The Three Natures in the Pancasatika Prajnaparamita

Acta Orientalia Hung. 63/4, pp. 427-442, 2010

It has been generally recognized that the extremely important philosophical sūtras, most of them the oldest surviving texts of Indian philosophical schools, contain some interpolated material. In this paper the suggestion is put forward that their compositeness is of a far more fundamental nature, i.e. during the period of their formation – that could be half a millennium – they were not texts proper but memory aids for students. They must have been something like our handouts (but purely oral at the beginning), with different additions, deletions and interpretations in different places and times, without any fixed order or set number of contributors. The edited form of these texts that has come down to us derives from a late collector-editor who most probably wrote some sort of commentary as well on the sūtras. This unusual textual history suggests that we cannot really speak about the authors, the time of their writing or even their relative priority. Moreover, often there is no point in speaking about the true meaning of a given sentence or paragraph, as it may have had several ones in different historical contexts, and there is no available standard to establish which interpretation is more fundamental or original.

Imre Hamar ed., Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism, Wiesbaden Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007

The Prajñāpāramitā (‘Perfection of Wisdom’) sūtras are a large corpus of Mahāyāna Buddhist texts composed and redacted within the Indian subcontinent for over a thousand year period. The late Edward Conze, the leading modern authority on the Prajñāpāramitā texts, divides the development of this literature into four phases: 1. the elaboration of a basic text (ca. 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.), which constitutes the original impulse; 2. the expansion of that text (ca. 100 A.D. to 300); 3. the restatement of the doctrine in short texts and versified summaries (ca. 300 A.D. to 500); 4. the period of Tantric influence and the absorption into magic (600 A.D. to 1200). Conze identifies the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Aṣṭasahaśrikā-prajñāpāramitā) and its verse summary (the Ratnaguṇa-saṃcaya-gāthā) as representing the earliest strata. While Conze’s assertion of the Aṣṭa’s antiquity has had lasting impact on studies into the origins of the Mahāyāna, modern scholarship’s obsession with origins has caused most contemporary theorists to overlook or ignore the later phases of the Prajñāpāramitā literature’s development in India. By approaching these texts in a more synoptic fashion, I hope to demonstrate in the following pages important thematic continuities within the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras. In order to do this, I treat these texts as literature, which existed within a larger textual and social system (Indian Buddhism). Specifically, I investigate how dialogue is used in the sūtras to establish a particular type of textual authority and how certain commonly occurring characters in the dialogues, such as Śāriputra, Subhuti, and Ānanda, are employed to align the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras more closely to mainstream Buddhist literature. A primary conclusion of this investigation is that the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras to a large extent demonstrate a particular brand of Indian Mahāyāna religious conservatism. Moreover, because this conservatism spans numerous texts within the corpus throughout several centuries, its appearance can not be analyzed solely in terms of a relative chronology vis-à-vis other Mahāyāna sūtras, but must be considered as one particular ideological posture in relation to a spectrum of religious orientations existing (both synchronically and diachronically) within Indian Buddhism.

Four chapters survive of a supposed translation of the Suvarṇaprabhāsottama-sūtra by Paramārtha (499-569). Versions of these chapters are also found in a later Chinese version of the sūtra by Yijing. In earlier work, I have argued that these chapters were most likely composed in China, basing my argument upon extensive verbatim correspondences between these chapters and a number of earlier Chinese texts. However, a significant obstacle still stands in the way of this thesis. A Tibetan version of the sūtra (here called 'Tib II') also includes the same chapters, and Tibetan tradition holds that this version is a translation from Sanskrit. Here, I examine evidence that suggests that these portions of Tib II might in fact be translations from Chinese, despite the reports of Tibetan bibliographers. In closing, I consider some broader implications of my findings.

2014

Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu)

Pramāṇa-valid means of knowledge in the following context-is one of the most widely discussed topics in philosophical Sanskrit writings. In the Pātañjalayogaśāstra (PYŚ)the combination of the so-called Yogasūtra and the so-called Yogabhāṣya 1)-sūtra 1.6 lists the five cittavṛttis (activities of mind): pramāṇa, viparyaya, vikalpa, nidrā, and smṛti. 2) What are accepted as pramāṇa are listed in the next sūtra (1.7). They are: pratyakṣa, anumāna, and āgama. 3) The Bhāṣya on sūtra 1.7 has short discussions on the three. There is a commentary on the PYŚ ascribed to Śaṅkara. We call it the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa (Vivaraṇa). 4) Whether this Śaṅkara is the same Śaṅkara as the author of the Brahmasūtraśāṅkarabhāṣya (BSBh) is still an open question. In order to avoid confusions which work is under discussion, I refer to the author of the Vivaraṇa the V-kāra and that of the BSBh the BSBh-kāra in this article. The V-kāra often devotes substantial amount of text to topics that he deems worthy. 5) Pramāṇa is one of them. Although his goal is essentially to explain and defend the Sūtra and the Bhāṣya, there are many things one can learn about the author in that part of the Vivaraṇa. Below, I will examine the part on pratyakṣa, the first of the three pramāṇas accepted in the Pātañjala system. First I will present how the discussion on pratyakṣa in the Vivaraṇa is structured. Then I will mention two unique positions the Vkāra held. Of the two, the second one might provide a clue to the authorship problem. 2. The Vivaraṇa on Pratyakṣa The part I examine here begins with the introduction of sūtras 1.6 and 7 and ends after the discussion on pratyakṣa in the Vivaraṇa. 6) This section forms a unit. The text of the

Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines, 2023

The Third Karmapa Rang byung rdo rje (1284–1339), hardly needs any introduction. As a proto-type scholar-practitioner, his intellectual activity did not seem to have many limits. This is reflected in the great width and diversity of his interests. This paper will focus on one his rather neglected, but by no means less epical works, the Dam pa'i chos dran pa nye bar bzhag pa'i bstan bcos (henceforth bsTan bcos), together with its 14th century commentary by Shes rab rin chen (henceforth ’Grel pa). It can be counted among the most remarkable writings within the Third Karmapa’s œuvre, bearing testimony to Rang byung rdo rje’s non-sectarian interest in Buddhist writings in general, in this case a rather unique abhidharmic discourse about the three realms. The Saddharmasmṛtyupathānasūtra (henceforth Sūtra) was corrupted and incomplete in Sanskrit already at Rang byung rdo rje’s time. What marks the bsTan bcos as outstanding is Rang byung rdo rje’s eclectic approach in view of the sources he chose to complete, or, in his terms, to ‘restore’ this text, as well as his choice to work on this Sūtra in the first place. His work, besides the ’Grel pa, marks the only known scholarly activity involving the Sūtra, while the bsTan bcos’s short history is itself an unusual curiosum within Tibetan literature and scholarly practice. It is equally a witness of the (re-)establishment of scholarly tradition, as it is to its disappearance. The only discourse in relation to which the bsTan bcos ever has appeared, is marked by Shes rab rin chen’s commentary. Being as much a summary of the original Sanskrit work as being a commentary, it never seems to have gained any atten- tion either. All this makes this unnoticed triple gem of Sūtra, bsTan bcos and ’Grel pa an outstanding example of early ‘Indo-Tibetan eclectic and neglected scholarship’ aimed at restoring incomplete Indian works and to re-establish unique but lost traditions, that never attracted any notable interested or caused any noteworthy scholarly interaction. I will highlight how Rang byung rdo rje, even though claiming the bsTan bcos to be the completion of an incomplete original (much like his Jātakamālā-completion), composed a treatise that in fact established a new discourse. I will analyse the bsTan bcos’s unique character and humble place within scholarly discourse, it’s relation to the Sūtra and the ’Grel pa, and, finally, paraphrase the many unique facets of this neglected triad.

Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu), 2024

The theory of five elements (pañcavastu) – sign (nimitta), name (nāman), conceptual thought (vikalpa), suchness (tathatā) and perfect wisdom (samyagjñāna) – appears in the Mahāyāna texts together with the theory of the three natures (trisvabhāva), which later became a representative of the Yogācāra system. In terms of content, these two theories could be regarded as equal in the sense that both of them describe all phenomena (dharma) existing in either conventional or ultimate level by means of theoretical categorization. From the perspective of the historical development, it is not clear that which of them appeared first. While Funahashi (1972) argues that the three natures theory appeared before the five elements theory, Takahashi (2005), on the other hand, claims that the five elements theory served as a premise for the formation of the three natures theory primarily stated in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra. According to the latter, the first most comprehensive description of the five elements theory was made in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī by Asaṅga; afterward it was either copied or reinterpreted in other texts. This paper demonstrates the differences among the interpretations of the five elements theory throughout the major Yogācāra texts: the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī (VS); the Lankāvatārasūtra (LA); the Madhyāntavibhaṅga (MV) and its commentaries – the Madhyāntavibhaṅgabhāṣya (MVB) by Vasubandhu and the Madhyāntavibhaṅgaṭīka (MVṬ) by Sthiramati. These texts can serve as a sufficient textual evidence for the purpose of this study, since (1) they were composed after the primary formation of the theory, therefore they regard the five elements theory as a complete theoretical framework rather than simply contain miscellaneous mentions of separate concepts; (2) they provide different interpretations which facilitate the rapprochement between the five elements theory and the three natures theory. The current analysis serves as a preliminary textual foundation for a further investigation in terms of the philosophical implications of the diversity of interpretations regarding the theory of five elements. In particular, the current paper tries to provide a rational explanation for the inconsistency of attribution of nimitta (“sign” or “cause”) to either the imagined or the dependent natures. 初期瑜伽行派における五事説の分析 相（nimitta）、名（nāman）、分別（vikalpa）、真如（tathatā）、正智（samyagjñāna）よりなる五法または五事（pañcavastu）の理論は、大乗経典に三性説と共に現れ、後に瑜伽行派の代表的な理論となった。この二つの理論はいずれも世俗または勝義の諸法（dharma）を説明する点で等しい。歴史的にいずれの理論が先に現れたかは明確ではない。舟橋（1972）は三性説が五事説よりも先に現れたと主張するが、高橋（2005）は五事説が『解深密経』三性説の形成の基盤となったと主張している。後者によれば最初の最も包括的な五事説の説明は、アサンガによる『摂決択分』で行われ、それが後代の学者達により再解釈されたという。 本論文は『摂決択分』、『入楞伽経』、『中辺分別論』およびその諸註釈などの瑜伽行派文献に見られる五事説の解釈の違いを示すものである。これらの文献は五事説を完全な形で体系的に示す点で重要であるが、三性説との対応関係については相互に異なった見解を提示するものである。本論文では、五事説に関する多様な解釈に関して基礎的な考察を与える。特に相(nimitta)の概念の多義性（「特徴」「根拠」）に注目し、それを遍計所執性(parikalpitasvabhāva)と依他起性(paratantrasvabhāva)のいずれに含めるかをめぐって文献ごとに異なった解釈が生まれたことについて合理的な説明を試みる。