Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wŏnhyo: On the Sources of Wŏnhyo’s Chungbyŏn punbyŏllon so

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Avalokitesvara hyu.jpg



Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wŏnhyo:

On the Sources of Wŏnhyo’s Chungbyŏn punbyŏllon so

Shigeki Moro


Abstract


The categorization of the East Asian Yogācāra traditions should be reconsidered, since it is based on later historiographies or orthodoxy in Japanese Buddhism. In this paper, I would like to approach this problem by examining Wŏnhyo’s (617–686) commentary on Vasubandhu’s Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya (MAVBh), known in Korean as the Chungbyŏn punbyŏllon so 中邊分別論疏 (CPS). The MAVBh is an important work not only in the Indian Yogācāra tradition, but also in the context of broader East Asian Buddhist debates. Although Wŏnhyo was one of the most influential Yogācāra scholars in East Asia, the research on CPS, the only extant commentary on Paramārtha’s translation of MAVBh (MAVBh[P]), has made little progress. Compared with Sthiramati’s Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā (MAVṬ), an Indian commentary on the MAVBh, CPS has some similarities to Sthiramati’s explanations in MAVṬ. Historical evidence which indicates some close relationship between Sthiramati and Paramārtha can be found in East Asian materials, while there is no evidence that connects them with Wŏnhyo. Thus, it seems probable to suggest that in the seventh century there was another lineage of Yogācāra Buddhism in East Asia, which was studied by Sthiramati and Paramārtha in India and brought to East Asia by Paramārtha.


Keywords: Sthiramati, Paramārtha, Wŏnhyo, East Asian Yogācāra Buddhism, Madhyāntavibhāga

Shigeki Moro is a professor at Hanazono University, Kyoto. He specializes in Yogācāra Buddhism and Buddhist logic in East Asia. His Daijō-goun-ron wo yomu [Introduction to Vasubandhu’s Pañcaskandhaka] (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2015) was translated into Korean in 2018 (Seoul: Minjoksa).


Introduction


The East Asian Yogācāra traditions are often categorized into ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new’’ groups. The ‘‘old’’ group, or Yogācāra traditions before the translation project of Xuanzang (602–664), include the Dilun 地論 school, based on the Chinese translation of Daśabhūmi-vyākhyāna or Shidi jinglun 十地經論 of Vasubandhu, and the Shelun 攝論 school which was studying Paramārtha’s (499–569) translation of Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (She dasheng lun shi 攝大乘論釋). The ‘‘new’’ group, which was mainly based on Xuanzang’s ‘‘new’’ translations, is also classified into ‘‘orthodox’’ and ‘‘heretic/ collateral’’ parties by some scholars.1 The former is the lineage of the ‘‘three patriarchs,’’ Kuiji 窺基 (632–682), Huizhao 慧沼 (648–714), and Zhizhou 智周 (668–723), while the latter refers to Silla Yogācāra scholars, such as Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測 (613–696), Tojŭng 道證, and Taehyŏn 大賢. The ‘‘new’’ group is often called the Faxiang/Pŏpsang/Hossō 法相 school.

Lee (2015) criticizes the old/new sorting as an ‘‘ambiguous umbrella categorization’’ in the process of providing a detailed historical account of the categorization scheme. She emphasizes the influence of the historiography of Gyōnen 凝然 (1240–1321), the famous scholar monk of the Japanese Kegon (K. Hwaŏm) school, based on the ‘‘transmission across the three countries’’ paradigm, which simplified the transmission of Buddhism into the onedirectional model of transmission through three countries, namely, India, China, and Japan, excluding the Korean tradition. Recent research, such as that of Ishii (2019), have criticized such ideological historiography, citing various interregional interactions.

In addition, it is reasonable to say that the scriptures ‘‘newly translated’’ by Xuanzang were not always so ‘‘new.’’ In the case of Yogācāra treatises, his translations were mainly of scriptures available prior to the sixth century, as shown in Table 1. Although he learned from Yogācāra masters of the same period in India, such as Śīlabhadra or Jayasena,2 and probably knew his contemporaries,3 he introduced very few of their works to Chinese readers. Works attributed to Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu were also familiar Table 1. Authors of Yogācāra Treatises Translated by Xuanzang


Yogācāra treatises of Xuanzang’s translations 

Table 2. Eighteen Stages of MAV and the Commentaries of CPS and MAVṬ

to the masters of the ‘‘old’’ schools, Dilun4 and Shelun. Xuanzang’s translations of Yogācārabhūmi, Madhyāntavibhāga, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Karmasiddhi, Viṃśatikā, and Triṃśikā were a combination of re-translations and complete translations of the translations of the ‘‘old’’ period.

The orthodox/heretic categorization seems to be based on a retroactive application of the orthodox doctrines of the Japanese Hossō school, which had been constructed gradually during the Heian and Kamakura periods. In any case, we need a new viewpoint to consider the lineages or traditions of the East Asian Yogācāra schools, and based on this, we should consider the doctrinal background of the Korean Yogācāra tradition(s).

In this paper, I would like to approach this problem by examining Wŏnhyo’s (617–686) commentary on the Madhyāntavibhāga (MAV; Distinguishing the middle and the extremes), since it shows us an interesting relationship with the Indian Yogācāra tradition of Paramārtha and Sthiramati. Although Wŏnhyo has often been regarded as a master of the Huayan/Hwaŏm school, mainly based on his influence on Fazang 法藏 (643–712) and historiographies such as Kegon-shu soshi eden 華嚴宗祖師繪傳 (Pictorial biographies of the founders of the Huayan school), there are strong grounds to also regard him as a Yogācāra master, since, according to ancient catalogues of Buddhist scriptures, he actually wrote more commentaries on the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra, Laṅkāvatāra sūtra, Yogācārabhūmi, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā (although the majority of these are nonextant).

Parallels among the Works of Paramārtha, Sthiramati, and Wŏnhyo


Vasubandhu’s commentary on the MAV, the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya (MAVBh), is a seminal work of the Indian Yogācāra tradition, and there are two extant Chinese translations: one by Paramārtha (MAVBh[P]; T 1599) and one by Xuanzang (MAVBh[X]; T 1600). MAVBh was also a key work in the context of the East Asian debates regarding emptiness and existence.5 However, there remain only two commentaries written in ancient East Asia: Wŏnhyo’s Chungbyŏn punbyŏllon so 中邊分別論疏 (CPS) and Kuiji’s Bian zhongbian lun shuji 辯中邊論述記 (BZLS).6 The former is a commentary on MAVBh(P), and the latter on MAVBh(X). Based on the quotations derived from Xuanzang’s translations, Ibuki (2006) argues that CPS was written between around 650 and 665.7

Although Wŏnhyo was one of the most influential Yogācāra scholars in East Asia, research on CPS has not made much progress, as compared with the voluminous studies carried out on his commentaries on the Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論). One of the reasons for the paucity of work done is that only the third volume of CPS, a commentary of the fourth chapter of MAVBh(P), has survived.

It has been pointed out that there are many sentences in MAVBh(P) not found in MAVBh(X) and the existent Sanskrit text. Wŏnhyo explicated those sentences, which could not be dealt with by Kuiji. Compared with Sthiramati’s Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā (MAVṬ), an Indian commentary on the MAVBh, Wŏnhyo’s commentaries on those passages show similarities to Sthiramati’s explanations, although Wŏnhyo ‘‘mentions neither Sthiramati’s nor Kuiji’s work’’ (Nguyen 2012, 186). In this paper, comparing CPS with MAVṬ, I would like to show some similarities between Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wŏnhyo, and demonstrate the importance of CPS and the probability of another lineage or relationship of those three Yogācāra masters to offer a better understanding of the philosophical location of the Korean Yogācāra tradition.


Example A The example below shows that the two translations of MAVBh are almost identical. The commentary of CPS on the underlined sentence of MAVBh(P) is similar to that of MAVṬ, which refers to the cessation of debilitation, the generation of pliancy, and the pleasure made by the meditative concentration, while BZLS on the same sentence of MAVBh(X) does not mention these terms.

MAVBh(P): 欲者正勤依處。能依者正勤。此依處名欲。有何因是名信。若有信卽生欲。此能依者名正勤果。此果名猗。若作正勤得所求禪定故。

(T 1599.31.458b25–27)

Translation (referring only to the underlined part here and hereafter): If [a practitioner] makes correct effort, [(s)he] acquires the meditative concentration that [(s)he] wants.

MAVBh(X): 所依謂欲、勤所依故。能依謂勤、依欲起故。所因謂信、是所依。欲生起近因。若信受彼便希望故。能果謂安、是能依。勤近所生果。 勤精進者得勝定故。 (T 1600.31.471c17–20) Translation: If [a practitioner] makes effort, [(s)he] acquires a superb concentration.

CPS: 釋中次第、釋此四種。第四中言「若作正勤得所求禪定故」者、得禪定時、麤重息滅、於此卽得身心輕安。輕安曰猗、適悦爲相。故約得定、以顯猗果。

Translation: When obtaining meditative concentration, debilitation (麤重) ceases and the pliancy of body and spirit are obtained. Pliancy is flexibility (猗), characterized by pleasure.

MAVṬ: tathā hy ārabdhavīryasya dāuṣṭhulyavikalpadoṣavigamat pramoda utpadyate | manaḥpramodāt kāyacittayoḥ prasrabdhiḥ karmaṇyatālakṣaṇatā | (Yamaguchi 1934, 174, lines 22–24)

Translation: Thus, if those who begin the diligence cease the discrimination of the debilitation, [his] pleasure is generated. The capability, in which body and spirit are pliant, appears from the pleasure of mind. Example B

In MAVBh(X) and the root text of MAVṬ, there are no parallels of the underlined sentence of MAVBh(P) quoted below. The commentary of CPS on the sentence peculiar to MAVBh(P), however, is similar to a description found in MAVṬ:

MAVBh(P): 何者名失耶。

懈怠忘尊敎 及下劣掉起 不作意作意 此五失應知

懈怠」者、沒嬾惡處。「忘尊敎」者、如師所立法名句味等、不憶不持故。

(T 1599.31.458b14–18)

Translation: ‘‘Indolence’’ means to lapse into the evil state. ‘‘Forgetting the noble teachings’’ means not to memorize and not to hold the words, phrases, and syllables established by teachers.

MAVBh(X): 何者名爲五種過失。頌曰懈怠忘聖言 及惛沈掉擧 不作行作行 是五失應知 (T 1600.31.471c4–7)

CPS:「何者」以下生起後文、從此以下有二頌半、依前總標、次第別顯。謂初一頌明五種失。後一頌半頌八斷行。初中有二、三句別顯、一句總結。其五失相、釋中分明。釋中次第釋五種失。第一中言「沒嬾惡處」者、著散亂處、不起精進也。第二中言「不憶不持」者、不憶敎言、不持敎旨也。

Translation: ‘‘To lapse into the evil state’’ in the first [sentence] means to be attached to the state of distraction and not to start the diligence (精進). ‘‘Not to memorize and not to hold’’ in the second [sentence] means not to memorize the words of teachings and not to hold the gist of the teachings. MAVṬ: tatra kāuīdyaṁ prayogakāle doṣas tenāprayogāt | udyuktasyāvavādasammoṣo doṣas tena cittasamādhānābhāvāt | (Yamaguchi 1934, 173, lines 16–18) Translation: In this case, the indolence is a fault during practice, because [it causes] not to practice. For a diligent person, the ignorance of the [[[noble]]] teachings is a fault, because [it causes] the absence of mental concentration.

Example C

In this case, MAVBh(P) also has a unique sentence (underlined) that cannot be found in MAVBh(X) and the root text of MAVṬ. The commentary of the CPS on the sentence is similar to a part of the commentary of MAVṬ on this paragraph.

MAVBh(P): 修住有四種 因入行至得 有作不作意 有上亦無上 願樂位入位出位受記位 說者位灌位 至位功德位 作事位已說

(T 1599.31.459b28–c17)

MAVBh(X): 所說修對治 分位有十八 謂因入行果 作無作殊勝

上無上解行 入出離記說 灌頂及證得

(T 1600.31.472c24–473a11) 勝利成所作

CPS: 言「脩住有四種」、謂下所說有十八位安立之意、唯有四種、故言「有四」。何等爲四。一者前之七種、立共通位、共通三乘故。次有二種、立不共位、不共二處故。其次六種、立前後位、前後立六故。最後三種、立同時位、同時說三故。 (HPC 1.833a9–19)

Translation: ‘‘There are four stages.’’ This means that the following eighteen established stages are classified into only four groups. What are the four groups? The first consists of the first seven [stages] called ‘‘common stages’’ (共通位), since they are common to the three vehicles. [The second group consists of ] the next two stages established as ‘‘separate stages’’ (不共位), since they are not shared with the two [smaller vehicles]. [The third group consists of ] the next six stages named ‘‘stages of one after another’’ (前後位), since there are six [[[gradual]]] stages. [The fourth group consists of ] the last three stages called ‘‘simultaneous stages’’ (同時位), since they simultaneously explain the three [[[bodies]] of Buddha].

MAVṬ: iyad uktaṁ parisamāptāpi niravaśeṣāvasthā bodhisattivānām ekadaśabhūmiprabhedasandarśanārtham adhimukticaryādyavasthābhiṣekādyavasthāvasānāḥ punar uktāḥ | buddhānāṁ tu kāyatrayaprabhedapradarśanārthaṁ prāptyavasthādikāḥ punas tisro nirdiṣṭāḥ | tatra hetvavatārāvasthā bodhisattvasyānyena sādhāraṇatvaṁ veditavyā | (60, a) (Yamaguchi 1934, 189, lines 25–190, 4)

Translation: So far, the explanation of all stages is finished, and the teaching from adhimukticaryādyavasthā and abhiṣekādyavasthā is spoken again to explain the division of the eleven stages of Bodhisattva. The teaching of the [last] three [stages], such as prāptyavasthā, is preached again to explain the division of the three bodies of Buddhas. In this case, it is to be known that hetvavasthā and avatārāvasthā are common between Bodhisattva and other [vehicles].8 Another Similarity between Paramārtha, Sthiramati, and Wŏnhyo

Otake (2012) pointed out that Wŏnhyo seemed to know the same thought of Sthiramati’s Triṃśikā-bhāṣya (TrBh), an Indian commentary on Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā vijñapti-kārikā, and Paramārtha’s works, such as Juedingzang lun 決定藏論 (Commentary of Yogācārabhūmi) or Jiushi zhang 九識章 (Composition on the ninth consciousness), according to a part of the first chapter of CPS that survives as a fragmentary quotation of Kegon kumokushō hotsugoki 華嚴孔目章發悟記 by Gyōnen:

MAVBh(P): 塵根我及識 本識生似彼 但識有無彼 彼無故識無似「塵」者、謂本識顯現相似色等。似「根」者、謂識似五根於自他相續中顯現。似「我」者、謂意識與我見無明等相應故。似「 識」者、謂六種識。「本識」者、謂阿黎耶識。「生似彼」者、謂似塵等四物。「但識有」者、謂但有亂識。「無彼」者、謂無四物。何以故、似塵似根非實形識故、似我似識顯現不如境故。 彼無故識無」者、謂塵旣是無、識亦是無。是識所取四種境界。謂「塵根我及識」所攝實無體相。所取旣無、能取亂識亦復是無。 (T 1599.31.451b7–18)

Translation: [[[Root text]]:] Objects, sense organs, self, and consciousnesses are what the root consciousness generates imitating them. [Commentary:] Imitating ‘‘consciousnesses’’ means [imitating] the six kinds of consciousnesses (D’Amato 2012, 118–119).

CPS: 元曉大師釋舊論文云 [...] 識中言「謂六種識」者、以是證本識通縁十八界法。而瑜伽中不說縁於六識等者、彼論別説自分境界、此論通說通他境界、由是義故不相違背。此義委悉如彼楞伽料簡中說也。 (Dainihon

bukkyō zensho 122. 385a5–386a10)

Translation: According to Master Wŏnhyo’s commentary on the old treatise [MAVBh(P)], ‘‘[imitating consciousnesses] means [imitating] the six kinds of consciousnesses’’ [in CPS] demonstrates that the root consciousness [[[ālayavijñāna]]] perceives throughout the eighteen elements.

二真諦三藏、依決定藏論、立九識義、如九識品說。言九識者、眼等六識、大同識論。第七阿陀那此云執持、執持第八為我我所 [...] 第八阿梨耶識、自有三種。一解性梨耶、有成佛義。二果報梨耶、緣十八界。故中邊分別偈云「根塵我及識 本識生似彼」。依彼論等說、第八識緣十八界。三染汙阿梨耶、緣真如境。[...]依安慧宗、作如是說。第九阿摩羅識。此云無垢識。[...]具如九識章、引決定藏論九識品中說。

(Wŏnch’ŭk, Hae simmil kyŏng so, X1-34-4-360)

Translation: Second, Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha set up the theory of nine consciousnesses based on the Juedingzang lun 決定藏論. [. . .] The eighth is ālayavijñāna that has three types: [. . .] The second is the maturing ālaya that perceives the eighteen elements. Therefore MAV states, ‘‘Objects, sense organs, self and consciousnesses are what the root consciousness generates imitating them.’’ According to this treatise, the eighth consciousness perceives the eighteen elements. [. . .] The aforementioned theory is based on Sthiramati’s doctrine. [. . .] Jiushizhang explains in detail quoting the chapter on the nine consciousnesses in Juedingzang lun.

Otake (2012) pointed out that Paramārtha’s works and Sthiramati’s TrBh9 also consider that the ālayavijñāna perceives the eighteen elements, while other Yogācāra scriptures, such as Yogācārabhūmi and Cheng weishi lun, consider that it perceives only ten of the eighteen elements (1–5 and 7–11 in Table 3). Therefore, Otake (2012) claims that Wŏnhyo’s commentary above was based on the Jiushi zhang, since he could not read TrBh, which was not translated into Chinese.

Table 3. The Eighteen Elements


East Asian Traditions of Paramārtha and Sthiramati


Thus far, we have touched upon several aspects of the textual similarity between Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wŏnhyo. In this section, I would like to turn to the historical relationship between Sthiramati10 and Paramārtha,11 while, unfortunately, I have found no evidence of a relationship between Wŏnhyo and these two former figures. It should be noted that the following investigations depend only on the traditions found in the works of Xuanzang’s followers, especially of Kuiji. However, their critical investigation would be helpful to imagine the background of CPS.


Lineage of Sthiramati

Kuiji’s commentary on the Cheng weishi lun (CWLS) states that the Cheng weishi lun is the intermixed edition of the commentaries on Triṃśikā written by the ten great masters. Kuiji introduces the masters, including Sthiramati and his colleagues, as follows:

The second [[[master]] was] *Guṇamati in Sanskrit, or Dehui 徳慧 in Chinese.

[He was] Sthiramati’s teacher.12 [. . .]

The third [[[master]] was] *Sthiramati in Sanskrit, or Anhui 安慧 in Chinese. [He made] the intermixed [commentary] of Abhidharmasamuccaya. [He] protected Abhidharmakośa and refuted the masters of the *Sāṃmitīya school. [He was our] predecessor who was one of Dharmapāla’s contemporaries. [He was] a person of *Lāṭa of South India. [He had] an exquisite understanding of hetuvidyā [[[Buddhist logic]]] and mastered the Buddhist treatises. [. . .] The sixth [[[master]] was] *Śuddhacandra in Sanskrit, or Jingyue 淨月 in Chinese. [He was one of ] Sthiramati’s contemporaries. [. . .]13 Comparative studies with the commentators’ own works, such as Ui (1952), Katsumata (1961), and Nagao (1978), have revealed the contradiction of Kuiji’s annotations. For example, Katsumata (1961) claims that the Cheng weishi lun can hardly be considered as a ‘‘compiled’’ commentary of the ten masters, but rather a work composed mainly of Dharmapāla’s commentary supplemented by Xuanzang and Kuiji. Lusthaus (2002) raises doubts regarding Dharmapāla’s importance in the Cheng weishi lun. The description of Kuiji needs to be criticized.

In the Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty (Datang daciensi sanzang fashi zhuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳), appears a record of one of the followers of Sthiramati named Jayasena:

From there, [[[Xuanzang]]] went to upāsaka Jayasena of the Stick Wood (*Yaṣṭi). His home country was *Surāstra. He was a man of kṣatriya. He had been an avid student since childhood, and he learned hetuvidyā [[[logic]]] from Bhadraruci at first. Then he learned śabdavidyā [[[science]] of sounds or words] and treatises of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna from Sthiramati, and Yogācārabhūmi from Sīlabhadra.14

It is in common with CWLS’s tradition that Sthiramati was well versed in treatises of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. According to the Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions (Da Tang xiyu ji 大唐西域記), Jayasena’s hometown, *Surāstra, was under the rule of Vallabhī,15 which was also called North Lāṭa and had ‘‘more than one hundred Buddhist temples and more than six thousand monks, many of whom were studying the doctrine of the *Sāṃmitīya school of the Hīnayāna.’’16 Xuanzang stayed with Jayasena for two years, studied the Weishi jueze lun 唯識決擇論 by Jayasena, Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra, and other works and asked him questions about Yogācārabhūmi and hetuvidyā.17 It is likely that Xuanzang learned Sthiramati’s treatises from Jayasena. Sakuma (2008) discusses the proximity between Xuanzang and Sthiramati.

Xuanzang later raised some debates with Indian scholars, such as *Simharaśmi 師子光, a master of the Madhyamika doctrine,18 and *Prajñāgupta 般若毱多 of the *Sāṃmitīya school,19 among others. It should be noted that according to CWLS, Prajñāgupta was a disciple of Sthiramati: This is a monk of the *Sāṃmitīya school from Lāṭa of South India, whose name is Prajñāgupta. The name means ‘‘Wisdom’s house.’’ [He was] a student of Sthiramati, and a teacher of three emperors. He wrote [a treatise of ] seven hundred verses and criticized the Mahāyāna. [. . .] Later, King Sīladitya summoned Prajñāgupta three times to discuss with my master [[[Xuanzang]]], but he declined to come.20

These materials indicate that Sthiramati was a teacher of Xuanzang’s seniors, such as Jayasena and Prajñāgupta. CWLS says that both Sthiramati and Prajñāgupta were from *Lāṭa in South India. The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions also contains a record of the large temple near Vallabhī established by Arhat Ācāra, at which Guṇamati, Sthiramati’s teacher, and Sāramati stayed and wrote treatises. A part of Sthiramati’s lineage seems to be traceable to Vallabhī and neighboring areas (Table 4).


Table 4. Circumstance of Sthiramati and Paramārtha

Sthiramati, Sāṃmitīya, and Paramārtha

The relationship between Sthiramati and the Sāṃmitīya school can be observed in other parts of Kuiji’s commentary. He comments on the third volume of the Cheng weishi lun that outlines the components of cognition: Treatise [ = Cheng weishi lun]: When the substance of contaminated consciousness occurs, the appearance similar to the cognition and the object of cognition arises.

Commentary: Secondly, the theory of the four components of cognition is expounded. [. . .] Old Mahāyāna masters, such as Sthiramati, claim that only the self-aware part exists but the objective and subjective parts do not. [. . .] Treatise: Its associated dharmas should be comprehended in the same way. Commentary: [. . .] This is the orthodox opinion. [This is] not the same as Sthiramati and the Hīnayānists such as of the *Sāṃmitīya [. . .] Treatise: The appearance similar to the object of cognition is named ‘‘the objective part.’’ The appearance similar to the cognition is named ‘‘the subjective part.’’

Commentary: [. . .]

Treatise: If mind and mental factors have no appearance of the object of cognition, they cannot perceive their objects of perception.

Commentary: The following is the refutation of Sthiramati and the *Sāṃmitīya. [. . .]21

Kuiji criticized Sthiramati in conjunction with the Sāṃmitīya, although, as I quoted above, he said that Sthiramati ‘‘refuted the masters of the *Sāṃmitīya school.’’ As I also mentioned above, Sthiramati had a student who belonged to the Sāṃmitīya school, Prajñāgupta, and his hometown of Vallabhī had numerous temples of the school. These descriptions suggest that Sthiramati also had a close relationship with the Sāṃmitīya. It is important to note that a recent study revealed the relationship between Paramārtha and the Sāṃmitīya school. Funayama (2012) assumes that Paramārtha became a Buddhist monk under the vinaya (religious precepts) of the Sāṃmitīya and lived his daily life based on these rules, being associated with the Sarvāstivāda and Yogācāra schools.

As mentioned above, Otake (2012) underscores that Paramārtha’s works have parallels with Sthiramati’s commentary. Since East Asian scholars at that time were unaware of Sthiramati’s texts, Otake concluded that the Jiushi zhang was written by Paramārtha, who learned Yogācāra doctrines similar to Sthiramati’s in South India. Since Ujjayinī, an Indian place found in Paramārtha’s biography, was near Vallabhī, Frauwallner (1951) associated Paramārtha’s theory of amalavijñāna with the Yogācāra school of Vallabhī, but Funayama (2012) disagrees with Frauwallner. Geographical closeness does not equate with philosophical proximity. It is probable, however, that at least Paramārtha was familiar with some doctrines of (the lineage of) Sthiramati, although it is not clear whether or not Sthiramati was a generation before or a contemporary of Paramārtha.


Conclusion


Thus far, we have examined textual and historical relationships between Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wŏnhyo to discover a new viewpoint for reconsidering the lineages or traditions of the Korean Yogācāra schools. As a result, we were able to identify some parallels between MAVBh(P), MAVṬ, and CPS. This indicates another lineage of the Indian and East Asian Yogācāra, especially because of several parallels which are unique to these three texts and which are not found in MAVBh(X) and BZLS. East Asian traditions on Sthiramati and Paramārtha suggest that they seemed to have had a connection with *Sāṃmitīya and to know a same Yogācāra doctrine.

It is also important that Paramārtha wrote a commentary on MAVBh, according to Kuiji (T 1830.43.231c2–5) and Wŏnch’ŭk (HPC 1.356b11–14). In addition, Ui (1965) states that the Shibakong lun 十八空論 (Treatise on the eighteen aspects of emptiness) attributed to Nāgārjuna was a part of Paramārtha’s commentary on MAVBh, rather than his translation. Since Wŏnhyo probably did not have direct access to Indian sources, it may be possible to conjecture that Wŏnhyo wrote CPS based on Paramārtha’s commentaries, works, or teachings, although direct evidence is lacking.

It is reasonable to think that, in the seventh century, there existed another lineage of Yogācāra Buddhism in East Asia, which was learned by Sthiramati and Paramārtha in India and brought to East Asia by Paramārtha prior to Xuanzang.


Notes


1 For example, Fukaura (1954, 257–268), Kashiwagi (1990, 303–304), and Sueki (1995, 135). 2 For the relationship between Jayasena and Xuanzang, see Moro (2018).

3 Dharmakīrti could be a contemporary of Xuanzang, although the latter does not mention Dharmakīrti. Franco (2018) claims that Xuanzang did not know Dharmakīrti since he was not generally known before the second half of the seventh century. 4 It should be noted that Otake (2012) claims that Bodhiruci, a main translator of Shidi jinglun, seemed to belong to another lineage that did not accept part of the theories of Asaṅga. The Indian background of the Dilun and Huayan schools should be considered separately. 5 See Moro (2017). For the broader context of the debate, see Moro (2015).

6 According to ancient catalogues of Buddhist scriptures, there were the commentaries of MAVBh(P) written by Jizang 吉藏, Sengbian 僧辯, and Wŏnhyo, as well as the commentaries on MAVBh(X) by Xuanying 玄應, Xuanfan 玄範, Kuiji, Huizan 惠讃, Xuanyi 玄一, Tojŭng, Taehyŏn, and Master Ju 據師. 7 Only three translations of Xuanzang can be found in the extant part of CPS; Yogācārabhūmi translated in 648, and Xianyang shengjiao lun and Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā translated in 646.

8 See Table 2. 9 āśrayopādānaṃ copādiḥ. āśraya ātmabhāvaḥ, sādhiṣṭhānam indriyarūpaṃ nāma ca (TrBh 19.16–17). 10 Kramer (2019) is also useful for summarizing Chinese and Tibetan traditions on Sthiramati.

11 Funayama (2012) is the most comprehensive paper on the biography of Paramārtha. 12 According to the Tibetan tradition, Sthiramati is a teacher of Guṇamati (Aohara 1988). 13 二梵云寠瞿字上聲拏末底、唐言徳慧。安慧之師。[...] 三梵云悉恥羅末底、唐言安慧。即糅雜集。救倶舍論、破正理師。護法論師同時先徳。南印度境羅羅國人也。 妙解因明、善窮内論。[...]六梵云戍陀戰達羅、唐言淨月。安慧同時。 (T 1830.43.231c16–29).

14 從此復往杖林山居士勝軍論師所。軍本蘇剌佗國人。刹帝利種也。幼而好學、先於賢愛論師所學因明、又從安慧菩薩學聲明大小乘論。又從戒賢法師學瑜伽論。 (T 2053.50.244a7–11). 15 蘇剌佗國[...]役屬伐臘毘國。 (T 2087.51.936c11–13). 16 伽藍百餘所、僧徒六千餘人、多學小乘正量部法。 (T 2087.51.936b19–20). 17 See Moro (2018). The biography of Jayasena in the Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions does not provide information on Jayasena’s teacher(s). Xuanzang’s biographies should be used with caution as their contents were changing both before and after his death (Moro 2015). 18 T 2053.50.244b28–c11.

19 T 2053.50.244c21–245c16. 20 此即南印度羅羅國正量部僧、名般若毱多。此名惠藏。安惠之學徒、三代帝王師。造七百頌誹謗大乘。[...]後戒日王三度往喚般若毬多、欲令共我大師論議、辞不肯來。 (T 1830.43.351a21–b4). 21 論「然有漏識」至「能縁相現」。述曰、大段第二明四分義。 [...] 謂安惠等古大乘師、多説唯有識自證分無相・見分。 [...] 論「彼相應法應知亦爾」。 述曰、 [...] 今此正義。不同安惠・及小乘中正量部等 [...]。論「似所縁相」至「説名見分」。述曰、[...]。論「若心心所」至「自所縁境」。述曰、自下第二正破安惠・正量部等。 (T 1830.43.317b28–c12). Cheng weishi lun: 然有漏識自體生時、皆似所縁能縁相現。彼相應法應知亦爾。似所縁相説名相分、似能縁相説名見分。若心心所無所縁相、應不能縁自所縁境。 (T 1585.31.10a21–25).

22 Information on the period of Sthiramati is complicated. See Sakuma (2013) and Kramer (2019). 23 See Katano (1975, 38–40). References Abbreviations BZLS Bian zhongbian lun shuji 辯中邊論述記 of Kuiji (T 1835) CPS Chungbyŏn punbyŏl lon so 中邊分別論疏 of Wŏnhyo (HPC 1). CWLS Cheng weishi lun shuji 成唯識論述記 (T 1830). HPC Tongguk taehakkyo han’guk pulgyo chŏnsŏ p’yŏnch’an wiwŏnhoe, ed. Han’guk pulgyo chŏnsŏ 韓國佛教全書 [Collected works of Korean Buddhism]. 14 vols. Seoul, 1979–.

MAV Madhyāntavibhāga of Maitreya. MAVBh Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya of Vasubandhu. MAVBh(P) Paramārtha’s translation of MAVBh, Zhongbian fenbie lun 中邊分別論 (T 1599). MAVBh(X) Xuanzang’s translation of MAVBh, Bian zhongbian lun 辯中邊論 (T 1600). MAVṬ Yamaguchi, Susumu. Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā: Exposition Systématique du Yogācāravijñaptivāda. Nagoya: Librarie Hajinkaku, 1934. T Takakusu, Junjirō 高楠順次郞 and Watanabe, Kaikyoku 渡邊海旭, eds. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經 [Revised Buddhist canon compiled during the Taishō reign-period]. 100 vols. Tokyo: Daizōkyōkai, 1924–1935. TrBh Sthiramati. Triṃśikābhāṣya. Edited by Sylvain Lévi. Paris: 1925. X Dainihon zokuzōkyō 大日本續藏經.


Secondary Sources


Aohara Norisato. 1988. ‘‘Kusharon chūshakuka Guṇamati to sono deshi Vasumitra (1) 倶舍論注釋家 Guṇamati とその弟子 Vasumitra (1)’’ [[[Guṇamati]] and his pupil Vasumitra (1)]. Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 36(2): 67–69. DOI: 10.4259/ibk.36.919 D’Amato, Mario. 2012. Maitreya’s Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga) Along with Vasubandhu’s Commentary (Madhyāntavibhāgabhāṣya): A Study and Annotated Translation. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies. Franco, Eli. 2018. ‘‘Xuanzang’s Silence and Dharmakīrti’s Dates.’’ Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 56–57: 117–141. Frauwallner, Erich. 1951. ‘‘Amalavijñānam und Ālayavijñānam’’ [Amalavijñānam and Ālayavijñānam]. In Beiträge zur indischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, Walter Schubring zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht [Contributions to Indian philosophy and archaeology: papers offered to Walter Schubring on his seventieth birthday], 148– 159. Hamburg: Cram, de Gruyter.

Fukaura Seibun. 1954. Yuishiki-gaku kenkyū jōkan: Kyōshi-ron 唯識學硏究上卷:敎史論 [Studies of the consciousness-only, Vol. 1: doctrinal tradition]. Tokyo: Daihōrinkaku. Fukihara Shōshin. 1989. Nihon yuishiki shisōshi 日本唯識思想史 [History of the Japanese consciousness-only thought]. Tokyo: Kokusho kankokai. Funayama Tōru. 2012. ‘‘Shindai sanzō no katsudō to chosaku no kihonteki tokuchō’’ 眞諦の活動と著作の基本的特徵 [Fundamental characteristics of the activity and works of Paramārtha]. In Shindai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 眞諦三藏硏究論集 [Studies of the works and influence of Paramārtha], edited by Funayama Tōru, 121–153. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University. Ibuki Atsushi. 2006. ‘‘Gangyō no chosaku no seiritsu jiki ni tsuite’’ 元曉の著作の成立時期について [On the chronology of Wŏnhyo’s works]. Tōyōgaku ronsō 31: 132–150.

Ishii Kōsei. 2019. Higashi ajia bukkyō shi 東アジア佛教史 [History of East Asian Buddhism]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Kashiwagi Hiroo. 1990. ‘‘Chūgoku nihon ni okeru Daijō kishin ron kenkyū shi’’ 中國・日本における『大乘起信論』硏究史 [History of studies on the Awakening of Faith in China and Japan]. In Nyoraizō to Daijō kishin ron 如來藏と大乘起信論 [[[Tathāgatagarbha]] and the Awakening of Faith], edited by Hirakawa Akira, 289–334. Tokyo: Shunjūsha. Katano Michio. 1975. Yuishiki shisō no kenkyū: Mushō zou Shō daijō ron chū shochi shō no kaidoku 唯識思想の研究:無性造「攝大乘論註」所知相章の解読 [A study of the consciousness-only in Indian Buddhism: an annotated translation of Asvabhāma’s Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, ‘‘jñeya-lakṣaṇa’’ chapter]. Kyoto: Bun’eidō shoten. Katsumata Shunkyō. 1961. Bukkyō ni okeru shinshiki setsu no kenkyū 佛教における心識説の研究 [A study of the Citta-Vijñāna thought in Buddhism]. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin.

Kramer, Jowita. 2019. ‘‘Sthiramati.’’ In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Volume II: Lives, edited by Jonathan Silk, 456–457. Leiden: Brill. Lee, Sumi. 2015. ‘‘Redefining the ‘Dharma Characteristics School’ in East Asian Yogācāra Buddhism.’’ The Eastern Buddhist 46(2): 41–60. Lusthaus, Dan. 2002. Buddhist Phenomenology: A philosophical investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun. London: Routledge. Moro Shigeki. 2015. Ronri to rekishi: Higashi ajia bukkyō ronrigaku no seiritsu to tenkai 論理と歴史: 東アジア佛敎論理學の形成と展開 [[[Logic]] and history: formation and expansion of Buddhist logic in East Asia]. Kyoto: Nakanishiya shuppan. ——. 2017. ‘‘Gangyō Chūhen funbetsu ron sho no shisōshi jō no ichi to sono igi’’ 元曉『中邊分別論疏』の思想史上の位置とその意義 [Historical place and significance of Wŏnhyo’s Chungbyŏn punbyŏllon so]. In 21segi Wŏnhyohak ŭi ŭimi wa chŏnmang: Wŏnhyo chansul munhŏn ŭi kyebo hakchŏk sŏngch’al 21 世紀元曉學의 意味와展望: 元曉撰述文獻의系譜學的省察 [Proceedings of ‘‘Meaning and Perspective of Wŏnhyo Studies in the 21st Century: Genealogical Consideration of Wŏnhyo’s Works’’], 187–225. Seoul: Dongguk University.

——. 2018. ‘‘Jayasena’s Proof of the Authenticity of the Mahāyāna Scriptures.’’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 46(2): 339–353. DOI: 10.1007/s10781–018–9350-x Nagao Gadjin Masato. 1964. Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya. Tokyo. ——. 1978. Chūgan to yuishiki 中觀と唯識 [[[Madhyamika]] and Yogācāra]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Nguyen, Cuong T. 2012. ‘‘Commentary on the Discrimination between the Middle and the Extremes (Chungbyŏn punbyŏllon so): Fascicle Three.’’ In Wŏnhyo’s Philosophy of Mind, edited by A. Charles Muller and Cuong T. Nguyen, 175–261. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Otake Susumu. 2012. ‘‘Shindai Kushiki-gi wo megutte’’ 眞諦『九識章』をめぐって [[[Paramārtha’s]] Jiu shi zhang]. In Shindai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 眞諦三藏硏究論集 [Studies of the works and influence of Paramārtha], edited by Tōru Funayama. 121–153. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University. Sakuma Hidenori. 2008. ‘‘Hossōshū shoden no shoronshi keifu no saikō’’ 法相宗所傳の諸論師系譜の再考 [Reconsideration of the lineage of the masters based on the tradition of the Hossō school]. In Bukkyō to bunka: Tada Kōshō hakushi koki kinen ronshū 佛教と文化: 多田孝正博士古稀記念論集 [[[Buddhism]] and culture: commemorative papers for the celebration of the seventieth birthday of Dr. Tada Kōshō], edited by Tada Kōshō hakushi koki kinen ronshū kankōkai, 171–194. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin.

——. 2013. ‘‘Chūshaku-ka Sthiramathi wa hitori ka?’’ 註釋家スティラマティは一人か? [Was there really only one commentator named Sthiramati?]. Bukkyō-gaku 55: 59– 86. Sueki Fumihiko. 1995. Heian shoki bukkyō shisō no kenkyū: An’nen no shisō keisei wo chūshin ni shite 平安初期佛敎思想の硏究 安然の思想形成を中心として [Studies of Buddhism during the early Heian period: the formation of Annen’s thought]. Tokyo: Shunjūsha. Suguro Shinjō. 1964. ‘‘Jō yuishiki ron ni okeru Gohō setsu no tokuchō’’ 成唯識論における護法説の特色 [A characteristic of the theory of Dharmapāla in Cheng weishi lun]. In Yūki kyōju shōju kinen bukkyō shisōshi ronshū 結城教授頌壽記念佛教思想史論集 [Commemorative papers on the history of Buddhist philosophy for the celebration of the longevity of Prof. Yūki Reimon], edited by Yūki kyōju shōju kinen ronbunshū kankōkai, 223–240. Tokyo: Daizō shuppan. Ui Hakuju. 1952. Daijō bukkyō kenkyū 5: An’ne Gohō yuishiki sanjūju shakuron 大乘佛教研究五: 安慧護法唯識三十頌釋論 [Studies of Mahāyāna Buddhism Vol. 5: the commentaries of Sthiramati and Dharmapāla on Triṃśikā]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.

——. 1965. Indo tetsugaku kenkyū dai 6 印度哲學硏究第六 [Studies in Indian philosophy 6]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. DOI: 10.11501/1917897 Yamaguchi, Susumu. 1934. Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā: Exposition Systématique du Yogācāravijñaptivāda. Nagoya: Librarie Hajinkaku. DOI: 10.11501/1678871



Source