On the Theory of Two Vasubandhus

Padmanabh S. Jaini

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 21, No. 1/3.(1958), pp. 48-53.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-977X%281958%2921%3A1%2F3%3C48%3AOTTOTV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London is currently published by School of Oriental andAfrican Studies.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/soas.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.orgMon Nov 26 23:45:14 2007

O N THE THEORY OF T W O VASUBANDHUSf

INCE the publication of Professor J. Takakusu's ' Life of Vasubandhu S by Paramlrtha ' in the year 1904,2 several scholars have made attempts to determine the date and works of Vasubandhu. The problem is beset with several difficulties. Tradition gives three dates (A.N. 900, 1000, and 1100) based on different reckonings of the Nimina era. Vasubandhu, himself a Sautriintika, is the author of the celebrated Vaibhlsika work, viz., the Abhidharma-koia (and its BhZsya), and is a t the same time credited with the authorship of several major works of the Vijfilnavlda school. The problem is rendered more complex by the mention in Yaiomitra's Sphu&irthZ Abhi-dharma-koda-vycilchyci of an elder (Vrddhiciirya) Vasubandhu, leading to a recent theory of two Vasubandhus advocated by Professor E. Frauwallner.

Paramirtha gives two dates for Vasubandhu. In his ' Life of Vasubandhu ' he gives A.N. 1100, and in his commentary on the Madhycinta-vibes (of Maitreya) he gives A.N. 900. Takakusu favoured A.N. 1100 and proposed A.D. 420-500 as the period of Vasubandhu. In 1911, P. N. Phi , after a thorough investigation of all available materials on the subject, proposed A.D. 350.3 Over a period several scholars, notably Professor Kimura, G .Ono, U. Woghihara, H. Ui, and many others, contributed their views on this topic, which were summed up in 1929 by J. Takakusq4 who again tried to establish his previously proposed date of the fifth century A.D. Since then the problem received little attention until in 1951 Professor Frauwallner published his monograph on Vasubandh~.~

Professor E. Frauwallner's views can be briefly stated as follows : 1. Of the three dates current in tradition, the first, viz. the A.N. 900, points

to a time prior to A.D. 400, the last two, viz. the A.N. 1000 and 1100, refer to one and the same date, viz. the fifth century A.D. Thus there are only two dates for Vasubandhu.

2. These two dates refer not to one but to two persons bearing the same name. One Vasubandhu (the elder-fourth century A.D.) is the Vrddhkcirya Vasubandhu mentioned in the Vydlchyci of Ya4omitra, and the other Vasubandhu (the younger-fifth century A.D.) is the author of the Abhidharma-lco&a.

1 This paper was read before the XXIVt,h International Congress of Orientalists, Munich, 1957.

2 T'oung Pao, Serie n, Vol. v, 269-96. ' A propos de la date de Vasubandhu ', BgFEO, XI, 1911, 339-90.

4 ' The date of Vaaubandhu ', in Indian studies in homr of Charles Rockwell Lanman, Cam-bridge, Mass., 1929, 79-88.

5 On the date of the Buddhist master of the law Vaaubandhu (Serie Orientale Roma, nr),Roma, 1951.

ON THE THEORY OF TWO VASUBANDHUS 49

3. Paramtirths in his ' Life of Vasubandhu ' c o n f w these two and hence the difficulty of determining the date of Vasubandhu.

4. This biography can be divided into three distinct parts :

(i) Legend of the name of Vasubandhu's native city Purqapura, his father, the BGhrnin Kadika, and of the three sons Asanga, Vasubandhu, and Viriiicivatsa.

(ii) Account of the council in KH4mir, arrival of the Sinkhya teacher Vindhyavisin, and defeat of Buddhamitra the teacher of Vasubandhu. Vasubsndhu's composition of the ParamiirthasaptatiM in refutation of Vindhyavisin. The composition of the Abhidharm-koda. Samghabhadra's challenge to Vasubandhu for a disputation, declined by the latter on account of his old age.

(iii) Asahga's conversion of Vasubandhu to MahByina. Vasubandhu's MahHyina works and death.

Of these the first and last sections deal with Vasubandhu the elder, the second part deals with Vasubandhu the younger.

5. From this it follows that Vasubandhu (elder) the brother of Asanga is not the Ko4akira Vasubandhu (younger). It is the elder Vasubandhu who was converted from Sarvistivida to Mahiyina by Asahga. This is supported by Chi-Tang's commentary on the Sata.5'5tra, where (this elder) Vasubandhu is said to have composed 500 Mahiyina works (in addition to 500 Hinayiina works composed by him prior to his conversion) and hence given the nickname of ' Master of the Thousand Manuals '.

The younger Vasubandhu, the author of the Paramiirthaptcrtikii and the Abhidham-kob, belonged to the Samistivida school, but leaned more and more towards the Sautriintika school.

This in brief is a summary of Professor Frauwallner's thesis. The conclusion that would logically follow from his thesis is that the Koiakira Vasubandhu was not a Mahiyinist and consequently, not the author of the Vijiiiinavida works credited to him. These would necessarily have to be the works of the elder Vasubandhu, the brother of Asanga. But Professor Frauwallner avoids such conclusions by stating that the accounts of the life of Vasubandhu ' either d o not give any information a t all about these works, or mention them in passages where the two Vasubandhus are confused with each other ' (p. 56).l

In this paper I propose to present some new evidence that throws some doubt on Professor Frauwallner's thesis and confirms the older and universal tradition about the conversion of the Ko4akHra Vasubandhu to Mahiyina, and his authorship of a t least one work belonging to the Vijiiinavida school.

My evidence is based on the manuscript of the Abhidharma-dipa (together

1 In his recent work Die Philosophie dm Buddhimua (1956), Professor Frauwallner includes the V i 4 a t i M and the T r i 4 i M e<j.ijliaptimcitrakbiddhiunder the heading of 'Vasubandhu der utere ', but is still hesitant about the ascription of these works : 'Meiner Ansicht nach i& Vasubandhu der Jiingere ihr Verfasser, doch kann diese schwierige Frage hier nicht weiter erortert werden ' (p. 351).

VOL. XXI. PABT 1. 5

50 PADMANABH 8. JAINI

with a commentary-the VibEgcZ-prabhti-uytti), discovered in the &alu monastery in Tibet by Pandit Rihula Sidqtyiyana in the year 1937. He brought back photographs of this work, which are treasured in the K. P. Jayaswal Reaearch Institute of Patna.1

The MS discovered is incomplete. The last folio is numbered 150. The whole work might not have contained more than 160 folios. Of these, only 62 have been found. It contains two works, viz. the kiriki text (the Abhi- d h a m - d i p e, and a prose commentary (the Vibh+ci-prabE-vytti 7. The work belongs to the Kiirjmira Vaibhisika school and appears, from internal evidence, to have been written either during or immediately after the time of the Korjakira Vasubandhu. The name of the author is not mentioned in the work, but it is my conjecture that it was written by a rival of Vasubandhu, either Sangha- bhadra orone of his disciples.

The DTp and also its commentary (the Vflti) closely follow both in contents and in presentation, their counterparts, viz. the Abhidham-koda 4 and its commentary (the Abhidham-koda-bh(iaya6) of Vasubandhu. Of the 597 kiir* of the extant D i p , more than 300 have their parallels in the Koda, and in many cases appear to be imitations of the latter. The Vytti has about 50 large passages almost identical with the Bhtigya, 32 of which are directly borrowed from the latter. Thus to a large extent, the D i p and the Vytti are written in imitation of the Koia and the Bhtigya.

But what is more interesting to us is the fact that the extant Vytti contains 17 hostile references to the Korjakira (without mentioning the name Vasubandhu) criticizing his Sautriintika views and at times accusing him of entering the portals of Mahiyina Buddhism. I quote here a few such passages from the Vrtti :

(i) Idam idiinim abhidham-sarvasvam Korjakiiraka-smytigocarcZtcZtzta~ vakta yam. (Fol. 37b.6)

(ii) Kohkiras tv ciUsam-sckgmorep-sal;ngh&hprami'p.uh ' iti. T m sal;ngh&a-ydiriktmp r c p m anyad mktayam . . . (Fol. 43b.7)

(iii) Siddhi sabhZgat5. Korjakiirah punas tiim Vaiiqih-pariMpita-jcZti-+ r t h smThrvan yaktam pEyara-vciyarayor war%-sidhamyam pudyatTti. (Fol. 47a.8)

(iv) Atra punah Korjakirah pratijGnZ&'sQckttikeya~ sam&p&ih' iti . . . Tad etud abauddhrym. (Fol. 47b.B)

1 I am grateful to the K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute for entrusting me with the work of editing this MS. It will soon be published in the Tibetan Sanskrit Worka Series, Patna.

Henceforth called Dipa. Henceforth called Vrt-fi. 4 Henceforth called Kos'a. 6 Henceforth called Bh&ya.

In this bold line the Vrtti criticizes the KohkBra for his omission of a topic dealing with cessation of dhiitua through various stages of an&ravcl-mfirga.' See Poueain's L'Abhidhurma-Ma, chapter n, kB. 22, and YaBomitra's S p h d i M Abhi-

dharma-Ma-vyakhyic.,p. 123 (ed. U. Woghihars). 8 See L'Abhidharma-Ma, chapter n, kB. 41s, and Vyic.khy&,pp. 157-9.

See L'Abhidharma-kos'a, chapter n, kti. 44d, and Vyic.khy&,p. 169.

ON THE THEORY OF TWO VASUBANDHUS 51

(v) ' S d h i b a l e n a karmajam jioii5uedha~ nimrtya i i p h sa?pEr(Z- dhisth6ynctlarn,6 p r nu en'@k&' iti Kohkirah. Tatra kina utkwam iti ? . . . Vaitulika-&tm-praveSadGram Grabdham b M m t y adhyupksyam etd. (Fol. 49a.l)

In these paasages the KoBakira is criticized for his Sautrintika views on the theory of atoms and the three citta-viprayukta-savEras, viz. sabh@atii, nirodh-samipatti, and iZyu. We may particularly note the last paasage where the KoBakHra is said to have begun entering the portals of the Vaitulih-diistra. The term Vaitdika-riiistra clearly refers to Mahiyina scriptures. h n g a in his Abhidhm-samu.ccuya identifies vaitulya with uaiptdya and explains the latter term as Bodhi~attva-p'@ka,~which undoubtedly belongs to Mahiyina.

This is the Grst allusion to the Kohkira's leanings not only towards Sautrintika but also towards Mahiyina Buddhism.

While dealing with a controversial question related to perception (whether the eye sees an object or the mind sees it) the Vrtti quotes the following passage from the Koria-b@ya and says :

Tatm yad u k t q Kobkirepa ' kina idam (ZkEda? khiidyate. SGmugyZm hi satyGm d 3 m ity upaciirah p r a w m . Tatra kah pdyati ' ti ? Tad atra tena Bhdan&mz ~(Zmagyatiga-kriy(Zmrawm?I kriyate. A b h i d h m -s a ~ m o h E ~ 1 E Q s t E ~ ~ p yankito b h a d y ayoga-ritinycltii~awhirnukhydwm p r h r a r n iti.

The view of the Kobkira quoted by our Vflti is what the Koria gives as 8

Sautrintika view. In the Vrtti the KoBakira is identified with the Sautrintika. He is censured for his ignorance of Abhidhma and also accused of heading for the precipice of ayoga-itinyai5.

The term ayoga-&nyatZ should put at rest any doubt about the real a U - tions of the Kogakira. The term certainly refers to a Mahiyina doctrine.

In the fifth Adhyiya of the DCp, a fundamental principle of the Sawisti- vida school, viz. the reality of the past and future elements, is discussed in opposition to the Sautrintika arguments advanced by the Kohkira in the Gfth Kk-s th ina of his Bh~%ya.~After dealing with the Sautrintika, the Vflti criticizes the Vaitulika. He is described as ayoga-ritilayat4i-viidinmaintaining

See L'Abhidhanna-Ma, chapter n, kg. 10a, and Vycikhyc,p. 104. Vaipulyaw Eatamat t BodJlWva-&ka-samprayuklaqa bh@itam. Yad ucyate vaipdyap

hd vaidolyam apy wyak vaitulyam apy ucyate. (Ed.P. Pradhan, p. 79.) cf. ' Opinion du Sautrintika.--Quelle discussion dans le vide ! Le Sfitra enseigne : " En

raison de l'organe de la vue et des visiblea nait la connaissance viauelle " : il n'y a I8 ni un organe qui voit, ni un visible qui eat vu ; il n'y a 18 aucune action de voir, aucun agent qui voit ; ce n'eat que jeu de causes et effets. En vue de la pratique, on parle & son gr6, mAtaphoriquement, de ce proceasue ; " L'aeil voit ; la connaisaance discerne ". Mais il ne faut pas se prendre 8 cea m6taphores. Bhagavat l'a dit : il ne faut pas se prendre aux mani&rea de dire populaires, il ne faut pas prendre au drieux les expressions en umge dana le monde '. L'Abhidhanna-kda, chapter 1, kB. 42.

4 See L'Abhidharma-Ma, chapter v, kg. 17-19.

VOL. XXI. PART 1. 5*

52 PADUNABH 8. JAINI

that nothing (i.e. the past, present, and future) exists,l and is, therefore, con- demned as an annihilationist (vaiw%ika).2

The main Vaitulika doctrine criticized in the Vytti is the nih-svabfim-v&,3 which is common to both the Yoglctira and the Mldhyamika schools. Both these schools are dlyavcZdins in a real sense and would appear, to that extent, as Vainiibikas to a Realist Vaibhiisika.

The term ayoga-diinyatxi is .not found in the traditional lists of 18, 19, or 20 kinds of &myat% or in the Miidhyamika or the Yoglclra treatises. The Vrtti does not explain the term. If this v& could mean the doctrine of non- applicability of all predications, especially of Ztmn and dlaarmas (6hna-dhrmo- pm~irah),~ accepted by then it would be equivalent to the nih-svabfiva-v&, both the Mldhyamika and the Yoglcgra schools.

The passages quoted above from the Vrtti indicate, in the view of the Vaibhiisika, that the Kobakka, even in the Kob-bh@ya, shows signs of more and more leanings towards Mahiiyiina Buddhism. This in itself does not prove his conversion to Mahiiyiina, but certainly indicates hia inclination towards it. In the light of these findings we may now-turn to further evidence which seem to anticipate his conversion and confirm his authorship of a Mahlylna work.

After dealing with the nih-svabfiva-v& of the Vaitulika, the Vrtti again turns to the Kothklra and says : 'The Vaitulika, apostste from the SaruZ- stivaa, says : "We too advocate (imagine) three s&b~vas". To him we should reply : "The world is full of such illusions which please only fools. Rare are those imaginations that catch the hearts of the learned ". These three svabhiieras imagined by you have been already rejected. Such other illusions should also be thrown away. This is one more occasion where the Kobaklra shows his ignorance of (the doctrine of) Time.' 6

Three significant statements in this criticism may be noted: (i) The

Tatra Sanni-stiviidmyiidhva-trayamasti . . . Vibhajyavtidinaa tu, Ddr?.@ntihya ca praddo vartamcimidhva-eapjiuckab.Vaitulikoaydyoga-gJnya@-dinahaarvap mbtiti. . . . (Fol.10Sa.)

Yab Sanni-sti-uirdiLkhyab . . . sad&<. Tad anye Wr?@tirntiku-Vaitulika-Pawikic2,. . . Lokyatika-VainiLbika-Nmfa-pkseprak?eptawydh. (Fol. 108a.)

Vaitulikuh kalpyati- Yat pratitya-8amutpanna~

tatmdui t t in na vidyatel Yat khalu nihvabMvap n i rd tmaka~ hetlin pratitya jdyate tmya khdu d M v o &ti . . .

T a s d aliLta-cakravan nihvabh&utviit sarva-dharnui nirdtmcina iti. T a p p a i y apudiByate. . . . (Fol. l l l a . )

4 See Professor T . R. V . Murti's The central philosophy of Buddhism, Appendix. 6 I am indebted t o Professor T . R. V. Murti for suggesting thia interpretation o f the term

ayoga-dCnya&i. 6 Atra Sarvcistivirda-vibhrqtir Vaituliko nirciha-wzyam api trin d M m i n p r i k d p a y i ? y d m a b .

Tasmai prativaktovyam Parikalpair Jogad v y d p t a ~

markha-cit&inuraiLjibhih/ Pas tu vidvan-maw-grdhi

parikalpah sa durlabhah// Te khdv ete thavdkalpitcis t r a y a - d h h i i h p r v a r n evapratyCdh3. Evamanye' py asd-parikalprih pro~ray i tavydb . Ity etad aparam adhva-aa~moMnkarui-stMnapKothktirakasyeti. (Fol. 112a.)

ON THE THEORY OF TWO VASUBANDHUS 53

Vaitulika is called here sarv&tiv&-vibhra@ (one who has deviated from the S a m i s t i d ) .

(ii) A reference is made to the doctrine of tri-serabhiiva-v&. (iii) A reference is made to the KoBakiira in a manner which shows his

responsibility in the formulation of this doctrine. Of these, the last two statements most probably refer to the Trisvabhiiva-

nirdeia,l a work of the Yogiiciira-Vijfiiinaviida school, credited by tradition to Vasubandhu. I t consists of 38 kiirikb and marks the culminating point of the development of this doctrine found in the LankcivatCra-siitra and in the works of Maitreya and Asanga,2 the chief founders of the YogSciira school. The first statement saying that the Vaitulika deviated from the Sarv&tivi&, may be a general statement, referring only to the belief of the Vaibhiisika that the Vaitulika branched off from the more orthodox Sarviistiviida school. But read in the context of the above passage, it appears certain that the Vrtti is alluding to the conversion of the KoBakiira to Mahiiyiina Buddhism.

This in brief is our main evidence con6rmmg Paramiirtha's account of the KohkLa Vasubandhu's conversion to Mahiiyiina and his authorship of several Mahiiyiina works. It does not contradict the fact of two (one elder and the other younger) Vasubandhus. The Vrddhiciirya Vasubandhu certainly existed, as is clear from the statements of YaBomitra. He may well have been the author of a commentary to the Abhidharm-sira of Dharma-Bri and abo author of many Mahiiyiina works.

But we certainly are not justified, in the light of the evidence of the Dipa, in limiting the activities of the younger Vasubandhu to Hinayiina alone, in crediting him only with the authorship of the Koia and thus relating the last part of Paramiirtha's biography to the life of Vasubandhu the elder. The date of the KoBakiira Vasubandhu and his relation to Asahga, however, still remains unsettled. But the confirmation of his authorship of the TrisvabhZva-nirdeb might well lead us to accept the tradition preserved in Paramirtha's ' Life of Vasubandhu '.

1 Sanskrit text and Tibetan version edited by Sujitkumar Mukhop%dbylya, Visvabharati, 1939. %parallel passages collected by S. Mukhopldhy6ya in the Trisvabkva-nirdda.