THE PROBLEMS OF THE "ĀTYANTIKA"IN KUEI-CHI'S PPHV

(1)

中華佛學學報第3 期 (p381-401)： (民國 79 年)，臺北：中華佛學研究所，http://www.chibs.edu.tw

Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, No. 03, (1990)

Taipei: The Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies ISSN: 1017-7132

THE PROBLEMS OF THE "ĀTYANTI KA"IN KUEI-CHI'S PPHV

(Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra-vyākhyana, 般若波羅蜜多心經幽賛)

Ah-yueh Yeh 台灣大學哲學系教授

p. 381

Summary

The Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra (般若波羅蜜多心經) is not one of the Vijñānavāda's texts, but Kuei-chi (窺基) in his PPHV (般若波羅蜜多心經幽賛) explains its meanings with Vijñānavada's theories by means of not only borrowing the theories from LAS (楞伽經), MSA (大乘莊嚴經論) and YCBh (瑜伽師地論) etc., but also reconstructing their theories as his new

(2)

theories. Of these the "ātyantika" (阿顛底伽) appears in PPHV as the Fifth Nature implicating three problems, therefore, I explain in this paper these three problems as follows: (1) Concering the First Problem of why Kuei-chi omits the "icchantika" (一闡提伽) and "an-icchantika" or "ācchantika (阿闡提伽) in PPHV, I deal with the theories of LAS, MAS and YCBh for the purpose of finding out the reason which Kuei-chi claims that "agotra" (無種姓), the Fifth Nature, contains three kinds: "icchantika", "anicchantika" and

"ātyantika" in his VMSVy [c-k] (成唯識論掌中樞要). (2) The Second Problem is that if Kuei-chi does not support the theories of

"mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva" (大悲菩薩), why does he claim in PPHV that

"avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva" (觀自在菩薩) has completed Enlightment?

Regarding this problem, I deal with the theories of Saddharmapuṇḍarika's Commentary (法華玄贊), PPHV and YCBh's Commenetary (瑜伽論記) for the purpose of proving that Kuei-chi permits the theories of

Mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva. (3) The Third Problem is that if Kuei-chi holds that "agotra" is only "atyantāgotra" (畢竟無種姓), why does he in PPHV not only explain that both 8th and 7th vijñanas are good natures, but also select the "buddha-gotra" (佛性) and "tathāgata-garbha" (如來藏) etc. for the explanations of the natures of "chien-hsiang-cheng-hsing" (遣相證性), one of the Five Vijñanavada-perceptions (五重唯識觀)? For this problem, I first make a comparative table and then explain their meanings for

p. 382

the purpose of understanding that Kuei-chi in PPHV does not hold the Indian "atyantāparinirvarṇa-dharma" (畢竟無涅槃法).

In CONCLUSION, I offer two keys to solve the above problems: (1) The

"ātyantika" can connect with either "agotra" or "gotra"; the "atyantikāgatra"

(具畢竟無種姓) and "ātyantika-gotra" (具畢竟種姓), The "ātyantika" in PPHV has these two meanings. (2) The "顛" of "ātyantika" (阿顛底迦) can be interpreted as a misprint of the "闡" of "anicchnatika" (阿闡底迦). Aside from these two keys, should it be suggested that "agotra" be retrieved as the Fifth Naturs, which contains "icchantika", "anicchantika" and "ātyantika", claimed by Kuei-chi in his VMSVy [c-k] (樞要).

(3)

THE PROBLEMS OF THE "ĀTYANTIKA" IN KUEI-CHI'S PPHV

(Prajñāpāramita-hṛdaya-sūtra-vyakhyāna) 般若波羅蜜多心經幽賛

Kuei-chi (窺基 A.D.632-682) and his Great Teacher Hsuen-tsang (玄奘 A.D.600-64) are the famous founders of the Chinese Vijñānavāda's school, Fa-hsiang tzung) . The VMS [h] [Vijñaptimātratasiddhi, 成唯識論] is an important basic text of this school, which introduced some special theories of Vasubandhu (世親, A.D. 320-400) and Dharmapāla (護法 A.D. 530-561) to Chinese Buddhist scholars as the new Chinese vijñānavāda[1] in the Tang Dynasty, of these the doctrines of the three vehicles and the "five distinctive natures" (FDN, Wu-chung-hsing-peih, 五種性別) are very famous theories.

The FDN only appears once in VMS [h] [2], but its five names [bodhisattva (菩薩), pratyeka-buddha (獨［緣］覺), srāvaka (聲聞), anityata (不定), agotra (無種性)] are introduced by Kuei-chi in his VMSVy [s-k][3] (述記), vol.1. first, and next in vol.11, he enumerates the LAS (Laṇkavatāra-sūtra, 入楞伽經) vol.2, Wu-shang-I-chin (無上依經)

vol.A, Suvikrānta-vikrāmiparipṛccha-PP (善勇猛般若經) vol. 1., Mahāprajñā-pāramita-sūtra (大般若經) vol.593, MSA

(Mahāyānasūtrānnkara, 大乘莊嚴經論) vol.1., and YCBh (Yogācarabhūmi, 瑜伽師地論) vol.21. for the purpose of proving that these texts mentioned the FDN. But he does not explain the meanings of the FDN, because in his other

p. 383

commentary of VMSVy [c-k] (成唯識論掌中樞要),[4] he has already explicated them in all details. In them we find the Fifth "agotra" (without lineage, 無種姓) containing (1) "icchantika" (一闡提伽) (2)

"an-icchantika", or "ācchantika" (阿闡提伽) and (3) "ātyantika" (阿顛底迦, ah-tien-chi-chia).

(4)

Now this "ātyantika" appears as the Fifth Nature ("gotra", lineage) with the other three natures of the three vehicles (三乘) and one nature "anityata" (不定, undetermined one), in his commentary of PPHS.[5]

(Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūstra, 般若波羅蜜多心經),

named Pan-jo-po-lo-mito-hsin-chin-yu-tsan, (般若波羅蜜多心經). These five names of FDN only appear as the representations of the five different persons in practicing the boddhisattva's path (菩薩行) without any

explanation of their meanings and characteristics in PPHV.

PPHS (心經) , of course, is not the Vijñānavāda's text, but Kuei-chi explains the Practicing PP (Prajñapāramita, 般若波羅蜜多), the Second

"cittauttāpana" [6] (第二練磨心), with the theories of the vijñānavāda, in which he sometimes explains with his own special theories which are different from not only the texts of Triṁśikā, VMS, but also the YCBh. If we compare these theories, we will find that this "ātyantika" in PPHV has some problems. Therefore, I will attempt to explain in this paper what the meanings and problems this "ātyantika" has in the PPHV.

I. The First Problem of "ātyantika"

(A) The "agotra" in LAS & MSA"

Why does Kuei-chi omit "icchantika" and "an-icchantika" in the PPHV? As concerning this problem, let us study the theories of VMSVy [c-k], for the purpose of seeking out why Kuei-chi explains that the Fifth Nature, named

"agotra" comprises the "icchantika" "an-icchantika" and "ātyantika".

Kuei-chi, in his VMSVy [c-k][7], introduces various theories from some famous texts, of these the theories of LAS and MSA, I think, will be the important avenues whereby to work out the above problem. Therefore, I select the main theories of the Fifth Nature, the "agotra" in the texts of LAS and MSA as follows. the main theories of LAS are:[8]

(1) The one who dejects all good roots (sarva-kuśalamūlotsarga), not only

p. 384

(5)

resists the bodhisattva-piṭaka (菩薩藏), but also dislikes the liberation (mokṣa).

However, if he meets the Buddhas, good friends etc., and generates the bodhicitta (菩提心), he finally can attain the nirvāṇa.

(2) The bodhisattva who, for the beneficence of all the living beings, makes the following vows from the biginningless time.

"I will not attain the nirvāna as long as all the living beings do not attain the nirvāṇa."

Therefore He absolutely does not attain the nirvāṇa (atyantato na parinirvāti), since he understands that the characteristics of all dharmas are originally in nirvāṇa (ādiparinirvṛtān sarvadharmān vidita). In this case he is named the

bodhisattvecchantika (菩薩闡提).

From the above explanations we understand that the Fifth Nature, "agotra"

in LAS has two different "icchantikas" who own the natures to be the Buddhas. Therefore, the other meaning of "agotra", the

"without-buddha-gotra" is not explained in LAS. Next, the main theories of MSA are:[9]

The dharma of without getting nirvāṇa (aprinirvāṇa-dharma, 無般涅槃法) is in the state of "agotra" which has two-types:

(1) The aparinirvāna-dharma in time [10] (kalaparinirvāṇa-dharma, 時邊無般涅槃法) wich again has four kinds;

(a) duścaritaikāntika (一向行惡行, absolutely doing the bad deeds).

(b) "samucchinnakuśalamūla" (普斷諸善［白］根, utterly destroying the good roots) (c) "amokṣabhāgīya-kuśalamūla" (無有解脫分［善根］, without the good root of

having to do with liberation).

(d) "hīnakuśalamūlas caparipūrṇa-saṁbhāraḥ" (善［根］少亦無因, the defeated good roots and unperfect equipment for the Enlightment).

(2) The dharma of absolutely without getting nirvāṇa (atyantāparinirvāṇa-dharma, 畢竟無涅槃法) means that the one who is absolutely without the "hetu" (cause), by which there is no gotra of attaining nirvāṇa.

Of the above explanations, the first "kalaparinirvāṇa-dharma" means that the one who is temporarily without "gotra", but, when he meets the Buddhas, good friends and good "pratyaya" (a co-operating cause), he will regain his

(6)

"gotra" and become a buddha. Therefore, this "kalaparinirvāṇa-dharma" is just the same as the two "icchantikas" of

p. 385

the "dejecting the good roots" and the "bodhisattvecchantika" in LAS as mentioned before. In this case the later "atyantāparinirvāṇa-dharma" has the real meaning of "agotra". This is why Kuei-chi selects the above theories of LAS and MSA, and claims that the Fifth Nature comprises three-types of (1)

"icchantiaka" (2) "anicchantika" and (3) "ātyantika", which are considered to be the new theories of Kuei-chi.

For these reasons, Kuei-chi explains that the "icchantika" means the one who desires the "saṁsāra" (生死輪迴). This explanation is the same as that the Fu-sin-lung (佛性論, TTP 31, p.797c) said, and the "an-icchantika"

means the one who undesires the nirvāṇa. From this meanings, these two, the "icchantika" and the "anicchantika" are common to the other two: the one who has "breaking good roots", and the "mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva". In other words Kuei-chi selects the two "icchantikas" from LAS for his first two "icchantika" and "anicchantika", and he finally selects the "atyantāpari nirvāṇa-dharma" from the MSA for his third one, the "ātyantika" which means that the one who is absolutely without getting nirvāṇa.

And Kuei-chi in his conclusion says that the one who is without the [buddha]

gotra, the "agotra", can also named the first two names, the "icchantika" and the "an-icchantika", who will attian the enlightment in a long time; but the last one, the "ātyantika" can not attain the enlightment. From this statement, we understant that Kuei-chi claims that the "agotra", the Fifth Nature, has three tipes of "icchantika", "an-icchantika" and "ātyantika". But in the same text, he claims that the "icchantika" has three kind types of (1) "breaking good roots", (2) "mahākaruna", (3) "agotra", which tells us that the "agotra"

becomes one of the "icchantika" and named "agotrecchantika" (無性闡提), in which the cause and result are in-complete in becoming a buddha.[11]

Anyway, Kuei-chi selects the theories of LAS and MSA and accepts that the Fifth Nature is "agotra" or "icchantika", but he coins the new theories for claiming that both of "agotra" and "icchantika" separately have their own three types as meantioned before, the first two types of them will finally

(7)

attain the nirvāṇas, but the only last types of the "ātyantika" of "agotra" and the "agotra" of "icchantika" absolutely can not attain the nirvāṇa. In other words, the only "ātyantika" and "agotrec-chantika" are absolutely without becoming the buddhas.

p. 386

(B) The "agotra" in YCBh

Now we come back to see the PPHV, in which Kuei-chi mentions the

"ātyantika" (阿顛底迦) as the fifth Nature without explaining not only the other two of "icchantiaka" and "an-icchantika", but also the "ātyantika" itself.

Why does he omit the "icchantiaka" and "an-icchantik" in this PPHV? As concerning this problem, in the next step it is better for us to research the theories of BSBh = = Bodhisattvabhumi (菩薩地) of YCBh =

Yogācārabhūmi (瑜迦師地論) to find out its relation with PPHV, because Kuei-chi borrows many theories of bodhisattvacaryā (菩薩行) from BSBh for the explanations of Practicing PP, the Second "Citta-uttāpana" (第二練磨心) in PPHV.

It is a well-known fact that the various names and theories of "gotras" and

"pudgalas" are broadly explicated in YCBh vols. 21, 37, 52, 57, 67 without mentioning the names and theories of the Five Natures altogether in its one place. But genearlly speaking, the theories of Five Natures are treated in YCBh, [12] therefore, I find the four names of "pudgalas" connecting with three gotras and one "agotra" in YCBh vol.37 as follows. [13]

(1) "śrāvaka-gotraḥ śrāvaka-yane (the one possessing the "śrāvaka" (listener)'s gotra, 聲聞種姓, in the vehicle of śrāvaka, [should be ｍatured as his pudgala]. (住聲聞種姓，於聲聞乘應可成熟補特伽羅).

(2) "pratyeka-buddha-gotraḥ pratyekabuddha-yāne" (the one possessing the

"pratyekabuddha" (self-enlightened one)'s gotra in vehicle of praty-eka-buddha, [should be matured as his pudgala] (住獨覺種姓，於獨覺乘應可成補特伽羅)

(3) "Buddhagotra mahāyane paripacayitavyaḥ" (the one possessing the Buddha's gotra in the mahāyana, should be matured [as his pudgala] (住佛種姓，於發上乘應可成熟補特伽羅)

(4) "agotrastho 'pi pudgalaḥ sugati-gamanāya paripācayitavyo bhavati" (and the pudgala

(8)

who is occupied with "agotra" for going into the good path (sugati, 善趣), should be matured [as his pudgala] (住無種姓，於住善趣應成補特伽羅)

The above four kinds of pudgalas belong to No.2 "paripācya [pudgala]" (the matured man) of the Six "paripākāḥ", [14] the state of

p. 387

matured living bings (sattva-paripāka-sthāna) , which is the No. 5 state of the Seven Studing States[15] in the "svaparārtha" (自他利)'s section of BSBh. From which Kuei-chi borrows the theories of bodhisattvacaryā (菩薩行) in PPHV for explaning the broad practices of the bodhisattvacaryā, in which we find that its many theories are reconstruted by Kuei-chi. For example, the seven states are contracted into five states: No. 5

"sattvaparipāka" is changed to no. 1 state of the five states, and named

"so-hua-chu" (所化處, the state of the men taught). For this Kuei-chi simply mentions the following statements. [16]

"The three vehicles (三乘), undetermined one (anityata, 不定) and the absolute one (ātyantika, 阿顛底迦) , should be matured according to the differences of their "gotras" (種姓差別如應成熟)."

The above names of the Five Natures are also reconstructed names from the four pudgalas of BSBh (菩薩地), according to the Five Natures of LAS and MSA. That is to say that Kuei-chi put the "anityata" between No.3[17]

"buddha-gotra-pudgala" and No.4 "agotrastha-pudgala", In addition he not only changes No. 4 "agotra" to "ātyantika", but also takes away the name of No. 3, combines it with Nos.1.2. and name "three vehicles" without any explanation about these five natures.

Now let us see the following statements of BSBh for understanding the meanings of "agotra".

A. "agotra-sthaḥ pudgalo gotre 'sati cittopade'pi yatna-samāśraye satyabhavyaś cānuttarāyāḥ samyaksaṁbodheh paripūraye."

[18] (When the person existing without "gotra" does not live in the "gotra", he is unable in the completion of the unsurpassed and perfect enlightenment, even though he

produces intention and makes the effort as the support).

B. "asati tu gotre sarveṇa sarvaṁ sarvathā bodher apraptir eva veditavya" [19] (It should

(9)

be understand that if there is no gotra, there will be always without getting bodhi all entirelly).

The above statements tell us that the "agotra" in BSBh is only the meaning of "atyantāparinirvāṇa-dharma" of MSA without the meanings of two types of "icchantika" of LAS. This is why Kuei-chi changes the "agotra" to the

"ātyantika", since he likes to accord with the theories of YCBh. But the problem of why he omits the explanations of "icchamita" and "an-icchantia"

(the Mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva) in PPHV in not p. 388

yet resolved.

II. The Second Problem of "ātyantika"

If Kuei-chi forgets the meanings of "icchantika" and "an-icchantika" (the Mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva), and does not support the theories of

Bodhisattveccḥantika (菩薩闡底), why does he in PPHV claim that the

"avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva" has completed Enlightenment as follows?[20]

"The Avalokiteśvara first produces the intention from the ancient time, and then makes up the excellent mind in the "avidya" shell accompanied with defilements (saṁkleśa). He had abandoned his wealth and life for seeking the Buddha-prajñā through the highest effort, and finally he had gotten the perfect Enlightenment. Therefore, I should encourage myself and do more practices. It means that I should not despite myself and produce the shrunk mind."

The above statement in the PPHV belongs to the First "cittauttāpana" (第一練磨心), one of the Three "citta-uttāpanās" (三練磨心), whose technical terms are borrowed by Kuei-chi from MS. Mahāyānasaṁgraha (攝大乘論),[21] but he also has reconstructed its theories in the PPHV. Therefore the "avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva" in the above First "citta-uttāpana"

represents not only the living being (有情眾生) mentioning in MS, but also the "purusa-[damya-sārathi]" ([調御丈夫]) mentioning in VMSVy [s-k][22].

(10)

It means that the "avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva not only has already attained the perfect enlightenment as the "puruṣa-damya-sārathi", one of the Ten Buddha' Synonyms, [23]but also always lives in this evil world to carry out the welfare works for all the living beings by the power of his vow

stemming from his great compassion. These theories are mentioned in his commentary of Saddharma-pụṇḍarīkā-sūtra (法華玄賛),[24] in which Samantabhadra-[bodhisattva] (普賢 [菩薩]) also is mentioned. And the other famous Muñjuśrī-bodhisattva (文殊菩薩)'s theories are introduced in Tun-lun (遁倫)'s commentary of YCBh (瑜伽論記).[25]

Anyway according to the theories of LAS, the above "avalokiteśvara",

"Samantabhadra" and "Muñjuśri" can be called the p. 389

same name "Bodhisattvecchantika" (菩薩闡提)[26] or

"mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva" or "Mahā-karuṇecchantika" (大悲闡提)[27]

named by Kuei-chi. In this case, we can call that the

"Avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva" is the "Mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva" (大悲闡提).

But can we say that this "Avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva" belongs to the Fifth Nature, the "ātyantika"? I think, not only Kuei-chi, but also we will say

"No" for its answer, because Kuei-chi in VMSVy [c-k] claims that the Fifth Nature, the "agotra" or "icchantika" has its own three kind-natures, in which the "Mahākaruṇecchantika" and "ātyantika" are involved. Therefore, it can be said that the only "maha-karuṇa-bodhisattva" does not belong to

"ātyantika", and only "ātyantika" also can not represent the Fifth Nature, as according to the theories of Kuei-chi's VMSVy [c-k].

III. The Third Problem of "ātyantika"

If Kuei-chi holds that the "agotra" is only the "ātyantika" (阿顛底迦) or the

"pi-ching-wu-chung-hsing" (畢竟無種姓, "atyantagotra", or

"ātyantikāgotra"), why does he in PPHV Not only explains that the both Eighth Vijñāna and Seventh Vijñāna are good natures, but also selects the theories of "tathagata-garbha" (如來藏) and "Buddha-gotra" (佛性) for the

(11)

explanation of the nature of "Chien-hsing cheng-hsing" (遣相證性), one of the Five Vijñānavāda-perceptions (五重唯識觀)?

As concerning the above problem, let us see the following table which

contains Kuei-chi's explanations of both vijñānas. (Please see the next paper.

The new important theories in above table are as follows:

(1) Both "citta" (心)= Eighth vijñāna and "manas" (意)= Seventh vijñāna are possessing the good characters or natures, which are different from the indeterminate (avyakṛta, 無記) natures mentioning in Triṁśikā and VMS etc. [28]

(2) Both vijñanas, though separately having their won three vijñānas in three states, have close relationship.

(3) The "ādānavijñāna" in the third state is not only higher and longer in activities than

"ālayavijñāna" and "vipākavijñāna", but also the object of the "manas" in the third state, which is different from the impure mind (kliṣṭa-manas, 染污意) mentioning in the texts of

p. 390

The “citta＂ (Eighth Vijñāna) The “manas＂ (Sventh Vijñāna) (A)

Meanings and

charaters of both vijñā nas

Holding the latent formative forces (bīja, 種子) and receiving the impressions (熏習), which is the essence of a person undergoing his

transmigration etc., (持種受熏，趣生等體)

Impurely clinging to the Self (ā tman) as its character, which is the support of defilement (āsrava, 有漏); (染執我相為有漏依)

Possessing the un-impeded good character which can transform the body and world for the support of the living beings.

(善無覆性，能變身器為有情依)

constantly pure and equivalent, possessing the good, but impeded character or nature.

(淨常平等，性善有覆) (B) Names

and characters of the three states

(1).我愛執藏位, in the sate of Self-love-attachment, it is named the “ālaya＂ (阿賴耶), since it is translated as the hider (能

(1)我執相應位 in the state of associating with the

Self-attachment, it is named the

“impeded-manas＂ (有覆末那),

(12)

藏), hided (所藏) and sticking-hider (執藏)

since it takes the ālaya as its object and holds it as Ego.

(2).善惡業果位, in the state of good and evil “karmaphalānj＂

(諸業果), it is named the “vipā ka＂, since it has the meaning of different maturation (異熟) and collects the good evil effects.

(2)法執相應位, In the state of associating with the

dharma-attachment, it is named

“un-impeded-manas＂ (無覆末那), since it takes the “vipāka＂

as its object and holds it as dharma.

(3).相續執持位, in the stats of continually taking, it is named

“ādāna＂ (阿陀那), since it can take and hold body to prevent from decay.

(3)思量性位, in the state of cogitative nature, it is only named

“manas＂, since it takes the “ād āna＂ etc. as its objects and produces the cogitation.

p. 391

MSVy[v-p], [29] 轉識論 translated by Paramārtha.

At any rate Kuei-chi claims that both Eighth Vijñāna an Seventh Vijñāna in the state of supreme truth (paramārtha-satya, 勝義諦) are good and pure natures. This is why Kuei-chi selects the theories of the pure mind "śūnyatā",

"tathatā", "tathāgata-garbha." and "buddha-gotra" etc. for the explanation of the nature of "chien-hsiang-chen-hsing" (遣相證性), one of the Five

vijñānavāda-perceptions (五重唯識觀) .In this case, it is necessary to study the meanings of "gotra" because it has connection with "agotra".

It is a well-known fact that the dictionaries of Sanskrit tell us that "gotra"

has such various meanings of "protection for cows", "cow-shed", "family",

"race", "lineage", "genus", "basis", "species", "cause" and "seed" etc.[30]

Among them we find the term "gotra-bhū" (man of lineage) is first

introduced in the Early buddhist Canon. The "gotrā" has the same meanings of "vaṁśa" (系統) and "kula" (家), and then this "gotra" is used as the

"āryagotra" (聖人家系) in the general Indian society, but in the Mahāyāna Buddhism, it is used as "gotrastha", "gotra-bhūmi" or "tathāgata-gotra"

mentioned by Prof. Takasaki Jikido.[31]

(13)

Generally speaking this "gotra" is treated in almost all of the

Mahāyāna-sūtras[32] with various meanings. Kuei-chi seems to respect the theories of YCBh, from which he quotes the famous two kind gotras of

"prakṛtistha" (being in the original state, 本性住) and "samudānīta"

(acquired, or brought together [by perfuming], 習所成) in PPHV for

explaining that the one who owns these two mahāyāna "gotras" can practice the five stages of the Yogācāra-vijñānavāda's path.[33]

These two famous "gotras" are already quoted in VMS. If we compare the explanations of VMS[34] with VMSVy [s-k] and PPHV, we can find that Kuei-Chi in PPHV explains the "prakṛtistha-gotra" (本性住種性) to mean that the "prakṛti" (本性) dwelling in the Mūlavijñāna (住本識) can produce the undefiled [dharma] (無漏［法］). In other words this "undefiled [dharma]

(無漏［法］is produced by "prakrti", the undefiled bīja (無漏種), which dwells in the Mūlavijñāna (住本識［第八識］). This explanation is different from that explanation of "依附本識" (depending on the Mūla-vijñāna)

meantioned in VMS. Therefore Kuichi in his VMSVy [s-k] only explains that "無漏種無始自成" (the undefiled bīja has completed itself from the beginningless-time) without commen-

p. 392

ting on the "依附本識", But in his explanations of the "samudānīta-gotra"

(習所成種性), we find "令無漏舊種增長" (to cause the old undefiled bīja to grow). If the old undefiled bīja of them means both the primary undefiled bīja of the "prakṛtistha" and secondary underfiled bīja of the "samudānīta", then it may be said the good theories for the people to be buddhas, because they can naturally possess the pure bīja, and in addition they always practice the bodhisattva's path which causes their pure bījas to grow. This is why the

"gotra" is called "bīja", "dhātu" and "prakrti" in BSbh and Śrāvaka-bhūmi.[35]

In this case, the opposite name of "agotra" means "without-bija", or without-dhātu" etc., therefore the people live in "agotra" means that they absolutly can not become buddhas. These "agotra"'s theories of Indian vijñānavāda were not easily accepted by the Chinese buddhist during the

(14)

Tang Dynasty. It is a well-known fact that before Hsuen-tsang (玄奘) went to India for researching Buddhsim, there were many buddhist texts holding the theories of the "ekayāna", "buddha-dhātu (or Gotra)" (佛性),

"tathāgata-garbha" (如來藏), "amala-vijñāna" (阿摩羅識), such

as Mahāparinirvaṇa-sūtra (大般涅槃經) and saddhar-mapuṇḍarīka-sūtra (妙法蓮華經), Avataṁsaka-sūtra (華嚴經) Ta-cheng-chi-hsin-lun (大乘起信論) etc. are translated and studied by Indian and Chinese buddhist scholars.

Therefore, after Hsuen-tsang had completed his studies in India, and before he returned to China, he wished to delete the theory of "agotra" from MAS etc., but his Great Teach Śilabhadra (戒賢, A.D.529-645) would not permit this. This episode was mentioned by Tun-lun (遁倫) in his commentary of YCBH.[36]

From the above statements,I think that not only Hsuen-tsang, but also

Kuei-chi, the Chinese Buddhist Scholars, understand that Chinese buddhists wish to become the buddhas, and like to research the buddhist sūtras or śāstras which teach the people how to become the Buddhas. Therefore, Kuei-chi in PPHV has his special theories of not noly the

Avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva appearing as the Mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva, but also both Eighth Vijñāna and Seventh Vijñāna possessing good natures, which are different from YCBh and Triṁśika etc. For these reasons, I would like to say that it is a problem for Kuei-chi to put the "ātyantika" as the Fifth Nature in PPH instead of the Fourth Pudgala "agotra" in YCBh.

p. 393

IV Conclusion

The PPH (心經) is not the Vijñānakāna's text, but Kuei-chi in his PPHV explains its meanings with the Vijñānavāda's theories by means of

borrowing the theories from YCBh and MSA etc., He also reconstructs their theories as his new theories, in which the "ātyantika" appesrs in PPHV as the Fifth Nature implicating three problems.

(15)

As concering the First Prolem of why Kuei-chi omits the "icchantika" and

"an-icchantika" in PPHV, I deal with the theories of "agotra" in LAS and MSA for the purpose of proving that Kuei-chei selects not only the two

"icchantikas" of LAS for this "icchantika" and "anicchantika", but also the

"atyntāparinirvāṇa-dharma" (畢竟無涅槃法) of MSA for his "ātyantika", the Fifth Nature. Although he selects the above three to make his new

theories of "agotra", he on the other hand, in his VMSVY[c-k] mentions that

"icchantiko" als has three kinds of (1) "breaking good roots" (2)

"Mahākaruṇecchantika" (大悲闡提) and (3) "agotra", of these the first two will finally attain the nirvāṇa, but only the third "ātyantika" of "agotra" or

"agotra" of "icchantika" absolutely can not attain nirvāṇa.

Because of the "ātyantika", the Fifth Nature, and the other four natures (three vehicles and one "anityata") appearing in PPHV have connections with YCBH, therefore I deal with the theories of four "gotras" in the BSBh, the YCBH Vol. 37. Which are reconstructed by Kuei-chi, in which I find that, in PPHV, not only the "anityata" is an addition, but also the "ātyantika"

is a substitution for "agotra", the true meaning of

"atyantāparinirvāṇa-dharma". Anyway the problem of why Kuei-chi omits the other two "icchantikas" (impling the Mahākaruna-bodhisattva) in PPHV is not yet resolvd.

The Sekand problem is that, if Kuei-chi does not support the theories of

"Mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva", why does he claim in PPHV that

"Avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva" has completed Enlightenment? Regarding this problem, I deal with the theories of Mahākaruṇa-bodhisattvas, the

Avalokiteśvara, Samantabhadra and Munjuśī from PPHV and

Saddharmapuṇḍarīka's commentary (法華玄) etc... Therefore it can be said that Kuei-chi has the theories of "mahākaruṇa-bodhisattva". In this

p. 394

case, the only "mahākaruṇa-bodhi-sattva" may not belong to the "ātyantika", and only " ātyantika" also cannot represent the Fifth Nature, the "agotra" of

"icchantika".

(16)

The Third Problem is that, if Kuei-chi holds that "agotra" is only the

"atyantāgotra" (畢竟無種姓), why does he in PPHV, not only explain that both 8th and 7th vijñānas are good natures, but also select the "buddhagotra"

and "tathāgata-garbha" for the explantions of the nature of

"chien-hsiang-cheng-hsing" (遣相證性)? To this problem, I frist make a comparative table for undersanding that both 8th Vijñānas and 7th Vijñāna have good natures in PPHV.

Next compare the meanings of two famous gotras of "prakrtistha" and

"samudānīta", quoted from YCBH in the texts of PPHV, VMS, and VMSVy.

From which I find that Kuei-chi in PPHV permits the pure bīja of

"prakṛtistha" to dwell in mūlavijñāna. And this theory, perhaps, can prove tha Kuei-chi in PPHV does not hold the Indian "atyantāparinirvāṇa-dharma", therefore I would consider it a problem for Kuei-chi puts the "ātyantika" as the Fifth Nature in PPHV.

In the end of this conclution, I offer the following two keys for us to solve the above problems:

(1) The "ātyantika" can connect with either "agotra" or "gotra". The first term

"ātyantikāgotra" (畢竟無種姓) , representing the third name "ātyantika" of the three

"icchantikas" or "agotras", means that the one who absolutely has no nature to be a Buddha; the latter term "ātyantika-gotra" (畢竟種姓), representing the second name

"an-icchantika" (or Mahākaruṇecchantika, 大悲闡提) of three "agotras" or

"icchantikas", means that the one who absolutely has nature to be a Buddha. Therefore, the "ātyantika" in the PPHV has above two meanings.

(2) The "顛" of "ātyantika" (阿顛底迦) can be interpreted as a misprint of the "闡" of

"an-icchantika" (阿闡提迦), because both the "(阿顛底迦)" and "阿闡提迦" belong to the Fifth Nature of FND in VMSVy [c-k] (樞要), the later term "阿闡提迦", especially not only means the Mahākaruṇabodhisattva, but also represents the Avalokiteśvara-bodhisattva (觀自在菩薩) in PPHV.

Aside from these two keys, should it be suggested that the "agotra" be retrieved as the Fifth nature, I, of course, would also accept this suggestion, because the "agotra" contains "icchantika", "an-icchantika" and "ātyantika", claimed by Kuei-chi in his VMSVY [c-k].

(17)

p. 395

(This pape was read at the Ninth Conference of the International Association of buddhist Studies, The National Central Library, Taipei, Republic of China, July 26-28, 1989).

p. 400

The Relations of Five Natures & Four Pudgalas in PPHV & YCBh

p. 401

窺基所著《心經幽賛》中的「阿顛底迦」的諸問題

(18)

葉阿月提要

「心經」雖不是唯識論書之一，但是窺基在「心經幽賛」中，不但引用

「瑜伽師地論」及「大乘莊嚴經論」等唯識學說來解釋，又改造其學說為他的新學說，其中「阿顛底迦」當做五種姓別的第五，可認為含有三種問題。因此本論文如下說明其三問題。關於第一問題—窺基在「心經幽賛」為何省略「一闡提迦」及「阿闡底迦（大悲菩提闡）？為此引述

「楞伽經」，「大乘莊嚴經論」及「瑜伽師地論」的學說，以便找出窺基在「成唯識論掌中樞要」中主張第五「無種姓」含有三種（一闡提迦、

阿闡提迦、阿顛底迦）的來源。關於第二問題—如果窺基不支持大悲菩薩闡提，為何他在「心經幽賛」主張觀自在菩薩已成等覺？為此再引用

「法華玄贊」及「瑜伽論記」的學說，而證明窺基有承認大悲菩薩。關於第三問題—如果窺基堅持「無種姓」唯是「阿顛底迦（畢竟）無種姓」，

為何他在「心經幽賛」主張第八識與第七識是善性，又選擇佛性與如來藏等來解釋五重唯識中的第五遣相證性？為此做比較表加以解釋等。而了解窺基於「心經幽賛」中，沒有接收「畢竟無涅槃法」。在結論上，

作者提供兩想法為解決問題的要鍵：(1) 「心經幽賛」中的「阿顛底迦」

含有兩種 "ātyantikagotra" (畢竟無種姓) 與 "ātyantikagotra"(畢竟種姓)的意思。(2) 「阿顛底迦」的顛」是「阿闡底迦」的「闡」的錯字。

除了以上兩種以外，也可主張「無種姓」應恢復為第五種姓，因為窺基在「述記」中主張它含有三種「一闡提迦、阿闡提迦、阿顛底迦」。

[1] The theories of Four Aspects (四分說); the Three Vehicles and Five Dstinctive Natures (三性，五種分別); the Theories of Eight Vijñānas (八識說); the Three Categories's Objects (三類境); the Five Vijñānavada's

Perceptions (五重唯識觀). The above theories are considered the important Chinese Vijñānavadas.

[2] VMS [h] Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi 成唯識論), TTP, 31, p.8a-b.

[3] VMSVy [s] (成唯識論述記), TTP, pp.230a, 304c. Of them the theories of LAS, MSA and YCBh, I will explain in the pp.3-7 of this paper. The other texts are:

(1) 無上依經 (TTP,16, pp.470b, 471b) mentions the Four Persons (icchantika, tīrthaka

(19)

(外道) , śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha) and the bodhisattva who possesses the supreme quality and practices the Mahāyana.

(2) Mahā-PP (大般若經) vol. 593 (TTP, 7, p.1066a-b), in which the "agotra" is omitted.

These passages of Four Persons are quoted by Kuei-chi in his VMSVy[c-k] (成唯識論掌中樞要, TTP, 43, p.610b), I-lin-chang (義林章, TTP, 45, p.264c)

and Fa-fua-shin-tsan (法華玄賛, TTP, 34, p.656b-c).

(3) Suvikrānta-vikrami-paripṛccha-PP (SVPPP, 善勇猛般若經, or 2,500 頌般若經) ed.

by Hikata, Ryusho (千潟龍祥), Committee of Commemoration Program for Dr.

Hikata's Retirement from Professorship, Kiushu University, Japan, 1958, pp.4-5.

According to the theory of Dr. Hikata, this sanskrit text of SVPPP are corresponding to the Vols. 593-600 (第 16 會) of Mahā-PP (TTP, 7, pp.1065-1110). Therefore I select the passages of Four Persons from the above two text as follows:

(A) "ye satvkā niyatāḥ śravakayāne bhaviṣyanti te śrūtvā kṣipram anāsravām bhūmiṁ sāksātkariṣyanti."（若有情類於聲聞乘性決定者，聞此法已速能證得無漏地）.

(B) "ye pratyekabuddhayāne niyatā bhaviṣyanti, te ksipraṁ pratyeka-buddhayānena niryāṣyanti."（若有情類於獨覺乘性決定者，［聞此法已］速依自乘出離）.

(C) "ye nuttarāṁ samyaksambodhiṁ samprasthitās, te kṣipram anuttarāṁ

samyaksambodhim abhisambhotsyante."（若有情類無上［乘性決定］者，［聞此法已］速證無上正等菩提）（＊據上述梵文是：趣於無上正覺者）

(D) "ye cānavakrānta-samyaktva-niyāmā antiyatās tisṛṣu bhūmiṣu, te śrutva' nuttarāyam samyaksambodhau cittam utpādayiṣyanti."（若有情類雖未入正性離生,而於［三乘］不定者，聞此法己皆發正等覺心"）

From the above comparisions, we find that there is no "gotra" (性) in SVPPP, the "sattvas" (有情類) in (B), (C), (D) and the "śrutvā " (聞［此法已］) in (B), (C) are omitted in the sanskrit text. And in (C) the "ye'nuttaram samyaksambodhiṁ samprasthitas" means "趣於無上正等菩提者", and in (D) the "trisṛṣu bhūmisu means "於三地"

[4] VMSVy [c-k], (樞要)TTP, 43, pp. 610-611, Fukaura, Seibun (深浦正文)：「唯識學研究」永田文昌堂 Kyoto, 1954, Vol.2. PP.634-646.

[5] PPHV (心經幽賛), TTP, 33, p.527c. Please see the Appendix of this paper.

(20)

[6] Kuei-chi explains three "citta-uttāpanas" (三練磨心) in PPHV, of which the Second "citta-uttāpana" (第二練磨心), the very important

bodhisattvacaryā (菩薩行) of PP are mentioned for the explanations of Practicing PP in the PPHV. Please see my articles: "般若波羅磨多心經幽賛におけろ三練磨心について" Indian and buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyogaku-kenkyu. 印度學佛教學研究), Tokyo, 1989, vol. 37, No.2 pp.806-813. and "「如何成佛一以窺基的三練磨心為中心」一『方東美先生的哲學』國際方東美哲學研討會執行委員會、幼獅公司、台北、民國 78 年 7 月 PP. 338.343....355

[7] VMSVY [c-k] (樞要), TTP, 43, pp.610, and in p.612, Kuei-chi quotes ten statements from five texts (1) "涅槃經" = TTP.12, pp.431b, 518a,

554a-b, 569a, 574b-c, 580b. (2). "菩薩地持經" or "菩薩善戒經"—TTP, 30, pp.88a, 962c. (3) "勝鬘經" = TTP, 12. p218b. (4) "大乘莊嚴經論" = TTP, 31. p595a. (5) "金剛般若論 " = TTP, 25, p.794b-c) to prove that there are the theories of "agota" in those texts. cf. Fukihara, Siosin (富貴原章信):

「中國日本、佛性思想史」Kokusio Kankokai (國書刊行會), Tokyo, 1988, pp. 184-191

[8] LAS = Lañkāvatara-sūtra, ed. by Bunyiu Nanjio, Otani Univ. (大谷大學) Koyto, 1956, second edition. pp.65-66. There are three kinds of Chinese LAS in TTP 16: (1) LAS [c-b] (入楞伽經十卷本) tran. by Bodhiruci (菩提流支) p.527b (2) LAS [c-g] (楞伽阿跋多羅寶經) tran. by Guṇa-bhadra (求那跋陀羅) p.48b (3) LAS [c-s] (大乘入楞伽經) tran. by Siksānanda (實叉難陀) p.597c. One Japanese text is 「梵文和譯：入楞伽經」tran. by Yasui, Kosai (安井廣濟), Fozuokan (法藏館) Kyoto, 1976. pp59-60.

[9] MSA = Mahāyānasūtrālaṇkāra, edité par sylvain lévi (Bibiothéque de L'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, t159), Paris, 1907 pp.12-13 MSA [c-p] (大乘莊嚴經論) tran. by Prabhākarmita (波羅頗迦羅蜜多) TTP 31, p.595a.

Kue-chi only summarizes the main theories of LAS in his VMSVy [c-k].

Uihakujiu (宇井伯壽): 大乘莊嚴經論研究 lwonami (岩波) Tokyo, 1961, p.78

[10] "kālāparinirvana-dharma", to which Kuei-chi in his VMSVy [c-k]

p.610 meantions: [此中時邊廣云暫時，梵云涅迦羅阿波利暱縛喃達磨，

涅者暫也]. Of which the [暫] (temporary), its sanskrit is "alpa" or "acira" cf.

DES = Dectionary of English and Sanskrit. ed. by M. Monier Williams,

(21)

Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1964, second ed. p. 797, But Kuei-chi says: [涅者暫也], of which [涅] (nir) does not mean the "temporary". Fukihara 富貴原 in his 中國日本佛性思想史, p. 189 explains that 恒 (tat, 暫) etc. The other three [(b), (c) and (d)]'s Chinese translations are according to MAS [c-p]

[11] VMSVy[c-k] TTP 43, p.611a, in which Kuei-chi explains:

(1) "Mahāprunecchantika" is that in which the cause is complete, but its result is not complete (因成果不成謂大悲闡提)

(2) "Sagotra-kuśalamūlotsargecchantika" is that in which the result is complate, but its cause is not complete (果成因不成, 謂有性斷善闡提)

(3) "agotrecchantika, nityadviyāna" are that in which both causes and results are not complete (因果俱不成謂無性闡提二乘定性)

(4) "Abhiamkabuddha" who possesses the samaropita-mahāprajñā and kuśalamūā

nut-sarga is that in which both cause and result are complete. (因果俱成,謂大智增上, 不斷善根而成佛者)

[12] cf. Fukawra, Seibun (深浦正文): 「唯識學研究」vol.2 永田文昌堂 Kyoto, 1954, p.636 VMSVy [s-k] VMSVy [c-k] TTP 43, pp.304, 610.

[13] Yogācāeca-bhūmi (瑜伽師地論, 玄奘譯 100 卷), from its vols.35-50 are named Bodhisattva-bhūmi section (菩薩地品).

BSBh = bodhisattvabhūmi, (being the XVth Section of Asaṅgapada's

Yogacārabhūmi), ed. by Nalinaksha Dutt, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1966, p. 55 BSBh [c-h] TTP 30, p.496c

[14] BSBh p.55 "paripākaḥ samāsatah, sadbhir ākarair veditavyah

svabhāvato' pi..." BSBh [c-h] TTP 30 p.496b (當知成熟略有六種：(1) 成熟自性 (2) 所成熟補特伽羅 (3) 成熟差別 (4) 成熟方便 (5) 能成熟補特伽羅 (6) 已成熟補特伽羅

[15] BSBh, p.15 "sapta-sthānāni..., (1) svārtha,(2) parārtha, (3) tattvārtha, (4) prabhava, (5) sattvaparipāka,(6) ātmano buddhadharma-paripāka, (7)

anuttara ca samyaksaṁbodhah.

BSBh [c-h] TTP 30 p.482b 七學處 (1) 自利處 (2) 利他處 (3) 真實義處 (4) 威力處 (5) 成熟有情處 (6) 成熟自佛法處 (7) 無上正等菩提處.

Please see the Appendix of this paper.

(22)

[16] PPHV TTP 33, p.527c

[17] MPP = Mahāprajñāparamita-sūtra (大般若經) TTP 7, p.1066, in which the name of No. 3 is named "anuttara-yāna-gotra" (無上乘性) which has the same meaning of "buddha-gotra"; the name of No. 4 "anityata" (不定) also appears in MPP.

[18] BSBh p.1, L.16-18 BSBh [c-h] TTP 30, p.478c [19] BSBh p.7, L. 23-24 BSBh [c-h] TTP 30, p.480b

[20] PPHV TTP 33, p.524b [彼觀自在，昔初發意，具諸煩惱，於無明殼，

建立勝心，捨身命財，求佛智慧，興大勇猛，已成等覺，我亦應爾，勵已增修，不應自輕，而生退屈]

[21] MS [c-h] (攝大乘論) TTP 31, p.142a. Sasaki, Getzshio (佐佐木月樵);

「漢譯四本對照攝大乘論」日本佛書刊行會 Tokyo. 昭和 34 p.54 [22] VMSVY.[c-k] TTP 43, p.564b 彼既丈夫，我亦爾，不應自輕而退屈...

[23] The Ten Buddha' Synonyms are: (1) Tathāgata (如來), (2) arhat(阿羅漢), (3) samyaksaṁbuddha (正遍知), (4) vidyā-carana-saṁpanna (明行足), (5) sugata (善逝), (6) lokavid (世間解), (7) anuttara (無上師), (8)

puruṣadamya-sārathi (調御丈夫), (9) Śāstṛ (天人師), (10)buddha-bhagavat (佛世尊). cf. Mogitzuki, (望月). 佛教大辭典 vol.5, Tokyo,1936, p.4437,

「雜阿含經」, vol.2, TTP 2, p.141c Okihara, unrai (荻原雲來): 漢譯對照梵和大辭典 Suzuki Foundation (鈴木學術財團), Tokyo, 1979, p.796. The statements of MS, VMSVy [s-k] , VMSVy [c-k] and PPHV are mentioned im my article 般若波羅蜜多心經幽賛におけろ三練磨心について

Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku, Bukhyogaku Kenkyu, 印度學佛教學研究) vol.37 Tokyo,1989, pp.213-4.

[24] Fa-fua-shin-tsan (法華玄賛), TTP 34, p. 848c 觀音久已成佛，不捨菩薩行，故示為菩薩 which is quoted in 成唯識論本文抄 TTP 65, p.415b The statements of Samanbhadra are: 驗此普賢，久己成佛，示現為菩薩 TTP 34, p.852c. cf. 楠渟澄：日本唯識思想の研究一大悲闡提成，不成說

(23)

の展開——山崎教授定年紀念 : 唯識思想の研究 PP.22-32 百華苑出版 Kyoto, 1987

[25] YCBHVy[c-k] (瑜伽論記) TTP, 42, p.615a

[26] LAS, p.66, LAS [c-g] TTP, 16, p.487c, LAS [c-b], p.527b, LAS [c-s], p.597c

[27] VMSVy [c-k] TTP 43, pp.610-611, Plese see note 11 of this paper.

[28] Triṁśika, pp.13, 23, 24, VMS TTP31, pp. 7, 9, 60

[29] VMSVy [v-p] (攝大乘論識) TTP 31, p.158a 轉識論 TTP 31. pp. 61c, 62a

[30] SED = Sanskrit-English Dictionary, ed. by Sir Monier Monier-williams, Oxfort, 1960, p.364.

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and dictionary, ed. by F. Edgerton, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1970, p.216

[31] Takasaki Jikido (高崎直道): 如來藏思想歡の形成，春秋社, Tokyo, pp.751-4. And "An Introduction to Buddhism", translated by Rolf W.Giebel.

The Toho Gakkai, Tokyo, p.232.

[32] Please see the Table [2] [如來藏說關係諸概念展開表] in Takasaki's book: 如來藏思想の形成 p.761

[33] PPHV TTP 33, p.525a BSBh p.2 L.4-7 YCBh TTP 30 p.478

[34] (A) VMS TTP31, p.48b, (b) VMSVy [s-k] TTP 43, p.565a, (c) PPHV, TTP 33 p.525a

(A) 無始來依附本識，法爾所得無漏法因

(B) 未聞正法，但無漏種無始自成，不會重習令其增長名本種姓，性者體也，姓者類也

(C) 本性住種姓，謂住本識，能生無漏，本性功能 cf. Fukawa (深浦) :「唯識學研究」Vo.2 PP. 658-659.

(24)

[35] BSBh p.2 L.8-9 BSBh [c-h] TTP 30 p.478c Śrāvakabhūmi [c-h] 聲聞地 TTP 30. P.395c. Analysis of the Śravakabhūmi Manuscrpt, by Alex Wayman University of California a Press, Berkeley, 1961 p.59

[36] YCBhVY [c-t] = 瑜伽論記 TTP 42. p.615 a-b