Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wonhyo on the Sources of Wonhyo’S Jungbyeon Bunbyeollon So Shigeki Moro (Hanazono University)

[DRAFT]

Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wonhyo On the sources of Wonhyo’s Jungbyeon bunbyeollon so Shigeki Moro (Hanazono University)

Abstract Vasubandhu’s Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya (MAVBh) is an important work not only in the Indian Yogācāra tradition but also in the context of broader East Asian Buddhist debates. Although Wonhyo (617–686) was one of the most influential Yogācāra scholars in East Asia, research on his commentary on Paramārtha’s translation of MAVBh (MAVBh(P)), known as Jungbyeon bunbyeollon so (JBS), has not made much progress. Compared with Sthiramati’s Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā (MAVṬ), an Indian commentary of MAVBh, JBS has some similarities to Sthiramati’s explanations in MAVṬ. In this paper, I would like to compare the JBS with the MAVṬ more thoroughly than my previous paper (Moro 2017) and try to show the influence of Sthiramati and/or Paramārtha on Wonhyo.

Introduction As is well known, Vasubandhu’s Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya (MAVBh; Discrimination between the Middle and the Extremes) is a seminal work in the Indian Yogācāra tradition, available in two extant Chinese translations, one by Paramārtha (MAVBh(P)) and the other by Xuanzang (MAVBh(X)). The MAVBh was also a key work in the context of the East Asian debates regarding emptiness and existence1. However, there remain only two commentaries on the text written in ancient East Asia: Wonhyo’s (617–686) Jungbyeon bunbyeollon so 中邊分別論疏 (JBS) and Kuiji’s (632–682) Bian zhongbian lun shuji 辨中邊論述記.2 The former is a commentary on MAVBh(P), and the latter an exegesis of the MAVBh(X). Although Wonhyo was one of the most influential Yogācāra scholars in East Asia, there has been relatively little research produced on the JBS compared with the voluminous studies carried out on his commentaries on the Awakening of Faith. One of the reasons for the paucity of work done is that only the third fascicle of the JBS, a commentary of the fourth chapter of the MAVBh(P), has survived. It has been pointed out that there are many lines in Paramārtha’s translation that cannot be found in Xuanzang’s translation and the existent Sanskrit text. Wonhyo explicated those sentences, which were not dealt with by Kuiji. Compared with Sthiramati’s Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā (MAVṬ), an Indian commentary of MAVBh, Wonhyo’s commentaries on those passages show similarities to Sthiramati’s explanations, although Wonhyo “mentions neither Sthiramati’s nor Kuiji’s work” (Nguyen 2012, 186). In this paper, I would like to compare JBS with MAVṬ more thoroughly than Moro (2017) and try to show some similarities in the thinking of Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wonhyo, the importance of JBS, and a probability that a distinct lineage can be traced through those three Yogācāra scholars, distinguished from the master-and-student relationship of Xuanzang.

1 See Moro (2017). For the broader context of the debate, see Moro (2015). 2 According to ancient catalogues of Buddhist scriptures, there were the commentaries of MAVBh(P) written by Jizang 吉藏, Sengbian 僧辯, and Wonhyo, as well as the commentaries of MAVBh(X) by Xuanying 玄應, Xuanfan 玄範, Kuiji, Huizan 惠讃, Xuanyi 玄一, Dojeung 道證, Daehyeon 大賢, and Master Ju 據師.

1 [DRAFT]

Parallels between Paramārtha, Sthiramati, and Wonhyo A) • MAVBh(X): 所依謂欲、勤所依故。能依謂勤、依欲起故。所因謂信、是所依。欲生起近因。若信受彼便希望故。能果謂安、是能依。勤近所生果。勤精進者得勝定故。(471c17– 20)3 • MAVBh(P): 欲者正勤依處。能依者正勤。此依處名欲。有何因是名信。若有信即生欲。此能依者名正勤果。此果名猗。若作正勤得所求禪定故。(458b25–27) • JBS: 釋中次第、釋此四種。第四中言「若作正勤得所求禪定故」者、得禪定時、麤重息滅、於此即得身心輕安。輕安曰猗、適悦爲相。故約得定、以顯猗果。 Translation (underlined part only): When obtaining meditative concentration, the debilitation 麤重 ceases and the pliancy of body and spirit are obtained. The pliancy is the flexibility 猗, characterized by pleasure. • MAVṬ: tathā hy ārabdhavīryasya dāuṣṭhulyavikalpadoṣavigamat pramoda utpadyate | manaḥpramodāt kāyacittayoḥ prasrabdhiḥ karmaṇyatālakṣaṇatā | (Yamaguchi 1934: 174, 22– 24) Translation: Thus, if those who begin to apply diligence cease the discrimination of the debilitation, [his] pleasure is generated. The capability, in which body and spirit are pliant, appears from the pleasure of mind.

In JBS we can find some parallels between MAVṬ and JBS’s commentaries on the sentences unique to MAVBh(P): B) • MAVBh(X): 何者名爲五種過失。頌曰懈怠忘聖言及惛沈掉擧不作行作行是五失應知 (471c4–7) • MAVBh(P): 何者名失耶。懈怠忘尊教及下劣掉起不作意作意此五失應知「懈怠」者、沒嬾惡處。「忘尊教」者、如師所立法名句味等、不憶不持故 4。(458b14–18) Translation (underlined part only): “Indolence” means to lapse into unwholesome states. “Forgetting the noble teachings” means not to memorize and not to hold the words, phrases, and syllables posited by the teachers. • JBS:「何者」以下生起後文、從此以下有二頌半、依前總標、次第別顯。謂初一頌明五種失。後一頌半頌八斷行。初中有二、三句別顯、一句總結。其五失相、釋中分明。釋中次第釋五種失。第一中言「沒嬾惡處」者、著散亂處、不起精進也。第二中言「不憶不持」者、不憶教言、不持教旨也。 Translation (underlined part only): “To lapse intounwholesome states” in the first [sentence] means to be attached to the state of distraction and not to start the diligence (精進). “Not to memorize and not to hold” in the second [sentence] means not to memorize the words of teachings and not to hold the gist of the teachings. • MAVṬ: tatra kāuīdyaṁ prayogakāle doṣas tenāprayogāt | udyuktasyāvavādasammoṣo doṣas tena cittasamādhānābhāvāt | (Yamaguchi 1934: 173, 16–18) Translation: In this case, indolence is a fault during practice, because [it causes the person] not

3 Kuiji’s commentary is different from JBS and MAVṬ (“論曰「能果謂安」至「得勝定故」述曰、由勤得定、定起安立。能依精進所生果故名爲能果、非能即果。以上合釋第一頌第四句。對法論別開安、爲攝受益身心故、約安功能以辯能治.” T1835, 44, 23b15-19). 4 There are no parallels of the underlined sentence in MAVBh(X).

2 [DRAFT]

to practice. For a diligent person, the ignorance of the [noble] teachings is a fault, because [it causes] the absence of mental concentration. C) • MAVBh(X): 所説修對治分位有十八謂因入行果作無作殊勝上無上解行入出離記説灌頂及證得勝利成所作 (472c24–473a11) • MAVBh(P): 修住有四種 5 因入行至得有作不作意有上亦無上願樂位入位出位受記位説者位灌位至位功德位作事位已説 (459b28–c17) • JBS: 言「脩住有四種」、謂下所説有十八位安立之意、唯有四種、故言「有四」。何等爲四。一者前之七種、立共通位、共通三乘故。次有二種、立不共位、不共二處故。其次六種、立前後位、前後立六故。最後三種、立同時位、同時説三故。(HBJ 1, 833a9–19) Translation: “There are four stages.” This means that the following eighteen established stages are classified into only four groups. What are the four groups? The first consists of the first seven [stages] called “common stages 共通位,” since they are common to the three vehicles. [The second group consists of] the next two stages established as “separate stages 不共位,” since they are not shared with the two [lesser vehicles]. [The third group consists of] the next six stages named “stages preceding and following each other 前後位,” since there are six [gradual] stages. [The fourth group consists of] the last three stages called “simultaneous stages 同時位,” since they simultaneously explain the three [bodies of Buddha]. • MAVṬ: iyad uktaṁ parisamāptāpi niravaśeṣāvasthā bodhisattivānām ekadaśabhūmiprabhedasandarśanārtham adhimukticaryādyavasthābhiṣekādyavasthāvasānāḥ punar uktāḥ | buddhānāṁ tu kāyatrayaprabhedapradarśanārthaṁ prāptyavasthādikāḥ punas tisro nirdiṣṭāḥ | tatra hetvavatārāvasthā bodhisattvasyānyena sādhāraṇatvaṁ veditavyā | (60, a) (Yamaguchi 1934: 189, 25–190, 4) Translation: Up to here the explanation of all stages is finished, and the teaching from adhimukticaryādyavasthā and abhiṣekādyavasthā is spoken again to explain the division of the eleven stages of the bodhisattva. The teaching of the [last] three [stages] such as prāptyavasthā is preached again to explain the division of the three bodies of buddhas. In this case, it is to be known that hetvavasthā and avatārāvasthā are common between bodhisattva and other [vehicles].6

5 There are no parallels of the phrase “修住有四種” in MAVBh(X). 6 Eighteen stages Four groups (JBS) MAVṬ 一因位修住 *hetvavasthā Common stages (共通位) Common between Bodhisattva and other 二入位修住 *avatārāvasthā vehicles 三行位修住 --- 四果位修住 --- 五有功用位修住 --- 六無功用位修住 --- 七勝德位修住 --- 八有上位修住 Separate stages (不共位) --- 九無上位修住十願樂位修住 Stages of one after another (前後位) Division of the eleven stages of *adhimukticaryādyavasthā Bodhisattva 十一入位修住者十二出離位修住

3 [DRAFT]

Another parallel between Paramārtha, Sthiramati, and Wonhyo Ōtake (2012) pointed out that Wonhyo seemed to be aware of the same kind of thinking see in Sthiramati’s Triṃśikā-bhāṣya (TrBh) and Paramārtha’s work such as Jiu shi zhang 九識章 (Composition on the Ninth Consciousness), according to a part of the first chapter of JBS that survives as a quotation of Kegon kumokushō hotsugoki 華嚴孔目章發悟記 written by Gyōnen 凝然 (1240–1321): • MAVBh(P): 塵根我及識本識生似彼但識有無彼彼無故識無似「塵」者、謂本識顯現相似色等。似「根」者、謂識似五根於自他相續中顯現。似「我」者、謂意識與我見無明等相應故。似「識」者、謂六種識。「本識」者、謂阿黎耶識。「生似彼」者、謂似塵等四物。「但識有」者、謂但有亂識。「無彼」者、謂無四物。何以故、似塵似根非實形識故、似我似識顯現不如境故。「彼無故識無」者、謂塵既是無、識亦是無。是識所取四種境界。謂「塵根我及識」所攝實無體相。所取既無、能取亂識亦復是無。 – 7 (451b7 18) 似？

• JBS: 元曉大師釋舊論文云 […] 以 EA 識中言「謂六種識」者、以是證本識通縁十八界法。而瑜伽中不説縁於六識等者、彼論別説自分境界、此論通説通他境界、由是義故不相違背。此義委悉如彼楞伽料簡中説也。(Dainihon bukkyōō zensho 122, 385a5–386a10) Translation (underlined part only): According to this [sentence], it is shown that the root consciousness [ālayavijñāna] perceives throughout the eighteen elements. Ōtake (2012) pointed out that Paramārtha’s Jiu shi zhang and Sthiramati’s TrBh also take the position that ālayavijñāna perceives the eighteen elements, while other Yogācāra scriptures, such as Yogācārabhūmi and Cheng weishi lun, suggest that it perceives only ten of the eighteen elements. Therefore, Ōtake (2012) claims that Wonhyo’s commentary above was based on Jiu shi zhang, since he could not read TrBh.

East Asian Traditions of Paramārtha and Sthiramati Lineage of Sthiramati Kuiji’s commentary on the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論述記 (Cheng weishi lun shuji) stated that the Cheng weishi lun is the intermixed edition of the commentaries on the Triṃśikā written by ten great masters. Kuiji introduced Sthiramati and his colleagues as follows: The second [master was] Guṇamati in Sanskrit, or Dehui 徳慧 in Chinese. [He was] 8 Sthiramati’s teacher7F . […] The third [master was] Sthiramati in Sanskrit, or Anhui 安慧 in Chinese. [He made] the intermixed [commentary] of Abhidharma-samuccaya. [He] defended the Abhidharma-kośa and refuted the masters of the *Sāṃmitīya. [He was our] predecessor who was one of Dharmapāla’s contemporaries. [He was] a person of Lāṭa of South India. [He had] a profound

十三受記位修住十四能説師位修住十五灌頂位修住 *abhiṣekādyavasthā 十六至得位修住 Simultaneous stages (同時位) Division of the three bodies of Buddhas *prāptyavasthā 十七功德位修住十八作事位修住

7 D’Amato (2012: 118-119). 8 According to the Tibetan tradition, Sthiramati is a teacher of Guṇamati (Aohara 1988).

4 [DRAFT]

understanding of hetu-vidyā and mastered the Buddhist treatises. […] The sixth [master was] Śuddhacandra in Sanskrit, or Jingyue 淨月 in Chinese. [He was one 9 of] Sthiramati’s contemporaries. […]8F There is a record of one of the followers of Sthiramati in the Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳: From there, [Xuanzang] went to upāsaka Jayasena of the Stick Wood (*Yaṣṭi). His home country was Surāstra. He was a man of the kṣatriya [class]. He had been an avid student since childhood, and he first learned hetu-vidyā from Bhadraruci. Then he learned śabda-vidyā and the treatises of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna from Sthiramati, and Yogācārabhūmi from 10 Śīlabhadra.9F Xuanzang stayed with Jayasena for two years, studied the Weishi jueze lun 唯識決擇論 written by Jayasena, Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra and other works. He also asked him questions about the 11 Yogācārabhūmi and hetu-vidyā10F . After that, Xuanzang initiated some debates with Indian scholars, such as Simharaśmi 師子光 12 13 of Madhyamika,11F Prajñāgupta 般若毱多 of the *Sāṃmitīya12F among others. It should be noted that Prajñāgupta was regarded as a disciple of Sthiramati according to Kuiji’s commentary on the Cheng weishi lun: This is a monk of the *Sāṃmitīya from Lāṭa of South India, whose name is Prajñāgupta. This means “Wisdom’s house.” [He was] a student of Sthiramati, and a teacher of three emperors. He wrote [a treatise of] seven hundred verses and criticized the Mahāyāna. […] Later, King Śīlâditya summoned Prajñāgupta three times to engage in discussion with my master .14 [Xuanzang], but he declined to come 13F According to the Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions 大唐西域記, Vallabhi was also called North Lāṭa and had “more than one hundred Buddhist temples and more than six 15 thousand monks, and many of them were studying the doctrine of the *Sāṃmitīya of Hīnayāna.”14F The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions also contains a record of the large temple near Vallabhi established by the Arhat Ācāra, in which Guṇamati, Sthiramati’s teacher, and Sāramati stayed and wrote treatises.

Sthiramati, Sāṃmitīya, and Paramārtha The relationship between Sthiramati and Sāṃmitīya can be observed in other parts of Kuiji’s commentary. He commented on the third volume of the Cheng weishi lun that outlines the components of cognition: Treatise [= Cheng weishi lun]: When the substance of contaminated consciousness occurs, the

9 二梵云寠瞿字上聲拏末底、唐言徳慧。安慧之師。[…] 三梵云悉恥羅末底、唐言安慧。即糅雜集。救倶舍論、破正理師。護法論師同時先徳。南印度境羅羅國人也。妙解因明、善窮内論。[…] 六梵云戍陀戰達羅、唐言淨月。安慧同時。(T1830, 43, 231c16-29) 10 從此復往杖林山居士勝軍論師所。軍本蘇剌佗國人。刹帝利種也。幼而好學、先於賢愛論師所學因明、又從安慧菩薩學聲明大小乘論。又從戒賢法師學瑜伽論。(T2053, 50, 244a7-11) 11 See Moro (2018). The biography of Jayasena in the Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions does not describe the information on Jayasena’s teacher(s). Xuanzang’s biographies should be used with caution as they were changing between before and after his death (Moro 2015). 12 T2053, 50, 244b28-c11. 13 T2053, 50, 244c21-245c16. 14 此即南印度羅羅國正量部僧、名般若毱多。此名惠藏。安惠之學徒、三代帝王師。造七百頌誹謗大乘。[…] 後戒日王三度往喚般若毬多、欲令共我大師論議、辞不肯來。(T1830, 43, 351a21-b4) 15 伽藍百餘所、僧徒六千餘人、多學小乘正量部法。(T2087, 51, 936b19-20)

5 [DRAFT]

appearance similar to cognition and the object of cognition arises. Commentary: Secondly, the theory of the four components of cognition is expounded. […] Old Mahāyāna masters, such as Sthiramati, claim that only the self-aware part exists but the objective and subjective parts do not. […] Treatise: Its associated dharmas should be comprehended in the same way. Commentary: […] This is the orthodox opinion. [This is] not the same as Sthiramati and the Hīnayānists such as the *Sāṃmitīya […] Treatise: The appearance similar to the object of cognition is named “the objective part.” The appearance similar to the cognition is named “the subjective part.” Commentary: […] Treatise: If mind and mental factors have no appearance of the object of cognition, they cannot perceive their objects of perception. 16 Commentary: The following is the refutation of Sthiramati and the *Sāṃmitīya. […]15F Kuiji criticized Sthiramati in conjunction with Sāṃmitīya, although, as I quoted above, he said that Sthiramati “refuted the masters of the *Sāṃmitīya.” As mentioned above, Sthiramati had a student of Sāṃmitīya, Prajñāgupta, and his hometown Vallabhi had numerous temples of Sāṃmitīya. These descriptions suggest that Sthiramati had a close relationship with Sāṃmitīya. It is important to note that a recent study has uncovered the existence of a relationship between Paramārtha and Sāṃmitīya. Funayama (2012) has offered strong evidence that suggests that Paramārtha became a Buddhist monk under the vinaya of Sāṃmitīya and lived his daily life based on the Sāṃmitīya rules, being associated with the Sarvāstivāda and Yogācāra schools. Paramārtha is considered as a contemporary of Sthiramati. Moreover, Woncheuk’s commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra indicates the relationship between the texts of Paramārtha and Sthiramati. Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha set up the theory of nine consciousnesses based on Juedingzang lun 決定藏論. […] The seventh [consciousness is] ādāna , which means "holding." [It] holds that the eighth consciousness is self and mine. [It has] only afflictive hindrances, but does not have any attachment to the reality of phenomena. [It] must not [affect] the Buddhahood. The eighth is the ālaya vijñāna that has three types: The first is the ālaya as the nature of gnosis. […] The second is the maturing ālaya that perceive the eighteen elements. […] The third is the defiled ālaya that perceive tathatā, and this is where the four hindrances emerge. This is the attachment to the reality of phenomena, but is not the attachment to the reality of a self. The aforementioned theory is based on Sthiramati’s doctrine. The ninth is the amala vijñāna, which means "immaculate consciousness." […] The Jiushi zhang 九識章 explains in detail quoting the chapter on the nine consciousnesses in 17 Juedingzang lun.16F Ōtake (2012) underscores that the quotation above has parallels with Sthiramati’s 18 commentary.17F Since East Asian scholars at that time did not know Sthiramati’s texts, Ōtake

16 論「然有漏識」至「能縁相現」。述曰、大段第二明四分義。[…] 謂安惠等古大乘師、多説唯有識自證分無相・見分。[…] 論「彼相應法應知亦爾」。述曰、[…] 今此正義。不同安惠・及小乘中正量部等 […]。論「似所縁相」至「説名見分」。述曰、[…]。論「若心心所」至「自所縁境」。述曰、自下第二正破安惠・正量部等。(T1830, 43, 317b28-c12) Cheng weishi lun: 然有漏識自體生時、皆似所縁能縁相現。彼相應法應知亦爾。似所縁相説名相分、似能縁相説名見分。若心心所無所縁相、應不能縁自所縁境。(T1585, 31, 10a21-25) 17 眞諦三藏依『決定藏論』、立九識義。 […] 第七阿陀那、此云執持。執持第八、爲我我所。唯煩惱障、而無法執。定不成佛。第八阿梨耶識、自有三種。一解性梨耶、有成佛義。二果報梨耶、緣十八界。[…] 三染汚阿梨耶、縁眞如境、起四種謗。即是法執、而非人執。依安慧宗、作如是説。第九阿摩羅識、此云無垢識。 […] 具如『九識章』引『決定藏論』九識品中説。(X1-34-4-360) 18 “The seventh [consciousness …] holds that the eighth consciousness is self and mine.” ≒ adālambam iti,

6 [DRAFT]

concluded that Jiushi zhang was written by Paramārtha who learned the Yogâcāra doctrines similar to Sthiramati in South India.

Conclusion By way of conclusion, I would like to reiterate my points that • There are some parallels between works of Paramārtha and Sthiramati, and JBS, • There is reason to believe that Sthiramati and Paramārtha had some connection with the *Sāṃmitīya and also learned the same Yogâcāra doctrine, according to East Asian traditions, and • Wonhyo seems to have learned the doctrine through Paramārtha’s works. According to Kuiji (T1830.43.231c2–5) and Woncheuk (HBJ 1, 356b11–14), Paramārtha also wrote a commentary on MAVBh. According to Ui (1965), it is reasonable to assume that the Shibakong lun 十八空論 (Treatise on the Eighteen Aspects of Emptiness) attributed to Nāgārjuna was a part of Paramārtha’s commentary of MAVBh, rather than his translation. It may be possible to say that Wonhyo wrote JBS based on Paramārtha’s commentaries or works, although direct evidence is lacking. In addition, it is reasonable to think that, in the seventh century, there are other lineages of Yogâcāra Buddhism in East Asia, which was learned by Sthiramati and Paramārtha in India and brought to East Asia by Paramārtha.

Abbreviations HBJ Hanguk bulgyo jeonseo 韓國佛教全書. JBS Jungbyeon bunbyeollon so 中邊分別論疏 of Wonhyo. MAVBh Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya of Vasubandhu. MAVBh(P) Paramārtha’s translation of MAVBh, Zhongbian fenbie lun 中邊分別論 (T1599). MAVBh(X) Xuanzang’s translation of MAVBh, Bian zhongbian lun 辯中邊論 (T1600). MAVṬ Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā of Sthiramati (Yamaguchi 1934). T Taisho shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. TrBh Triṃśikābhāṣya of Sthiramati, ed. by Sylvain Lévi, Paris 1925. X Dainihon zokuzōkyō 大日本續藏經.

References Aohara, N. (1988) Kusharon chūshakuka Guṇamati to sono deshi Vasumitra (1) 倶舍論注釋家 Guṇamati とその弟子 Vasumitra (1) [Guṇamati and His Pupil Vasumitra (1)]. Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 36(2), 67–69. D’Amato, M. (2012). Maitreya’s Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga) Along with Vasubandhu’s Commentary (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya): A Study and Annotated Translation. American Institute of Buddhist Studies. Moro, S. (2015). Ronri to rekishi: Higashi ajia bukkyō ronrigaku no seiritsu to tenkai 論理と歴史: 東アジア佛教論理學の形成と展開 [Logic and History: Formation and Expansion of Buddhist Logic in East Asia]. Kyoto: Nakanishiya shuppan. Moro, S. (2017). Gangyō Chūhen funbetsu ron sho no shisōshi jō no ichi to sono igi 元曉『中邊分

ālayavijñānālambanam eva. satkāyadṛṣṭyādibhiḥ saṃprayogād ahaṃ mamety ālayavijñānālambanatvāt. (TrBh 22, 22-24) “The seventh ādāna [… has] only the afflictive hindrances, but does not have the attachment to the reality of phenomena.” ≒ arhatas tāvad aśeṣa-kleśa-prahāṇāt kliṣṭaṃ mano naivāsti. (TrBh 24, 14) “The second is the maturing ālaya which perceive the eighteen elements.” ≒ āśrayopādānaṃ copādiḥ. āśraya ātmabhāvaḥ, sādhiṣṭhānam indriyarūpaṃ nāma ca. (TrBh 19, 16-17)

7 [DRAFT]

別論疏』の思想史上の位置とその意義. 21segi Wonhyohak ui uimi wa jeonmang: Wonhyo chansul munheon ui gyebohakjeok seongchal 21 世紀元曉學의 意味와 展望: 元曉撰述文獻의 系譜學的省察, 187–225. Seoul: Dongguk University. Moro, S. (2018). Jayasena’s Proof of the Authenticity of the Mahāyāna Scriptures. Journal of Indian Philosophy 46(2), 339–353. Nagao, G. M. (1964). Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāşya. Tokyo. Nguyen, C. T. (2012). Commentary on the Discrimination between the Middle and the Extremes (Chungbyŏn punbyŏllon so): Fascicle Three. In A. Charles Muller & C. T. Nguyen (Eds.), Wŏnhyo’s Philosophy of Mind (pp. 175–261). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Ōtake, S. (2012). Shindai Kushiki-gi wo megutte 眞諦『九識章』をめぐって. In T. Funayama (Ed.), Shindai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 眞諦三藏硏究論集, 121–153. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University. Ui, H. (1965). Jūhachi kū ron no kenkyū 十八空論の研究. In Indo Tetsugaku Kenkyū dai 6 印度哲學硏究第六. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Yamaguchi, S. (1934). Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā: Exposition Systématique du Yogācāravijñaptivāda. Nagoya, Librarie Hajinkaku.