4）NyA, T, vol. 29, 396c5–11: 無色法中已弁心心所．今次当弁心不相応行．頌曰，心不相応 行，得非得同分，無想二定命，相名身等類．論曰，等者等取句身文身及和合性．類者顕余 所計度法．即前種類．謂有計度離得等有蘊得等性．Cf. AKBh, p. 62, ll. 11–13.
Abbreviations and Primary Sources
AKBh Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu. Ed. Prahlad Pradhan. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1976.
MMA Li Xuezhu 李学竹, and Kanō Kazuo 加納和雄, eds. “Bonbun kōtei Muni ishu shōgon dai isshō (fol. 48r4–58r5): Chūgan goun-ron ni motozuku issaihō no kaisetsu” 梵文校訂『牟尼意趣荘 厳』第一章（fol. 48r4–58r5）:『中観五蘊論』にもとづく一切法の解説. Mikkyō bunka 密 教文化 234 (2015): 7–44.
MPSk Phuṅ po lṅa’i rab tu byed pa (Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa). D no. 3866 ya 239b1–266b7, P no. 5267 ya 273b6–305b5.
NyA Apidamo Shun zhengli lun 阿毘達磨順正理論 (*Nyāyānusāra). T, vol. 29, no. 1562.
PSkV Sthiramati’s Pañcaskandhakavibhāṣā. Ed. Jowita Kramer. Beijing: China Tibetology Research Center; Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 2013.
Secondary Sources
Cox, Collett. 1995. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series XI. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.
Uryūzu Ryūshin 瓜生津隆真. 1978. “Chūgan-gakuha ni okeru Abidaruma: Gesshō zō Goun-ron kanken” 中観学派におけるアビダルマ: 月称造『五蘊論』管見. In vol. 3 of Sanzōshū 三藏集, ed. Serikawa Hiromichi 芹川博通, 185–192. Tokyo: Daitō Shuppannsha.
Yokoyama Takeshi. 2015. “A Reconstruction of the Sanskrit Title of Candrakīrti’s Phuṅ po lṅa’i rab tu byed pa: With Special Attention to the Term ‘rab tu byed pa.’” IBK 63 (3): 208–212.
Key words Candrakīrti, 月称, Madhyamakapañcaskandhaka, 中観五蘊論, cittaviprayuktasaṃskāra, 心不相応行
（Graduate Student, Kyoto University）
A Preliminary Survey on a Sanskrit Manuscript Folio
of an Unknown Commentary to the
Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī from Tibet
Choi Jin-kyoung
1. Introduction
In August 2012, at the 5th Beijing International Seminar on Tibetan Studies, Prof. Ye Shaoyong 葉少勇 at Peking University presented a preliminary report on newly identified Sanskrit manuscripts in Tibet. Among the identified manuscripts, such as the
Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti,1) Sūtrālaṃkārapiṇḍārtha, Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya, and so forth, there are two folios of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī (VinS) section in the Yogācārabhūmi (YBh) and a single folio of a so-far unknown commentary of the same text. On the request to include these three folios into a new project on the manuscript fragments of the VinS, Prof. Ye kindly gave his permission and generously provided the digital images of these three folios.2) In this paper, a transliteration and a preliminary edition of the beginning part (recto 1–6) of an unknown commentary of the VinS will be introduced along with corresponding VinS texts, its Tibetan and Chinese translations, and some brief analytical remarks on its contents.
2. A Folio of an Unknown Commentary of the VinS
2.1. Location, Origin, and Physical Description of the Folio
The microfilms Ye utilized in his research belong to the Research Institute of Sanskrit Manuscripts and Buddhist Literature at Peking University.3) The newly identified folios of Sanskrit manuscripts were found from bundle no. 15 to 17 of the Collection of Sanskrit Manuscripts formerly preserved in the China Ethnic Library (Zhongguo Minzu Tushuguan 中国民族図書館). Based on Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana’s catalogues, Ye assumes these three bundles are most probably from Zhalu Monastery. According to Ernst
Steinkellner’s information, the manuscripts from Zhalu might have already been brought to Potala in 1959 and a collection of ca. 250 manuscripts were sent to the China Ethnic Library as a loan from the “Tibetan Government” in 1961. This manuscript collection was returned to Tibet in 1993 and is currently preserved in Lhasa’s Tibet Museum.4)
This single folio of an unknown commentary to the VinS is a palm-leaf manuscript, written in Proto-Nāgarī script (8–9th century CE). Both sides are comprised of six lines divided into three columns by two string holes. The quality of the microfilm image is rather poor, which makes it difficult to decipher several parts of the manuscript. Its folio number 12 is found on the left margin of the verso side, indicating that this folio is a commentary to a part of the VinS relatively near its beginning.
2.2. Contents of the VinS’s Commentary Folio
Ye has already indicated Tibetan and Chinese correspondences of the beginning part of the VinS that is commented upon in the text of this single folio as follows: Tib. D. no. 4038, zhi 8b6–9b5, Chi. T 30: 582a4–b3. The beginning part of the VinS has been introduced in Hakamaya Noriaki’s critical edition of Tibetan and Chinese texts and his Japanese translation.5) This manuscript folio is a commentary to the VinS text found in paragraph II6) and III7) of Hakamaya’s edition and the one a little after the Hakamaya’s edition ends. The contents of this manuscript folio can be divided into three parts as follows:
r1–r6 Four propositions (catuṣkoṭika) regarding the co-existence (sahabhāva) of
ālayavijñāna and pravṛttivijñāna (Hakamaya ed. §II)
r6–v4 The reasons why only the realm of the sixth vijñāna is defined in the respect
of its own specific character (svalakṣaṇa) (Hakamaya ed. §III)
v4–6 Clarification of the vijñānakāyaparijñāna
Among these three, due to the page limit, only the first part (r1–r6) will be presented and examined in this paper.
2.3. Four Propositions in Hakamaya’s Edition §II
1. Are all those who are accompanied (samanvā-√gam) by ālayavijñāna accompanied by
pravṛttivijñāna, or are all those who are accompanied by pravṛttivijñāna accompanied by ālayavijñāna?
2. [In this regard,] there are four propositions (mu bzhi, catuṣkoṭika):
(a) Those who are accompanied by ālayavijñāna, but not by pravṛttivijñāna are:
[the ones] sleeping without cognitive awareness (gnyid log pa sems med pa, acittakaṃ
middham); [the ones] becoming fainted without cognitive awareness (brgyal bar gyur pa sems med pa, acittakā mūrcchā); [the ones] concentrating (samāhitā) on the attainment of
non-perception (asaṃjñā-samāpatti); [the ones] concentrating on the attainment of cessation (nirodha-samāpatti); and [the ones] born among non-perceptive beings (asaṃjñisattveṣv upapannaḥ).
(b) Those who are accompanied by pravṛttivijñāna, but not by ālayavijñāna are:
arhat, pratyekabuddha, non-returner bodhisattva, and Tathāgatha who are in the state of having congnitive awareness (sems yod pa’i gnas skabs, sacittakāvasthā).
(c) Those who are accompanied by both are others [i.e., anyone besides the ones listed in (b) above] in the state of having cognitive awareness.
(d) Those who are accompanied by neither of them are:
arhat, pratyekabuddha, non-returner bodhisattva, and Tathāgata who are concentrating on the samādhi of cessation; and the ones dwelling in the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder (phung po’i lhag ma med pa’i mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings na’o,
nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇadhātu).8)
2.4. A Preliminary Edition of Folio 12 (recto 1–6)
(r1) .. .. .. [-ne]na sahabhāva iti pradarśaya catuṣkoṭikam ārabhate | .. .. .. .. kliṣṭam api
mana ihālayavijñānaśabdena gṛhyate | .. .. .. .d upacāre kiṃ prayojanam iti | so ’yam adoṣaḥ | pratipādyasya9) yena tenopāyena pratipādanāt | ko hi pakṣapātas tadupāyeṣv apradhāneṣu | chandato hi vācāpravṛtti(r2)ḥ | arthas tu parīkṣya iti |
nirodhasamā-pattisamāpannasyeti | kāyasākṣiṇaḥ10) ṣaṭsaptamībhūmisthitasya ca bodhisattvasya vipākalakṣaṇenālayavijñāneneha samanvāgamaḥ | samudācārasamanvāgamaṃ cādhi‐ kṛtyāyaṃ vicāraḥ | yasmād āha | ālayavijñānena na pravṛttivijñāneneti | ālayavijñānena hi saty avaśyaṃ (r3) jīvasamanvāgamena samanvāgataḥ | avaivarttiko bodhisattva iti | aṣṭamyāṃ bhūmau paryavasthānasyātyantam asamudācārāt | ālīyante utpattimantaḥ sarvasaṃkleśadharmāḥ | tad iti ca | tasya lakṣaṇaṃ | na ca tataḥ prabhṛti | utpattimanta ālīyanta iti | ālayārthasya prahāṇāt prahīṇaṃ tataḥ | kliṣṭaṃ tu (r4) manaś caturthyām eva prahīṇaṃ | tathā hy ācāryeṇa sahajā satkāyadṛṣṭis tadvipakṣatvena tadvyākhyāna uktā | tatraivaṃ ca bhūmāv11) uktaṃ | sarvāṇi sahajāni kelāyitāni mamāyitāni prahīyaṃte |
Steinkellner’s information, the manuscripts from Zhalu might have already been brought to Potala in 1959 and a collection of ca. 250 manuscripts were sent to the China Ethnic Library as a loan from the “Tibetan Government” in 1961. This manuscript collection was returned to Tibet in 1993 and is currently preserved in Lhasa’s Tibet Museum.4)
This single folio of an unknown commentary to the VinS is a palm-leaf manuscript, written in Proto-Nāgarī script (8–9th century CE). Both sides are comprised of six lines divided into three columns by two string holes. The quality of the microfilm image is rather poor, which makes it difficult to decipher several parts of the manuscript. Its folio number 12 is found on the left margin of the verso side, indicating that this folio is a commentary to a part of the VinS relatively near its beginning.
2.2. Contents of the VinS’s Commentary Folio
Ye has already indicated Tibetan and Chinese correspondences of the beginning part of the VinS that is commented upon in the text of this single folio as follows: Tib. D. no. 4038, zhi 8b6–9b5, Chi. T 30: 582a4–b3. The beginning part of the VinS has been introduced in Hakamaya Noriaki’s critical edition of Tibetan and Chinese texts and his Japanese translation.5) This manuscript folio is a commentary to the VinS text found in paragraph II6) and III7) of Hakamaya’s edition and the one a little after the Hakamaya’s edition ends. The contents of this manuscript folio can be divided into three parts as follows:
r1–r6 Four propositions (catuṣkoṭika) regarding the co-existence (sahabhāva) of
ālayavijñāna and pravṛttivijñāna (Hakamaya ed. §II)
r6–v4 The reasons why only the realm of the sixth vijñāna is defined in the respect
of its own specific character (svalakṣaṇa) (Hakamaya ed. §III)
v4–6 Clarification of the vijñānakāyaparijñāna
Among these three, due to the page limit, only the first part (r1–r6) will be presented and examined in this paper.
2.3. Four Propositions in Hakamaya’s Edition §II
1. Are all those who are accompanied (samanvā-√gam) by ālayavijñāna accompanied by
pravṛttivijñāna, or are all those who are accompanied by pravṛttivijñāna accompanied by ālayavijñāna?
2. [In this regard,] there are four propositions (mu bzhi, catuṣkoṭika):
(a) Those who are accompanied by ālayavijñāna, but not by pravṛttivijñāna are:
[the ones] sleeping without cognitive awareness (gnyid log pa sems med pa, acittakaṃ
middham); [the ones] becoming fainted without cognitive awareness (brgyal bar gyur pa sems med pa, acittakā mūrcchā); [the ones] concentrating (samāhitā) on the attainment of
non-perception (asaṃjñā-samāpatti); [the ones] concentrating on the attainment of cessation (nirodha-samāpatti); and [the ones] born among non-perceptive beings (asaṃjñisattveṣv upapannaḥ).
(b) Those who are accompanied by pravṛttivijñāna, but not by ālayavijñāna are:
arhat, pratyekabuddha, non-returner bodhisattva, and Tathāgatha who are in the state of having congnitive awareness (sems yod pa’i gnas skabs, sacittakāvasthā).
(c) Those who are accompanied by both are others [i.e., anyone besides the ones listed in (b) above] in the state of having cognitive awareness.
(d) Those who are accompanied by neither of them are:
arhat, pratyekabuddha, non-returner bodhisattva, and Tathāgata who are concentrating on the samādhi of cessation; and the ones dwelling in the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder (phung po’i lhag ma med pa’i mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings na’o,
nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇadhātu).8)
2.4. A Preliminary Edition of Folio 12 (recto 1–6)
(r1) .. .. .. [-ne]na sahabhāva iti pradarśaya catuṣkoṭikam ārabhate | .. .. .. .. kliṣṭam api
mana ihālayavijñānaśabdena gṛhyate | .. .. .. .d upacāre kiṃ prayojanam iti | so ’yam adoṣaḥ | pratipādyasya9) yena tenopāyena pratipādanāt | ko hi pakṣapātas tadupāyeṣv apradhāneṣu | chandato hi vācāpravṛtti(r2)ḥ | arthas tu parīkṣya iti |
nirodhasamā-pattisamāpannasyeti | kāyasākṣiṇaḥ10) ṣaṭsaptamībhūmisthitasya ca bodhisattvasya vipākalakṣaṇenālayavijñāneneha samanvāgamaḥ | samudācārasamanvāgamaṃ cādhi‐ kṛtyāyaṃ vicāraḥ | yasmād āha | ālayavijñānena na pravṛttivijñāneneti | ālayavijñānena hi saty avaśyaṃ (r3) jīvasamanvāgamena samanvāgataḥ | avaivarttiko bodhisattva iti | aṣṭamyāṃ bhūmau paryavasthānasyātyantam asamudācārāt | ālīyante utpattimantaḥ sarvasaṃkleśadharmāḥ | tad iti ca | tasya lakṣaṇaṃ | na ca tataḥ prabhṛti | utpattimanta ālīyanta iti | ālayārthasya prahāṇāt prahīṇaṃ tataḥ | kliṣṭaṃ tu (r4) manaś caturthyām eva prahīṇaṃ | tathā hy ācāryeṇa sahajā satkāyadṛṣṭis tadvipakṣatvena tadvyākhyāna uktā | tatraivaṃ ca bhūmāv11) uktaṃ | sarvāṇi sahajāni kelāyitāni mamāyitāni prahīyaṃte |
samādhinā kliṣṭasya manasaḥ prahāṇam iti (r5) tat kathaṃ | dvividho hi vajropamaḥ |
bodhisattvavajropamo buddhabhūmyānuttaryavajropamaś cety adoṣaḥ | tasya cālayavijñānasya na svabhāvaprahāṇaṃ | kiṃ tarhi | ālayavyapadeśanimittaprahāṇāt | anyathā hy arhataḥ pravṛttivijñānaṃ kuta utpadyeta | tannimittaṃ ca prapañcavāsanā | abhiniviṣṭānāṃ ca pravṛttivijñānānāṃ (r6) yā vāsanā sā prapañcavāsanety ucyate | ata evoktaṃ saṃkleśāśrayopādānaṃ jahātīti ||12)
3. Some Analytical Remarks and Future Tasks
In this commentary to the VinS, one could notice that the whole text of the VinS is not the object of this commentary. Only a few key phrases are being selectively annotated. In the passage on the Four Propositions displayed in 2.3 above, only four phrases found in the first two propositions are chosen in the commentary. The manuscript fragment begins with an interpretation of “Store mind” ālayavijñāna, which interestingly suggests that the notion of “I” (kliṣṭamanas) should be understood as ālayavijñāna in this context (. . . kliṣṭam api mana ihālayavijñānaśabdena gṛhyate). This is a different explanation from the definition found in the Triṃśikā by Vasubandhu. As Hakamaya pointed out in his note,14) regarding the five states depicted in the first proposition, the mainstream Yogācāra theory represented by the Triṃśikā explains that it has to do with the sixth
vijñāna (i.e., manovijñāna) and therefore does not seem to be related to the kliṣṭamanas. It
is very difficult to wrap one’s mind around this difference, especially given that this specific sentence is surrounded by damaged and illegible portions in the manuscript of the VinS’s commentary.
Regarding the phrase “non-returner bodhisattva” (avaivarttiko bodhisattva), the commentary explains that one achieves a state of a non-regressing bodhisattva because one’s outbreaks (paryavasthāna) will never be manifested in the eighth bhūmi (aṣṭamyāṃ
bhūmau paryavasthānasyātyantam asamudācārāt). This explanation is followed by a
standard definition of ālayavijñāna also witnessed in Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha as well as Sthiramati’s commentary to the Triṃśikā (TrBh), according to which the ālayavijñāna does not exist in later stages after the eighth bhūmi.
The kliṣṭamanas, however, is explained to be terminated at the fourth bhūmi. As a ground for this statement, the commentary provides a quotation by an ācārya (tathā hy
ācāryeṇa sahajā satkāyadṛṣṭis tadvipakṣatvena tadvyākhyāna uktā). It is not clear who this
teacher is, but if tadvyākhyāna is to be considered as the commentary to the
Daśabhūmikasūtra (DaBh), it is highly likely that the ācārya is referring to Vasubandhu.
Although the following quotation (sarvāṇi sahajāni kelāyitāni mamāyitāni prahīyaṃte |
pūrvam eva cāsya dṛṣṭikṛtabandhanaṃ vigataṃ bhavatīti |) does not perfectly match with
the passage describing the fourth bhūmi in the Dabh, it is certain that the VinS’s commentary is expounding on the eradication of kliṣṭamanas, utilizing this passage in the DaBh (the fourth bhūmi §E) and its commentary. One cannot, however, be completely sure of the identity of ācārya for tadvyākhyāna could also refer to some other commentary to the DaBh. The sources of the following quotation (vajropamena
samādhinā kliṣṭasya manasaḥ prahāṇam) and the last one (saṃkleśāśrayopādānaṃ jahātīti)
have yet to be confirmed.
One of biggest challenges in dealing with this manuscript folio is the fact that the author and date of this commentary to the VinS are still unknown. Its folio number, however, hints that this manuscript must be an independent commentary to the VinS, not the one to the entire Yogācārabhūmi (YBh) corpus. Furthermore, given its script from the 8–9th century, one can also assume that it surely is not a commentary composed in the Kashmir region around the 11th century. There are two extent commentaries to the
YBh of Indian origins: a Chinese translation of a commentary to the YBh by Jinaputra
and others and the Yogācārabhūmi-vyākhyā, which ends in the middle of the Manobhūmi, preserved in Tibetan. There is no source or material to confirm the relation between this manuscript folio and these two other commentaries. It is not, however, entirely impossible to say that the Tibetan and Chinese versions could basically be the same text and also this new fragment might represents a part corresponding to the VinS. Furthermore, in the recently excavated Dunhuang texts related to the YBh composed by Facheng 法成, there are partial quotations of the VinS’s commentary, which should serve as a great source for a comparative study. Given the fact that manuscripts of the independent sections of the YBh have been found, it is highly likely that each section of the YBh’s commentary was also independently written and preserved separately. Further research and thorough examination on the above-mentioned issues will no doubt enhance our understanding of the identity of this unknown commentary to the
samādhinā kliṣṭasya manasaḥ prahāṇam iti (r5) tat kathaṃ | dvividho hi vajropamaḥ |
bodhisattvavajropamo buddhabhūmyānuttaryavajropamaś cety adoṣaḥ | tasya cālayavijñānasya na svabhāvaprahāṇaṃ | kiṃ tarhi | ālayavyapadeśanimittaprahāṇāt | anyathā hy arhataḥ pravṛttivijñānaṃ kuta utpadyeta | tannimittaṃ ca prapañcavāsanā | abhiniviṣṭānāṃ ca pravṛttivijñānānāṃ (r6) yā vāsanā sā prapañcavāsanety ucyate | ata evoktaṃ saṃkleśāśrayopādānaṃ jahātīti ||12)
3. Some Analytical Remarks and Future Tasks
In this commentary to the VinS, one could notice that the whole text of the VinS is not the object of this commentary. Only a few key phrases are being selectively annotated. In the passage on the Four Propositions displayed in 2.3 above, only four phrases found in the first two propositions are chosen in the commentary. The manuscript fragment begins with an interpretation of “Store mind” ālayavijñāna, which interestingly suggests that the notion of “I” (kliṣṭamanas) should be understood as ālayavijñāna in this context (. . . kliṣṭam api mana ihālayavijñānaśabdena gṛhyate). This is a different explanation from the definition found in the Triṃśikā by Vasubandhu. As Hakamaya pointed out in his note,14) regarding the five states depicted in the first proposition, the mainstream Yogācāra theory represented by the Triṃśikā explains that it has to do with the sixth
vijñāna (i.e., manovijñāna) and therefore does not seem to be related to the kliṣṭamanas. It
is very difficult to wrap one’s mind around this difference, especially given that this specific sentence is surrounded by damaged and illegible portions in the manuscript of the VinS’s commentary.
Regarding the phrase “non-returner bodhisattva” (avaivarttiko bodhisattva), the commentary explains that one achieves a state of a non-regressing bodhisattva because one’s outbreaks (paryavasthāna) will never be manifested in the eighth bhūmi (aṣṭamyāṃ
bhūmau paryavasthānasyātyantam asamudācārāt). This explanation is followed by a
standard definition of ālayavijñāna also witnessed in Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha as well as Sthiramati’s commentary to the Triṃśikā (TrBh), according to which the ālayavijñāna does not exist in later stages after the eighth bhūmi.
The kliṣṭamanas, however, is explained to be terminated at the fourth bhūmi. As a ground for this statement, the commentary provides a quotation by an ācārya (tathā hy
ācāryeṇa sahajā satkāyadṛṣṭis tadvipakṣatvena tadvyākhyāna uktā). It is not clear who this
teacher is, but if tadvyākhyāna is to be considered as the commentary to the
Daśabhūmikasūtra (DaBh), it is highly likely that the ācārya is referring to Vasubandhu.
Although the following quotation (sarvāṇi sahajāni kelāyitāni mamāyitāni prahīyaṃte |
pūrvam eva cāsya dṛṣṭikṛtabandhanaṃ vigataṃ bhavatīti |) does not perfectly match with
the passage describing the fourth bhūmi in the Dabh, it is certain that the VinS’s commentary is expounding on the eradication of kliṣṭamanas, utilizing this passage in the DaBh (the fourth bhūmi §E) and its commentary. One cannot, however, be completely sure of the identity of ācārya for tadvyākhyāna could also refer to some other commentary to the DaBh. The sources of the following quotation (vajropamena
samādhinā kliṣṭasya manasaḥ prahāṇam) and the last one (saṃkleśāśrayopādānaṃ jahātīti)
have yet to be confirmed.
One of biggest challenges in dealing with this manuscript folio is the fact that the author and date of this commentary to the VinS are still unknown. Its folio number, however, hints that this manuscript must be an independent commentary to the VinS, not the one to the entire Yogācārabhūmi (YBh) corpus. Furthermore, given its script from the 8–9th century, one can also assume that it surely is not a commentary composed in the Kashmir region around the 11th century. There are two extent commentaries to the
YBh of Indian origins: a Chinese translation of a commentary to the YBh by Jinaputra
and others and the Yogācārabhūmi-vyākhyā, which ends in the middle of the Manobhūmi, preserved in Tibetan. There is no source or material to confirm the relation between this manuscript folio and these two other commentaries. It is not, however, entirely impossible to say that the Tibetan and Chinese versions could basically be the same text and also this new fragment might represents a part corresponding to the VinS. Furthermore, in the recently excavated Dunhuang texts related to the YBh composed by Facheng 法成, there are partial quotations of the VinS’s commentary, which should serve as a great source for a comparative study. Given the fact that manuscripts of the independent sections of the YBh have been found, it is highly likely that each section of the YBh’s commentary was also independently written and preserved separately. Further research and thorough examination on the above-mentioned issues will no doubt enhance our understanding of the identity of this unknown commentary to the
*Due to the page limit, this paper does not include the entire contents of my presentation at the conference; therefore, a detailed and extended version of this article will be prepared in the near future.
Notes
1）See Ye 2013.
2）In addition to the generosity of Prof. Ye, I am very much grateful to Prof. Jens-Uwe Hartmann who not only hosts this project on the Sanskrit manuscript fragments of the VinS, but also made these three folios available to me with his excellent diplomatic skills. I also express special thanks to Prof. Matsuda Kazunobu and Dr. Jowita Kramer who offered numerous helpful comments and suggestions and my husband and colleague Charles DiSimone who kindly proofread earlier drafts of this paper.
3）Ye 2013, 233.
4）Steinkellner 2004, 20–23. 5）Hakamaya 2001.
6）Hakamaya 2001, 408–410 (edition); 433–434 (Japanese translation). See below note 8. 7）Hakamaya 2001, 410–412.
8）In this critical edition, two Tibetan versions (D. zhi 8b6–9a3; P. zi 10a8–b6) and two different Chinese translations (T 30: 582a4–12; T 30: 1020c3–1) are employed.
1. gang kun gzhi rnam par shes pa dang ldan pa de ’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa dang yang ldan la / gang ’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa dang ldan pa de yang kun gzhi rnam par shes pa dang yang ldan pa yin nam zhe na /2. mu bzhi ste /
(a) kun gzhi rnam par shes pa dang ldan pa la ’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa dang mi ldan pa ni gnyid log pa sems med pa dang / brgyal bar gyur pa sems med pa dang / ’du shes med pa’i snyoms par ’jug pa dang / ’gog pa’i snyoms par ’jug pa la snyoms par zhugs pa dang / ’du shes med pa’i sems can rnams kyi nang du skyes pa’o //
(b) ’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa dang ldan la / kun gzhi rnam par shes pa dang mi ldan pa ni sems yod pa’i gnas skabs na dgra bcom pa dang / rang sangs rgyas dang / phyir mi ldog pa’i byang chub sems dpa’ dang / de bzhin gshegs pa’o //
(c) gnyi ga dang ldan pa ni sems yod pa’i gnas skabs de las gzhan pa dag na’o //
(d) gnyi ga dang mi ldan pa ni dgra bcom pa dang / rang sangs rgyas dang / phyir mi ldog pa’i byang chub sems dpa’ dang / de bzhin gshegs pa ’gog pa la snyom par zhugs pa dang / phung po’i lhag ma med pa’i mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings na’o //
T 30: 582a4–12: 1. 問．若成就阿頼耶識，亦成就転識耶．設成就転識，亦成就阿頼耶識耶． 2. 答．応作四句． (a) 或有成就阿頼耶識非転識．謂，無心睡眠，無心悶絶，入無想定，入滅尽定，生無想 天． (b) 或有成就転識非阿頼耶識．謂，阿羅漢，若諸独覚，不退菩薩，及諸如来，住有心位． (c) 或有俱成就．謂，余有情住有心位． (d) 或有俱不成就．謂，阿羅漢，若諸独覚，不退菩薩，及諸如来，入滅尽定，処無余依涅 槃界． T 30: 1020c3–13: 1. 問曰．有人，有阿羅耶識，有六識不．有人，有六識，無阿羅耶識不． 2. 答曰．此有四句． (a) 一者，如人，無心眠時．迷悶心時，入無想定，生無想天，阿那含人入滅尽定，此五種 人，有阿羅耶識，則無六識． (b) 二者，阿羅漢，及辟支仏，不退菩薩，如来世尊，此四種人，以有心処，有於六識，無 阿羅耶識． (c) 三者，凡夫之人，須陀洹，斯陀含，阿那含，以有心処，有六識，有阿羅耶識． (d) 四者，諸阿羅漢，及辟支仏，菩薩，世尊，入滅尽定，又世尊入無余涅槃，無阿羅耶， 亦無六識． 9）Ms. pratipadyasya. 10）Cf. AKBh, 363.12 (VI-43cd). 11）Ms. bhūmām.
12）Bold Italics: VinS passages; Italics: sūtra passages or quotations. 13）Cf. DaBh, 4th bhūmi, §E., 39.
14）Hakamaya 2001, 444, note 83. Abbreviations
AKBh Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu. Ed. P. Pradhan. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.
DaBh Daśabhūmika-sūtra. Daśabhūmikasūtra et Bodhisattvabhūmi. Ed. J. Rahder. Louvain: J.-B ISTAS, 1926.
TrBh Triṃśikābhāṣya. Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. Ed. Sylvain Lévi. Paris: H. Champion, 1925. VinS Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī section in the Yogācārabhūmi.
YBh Yogācārabhūmi. Bibliography
Hakamaya Noriaki 袴 谷 憲 昭 . 2001. “Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī ni okeru Ārayashiki no kitei” Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī におけるアーラヤ識の規定 [The Definition of Ālaya-viñāna in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī]. In Yuishiki shisō ronkō 唯識思想論考, 362–445. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan. Steinkellner, Ernst. 2004. A Tale of Leaves: On Sanskrit Manuscripts in Tibet, Their Past and Their Future.
2003 Gonda Lecture. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Ye Shaoyong. 2012. “A Folio of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti and Some Other Sanskrit Manuscripts Newly Found in Tibet: A Preliminary Report.” Handout presented at the 5th Beijing International Seminar on Tibetan Studies, Beijing, August 2012.
*Due to the page limit, this paper does not include the entire contents of my presentation at the conference; therefore, a detailed and extended version of this article will be prepared in the near future.
Notes
1）See Ye 2013.
2）In addition to the generosity of Prof. Ye, I am very much grateful to Prof. Jens-Uwe Hartmann who not only hosts this project on the Sanskrit manuscript fragments of the VinS, but also made these three folios available to me with his excellent diplomatic skills. I also express special thanks to Prof. Matsuda Kazunobu and Dr. Jowita Kramer who offered numerous helpful comments and suggestions and my husband and colleague Charles DiSimone who kindly proofread earlier drafts of this paper.
3）Ye 2013, 233.
4）Steinkellner 2004, 20–23. 5）Hakamaya 2001.
6）Hakamaya 2001, 408–410 (edition); 433–434 (Japanese translation). See below note 8. 7）Hakamaya 2001, 410–412.
8）In this critical edition, two Tibetan versions (D. zhi 8b6–9a3; P. zi 10a8–b6) and two different Chinese translations (T 30: 582a4–12; T 30: 1020c3–1) are employed.
1. gang kun gzhi rnam par shes pa dang ldan pa de ’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa dang yang ldan la / gang ’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa dang ldan pa de yang kun gzhi rnam par shes pa dang yang ldan pa yin nam zhe na /2. mu bzhi ste /
(a) kun gzhi rnam par shes pa dang ldan pa la ’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa dang mi ldan pa ni gnyid log pa sems med pa dang / brgyal bar gyur pa sems med pa dang / ’du shes med pa’i snyoms par ’jug pa dang / ’gog pa’i snyoms par ’jug pa la snyoms par zhugs pa dang / ’du shes med pa’i sems can rnams kyi nang du skyes pa’o //
(b) ’jug pa’i rnam par shes pa dang ldan la / kun gzhi rnam par shes pa dang mi ldan pa ni sems yod pa’i gnas skabs na dgra bcom pa dang / rang sangs rgyas dang / phyir mi ldog pa’i byang chub sems dpa’ dang / de bzhin gshegs pa’o //
(c) gnyi ga dang ldan pa ni sems yod pa’i gnas skabs de las gzhan pa dag na’o //
(d) gnyi ga dang mi ldan pa ni dgra bcom pa dang / rang sangs rgyas dang / phyir mi ldog pa’i byang chub sems dpa’ dang / de bzhin gshegs pa ’gog pa la snyom par zhugs pa dang / phung po’i lhag ma med pa’i mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings na’o //
T 30: 582a4–12: 1. 問．若成就阿頼耶識，亦成就転識耶．設成就転識，亦成就阿頼耶識耶． 2. 答．応作四句． (a) 或有成就阿頼耶識非転識．謂，無心睡眠，無心悶絶，入無想定，入滅尽定，生無想 天． (b) 或有成就転識非阿頼耶識．謂，阿羅漢，若諸独覚，不退菩薩，及諸如来，住有心位． (c) 或有俱成就．謂，余有情住有心位． (d) 或有俱不成就．謂，阿羅漢，若諸独覚，不退菩薩，及諸如来，入滅尽定，処無余依涅 槃界． T 30: 1020c3–13: 1. 問曰．有人，有阿羅耶識，有六識不．有人，有六識，無阿羅耶識不． 2. 答曰．此有四句． (a) 一者，如人，無心眠時．迷悶心時，入無想定，生無想天，阿那含人入滅尽定，此五種 人，有阿羅耶識，則無六識． (b) 二者，阿羅漢，及辟支仏，不退菩薩，如来世尊，此四種人，以有心処，有於六識，無 阿羅耶識． (c) 三者，凡夫之人，須陀洹，斯陀含，阿那含，以有心処，有六識，有阿羅耶識． (d) 四者，諸阿羅漢，及辟支仏，菩薩，世尊，入滅尽定，又世尊入無余涅槃，無阿羅耶， 亦無六識． 9）Ms. pratipadyasya. 10）Cf. AKBh, 363.12 (VI-43cd). 11）Ms. bhūmām.
12）Bold Italics: VinS passages; Italics: sūtra passages or quotations. 13）Cf. DaBh, 4th bhūmi, §E., 39.
14）Hakamaya 2001, 444, note 83. Abbreviations
AKBh Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu. Ed. P. Pradhan. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.
DaBh Daśabhūmika-sūtra. Daśabhūmikasūtra et Bodhisattvabhūmi. Ed. J. Rahder. Louvain: J.-B ISTAS, 1926.
TrBh Triṃśikābhāṣya. Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. Ed. Sylvain Lévi. Paris: H. Champion, 1925. VinS Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī section in the Yogācārabhūmi.
YBh Yogācārabhūmi. Bibliography
Hakamaya Noriaki 袴 谷 憲 昭 . 2001. “Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī ni okeru Ārayashiki no kitei” Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī におけるアーラヤ識の規定 [The Definition of Ālaya-viñāna in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī]. In Yuishiki shisō ronkō 唯識思想論考, 362–445. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan. Steinkellner, Ernst. 2004. A Tale of Leaves: On Sanskrit Manuscripts in Tibet, Their Past and Their Future.
2003 Gonda Lecture. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Ye Shaoyong. 2012. “A Folio of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti and Some Other Sanskrit Manuscripts Newly Found in Tibet: A Preliminary Report.” Handout presented at the 5th Beijing International Seminar on Tibetan Studies, Beijing, August 2012.
———. 2013. “A Sanskrit Folio of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti from Tibet.” Sōka Daigaku Kokusai Bukkyōgaku Kōtō Kenkyūjo nenpō 創価大学国際仏教学高等研究所年報 16: 233–240.
(This research was supported in part by Deutsche Forchungsgemeinschaft)
Key words Yogācārabhūmi, Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, ālayavijñāna, kliṣṭamanas, Sanskrit manuscript （DFG Research Fellow, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Dr. phil. des）
General Editor Jens Braarvig Editorial Committee Jens Braarvig, Paul Harrison, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Kazunobu Matsuda,
Gudrun Melzer, Lore Sander
Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection
Buddhist Manuscripts
Volume IV
24.0×32.0 cm 507 pp. including 45 color plates NOK 1,400 (EUR 150) Hermes Publishing, 2016
New Publication
Śamatha and Vipaśyanā in the Commentary on the
Śarīrārthagāthā in the Cintāmayībhūmi
Abe Takako
1. Introduction
The Cintāmayībhūmi is the eleventh stage among the seventeen stages of the
Yogācārabhūmi (hereafter YoBh). It contains three groups of verses together with their
commentaries, namely, Paramārthagāthā, Ābhiprāyikārthagāthā, and Śarīrārthagāthā. The Śarīrārthagāthā (hereafter ŚaG), the longest group, has 41 sets of verses and their commentaries. The Sanskrit text is preserved in the YoBh manuscript, and the first 29 sets of verses are inserted in the Śrāvakabhūmi (hereafter ŚrBh) manuscript.1) Enomoto Fumio provides edited versions of all the sets of verses and elucidates the canonical sources of them, but the commentary remains unedited and little theoretical research on it has been done so far.
Broadly speaking, in the commentary portion of the ŚaG, the authors/editors appear to demonstrate that their theories are directly based on the canonical literatures that the Buddha taught. It also refers to the importance of practicing śamatha and vipaśyanā. Though I have researched methods and theories of yogic practices in the ŚrBh, in this article I will examine the ŚaG’s verses and the commentaries referring to śamatha and
vipaśyanā, and will consider the ŚaG’s distinctive features by comparing it to the ŚrBh.
2. Comparing ŚaG Passages with the ŚrBh
2.1. Visualization of Impurity
The 3rd set of verses in the ŚaG, which contains five verses cited from the
Saṃyuktāgama (T no. 99, 331a25; SN I 188), discusses the visualization of impurity for
