Asvabhäva's and Sthiramati's Commentaries on the MSA, XIV, 34-35

Asvabhäva's and Sthiramati's

Commentaries on the MSA, XIV, 34-35

Noriaki Hakamaya

In order to determine the influence of Asañga on the historical development of Yogäcära thought, it is necessary to collect and examine the passages of his works quoted by his followers. However, with the exception of the quotations from Asañga's works in the Ch'eng-wei-shih-lun, l ) such passages have hardly been pointed out by scholars in this field. This paper is a mere report to make up for the lack.

The verses 30—35 of the Mahayanasütrãlawkära (MSA), XIV deal with the subject of daršana-marga-laksava-vyavasthäna according to the Piedärtha of Jñänaérï, 2) among which the verses 34, 35ab and 35cd3) refer to the respective vimok§a-mukha of šünyatã, animitta and aprapihita. Both Asvabhãva and Sthiramati quote the same passages from Asañga's works in their commentaries on the verses 34cd and 35ab. One is from the Mahäyãnasamgraha (MS) and the other from the Abhidharmasamuccaya (AS). So we are going to show below the quotations in the Mahãyänasüträlawkaratïkä (MSAT) of Asvabhäva and the Sütralawkäravrttibhä§ya (SA VBh) of Sthiramati, and to compare them with Asañga's works.

A) MSAT and SAVBh ad MSA, XIV, 34cd l) MSA T4): debi ( bshin ñid kyi) ho bo ñid kyañ gañ she na/ kun nas* brtags pati gñis med palpi ho bo gañ yin pa sais rgyas dañ byañ chub sems dpah rnams kyi so so rañ gis rig par byaþi gnas skabs bstan du med ciñ bsam gyis mi khyab pa rtog geþi spyod yul las yañ dag par kdas pa Ste/ ji skad du Theg pa chen po bsdus pa las/ chos kyi sku de bshin ñid kyi mtshan ñid ni bsam gyis mi khyab pati mtshan ñid de/ de bshin ñid de ni bjig rten na dpe med pati phyir dañ/

svabhäva's (13) rtog geki spyod yul ma yin paki phyir so so rañ gis rig par bya ba yin nol/ shes bšad pa Ita bu5) * om. in D. 2) SA VBh6): de Ia stoñ pa ñid kyi rañ bshin ni de bshin ñid kyi mtshan ñid de/ de yañ kun tu brtags paki rañ bshin dañ bral bahi ho bo yin pas gñis dah bral bahi rañ bshin stoñ pa ñid de ni/ sañs rgyas dañ byañ Chub sems dpal? rnams kyis so rañ gis* * rig par bya ba bstan du med pa bsam gyis mi khyab pa/ rtog ge paki spyod yul las lpdas paki rañ bshin tel de Itar khoñ du chud pa rañ bshin gyis stoñ par 'es pa shes byaþo// de bas na Theg pa chen po bsdus paki bstan bcos las kyañ/ chos kyi sku ni bsams gyis mi khyab paki mtshan ñid de/ de yañ rañ bshin ñid kyi mtshan ñid dol/ de bshin ñid de ni so so rañ gis rig pa dañ/ Wig rten na dpe med pa dahl rtog geki spyod yul las hdas na* **** bsam gyis mi, khyab par rig par byaþo shes b§ad d05)//

• sor in D. ** gi in P. na in D. om. in D. nas in D

3) MS7): sañs rgyas rnams kyi chos kyi sku mtshan ñid... Iñar rig par bya stel... bsam gyis mi khyab pahi mtshan ñid ni de bshin ñid rnam par dag pa de so so rañ gis rig par bya ba dañ/ l?jig rten na dpe med pa dañ/ rtog ge paki spyod yul ma yin paki phir ro

Each quotation in the MSAT and the SA VBh is considerably different from the MS, and the quotations themselves are also a little different from each other. Such differences seem to result from that both Asvabhãva and Sthiramati extract the meaning from the MS and set forth its gist, and from the fact that these commentaries were translated into Tibetan by different men. 8)

B) MSAT and SAVBh ad MSA, XIV, 35ab 1) MSA T 9): gañ du rnam par rtog pa yañ dag par zad pa de ni gshi shes bya stel ji skad du Chos mñon pa kun las btus pa las/ kgog paki mtshan ñid las ji Itar 'es par bya she na/ gañ du tgog par hgyur ba de bshin ñid dañ/ gañ gis þgags* par tgyur ba lam dañ/ bgag pa gañ yin pa ñon moñs pa mi skye baþo shes bšad pa Ita bu stel * þgag in D. 2) SAVBh10): de la rnam par rtog pa ni yod pa dañ med pa dañ*/ gzugs dañ sgra Ia sogs rnam par rtog pa nas mya han las þdas paki bar du rnam par rtog pa stel rnam par rtog pa de*** thams cad zad pabi rnam par rtog pa kun dañ bral bahi de bshin ñid kgog paki bden pa Ia bya/ dños poþi sgras ni dmigs par bya

(14) Asvabhäva's baki yul la bya Ste/ de bshin ñid þgog Paki bden pa ni mtshan ma med pati tiñ he þdsin gyis dmigs šiñ de 'es par byed do shes bya bahi don to// dekañ mtshan ma med pahi tiñ he hdsin gyis ni stoñ pa ñid kgog pati bden pa ste gzugs dañ sgra la sogs Paki mtshan ma thams cad dañ bral bar šes so]/ de bas na mÑon Paki chos bsdus pati bstan bcos las kyañ| þgog pahi bden paþi mtshan ñid ji Itar Ses par bya she na/ de ni gañ du kgags pa dañ/ gañ gis kgags pa dañ/ ji Itar þgags pa 'es par bya Ste/ gañ du kgags 'e na de bshin ñid***** du kgags sol/ gañ gis kgags na tam gyi bden pas kgags sol/ gañ þgags še na rnam par rtog pa la sogs palpi ñon moñs pa kgags so shes bšad do// * med pa dañ 0m. in P. ** par in P. 0m. in D. dañ sgra 0m. in P. 0m. in D. P. šes in P. 3) AS H ): hgog palpi bden pa gañ she na/ mtshan ñid dañ... mtshan ñid kyis ji Ita bu she na/ de bshin ñid dañ/ lam dail ñon mois pa mi þbyuñ ba Ste/ gañ du kgog pa dañ/ gail gis kgog pa dañ/ gah kgog paþo// bcom Idan nas kyis ji skad du/ shes gSUñS pa Ita bubo// yañ gsuñs pa/ ... sheho*// rnam grañs þdis de bshin ñid la dmigs pa gai du zad pa dañ bcas pati dños po pa de kgog palpi mtshan ñid do// * shes in P. ** na in D. *** hgags in P. In this case, there are also the differences of the same kind as the former. The difference between the Tibetan titles, Chos mñon pa kun las btus pa and mÑon pati chos bsdus pa is not that of the original, but both titles are equivalent for the Abhidharmasamuccaya. dPal brtsegs, the translator of the MSAT, was contemporary with but younger than Ye ées sde, the translator of the AS, and they seem to have been active in translating before and after the time of skad gsar chad (814 A. D.), while ICe bkra éis, the translator of the SA VBh 12 ) which is not recorded in the IDan dkar ma13) (824 A. D.14)), seems to have engaged in translation work after 824 A. D. though his lifetime belonges to the period of sña dar according to the Deb ther shon po. 15) The differences in the way of translation between them must reflect these circumstances.

Each passage in the MSA T and the SAVBh quote concisely the AS, which suggests that the former are the digest of the latter. The digest as well as the AS states clearly the characteristic of nirodha-satya from the three aspects, 16) i. e. tathatã nirodhaþ), marga (yena nirodhah) and klešånutþäda (yo nirodhaþ). Among them, the tathatä in which the nirodha is realized has the

Asvabhäva's (15) most essential characteristic as the basis (pada) of animitta-samãdhi. Therefore, both Asvabhäva and Sthiramati quote the passage from the AS as the authority for their interpretation of animitta-pada. We have pointed out and examined quotations from Asañga's works, though they are not sufficient to determine his influence on Asvabhãva and Sthiramati. But it is at least certain that both Asvabhãva and Sthiramati have interpreted the MSA in the same tradition17) and have accordingly quoted the same passages from the MS and the AS of Asañga in their interpretation on the verses 34cd and 35ab. (Aug. 1st, 1978)

1) Ex., S. Katsumata, A Study of the Citta- Vijñäna Thought in Buddhism (in Japanese) (Tokyo, 1961), pp. 122—145. Also see E. Frauwallner, Die Philosophie des Buddhismus (Berlin, 1958), pp. 394—407, where he puts Asañga in a different lineage from Sthiramati on the basis of the statement in the Ch'eng-wei-shihlun.

2) P. ed., No. 5533, Tshi, 18a3. See J. Nozawa, "On the SatraIawkaraPipdartha of Jñänaérï (in Japanese)" , Bukkyökenkya, 2—2 (1938), p. 135. 3) S. Lévi ed., pp. 94—95. 4) P. ed., No. 5530, Bi, 128b8-129a3 , D. ed., No. 4029, Bi, 114b5 - 7 5) Following this quotation, both mention the Ratnameghasütra. 6) P. ed., No. 5531, Mi, 307+ 7, D. ed., No. 4034, Mi, 275a l - 3 7) É. Lamotte ed., X, 3-5, pp. 84-85. cf. MSBh: Taishö ed., vol. 31, pp. 252a-b, 313c, 37 lc (This part is missing from the Tib. tr.) ; MSU: Taishö ed., p. 437b, P. ed., No. 5552, Li, 334a7-b 1 , D. ed., No. 4051, Ri, 277a4- 5 8) MS is tr. by Ye ées sde while MSA T is by dPal brtsegs and SAVBh is by ICe bkra 'is. 9) P. ed., op. cit., 12913 4- 6, D. ed., op. cit., 115a l- 2 10) P. ed., op. cit., 307b l- 6, D. ed., op. cit., 275a5—b l

11) P. ed., No. 5550, Li, 107b4—108a2, D. ed., No. 4049, Ri, 47 (90)b2 - 6, Taishö ed., Vol. 31, 681c. This passage is missing from the Fragments ed. by V. V. Gokhale, and is not mentioned by ASBh.

12) Bu ston, Chos tbyuñ, šatapitaka, Vol. 64, f. 953 (Ya, 161a) 4- 5 : mDo sde rgyan gyi l.zgrel b§ad chen po slob dpon BIO brtan gyis mdsad par grags pa bam po drug cu ICe bkra éis kyi kgyur/". 13) IDan dkar ma, Yoshimura, No. 627 consists of 10 bam pos and 270 šlokas, and No. 628 of 12 bam pos, which are corresponding with P. ed., No. 5527 and No. 5530 respectively. So SAVBh consisting of 60 bam pos is not recorded in this

(16) Asvabhãva's catalogue.

14) Z. Yamaguchi, " A Chronological Research for the History of Buddhism in the Dynasty (in Japanese) ", Naritasan Bukkyö Kenkyüsho KiyÖ, No. 3 (1978), pp. 1—52. Here I follow him rather than G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist Text, Pt. Il, P. 48. 15) satapitaka, Vol. 212, f. 317 (Ja, 4a) 6- 7 : G. Roerich, The Blue Annals, I, p. 359. 16) The three aspects of nirodha-satya in AS is translated uncritically by W. Rahula (p. 99) into French : "Cest la non-apparition (anutPada) des souillures (kleša) dans le noble sentier (aryamarga) de la quiddité (tathatä)" on the basis of the Sanskrit restoration (tathatãyäm aryamarge klešanam anutPädah) by P. Pradhan (p. 62). But the translation: "dans le noble sentier de la quiddité" should be corrected at least into "par le noble sentier dans la quiddité". 17) Cf., my article, "Asvabhãva's Commentary on the Mahayänasüträlartzkara IX. 56-76", JIBS, xx-l (1971), pp. 473-465.