Asvabhva's
and
Sthiramati's
Commentaries
on the MSA,
XIV, 34-35
Noriaki
Hakamaya
In order to determine the influence of Asanga on the historical development of Yogacara thought, it is necessary to collect and examine the passages of his works quoted by his followers. However, with the exception of the quotations from Asariga's works in the Ch'eng-wei-shih-lun, l) such passages have hardly been pointed out by scholars in this field. This paper is a mere report to make up for the lack.
The verses 30-35 of the Mahayanasutralamkara (MSA), XIV deal with the
subject of darsana-marga-laksana-vyavasthana according to the Pindartha of
Jnanasri, 2) among which the verses 34, 35ab and 35cd3) refer to the respective vimoksa-mukha of sunyata, animitta and apranihita. Both Asvabhava and Sthiramati quote the same passages from Asanga's works in their commentaries on the verses 34cd and 35ab. One is from the Mahayanasamg raha (MS) and the other from the Abhid harmasamuccaya (AS). So we are going to show below the quotations in the Mahayanasutralamkaratika (MSA T) of Asvabhava and the Sutralamkaravrttibhasya (SAVBh) of Sthiramati, and to compare them with Asanga's works.
A) MSAT and SAVBh ad MSA, XIV, 34cd
1) MSAT4): dehi (-de bshin Rid kyi) no bo hid kyan gan she na/kun nas* brtags pahi gn"is med pahi no bo gan yin pa sans rgyas dan byan chub sems dpah rnams kyi so so ran gis rig par byahi gnas skabs bstan du med cin bsam gyis mi khyab pa rtog gehi spyod yul las yan dag par hdas pa ste/ji skad du Theg pa chen po bsdus pa las/chos kyi sku de bshin Rid kyi mtshan Rid ni bsam gyis mi khyab pahi mtshan Rid de/de bshin hid de ni hjig rten na dpe med pahi phyir dan/
Asvabhava's and Sthiramati's Commentaries (N. Hakamaya) (13) rtog gehi spyod yul ma yin pahi phyir so so ran gis rig par bya ba yin no//shes brad pa lta bus) * om. in D.
2) SAVBh6): de la stop pa nid kyi ran bshin ni de bshin Rid kyi mtshan nid del de yan kun to brtags pahi ran bshin dan bral bahi no bo yin pas gnis dan bral bahi ran bshin stop pa Rid de nil sans rgyas dan byan chub sems dpah rnams kyis so so* ran gis** rig par bya ba bstan du med pa bsam gyis mi khyab pal rtog ge pahi spyod yul las hdas pahi ran bshin tel de ltar khon du chud pa ni*** ran bshin gyis stop par ses pa shes byaho//de bas na Theg pa chen po bsdus pahi bstan bcos las kyan/
chos kyi sku ni bsams gyis mi khyab pahi mtshan nid de/de yan ran bshin Rid kyi mtshan Rid do//de bshin Rid de ni so so ran gis rig pa dan/hjig rten na dpe med pa dan/rtog gehi spyod yul las hdas pa**** na***** bsam gyis mi. khyab par rig par byaho shes bsad do5)//
* sor in D. ** gi in P. *** na in D. **** om. in D. ***** nas in D.
3) MS7): sans rgyas rnams kyi chos kyi sku mtshan hid... lnar rig par bya ste/... bsam gyis mi khyab pa, i mtshan Rid ni de bshin Rid rnam par dag pa de so so ran gis rig par bya ba dan/hjig rten na dpe med pa dan/rtog ge pahi spyod yul ma yin pahi phir roll
Each quotation in the MSA T, and the SA VBh is considerably different from the MS, and the quotations themselves are also a little different from each other. Such differences seem to result from that both Asvabhava and Sthira-mati extract the meaning from the MS and set forth its gist, and from the f act that these commentaries were translated. into Tibetan by different men.8)
B) MSAT and SAVBh ad MSA, XIV, 35ab
1) MSA T9): gan du rnam par rtog pa yan dag par zad pa de ni gshi shes bya ste/ji skad du Chos mason pa kun las btus pa last hgog pahi mtshan hid las ji ltar ses par bya she na/gan du hgog par hgyur ba de bshin nid dan/gan gis hgags* par hgyur ba lam dan/, hgag pa gan yin pa non mops pa mi skye baho shes brad pa lta bu ste/* hgag in D.
2) SAVBhlO): de la rnam par rtog pa ni yod pa dan med pa dan*/gzugs dan sgra la sogs pahi** rnam par rtog pa nas mya nan las hdas pahi bar du rnam par rtog pa ste/rnam par rtog pa de*** thams cad zad pahi rnam par rtog pa kun dan bral bahi de bshin Rid hgog pahi bden pa la byal duos pohi sgras ni dmigs par bya
bahi yul la bya ste/de bshin Rid hgog pahi bden pa ni mtshan ma med pahi tin he hdsin gyis dmigs sin de ses par byed do shes bya bahi don to//dehan mtshan ma med pahi tin he hdsin gyis ni store pa Rid hgog pahi bden pa ste gzugs dan sgra****
la sogs pahi mtshan ma thams cad dare bral bar ses so//de bas na m7Ton pahi chos bsdus pahi bstan bcos las kyan/hgog pahi bden pahi mtshan Rid ji ltar ses par bya she na/de ni gan du hgags pa dan/gan gis hgags pa dan/ji ltar hgags pa ses par bya ste/gan du hgags se na de bshin nid***** du hgags so//gan gis hgags
se****** na lam gyi bden pas hgags so//gan hgags se na rnam par rtog pa la sogs pahi n"on mops pa hgags so shes bsad do//* med pa dan om. in P. ** par in
P. *** om. in D. **** dan sgra om. in P. ***** om. in D. P. *****-t S'es in P.
3) AS11): hgog pahi bden pa gan she na/mtshan Rid dan... mtshan Rid kyis ji lta bu she na/de bshin Rid dan/lam dan/non mops pa mi hbyun ba ste/gan du hgog pa dan/gan gis hgog pa dan/gan hgog paho//bcom ldan hdas kyis ji skad du/... shes gsuns pa ltal bubo//yan gsuns pal... sheho*/l rnam gratis hdis ni** de bshin Rid la dmigs pa gan du zad pa dan bcas pahi duos po hgag*** pa de hgog pahi mtshan Rid doll * sties in P. ** na in D. *** hgags in P.
In this case, there are also the differences of the same kind as the former. The difference between the Tibetan titles, Chos mason pa kun las btus pa and m1Von pahi chos bsd us pa is not that of the original, but both titles are equi-valent for the Abhi d harmasamuccaya. dPal brtsegs, the translator of the MS-AT, was contemporary with but younger than Ye ses sde, the translator of the AS, and they seem to have been active in translating before and after the time of skad gsar chad (814 A. D.), while iCe bkra sis, the translator of the SAVBh12) which is not recorded in the Man dkar ma13) (824 A. D.14)), seems to have engaged in translation work after 824 A. D. though his lifetime be-longes to the period of sna dar according to the Deb ther snon po.15) The diffe-rences in the way of translation between them must reflect these circums-tances.
Each passage in the MSAT and the SAVBh quote concisely the AS, which suggests that the former are the digest of the latter. The digest as well as the AS states clearly the characteristic of ni rod ha-satya from the three aspects, 16) i. e. tathata (yasyam nirodhah), marga (yena nirodhah) and klesanutpada (yo ni-rodhah) . Among them, the tathata in which the ni rod ha is realized has the
most essential characteristic as the basis (pada) of animitta-samadhi. There-fore, both Asvabhava and Sthiramati quote the passage from the AS as the authority for their interpretation of animitta-pada.
We have pointed out and examined quotations from Asanga's works, though they are not sufficient to determine his influence on Asvabhava and Sthiramati. But it is at least certain that both Asvabhava and Sthiramati have interpreted the MSA in the same tradition17) and have accordingly quoted the same passages from the MS and the AS of Asafiga in their interpretation on the verses 34cd
and 35ab. (Aug. 1st, 1978)
1) Ex., S. Katsumata, A Study of the Citta-Vijn"ana Thought in Buddhism (in Japanese) (Tokyo, 1961), pp. 122-145. Also see E. Frauwallner, Die Philosophie des Buddhismus (Berlin, 1958), pp. 394-407, where he puts Asanga in a different lineage from Sthiramati on the basis of the statement in the lun.
2) P. ed., No. 5533, Tshi, 18a3. See J. Nozawa, "On the Sutralamkarapindartha of Jnanasri (in Japanese)", Bukkyokenkyu, 2-2 (1938), p. 135.
3) S. Levi ed., pp. 94-95.
4) P. ed., No. 5530, Bi, 128b8-129a3, D. ed., No. 4029, Bi, 114b5'7. 5) Following this quotation, both mention the Ratnameghasutra. 6) P. ed., No. 5531, Mi, 307a4-7, D. ed., No. 4034, Mi, 275a1-3.
7) E. Lamotte ed., X, 3-5, pp. 84-85. Cf. MSBh: Taisho ed., Vol. 31, pp. 252a-b, 313c, 371c (This part is missing from the Tib. tr.) ; MSU: Taisho ed., p. 437b,
P. ed., No. 5552, Li, 334a7-b', D. ed., No. 4051, Ri, 277a4-5.
8) MS is tr. by Ye ses sde while MSAT is by dPal brtsegs and SAVBh is by 1Ce bkra sis.
9) P. ed., op. cit., 129b4-6, D. ed., op. cit., 115a1-2. 10) P. ed., op. cit., 307b1-6, D. ed., op. cit., 275a5-b'.
11) P. ed., No. 5550, Li, 107b4-108a2, D. ed., No. 4049, Ri, 47 (90)b2-6, Taisho ed., Vol. 31, 681c. This passage is missing from the Fragments ed. by V. V. Gokhale,
and is not mentioned by ASBh.
12) Bu ston, Chos hbyuh, Satapitaka, Vol. 64, f. 953 (Ya, 161a)4-5: "mDo sde rgyan gyi hgrel brad chen po slob dpon Blo brtan gyis mdsad par grags pa bam po drug cu 1Ce bkra sis kyi hgyur/".
13) Man dkar ma, Yoshimura, No. 627 consists of 10 bam pos and 270 slokas, and No. 628 of 12 bam pos, which are corresponding with P. ed., No. 5527 and No. 5530 respectively. So SAVBh consisting of 60 bam pos is not recorded in this
catalogue.
14) Z. Yamaguchi, " A Chronological Research for the History of Buddhism in the
吐 蕃 Dynsty(in Japanese)", Naitn Bukkyo Kenkysho Kiyo, No. 3(19T8),
pp. 1-52. Here I follow him rather than G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist Text, Pt. II, p. 48.
15) Satapitaka, Vol. 212, f. 317 (Ja, 4a)6'7: G. Roerich, The Blue Annals, I, p. 359. 16) The three aspects of nirodha-satya in AS is translated uncritically by W.
hula (p. 99) into French: "C'est la non-apparition (anutpada) des souillures (klesa) dans le noble sentier (aryamarga) de la quiddite (tathata)" on the basis of the Sanskrit restoration (tathatayam aryamarge klesanam anutpadah) by P. Pradhan (p. 62). But the translation: "dans le noble sentier de la quiddite" should be rected at least into "par le noble sentier dans la quiddite".
17) Cf., my article, "Asvabhava's Commentary on the Mahayanasutralamkara IX. 56-76", JIBS, XX-1 (1971), pp. 473-465.
