THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

BUDDHIST STUDIES

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
A. K. Narain University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

EDITORS
L. M. Joshi
Punjabi University Patiala, India Alexander W. Macdonald Universite de Paris X Nanterre, France Bardwell Smith Carleton College Northjield, Minnesota, USA Ernst Steinkellner University of Vienna Wien, Austria fikido Takasaki University of Tokyo Tokyo, Japan Robert Thurman Amherst College Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

*»g ****$£

Volume 5

1982

Number 1

Levering 19 The Life and Times of Paramartha (499—569) try Diana Y.sk 70 II. SHORT PAPERS Sa skya panchta's Account of the bSam yas Debate: History as Polemic by Roger Jackson 89 The Text on the "DharanI Stones from Abhayagiriya": A Minor Contribution to the Study of Mahayana Literature in Ceylon by Gregory Schopen ioo A Report on Buddhism in the People's Republic of China by Alan Sponberg 109 III. Keenan 7 The Dragon Girl and the Abbess of Mo-Shan: Gender and Status in the Chan Buddhist Tradition by Miriam L. Paul 37 Studies in Traditional Indian Medicine in the Pali Canon: Jlvaka and Ayurveda by Kenneth G. Zy.CONTENTS I. BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES Histoire du Cycle de la Naissance et de la Mort by Yoshiro Irnaeda 118 . ARTICLES Original Purity and the Focus of Early Yogacara by John P.

Constitution and By-Laws of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 153 Contributors 160 . 1981 144 2. August 7-9. A report on the 4th Conference of the IABS. Theravada Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation by Winston King 3.S. Swearer 5. L. Madison. PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 1. Asoka and Buddhism — A Reexamination by A.A. NOTES AND NEWS 1.2. WI. Pachow 4. U. Chinese Buddhism: Aspects of Interaction and Reinterpretation by W. Tantra in Tibet and The Yoga of Tibet by Tsong kha pa 121 124 126 127 IV. Basham 131 V. University of Wisconsin. Buddhism and Society in Southeast Asia by Donald K.

two reasons for this situation. All four texts were composed before the time of the classical formulation of Yogacara by Asanga and Vasubandhu.Original Purity and the Focus of Early Yogacara by John P. A second reason is that the doctrinal focuses of some of the basic Yogacara texts appear to differ. and the Madfiydntavibhdgasdstra. The texts selected are the Mahdydnasutrdlarnkdra. for. no understanding is gained of the overall purpose for which these themes were developed. it would appear. the question of its basic intent and overall purpose is not easily determined. Keenan In understanding the ongoing process of the development of any doctrinal system. and compilation of the various textual data have not yet received definite answers in many instances. the Samdhinirmocanasutra. insight into their doctrinal emphases would help to identify the overall problematic that led the early. Although it is not possible to determine with any degree of certitude the temporal relationship among these texts. suggest the intent of their authors. isolated insights into particular texts or particular doctrinal themes are not sufficient. although such studies do clarify particular themes. authorship. What is desired is an overall insight into what the system is trying to achieve. the Mahay and bhidhar ma sutra. It will attempt to describe the basic doctrinal focus of four early Yogacara texts. 7 . pre-Asarigan Yogacarins to develop their thinking. In the case of the Yogacara system. There are. The first is that the complex of questions regarding the dating. The intent of this paper is to treat this latter concern. No number of monographs on dlayavijhdna or trisvabhava suffices. and yet each of these questions bears directly upon the understanding of the lines of doctrinal development. and draw a hypothesis concerning the lines of development of early Yogacara as seen in these texts.

the Mahdydnasutrdlamkara laments: Indeed there is nothing else in the world. How has this kind of wordly illusion come about.The Mahdydnasutrdlamktira. It affirms the original purity of the mind (cittaprakrtiprabhdsvahd) and the adventitious nature of defilement (dganiukasarnklesa). the pure consciousness that is always present. In discussing the ultimate realm. 2 This passage seems to be in full doctrinal accord with the tathdgatagarbha teachings and its content is reflected in many tathdgalagarbha texts. the MahdyaruisutrdUunkdra states: Although tathatd is not differentiated in regard to all [sentient beings]. It is not to be thought that apart from this mind of dharmata there is any other mind that is originally luminous. and yet the world is unconscious of it. whereby one clings to what is not and entirely ignores what is?6 Again. after having been stirred up. It is to be understood that the mind is originally luminous {prakrtiprabhdsvaram) at all times.sutrdlarnkdra explains that it means that all sentient beings are tathdgatagarbha/' From such passages it appears that the basic focus of the Mahayd7iasutrdlamkdra is upon the mind of original purity.1 which in its basic verses appears to be quite early. it is tathagatahood. when it has been purified. the regaining of its transparency is not due to something other than the removal of dirt. settles. The manner in which the mind is purified is similar.:* Again. dharmadhdtu. Therefore it is said that all sentient beings are that seed [tadgarbha]:' This seems to be a clear affirmation of the basic theme of the pure garbha. this seems to reflect the tathdgatagarbha theme that 8 . shows close affinities with tathdgatagarbha thought. even under the coverings of defilement. and which enables one to attain purification and enlightenment. and the later prose commentary of the Mahdyd7ia. but blemished by adventitious faults. When water.

when it comes to an explanation of the trisvabhava doctrine. paratantra.urYhe description oi parikalpita as always void of duality (dvayena rahitam) emphasizes the illusory nature of empirical consciousness.only the pure garbha actually exists. Thus. and to be purified. to be rejected. The description of paratanlra as the basis of confusion (bhrdntesca samnisrayah) identifies the source of the illusions of parikalpita. and water. the trisvabhava doctrine is here employed in order to explain 9 . Because of the basic focus on original purity.7 The focus of the Mahaydnasutralamkara is then upon the mind of original purity. The conversion of the basis (diraya-parivrtti) is then a turning around from the illusions of parikalpita to an awareness of the original purity of parinispanna that takes place through the rejection of paratanlra. must be purified from adventitious defilements. When purified from klesa. The three natures (trisvabhava) are treated as marks of tathatd? and the reality envisaged is not the everyday consciousness of sentient beings. although it is originally undefiled. The emphasis is not upon consciousness as experienced. although undefiled (amalam). which suggests the tathdgatagarbha tenet that only the pure garbha actually exists. gold. while all else is non-existent. Its being is also said to be not conceptualizable (yaccdprapancatmakam). that which is the basis of confusion. The description of parinispanna points to the originally pure mind. for its beinc is not conceptualizable." These three categories correspond to parikalpita. The three natures are described as follows: Reality {tatvam) is that which is always void of duality. which. it is like space. When one has understood that in fact the duality of parikalpita is illusory. which clings to the dichotomy of subject-object. The only function oi paratantra in this explanation is to identify the source of the confusion of parikalpita. and not upon an analysis of empirical consciousness. It is to be known. the Mahaydnasutralamkara uses this doctrine to explain just how empirical consciousness has devolved from that original purity. paratanlra. but upon the original purity of that now illusory consciousness. then its underlying source. is to be rejected. and also implies that the reason why the world is unconscious of it is because it is beyond the realm of subject-object concepts. and pari?iispanna. and that which can never be verbally expressed.

the Samdhinirmocana parallels the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra.e. 12 The initial arising of consciousness results in prapanca. consciousness. in the Mahdydnasutrdl/imkdra the intent of the author appears to be the use of Yogacara doctrines in order to explain just how there can be both pure consciousness and empirical defilement—for the principal weakness of the tathdgatagarbha tradition is its failure adequately to treat the causes of defiled consciousness. dlaya-vijndna) as the basis for karmic defilement. and reaches its development. The dharma [of consciousness] is of three kinds: that which has been totally imagined {parikalpitalahana).1* In its explanation of the trisvabhdva. that which arises in dependence on others (paratantra. and that which is full perfection {parinispanna-laksana).how empirical defilement arises to cloud over that purity. evolves. it focuses upon the seed consciousnes (sarvabijaka. but the trisvabhdva doctrine is here used to explain the characteristics of the dharma (dharma-laksana). The Samdhinirmocana goes on to present an analysis of phenomenal consciousness and offers an explanation of the relationship between the six sense consciousnesses and the base sarvabijaka-vijndna. Rather. The seed consciousness [of sentient beings in the six destinies] matures. The consistent tension is between the pair of parikalpita-paratantra as illusion and its source. The Sanidhinirmocanasutra*l presents a different focus. i. This idea contrasts sharply with the teaching of the Mahay ana sutrdlamkdra. Thus. i. because it makes its own two things: the physical body with its sense organs and the habitual proclivities {vdsand) of discriminately and verbally conceptualizing (prapanca) images and names... rather than as a description of tathatd.e. i.. and does not manifest any purity whatsoever. is due to the proclivities of prapanca. dddna. and the purity of parinispanna.e.laksana). grows. becomes unified. for it does not admit the doctrine of the original purity of the mind. That which has been totally imagined is the discrimination whereby all dharmas are conventionally held to have their 10 .

In what is perhaps one of the most famous passages of Yogacara. The Mahay dnasutralamkdra focuses upon the mind of original purity. being defiled. If this arises. describes the three natures as the marks of phenomenal. This includes [the dependent co-arising] of ignorance up to [the dependent co-arising] of this grand mass of suffering. they finally attain full enlightenment (anuttarasamyaksambodhi).own svabhdva. and their fundamental mental apprehension (aviparlta-cintana). and the verbal expressions that arise consequent upon this discrimination. they seem to do so from differing perspectives. Full perfection is like the true. Thus the Samdhinirmocanasutra later explains that wisdom enables one "to destroy paratantra. describes the three natures as the mark of tathata. That which is totally imagined is like the defective vision of one who has cataracts in his eyes. That which arises in dependence on others is the nature whereby all dharmas conventionally arise. flies. If the mind is originally pure. then that exits. small particles or patches of different colors before the eyes of one with cataracts. if this exists.14 This passage parallels that of the Mahay dnasutrdlamkdra in that the function of paratantra is to account for the delusions of parikalpita. and sees paratantra as the basis of that defilement. That which is full perfection is the true nature of the equality oi dharmas (samatdtathald). By gradual practices until they reach this realization. defiled consciousness. It is this tathata which bodhisattvas come to realize because of their zeal (vlrya). For. such as the appearance of hairs. and sees paratantra as the basis for empirical defilement and confusion. then. In these two early texts one can detect a Yogacara dilemma. then that arises. then how is one to account for empirical defilement? If the mind is not itself pure. The Samdhinirmocanasutra focuses upon the mind of karmic defilement. it writes: The beginningless realm is the common support of all dhar- 11 . That which arises in dependence on others is like the imagining of those images."™ Although they do agree on this point. unconfused objects which are seen by the sound eye of one who has no cataracts. how can one ever attain purification? 15 It would appear from the extant fragments that the Mahdydndbhidharmasutra17 attempted to deal with this dilemma.

there exist all the destinies and the access to nirvana. and paratantra. Rather. it would seem appropriate to interpret the passage in the light of the problematic current at the time of the composition of the Mahdydndbhidharmasutra and the Samdhinirmocanasutra. Later Yogacarins offer different interpretations of this text. 22 These explanations all represent later forms of doctrinal development. In another passage. and that which consists in both at the same time (tadubhayabhdga). parikalpita. which quotes this passage. Although paratantric consciousness does result in the defile12 . paratantra is not only the underlying cause for samsaric defilement. the anddikdliko dhdtuh of the Mahdydndbhidharmasutra can perhaps best be understood as an attempt to amalgamate the focus upon original purity and the focus upon karmically defiled consciousness into a broader synthesis that might enable one to explain both adequately. goes on to identify these with. Thus.2" and Dharmapala's Vijnaptimdtratdsiddhisdstra21 all interpret anddikdliko dhdtuh to be dlayavijndna. that which consists in the pure aspect (yyavaddnabhdga). the Mahaydndbhidharma says: There are three dharmas: that which consists in the defiled aspect {samkleiabhaga). along with the other three Chinese translations of this text. Asanga's Mahdydnasamgrahas'dstra. Because of this. respectively.19 Asvabhava's Mahay dnasamgrahopanibandha. gives the interpretation of anddikdliko dhdtuh as dlaya. but also includes a pure aspect. parinispanna. The Ratnagotravibhdgasdstra cites it and interprets the beginningless realm to be tathagatagarbha.™ This passage appears to be an attempt to account for both defiled empirical existence (gatih sarvd) and for the possibility of nirvana (nirvdnddhigamo'pi ca). and it would be anachronistic to follow such interpretations rigidly.mas. But what precisely are we to understand by this beginningless realm? It would seem that it indicates consciousness as both pure and defiled. but then it alone appends the tathagatagarbha interpretation. Paramartha's translation of Vasubandhu's Mahdydnasamgrahabhdsya.2* The text of the Mahdydnasamgrahasdstra.2* Thus.

28 13 . in this [unreal imagining] emptiness exists. The Madhydntavibhdga further describes paratantra as unreal imagining (abhutaparikalpa): Unreal imagining exists. and moreover in that [emptiness] this [unreal imagining] exists. as in the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra. for it does indeed exist. on the originally pure mind and on empirical consciousness.e. but in it duality [of subject-object] does not exist. Neither purity nor impurity exists. Rather. being dependent on others. If defilement did not exist. i. Thus anddikdliko dhdtuh is neither a pure mind oi' tathdgatagarbha nor a basically defiled dlayavijndna. paratantra. is here accorded some degree of validity and plays a pivotal role in the development of trisvabhdva thinking. then right practice would be without result. though. it does exist and is not simply to be rejected. 20 The second nature. This is the explanation of the three natures. paratantra is the source of the duality and illusion of parikalpita. insight into its nature as dependent on others implies awareness that there are no essences (svablidva) to be grasped nor any essence that can grasp {grdhyagrdhaka).. which. If purification did not exist. However.27 Thus. and within paratantric consciousness one can discover emptiness. because mind is [originally] luminous. since it is reality. it is dependency co-arisen phenomenal consciousness as including both. at least in its verse sections. the absence of duality. for. although it is denied reality. [The second] does exist. gives rise to both the defilements of all the destinies and to the access to nirvdria. It is not to be entirely negated. then all bodily beings would then be [already] delivered. Neither defilement nor undefilement exists. and its defilement is adventitious. one is eternally non-existent. Here again the Madhydntavibhdga is attempting to synthesize the two emphases.ment of parikalpita. both exists and does not exist. has no essence that could be pure or impure. The Madhydntavibhdgaidstra also appears to predate Asaiiga.25 It explains the trisvabhdva as follows: As for the three natures. [The third]. but is not reality. One and the same consciousness.

since the unreal imagining o{ parat antra does exist in emptiness. 29 Although such is clearly the case.ca. for both are svabhdvas that result from dualistic imagining and therefore do not exist. Yogacara is frequently and correctly described as having developed as a resurrection of theoretical thinking in the context of prajndpdramitd. once the dichotomy of parikalpita has been understood and rejected. The overarching hypothesis that the preceding passages seem to suggest is that early Yogacara thinkers are indeed concerned with the question of the purity or impurity of consciousness. in parallel to the Mahayd?idbhidharmasutra.It would thus appear that the Madhydntavibhdga does admit the notion of the original luminoisty and purity of the mind. sunyatd. one should also be aware of the possibility of a very close relationship between Yogacara and the tathdgatagarbha doctrine.11 The fact that the five works traditionally attributed to Mai14 . The earliest tathdgatagarbha sutras began to appear shortly after the time of Nagarjuna (ca. but only after reworking it in the c:ontext of the Irisvabhdva. then the original luminosity and purity of the mind becomes manifest. but it was the Abhidharma based upon the Sunyatavada of the Prajna-para-mita. In its methodology. The tathdgatagarbha tradition offered an alternative to what was perceived as the overly negative tone of the Madhyamika and the prajndpdramitd literature. the Vijnanavada was really a successor to the Abhidharma Buddhism. 250). i. But." as shown in the title of one scripture.e. Thus. the Madhydntavibhdgasdstra appears to be attempting a synthesis of the doctrine of original purity within a more empirically oriented emphasis upon defiled consciousness. 10 It would thus be natural to assume some kind of connection between tathdgatagarbha and Yogacara. 150 .. The original luminosity of the mind does not mean that it has an impure or a pure nature. and this in turn would imply that they developed their thinking in the same doctrinal circles that gave rise to the tathdgatagarbha tradition. and thus were contemporaneous with or shortly before the above Yogacara texts. and hence deserves to be called "mahayana-abhi-dharma.

religious teaching. it also suggests that this Yogacara work was well received within tathdgatagarbha circles and was perceived as being consistent with tathdgatagarbha themes. They appear to have taken their initial insights from the notion of the pure mind. Thus. 'The reason for this seems to be that the tathdgatagarbha tradition did not function on a theoretical. In none of the extant tathdgatagarbha texts is there a consistent development of that technical language necessary to a theoretical endeavor. This does not mean that tathdgatagarbha is to be reckoned as a defined academic school in contrast to Madhyamika and Yogacara. they were not rival systems.:i(i such an evaluation was a peculiarity of Chinese Buddhism and is not found in either India or Tibet. as well as the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra.treya. William Grosnick convincingly argues that the Ratnagotravibhdga 's understanding of buddhadhdtu as the nonduality of subject and object can be traced to the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra™ and Takasaki Jikido holds that the triydna teaching of the Ratnagotravibhdga is directly dependent upon the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra^ Although this directly shows only the dependence of the Ratnagotravibhdga on the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra. pre-Asaiigan Yogacara thinkers represent a theoretical development from within the same circles that produced the tathdgatagarbha teaching.y2 the putative founder of Yogacara. This is further borne out by the complete lack of polemic against tathdgatagarbha teachings in Yogacara works. shows that this tradition regarded Yogacara and tathdgatagarbha as coming from the same source. the presence in the Ratnagotravibhdga of the famous quotation on the anddikdliko dhdtuh from the Mahdydndbhidharmasutra suggests that the author of the Ratnagotraviblmga regarded the Mahdydndbhidharmasutra as being at least consistent with tathdgatagarbha themes. As Takasaki has pointed out. The exigency for theoretical development demanded a more em15 . 57 The foregoing textual data seem to suggest that the initial.5* It does seem clear that in some instances the Ratnagotravibhdga is dependent on the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra. include the Ratnagotravibhdgasdstra. as in the Mahdydnasutrdlamkdra. expressed in poetic images and metaphors and aimed at the encouragement of practice. Furthermore. but was rather presented as a practical. while tathdgatagarbha and Yogacara did exist at the same time in India. academic level at all.

On the original luminosity of the mind. tatvam yatsatatam dvayena rahitam bhrdntesca samntfrayah sakyam naiva ca san>athdbhilapitum yaccdprapancdtmakaml jneyam hiyamatho xnsodhyamamalam yacca prakrtyd matam yasydkasasumarnavdrisadr^o kUiddviiudliirmatd. 2 vols. p. p. Ruegg. 1961. and Paul Demi£ville in denying that Maitreya was an historical person and the actual author of the Malidydnasulrdlamkdra. argues for the reverse opinion. p.pirical approach to the analysis of consciousness. pp." Zietschrifl fur Indologie und Irdntistik. A Study of tlie Buddlwbhumyupades'a: The Doctrinal Development of the Notion of Wisdom in Yogacara Thought. The Chinese translation of Prabhakaramitra. L6vi. 4. Daijoshogonkyoron kenkyu. Ui Hakuju. which says that Asahga compiled the text. L£vi. 381. Mahdydna-sutrdlamkdra. 16 . see David S. pp. Madison. As the Mahdydnasamgiahas'dstra of Asahga frequently quotes the Mahaydnasulrdlamkdra. Guiseppe Tucci. 3. ed. 65: elena trividliam laksanam talhatdyah paridipitam svalaksanam kleiavyavaddnalaksanamuvokalpalaksajiam ca uktam triiridham laksanam. 9. and trans. See P. 215-225. contains a preface by Li Pai-yao. Demteville. 4. who came to China in 627. See John P. I follow Yamaguchi Susumu. 1980." BEFEO.™ NOTES 1. L£vi. La Thtorie du Tathdgatagarbha et du Gotra. 58. p. as is given in the Samdhinirmocana. n. 58: na khalujagati tasmddvidyatc kimcidamyajjagadapi tadaiesam tatra sammudabuddhil katliamayamabhirudo lohamoliaprakdro yadasadabhinivistah sulsamantadvihdya. Keenan.D Dissertation. 6. 40: sarvesdmaviiistapi tathatd suddhimdgatal tathdgatatvam lasmacca tadgarbhah sarvadehinaJi. Ui Hakuju. Sylvain Levi. The Mahdyanabhidharmasutra and the Madhyantavibhdga then attempt to synthesize both purity and defilement by stressing the basic Yogacara tenet of the paratantric nature of the mind. Expose de la Doctrine du Grand Vehicle. pp. University of Wisconsin. (Paris. XL1V (1954). Le\'i. Levi.. 40: Sarvesdm nirvisista tathatd tadviiudcUiisvubhavusca tathdgatali/ atah sarve satvdstathdgatagarbhd ityucyali. 8. 97-117. Tokyo. (Paris. p. 1907). "La Yogacarabhumi de Sahgharaksa. but there is no firm evidence to uphold this claim. 409-445. "On the Author of the Mahayana-siitraalamkara. unpublished Ph. it seems safe to conclude that the verse section of the Mahdydnasulrdlamkdra was composed before the time of Asahga. 5. 88: yathaiva toye lutite prasadite na jayate sd punuracchaldnyataN maldpakarsastu sa tatra kevalah savacittasuddfiau vidhiresa eva hi/1 matam ca ciltatn prakrtiprablidsvaram soda taddgantukadosadusitaml na dharmatdcittamrte'nyacetasah prabhdsvaratam prakrtau vidhtyate. Ldvi p. VI (1928). p. 7. 2. 1969).

ed. pp. one in his Abhidharmasamuccaya. Six quotations appear in Asanga's Malidyanasamgrahas'dstra. (Tokyo. 16. 73 and p. he was influenced by tathagdtagarbha thought in a much greater degree. 12. In his Sesshin yuishiki no kenkyu. This does not negate the fact that Vasubandhu was influenced by such teachings in evolving his "new understanding. Tokyo. 1931). pp. trans. 58. The Malidydndbhidharrnasutra is extant only in fragments quoted in other texts. has pointed out to me. 79-84. 133b. see Keenan. p. and trans. 16. 18.10. 692b. see Yamaguchi Susumu. Madhydntavibhdga-bhdsya: A Buddhist Philosophical Treatise edited for tlw First Time for a Sanskrit Manuscript. Yuishiki shiso no kenkyu. 22. p. p. 1975. T. 168-169. For an English translation. 21. 188-189. 13. (Paris. Quoted in the Mahdydnasamgraha. Louis de la Vallee Poussin. La Somme du Grand Vehicle d'Asa'nga. 26. p. 1935). {Tokyo. 240-250. La Somme. 1973). II. 184. Lamotte. 169. and one in K'uei-chi's Wei-shih erhxhih lun shu-chi. 60 and pp. 125. Yuki Reimon argues that one of the specific characteristics of Vasubandhu was that. See Keenan. T. 1724. p. the Tibetan text clearly refutes Yuki's interpretation. in contrast to earlier Yogacarins. For a discussion of the authorship of the Madhydnlavibhdga. 37 for an alternate opinion. 1964). I rather think that. Sasaki Gessho. These have been collected in Yuki Reimon. Sumdhinirmocanasutra. Buddhabhumnyupade.sa. p. 1935). 12. 55 and p. 5. 17. 197. 12. 14. Etienne Lamotte. T. Yuishikiron yori mitaru yuishiki shisoshi. Lamotte. La Somme. (Louvain. Madhydntavibhdgutlkd: Exposition systfmatique du Yogacdruvijiiaptivdda. Also confer Ui Hakuju. Lamotte's translation correctly does not include this section. p. p. Kanyaku shihon taishd Shodaijoron. p. Etienne Laniotte. For an analysis of the composition of this text. II. Vijnaptimdtratdsiddhi: La Siddhi de Huian-Tsang. ed. p. Professor Hakamaya Noriaki. which identifies the three dharmas with the trisvabhdva. Lamotte. pp. Lamotte. 31. 156c-157a. II. Nagao Gadjin. 11. pp. p. X-XVII. tathdgatagarbha influence can be seen in the earliest texts of the Yogacara tradition. pp. (Louvain. Toyd tetsugakushi. (Tokyo. 693a-b. as my friend and colleague. 19. Here Poussin gives the Sanskrit. 256-257. argues that the entire passage is from the Mahaydndbhidharmasutra. See Levi. see pp. 16. F.. pp. 37-38: svabhdvas trividhah asac ca nityam sac cdpy atatvatahl sad-asat tatvatas ceti svablidva-traya isyate. Lamotte. pp. 20. 2 vols. 1929). 25. who maintained the strict purity of the YogacSra position in their contacts with tathdgatagarbha thought. 131-142. Explication des Mysteres. 695a. (Nagoya. Yuishiki shisoshi. 24. 23. in the quotation from the Mahdydndbhidharmasutra. Yuki Reimon. 249. p. 1956. The text is clearly before Asanga. But. 31. Buddhabhumyupadeia. 2380-8-239*-". 1934). pp. 16. Yeh A-Yueh. Also confer. 15. and trans. Mdo hgrel LV1. 17 . which has been preserved in Sthiramati's commentary on the TrimJika: anadikdliko dhdtuh sarvadharmasamd\<rayah tasmin sad gatih sarvd nimdnddhigamo'pi ca." but it does stress that there were already precedents available for Vasubandhu to work upon. T. T. as in the Mahay anasutrdlamkara. Tokyo.

"Amalavijnanam und alayavijnanam. Study. 30. 28. tr. 31. pp. 148-160. against P. 21-42. p p . University of Wisconsin. in emphasizing the importance of the question of the purity of the mind. Nyoratza shisd no keisei. Willaim Grosnick. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga (Uttaratantra). 1. nor to locate the center of each with respectively Valabhi and Nalanda. 35. Bu sum. Takasaki Jikido. 1-4. p p . 26-27: samklista ced bhaven tuhau muktdh syuh sawa-dehtnalil visuddha ced bhavan nasau vydyamo nisplialo bhuvetl I no kltsta ndpi vdklista suddha'suddluhta caiva sal prabluisvaratvac cittusya klesasyagantukatvatah. 17: ahlnltaparikalpo'sti dvayam lalru na vidyatel sunyata vidyate tv atra lasydm apt sa vidyate. pp. Nagao. Dissertation. p p . and Japan. 91-92. The Zen Master Dogen's Understanding of the Buddha Nature in the Light of the Historical Development oj the Buddha-Nature Concept in India. 96-116. p p . 303-306 for the section from the Ratnu that treats this issue. I agree with the basic idea of E. p. Keisei.eburtshtg dargebracht von der deutschemn Indologie. C. p. 1966). 2 (1980). 338. 33-55. 33. Also confer. see Hakamaya Noriaki. no. Buddhabhumyupadesa. See Takasaki. 18 . ( H a m b u r g . 36. 1979. Keenan. Obermiller. Takasaki. See Keenan. but there seems to be no firm evidence specifically to identify amala with Sthiramati. 34. Study. Nagao. Being a Treatise on the Tathdgatagarbha of Mahyana Buddhism. D. 38. unpublished Ph. Frauwallner. p p . 3. Yeh A-Yiieh.27. 97-100. 69-74. " T h e Realm of Enlightenment in Vijiiaptimdtratd: The Formulation of the Four Kinds of Pure Dharmas. T h u s . Takasaki." in Beilrage zur mdischen Philotogie und Altertumskunde: Walter Schubring zum 70. Kin Beitrag zur Erkenntnislehre des Buddhismus. 29. p p . Demieville. (Tokyo. nor alaya with Dharmapala. 32. p. K. p. 59. China. 230." in The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. p. 3. Madison. 37. For a discussion of Asanga's thinking on original purity and that of the classical Yogacara tradition. Yeh A-Yiieh. p p . Takasaki Jikido. Buddluibhumyupadesa. (Rome. 1931). 1974). vol. History of Buddhism.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful