The Sautråntika Theories of LifeContinuum in Light of Karma

by Tse-fu Kuan ∗

Introduction The doctrine of non-self (anåtman) is unique to Buddhism, and plays an important part in the Buddhist understanding of the nature of existence. According to the Buddhist tradition, while the Buddha accepted the conventional usage of the term åtman (attå in Pali) to refer to “oneself”, “myself” or

“himself” according to context, or to mean one’s character, etc. (Harvey 1995: 19–20), he did not accept anything to be an åtman in the sense of a permanent, autonomous “self” as a separate entity.1 The concept of karma (Skt. karman), which literally means “action”, predated Buddhism and was modified by the Buddha to explain the phenomena of suffering and inequality in the world. Gombrich (1988: 46) points out: “It was the Buddha who first completely ethicized the concept.”

The Buddha says: “It is volition that I call karma.”2 One’s volition, which can be ethically good or bad, determines the result one will experience in the round of rebirths (saµsåra). Dessein (2008: 17) observes: “The notions of selflessness (anåtmaka) and karman are two key concepts in Buddhist philosophy. The question how karman functions with respect to the rebirth of a worldling who is, actually, devoid of a self, was a major philosophical issue in early Buddhist doctrine.” The non-self doctrine denies the existence of an eternal personal entity, whereas

College of General Studies, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan Tung Road, Chung-li, Taiwan. 1 Cf. Gombrich (1988: 63) and Kuan (2009: 155–156). 2 AN III 415: cetanå ’haµ bhikkhave kammaµ vadåmi.

The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 14, 2013 50

karmic responsibility seems to require a permanent individual transmigrating in the round of rebirths to be the agent of actions and the experiencer of their results. Thus a paradox exists between these two ideas, and it has caused difficulties since the time of the Buddha. For instance, an account is recorded in a sutta (Skt. sËtra) of the Majjhima Nikåya in Pali as follows (abridged): In reply to a question raised by one of the monks surrounding him, the Buddha taught that one sees each of the five aggregates, as it really is, thus: “This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.” A monk among them thought: “So, it

seems, material form is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, volitional activities are not self, consciousness is not self. What self, then, will actions (kamma, Skt. karman) done by the non-self affect? ”3 Evidently it was difficult for that monk, or even for many others, to comprehend the matter of karmic responsibility given that there is no self. Various propositions for solving this problem were put forward throughout the development of different schools of thought. The Sautråntikas formulated sophisticated theories that substitute the “life-continuum” (saµtati) for the self. Such theories are often expounded in the light of karma so as to reconcile the two seemingly contradictory concepts in Buddhism: karma and nonself. No texts that can be identified as affiliated to the Sautråntikas survive until today, so the following question arises:

Who were the Sautråntikas? A simple answer is given by Yaßomitra (7th or 8th century CE)4 in his commentary on the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya: “What is the meaning of ‘Sautråntika(s)’? Those who take the sËtras as the

MN III 18–19: Yaµ kiñci, bhikkhu, rËpaµ … sabbaµ rËpaµ: N’ etaµ mama, n’ eso ’ham asmi, na m’ eso (according to Vism-w 547; me so PTS) attå ti, —evam etaµ yathåbhËtaµ sammappaññåya passati. Yå kåci vedanå—pe— Yå kåci saññå —pe — Ye keci saµkhårå —pe— Yaµ kiñci viññå˜aµ … Atha kho aññatarassa bhikkhuno evaµ cetaso parivitakko udapådi: Iti kira, bho, rËpaµ anattå, vedanå anattå, saññå anattå, saµkhårå anattå, viññå˜aµ anattå, anattakatåni kammåni kam attånaµ phusissant¥ti? My translation mostly follows that of Ñå˜amoli & Bodhi (2001: 890). 4 See Anacker (2005: 490) and Warder (2000: 451). The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

standard but do not take the ßåstras as the standard are the Sautråntikas.”5 As Kritzer (2003a: 202) suggests, while “Sautråntika” is generally considered to be another school that developed within the Sarvåstivåda sect, the term may be better understood as referring to a variety of ideas that deviate from the mainstream Sarvåstivåda rather than referring to a consistent and formal school.6 The orthodox Sarvåstivådins, the VaibhåΣikas, relied heavily on the authority of the Abhidharma and ßåstras, which tend to take an ontological position of realism. In contrast, the so-called “Sautråntikas” were those Sarvåstivådins who refused to accept such authority and such an ontological position. As Cox (1995: 38) sums up, KatØ (1989: 101–119) contends that although the *MahåvibhåΣå (T 1545, composed in 2nd or 3th century CE7) translated by Xuanzang

(7th century CE)8 and Xuanzang’s translation of the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra (T 2031,9 composed in around 100 CE10) refer to the term “Sautråntika”, these references result from mistakes Xuanzang made while translating those texts and hence should not be understood to refer to the same group that was to be identified later by Vasubandhu (4th century CE)11 as the Sautråntikas. According to KatØ, therefore, the earliest reference to the Sautråntikas as a distinct group would be in the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya by Vasubandhu. Kritzer (2003b) finds that many passages attributed to the Sautråntikas in Vasubandhu’s AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya and

5 AK-s 15: ka˙ Sautråntikårtha˙? ye sËtra-pråmå˜ikå˙ na tu ßåstrapråmå˜ikås te Sautråntikå˙. 6 Cf. Cox (1995: 40–41) and KatØ (1989: 89–90). 7 According to Hirakawa (1990: 135). Willemen et al. (1998: 166, 232) point out the difficulties in dating this text. 8 See FDC 2024–2025 and Willemen et al. (1998: 233). 9 Two other versions of this text, T 2032 and T 2033, were translated into Chinese by others earlier than Xuanzang. 10 According to Sujato (2012: 66). Liang (1972: 28) also points out that this text cannot be later than the *MahåvibhåΣå. 11 Anacker (2005: 10) dates him between 316 and 396. KatØ (1989: 63) dates him between 320 and 400.

Karmasiddhiprakara˜a12 also correspond to passages in the YogåcårabhËmi. He (p. 376) concludes: “I have previously speculated that Vasubandhu was a Yogåcåra when he wrote the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya … and I have not changed my mind.” In response to a stance like Kritzer’s, Fukuda (2003: 259) says: A number of scholars suspect that Vasubandhu already was a Yogåcåra when he composed the Koßa [i.e. Abhidharma-koßabhåΣya], and that his appellation “Sautråntika” was only a disguise for his actual affiliation. The aim of this paper is to reconsider this issue by examining the thought of another Sautråntika master contemporary with

Vasubandhu, Bhadanta Råma. His opinions are fragmentarily referred to in the *Nyåyånusåra, and Sa∫ghabhadra [i.e. author of the *Nyåyånusåra] says that he is a disciple of Ír¥låta. On the other hand, as is mentioned below, some of his arguments are adopted in the Koßa. In this research, Fukuda (2003: 283) concludes: “In brief, the doctrine of Råma is a blend of the views of the DårΣ†åntikas in the *VibhåΣå and Ír¥låta the Sthavira in the *Nyåyånusåra as well as some Yogåcåra ideas. This fact suggests that the Sautråntikas are definitely descended from the DårΣ†åntika lineage.” He goes on to cite Yinshun’s (1968: 572–573) opinion

thus: “It seems that in the period of Bhadanta Råma, the Yogåcåra Mahåyånists flourished, so they would have influenced the Sautråntika-DårΣ†åntikas.” Accordingly, Fukuda comments: “The Sautråntika positions of Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakoßa should also be considered in this context.” This is a plausible approach to the tenets attributed to the Sautråntikas by Vasubandhu. Even Kritzer (2003b) shows that several of the positions ascribed to the Sautråntikas in Vasubandhu’s AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya and Karmasiddhiprakara˜a have parallels in the *Jñånakåya-prodbhËtopadeßa (*Tattvasiddhi,13 T 1646) by Harivarman (ca 300 CE),14 a disciple

12 Translated by Xuanzang 玄奘 (T 1609 大乘成業論 ) and VimokΣaprajñarΣi 毘目智仙 (T 1608 業成就論

). The former translation will be referred to in this paper. 13 The Sanskrit title of the Chengshi lun 成實論

(T 1646) has usually been conjectured to be Tattvasiddhi or Satyasiddhi[ßåstra]. Willemen (2006) demonstrates that the correct form of its title could be JñånakåyaprodbhËtopadeßa. The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

of Kumåralåta,15 who was a Sautråntika master according to the tradition.16 In addition, some positions identified as Sautråntika by Vasubandhu are attributed to the DårΣ†åntikas in the *VibhåΣå compendia composed centuries before Vasubandhu. There is no doubt that the Sautråntikas can be traced back to the DårΣ†åntikas, who began to be active long before Vasubandhu. According to Willemen (2008: 45–46), the Sautråntikas and DårΣ†åntikas were the same people, i.e. the non-VaibhåΣika Sarvåstivådins. The fact that many passages attributed to the Sautråntikas in Vasubandhu’s works also correspond to passages in the

YogåcårabhËmi may be understood as meaning that the later Sautråntikas, e.g. Råma, were influenced by some prevalent Yogåcåra concepts at that time. It is also possible that certain Yogåcåra concepts were inspired by the Sautråntikas or DårΣ†åntikas. Even if “the term Sautråntika cannot be attested before Vasubandhu” as argued by Kritzer (2003a: 214) and likewise by KatØ (see above), the ideas ascribed to the Sautråntikas in Vasubandhu’s works do not necessarily represent the opinions of Vasubandhu himself as a Yogåcåra Mahåyånist. KatØ (1989: 147) concedes the possibility that the founder of the Sautråntikas or the first one to use

the term “Sautråntika” could be Ír¥låta, who was a teacher of Vasubandhu (KatØ 1989: 61–62). Rather than just being a few individuals, the Sautråntikas formed a prominent group to such an extent that in Hindu and Jain accounts they were ranked among the four principal schools of Buddhism, viz. the Mådhyamikas, the Yogåcåras, the Sautråntikas and the VaibhåΣikas (Yamakami 2009: 105). Accordingly, the Sautråntikas were evidently distinguishable from the Yogåcåras. In sum, it is not easy to identify the “authentic” Sautråntika doctrines. Nonetheless, I will attempt to explore the various Sautråntika ideas concerning “life-continuum” based

4 See Willemen (2008: 54) and Yinshun (1985: 132). 15 See the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 (T 2145) by Sengyou 僧祐 (445~518) at T LV 78c: 訶梨跋摩 …抽簪革服為薩婆多部達摩沙門究摩羅陀 弟子 。 16 Xuanzang’s Datang xiyu ji 大唐西域記

(T 2087 LI 884c) says: 經部拘摩 羅邏 多論師

. Dessein (2003: 229–301) identifies Kumåralåta as a Sautråntika whose opinion is cited in Upaßånta’s *Abhidharmah®daya ( 阿毘曇心論經

, T 1551) in order to refute the VaibhåΣika doctrine.

largely on the traditional views, which are still generally valid in view of the above discussions. This research will refer frequently to Vasubandhu’s works as well as others, and will show that some notions attributed to the Sautråntikas by Vasubandhu may have evolved from certain ideas ascribed to the Sautråntikas or similar groups in some earlier texts.

Karma and Life-continuum In the Pali canon of the Theravåda school, verse 666 of the Sutta-nipåta reads: “For no one’s action (kamma) disappears [completely]; truly it comes back. Its owner assuredly obtains it. The doer of wrong, the fool, sees misery for himself in the next world.”17 (Tr. Norman 1995: 77) A similar verse ascribed to the Buddha by the Sarvåstivådins runs as follows: “Actions (karmas) do not disappear, even after hundreds of aeons. When the conditions gather,

the fruits will ripen for the doers themselves.”18 As stated in the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a, the orthodox Sarvåstivådins interpret this verse in such a literal way as to hold that “past actions exist in reality”.19 The Sautråntikas disagree with this Sarvåstivådin view on the nature of karma, and contend that “actions do not disappear” in this verse simply “means that a completed action is not without fruit, as the latter half of the verse demonstrates this meaning”.20 In the Prasannapadå, a commentary on the MËlamadhyamakakårikå, Candrak¥rti (6th century CE)21 elucidates the Sautråntika position as follows:

17 Sn 666, p.128: Na hi nassati kassaci kammaµ, eti ha taµ, labhat’ eva suvåm¥/ dukkhaµ mando paraloke, attani passati kibbisakår¥ // 18 This verse recurs in the MËlasarvåstivåda Vinaya (e.g. T XXIII 657c): 假令經百劫 ，所作業不亡 ，因緣會遇時 ，果報還自受 。 It also recurs in the Divyåvadåna (e.g. Divy 131): Na pra˜aßyanti karmå˜i kalpako†ißatair api / såmagr¥µ pråpya kålaµ ca phalanti khalu dehinåm //. Hiraoka (1998) demonstrates that the Divyåvadåna draws heavily on the MËlasarvåstivåda Vinaya. 19 T XXXI 783a: 執過去業體實有 。…世尊何故自說 ：「 業雖經百劫 ，而終無失壞 ， 遇眾緣合時 ，要當酬彼果 。」

20 T XXXI 783a: 「無失壞 」言為顯何義 ？顯所作業非無果義 ，由後半頌證此義成 。 21 See Lamotte (1988b: 593) and Anacker (2005: 145). The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

If one supposes: “an action which has arisen remains in its own nature until the time of its result”, then all this time it is permanent, for it is free from destruction. … The fact that it is free from destruction leads to its being unconditioned. And the unconditioned things, being devoid of result, always remain without result. … Then it should be admitted thus: actions disappear immediately after they have arisen.22 According to the Sautråntikas, actions must perish as soon as they are accomplished in order to avoid suspicion that actions are permanent, unconditioned and thus unable to bring about results. From the

Sautråntikas’ point of view, past actions do not really exist. As the above case shows, the orthodox Sarvåstivådins has a propensity to take sËtra passages literally and to consider many things mentioned in the sËtras to be ontologically real, but the Sautråntikas are critical of such literalism and are inclined to interpret many things in the sËtras as nominally true. To justify their positions, the Sautråntikas often present their theories by using similes or examples.

In order to explain how result can arise when its cause, karma (action), no longer exists, the Sautråntikas set up the theory of the seed (b¥ja). According to the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, they compare karma to the seed, and result to the fruit. Just as the fruit does not arise directly from the seed that no longer exists, but rather arises from the last stage of the flower produced in the series of the sprout, the stem, the leaf, etc., and thus the seed passes on to the flower the efficacy to produce the fruit; so too, the result (literally “fruit”) does not arise from the action that no longer exists, nor immediately after it, but from “the culmination of the transformation23 in the life-continuum [affected by the action24]”

22 Prp 311: yady utpannaµ sat karmåvipåkakålaµ svarËpe˜åvatiΣ†hata iti parikalpyate, tad iyantaµ kålam asya nityatåpadyate vinåßarahitatvåt / … vinåßarahitasya cåsaµsk®tatvaprasa∫gåd asaµsk®tånåµ ca vipåkådarßanåd avipåkatvena sadaivå[va]sthånån … athotpådånantaravinåßitvam eva karma˜åm evam abhyupetaµ / 23 Yaßomitra glosses: “[The culmination of the transformation] is that which is able to cause the fruit to arise immediately. It is the culmination of the transformation because it is the last [stage of] the transformation, which is distinctive.” (AK-s 1230: sa punar yo ’nantaraµ phalotpådanasamartha˙. so ’ntyapari˜åmavißiΣ†atvåt pari˜åma-vißeΣa˙ /)

(tat-saµtati-pari˜åma-vißeΣa).25 This theory is attributed to the Sautråntikas by Fabao 法寶 , a disciple of Xuanzang, in his commentary on the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, the Jüshelun shu 俱舍論疏

(T 1822).26 According to this theory, an action, before disappearing, generates an effect that causes the life-continuum to undergo a transformation, which culminates in the experience of a corresponding karmic result. This theory sets up the karmic linkage without positing a transmigrating self or an intermediate action, like the unmanifested action (avijñapti-karman)27 of the orthodox Sarvåstivådins, between the moment when an action is performed and the time of experiencing its result.

Life-continuum consisting of Mental and Material Elements In Vasubandhu’s exposition (bhåΣya) of verse 36 in chapter two of his AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, the life-continuum (saµtati) is defined as “the saµskåras of the present, the past and the future, existing in cause and effect”.28 Fabao attributes this definition of the life-continuum to the Sautråntikas in his commentary on the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya.29 In this case “cause and effect” may denote the principle of “dependent origination” (prat¥tyasamutpåda), and the life-continuum here could have originated from the life-continuum (saµtåna) conceived by the orthodox Sarvåstivådins, which is also described as existing in line with the principle of “dependent origination” spanning the past, the present, and the future life. According to the orthodox Sarvåstivådins, the aggregates (skandha) form a continuum, which is what enters the 24 Both Xuanzang and Paramårtha translate tat as 業

karma, “action”. Xuanzang translates tat-saµtati-pari˜åma-vißeΣåt as 從業業業業 相續轉變差別

XXIX 159a). Paramårtha translates it as 從業業業業 相續轉異勝類果 (T XXIX 310b). 25 AK 477: yathå b¥jåt phalam utpadyata ity ucyate / na ca tad vinaΣ†åd b¥jåd utpadyate / nåpy anantaram eva / kiµ tarhi ? tat-saµtati-pari˜åma-vißeΣåd a∫kurakå˜∂apatrådikramaniΣpannåt puΣpåvasånåt / … tadåhitaµ hi tat parayå puΣpe såmarthyam / … evaµ karma˜a˙ phalam utpadyata ity ucyate / na ca tad vinaΣ†åt karma˜a utpadyate, nåpy anantaram eva / kiµ tarhi ? tat-saµtati-pari˜åma-vißeΣåt / 26 T XLI 812a:

論主以經部義釋 . 27 See Hirakawa (1990: 190–191). 28 AK 64: kå ceyaµ santati˙? hetuphalabhËtås traiyadhvikå˙ saµskårå˙. 29 T XLI 537a: 論：何名相續 ？有部徵也 。論：因果性三世諸行 。經部答也 。

The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

mother’s womb30 although the aggregates themselves are momentary and cannot transmigrate. The twelve-fold dependent origination can be divided into three sections (tr¥˜i kå˜dåni), i.e., the past life, the future life and the present life. Moreover, each of the twelve links in the dependent origination formula embraces the five aggregates,31 so the continuum of the aggregates “transmigrates”, so to speak, through the past, the present and the future life, i.e. the round of rebirths (saµsåra), under the sway of the dependent origination principle. Therefore saµskåras here, for both the Sautråntikas and the orthodox

Sarvåstivådins, may cover all of the five aggregates just like the saµskåras (Pali saµkhårå) in the “three characteristics” (ti-lakkha˜a) formula32 rather than the saµskåras as one of the five aggregates.33 If the “saµskåras” that form the life-continuum referred to one of the five aggregates, namely volitional activities, they would be too narrow in meaning to explain the continuity of an individual in the round of rebirths. Besides, volitional activities cannot be the experiencer of a karmic result. In the same context where the life-continuum is defined as “the saµskåras of the present, past and future, existing in cause and effect”, the theory of seed (b¥ja) is introduced, and the seed is said to be “name-and-form that is able to produce fruit immediately or gradually through the culmination of the transformation in the

30 AK 129: kleßakarmåbhisaµsk®ta˙ skandhånåµ saµtåno måtu˙ kukΣim åpadyata iti / 31 AK 133: åvasthiko dvådaßa pañcaskandhikå avasthå … a∫gam a∫gaµ pañca skandhå˙. 32 This formula describes the three aspects of the nature of things. See e.g. verses 277–279 of the Dhammapada: All conditioned things are impermanent (sabbe saµkhårå aniccå). All conditioned things are unsatisfactory (sabbe saµkhårå dukkhå). All things are non-self (sabbe dhammå anattå). This formula is called ti-lakkha˜a (three characteristics) in later Pali literature such as Ja I 48, 275; Vism-w 530ff. 33 Rahula (2000: 57, note 2) states that in the ti-lakkha˜a formula saµkhårå (Skt. saµskåra) “means all conditioned or compounded things, including all the Five Aggregates”. Hamilton (1996: 66–67) also indicates that the meaning of saµkhåra in the ti-lakkha˜a formula is significantly different from that in the dependent origination formula or the meaning of saµkhåra as a khandha (aggregate). Her translation of saµkhårå (plural) in the tilakkha˜a formula is “conditioned phenomena”.

life-continuum”.34 Jaini (1959: 243) interprets “name-and-form” here as “the complex of the five skandhas” and therefore reinforces my argument that the life-continuum defined as the saµskåras must cover the five aggregates (skandhas). Fabao says the following to explain this passage in his commentary on the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya: This is alluding to the views of two teachers in the Sautråntika school. One [view is that] material form (*rËpa, referring to “form” above) holds the seeds. The other [is that] the mind (*citta, referring to “name” above) holds the seeds. Here [some] combine [these two views and] say that

material form and the mind hold the seeds.”35 This explanation suggests that the life-continuum, together with the seeds stored therein, can be either material or mental; or alternatively it may consist of both material form and the mind. This idea is corroborated by the following passages in the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya and the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a. The AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya reads: In this case [i.e., the meditative attainment of nonconception and the meditative attainment of cessation],36 how can the mind arise again from the mind that has ceased for a long time? … Some others say: “For those who have been born in a non-material [[[sphere]]], how can their material form arise again when material form has ceased for a long time? It arises only from the mind, not from material form. In the same way, the mind also arises from this body possessing organs, not from the mind [when one emerges from either of the above meditative attainments without mind].” The ancient masters say:

34 AK 64: kiµ punar idaµ b¥jaµ nåma? yan nåmarËpaµ phalotpatau samarthaµ såkΣåt påraµ parye˜a vå / saµtati-pari˜åma-vißeΣåt / 35 T XLI 537a: 此即經部有二師執 ，一色持種 ，二心持種 。此中合說色心持種 。 36 “In this case” idån¥µ, rendered by Xuanzang as “now in the two absorptions” (T XXIX 25c

今二定中

). The two absorptions refer back to the attainment of non-conception (asaµjñi-samåpatti) and the attainment of cessation (nirodha-samåpatti) stated earlier in the same paragraph (AK 71: ubhe api tv ete asaµjñinirodhasamåpatt¥. The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

“These two, the mind and the body possessing organs, are the seeds (b¥ja) for each other.”37 According to Fabao’s commentary on the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, “some others” (apare) refer to the Sautråntikas, and “the ancient masters (pËrvåcåryå˙)” refer to the ancient masters of the Sautråntikas.38 Similarly, Yaßomitra regards “some others” as the Sautråntikas, while the “ancient masters” are identified as the Sautråntikas by PËr˜avardhana or as the “ancient Sautråntikas” by Sthiramati.39 With regard to the above issue: “For those who have been born in a non-material [[[sphere]]], how can their material form, i.e. physical body, arise

again when material form has ceased for a long time? It arises only from the mind”, another passage in the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya further explains it by virtue of a karmic mechanism: “The arising of material form is simply from the mind which was perfumed by the cause of the result in that [[[material form]]]40 and which has acquired the efficacy [to produce material form now41].”42 In other words, the resumption of material form or physical body after rebirth from a non-material sphere into a lower material sphere is regarded as a karmic result whose cause, a certain action, etc., should ripen into material form.43 This cause in terms of karma had perfumed the mind, and therefore the mind

37 AK 72: katham idån¥µ bahukålaµ niruddhåc cittåt punar api cittaµ jåyate? … apare punar åhu˙ / kathaµ tåvad årËpyopapannånåµ ciraniruddhe ’pi rËpe punar api rËpaµ jåyate? cittåd eva hi taj jåyate na rËpåt / evaµ cittam apy asmåd eva sendriyåt kåyåt (AK-s 246, kåyå AK) jåyate na cittåt / anyonyab¥jakaµ hy etad ubhayaµ yad uta cittaµ ca sendriyaß ca kåya iti pËrvåcåryå˙ / 38 T XLI 545b: 「有餘師言 」至「非由心起 」， 述經部宗 。…「故彼先代 」 至「心、 有根身 」， 引經部宗古師證也 。

39 Cited from KatØ (1989: 261). 40 In this long compound tad, “that”, is translated as

“material form”, referring to rËpa, by both Paramårtha (T XXIX 297c: 色報因

for tad-vipåka hetu) and Xuanzang (T XXIX 146b: 色異熟因

for tad-vipåka-hetu). 41 Words added according to Paramårtha’s translation: “ 此心有功能 生於今色 生於今色 生於今色 生於今色 ”

(T XXIX 297c) 42 AK 435: rËpasya cittåd evotpattis tadvipåkahetuparibhåvitål labdhav®ttita˙. 43 Cf. the interpretation by de La Vallée Poussin (1990: 1225). The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 14, 2013 60

eventually acquired the efficacy to produce material form. This is how a sentient being regains a physical body after having lived in a non-material sphere, where he had no material form but only possessed the mind. It is interesting to note that in this case the karma is non-material in nature and the mind perfumed by the karma is also non-material, but this karma is able to bring about a result pertaining to material form. Although no “seed” is mentioned in this theory, it tallies with the foregoing theory of the seed, which is said to be “name-and-form that is able to give rise to the fruit through the culmination of the

transformation in the lifecontinuum”. In this case, the seed that is able to give rise to the material fruit is stored in the mind; and the transformation in the life-continuum, formerly non-material, culminates in the arising of material form, i.e. a physical body, from the seed stored in the mind. In a similar vein, a passage in the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a echoes the question and answer in the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya quoted above: “how can the mind arise again from the mind that has ceased for a long time? … the mind arises from this body possessing organs, not from the mind [when one emerges from the meditative attainments without mind]”. This passage reads: Some say that the mind that is posterior [to the meditative attainments without mind] arises again owing to the power of seeds that rest on

the material organs; for the seeds capable of giving rise to the mind and mental factors rest on two continuums, viz. the mental continuum and the continuum of the material organs.44 From the foregoing quotations from the two works by Vasubandhu, it can be inferred that some Sautråntikas posit a theory that the mental continuum and the continuum of the material organs contain each other’s seeds, or the two continuums can serve as each other’s seeds. When one continuum is interrupted, its seeds are preserved in the other continuum. This theory explains, on the one hand, how the life-continuum can resume the mental activities after they are suspended during the meditative attainments without mind, and, on the other hand, how material form can arise again in the life-continuum of one who once lived in the non-material

44 T XXXI 783c: 有作是說 ：依附色根種子力故 ，後心還起 。以能生心 、 心所種子依二相續 ，謂心相續 、色根相續 。 The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

61 (årËpya) sphere when reborn in a lower sphere endowed with material form. Therefore, this type of life-continuum could be defined as the “saµskåras (conditioned things) of the present, past and future, existing in cause (karma) and effect (result)” According to this theory, the life-continuum consists of both mental and material elements or potential, which is the seed defined as “nameand-form that is able to produce fruit immediately or gradually through the culmination of the transformation in the lifecontinuum”.

Purely Mental Life-continuum Alternatively, the life-continuum (saµtati) is defined in chapter nine of the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya as “the arising of one mind-event after another preceded by actions (karmas)”.45 This divergence in the definition of the life-continuum reflects the various ideas conceived by different Sautråntika thinkers. This alternative definition may account for another kind of idea held by some other Sautråntikas. According to the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a, Vasumitra46 holds that an individual is endowed with a subtle mind even during the meditative attainment of cessation (nirodhasamåpatti) because the sËtra says that the consciousness does not leave the body of one who stays in the attainment of cessation.47 As stated in the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a, “a certain group that takes the sËtras as the standard” ( 一類經為量者

), apparently certain Sautråntikas, calls this subtle mind the “result-fruit-consciousness” ( 異熟果識 , *vipåka-phala-vijñåna). This group holds that this consciousness continues uninterrupted even during “the states without mind” such as the attainment of cessation. These states are

45 AK 477: ya˙ karmapËrva uttarottaracittaprasava˙ så saµtatis. 46 This Vasumitra, a Sautråntika, was not the Vasumitra who composed the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra. See Liang (1972: 27–28). 47 T XXXI 784a: 世友所造問論中言 ：「 …我說滅定猶有細心 …」彼復引經證成 此義 ，如契經言 ：「 處滅定者 …識不離身 。」 . This sËtra passage appears in the Chinese translation of the Madhyama Ógama (T I 791c). Besides, Lamotte (1988a: 109, note 78) points out that a similar idea is also implied in the Pali Majjhima Nikåya I 296.

The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 14, 2013 62 called “without mind” because the six consciousnesses48 based on the six sense organs cease to function in these states. This group proposes two kinds of mind. One is the “gathering mind” ( 集起心

), which is the result-fruit-consciousness, where innumerable seeds are gathered together. The other is called the “multiple mind” ( 種種心 ), which functions in dependence on different sense objects and ceases during the states “without mind” such as the attainment of cessation, hence this mind refers to the six consciousnesses. The seeds of various dharmas, which are stored in the “result-fruitconsciousness”, are perfumed by the other six consciousnesses together with the wholesome and unwholesome dharmas accompanying these consciousnesses. Consequently, the power of the seeds is growing. Through the culmination of the transformation in this life-continuum ( 相續轉變差別

, *saµtatipari˜åma-vißeΣa), following the maturity of the power of the seeds and the gathering of the conditions, the “result-fruit-consciousness” experiences desirable and undesirable fruits in the future.49 In this context, karma (action) is explained in terms of the six consciousnesses and their accompanying good and bad dharmas perfuming the seeds contained in the “result-fruitconsciousness”,50 while the experiencer of karmic result is

48 They refer to eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, tactile-organ-consciousness and mental-organconsciousness. 49 T XXXI 784b–c: 云何許滅定等諸無心位亦有心耶 ？應如一類經為量者所許 細心彼位猶 有，謂異熟果識 ，具一切種子 。…展轉相續曾無間斷 。…即由此識無間斷故 ，於無心位亦說有心 。餘六識身於此諸位皆不轉故 ，說為無心 。…心有二種 ：一集起心 ，無量種子集起處故 ；二種種心 ，所緣行相差別轉故 。滅定等位第二心闕 ，故名無心 。…異熟果識攝藏種種諸法種子 ，彼彼餘識及俱有法善不善性數熏發時 ，隨其所應 ，種力增盛 。由此相續轉變差別 ，隨種力熟 ，隨遇助緣 ，便感當來愛非愛果 。

50 How to interpret this theory is controversial. Yinshun (1970: 187–188) suggests that this theory is different from the seed-theory in the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, according to which the seeds are perfumed and “produced” by actions. He holds that according to the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a, the seeds have originally existed in the subtle mind before the mind is perfumed. Here “to perfume” does not mean “to produce the seeds”, but the meaning is that when the seeds stored in the mind are perfumed by the six consciousnesses and the accompanying dharmas, their power increases. In his opinion, actions in terms of the six consciousnesses and the accompanying dharmas do not produce the seeds according to the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a. However, Lamotte (1988a: 31) interprets this theory thus: “The active-consciousnesses and the dharma which is The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

explained in terms of the subtle mind, i.e. the “result-fruitconsciousness”. Therefore, the karmic linkage between action and result is constructed on the continuum of the mind consisting of different kinds of consciousness without postulating the self (åtman). In this connection, we may raise a question: As this theory seems to associate karma with consciousness rather than with volition, does this contradict the following statement by the Buddha: “It is volition (cetanå) that I call karma”51 as recorded in the sËtra? In chapter four of the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, Vasubandhu acknowledges this teaching and states: “The sËtra says: ‘There are two kinds of action (karma): volition and the action after having been willed’.”52 In my opinion, the Sautråntikas must have also been aware of such sËtra teachings, and they did associate karma with volition according to Vasubandhu. In chapter four of the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, he quotes the “ancient masters” as saying: As the recipients enjoy whatever the givers give, … even the givers have minds different [from the minds of giving], the life-continuums of the givers, perfumed by the volition of giving with the [recipients]53 as its object, undergo a subtle ascending transformation, whereby the

simultaneous to them, good and bad, perfume the subtle mind: they deposit therein the seeds of the different consciousness and of the different dharmas.” This interpretation suggests that the seeds arise from the six consciousnesses and the accompanying dharmas. I regard this theory in the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a as being consistent with that in the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya on the grounds that the Karmasiddhiprakara˜a also contains the idea of “producing seeds” as expressed in the following passage: “Because of this volition, two kinds of special seeds are perfumed and produced.” (T XXXI 786b: 由此思故熏成二種殊勝種子 。 ) 51 AN III 415: cetanå ’haµ bhikkhave kammaµ vadåmi. 52 AK 192: sËtra uktaµ “dve karma˜¥ cetanå karma cetayitvå ce” ti. Translation based on de La Vallée Poussin (1988: 551). 53 The word tad, “that”, is translated by Xuanzang and Paramårtha as “former” ( 前

at T XXIX 69b;

at T XXIX 227a), which denotes the former object (ålambana). The “former object” apparently refers to the recipients, who were formerly the objects perceived by the givers when the act of giving took place. This passage is rendered by de La Vallée Poussin (1988: 563) as “… the volition of giving which has for its object the person who receives …”.

The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 14, 2013 64 life-continuums are capable of yielding abundant fruits in the future.54 In his commentary on the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, Fabao identifies the “ancient masters” here as the ancient masters of the Sautråntikas.55 In his study of the word pËrvåcårya (ancient master), Hakamaya (1986: 864) also suggests that the foregoing theory ascribed to the “ancient masters” by Vasubandhu could be that of a Sautråntika group prior to him. In this passage “even the givers have minds different

[from the minds of giving]” means that a giver may have bad or neutral thoughts after the act of giving which was associated with good mind, but even if this happens, his life-continuum was already perfumed by the volition of giving which had the recipient as its object. This implies that the volition of giving is based on cognition of an object. Buddhist texts are rich in describing cognitive processes, as exemplified by the following passage in the Saµyutta Nikåya: In dependence on the eye and forms there arises eyeconsciousness. … The concurrence of these three things is called eye-contact. … Contacted … one feels, contacted

one intends, contacted one perceives. [The same applies to the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the tactile organ and tactile objects, the mental organ and mental objects.] (Translation based on Bodhi 2000: 1172)56 Here we have the six sense organs and their corresponding objects. It is due to the consciousnesses depending on the senses and their corresponding objects that a person feels, intends and perceives. It should be noted that “intends” (ceteti) is the verbal

54 AK 197: yathå yathå dåtṝ˜åµ dåyå˙ paribhujyante tathå tathå bhoktṝ˜åµ gu˜avißeΣåd anugrahavißeΣåc cånyamanasåm api dåtṝ˜åµ tadålambanadånacetanåbhåvitå˙ saµtataya˙ sËkΣmaµ pari˜åmavißeΣaµ pråpnuvanti yenåyatyåµ bahutaraphalåbhiniΣpattaye samarthå bhavanti. 55 T XLI 633a : 經部宗中先軌範師作如是釋 。

56 SN IV 67–69: Cakkhuñ ca pa†icca rËpe uppajjati cakkhuviññå˜aµ … Yå kho bhikkhave imesaµ ti˜˜aµ dhammånaµ sa∫gati sannipåto samavåyo ayaµ vuccati bhikkhave cakkhusamphasso … Phu††ho bhikkhave vedeti, phu††ho ceteti, phu††ho sañjånåti. … The same teaching is also found in the Saµyukta Ógama (T II 87c): 眼、色緣生眼識 ，三事和合觸 ，觸俱生受 、 想、思。

form of “volition” (cetanå). Therefore the six consciousnesses, i.e. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., lead to volition, or karma. This explains why the Sautråntikas set up the karmic linkage between action and result on the mental continuum consisting of various kinds of consciousness. The six ordinary consciousnesses account for the arising of volition or karma (action), while the “result-fruit-consciousness” is that which experiences the result of karma. The seeds stored in the “result-fruit-consciousness” serve as the carrier of karma’s effect and ensure that karma (action) will eventually bring about corresponding

result as soon as the seeds’ efficacy to produce the fruit becomes mature when the proper conditions are present. It is noteworthy that, as Kritzer (2003b: 332) points out, according to Vasubandhu the “seeds” (b¥ja) are merely prajñapti, that is only provisional or nominal rather than substantially real. The karma theory of this Sautråntika group, established on the basis of the mind or mental continuum, is quite different from the karma theory of the orthodox Sarvåstivådins, who laid stress on the material aspect while explaining the karmic mechanism. For example, both manifest action (vijñaptirËpa) and unmanifest action

(avijñaptirËpa)57 are classed in the category of material form (rËpa).58 According to this Sautråntika group, owing to diverse “causes of results”, i.e. karma, the “result-fruit-consciousness” continues in a series from existence to existence until Nirvana, where it completely ceases.59 This concept is fairly close to that of the self (åtman) which transmigrates from life to life. It may well have developed from the idea of the “pudgala (person) in an ultimate sense” (*paramårtha-pudgala) at an earlier stage of the Sautråntikas. The reason is as follows. Xuanzang’s translation of the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra ( 異部宗輪論 ) states:

57 These two terms in English and Sanskrit are quoted from Willemen et al. (1998: 226), who refer to these two categories of action as discussed in the Jñånaprasthåna 發智論 (T 1544), a Sarvåstivådin Abhidharma text. Cf. also Hirakawa (1990: 190). 58 See also AK 65: … vijñaptirËpasya … ; AK 8: vijñaptisamådhisaµbhËtaµ kußalåkußalaµ rËpam avijñapti˙ / 59 T XXXI 784b–c: 異熟果識 …彼彼生處由異熟因品類差別相續流轉 ，乃至涅槃 方畢竟滅 。 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 14, 2013 66 The doctrine held in common by the original Sautråntikas is thus: “Regarding the aggregates, there is some that transfers from a previous life to the next. The name ‘Proclaiming the Transference’ (

說轉 , *Saṃkråntivåda) is set up. … There are the ‘aggregates at the edge of the root’ ( 根邊薀 , *mËlåntika-skandha) and the ‘aggregate of one taste’ ( 一味薀 , *eka-rasa-skandha). … They hold that there is ‘the pudgala in an ultimate sense’ ( 勝義補特伽羅 , paramårtha-pudgala).”60

This treatise does not provide any further information about these three technical terms at the end of this passage. We cannot even tell whether 薀

“aggregate” in the two terms quoted above is singular or plural from this Chinese translation. KatØ (1989: 111) points out that in the Tibetan translation, the first 薀

“aggregate” is plural (phu∫ po rnams), while the second is not. Therefore, the original text is likely to have the “aggregates at the edge of the root” in plural and the “aggregate of one taste” in singular. These two terms are explained by Kuiji 窺基 , a disciple of Xuanzang, in his commentary on the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra ( 異部宗輪論述記 ) as follows:

The “[[[aggregate]] of] one taste” is what transmigrates in such a way as to coalesce in one taste continuously from time immemorial. It is the subtle consciousness, which is uninterrupted. … The “root” refers to the aforementioned subtle consciousness. Since it is the root of [[[sentient beings]]’] abiding in the round of rebirths ( 生死

, saµsåra), it is called the “root”. From this root arise the five aggregates, which are the same five aggregates spoken of by [other] sects. Thus the “aggregate of one taste” is the root, so it is not called the “edge”. The remaining dharmas, the intermittent five aggregates, arise at the tip, so they are called the “aggregates at the edge of the root”.61

60 T XLIX 17b: 其經量部本宗同義 ：謂說諸薀 ，有從前世轉至後世 。立說轉名 。 …有根 邊薀 ，有一味薀 。…執有勝義補特伽羅 。 61 DZ 233: 一味者 ，即無始來展轉和合一味而轉 ，即細意識曾不間斷 。… 根謂 向前細意識 ，住生死根本故說為根 。由此根故有五蘊起 ，即同諸宗所說五蘊 。然一味蘊是根本故 ，不說言邊 。其餘間斷五蘊之法是末起故 ，名根邊蘊 。 The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

As discussed above, the “result-fruit-consciousness” held by “a certain group that takes the sËtras as the standard” is a subtle mind, which is also uninterrupted even in meditative states designated as “without mind” and continues from life to life until Nirvana. Consequently, the concept of “result-fruit-consciousness” is probably derived from the “aggregate of one taste” in the original Sautråntika doctrine as stated in the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra. In this text “regarding the aggregates, there is some that transfers from a previous life to the next” apparently refers to the “aggregate of one taste”, which is the “root” of transmigration in the round of rebirths from time immemorial, as opposed to the intermittent five aggregates or “aggregates at the edge of the root”.

As for the “pudgala in an ultimate sense”, it is explained in Kuiji’s commentary on the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra thus: “It is subtle and is difficult to express. It is the real self.”62 Moreover, in order to explain “regarding the aggregates, there is some that transfers from a previous life to the next”, i.e. the “aggregate of one taste”, Kuiji’s commentary says: “There is a real dharma, the self, which may transfer from a previous life to the next.”63 In view of his

interpretations of the “aggregate of one taste” and his interpretation of the “pudgala in an ultimate sense”, these two things are quite similar inasmuch as they are both described as being subtle and as the real self. The resemblance between the two is even more remarkable if we take into account that the expression “one taste” implies a sense of personal identity, comparable to pudgala, retained in the round of rebirths. Masuda (1925: 69) remarks that the “pudgala in an ultimate sense” seems to be identical to the “aggregate of one taste” or the subtle consciousness. Jaini (1959: 248) and KatØ (1989: 111) also treat these two terms, the “pudgala in an ultimate sense” and the “aggregate of one taste”, as referring to the same thing. However, Yinshun (1970: 159–160) expresses a different opinion. He disagrees with Kuiji’s interpretation of the “aggregate of one taste”, and claims that an appropriate explanation can be found in the *MahåvibhåΣå 大毘婆沙論

(T 1545), a text of the

62 DZ 233 : 是微細難可施設 ，即實我也 。 63 DZ 233 : 有實法我 ，能從前世轉至後世 。 The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 14, 2013 68 orthodox Sarvåstivådins or the VaibhåΣikas. This text describes the doctrine of an unknown school as follows:

Some hold that there are two types of aggregate: one is the root-aggregate, and the other is the functioningaggregate. The former is permanent, while the latter is impermanent. They say that although these two types of aggregate, namely the root[-aggregate] and the functioning[-aggregate], are different, they coalesce to form a sentient being, and thus it is possible to remember what was done before. For what was done by the functioning-aggregate can be remembered by the rootaggregate.64

Yinshun (1970: 160) points out that although this doctrine is meant to explain how memory works, memory in effect shares something significant in common with the continuous sequence of karma and result with regard to preserving past experiences. He argues that this doctrine about the two types of aggregate is in full accord with that of the original Sautråntikas, i.e. the Saµkråntivådins, as stated in the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra. His argument suggests that the root-

aggregate is equivalent to the “aggregate of one taste”, and the functioning-aggregate is equivalent to the “aggregate at the edge of the root”. KatØ (1989: 111) also makes the same correspondence between these two pairs of aggregates, and likewise suggests that this unknown group could be related to the Saµkråntivådins. In another of his works, Yinshun (1985: 155) further maintains that the combination of the “aggregate of one taste” and the “aggregate at the edge of the root”

can be said to be the “pudgala in an ultimate sense”.65 This view is probably inspired by the above-mentioned doctrine of an unknown school recorded in the *MahåvibhåΣå: the root-aggregate and the functioning-aggregate coalesce to form a sentient being. Therefore, Yinshun’s opinion is different from the foregoing opinion of Masuda, who considers the “pudgala in an ultimate sense” to be the “aggregate of one taste” on the basis of inference from Kuiji’s interpretation.

64 T XXVII 55b: 有執蘊有二種 ：一根本蘊 ，二作用蘊 。前蘊是常 ，後蘊非常 。 彼作是說 ：根本 、作用二蘊雖別 ，而共和合成一有情 ，如是可能憶本所作 。以作用蘊所作 事，根本蘊能憶故 。

65 Cf. also Wong (1995: 189–191).

In any case, it is likely that the “aggregate of one taste” or the “pudgala in an ultimate sense” proposed by the original Sautråntikas or the Saµkråntivådins evolved into the “result-fruitconsciousness” held by the later Sautråntikas called “a certain group that takes the sËtras as the standard”. Yinshun (1970: 161) regards the root-aggregate, or the “aggregate of one taste”, as a forerunner of the seed theory. In this doctrinal development, a sense of the “self” or personal identity still remains in the “resultfruit-consciousness” containing seeds since something similar to an enduring entity with its own identity is implicit in such consciousness. This could be why Vasubandhu emphasizes the nominal (prajñapti) aspect of this theory, and in his Karmasiddhiprakara˜a he quotes a verse ascribed to the Buddha from the Saµdhinirmocana SËtra as follows: “The atuona ( 阿陀那

• ådåna, clinging) consciousness, deep and subtle, with all its seeds, is like a waterfall. I do not expound it to ordinary and foolish people for fear that they should take it as the self.”66 In addition, the Sautråntikas try to explain away the similarity between their theory of the life-continuum and the notion of “self” by claiming that the “result-fruit-consciousness” keeps changing at every moment.67

Conclusion The orthodox Sarvåstivådins tend to take sËtra passages literally and to consider many things (dharmas) mentioned in the sËtras to be ontologically real. By contrast, the Sautråntikas are critical of such literalism and are inclined to interpret these things as nominally true. This is exemplified in their theories of karma and the round of births. The Sautråntikas are good at employing examples or similes, such as the seeds, the root and one taste, to justify their interpretations. This genre of exegesis is typical of their predecessors (or perhaps synonym), the DårΣ†åntikas. The Sautråntikas proposes the idea of “life-continuum” (saµtati) to replace the concept of self (åtman) as the agent responsible for karma and its consequence. They developed two

66 T XXXI 784c: 阿陀那識甚深細 ，一切種子如瀑流 。我於凡愚不開演 ， 恐彼分別執為我 。 (quoted from the Saµdhinirmocana SËtra at T XVI 692c) 67 T XXXI 784c : 異熟果識 剎那剎 那轉變 。

The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 14, 2013 70 types of theory concerning the life-continuum. According to one type of theory, the life-continuum consists of both mental and material elements. The mental continuum and the material continuum contain each other’s seeds, or the two continuums serve as each other’s seeds. When one continuum is interrupted, its seeds are preserved in the other continuum. This ensures that the lifecontinuum as a whole continues uninterrupted in all circumstances, including meditative states without mind and rebirth in a material sphere from a non-material sphere. In the latter case, a sentient being in a non-material sphere has no material form but

mind. Then certain karma, bound to ripen into material form, may perfume the mind so that the mind will eventually acquire the efficacy to produce material form, which is the karmic result from the culmination of the transformation in the life-continuum. According to the other type of theory, the life-continuum is defined as “the arising of one mind-event after another preceded by actions (karmas)”. This is a subtle mind called the “result-fruitconsciousness”. The seeds contained in this consciousness are constantly perfumed by the six sensory consciousnesses associated with the arising of volition or karma (action). In other words, the seeds in the “result-fruit-consciousness” are affected by the karmic perfuming, so that their power, while getting mature, causes the life-continuum

to undergo a transformation, which culminates in the karmic result. That which experiences the karmic effect is the “result-fruit-consciousness”, the purely mental life-continuum. This differs from the above theory of the life-continuum, which also allows the material continuum to take karmic consequences. Another significant difference between the two theories is as follows: In the former theory, the meditative states without mind are regarded as altogether lacking any

mind; when one emerges from such states, the mind arises again from the material body on the grounds that the mental continuum and the material continuum contain each other’s seeds. In the latter theory, however, the lifecontinuum in the form of a subtle mind or consciousness constantly persists even during the meditative states without mind; they are called “without mind” simply because the six sensory consciousnesses cease to function. The theory of seed is introduced into both types of the lifecontinuum. This accounts for how the life-continuum continues uninterrupted and explains why the Buddha says: “actions (karmas) The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

do not disappear”. The life-continuum, instead of the “self”, is thus set up as the agent of actions and the experiencer of their results.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. William Pruitt for offering helpful advice and improving the English of this paper. I am also grateful to the referees for their valuable suggestions.

Abbreviations References to Pali texts are to the Pali Text Society editions, unless otherwise noted. AK = P. Pradhan (ed.), AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967. AK-s = Swåm¥ Dwårikådås ßåstr¥ (ed.), Abhidharmakoßa & BhåΣya of Ócårya Vasubandhu with Sphu†årthå Commentary of Ócårya Yaßomitra, Varanasi: Bhauddha Bharati, 1987. AN = A∫guttara Nikåya Divy = Divyåvadåna, ed. E.B. Cowell and R.A. Neil, Cambridge: The University Press, 1886. DZ = Dainihon ZokuzØkyØ 大日 本續藏經 , Kyoto : 藏經 書院 , 1905– 12. FDC = Foguang Da Cidian 佛光 大 辭典 , ed. Ciyi 慈怡

, Kaohsiung: 佛光 出 版社 , 1988.

Ja = Jåtaka MN = Majjhima Nikåya Prp = MËlamadhyamakakårikås de Någårjuna, avec la Prasannapadå commentaire de Candrak¥rti, ed. Louis de La Vallée Poussin, St. Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des sciences, 1903. PTS = Pali Text Society edition Skt. = Sanskrit The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 14, 2013 72

SN = Saµyutta Nikåya Sn = Sutta-nipåta T = TaishØ Shinshu DaizØkyØ 大 正新脩 大藏經

, Tokyo : 大 正新脩 大藏經 刊 行會 , reprinted: 1978. Vism-w = Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosåcariya, ed. Henry Clarke Warren, reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. (First published 1950 Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press)

Bibliography: English titles in parentheses are my translations. Anacker, Stefan 2005. Seven Works of Vasubandhu: the Buddhist Psychological Doctor, revised edition, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (First published 1984) Cox, Collett 1995. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence: An Annotated Translation

of the Section on Factors Dissociated from Thought from Sa∫ghabhadra’s Nyåyånusåra, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. Dessein, Bart 2003. “Sautråntika and the H®daya Treatises”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 287–319. Dessein, Bart 2008. “Of Seeds and Sprouts: Defilement and its Attachment to the Life-stream in the Sarvåstivåda H®daya Treatises”, Asian Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 17–33. Fukuda, Takumi 2003. “Bhadanta Råma: A Sautråntika before Vasubandhu”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 255–287. Gombrich, Richard 1988. Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Hakamaya, Noriaki 袴谷憲昭

1986. “PËrvåcårya 考 ” (An Examination of PËrvåcårya ), 印度學佛教學研 究

The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

Hamilton, Sue 1996. Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism, London: Luzac Oriental. Harvey, Peter 1995. The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvå˜a in Early Buddhism. Richmond: Curzon Press. Hirakawa, Akira 1990. A History of Indian Buddhism: From Íåkyamuni to Early Mahåyåna, translated and edited by Paul Groner, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Hiraoka, Satoshi 1998. The Relation between the Divyåvadåna and the MËlasarvåstivåda Vinaya. Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 26, pp. 419–434. Jaini, Padmanabh S. 1959. “The Sautråntika Theory of B¥ja”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 22, no. 1/3, pp. 236–249. KatØ, JunshØ 加藤純章

1989 . 経 量部 の研 究

Etude sur les Sautråntika,

Tokyo: ShunjË-sha. Kritzer, Robert 2003a. “General Introduction”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 201–224. Kritzer, Robert 2003b. “Sautråntika in the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 331– 384. Kuan, Tse-fu 2009. “Rethinking Non-Self: A New Perspective from the Ekottarika-ågama”, Buddhist Studies Review, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 155–175. La Vallée Poussin, Louis de (tr.), 1988. AbhidharmakoßabhåΣyam, Volume II, English translation by Leo M. Pruden, Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. La Vallée Poussin, Louis de (tr.), 1990. AbhidharmakoßabhåΣyam, Volume IV, English translation by Leo M. Pruden, Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. Lamotte, Étienne 1988a. Karmasiddhiprakara˜a: The Treatise on Action by Vasubandhu, English translation by Leo M. Pruden, Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.

Lamotte, Étienne 1988b. History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Íaka Era, translated from the French by Sara Webb-Boin. Louvain: Peeters Press. Liang, Tao-Wei 1972. “A Study on the I-pu-tsung-lun-lun”, 華岡佛學 學報 Hua-Kang Buddhist Journal, no. 2, pp. 25–65. Masuda, Jiryo 1925. “Origin and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools: A Translation of the Hsüan-chwang Version of Vasumitra’s Treatise”, Asia Major, vol. 2, pp. 1– 78. Ñå˜amoli, Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi 2001. (tr.) The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, revised edition, Oxford: Pali Text Society. (First published 1995) Norman, K.R. 1995. The Group of Discourses (Sutta-Nipåta), Volume II, revised translation with introduction and notes, Oxford: Pali Text Society. Rahula, Walpola 2000. What the Buddha Taught, reprinted, Oxford: Oneworld Publications. (1st edition 1959, Bedford: Gordon Fraser Gallery Limited.) Sujato, Bhikkhu 2012. Sects and Sectarianism: the Origins of Buddhist Schools, revised edition, Australia: Santipada. (First edition 2007) Warder, A.K. 2000. Indian Buddhism, 3rd revised edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (First edition 1970) Willemen, Charles 2006. “The Sanskrit Title of Harivarman’s Chengshi Lun 成實論 (T. 1646)”, Journal of Buddhist Studies, vol. 4, pp. 244–250. Willemen, Charles 2008. “Kumåraj¥va’s ‘Explanatory Discourse’ about Abhidharmic Literature”, Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, vol. 12, pp. 37– 83. Willemen, Charles; Bart Dessein; and Collett Cox 1998. Sarvåstivåda Buddhist Scholasticism, Leiden: Brill. Wong, Chun-wai 黃俊威

1995 . 無我 與輪迴 (Non-self and Transmigration), Chung-li

圓光 出 版社

. Yamakami, Sogen 2009. Systems of Buddhist Thought, revised edition, ed. T.R. Sharma, Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers. The Sautråntika Theories of Life-Continuum in Light of Karma

75 Yinshun 印順 1968. 說一切有部為主 的論 書與 論師之 研究 (A Study of the ßåstras and the ßåstrakåras principally of the Sarvåstivåda School), Taipei : 正聞 出 版社 . Yinshun 印順 1970. 唯識 學探源 (The Origin of the Vijñapti-måtra Thought), Taipei: 慧日講堂 . Yinshun 印順 1985 . 印度 之 佛教 (Buddhism in India), Taipei