JIABS Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 26 Number 2 2003 General Introduction by Robert KRrrzER............................................................................ 201 Nobuyoshi Y AMABE On the School Affiliation of "Sautrantika" or "Yoga-- "? cara ................................................................................................ . 225 Takumi FUKUDA Bhadanta Rama: A Sautrantika before Vasubandhu........................ 255 Bart DESSEIN Sautrantika and the Hrdaya Treatises ... ... ... ...... .... ........ ...... ......... .... 287 Yoshifumi HONJO Sautrantika ........................................................................................ 321 Robert KRITZER Sautrantika in the 331 Oskar VON HlNDBER Report on the Xllph Conference of the lABS.................................... 385 Cristina SCHERRER-SCHAUB lABS Treasurer Final Financial Report............................................ 391 Notes on the Contributors................................................................. 395 nABS volume 26 Number 1 2003 Errata .................................... 397 the watermarkThe Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (ISSN 0193-600XX) is the organ of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Inc. It welcomes scholarly contributions pertaining to all facets of Buddhist Studies. nABS is published twice yearly, in the summer and winter. Address manuscripts (two copies) and books for review to: The Editors, nABS, Section de langues et civilisations orientales, Universite de Lausanne, BFSH2, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. Address subscription ordex:s and dues, changes of address, and business correspondence (including advertising orders) to: Dr. Jerome Ducor, Treasurer lABS, Section de langues et civilisations orientales, Faculte des lettres Universite de Lausanne, BFSH 2 1015 Lausanne-Dorigny Switzerland email: iabs.treasurer@orient.unil.ch Web: www.iabsinfo.org Fax: +41216923045 Subscriptions to nABS are USD 40 per year for individuals and USD 70 per year for libraries and other institutions. For informations on membership in lABS, see back cover. Cover: Cristina Scherrer-Schaub Copyright 2003 by the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Inc .. Printed in Belgium -------------- -- ----- -- --EDITORIAL BOARD SCHERRER-SCHAUB Cristina A. Tn..LEMANS Tom J.F. Editors-in-Chief BUSWELL Robert COLLINS Steven Cox Collet GOMEZ Luis O. HARRISON Paul VON H1NOBER Oskar JACKSON Roger JAINIPadmanabh S. KATSURA Shoryu KUoLi-ying LOPEZ, Jr. Donald S. MAcDONALD Alexander SEYFORT RUEGG David SHARF Robert STEINKELLNER Ernst ZURCHER Erik GENERAL INTRODUCTION! ROBERT KRITZER A. Sautrantika Reconsidered Although the term "Sautrantika" appears in virtually every general study of Indian Buddhism, there is little reliable information about who the Sautrantikas really were and exactly what positions they maintained. Until recently, scholars confidently referred to Sautrantika ideas without critically examining the basis on which these ideas were identified as such. As a result, there was a body of common "knowledge" about Sautrantika, most of it ultimately drawn from a handful of sources that are often not even cited. Since about 1980, however, Japan has been the center of a renewed interest in Sautrantika, and studies have questioned the assumptions that have been current for so long. The title of the panel of the Thirteenth Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Bangkok, 2002) at which the papers in this issue were originally read was "Sautran-tika Reconsidered," and it is largely thanks to recent Japanese scholar-ship that it is now both necessary and possible to reconsider Sautrantika. The word "Sautrantika" means a follower of the sutras, and when we think of Sautrantika, we generally think of a group that came into exis-tence around the beginning of the Common Era and that, as its name sug-gests, considered sutra rather than siistra to be authoritative. Sautrantika is frequently included in a list of four major schools of Indian Buddhism familiar to all students of Buddhism (the other three being Sarvastivada, Madhyamika, and Yogacara). Here it should perhaps be emphasized that Sautrantika is not a sect. Although the terms "sect" and "school" are often used loosely or interchangeably, Bechert points out that what Frauwall-ner refers to as "Vinaya sects" are different from the doctrinal schools, or nikiiyas (9-10). As for the term Sarvastivada, it is used to designate J I am indebted to Professors Elizabeth Kenney and Yamabe Nobuyoshi for their help-ful comments and suggestions. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 26 Number 2 2003 202 'ROBERT KRITZER both a Vinaya sect and the dominant school wIthin that sect. Hence the doctrinal school referred to as Sarvastivada (or is actually one of a number of schools that rely on the Sarvastivada vinaya. Although Sautrantika is generally considered to be another school that developed within the Sarvastivada sect, Cox suggests that the tenn may be better understood as referring to a variety of ideas that deviate from mainstream Sarvastivada, not to a consistent' and fonnal school (Cox Disputed Dharmas 40-41). In this introduction, as in the papers in this, issue (and in the literature on Sautrantika, in general), the term Sarvastivada is generally used-to refer to the orthodox school of the Sarvastivada sect, namely the KasmIra Although there is, to my knowledge, only one full-length monograph (in Japanese) on the subject of Sautrantika (KatO Kyoryobu), western scholars have written numerous brief descriptions of Sautrantika history and doctrine.2 Most of the accounts of the early history of the school are ultimately based on: 1) Vasumitra's Samayabhedoparacanacakra (espe-cially Hsiian-tsang's translation [Ipu-tsung lun lun T. 2031]); 2) Hsiian-tsang's disciple, K'uei-chi's, commentary on the Samayabhe-doparacanacakra, the I pu-tsung lun lun shu chi (Dai Nihon zokuzokyo 844); 3) K'uei-chi's commentary on the Ch'eng wei-shih lun, the Ch'eng wei-shih lun shu chi (T. 1830); 4) K'uei-chi's commentary on the Yogiiciirabhilmi, the Yii-ch'ieh-shi ti lun liieh tsuan (T. 1829). ' Closely associated with Sautrantika is This name is derived from the word ("example"), and it appears to refer to the group's propensity for using examples or similes from the ordinary world to jus-tify its doctrinal positions. It is not clear whether the tenns Sautrantika and are, respectively, positive and negative designations for the same group, different names for the same group at different periods, or terms for two different groups. However, as we shall see, the commen-tators on the AbhidharmakosabhiifYa tend to view Sautrantika and Dar- as essentially synonymous (Cox Disputed Dharmas 37-41). According to HSiian-tsang's translation of the Samayabhedoparaca-nacakra, Sautrantika arose as an offshoot of Sarvastivada four hundred 2 A recent example is the entry on Sautrlintika in the Encyclopedia of Religion (Sko-rupski), which contains a summary of the traditional history of the school and an account of the major doctrinal positions attributed to it. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 203 years after the Buddha's death. Sautrantika was also called Sarpkranti-vada, and it paid special reverence to Ananda (T. 2031: 15b19-20; Masuda 17). On the other hand, K'uei-chi says that one hundred years after the Buddha's death there lived a teacher named Kumaralata who was called the He was the founding teacher of the Sautrantikas, although at that time, Sautrantika did not exist as a school; it did not appear until four hundred years after the Buddha's death (T. 1830: 274a8-15). Else-where, K'uei-chi says that there were three Sautrantika teachers: the mUlacarya, KumaraIata; Sr'Hata, who wrote a Sautrantika and "one who is only called Sautrantika" (T. 1830: 358alO-12).3 Most descriptions of early Sautrantika doctrines, on the other hand, are . based on the Sanskrit and Chinese commentaries on the Abhidhannakosa-bhii:jya, which will be discussed in more detail in the next section. How-ever, it may be useful to note here that in many cases western scholars, who rely to a fairly large extent on La Vallee Poussin's translation of the Abhi-dhannakosabhiiifYa for their information on abhidhanna, may not be aware of the sources of attributions to Sautrantika. Although his work is a mas-terpiece that must always be consulted, La Vallee Poussin often inserts, without comment, explanations from the Abhidharmakosavyakhya. Fur-thermore, he sometimes attributes a statement to, for example, Sautrantika, even when neither the Chinese nor Tibetan translation (the Sanskrit text was not available to him) does so. As I mentionbelow, the attributions are usually actually those of the seventh-century Chinese commentators, and they continue to circulate, unidentified, in the scholarly literature. Other sources, including Tibetan doxographical texts (grub mtha', siddhiinta) and non-Buddhist Indian texts, are mentioned by La Vallee Poussin (" Sautrantikas "). Recently, however, some scholars have begun to examine more criti-cally these traditional accounts of Sautrantika. For example, Kata shows that KumaraIata was, in fact, later than the and thus could not be the founder of ("Notes"). Kata also argues that, although Hslian-tsang uses the expression Ching-liang pu (Sautrantika) in his translation of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the 3 According to La Vallee Poussin (Vijiiaptimtitrattisiddhi 221-222) and Lamotte (TraUe 163-164), this third teacher is Vasubandhu. La Vallee Poussin, on whom Lamotte relies, provides a great deal of information about what K'uei-chi says on this subject. However, his references to K'uei-chi's commentary on Vasumitra are very puzzling since they do not seem to correspond to K'uei-chi's actual text. 204 . ROBERT KRITZER other Chinese and Tibetan translations of the text indicate that the orig-inal Sans1crit was probably" Siltravada" or "Siltrantavada." Furthermore, only Hstian-tsang's translation mentions Ananda here; the others mention Uttara or Dharmottara. Kata argues that the original text of the Samaya-bhedoparacanacakra was not referring to the group later known as Sautriin-tika but to an earlier and different group, one that predated the (Kyoryobu 101-109). Thus, accordirig to Kata, Hstian-tsang and K'uei-chi have made it appear as though Vasumitra were familiar with fl group that we know as Sautrantika, a group founded by Kumaralata, which did not accept the abhidharma as authoritative and which subscribed to a doc-trine of bfjas (/ pu-tsung lun lun shu chi: 577b15-23). Since Vasumitra's work was first translated into Chinese between 385 and 413 (Lamotte History 275), his knowledge of such a group would suggest that the name Sautriintika was current before Vasubandhu was active. However, Kata's argument strongly undermines any evidence to that effect. Thus, it is time to reconsider the questions of who the Sautriintikas were, what they believed, and how they fit into Buddhist history during a period of intense doctrinal debate and development. ill the remainder of this intro-duction, I will attempt to provide background information for the papers that follow, all of which represent new approaches to these questions. B. Major and'Sautrantika Theories4 Many theories have been attributed to either or Sautriintika or, by different authors, to both. Kata's list of the opinions in the provides a fairly good idea of what these theories are like. He divides them into nine different categories:5 1) the denial of the existence of certain dharmas accepted by Sarvastivada; 2) the assertion that consciousness can arise without an object; 3) denial of the existence of mental dharmas (caittas); 4) the assertion of the presence of a subtle consciousness in "unconscious" samadhis; 5) the denial of the Sarvastivadin theory of the real existence of the past, present, and future; 6) theories related to karma; 7) theories related to kldas and their destruction; 8) theories related to dhyana; 9) other theories (Kata Kyoryobu 70-72). 4 Mizuno's is the pioneering work on this subject, and he identifies most of the pas-sages mentioned below. S Mizuno and Tokora divide them into nine and eight slightly different groups, respectively. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 205 However, there are, in addition, several important ideas, appearing in the Abhidharrnakosabhii$ya under the name "Sautrantika," that are not associated with Below, I list some of the more important individual Darstantika and Sautrantika theories. 1. Theories Attributed only to a. There is no derived matter (upadayanlpa) that is different from the great elements (mahiibhUtani).7 b. There are no mental dharrnas (caitta) different from mind (citta).8 c. Contact (sparsa) is merely the coming together of organ, object, and consciousness; it is not a separate dharrna.9 d. There is no pleasurable feeling (sukhavedana); all feeling is suffer-ing (du/:tkha).Io e. All action is reversible (nivartya)Y 6 These theories are not attributed to Sautrlintika in the AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa. 7 This opinion is attributed to by Sa!p.ghabhadra (T. 1562: 356b21 ff.). The attributes it to Buddhadeva, who, it says, belongs to the same school as DharmatriHa (T. 1545: 661c16-19, also 730b26-29; La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 1: 64 n. 2). Vasubandhu also attributes this position to Buddhadeva; he does not mention Sautrlintika, and he does not accept this opinion (AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa: 24.1-13; La Val-lee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 1: 64-66). 8 This opinion is attributed to "some by SaIp.ghabhadra (T. 1562: 395a2-15). The attributes it to Buddhadeva (T. 1545: 8c8-9, also 730b26-29; La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 1: 64 n. 2, 150 n. 2). Vasubandhu does not mention this opinion and, in fact, accepts the existence of at least some of the caittas. See La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 1: 150-152 n. 2. 9 This opinion is attributed to DarHantika in the (T. 1545: 760a28-b2). Vasubandhu does not mention Sautrlintika here, attributing the position to "some," and he sides with the V He concludes his discussion by seeming to accept spada as a separate dhanna (AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa: 143.5-21; La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 2: 96-98). For more details, see Kritzer Rebirth 110-120. 10 I can find no attribution of this position to The on three occasions attributes this to "some people" (T. 1545: 402c16-17, 402c23-27, 714c2-3; see KatO Kyo-ryobu 191). Vasubandhu also attributes this position to "some people," and he concludes that the Abhidharmikas are correct that sukhavedanii actually exists (AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa: 330.9-20; La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidhannakosa 4: 129-130). SaIp.ghabhadra attributes this to the Sthavira (T. 1562: 663b7). For a detailed discussion, see Kata Ky6ry6bu 183-197; Kritzer Rebirth 130-136. Thus, whether one calls this a Darstlintika or a Sautrlintika position depends on whether one considers Srilata to be Sautrlintika. In any case, this position is refuted by Vasubandhu. II The attributes this position to in three places (T. 1545: 359b20-21, 593blO-ll, 773c29-al). Vasubandhu seems to accept the position that cer-tain kanna is irreversible (AbhidhannakosabhiilfYa: 125.12-15, 229.12-230.13). 206 . ROBERT KRITZER 2. Theories Attributed to Both and Sautrantika12 a. The cittaviprayuktasaT[lskiiras are not real dharmas. b. The asaT[lskrtas are not real dharmas. c. SaT[lsthiinarupa is merely provisional (prajfiapti). d. Vijfiapti does not really exist. e. Avijfiapti does not really exist. f. Only the present is real. The past and future do not exist. 13 3. Theories Attributed to Sautrantika but not to a. Merit increases due to a subtle, gradual transfonnation of the stream of personality (saT[ltatilsaT[ltiina) of the donor. b. Anusayas are kleSas in the state of seeds, not separate dharmas. c. A result does not directly arise from a past action; rnstead, it arises due to a transfonnation of the stream of personality, based on a past action. Very broadly, one can identify several tendencies in the opirrions of Many of the entities that are said by Sarvas-tivada to be real are reduced in status to mere designations (prajfiapti). Mlld, which has always been very important in Buddhism, becomes even more so. Consciousness as an organ of perception is asserted to have 12 For references, see my article, "Sautrantika in the Abhidharmakosabhii:fYa," in which these items are discussed in detail. 13 At the beginning of its major discussion of the three times, the mentions the as saying that time is permanent while the sal'[lskiiras are impermanent (T. 1545: 393alO-15; La Vallee Poussin "La Controverse" 8). Otherwise, the are not identified as those who deny the existence of past and future. However, since the Tattvasiddhi clearly denies the reality of past and future, it is probably safe to say that this position was held by In the although Vasubandhu clearly agrees with those who deny past and future, he mentions neither nor Sautrantika until near the end of the long discussion (298.4-301.10). But there, he is actually introducing a new, ifrelated, issue, of how past actions produce (see my article in this issue). 14 This group reflects the related theories of bfja and In addi-tion to the three items mentioned here, Vasubandhu also appeals to these ideas in order to explain his positions on other subjects. For example, regarding the question of whether arhats are subject to retrogression, Vasubandhu supports the unorthodox position that they are not, and he justifies himself by explaining that the arhat has destroyed the seeds of his klefas and that they therefore cannot arise again. For references, again see my article, "Sautrantika in the Abhidharmakosabhii:tya." GENERAL INTRODUCTION 207 unreal objects. Bfja replaces the cittaviprayuktasaf!lskiiras, prapti and aprapti, as the explanation for how a good dharma can arise in an indi-vidual immediately after a bad dharma, or a bad dharma after a good dharma (Jaini "Sautrantika Theory" 238-239). The notion of mOmen-tariness is taken to greater extremes (see Rospatt 40-66; Cox Disputed Dharmas 94-95), and related to this, as Cox points out, is a special empha-sis on the operation of cause and effect (Disputed Dharmas 94). Similarities between ideas, particularly Vasuban-dhu's Sautrantika positions in the and Yogacara philosophy, have long been noted. Sautrantika has often been described as intermediate between Hfuayana Sarvastivada and Mahayana Y ogacara: Sautrantika posits bfjas but not alayavijfiana; 15 the reality of dharmas other than citta is downgraded but not denied completely, etc. Recently, however, the relationship between Sautrantika and Yogacara is being reconsidered, especially in J apan.16 C. Sources for Theories In this section, I discuss the main sources of information about early theories. Three of these sources predate the Abhi- while the others are commentaries on it. Thanks to printed indices and to the electronic versions of almost all of the Chinese texts, it is possible to know exactly how frequently each of the terms and Sautrantika appears in most of these texts. The vast major-ity of occurrences are in connection with a doctrinal position, e.g.: "Further-more, there is a view that the state of being an ordinary person (Prthagja-natvam) is not a real entity, as the maintain";17 "For the Sautrantikas, the future also does not really exist. "18 Knowing the dis-tribution of the terms is significant since we can see that, at first, only 15 Or, in the case of other texts by Vasubandhu that do mention iilayavijiiiina (e.g., the Karmasiddhiprakarar;a and the Pratityasamutpiidavyiikhyii), the iilayavijiiana is seen as being different from that of Y ogacara. 16 See Hakamaya; Harada "Dignaga"; Harada "Kyoryobu"; Kritzer Rebirth; Kritzer Comparison; Miyashita; Yamabe "Bija Theory"; Yamabe "Yugashichiron." The contri-butions of Kritzer and Y amabe in this issue are also relevant. 17 (T. 1545: 231b26-27). 18 Chii-she lun chi (T. 1821: 170bl7). 208 . ROBERT KRITZER was used, while Sautrlintika appeared more and more often with the passage of time. Vasubandhu clearly distinguishes between the two terms, but his commentators use them increasingly interchangeably. The total number of references multiplies drastically in the Chinese com-mentaries. This perhaps indicates that the concept of a Sautrlintika school with characteristic doctrines has become more and more ftxed: ideas that were not previously identifted with Sautrlintika may be labelled as such because they seem consistent with other positions that were so. designated. In order to understand more precisely the meaning of Sautrlintika, it would be useful to study each of the hundreds of references to and Sautrlintika found in these texts. That, however, is a large-scale project for the future. I hope that my article in this issue, in which I exam-ine all the references to Sautrlintika in the will be a further step, after the works of Miyamoto, Mizuno, and Kat6 (see Section B of this introduction), in this direction. 1. The earliestI9 source for doctrines attributed to the is the (Cox Disputed Dharmas 37), the date of which is unknown (Sakurabe ventures an estimate of 150-200 C.B. [68]). KatO counts 86 references to theories, which the refutes as contra-dicting Sarvastivada doctrine (Kyoryobu 70).21 Many of these theories are very similar, if not identical, to opinions attributed to Sautrlintika in the and its commentaries, as well as to opinions in the *Tattvasiddhisiistra of Harivarman (Mizuno). ;' As for the term Sautrlintika, it appears in connection with only two discussions in the Kato .shows convincingly that the first example 19 It is well known that the dates of Indian Buddhist texts are generally almost impos-sible to establish. However, there is some general consensus about the relative dates of cer-tain texts, including the ones mentioned in this section. 20 Commonly referred to as the on the basis of the title of Hsiian-tsang's Chinese translation, A-p'i-ta-mo ta p'i-p'o-sha lun (T. 1545). For information on this and other texts entitled see Cox's discussion in Willemen et al. 229-239. 21 In the A-p'i-t'an p'i-p'o-sha lun CT. 1546), however, the term Dlir- (P'i yil che VIIlfl'lft) appears only 46 times. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 209 does not refer to. what is commonly known as the Sautrantika school and that the second example represents Hsuan-tsang's alteration of the origi-nal text (Kyoryobu 113-119; Cox Disputed Dharmas 38). One of Kat6's strongest pieces of evidence is the fact that the older version of the does not include the term Sautrantika at all. 2. * Sarrzyuktiibhidharmahrdaya The *Sarrzyuktiibhidharmahrdaya, a text generally considered later than the but earlier than the does not men-tion Sautrantika. However, it contains three references to opinions,22 two of which correspond to opinions attributed to by the Two earlier texts entitled *Abhidharmahrdaya, one by Dharmasn (T. 1550) and the other by Upasanta (T. 1551), mention nei-ther nor Sautrantika. 3. *Tattvasiddhisiistra Harivarman's *Tattvasiddhisiistra is, after the the richest source for although it refers to neither or Sautran-tika by name. Mizuno has identified in the *Tattvasiddhisiistra passages that agree with a large majority of the positions described in the The sect to which Harivarman belongs has been a matter of debate (see Katsura). However, Mizuno's work shows convincingly that Harivarman belongs to the same doctrinal tradition as despite the fact that the *Tattvasiddhisiistra also contains ideas that have been 22 The three opinions are: 1) Karma is reversible (T. 1552: 895c22-29; Dessein 1: 207-208; 593blO ff.). According to Mizuno, the *Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646: 291b6 ff., 297c6 ff.) implies that karma is reversible. 2) SaTflYojanas (fetters) are real, but pudgala (person) aud vastu (substauce) are not (T. 1552: 903b7-9; Dessein 1: 269-270; Kokuyaku Issaikyo bidon-bu 20: 202 n. 167; 288b16 ff.) According to Mizuno, the *Tattvasiddhi does not mention this argument; however, Mizuno refers to Harivarmau's refutation of the pudgala (T. 1646: 259a ff.), which is somewhat related. 3) Space is neither TUpa (matter) nor not-Tupa (T. 1552: 944a8-9; Dessein 1: 604). Accorrli!Ig to Mizuno, a similar view, that space. is not a real entity, is attributed to Dar- by Fa-pao (T. 1822: 494a ff.). According to Bareau, this is the staudpoint of the *Tattvasiddhisiistra (T. 1646: 343b ff., especially 343bI2-14). This opinion does not seem to be found in the 210 . ROBERT KRITZER characterized as Mahayana. KatO accepts the Chinese tradition that Hari-vannan was the disciple of KumaraHita, who is considered the founder of (Kyoryobu 58; Cox Disputed Dhannas 40), and gives Hari-varman's dates as 310-390 C.E. (Kyoryobu 64).23 4. The earliest text in which the word Sautrantika appears is the Abhi- of Vasubandhu, which is, therefore, to the study of the subject. Vasubandhu' s dates have been a matter of great con-troversy; Cox settles on a date of the late fourth or early ftfth century (Dis-puted Dhannas 53). Vasubandhu uses the term Sautrantika about twenty times, while he mentions only three times. Kata shows that, in all three cases, Vasubandhu disagrees with these positions, unlike those he labels Sautrantika, with which he agrees (Kyoryobu 81-84; Cox Dis-puted Dhannas 39). Although Vasubandhu's Sautrantika positions gen-erally correspond to positions in the in a few cases they do not. More often, Vasubandhu' s arguments contain important ele-ments not traceable to the of the or to Harivannan.24 5. * Nyayanusara The *Nyayanusara is Sa:rp.ghabhadra's long, fiercely critical work, in which he attacks many of Vasubandhu's statements in the Abhidhar- Sa.qlghabhadra, probably a contemporary of Vasubandhu (Cox Disputed Dhannas 53-55), uses both Sautrantika and seemingly without making any distinction between them (Kata Kyoryo-bu 99; Cox Disputed Dhannas 39).25 Sa:rp.ghabhadra also very frequently (250 times) identilles Vasubandhu as "the Siitra-master" (ching-chu 23 Katsura suggests approximate dates of 250-350 C.E. for Harivarrnan (196). 24 For a detailed treatment of Sautrfultika in the Abhidharmakosabha0'a, see my paper in this issue. 25 A computer search of the Chinese text indicates that SaI]1ghabhadra uses the terms with almost exactly the same frequency: Sautrfultika (ching pu 32 times; 33 times (Pi yu che Wllt:tf 25 times; pi yu shih VIltUffi 8 times). In SaI]1ghabhadra's shorter text, the AbhidharmapitakaprakaraiJasasanasastra (T. 1563), Sautrfultika (ching pu) appears only once, while (Pi yu che) appears three times. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 211 when criticizinghim for views that disagree with orthodox Sarvastivada.26 It is by no means certain that this term, the original of which seems to have been siltrakiira CKatO Ky6ry6bu 268 n. 39), has anything to do with Sautrantika (Cox Disputed Dharmas 56). However, since it is used by Sarp.ghabhadra in association with almost all of the opinions in the Abhi-dharmakosabhii>!ya that are attributed to Sautrantika, the possibility remains that Sarp.ghabhadra does, in fact, use the term ching-chu to identify Vasubandhu as a Sautrantika.27 6. Abhidharmadfpa The Abhidharmadipa, together with its auto-commentary, Vzbhiio!iipra-bhiivrtti, is another text that is critical of Vasubandhu' s unorthodox views. This text is not, strictly speaking, a commentary, although, as Jaini notes (2), it closely follows the organization of the Abhidharmakosabhiio!ya. The name of its author, commonly referred to as the Dlpakara, is unknown. Jaini believes that the Abhidharmadfpa must have been written no more than about a hundred years after Vasubandhu (135).28 Unfortunately, the Sanskrit text is only partially extant, and no translation, Tibetan or Chi-nese, has been found. Nor is the text available for electronic searching. However, Jaini, in his index, identifies eight occurrences of and three of Sautrantika. According to Jaini, the two terms are used almost synonymously in the Abhidharmadfpa (70). Supporting this statement is the fact that the Dlpakara ascribes to two theories that are found in neither the *Vzbhiio!ii nor the *Tattvasiddhisiistra: the theory of bija29 and a passage that resembles the theory of saYfltatipari"(liimaviseo!a.30 26 In the Abhidharmapitakaprakaral}asiisanaSiistra, ching-chu is found 26 times. 27 In my ongoing work of comparing the Abhidharmakosabhii.yya and the Yogiiciira-bhumi, I am identifying all of the occurrences of ching-chu in the *Nyiiyiinusiira (see Krit-zer Comparison for occurrences in the fIrst three chapters). 28 However, Yoshimoto Shingy6 believes that it may be somewhat later (Willemen et al.253). 29 evaf!! tu siidhu yathii diir.ytiintikiiniim iti I kathaf!! ca diir.rtiintikiiniim I etc. (Abhidharmadlpa: 222.3-4). The original passage mentions Sautrantika, not (Abhidharmakosabhii.yya: 278.17 ff.). 30 khalu brute kiiral}asakti:tu pravartate (Abhidharmadlpa: 274.26-27). I am indebted to Fukuda Takumi for pointing out the similarity between this passage and the idea of saf!!tatiparil}iimavise.ya. 212 ROBERT KRITZER 7. Abhidharmakosavyakhya31 The Abhidharmakosavyakhya of Yasomitra (perhaps early seventh cen-tury) is the only actual commentary on the that is extant in Sanskrit. Yasomitra is sometimes described as a Sautrantika (e.g., Willemen et al. 110), and unlike Sarp.ghabhadra or the Dlpakara, he does not use the terms Sautrantika or disapprovingly. As Cox indicates, Yasomitra twice says that the are Sautrantikas (Disputed Dharmas 39), while on another occasion, he seems to say that a Sautrantika is a (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 44.14-23; La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidharmakosa 1: 36 n. 2). Altogether, Yasomitra]lses the term six times, while Sau-trantika appears 43 times. He does not describe as any of the positions that Vasubandhu attributes to Sautrantika. However, a careful analysis of all the references to Sautrantika is necessary to determine the extent to which Yasomitra distinguishes the two. Of particular interest is Yasomitra' s explanation of the meaning of the term Sautrantika (Abhidharmakosavyakhya: 11.24-12.1). This passage is mentioned in several of the articles in this issue. 8. Indian Commentaries Extant only in Tibetan Additional sources of information include a number of other com-mentaries on the originally written in Sanskrit but now extant only in Tibetan translations (see Mejor). Unfortunately, these texts are neither indexed nor available in electronic form, so I have been unable to survey the occurrences in them of the terms Sautrantika and However, Marek Mejor has been kind enough to look through portions of two of the most important of these commentaries, Sthiramati' s Tattvartha and PUn;tavardhana's and his inspection indi-cates that these texts, like the Abhidharmakosavyakhya, use the term more frequently than does Vasubandhu himself. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the references to Sautrantika and in these texts, too, would be valuable. 31 The full title is Sphutiirthii Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 213 9 .. Chinese Commentaries Willemen et aI. mention twelve Chinese commentators on the Abhi-dharmakosa (277), of whom three, Shen-t'ai P'u-kuang and Fa-pao are considered the most important (Nishi 337). These three were all students of Hstian-tsang, the second Chinese translator of the and they were active from the middle of the seventh century until the very beginning of the eighth (Nishi 338-339). While Shen-t'ai's commentary is not included in the Taisho Tripitaka and, as far as I know, is not available in a digital version, P'u-kuang and Fa-pao's commentaries are (T. 1821, T. 1822). The occurrences of the terms and Sautrantika are markedly more numerous in these two texts. P'u-kuang mentions 23 times and Sautrantika 565, while Fa-pao mentions 31 times and Sautrantika 411. Part of this increase is simply due to the fact that both commentaries expand greatly on the original text; however, the two commentators also seem to attribute more opinions to and Sautrantika than did their Indian predecessors. Cox suggests that Shen-t'ai, P'u-kuang, and Fa-pao may have all reflected Hsiian-tsang's own inter-pretations, perhaps including ones that he brought back from India (Dis-puted Dharmas 60). Saeki Kyokuga's nineteenth-century Japanese edition and commentary of the Kanda Abidatsumakusharon, frequently refers to P'u-kuang and Fa-pao's attributions. As Cox remarks, La Vallee Poussin often relies on Saeki for information that he includes in the notes of his French translation (Disputed Dharmas 180), usually without acknowledgment. In fact, many of the school attributions in the French translation are actually those of P'u-kuang or Fa-pao. D. and Sautrantika Teachers A number of personages, many of them rather shadowy, have been associated with the development of thought. The for example, mentions teachings of several teachers linked to teachings: Buddhadeva, Dharmatrata, and someone identified simply as Bhadanta (Cox Disputed Dharmas 41). 214 . ROBERT KRITZER However, the figure traditionally credited with founding the school is KumaraHita, for whom KatO proposes the dates 280-360 C.E.,32 that is to say, later than the (Kyoryobu 38). The famous poet who lived at approximately the same time, is sometimes asso-ciated with or Sautrantika (see Yamabe's paper in this issue). Slightly later is Harivarman (310-390 c.B.), who is identified in the Ch'u san-tsang chi chi and the San lun hsiian-i as Kuma-ralata's disciple (KatO Kyoryobu 58). According to Kato, SrlHita (330-410 C.E.) was another disciple of Kumaralata and was Harivarman's contemporary, as well as being the "Sthavira" whom Smp.ghabhadra (370-410 c.B.) attacks in the *Nyiiyiinusiira (Kato Kyoryobu 52-53). KatO thinks that Srilata was Vasubandhu's teacher (Kato Kyoryobu 62), but Cox, following Fukuda, seems skeptical (Dis-puted Dhannas 51-52 n. 114). KatO refers to Hsiian-tsang's Ta Tang hsi-yii chi, in which SJilata is said to be the author of a Sautrantika However, I know of no reference earlier than Hsiian-tsang's to a text of this name. My own opinion is that these teachers, who all precede Vasubandhu, would be better described as than Sautrantika since, as I have mentioned, the term Sautrantika cannot be attested before Vasubandhu. According to Lamotte (Traite 164),33 K'uei-chi calls Vasu-bandhu "the Sautrantika easy to know," and it may be this fact to which K'uei-chi is referring. Vasubandhu, of course, is one of the most important figures in the history of Buddhism. According to the traditional account, he began his career as a Sarvastivadin, wrote the under the influence of Sautrantika ideas, and was converted to Mahayana by his brother, Asariga, with whom he founded the Yogacara school. However, little is certain about Vasubandhu: his dates, as I have mentioned, are a matter of contention,34 as is the question of whether there was one Vasubandhu or twO.35 It is clear, in any case, that when later Buddhist thinkers refer to "Sautrantika" positions, they are usually talking about 32 For all the dates of Sautrantika and Darstantika teachers in this section, I follow Kat6's tentative suggestious (Kyoryobu 64). .. 33 See note 2 above. 34 According to Kat6, 350-430 C.E. (Kyoryobu 64). 35 For a clear, brief summary of the controversy, see Cox Disputed Dhannas 53. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 215 the unorthodox opinions that Vasubandhu espouses in the Abhidharmako- whether or not the same opinions are described as in the One more teacher who should be mentioned is Bhadanta Rama, who is criticized by Srup.ghabhadra in the *Nyiiyiinusiira. According to Fukuda, Bhadanta Rama was probably later than SrTIata but earlier than Vasuban-dhu. From the same tradition as and SrTIata, Bhadanta Rama was even more radically unorthodox, and Fukuda suggests that he may have been strongly influenced by Y ogacara thought. E. Important Studies of Dar1?tantika and Sautrantika Modem studies of and Sautrantika started in the late 1920s, prompted by the publication of La Vallee Poussin's translation of the which began to appear in 1923. In 1926, Lliders published the Sanskrit fragments, together with a study, of the Kalpa-niimal}4itikii, attributed to Kumaralata. This was followed in 1927 by the article, "La et son auteur," in which Levi asserts that is the proper title for the work designated Kalpaniimal}-tjitikii by Uiders. Levi goes into some detail concerning the identity of KumaraIata, and he presents an example of a simile in the Abhidharma-kosabhiirya that Yasomitra attributes to Kumaralata, as well as several examples attributed to in the In 1928, Miyamoto published a long article entitled "Hiyusha, Daitoku Hoggu, Doju, Yumanron no Kenkyii" (Study of Bhadanta Dharmatrata, Kumaralata, and the in which he identifies and analyzes passages in the containing opinions of a number of non-orthodox teachers. In the same year, Takai included in his ShOjo Bukkyo gairon (An Outline of Hfuayana Buddhism) what Kato charac-terizes as the most detailed study of the Sthavira (prior to Kato's own work).37 Finally, La Vallee Poussin inserted into his translation of the Vijfiaptimiitratiisiddhi a several-page note, in which he summarizes the 36 For a summary in Japanese of research on the Kalpanamw:ujitika, see Okano. 37 The relevant chapter (Takai 264-369) is entitled "Kyoryobu no kyogi" (The Doctrine of Sautrantika). 216 ROBERT KRITZER information from several of K'uei-chi's works concerning Sautrantika and (221-224). Probably the most important and most useful of all of these early studies is Mizuno's "Hiyushi to J6jitsuron" and *TattvasiddhiSiistra 1930). Mizuno notices similarities between the positions in the and Harivarman's in the *Tattvasiddhisiistra, and he methodically arranges all of the passages (as well as some Sautrantika passages from the into nip.e groups. For almost every passage, he locates a corresponding opinion in the *Tattvasiddhisiistra, thus proving that Harivarman, regardless of his sect affiliation, was doctrinally very close to The last of these important early studies was Przyluski's "Sautrantika et (1931-32). Przyluski argues that there was origirially a group designated which could be considered to be the Millasautrantika. Later, this group divided into two, the followers of Sn-lata and Sautrantika properly speaking. In 1940, Przyluski published a revised, English version of the same paper, entitled Sautran-tika, and Sarvastivadin." There he adds the observation that is a pejorative term, assigned by its opponents, and he speculates that Kumaralata's pupils adopted the name Sautrantika in reaction. Later, when Kumaralata's school divided, "the practice was made of describing as Millasautrantika those who claimed to follow Kumaralata,the other fac-tions being called by the name of Srllata, or described as Sautrantika without any more precision" ("Darl?tantika" 251).38 In 1935-1936, Lamotte published the text of Vasubandhu's Karma-siddhiprakaralJa, together with a French translation and introduction. In this text, Vasubandhu is generally considered to have further developed his Sautrantika positions, while not yet having converted to Mahayana Yogacara. Lamotte analyzes these positions in some detail (Traite 163-171). Yamaguchi Susumu's Japanese translation of the same work, which appeared shortly afterwards in 1951, is particularly influential in Japan.39 The next scholar to study Sautrantika in depth was Jaini, whose intro-duction to his edition of the Abhidharmadipa (1959) contains discussions 38 This article is also available online: http://sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/FULLTEX'f/ JR-ENG/prz-l.htm. 39 Muroji published a revised edition of the Tibetan text in 1985. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 217 of all the points concerning which the Dlpak1i.ra attacks Vasubandhu's "S.autrantika" positions. In the same year, lainipublished several articles based on this material, two of which are particularly rel-evant: "The Sautrantika Theory of bfja" and "Origin and Development of the Theory of viprayukta-safTlskiiras." laini notices the similarity between Vasubandhu's positions and Yogac1i.ra ideas, and he adduces it as support for the "traditional account" of a single Vasubandhu, who was the author of the and who later became a Vijiiana-vadin (Abhidhannadfpa introduction 128). Whereas 1 aini finds nascent Y ogac1i.ra concepts in the Abhidhanna- Schmithausen, in his "Sautrantika-voraussetzungen in VifTl-satikii und TrifTlsika" (1967), sees remnants of Sautrantika ideas in two post-conversion works of Vasubandhu, particularly the VifTlsatikii. He characterized Vasubandhu's use of the terms vijiiiinasafTltiina (instead of iilayavijiiiina) and safTltiinaparir,:ziima, as being based on "the 'one-layered' mental series of the Sautrantikas" (136).40 Katsura's Ph.D. thesis, A Study of Harivarman's Tattvasiddhi (Uni-versity of Toronto 1974), includes an outline of the text, a discussion of the author, his ideas and school affiliation, along with translations of selected passages. Katsura's is the only substantial work in a western lan-guage on the Tattvasiddhi. Although it is not published and is not avail-able from University Microfilms, there are several copies in circulation. An interesting example of how Buddhists of a much later period described Sautrantika doctrine can be found in the fourteenth-century Tibetan doxographical text, the BIo gsal grub mtha'. Mimaki published an edition, with an introduction, of the relevant portion of this work (1979), as well as a French translation (1980), both extensively annotated. Relying on the and on other texts, including a number of Buddhist epistemological works, the BIo gsal grub mtha' illustrates how ideas like the self-awareness (svasafTlvedana) of consciousness, which do not appear in the or the but may have been implied by early theories, were labelled as Sautrantika by later authors. 40 Although Schmithausen' s article is in German, it includes a brief English abstract, on which my summary is based. 218 ROBERT KRITZER Kajiyama's study of Buddhist theories of cognition; Bukkyi5 ni okeru sonzai to chishiki (Being and Cognition in Buddhism),41 includes a good general introduction to Sautrantika, its main doctrines, and the sources of information about them, as well as a detailed explanation of theSautran-tika (or viewpoint regarding cognition (v-xi, 31-59). Much of his discussion is based on later works, mainly epistemological texts. In 1980, KatO published an article, "Notes sur les deux maltres boud-dhiques Kumaralata et Srilata," in which he critically reviews the Chinese sources regarding the lives of these two teachers and establishes more reliable dates than those suggested by the most commonly quoted source, K'uei-chi. KatO's Kyi5ryi5bu no kenkyu (Study of Sautrantika), which appeared in 1989, remains by far the most important work on the subject of Sautrantika and Centered largely on Salflghabhadra's account and criticism of the Sthavira (Srilata) in the *Nyayanusara, Kato's book is divided into two parts dealing with Sautrantika history and thought. Although the study is in Japanese, a useful abstract in French canbe found at the end of the volume. Another very important contribution concerning Vasubandhu's Sautran-tika positions and the Sthavira is Cox's Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Published in 1995, this book is a revised version of her 1983 Ph.D. thesis, Controversies in Dharma Theory. Cox provides an extensively annotated translation of the section of the *Nyayanusara in which Sa1f1ghabhadra attacks both Vasubandhu's and the Sthavira's denial of the reality of the cittaviprayuktasaY(lskaras. It is probably fair to say that Kato' s work has been a catalyst for further studies of Sautrantika, particularly in Japan. Since 1980, so many articles have been published that it is impossible for me to summarize them ade-quately here. Still, since most, if not all, are in Japanese, it may be useful at least to mention some of their titles:42 "Sarvastivadin and Sautrantika theories of vip aka as seen in the AbhidharmakosabMyya" (Hyodo 1980); 41 I am grateful to Yamabe Nobuyoshi for this reference. 42 If the original titles are in Japanese, I give my own English translations here. Although many of the journals in which these articles are published supply their own (or the author's own) English translations, these are typically found at the end of each issue or on the back cover. In most cases, I possess only offprints, which do not include an English title. The full Japanese titles can be found in the list of works cited. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 219 "The relationship of and Sautrantika - doctrine of Sautran-tika in the Abhidhannakosabhii!fYa and Tattvasiddhisiistra - [1]" (Tokoro 1989); "Sautrantika" (Honjo 1992); "Dignaga's Hastaviilaprakara.I).avrtti: a Japanese translation of the Hastaviilaprakara.I).avJiti with a Sanskrit recon-struction" (Harada "Dignaga" 1993);43 "The position on the difference between citta and caitta as seen in the Mahiivibhii:jii" (Fukuda "Daibibasharon" 1997); "The Sautrantika Bhadanta Rama" (Fukuda "Kyoryobu" 1998). Other studies are concerned more specifically with the relationship between Sautrantika and Yogacara: "Adi-vise:ja-vibhiiga-siltra: Vasuban-dhu the Sautrantika's theory ofpratItya-samutpada" (Matsuda "Funbetsu" 1982); "The deftnition of iiZayavijfiiina in Vasubandhu' s Pratltyasamut-piidavyiikhyii" (Matsuda "Seshin" 1982); "Research note concerning Vasubandhu [1]" (Matsuda "Vasubandhu" 1984); "The theory of two truths in the Vyiikhyiiyukti - Research note concerning Vasubandhu [2]" (Matsuda "Vyiikhyiiyukti" 1986); "The background of the theory of abhiltvii bhavati in the Abhidharmakosabhii:jya" (Miyashita 1986); "Research on Pilrvacarya [in the Abhidhannakosabhii!fYa]" (Hakamaya 1986); "Bfja the-ory in ViniscayasaY(lgrahm;l" (Yamabe 1990); "Vasubandhu on saY(lskiira-pratyayaY(l vijfiiinam" (Kritzer 1993); "Questions concerning the con-cept of a 'Sautrantika single-layered stream of vijfiiina' [I]" (Harada "Kyoryobu I" 1996); "Questions concerning the concept of a 'Sautran-tika single-layered stream of vijfiiina' [II]" (Harada "Kyoryobu II" 1997); "Questions concerning the concept of a 'Sautrantika single-layered stream ofvijfiiina' [ill]" (Harada "Kyoryobu ill" 1998); Rebirth and Causation in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma (Kritzer 1999); "One side of the theory of causation of good and evil in the Yogiiciirabhilmi: the so-called theory of 'mutual impregnation of rilpa and citta'" (Yamabe "Yugashichiron" 2000); A Comparison of the Abhidharmakosabhii:jya (Chapters I-III) and the Yogiiciirabhilmi (Kritzer 2001). 43 A discussion of Sautrantika is included in an appendix to Harada's article. 220 . ROBERT KRITZER References Primary Sources Abhidharmadfpa with Ed. P.S. Jaini. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 4. Second edition. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1973. *Abhidharmahrdaya (A-p'i-t'an hsin lun DhannasrI (or Dharma- T. 1550. *Abhidharmahrdaya (A-p'i-t'an hsin lun ching Upasanta. T. 1551. Ed. P. Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series VIII. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967. Abhidharmakosavyakhya. Ed. U. Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Bookstore, 1990. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: The Publishing Association of the . Abhidharma-kosa-vyakhya, 1932-1936). Ch'eng wei-shih tun shu chi K'uei-chi T. 1830. Chu-she lun chi P'u-kuang tf*. T. 1821. Chu-she lun shu Fa-pao ttJf. T. 1822. I pu-tsung lun lun shu chi K'uei-chi Dai Nihon zokuzokyo 844 *Nyayanusara (A-p'i-ta-mo shun cheng-li lun Sarp.ghabhadra. T.1562. Samayabhedoparacanacakra (I pu-tsung lun lun Vasumitra. Trans. Hstian-tsang. T. 2031. *SaJ?fYuktabhidharmahrdaya (Tsa a-p'i-t'an hsin lun Dhannatriita. T.1552. *Tattvasiddhisastra (Ch'eng shih lun Harivannan. T. 1646. (A-p'i-ta-mo ta p'i-p'o-sha lun Trans. Hstian-tsang. T. 1545. . (A-p'i-t'an p'i-p'o-sha lun Trans. Buddhavannan. T.1546. fij-ch'ieh-shi ti lun lueh tsuan . K'uei-chi T. 1829 . .-;.r Modem Works Bechert, Heinz. "Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of Mahiiyiina." German Scholars on India: Contributions to Indian Studies. Ed. Cultural Department of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi. Vol. 1. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 6-18. Cox, Collett. Controversies in Dharma Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Uni-versity. 1983. -. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Studia Philologica Buddhica: Monograph Series 11. Tokyo: The International Institute for Bud-dhist Studies, 1995. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 221 Dessein, Bart. Sa'!lyuktiibhidhannahrdaya: Heart of Scholasticism with Miscel-laneous Additions. Buddhist Tradition Series 33. Vol. 1. Delhi: MotilaI Banar-sidass, 1999. . Fukuda Takumi "Daibibasharon ni mieru hiyusha no shinshinsho bettai setsu" Indogaku Bukkyo-gaku Kenkyii 45/2 (1997): 913-910. "Kyoryobu no Daitoku Rama" --c{. Bukkyoshigaku Kenkyii 41/1 (1998): 1-36. Hakamaya Noriaki "Purviiciirya ko" Pfirvacfuya;fi[;. Indogaku Bukkyo-gaku Kenkyii 34/2 (1986): 93-100. Harada Waso ffif,EBfD*. "Dignaga no HastaviilaprakaralJa & Vrtti." Ryukoku Daigaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyushitsu Nenpo 6 (1993): 92-110. -. "Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon [I]" rll!J!O)J t (1). Indogaku Chibettogaku Ken-kyu 1 (1996): 135-193. -. "Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon [ll]" r J t ? (II). Indogaku Chibettogaku Ken-kyu 2 (1997): 22-59. "Kyoryobu no 'tanso no' shiki no nagare to iu gainen e no gimon [III]" t (III). Indogaku Chi-bettogaku Kenkyu 3 (1998): 92-110. Honjo Yoshifumi *Jl1r:st. "Sautrandka." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyfl40/2 (1992): 148-154. Hyodo Kazuo "Kusharon ni mieru setsuissaiubu to kyoryobu no ijuku setsu" Bukkyo Shiso Shi 3 (1980): 57-88. Jaini, P.S. Introduction. Abhidhannadlpa with Vzbhii:fiiprabhiivrtti. Ed. P.S. Jaini. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 4. Second edition. Patna: Kashi Prasad JayaswaI Research Institute, 1973. 1-136. "Origin and Development of the Theory of viprayukta-sa'!lskiiras." Bulletiri of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 22/3 (1959): 531-547. "The Sautrantika Theory of blja." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 22/2 (1959): 236-249. Kajiyama YUichi Bukkyo ni okeru sonzai to chishiki :?;,:tn' t Tokyo: Kinokuniya Shoten, 1983. Kato JunshO Kyoryobu no kenkyfl (Etude sur les Sautriin-tika). Tokyo: Shunjiisha, 1989. "Notes sur les Deux Maitres Bouddhiques: Kumaralata et Srllata," in India-nisme et Bouddhisme: Melanges offerts a Mgr Etienne Lamotte. Publications de l'Institut OrientaIiste de Louvain 23. Louvain-Ia-Neuve: Universite Catho-lique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1980. Katsura, Shoryu. A Study of Harivarman's Tattvasiddhi. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-sity of Toronto, 1974. 222 ROBERT KRITZER Kritzer, Robert. A Comparison of the Abhidharmakosabhii&a (Chapters I-Ill) and the Yogiiciirabhami. (Japanese Ministry of Education Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research C. Project Number 11610024.) Kyoto: privately printed, 2001. -. Rebirth and Causation in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 44. Wien: Arbeitskreis fiir Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universitat Wien, 1999. -. "Vasubandhu on sarrzskiirapratyayarri vijfi.iinam." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 16/1 (1993): 24-55. La Vallee Poussin, Louis de, trans. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. 6 vols. New edition. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 16. Bruxelles: Institut BeIge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1971. Reprint (First edition: Louvain: J.B. Istas, 1923-1931). -. "Documents d'Abhidharma: la controverse du temps." Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 15 (1936-1937): 7-158. -. "Sautriintikas." Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Ed. James Hastings. 13 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908-1926. -. trans. Vijfi.aptimiitratiisiddhi: La Siddhi de Hiuan-tsang (French translation of Ch'eng wei shih lun). 2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1928-1929. Lamotte, Etienne. History of Indian Buddhism. Trans. Sara Webb-Boin. Publica-tions de I'Institut OrientaIiste de Louvain: 36. Louvain-Ia-Neuve: Universite Catholique de Louvain, 1988. -, trans. Traite de la demonstration de ['acte de Vasubandhu: Karmasiddhipra-karalJa. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 4 (1935-36). Levi, Sylvain. "La et son auteur." Journal asiatique 211 (1927): 95-127. Liiders, Heinrich. Bruchstucke der KalpaniimaIJ4itikii des Kumiiraliita. Mono-graphien zur indischen Archaologie, Kunst und Philologie; Bd. 1. Kleinere Sanskrittexte; Heft 1-2. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1979. (Reprint of the 1926 ed. published by the Deutsche Morgenliindische Gesellschaft, Leipzig.) Matsuda Kazunobu "Funbetsuengishoshohi5mongyo (AWS): kyo-C ryobu seshin no engisetsu" r (AVVS) -*I:1ilmi!!:fto) Bukkyogaku Seminii 36 (1982): 40-70. -. "Seshin engikyoyaku (PSVy) ni okeru arayashiki no teigi" (PSVy) J Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 31/1 (1982): 63-66. -. "Vasubandhu kenkyil noto (1)" Vasubandhu - }- (1 ). Indogaku Buk-kyogaku Kenkyu 32/2 (1984): 82-85. -. "Vyiikhyiiyukti no nitai setsu - Vasubandhu kenkyii noto (2)" Vyiikhyiiyukti Vasubandhu (2). Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 33/2 (1985): 114-120. Mejor, Marek. Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa and the Commentaries Preserved in the Tanjur. Institut fiir Kultur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets an GENERAL INTRODUCTION 223 . der Universitat Hamburg, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 42. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1991. Mjmaki Katsurni m!&51B. "Le chapitre du Bio gsal grub mtha' sur les Sautriin-tika: Un essai de traduction." Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University 16 (1980): 143-172. _. "Le chapitre du Blo gsal grub mtha' sur les Sautrantika: Presentation et edi-tion." Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University 15 (1979): 175-210. Miyamoto ShOson '8*1#. "Hiyusha, Daitoku Hoggu, Doju, Yumanron no Ken-kyii" VPt=tt :fdil!itlliJ(, Nihon Bukky6 Gakkai Nenpo 1 (1928): 115-192. Miyashita Seiki "Kusharon ni okero hon mu kon u ron no haikei" Bukky6gaku Semina 44 (1986): 7-37. Mizuno Kogen 7l to iu gainen eno gimon" $ta) unwisdom, which designates the lack of wisdom but is not an existing entity. For example, saints such as arhats or praty'ekabuddhas have already abandoned delusion, so they have no def:tled unwisdom. However, com-pared with that of the Lord Buddha, the wisdom they have attained is still imperfect, and. such "insufficiency" or "lack" of wisdom is called undef:tled unwisdom, or the impression (viisanii) of ignorance (T. 1562: 501c22-502a3). Based upon these speculations, Sanghabhadra gives his own definition: "impression is a general name for the mental factors that arise together with lesser wisdom" (T. 1562: 502a25-26). Thus, Sanghabhadra accepts the conception of impression as a provisional (prajiiapti) existent.47 Then Sanghabhadra refers to Rama' s interpretation of impressions: Bhadanta Rama makes this sort of statement: there are undefIled factors called impressions, which are like the matured effects (vipiika) produced from unvirtuous causes (akusalahetu). When the Blessed One was a bodhi-sattva, he did various preparatory practices (prayoga) for an astronomically long period of time. Although he had afflictions (kleSa), he gradually aban-doned the undefiled impressions produced from the afflictions and instead gradually increased the impressions of white factors (sukladharma). After-ward, when the lasting abandonment of all defIlements (iisrava) had been accomplished, some of those impressions disappeared, but others remained. [That is to say,] even when the supreme and everlasting abandonment of all 47 According to Yamabe (1989: 212-213), the original meaning of the term viisanii in the early Yogiicara tradition is limited to "the impression of defilements (kleia)" or "the impression of action (karman)." Sailghabhadra's explanation here seems to correspond to the former. Compare it with the passage in the Bodhisattvabhiuni: "Activities similar to affliction never occur to the Thus Come One, whenever. he moves, looks, talks, or stays. It is said 'The Thus Come One has abandoned the impressions absolutely.' On the other hand, in the case of arhats, activity similar to affliction occurs when they move, look, talk, or stay, though they have already abandoned the defilements themselves" (tatra yii tathiigatasya spandite vii prek:jite vii kathite vii vihare vii samudiiciira-pracuratii / ayaTfl tathiigatasya viisaniisamudghatii ity ucyate / arhatiiTfl punalJ prahzlJakle-saniim api kleiasadbhavasadrsz spanditaprek:jitakathita vihrtesu bhavaty eva / [Bodhi-sattvabhUmi: 404.18-22] ). 278 TAKUMI FUKUDA defilements had been achieved as a result of extended practice, the impres-sions of white factors still remained with the Buddha [while the undefiled impressions had disappeared], since it is said that there are both perishable impressions (i.e., impressions of defIlements) and imperishable ones (i.e., impressions of virtuousness). [Sanghabhadra answers:] Of course, such an explanation may also be possible, but he (Rama) could never demonstrate their nature as truly existent (T. 1562: 502b13-20). Thus, Rfuna states that there are "impressions of white factors" opposed to undefiled impressions which are matured effects of affliction. 'As Yin shun (1980: 572) has pointed out, this idea seems similar to the concept of the "seed of the impression produced by hearing [the teaching of the Buddha] that flowed from the realm of purest truth" (suvisuddhadhar- found in the Mahiiyiinasa1!lgraha.48 At least it is not difficult to fmd here the influence of Y ogacara doctrine, as in the case of the bfja theory ofVasubandhu, the Kosa master, or the *anu-dhiitu of Sthavira Sruata. Therefore, the *Nyiiyiinusiira sometimes refers to the terms viisanii, bfja, and anudhiitu as variations of a single concept: In the arguments among the various Abhidhfumikas, the often appeal to their own [theory] of seeds (bfja), and thereby, pervert the correct meaning and cause it to become unclear. There are certain masters who give different names to these seeds, each according to his own understanding. Some call them subsidiary elements (*anudluitu), others call them impressions (viisanii); still others call them capability (siimarthyii), non-disappearance (avipra/Jiisa), or accumulation (upacaya) (T. 1562: 398b25-29; translation by Cox 1995: 197).49 Vasubandhu states that the seed (bfja) is one's psycho-physical stream itself, which conveys the potency of past action into the future. Yamabe 48 MahiiyiinasaT[lgraha, I.45 (Nagao 1982: 44-45). As concerns the Yogiiciirabhiimi, such a purificatory function of seed is found only in an interpolated paragraph in the Niv,ru portion of the ViniscayasaT[lgrahaIJi. See Schmithausen (1987: 77-81). 49 Statements similar to this are repeated in the *Nyiiyiinusiira several times: "Concep-tions like accumulation (upacaya), capability (siimarthyii), subsidiary elements (*anudhiitu), impressions (viisanii), or seeds (bfja) of the force of mind have already been rejected" (T. 1562: 535a23-26); "Subsidiary elements (*anudhiitu), capability (siimarthyii), impres-sions (viisanii), seeds (bfja), accumulation (upacaya), non-disappearance (avipraIJasa), and so on, which are asserted by the artful deceivers (i.e., the have been denied" (T. 1562: 627aI9-20). However, among these conceptions, accumulation (upacaya) and non-disappearance (avipraIJiisa) can in fact be ascribed to Mahasarpghika and SarpmitIya respectively. See Lamotte (1936: 230-231); Yin shun (1980: 558). BHADANTA RAMA: A SAUTRANrIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 279 (1990) has pointed out the possibility that Vasubandhu's theory of seed can be traced back to the Yogtictirabhilmi. Sthavira SrlH'ita offers a con-ception of subsidiary element (*anudhtitu or *purvtinudhtitu) which, as KatCi (1989: 250-260) has shown, generally corresponds to Vasubandhu's seed. 50 It is notable that the term dhtitu has been used as a synonym for blja in the Yogacara tradition from the earliest stage (Yamabe 1997: 212-213). And Rama explains that the effect of the past practice is preserved in the fOID1 of impression (vtisanti). Here, Sailghabhadra seems not only to reveal their lack of consistency in teIDlinology but also to suggest that they are all in imitation of Yogacara thought. However, at the same time it should be noted that, while both Vasuban-dhu's seed and Snlata's subsidiary element seem to have originated from early Yogacara theory, Rama's conception of impression evidently reflects more highly developed Yogacara thought, such as that seen in the Mahti-ytinasarrzgraha. Argument 7. Mutual Relationship of Cause and Effect Anlong the various teachings of dependent origination, there are some siitras, such as the Nagarasutra and the Mahtinidtinaparytiyasutra, that, following the formula, "depending on consciousness, name-and-form [arises]" (vijfitinapratyayarrz ntimaruparrz), insert the reversed phrase, "depending on name-and -form, consciousness [arises]" (ntimarupa-pratyayarrz vijfitinarrz). SaIighabhadra explains that these sutras indicate the fact that the body (i.e., name-and-form) and mind (consciousness) of an embryo should arise together: body depends on mind in the sense that body cannot exist without mind, while mind similarly cannot exist inde-pendently from body. Therefore, Sailghabhadra says, these sutras explain that consciousness and name-and-form have a simultaneous cause and effect relationship with each other (T. 1562: 502al-1O).51 Next, Sailghabhadra refers to another interpretation presented by Rama: 50 Therefore, the * Nyayanusara says that *pilrvanudhiitu is just an alternative name for Vasubandhu's conceptions of bija (T. 1562: 440b9-1O) or sarrztatiparilJamaviseea (T. 1562: 541c26-27). 51 The Kosa does not take up this topic. For the significance of the Nagarasiltra iu the doctriual development of early Buddhist conceptions of dependent origination, see Kajiyama (1985). The Mahtinidanaparyayasiltra (T. 1, No. 13; T. 14; T. 26, No. 97; DN No. 15) seems to be more important for the Sarvastivadius, for it contaius a passage that evidently 280 TAKUMI FUKUDA Bhadanta Rama presents his own opinion: When the new existence (upa-pattibhava) arises from the intermediate state (antariibhava), depending on the name-and-form (niimanlpa) of the intermediate state, the primal consciousness of the new eXistence (pratisaf{ldhivijiiiina) and other [mental factors] are produced. Then the name-and-form of the intermediate state is destroyed, leaving that consciousness, and from it, the name-and-form of the new existence is produced (T. 1562: 504alO-13). Thus, according to Rama, the passage "depending on name-and-fonn, consciousness [arises]," connotes that the consciousness of the new exis-tence is produced from the body of the intennediate state, while the follow-ing and reversed phrase, "depending on consciousness, name-and-fonn [arises]," connotes that the body of the new existence is born from the first moment of consciousness of the new existence. The reason for the argument is not clear, but comparing this with the following objection raised by Sarigha-bhadra, we can infer that here Rama would like to follow Srilata's view, which does not allow a simultaneous relationship between cause and effect.52 Argument 8. Nature of Action In the second verse of Chapter Four of the Kosa (N 2bc), the V kas state their definition of vijfiapti, according to which the intrinsic nature (svabhava) or the ethical subject of manifested bodily action suggests the so-called "embryogenetic" interpretation of dependent origination. Besides, this sutra has no reference to ignorance (avidya), conditioned forces (sal'{lskaralJ), or the six sense bases in its original version: the formula begins with the inter-active cause-effect relationship between consciousness (vijfiana) and name-and-form (namarupa), and there is no six sense bases (eaq.ayataniini) between name-and-form (niimarupa) and contact Therefore, the Dharmaskandha (T. 1537; Dietz 1984), one of the earliest works of the Sarvastivadins, inserts the phrases "depending on name-and-form, consciousness arises" and "depending on name-and-form, contact arises" in its interpretation of the dependent origination. It seems that Sanghabhadra here treats the problem of interactive causation between consciousness and name and form with reference to the explanation of the Dharmaskandha. 52 Srilata clearly states, "conditioned factors can never be simultaneous causes" (T. 1562: 421b18-22). This refusal to accept the simultaneity of cause and effect (e.g., contact of eyes and visible material form, and the arising of visual perception) results in a successive model of perception. See Cox (1988: 40-41). Though tradition says that this model of suc-cessive perception is common to the view, Vasubandhu in the Kosa does not accept it and supports the view of a simultaneous cause-effect rela-tionship 146.18-20; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 2: 107; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 430). BHADANTA R..AMA: A SAUTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 281 (kayavijiiapti) is appearance (sal'{lsthana) as an existent visible material fonn (rilpa). Vasuoandhu refers to the opinion of "others," identified by the commentaries as VatslputrIyas or SaqunitIyas, according to whom the nature of manifested action is "movement" (gati). However, the Kosa immediately rejects this view: Indeed, every conditioned factor, after having attained its existence, no longer exists. It vanishes at the place where it arises, and hence it cannot transmigrate to another place. Therefore, bodily action is not movement.53 The conditioned factor arises at one moment and passes away into non-existence at the next, without enduring for even one moment. And when a series of factors arises moment by moment, gradually shifting its locus, the phenomenon is called "movement." Thus, there is, in fact, no move-ment. This view bears some similarity to argument of the Viniscayasal'{l-grahalJl of the Yogacarabhilmi (T. 1579: 598aI8-19, 600alO-13). On the other hand, the *Nyayanusara does not cite this passage of the Kosa, but instead refers to Rama: Bhadanta Rama gives his opinion: The stream of conditioned factors, by attaining its existence, arises at a certain place and then goes out of existence at that very place. Therefore, there is no movement CT. 1562: 533a26-28). Then SaiJ.ghabhadra criticizes this: since Rama does not admit the exis-tence of the past and future factors, how is it possible for the nonexistent future factor "to attain its existence"? It seems that Vasubandhu's passage corresponds more closely to that of Rama than to that of the Yogacarabhiimi. This fact suggests that Sanghabhadra thought of Rama as a precursor of the Sautrantika Vasubandhu, at least with respect to the present topic; therefore, SaiJ.gha-bhadra quotes Rama here, instead of Vasubandhu. m. Conclusion On the basis of the passages discussed above, the thought of Bhadanta Rama can be outlined as follows: 53 sarva/'f1 hi sa/'f1skrtam atmaiabhad urdhva/'f1 na bhavatfti yatraiva jata/'f1 tatraiva dhvasyate / tasyayukto desantarasa/'f1krantif:z / tasman na gatif:z kayakarmaf:z / (Abhidharma-k o s a b h a ~ a 193.3-4; La Vallee Poussin 1980, v. 3: 4-5; Pruden 1988-1990, v. 2: 553). See also Vasubandhu's KarmasiddhiprakaralJa (Lamotte 1935-1936: 212-219). 282 TAKUMI FUKUDA a) Following the views in the *Vzbhii>!ii, Rarna maintains the existence of consciousness in the meditative state of cessation (argu-ment 4) and refutes the simultaneous arising of cause and effect (argu-ment 7). These opinions are also accepted by Sruata, and this confirms Sanghabhadra's account that Rama was a disciple of Sruata. However, Rama is not always an obedient pupil; for example, he objects to Sruata's interpretation of the term "ignorance" (argument 5). b) Furthermore, concerning topics such as the interpretation of the opening formula of the teaching of dependent origination (argument 3) or the negation of the VatSlputriya definition of the nature of manifested bodily action (argument 8), Rama's accounts closely resemble passages in the Abhidharmakosa. Considering the fact that Sanghabhadra chooses to refer to Rama rather than Vasubandhu in both cases, it is possible to assume that Vasubandhu inherited these arguments from Rarna. Rama's interpretation of the term "arising," which is similar to Vasubandhu's definition of the four characteristics in the Kosa (argument 2), should perhaps be added here. c) In addition, regarding other topics Rama's opinion indicates the influence of the Y ogacara school. As has been suggested by the studies of some modem scholars, Vasubandhu also seems to have been familiar with Y ogacara ideas at the time when he wrote the Kosa and introduced some of them into the Kosa as the opinions of the Sautrantikas or the pilrviiciiryas. However, according to those studies, the Yogacarasource materials for the Sautrantika opinions in the Kosa are limited to early texts that do not necessarily presuppose the conception of iilayavijfiiina.54 54 According to Schmithausen, the Yogacarabhiimi consists mainly of three heteroge-neous or chronologically distinct layers: (1) the oldest layer, which refers neither to iilaya-vijiiana nor to the Sarrzdhinirmocanasiitra; (2) a middle layer, which refers occasionally to alayavijfiiina, but not to the Sarrzdhinirmocana; (3) the newest layer, which cuntains both material from the Sarrzdhinirmocana and detailed treatments of alayavijiiana. Further, each of these layers is not homogeneous in itself: the ViniscayasarrzgrahQlJ! also include some old material. See Schmithausen (1987: 13-14). For a different analysis of the layers of the Yogacarabhiimi, see Aramaki's hypothesis (unpublished) which is summarized by Kritzer (1999: 12 note 17; 200). At any rate, it is certain that the arguments found in the Yogacarabhiimi do not always presuppose the conception of alayavijiiana. Therefore, the relationship between the Sautrantika opinions in the Kosa and the Yogacarabhiimi does not imply immediately that Vasubandhu as the author of the Kosa has already accepted the BHADANTA RA.MA: A SAUTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 283 On the other. hand, Rama's arguments regarding the nonexistence of the reflected image, which would inevitably result in the mind-only theory (argument 1), and his explanation of the impressions of the white factors (argument 6), are apparently based on more highly developed Yogaciira scriptures, such as the Saf!ldhinirmocanasutra, or treatises like the Mahii-yiinasaf[lgraha. In brief, the doctrine of Raffia is a blend of the views of the Diirstantikas in the and Sruata the Sthavira in the *Nyiiyiinusiira a;'well as some Y ogiiciira ideas. This fact suggests that the Sautrantikas are definitely descended from the lineage, but, as Yin shun says, "It seems that in the period of Bhadanta Rama, the Yogaciira Mahayanists flour-ished, so they would have influenced the (Yin shun 1980: 572-573). The Sautrantika positions of Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakosa should also be considered in this context. However, while Rama's arguments appear to be an indiscriminate com-bination of and Yogaciira views, Vasubandhu seems more deliberate in introducing Yogaciira theory into the Kosa. On the one hand he rejects certain opinions of the such as the negation of the simultaneous cause-effect relationship, since they conflict with the Y oga-ciira views that he accepts, and on the other hand, unlike Rama, he care-fully avoids introducing fully developed Yogaciira conceptions, for they might conflict with the scheme of abhidharmic philosophy that forms the iilayavijiiiina. Regarding this issue, Kritzer has examined Vasubandhu' s interpretation of the term "consciousness" (vijiiiina) as a member of the formula of dependent origination and has concluded that the Kosa presupposes the conception of iilayavijiiiina, while Vasubandhu does not actually use the term in the Kosa because it is not required in its exegetical context (Kritzer 1999: 175-207). On the other hand, Yamabe, in his review of Kritzer's book, says that the main sources for the Sautriintika views in the Kosa seem lim-ited to the Savitarkiidibhilmi of the MaulibhUmi of the Yogiiciirabhilmi, a portion in which there is little reference to iilayavijiiiina, and the parts of the Paiicavijiiiinakiiyamanobhilmi of the Vmisicayasa7[lgrahaJ;zi in which the conception of iilayavijiiiina is not necessarily required. This suggests the possibility that the author of the Kosa has not yet "discovered" iilayavijiiiina. Hence, Yarnabe reserves judgement on whether Vasubandhu already accepted iilayavijiiiina when he wrote the Kosa (Yamabe 2000 b: 68). I am not in a position to decide this issue, but if my conclusions in this article are correct, other Sautrantikas, con-temporary with Vasubandhu, were familiar with developed Yogaclira scriptures like the Sa7[ldhinirmocanasutra and with treatises like the MahiiyiinasQ7[lgraha, which discuss the conception of iilayavijiiiina. Therefore it is not impossible to suppose that Vasubandhu knew iilayavijiiiina, although, at the time of composing the Kosa, he did not want to refer explic-itly to such a novel idea, which never appears in the traditional exegetical abhidharma works. 284 TAKUMI FUKUDA substructure of the Kosa. Thus he succeeds in formulating' a coherent, high-level abhidharrna theory of his own, under the name of "Sautran-tika." Perhaps this is the reason why Vasubandhu' s fate was different from that of his contemporary Sautrantikas, whose works are no longer extant. There must have been more Sautrantika masters at the time of Vasubandhu, but, like Rama, they could not establish a method to har-monize their abhidharmic views with Yogaciira theory, and therefore, their works are lost to history. The Abhidharrnakosa is a rare example of a Sautrantika work that achieved such harmony and therefore survived. As for Vasubandhu himself, the composition of this treatise probably served as a springboard for his conversion to Y ogaciira. References Primary Sources Edited by P. Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Work Series Vol. VIII, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967. Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii. Edited by U.Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1971. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: The publishing Association of the Abhidharmakosavyiikhyii, 1932-1936). BodhisattvabhUmi. Edited by U. Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1971. Reprint (First edition: 1936). Chu-she [un chi. P'u-kuang. T. 1821. Chu-she lun shu. Fa-pao. T. 1822. abhidharmakosatzkii. Pi.irr).avardhana. Peking Bstan 'gyur 5594. Nyiiyiinusiira (Ap'i-ta-mo shun cheng-li lun). Sanghabhadra. T. 1562. Tattviirthii abhidharmakosatzkii. Sthiramati. Peking Bstan 'gyur 5875. Tattvasiddhi (Ch'eng shih lun). Harivarrnan. T. 1646. (Ap'i-ta-mo ta-p'i-p'o sha lun). Translated by Hsiian-tsang. T. 1545. Yogiiciirabhiimi. Edited by Vidhushekhara Bhattacarya. Part 1. Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1957. Yogiiciirabhiimi (Yu-ch'ieh-shih ti lun). Translated by Hsiian-tsang. T. 1579. Modern Works Bareau, Andre. Le sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule. Publications de rEcole d'Extreme-Orient XXXVIII. Paris: Ecole d'Extreme-Orient 1955. Cox, Collett. "On the Possibility of a Nonexistent Object of Consciousness: Sar-vastivadin and Theories." Journal of the International Associa-tion of Buddhist Studies 11/1 (1988): 31-87. BHADANTA RAMA: A SAVTRANTIKA BEFORE VASUBANDHU 285 -. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Studia Philolo-gica Buddhica: .Monograph Series 11. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1995. Dietz, Siglinde. Fragmente des Dharmaskandha. Ein Abhidharma-Text in Sanskrit aus Gilgit. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenshaften in Gottingen: Pirilolo-gisch-Historische Klasse 2/142. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Enomoto Furnio. "A Sanskrit Fragment from the Discovered in Eastern Turkestan." In Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon Neuentdeckun-gen und Neueditionen ill Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, edited by Heinz Bechert. Supplement 6. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, 135-143. Griffiths, Paul J. On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem. La Salle, illinois: Open Court, 1986. Hakamaya Noriaki. "Nirodhasamapatti - Its Historical Meaning in the Vijiiapti-matrata System." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 23/2 (March 1975): 1084-1074. "Piirvacarya ko." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 34/2 (March 1986): 93-100. Harada Waso. "Dignaga no & Vrtti." Ryukoku Daigaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyushitsu Nempo 6 (March 1993): 92-110. -. "Kyoryobu no tanso no shiki no nagare to iu gainen eno gimon I." Indogaku Chibettogaku Kenkyu 1 (1996): 135-193. Ito Shiiken. "Honzetsu no gengo ni tsuite." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 21/1 (December 1972): 134-135. Kajiyama YUichi. "Rinne to chOetsu - JOyi.ikyo no engi setsu to sono kaishaku. " Tetsugaku Kenkyu 550 (1985): 324-359. Kato JunshO. Kyoryobu no kenkyu. Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1989. "Higashi ajia no juyo shita abidarumakei ronsho - jojitsuron to kusharon no bili." In Bukkyo no tozen: higashi asia no bukkyo shiso I, ShirIzu Higashia-jia bukkyo, edited by Takasaki Jikido and Kimura Kiyotaka. Tokyo: Shun-jusha, 1997,37-78. Kritzer, Robert. Rebirth and Causation in the YogtictiraAbhidharma, Wiener Stu-dien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 44. Wien: Arbeitskreis fUr Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universitat Wien, 1999. "Rupa and the antartibhava." Journal of Indian Philosophy 28/3 (June 2000): 235-272. "Unthinkable Matters: the Term acintya in the In Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought: In Honor of Dr. Hajime Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh Birthday. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 2002, 65-86. Lamotte, Etienne. Sarrzdhinirmocana Sutra: L'explication des mysteres. Recueil de travaux publies par les membres des Conferences d'Histoire et du Philolo-gie 2/34. Louvain: Universite de Louvain, 1935. "Le Traite de l'Acte de Vasubandhu: Melanges Chinois et bouddhiques 4 (1936): 151-263. 286 TAKuMI FUKUDA -. "Trois Sutra du Sarp.yukta sur la vacuite." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 36/2 (1973): 313-323. La Vallee Poussin, Louis de. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. New edition. Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques 16. Bruxelles: Institute BeIge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1980. Reprint (First edition: Louvain: J.B. Istas, 1923-1931). Mejor, Marek. Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa and the Commentaries Preserved in the Tanjur. Alt-und Neu-Indische Studien 42, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1991. Mimaki Katsumi. "Le chapitre du Blo gsal grub mtha' sur les Sautrantika: Presen-tation et edition." Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanis-tic Studies, Kyoto University 15 (1979): 175-210. "Le chapitre du Blo gsal grub mtha' sur 1es Sautrantika: Un essai de traduc-tion." Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University 16 (1980): 143-172. Miyashita Seiki. "Mumyo to shogyo - kusharon ni okeru kokoro to katachi" Nihon Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo 57 (1992): 1-28. Nagao Gajin. Shodaijoron wayaku to chiikai Go). Tokyo: Kodansha, 1982. Pruden, Leo M. Abhidharmakosabhii-rYa7[l by Louis de La Vallee Poussin (Eng-lish Translation). 4 vo1s. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1988-1990. Przyluski, Jean. Sautrantika and Sarvastivadin." Indian Historical Quarterly 16 (1940): 246-254. Schmithausen, Lambert. A.layavijiiiina: On the Origin and Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogiiciira Philosophy. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 4. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1987. Willemen, Charles, Bart Dessein, and Collett Cox. Sarviistiviida Buddhist Scholas-ticism. Handbuch der Orientalistik: Abt. IT, Indien, Band 11. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Yamabe Nobuyoshi. "BIja Theory in ViniScayasa7[lgraha/J-f." Indogaku Bukkyo-gaku Kenkyii 38/2 (March 1990): 13-15. "Shilji no honnu to shinkun no mondai ni tsuite." Nihon Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo 54 (May 1989): 43-58. "A Critical Exchange on the Idea of Dhatu-vada: Riposte." In Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism, edited by Jamie Hubbard and Paul L. Swanson, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press (1997): 208-219. "Yugashijiron ni okeru zen aku ingasetsu no ichisokumen." Nihon Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo 65 (May 2000): 127-146. [2000a] -. Review of Rebirth and Causation in the Yogiiciira Abhidharma by Robert Kritzer; Bukkyogaku Seminii 72 (October 2000): 59-69. [2000b] Yin shun. Shuo yi ch'ieh yu pu wei chu te lun shu yu lun shih chih yen chiu. Tai-pei: Cheng wen chu pan she, 1980. Reprint (First edition: Taipei: Hui jih chiang t'ang, 1968). SAUTRANTIKA AND THE III.IDAYA TREATISES BART DESSEIN O. Introduction P'u-kuang's Chii-she Lun Chi, a 7th century commentary on Vasuban-dhu's Abhidhannakosa, contains a passage on the origin of the Sautran-tikas, in Which also the philosophical position of Vasubandhu's Abhi-dhannakosa and of a section of Dhannatrata's *Sal'{lyuktiibhidhannahrdaya are explained.l In this passage, P'u-kuang states that the Sautrantika tra-dition goes back to Kum1iralata and that these Sautrantikas issued from the Sarvastivadi