Was Bodhiruci the Real Ideological Founder of Northern Branch Dilun School
Reexamining Texts of Early Dilun School under Bodhiruci through the Folio 羽726R–
Lee, Sangmin Korea University
1. Preface
The Dilun School(地論宗), a Buddhist school named after its authoritative text Shidijinglun (十地經論, *Daśabhūmikasūtraśāstra,2 translated by Bodhiruci and Ratnamati in 508-511C.E.; henceforth SDJL), is considered to have played a significant role in the early understanding of Buddhist doctrines in 6th century China, as exemplified in the Dashengyizhang (大乘義章, A Compendium of the Great Vehicle) by the renowned Dilun master Jingying Huiyuan(淨影慧遠, 523-592C.E.). Traditionally it has been held that the Dilun School had two ideological founders, viz. Ratnamati (勒那摩提, ?-508-511-?C.E.) and Bodhiruci (菩提流支, ?-508-535-?C.E.) who were the co-translators of the SDJL. It is said that they have established two discrete branches within the Dilun School; the southern branch (南道) and northern branch (北道), each of which had different ideological foundations, namely that of tathātā (眞如, alternatively designated as dharmatā 法性 or tathāgatagarbha 如來藏) and of ālayavijñāna (阿梨耶識) respectively.3
1 This is a revised version of my paper “『入楞伽經』 주석서에 나타난 초기 地論學派의 특징 - 둔황사본 羽726R(『大乘十地論義記』)을 중심으로(The Special Features of the Early Dilun School As portrayed in a Dunhuang Manuscript 羽726R)”, 『禪文化硏究』, 韓國禪理硏究院 no.16, Seoul: 2014. 2 In the Tibetan translation of this text wrote the title as Ārya Daśabhūmivyākhyāna(‘phags pa sa bcupa’i rnam-par bshad-pa). See 西藏大藏經 vol. 105(Peking ed.), no.5499(3998 in Derge). 3 For example, see “一說云。初勒那三藏敎示三人。房定二士授其心法、慧光一人偏敎法律。菩提 三藏惟敎於寵。寵在道北敎牢宜四人。光在道南敎憑範十人。故使洛下有南北二途。當現兩說 自斯始也。四宗五宗亦仍此起” (續高僧傳, vol. 7, T50.482c) and “｢如地論有南北二道｣者，陳梁 已前弘地論師二處不同，相州北道計阿黎耶以爲依持，相州南道計於眞如以爲依持” (法華玄義 釋籤, vol.18, T.33.942c). The latter is a comment for a passage of Zhiyi(智顗, 538-597 C.E.) who stated as “如地論有南北二道，加復攝大乘興，各自謂眞，互相排斥”(妙法蓮華經玄義, vol. 9, T33.792a). Jizang(吉藏, 549-623C.E.), a contemporary with Zhiyi also noted that there are ideological division in the north. See “北土二家。一云本有眞如體。未有其用。從眞如內。生一 切功德智慧之用。如本有金朴。從人功鑪治。生金上調柔明淨之用。故是內出義。次師云非從 眞內。生諸功德。但轉無始來一切功德。作於報佛。依眞如法身爾”(法華統略 vol. 1, X27.469c470a). When concerning these descriptions, it might be obvious that, at least for Buddhists of the Southern area, there were two different doctrinal traditions in the late 6th C.E of the Dilun School.
However, as research on the Dilun School progressed, scholars have found that doctrinal or philosophical developments of the Dilun School do not necessarily correspond to their master-discipline relationships. Of particular note, studies conducted on a Dunhuang manuscript Shidilun-yishu (十地論義疏, S.2741, An Exegesis on SDJL) of Fashang(法上, 495-580 C.E.) - a representative monk of the Southern branch Dilun School - show that they shared the same ontological theory of mind (心識說).4 This finding changed the direction of scholarly researches on the Dilun School: more recent studies started to focus on what doctrinal or philosophical features were actually developed by the Dilun School.5 For certainty, this new approach become possible with a series of Dunhuang texts newly
identified as written by the members of Dilun School themselves.6 In this paper, I will introduce a newly found Dunhuang manuscript 羽726R, a commentary on the Fashenpin (法身品, the Dharma-Body Chapter) of the Rulengqiejing (入楞伽經, a translation of Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra by Bodhiruci in 513C.E.7; henceforth RLQJ).8 Along with a philological report of the text, I will question the conventional view of the Dilun School’s doctrinal bifurcation. 羽726R contains the doctrinal system of the very early Dilun thoughts possibly derived from Bodhiruci himself or, more likely, from a group of monks studied under his supervision. However, this text does not seem to seek its philosophical foundation in the notion of ālayavijñāna. Rather, it shows some significant doctrinal features traditionally attributed to the school of Ratnamati, or even to the Chinese Buddhists of the past generations. If the members of both, according to the later records, northern and southern Dilun Schools stood on the common philosophical ground, then it would be hard to confirm that the two Indian masters divided the school due to their ideological disagreement from the outset. In the first section, I will discuss basic information such as the chronology, regional provenance and circulation history of this document in order to lay the foundation of my research. According to the scriber’s note, the 羽726R was transcribed in Western .
After Tang Yong Dong 湯用彤 ( ) reinterpreted the history of the Dilun School following this view and presumed the founders as Ratnamati and Bodhiruci respectively, this frame seems to be widely accepted by the modern scholars. See Tang:1938(1983), 612-615. 4 See Sakamoto:1956, 380-391. 5 In the same context, Sheng Kai even proclaimed their bifurcation is just an “illusion 虛像 ( ).” See Sheng Kai:2013, 90. 6 Precedent studies conducted in this light were complied by Aoki. See Aoki: 2010, 44-62. 7 “入楞伽經一十卷(延昌二年譯。是第二出。與宋世跋陀羅四卷楞伽廣說爲異。沙門僧朗道湛筆 受)”(歷代三寶紀, vol. 9, T49.85c) 8 My edition of this text was published with the gracious permission of Ikeda Mananori(池田將則) in 2013. See 金剛大學校佛敎文化硏究所(編): 2013, 515-542. Also note that another edition on the same text made by Li, Jijie with a short introduction. See Li: 2013, 25-40.
However, as research on the Dilun School progressed, scholars have found that doctrinal or philosophical developments of the Dilun School do not necessarily correspond to their master-discipline relationships. Of particular note, studies conducted on a Dunhuang manuscript Shidilun-yishu (十地論義疏, S.2741, An Exegesis on SDJL) of Fashang(法上, 495-580 C.E.) - a representative monk of the Southern branch Dilun School - show that they shared the same ontological theory of mind (心識說).4 This finding changed the direction of scholarly researches on the Dilun School: more recent studies started to focus on what doctrinal or philosophical features were actually developed by the Dilun School.5 For certainty, this new approach become possible with a series of Dunhuang texts newly identified as written by the members of Dilun School themselves.6 In this paper, I will introduce a newly found Dunhuang manuscript 羽726R, a commentary on the Fashenpin (法身品, the Dharma-Body Chapter) of the Rulengqiejing (入楞伽經, a translation of Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra by Bodhiruci in 513C.E.7; henceforth RLQJ).8 Along with a philological report of the text, I will question the conventional view of the Dilun School’s doctrinal bifurcation. 羽726R contains the doctrinal system of the very early Dilun thoughts possibly derived from Bodhiruci himself or, more likely, from a group of monks studied under his supervision. However, this text does not seem to seek its philosophical foundation in the notion of ālayavijñāna. Rather, it shows some significant doctrinal features traditionally attributed to the school of Ratnamati, or even to the Chinese Buddhists of the past generations. If the members of both, according to the later records, northern and southern Dilun Schools stood on the common philosophical ground, then it would be hard to confirm that the two Indian masters divided the school due to their ideological disagreement from the outset. In the first section, I will discuss basic information such as the chronology, regional provenance and circulation history of this document in order to lay the foundation of my research. According to the scriber’s note, the 羽726R was transcribed in Western
After Tang Yong Dong 湯用彤 ( ) reinterpreted the history of the Dilun School following this view and presumed the founders as Ratnamati and Bodhiruci respectively, this frame seems to be widely accepted by the modern scholars. See Tang:1938(1983), 612-615. 4 See Sakamoto:1956, 380-391. 5 In the same context, Sheng Kai even proclaimed their bifurcation is just an “illusion 虛像 ( ).” See Sheng Kai:2013, 90. 6 Precedent studies conducted in this light were complied by Aoki. See Aoki: 2010, 44-62. 7 “入楞伽經一十卷(延昌二年譯。是第二出。與宋世跋陀羅四卷楞伽廣說爲異。沙門僧朗道湛筆 受)”(歷代三寶紀, vol. 9, T49.85c) 8 My edition of this text was published with the gracious permission of Ikeda Mananori(池田將則) in 2013. See 金剛大學校佛敎文化硏究所(編): 2013, 515-542. Also note that another edition on the same text made by Li, Jijie with a short introduction. See Li: 2013, 25-40.
3
Wei(西魏) 539 C.E. This temporal and regional provenance, along with its title Dashengshidilun-yiji, is informative enough to make a relatively accurate estimate of its position in the history of Chinese Buddhism. In the second section, I will introduce several passages from the 羽726R to outline the doctrinal features of the early Dilun School. This text contains doctrines that accord with Jingangxianlun (金剛仙論, An Exegesis of Vajrasena; henceforth JGXL), a subcommentary or, more precisely, a lecture note for *Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitaupadeśa (金剛般若波羅蜜經論, A commentary for Diamond Sūtra) attributed to Vasubandhu (天親). This means that the 羽726R can be recognized as another Dilun text directly linked to the Bodhiruci’s school. Lastly, I will analyze the passages of the 羽726R and show some significant understandings of the Buddhists in this era. The doctrinal features of this commentary stands on the ground of the ultimate truth or tathātā (眞如), as opposed to ālayavijñāna (阿梨耶識). This will become clear when we consider the term “Buddha-Nature as Suchness(眞如佛性) and, as I noted earlier in my critical edition of the text, “Seven Minds theory(七識說)” which implies the masters of the Dilun School shared identical philosophical standpoints regardless of whether they studied under Ratnamati or Bodhiruci.
2. Basic Information of the 羽726R
The 羽726R was released in Dunhuangmiji (敦煌秘笈, The Secret Book of Dunhuang) Photo edition vol.9, published in 2013. It has a total of 236 lines on 11 sheets; however, the first several lines are missing. This manuscript contains overlapping passages and this fact indicates that it may not be an original text, but rather a copy of a certain version. No further information on the author or different versions of the text is available. However, two lines of the scriber’s record are preserved at the end of the manuscript and from this note we can identify the title, date and area of transcription.
大乘十地論義記一卷 大統五年二月七日一交竟 (羽726R, line 235-6) Dashengshidilun-yiji, 1 Fascicle. The first correction (emendation?) bas been conducted -> 一つの校勘、完了。 in the 7th day, 2nd month, and 5th year of Datong.
2.1. The Temporal and Regional Provenance of the 羽726R
Let us start with the temporal and regional provenance of this text. The “Datong (大統, 4
535-551 C.E.)” is a dynastic era name for the Western Wei (西魏, 534-556 C.E.). As is well documented, the political climate during the Nanbei Dynasties(南北朝, 439-589 C.E.) was extremely unstable, thus the Buddhists at this time had to endure an oscillation between religious persecution and protection alternately according to the taste of royal families and influences. During the Datong years, fortunately for the Buddhists, the government of the Western Wei showed strong tendency for protecting and propagating Buddhism by virtue of Yu Wentai (宇文泰, 508-556 C.E.), the prime minister - the de facto ruler - of the Western Wei. Yu promoted Buddhism on a national scale: he ordered the importation of Buddhist texts from Eastern Wei(東魏, 534-550 C.E.) where a center of the Dilun School was located, and the rearrangement of the texts into the system of Five Gates (五門) (Aramaki, 2000: 194-201).9 There is no doubt that the 羽726R was trancribed in Western Wei, but its contents show no characteristic sign of Western Wei Buddhism. However, we may entertain the idea that the reason of titling this text as Dashengshidilun-yiji (大乘十地論義記, A Note on Treatise of Ten Stages of Mahāyāna) is that the Western Wei Buddhists were collecting commentaries on various Sūtras under the heading of Dashengshidilun. In any case, we can assume with high possibility that this text was imported from Eastern Wei, and that the original text was written in Luoyang (洛陽), the capital of Northern Wei (北魏) or Yedou (鄴城), the capital of Eastern Wei.10 The fifth year of Datong corresponds to 539 C.E. Thus, it can be estimated that the date of the original composition of the text, i.e. 羽726R, as somewhere between 513539 C.E., after when Bodhiruci finished his translation of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and before when 羽726R was transcribed. This presumed date of the original text of 羽 726R indicates that this text is a rare source showing the doctrinal system of the very early Dilun School. This text lacks not only the five doors system, but all of the other doctrinal features that were to characterize later Dilun-related Manuscripts; such as the three kinds of dependent gathering (三種緣集), the classification of the Buddha’s teaching as the separate teaching (別敎), the whole teaching (通敎), the united teaching
9 See Aramaki: 2000, 25-62. In this work, Aramaki attempts reconstruct the philosophical development from Northern Wei to the Tang dynasty. In this process, Yu represents a new current of Buddhism that was formulated in Western Wei as is seen in the Dunhuang manuscript 一百二十法門 北 ( 8388, 北8389) which was composed by 曇顯 under the instruction of Yu. 10 Bodhiruci conducted his translation works in Luoyang at first from where he moved to Yedou after the fall of Northern Wei. Thus, though the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra was translated in Luoyang, it cannot be judged specifically in which city this text was originally written. See “(癸巳)十二 二(魏史云。此 年撮天下僧尼寺積有一萬三千七百二十七所。去承明來始三十餘年。入楞伽經十卷菩提流支於 雒陽出)”(歷代三寶紀, vol. 3, T49.45a) and “梁武帝世。北天竺國三藏法師菩提流支。魏云道希 。從魏永平二年至天平年。其間凡歷二十餘載。在洛及鄴譯”(歷代三寶紀, vol. 9, T49,86b). 5
as a whole (通宗敎).11 Moreover, the last record of Bodhiruci’s translation ends in 535 C.E.12 This shows, with a very high probability, that that this text was composed during almost the same period of Bodhiruci’s lifetime, or, even written by Bodhiruci himself. If this is the case, the 羽726R can be considered as a noteworthy source that tells us about Bodhiruci’s ideological standpoint which had not been fully revealed up to this day.
2.2. An Overview of the 羽726R
As I stated above, the 羽726R is a commentary of the Dharma-Body Chapter(法身品) of RLQJ which is unique in that it is the sole extant commentary on this specific version of the Sūtra. The main theme of this text is Dharma-Body, the body of the ultimate truth. The text can be divided into three sections, as it is already marked as “~分 (section)” in the text itself:
The first section (第一分, line 1-60): This part explains Dharma-Body in several respects. This first section suggests that the three properties of Dharma-Body 1. is free from conventional logic 2. truly exists (i.e., possesses an ontological base) 3. neither different nor identical with a physical body. The second section (第二分, line 60-196): The second part is the largest portion of 羽726R. Here, the commentary focuses on the “eternity (不生不滅)” of Dharma-Body in terms of language (名) and meaning (義). Then it maintains that Dharma-Body makes the lesser two vehicles (二乘) proceed to the great vehicle (大乘) by linguistic activity, though Dharma-Body itself cannot be grasped by it. The third section (第三分, line 196-236): In the final section, the 羽726R disentangles the eternity of Dharma-Body from that of heretics (外道). It is claimed here that there are two kinds of eternity which exist simultaneously on different layers: i.e. the realm of the unconditioned (無爲) and conditioned (有爲). At last, the text declares that Dharma-Body as the Ultimate Truth (眞如) and as the sole ground for attaining the Buddhahood.
The 羽726R can be described as an archetypal exegesis, since it annotates the Dharma-Body Chapter of RLQJ passage by passage. However, one question remains regarding its original form: is this the complete text in itself, or just a segment of another commentary for whole chapters of RLQJ? From my point of view, the latter seems to be more probable. According to the later Dongyu-chuandeng-mulu (東域傳燈目錄, Record of the Transmission of the Lamp to 11 Concerning the characteristic features of the established Dilun thoughts, see Aoki: 2010, 61-88. 12 Cf. “伽耶頂經論二卷(天平二年。在鄴城般舟寺出一云文殊師利問菩提心經論僧辯道湛筆受)”(歷 代三寶紀, vol. 9, T49.86a). 6
the Eastern Regions), Bodhiruci wrote a commentary of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Rulengqiejing-shu (入楞伽經疏, 5 fascicles) by himself.13 Accordingly, it was highly probable that the 羽726R would be a selected work of the Rulengqiejing-shu. Moreover, there is internal evidence which indicates that the text is a re-edited version: that is, the positioning of the term “如經” in this text. In SDJL, “如經” typically functions as an introductory mark located just before quotations of the Sūtra. For example, in the first volume of SDJL:
經曰。①又一切菩薩不可思議諸佛法明說令入智慧地故。②攝一切善根故。③善 分別選擇一切佛法故。(…) 論曰。(…) 此是根本入。如經①又一切菩薩不可思議諸佛法明說令入智慧地故。 此修多羅中說依根本入有九種入。一者攝入。聞慧中攝一切善根故。如經②攝一 切善根故。二者思議入。思慧於一切道品中智方便故。如經③善分別選擇一切佛 法故。(T26.124b-c) The Sūtra says: Again, as [the Buddhas] let the every Bodhisattva enter to the [ten] stages of wisdom by the clear preaching of various kinds of inconceivable Buddhadharma, bring all kinds of virtuous root, and skillfully investigate and choose the all kinds of Buddha-dharma… The commentary says: … The [passage of the Sūtra] is [explaining] the fundamental entering. As [is said in] the Sūtra: “Again, as [the Buddhas] let the every Bodhisattva enter to the [ten] stages of wisdom by the clear preaching of various kinds of inconceivable Buddha-dharma.” This Sūtra proposes nine kinds of entering based on the fundamental entering. Firstly, the ‘Entering of Bringing’ as all kinds of virtuous root is brought by the wisdom of hearing. As [is said in] the Sūtra: “bring all kinds of virtuous root.” Secondly, the ‘Entering of Reasoning’ as one can establish the skillfulness on the every factors of enlightenment with the wisdom of contemplation. As [is said in] the Sūtra: “skillfully investigate and choose the all kinds of Buddhadharma.”
However, 羽726R seems to consider the term as a punctuation sign of each explanation. There are two instances that corroborate this consideration. First, the section-marker word, namely “~分,” appears next to “如經”
如經。第二分。(羽726R, line 60) 3 “入楞伽經疏五卷(中國大乘論師菩提留支自翻自講).”(東域傳燈目錄 vol. 1, T55.1153a). Though 羽726R has no single corresponding part with the later quotes from Rulengqiejing-shu, it does not necessarily mean that these texts are totally separated versions as long as only extremely limited sources are available. Later citations from the Rulengqiejing-shu, mainly discuss theories of mind; they are compiled by Ootake. See Takemura and Ootake: 2003, 331-334. 7
…As [it is said in] the Sūtra. The Second Section: [a citation of the Sūtra follows.] 如經。第三分。(羽726R, line 196) …As [it is said in] the Sūtra. The Third Section: [a citation of the Sūtra follows.]
Second, the last part of this text ends with “如經”
“爾時世尊重說偈言”以下, 有三十偈半, 重頌上長行第二第三兩分經文。如經。 (羽726R, line 233-4) There cited thirty and half lines of gāthā under the passage of “At that time the Blessed One preached again with poetic verses…” while the prose, constructing the second and the third sections of the Sūtra, is stated above the gāthā lines. As [it is said in] the Sūtra.
Consequently, it seems more relevant that the compiler of the 羽726R considered this term as a punctuation marker and, if it is, it would be an example of a very strange usage for such purpose. Thus we can assume that the words “第二分”, “第三分” were interpolated during in the process of editing and transcribing. We must not forget that the 羽726R is a copied version, and had been perhaps transcribed at least twice. Although the process through which the entire commentary came to circulated as a separate text is still obscure, it may be related to the problems that the Buddhists of Nanbei Era strived to solve. This may remind us of Lushan Huiyuan (廬山慧遠, 344416 C.E.), one of the central Buddhist figures during the Nanbei Era, who enthusiastically sought for the meaning of Dharma-Body in his correspondence with Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什, 344-413 C.E.). As attested in the 羽726R, the doctrinal interests in Dharma-Body might have been more of general contemporary Buddhists than of his own. We can even assume that the interest in this issue during that period might have influenced the translation works of Bodhiruci in turn since the root text of the 羽726R, “Dharma-Body chapter” occurs only in Bodhiruci’s version of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and does not appear in the Sanskrit version, or in the two other Chinese versions.14
14 The term “Dharma-Body 法身 ( )” is presented as the topic in this chapter, which seems an arbitrary translation compared with other versions. Cf. “deśayatu me bhagavāṃstathāgato 'rhan samyaksaṃbuddhaḥ svabuddhabuddhatām, yena ahaṃ ca anye ca bodhisattvā mahāsattvāstathāgatasvakuśalāḥ svamātmānaṃ parāṃścāvabodhayeyuḥ”(Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Nanjio Ed., 187) with “世尊！如來、應、正遍知，惟願演說自身所證內覺知法，以何等法名爲法身？ 我及一切諸菩薩等，善知如來法身之相，自身及他俱入無疑”(RLQJ, vol. 6, T16,550a) Here, Bodhiruci seems to paraphrase the term “svabuddha-buddhatā” as “法身” or add a passage on purpose. 8
3. Corresponding Passages in 羽726R and JGXL
For the sake of convenience, let me submit a comparative table portraying some examples that show the relationship between 羽726R and JGXL.
羽726R(line) 金剛仙論(Taisho number) ① 修十地智, 作了因。(34) 能得十地證智。終與法身作其了因。 (T25.821a). ② 得人法二無我眞如正觀現前, 永斷四住及習氣不明。(68-9) 菩薩既道登初地。現見眞如法無我理。永 斷四住習氣及無明麁品。(T25.804b) ③ 爲二乘小心, 說十二部經敎, 生出世閒三慧, 得人無我空, 斷四住惑, 故有二乘聖人。 (154-155) 四沙門果無漏智慧。…乃至羅漢。斷四住 惑。…此二乘之人無我正理及滅結無爲。 故名爲聖。(T25.823a-b)
二乘但聞人無我智, 未聞因緣眞如二種法無我智故 , 亦非境界。(93-95) 因緣眞如二種法無我。明因緣法體本來不 生名爲無生。(T25.865b). ⑤ 要由行人發普提心, 修十地行, 證二無我空, 除二障, 盡現見眞如法身, 名爲報佛, 亦名方便涅槃。(219-221) 本有之性顯用之時名爲報佛。即方便涅槃 。(T25.858c)
Several years ago, Ootake published “Konggosenron-no-seiritsumondai (金剛仙論の 成立問題; Some problems on the establishment of JGXL),” which has become a touchstone of the related researches. In this paper Ootake analyzed some complex features of the text and concluded on the basis of an array of positive proofs that it was a “lecture note” of Bodhiruci.15 His finding implies that JGXL reflects the academic
15 講義錄 “Lecture note ( )” is a newly presented notion by Japanese scholars for explaining a certain kind of Chinese Buddhist texts. This category lies between the Indian and Chinese (apocryphal) texts and includes both characters. In JGXL, Ootake discovered some significant information based on Indian sources which were not introduced to China up to that time but it cannot be judged a genuine Indian text as it also shows some misconstructions on the part of Chinese Buddhist exegetes in interpreting doctrines. On the basis of these factors, Ootake asserts that JGXL was akind of lecture note, a mixture of the Buddhist thought of India and China. (Ootake:2001a) Inspired by Ootake, Funayama Toru also 9
tradition that was formed under Bodhiruci; in other words, the very early thought of the Dilun School. That 羽726R has explanations identical to JGXL also supports this view. On the other hand, JGXL displays the tendency of emphasizing the idea of BuddhaNature (佛性), or tathāgatagarbha (如來藏) thought, that every sentient being originally possesses the essence of the Buddha by nature, which is seemingly ill-fitted to the later interpretations of Bodhiruci’s teaching. However, if they share the same theory while commenting on two ideologically contrasting Sūtras, it may plausible that the scholars of the early Dilun School had their own doctrinal system, possibly attributing to the doctrinal system of past generations. 3.1. The Two Kinds of Selflessness and Defilements
Among these five correlating sentences displaying the doctrinal homogeneity between the two texts, the passages of ② and ③ imply a fine interpretation that fuses the doctrinal tradition of the past with the latest information available by the newly translated texts. Here, the two kinds of selflessness (無我), namely that of person(人無 我) and of elements [consisting the person] (法無我) are referred to as the Lesser Vehicles and the Great Vehicle respectively. Although these two categories of selflessness might already have been known to Chinese Buddhists prior to the Dilun School, the clear distinction of these terms into two hierarchic-vehicles appears in Bodhiruci’s RLQJ for the first time.
諸聲聞得人無我，而不得法無我空 (入楞伽經, vol. 7, T16.555b)16 Every Śrāvaka acquires the selfless of person, but does not realize the emptiness self of the dharma.
Again, both the 羽726R and JGXL use the term “four entrenchments (四住)” as they interpret the defilements are renounced on the stage of the Lesser Vehicles. As it is well known, this notion originated from the Śrīmālādevi Sūtra translated by Guṇabhadra (求 那跋陀羅, 394-468 C.E.) in 436 C.E.
煩惱有二種。何等爲二。謂住地煩惱、及起煩惱。住地有四種。何等爲四。謂見 一處住地、欲愛住地、色愛住地、有愛住地。此四種住地生一切起煩惱。(勝鬘獅 子吼一乘大方便方廣經, vol. 1, T12.220a) There are two kinds of affliction. The two kinds are, namely, the entrenchment affliction of and the active affliction. There are four kinds of entrenchment: the entrenchment of identity view [of self], the entrenchment of the desire [[[realm]]], the suggested a “Compilation text 編輯文獻 ( )” in the same sense. See Funayama: 2002. 16 There is no relevant passage in Sanskrit or previous translation of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. 10
entrenchment of the form [[[realm]]], the entrenchment of the formless [[[realm]]]. These four kinds of entrenchments give birth to the every kinds of active affliction.
With these four entrenchments of affliction (四住地煩惱, *caturvāsabhūmi), the Śrīmālādevi Sūtra suggests another deeper level of defilement, the ignorance entrenchment(無明住地, *avidyāvāsabhūmi), which can only be eliminated at the stage of becoming a Buddha.
世尊！如是無明住地力，於有愛數四住地，無明住地其力最大。…阿羅漢辟支佛 智所不能斷, 唯如來菩提智之所能斷。(勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經, vol.1, T12.220a) Oh Blessed One, thus, the power of the ignorance entrenchment, when comparing it with the [power of] four kinds entrenchment categorized as the attachment to the existence, the power of the ignorance entrenchment is the strongest…Neither arhat nor pratyekabuddha can eliminate [the ignorance entrenchment] with their wisdom, but only the wisdom of enlightenment [[[attained]] by] tathāgata is able to extinguish it.
Thus, it is explained that the one who follows the path of Lesser Vehicles can only extinguish the four entrenchments of affliction by obtaining the selflessness of a person, while one who follows the path of Great Vehicle can eliminate the ignorance entrenchment, the real cause of all defilements, at the time when s/he ascends to the first stage of Bodhisattva. This implies that the school under Bodhiruci actively embraced the previous theories that already existed in China and combined them with the doctrinal explanations in Bodhiruci’s translations. In particular, the five entrenchments had been widely adopted as a theory of defilements (煩惱論) before the Dilun School was formed, as can be seen in the Dabanniepanjing-Jijie (大般涅槃經集解, An Anthology of the Commentaries on Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra), a compilation of commentaries on the Nirvāna Sūtra written by the Southern masters, or P.290817 Since 羽726R and JGXL seem to be almost contemporaneous with each other, it is hard to determine which text antedates the other.18 Moreover, those matching parts discuss the same ideas in different contexts. This may be natural consequence since their root texts are different. Nevertheless, the writers of these texts adopt the same doctrinal notions and systems while commenting on ideologically discrete texts – so to speak, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra for Yogācāra and the Vajracchedikā Sūtra for Śūnyavāda - 17 P2908 is estimated as a text that was written just before SDJL was translated. Cf. the preface of the critical edition of the P2908. 藏外地論宗文獻集成: 2012, 110-113. Recently, a research was conducted concerning the theory of defilements in the Dilun School by Ootake: forthcoming. 18 According to the records, JGXL was written by Bodhiruci in Luoyang, 534.(魏天平二年菩提流支三 藏於洛陽譯) This sentence can be found in JGXL vol. 5, 6 and 9. 11
rather than basing their notions and systems on a particular idea or text. What can be said for sure is that it can be identified as the thought of the early Dilun School.
3.2. Ten Stages of Bodhisattva Doctrines in 羽726R
Concerning the title of the 羽726R, the Dashengshidilun-yiji, it is noteworthy that this text repeatedly mentions Ten Stages Doctrine (十地說). 羽726R declares the Ten Stages as the exclusive soteriology of the Great Vehicle and that the Ultimate Truth (眞 如) can only be obtained through it.
今明眞如法身, 要由行者備十地行, 了出證現. (羽726R, line 8-9) Now [this passage] clarifies that the Dharma-Body can be fully realized only when a disciplinant completed the practice of the ten stages.
要由十地三慧之解, 作了因後, 方次第證見眞如之理, 名“如實修行”。(羽726R, line 232-233) Only after establishing the awareness-cause with the insight of three kinds wisdom [that arise from the practice] of the ten stages, one can realize the truth of suchness in order. This is called “the practice according to reality.”
Moreover, the 羽726R distinguishes between the Wisdom with Effort (功用智) of the seventh stage and below and the Effortless Wisdom (無功用智) finally obtained at the eighth stage. The text also mentions that each stage is equal in terms of properties that flow to the fruit of Buddhahood (佛果). These explanations may not be the exclusive theory of this text only, but are still a useful demonstration of how the Ten Stages theory was understood within the Dilun School.
七地已還功用之智等, 竝不及八地已上無功用智, 任運明進自然向大菩提。(羽 726R, line 91-93) (The wisdom with effort and so on, [possessed by the Bodhisattvas] before the seventh stage, are inferior than the wisdom with effortless [possessed by the Bodhisattvas] after the eighth stage. [These Bodhisattvas after the eighth stage are] effortlessly proceeded to the great enlightenment.)
初地中亦有十自在願, 八地中亦有十自在願, 十地中亦有十自在願。明初地已去, 上通佛果, 盡具十自在願故, 皆能隨衆生機根, 現其形色長短大小不同, 同說大乘 不差, 說如實法。(羽726R, line 182-185) ([The Bodhisattvas of] the first stage also have the aspiration to the ten kinds of mastery, the eighth stage also have the aspiration to the ten kinds of mastery, the final 12
stage also have the aspiration to the ten kinds of mastery. [This] clarifies that [every Bodhisattva] after the first stage is [basically] equal to the fruit of Buddhahood as [they] all completely possess the aspiration to the ten kinds of mastery. [Thus] every [[[Bodhisattva]]] can manifest one’s form differently according to the capacity of each sentient being; [but] there is no difference in preaching the great vehicle, the dharma as reality.)
In terms of soteriology, this text also describes the stages of enlightenment with some interesting points relating to the Mind-Only theory (唯心論).
五衆生, 修十地智, 作了因, 除虛妄取相, 分別心盡, 復無紛動寂靜, 一心無外境 界, 卽是眞法身。(羽726R, line 34-6) When a sentient being [consisted in] five aggregates practices the wisdom of ten stages and establish the awareness-cause to stop groundlessly clinging to the object and eliminate the discriminating thoughts, [thus when the mind reside] in tranquility and never be distracted again, [one can realize that there exists] no external objects but one mind. This is the Dharma-Body of reality.
初地已上寂靜常住眞如證智, 境智是一, 更無二心。(羽726R, line 65) (After the first stage, [the Bodhisattvas] quiescently, eternally abide in the actualized wisdom of the suchness. [In the wisdom, they realize that] the [[[Wikipedia:distinction|distinction]] of the] object and cognition are [mere] one [[[mind]]], not the mind of secondary [or tertiary and so on].)
These two passages state the renowned notion “One Mind(一心).” They depict that one who practices through the Ten Stages of Bodhisattva wisdom will construct his own Awareness Cause (了因) of attaining Buddhahood. At that level, s/he will eliminate all kinds of conventional discrimination and realize that there exists nothing, as external objects have no separation from the one mind which is identical to Dharma-Body. The soteriological descriptions in this text can be evaluated as a primitive form of the MindOnly theory. However, what this text fails to mention is the wisdom attained through the Transformation of Consciousness (轉識得智) which is a basic tenet of the Yogācāra doctrine. Rather, the interpretation that the one mind which still remains after elimination of all conventional discriminations reminds us of the teaching of Dashengqishinlun (大乘起信論, the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith) which gave profound influence on the later Chinese Buddhism, but an apocryphal text presumed to have been composed by the Dilun School.19
4. Thoughts Shared in the Schools of Budhiruci and Ratnamati 19 See Takemura:1990. 13
If 羽726R suggests One Mind as a permanent substance that still exists even after one’s enlightenment and considers this stage to be the same as the ultimate DharmaBody, it can be said that this theory has the ontological standpoint derived from the Buddha-Nature thought which had been fully matured during the Nanbei Era. Since another passage of the 羽726R mentions the Buddha-Nature as suchness (眞如佛性) in the same context of One Mind.
爲大心利根, 說眞如佛性無相之體, 究竟無外境。觀有爲法同於十喻, 無體可捨, 觀第一義寂滅之境, 無相可證, 平等一心, 離虛妄分別。(羽726R, line 155-158) For [those who have] the great mind [enough to accept the teachings of Great Vehicle] with sharp faculties, [the Tathāgata] explains Buddha Nature as suchness has no [conceivable] form in its essence and completely exhausts the external realm of object. So [they] realize the conditioned phenomena (*saṃskṛta-dharma) is identical with the ten analogies [for emptiness], thus there are no essence [of defilements] to abandon; the supreme truth is a tranquil sphere, thus there are no form [of truth] to actualize; [but only] the one mind of nondiscrimination [[[exists]] after] liberating from false discrimination.
“眞如佛性” seems an ordinary statement, but when considering it as a term, there are only three texts using this notion before Zhiyi and Jizang: JGXL (used 26 times), Jiujingyishengbaoxinglun (究竟一乘寶性論, used 9 times), a translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga, and Miaofalianhuajing-youbotishe (妙法蓮華經優波提舍, *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-upadeśa, used 1 time). It is noteworthy that the latter two texts were translated by Ratnamati.20 Moreover, in the Baoxinglun, compared to its Sanskrit version, Ratnamati used this term as the translations of dhātu and gotra, but most of the cases (4 usages) were interpolated without textual bases.21 For example:
samāsata ime nava kleśāḥ prakṛtipariśuddhe ’pi tathāgatadhātau padmakośādaya iva buddhabimbādiṣu sadāgantukatayā saṃvidyante. katame nava ? (skt. p. 67, l. 9)22 In brief, these nine kinds of Defilements make always their appearance [on the] Essence of the Tathāgata which is perfectly pure by nature, just like the sheath of [faded] lotus flowers [covering] over the Buddha’s image and other [examples of nine
20 Among the two versions of Chinese tranlstion on Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-upadeśa which of each is attributed to Ratnamati and Bodhiruci respectively, that of Ratnamati is considered as the original one. See Ootake: 2011, 111-112. 21 Ogawa: 1969, 46- 佛性 48. He traced the original Sanskrit word of the term Foxing( ) in all cases and conclude it as “Buddha-dhātu.” 22 Sanskrit passage and its translation are referred from Ratnagotravibhāga page in Bibliotheca Polyglotta(https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta), powered by University of Oslo.
14
analogies of defilement], with the incidental [i.e. without the causal binding] attribute. 略說有九種煩惱, 於自性清淨如來法身界中。如萎華等九種譬喻, 於諸佛等常外 客相諸煩惱垢亦復如是。於眞如佛性常客塵相。 (究竟一乘寶性論, vol. 4, T31.837b)23 Briefly speaking, there are nine kinds of defilement on the realm of Dharma-Body which is perfectly pure by nature. Like the nine analogies of the faded flowers and so forth, the defilements are always characterized as an outside visitor for the every Buddha. [In other words,] the accidental [[[defilements]]] always abide on the Buddha Nature of suchness. What are the nine Defilements?
It is appropriate to consider “諸佛等” as the translation of “buddhabimbādi.” If it is the case, Ratnamati added the latter sentence to clarify the meaning of the former, using the term “眞如佛性.”24 What I wish to emphasize here is that for some reason Bodhiruci and Ratnamati share the same term, not necessarily derived from a specific Sanskrit term. This indicates that there could have been reciprocal interchange in the schools headed by Bodhiruci and Ratnamati. That is, although it may be true that these two Indian masters did not get along with each other, the method of doctrinal interpretation was shared by both groups. Moreover, it may be difficult to say that Bodhiruci did not accept the notion of 眞如 or 如來藏 as the exact term “眞如佛性” is used in JGXL and in the 羽726R which presumably written by a group under Bodhiruci. Another evidence that the early Dilun School shared the same system of doctrinal interpretation is attested in their mind theory, since the 羽726R contains so-called “Seven Kinds of Consciousness theory (七識說).”
“爲遠離心、意、意識” 者, 此明爲小乘說人無我法。“遠離心”者, 是阿梨[耶]識, “意” 是第二意識, “意識” 者, 是五識。二乘人但離六識, 未離第七阿梨耶識。(羽 726R, line 154-163) [In the Sūtra,] “As [the Dharma-Body] liberates from citta, manas and mano-vijñāna” clarifies that the selflessness of person was explained for the lesser vehicles. “Aparts from Citta” [in the Sūtra] corresponds to ālayavijñāna. The “manas” [in the Sūtra] corresponds to the second thinking consciousnes. The “mano-vijñāna” [in the Sūtra] attributes to the five consciousnesses [of sense.] The two [lesser] vehicles only be able to liberate themselves from six kinds of consciousness, but still being held in the seventh ālayavijñāna.) 23 The comparison of these two lines was originally suggested by Ogawa: 1969, 50, but without translation. 24 Ogawa: 1969, 50-51. 15
This way of interpreting the Seven Kinds of Mind, applying the term citta (心) to ālayavijñāna, the term manas (意) to the thinking consciousnes (意識, *mano-vijñāna) and the term vijñāna (識) to the prior five consciousnesses of sense (五識, *pañca vijñānāni) has been considered to be a significant doctrine of the Dilun School, as it is previously investigated in the research of Shidilun-yishu of Fashang, where he comments on a passage “法身離心意識 唯智依止 (十地經論, vol. 1, T26.125b, tib. chos kyi sku sems dang yid dang rnam par shes pa spangs pa ye shes 'ba' zhig gis gnas te, “as Dharma-Body is apart from the mind, thought, and cognition, but just a basis for wisdom.”).”
“法身”者, 法性身。“心”者, 第七心。“意”者, 第六意。“識”者, 五識。(十地論義 疏, vol.1, T85.763c) (The Dharma-Body means the body of dharmatā. The “citta” corresponds to the seventh mind. The “manas” corresponds to the sixth thinking [[[consciousness]].] The “vijñāna” corresponds to the [prior] five consciousnesses [of sense.])
Here, the seventh mind signifies the ālayavijñāna as he explicitly expressed the same as “第七阿梨耶識(the seventh ālayavijñāna)” elsewhere in the text. (T.85.764b) After Sakamoto discussed on this topic, the Seven Minds theory drew lots of interest in terms of the development of mind-theory in Chinese Buddhism. Moreover, many scholars considered RLQJ as a key text to understand this characteristic theory since this text contains distinctive doctrinal explanations that are not found in the other versions of Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra.25 Therefore, the fact that a commentary on RLQJ, 羽726R, displays Seven Minds theory can be a more direct evidence that corroborates their hypothesis. We may be able to elaborate upon this issue further. Both 羽726R and the Shidilunyishu explains the same mind-theory in exactly the same context: That is, Dharma
25 As well known, RLQJ contains a renowned passage which segregates the Ālayavijñāna and Tathāgatagarbha. “如來藏識不在阿梨耶識中，是故七種識有生有滅，如來藏識不生不滅”(入楞伽經 vol. 7, T16. 556c) Katsumata suggested that the Chine 意 意識 se Buddhist would confuse with because of their similar shape of characters. When considering the development of mind only thought, Kṛṣṭa染汚意 末那識manas( , ) were not yet introduced to China in that era. As the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra emphasizes the Ālayavijñāna only, and Chinese Buddhists until that period did not seem to be interested in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha 攝大乘論 ( ) which contains a detailed discussion on Kṛṣṭa-manas, Fashang did not consider the kṛṣṭa-manas in his theory. On the contrary, Ootake supposed that Bodhiruci himself does not agree with the Kṛṣṭa-manas. Since not only in his translation of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, but neither of Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra 深密解脫經 ( ) nor of *Ratnakūṭa Sūtraśāstra 大寶積經論 ( ) does not mention about Kṛṣṭa-manas. See Katsumata: 1961, 657-664; Ootake: 2010, 66-69. 16
Body, a main theme of 羽726R, which can be attained simply by eliminating the minds which give rise to discriminating thoughts. All seven minds, even the ālayavijñāna, are considered to be defiled, though the last ālayavijñāna can be recognized only by the Bodhisattvas of the Great Vehicle. If this is the case, we can presume that there would exist a purified substance – Pure Mind, Buddha-Nature, Suchness or anything it may be named – after all minds of discrimination are abandoned, as it is stated as 眞如佛性 or 眞如法身 in 羽726R. Concerning this doctrinal interpretation, it is noteworthy that the two versions of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra circulated during this period explicitly mention the “eight kinds of consciousness(八識)” though they show subtle differences as well:
大慧！善不善者，謂八識。何等爲八？謂如來藏，名識藏心、意、意識、及五識 身” (楞伽阿跋多羅寶經, vol. 4, T16.512b, translated by Guṇabhadra in 443 C.E.) Oh, Mahāmati! By good and bad are meant the eight kinds of consciousness. What are the eight? Namely: the tathāgatagarbha which is called the ‘mind that stores consciousnesses’26, the manas, mano-vijñāna and the pañca-vijñāna-kāya.
大慧！言善不善法者，所謂八識。何等爲八？一者、阿梨耶識；二者、意；三者 、意識；四者、眼識；五者、耳識；六者、鼻識；七者、舌識；八者、身識” (入 楞伽經, vol.8, T16.559b)27 Oh, Mahāmati! Speaking of the good and bad dharmas, they are so-called the eight kinds of consciousness. What are the eight? First: ālayavijñāna. Second: manas. Third, mano-vijñāna. Fourth: the visual consciousness. Fifth: the auditory consciousness. Sixth: the olfactory consciousness. Seventh: the gustatory consciousness. Eighth: the tactile consciousness.
As long as those two versions of Chinese translation explicitely mentioned the eight kinds of consciousness, it does not seem reasonable that the Dilun School only established seven kinds consciousness. Rather, it seems more accurate that they take account of eight kinds of consciousness, considering the first as the pure consciousness or Buddha-Nature, and the rest as defiled. Sakamoto also pointed out that the Seven Minds theory was not the original design of the Dilun School but emerged from previous doctrinal interpretations based on the Guṇabhadra’s
26 For “識藏心,” I intentionally translated it as “mind that stores consciousness” instead adopting the word ālayavijñāna, with little confidence though, to speculate how the Chinese Buddhist understood this passage before the transliterated term “阿梨耶識” was introduced to them. 27 Among these two translations, that of Guṇabhadra seems more relevant to the Sanskrit version: “kuśalākuśalāḥ punarmahāmate yaduta aṣṭau vijñānāni. katamānyaṣṭau? yaduta tathāgatagarbha ālayavijñānasaṃśabdito(i.e. the tathāgatagarbha named as ālayavijñāna) mano manovijñānaṃ ca pañca ca vijñānakāyāstīrthyānuvarṇitāḥ 心 ” (Nanjio Ed., 235). However, Guṇabhadra seems to add “ ” while translating, sine the Sanskrit version omits the relevant word, presumably *citta. 17
Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Sakamoto: 1956, 383).28 Perhaps it was Bodhiruci’s contribution to make them consider the mind (心) as ālayavijñāna, a brand new concept introduced by SDJL for the first time. However, this does not seem to have caused a fundamental change in their doctrinal framework in so far as the thought of the very early Dilun School is concerned. Lastly, what I want to point out is whether the early Dilun School actually investigated the mind-theory with a profound interest on ālayavijñāna. Leaving the JGXL aside, 羽 726R, a commentary of RLQJ which played an important role in forming the Dilun School’s mind theory, also shows little interest in discussing the ontological status of ālayavijñāna apart from the passage I quoted above.29 There may have been some more discussions on this issue in the root text of 羽726R, possibly a complete commentary for RLQJ. However, given this specific part of the commentary was transcribed as an independent text and circulated as such, the concerns of the Dilun School would not be limited to ālayavijñāna-based-theory exclusively.
5. Conclusion I have discussed several problems concerning the Dunhuang manuscript 羽726R. It is entitled Dashengshidilun-yiji and is actually an exegetic work of Dharma-Body chapter of RLQJ. This text was transcribed in the Western Wei, 539 C.E., but possibly based on a text imported from Northen or Eastern Wei, the stronghold of the Dilun School. Moreover, this text can be defined as an extremely early commentary presumably written by a group under Bodhiruci. The main theme of this text is Dharma-Body, the body of Ultimate Truth, as it is the case with its root text. Given the likelihood that this commentary on a specific chapter was copied independently, it may reflect the interest of Buddhists of that era. And this is a quite different concern from what has been generally expected of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. As a text compiled by a group under Bodhiruci, 羽726R shows a strong affinity with JGXL, a lecture note containing both the teachings of Bodhiruci and the doctrinal understandings of his Chinese disciples. And also, it contains a rich amount of explanations on the Ten Stages Doctrine (十地說) and early version of Mind-Only theory (唯心說) that correspond to the teachings of Dashengqishinlun. Moreover, we
28 Also, considering the five entrenchments I mentioned in chapter 3, there is a statement regarding the 心mind( ) itself as ignorance entrenchment(無明住地) in P2908. See “卽心之惑、更無作意、仍守本 名、故爲無明住地” (P2908, line 540-541) The history of interpreting these five entrenchments is fully investigated by Ootake: forthcoming. 29 It may be the tendency of the later Dilun School who brings Ālayavijñāna into their central subject, as is seen in the other Dunhuang Manuscript S613v which discuss Ālayavijñāna under the title of “八識 義” and “第八識.” See 金剛大學校佛敎文化硏究所(編): 2013, 60-61;84-85.
18
can verify at least two distinctive doctrines in 羽726R, namely the term “眞如佛性” and seven kinds of consciousness applied to the three discriminating minds of “心,” “意” and “識.” These interpretations can be found in the works of Ratnamati and Fashang who are known to have organized an academic line which emphasized, unlike the teaching of Bodhiruci, on the Ultimate Truth (眞如) or tathāgatagarbha. It is more coherent to view that 羽726R also has the notion of Buddha-Nature as its philosophical foundation while considering ālayavijñāna as a mere, though more profound, defiled mind. This seems to contradict with the later records that Bodhiruci established the northern branch Dilun School which held ālayavijñāna as the basis of their thought. However, it is hard to imagine that Bodhiruci had faith in Buddha-Nature only and ignored the authentic theory of Indian Yogācāra Buddhism given the contents of his various translations and explanations preserved in later quotes. What I wish to emphasize here is that it was indigenous Chinese Buddhists who were supposed to take the leading role in understanding these newest doctrines and texts. While those Indian masters strived to deliver the doctrines of the mainland without errors, the early Dilun School did not seem to accept them as they were transmitted to them through translated texts. Rather, they tend to apply the already existing thought-system of Chinese Buddhism, such as the five entrenchments or Buddha-Nature when they encountered the latest doctrinal information. Moreover, it should be the Chinese natives after all who were in charge of compiling and editing the texts written in Chinese, no matter how excellent command of Chinese the Indian masters had. Thus, it is no wonder a large quantity of doctrines, especially those of Yogācāra Buddhism, were settled in the Dilun School not by the Indian masters, but by Chinese Buddhists who paid serious attention to them from the new sources. If the northern branch Dilun School actually existed, the real founder of the school should be ascribed to the Chinese Buddhists themselves.
