65

Unthinkable Matters: the Term acintya 1n

the Abhidharmakosabhi1$YG 1

Robert Kritzer

I. Introduction
The Sanskrit word acintya is a future passive participle of the
root cint with a negative prefix, a nd it appears in two forms, acintya
and acintanlya, of which the first is more common. Apte gives three
English equivalents, "inconceivable," "i ncomprehensi ble," and " un-
expected." He also includes the word as a noun , a na me of Siva (1978:
29). A Pali form of the word is acinteyya, defined by Rhys Davids and
Stede as " that which mu st not or cannot be thought" ( 1972: 269); other
Pali forms include acintanlya and acintiya. There are a number of
Ch inese translations, among which the most common are pu k'o ssu
i /fl'iJ,Ii~t~, pu ssu i /f,l~~' nan ssu i !ii£,'E,t~ and nan k 'o ssu i !)';'ifl'iJ
,'E,t~. Two Tibeta n translations are bsam par bya ba ma yin pa and
bsam gyis mi khyab pa.
Rhys David 's and Stede's definition s illustrate the two different
uses of the future passive participle: it can indicate both necessity and
possibility. The earliest Buddhist use of the word seems to have been
in the sense of "that which one must not think about." The locu s
classicus of thi s usage is a passage found in the A nguttaranikliya 2 a nd
the Ekottarikagama. 3 A more common meaning of acintya , one that
survives in the modern Jap anese fushigi /f','E,t~, which is used to
describe stra ngely wonderful people and marvellou s products, is " that
which cannot be thought about. "• Both of these meanin gs suggest that
th ere are matters that are beyond the realm of logic, things that do not
lend themselves to analytical inquiry.
Not surprisingly, the term acintya is rarely found in the ortho-
dox Sarvastivada abhidharma literature. Abhidharma, after all , is
dharmapravicayaf}, the investigation or examination of dharma s, 5 a
supremely a nalytical undertaking, and the authors of texts such as the
Vibhlisli 6 are not inclined to throw up their hand s and declare that an
ob ervab le phenomenon is beyond understa nding. However, among
the di si dents within the Sarvastivadin milieu , there are so me who
66
invoke the idea that something is acintya to indicate their dissatisfac-
tion with orthodox explanations. Furthermore, in the Yogllcllra-
bhumi, much of the contents of which is abhidharma, the term is used
quite frequently (about 100 occurrences). In this and other early
Y ogacara texts, such as the A bhidharmasamuccaya and the Hsien-
yang sheng-chiao fun, that certain matters are acintya appears to be
taken for granted, and the use of the word does not imply a departure
from accepted doctrine.
In this paper, I examine the usage of the term in three texts, the
Vibhll~ll, Harivarman's Tattvasiddhisllstra ,7 and the Abhidharma-
kosabha~ya of Vasubandhu. My particular focus is on Vasubandhu,
who uses the term on at least some occasions in expressing disagree-
ment with Sarvastivada when his own opinion may reflect the influ-
ence of the Yogacllrabhumi.
II. The Vibha~ll
I do not want to suggest that the Vibhllsll completely avoids using
the word acintya in expressing orthodox doctrine. In at least one
passage, an explanation of the mental powers of the Buddha, it
appeals to his merits (guJJas) , which are characterized as acintya and
endless 8 This represents the accepted opinion of the Vibha~ll, and
there is nothing unusual about describing the Buddha's qualities as
wonderful in this context. Even for the Sarvastivadins, the Buddha
was indeed marvellous and in some respects beyond the comprehen-
sion of ordinary people.
Much more often, however, acintya is used in alternate explana-
tions, attributed to "some people" (introduced by expressions such as
yu shuo ~IDt, fu yu shuo 1ji~IDt, fu tso shih shuo 1ji1'J=~IDt). Below are
a number of examples of this kind of use.
A. In the context of a number of answers to the question of where
the Buddha was hiding that Brahmaraja could not find him , some say
that it was because the dhyana range of the dhyanas and the Buddha
range of the Buddha are acintya. 9 Evidently, this was a difficult
question: among the other answers proposed are that Buddha was
hiding in Brahmaraja's topknot, that he turned his body into a very
subtle one, etc. It is not clear in this case whether the Vibhll~ll actually
rejects any of these explanations.
B. In a discussion of where the antarabhava enters the womb, one
opinion states that the antarabhava can enter unobstructed at what-
Kritzer : Unthinkable Matters 67
ever place it desires. A question is asked: how can it stay in the womb,
if it is unobstructed? (Presumably, it should just float through it and
out the other side.) The answer is that the power of karma makes the
antarabhava stay in the womb , and it is stated that the power of the
karma of beings is acintya . This explanation is not accepted by the
Vibha~ll, which gives the approved explanation: the antarabhava
enters through the vagina. 10
C. The question is asked: how can someone in maitrzbrahma-
vihara be impervious to harm? One answer is that meditators and the
possessors of supernatural accomplishments have a power that is
acintya.U The Vibha~ll perhaps accepts the first answer, that of
Vasumitra, who says that it is because this state is not subject to
harm Y
D. In the context of how the Buddha can know the future by
praJJidhijiillna, some say that the Buddha does not need to know the
variety of the marks of the minds of beings because the scope of the
Buddha is acintya. 13 The Vibhasll does not indicate either approval or
disapproval here. (This subject is discussed in greater detail below.)
In these passages, the word acintya signals an appeal to the
upernatural to explain something otherwise difficult to account for.
Its use may indicate that these explanations are those of people whose
attitude towards the nature of things is less conservative and realistic
than that of mainstream Sarvastivada.
HI. The Tattvasiddhisastra
If the explanations containing the term acintya in the Vibhasll
generally are not the accepted ones of the orthodox Vaibhasikas, those
in the Tattvasiddhisastra appear to be the opinions of its author,
Harivarman.
A. Miraculous things are described in the category of scripture,
adbhutadharma. Since some people don't believe these things, the
Buddha preached this category because the power of present karma
and its maturation and of all dharmas is acintya. 14
B. The question is asked as to why a different smell can be
produced in the wind, while a different color, taste, or touch cannot
be produced. The answer is that wind is a dharma, and dharmas have
various acintyas; things other than wind can produce different colors,
elc. 15
C. The question is asked: since it is said in the sutra that the
68
subtle rflpa derived from the four mahabhutas is called the five
indriyas, why is it also said that the five indriyas are rflpa , are
invisible, and are impenetrable? Therefore, it is possible to doubt the
acintya (nature) of the power of karma. By the force of karma , the
four mahabhatas turn into the indriyas. The Buddha, because he
feared that his disciples might say that the five indriyas themselves
arise from karma , said that they were rflpa. 16
D. The observation is made that in the sfltra even the Buddha is
said to receive the results of akusalakarma. The explanation is that
the Buddha, being omniscient and having destroyed the akusala-
malas, is not subject to the results of bad karma. However, due to his
immeasurable powers and upliya , the way the Buddha acts in the
present is acinty a. As it is said in the Ekottarikagama, there are five
things that are acintya Y
E. In the context of the question of whether dharmas are non-
existent in terms of conventional truth, it is sa id that the Buddha
prohibited speculation regarding the five acintyas and that only he
could truly understand all dharma s. 18
F. The question is asked: " What is the great karuna of the
Buddha?" The answer is that the Buddh a's knowledge is so acintya
that, even though he knows that all dharma s are absolutely empty, his
ability to activate karw;-a is deep with respect to prthagjanas, even
though there is no fixed notion of a bei ng. 19
G. The question is asked as to how practitioners can obtain the
supernatural power of the body. The answer is that it is due to their
deep practice of meditation. As the siltra says, the power of meditators
is acintya. 20
Harivarman deliberately uses the term acintya in a way similar to
that in which the school of the Bhaga vatapurana , according to
Dasgupta, used it in a later period: "This notion of the supra-logical,
incomprehensible or unthinkable (acintya) is freely used in thi s
school to explain all difficult situations in its creeds, dogmas, and
doctrines. Acintya is that which is to be unavoidably accepted for
explaining facts, but which cannot stand the scrutiny of logic ... , and
which can account for all happenings that may be deemed incompre-
hensible or impossible ... " (Dasgupta 1975, v. 4: 16). In general,
Harivarman seems to accept that certain phenomena are beyond
ordinary understanding and can only be explained by recourse to
so mething beyond logic. This reflects a philoso phical stance on his
pa rt that goes beyond a simple awe at the might of the Buddha.
Kritzer : Unthinkable Matters 69
Particularly significant are passages number five and six above, in
which Harivarman seems to be approach ing a Mahayana concept of
dharmasflnyata. 2 1
IV. The A bhidharmakosabhasya
Yasubandhu uses the term acintya in much the same way as
Harivarman. The word appears on ly four times in the Abhidharma-
kosabhli~ya , but, given the fact that, unlike the Tattvasiddhisastra,
much of the work is a summary of Sarvastivadin doctrine, this infre-
quency is not surp ri sing. In two places, he uses the wo rd while
expressing his disagreement with the orthodox position. In the first
a nd last passages cited below, which concern the powers of the
Buddha, Yasubandhu agrees with the basic Sarvastivada position, but
he uses the term acintya in co ntexts in which the Vibhasa does not.
While Vasubandhu makes no explicitly Yogacara statements in any of
these passages, several points at least suggest connections with id eas
found in the Yogacarabhumi.
A. The first passage concerns how the Buddha can know the
future. Yasubandhu presents the three theories t hat are found in the
Vibhti~ti: (I) t he Buddha knows by inference based on hi s knowledge
f the past;22 (2) beings have a mark in their santati that indicates
their future results; 23 (3) the Buddha has direct know ledge of the
future. 24 The first two are rejected by both the Vibhti~li and Yasu-
bandhu. Yasubandhu attributes the third theory to the Sautrantikas
and modifies it somewhat, ad ding that the Buddha knows "by merely
wi hing" and , by way of explanation, that the Lord has sai d , "the
Buddha-range of the Buddhas is acintya." 25
Why Yasubandhu labels this a Sautrantika opinion is unclear at
f"irst glance. Genera ll y, he reserves this designation for positions that
dis agree with the Vibha~a, but here his on ly departu re from the
Vibhli~ti is that he justifies himself by quoting the sfltra, which the
Vibha~ti does not mention. In his discussion in the Nyayanusara, 26
Sar~1ghabhadra does not attack Yasubandhu on this point. Nor, in
!'act, does he criticize the two positions that the Vibha~a rejects (T.
I S62: 444bl0-c3). He even approves of Yasubandhu's quotation and
says that the Buddha's knowledge of the future as described in the
sntras is not sarvajfiatva because sarvajfiatva does not include know-
ledge of the exact details of the future. Therefore, accordin g to
Sar~1ghabhadra, it is not wro ng for Vasubandhu to quote the statement
70
that the buddhavisaya is acintya. 27
The Chinese commentator P' u-kuang recognizes the anomaly
here and provides a lengthy explanation (T. 1821: 135bl5-c6). Accord-
ing to him , the reason why Samghabhadra does not reject the two
non-orthodox theories of the Vibha~ll is that Vasubandhu does reject
them . P'u-kuang then questions the apparent agreement between the
accepted opinion of the Vibhll~ll and Vasubandhu 's "Sautrantika"
opinion , and he says that there are two possible Sa utrantika explana-
tions of knowledge by mere wishing. According to one, the Buddha
never has an unconcentrated thought: knowledge by mere wishing
means that, due to his total concentration , the Buddha is able to know
the events of the future. In this case, there is a disagreement with the
Vaibha~ikas , according to whom even the Tathagata can have an
unconcentrated thought but nevertheless knows without error. How-
ever, according to another explanation , the Sautrantikas, like the
Vaibhasikas, also admit that the Tathagata can have an unconcentrat-
ed thought. (It is not clear to me whether these two explanations
are associated with two different groups of Sautrantikas or are
P'u-kuang's hypothetical explanations.) If Vasubandhu follows the
second explanation here, he is not contradicting the accepted opinion
of the Vibhasll . So the question is whether the Buddha's knowledge of
the future is a more or less ordinary form of direct perception, 28 as the
Vaibha~ikas say, or whether it is the result of the Buddha's being
constantly in a state of meditative awareness, as the first Sautrantika
opinion maintains.
Assuming that Vasubandhu does believe that the Buddha never
has an unconcentrated thought, his mention of the Sautrantikas, as
P' u-kuang suggests, becomes clear. I have suggested elsewhere 29 that
Vasubandhu 's so-called "Sautrantika" positions frequently are based
on the Yogacarabhumi, and the Yogacarabhumi contains at least one
statement identical to the " Sautrantika" position that P'u-kuang
contrasts with the position of the Vibha~ll. In the Bodhisattvabhumi
of the Viniscayasaf!'lgrahaf!l, the Tathagata is said never to have an
unconcentrated thought, while the arhat is said to be concentrated
when he is in samllpatti but not after he exits. 30
Although the basis for Vasu bandh u's position here is difficult to
establish precisely, I believe that it may be related to his rejection of
the doctrine of sarvastivada. Here Vasubandhu prefers the Vaibha~ika
explanation of the Buddha's knowledge of the future to the alterna-
tives in the Vibhllsll, but by using the term acintya, he indicates that
Kritzer : Unthink a ble Matters 71
th e Buddha's knowledge of the future is not adequately explained in
th e traditional abhidharma. We know that Vasubandhu rejects the
reality of future dharmas , although he does not make this argument in
thi s discussion. Therefore, any knowledge of the future is problematic
fo r him. His use of acintya in this situation, in which contradictory
ph enomena and principles must be reconciled, is similar to Harivar-
man's. Harivarman , in fact , in a passage not cited above, discusses this
o ntradiction between the Buddha's knowledge of the future and the
no n-existence of future dharmas. In an explanation of the ten powers
o f the Buddha, Harivarman says that knowledge of the causes and
ffects of actions is the most profound of the ten powers of the
Buddha, profound because the Buddha has knowledge with respect to
pa t and future dharmas even though they do not existY Harivarman
does not use the word acintya in this passage, but he describes the
knowledge of causes and effects as gambhlra c~~ ) and sflk~ma (~
9;P), terms that have a similar rhetorical force.
It is well known that the Yogllcllrabhumi likewise rejects the
rea lity of past and future.32 Furthermore, in a passage that does not
ex plicitly concern knowledge of the future, the Bodhisattvabhumi of
th e Viniscayasaf!1grahaf!l explains the hidden meaning of the state-
ment that the range of meditators and the range of Buddhas are
acintya: the Buddha says this contemplating the lack of real nature
(asvabhavatll) in all things or not contemplating the lack of real
nature in anything. 33 This cryptic declaration is not explained further,
but it may suggest the ability of these special people simultaneously to
kn o w how all phenomena operate, yet recognize their lack of reality.
Thus, it seems likely that Vasubandhu ascribes his acceptance of
th e Vibha~ll's opinion to "the Sautrantikas" because his reasoning,
signa lled by his use of acintya , is not consistent with the doctrine of
sarvlistivada. Although he does not deny that the Buddha has direct
kn o wledge of the future, this knowledge of something that does not
reall y exist is extraordinary and can only be explained by appealing to
th t.: upernatural qualities of the Buddha. If I am correct about
Ya subandhu 's assumptions here regarding both the nature of reality
und the powers of the Buddha, they correlate more closely to those of
llurivarman and the Yogllcllrabhumi than to those of Sarvastivada.
B. In his discussion of the intermediate existence (antarabhava) ,
Ya subandhu refutes the arguments of those who deny its reality. One
or these arguments is that death and birth are like an object and its
rt.:flected image: no physical connection is necessary to bridge the gap
72
between them. Yasubandhu agrees with the Vibhli~li regarding the
reality of the antarabhava and the invalidity of the simile of object
and image. However, he further argues that the reflected image itself is
unreal , a point on which Samghabhadra criticizes him harshly (T.
1562: 472a26-b5). According to Yasubandhu , the reflected image
appears due to the power of the totality of causes and conditions, a
statement that he justifies by saying that the variety of the capabilities
of dharmas is unthinkable.34 In this case, the position in connection
with which Vasubandhu uses the word acintya is clearly incompatible
with Sarvastivada doctrine, and Sarpghabhadra identifies this as the
explanation of the si7.tra master (T. 1562: 472a22-24).
None of the lists of acintyas that I have found contains anything
that obviously corresponds to dharmlif:llif!1. saktibheda. However, as
we have seen above, Harivarman uses the phrases, " the power of all
dharmas is acintya" (~1*~:/J /f,~,~ ) and " dharmas have various
acintyas" ( tft1Hllfi/f ,~,~) in connection with phenomena that are
difficult to explain logically. Furthermore, the terms saktivaicitrya
(variety of capabilities) and slimagrl (tota lity or assemblage) feature
prominently as hetvadhis?hanas (bases of cause) in the exposition of
the ten hetus in the Savitarkadibhi7.mi of the Yogliclirabhumi. In that
passage, saktivaicitrya is the basis for the appropriateness of any result
that arises, 35 and slimagrl is the totality of all the causes and condi-
tions necessary for the arising of any dharma .36
Returning to the Abhidharmakosabha~ya , we can understand
Vasubandhu's reasoning with the help of Yasomitra's comments. The
reflected image does not really exist, yet a mistaken perception of an
image resembling the original object arises, apparently in the mirror. 37
The image arises due to the confluence of the original object, the
mirror, etc.38 Even though this image is not real , it arises due to the
laws of cause and result: if the original object is a tree, the reflected
image will not resemble a flower. 39 It is this orderly functioning of
causality, even in the production of something that is basically unreal,
that Yasubandhu is declaring to be acintya.
Yasubandhu's denial of the reality of the reflected image is
provocative, since the simile of the object and reflected image is used
in the Saf!1.dhinirmocanasutra to prove that objects have no reality
independent of consciousness (91.11-14). According to Fukuda,
Bhadanta Rama's position on the reflected image, as presented and
criticized by Sarpghabhadra, approaches that of the Saf!1.dhinir-
mocanasutra in implying that all objects of perception, like reflected
Kritzer : Unthinkable Matters 73
im ages, are unreal. However, Fukuda thinks that Vasubandhu himself
refu ses to go so far and instead makes the "ambiguous" statement
in voking samagrr and acintya (1998: 8-9) . Samghabhadra, on the
o ther hand , sees the implications of Vasubandhu 's positions and says
th at if one doesn 't accept the reality of the reflected image, one must
reject all dharmas as unreal , as he has heard that "some people" have
do ne.4 ° Fukuda may be correct in saying that Yasubandhu does not
o mmit himself to a Yogacara position here, but we do not know
whether this is because Yasubandhu does not accept such a position
r because he does not want to articulate it on this occasion. In either
ca e, Vasubandhu's use of the word acintya is again a signal of his
di sent from the orthodox Sarvastivada stance.
C. Later in the same section, Vasubandhu discusses the duration
f the antarabhava. He presents the four opinions given in the
Vibha~li (a short period, forty-nine days, seven days, an indeterminate
period) .4 1 However, he reverses the order and begins with the opinion,
attributed to the Bhadanta, that there is no fixed limit and that the
antarabhava continues to exist until the necessary conditions for
rebirth are complete. (Again, the word slimagrl is used.) 42 A hypothet-
i a l situation 43 is proposed: a huge mound of meat is covered with
wo rm s in the rainy season. The antarlibhavas of (i.e. , antarabhavas
!hat will be born as) these worms must all have been waiting to be
reborn just then; otherwise, one would have to explain where they
came from . The point of this seems to be that it is strange for so many
beings to achieve the conditions for rebirth at precisely the same time.
fwo explanations are given. Either the antarabhavas are those of
myriads of short-lived beings who have searched out the meat due to
!heir desire for smell and taste and, having smelled the meat, die in a
\ late of desire for smell and taste and thus are reborn as worms due to
!hi ~ de ire. 44 Or those beings who are destined to be reborn as worms,
Jll ~ l like those who are destined to be reborn as world rulers
( ('(1/..ravartin) in the distant future, must wait until the conditions for
thl'ir rebirth are complete. At that time, the karma that is to result in
!hl'ir rebirth will function to actualize their birth. 45
Although this entire discussion is difficult to understand , I think
that the argument has to do with the predictability of the results of
Aorma . The point of the first explanation appears to be that the sheer
nurnbcr of these small beings ensures that many will obtain rebirth at
I he appropriate moment when the meat starts rotting. Their antarli-
hhaPas do not last long, and, as a note in the Kokuyaku lssaikyo
74
translation suggests, these beings are born and die in rapid succession
(Bidon-bu 26.1: 47 n. 44). In this case, the results of karma are
experienced when and in the way in which we would expect them to
be, with no surprises. In contrast, the second explanation relies on
the principle that karma will mature at the correct moment, even if
that moment is unpredictably distant. Because the duration of their
antarabhavas is not fixed, these beings need not have died recently.
Therefore, it is possible for many beings who died at different times in
the past to be reborn as worms at the same time, on the same piece of
rotting meat. At the end of this second response, Vasubandhu states,
"Therefore, the Lord has said that the maturation of the action of
beings is acintya." 46
The point of the Bhadanta's opinion , at least as presented by
Vasubandhu,47 seems to be that the vagaries of karma preclude a fixed
period by the end of which the causes necessary for rebirth will be
encountered. This is emphasized by the statement that the maturation
of karma is acintya. We have seen that kammavipaka is one of the
original items that the Anguttaranikaya admonishes us against think-
ing about, although it gives no details concerning what exactly this
means. However, in three Yogacara text , more information is pro-
vided.48 It is said in the Srutamaylbhumi of the Viniscayasa'?'lgrahar.zl
in a list of six acintyas, that sattvakarmavipaka is acintya due to the
variety of place (sthana) , subject ( vastu), cause (hetu) , and matura-
tion (vipaka) .49 The Abhidharmasamuccaya specifies that the karma
that leads to the various bodies of beings is acintya, and it mentions
the variety of sthana , etc.,50 as does the Hsien-yang sheng-chiao /un .
51
These texts all are suggesting that it is impossible to predict the details
of how the retribution of karma will occur because karma is so
complicated. The Bhadanta and Va ubandhu seem to be thinking
along the s·a me lines when they say that the duration of the antarli-
bhava, which is dependent on karma , specifically on the karma that
projects the next existence, cannot be limited to a short period of time
as the Vibhasa insists s 2
D. Finaily, acintya appears in an explanation of rddhi , or super-
natural powers. There are two types of rddhi , movement (gamana)
and [magical] creation (nirmar.za). Movement can be further subdivid-
ed into three types: movement consisting of carrying the body
(Sarlravahinl); movement pertaining to faith (adhimok~ikl); and
movement with the speed of thought (manojava). Only the Buddha
has the power of movement with the speed of thought, and Vasu-
Kritzer : Unthinkable Ma tters 75
ba ndhu remarks, "For this very reason the Lord has said that the
ra nge of the Buddha is acintya ." 53
Although Vasubandhu here does not deviate from orthodox
.'a rvastivada, which attributes this special type of gamana to the
lluddh a alone, he describes this power as acintya, which the Vibhasli
I c not. 54 Naturally Samghabhadra does not criticize Vasubandh~'s
r ition here, but he does have some things to say about the acintya
na tu re of thi s power of the Buddha. First, Samghabhadra clarifies the
lirri c ult-to-explain phenomenon that prompt~ Vasubandhu to use the
term acintya here, namely the ability of the Buddha to disappear in
n ne place and appear in another without revealing himself in progress
b tween the two places. Sarytghabhadra then tries to find a logical
·pl a nation for the phenomenon. If someone moves from one place to
un ther, he must do so without any discontinuity. He cannot simply
di . a ppear here and reappear there; he must occupy successively each
intervening space. So when the Buddha arrives instantaneously, his
skandhas must proceed in the way that the sun's light spreads out, i.e. ,
without any interruption. 55 In other words, he only seems to arrive
tn sta ntaneou sly, while in fact he has simply moved very quickly.
S n1~1 ghabhadra offers another possible explanation. The Buddha's
bod y i , or can be, so big that he does not move at all; he is simply in
h th places at the same time. 56 P'u-kuang characterizes this second
n planation as " praising acintya," but he says that Sarytghabhadra's
111 ·aning is to disallow any interruption during the interval between
1h · two places.57 As usual , Sarpghabhadra favors explanations that are
1'11 ml y based in the logic of the Sarvastivada abhidharma system. 58
Va ubandhu , on the other hand, is content simply to state that the
rn11 ' ' of the Buddha is acintya . He does not attempt to solve ration-
.tll th e problem that troubles Sarpghabhadra, presumably because he
illlltbute supernatural powers to the Buddha. This assumption may
ht· supported by the fact that in other cases as well Vasubandhu
;~ddu ·c powers of the Buddha or arhat to explain phenomena
dtlfercntl y than Sarvastivada does. For example, according to
a ~ ubandhu , jlvitendriya is not the result of karma in the case of the
r1rliut , who ca n prolong his life by the power of his meditation .59
"'lnltlarly, he suggests that the Buddha has a magical power, adhi-
1111 tnilo tddhi , by means of which he can continue to exist after
dt';tlh .00 Both of these statements clearly correspond to statements in
1ht· YoKliClirabhumi. 61 In the case of gamana , too, the Bodhisattva-
hlinllli allributes to the power of meditation the Buddha's ability to go
76
to and return from the most distant heavens by means of manojava
and the other two gamanas. 61 Therefore, it is not far-fetched to suggest
that Vasubandhu 's use of the term acintya here expresses a concept of
the Buddha and his powers that is closer to the Yogacarabhumi than
to the orthodox Sarvastivada abhidharma texts.
VIII. Conclusion
For authors such as Harivarman and Vasubandhu, to say that
something is acintya seems to mean that it cannot be explained in
terms of the orthodox Sarvastivadin doctrine of their time. Departing
from conservative traditions in the passages discussed in this paper,
the two philosophers come to sometimes quite radical conclusions,
as when Harivarman says that all dharmas are absolutely empty
and when Vasubandhu shows that the reflected image, thought by
Sarvastivada to be real, is actually an illu sion, even though it is
produced , like everything else, by the coming together of the appropri-
ate causes and conditions. As for Yasubandhu , I believe that I have
shown that the contexts in which he use the term acintya suggest the
influence of the Yogacarabhumi, sometimes on his adoption of an
unorthodox position and sometimes on hi s reasoning in support of an
orthodox one.
Bibliography
Chinese Sources
A -p'i-ta-mo shun cheng-li lun l UI fE.:iilfflilfllEffl!~ ( = Nyayanusara). By
Samghabhadra. T. 1562.
A-p'i-ta~mo ta-p'i-p'o-sha fun l UI fE.:iil®::kfE.~yj;-~ ( = Vibha~il). Translated
by HsUan-tsang. T. 1545.
Ch'eng shih tun ~fi~iiff ( = Tattvasiddhisastra). T. 1646.
Chii-she tun chi (1~%~~c). By P'u-kua ng C'll:f:YC). T. 1821.
Chii-she fun shu (Wi-%~iB1!:). By Fa-pao ($Jf). T. 1822.
Fo pen-hsing chi ching {9~:;$:1'JMH~ ( = Abhiniskramaf}asiltra). T. 190.
Hsien-yang sheng-chiao tun Cmim~~~). By Asanga. T. 1602.
Hsien-yu ching ~!5t~ ( = Damamukanidanasutra). T. 202.
Ta-chih-tu fun :;k~}!r~. T. 1509.
Tseng-i a-han ching Jti-llUI-B-*~ ( = Ekottarikagama). T. 125.
Yii-ch'ie shih ti fun (~fhOBffitiMiiti = Yogacarabhumisastra). T . 1579.
Kritzer : Unthinkable Matters 77
San ·krit and Pali Sources
lhhidharmakosabha~ya. Edited by P. Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Works
eries XVlll. Second edition. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute,
1975.
thhidharmakosavyakhya. Edited by U. Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Bud-
dhist Bookstore, 1990. Reprint (First edition: Tokyo: The Publishing
A sociation of A bhidharmakosavyakhya, 1932-1936).
tbllidharmasamuccaya. Peking Bstan 'gy ur 5550 (mdo 'grel li) .
thhidharmasamuccayabhaya. Edited by Nathmal Tatia. Tibetan Sanskrit
Works Series 17. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1976.
l'!te A 11guttara-nikaya. Edited by Robert Morris and E. Hardy. London:
he Pal i Text Society, 1885-1910. 6 vols.
llodhisattvabhumi. Edited by Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist
Book Store, 1971. Reprint (First edition: 1936).
i\lanusmrti (The Manusmrti with the Commentary Manvathamuktavali of
Kulluka). Edited by Naraya~ Ram Acharya. Tenth edition. Bombay:
atyab hamabar Pa~~urafig, 1946.
l op,llcarabhumi. Edited by Yidhushekhara Bhattach arya. Part I. Calcutta:
University of Calcutta, 1957.
I d~~:tan Sources
thhidharmasamuccaya. Peking Bstan 'gyur 5550 (mdo 'grel li).
,\ 'lll!tdhinirmocana Sutra: L'explication des mysteres. Edited and translated
by Etienne Lamotte. Recueil de travaux publies par les membres des
Conferences d' Histoire et de Philologie 2/34. Louvain: Universite de
L uvain, 1935.
l ognN'lrabhumi.
Bodhisattvabhumi : Peking Bstan 'gy ur 5539 (sems tsam si).
Viniscayasa'!lgrahafJI: Peking Bstan 'gyur 5539 (sems tsam zi,
sems tsam'i).
l\1t n:llaneous
A o/, uyaku lssaikyi'J Bidon-bu 7-17. (Japanese translation of the Vibha~il)
A oA lll'aku lssaikyi5 Bidon-bu 25-26 . (Japanese translation of the Abhi-
rllw rma kosa bhasya)
A ollltl'aku lssaikyo Ronju-bu 3. (Japanese translation of the Tattvasiddhi-
lfl.\lra)
1\ lndt•tn W rks
\pll', Vaman Shivaram. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary . Kyoto:
i{llhcn Book Company, 1978. Revised and enlarged edition (first
l'd II tnn : 1890).
 Kritzer : Unthinkable Matters 79
78
C>LC ·
BUhler, Georg. The Laws of Manu. New York: Dover, 1969. Reprint (first
edition: 1886) . . . 1
I am indebted to Professors Yamabe Nobuyoshi and Elizabeth Kenney for
Dasgupta, Surendranath. A History of / .ndian Philosophy. Delh1: Motilal th ·i1 invaluable criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper.
Banarsidass 1975 . Reprint (first ed1t1on: 1922). Volume 4. _ • The Angullaranikaya says that there are four things that shou ld not be
Fukuda Takumi, mEBliJ ( 1998). " Kyoryobu no Daitoku Rama" *I:1Ht~O):;k: 1ilought about: the range of the Buddh a, the range of meditation , the maturation
~7-'7 . Bukkyoshigaku Kenkyu 41 / 1: 1-36. . . 11! karma, and specu lation about the world. One who thinks about these unthink-
Katsura, Shoryu. A Study of Harivarman 's Tattvaszddhz. Unpublished ·•hl• thing will be amicted with distraction and vexatio n (Callarimlini bhikkhave
Ph .D. dissertation , University of Toronto, 1974. . rtr'lnteyyllti na cintetabblini, ylini cintento ummadassa vighatassa bhagl ossa.
Kritzer, Robert. Rebirth and Causation in the Yogliclira Abhzdharr:za: Alllllmllni callliri? Buddhiinarrz bhikkhave buddha visayo acinteyyo na cinte-
Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddh1smusk unde 44 .. W•.e~. ltilllill, yarrz cintento ummadassa vighatassa bhagr assa. Jhayissa bhikkhave
Arbeitskreis ftir Tibetische und Buddhistische Stud1en, Un1vers1tat f/tonavisayo acinteyyo na cintetabbo, yarrz cintento ummadassa vighiitassa bhagr
r1110. Kammavipako bhikkhave acinteyo na cintetabbo, yarrz cintento ummadassa
Wien, 1999. . h'l h l'lt:hfltassa bhagl assa. Lokacintli bhikkhave acinteyya na cintetabba, yarrz
. " Rupa and the antarabhava." Journal of Jndzan P z osop Y
l'i!llt•nto ummiidassa vighatassa bhiigf assa. lmlini kho bhikkhave calli'i.ri
- -2- 8_..,./3- (June 2000): 235-272. [2000a] . .
rJI'iiii'YYani na cintetabbani, yi'i.ni cintento ummiidassa vighatassa bhiigl assliti -
. "Preliminary Report on a Companson of the Abhzdharma~
Itlf.I/11/0ranikii.ya v. 2: 80).
kosabhasya and the Yogliclirabhumi." Jndogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 1 I u e this Sanskrit title throughout this paper to refer to Tseng-i a-han ching
XLIX / I. (2000): 8-12. [2000b] Ill llnffr.~~ (T. 125). In the version of the Ekollarikiigama that is found in the
. A Comparison of the Abhidharmakosabha~ya (Chapters I-III)
l .mh tripifaka, sattva O'f<~), lokadhiitu (t!:!:W ), nligavi,Jaya ('fjg~), a nd buddha-
_ _a_n_d- the Yogliclirabhumi. Kyoto: privately printed, 2001. __ .
l'illlt'O ({?I:~!JlJ!!.) are said to be acintya (T. 125: 657al7-658a4; see also T. 125:
Lamotte, Etienne. Le Traite de La Grand Vertu de Sagesse d~ NagarJ~na h·IO t<1 7). There is also a list of five that is mentioned twice in the Tattvasiddhi-
(Mahaprajfilipliramitlislistra). Volumes 3 a n~ 4 . .P~b1Icat10ns. de I ln- '' 111'11, which attributes it to the Ekottarikagama (T. 1646: 291a4). According to
stitut Orientaliste de Louvain 2. Louvam: Un1vers1tede Louvam, 1970. ''"' lt~t , taka <ttra~), sattva (~~), karmavipaka (~129~) , dhyayin (~fftll1A.) ,
La Vallee Poussin , Louis de. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasuban~hu. New 111d l111ddhli~1 (::m{~) are acintya (T. 1646: 332a29-b I) . The Kokuyaku /ssaikyo
e d 1.t.10n. Me-langes Chinois et Bouddhiques 16. Bruxelles:. .Institut Beige
. 11 .tti\I.Jtor notes that the version of the agama referred to by Harivarman belonged
des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1971. Reprint (First ed1t10n: Louvam: 111 .1 dill'crcnt school than the one we have (Kokuyaku lssaikyo Ronju-bu 3: 227
J .B. lstas, 1923-1931). 11 1 1) In addition, the Ta chih-tu fun refers to a sutra, presumably a version of
Radhakrishnan , S. The Prinicipal Upani~ads. London: George Allen and 1111· I l.ollorikligama, accordin g to which the number of sattvas (~~~1-'),
/. rllllllll'ipllka (~*~). dhyayibala? (~ffl!i!A::IJ), nagabala (::m~::IJ), and buddha-
Unwin, 1953. . h'l h' .\ /lulu (uMJil)J) are acintya (T. 1509: 283cl7- 21; Lamotte 1970, v. 4: 1983).
Rahula, Walpola. Le Compendium de La Sup.er-doctrz~; (P z osop ze/
' I his seems to have been the ordinary meaning in non-Buddhist texts, where
(Abhidharmasamuccaya) d'Asanga._PublicatlOns. de I ,Eco l: Fran~a1se
11 . 1plwm~ a · an epithet. See, for example, the Maitri'i.ya!llya Upani,Jad , where it
d'Extreme-Orient LXXVIII. Paris: Ecole Fran~a1se d Extreme-Onent,
d1 •<ltbl:~ the Atman (Radhakri hnan 1953: 8 14); the Mahabhiirata, where it
1980. Deuxieme edition. . , . ,J, ,, ttb .., the gg from which all beings originate (Book I chapter 10 verse 29; van
Rhys Davids, T. w. and William Stede. The Pa~i Text Soczety.s Palz-
llllll<·nrtl 1973: 2 1), Garu<;la (Book I chapter26 verse 7; van Buitenen 1973: 84), and
English Dictionary. London: The Pali Text Soc1ety, 1972. Repnnt (first 1111 'it·a ( Mahabhiirata Book I chapter 19 verse 7; van Buitenen I 973: 77); the
edition: 1921-1925). ~ "'''''''"'rli, where the Svaya!]1bhii (Manusmrti: 6; BUhler 1969: 4), the prowess of
Saeki Kyokuga {tc{E!;I@*t Kanda Abidatsumakusharon 7RWili'IW.5i.i!®Hlll.~ lit .dtlll.l ( Ma11usmrti: 17; BUhler 1969: 17), fate (Manusmrti: 284; BUhler 1969:
Mfl. Kyoto: Hozokan , 1978. '1'1) it lid 1he Vedas (Manusmrti: 3; BUhler 1969: 1-2) are a ll characterized as
Van Buitenen , J.A.B., trans. and ed. The Mahabhlirata: 1 The Book of the 1111//('t/ ,

Beginning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973 . ( 111 order 10 search the Mahabharata , I have used the electronic version of the
• till< ,II t•d 111011 , prepared by Tokunaga Muneo and revised by John Smith [http://
l•1 111tho~\ <Hil'lllal.cam.ac.uk/john/ mahabharata/statement.html).)
In lludtlhi~t text, this meaning is found frequently in biographies of the

80
Buddha and avadanas as epithets of the Buddha and of bodhisattvas. See, for
example, the Fo pen-hsing chi ching {?t;::<$:11'~~ (T. 190: 655bl6; 659bl2; 682cl)
and the Hsien-yu ching ~!lHvt~ (T. 202: 364b3; 369b5; 386b22).
The term is used with staggering frequency in Mahayana satras. A computer
search for the compound pu k 'o ssu i in the four volumes of the Taisho Tripi~aka
that contain the Prajfilipliramitli texts yields 1595 occurrences, 1198 of them in the
Mahaprajfi.aparamitasatra alone. . .
5 prajfili 'mala slinucarli 'bhidharmah tatra prajfili dharmapravtcaya (Abht-
dharmakosabhl1$ya: 2.3-4; La Vallee Poussin 1971, v. 1: 3) ,. ,.
6 1 use this Sanskrit title throughout this paper to refer to A-p t-ta-mo ta-p 1-
p'o-sha tun lli'J f'E,~!fi:k!'M~f:!/ID1li (T. 1545).. , .
1 1 use this Sanskrit title throughout this paper to refer to Cheng shth fun~
't'IID1li (T. 1646). _
E'.. IDtf~B~ )J o g)J ~&"IDto ~{?ti!!::®:~iiit+:t.J ll9~J5JT:l'lt&!Jil :k?l-.=.~1:1:~/f
s (·Ill( lfr~?}llU~~o ~liT]&f3({?l\o {.§.lfill!~vMI~~o ~51-53U~$~~o {.§.~:Y-51-o
OJ,\!.J,~~~J/]{~ 0 ffit1Jfl:£5JU:lz:flfli'l (T. 1545: 516cl6-18)
9 ffiDto ~~~J:&:iJ!:Wo {?t;{?~:I:JtW~/f,\!.f,~jl& 0 /fOJ~{?t;~,P.JT:t£ (T. 1545: 66a 14-
15) The Kokuyaku Jssaikyo translation sugge ts, "dhyana, the range of the
dhyanas, the Buddha, and the range of the Buddha" (Bidon-bu 7: 257). However,
the Tibetan translations corresponding to similar Chinese translations 111 the
Yogacarabhumi appear to support my rendering here. See notes 21 and 33 below.
IO~~lfW~A~a~off~~IDto~lfM~ffitlM~~o~~A~o~~~ff
~~~g~~tlDW~ttJJta~~o ~~:;/Jp.JTjf,l]jl&~Jlti:to lffFli~:;IJ::fOJ,;!,~o Mlilit~
1o/.J4'1ff~~o ~jl&~Jlt/f!J!~Jilo JJ!~~IDto ~lf A~~,t£~r,~J5JT:;!fjl& (T. 1545:
363cll-16)
11 m:~~IDto {~~r~~~N#J:jl!J'l!.o ~ffi$ill!#ffi$®~!J'l!.o FJTff~~/f,\!.f,~jl& (T.
1545: 427al2-14; see also T. 1546: 320b27)
12 ~~i!!:bZ:f'FtlD~IDto _l.:)~.:=.J®t!th~/f=!-f~jl& (T. 1545: 427a9-l0)
Elsewhere the same question is proposed regarding a person in nirodha-
samapatti, and a similar answer is given: it is because the power of meditation on
the part of meditators and magical powers on the part of those w~o possess them
is acintya (ffiDto ~~N#~~~~!J'l!.o Affi$ill!~ffi$®~Jl!.o {j!/f,\!.f,~jl&-~OJi§:-T.
1545: 782b 1-2· see also T. 1546: 338c26-27). Again, Vasumitra says that It IS because
this state is n~t subject to harm (~~i!!:bZ:~tlD~IDto I±!Jlt~]E~/fi§:~jl&o {:tJlt
~1Fi!tJ5.1Ti!t - T. 1545: 782a27-28).
13 r.,~HB~~w~g~-WfffFli{AEI:£53Uo ~ffiDto Jlt/f~,~r"~o J5.1TJ.:.J~Wo
Jlt~~{?t:tsl:W/fOJ,\!.f,~jl& (T. 1545: 897c7-9)
" lli'JWWt':~!fi~o *1Wlf~o tlDIDt:!Wi£:k~~~~;R~:llio :k!thiR!Iibo lf.A/f
mtlD~~~o ~jl&IDtJlt*\!Wlf~o J5!~*~~~~~:;1J/f,\!.f,~jl& ~T. 1646: _245a27-b I)
r.,~EJ 0 Wjl&Jffil.~f~~Jl~o rm/f~g~Jl-f51J;!(ffio ~EIJffil.~IJ!~o ~lf!fffi::f
15
1J.,);1o/.J{~~~{SIJiKf!lo t/D~)1'ftf!$~$'5'1JiKo ~L~Ili'JJ®titi;/Jo @p~ij *o ~n~3($
OJ ,\!.f,f.'.m 0
~:®Jt4!VJll-TM~~~o w~JIIit~o J'!U~~15o w~15~ o ~~~15o tlD~~o ~Jl
1o/.J~ 0 ~~{51];\( (T. 1646: 271 b5-ll)
rt~JElo ~~~IDt!Z91l9:k~W~15-i'l~.li;f.No Wjl&t~IDt.lim~15/f~ .!ii!.lf!tl
16
lmo ~El~o jl&OJ~~:;IJ/fOJ ,\!.J,~o J.:)~:t.Jjl&o 12:9;7\:~~~;f.No f?tr~~-T~Jlt.li;f_N
13 t£~~o jl&~ ~~ (T. 1646: 272b5-l 0; Katsura 1974: 128)
Kritzer : Unthinkable Matters 81
hi i not very clear, but perhaps its meaning is as follows: since there are
\1/tra pas ages that are seemingly contradictory, it might be possible to doubt the
(II u ' ) acintya (nature) of the force of karma. Both the direct causation of indriyas
h karma and the change of mahabhutas into the indriyas due to the force of
/..urma would be acintya. But direct causation is not only acintya, it is incorrect.
IIi •rcfore, the Buddha specified that the indriyas are n7pa.
17
fiiJElo t~~ijj;IDtf?l\~~~/f~~~o ~Eli?~-W~.AM!!M'~~J.:.JII§T-W/f~
I ~~~ ' i'tl:o f.§.J;.JM:lli:ffi$®:1J~:EJ1.~1?t~/fOJ,\!.J,~o tlD:f:lf-ll"J-2!~IDtlf.li~/fOJ,'E\llR
CI 1646: 290c29-291 a4)
, lA ~ Elo &!i!fH1lfl!Z9~IDt~~:2:o ~~::ff'Ao J5JT_l;)~fi:iJo iJt7'CIDto ~-W~~
111 'Ji,JII( o ijj\/f:t£~~~o tlD~~li!ll:2:&J!::f~o ~jl&:lz::2;~jl&1!=~-W~~o JZ..&
1'111• 1!!(-J'R~~~o ~~1FiJt~pJTI¥Jo FJT J.:)~{i:iJo {?t;~~ 13 j![Jlt~o ~.li~/fOJ ,\!.J,
I lll: r:lJI.JJ~~ ~~jZ9~~~ffi!llA~~{?Ii~o ~~1!=-tlJ!W A/ffJ~,\!.J,:Jliijeii§T 0 {.§.~
,,~ (·llllr~ -ta~-Wf.!lt::<$:*~·1~H~;f§5JUfEio ~~g®~tlDA ~f{:;~1o/.J~:I!il~~o t/0~:2:
'i l1 11o IE51-5JU~~~l~OC:oft~ (T. 1646: 332a24-b7)
/IUEJo ~{?t;i!!:~:kJI.t~-fi:iJo ~Elo ~{?t;t!:I:~fft/0~/f,\!.J,f.'.m~o 9ifH<D~$$J!
111
lfiJfJg:j''Jj;:@~o ~fL;Ji;:{.§./f~]E~;f§ (T. 1646: 237c8-II)
'" ~n~~~i'l~~®o r.,~EJo Jlt~~W&"~o ~Elo 1-T~~{I~ifi!il:if::jl&f~o tiD~
lit .~/.*lli)E~)J/fOJ,\!.1,~ (T. 1646: 269b 13-16)
1
• The Bodhisattvabhumi of the Viniscayasaf!lgraha!zr relates the Buddha's
1 tll'II1C11l that the dhyanavi$aya of meditators and the buddhavi$aya of the
ll11ddha\ are acintya to his contemplation and non-contemplation on the nihsva-
MamrtJ of all things (bcom /dan 'das kyis ji las dgons nas I bsam gtan pa r~ams
J. 11 h111111 gran gyi yul d01i I sans gyas rnams kyi sans rgyas kyi yul bsam gyis
ml AIt l'tlb bo ces gsuns se na I smras pa I no bo fiid med pa fi.id thams cad las
.t •o11\ te gsuns pa'am I ya1i na no bo fi.id med pa ii.id gail las kyafz rna dgofzs
/'Ill t:lllll.l so- Yogacarabhiimi1: 'i 19a8-b I; r"~i!!:~~{i:iJ~JJo IDt~L'fi~~J!®::!jl!j'j!. 0
P f•Jil,.ft i'JilJ-~',t,W~/fOJ ,\!.J,llRo ~~~-tiJM 13 tEt:f:o ~/f~~M 13 •!j:'j:J:IDtt/0~ ~ - T.
I •/'1 701u ll-13). This passage suggests that Buddhas and other accomplished
l"""l'll' ~-:~n simu ltaneously be aware of the unreality of phenomena and yet know
11111 .tll t:f"f'cctively at the conventional level.
ntlla "lil'!'lprlitlinumlinat (Abhidharmakosabhti$ya: 99.2; La Vallee Poussin
1'1 II ' I 303; see also the Vibhti$l1 [T. 1545: 51 b 16-24])
t•lwlaciltnabhuta(z sattvlinlif!l santatau cittaviprayuktah samskaraviseso
Ill \'tl!/1 I'J'tii'Giokya bhagavan anagal01?1 jllnaty asa'!zmukhllqtvli~i dhyana;n
•tMt)tlm!t ceti (Abhidharmakosabhti$ya: 99.8-10; La Vallee Poussin 1971 , v. I: 304;
.tl " 1he Vibltli$li [T. 1545: 51 b24-c I])
1
"l'l" lhc Vibhl1$ti (T. 1545: 5lcl-6).
lu1m/lt sarvam icchamatretJa bhagavan janatfli sautrantika(z I acintyo hi
l•t~ddhOIIflm huddhavi$aya ity uktal!l bhagavata (Abhidharmakosabhti$ya: 99.
II I', I,, Vallee P us in 1971 , v. I: 304-305)
' I 11w 1hi., Sanskrit title throughout this paper to refer to A-p'i-ta-mo shun
ill' /II' li /1111 llnJ l\!.)Yl~JI~liiJ.!IJ.ID1li (T. 1562).
IJII'I'~!~.~{.o -l'if1giJHf:;g:~o ~1m!\51-~-o &--1-.:::.Mo ::fm;w;AIDo .A7C1:t

82
~o ~~iz!P~o tlD~~IDto ;lt~;Jl37o ~i"tlD~f.!J-W~:!Jlo ~I"-W~-aJfigii'!~£l9;D;It
~1']' 0 tlOt!t:®:IDto ~{i)ll~fflo ~{iJll:J:lM'J!.o ::f-a},~~o "/&::f)Ji\Jf (T. 1562: 444b 10-15)
2s P' u-kuang's commentary contains a complicated di scussion about the
nature of this kind of direct perception.
29 Most recently, Kritzer 2000b; Kritzer 2001.
30 gihan yali dgra beam pa ni sfioms par i ugs na mfiam par biag pa yin Ia
tans na mfiam par rna biag pa yin gy i I de bi in gsegs pa Ia ni gnas skabs thams
cad du sems mi'iam par rna biag pa med pa dGii ( Yogliclirabhumi,: 'i 114a5-6);
Yll"JNirJi;fi .A~:¥~P.:5~~o ;fitfj~:¥~P::f.:5~o tlD*i!N1*-W(:l'Lcp~::f~{,, (T.
1579: 738c7-9) s
~~:1Z1iJ1l+1JnlG~"I&~~~.lEo tJtt.BZ~li!i~&IDt+:h o W~~i"~:ho ~~*cp
31
1}C~~i:tJ, 0 9;{]~~1ZSJ~tlD~*::f~~*o tlD{'J::f~~,~~'&~o ::f~!~o ~~;5~
~$-o ~FJ.&R.:5~~~o ~:fJJ1J1!o ~1JZ.;lj;:o [h1 Fio ·t!tF.,,ljj;~~*~~~F~o tlD~
~~~::f~fa~o ~Bo ~~F~1Jo 9;{]~~$/i!<:o ;5Jlt1J~~~-o ~!t!t.A.~JT::f
W~oY79;0~$~:1Z~··~o~"I&Jlt1J.:5 88~om9;0~*~~~-~~~
$ 9;{J~~i]~ 0 ~~~¥~o ~"/i5(Jlt~;5Z~J]o J;)~=-t!t~$-~~o "li5(;5~~o FJT
J.:J1!foJo !!)(;f,\li@\~**~$"/&o {iJ1l1*JitiDt~1=J/J o )Z.$~il~J!~**t!tcpo !l'Jf~JJH§
0
{i)llljj\J],~ (T. 1646: 240a26-b 10) _ .
See, for example, this passage from the Paficavijfilinakliyamanobhumt of
32
the Viniscayasaf!lgraha!Jf: beam /dan 'das kyis khams 'das pa y an yo~ de I
khams rna 'ons pa y an yod do ies gan gswis pa 'de Ia gdons pa gali. ym ze na J_
sa bon gyi rgyun 'bras bu bskyed zin pa ni khams 'das pa ies bya 'o I sa bon gyt
rgyun 'byun ba 'bras bu rna bskyed pa iiid ni khams ma 'oils pa ~es by_a 'o I d'a
[tar sa bon gyi rgy un 'bras bu ma skyed pa ni khams da /tar byun ba zes bya o
(Yogacarabhumi,: zi 2la7-8); r.Mot!t~'Bo 1I1/i!\:13;!J'l'.li**!J'l'.lfl],~!J'l'.o Jltfo.flf
g ~;fiE.!ii!*fll!T-t§mo .:5ilil!~!J'l'.o 76:.-!C!JiHI!:'ili*fll!T-t§mo .:5**!J'l'.o ;fi*~
0
*~~f!KT-;j<§~o ;5l],~!J'l'. (T. 1579: 585c1-5)
33 beam /dan 'das kyis ji las dgon nas I bsam gtan pa rnams kyi bsam gtan
gyi yul dan 1 sans rgyas rnams kyi sans rgyas kyi ~ul bsam gyis mi khyab bo
ces gswis se na I smras pa I no bo i'iid med pa fitd thams cad ~as dgons ~e
gsu 1is pa 'am 1 yali na no bo iiid med pa fiid ga1i las ky ali ma dgons P:!r gs_uns
so ( Yogliclirabhumi,: ' i 19a8-b 1); F"'~1!t~f1X{il.Jlf%1o IDt'IW!.i1!~~:1:Jl_!J!.o ~{~~~{i)ll
:IJ[!J'l'.~::f-a} JGI,~ ~{1X1*-17J~ EJ t£tio J3Jt::f*1*~ EJ 'ti't!J:IDttlD~ I§ (T. 1579:
0
703a 1 1- 13) .
34 samagrylis tu sa tasyas tiidrsa~ prabhavo yat tathli darsanaf!l bhavat1_l
acintyo hi dharmli!Jlif!l saktibheda(l (A bhidharmakosabhli.$ya: 121.5-6; La Vallee
Poussin 1971 , v. 2: 35)
35 tatra saktivaicitryaf!l hetvadhi!j{hlinam adhi!j[hliy a pratiniyamahetu/:1 pra-
jfilipyate I tat kasya heto/:1 I tatha hi I kamapratisaf!lyuktli dharm~ vi~tra­
svabhlivli vicitrad svabhavavi!jeslic chaktivaicitrylid utpadyante I yatha kama-
pratisaf!lyuktli evaf!l rupapratisaf!lyuktli arupyapratisarrwuktli apratisaf!lyuktli(1 I
tasmlic chaktivaicitryam adhi!jfhliya pratiniy amahetu/:1 prajfilipyate ( Yogliclira-
bhumi: 109.19-110.2; see Kritzer 1999: 260-263)
36 tatra samagrlhetvadhi!j{hlinam adhi!j{hliya sahaklirihetu/:1 prajfilipyate I
tat kasy a heto/:1 1 tathli hi I svam utpattisamagrlm agamya kamapratisaf!l-
Kritzer : Unthinkable Matters 83
l'lik tllnlif!l dharmli!Jlim utplido bhlivliti I y athli klimapratiSaJ?1YUktlinlim evam
rllp~pratisalflyuktlinlim arupya-pratisaf!lyuktlinlim apratisaf!lyuktanlilfl I yath;t-
fll/1/iSlimagry evaf!l prliptisamagrl siddhi-slimagrl ni!jpattisamagrl kriylislimagrl 1
/U.\'mllt samagrlm adhi.$hliy a sahaklirihetuf:t prajfilipyate ( Yogliclirabhumi: 110.
I 7; ee Kritzer 1999: 250-251)
37
bimba-samart~ylid eva tatradarsadi!ju pratibimbakaralfl bhranlaf!l viji'ia-
/111111 utpadyata ity Acarasyabhipraya/:1 (Abhidharmakosavylikhya: 268.2-3)
38
slimagryas tu bimbadarsadi-lak!ja!Jliyli/:1 (Abhidharmakosavyakhyli: 269.
17)
39
Yasomitra explains Vasubandhu's statement with two examples: iron is
.111111 ted to a magnet, while wood is not; water oozes from a moonstone but not
1r 11111 coa l: ayaso 'yaskantabhigamana-darsanat. na klif!!hlidfnlif!l y atha. candra-
J 111/lltC candrodaye 'p-Saf!'lbhava-prak!jara~Ja-darsanal?7. nlif!lglirlidlnlim. ity
1'1'11111-lldi vaktavyaf!l (Abhidharmakosavyakhyli: 269.18-20; see Kritzer 2000a:
'1 I)
IiJJlt~nl(;~{~1'J'lfo !!J(;Jn\U~f~~$~~o 'Ej:lrfJlf.Ak~f~~~i:t (T. 1562:
10
171 h3-4)
" See T. 1545: 360c25-36lbl7.
12
nlisti niy ama iti bhadanta/:1 I yavad upapattisamagrlf!l na labhate na hi
''" i'ti)'Uf!af:t prthag evlik!jepaf:t I ekanikayasabhagatvlit I itaratha hi tasy ayu!ja/:1
A11/l'lln rnara!Jabhavaf:t prasajyeta (Abhidharmakosabha!jya : 125.20-22; La Vallee
1'11 11 \\i ll 1971 , v. 2: 48)
,., La Vallee Poussin says that it is an objection (1971 , v. 2: 48), but it seems
lllllll' likely th at it is a hypothetical case that can only be explained if the duration
111 lhl· antarabhava is admitted to be indeterminate.
" gandharasabhigrddhanam alpayu!jlif!l jantilnlim anto nasti I te tam
'<lll rlhtll?1 ghrat va gandharasabhigrddhli/:1 kalaf!l kurvantah krimibhavasal~-
1111/lunT!'arJ'! karma prabodhy a tayli t(!j!Jayli krimi!jiipapadyant~ iti (Abhidhar~a­
f..t~lllhliri!jya: 126.3-5; La Vallee Poussin 1971 , v. 2: 48)
1
arha va nt:inalfl tatpratyayapracura eva kale tatsaf!1varttanlylini karmani
11/ 1•1/.. 11/1/iinirvarttau vrttil?'l /abhante nanyatra I tathli hi cakravarttisalflvarttanlye
/..11111/lllli asili var:jasa hasray u.$i prajliylif!7 bahutarliy u!ji vli cakravlirttino jayante
1111111'11 11'1111 (Abh idharmakosabhli:jy a: 126.5-8; La Vallee Poussin 1971 , v. 2: 48-49)
'' ora e1•a coktaf!l bhaga vatli acintyaf:t sattvlinlilfl karmavipaka iti (Abhi-
/fl,lllllll/..o.fablza!jya: 126.8-9; La Vallee Poussin 1971 , v. 2: 49)
' I here is orne question as to whether Va subandhu in fact accepts the
llh Hl.1111;1\ op inion . According to La Vallee Poussin (1971 , v. 2: 48 n.2), the
' IIIIII'M' n1m mentato rs say that he does , but what the Chinese commentator
11111,dl\ '"Y is not so clear. Fa-pao says that the Abhidharmakosabhli!jya and
ih Vl'fll'f1 n11Sllra both agree with the Bhadanta (T. 1822: 595c21-23). However,
1 S.11'k1 pnints out (1978: 386-387), this is impossible because the Bhadanta's
•' I'"""" llll llradict s the verse, i.e., verse fourteen of the Chinese tran slation of the
ll•llf,lhlll/1/a/..osabha!jya (T. 1558: 46a21), which includes the phrase (not in the
111 h111) "l· ndurcs for a short time"(fei chiu chu ~1"7.{1). As for P' u-kuang, he
IIIJ'h ololll'' that the fourth opinion in the Abhidharmakosa, namely the one
84
attributed to the Vaibha~ikas, is the orthodox one (T. 1821: 162al6). However, it
does in fact seem quite likely that Vasubandhu agrees with the Bhadanta, particu-
larly given the fact that he discusses this opinion at much greater length than does
the Vibhasa.
•s Th.ese texts, in which incidentally the proscriptive sense of acintya is
preserved to at least some extent, clearly rely on the same tradition.
•9 de Ia sems can rnams kyi rnam par smin pa Ia sems pa ni rnam pa biis
bsam gyis mi khyab pa yin te I gnas dan d1ios po dan I rgyu dan rnam pa! sm!n
pa las so ( Yogacarabhumi1 : zi 198a3-4); litill'3!rt W:J!',llfi=tY o EI31Z!3f!IHEF1"'i:iJ,' !',l!fio ~
JJIRJ'iJT~lJUi'&o !J.~lJU'i'&o !N~lJU'i'&o ~Mf.!\:W:~lJU'i'& (T. 1579: 655a27-29)
50 yena karmG(1li sattvanam atmabhavavipakavaicitryam abhinirvarttate I
so 'cintya~l I tad eva kusa/akusalal?1 karmasthanavastuhetuvipakaprakaradipra-
bhedair acintyam (Rahula 1980: 61.11-13 [retranslated by Rahula- not 1n the
Sanskrit manuscript]; Abhidharmasamuccaya,: li 107a4-5)
The Abhidharmasamuccayabhti$ya explains: sthana refers to the place in
which an action was performed; vastu refers to whether or not the action pertains
to living beings; hetu refers to the kusalamulas or akusalamulas; and vipaka refers
to the variety of atmabhavas ([tatra sthl.inal?l] yatra pradese sthitvl.i yat karma
krtvl.i grame vii nagare vety adi I vastu yad adhi$!hanal?l sattvasal?lkhyl.ilam
a~attvasal?lkhyl.ilarr va I hetuf:t kusalakusalade~t kusalakusalamulani yatha-
yogam I vipakas tad evatmabhavavaicitryam (Abhidharmasamuccayabhl.i$ya: 73.
4-7).
5 1 rniJB o m-~$~$/f.Jn\\.'!'.~o f~ff,j'ji'f'J=tY~1J:~~o ~f@1'J=tY ~11f@~o /fik:~
i'&o 3Z,j@$:t!:!:~/f~~o ;fiJ.jlf0Ef4j).;fi!N;E;'$~~ 0 /f'Q)' ,' !',llfi (T. 1602: 564b5-7)
52 Regarding the duration of the antarabhava , the Manobhumi says that the
antarabhava can persist for seven days, during which the exact moment of
obtaining the causes for rebirth is not fixed. If the causes still are not obtained by
the end of seven days, the antarabhava dies and arises again. This can go on for
up to 49 days, by which time the causes for rebirth must be obtained (sa punar
antarabhavaf:t saptahal?l ti$fhaty asaty upapattipratyayalabhe I sati puna~l
pratyayalabhe 'niyamaf:t I alabhe puna§ culvl.i punaf:t saptahal?l li$!hati yavat
sapta saplahani ti$!haty upapaltipratyayam alabhamanaf:t I tataf:t urdhvam
avasyam upapattipratyayal?l labhate - Yogacarabhami: 20.4-6). This most closely
resembles the second opinion in the Vibhl.i$l.i , according to which the antarabhava
can persist for at most 49 days, at which time rebirth necessarily occurs (T. 1545:
361 b8-9). However, the Manobhumi uses the word " not fixed" (aniyama) , while
the Vibhasa does not. Therefore, Vasubandhu does not follow the Yogacarabhumi
concern in~ the duration of the antarabhava , but the Yogacarabhumi agrees with
the Bhadanta in emphasizing the impossibility of predicting, at least within the
period of 49 days, exactly when rebirth will occur.
53 gamanam nirmanal?l ca tatas tatra gatis tridha I sarl~avahin~ ad~i~
mok$ikf rnanojava ca tatra gatif:t I sl.istur rnanojava I manasa Ivl.isya 1ava III
manojavl.i gatir buddhasyaiva nanyasya I suduram api desal?l cillotpadakalena
gamanal I ata evacintyo buddhanlil?l buddhavi$aya ily uktal?l bhagavatli
(Abhidharmakosabhli$ya: 425.8-12; La Vallee Poussin 1971 , v. 5: 113)
Kritzer : Unthinkable Matters 85
54
Actually, the Vibhli$l.i. mentions two theories regarding the possessors of the
l1rst two types .of gamana, and Vasubandhu agrees with the second theory ,
11 · o rd1ng to wh1ch prthagjanas have the first type, sravakas and pratyekabuddhas
li11vc the first two , and Buddhas have all three. Both of these theories agree that
""'.Y
11
the Buddha has manojavagamana (F.,~Jlt.=:ffr$Jfliiffntlitt~o :fiiDio Jitli[Jnt-ID'J
I 1 1' 0 ~~nt= lijt'hl~o r!fgf?Bt!:!::®:Jii!.nt.=:tmo liiDio ~~nt-~Jm!J- 0 =*nt= l~
}~ ~!lftif.lj!f!!J-pfi'fmo ~~ ~ [should probably be corrected to .lm] fWpfi'!:l.¥io f?B
}1~ :::.%,\~pfi'f.m [T. 1545: 725b29-c4]).
55
P' u-kuang (T. 1821: 413c7-9) points out that this is similar to the argument
II ·ttl by Sa1']1ghabhadra against those who think that the gap between death and
I lm th ca n be spanned without an antarabhava (T. 1562: 462c 18-23).
ftn Sa l']lghabhadra is rather terse about this: EI3Jltt!!#f'J=t<D~IDio ~{~:lfi:W/f'QJ
.'! ,,111 o ~0~~~\'J!Mt:~'mo figillfi~:i!i'&IDi~rro ;fi~/f~Jlt~flli: tl:l o 9=Ira~~~1'J~
1 o !JlG{~&JZiii!Jl/f,'!',ll\li'&o ~{.· ~P ~/f'i:iJi!W.!il: (T. 1562: 754cl7-21). 1 have relied
"'' P' u-kuang's longer explanation of Sal']lghabhadra's intention (T. 1821: 413b 19-
, ),
rEJ1I!rnfliWo - ~p~uffii~)Ji.fio = ~P~/fm~o ~hit/ffl' 9=Ira~ra~~
87
(T. 1821:
II \, 3·25 )
" llowever, on at least one occasion Sal']lghabhadra uses the term acintya
\\ lu ll eve~ Vasubandhu does not. In a comment on Vasubandhu's description of
11 11 \~ a ni $tha heavens (Abhidharrnakosabhii$ya Ill 72ab; La Vallee Poussin 1971 ,
' : 167· 168), Sal']lghabhadra again adduces the unthinkable power of the Buddha
1111 11:1-(Urd to manojava. The Buddha can see into highest Akani~~ha heaven by
II Ill I Ill ~ manojava rddhif:t to transport his body there. Therefore, the Buddha's
tip•·lfloilura l powers are acinty a (t/D'Will\!AJINJi!.~ ~o i:!tijijg~)g~ffr!Jl~o j!fi!J-11
f I I (I JI!~$Eo i'&f~ffr!JlJJ o /f'Q)','!'.~ -T. 1562: 520al-3).
1
1aml1dhiprabhava eva sa le$lil?l tadrso yena purvakarrnajarn ca sthiti-
A f•lr• •tllwm ~ndri~amahabhutanlil?l vyavarttayanly apurval?l ca s~madhijam
'' .1/wm nk:ppanll I tasman na tajjfvitendriyal?l vipakaJ?7 tato 'nyat tu vipakah
I 1t.ltnl!tomiakosabhli$ya: 43.22-24; La Vallee Poussin 1971 , v. 1: 121; Sal']lghabh~-
1• 1 • IIIl t 'I/C S th1 s explanation , which he attributes to the sfilra master [T. 1562:
II I lX I u4]; ce Kritzer 200 I: 20)
"" t7tllt ~J!Itlinikrrn rddhir!'l bhagavata icchatarn na yukta e$a pariharaf:t (Abhi-
fiiOII IIttl, otahltn.rya: 119.26-27; La Vallee Pouss in 1971 , v. 2: 31; Sal']lghabhadra
tl•lllllll' 1111~ as 1he explanation of the sutra master [T. 1562: 467c25-26] and
IIIII II J', 11 Ji . 1562: 467c27-468al5]; see Kritzer 2001: 64).
"' I I l h o ..1'1111; ,'fr J®Htx~ E! tEo IMtl'tJ'ifi'~m-~J~~Atilhl.t :O~ $ *llt!J-11*1HE:fifrW
I ·'!
J'J i . t l.lrHt lll:o 7:J~L..¥1S~J't~ji*~$Eo 1!JGfiH~m-~ilJ:~~ =~*=f
l ~I '· 1', '!' \ \·J!!Ofr7~o 1!JG:im.6iirmi2B:kfi!J-o ~m-:i!~{'J=j[[JmfWo 1!JGt<D~~~~
l 1111 'f' (I . 1579: 492b8-14) The Sanskrit does not mention samadhi in
I IIIII II\ llllll 1\ II II gamana: tafl·a gamanagamanal?l tira~l kur;lyal?l. tirah sailam
''' •l b 1'1 •'1/..t)/f/111 11111jjamtinena kayena gacchati vistare!Ja yavad brah~alokm;1
''1'•''•1111/..t, 11/oti fltllfi'Ogacchati ca yavad akani$hiid urdh val?l tiryag va punar
I lltld ' ' l'""'~~'l 'fllrllti/..hreytil?l trisahasramaha-sahasrlil?l lokadhatul?l gacch.aty
1 Ill ' ht l /1 • '' /, nr•t•na 1'0 audnrike!IG caltirmahabhutikena. dural?l casannam
86

adhimucya mana~sadrsena vli javena gacchati cligacchati ca (Bodhisattvabhumi:

6 1.2-9). Nor does the Tibetan ( Yogliclirabhilmi,: si 39b7-40a2). However, at the
beginning of the chapter in which this passage occurs, all of the powers of the
bodhisattvas are said to rely on samlidhi: tatra prabhlivo bodhisattvlinlirrz
kalama~ I samlisata~ samlidhi-vasitli-prliptasya samlidhi-vasitli-sarrznisraye!Jec-
chlimlitrlit sarvlirtha-samrddhi~ karma!Jya-cittasya su-paribhlivita-cittasy' lirya~
prabhliva ity ucyate (Bodhisattvabhumi: 58.1-4). Therefore, it seems as though
HsUan-tsang's addition of the phrase '(t(;:E § :tE is faithful to the meaning and
merely reminds the reader of the general statement that was made earlier.
I 11ly Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought:
l 11 I [onor of Doctor Hajime Sakurabe on His
1 v nty-seventh Birthday, 2002. 20. May, Offprint

Unthinkable Matters: the Term acintya in

the Abhidharmakosabha~ya

Robert Kritzer