A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu the Yogacarin

Abstract

The name Vasubandhu has been associated generally with two significant events in the history of Buddhism : the composition of Abhidharma-kofa on the one hand, and the founding of theYogacara system on the other. More precisely, Vasubandhu is known as the author of Abhidharma-koia, and also as the one who co-founded the Yogacara system with his brother Asanga. As these two events—the composition of Abhidharma-koia and the founding of the Yogacara system—represent two different traditions within Buddhism, one begins to wonder if Vasubandhu the author of Abhidharma-koia and Vasubandhu the co-founder of the Yogacara system really are one and the same person. The traditional answer to this question has been that Vasubandhu the author of Abhidharma-koia was later converted by his brother Asanga to the latter’s Yogacara line of thinking. Tha t could very well be the case. But when it comes to deciding how to date Vasubandhu, the problem seems to reappear with a greater complexity. This is because the tradition gives as many as three dates for Vasubandhu : the year 1100 after the nirvdna of the Buddha given in The Life o f Vasubandhu by the historian Paramartha, the Year 900 after the nirvdna of the Buddha given in the commentary of Madhydnta-vibhdga by the same historian and the year 1000 after the nirvdna of the Buddha given by the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang. Based on the very fe ^ historical clues available from various sources, and taking into account the different ways of reckoning the year of the nirvdna of the Buddha, many scholars have tried to reconcile these three dates, and to arrive at, a probable, if not definite, date for Vasubandhu. The dates so proposed range roughly from the early third century A.D. to the early sixth century A.D.1 None 1. J . Takakusu in his ‘‘The Date of Vasubandhu, the Great Buddhist Philosopher” , Indian Studies in Honour o f Charles Rickwell Lanman, (Cambridge Mass. : 1929), pp. 79-88, repeating ‘A.D. 420-500* for the date of Vasubandhu which he had proposed as early as 1905, has summarised the findings of different scholars in the meantime. of them, however, has been universally accepted, although many of the opinions would agree on the fifth century as an approximate period for the life and works of Vasubandhu. Then in 1951 Professor E. Frauwallner proposed his new theory of ‘two Vasubandhus* as a way out of the three conflicting dates mentioned above : the years 900, 1000, and 1100 after the nirvána of the Buddha.* His basic assumption is that the two dates given by Paramartha, namely the years 900 and 1100 after the nirvána of the Buddha, refer to two different persons, namely Vasubandhu the elder and Vasubandhu the younger respectively. He then argues that the date given by the Chinese pilgrim Hsúan-tsang, namely the year 1000 after the nirvána of the Buddha, is the same as the year 1100 after the nirvána of the Buddha given by Paramartha, only they are arrived at by different ways of reckoning the date of the nirvána of the Buddha. Thus, for Professor Frauwallner, the traditionally given thi*ee dates can be reduced to two, namely 900 and 1000/1100 after the nirvána o f the Buddha, and these two dates, he further said, correspond respectively to a time prior to 400 A.D. and the period 400—500 A.D. His final conclusion, there fore, is that there have been two Vasubandhus, of whom the elder who lived prior to 400 A.D., co-founded the Yogacara system with his brother Asafiga, and the younger who lived between 400—500 A.D., wrote Abhidharma-koša. The above theory o f ‘two Vasubandhus’, possible as it is, does not seem to have received much support from scholars. On the contrary, P. S. Jaini, for one, on the evidence of the manuscript of Abhidharma-dipa (together with a commentary— the Vibháfá-prabhá-vrtti), discovered in 1937, “ throws some doubt on Professor Frauwallner’s thesis and confirms the older and universal tradition about the conversion of the Kosakára Vasubandhu to Maháyána,”3 Some of the recent studies, 2. E. Frauwallner, Ort the Date o f the Buddhist Master o f the Law Vasubandhu (Rome : Serie Orientale Roma, I I I , 1951). 3. P. S. Jaini, “On the Theory of Two Vasubandhus**, Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies, XXI (1958), p. 49. notably those by Stefan Anacker4 and D.N.G. Macleod,5 also see little point in Frauwallner’s theory o f ‘two Vasubandhus*. What is more, the latter himself is suggested to have later given up this theory.6 As far as the present work is concerned, as it is strictly a textual analysis, the questions of Vasubandhu’s date and other biographical details are of little importance. I may, however, point out by way of a suggestion that an almost spontaneous transition from Abhtdharma-kofa to the Yogacara system is not altogether unwarranted. For instance, the theory of store consciousness (<alaya-vijftana) which is universally recognized as a basic innovation by the Yogacarins, is after all only the “ christening” of the theory of the seeds (bija) in the Abhidharmako$ a. This latter theory has been given there in answer to questions such as : how are defilements associated with a previous moment of consciousness carried over to the next moment of consciousness ? How does a past deed produce its effect in the future ? How is it possible that a past experience can be recalled in the future ? In answering these questions, all of which concern the continuity between the past, present and future, Vasubandhu the author of Abhidharma-koia, following the Sautrantika point of view, drew on the imagery of the seedfruit relationship, and said that the present and future are determined by the seeds left behind by the past : the seeds of the defilements associated with a previous moment of consciousness are carried over to the next moment of consciousness; the seeds of the past deeds produce their fruits in the future; and the seeds of the past experiences enable one to recall those experiences.7 Then what the Yogacarins later called alaya-vijhana, is for all practical purposes just the collection of those seeds of the past determining the present and future behaviour of an 4. S. Anacker, “Vasubandhu : Three Aspects, A Study of a Buddhist Philosopher” (Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin), 1970. 5. D. N. G. Macleod, “A Study of Yogacara Thought : The Integral Philosophy of Buddhism” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Dundee), 1978 6. Ibid., p. 29. 7. Ibid., pp. 212 ff. individual. In other words, the àlaya-vijiiàna of the Yogàcârins is in effect only a collective name for what was described in the Abhidharma-koia as the seeds (bijas) of past experience. I f so, it is not impossible that the author of Abhidharma-koia himself worked out, on his own or in collaboration with others, the theory of àlaya-vijîiàna and other allied theories of the Yogacara system. This sounds still more plausible when one considers that already in writing his commentary on his own Abhidharmakoia he had shown his openness to new doctrines and formulations : although he wrote Abhidharma-kofa from the Vaibhàçika point of view, later finding the Vaibhasika position unacceptable he wrote his commentary (bhà$ya ) on the same Abhidhanm-koia from the Sautrântika point of view. A possible conversion of the author of Abhxdharma-koia to the Yogàcàra line of thinking is further confirmed by the above mentioned manuscripts of Abhidharma-dipa and the Vibhâ$à-prabhâorttiy which, as P. S. Jaini has pointed out, cirticize the author of Abhidharma-koia for his leanings towards the Sautrântika and Mahâyâna positions, and thus ‘allude to the conversion of the koéakâra to Mahàyâna Buddhism*.8 So much, very briefly, for the personal identity of Vasubandhu. Now, coming to the scope of the present study, it proposes to analyse the following four texts : (i) Madhyànta-vibhâga-kàrikâbhdjya, (ii) Trisvabhdoa-nirdeiay (iii) Trirpéatikâ and (iv) Virpiatikà. These four texts are definitely among the basic works in the Yogacara tradition, and are generally attributed to Vasubandhu. Whether this Vasubandhu was himself the author of Abhidharma-kofa or not, is no concern of mine here. What is important for the present purpose is the fact that these four texts do have, besides a fairly uniform style of language, a single, consistent, underlying system of thought so that one can safely take them as belonging to a single author, who is traditionally called Vasubandhu. To avoid confusion one may call him Vasubandhu the Yogâcârin. Moreover, when I refer to the Yogàcàra system, I am thinking of it particularly as it is presented in those four texts, which may or may not correspond to the Yogàcàra system as it is presented in the other works of