfmifMJifif,l:lr ill.
(T. 1579: 623a20-24). Yamabe has noted that the passage from the Abhi-
is directly based on this passage (personal communication).
110 anusayal} (Yogacarabhilmi: 167.6). 'jig rten
pa'i yar 'phel ba thams cad kyi sa bon danldan pas na bag la nal rnams so (Yogacara-
bhUmi,: dzi 97b8-98al). (T. 1579: 314b25-26).
111 de la dan ba 'i gzugs dan / sems dan sems las byun ba'i chos ji skad bstan pa thams
cad la non mons pa'i sa bon yan dag par ma beam pa dan / ma spans pa gan yin pa de
ni bag la nal ies bya ste / gnas nan len kyan de yin no zi 215a5-6).
ij);:lrtll!!
(T. 1579: 661b26-29).
112 Yogacarabhilmi,: zi 208a4-6; T. 1579: 659a12-16. See note 50 above.
364 ROBERT KRITZER
18. A result arises due to a (a special state of-the sal'{ltatz)
based on a past action, not directly due to a past action.
- A result does not directly arise from a
past action; instead, it arises due to a based on a past
action.
- At the beginning of its long defense of the reality of the
three times, the identifies and Vibhajyavada as the
opponents. However, it does not refer to the theory of
*Tattvasiddhi
1l5
- Although past karma gives rise to real results, it does
not exist.
Yogiiciirabhilmi (1)116 - The Savitarkiidibhilmi explains that when the
Buddha said that a past action exists, he was really talking about impres-
sions of the action, not the action itself. These impressions endow the
sal'{ltati with the potential to yield results.
113 naiva hi sautriintika atitiit karmal)al} phalotpattil!l va77J.lIYanti / kil!l tarhi / tatpurva-
kat ity
300.19-21; T. 1558: 106all-13; La Vallee Poussin 4: 63; Saqlghabhadra identifies this
as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 629b3-5], refers to Vasubandhu's longer expla-
nation at the end of Chapter 9 477.7-18] of sal!ltiiIJapariIJiima
[T. 1562: 629b5-17] and criticizes it at very great length [T. 1562: 629bI8-630all]; KatO
78).
114
tlt-f'FHom. (T. 1545: 393a9-12).
lIS
(T. 1646: 255c24-26). See Katsura, who points out that Harivarman does not
ment;iOn in this respect (41).
116 yad apy uktam asty atital!l karma yatal} sattviih savyiibaddhii vyiibiidhiil!l vedayan-
titi / tatriipi tadviisaniiYiil!l tadastitvopaciiram abhipretyoktal!l / yac chu-
bhiiSubhal!l karmotpannaniruddhal!l bhavati tena hetunii tena pratyayena sQl!lskara-
santatil;! pravartate sii viisanety ucyate / yasyiil} prabandhapatitiiyii
nirvartate iti na yujyate / tato 'pi niisti (YogiiciirabhUmi: 127.19-128.4). 'das pa'i
las yod do zes gsufts pa gaft yin pa de la yaft / bag chags de la / de yod pa'i 'dogs pa la
dgofts nas gsufts pa yin te / 'du byed gaft dag la dge ba daft mi dge ba'i las skyes nas 'gags
pa yod la / rgyu de daft rkyen des 'du byed bye brag can gyi rgyud 'jug pa de la ni bag
chags zes bya ste / de rgyun du gnas pa las sdug pa daft mi sdug pa'i 'bras bu grub par
'gyur ba'i phyir mi ruft ste (Yogiiciirabhumi,: dzi 75b3-5).
B.ff1m:!i;fi. :li

ffiltlt:;r-.!f.it!J:lI! (T. 1579: 305bl-6).
SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHAsYA 365
YogiiciirabhUmi (2)117 - The Vini,vcayasarrzgrahalJl on the Paftcavijftii-
nakiiyamanobhiimi 'gives a similar explanation, but with the addition of
the tenn karmabfja (seed of karma).
Comment - See item 14c.
19. One cannot fall from arhatship.
- The Sautrantikas say that one cannot fall
from arhatship. They argue that the definition of an arhat is one whose
klesas are completely destroyed. This implies that the seeds of his kleSas
are likewise destroyed, in which case it is impossible for the kleSas to arise
again. 119
(1)120 - The mentions the view of the Vibhajyava-
dins, who say that the kleSas cannot arise again after having been des-
troyed.
117 beom ldan 'das kyis las 'das pa ni yod de gal te las 'das pa med du zin na 'di na
la las gnod pa dan beas pa dan / gnod pa med pa'i tshor ba myon ba mi 'gyur ies gan
gsuns pa de la dgons pa gan ie na / 'das pa'i tshOT bas mams su las dge ba dan mi dge
ba bskyed cin 'gags pas phyi ma la 'bras bu 'dod pa dan mi 'dod pa mnon par 'grub par
de'i sa bon gyis 'du byed kyi rgyun phyi ma phyi ma yons su bsgom pa las dgons nas
(YogaearabhUmi,: zi 20M-6).

(T. 1579: 585b7-13).
118 arhattvad api nasti parihalJir iti sautrantikaJ:! / e!!a eva ca nyayaJ:! / katham idaT(l
gamyate / agamad yuktitas ea (Abhidharmakosabha!!Ja: 375.10-11 [but the whole argu-
ment continues until 377.5]; T. 1558: 130a16-130c16; La Vallee Poussin 4: 258 [-265];
Srupghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master [T. 1562: 711c2-3] and criti-
cizes it at exceedingly great length [T. 1562: 711c7-716a13; I have not distinguished here
between his brief quotations of Vasubandhu's opinions and his lengthy criticisms]; Kat6
78).
119 yadi tavad arhatas tadrilpaJ:! pratipak.ra utpanno yena kldii atyantam anutpatti-
dharmatiim iippaniiJ:! / kathaT(l punaJ:! parihlyate / atha notpannaJ:! / kathaT(l k!!llJiisravo
bhavati / atyantam anayoddhrtiiyiiT(l tadbfjadharmatiiyiim ak!!llJiisravo vii punaJ:! katham
arhan bhavatfty evaT(l yuktiJ:! (Abhidharmakosabha!!Ja: 376.17-20; T. 1558: 130c2-4; La
Vallee Poussin 4: 263-264; Srupghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the siitra-master
[T. 1562: 716al-4] and criticizes it [T. 1562: 7l6a4-13]).
120 :!lo5fgljiift'U=1iI. tlUMlilZB
llliieiE/Fllt'FM.
(T. 1545:
312b8-14; La Vallee Poussin 4: 264 n. 2).
366 ROBERT KRITZER
(2)121 - The attributes to the the view
thatparihiiIJi (fall from lirhatship) is aprajiiapti and not a real dharma.
*Tattvasiddhi
122
- The *Tattvasiddhi gives many arguments to the effect
that once the arhat has destroyed the kleas, they cannot arise again. But
it does not mention the destruction of the bijas of klesas.
YogiiciirabhUmi (1)123 - The Viniscayasal{lgrahaIJi on the Paiicavi-
jiiiinakayamanobhUmi says that the arhat, who has destroyed the klesas
and their bijas, cannot fall from arhatship.
121
fiAF .. m. f.l!;1fs;fi

.. mo
B. (T. 1545: 313a14-
25).
122 For example: ;a1IiJ&
fi. ;aJi!Jl'
(T. 1646: 258a24-b1).
123 beom ldan 'das kyis ji skad du dge slon dag dgra beom pa yan tshe 'di la lhag pa 'i
sems las byun ba bde bar gnas pa bZi po de dag las gan yan run ba las yons su nams par
na smra zes gan gsuns pa de lal gal te de'i non mons pa can gyi ehos thams cad kyi sa
bon dag yan dag par beam na ni I ji ltar de la 'og ma pa'i non mons pa 'byun bar 'gyur I
gal te mi 'byun na niji ltar de yons su nams par 'gyur ze na Iyongs su nams pa ni gnis
po 'di dag yin te I span ba'i yons su nams pa dan I gnas pa'i yons su nams pa'o I de la
spon ba'i yons su nams pas ni so so'i skye bo kho na yons su nams par 'gyur ro I gnas
pa'i yons su.iiams pas ni 'phags pa dan I so so skye bo yan yons su nams pa 'gyur ro I de
la 'jig rten pa'i lam gyis non mons pa spans pa yan mnon du byed pa ni span ba'i yons
su nams pas yons su nams par 'gyur te I gnas pa'i yons su nams pas yons su nams par
'gyur ba yan de yin no I 'jig rten las 'das pa'i lam gyis non mons pa spans nas I de las
gzan pa'i phral gyi bya ba dag la rab tu ehags pa'i blo can yid la mi byed pa'i rgyus de'i
mjug thogs su tshe 'di la bde bar gnas pa la snonji Ita bar phyis kyan de bzin du mnon
du byed mi nus la I sa 'og ma pa'i non mons pa ni I mnon du mi byed pa gan yin pa de
ni de Ita na gnas pa 'i yons su iiams par' gyur ba yin gyi spon ba 'j yons su nams pa ni ma
yin no I gal te dgra beom pa non mons pa thams cad spans pa 'i non mons pa can gyi ehos
de dag thams cad kyi sa bon yan dag par ma beom na ni I ji ltar na dgra beom pa sems
sin tu mam par grol ba dan I zag pa zad par 'gyur I gal te yan dag par beom na ni de'i
sems kyi rgyud non mons pa can gyi ehos thams cad kyi [corrected from kyis on the basis
of the Derge] sa bon med pa la tshul biin ma yin pa yid la byed pa tsam yan 'byun bar
mi 'gyur na I non mons pa Ita smos kyan ci dgos te I de Ita bas na 'jig rten las 'das pa'i
lam gyis non mons pa spans pa la ni yons su nams ba med par khon du chud par bya' 0
(Yogaearabhami[.. zi 17b7-18b1). *
f!i:J:'IlJI-ffill!.

:;r-
SAUTRA.NrIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHASYA 367
YogacarabhUmi (2)124 - The Vini.scayasarrzgrahalJl on the Sravakabhilmi
says that one cannot fall from the four sramalJyaphalas (attainment of the
four stages of advanced Buddhist practice).
Comment - Vasubandhu's Sautrantika position here and his argumentfor
it are identical to those of the ViniscayasarrzgrahalJl on the Paficavijfiana-
kiiyamanobhilmi. The *Tattvasiddhi and the Vibhajyavadin positions seem
to agree with Sautrantika to a great extent.
Iv. Sautrantika or Y ogacara?
A. The Dilemma
There are two possible explanations of the relationship between Vasu-
bandhu's ideas and those found in the Yogacarabhilmi: 1) Vasubandhu
and the authors of the YogacarabhUmi both relied on ideas, particularly
a theory of hija, developed by a group, called Sautrantika by Vasubandhu,
that was active before the composition of the Yogacarabhilmi; or 2) the
authors of the Yogacarabhilmi, perhaps influenced by a non-orthodox
group, developed these ideas, which were then adopted by Vasubandhu,
who, for reasons of his own, referred to them as Sautrantika. Both expla-
nations, however, present problems.
The problem with the ftrst explanation is that we don't really know what
"Sautrantika" means. Primarily on the basis of a handful of attributions
by Vasubandhu, scholars beginning with Vasubandhu's contemporary,
Smpghabhadra, and continuing up until the present, have assumed that a
group of thinkers called "Sautrantikas" preceded Vasubandhu. Thus, for
example, one often sees references to Sautrantika theories of seeds (e.g.,
Jaini) or to a Sautrantika conception of alayavijfiana, different from that
8:1!/t/Fjfl:i*Jtl:f:'fll1,
;U:j!lIJiiJao ffii111i-5IJ
0 0 :8"'ffi*-l1:f:'
(T. 1579:
584b3-19).
124 mam par byan ba'i phyogs dan mthun pa'i chos mams kyis de yons su bstan to /
dge sbyon gi tshul gyi 'bras bu bZi po dag ni yan phul yin te / de dag las ltun ba med pa'i
phyir dan / jig rten las 'das pa yin pa'i phyir ro (Yogacarabhumi,: zi 281a2-3).
rniJ'?"7t;o (T. 1579: 687a17-19).
368 ROBERT KRITZER
of Yogacara (Lamotte Traiti 178-179). However, prior to the Abhidhar-
itself, we have no textual evidence for a group of that
name that asserts such ideas. 125 .
On the other hand, an examination of the passages in which Vasu-
bandhu attributes a doctrinal position to Sautrantika shows that, in almost
every case, a closely related, if not identical, position can be found some-
where in the Yogiiciirabhumi. Corresponding passages appear most fre-
quently in the ViniScayasaf{lgrahaJ}! on the
followed by the Savitarkiidibhumi of the Maulfbhumi and other sections
of the Viniscayasaf{lgrahaJ}f. If, however, Vasubandhu is actually follow-
ing the Yogiiciirabhumi, one must explain why he uses the term Sautran-
tika and why he never refers to the YogiiciirabhUmi or its characteristic
doctrine, iilayavijfiiina, in the
B. The Traditional Explanation: Vasubandhu's Position in the Abhidhar-
is Sautrantika
The commonly held view concerning Vasubandhu's philosophical
development is the one sarcastically described by Lamotte in his intro-
duction to the KarmasiddhiprakaralJa: "Who can believe that Vasubandhu
without mentioning his acquaintance with the Samkhya, was a V
in his youth, a Sautrantika in his mature years, a Vijfianavadin in his old
age, and a Pure Land follower of Amitabha at his death?" (Lamotte His-
tory 39 [English translation of Histoire 179]). Having asked this acute
rhetorical question, Lamotte indicates that he accepts at least the traditional
description of the mature Sautrantika, whom he identifies as the author
of both the and the KarmasiddhiprakaralJa.126
Since Lamotte's exposition of Vasubandhu' s Sautrantika standpoint in
the KarmasiddhiprakaralJa is the most explicit that I know, and since
most of his arguments apply equally to the I dis-
cuss it as representative of the traditional explanation of Vasubandhu's
position. Lamotte begins by saying that the purpose of both texts is "to
125 See Cox (38), who summarizes Kat6 as saying that while both the *Vibhiieii and the
Samayabhedoparacanacakra use the tenn Sautrantika, neither text uses it to refer to the
same group as Vasubandhu.
126 For a discussion of Vasubandhu's career, see Kritzer Rebirth 198-199.
combat, within the framework of the HInayiina and relying on the best of
the Sautrantika, the exaggerated realism of the and the spiri-
tualism of the Vatslpumyas" (Lamotte History 40 [English translation of
Lamotte Histoire 180]). Furthermore, he points out that the two texts
ignore Mahayana, including Yogacara idealism, and goes on to refute the
Chinese and Tibetan tradition that the Karmasiddhiprakaral}a is a Maha-
yana work, disagreeing in particular with Bu-ston' s characterization of the
text as idealistic.
Then Lamotte presents what he considers to be internal evidence sup-
porting his claim that the text is Sautrantika. First, he calls attention to
the fact that the teachers and schools mentioned and the majority of the
scriptures quoted in the text, with the exception of two quotations from
the Sa'!ldhinirmocanasutra, belong to HInayana. However, this in itself
does not prove anything. After all, many portions of the YogiiciirabhUmi
also fail to quote Mahayana sutras. The Viniscayasa'!lgrahm}l, which does
quote Mahayana sutra, to the best of my knowledge quotes primarily the
Sa'!ldhinirmocanasutra.
Next, Lamotte identifies and characterizes as Sautrantika a number of
positions asserted by Vasubandhu (Traite 177-179), many of which are also
found in the Below I summarize these positions
and provide corresponding passages from the YogiiciirabhUmi:
1) According to Lamotte, Vasubandhu adopts Sautrantika positions on major
issues regarding karma.
a) Positions concerning vijfiapti and avijfiapti:
Karmasiddhiprakaral}a - Sa'!lsthiina does not exist separately from color.
Yogiiciirabhumi - The same position is found in the Viniscayasa'!lgrahal}l
on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhumi.
127
Karmasiddhiprakaral}a - Destruction is spontaneous, without a cause.
YogiiciirabhUmi - The same position is found in the Viniscayasa'!lgrahal}i
on the PaficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhUmi.
128
127 See item 11 above.
128 de la gzugs kyi phun po thams cad ni skad cig pa yin par brjod par bya'o / de'i ci
phyir ie na / skyes nas 'jig [corrected from na jig on the basis of the Derge] pa dmigs pa'i
370 ROBERT KRITZER
Kannasiddhiprakarar;a - There is no duration or movement.
Yogacarabhumi - A similar statement is found in the Viniscayasa1?1gra-
har;l on the Paficavijfianakiiyamanobhumi.
129
Kannasiddhiprakarar;a - The essence of body and speech kanna is volition.
YogacarabhUmi - A similar position may be implied by the Savitarkadi-
bhUmi.130
Kannasiddhiprakarar;a - Avijfiapti proceeds from volition, not from matter.
YogacarabhUmi - The definition of asaf!lvara in the Viniscayasaf!lgrahar;l
on the Paficavijfianakiiyamanobhumi implies that asaf!lvara is based on
volition.
l3l
b) Positions concerning action and retribution:
Kannasiddhiprakarar;a - Past actions do not really exist.
phyir ro / skye ba'i rgyu ni 'jig pa'i rgyu yin par mi run ste / mtshan iiid mi 'dra ba'i phyir
ro / skyes pa gnas pa'i rgyu de las gian pa yan mi dmigs pas de'i phyir 'du byed thams
cad ni ran gi nan gis 'jig pa yin par rig par bya ste / de'i phyir skad cig pa iiid rab tu
grub po (Yogacarabhumi,: zi 58a4-6). fiiJ.l-ji\3(, l3t
iiHl}i\3(, i\3(,
(T. 1579: 600a18-22). See also the Abhidharma-
kosabhti$ya: sarrzslqtasyavaSyarrz vyayat akasmiko hi bhtivanarrz vinasal;t / kirrz karar.zam /
karyasya hi ktirar.zarrz bhavati / vinasas cabhaval;t / yas cabhavas tasya kirrz kartavyam / so
'sav akasmiko vinaso yadi bhtivasyotpannamatrasya na sytit pascad api na syad bhavasya
tulyatvat / athtinyathfbhutal;t na yuktarrz tasyaivanyathtitvam / na his sa eva tasmad vilak$ano
yujyate / ko 'yarrz k$ar.zo nama / atmalabho 'nantaravinasf / so 'syastfti k$ar.zikam / dar.z4i-
kavat (Abhidharmakosabhti$ya: 193.5-10; T. 1558: 67c17-20; La Vallee Poussin 3: 5;
Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the sutra-master [T. 1562: 533b21-22] and
criticizes it, saying that, because of the validity of the sarrzslqtalak$ar.zas, destruction must
have a cause [T. 1562: 533clO-21]; see Rospatt 180-181).
The passage from the Yogacarabhilmi is translated by Rospatt, who also provides the
Tibetan text and the text from the Sanskrit manuscript (181-182 n. 399). Rospatt thinks that
the argument here is somewhat different from that of the Abhidharmakosabhti$Ya (181-182).
129 de la Ius yul nas yul gian du 'byun ba tsam dan / de iiid na 'gyur ba 'byun ba tsam
ni Ius kyi mam par rig byed do / nag tsam ni nag gi mam par rig byed do / de biin du
sems mnon par 'du byed pa skyes pa'i sems pa tsam ni yid kyi mam par rig byed do / de
Gi'i phyir ie na / 'du byed thams cad ni skad Gig pa yin pa'i phyir yul nas yul gian du 'pha
bar mi rigs pas (Yogacarabhilmi,: zi 31a4-5). dtJ:j:ti!lt:ff
fiiJ.l-ji\3(,
(T. 1579: 589b18-22).
130 See note 66, comment on item 12.
131 See item 15.
Yogiiciirabhami --:- The same position is found in the Savitarkiidibhumi
and ViniscayasafTlgrahalJl on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhami.
132
KarmasiddhiprakaralJa - Action comes to fruition by means of sarrztati-

Yogiiciirabhumi - A similar mechanism is described in the Savitarkiidi-
bhami.!33
c) Position concerning the perfuming of a retribution consciousness:
KarmasiddhiprakaralJa - In the context of explaining how nirodhasa-
miipatti is sacittaka (accompanied by mind), Vasubandhu agrees with
the Siltraprfunfu).ikas in believing that a vipiikavijfiiina, perfumed by the
pravrttivijfiiinas (the six ordinary consciousnesses), is not interrupted in
the meditations "not accompanied by mind" (acittaka).
Yogiiciirabhumi - A similar position (according to which, however, the
term vipiikavijfiiina is replaced by iilayavijfiiina) is found in the Vinisca-
yasafTlgrahalJl on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhumi.
134
2) According to Lamotte, the iilayavijfiiina Vasubandhu teaches is "Sau-
trantika," differing from that of Vijfianavlida.
KarmasiddhiprakaralJa - There is no two-fold division of conscious-
ness into nimittabhiiga (image portion) and darsanabhiiga (vision portion).
Yogiiciirabhami - A developed form of idealism characterized by such
a division of consciousness is not found in the Yogiiciirabhumi either.
135
KarmasiddhiprakaralJa - The iilayavijfiiina appropriates a body that con-
sists of rupa, the reality of which is not questioned.
Yogiiciirabhumi - One of the proofs of iilayavijfiiina in the ViniscayasafTl-
grahalJl on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhumi is that, without an iilaya,
132 See item 18.
l33 See item 14c.
134 'jug pa 'i rnam par ses pa tsam fie bar ii bar zad kyi / kun gii rnam par ses pa fie
bar ii ba ni ma yin no (Yogiiciirabhilmi,: zi 39a5-6).
(T. 1579: 593a4).
135 See Schmithausen 32-33.
372 ROBERT KRITZER
there could be no appropriation of the body.136 Furthermore, the Yogiicii-
rabhitmi generally does not question the reality of ritpa.137
Karmasiddhiprakarara - The explanation of why the Buddha did not
teach iilaya to his disciples is different from Asanga's in the Mahiiyiina-
saJ'!lgraha, which is predicated on the unreality of the external object.
ill the Karmasiddhi, Vasubandhu quotes the SaJ'!ldhinirmocana, saying
that ignorant people would mistake the iilaya for a soul.
Yogiiciirabhitmi - The ViniscayasaJ'!lgraharf on the Paficavijfiiinakiiya-
manobhitmi quotes the same passage at the beginning of its exposition of
iilayavijfiiina to explain why it has not been taught before.
138
As we can see, all of these positions supposedly characteristic of Sautran-
tika can be traced more or less clearly to the Yogiiciirabhitmi, particularly
to the ViniscayasaJ'!lgraharf on the Paficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhitmi. And
not one of these positions can be traced to a text earlier than the Abhi-
dharmakosabhii$ya in which it is identified as Sautrantika. Thus, the
Sautrantika positions in the Abhidharmakosabhii$Ya and the Karmasiddhi-
prakarara, a text that is considered to be later than the Abhidharma-
kosabhii$ya and more developed, i.e., closer to classical Yogacara, are
comparable if not identical. The only striking difference is that the Karma-
siddhiprakarara mentions iilayavijfiiina.
139
Therefore, Lamotte's "internal evidence" that the Karmasiddhipraka-
rara is a Hlnayana Sautrantika text can equally well be viewed as tes-
timony to Vasubandhu's reliance on the ViniscayasaJ'!lgraharf of the
Yogiiciirabhitmi, a reliance similar to that which we have seen in the
Abhidharmakosabhiirya. Lamotte calls the positions that he cites "Sautran-
tika" because Vasubandhu has identified them as such in the Abhidhar-
makosabhii$ya or because the commentator on the Karmasiddhiprakarara
136 ci'i phyir gnas Zen pa mi TUft ze na smras pa (Yogaciirabhilmi,: zi 2b4).
(T. 1579: 579a25-26).
137 See note 112.
138 len pa'i mam par ses pa zab cift phra I sa bon thams cad chu bo kluft Ztar 'bab I
bdag tu rtog par gyur ni ma TUft zes I byis [corrected from phyis on the basis of the Derge]
pa mams la ftas ni de ma bstan (Yogiiciirabhilmi,: zi 2b1).
(T. 1579: 579a15-16).
139 Schmithausen disagrees with Lamotte, who thinks that the iilayavijiiiina that appears
in the KarmasiddhiprakaralJa reflects a Sautrantika theory of iiZayavijiiiina. Rather, Schrnit-
hausen thinks that Vasubandhu uses the Yogacara iiZayavijiiiina as a model (257-258, n. 78).
SAUTRA.NTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHASYA 373
does so. In either case, the ultimate source of this identification is Vasu-
bandhu himself.
Those, like Lamotte, who argue that Vasubandhu' s position in the
Abhidharmakosabha;;ya and the KarmasiddhiprakaralJa is Sautrantika
point to the fact that his theories, while departing from Sarvastivada, are
not classical Y ogacara, that is to say, they are not vijfiaptimatra
(consciousness-only). It is not claimed that Vasubandhu was in the process
of working out the system; that role is traditionally attributed to Asailga.
Rather, Vasubandhu was in the process of his own conversion from
Hfuayana to Mahayana, from Sarvastivada to Y ogacara, and these Sautran-
tika positions were a step away from the orthodox Sarvastivada that had
become unsatisfactory to him. On the other hand, he was not ready to take
the final step to Mahayana idealism.
Interestingly, a similar progression is described by Schmithausen with
respect to the composition of the Yogacarabhiimi. He identifies an earlier stra-
tum of the text that is, in his coinage, "pre-alayavijfianic," a stratum in which
the term alayavijfiana is used but the concept is not fully developed, and a
later stratum in which the iilayavijfiiina more closely resembles that of later
Yogacara texts such as the Mahiiyiinasal'{lgraha.
140
According to Schmit-
hausen, the Viniscayasal'{lgrahalJf as a whole comprises the third stratum,
although even there one can fInd earlier material in which the iilayiivijfiiina
is not mentioned or presupposed (14, 271-272 n. 131). It is as if Schmit-
hausen sees the Yogiiciirabhitmi as a fossil record of the evolution of the
concept of iilayavijfiiina, and if the text is a compilation, it makes sense that
ideas that are the forerunners of iilayavijfiiina should be preserved therein.
However, I [md it difficult to accept a similar model for the development
of Vasubandhu's thought. Although we know the precise dates of none of
the texts under discussion, I assume that the Yogiicarabhilmi was available
to Vasubandhu in a form similar to the one we know, i.e., with at least the
Maullbhilmi and the Viniscayasal'{lgrahalJfincluded in one text. IfVasubandhu
was not familiar with the Yogiiciirabhilmi, then we would have to assume
that he learned his Sautrantika ideas from the same sources as the authors
of the corresponding passages in the Yogiiciirabhilmi. As we have seen,
written records of these sources, if they ever existed, are no longer extant.
140 Schmithausen 34-65. I have undoubtedly grossly oversimplified his complex argument.
374 ROBERT KRITZER
According to the traditional view of his career, Vasubandliu wrote the
after he had come to accept Sautrantika ideas.
Some time later, having learned the doctrine of iilayavijfiiina, perhaps
directly from AsaiJ.ga, perhaps from a text like the Mahiiyiinasarrzgraha,
he converted to Mahayana and became a Y ogacaraNijfianavadin. In this
case, it is difficult to explain his mentioning iilayavijfiiina in the Kar-
masiddhiprakara1Ja. According to the traditional explanation, Vasubandhu
wrote this text before his conversion. Did he invent a non-Vijfianayadin
version of iilayavijfiiina independently, as a sort of logical development
of his Sautrantika seed theory, in the same process that Schmithausen
describes with respect to the Yogiiciirabhilmi? Did he borrow the term
from one of the no longer extant Sautrantika sources that I postulated
above? If Schmithausen is correct that the theory of iilayavijfiiina devel-
oped within the Yogaciirabhilmi, both of these hypotheses seem far-fetched.
It is far more likely that Vasubandhu was, in fact, familiar with the
Yogiiciirabhilmi. If so, he would have known the positions that he calls
Sautrantika from that text and perhaps from the lost Sautrantika sources
as well. In either case, according to the traditional explanation, at the time
of writing the Vasubandhu must have adopted
these ideas, while not yet accepting the theory of iilayavijfiiina, which he
would have also known from the Yogiiciirabhilmi. By the time he wrote
Karmasiddhiprakara1Ja, he tentatively believed in a not fully developed,
Sautrantika-like iilayavijfiiina, which he knew from the Yogiiciirabhilmi
and perhaps from a lost Sautrantika source. Finally, he wrote texts like
the Trimsikii after his conversion to Mahayana. In other words, the devel-
opmelJt of Vasubandhu's belief in iilayavijfiana paralleled the develop-
ment of the theory of iilayavijfiiina in the Yogiiciirabhilmi but some time
after the Yogaciirabhilmi was already completed.
However, it seems strange that Vasubandhu would repeat the entire
process of the discovery of iilayavijfiiina. A fairly complete version of the
theory must have been available to him in what Schmithausen calls the
"alayavijfiana treatise" at the beginning of the Viniscayasarrzgraha1Jl.141
It is hard to believe that Vasubandhu would have been satisfied with a
141 Schmithausen 10,259 n. 92. He identifies the section as Yogtictirabhiimi,: zi Ib2-
lOb6; T. 1579: 579a7-582a12.
SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABH.4.!jYA 375
theory like mutual seeding once he had been exposed to the eight-fold proof
of iilayavijfiana, which includes among its arguments a refutation of that
very theory.l42 Nevertheless, Vasubandhu does, in fact, present the theory
of mutual seeding on at least one occasion, evidently with approva1.
143
If Vasubandhu already believed in alayavijfiana when he wrote the Abhi-
we must explain why he introduces such positions that
are superseded by the more developed theory of alayavijfiana.
C. An Alternative Explanation: Vasubandhu's Sautrantika Position in
the Reflects his Y ogacara Beliefs
I have previously speculated that Vasubandhu was a Y ogacara when
he wrote the (Kritzer "Vasubandhu," Rebirth
199-204), and I have not changed my mind. In this article, I hope to pres-
ent more persuasive arguments based on further evidence.
In my earlier works, I reasoned primarily on the basis of two argu-
ments in the Vasubandhu's "Sautrantika" defi-
nition of vijfiana as a member of the pratftyasamutpada formula and his
criticism of certain cittaviprayuktasa7[lskaras. Since then, I have begun a
more systematic examination of Vasubandhu's unorthodox opinions in
the In addition to my search for the term Sautriin-
tika, the results of which I have presented in Section III of this paper,
I have also searched for opinions identified by Sarp.ghabhadra as those of
the sutra-master. Sarp.ghabhadra uses this appellation with reference not
only to most of the positions that Vasubandhu himself labels Sautriintika,
but to many others as well. Many of these passages also correspond more
or less clearly to passages in the Yogacarabhiimi.l44
Although some of the correspondences that I have identified are less
certain than others, their sheer number strongly suggests that Vasubandhu
relies heavily on the Yogacarabhiimi for his criticism of Sarvastiviida.
142 Sehrnithausen identifies the section as YagacarabhUmi,: zi 2b2-4a4; T. 1579: 579a14-
e22 (300 n. 226). He also shows that the various proofs are not completely consistent in
the ideas of alayavijfiana on which they are based (194-196).
143 See section Ill, item 7.
144 I have published the results regarding the first three chapters of the Abhidharma-
(Kritzer Comparison).
376 ROBERT KRITZER
However, the great majority of the correspondences between'the Sautran-
tika positions in the Abhidhannakosabhii.yya (and the Kannasiddhipra-
karaIJa) and the Yogiiciirabhaini involve passages that do not appear to
be based on a theory of iilayiivijfiiina.
In trying to account for this, I run the danger of reading too much into
Vasubandhu's statements. In essence, I argue that Vasubandhu favors posi-
tions in the Yogiiciirabhami that do not mention iilayavijfiiina because he
infers a theory of iilayavijfiiina underlying them. This is clearly a risky
proposition, especially since Sautrantika is traditionally seen as preceding
Yogacara, both historically and in the development of Vasubandhu's
thought. With reference to the Yogiiciirabhumi, Schmithausen warns us not
to "lightly interpret our text on the lines of later sources and developments"
(205). This very principle is what enables Schmithausen to challenge the
traditional view that the Yogaciirabhumi is a coherent composition of one
man, Asailga, and I believe that Schmithausen is correct in his approach.
Nevertheless, there are two major differences between the Yogiiciira-
bhumi and the Abhidhannakosabhii.yya that I feel justify some departure
from Schmithausen' s principle. First, several of the most important sources
for Yogacara doctrine, including the Sa/!ldhininnocanasutra, the com-
pleted Yogiiciirabhami, the Abhidhannasamuccaya, and the Mahiiyiina-
sal[lgraha are generally considered to predate Vasubandhu's work. In other
words, Vasubandhu must have known the doctrine of iilayavijfiiina, whether
he agreed with it or not. Second, to the best of my knowledge, no one,
not even Schmithausen, has suggested that the Abhidhannakosabhii.yya is
not a coherent composition of one man, Vasubandhu.
I h;lVe proposed that Vasubandhu's reason for not mentioning iilayavij-
fiiina in the Abhidhannakosabhii.yya has to do with the nature of the text,
which is an exposition and criticism of traditional abhidhanna, not a pre-
sentation of Yogacara ideas (Kritzer Rebirth 203-204). I referred to Aramaki
Noritoshi's idea that portions of the Yogiiciirabhami present the Yogacara
exposition of ultimate truth, that is, the doctrine of iilayavijfiiina, while
other portions, which do not mention iiZayavijfiiina, represent provisional
truth.
145
My conclusion was that the Abhidhannakosabhii.yya, like the
145 Kritzer Rebirth 200. As far as I know, Aramaki has not published this observation,
which he conveyed to me personally. However, in the meantime, he has publicly stated
abhidharma of the YogiiciirabhUmi, is an exposition of provi-
sional truth. Since the Y ogadiras seem to have arisen from a Sarvastivadin
milieu (Yamabe "An Shigao"), it is not surprising that much Yogaciira
and Sarvastivadin teachings on this level essentially agree. Thus, Vasuban-
dhu is able to use the general framework of the Sarvastiviida abhidharma,
while he "corrects" those details that seriously conflict with the Y ogaciira
abhidharma.
I have noticed that Schmithausen refers to a passage in the Yogiiciira-
bhiimi that supports Aramaki's idea. In the Viniscayasa1JZgraha1'}i on the
Sacittakabhumi, it is said that the traditional way of establishing con-
sciousness is taught in the ManobhUmi (of the Maullbhami), while the
ultimate teaching is that there are two types of consciousness, the iilaya-
vijfiiina and the prav{1tivijfiiinas.
146
Although Schmithausen mentions this
. only to prove that the mention of iilayavijfiiina in the Manobhumi is a later
addition to the text, the passage shows that the author(s)/compiler indeed
distinguishes between levels of teaching within the text.
Three passages in the Viniscayasa1JZgrahaJ;zi on the Paficavijfiiinakiiya-
manobhUmi, identified by Schmithausen, may also be relevant. The first
comes at the end of a long explanation of mutual seeding (see section III, .
item 7), in which mutual seeding is said to be taught only when iila-
yavijfiiina is not yet established.
147
The next states that the definition
his .ordering of the strata of the Yogiiciirabhiimi, which differs siplificandy from Schmit-
hausen's. According to Arantaki, the Maulibhiimi (excluding the Sravakabhiimi and Bodhi-
sattvabhiimi), which contains much of the traditional abhidhanna material found in the
Yogiiciirabhiimi, is later than the VmiicayasaTflgrahaTJi, in which iilayavijfiiina is taught and
the is quoted.
146 de la kun rdzob kyi tshul mam par biag pas 'jug pas ni 'di Ita ste / yid kyi sar soor
bstan pa zin du rig par bya'o / de la don dam pa'i tshul mam par bzag pa Mad par bya
ste / don dam pa'i tshul mam par bZag pas 'jug pa gan ze na / mdor bsdu na mam par
ses pa ni mam pa gfiis te / kun gzi mam par ses pa dan / 'jug pa'i mam par ses pa'o
(Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 189a8-b2). :iZfiiJi!!:mj!J1I!mll:.
lilJlJI3.::tf=m.
-=1flliIom. ==1f"m CT. 1579: 651bll-15; see Schmithausen 689-690).
147 sa bon mam par bZag pa'i tshul 'di ni kun gzi mam par ses pa mam par ma gzag
pa la rig par bya'o / mam par bzag pa la ni mdor bsdu na de la chos thams cad kyi sa
bon yod par rig bar bya ste / sa bon de dag ni rna spans pa dan span bar bya ba ma yin
pa'i chos de dag dan ci rigs su ldan par rig par bya'o (Yogiiciirabhiimi,: zi 17b6-7).

(T. 1579: 584a27-bl;
see Schmithausen 271 n. 131).
378 ROBERT KRITZER
of nirodhasamiipatti as a state in which all citta and caitasikas (mental
dharmas) are suppressed refers only to the pravrttivijfiiinas, not to iilaya-
vijfiiina.
148
In the third passage; nirodhasamiipatti is said to be obtainable
in rupadhiitu after it has been obtained in kiimadhiitu (the realm of desire).
However, according to the text, when iilayavijfiiina has been established,
nirodhasamiipatti must be obtainable in iirupyadhiitu as wel1.
149
Schmithausen mentions all of these references to iilayavijfiiina as exam-
ples oflater additions made by the compiler (271-272 n. 131). In case
of the first passage, at least, he also states that he does "not hesitate
to take this systematical statement of the compiler historically, viz. in the
sense that this bija theory was devised when alayavijfiana had not yet
been introduced" (288 n. 173). Schmithausen thus does not connect these
statements with that of the Viniscayasaf!lgrahalJ-l on the Sacittakabhumi
concerning two levels of teaching. Given his confidence that the Yogii-
ciirabhumi is not the work of a single author, this is understandable.
However, Schmithausen does assume that there was a compiler who put
together the various strata into the text we now have, and he allows for
the possibility of the compiler's having inserted his own comments into
the text.
Therefore, in light of the fact that either the author of the Viniscaya-
saf!lgrahalJ-l on the Sacittakabhumi or the compiler explicitly refers to
148 de la 'gog pa'i sfioms par 'jug pa gan ie na / ci yan med pa'i skye mched kyi 'dod
chags dan bral gon ma'i 'dod chags dan rna bral yan run / 'dod chags dan bral yan run
ba'i gnas pa'i 'du ses snon du btan ba'i yid la byed pas sems dan sems las byun ba'i chos
rnams 'gog pa tsam dan / fie bar ii iin mi 'byun ba tsam ni 'gog pa'i sfioms par 'jug pa
ies bya ste / 'jug pa'i rnam par ses pa tsam fie bar ii bar zad kyi / kun gii rnam par ses
pa fie bar ii ba ni rna yin no (YogtictirabhUmi,: zi 39a3-6).

(T. 1579: 593a1-4; see Schmithausen 272 n. 131).
149 'gog pa'i sfioms par 'jug pa ni ci yan med pa'i skye mched kyi 'dod chags dan bral
ba'i gnas pa'i 'du ses snon [corrected from mnon on the basis of the Derge and the Chi-
nese] du btan ba'i yid la byed pas min 'gog pa'i gnas skabs la'o / de yan rnam pa gsum
ste / no bo fiid las ni dge ba fiid yin no / gan zag las ni 'phags pa'i rgyud du gtogs te /
slob pa'i rgyud dam mi slob pa'i rgyud du gtogs pa yin no / skye ba las ni kun gii rnam
par ses pa rnam par rna giag ni dan por 'dir skyes cin / de'i og tu gzugs kyi khams su
mnon du byed do / mnon du byed pa ni gzugs kyi Ius la rag las pa yin pa'i phyir ro / kun
gii rnam par ses pa rnam par giag na ni mnon du byed pa thams cad du 'gro ba yin par
blta bar bya'o zi 76b2-5).
fiLo dtll::::fio E! ifE:t":9i;M-dt
ifEo HtM-iSWBl:mti:frio (T. 1579: 607b4-1O; see Schrnithausen 271 n. 131).
SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAK08ABHA.SYA 379
iiZayavijfiiina as an ultimate teaching, it does not seem umeasonable that
the author/compiler's comments on the three passages in the Vini.scaya-
sartzgrahmJl on the PaficavijfiiinakiiyamanobhUmi reflect his judgement
regarding the level at which their statements apply rather than, or as well
as, his understanding of the historical development of the relevant doc-
trines. Furthermore, the Sartzdhininnocanasutra contains the famous state-
ment that the Buddha did not teach iilayavijfiiina
150
to fools who might
mistake it for a soul (iitman).151 The Sartzdhininnocanasutra, which Lopez
(6) describes as providing for Yogacara the criteria for determining "what
constitutes the definitive (nftiirtha) and the interpretable (neyiirtha),"
implies that the doctrine of iilayavijfiiina, besides being dangerously diffi-
cult to understand, is a more definitive teaching than that of the tradi-
tional six ordinary types of consciousness. Although the main force of the
statement in the Sartzdhininnocanasutra is to explain why the crucial term
iilayavijfiiina cannot be found in the iigamas (scriptures), it also suggests
a reason for the limited use of the term in Y ogacara abhidhanna.
It is true that, in the context of Sarvastivada, abhidhanna is the defIni-
tive teaching. But early in the AbhidhannakosabhiioDJa, Vasubandhu dis-
tinguishes between abhidhanna in its ultimate meaning, i.e., pure wisdom,
and abhidhanna in a conventional sense, namely impure wisdom as well
as the siistras (doctrinal treatises) that result in the attainment of pure
wisdom.152 Furthermore, as is well known, Vasubandhu denies that the
abhidharma siistras are the words of the Buddha.
153
Therefore, from Vasu-
bandhu's point of view, although most of the Sarvastivadin abhidhanna
150 The text actually uses the near-synonym, adanavijfiana.
151 len pa'i mam par ses pa zab cin phra/ sa bon thams cad chu bo'j klun ltar 'bab /
bdag tu rtog par gyur na mi run ies / byis pa mams la laS ni de ma bstan (Lamotte
Salpdhinirmocana 58 [5.7]; Lamotte supplies the Sanskrit, presumably from the Trirrzsika-
adiinavijfiana / ogho yathii vanati sarvabfjo / biiliina mayi na
prakiisi / mii haiva atmii parikalpayeyulJ). See also the version of the sutra contained in
the ViniscayasarrzgrahalJi on the Bodhisattvabhumi (Yogiiciirabhilmi,: 'i 60al; T. 1579:
718c2-3). See note 138.
152 prajfia 'malii sanucarii 'bhidharmalJ tatra prajfia dharmapravicayalJ / amaleti aniis-
ravii / sanucareti sapariviirii / evam anasravalJ paficaskandhako 'bhidharma ity uktarrz
bhavati / tiivat piiramiirthiko 'bhidharmalJ / sarrzketikas tu tatpraptaye yiipi ca yac ca
sastram 2.3-6; La Vallee Poussin 1: 3-4).
153 atas tadhetos tasya dharmapravicayasyiinhe sastrii kila buddhelJabhidharma uktalJ
3.1; La Vallee Poussin 1: 5-6).
380 ROBERT KRITZER
that he describes without criticism in the is
conducive to pure wisdom, it is not necessarily a statement of all that is
known by pure wisdom.
In other words, the purview of the does not
include Mahayana teachings such as iilayavijfiiina. Vasubandhu accu-
rately describes his own work as abhidharma based in general on the
teaching of the KasmIra V Sarpghabhadra elaborates on this,
quoting Vasubandhu as saying that, in addition to teacl;1ings,
he has also taught a bit of another path.
I55
Sarpghabhadra gives as exam-
ples Vasubandhu' s statements about sa1?1-sthiinarilpa and the past and
future. We can speculate that Vasubandhu feels it necessary to correct
the V positions on these and other issues because they are irre-
trievably in conflict with his true beliefs. But rather than introducing terms
like iilayavijfiiina, totally alien to the abhidharma literature on which he
claims to rely, he appeals to concepts like bfja, which, on the one hand,
is not completely unknown in the traditional iigama, where metaphors
concerning seeds can be found,I56 and, on the other hand, can be explained
technically in terms familiar in an abhidharma context. 157
Finally, I must return to the term "Sautrantika," the significance of which
remains unclear. It would be nice to imagine that the siltras in question
are Mahayana siltras, particularly the Sa1?1-dhinirmocanasiltra, and that
Vasubandhu uses the term to signal a reliance on such works. However,
I have found no evidence to support such a fanciful theory. For now, I must
follow Yasomitra's explanation: "What is the meaning of sautriintika?
Those who take siltra as their authority, not siistra, are Sautrantikas." 158
At least some of Vasubandhu's opinions in the
154 prayel}a hi nftyadisiddha 'smabhir abhidharma akhyatal;!
450.1-2; La Vallee Poussin 5: 223).
155
(T. 1562:
775b20-23; La Vallee Poussin 5: 223 n. 1b).
156 See Jaini's introduction to the Abhidharmadfpa (second ed. 111); Rbys Davids and
Stede (488).
157 See, for example, Vasubandhu' s definition of bfja in the context of his denial of the
reality of prapti: kif!! punar idaf!! bfjaf!! nama / yan namari1paf!! phalotpattau samarthaf!!
paraf!!paryel}a va / 64.4-5).
158 kal;! Sautrantikiirthal;!. ye si1tra-priimiil}ikal;! na sastra-pramiil}ikiil;!. te Sautrantikal;!
(Abhidharmakosavyiikhya: 11.29-30).
whether or not they can be characterized as Y ogacara, contradict ortho-
dox for which the texts of the Sarvastivadin abhidharmapitaka
are authoritative. If Vasubandhu admitted that they are indeed authorita-
tive, he would not be able to criticize them as fundamentally as he does.
By siding with "those who take sutra as authority," he is free to reject that
with which he disagrees, implying that it has not been taught in the sutras.
On the other hand, he is still free to accept those Sarvastivadin opinions
with which he agrees. As Yasomitra makes clear, much of abhidharma
can be found in the sUtras, particularly ones like the Arthaviniscayasutra
that illuminate the characteristics of dharmas.
159
Furthermore, the sutras
can often be interpreted in more than one way. For example, the words
citta, manas, and vijiiiina are mentioned together in the Dlghanikiiya,160
apparently as synonyms, which is in fact the way that they are understood
by the But the Yogiiciirabhumi famously differentiates
them: vijiiiina refers to the six traditional forms of consciousness, manas
is and citta is iilayavijfiiina. If Vasubandhu's intention in the
is secretly to reinterpret abhidharma, it is perhaps
no wonder that he refers to his opinions as "Sautrantika."162
References
Primary Sources
Abhidharmadlpa with Vibhii-riiprabhiivrtti. Ed. P.S. Jaini. Tibetan Sanskrit Works
Series 4. Second edition. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute,
1973.
Abhidharmakosabhii-rya. Vasubandhu. Ed. P. Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Works
Series 8. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.
Abhidharmakosabhii-rJa. Vasubandhu. Peking Bstan 'gyur 5591 (mdo'grel gu).
159 sutre 'pi hy abhidharma-pi{akalJ pa{hyate. traipi{ako iti sutra-
eva lJy Arthaviniscayiidayo 'bhidharma-sarrzjiiiilJ vaTlJyate
(Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii: 11.32-12.1).
160 Yaii ca kho idarrz vuccati cittan ti vii mano ti vii viiiiiiilJan ti vii ayarrz attii nicco dhuva
sassato aviparilJiima-dhammo sassati-samarrz tath' eva thassatfti (Dighanikiiya: 21.20-23).
161 cittarrz mana 'tha vijiiiinam ekiirtharrz (Abhidhannakosa IT 34ab [Abhidhannakosa-
bhiirya: 61.20]).
162 See YogiiciirabhUmi: 11.3-8 (YogiiciirabhUmi,: dzi 6a8-b3; T. 1579: 280b5-8; Schmit-
hausen 117).
382 ROBERT KRITZER
(A-p'i-ta-mo chit-she lun
Trans. Hsiian-tsang. T. 1558.
(A-p'i-ta-mo chit-she-shih lun Vasu-
bandhu. Trans. Paramiirtha T. 1559.
Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii. Yasomitra. Ed. U. Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist
Bookstore, 1990. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: The Publishing Association
of the Abhidharma-kosa-vyiikhyii, 1932-1936).
Chit-she lun chi P'u-kuang fi7'{;. T. 1821.
Cha-she lun shu Fa-pao . T. 1822.
Dirghiigama (Ch'ang a-han ching T. 1.
Hsien-yang sheng-chiao lun T. 1602.
Mahiiyiina-sutriilarrzkiira. Ed. Sylvain Levi Tome I: Texte. Paris: Bibliotheque de
l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 1907.
*Nyiiyiinusiira (A-p'i-ta-mo shun cheng-Ii lun Sarp.gbabbadra.
T.1562.
Sal'{lgftiparyiiya (A-p'i-ta-mo chi i-men tsu lun T. 1536.
*Sal'{lyuktiibhidharmahrdaya (Tsa a-p'i-t'an hsin lun Dbarma-.
trata. T. 1552.
Sravakabhiimi. Ed. Karunesha Shukla. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 14. Patna:
K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1973.
*Tattvasiddhisiistra (Ch'eng shih lun Harivarman. T. 1646.
(A-p'i-ta-mo fa p'i-p'o-sha lun Trans. Hsiian-tsang.
T.1545.
(A-p'i-t'an p'i-p'o-sha lun Trans. Buddhavarman.
T.1546.
YogiiciirabhUmi. Ed. Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya. Part I. Calcutta: University
of Calcutta, 1957.
Yogiiciirabhumi:
MaulzbhUmi: Peking Bstan 'gyur 5536 (mdo 'grel dzi).
SravakabhUmi: Peking Bstan 'gyur 5537 (mdo 'grel wi).
VilJiscayasal'{lgraha1)z: Peking Bstan 'gyur 5539 (mdo 'grel zi).
Vastusal'{lgraha1)z: Peking Bstan 'gyur 5540 (mdo 'grel'i).
YogiiciirabhUmi (Yit-ch'ie-shih ti lun T. 1579.
Modem Works
Aramaki, Noritoshi. "Toward an Understanding of the Vijfiiiptimdtratii. " Wisdom,
Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: The Buddhist Studies Legacy
of Gadjin M. Nagao. Ed. Jonathan Silk. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i
Press, 2000. 39-60.
Cox, Collett. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Studia
Philologica Buddhica: Monograpb Series 11. Tokyo: The International Insti-
tute for Buddhist Studies, 1995.
SAVTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHAsYA 383
Fuku\Iara Ryogon honshU no kenkyu piiJA!J!m-m
.. Vol. 1. Kyoto: Nagata BunshOdo, 1973. 2 vols.
Hakamaya Noriaki "Pilrviicarya ko" Pilrvacarya ::i!f. Indogaku Bukkyo-
gaku Kenkyil 34/2 (1986): 93-100.
Harada Waso lIi{EElIDffi. "Digniiga no Hast(IlliilaprakaraTJa & Vrtti." Ryukoku
Daigaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyushitsu Nenpo 6 (1993): 92-110.
Hirakawa, Akira. A History of Indian Buddhismfrom Siikyamuni to Early Mahii-
yiina. Trans. and ed. Paul Groner. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.
Jaini, P.S. "The Sautrantika Theory of bija." Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies, University of London 22/2 (1959): 236-249.
Kato JunshO . Kyoryobu no kenkyu (Etude sur les Sautriin-
tika). Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1989.
Katsura, Shoryu. A Study of Harivarman 's Tattvasiddhi. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Toronto, 1974.
Kritzer, Robert. A Comparison of the (Chapters I-III)
and the Yogiiciirabhilmi. (Japanese Ministry of Education Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research C. Project Number 11610024.) Kyoto: privately printed,
2001.
"Preliminary Report on a Comparison of the and
the YogiiciirabhUmi." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyil49/1 (200): 8-12.
-. Rebirth and Causation in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma. Wiener Studien zur
Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 44. Wien: Arbeitskreis flir Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien, Universitat Wien, 1999.
"Unthinkable Matters: the Term acintya in the in
Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought: In Honor of Doctor Hajime
Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh Birthday. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 2002.
65-86.
"Vasubandhu on salflskiirapratyayalfl vijiiiinam." Journal of the Interna-
tional Association of Buddhist Studies 16/1 (1993): 24-55.
La Vallee Poussin, Louis de. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. 6 vols. New
edition. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 16. Bruxelles: Institut BeIge des
Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1971. Reprint (First edition: Louvain: J.B. Istas,
1923-1931).
Lamotte, Etienne. Histoire du bouddhisme indien: des origines a l'ere Saka.
Bibliotheque Museon 43. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1958.
-. History of Indian Buddhism. Trans. Sara Webb-Boin. Publications de I'In-
stitut Orientaliste de Louvain 36. Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite Catholique
de Louvain, 1988.
-. KarmasiddhiprakaraTJa: The Treatise on Action by Vasubandhu. Trans. Leo
M. Pruden. n.p.: Asian Humanities Press, 1987.
-. Sal'fldhinirmocana Sutra. Louvain: Universite de Louvain, 1935.
-. La Somme du Grand Vihicule D'Asanga. Louvain: Universite de Louvain,
1973.
384 ROBERT KRITZER
-. Traite de la Demonstration de L'Acte (edition and French translation of Kar-
masiddhiprakaralJa). Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 4 (1935-36).
Lopez, Donald S., ed. Buddhist Hermeneutics. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1993.
Reprint (First edition: University of Hawaii Press, 1988).
Miyashita Seiki "Kusharon ni okeru hon mu kon u ron no haikei" r m
Bukkyogaku Seminii 44 (1986): 7-37.
Mizuno K5gen 7./'<Jf5t.7C. "Hiyushi to Jojitsuron" Komaza-
wadaigaku Bukkyo Gakkai nenpo 1 (1930): 134-156.
Nishi Giyii Abidatsuma bukkyo no kenkyu Tokyo:
Kokusho kank5 kai, 1975.
Rhys Davids, T.W. and William Stede. The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dic-
tionary. London: The Pali Text Society, 1972. Reprint (First edition 1921-
1925).
Rospatt, Alexander von. The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness. Institut fUr Kul-
tur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets an der Universitat Hamburg, Alt- und
Neu-Indische Studien 47. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995.
Saeki Kyokuga Kando Abidatsumakusharon
3 vols. Kyoto: H6z6kan, 1978.
Schmithausen, Lambert. Alayavijiiiina. 2 vols. Studia Philologica Buddhica:
Monograph Series IV. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Stud-
ies, 1987.
Van den Broeck, Jose. La Saveur de l'Immortel (A-p'i-t'an Kan Lu Wei Lun).
Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 15. Louvain-la-Neuve:
Universire Catholique de Louvain, 1977.
Wayman, Alex. Analysis of the Sriivakabhumi Manuscript. University of Cali-
fornia Publications in Classical Philology 17. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press, 1961.
Yamabe Nobuyoshi "An Shigao as a Precursor of the Yogiicara Tradi-
tion: A Preliminary Study." Watanabe Takao Kyoju kanrekikinen ronshU:
Bukkyoshiso bunkashi ronso :
Kyoto: Nagata BunshOd6, 1997.785-826.
'5efugashichiron ni okeru zenaku inka setsu no issokumen" I;::S
.Q O)-jJllJoo. Nihon Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo 65 (2000): 127-146.
Yamaguchi Susumu and Funahashi Issai Kusharon no Genten
Kaimei, Seken-bon : iltlYf&lr. Kyoto: H6z6kan, 1955.
REPORT ON THE XIIITH CONFERENCE OF THE IABS
OSKAR VON HlNOBER
I. Report on the Conference
The conference was held on the beautiful premises of the Chulalongkom
(Cii4alaqllcara) University in Bangkok between 8
th
and 13
th
December
2002. It was well attended with 214 participants from 28 countries, with
a majority of participants coming from Japan, the United States, Thailand,
England and Germany.
The conference began on 8
th
December (Sunday) with registration
and a greeting party in the traditional Thai Pavilion of the University.
The opening session on Monday 9
th
December was graciously presided
over by HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhom, who also opened
the conference with her address. The opening meeting was first
addressed. by the president of the hosting institution, Chulalongkom
University, Prof. Dr. Tatchai Sumitra followed by the president of
IABS, Prof. Dr. Colette Caillat. A Buddhist benediction was conveyed
via video by the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, HH Somdech Phra
Nyanasamvara followed by a video address by. the Venerable Phra
Dhammapitaka. The plenary lecture was delivered by Paul Harrison
on "Relying on the Dharma and not on the Person: Reflections on
Authority and Transmission in Buddhism and Buddhist Studies".
All contributions were either read within one of the 24 sections or
within the following 17 panels:
1. Jonathan Silk: Vinaya, Monastic Life and Economics
2. Robert Oimello: The Practice of Scripture Commentary in Medieval
Chinese Buddhism
3. Prapod Assavavirulhakam: Words of Power in Theory and Practice
4. Florin Deleanu / Toshinori Ochiai: New Discoveries of Buddhist
Manuscripts in Japan
386 OSKAR VAN HINDBER
5. Robert Kritzer: Sautrantika Reconsidered
6. Pierre Pichard: The Buddhist Monastery: Sharing Roles among
Sangha, King and Laity
7. Ronald Davidson: Medieval Indian Buddhist Culture, 7
th
to 9
th
cen-
turies
8. Richard Salomon: Further Discoveries and Studies of Gandharan
Buddhist Manuscripts
9. Max Deeg: Chinese Pilgrim Monks in India and their Impa,ct on
Buddhist Studies
10. Mahinda Deegalle: Indigenous Buddhist Preaching Traditions in Asia
11. Haiyan Hu-von Hiniiber: Buddhist Studies in China: Tripiraka and
Monastery
12. Michael Zimmermann: Buddhism and Violence
13. Shoryu Katsura / Tom Tillemans: Buddhist Logic
14. Pattaratom Chirapravati: Expressions of Buddhism in Pre-modem
South and South-east Asia
15. Charles Muller: The Changing of the Medium: Trends and Models
in Digital-Based Buddhist Research (Plenary Panel)
16. Louis Gabaude: Preaching and Teaching the Buddha's Message
within Modernity: Evolution and Diversity of Forms
17. Jens Braarvig / Jens-Uwe Hartmann: Buddhist Manuscripts: Recent
Finds
The following 19 topics were discussed within the 26 sections,
sections 23 and 26 being devoted to miscellaneous subjects:
1. Ritual Buddhism
2. Aspects of Tibetan Buddhism
3. Narrative and Performance I, II
4. Pramal).a
5. Bodhisattvacara
6. The W orId of Theravada I, II
7. Sutras and Sastras I, II
8. Language and Commentary I, II
9. Meditation and Psychology
10. Korean and Japanese Buddhism
11. Archaeology of South Asian Buddhism
REPORT ON THE :xmrn CONFERENCE OF THE IABS 387
12. Buddhist anq. Indian Philosophy
13. Buddhist Ethics in the Modem World
14. Theory and Practice in Tibetan Buddhism
15. Ideology and Iconography I, IT
16. Textual Practices and Interpretation
17. Studies in Poetry, Narrative and Music
18. Hagiography and History
19. Buddhist Philosophy
In the evening of Tuesday (10
th
) Prof. Visudh Busyakul introduced
the edition of the Theravada Tipitilca prepared on the auspicious occasion
of His Majesty The King's 75
th
birthday with a special lecture on "The
B.E. 2500 Great International Buddhist Council Pili Canon Roman Script
B. E. 2545 (C.E. 2002)". This was followed by a reception.
The participants had the opportunity to attend a traditional recitation of the
Vessantarajataka on Monday (9
th
evening), and on Tuesday (10
th
morning),
a Buddhist ceremony was organized for early risers. The excursion on
Wednesday afternoon (11th) to the capital of old Siam, Ayuthaya, was
well attended and ended with a magnificiant dinner by the river.
The conference was closed with a formal dinner at the Imperial Queen's
Park Hotel presided over by HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhom. This
occasion was a most appropriate farewell after a conference which ran
smoothly in a most agreable atmosphere due to the highly successful
efforts of local organizers, first of all Dean Mom Rachavong Kalaya
Tingsabadh and her staff, Prof. Prapod and Peter Skilling as the regional
secretary of IABS.
2. Report on the Meeting of the Board of Directors on Monday,
9
th
December.
The Board of Directors met on 9
th
December between 18.15 and 19.20
hours. The discussions continued afterwards over dinner.
1. The proceedings of the business meeting were prepared.
2. As Treasurer, Prof. Dr. C. Scherrer-Schaub, reported on IABS:
The number of members has risen sharply from 380 members at the
end of the Lausanne conference (see report in JIABS 23. 2000,
388 OSKAR VAN HINUBER
pp. 155-157) to currently 690. Quite a few new members enrolled
during the conference.
As the finances of IABS devdoped in a very satisfactory way and the
costs of administration remained at a low level, there is no need to
change the membership fee.
The General Secretary thanked Prof. Scherrer-Schaub for her highly
successful handling of the IABS finances.
3. It was considered to transfer the legal seat of IABS from Wisconsin
to Lausanne for practical reasons.
4. The last sentence in article ill (a) of the constitution of lABS needs
to be rephrased in such a way that it is made clear that all members
(not only ordinary members) of good standing have the right to receive
JIABS (as they actually do).
5. As it had been agreed previously, the next IABS conference will be
held in London at the School of Oriental and African Studies from
28
th
August to 4th September 2005.
6. There are preliminary invitations for conferences at Peking and at
Nalanda, where the IInd Conference was held in 1980. It was agreed
to leave a decision to the next board, because the dates are still far
ahead in the future.
7. HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn was elected and graciouly
accepted the honorary membership of IABS. Furthermore, Raniero
Gnoli, Ji Xian-lin; Awadh Kishore Narain, Erik Zurcher were elected
as honorary members.
3. Report on the Closing Session and Business Meeting.
The president opened the business meeting, which preceded the
farewell dinner, at 17.40 hours on Friday (13
th
). It was attended by
only 47 participants.
1. The president commemorated the deceased honorary member Akira
Hirakawa (t 31.3.2002).
2. The president gave a brief account on IABS.
3. The result of the elections for the IABS board (1.1.2003-31.12.2006)
was announced:
REPORT ON THE XJIITII CONFERENCE OF THE lABS 389
PRESIDENT: ,. Takasaki; VICE-PRESIDENT: E. Steinkellner
GENERAL SECRETARY: T. J. F. Tillemans- (current address of IABS:
Section de langues orientales, Universite de Lausanne, BFSH 2,
1015 Lausanne, Swizerland)
TREASURER: Jerome Ducor
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: N. Balbir; G. Dreyfus; R. M. Gimello;
J. Gyatso; O.v. Hiniiber; S. Katsura; Kuo Li-ying; K. Matsuda;
Richard Salomon; L. Schmithausen; D. Seyfort Ruegg; Peter
Skilling. - The editors of JIABS will continue.
4. The names of the elected honorary members were announced.
5. The president thanked the local organizers.
6. The organizers reported on the conference and suggested to publish
the list of participants on the internet (not done).
7. U. Pagel gave brief explanations on the London conference in 2005,
which will be accompanied by an exhibition organized by the British
Library.
8. The General Secretary thanked Prof. C. Caillat as outgoing president.
9. Thanking all participants for their contributions to the conference,
the president closed the meeting and the conference at 17.55 hours.
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BUDDHIST STUDIES
CRISTINA SCHERRER-SCHAUB
Treasurer's Report 2001
Beginning Balance
Income
Dues and Subscriptions,
Back Issues and Donations
Total Income
CHF 37'939.53
46'580.92
84'520.45
Expenses
Typesetting vol. 23.2
Printing vol. 23.2
Postage vol. 23.2
Typesetting vol. 24.1
Storage Costs
CHF 4'180.00
Negatives Transfer to Lausanne
Postage (particular sendings)
Office Costs
Bank Costs
Total Expenses
Subtotal
Currency Exchange Loss
Final Balance
Converted in USD (1.00/1.6732)
Comments
CHF
USD
-20'857.81
63'662.64
438.63
63'224.01
37'786.29
5'631.52
1'902.36
3'684.00
1'415.39
1'980.28
1'821.30
133.00
109.96

The report has been drawn up in Swiss francs, the [mal balance being then
converted into US dollars, at the December 31,2001 exchange rate. The
figures should be interpreted as follows:
392 CRISTINA SCHERRER-SCHAUB
The number of members in the lABS is still noticeably increasing.
Several members paid their dues for two or sometimes three years in
advance. The positive balance is thus not to be taken as simply an annual
result.
The currency exchange loss is due to the difference of USD/CHF rates
between the beginning and the final balance. The income and expenses
in USD were calculated at the December :31,2001 rate (1.00/1.6732).
The Elisabeth de Boer Fund of the University of Lausanne pai<;l the
salary of a part time assistant; the University provided the necessary
workspace and infrastructure.
Lausanne, July 31, 2003
Signed: Cristina Scherrer-Schaub
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BUDDHIST STUDIES
CRISTINA SCHERRER-SCHAUB
Treasurer's Report 2002
Beginning Balance
Income
Dues and Subscriptions,
Back Issues and Donations
Total Income
CHF 63'224.01
37'146.48
100'370.49
Expenses
Printing vol. 24.1
Postage vol. 24.1
Storage End Costs
JIABS vol. 24.2
CHF 6'732.10
Postage (Usual and Particular)
Assistant Salary (Nov. OllMar. 02)
Office Costs
Bank Costs
Total Expenses
Subtotal
Currency Exchange Loss
Final Balance
Converted in USD (1:00/1.3825)
Comments
CHF
USD
-25'618.31
74'752,18
8'009.00
66'743.18
48'277.17
1'193.69
967.09
8'344.58
3'649.95
3'671.20
889.10
170.60
25'618.31
The report has been drawn up in Swiss francs, the final balance being
then converted into US dollars, at the December 31 2002 exchange rate.
The figures should be interpreted as follows:
The number of members in the lABS is still noticeably increasing.
Several members paid their dues for two or sometimes three years in
394 CRISTINA SCHERRER-SCHAUB
advance. The positive balance is thus not to be taken as simply an annual
result.
From vol. 24.2 of JIABS on, both the typesetting and printing have
been done by the same printing company, Peeters in Leuwen, at a more
reasonable price.
The currency exchange loss is due to the difference between
the USD/CHF exchange rates of December 31, 2001 (1.00/1.6732) and
December 312002 (1.00/1.3825). The income and expenses in USD ,were
calculated at the December 31, 2002 rate.
The University of Lausanne paid most of the salary for a part-time
assistant and provided the necessary workspace and infrastructure.
The detailed version of the treasurer's final report was checked by the
accountant of the Faculty of Letters of the University.
Lausanne, July 31, 2003
Signed: Cristina Scherrer-Schaub
NOlES ON THE CONTRIBUTORS
Robert KRITZER is Associate Professor at Kyoto Notre Dame Univer-
sity. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley,
in 1995. His major fields of interest are abhidhcmna and early Yogacara.
He is the author of Rebirth and Causation in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma.
His publications include a comprehensive comparison of the Abhidharma-
and the Yogiiciirabhiimi.
Nobuyoshi YAMABE is Professor of Bioethics and Foreign Languages
at Tokyo University of Agriculture. He received his Ph.D. from Yale Uni-
versity in 1999 with a dissertation entitled: The Sutra on the Ocean-Like
Samiidhi of the Visualization of the Buddha: The Interfusion of the Chi-
nese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected in a Fifth Century
Apocryphal Sutra. His research interests include Y ogacara philosophy and
Buddhist meditation/visualization.
Takumi FUKUDA is a tenured Assistant Professor of Buddhist Studies
at Doho University in Nagoya, Japan.
Bart DESSElN is Professor at Ghent University, Department of Languages
and Cultures of South and East Asia. He obtained his Ph.D. in 1994 from
Ghent University on the TsaA-p'i-t'an Hsin Lun, Srup.ghavarman's Chi-
nese translation of Dharmatrata's *Sa7{lyuktiibhidharmahrdaya (T.1552).
He has published mainly on Sarviistivada philosophy.
Yoshifumi HONJo, formerly Professor at Kobe Women's University, is the
head priest at Anjin-in temple in Kyoto. He is the author of A Table of
Agama Citations in the and the Abhidharma-
Kyoto, 1984.
ERRATA IN THE JOURNAL OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUDDHIST STUDIES
VOL. 26, NR. 1,2003
Some errors occurred in the previous issue of the Journal and should
be corrected.
1. The author's name of the "In Memoriam, Professor Akira Hirakawa"
was misspelt and should read "Kotatsu FUTITA". We should also
inform our readership that the author is Professor Emeritus at
Hokkaido University in Sapporo, Japan.
Other errata in this article:
p. 4, 1. 1: read "prolific" instead of "polific".
p. 4, 1. 8: read "kairitsu" instead of "karitsu".
p. 5, l. 5: read "though" instead of "through".
p. 5, l. 33: read "Bhikuni-ritsu" instead of "Bikuni-Ritsu".
The capitalization of Japanese references was also inconsistent on a
few occasions.
2. The running head of the article by Colette Caillat should read
"Gleanings from a Comparative Reading".
Our apologies for these unfortunate errors.
The Editors nABS.
The International Association of Buddhist Studies
Jikido Takasaki
President
Ernst Steinkellner
Vice-President
Tom Tillemans
General Secretary
Jerome Ducor
Treasurer
Regional Representatives:
Janet Gyatso (Cambridge, MA, USA)
Kazunobu Matsuda (Kyoto)
David Seyfort Ruegg (London)
Peter Skilling (Bangkok)
Directors at large:
Nalini Balbir (paris), Colette Caillat (paris),
Georges Dreyfus (Williamstown, MA), Robert M. Gimello (Cambridge, MA),
Oskar von Hiniiber (Freiburg), ShOryii Katsura (Hiroshima),
Liying Kuo (Paris), Richard Salomon (Seattle),
Lambert Schmithausen (Hamburg)
The International Association of Buddhist Studies, founded in 1976, is devoted to
promoting and supporting scholarship in Buddhist Studies in all its aspects, past and
present, around the world. Membership is open to scholars of all academic disciplines.
Membership dues are USD 40 for full members, USD 20 for student members,
USD 1000 for life members. Subscriptions to the JIABS for libraries and other institu-
tions are USD 70. Dues and subscriptions may be paid in the following ways:
1. by direct bank to bank transfers in US dollars or in the equivalent amount in
Euros or Swiss francs. The transfers should be to the lABS accounts at the Banque
Cantonale Vaudoise, PI. St-Franyois, Ch-1001 Lausanne, Switzerland (SWIFT CODE:
BCVLCH2L, clearing no. 7677), account numbers, 983.51.04 for US dollars,
5042.09.82 for EUR and 983.51.02 for Swiss francs.
2. by Visa or Mastercard
3. by cheque payable to the "Association Internationale d'Etudes Bouddhiques
(IABS)." There will be no supplementary charges for cheques drawn in Swiss
currency on Swiss banks. Otherwise, please add 10 dollars or 15 Swiss francs to cover
our processing charges.
4. by Eurocheque in Swiss francs.
Prospective members from developing countries may contact the Treasurer concerning
subsidized membership rates. Dues and SUbscriptions are payable per calendar year
by December 31 of the previous year. Payments other than direct bank transfers should
be sent to Dr. J er6me Ducor, Section de langues et civilisations orientales, Universite
de Lausanne, BFSH 2, CH-l 015 Lausanne, Switzerland.

Jiabs 26-2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jiabs 26-2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

JIABS

Journal of the International

Potrebbero piacerti anche