Preliminary Report on a Comparison of the
Abhidharmako~bh~sya sand the Yogacarabhumi
Robert KRITZER
Currently, I am preparing a comparison of the Abhidharrnakosabhasva and the Yogacarabhumi in order to ascertain the extent to which Vasubandhu's positions, particularly those identified as contrary to orthodox Vaibhasika, correspond with positions found in the Yogacarabhumi.
Perhaps the most obvious way to begin would be to search for terms in Hsiian-tsang's Chinese translation of the Abhidharmakosabhasva that suggest an aberrancy,
for example, yu ch'ieh(Shih)瑜 伽(師)or kuan hsing che観 行 者(two translations
ofyogacara-atotal of 14 occurrences), for one of the various equivalents of purvacarya (13 occurrences), or for the designation ching bu經 部(sautrantika-20 occurrences).
One could then turn to the index at the end of Wogihara's edition of the Abhi dharinakosavyakhya, where one finds references to the same terms (12, 7, and 43, respectively) as well as a solitary mention of the Yogacarabhurni. Similarly, Jaini's index to the Abhidharinadipa, another text critical of Vasubandhu, yields references to dcirstantika (8), sautrantika. (4), vaitulika (5), sthitibadgiya (1), and "Kosaka-ra" (16).
On the other hand, if one searches the fiercely orthodox Samghabhadra's
Nvayanu-saga for the term clziylg chu經 主(master of the sutras), generally referring to
Vasu-bandhu when he is deviating from Vaibhasika, one can find at least 250 occurrences. For this reason, as well as due to the happy fact that the Abhidharmakosabhasya (T. 1558), the Yogacarabhumi (T. 1579), and the Nvavanusara (T. 1562) were all translated by Hsiuan-tsang and thus share a great deal of Chinese terminology, I have decided to begin by systematically going through the Nvavanusara and exam-ining the references to ching chu. At a later date, I shall examine the passages iden-tified by the other methods mentioned above.
Abhidha-Preliminary Report on a Comparison of the Abhidharmakosabhasva and the
Yogacarabhumi (R. KRITZER) (9)
rmakosabhasva and ideas found in the Yogacarabhumi has periodically been re-marked upon. Jaini takes seriously the Dipakara's accusation that Vasubandhu was a vaitulika, and he points out that certain of Vasubandhu's positions agree with Yo-gacara (1959: 247-248). Hakamaya, in a well-known article (1986), shows that the term purvacarya refers to Yogacara teachers. Yamabe finds the source of Vasu-bandhu's definition of bija (1990), as well as of his theory that nama and rupa contain the seeds of one another (2000), in 'the Viniscavasamgrahani, and he identifies the Manobhumi as the source of a statement, attributed to the purvacalyas, concerning the transition from the antarabhava to birth in the hells (1999). Other scholars who note connections between the texts include Miyashita (1986) and Harada (1993, 1996). Finally, I have identified elsewhere a number of other correspondences between the two texts.
In previous works, I have rather rashly stated my opinion that Vasubandhu, at the time of writing the Abhidharmakosabhasva, was not, as is generally accepted, at a midway point between Sarvastivada and Yogacara identified as Sautrantika. Rather, I have said that he was already a Yogacara when he composed his master-piece, and I have suggested that the term Sautrantika is used in the Abhidharmakos-abhasya to designate Yogacara positions that Vasubandhu wishes to substitute for those of orthodox Vaibhasika. My opinion was based on very limited evidence, and I am hoping that the results of my present research will help clarify Vasubandhu's standpoint.
I have almost finished a preliminary comparison of the first three chapters of the Abhidharmakosabhasya. In the space remaining, I summarize some of my results
to date.
A number of points of correspondence concern items that the Vaibhasikas consider to be real entities, but that both Vasubandhu and the Yogacarabhumi classify as provisional (prajnapti). In Chapter 1, Vasubandhu indicates his disagreement with the Vaibhasika definition of avijnaptirupa (3a24-25; Pradhan: 8.9) ; Samghabhadra, looking forward to Chapter 4, states that Vasubandhu does not accept avijnaptirupa as being real (335b16-c9). Similarly, the Viniscayasamgrahani defines both *sam-vararupa and *asam*sam-vararupa as provisional (597b8-9) and includes. avijnapti in a long list of prajnaptis (659a14-15). In Chapter 2, Vasubandhu criticizes at great
-498-length the Vaibhasika definitions of the cittaviprayuktasamskaras, calling them all prajnaptis. Again, the Viniscayasamgrahani also denies the reality of these dharmas, and some of its arguments are reflected in Vasubandhu's discussion. Vasubandhu's well-known theory of bija is found in his discussion of the vipravukta, prapti, and, as I mention above, Yamabe has shown Vasubandhu's reliance here on the Vin-iscayasarngrahani (1990). Not surprisingly, this, like many of Vasubandhu's points of disagreement with Vaibhasika, involves the denial of the real existence of past and future, a denial shared by the Yogacarabhurni, particularly the Viniscayasamg-rahani. Since the cittavipravuktasamskaras have been treated elsewhere, I shall not go into details here.
There is, moreover, another possible correspondence regarding prajnapti. Vasu-bandhu maintains that the skandhas, being collections (rasi), do not have independent reality (5a11-12; Pradhan: 13.25-26), and he refers back to a sutra (Samyuktagama [T. 99], sutra no. 55 [13b13-231) that he quoted earlier (4c15-17; Pradhan: 13.5-7) to support his position. Although I have found in the Yogacarabhumi no direct statement to the effect that the skandhas are prajnapti, the idea that collections are prajnapti
can be found in the Vastusamgrahani (878c29-879a3). The Viniscayasamgrahani
quotes the same sutra as Vasubandhu to show that the meaning of skandha is rasi (593c 18-20; see also the Vastusamgrahani, which comments on this sutra [796c2-3]). This may imply that the skandhas are prajnapti.
Outside of the context of the cittaviprayuktasamskaras, other statements by Va-subandhu explicitly or implicitly rely on the idea of bija in giving explanations that deviate from Vaibhasika orthodoxy. For example, Vasubandhu offers an opinion to the effect that the unperceived mahabhutas in a composite object exist as seeds (18c9-11; Pradhan: 53.14-15). According to the Viniscavasamgrahani, all the maha-bhutas and upadavar u-pas are present simultaneously, but only one is active at a given time; the others are present in the form of seeds that can become active when changing conditions warrant (666b3-26, especially 666b13-26). In this case, the cor-respondence is clear.
On a number of occasions, Vasubandhu offers the coming together of causes and conditions to account for events explained otherwise by the Vaibhasikas. For exam-ple, regarding the Vaibhasika opinion that it is the eye that sees rupa, Vasubandhu
Preliminary Report on a Comparison of the Abhidharmakosabhasva and the
Yogacarabhumi (R. KRITZER) (11)
says that, according to the Sautrantikas, perception is nothing more than cause and effect : there is nothing that sees or is seen (10c8-11b8; Pradhan: 31.12-16). The Yogacarabhumi contains a number of similar statements; see for example the Vin-iscayasamgrahani (610al9-27) and Paramarthagathas and their commentary (363a27-h1,364a27-b1).
Another example is Vasubandhu's denial of the reality of the reflected image, which, he says, appears due to the power of the coming together of causes and conditions (44c10-11; Pradhan: 121.5-6). Although the Yogacarabhumi does not ex-plicitly state that the reflected image is unreal, a number of statements, particularly in the Viniscavasamgrahani, seem to imply its relative unreality. For example, the pravrttivijnanas are said to depend on alayavijnana as the reflected image depends on the mirror (651b13-18), and the meditational image is said to be no different from the consciousness in which it is perceived, just as the reflected image depends on the mirror, with the object acting as condition (724a3-17).
Finally, Vasubandhu makes a number of statements regarding the powers of special people that correspond to similar statements in the Yogacarabhumi. For example, jivitendriya is not the result of karma ' in the case the Arhat, who can prolong his life by the power of his meditation (15b27-29 ; Pradhan: 43. 22-24: this position is found in the Vibhasa [T. 15451, where it is criticized [657b1-51). According to the Viniscavasamgrahani, Arhats, Tathagatas, and Bodhisattvas have a special type of jivitendriva that gives them the power to extend their ayuhsamski ras. This jivitendriva is defined as "proceeding due to own-force." All other types are defined as "not proceeding due to own-force" (587b7-9). This seems to be equivalent to the distinction made in the Abhidharmakosabhasya between jivitendriya that is not vipdka (that of the Arhat) and ordinary jivitendriva, which is vipaka. Furthermore, in the Cintainavibhiimi, the Buddha is said to obtain mastery of sawnadhi (saniadhivasiti ), which he uses to discard his former ayuhsamskaras and to produce a new body (383c7-11).
A related example occurs in a discussion of why the Buddha chose a womb birth over an apparitional one. One Vaibhasika answer is that it was in order to leave a body as a relic. Vasubandhu objects that this explanation will not satisfy those who think the Buddha has adhisthaniki rddhi, by means of which he can prolong his
-496-life (44a28; Pradhan: 119.26-27). According to the Bodhisattvabhumi, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can use their magical power to continue to exist after death (493b6-7; Dutt : 54.12-13).
In addition, I have found other correspondences, more or less definite , concerning a variety of different topics. The majority are to the Viniscavasamgr°ahani , followed by the Maulibhumi, particularly the Manobhumi. There are also some ideas that seem to come from the Sravakabhumi and Bodhisattvabhumi, although in these cases, the connections are not usually as close or obvious.
Works cited
Hakamaya Noriaki袴 谷 憲 昭."Purvacarya ko"考.Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 34/2(March 1986): 93-100.
Harada Waso原 田 和 宗."DignagaのHastavalaprakarana & Vrtti ."Ryukoku Daigaku Bukkyo-gaku Kenkyushitsu Nempo 6(March 1993):92-110.
〈経 量 部 の 「単 層 の 」識 の 流 れ 〉 と い う 橿 念 ぺ の 糊(1) .Indogaku Chibettogaku Kenkyu 1 (1996): 135-193.
Jaini, P.S."The Sautrantika Theory of baja ."Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 22/2 (1953): 236-249.
Miyashita Seiki宮 下 晴 輝 『倶 舎 論 』 に お け る 本 無 今 有 の 背 景Bukkyogaku Semina 44(1986): 7-37.
Yamabe Nobuyoshi山 部 能 宜"Bija Theory in VifTiscayasamgrahani ."Irrdogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 38/2(March 1990:13-15.
Purvacaryaの 一 用 例 に つ い て.Kyushu Ryukoku Tankidaigaku Kiyo 45(1999): 203-217.
『瑜 伽 師 地 論 』 に お け る 善 悪 因 果 説 の一 側 面. .Nihon Bukkvo Gakkaz Nenpo,65 (2000): 127-146.
文 部 省 科 学 研 究 費 基 盤C平 成11-12年 度
〈Key words〉 abhidharma, yogacara, Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakosabhasya, Yogacarabhumi (Associate Professor, Notre Dame Women's College of Kyoto)
