Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 39, No. 2, March 1991
Bu-stop's Way to Understand the Abhisamayalaakara
Fujio TANIGUCHI
The Abhisamayalankara (AA), a summary of the Prajnaparamitasutra from the standpoint of the path to the attainment of deliverance, was trad itionally studied in Tibet with the help of Haribhadra's commentary on it. But his interpretation is not necessarilly in accordance with the root text. In this short paper I will clarify how the great Tibetan scholar, Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub (1290-1364), destinguished between the original meaning and Haribhadra's interpretation on it. AA was treated as a fundamental treatise on the Prajnaparamita litera- ture in India and Tibet. This work was probably written in the late fifth century,1) but it was influential just after the end of the eighth century. Heribhadra wrote a few commentaries on it at that period. The Sphutartha or the Small Commentary ('grel chung) is the most important among his works. It itself had an influence on Buddhists in India. Some wrote sub- commentaries on the work. others criticized Haribhadra in their expositions of AA. It was Tibetan Buddhists that were influenced by the Small Com- mentary still more than Indian Buddhists were. The lDan dkar ma (or lHan dkar ma) Catalogue coposed in 824 refers to the supposed Small Commentary. This shows that the work was translated into Tibetan shortly after Haribhadra flourished. The first commentary on AA in Tibet is believed to have been made by the rNgog Translator, Blo- ldan-shes-rab, who revised the Tibetan version of the Small Commentary. Many Tibetan scholars belonging to the Geluk and Sakya sects gave expo- sitions of AA, most of which are sub-commentaries on the Small Commen- tary at the same time. The abundant Tibetan literature is helpful in a study of AA and Haribhadra. But the problem is that many Tibetans are
-1005- (51) Bu-ston's Way to Understand the Abhisamayalankara (F. TANIGUCHI) liable to regard the sense of Haribhadra's commentary as that of the root text, even where the two are quite different. Among Tibetan masters, ho- wever, Bu-ston treats the Small Commentary critically in his sub-comm- entary on it titled the Lung gi snye ma. The Small Commentary consists of literal annotation and argument. The latter is important to know Haribhadra's own view. But in the former also he sometimes gave an interpretation which is not in accordance with AA. Bu-ston pointed out such an interpretation in the commentary on I, 36.2) AA I, 36 deals with the supports (samparigraha) of the bodhisattvas on the Degree conducive to penetration. Commenting on the verse, Bu-ston divides the supports into three: (1) skill in means, (2) spiritual friend, and (3) elimination of their opponents.3) But Haribhadra combines the first two and defines the support as a spiritual friend who is skillful in means, according to Bu-ston.4) We can ascertain that what Bu-ston pointed out is correct by reading the Small Commentary carefully and by comparing the Prajnaparamitasutra in 25,000 stanzas with the Sutra in 8000 stanzas. Haribhadra's interpretation in his commentary does not tell the original meaning of AA I, 36. Many other Tibetan scholars were liable to consider that Haribhadra lists "skill in means" and "spiritual friend" separately. It resulted in the vagueness of their sub-commentaries. But Bu-ston was criti- cal enough to differenciate Haribhadra's understanding of the verse from its orignal meaning.5) Haribhadra inserts an argument between IV, 37 and 38. The question shown there is that AA has a fault of repition because the text deals with the Degree conducive to penetration, the Peth of vision, and the Path of meditation in Chap. I-VI. The answer is as follows. The subjects of Chap. I-III are the Wisdom of All Aspects (sarvakarajnata), the Wisdom of Paths (margajnata), and the Wisdom of All Things (sarvajnata) respectively. Each wisdom has. its own object. The Degree condusive to penetration etc. ex- plained in one chapter are different from those explained in another from the viewpoint of their objects. Therefore there is no fault of repitition in Chap. I-III.6) Most Tibetan scholars interpreted Haribhadra's passage in
-1004- Bu-ston's Way to Understand the Abhisamayalankara (F. TANIGUCHI) (52)
that way and regarded it as his view in the case of Chap. I-III. In the case of Chap. IV-VI, the Tibetan commentators differed in the interpretation of Haribhadra's sentences. He says in the Small Commentary that the expression "the Degree condusive to penetration" etc. are used in AA to contradict the simultaneous occurence of the poor, the intermedi- date, and the high knowledge without outflows which belongs to the Spe- cial Path.7) Tibetan scholars interpret his sentenses in two ways. Some take them literally (mtshan nyid pa), while the others take them figuratively (btags pa pa). Haribhadra himself seemed to use his words in figurative sense, because he applies the terms "Special Path (visesamarga)" and "knowl- edge without outflow (jnanam anasravam)" on purpose. As for Bu-ston, he interprets the sentenses in the latter way. An argument follows Bu-ston's interpretation of the passage in the Lung gi sne ma. In the first half Bo-dong-pa's opinion is refuted. He asserts that the passage about the Degree conducive to penetration etc. does not expr- ess Haribhadra's interpretation, but is a question to be eliminated by him. But Bu-ston regards the passage as Haribhadra's own on the ground of his another work.8) While in the latter half the assertion that the Degree con- ducive to penetration etc. explained in Chap. IV-VI of AA are just a fi- gure of speech is refuted and the view that the terms are used litterally is accepted. The question is who refutes the former and accepts the latter. It is Bu-ston but not Bo-dong-pa judging from the context. That is why the first half of the argument and the latter half are connected with the word "nevertheless" ('ong kyang)9) Bu-ston's interpretaion of AA is different Haribhadra's. In the above-mentioned two examples Bu-ston distinguished between Haribhadra's commentary on AA and its original meaning. A scholar's commentary helped him to do so. He referred to the scholar by the name "'ph ags-pa".10) 'Phags-pa or Arya Vimktisena flourished in the 6th century or the 7th, and is the first person who made an existing commentary on AA. Criticizing Haribhadra, Abhayakaragupta also derived some informa- tion from Arya Vimuktisena's commentary.11) Bu-ston might have followed
-1003- (53) Bu-ston's Way to Understand the Abhisamayalankara (F. TANIGUCHI) the example of Abhayakaragupta. Anyhow Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub mainly made use of Haribhadra's works when he understand AA, but he did not always follow the Indian master's view. In comparison with Arya Vimuk- tisena's commentary he chose the philologically better interpretation.
Notes 1) AA IV, 54cd is identical with the Abhidharmakosa VI, 33cd. Vasubandhu doesn't seem to have borrowed the passage from AA when he composed the Abhidharmakosa belonging to Sarvastivada. The author of AA must have used half of the verse. Therefore AA was made after the Abhidharmakosa. 2) AAA p. 75. 3) r t sa ba la/ nang yongs 'dz in t habs mkhas/ phy i yongs 'dz in dge bshes/ de' i mi mthun phyogs bor ba dang gsum mo// (LN151a2) 4) slob dpon 'di ni/ thams cad du yongs 'dzin dge bshes thabs mkhas su 'dod do// (LN151b3-4) 5) Cf. Fujio Taniguchi, "The Small Commentary and the Prajnaparamitasutra in 8,000 Stanzas" (in Japanese), Nihon Chibetto Gakkai Kaiho (Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies), No. 36, 1990. 6) AAA p. 664. 7) AAA p. 664. 8) LN282a3-4. 9) LN282a3-b1. 10) de dag ni/ 'phags pa'i rjes su 'brangs pa'i bshad pa ste/ (LN15lb3); des na/ 'phags pa la sogs pa'i dam pa rnams kyi rjes su 'brangs to skabs 'og ma
gsum du bstan pa'i lam gsum yang mtshan nyid pa nyid du smra'o// (LN 282a7-bi) 11) Cf. Hirofumi Isoda, "Abhayakaragupta's criticism of Haribhadra" (in Ja- panese), Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu (Journal of Indidan and Buddhist Stu- dies), Vol. 30, No. 2, 1980. Abbreviation AAA: Haribhadra, Abhisamayalahkaraloka (ed. U. Wogihara), Tokyo, 1973. LN: Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub, Lung gi snye ma (Satapitaka Series Vol. 58). (本研究 は平成2年 度文部省科学研究費 (奨励研究) による研究成果の一部である)
-1002-