Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Anachronistic Analogy: Rereading the Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn in the light of Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is a comparative study of two texts separated by a considerable temporal-spatial gap. The methodological approach is, as we would like to define it, a-philological. Five central concepts drawn from the Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn (大乘起信論, *Mahāyānaśraddhotpādaśāstra, QXL), traditionally associated with Aśvaghoṣa (1st-2nd cent. CE), Paramārtha (499–569 CE), and Śikṣānanda (652–710 CE), shall be examined against the related ideas found in Ratnākaraśānti’s (970–1045 CE) Prajñāpāramitopadeśa (PPU). Our observations are the following: 1) The two dimensions of the single mind (一心二門, yīxīn èrmén) advocated in the QXL are doctrinally identical to the two forms (rūpa) of the dependent nature (paratantrasvabhāva) in the PPU. 2) The intermingling mind (和合識, héhé shí) which is taken as ālayavijñāna (阿梨耶識, ālíyē shí) in the QXL, corresponds to the imagination of the unreal (abhūtaparikalpa) in the PPU. 3) The mutual perfuming of the real and the unreal (真妄互熏, zhēnwàng hùxūn) is in essence the same as the false inseparability (tādātmya) of clear light (prakāśa) and image (ākāra) in the PPU. 4) The essence of perception (覺性, juéxìng) and its synonyms used in the QXL, its commentarial literature and other related texts, find equivalents such as prakāśamānatā, prakāśātmatā, saṃvedyatā, buddhilakṣaṇa, in the PPU. 5) The concept of activated perception (始覺, shǐjué) in the QXL sheds light on a puzzling word in the PPU, arvāk, which can be interpreted as the opposite of “suddenly” (忽然, hūrán) in the QXL. Our investigation reaffirms the philosophical value as well as the religious legitimacy of the QXL, and it underscores the significance of the late mādhyamika texts for Buddhist Studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ōtake (2017).

  2. だが、 本書と『起信論』について、 今後どのような議論が展開されるとしても、 『起信論』 は六世紀中頃に中国北地で菩提流支や勒那摩提の訳書や講義錄に接していた中国僧によってまとめられたという大竹の結論が動くことはないだろう。 (Isshi 2018, p. 8)

  3. Our very brief remarks on previous studies here and in the following are basically a repetition of the accepted conclusions and are obviously incomplete. Navigating through the huge quantity of related literature would be a formidable task; indeed, a critical review of all earlier studies would demand a separate volume.

  4. Mou (2005, pp. 221–222).

  5. Mou (2005, p. 241).

  6. Fu (1990, p. 147).

  7. Izutsu (1993).

  8. In this discussion most observations will be based on Paramārtha’s translation. Comparisons to that of Śikṣānanda will not be mentioned unless deemed important to the discussion.

  9. By major commentaries, we refer here to the early ones: (1) Tányán’s (曇延, 516–588) Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yìshū (大乘起信論義疏, X45.755), which interprets PA’s translation; (2) the so-called “Three Commentaries on the QXL” (起信三疏, Qǐxìn Sānshū): The Jìngyǐng shū (淨影疏), i.e., Huìyuǎn’s (慧遠 523‒592) Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yìshū (大乘起信論義疏, T44.1843), the Hǎidōng shū (海東疏), i.e., Wŏnhyo’s (元曉, 617–686) Qǐxìn lùn shū (起信論疏, T44.1844), and the Xiánshǒu shū (賢首疏), i.e., Fǎzàng’s (法藏, 643‒712) Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yìjì (大乘起信論義記, T44.1846); (3) the Kyō’u Library’s commentary fragment, which Ikeda (2012, p. 166) considers earlier than Tányán’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yìshū; (4) Wŏnhyo’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn biéjì (大乘起信論別記, T44.1845) and Fǎzàng’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yì biéjì (大乘起信論義別記, T44.1847); and (5) Tánkuàng’s (曇曠, 705–790) Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn guǎngshì (大乘起信論廣釋, T85.2814).

  10. All the PPU passages in this paper are quoted from Luo (forthcoming). In the quotations, while the critical apparatus is not reproduced, significant variants are presented and discussed.

  11. We translate 覺 (jué) as perception. This is to emphasize the connotation that there is no fundamental difference in the direct experience of objects between the enlightened and the unenlightened.

  12. The term 解性 (jiěxìng) is found also in other related texts, as for instance, in the Dunhuang manuscript of the Shèdàshèng lùn chāo (攝大乘論抄), T85.2806.

  13. This is attested in Wŏnhyo’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn biéjì. There are other synonyms used by early commentators: 照性 (zhàoxìng, Kyō’u: 135, TYS: 156c24), 照解 (zhàojiě, JYS: 183b25), 覺性 (juéxìng, JYS: 185c29, HDS: 211b7), and 照察之性 (zhàocházhīxìng, XSS: 260b26).

  14. The QXL passages discussed below are from Akashi (1994). My English interpretation is based on Paramārtha’s Chinese translation.

  15. 所言法者。 謂眾生心。 是心則攝一切世間法出世間法。 依於此心。 顯示摩訶衍義。 何以故。 是心真如相即示摩訶衍體故。 是心生滅因緣相能示摩訶衍自體相用故。 (QXL: 6)

  16. 顯示正義者。 依一心法。 有二種門。 云何為二。 一者。 心真如門。 二者。 心生滅門。 是二種門皆各總攝一切法。 此義云何。 以是二門不相離故。 (QXL: 8)

  17. tatra ye traidhātukā dharmā asati dvaye dvayapratibhāsāḥ so ’bhūtaparikalpaḥ | tasya yathāpratibhāsaṃ manojalpaiḥ kalpitaṃ dvayaṃ grāhyagrāhakaṃ parikalpitaḥ svabhāvaḥ | tenaiva dvayena tasya śūnyatā pariniṣpannaḥ svabhāvaḥ || (Luo, forthcoming).

  18. See, Luo (forthcoming). In this critical edition of the PPU, two extant manuscripts, both incomplete, are drawn upon. Manuscript B does not contain this passage, manuscript A reads saṃvṛtisan; this emendation is based on the Tibetan translation and the context.

  19. tatrādyaḥ prajñaptisad bālānāṃ tathaiva pratīteḥ, na dravyasan nāpi paramārthasat | dvitīyaḥ pratītyasamutpannatvād dravyasan na prajñaptisat | tṛtīyaḥ paramārthasad viśuddhyālambanatvāt, viśuddhaya ālambanaṃ na saṃkleśāyeti kṛtvā | paratantro ’pi svabhāvaḥ pariniṣpannena rūpeṇālambyamānaḥ paramārthasad bhavati | parikalpitena tu rūpeṇālambyamānaḥ saṃvṛtisad eva saṃkleśālambanatvāt, saṃkleśāyālambanaṃ na viśuddhaya iti kṛtvā || (Luo, forthcoming).

  20. yathā cālīkasya gotvasya gobuddhau prakāśas tādātmyaṃ ca na ca tadavyatirekād vastutvam anāropitatvaṃ vā tathā nīlādiprakāśe nīlādīnām alīkānāṃ prakāśasiddhyaiva tādātmyasiddhiḥ | nānārūpaniṣṭhayor alīkatvānalīkatvayor ekatrāpi vastuny avirodhāt | yadi ca vastutve ’nāropitatve vā sādhye tādātmyamātraṃ hetus tadā gotvādibhir anekāntaḥ | athānāropitaṃ tādātmyaṃ hetus tad asiddham | tasmād avasthitam etad grāhyagrāhakaśūnyaṃ vijñaptimātram amī sarvadharmā iti || (Luo, forthcoming).

  21. For the twofold structure, that is, the twofold functioning of the abhūtaparikalpa, see below.

  22. ataś ca yogācārāṇāṃ mādhyamikānāṃ ca samānaḥ siddhāntaḥ | etāvāṃs tu viśeṣaleśaḥ | bālagrāhyeṇa rūpeṇa dharmāṇām asattvaṃ tasyālīkatvāt | prakāśaś‹a›rīreṇa tu sattvam eva hetuphalabhāvaniyamāt | nijasvarūpasaṃvittau ca bhrāntyayogād iti yogācārāḥ || mādhyamikās tu prakṛtitvād anāropitatvād abhrāntinimittenāpi prakāśaśarīreṇa dharmāṇāṃ na sattvaṃ nāsattvam | sato ’pi tatra hetuphalabhāvasya svasaṃvedanasya ca sūkṣmavicārāsahatvād iti manyante || (Luo, forthcoming).

  23. evam abhūtaparikalpe trayaḥ svabhāvāḥ saṅgrahītāḥ. (Yamaguchi 1934, p. 23)

  24. 如攝論說。 三性相望。 不異非不異。 應如是說。 若能解此三性不一不異義者。 百家之諍。 無所不和也。 (WBJ: 227c20–22)

  25. Luo (2018, pp. 578–582).

  26. Luo (forthcoming a).

  27. … sa khalv ajaḍam aparokṣaṃ parisphuṭaṃ rūpam … The passage in its entirety is quoted and discussed below.

  28. 第三十一。 二諦無礙。 說有二門。 一約喻。 二就法。 一約喻者。 且如幼兔依巾有二門。 一兔。二巾。 兔亦二義。 一相差別義。 二體空義。 巾亦二義。 一住自位義。 二舉體兔義。 此巾與兔。 非一非異。 ······ 第二就法說者。 巾喻真如如來藏。 兔喻眾生生死等。 ······ (FBJ: 294a23–294b21)

  29. 問曰。 真妄相違。 無相合理。 何故言一心。 答曰。 隨妄義邊。 終日成妄而不妨真。 全真義邊。 終日令真而不妨妄。 如柱。 實法義邊。 全滅無有續轉。 假名義邊。 全轉無有滅義。 而不相礙。 有為尚在轉滅二義不相礙妨。 何況真心有二義乎。 (JYS: 179c20–25)

  30. See below, fn. 48.

  31. For recent discussions of ālayavijñāna, see Schmithausen 2014 (summarized in Schmithausen 2018), Eltschinger (2016), and Yamabe (2018).

  32. 心生滅者, 依如來藏故有生滅心。 所謂不生不滅與生滅和合。 非一非異。 名為阿梨耶識。 (QXL: 12)

  33. 破和合識相。 滅相續心相。 顯現法身。 智淳淨故。 (QXL: 15)

  34. Ikeda (2012, p. 79).

  35. 所謂不生不滅與生滅和合者。 謂前如來藏與生滅心雖復不一。 以無異體故而常和合。 不相雜也。 論其生滅。 由於熏習。 不生滅者。 心性自爾。 無有變遷故也。 非一者。 生滅義與不生滅功能義別。 不可一也。 非異者。 義雖不同。 而熏習無有別體可異識性也。 如風依水。 風以動為義。 水以濕為義。 動與濕義不可令一。 窮其異體。 無可相異。 藏與生滅亦復如是。 名為阿梨耶識者。 以義證名也。 依此無始客塵熏習本覺。 此之本覺不守自性。 隨他熏習。 有緣起功能。 即此和合生滅功能者。 名為和合識也。 若依三藏法師九識章內。 名無沒識。 以能攝持無始善惡三性種子。 為因不亡。 得果必然。 無有失沒。 名無沒也。 (Kyō’u, p. 122)

  36. It is possible that 雜 (zá) is a misreading of 離 (lí) in the Hane 333 verso. Alternatively, a miscopying of 雜 for 離 had already crept into the manuscript. Doctrinally speaking, both readings make sense. Nonetheless, we have, not being able to check the original manuscript for the moment, chosen 雜 as the preferential reading, as it is unusually illuminating regarding the paradoxical constitution of the ālayavijñāna. See also fn. 77 for Huìyuǎn’s analysis of the relationship between the real and the unreal.

  37. See Apte (2003, p. 359).

  38. Ikeda (2012, pp. 98–100) was able to show the possible influence of the anonymous Kyō’u commentary on the XSS.

  39. 第三立名。 名為阿梨耶識。 然此生滅不生滅。 即之義不一。 辨之心不異。 目此二義不二之心。 名阿梨耶識。 又阿梨耶及阿賴耶者。 但梵言訛也。 梁朝真諦三藏訓名翻為無沒識。 今時奘法師就義翻為藏識。 但藏是攝藏義。 無沒是不失義。 義一名異也。 (XSS: 255b29–255c6)

  40. In Apte (2003, p. 359), ālayam is registered as an indeclinable, although āṅ is in the sense of abhividhi.

  41. punar asau trividhaḥ | ālayavijñānaṃ kliṣṭamanaḥ pravṛttivijñānaṃ ceti | tatra sarvasāṃkleśikadharmavāsanādhāratvād ālayaḥ, svarūpopalambhād vijñānam | ātmamoha ātmadṛṣṭir ātmasneha ātmamānaś ceti caturbhir ebhiḥ kleśaiḥ sadā samprayuktatvāt kliṣṭam, aham iti nityaṃ mananātmakatvān manaḥ | punaḥ punar bhāvāt pravṛttiḥ, viṣayopalambhād vijñānam | tatrādyaṃ pratiṣṭhābhogadehanirbhāsam | pratiṣṭhā bhājanalokaḥ, ‹bhogaḥ› ‹pa›ñca viṣayāḥ, dehaḥ pañcendriyāṇi, tatpratibhāsaṃ tadākāram | pravṛttivijñānaṃ ṣaḍ vijñānakāyāḥ || (Luo, forthcoming).

  42. kā tasya vyāvṛttiḥ | āśrayaparāvṛttiḥ | cittasantānalakṣaṇasyāśrayasya saṃkleśāṃśena nivṛttiḥ, vyavadānāṃśena tu pravṛttir eva yāvadākāśam | sarvasāṃkleśikadharmabījānāṃ vāsanānāṃ tadānīṃ samucchedāt tadādhāralakṣaṇam ālayavijñānatvam āśrayasya tadā prahīyate | bījakṣayāc ca sarve sāṃkleśikā dharmā notpadyante | sa cāśrayas tadānīm anāsravo dhātur ity ucyate | sa cākāśavad ekarasaḥ | pratiṣṭhābhogadehanirbhāsānāṃ jñānānāṃ bījakṣayād anutpatter vimuktikāya iti cocyate || (Luo, forthcoming).

  43. In his commentary on the Khasamatantra, Ratnākaraśānti offers a similar description; see Isaacson (2013, pp. 1043‒1044).

  44. tasmāc cittamātraṃ vijñānamātraṃ prakāśamātraṃ sarvadharmāḥ | nāsti bāhyārtho vijñaptigrāhyaḥ, nāpi vijñaptīnāṃ grāhakaḥ svabhāvo ’sti | tad ubhayaṃ dharmāṇāṃ parikalpitaḥ svabhāvaḥ, manojalpaiḥ parikalpitatvāt | kva kalpitatvāt | parikalpitasvabhāvābhiniveśavāsanābalād utpanne vināpy artham arthākāre ’bhūtaparikalpe | sa cābhūtaparikalpaḥ paratantraḥ svabhāvo dharmāṇām, bhrāntir viparyāso mithyājñānam | tathā hi yas tatra grāhyākāro grāhakākāraś ca so ’py alīka eva | kevalaṃ bhrāntivaśād viplavavaśād abhūtaparikalpas tathā prakhyāti | abhūtaṃ tat tasya rūpam | bhūtaṃ kim | prakāśamātram | ata eva sa ākāro bhrāntinimittaṃ prapañcanimittam ucyate, bhrāntyālambanatvāt | dvayanimittam apy ucyate, dvayapratirūpakatvāt || (Luo, forthcoming).

  45. 此識有二種義。 能攝一切法。 生一切法。 云何為二。 一者覺義。 二者不覺義。 (QXL: 12)

  46. paratantra eva svabhāvo ’bhūtaparikalpa ucyate | abhūtaṃ parikalpyate ’sminn abhūtaṃ vānena parikalpayatīti kṛtvā | (Luo, forthcoming).

  47. As a separate word, pariṇāma appears thrice, in kārikās 1, 8, and 18.

  48. puṃsi saṃjñāyāṃ ghaḥ prāyena || A 3.3.118 || The edition and English translation are from Sharma (1995, p. 546).

  49. vijñānapariṇāmo ’yaṃ vikalpo yad vikalpyate | tena tan nāsti tenedaṃ sarvaṃ vijñaptimātrakam || (TrŚ: 108)

  50. See CWSL: 38c18–25.

  51. See CWSL: 38c25–39a4.

  52. yo ’yaṃ vijñānapariṇāmas trividho ’nantaram abhihitaḥ so ’yaṃ vikalpaḥ. … tena trividhena vikalpenālayavijñānakliṣṭamanaḥpravṛttivijñānasvabhāvena sasamprayogeṇa yad vikalpyate bhājanam ātmāskandhadhātvāyatanarūpaśabdādikaṃ vastu tan nastīty ataḥ sa vijñānapariṇāmo vikalpa ucyate. (TrBh: 108) Kuījī assigned this to Dharmapāla and also linked Sthiramati to this position: 此護法解第四句。 兼釋外難訖。 安惠隨應解假實等。 (CWSLSJ: 487b19–20). He attributed the second interpretation to Nanda and others: 下難陀等第二解。 (CWSLSJ: 487b27)

  53. Luo (2018, pp. 604–610).

  54. 由斯遠離增減二邊。 唯識義成。 契會中道。 (CWSL: 39a4)

  55. By supplying understood wordings, the different interpretations can be highlighted. The first: 是諸識轉變: 分別, [及分別]所分別, 由此, 彼[我法]皆無, 故一切唯識. The second: 是諸識轉變[乃]分別, 所分別由此[分別], 彼[所分別]皆無, 故一切唯識. For another example of Xuánzàng’s skill in translating versified text that can be interpreted in more than one way, see Luo (2018, pp. 596–598).

  56. 遮離能變等識外實我法名為唯識。 非不離識心所及見相分色真如等。 故不離識名唯識也。 (CWSLSJ: 487b17–19)

  57. For the term 唯二 (wéièr), see CWSLLYD: 786b2–11.

  58. 下難陀等第二解。 初是諸識言。 同前師解。 故不重述。 言轉變者。 即前三能變內見分識能轉依他相分。 似外境相現。 唯有見相之內識。 都無所變之外境。 外境通有能取所取。 此依攝論等說唯二義。 不說自證分師義。 前師別也。 即能遍計及所遍計法。 其能取所取皆是心所變相分上妄執別有。 設執見分為我為法。 亦於心所變上執故。 無非所緣故。 以是諸識有轉似外境之功名為轉變。 即解第一句訖。 (CWSLSJ: 487b27–487c7)

  59. 唯言不遮不離識法。 其真如及心所等。 亦不離識故。 體皆有。 今此但遮離識所分別有。 不遮不離識真如等有。 如理應知。 即解第四句訖。 此意既有能變分別識及所變境依他相。 所分別心外實法等決定皆無。 故唯有識。 真如。 心所等皆不離識。 亦是實有。 此文但說有漏位故。 立分別名。 (CWSLSJ: 488a1–7)

  60. 初中。 言此識有二種義。 能攝一切法。 生一切者。 能攝之義如前已說。 然說二門各攝一切。 今明一識含有二義。 故一識能攝一切。 不言二義各攝一切。 以此二種唯在生滅門內義故。 又此二義不能各攝一切法故。 又復上於二門。 但說攝義。 以真如門中無能生義故。 今於此識亦說生義。 以上生滅門中。 方有能生義故。 (WBJ: 229b28-229c5) Fǎzàng’s comment is also illuminating; see XSS: 256a28–256b10.

  61. TrŚ: 147.

  62. TrŚc: 60a27–28.

  63. La Vallée Poussin (1928, p. 6).

  64. La Vallée Poussin (1928, p. 6).

  65. However, it is not absolutely certain that this is how La Vallée Poussin understood it; he may have considered it a genitive tatpuruṣa.

  66. 第三句云。 彼我法相。 依內識等所變現相而起假說。 我法諸相。 非依離識實有我法而起假說。 但依內識所變相見而假說故。 ······ 又第二解。 世間所執我法體無。 依識所變妄情為緣。 而起於執。 妄情所執是世我法。 然體無故。 以無依有。 依內妄情說為我法。 (CWSLSJ: 238b3–23)

  67. 此者。 即識之所變也。 彼我法相依識所變。 此識所變之能變有三種。 三法轉相依也。 (CWSLSJ: 238c14–15)

  68. vijñānapariṇāmaḥ katibheda iti na jñāyate | atas tatprabhedopadarśanārtham āha | pariṇāmaḥ sa ca tridhā || yatrātmādyupacāro dharmopācaraś ca | sa punar hetubhāvena phalabhāvena ca bhidyate | (TrBh: 48)

  69. 安惠解云。 何名轉變。 謂是三識自體皆轉變似見相二分。 識自體分名為轉變。 轉變者變現義。 即識自體現似二相。 實非二相。 其實二相即所執故。 即遍計所執似依他有。 理實無也。 或轉變者是變異義。 謂一識體變異為見相二分用起也。 護法菩薩解云。 又轉變者是改轉義。 謂一識體改轉為二相起。 異於自體。 即見有能取之用。 相有質礙用等。 由識自體轉起能取及有礙故。 或變是現義。 如初卷解。 今取自體能轉變也。 此即解第一句頌訖。 (CWSLSJ: 487a6–487a16)

  70. The following is quoted from Luo (forthcoming b).

  71. Watson (2014, p. 419).

  72. Watson (2014, p. 419, fn. 43).

  73. For a more detailed discussion, see Luo (forthcoming a).

  74. For instance, Wŏnhyo’s interpretation; see WBJ: 239a21–26.

  75. 復次。 有四種法熏習義故。 染法淨法起不斷絕。 云何為四。 一者。 淨法。 名為真如。 二者。 一切染因。 名為無明。 三者。 妄心。 名為業識。 四者。 妄境界。 所謂六塵。 熏習義者。 如世間衣服。 實無於香。 若人以香而熏習故。 則有香氣。 此亦如是。 真如淨法。 實無於染。 但以無明而熏習故。 則有染相。 無明染法實無淨業。 但以真如而熏習故。 則有淨用。 (QXL: 30)

  76. “但 《起信》 所举熏习的比喻为‘如香熏衣’, 那末能熏与被熏如何交互呢? 难道衣能反过来熏香吗? 香上还会留有衣的痕迹吗?” (Lǚ 1991, pp. 352–353).

  77. As Huìyuǎn puts it: The real mind also constitutes two senses: the sense of correspondence, i.e., the intermingling of the real and the unreal, and the sense of non-correspondence, i.e., the polarity between the real and the unreal. (真識之中亦有兩義。 真妄和合名相應義。 真妄性別名不相應。) (JYS: 188b9–10)

  78. katham asāv alīkaḥ prakāśate | alīkenaiva prakāśātmatvena | tathā hi vijñānam eva prakāśarūpatvāt prakāśamānam anādibhrāntivāsanopaplavād bhrāntam alīkair nīlādibhir ākāraiḥ prakhyāti svapnādivat | nīlādiprakāśasya siddhatvāt | prakāśātmatām antareṇa tadayogāt | prakāśamānasyāpi nīlāder bādhakād alīkatvasiddheḥ | tatsiddhau tādātmyasyāpy alīkatvasiddheḥ || (Luo, forthcoming).

  79. WBJ: 227b11.

  80. 所攝名藏。 謂諸眾生取為我故。 所以然者。 良以真心不守自性。 隨熏和合。似一似常。 故諸愚者以似為真。 取為內我。 我見所攝。 故名為藏。 (XSS: 255c6–9)

  81. The text as given in Jñānaśrīmitra’s Sākārasiddhiśāstra and Ratnakīrti’s Citrādvaitaprakāśavāda reads gavārthāvasāyaḥ, which is the same as the reading in manuscript A of the PPU. The emendation is based on the Tibetan translation and the consistent usage of the word adhyavasāya in the following text: bhrāntyādhyavasāyāt and pratibhāsādhyavasāyau.

  82. tasmād aśeṣagovyaktisādhāraṇena gotvena gobuddhir alīkena sābhilāpena rūpeṇa viplavāt prakhyātīti tathāprakhyānam asyā gavārthādhyavasāya ity eṣṭavyam | evaṃ hy ete doṣā na syuḥ | apratibhāsamānasyāpi svalakṣaṇasya bhrāntyādhyavasāyāt || buddhiviplavo hi bhrāntiḥ | tatra yad agovyāvṛttilakṣaṇasya gotvasyobhayatra tādātmyaṃ tādātmyāc ca pratibhāsādhyavasāyau sarvo ’yaṃ buddhiviplavo na vastutattvam, ato na dūṣyaḥ | buddhiviplavānām ayathātattvaṃ yathāpratīti vyavasthāpanāt, tathāpratīter anubhavasiddhatvena vyavahārāṅgatvena durapahnavatvāt, yathātattvaṃ cāyogāt, agovyāvṛttimātre cādhyavasite tanmātrapratibandhe sati saṃvādopapatteḥ || (Luo, forthcoming).

  83. 如大海水。 因風波動。 水相風相。 不相捨離。 (QXL: 16)

  84. 所謂不生不滅與生滅和合。 非一非異。 名為阿梨耶識者 此不生滅。 即上如來藏。 言生滅者。 是上不生滅心之生滅。 言與和合者。 不生滅心動作生滅名之曰與。 此生滅之心。 心之生滅。 不相捨離。 名為和合。 如下論云。 如大海水因風波動。 水相風相不相捨離。 此中水之動是風相。 動之濕是水相。 雖有二相。 而無二體。 故不相離。 心亦如是。 心之生滅。 依無明成。 生滅之心。 從本覺成。 而無二體。 不相捨離。 故為和合。 正是不生滅與生滅和合。 非是生滅與不生滅和合也。 (WBJ: 0228c12–21) See also a parallel in the HDS (208b8–208c3)

  85. 言非一非異者。 此心與生滅非一故。 恒不失不生滅性。 又心與生滅非異故。 亦舉體作生滅相。 若是一者。 作生滅時。 失不生滅。 如其異者。 此不生滅不作生滅。 故言非一非異。 雖有二義。 心體無二。 (WBJ: 228c21–25)

  86. 不生滅者。 是上如來藏清淨心。 動作生滅。 不相離故。 云和合。 非謂別有生滅來與真合。 謂生滅之心。 心之生滅。 無二相故。 心之生滅。 因無明成。 生滅之心。 從本覺起。 而無二體。 不相捨離。 故云和合 …… 不生滅心舉體動故。 心不離生滅相。 生滅之相莫非真故。 生滅不離於心相。 如是不離名為和合。 此是不生滅心與生滅合。 以是隨緣門故。 非是生滅與不生滅合。 以此非是向本真如門故。 (XSS: 254c9–22)

  87. 所言覺義者。 謂心體離念。 離念相者。 等虛空界無所不遍。 法界一相。 即是如來平等法身。 依此法身說名本覺。 何以故。 本覺義者。 對始覺義說。 以始覺者即同本覺。 始覺義者。 依本覺故而有不覺。 依不覺故說有始覺。 (QXL: 12–13)

  88. 言本覺者。 謂此心性離不覺相。 是覺照性。 名為本覺。 如下文云。 所謂自體有大智惠光明義故。 言始覺者。 即此心體。 隨無明緣。 動作妄念。 而以本覺熏習力故。 稍有覺用。 乃至究竟。 還同本覺。 是名始覺。 (WBJ: 230a17–21)

  89. 問。 為當心體只無不覺故名本覺。 為當心體有覺照用名為本覺。 若言只無不覺名本覺者。 可亦無覺照故是不覺。 若言有覺照故名本覺者。 未知此覺為斷惑不。 若不斷惑。 則無照用。 如其有斷。 則無凡夫。 答。 非但無闇。 亦有明照。 以有照故。 亦有斷惑。 (WBJ: 230b2–8)

  90. 等虗空界者。 此示與虗空同相也。 虗空有兩義。 一周遍義。 二無差別義。 本覺亦爾。 以二義同故。 取之為況。 無所不遍者。 此即第一周遍義。 示此心性。 通為一切眾生體因。 此故說一切眾生皆有佛性。 法界一相者。 即是第二無差別義。 以一切法同一性故。 界者性也。 即是如來平等法身者。 轉名以顯。 即此心體解性與真如平等。 故名為法身也。 (TYS: 159c14–21)

  91. 依此法身說名本覺者。 以此法身無始法爾照性不改。 故約此體說名本覺。 (TYS: 159c23–24)

  92. kāśṛ dīptau (Dhātupāṭha 1.678, 4.53), Böhtlingk (1998, pp. 66, 73).

  93. 自性清淨心者。 示此本覺在具縛眾生中照性不改。 如海水清淨也。 (Kyō’u: 135)

  94. Hirakawa et al. (1973, p. 243).

  95. Hirakawa et al. (1977, pp. 109–110).

  96. Ueda et al. (2003, p. 828).

  97. Yokoyama & Hirosawa (1997, p. 184).

  98. For other possible equivalents as suggested in previous studies, see Keng (2009, pp. 399–400).

  99. 覺者解也。 非是修習生用為解故名解也。 斯乃異於木石等故心神為解。 又復對於無明闇。 故名之為解。 (JYS: 182c19–22)

  100. atha vijñānamātrasvabhāvā eta iti kātra yuktiḥ | ucyate | iha prakāśamānānāṃ dharmāṇām anubhavasiddha ātmabhūtaḥ prakāśaḥ prakāśamānatā prakhyānaṃ pratibhāsanam | sa khalv ajaḍam aparokṣaṃ parisphuṭaṃ rūpam | tadasiddhau cāprakāśamānasya kasyacid asiddheḥ sarvāsiddhiprasaṅgaḥ | siddhau tad eva jñānam iti jñānasvabhāvāḥ sarvadharmāḥ siddhāḥ || (Luo, forthcoming).

  101. tad atyantam asaṃgatam | vedyamāneṣv artheṣv anubhavasiddhasya prakāśātmano brahmaṇāpi nikṣeptum aśakyatvāt | tadabhāve ca nīlādisaṃvidaḥ śakreṇāpi kartum aśakyatvāt | jñānotpattāv api nīlādeḥ parokṣātmanāparisphuṭa eva rūpe sthitatvāt | evaṃ jñānasya tajjñānotpattāv api | tato na jñānaṃ nāpy arthaḥ prakāśata ity andhamūkaṃ jagat syāt || (Luo, forthcoming).

  102. WBJ: 227b11.

  103. 益彼真如解性之力。 損彼無明迷闇之相。 (TKS: 1123b28)

  104. 所謂心性常無念。 故名為不變。 以不達一法界故。 心不相應。 忽然念起。 名為無明。 (QXL: 25)

  105. 心不相應者。 此心與無明無有能所相應也。 忽然念起者。 示此妄心以不覺為體也。 (Kyō’u: 161)

  106. 第二中言心不相應者。 明此無明最極微細。 未有能所王數差別。 故言心不相應。 唯此為本。 無別染法能細於此在其前者。 以是義故說忽然起。 如本業經言。 四住地前更無法起。 故名無始無明住地。 是明其前無別為始。 唯此為本。 故言無始。 猶是此論忽然義也。 此約細麁相依之門說為無前。 亦言忽然起。 非約時節以說忽然起。 (HDS: 214c25–215a3)

  107. XSS: 267a18–29.

  108. 以從本來念念相續。 未曾離念故。 說無始無明。 (QXL: 14) 以如來藏無前際故。 無明之相亦無有始。 (QXL: 52)

  109. api ca yadi bhrāntāḥ sarve cittacaittāḥ kas tarhi teṣāṃ pratipakṣaḥ | bhrāntir eva yathodāraṃ vipakṣo yathāsūkṣmaṃ pratipakṣa iti cet | antyā tarhi bhrāntir niṣpratipakṣeti na cittacaittānām abhāvaḥ || (Luo, forthcoming).

  110. sarvāṇi prapañcanimittāni lokottare jñāne ’staṅgacchanti | tena tad abhrāntaṃ samyagjñānaṃ cocyate | ata eva tad api pariniṣpannaḥ svabhāvo ’viparyāsapariniṣpattyā, abhrāntataiva tasya pariniṣpattiḥ | tathatā tu pariniṣpannaḥ svabhāvo ’vikārapariniṣpattyā, nirvikārataiva hi tasyāṃ pariniṣpattiḥ | vikalpahetavaḥ pare ’nādimattvāt | samyagjñānahetavo ’pare ’rvāktadabhyāsāt | tasmād abhūtaparikalpa eva paratantro na samyagjñānam || (Luo, forthcoming).

  111. The combination of the instrumental and the locative is taken as an etymological gloss of the relative truth in Jñānagarbha’s Satyadvayavibhāga, verse 15; see Eckel (1987, pp. 85, 170–171). For a further discussion of the combination locative plus locative to denote the nirvikāratā of the perfect nature, see Luo (forthcoming c).

  112. Cardona (2011, pp. 125–126).

  113. Luo (2014, pp. 21, 24–25). The translation quoted here has undergone minor stylistic revisions.

  114. We have largely internalized the causes behind the “system sui generis” as suggested by Zürcher (2007, p. 1).

  115. For recent studies on Buddhism’s Sinification, see A Distant Mirror: Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism. (Eds.) Lin, Chen-kuo and Radich, Michael, Hamburg Buddhist Studies 3, (2014), Hamburg University Press.

Abbreviations and sigla

  • A: Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī (Sharma 1995)

  • QXL: The Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn (《大乘起信論》, Akashi 1994)

  • Kyō’u: Anonymous’ (fl., 564–588) *Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn shū (*《〈大乘起信論〉疏》, Ikeda 2012: 106–164)

  • TYS (《曇延疏》): Tányán’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yìshū (《〈大乘起信論〉義疏》X45.755)

  • JYS (《淨影疏》): Huìyuǎn’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yìshū (《〈大乘起信論〉義疏》T44.1843)

  • HDS (《海東疏》): Wŏnhyo’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yìshū (《〈起信論〉義疏》T44.1844)

  • WBJ: Wŏnhyo’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn biéjì (《〈大乘起信論〉別記》T44.1845)

  • XSS (《賢首疏》): Fǎzàng’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn yìjì (《〈大乘起信論〉義記》T44.1846)

  • FBJ: Fǎzàng’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn biéjì (《〈大乘起信論〉別記》T44.1847)

  • TKS: Tánkuàng’s Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn guǎngshì (《〈大乘起信論〉廣釋》T85.2814)

  • TrŚ: Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā (Buescher 2007: 38–143)

  • TrŚc: Xuánzàng’s translation of TrŚ (《唯識三十論頌》T31.1586)

  • TrBh: Sthiramati’s Triṃśikābhāṣya (Buescher 2007: 38–143)

  • CWSL: Xuánzàng’s Chéngwéishí lùn (《成唯識論》T31.1585)

  • CWSLSJ: Kuījī’s (窥基, 632–69) Chéngwéishí lùn shùjì (《〈成唯識論〉述記》T43.1830)

  • CWSLLYD: Huìzhǎo’s (惠沼, 651–714) Chéngwéishí lùn liǎoyìdēng (《〈成唯識論〉了義燈》T43.1832)

  • PPU: Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa (Luo, forthcoming)

Bibliography

  • Akashi, E. (明石 惠達) (1994). 『『大乘起信論』(兩譯對照內容分科)』. 永田文昌堂.

  • Apte, V. S. (2003). The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary (revised and enlarged version). Kyoko: Rinsen Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhtlingk, O. (1998). Pāṇini’s Grammatik (Abteilung I & II). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buescher, H. (2007). Sthiramati’s Triṃśikāvijñaptibhāṣya: Critical Editions of the Sanskrit Text and its Tibetan Translation. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cardona, G. (2011). Pāṇini and Pāṇinīyas on śeṣa relations. In P. C. Muraleemadhavan (Ed.), Indological Research Different Standpoints (pp. 92–128). Kerala: Department of Sanskrit Sahitya, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, Kerala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, M. D. (1987). Jñānagarbha’s Commentary on the Distinction between the Two Truths: An Eighth Century Handbook of Madhyamaka Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eltschinger, V. (2016). Dharmakīrti and His Commentators’ Views on the Transformation of the Basis and the Status of the Ālayavijñāna. International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture, 26(2), 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, C. W. (傅 偉勳) (1990).《大乘起信論》義理新探. 中華佛學學報, 3, 117–147.

  • Hirakawa, A. (平川 彰) et al. (1973). Index to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (P. Pradhan Edition), Part One, Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese. Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan Kabushikikaisha.

  • Hirakawa, A. (平川 彰) et al. (1977). Index to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (P. Pradhan Edition), Part Two, Chinese-Sanskrit. Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan Kabushikikaisha.

  • Ikeda, M. (池田 將則) (2012). On the Dunhuang Manuscript Dasheng qixin lun shu 大乘起信論疏 (provisional title; hane 羽 333 verso) Belonging to the Kyō’u 杏雨 Library. Critical Review for Buddhist Studies, 12, 45–167.

  • Isaacson, H. (2013). Yogācāra and Vajrayāna according to Ratnākaraśānti. In Ulrich Timme Kragh (Ed.), The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners, The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet (pp. 1036–1051). Harvard University Press.

  • Ishii, K. (石井 公成) (2018). 大竹晋『大乗起信論成立問題の研究:『大乗起信論』は漢文仏教文献からのパッチワーク』. 駒澤大学仏敎学部研究紀要, 76, 1–9.

  • Izutsu, Toshihiko (井筒 俊彦) (1993). 『意識の形而上学 -『大乗起信論』の哲学』. 中央公論社.

  • Keng, C. (耿 晴) (2009). Yogācāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramārtha (499–569) and His Chinese Interpreters. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.

  • Lǚ, C. (呂 澂) (1991). 大乘起信论考证. In《呂澂佛學論著選集》第一卷 (pp. 303–369). 齊魯書社.

  • Luo, H. (羅 鴻) (2014). The opening verses of Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa. In Maitreya Studies (pp. 17–29). Beijing: Zhōngguó Wénshǐ Chūbǎnshè.

  • Luo, H. (羅 鴻) (2018). Is Ratnākaraśānti a gZhan stong pa? Journal of Indian Philosophy, 46(3), 577–619.

  • Luo, H. (羅 鴻) (forthcoming). Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa. Beijing-Vienna: China Tibetology Publishing House, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.

  • Luo, H. (羅 鴻) (forthcoming a). Can a finger show the moon? Observing Ratnākaraśānti’s Buddha Nature.

  • Luo, H. (羅 鴻) (forthcoming b). This is That: Paramārtha’s version of the Dhātu verse.

  • Luo, H. (羅 鴻) (forthcoming c). Combining Two Cases: The Instrumental and the Locative in Yogācāra Literature.

  • Mou, Z. S. (牟 宗三) (2005). 《大乘起信论》之「一心开二门」. In《中国哲学十九讲》(pp. 219–241). 上海: 上海古籍出版社.

  • Ōtake, S. (大竹 晋) (2017). 『大乗起信論成立問題の研究-『大乗起信論』は漢文仏教文献からのパッチワーク』. 東京: 国書刊行会.

  • Schmithausen, L. (2014). The Genesis of Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda: Response and Reflections. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmithausen, L. (2018). Some Remarks on the Genesis of Central Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda Concepts. Journal of Indian Philosophy, Special Issue on Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Yogācāra Buddhism in Context: Approaches to Yogācāra Philosophy throughout Ages and Cultures (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, June 19-20, 2015)’ 263–281.

  • Sharma, R. N. (1995). The Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini (Vol. III). New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ueda, N. (上田 昇) et al. (2003). Chinese-Sanskrit Index to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Tokyo: The Reiyukai.

  • Watson, A. (2014). Light as an Analogy for Cognition in Buddhist Idealism (Vijñānavāda). Journal of Indian Philosophy, 42(2–3), 401–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamabe, N. (山部 能宜) (2018). Ālayavijñāna from a Practical Point of View. Journal of Indian Philosophy, Special Issue on Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Yogācāra Buddhism in Context: Approaches to Yogācāra Philosophy throughout Ages and Cultures (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, June 19-20, 2015)’ 283–319.

  • Yamaguchi, S. (山口 益) (1934). Sthiramati Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā: Exposition Systématique du Yogācaravijñānavāda. Nagoya.

  • Yokoyama, K. (横山 紘一) & Hirosawa, T. (廣澤 隆之) (1997). Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese & Tibetan-Sanskrit-Chinese Dictionary of Buddhist Terminology (based on Yogācārabhūmi). Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin Publishing Co., Ltd.

  • Zürcher, E. (2007). The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (Third Edition with a Foreword by Stephen F. Teiser). Leiden: Brill.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dedicated to the author/s of the Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn. My thanks go to the participants, for their many comments, at two related workshops: the international workshop “New Perspectives on the Idea of Buddha-Nature in Indian Buddhism,” convened July 11–13, 2019, in Hamburg by Prof. Michael Zimmermann, and the workshop “Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia: The Reception of an Influential Mahāyāna Doctrine in Central and East Asiaya” convened July 16–19, 2019, in Vienna by Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes. I appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and very valuable comments, and I am grateful to Ms. Cynthia Peck-Kubaczek for correcting my English and offering helpful suggestions. Any imperfection or error remains my own responsibility. I would also like to thank the China Tibetology Research Center (中国藏学研究中心) for supporting my study of Ratnākaraśānti and his writings over many years. Research for this article was financed by Sichuan University (projects 2018hhs-61 and xkqzd2018-06).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Tibetan Studies of Sichuan University, No. 29 Wangjiang Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, 610064, China

    Hong Luo

Authors
  1. Hong Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hong Luo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, H. An Anachronistic Analogy: Rereading the Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn in the light of Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa. J Indian Philos 48, 845–888 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09445-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09445-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation