The Formula “Non-A is A” in Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Trisatikayah Prajnaparamitayah Karikasaptatih
by Choong, Yoke-Meei
Abstract
The well-known formula in the Vajracchedika\ “That A taught by the Tathagata, it is taught as non-A by the Tathagata, thus it is called A by the Tathagata” (hereafter abbreviated as “non-A is A”) takes over the role of emptiness, and initiated debates among some Japanese scholars about its connotation and application. One of the topics of discussion is whether the “non-A is A” formula expresses emptiness in the ontological sense of the Madhyamaka, or whether it illustrates a graduated path to be performed by the Bodhisattva.
These two views do not commensurate with each other, because, for them, the Madhyamaka non-A, that is emptiness, stands for the inexpressible highest truth, while in the graduated path non-A is a negation of what is falsely imagined by ordinary people. These scholars have not consulted the Yogacara views on this formula. There is besides a verse summary of the Vajracchedika composed by Asanga called the Trisatikayah Prajhaparamitayah Karikasaptatih also a commentary written by Vasubandhu. The verse summary is comprehensible only by referring to Vasubandhu’s commentary, which is extant in only two
Chinese translations. These Yogacara’s works provide several ways of interpretation of the formula “non-A is A”. In them both views of the Japanese debate, whether “non-A is A” expresses the highest truth or whether it illustrates a graduated path to be performed by the bodhisattva, are integrated together.
Keywords: Non-A is A, Trisatikayah Prajnapdramitdyah Kdrikdsaptatih, Bodhiruci, Yijing, Vajracchedika1.
Introduction
Long ago Edward Conze points out an important fact that the term emptiness does not occur in the Vajracchedika Prajhaparamita (hereafter abbreviated as Vajracchedika)) Watanabe Shogo mentions that emptiness in this sutra is expressed with a fixed formula where an object A is mentioned three times: “That A taught by the Tathagata, it is taught as non-A by the Tathagata, thus it is called A by the Tathagata” (hereafter abbreviated as “non-A is A”).
This formula occurs as much as 30 times in the Vajracchedika) but it is uncertain in regard to the exact interpretation of this formula in the Vajracchedika. Eventually the formula “non-A is A” gave rise to debate among the Japanese scholars. Suzuki Daisetsu is the first one to draw our attention to this formula in the Vajracchedika and claims that it goes beyond the principles of Buddhist logic.
To him all the sentences of this formula refer to the same and only one object and the formula expresses an ontological emptiness in the Buddhist sense. Satoshi Fujio holds different views from Suzuki and argues that the three sentences concern different objects and the formula has nothing to do with emptiness. He considers the first A as the experience pertaining to the Buddha, the second A the viewpoints from ordinary people and the third A a gradual guide and skillful teachings of the Buddha. According to him the formula expresses a gradual implementation of the teachings of the Buddha by a bodhisattva newly set out on the path. Sueki Fumihiko follows Satoshi in the division of the three
As, but basing on the Prajnapdramita in 8 000 lines he differs slightly in the view of the second A, which according to him denotes the A grasped as substantially existent by ordinary people. Takehashi Futoshi is the opinion that the argument of “non-A is A” in the Vajracchedika has the function of emptiness expressed by Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, that is, the first A refers to the A grasped by ordinary people; this must be removed in order to obtain correct comprehension of A, that is the third A.
In this way he seems to return to Suzuki’s explanation. The only difference is that he claims in contrast to Suzuki that this formula complies with Buddhist logic. Though Tachikawa Musashi also resorts to the Mulamadhyamakakarika, he criticizes Suzuki’s interpretation of “non-A is A”. He explains this formula in the following way: “The A, which is thought to be existent, does not exist as a matter of fact, thus it is called after the name A.” He considers the non-existence of A the same positive function of emptiness in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, that is, it is responsible for giving rise of everything. Sadakata Akira too stands close to Takehashi in his comprehension of this formula. Despite all these diversified interpretations they all base exclusively on either the Prajndparamita in 8 000 lines or the Mulamadhyamakakarika. Their resort to the Mulamadhyamakakarika
in the explanation of the Vajracchedika is prompted obviously by the alleged relationship of the latter to the former, as is evident in the usual loose grouping of the Prajndparamita with the Madhyamika. There are, however, Indian commentaries on the Vajracchedika ascribed to the Yogacara, which explicate on the formula “non-A is A”. It is not to deny that the interpretations of the commentaries, not only the Yogacara, but also the Madhyamaka, can hardly be taken as the meaning of the Vajracchedika because of the time lapsed between them and the usual different concerns of the commentaries from that of the sutra. Nevertheless, the Indian commentaries could, amidst the Madhyamika interpretations of the Japanese, serve as an alternative to the understanding of the Vajracchedika, especially in the analysis of the formula “non-A is A”. It is thus useful to draw attentions to the interpretations of the Indian commentaries, which have since been neglected.
The first Indian composition that comes to mind is a verse summary of the Vajracchedika, the Trisatikayah Prajhaparamitayah Karikasaptatih (hereafter abbreviated as Karika) ascribed to Asariga (4th cent. C.E.). Besides the Sanskrit original, which was edited by Giuseppe Tucci, the Karika is also extant in two Chinese translations, that is, T1511 translated by Bodhiruci (386-534 C.E.) and T1514 by Yijing ( , 635-713 C.E.), and in a Tibetan translation. Bodhiruci’s
translation includes a commentary on the verses, Jingang banruo boluomi jing lun (hereafter T1511) ascribed to
Vasubandhu (4th to 5th cent. C.E.) by the Chinese masters. It is not only a commentary on the verses, but also the earliest extant exegesis on the Vajracchedika. There is another Chinese translation of Vasubandhu’s commentary, the Nengduan jingang banruo boluomiduo jing lunshi th (hereafter T1513) translated by Yijing, which contains also the Karika. Its Sanskrit version is no more extant, nor has it any Tibetan translation. Since the Karika is too abbreviated, Vasubandhu’s commentary is indispensable for unraveling the verses. Though Vasubandhu’s commentary contains inevitably Yogacara influence, it is the only commentary that gives a thorough analysis and explanation of the formula. It comments on the formula from different angles at different places. This paper makes an attempt to provide a plausible interpretation of the formula from the viewpoint of the
Yogacara.
Tucci has done an important work on the Karika. He translated the verses into English and gave a summary of Vasubandhu’s commentary on each verse. Since these summaries are not direct translations of Vasubandhu’s prose commentary, there are often uncertainties and ambiguities with regard to Vasubandhu’s arguments in Tucci’s work. In addition, Tucci took obviously preference of Yijing’s translation to Bodhiruci’s, because his translations of both the Karika and Vasubandhu’s commentary stand close to Yijing’s translations. But Bodhiruci’s translation occupied a much more prominent place in ancient China, because it is translated much earlier than Yijing’s. Considering this fact, this paper gives priority to Bodhiruci’s translation over Yijing’s in places where they deviate from each other. Despite the fact that Bodhiruci and Yijing translated the same texts, that is, the Karika and Vasubandhu’s commentary, there are disagreements consisting mainly in the translations. This paper delineates various problems in the Chinese translations by comparingBodhiruci’s and Yijing’s translations with the Sanskrit version.
2. The problems of Chinese translations
Tucci”s interpretation of the Karika is greatly influenced by the Chinese translations of Vasubandhu’s commentary, especially by Yijing’s translation. Since he neglected Bodhiruci’s translation, he overlooked differences between both translations and the problems of Yijing’s translation. As a result, his translation and interpretation of the verses are not faultless and exhaustive. I give below some examples of the problems in the Chinese translations encountered in the following discussions:
(1) Miscomprehension due to misreading
Verse 46c abhavakayabhavac ca gives the reason why the magnificent body of the Buddha is not a body. Yijing translated Vasubandhu’s commentaiy on verse 46c as follows: The verse that says: “Non-existence of a body is existence [of a body], it is [thus] called non-body” [corresponds to the sutra:] “The Tathagata says it is not the body, thus it is called possessing a body, having a magnificent body.” What does it mean? Since it has non-existence as the body, it is called nonbody.” ’
Bodhiruci translated otherwise:
The verse says: “Non-body is exactly the body, it is thus called non-body,” as it is said in the sutra: “That magnificent body taught by the Tathagata, it is not the magnificent body, thus it is called by the Tathagata the magnificent body.” What does it mean? The non-body has no appearances, this is called non- body.
“Non-existence” ( f ) in Yijing’s translation of verse 46c “nonexistence of a body is existence” ( ) is his customary rendering of abhava.™ But Tucci misread Yijing’s translation “since it has non-existence as the body” ( ) as “since it
is a body of asamskrta ( OWM )” out of incorrect punctuation. In consequence of that he took asamskrta as the reason for non-existence and made the following conclusion: “...because his is a body of nonexistence (viz. asamstyta-tathata).” In fact a similar wording OWM occurs in 44d where it cannot be understood otherwise than “it has non-existence as nature/appearance”. In addition Yijing rendered
asamskrta usually as “made of causes” ( ).17 Tucci overlooked
this fact. There is no equivalent of asamskrta in Bodhiruci’s translation either.
It is clear from the discussion of the Chinese translations of this verse that every Chinese translator had his own specific set of vocabularies. If we have not compared all the versions including the Sanskrit version, the Chinese translations can easily betray us.
(2) Mistranslation due to euphonic combination (sandhi)
In the case of "vacyo in verse 15, the Sanskrit negation prefix a is swallowed due to euphonic combination, Yijing mistook it as positive vacyo and mistranslated as “what is taught” ( ^lf)• As a result the verse does not conform to the prose commentary in Yijing’s translation.
(3) Mistranslation due to Indic orthography
It is obvious either that Bodhiruci misread “support” upastambha ( Wf? ) in verse 16 as upasthana and translated it as “going forth”or that he had a corrupted Indic original. Both cases are highly possible, because these two terms look similar in Prakrit.
(4) Mistranslation due to multi-meanings of Sanskrit
The Sanskrit arana occurred in verse 18 has several meanings such as “without fighting”, “free from passion” and “free from The Formula “Non-A is A” in Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Trisatikayah Prajnaparamitayah Karikasaptatih/Choong, Yoke-Meei 11 impurity”. While the first definition is responsible for Yijing’s mistranslation, the latter two fit the context of the verse very well.
In verse 24b Yijing rendered uttamartha as “the most excellent event” ( ) and explained it in the prose commentary as referring
to the desire of the Buddha to explain the name of the highest perfection (paramita)}9 But Bodhiruci translated it as “the highest truth” ( -big ), and according to his translation Vasubandhu’s intention is to expound the reason why the paramitz is the highest truth. Though Sanskrit artha carries both meanings “event” and “truth”, the latter is appropriate in the context, where uttamartha “the highest truth” and durlabha “hard to be found” form together a compound and act as an attribute to paramita.
(5) Deviation due to uncertainty in the analysis of a compound
Bodhiruci translated verse 20ab jhananisyandavijhapti- matratvat as and explained it in the prose that “it is only comprehensible by consciousness of the outflow of the true knowledge”. That means he took vijhapti to mean “comprehension”. In contrast, Yijing rendered the verse as and explained in the prose that “It manifests as representation-only of the outflow of the pure knowledge”. He took vijhapti to mean “representation”.
3. Variants in the Sanskrit version and the Chinese translations
The comparison of the Sanskrit version and the Chinese translations in section 4 highlights important variants of the verses under discussion. An example of verse 54c suffices to illustrate the occurrence of variants. In verse 54c “Dharmabody” (dharmakaya) in the Sanskrit version corresponds to “Dharmarealm” ( ) in both of the Chinese translations:
dharmakayavinirbhagad desanapy asvalaksana//
i) (Bodhiruci)
dj t) 'l± (Yijing)
According to the Chinese translations this passage expounds emptiness of the Dharma-preaching by arguing that there is no difference between Dharma-preaching and Dharmarealm. (Bodhiruci:) [Since it states in the sutra] : “No dharmas can be preached, thus it is called Dharma-preaching,” so the verse reads: “[Dharma-preaching] is not different from the Dharmarealm, because it has no self characteristics.” What does it mean? The self characteristics of the dharmas preached [by the Buddha] are not perceptible outside the true Dharmarealm.
(Yijing:) It is not that the intrinsic nature of Dharma-preaching
is perceptible outside the Dharmarealm.
According to Bodhiruci it is Dharma ( ) taught by the Buddha
that is not different from the Dharmarealm, but according to Yijing, it is Dharma-preaching. Both are translations of the Sanskrit desand “instruction, preaching” and equally make sense. Dharma or dharmapreaching is not different from the Dharmarealm and is like the latter has no intrinsic nature or self characteristics ( ). Since Dharma or
dharma-preaching has no intrinsic nature, the so-called “Dharma” or “dharma-preaching” is not perceptible.
But Dharmabody (dharmakaya) occurred in the Sanskrit verse is supported by Vasubandhu, who commented on Dharmabody:
(Bodhiruci:) The commentary explains: Again some may doubt: “If the Buddha, the preacher, is non-existent, [out of the fact that] the Dharma that is preached is not different from the Dharmabody, then it is also non-existent. Who could believe the Dharmarealm that is so deep?
(Yijing:) If it is said that the Lord is the preacher, since the Dharma preached by him is also not different from the Dharmabody, then it is non-existent either. Who would believe so deep a Dharma?
Here the reason for non-duality is explained not only by using Dharmabody instead of Dharmarealm, but the reason given is also very different from the one above where “no self characteristics” or “intrinsic nature” is mentioned: The Dharmabody is identified with the Buddha, and there is no Dharma preached by the Buddha, because the Dharma-preacher, the Buddha, is said to be non-existent. In this way the non-duality of the Dharmabody and the Dharma is established through the relationship of the Dharma-preacher with the Dharma preached. It shows clearly that the Sanskrit version and the Chinese translations hint at different reasoning for non-duality with the employment of different term, either Dharmabody or Dharmarealm.
4. The meanings of non-A
The following are translations and discussions of all the verses in the Karika that delineate the formula “non-A is A”. Each verse is divided into a, b, c and d parts. Tucci supplemented those missing words within square brackets [], about which it seems indubitably legitimate, but left most of the missing portions of the Karika unrestored. I make an attempt to restore them in italics by taking the Chinese and Tibetan translations into consideration. Since these restorations are approximate, they are not to represent the Sanskrit original, but just to ease my translation.
The following discussion will group all verses accordingly under the reasons given for non-A in order to provide a clear picture of all the arguments. I give also a synoptic comparison of the Sanskrit version, Bodhiruci’s and Yijing’s translations. The English next to the Sanskrit verse is my own translation. Since Yijing’s translation is well known for its inaccuracy, I will not discuss it anymore, but concentrate on just important variants.
(a) Non-A, the so-called A cannot be found
(1) Verse 15
nairmanikena no buddho dharmo napi ca desitah/
desitas tu dvayagrahyo ’vacyo ’vakpathalaksanat//
[The Buddha] is not the Buddha, because [the so-called Buddha] is a manifestation. Nor is the Dharma taught.
What has been taught is ungraspable in two aspects, it is not taught, because it has no characteristics of the range of speech.
S’ (Yij ing)
Bodhiruci’s and Yijing’s translations deviate from each other in verse 15d. While Bodhiruci translated ’vacyo as negative “no teaching” ( ), Yijing rendered “teaching” ( )• In the prose
commentary, however, both translations has negation for ’vacyo. Yijing’s rendering without a negation is easily explained by the elision of the negation a after an o. He failed to take note of the inconsistency in his translations.
The “two aspects” mentioned in the verse are dharma and adharma, which are both non-perceptible. The negation of dharma, that is, “not dharma”, means according to Bodhiruci’s translation the non-existence of self-characteristics of the phenomena. Yijing’s translation gives almost the same argument that all phenomena have no intrinsic nature. They also agree with each other in the argument for negating adharma, “not wow-dharma”, in a way unique to the Yogacara. Both translations argue from the Yogacara perspective that the Selfless-nature exists. It is clear that ~wow-dharma” here denotes the nature after the intrinsic nature is negated. But the Selfless-nature exists, therefore it cannot be said to be non-existence, thus “not nondharma”. In the Yogacara perspective “not dharma” removes only the falsely imagined dharmas, but not the perfected nature. The perfected nature is devoid of all imaginings, the highest truth, and exists.
(2) Verse 18
agrahyanabhilapyatvam svaphalanam anudgrahat/
dvayavarananirmoksat subhutav aranadvayam//
One’s own spiritual fruits are ungraspable, inexpressible, because there is no grasping of one’s own fruits.
Since Subhuti got rid of the twofold impediments, he had the twofold freedom from obstructions.
Yijing rendered aranadvayam in both the verse and the commentary as “without competition” ( ) and “without the twofold competition” respectively, of which the latter is incomprehensible. There is no equivalent of “without competition” ( ® BT ) in Bodhiruci’s translation, except only a problematic statement: “Out of this reason the Buddha called it the twofold competition. Since one is without this twofold obstruction, one is called without competition, one who practices without competition.” But it is given in the footnote that “the twofold obstruction” (IXUlpt) stands in the other versions instead of “the twofold competition”. This shows clearly that “competition” is just an error in the Chinese editions. As it is clear from Bodhiruci’s rendering of verse 18d as “one, who has gotrid of the twofold obstructions” (itlMSIW ), he understood Sanskrit arana as “without obstruction”. The twofold obstruction refers to the obstructions of affliction and concentration.31 The difference in the Chinese translations are caused by the fact that arana has both these meanings. Since “the twofold without competition” does not make sense, Bodhiruci gave a better translation of the Sanskrit word.
This verse clarifies the statement in the sutra: “In actual fact there is no dharma called ‘Stream-Enterer’, [because a Stream-Enterer] does not enter visible matter, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental objects, thus he is called Stream-Enterer.”32 Though the saint is called a Stream-Enterer, he does not enter anything. The so-called “Stream- Enterer” is denied out of the fact that one cannot find an entity corresponding to “entering”.
(3) Verse 43
pascad vyakaranan no ca carya dTpamkare para/
bodhis taccaryaya tulya na satya samskrto bhavahll
Since the prophesying happened later, [my] practice at the time of DTpamkara was not the highest.
Awakening is the same as the practice [leading to] it. It is not real, because [it] is conditioned.
A49 (Bodhiruci)
R #T & S(Yijing)
In the Chinese versions “conditioned” ( WM ) and “made of conditions” ( |/|?a ) are translations corresponding to the Sanskrit samskrta^ Furthermore bixing ( ) in both Chinese translations is
a rendering of the Sanskrit taccaryaya customarily in the order of the elements of the compound without explicating the relation between them. The “it” (Ch. bi. Sk. tat) in the compound refers to the foregoing “Awakening” (bodhi). The compound means “the practice having Awakening as its aim”.
This verse refutes the assertion that the Buddha attained Awakening and that the Bodhisattva practices, just as the statement in the Vajracchedika\ “Was there any dharma, which the Buddha attain in front of Buddha DTpamkara? No.” The reason is that if one speaks of “attainment” and “practice”, one is not speaking the truth, since there is not even a dharma that one can attain.
(4) Verse 30
namaskandhas ca tadvastu tatsamjnapagamaj jine/
tadabhavo hi buddhanam tattvadarsanayogatah//Because imaginings like these—the name ‘five aggregates’ and the reality of the [[[five aggregates]]]—are removed on the part of the Victor.
For all Buddhas do not possess these [imaginings], because they acquired the vision of truth.
According to the commentary this verse explains the statement in the sutra: “That living beings (sattva) taught by the Buddha, it is not living beings.” The reason lies in that the so-called “living beings” has no real entity. The latter fact is argued from the vision of the Buddha. If living beings has real entities, than the Buddha must have the view or imagination of living beings, because the Buddha is the one who has the vision of reality. The same reasoning by referring to the insight of the Buddha is also used for “non-imagination” ( O ), as in verse 44, where it is explained that all phenomena are the realization of the Buddha, because all phenomena have the nature free from imagination. (b) non-A, A is only consciousness. (5) Verse 20 j nananisy andavij naptimatratvat ksetranodgrahah/ avigrahatvad agratvad avyuham vyuhata mata// There is no apprehension of the [[[pure]]] land, because it is merely representation of the outflow of [the Buddha’s] knowledge. Since [the embellishment of the pure land] assumes no form [and] is the highest, [thus] non-embellishment is considered as embellishment.
- M "" it (Bodhiruci)
(Yijing)
The Chinese translations rendered the Sanskrit compound jhananisyandavijnaptimatratvat in verse 20a differently. Bodhiruci translated the compound as “it is merely comprehensible by the consciousness of the outflow of knowledge,” while Yijing rendered it as “it is the nature of mere consciousness of the outflow of knowledge.” The former means only the Buddha could know the pure land; while the latter means the so-called pure-land is a mere representation. Bodhiruci and Yijing differed from each other not only in the translation of the verse, but also in the translation of Vasubandhu’s prose commentary. Bodhiruci rendered the explanation of the commentary thus: “Only the Buddhas, the Tathagatas know thoroughly with the consciousness of the outflow of true knowledge.” But Yijing translated as follows: “It is manifested in mere- consciousness of the outflow of the pure knowledge of the Buddhas.” Bodhiruci understood the word vijriapti to mean comprehension, apparently Bodhiruci reads the word as more a verb, while Yijing, representation. The other apparent difference is that Bodhiruci did not translate the Sanskrit suffix “tva,” while Yijing did. Tucci followed obviously Yijing’s translation and stands close to Yijing: “a mere denomination which is the mental outflow of the Buddha”.
Nevertheless Bodhiruci’s and Yijing’s translations give the same argument why embellishment of the pure land is not an embellishment. The reason is that it is just a manifestation of consciousness. On the other hand it is called “embellishment”, because it is the highest, the most excellent one, since it assumes no forms.�
(c) Non-A, A is not conducive to spiritual fruits.
(6) Verse 16
grahanadesana casya napartha punyasamgrahat/ punyam bodhyanupastambhad upastambhad dvayasya ca// Upholding and preaching the [[[Dharma]]] are not meaningless, because they accumulate merits.
Merits are ascribed to the two, because [other merits] do not support Awakening, and because these two support it.
44 The Sanskrit upastambha occurs not only in the verse above, but also in Vasubandhu’s commentary. Bodhiruci rendered it in both places as “forth going” ( ffixl), obviously misread into something like upasthana. But Yijing translated it as “upholding” ( Jyffnf), the correct rendering of upastambha. Nqvsq 16cd explains “heap of merits” (puny askandha) in the Vajracchedika with a pun: The Sanskrit word skandha carries the meanings of “upholding” and “heap”, which are both denied in the verse. Yijing was aware of this pun and translated: “The word skandha has two meanings: One means “heap”, another means “support”. But Bodhiruci did not realize the pun and translated: “There are two meanings of skandha: One means “heap5, the other means “forth going”.
This verse explains the statement of the Vajracchedika\ “That ‘heap of merit’ taught by the Buddha, it is not ‘heap of merit’, thus it is called ‘heap of merit, heap of merit’.” It is clear from verse 16c that “heap of merit” is negated, because merit cannot support the Awakening of the Buddha, or it is not its chief cause. But upholding and preaching Dharma lead to Awakening, therefore they are called “heaps of merit”.
(d) Non-A, A is not conditioned.
(7) Verse 21
Sumeror iva rajatve sambhoge nasti codgrahah/
Sasravatvena cabhavat samskrtatvena casya hi//
Just like the mountain Sumeru, when he enjoys being the king, there is no apprehension [of kingship],
For [the Buddha] neither exists in a contaminated form nor is he conditioned.
A (Bodhiruci)
- t S it (Yijing)
This verse explains the statement in the Vajracchedika'. “The nonbody taught by the Buddha, it is called magnificent body”. According to Bodhiruci’s and Yijing’s translations the magnificent body of the Buddha is negated, because the Enjoyment-body of the Buddha is pure and unconditioned. Both translations define asamskrta as “arising not depending on conditions”.
(e) Non-A, it is emptiness.
(8) Verse 44
tasyalaksanalaksanat na mrsa paridTpita/
dharmas tato buddhadharmah sarve ’bhavasvalaksanah//
It (= Awakening) is expounded as not false, because it has no characteristic as its characteristic,
Therefore the phenomena are Buddhadharma, all have non-existence as their characteristic.
- £■ ft fa (Bodhiruci)
it 11# XL & iir W* # A#J (Yijing)
Verse 44 comments on the following passage in the sutra:
Subhuti, in fact there is no Dharma, through which the Buddha attained the supreme and perfect Awakening. Subhuti, the supreme and perfect Awakening attained by the Buddha is neither true nor false. This is the reason the Tathagata says, “All phenomena are Buddhadharma.”
This verse explains why the Awakening attained by the Buddha is neither true nor false. “Buddhadharma” means the Dharma realized by the Buddha. Here all phenomena are identified with Buddhadharma, because they have the same nature as the content of realization of the Buddha, that is, they all have non-existence as their characteristic. The Awakening of the Buddha could not be true, because it is nonexistence, while it is not false either, because non-existence is its nature. In short the reason for the negation of the Awakening here is emptiness.
(e.i) Neither identical nor seperated
(9) Verse 46
gunamahatmyatas capi mahakayah sa eva hi/ abhavakayabhavac ca akayo ’sau nirucyate//
Again, for it is the magnificent body because it possesses exalted state of good qualities.
Furthermore, it is said to be non-body, because it exists as nonexistence of body.
- > R7 x: > XL $L< # > (Bodhiruci)
xl^ (Yijing)
Bodhiruci rendered qualities ( ) and greatness ( )
as a dvandva, but in the prose commentary they are analysed as a bahuvrihi meaning “possessing great qualities”. The Sanskrit mahatmya consists of meanings such as “having a noble nature” and “magnanimous”, therefore the Chinese translation “greatness” carries not only the meaning “large”, but also “noble”.
This verse explains the statement in the sutra: “That magnificent body taught by the Tathagata, it is not the magnificent body, thus it is called by the Tathagata the magnificent body.” It is not to deny that
Yijing’s translation of the verse “not having a body” ( f Mi*# ) is a better rendering of the Sanskrit verse abhavakaya than Bodhiruci’s translation “not a body” ( ). However, the meaning of this
negation is unclear unless we take Vasubandhu’s interpretation into consideration. The only extant versions of Vasubandhu’s commentary are translated by both Bodhiruci and Yijing. They agree for the first part why “the magnificent body” is taught by the Buddha. The reason is that the magnificent body is endowed with great qualities. The verse, “it is non-existence of the body (abhavakayabhava)^ corresponds to the second part of the statement: “it is not the magnificent body”. According to Bodhiruci’s translation, Vasubandhu explained the verse “non-existence of the body” in the sense that the Buddha body has no appearances, and according to Yijing’s translation the Buddha body is non-body ( f ), because it has non-existence as body. The former, unlike the latter, does not deny the body completely. Without further investigation, it is premature to interpret the verse according to Yijing’s translation or to identify “the non-existence of the body” with the unconditioned ( MM ) like Tucci, because it is unclear what kind of body is denied in the verse and in Vasubandhu’s commentary. If the body denied here is, in accord with Yogacara’s interpretation, the body that appears to the mind tinted with error-producing names and concepts, then, it is not very different from the denial of appearances in Bodhiruci’s translation.
With regard to the last part of the affirmation (thus it is called by the Tathagata the magnificent body) according to Bodhiruci’s translation, it is called the magnificent body, because Suchness (tathata), which is the real body of the Buddha, is also without appearances. But according to Yijing’s translation Suchness, which is the real body of the Buddha, has also no body. Therefore the formula here could be interpreted as follows: The “magnificent body” is a name taught by the Tathagata; the Buddha body does not have appearances or is not a body just as it appears to ordinary people, whose minds are tinted with error-producing name “magnificent body”, but the “magnificent body” should be understood apart from the appearances or body that appears to ordinary people. In this way the denial and affirmation of the magnificent body is performed in the Mahayana sense of emptiness, that is, the Buddha body is neither identical with the “magnificent body” in concept nor separated from the “magnificent body” referred to by the Tathagata.
(10) Verse 52-53
[na dharmakayanispattir anu]vyanjanam ucyate/
na ca laksanasampattis tadakayatvato mata// dharmakayavinirbhagan na dvayam na tathagatah/ sampattir ucyate bhuyo dvayam nasty astita tatah//
The accomplishment of the Dharmabody is not taught as the minor signs [of the Buddha].
It is also not considered as the accomplishment of the major marks, because the [[[Dharmabody]]] is not a body.
Since they are not separated from the Dharmabody, it is not that these two [[[major marks]] and minor signs] are not the Tathagata.
Therefore the accomplishment [of the Dharmabody] is again taught: The twofold [marks and signs] does not exist, [yet they] exist [in the accomplishment of the Dharmabody].
(Bodhiruci)
WO
1? <JU9 & — it W1 (Yijing)
Yijing’s translation “possession” ( M ) in verse 52c and 53c is equivalent to Sanskrit sampatti. which carries this meaning besides “accomplishment”. Bodhiruci, however, rendered it as “accomplishment” ( ). According to the context both renderings
are adequate. There is no rendering of “[yet they] exists” (astita) in verse 53d of Yijing’s translation. Here the denial and affirmation of the 32 major marks and the 80 minor signs of the Dharmabody correspond to the statement in the sutra: “That accomplishment of all marks taught by the Tathagata, it is not the accomplishment of all marks, thus it is called by the Tathagata the accomplishment of all marks.” It is clear that the affirmation is absent in Yijing’s translation.
The verse explains that the Dharmabody does not possess all the marks, because the Dharmabody has no body. But the Dharmabody can be “taught as possessing all marks,” because the 32 major marks and the 80 minor signs are not separated from the Dharmabody. In this way the claim that the Dharmabody and the marks are neither identical nor separated bases upon the teaching of emptiness in the Mahayana sense.
(11) Verse 54
buddhasyeva desanaya abhavad dvaya[ka]lpita/ dharmakayavinirbhagad desanapy asvalaksana//
Since Dharma-preaching is non-existent like the Buddha, it is imagined as two kinds.
Since Dharma-preaching and the Dharmabody are not separated, Dharma-preaching too is without characteristics.
t (Bodhiruci)60 <5F jfe. < —
i£?F3®-1] -fl (Yijing)
It is noteworthy that “Dharmabody” (dharmakdya) occurs in the Sanskrit version instead of the rendering of “Dharmarealm” (
) in the Chinese and Tibetan translations. In the prose commentary Vasubandhu mentioned both Dharmarealm and Dharmabody. Since the latter serves in the context as an introduction for the next coming verse, “Dharmarealm” seems to be original. But viewing from the argument of the commentary, “Dharmabody” is more appropriate in the context, because the emptiness of Dharma-preaching is established on the basis of the emptiness of the Buddha, with which Dharmabody can be more easily identified than Dharmarealm. According to the commentary since Dharma is preached by the Buddha, it has no characteristics, because the Buddha has none, therefore there is no Dharma being preached. On the other hand, since the Dharma preached by the Buddha is not separated from the Dharmabody, and since the Dharmabody could not be totally non-existent, the Dharma is not totally non-existent either. Argument as such of the commentary shows “Dharmabody” a more appropriate term than “Dharmarealm”.
According to Vasubandhu’s commentary “it (= Dharma-preaching) is imagined as two kinds” refers to the discrimination of the Buddha’s preaching in two aspects: the language used and the meaning of the sermon. This verse explains the statement in the sutra: “It is called ‘dharma-preaching, dharma-preaching,’ there is, however, no Dharma, which the so-called ‘dharma-preaching’ is perceivable.” The meaning of which could, according to Vasubandhu, be understood as follows: “There is no Dharma, which the so-called ‘dharmapreaching’ is perceivable,” because preaching has no self-characteristics, “it is called ‘Dharma-preaching’,” because Dharma-preaching is not separated from Dharmarealm/Dharmabody, which is not totally non-existent. In this way the elaboration that the conventional truth and the highest truth are neither identical nor separated is again emptiness in the Mahayana sense.
(e.ii) Neither identical nor difference
(12) Verse 70
asamcayatva pindatvam anekatvanidarsanam/
samhatasthanata tasmin nanyatve ca nidarsanam//
The mass [of atoms] shows muchness, because it is not an accumulation.
The state of accumulation [of atoms] is the appearance when there is no difference.
This verse employs the neither identical nor different relationship between the accumulation and the atoms to explain the statement in the sutra: “That ‘accumulation’ taught by the Buddha, it is not accumulation, thus it is called accumulation.” Here “accumulation” means the accumulation of atoms. The atoms do not accumulate, because the atoms in an accumulation could not exist at only one place, just as in Vasubandhu’s commentary:
What is the meaning of that? Just as when an atom is grinded into powder, these particles could not exist at only one place, because [they] are not accumulated. (Bodhiruci)
Take for example those grinded into dust: since there are a lot of dust particles, they could not occur at only one place, because this accumulation is not a single thing. (Yijing)Despite small differences the arguments in both translations are similar. Here the concept “accumulation” is refuted by making use of the contradiction that exists in all conceptual imagination: The so- called “accumulation” could not be a single thing, because a single thing could not accumulate. Since it is not a single thing, it could not situate at only one place, but rather spreads allover the place. Since it spreads allover the place, it could not be an accumulation. On the other hand the affirmation of “accumulation” is argued as follows:
Nor [the atoms] are different and occur in different places, because the difference of accumulated atoms is imperceptible. (Bodhiruci)
Nor there is difference, because each [of the particles] is not separated from each other, since they are an accumulation. (Yijing)
One cannot deny “accumulation” altogether, because one cannot find differences between the atoms in an accumulation on account of the definition of “accumulation” as “the coming together of similar atoms”.
In other words, the denial of “accumulation” bases on the argument of nonidentity of the atoms, while the affirmation is argued from their non-difference.
(f) Non-A, A is unknown.
(13) Verse 24�
tatphalasresthaduhkhatvad durlabharthottamarthatah/ jneyaparamitatvac ca parasadharanatvatah//
Since this fruit [of giving oneself for the sake of Dharma] is better than that of [giving wealth] in view of difficulty [in practice];
Since the truth of [the Perfection of insight] hard to obtain is the highest truth;
Since what is to be known has no end; and [the Buddha-dharma] is not
common to non-Buddhist.
The Chinese translations are difficult, because this verse consists of many compounds and Yijing rendered them according to the order of words in the compound without making any sense. In the prose commentary too Bodhiruci and Yijing’s translations deviate from each other. According to Bodhiruci’s translation verse 24a compares the merit of giving one’s own body for the sake of Dharma and that of wealth-giving. The former is better than the latter, because abandoning one’s own body is extremely difficult to practice, not to say abandoning for the sake of Dharma. But according to Yijing’s translation the gift of Dharma is better than the gift of wealth, because the latter results in the enjoyment of the body, which is suffering. In contrast, the gift of Dharma is conducive to abandonment of many lives of cyclic existence. Tucci consulted obviously Yijing’s translation and neglected Bodhiruci’s, because he gives the same explanation in Yijing’s translation.
This verse explains the statement in the sutra: “That highest Perfection (paramita) taught by the Buddha, it is not the highest Perfection, thus it is called the highest Perfection.” According to this verse the so-called “highest Perfection” is denied, because no one could know the Perfection of insight thoroughly. On the other hand the so-called “highest Perfection” is affirmed out of three reasons: First, the Perfection consists in the highest truth, and this truth is not found in other philosophical systems, but only in Buddhism; secondly, The Perfection is profound, its follower could give rise to twofold knowledge of non-self. The third reason, which is given in verse 25, claims that all Buddhas expound the Perfection. In other place thePerfection is said to be the best among all merits.
(14) Verse 26
sahisnuta ca caryayam duskarayam subha yatah/ tadgunaparimanatvad agrarthena nirucyate// Because endurance is the most virtuous among all difficult practices, Because its qualities are immeasurable, it is described as the highest truth.
Bodhiruci translated verse 26a by constructing caryayam duskarayam twice with sahisnuta and subha and came out with “endurance in difficult practices” (sahisnuta caryayam duskarayam ft ) and “because difficult practices possess virtue” (caryayam duskarayam subha yatah ) respectively. Yijing, however, seemed not to have followed the Sanskrit grammar and grouped verse 26a differently by rendering: “When he practices endurance” (sahisnuta ca caryayam ) and “notwithstanding those difficult practices, because it is virtue” (duskarayam subha yatah )• But all these interpretations are not found in Vasubandhu’s The Formula “Non-A is A” in Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Trisatikayah Prajnaparamitayah Karikasaptatih/ Choong, Yoke-Meei 39 prose commentary.
According to Vasubandhu’s commentary, the qualities of the Perfection of endurance is said to be immeasurable, because the Perfection (paramita) is not Perfection. The reason for “not Perfection” derives from the alleged semantic meaning of the Sanskrit word paramita, “the other shore”. “Not Perfection” because the other shore is unfathomable.
(g) Non-A, no perverted A.
(15) Verse 23 (no afflictions)
Dvayasya patrikaranan nisyandatvamahatvatah/
asamklesasya hetutvad dhinabhibhavanad api//
Because [the gift of Dharma] makes both [the place of preaching and the preacher] respectable, and because [the fruit of] its outflow is great,
Because it is the cause of no afflictions, and because it surpasses all lower gifts [of wealth].
This verse explains why Dharma-giving is more superior than wealth-giving. Both Chinese translations differ in the rendering of verse 23d. Bodhiruci and Yijing rendered abhibhavana in hinabhibhavana as “subduing” ( ) and “surpassing” ( )
respectively. The same is true in their rendering of the prose commentary. According to Bodhiruci’s translation, the commentary explains the superiority of Dharma-giving as follows: “Its merits subdue that of the jewelry”, while according to Yijing’s translation, the explanation is accordingly different: “It surpasses also the merits of wealth-giving.” The reason for these deviations lies in that abhibhavana carries both meanings of “subduing” and “surpassing”.
Verse 23c explains two things at the same time: Why the pure land of the Buddha is neither a land ( ) nor made of atoms ( O
WS )• The reason for being not a land lies in that the pure land of the Buddha does not have afflictions as its cause; and not made of atoms in that it is not made of afflictions.
(16) Verse 25
gadhagambhlrabhavac ca parasutravisistatah/
mahasuddhanvayatvac ca punyat punyam visisyate//
Because [this sutra] is penetrating and profound, because it is more excellent than the other sutras,
Because it is linked to the great purity, because [its] merit is more superior than [the other] merit.
(Yijing) Bodhiruci translated anvaya as “cause” ( H ), while Yijing rendered it as “descendants of nobles” ( )• The latter rendered anvaya as “descendants” and treats suddha as a modifier of anvaya. But such a rendering makes verse 25c unintelligible. In contrast, Bodhiruci resorted to another meaning of anvaya, “the logical cause”, which is appropriate in this context.
This verse provides an explanation for the expression “nonimagination” in the sutra: “any imagination of a living being is non- imagination”. The reason lies in that there are no perverted views in the perception of the Awakened.
(17) Verse 57
upayanuttaratvac ca sasravatvad adharmatah/
subha na dharmas te tasmat sa subha dharma ucyate II
Because [the other wholesome dharmas] are not dharmas, since they are contaminated and since [the Awakening of the Buddha] is the supreme means.
The [other wholesome dharmas] are not pure dharmas, therefore the [[[Awakening]] of the Buddha] is called good dharma.
Yijing’s translation of verse 57b “[the other wholesome dharmas] are won-dharmas, since they are contaminated ( |S )” stands close to the Sanskrit version sasravatvad adharmatah. But Bodhiruci’s translation deviates from them: “[the Awakening of the Buddha] is devoid of contaminated dharmas ( ).” Vasubandhu explained
“non-dharmas” and “good dharma” in the prose commentary. His argument according to Bodhiruci’s translation runs as follows:
What is the meaning? Since [the Awakening of the Buddha] is not endowed with contaminated dharmas, it is called ‘non- gsvA-dharma' on account of its freedom from contaminated dharmas. [On the other hand it is said,] “Thus it is called good dharmas”, because it is invariably good.The Awakening of the Buddha is “non (-good-) dharmas”. because it is not contaminated. In other words, worldly good dharmas are contaminated. On the other hand, it is called “good dharmas”. because the Awakening of the Buddha is invariably good. However, Yijing’s translation gives a different argument for "wow-dharmas”\
All Awakenings other [than the Awakening of the Buddha] are imperfect in terms of good dharmas, that is, there are better means than these [Awakenings], this is why the Tathagata taught them as "wow-dharmas”... From the viewpoint of contamination, the [[[Awakening]] of the Buddha] is not endowed with the characteristics of contamination. Since it is not endowed with that, it is thus taught as “good dharma”. The reason is that non-contamination supports invariably goodness.85
According to the passage above, the other Awakenings are non- dharmas. because they are not perfect and there are dharmas higher than them. But the reasoning for “good dharmas” is the same as Bodhiruci’s translation, that is, the Awakening of the Buddha is not contaminated, and thus must be good.
In short good dharma is affirmed from the non-contamination of the supreme Awakening of the Buddha in Bodhiruci’s and Yijing’s translations, but the negation of good dharmas is argued differently in both translations. Bodhiruci was consistent in referring "wow-dharma”44
to the Awakening of the Buddha and therefore not the ordinary good dharmas', while Yijing interpreted it as Awakenings other than the Buddha’s, which are contaminated. In this way the reasons for non- dharmas is different in both translations.
This verse explains the statement in the sutra: “That ‘good dharma, good dharma" taught by the Buddha, it is not good dharma. thus it is called ‘good dharma".” The denial of good dharma argues on the basis that good dharmas are contaminated or that the Awakening of the Buddha is not like the worldly contaminated good dharmas.
(h) Non-A, not exactly A
(18) Verse 55
desyadaisikagambhiryasraddha na ca na santi hi/
na sattva napi casattvas te ’naryaryzdvayiiktatvat//
But it is not that there are no people who have faith in the deepness of what is taught and in the preacher.
They are neither living beings, because they are not endowed with holy qualities; nor are they not living beings, because they are endowed with holy qualities.
(Yijing)
This verse is difficult. Tucci’s translation is unclear. Vasubandhu’s explanation can be helpful here. According to Bodhiruci’s translation, Vasubandhu explained it as follows:
What does it mean? If there is a person who believes in this sutra, he is than not a living being. The expression “not a living being” means not bereft of holy qualities. “One is not bereft of holy qualities”, because one possesses not the body of an ordinary person. The expression “one is not non living being”, because one possesses holy qualities. This person is not an ordinary living being, since he is not a living being bereft of holy qualities. Just as it is said in the sutra: “The so-called ‘living being, living being’, it is taught by the Buddha as not a living being, thus it is called a ‘living being’.” It is taught by the Buddha as not a living being” means not an ordinary living being. “Thus it is called ‘living being, living being’”, because he is a living being, who is a saint, therefore he is called “non living being”.
According to Bodhiruci’s translation “living being” is one bereft of46
holy qualities, and “non living being” is a saint, and “not non living being” is an ordinary person with holy qualities. The affirmation of a living being and its negation pertain to the same person, who is an ordinary living being endowed with holy qualities. Yijing’s translation reads as follows:
Those who would give rise to faith, they are “not living beings”, because the other living beings do not possess holy qualities, instead they possess the nature of an ordinary person. “Nor are they not living beings”, because they are [only] endowed with holy qualities. In other words, from the point of view of his being an ordinary person he is not [ordinary] living being; from the point of view of his holy qualities, he is not [yet a] non living being. The sutra says: “What is the reason? The so-called ‘living being, living being’, it is taught by the Buddha as not a living being,” this saying bases on [the comparison with] the nature of an ordinary foolish person; “Thus it is called ‘living being’,” this saying bases on [the comparison with] the nature of a saint.
Similarly, according to Yijing’s translation “living being” is an ordinary person bereft of holy qualities, “non living being” is a saint, and the negation of both is an ordinary person endowed with holy qualities. “Living being” is negated out of the consideration that the
The Formula “Non-A is A” in Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Trisatikayah Prajnaparamitayah Karikasaptatih/Choong, Yoke-Meei 47 bodhisattva is not perfectly an ordinary living being, and “non living being” is denied, because the bodhisattva is not yet a saint.
5. “Non-A is A”
If the three As in the formula are distinguished as A1? A2 and A3 as follows: “That Aj taught by the Buddha, it is not A2, thus it is called A3,” then, according to the verses discussed above, the Vajracchedika and Vasubandhu’s commentary place importance on the reason for non A2. If they sometimes touch on A3, they argue mainly from the qualities of the highest truth or the actual effect and function of A3. As for Aj there is no discussion of it at all. That means A! could be taken as what the formula tells us, that is, the expression in the teachings of the Buddha, and A3 refers to what is really meant by the Buddha, while A2 stands for wrong grasping in the way phenomena are thought to exist as they appear to the mind contaminated with names and concepts. However, the denying A2 is different in many cases. The following is a summary of the various ways of denial of A2:
(1) The denial of anything denoted by the Sanskrit word:
Verse 16 “The so-called ‘heap of merits’ is not heap of merits, thus the Tathagata called it ‘heap of merits’” negates “heap of merit” with the reason that merit cannot support the Awakening of the Buddha. Thus the negation denies anything of a “support” in a pun of the Sanskrit word skandha.
Nqvsq 18: The statement: “In actual fact there is no dharma called ‘Stream-Enterer’, [because a Stream-Enterer] does not enter into48 iVWriC+BI
visible matter, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental objects, thus he is called Stream-Enterer.” negates any meaning of “entering” of the Sanskrit word apanna.
In verse 26 the claim: “It is not the Perfection of endurance.” is made on account of the fact that the limit of the other shore is unknown. It negates anything of the traditional accepted meaning ofparamita as “gone to the other shore”.
Verse 57 states that the Awakening of the Buddha is non- wholesomQ-dharma, because wholesome dharmas are contaminated, but the Awakening of the Buddha is not contaminated. Wholesome dharma as an attribute of the Awakening of the Buddha is negated according to the definition of wholesome dharma as contaminated dharma.
(2) The denial of any truth in worldly perception:
(a) The denial of a real entity:
Verse 20 states: “The ‘embellishment’ taught by the Tathagata, it is not embellishment, thus it is called ‘embellishment.’” The reason given is that the pure land is just mind-only, that is, the manifestation in the mind.
Verse 21 claims that it is non-body, thus it is called the magnificent body, because the body of the Buddha is not made of conditions, it is unconditioned. There are a few more verses
The Formula “Non-A is A” in Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Trisatikayah Prajnaparamitayah Karikasaptatih/Choong, Yoke-Meei 49 that give the same argument.
Verse 30 gives the reason for “non living being”, that is, the so- called ‘living being’ has no real entity.
(b) The verses from the largest group item e (including items e.i and e.ii):
They argue from the viewpoint of Mahayana emptiness, that is, A is neither true nor false in terms of the highest truth. This view includes the reasoning of neither identical nor separated, neither identical nor different of the conventional and the ultimate.
(c) Outside the limit of comprehension: Verse 24 states that the highest Perfection (paramita) is “non highest Perfection”, because the limit of the highest Perfection is unknown.
(d) Outside the realm of an ordinary person: Verse 23 claims that the pure land of the Buddha is not made of elements which have defilements as its cause. Verse 25 defines “noncharacteristics” as the non-perverted knowledge of No-self. In verse 57 “non-wholesome-<77zt/rmt/” is established from the fact that the Awakening is not ordinary wholesome dharmas.
Disregarding the first item where A2 is negated from the semantic point of view, the various reasoning given in the second item conforms to the result of investigation of the Japanese scholars, that is, the negation of A2 has the purpose of removing wrong grasping of ordinary people. As for the debate, the tension between two hypotheses -50 mBsw-ir+mi
whether the formula proclaims the ontological emptiness of Buddhism or it expresses a gradual implementation of the teachings of the Buddha by the bodhisattva - dissolves in Vasubandhu’s commentary. Since Vasubandhu explained the ontology of phenomena from the Yogacara point of view, the emptiness expressed in this formula is not the Madhyamaka emptiness interpreted by the Japanese. In the Madhyamaka emptiness, non-A means the non-existence of A, and therefore A can hardly be the truth. In contrast, non-A in the Yogacara teachings is very different. According to the Yogacara, non-A denies only the wrong grasping of A. Through removing the error-producing concept of A the true A reveals itself. In this way one comes closer to true A by successively negating wrong conceptions of A. Therefore in Vasubandhu’s commentary the formula “non-A is A” expresses both an ontological emptiness and a gradual guide as well as skillful teachings of the Buddha to the bodhisattva, so that the bodhisattva comes closer to what the Buddha refers to. Even though Asanga’s verses and Vasubandhu’s commentary are tinted with Yogacara thought, they somehow provide an interpretation of the formula “non-A is A”, which can best settle the debate.
Other than this non-A in the formula “non-A is A” there areThe Formula “Non-A is A” in Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Trisatikayah Prajnaparamitayah Karikasaptatih/Choong, Yoke-Meei 51 other forms of negation in the Vajracchedika, which negates both A and non-A: “non-A” and “not non-A”. The latter two could form an opposite pair like verse 15, where not non-A means “existence”, exactly the opposite of non-A, “non-existence”. But verse 55 has the pair of double negation in a different usage, where “not living being” and “not non living being” means neither totally a living being nor a saint.
6. Conclusion
Yogacara inclinations are discernible in the summary verses and their commentary under discussion. This is the reason why the ancient Chinese (or also the Tibetan) translators ascribed the verse to Asanga and the commentary to Vasubandhu. Yogacara thoughts are especially obvious in verse 15 and 20 and in Vasubandhu’s commentary. The Japanese scholars resort to only the Prajhaparamita and the Mulamadhyamakakarika in the interpretation of the Vajracchedika, because the Vajracchedika being one of the Prajhaparamita literatures is like the latter loosely grouped together with the Mulamadhyamakakarika. But the many Yogacara exegeses, that is, Asanga’s verse summary as well as his commentary and Vasubandhu’s commentary, are evidence for the keen interest of the Yogacara School taken in the Vajracchedika. Here is not the place to discuss the close relationship between the Vajracchedika and the Yogacara School, which I am working on in another topic. The debate, whether the
formula is an expression of ontological emptiness or a description of a gradual fulfillment of the teaching of the Buddha by the bodhisattva, stems from the interpretation of the formula “non-A is A” solely from the Madhyamaka view. As shown above, these two antagonistic views can easily be consolidated in the Yogacara interpretation. It could thus be helpful for settling the debate of the interpretation of the formula “non-A is A” by taking the Yogacara commentaries into consideration.Works Cited Primary Sources and Abbreviations
MSA: Mahayana-sutralahkara of Asariga. S. Bagchi ed., Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute, 1999.
Conze: Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita. Edward Conze ed. and tri., Roma: Is. M. E. O., 1973.
Gomez: “The Manuscript of the Vajracchedika Found at Gilgit,” Gomez, L. O. and Silk, J. A. In Studies in the Literature of the Great Vehicle: Three Mahayana Buddhist Texts. Ann Arbor, 1989, pp. 89-139.
Harrison: “Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita,” Harrison, Paul and Watanabe Shogo. In Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schoyen Collection, vol. III. Oslo: Hermes Academic Publishing, 2006. Tucci: “The Trisatikayah Prajnaparamitayah Karikasaptatih by Asariga,” in Minor Buddhist Texts. Part I, Giuseppe Tucci, Roma: Is. M. E. O., 1956, pp. 5-171.
T: Taisho Edition of the Chinese Canon ( ),
Taipei: Xinwenfeng, 1983.
Secondary Sources
1. Book
1999
Kongouhannyakyou no shisou teki khenkuu. Tokyo:
Shunjuushya.
Eckel, Malcolm David�
2008 Bhaviveka and His Buddhist Opponents. London: Harvard University Press. Edgerton, Franklin 2004 Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. v. I & II. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Lopez, Donald S. 1988 The Heart Sutra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries. Albany: State University of New York Press. Otake Susumu 2009 Nengduan jingang banruo boluomiduo jing lunshi. Tokyo: Okura Shuppan. 2. Article D’Amato, M. 2005 “Three Natures, Three stages: An Interpretation of the Yogacara trisvabhava-theory,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, v. 33 n. 2, pp. 185-207. Guo Qiongyao
“The Inspiration of Japanese Debate/Discussion of ‘The Logic of Immediate Negation’,” in Vajracchedika- Prajnaparamita-Sutra to Chinese Buddhist Researchers, Journal of World Religions, n. 11 (2008, 6), pp.103-149.
Tachikawa Musashi ±Zj I
“Kongouhannyakyou ni Mirareru ‘Sokuhi no Ron Li’ Hihan,” in Kongouhannyakyou no shisou teki khenkuu, Abe Jion ed., Tokyo: Shunjuushya, pp.107- 112.
Takehashi Futoshi TrfSA
“Kongouhannyakyou niokeru hou to sou ni nitsuite,” in Kongouhannyakyou no shisou teki khenkuu, Abe Jion ed., Tokyo: Shunjuushya, pp. 159-174.
Ozawa Kentama 1974 “Shougon Kokudo Shisou no Ichi Men: Kongouhannyakyou no Chuushaku Sho otooshite,” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, v. 22 n. 2 (1974, 3), pp.922-925. Sadakata Akira 1999jjtt ’ M 95-105 °“Kongouhannyakyou no paradokusu,” in Kongouhannyakyou no shisou teki khenkuu, Abe Jion ed., Tokyo: Shunjuushya, pp.95-105. Satoshi Fujio 1999 <
“Kongouhannyakyou niokeru katari gen to obujekuto,” in Kongouhannyakyou no shisou teki khenku, Abe Jion ed., Tokyo: Shunjuushya, pp.139- 157. Sueki Fumihiko 7^7f^Jtdr 1999
“Soku hi no ronri saikou,” in Kongouhanyakyou no shisou teki khenku, Abe Jion ed., Tokyo: Shunjuushya, pp.113-138. Suzuki Daisetsu 2001
Kongoukyou no zen/Zen he no michi, v. 4 of Suzuki Daisetsu zen senshuu, Tokyo: Shunjuushya. Watanabe Shogo 'ffijZJSf'tn'
tz Vajracchedika V 4; : Schoyen Collection
“Sanskrit Manuscripts of the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita in the Schoyen Collection,” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studie, v. Yamamoto Masahiro 1961 ’ (128-129 ° “Mucho no Kongoukyou no shakuronge niokeru mitsumi shisou. Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studie, v.9 n.l (1961, 1), pp.128-129.58
