Preface to: Four Fascicle Lankavatara

8/18/2019 Preface to: Four Fascicle Lankavatara

1/34

kavatara Ratna Sutram. Gishin TOKIWA.

//Users/h_sundt/Downloads/tokiwa-intro.html[6/28/11 7:11:47 PM]

A Study of the Four-Fascicle Lankavatara Ratna SutramIn a Set of Four Texts:

A Sanskrit Restoration, English and Japanese Translations withIntroduction,

and the Collated Gunabhadra Chinese Version with Japanese ReadingAn English Translation (Not for Sale)

Published by Gishin Tokiwa (Professor emeritus, Hanazono University,Kyoto)

4-17 -1, Nishi-awaji, Higashi-yodogawa-ku, Osaka, JapanPrinted by the Meibunsha Printing Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.

June 2003,

Lankavatara Sutram

A Jewel Scripture

of Mahayana Thought and Practice

Translated by Gishin TOKIWA

PREFACE

What I am presenting to the modern world is a mahayanaBuddhist scripture that belongs to the early fifth century, the Lankavatara-ratna-sutram ("The Jewel Scripture [Named] EnteringLanka"), in my tentative English translation of the Langga-abadala-baojing, four fascicles, its earliest Chinese version translated in A.D.443 in the dynasty of Liu Song by a Buddhist monk from India,named Gunabhadra. Speaking more correctly, this translation of mine was' made from a Sanskrit text restored by me from theGunabhadra Chinese version through a thoroughgoing revision of

the current Sanskrit text, Lankavatara Sutra, edited by Dr. Bunyiu Nanjio and published from The Otani University Press in 1923.

The scripture is considered to have been compiled in Sri Lanka,a land of Theravada Buddhism in the days when mahayana was

xii

prevalent even under the Theravada reign. This situation seems toexplain why it is full of critical thoughts. It is critical of the religiousthoughts of both Buddhist traditionalists and non-Buddhists,


2/34


3/34



that, with its style strange as a Chinese translation but more faithful to the Sanskrit

word order, and with the date earliest of the extant versions, one could expect of it to

offer powerful resources for the attempt to seek an original form of the Lankavatara

sutra. He writes (P. 2) that the present report, which covers pages 220~239 of the

Nanjio edition, is just part of his research. I am ignorant of this work of his thereafter.

The three Chinese versions are those translated: (1) by Gunabhadra in Liu Song

A.D. 443, four fascicles, Taisho Tripitaka vol. 16, no. 670; (2) by Bodhiruci in Wei

A.D. 513, ten fascicles, Taisho Tripitaka no. 671; and (3) by Siksananda in Tang A.D.

700-704, seven fascicles, Taisho Tripitaka no. 672.

The two Tibetan versions are those translated: (1) from Sanskrit, now in the

Tibetan Tripitaka Peking edition, vol. 29, no. 775; and (2) from Gunabhadra' Chinese

version by Facheng of Dunhuang (Chos-grub in Tibetan), in the reign of King dPal-

lha gTsan-po, possibly an early period of the ninth century, Tibetan Tripitaka Peking

ed., no. 776.

According to Fazang (643-712), a well-known Huayan philosopher

xv

in the early Tang dynasty in China,*2

Siksananda, in 698 when he finished translating the Avatamsaka (Huayan)

sutram at the Foshouji Temple in the divine city Luoyang, was ordered by the

Empress Zetian Wu to translate the Lankavatara sutram. Succeedingly receiving the

royal order, he also made a translation of it. Before finishing it, Siksananda entered

the capital Zhang'an by cart, with the order to stay near the palace, and settled down at

the Qingchan Temple. When he finished a rough translation, but before he checked it,

Siksananda left for home country with the royal permission. Then in 702 Mituoshan

(Mitasana?), another Buddhist monk-scholar from Tukhara, who had stayed in India

for twenty-five years and who, having studied the three pitakas, was well versed in

the scripture Lankavatara sutram, was ordered, with the help of sutra-translator

monks, Fuli, Fazang, and others, to check the translations to make a final version.

.Fuli is to make a composition of the royal introduction to the scripture. I shallmention in praise as follows....

Fazang mentions the reason why this new translation was

started under the royal order of Empress Wu:*3

The four-fascicle [Gunabhadra] version has wrong compositions which are

observed endless and whose word-order is that of the western tongue, so that a

supreme person of outstanding wisdom does not know how to understand it, while

ignorant people and mediocre persons forcibly make wrong conjecture and

understanding. Meanwhile, the ten-fascicle [Bodhiruci] version is known to be

slightly furnished with literary quality, but it hardly manifests the noble meaning of

the Buddha. Placing additional characters and mixing up constructions,

xvi

it obscured the meaning or caused errors. Its use of peculiar wordings finally resulted

in preventing the undoubtedly evident principle from prevailing. Her Majesty the

Queen, who lamented this hardness of understanding, ordered another attempt of

translating this scripture. This time, provided with the detail of five Sanskrit

manuscripts, we will check the two Chinese versions so that we can adopt what was

good and correct what was wrong. Years of excellent job will exhaust the core of it, so

that students will be happy being free from errors.

This certainly means that the seven-fascicle Siksananda-


4/34



Mitasana Chinese translation was considered to be the finest versionin China. Because of this understanding Dr. D.T. Suzuki adoptedthis version for his English translation. That being the case, howshould we understand the reason that the Tibetan translation byFacheng, Peking edition no. 776, was made from the four-fascicleGunabhadra Chinese version a century after this? My answer to thisquestion is that the Gunabhadra version conveys the earliest, originalSanskrit text-form whereas the two other Chinese versions as well asthe extant Sanskrit manuscripts that include the Nanjio-edition did

not go through any kind of appropriate text-critique. Let me refer toan example for the complete lack of text-critique in these latter versions.

I invite the readers to have a look at the second division of thesecond fascicle of Gunabhadra's Chinese version in my translation:

xvii

"NII Section Fifteen: The Four Conditions That Make GreatPractitioners.

The underlines there show how the other versions, i.e., oneSanskrit and two Chinese, which correspond to one another as far asthis section is concerned, suffer corrections when they are correctedin accordance with the Gunabhadra version. The corrections includeshifting the order of words or passages, supplementing the text with passages which are lacking, and correcting words. Correcting wordsin two of the three cases there results from the shifting of passages,which means a change in the context. Seen from the Gunabhadraversion, the need for shifting of passages means how the other versions have missed right places for those passages. For details Iask readers to check them in my translation. Here I shall make a

brief explanation.

Abbreviations:

(G) Gunabhadra.'s Chinese version, Taisho Tripitaka, no. 670, vol. 16, pp. 489b

~ 490a;

(T) Facheng's Tibetan rendering of the above, Tibetan Tripitaka Peking edition,

no. 776, vol. 29, pp. 96, 235c8~97, 237c1;

(N) Nanjio's Sanskrit version, pp. 7913~ 827;

(B) Bodhiruci's Chinese version, Taisho Tripitaka, no. 671, pp. 529c ~5 30a;

(S) Siksananda's Chinese version, Taisho Tripitaka, no. 672, pp. 599c ~600a .

According to the Gunabhadra version, the Buddha toldMahamati, a representative of the audience, that Awakening great beings (my

xviii

rendering of bodhisattva-mahasattvas) will become great practitioners when they are equipped with four conditions:


5/34



(1) Clearly ascertaining that one's own mind is seen assomething external,

(2) (N801-2) Observing that external beings are non-existent,

(3) (N7918~801) Desisting from the views of arising, staying,and breaking up, and

(4) Delighting in the noble wisdom personally attained.

The numbers after the capital N in the brackets show those of pages and lines of the Nanjio-edited Sanskrit text. The order of thetwo conditions, (2) and (3), which had to be exchanged according tothe Gunabhadra version, makes the whole passage quite consistent.

In the above (4) the two words "Delighting in" being underlinedshows that the term "abhilaksanataya (by seeking for)" in the

Sanskrit text (N802)(B529c28 %% S599c8 %%) had to be correctedto "abhiramanataya (by delighting in)," according to G (%%%%%%;T: "bde ba gya nom pa thob ste").

After this the Buddha's exposition of each of the four conditionscontinues. In the text the exposition of (2), which should come after

(1) (N80s~12), was shifted from N8117~825, a part located morethan a

xix

page after (1) in the Sanskrit text, with the addition of a closing part("he gets versed in the non-existence of external beings") by thetranslator. This is followed by (3), (4), and (5), but the final part of

(3) (N80

13

~81

3

) had to be supplemented with two lines from N8115~16. As for (4), it is further divided into three parts, a, b, and c.The beginning part of (4a) and the whole (4c), which are lacking inthe text, had to be supplemented by the translator. The end of (4b)

(N8115) had to be supplemented with a line from N824-5, with anaccompanied correction from "abhilasate (seek for)" to "abhiramate(delight in)." As for the last correction, it is justified by the contextitself. To summarize: The order of divisions of the Buddha'sexposition in the Sanskrit text before corrections was (1), (3-), (-4a),(4b-3ending), (2), (4c), (5). (Underlines show lacunae.)

I wish my readers may imagine this section before all thesecorrections were made. It would be easy to see how hard it is to readthrough all the passages. But that is the real case with the extantSanskrit, the Bodhiruci and the Siksananda Chinese versions (andthe Tibetan translation from the Sanskrit). No wonder Dr. D.T.Suzuki, who made use of the Siksananda version for his Englishtranslation, commented on this scripture as full of inconsistencies. Itis quite natural that Facheng ("Chos-grub" in Tibetan) had to

xx

attempt a Tibetan translation from Gunabhadra's Chinese version a


6/34



century after the Siksananda version came into being. Let me quotefrom Dr. Suzuki's Introduction to his Studies in the Lankavatara

Sutra (p. 1718~p. 184):

As I noted elsewhere (Essays in Zen Buddhism, Vol. I, p. 75) the whole

Lankavatara is just a collection of notes unsystematically strung together, and, frankly

speaking, it is a useless task to attempt to divide them into sections, or chapters

(parivarta), under some specific titles. Some commentators have tried to create a

system in the Lankavatara by making each paragraph somewhat connected in meaning

with the preceding as well as the succeeding one, but one can at once detect that thereis something quite constrained or far-fetched about the attempt. If this, however, is to

be done successfully, the whole arrangement as it stands of the paragraphs must be

radically altered; and this redaction is possible only by picking up and gathering

together cognate passages which are found promiscuously scattered throughout the

text, when for the first time a kind of system would be brought into the text. As the

present form stands, passages of various connotations are juxtaposed, and a heading

indicating one of the ideas contained in them is given to the whole section, thus

artificially separating it from the rest. Gunabhadra had done the wisest thing by

simply designating the entire sutra as "The Gist of the Buddha's Teaching"

(buddhapravacanahridayam).

I think Dr. Suzuki was almost right in this remark. What he

missed is that he did not recognize the Gunabhadra version as the

xxi

very standard upon which all the work of rearranging the other versions could be carried out. But failure in this recognition was notlimited to Dr. Suzuki alone. It was, honestly speaking, mine as welluntil I finished a tentative Japanese translation (from the firstthrough the ninth of the whole ten chapters) of the Nanjio-ed.

Sanskrit text in December 1994.*4 Immediately after this, when Iwas about to make an English translation of this scripture, I was still

thinking of translating from the Sanskrit text with references to theGunabhadra Chinese version, for I had realized the importance of the latter to some extent. In the next year when I was preparing anarticle on the Lankavatara sutra's concept "the body made of thought(manomayakaya)" and the Chan-founder's idea of "wall-contemplation (biguan)," I realized my Japanese translation of thevery passages quoted above from the scripture lacked thorough text-

critique.*5 Only then did I begin translating Gunabhadra's Chineseversion, correcting the Sanskrit text so as to have the latter expressthe former. In the process I have come to know that the extantSanskrit text is full of defects, examples of which were shown

above. Some of the defects are due to confusion in the order of manuscript page numbers, and others derive from faulty copying.Copyists seem to have lost good manuscripts in a very early periodafter

xxii

compilation. This situation was not improved in the Bodhiruci andSiksananda versions and the Tibetan translation from Sanskrit.

Dr. Suzuki, who adopted the Siksananda version for histranslation and study, refers to the work of the Japanese


7/34



commentator Kokan Shiren (1278-1346), Butsugoshin-ron,completed in 1325. He mentions (Studies pp. 43~44):

We can thus almost say that there are as many subjects treated in the

Lankavatara as it can be cut up into so many separate paragraphs, each paragraph

consisting sometimes of a prose part and its corresponding verse, but sometimes in

long or short prose part only, not accompanied by verse. The same subjects are

sometimes repeated more or less fully. The Japanese commentator Kokwan Shiren,

who is also the author of a history of Japanese Buddhism known as the Genko

Shakusho in thirty fasciculi, divides the Gunabhadra version of four fasciculi into

eighty-six sections including the last chapter on "Meat Eating." This is the mostrational way of reading the sutra, as in each of his sections only one subject is treated.

Through understanding one subject clearly that is treated ineach section Shiren must have believed that he could approach themessage of the whole scripture; I agree to the method adopted bythis patient, wise, and profound commentator in the Kamakura period; I have learned much from him.

Dr. Jikido Takasaki, the then professor of Tokyo University,

xxiii

published a book entitled Ryogakyo, as one of the volumes in aseries of Buddhist texts, in 1980. In this book he chose theGunabhadra version from among the extant versions of the Lankavatara sutram, and, making use of the division of the scripturewhich Shiren had applied in the Butsugoshin-ron, wrote a series of lectures on this scripture. Dr. Takasaki agrees with Dr. Suzuki inappreciating Shiren's approach, since, according to Dr. Takasaki, thisscripture is a collection of fragments of various mahayana teachings.He writes (in my translation):

The title of the second chapter of the Sanskrit text, "a collection of all thedharmas as many as thirty-six thousand," is what acknowledges itself to be just a

patchwork of dharma-teachings; most of the chapters have one subject in it

representing the whole chapter, like that of the third chapter, "Impermanence;"

besides, there is no necessity for the chapter on Impermanence to come in sequence

after the chapter on the "collection of all the dharmas."*

In the prefatory note to the same book Dr. Takasaki writesabout his "unexpected discovery of the importance of the Songtranslation [Gunabhadra version, made in the Liu-Song dynasty inthe south, A.D. 420-479] as a text." He writes (in my translation):

The Song translation is a Chinese text hard to read, indeed, but as it is nearest to

the original text, it has a merit in offering conveniences for assuming the original text-

form. Since there are occasions in which it offers materials for

xxiv

correcting the extant Sanskrit text, I have come to think it might be possible to

suppose a recension different from the extant Sanskrit text to be the original text of the

Song translation. It is I that chose the Song version for the text, but, in that it has

given me a motive to enter the study of the Lankavatara sutram to take charge of the

present article in the series for lecturing on Chinese versions of the Tripitaka, I feel

much obliged to the editorial staff of the publishing company. (Preface, pp. 2-3)


8/34



According to my understanding, the original text from whichGunabhadra made his four-fascicle Chinese version in China in A.D.443 had been lost for some political reason in Lanka at an earlystage after he left for China; instead, only imperfect manuscriptswere preserved somewhere else among people who had littleknowledge of the scripture. About one hundred years later, whenBodhiruci made his ten-fascicle Chinese version in Wei, the text heused is considered to have been little different from the extantSanskrit text; the latter corresponds to the seven-fascicle Chinese

version translated in Tang, with three additional chapters attached tothe four-fascicle Chinese version .*7

According to "Gunabhadra Biography," the eighth of the ten biographies given in the earliest extant record of the translatedBuddhist scriptures already issued, Chusanzang-jiji, compiled by

xxv

Sengyou in Liang, Gunabhadra, who left Lanka aboard a ship sailingeastward, landed Guangzhou, after extreme hardships, in the twelfth

year of Yuanjia, in the reign of Emperor Wen of Liusong (A.D.435). He gained the emperor's awe and respect, had two influential persons as disciples, and upon request from Buddhist monks madetranslations of many scriptures with more than seven hundred persons helping his work (Taisho Tripitaka 55, 105c). Thetranslation, Langga-abatara-paojirig, according to Daoxuan's Datang-neidian-ji Fascicle 4, was made in the twentith year of Yuanjia (A.D. 443) (T 55,258c).

Quotations from and references to this sutra, like %%%%, zixinxian-liang, a rendering characteristic of the Gunabhadra versionfor "svacittadrsyamatram ('what is seen as something external is

nothing but one's own mind')," are seen in a collection of teachingsof the "Dharma-master," founder of Chan, directly recorded by oneof his disciples, Tanlin, together with those introduced throughteachings and words by other disciples of the same Dharma-master,

including Huike, also recorded by Tanlin, in one book.*8 From thiswe know that this sutra in the Gunabhadra version has had deepinfluences on the formation of the Chan/Zen thought.

My own interest in this sutra has been aroused andstrengthened

xxvi

as I have come to think it certain that sources of the Chan/Zenthought are fully unfolded in it. Quotations by Chan masters have been made from the Gunabhadra version, so that for students of theChan thought understanding of this scripture has been essential. Butit has many peculiar wordings which have prevented people fromhaving good understanding of it. I am convinced that it is worthwhileto introduce this scripture in a readable form to the modern world. Inthat sense Dr. Takasaki's Ryogakyo is a precious forerunner for those

concerned.*9


9/34



One of the difficulties one encounters in reading theGunabhadra version seems to derive from an unnatural way of translation. Here is an example:

(Taisho 16, 487b19) [%%. %%%%. %%%%%%%%%%%.] %%.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%.

(N651') "[punar aparam mahamate agotram kim yaduta icchantikanam

anicchantikata moksam /] tatra icchantikanam punar mahamate anicchantikata

moksam (N66 ) kena pravartate."

(Tokiwa I. N Section 8-5) Mahamati, [by the non-approach (agotram) I mean

"the nature of not desiring emancipation of those who desire it (icchantikanam

anicchantikata moksam)."] As for the nature of not desiring emancipation of those

who desire it, (N66) why does it take place (kena pravartate)?

xxvii

This is the beginning part of explanation of the last of the fivekinds of approach to truth. The other four are: approaches to truth bythe faithful follower-disciples' vehicle (sravaka-yana), by the solitary

practitioners' vehicle (pratyekabuddha-yana), by the tathagatas'vehicle, and by the unfixed ones. The fifth is, according to theGunabhadra version, a special approach (prthag-abhisamaya-gotra),and according to the Sanskrit text, the non-approach (agotra). In theabove I adopted the Sanskrit expression, for it seemed to match thecontext better.

Here we have various problems. Gunabhadra uses the sameterm "—%% (yichandi)" twice without rendering it into ameaningful Chinese term, first for a Sanskrit noun in the genitive[plural] case, made from the verb "icchanti ([they] wish)"(icchantikanam, "of those who desire"), and then for a Sanskrit

abstract noun of the same term "icchantika" in the negative form(anicchantikata, "the nature of being one who does not desire"). Thefour characters "% %%%" ("emancipation from worldliness" for "moksam"), which serve as a common object of "desire" and "don'tdesire,"being placed after the two terms,"%%%%%%%," look likeindependent of them. Then, the final six characters will come tomake one group, and the whole fourteen characters might be read as:"An icchantika is not an

xxviii

icchantika. As for emancipation from worldliness, by whom will it be made to prevail?" The Sanskrit interrogative, "kena," which hasthe meaning of "by whom," would better be taken here to mean"how" or "why," in its another meaning. Only through such analysis based on the comparison do we have a pretty good way of readingthis passage. But that is impossible for those who read the Chineserendering alone. Here is a corrected form of the above Chinese passage:

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Another difficulty we experience in reading Gunabhadra's


10/34



version lies in the peculiar word-order he uses in rendering Sanskritinto Chinese. Very often he follows the Sanskrit word-order besidesthe Chinese. Here is one example:

(Tl6,p.495b27) %%. %%%%%%%%%.

(Nanjio 122" ) "etaya catuskotikaya mahamate rahitah sarvadharma ity ucyate."

(Tokiwa II Section 31-1) Mahamati, those in which this set of four alternative

propositions are freed from are called all that have their own characterisitcs.

In the ordinary word-order of the above expression in Chinese,the character % comes before %%% (%%%%, li-cisiju);Gunabhadra,

xxix

however, follows the Sanskrit word-order in this regard ("rahitah,"i.e., "freed," for % comes after "etaya catuskotikaya," meaning "fromthis set of four alternative propositions," for %%%: cisiju-li).Meanwhile, in the latter half, %%%%% (shi ming yiqiefa), hefollows the Chinese word-order for "sarvadharma (for —%%) ityucyate (for %%)." In the above rendering by me I agree toGunabhadra's way of reading. Although the Sanskrit passage may possibly be read as: "All that have their own characteristics are saidto be free from this set of four alternative propositions." But this isinappropriate as a remark by the Buddha, as it would prove to be a bystander's utterance. The corrected form of the above passage is:

%%%%%%%%%%%

Anyway, most of the difficulties we encounter in readingGunabhadra's version can be overcome by carefully comparing it

with Sanskrit expressions. Where we have no Sanskrit expressions,the Tibetan rendering by Facheng serves as a good help, thoughoften the Tibetan translator misunderstood the Chinese

expressions.*10

As I read through the Gunabhadra version in the manner Idescribe above (that is to say, comparing it carefully with the extantSanskrit

xxx

text and the Tibetan translation by Facheng), the result of which I

show in my tentative English translation, I feel that we should befree from modern man's arrogance to blame it as being inconsistenteither in the manner of connecting sections and chapters or in that of expounding the contents of each section or chapter. Instead, I feel itmost appropriate for us to carefully listen to the unfolding of aunique logic through the Gunabhadra version by the sutra-compilers.Blaming this earliest Chinese version as inconsistent without makingany attempt to read it according to its original context means nothing but modern man's negligence and shame. That is why I have triedmaking poor efforts to restore the Sanskrit form of the GunabhadraChinese version throughout my translation work, by collating the


11/34



extant Sanskrit text. I sincerely hope some specialist in Sanskrit maycheck my restored Sanskrit text. Also in my way of reading theChinese version I am afraid I have left not a few parts incorrectlyunderstood. Gratitude is mine when they be corrected.

As it was with my Studies Report for IRIZB (1994), throughoutmy present translation work I kept conferring with Dr. D.T. Suzuki'sEnglish translation (1932), Dr. Kosai Yasui's Japanese translation(1976), Dr. Akira Suganuma's Japanese translation (1977, 78, and

xxxi

81), in which he kept referring to Jnanasribhadra's commentaryextant in Tibetan, as well as Shiren's commentary in Chinese, Butsugoshinron (1325), as mentioned above. Besides, I oftenconferred with a Chinese commentary made in the eleventh year of Hongwu of Emperor Taizu (1398), Ming Dynasty, Langga-abatara-baojing, by two monks, Zonle and Ruji (Taisho 39, no. 1788). Thetwo commentaries in Chinese are both very excellent. This time I didnot take up Jnanasribhadra's Arya-lankavatdra-vrtti (TibetanTripitaka, Peking vol. 107, no. 5519), as I did not think it helpful for collating the extant Sanskrit text, though he seems to have offeredhis own view on the main themes dealt with in every chapter, beforethe tenth, Sagathakam, of the scripture.

After finishing this English translation and restoring theSanskrit form of the Gunabhadra Chinese version, I have made myJapanese translation of the same text. I hope publication of thesemay help people have better understanding of the mahayana thoughtwhich has deeply inspired practitioners of Chan/Zen throughout itshistory.

Finally let me express my hearty gratitude to those who haveencouraged me in finishing this translation work by giving some of their names: Late Mr. Soko Morinaga (Rinzai-zen master, former president of Hanazono University), Mr. Seizan Yanagida, professor

xxxii

emeritus (Chinese Chan and Japanese Zen Buddhist history) of Kyoto University, and former director and life-member of theInternational Research Institute for Zen Buddhism, HanazonoUniversity, (IRIZB); Mr. Urs App, former assistant professor (ChanBuddhism) at IRIZB; late Mr. Shun Murakami, research fellow

(Chinese Buddhism) at the IRIZB; Mr. Noritoshi Aramaki, former professor (Indian and Chinese Buddhism) at the Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, now professor at OtaniUniversity, Kyoto, Japan; and Mr. Lambert Schmithausen, professor (Indian Buddhism) at Hamburg University, Germany.

Gishin TOKIWA

Osaka, October 2002


12/34



xxxiii

INTRODUCTION

I. Central Messages Conveyed by the Lankavatara-ratna- sutram

The Gunabhadra Chinese version has four fascicle-chapters,whereas the Nanjio-edited Sanskrit text in the part which covers thesame contents has seven chapters, beginning with the second andending with the eighth. (The former does not have the latter's first,ninth, and tenth chapters.) The Gunabhadra version's first and secondfascicle-chapters correspond to the second chapter of the Sanskrittext, and the former's third and fourth fascicle-chapters to the latter'sremaining six chapters, beginning with the third and ending with the

eighth.

The Chinese version's first and second fascicle-chapters, which,thus, correspond to the Sanskrit second chapter, represent aconclusive whole, as the latter's second chapter's title, "A Collectionof All Teachings Thirty-Six Thousand," indicates. The number 36,000 seems to stand for that of the Buddha's whole teachings for bodhisattvas. (Consider the Buddhist interpretation that each of thesix perfections of bodhisattva practice is said to include all the six perfections. Then divide 36,000 by 108, another number which is

xxxiv

regarded as representing all the passions-emancipations and which isused by the Buddha as the number of questions to be asked and of answers to them. We have the eternal continuation of the number,three: 333.333333...) Taking this into consideration, the presentEnglish translator has corrected his early division of this part, thirty-five sections, into thirty-six, as is seen in the list of contents shownseparately.

The rest of the scripture, the third and fourth fascicle-chapters,which include six Sanskrit chapters or twenty-nine sectionsaccording to my division (i.e., twenty sections of Chapter Three, fivesections of Chapter Six, and four other chapters, each of whichconstitutes one section), center on the subject "the buddha" from theBuddha's standpoint. It is no wonder that sections of the latter half of this scripture (e.g., the "Five Grave Sins"; "Tathagatas Utter NotEven a Word"; "The Two Directive Principles of the AwakenedTruth: The Effected End (siddhanta) and Communication (desana)";"Meaning as the moon and Sounds and Letters as the moon-pointingfinger-tip") have invited deep concern of Chan/Zen practitioners.

Throughout the sutra various topics are discussed between the


13/34



questioner Mahamati and his respondent, the Buddha. Unlikequestioners in other sutras, Mahamati would not just sit and listen

xxxv

and overjoy with the other's sermon. He often equates the

Buddha's views with those of non-Buddhists, and tends to blame theother for the lack of uniqueness. To this the Buddha tries to clarifyhis point of view, comparing it with other views. This kind of discussion helps readers better understand the Buddha's viewpoint. Itsounds consistent enough all through, and often very convincing.Here for the sake of introducing the contents of the scripture, a brief sketch will be attempted of a few subjects picked up from sections(which are attached with head numbers common to the twotranslations, the restored Sanskrit text, and the Contents) throughoutthe Gunabhadra version.

A. "The One Hundred and Eight Terms":

3. GI, NII Section One (2): Mahamati Asks 108 Questions

4. NII Section One (3): The Buddha Recounts Mahamati's Questions

5. NII Section One (4): The 108 Terms Shown by the Buddha

After his expression of respect to the Buddha at the beginningof the scripture, a mahayana practitioner, an Awakening being(bodhisattva) named Mahamati ("Having-a-Great-Wisdom") asksquestions on everything he thinks of as serious enough to ask, bothworldly and supra-worldly. Hearing this, the Buddha encourages the

other to ask more, and finally cites one hundred and eight terms

xxxvi

as his answers to those questions. They can be represented by oneterm: "The term 'dharma' not being the term 'dharma'(dharmapadam-adharmapadam)," as is supplemented by the presentEnglish translator as the one hundred and eighth term, which islacking in the extant Gunabhadra version (Cf. NII Section One (4):The 108 Terms Shown by the Buddha).

Here the term "dharma" means "something that holds its own

characteristic(s)," so that the above statement can be expressed as"the term 'something that holds its own characteristic(s)' not beingthe term 'something that holds its own characteristic(s)'." Whatmatters here is that the whole statement constitutes one term. Thatthis statement be applied to everything worldly and supra-worldly iswhat is meant by the number, one hundred and eight, of the terms.One can confirm this by citing each and every thing and being andmatter without any feeling of redundancy; for the number onehundred and eight of the terms does not limit the citer within them but opens him to the truth of all.


14/34



The former part of this double-natured term, "the term dharma,"seems to find its detailed explanation in the so-called "sevenfoldself-nature of being (bhava-svabhavah)" :

Coming together (samadaya-svabhavah), beings (bhava-), characteristics

xxxvii

(laksana-), gross elements (mahabhuta-), causes (hetu-), co-operating causes

(pratyaya-), and being brought about (nispatti-).

The latter part, "not being the term dharma," can be paraphrasedas the "sevenfold ultimate way of being (paramarthah):

The ultimate way of being relating to mind (citta-gocarah), relating to

knowledge (jnana-), relating to insight into voidness (prajna-), relating to the twofold

view (drstidvaya-), relating to the twofold view surpassed (drstidvayatikranta-),

relating to surpassing the bodhisattva-stages (sutabhumy-atikramana-), and relating to

the tathagata's own attainment (tathagatasya sva-prapta-).

(Cf. NII Section Two (2): The Seven Characters Each of the Ordinary Being and

the Ultimate Way of Being)

According to the Buddha, all this is,

"the core of the self-nature of being and the ultimate way of being, for all the

past, future, and present tathagatas, the most worthy, the rightly awakened ones."

This twofold "core" is the very standpoint of all the buddhas for establishing truths both worldly and supra-worldly:

"Fully furnished with die core both of the self-nature of being and the ultimate

way of being, tathagatas establish truths of the world, those that surpass the world, and

those that superatively surpass the world, with their noble wisdom-eyes penetrating

into the characteristics specific and general."

xxxviii

In this scripture the Buddha, standing on this viewpoint, goeson criticizing wrong views, and presents his own. The self-nature of being does not stand as it is, but is always open to criticism by theultimate way of being; meanwhile the ultimate way of being doesnot stand outside of the self-nature of being, but constitutes itsoriginal mode of being, its true self. Roughly speaking, this isconsidered to be the structure of the twofold "core," and also itexplains what is meant by the one hundred and eight terms,represented by "the term dharma not being the term dharma."

According to the Buddha, further, truths both worldly andsupra-worldly are established by the buddhas in the way theirs "maynot be equal to the non-Buddhists' wrong views." (Ibid.) In that case,the Buddha answers the question, "How would one's view be equalto the non-Buddhists' wrong views?" as follows:

It is because one does not realize that while one sees one's own mind one falsely

discriminates it as something external. Since the discerning faculties don't realize

what is seen to be something external as nothing but one's own mind, ignorant,

common people come to embrace twofold views, since for them being does not have


15/34



the [above-mentioned] self-nature of being and the ultimate way of being (bhava-a-

bhava-svabhdva-paramdrtha-).

B. "What is Seen as Something External is Nothing But One's

xxxix

Own Mind"; and

C. "Entering Lanka":

This further clarifies the relation between the two kinds of core.One should not see beings just as anything external; they are nothing but one's own mind, or more precisely oneself as mind, seen assomething external (svacitta-drsya-matram). This does not seem tomean that one affirms one's own being while rejecting theindependence of external beings, considering them as reflections of one's own mind. What is meant here seems to be that having penetrating insight into beings leads one to the understanding thateverything is free from the concepts of externality and internality.Everything, in the sense that they are beyond such concepts, is

nothing but me, that is not an ordinary, individual "me." Readersneed to seriously think of the reason why we see the expression,"what is seen to be something external is nothing but one's ownmind," being repeated throughout the present scripture. The title of the sutra, "Lankavatara (entering or attaining to Lanka)," seems tohave something to do with this basic way of thinking and practice,though the Gunabhadra version apparently does not offer much helpin this regard.

The title seems to have derived from the legendary story

xl

transmitted among the Theravada practitioners of the island, which isrecorded in the Dipavamsa ("Royal Lineage of the Island Lanka"),*n compiled among them. According to the first two chapters of thestory, Gotama Buddha came to the island three times: (1) ninemonths after his attaining Awakening, (2) five years after, and (3)eight years after.

(1) When he saw all the world with his fivefold eyes, he saw the island, where

yaksas ("something quick," spiritual apparitions) and raksasas (when yaksas get angry

they are said to be flesh-eating goblins or raksasas, "anything to be guarded against")

were abiding and afflicting people, groaning loudly and sucking human blood;

Gotama was afraid some strange teachings might flourish in that situation to worry

people further. Using supernatural power, from India he came, expelled the terrible

yaksas and furious raksasas by having them shift their dwelling place to a lonely

island named Giri far out in the ocean. Then he returned to Urvela in Magadha

(Chatper I).

(2) After he left, in the island mountain snakes and marine snakes struggled for

sovereignty over the island, both being nagas with supernatural power, violent and

cruel, arrogant and drunk with power, though different in their size. The situation

worsened to the extent diat, wherever they went, everything got contaminated and

burned out. Gotama, far away in India, felt he could not leave things as they were.

Again he came to Lanka, which he had emptied of yalsas. He put bodi parties of


16/34



snakes under his control, brought them into reconciliation, and returned to the Jeta

forest (II).

xli

(3) Three years later, king of the Lanka snakes, Maniakkhika, invited Gotama

together with his five hundred disciples to the island in return for the Buddha's

contribution as peace-maker. The party came flying from the Jeta forest. Gotama

came to the Mahamegha forest, and predicted that in a future time the very Bodhi tree

beside which he had attained buddhahood would be planted at the site in Lanka where

Bodhi trees had grown for previous Buddhas (II).

There is no doubt that such stories were made on the basis of other, more historical stories, also recorded in the Dipavamsa, thattransmission of the Buddha's teaching to the island had begun in thereign of King Devampiyatissa (B.C. 241-207). In response to the giftof treasures from the Lanka king Tissa, King Asoka sent messengersfrom India with gift and a message that he had taken refuge in theBuddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. Asoka's son, Mahinda, as an elder monk (thera), came (XI), and King Tissa of the island had a temple,Mahavihara, built in the suburbs of the capital, Anuradhapura, as thecentre for practice and study for monks under Mahinda's guide (XIII,

XIV). Mahinda had a messenger sent to King Asoka, and had him bring back part of the bones of Gotama Buddha, and had a dome(stupa) erected for the relics (XV). Mahinda's sister, ThenSanghamitta, also came to Lanka. She brought a branch of the Bodhitree, and had it planted in the wood of Mahamegha,

xlii

where the Mahavihara was located (XVI). Mahinda died in B.C. 199(XVQ), and Sanghamitta, the next year (Mahavamsa XX).

The legendary stories of Gotama's three visits to the island,however, seem to derive from one of the famous epics of India,

Ramayana.*u Rama, the hero, came to attack raksasas of the island,killed Ravana, their chief, and returned home with his beloved wifeSita, who had been taken away to the island. Gotama was a heroequivalent to Rama, an avatar of Visnu, but, unlike Rama, Gotamakilled none; he expelled evil spirits that had been devastating Lanka.The part of peace-maker played by Gotama for two snake-groupsalso seems to have its forerunner in the Ramayana; where twogroups of monkeys followed Rama and helped him in his attack against Lanka-demons, since he had worked as peace-maker for them when they had been in mutual conflicts in the continent. Thus

we know that the Theravada document, the Dipavamsa, invented theidea, the Buddha's entering Lanka, on the basis of history andlegends. But we need to consider what was meant by themahayanists' use of the title, "Entering Lanka," for their scripture.

The Lankavatara sutram in the Gunabhadra version begins withthe description of the spot where the Buddha, the bhiksu-samgha,and bodhisattvas met, and how one bodhisattva named Mahamati

xliii


17/34



from among other bodhisattvas of mahamati (see note below) stoodup and asked the Buddha for teaching.

On one occasion die Buddha stayed for a while in the town of Lanka on the

mountain top, on the coast of the southern sea ...

Now the Awakening great being, Mahamati, who was together with [other]

Awakening beings of mahamati (i.e., of great wisdom), an attendant in every

Buddhaland, through the Buddha's influence stood up from his seat, ...

As is known from the note attached to it, the word "mahamati,"used here both as a common noun and a proper noun, reveals a closeconnection between the Lankavatara sutram and the Dipavamsa. Inthe latter, the word was used only as a common noun, to show adeep respect when excellent mendicants were referred to:

(1) "That mahamati Upali, after naming a learned man named Thera Dasaka as a

responsible person for Vinaya, passed away." (V. 90)

(2) "A Greek mahamati named Thera Dhammarakkhita, by introducing the

Aggikkhandhopamasutta ("Scripture on a Simile of Big Fire"), led natives of Aparanta

to the Buddha's teaching." (VIII. 7)

(3) "In former days mendicants of mahamati had transmitted the Pali Tipitaka

and their commentaries orally." (XX. 20)

According to the same Lanka record, in this land of Theravada practitioners, another Buddhist centre named Abhayagiri-vihara was built by King Vattagamini Abhaya (B.C. 29-17), at the site of aJaina

xliv

temple, in the town of Anuradhapura (XIX). The Dipavamsa closes

its record of the royal lineage of Lanka with the description of howKing Mahasena (A.D. 334-361) died under the influence of "theshameless, evil monks" of this Abhayagiri-vihara, and had to receive punishment for his life-time evil conducts, and warns readers toavoid such evil people as beings like snakes (XXII).

The Dipavamsa is considered to have been compiled during the period between A.D. 361, the year when King Mahasena died, and429, the year when Buddhaghosa, who had come from India to abidenear the Mahavihara in Anuradhapura, began writing Samanta- pasadika, a commentary on the Vinaya, basing his description of

history for its preface on the Dipavaima.*14 The other history-book on Lanka, the Mahavamsa, is said to have been compiled around themiddle or end of the fifth century with the purpose of refining andsupplementing the Dipavamsa's expression up to XXXVTI. 50.According to this newer record, at the Abhayagiri-vihara mahayanastudies and practice were conducted in a critical manner against theTheravada way of thinking represented by the practitioners at theMahavihara, and the latter hated the former so much that they triedremoving the mahayanists by means of the political power. In the Mahavamsa mahayana was called "Vetulya (=vaipulya)-vada":

xlv


18/34



(1) King Voharikatissa (A.D. 269-291): "Suppressing the Vetulya-doctrine, and

keeping heretics in check by his minister Kapila, he made die true doctrine to shine

forth in glory. "(XXXVI. 41)

(2) King Gothabhaya (=Meghavannabhaya, A.D. 309-322): "He seized bhikkhus

dwelling in die Abhayagiri (vinara), sixty in number, who had turned to the Vetulya-

doctrine and were like a thorn in the doctrine of the Buddha, and when he had

excommunicated them, he banished them to the further coast."(XXXVI. 111,112)

In A.D. 410-411, Faxian, a Chinese monk, who had left Chinain 399 to seek for Vinaya texts, and who had made long travels byland, stayed in Lanka for the two years. Then he returned by sea withBuddhist texts on board a ship, and back home wrote down adetailed record of the travels for himself (Taisho Tripitaka vol. 51,no. 2085). According to this record, in Anuradhapura five thousandmonks were abiding in the Abhayagiri-vihara, and for ninety daysannually the Buddha's teeth were carried from the Buddhadanta-vihara to the Abhayagiri-vihara to receive people's offerings. In theMahavihara three thousand monks were abiding. The present Englishtranslator surmises that the Lankavatara sutram was compiled at theAbhayagiri-vihara some time between A.D. 411, when Faxian left

Lanka for home, and 435, when Gunabhadra reached China, possibly bringing its Sanskrit text from Lanka.

xlvi

In the Lankavatara sutram in the Gunabhadra version there isanother place where the name Lanka is cited in connection with theBuddha's teaching (NII Section Three: The Seven DiscerningFaculties and the Subtle Root Discerning-Faculty). Mahamati asksthe Buddha as follows:

For those who abide in the land of Lanka on the Malaya mountains in the sea,

headed by Awakening beings, (N44) please declare what has been celebrated in song

by tathagatas, the original way of being of the root discerning-faculty compared to the

ocean of ocean waves (udadhi-taramga-alayavijnana-gocaram), which is the

Awakened self itself (dharmakayam).

Here the ocean-waves are compared to the discerning faculties,while the ocean is to the root discerning-faculty, and their originalmode of being is to the Awakened self. A particular geographical place Lanka is referred to, so that its ocean-waves and ocean may becompared to discerning faculties and the root discerning-faculty, andtheir original mode of being to the Awakened self. Here Lanka isnothing but the here-and-now of the islanders, and it is when theyrealize the truth of their here-and-now that the Buddha enters Lankato teach the Awakened truth. What they see as Lanka is nothing buttheir own mind appearing as such. That seems to be the reason thecompilers of this mahayana sutra named it as "Entering Lanka." Thegeographical name can be replaced by any other name

xlvii

according to where one abides in, for entering it means "entering andreally penetrating one's here-and-now." Possibly that is why theGunabhadra version makes no other explanation about the title


19/34



except for the ocean-waves and so on.

However, not long after the compilation of the original text, because of the strong inclination towards diffusion of discriminationamong those who inherited it, people came to feel like having moreexplanations about the title. They invented a new story as anintroductory chapter, though it is not certain whether the compilerswere still abiding in Lanka or not, when one takes into considerationthe terrible condition of the text-preservation seen in the Bodhiruci

Chinese version (tr. A.D. 513) and the extant Sanskrit text whichshares almost the same condition with the Bodhiruci version.

In the introductory chapter the yaksa-king of the island, Ravana("One Who Cries Loud") came out from nowhere to the shore toreceive the Buddha to the mountain-top town Lanka, and, helped byMahamati, asked about "dharma" and "adharma." Certainly the new-compilers did not like the way yaksa-raksasas of Lanka were treated both in the Indian epic and the Theravada records. In Chapter I of the extant Sanskrit text Ravana proclaims that they have had buddhas teach them, and that their sons and daughters

xlviii

need to be taught in the same way. Indubitably this idea could never have come from those living in the tradition of the Ramayana or of the Theravada; it must have come from the mahayanists of theAbhayagiri-vihara, who had to criticize those Theravadins whorejected the mahayana thought and practice.

D. "The Tathagatagarbha-Alayavijnana":

This subject is treated in two places:

38. Gil, NII Section Fourteen: the Tathagatagarbha Thought;

112. GIV, NVI: Section One:

The Womb for Tathagatas (tathagatagarbha)

Free From Transmigration

Transmigrates As the Root Discerning-Faculty (alayavijnana).

In the first place of reference, the term "tathagatagarbha" is presented in two ways: (a) Mahamati asks if it does not mean thesame as the nonBuddhists' "atman" theory; In this case the term isunderstood to mean "the tathagata in the womb (tathagato garbha-avasthitah)." (b) The Buddha does not accept this view; instead, heoffers his understanding of it as "the selfless womb for tathagatas(tathagata-nairatmya-garbhah)." In both understandings the womb(garbha) stands for humanity. While in the former humanityconceals transcendence (tathagata), in the latter, humanity in itsselflessness

xlix

or void, that is, "depth humanity" (a term used in his personal talk by


20/34



Dr. Shin'ichi Hisamatsu, 1889-1980) works as the source of transcendence (tathagata-activities).

In the second place of reference the above (b) understanding ismade clearer. Here the two concepts "tathagatagarbha" and"alayavijnana" constituting one term, instead of being joined andidentified, is seen in the expression "the womb for tathagatas—theroot discerning-faculty (tathagatagarbha-alayavijnanah)." Thisreminds one of the typical expression of the one hundred and eight

terms: "the term dharma not being the term dharma (dharmapadam-adharmapadam)." The present term may be considered to represent"the term alayavijnana not being the term alayavijnana." In a moremodern way of expression the two terms will be related as: "thealayavijnana as the unawakened tathagatagarbha" and "thetathagatagarbha as the awakened alayavijnana."

What is meant in all this is that the present scripture shows itscriticism of the Samkhya view on emancipation, in which separationof the Purusa from the Prakrti through the latter's transformation isasserted, whereas the Lankavatara sutram advocates realization by

the alayavijnana, as it were, of how it, as it is, ultimately fails, andhaving its turning over, and returning to its original mode of being,

l

i.e., the tathagatagarbha. This relation of the two concepts finds its practical expression in a Chan/Zen maxim, "Directly pointing to themind, Having it see its original nature and attain buddhahood."

E. "The Five Grave Sins":

86. GUI, NIII Section Two: Five Grave Sins: (1) The Internal Ones

87. NIII Section Two: (2) The External Five Grave Sins

The title "the five grave sins" is taken up in the context wherethe essential nature of the buddha is discussed, and the apparentlystrange interpretation, the internal five grave sins, serves as anexplanation of the nature of the Awakened ones. Their so-calledinternal interpretation is not peculiar to this scripture; it is shared byother mahayana texts as well:

Manjusri-parivarta -aparaparyaya Saptaiatika prajnaparamita sutram (Buddhist

Sanskrit Texts no. 17, p. 3499-15);

Avaivartacakra sutram (Taisho 9, no. 266, Dharrnaraksa tr., pp. 214c~215a; Tib.

Trip. Peking vol. 36, no. 906 p. 118, 290ab);

Supratisthitamati-devaputra-prasna-sutram (Taisho 11, no. 310, p. 589a; Tib.

Trip., Peking vol. 24, no. 36, p. 142, 347b~348a).

Buddhasamgiti sutram (Taisho 17, no. 810, 768c; Tib. T. Derge vol. 13, no. 228,

445; Peking vol. 35, no. 895, 234a).

In the last scripture accomplishing the five grave sins is said to be the reason why a practitioner leaves household to acquire


21/34



li

monkhood. The buddha, in whose presence this was uttered by awoman practitioner answering Manjusri's question, is called Jug-sred-kyi-rgyal-po" (Avatararuciraja?), and %%% ("Buddha as Kingof All Deities") in Chinese. These names of the buddha as well asthe structure of the whole scripture suggest that he seems to be the buddha "Devaraja," a future buddha Devadatta was predicted to be by Sakyamuni in the Saddharma-pundarika sutram Chapter 11.

Among traditional buddhists Devadatta was an abominable person who had committed the latter three of the five grave sins,causing death of a woman arhat, splitting the buddha Sakyamuni'ssangha, and causing blood to be shed from the buddha's body (Seethe chapter "Sanghabhedavastu" of the MulasarvastivadavinayavastuII, Buddhist Skt. Texts no. 16, p. 188). The main reason Devadattawas hated was that he had started his own sangha independent of Sakyamuni's. Even among scholars of mahayana Buddhism therehave been some not willing to accept the passages as authentic of theSaddhamia-pundarika sutram Chapter 11 that mention Sakyamuni's prediction of how Devadatta will attain buddhahood in the future.But we need to know that the so-called internal interpretation of thefive grave sins was prevalent among mahayana Buddhist scriptures,including the Saddharma-pundarika sutram. The

lii

present translator is of the opinion that the five grave sins in their internal interpretation represent the very mahayana view, instead of being anything accidental. It is well known that the first two of thefive grave sins, killing mother and father, have already been giventhe so-called internal interpretation in the ancient text, Dhammapada

(nos. 294 and 295).

F. "Meat-Eating Be Stopped":

120. GIV, NVIII: "Meat-Eating (mamsa-bhaksanam)"

The chapter "Sanghabhedavastu" of the Mulasarvastivadavinayavastu II mentions that Devadatta prohibitedmendicants from eating meat so as not to kill animals, while

criticizing Gautama for eating meat (Ibid., p. 19020~21). This meansthat the Lankavatara sutram shares the same view on meat-eatingwith Devadatta's sangha. Meanwhile, Sakyamuni's prediction in the

Saddharma-pundarika sutram that Devadatta will become a buddhain the next life ought to be considered consistently in connectionwith the typically mahayana concept of internal five grave sins. Thisleads us to think that Devadatta's sangha had had a typicallymahayana character as far as the latter's monastic discipline wasconcerned.

G. "The Non-Approach to the Truth (agotram)":

26. GI, NII Section Eight (5): The Non-Approach


22/34



liii

The Buddha in the present scripture cites five ways of approachto the true mode of being (abhisamaya-gotrani): approach throughthe follower-disciples' vehicle (sravaka-yana); through the solitaryattainers' vehicle (pratyekabuddha-yana); through the tathagatas'vehicle (tathagata-yana); through the unfixed, either-one way of approach (aniyata-ekatara-gotram); and through the fifth, non-approach (agotram). Among these, the tathagata's vehicle represents

the mahayana or bodhisattva-vehicle, as far as the monasticdiscipline is concerned. The prohibition of meat-eating will beapplied to this approach. The mahayana vehicle has another aspect,freedom from monasticism as well as from secularism. That may berepresented by the fifth approach, the non-approach (a "special" one,according to the Gunabhadra version, but "the non-approach" isadopted for the present translation, as already mentioned above).

This last approach is explained to mean "the nature of notdesiring emancipation of those who desire it (icchantikanamanicchantikata moksam)." And practitioners of this strange natureare of two kinds: One of them is those traditional buddhists who arecriticized to "abandon all the roots of virtue" by blaming themahayana sutras and vinayas or monastic rules for not leading toemancipation; they are criticized for the reason that they seek for their own salvation

liv

and have no concern with others' emancipation. The other kind isthose mahayanists who realize their vows since the beginninglesstime for sentient beings. They are bodhisattvas who desireemancipation of all beings but who do not desire it for themselves;

they are not to attain perfect nirvana to the end, since they realizethat all that have their own characteristics have originally been in perfect nirvana. They are called bodhisattva-icchantikas. A JapaneseZen monk in the Edo period, Hakuin Ekaku (1685-1768) used a

Japanese rendering of this term, [Is-]Sendai, for his pen-name.*15

Since the term in its second of the two senses given above is peculiar to the present scripture, Hakuin must have meant the bodhisattva-icchantika without doubt. In those feudal days Hakuincontinued to criticize those in power who neglected ordinary people's sufferings. While remaining a strict monastic practitioner,he was deeply concerned with emancipation of people both worldly

and unworldly. When the non-approach of the bodhisattva-icchantikas is considered in connection with the internal five gravesins, most probably we are having the mahayana way of being thatgoes beyond the monastic character of the tathagata vehicle referredto above. The Vimalakirti-nirdesa sutram, among mahayanascriptures, seems to depict this mode of being. Students of truth of modern times

lv

also may find something deeply democratic to learn from this mode


23/34



of being that is free from both worldliness and unwordliness.

H. "An Appellation of the Tathagata (tathagatasyaadhivacanam)":

107. GIV, NTH Section Nineteen (1):

Not-Arising Not-Perishing

as Another Name for the Tathagata

This subject is also remarkably characteristic of the presentscripture, and is expressive of the basic character of Buddhism itself.The Buddha of this scripture asserts that all that have their owncharacteristics are free from perishing and arising, and that this veryfreedom from perishing and arising, the non-arising non-perishing of all, is the tathagata's appellation, or another name (parydya-vacarmm). He also asserts that the tathagata reaches people's hearingrange through innumerable synonymous names without their awareness, like the moon reflected in water, which is neither in thewater nor out of it. As synonyms of the tathagata he cites some such

names as: tathagata, buddha, rsi, visnu, Isvara, pradhana, kapila,soma, bhaskara, varuna, sunyata, bhutata, satyata, dharmasvabhava,and so on. He explains that the manyness of the names does notindicate so many beings or the non-existence of the tathagata. Allthese are the tathagata's other names insofar as through them they

lvi

realize the non-arising non-perishing nature of all that have their characteristics. But people, fallen into the two extremes of alternatives, cling to letters and sounds, don't well discriminate thetathagata's name (abhinna-samjnah). Not well versed in their own

directive principles (svanayam), people consider the non-arisingnon-perishing of all to be mere nonbeing (abhavam). They are notconfident enough to realize the culminating point to which their owndirective principles return (na svanaya-pratyavasthana-nisthanadhimoksanti), for they pursue teachings only through letters andsounds. They believe that there is no meaning apart from letters andsounds, and that what matters is sounds alone. Thus they don't penetrate the original nature of sounds. They don't realize thatsounds arise and perish while meaning is free from arising and perishing.

The Buddha says one should be confident in meaning instead of letters since the Awakened truth is free from letters. One should notcling to sounds and letters. Meaning is compared to the moon in thesky while sounds and letters to the finger-tip which points to themoon. The ignorant take the non-arising non-perishing of all withoutcooking, that is to say, literally, thus stopping with the finger-tip andsuffering from ill-digestion, for sounds and letters representdiscriminative thought, clinging to which results in one's

lvii

suffering from birth-death transmigration. Meaning as truth


24/34



(tattvdrthah) is gained in the presence of the deeply erudite(bahusrutanam sakaiallabhyate), for deep erudition means beingversed in meaning (artha-kauialyam) instead of in sounds and letters(na ruta-kauialyam). The Buddha of this scripture urges us to penetrate into the meaning, as the Awakened truth, of the term: "The Non-arising Non-perishing nature of all," instead of stopping withits sounds and letters.

II. The Tathagatagarbha Thought Expressed by Other Texts

in India and China (1) The Tathagatagarbha sutram,

the Ratnagotravibhaga, and the Foxing-lung

In my footnote to Mahamai's question on the meaning of thetathagatagarbha thought in the following translation (Gil, NII Section14, N77) I referred to the room left for a non-Buddhisticinterpretation in the manner in which the Tathagatagarbha sutram presented nine illustrations and which was further extended by thecompilers of a treatise named Ratnagotravibhaga Mahayanottaratantra-iastram ("A Treatise as A Section on theLineage of Treasure, the Ultimate Mahayana Doctrine;" hereafter,the Ratnagotravibhaga)*^ What I mean by the room for a non-Buddhistic interpretation is as follows:

The nine illustrations of the Tathagatagarbha sutram are: (1) a

lviii

withered lotus calyx or padma-garbha which hides a shining buddhaimage in it, (2) the beehive which stores honey and which is guarded by bees, (3) husks which cover and protect grains in them, (4) dirt

and mud which protect a mass of gold smeared by them, (5) theground which hides a treasure below a poor man's shed without thelatter's knowledge, (6) fruits of trees which contain seeds, (7)stinking, dirty clothes in which a jewel-made buddha-image iswrapped, (8) a poor woman pregnant, without her knowledge, of aroyal inheritor, and (9) the mould of clay which holds a golden buddha-image inside. Of these illustrations the containers or coverswhich keep human attention away from the contents stand for thehuman beings in despair, unawakened to their true way of beingrepresented by the precious contents. The purpose of the exposition by the use of these illustrations is considered to lie in having people penetrate their desparate way of being to cease holding to it as

anything final, and in having them realize the ultimate Voidness thatis the source of true activities. What matters here is the true darknessof the covering, instead of the deceptive brightness of the contents.In other words, our original Awakening takes the form of Unawakening, instead of anything brilliant. It is only through therealization of Unawakening that true Awakening presents itself. Thatseems to be

lix

what is meant by the teaching of the Womb for tathagatas.


25/34



Meanwhile, the teachings of the two texts, the Tathagatagarbha sutram and the Ratnagotravibhaga, apparently place emphasis on the brilliancy of the contents at the sacrifice of the outer darkness: a buddha in a withered lotus flower, honey where bees are, grains inhusks, gold in excrement, a treasure underground, seeds etc. in tree-fruits, a buddha image wrapped in dirty clothes, a royal prince in a poor woman's womb, and a golden image in a clay-mould. In thecase of the Ratnagotravibhaga it is not very clear whether the

Buddha who says he observes the presence of a buddha inside thedarkness of humanity insists he would liberate the buddha by cuttingthrough hindrances for the sake of humans or would have thehumans under his guidance do the liberation. The latter is evidentlythe case, however, with the Tathagatagarbha sutram, where practitioners are repeatedly encouraged to follow the Buddha'sadvice to proceed in practice. On the contrary, the Ratnagotravibhaga gives an impression as if it kept on depreciatingthe darkness of coverings or the womb (garbha), by focusing on the brightness of the contents or the buddha nature (tathagata-dhatu. Cf.I., verse 122). When it speaks of the presence of the buddha naturewhich is compared to a royal successor as the future protector in ahelpless woman's own being which

lx

stands for human defilements (Ibid.), it sounds very weak because itdoes not seem to pay attention to the positive role of the womb indefilement.

The Foxing -lung , a "Treatise on the Buddha-Nature," wasintroduced as one of his unique "translations"to the people of China by Paramartha (A.D. 499~569), an excellent Buddhist thinker-

translator from India, who came to China in 546. The well-known Dasheng-Qixing-lun, a "Treatise on the Mahayana Awakening of Faith," is another such "translation." By applying the term"translation" to such works he seems to have attempted to introduceauthentic Buddhist views on subjects concerned, as he observed thatinauthentic views on Buddhism were much in vogue. As for the Foxing-lung, it seems to have been composed for the purpose of introducing the subjects of the Ratnagotravibhaga, which had beenintroduced to China through its Chinese version by Ratnamati (tr.around A.D. 511 ~515), in a critical way in the context of themahayana thought as he understood it ought to be. It consists of accurate introduction of important themes of the treatise in asystematic and supplementary way with the intention of clarifyingtheir meaning originally intended. Although he attributed itsauthorship to Vasubandhu, when compared with the extant text of the

lxi

Ratnagotravibhaga, it is known to be his own compilation, servingas a critical commentary on the latter. He must have had somereason for the authorship-attribution.


26/34



In this commentary-like treatise Foxing-lung, Paramartha,concerning the eighth illustration on a poor woman pregnant of aroyal prince, introduces the Ratnagotravibhaga s explanation that itwas meant for manifesting the nature of the self-afflicting passions(klesa) at the first through the seventh bodhisattva stage (I v. 141ab).Then he adds, saying that just as the misery and helplessness of thewoman would never defile the future world-king in her womb, theself-afflicting passions for the first through the seventh bodhisattvastage practitioners rather have three virtues. They are: (1) Being free

from defilement since they are nurtured by wisdom and compassion;(2) Being free from faults since they never harm self or others; and(3) Being full of immeasurable merit since they bring to maturity both the buddha-dharma and sentient beings. Indeed, he says, if theself-afflicting passions should grow further passions, they wouldeffect ordinary, ignorant beings, far form maturing the buddha-dharma. Meanwhile, if the self-afflicting passions should cutthemselves off, that would mean effecting sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, far from maturing sentient beings [for mahayana]

lxii

(Taisho 31. no. 1610, p. 808a). There is no explicit explanation of such a role of suffering in the illustration of a helpeless, pregnant

woman in the Ratnagotravibhaga.*17

The Foxing-lung cites three meanings of the term"tathagatagarbha" (Taisho 31, 795c~796a). They are: (1) All sentient beings being taken in by the tathagata without exception (tathagata-grhltah sarva-sattvah. Cf. I below v. 147); (2) The tathagata beinghidden from all sentient beings (tathagato gudhah sarva-sattvanam.Cf. I below v. 148); and (3) The tathagata-nature being what isoriginal to [all sentient beings and] tathagatas (tathagata-dhatur

garbhah [sarva-sattvanam ca] tathagatanam [ca]. Cf. I below v. 152).These are how Paramartha explained the term according to the

corresponding expressions in the Ratnagotravibhaga.*18 Certainlythey show the meaning of the term "tathagatagarbha," respectively intheir own way. Nevertheless, it is not clear how they are mutuallyrelated to constitute a concrete, religious meaning. They sound tooabstract as they are to respond to our urgent religious quest, thoughwe know that Chan and Zen Buddhists have taken them up inthereligious context of their own to explain their religious thoughts.

By the way, none of the three explanations suggests me the

strange interpretation, "all sentient beings being the tathagata-

lxiii

embryos," which is very popular among modern Buddhist scholars,and which has largely contributed to the prevalent criticism againstthe tathagatagarbha thought as a non-Buddhistic, atman-doctrine.

(2) The Srimaladevi- simhanad a-sutram, the Ratnagotravibhaga,


27/34



and the Dasheng-Qixing-lun

For the purpose of clarifying the meaning of the term"tathagatagarbha," the Ratnagotravibhaga quotes many passagesfrom the Srimaladevi- simhanada- sutram (hereafter, Srimala- sutramor just Srimala). Those Srimala passages sound more religious thanthose from the Tathagatagarbha sutram. Those quotationsapparently cover almost all the important expressions given in theSrimala-sutram concerning the tathagatagarbha thought. Since the

Srimala-sutram is extant only in Chinese and Tibetan versions, theSanskrit quotations in the Ratnagotravibhaga are really helpful for the understanding of the text. Now we miss one statement, whichseems to be decisive for the understanding of the tathagatagarbhathought, in those Sanskrit quotations. Let me explain it. Whatfollows is my English rendering of part of Lady Srimala's wordsaddressed to the Buddha, in Gunabhadra's Chinese version of theSrimala-sutram in the Taisho Tripitaka vol. 12, no. 353,11. 5-11, p.252b:

The Most Revered One, die Womb for tathagatas is what the life-death

lxiv

circulation (samsara) rests on. By virtue of the Womb for tathagatas, as the most

Revered one has expounded and presented it to us, die life-death circulation has no

starting point (purvakoti). The Most Revered One, the utterance that as the Womb for

tathagatas exists, the life-death circulation exists is appropriate. The Most Revered

One, by die life-death circulation I mean that as soon as the faculties that had been

received perish, one would cling to the faculties not yet received as one's own. The

Most Revered One, the names of the two concepts, dying and being born, are

synonyms of the Womb for tathagatas.

(Tibetan: Tsukinowa 144, 9-146, 2; Peking 281a, 1 -3. The underlined part

shows the Sanskrit quotation in the Ratnagotravibhaga: Z. Nakamura 143, 5-6)

Dying and getting born—diese are worldly uses of expression. Dying means

faculties getting suppressed. Getting born means new faculties arising. In the Womb

for tadiagatas is no getting born, no dying, no perishing, and no arising. The Womb

for tadiagatas surpasses the sphere of the composite characteristics. The Womb for

tathagatas is permanent, whole, and constant. (Tib.: Tsukinowa 146, 2-12; Peking

281a, 3 -6. Sanskrit quotation: Z. Nakamura 89, 11-17)

As is seen in my translation, when it quoted the latter part, the Ratnagotravibhaga did not include the final statement in the former part which preceded it:

The Most Revered One, the names of the two concepts, dying and being born, are

synonyms of die Womb for tadiagatas.

lxv

But what was missed in quotation was essential, for, together with what follows, it conveys the meaning of the term"tathagatagarbha." The text mentions: What we call our birth anddeath, or our birth-death being, is nothing but what is called thetathagatagarbha, and this tathagata-garbha has no birth and death initself; it goes beyond that. The whole statement well characterizesthe tathagata-garbha. It can be summarized in one sentence: We,


28/34



grasping ourselves as birth-death existences, do not realize that weare free from birth and death. This is no mere negative expression; itimplies that we, birth-death existences as we are, are free from birthand death. This shows the direct connection between our OriginalAwakening and Awakening Attained, and clarifies the ground for the so-called "immediate Attaining of Awakening." But inactualities they are separated by Unawakening, for our OriginalAwakening necessarily takes the form of Unawakening. Onlythrough the realization of Unawakening does our Awakening is

Attained. And the meaning of sentient beings being the tathagata-garbha, "the Womb for tathagatas," should first be located in thisdirect relationship between Original Awakening and Unawakening.Also the kind of Unawakening which keeps to itself is no realUnawakening. Real Unawakening should penetrate itself toAwakening Attained,

lxvi

"the Awakened self of tathagatas" (tathagata-dharmakaya).

It was to introduce this point, whose heartfelt appreciationconstitutes the real meaning of mahayana faith, to people of Chinathat Paramartha wrote the Dasheng-Qixing-lun, as his "translation,"critically quoting from various sources, including the Srimala- sutram, the Ratnagotravibhaga, and the Lankavatara-sutram. Heattributed its authorship to Asvaghosa possibly because the latter described Siddhartha as a criticizer of the Samkhya teacher AradaKalama in the Buddhacarita ("The Acts of the Awakened One,"Chapter 12, vv. 23, 64, 71, and 73. In Chapter I, v. 11, the prince issaid to have been born from the womb of Lady Maya as if descending from the sky.). We know that in the Lankavatara sutramthe tathagata-garbha thought was taken up in connection with its

criticism of the Samkhya dualism with prakrti and purusa. Thereason Paramartha did not attribute the authorship of the Dasheng-Qixing-lun to Vasubandhu, as he did for the Foxing-lung, is, itseems, that he did not ultimately acknowledge Vasubandhu's as wellas the latter's elder brother Asanga's, view. We notice that point inhis Chinese translation (A.D. 563) of Vasubandhu's commentary onAsanga's vijnana-vada treatise M ahayana- samgr aha, especiallyconcerning the way the alayavijnana is explained to "abide together (sahasthana-; sahacarin)"

lxvii

with a transcendent element, "the influence of sacred knowledgederived from the sphere of the Awakened truth (suvisuddha-dharmadhatu-nisyanda-smta-vasana)"(Taisho 31, no. 1595, III-l, 5: p. 173bc, 175a; Nagao Japanese translation I, pp. 45, 46, 146, 149).The two heterogeneous elements are said to cohabit like water andmilk, while one is of the perishing nature and the other nonperishing.The situation is compared to that in which a miracle-working goosedrinks up the milk which is mixed with water.

In the Dasheng-Qixing-lun Paramartha, quoting from theSrima/a- sutram, states,


29/34



Because of resting on the Womb for tathagatas there is the mind that is of the

arising-perishing nature. One may call this what is nonarising-nonperishing abiding

together with what is arising-perishing, neither as one nor as different. And that is

what is called the alayavijnana. (Taisho 32, no. 1666, p. 576b)

In this case the "abiding together" does not mean a mixture of two heterogeneous elements which will result in the exclusion of onewith the preservation of the other. Nor does it mean a mereidentification of the two. It means one and the same thing has its onemode of being hide itself while the other mode of being appear. Thenonarising-nonperishing mode of being hides itself while the

lxviii

arising-perishing mode of being appears. That is made possible,Paramartha seems to mean, by the latter resting on the former.Resting-on means ignorance, for not resting means Awakening.

This being the "co-habiting" character of the alayavijnana, thelatter also is said to be made up of two meanings which are neither

one nor different, and one of which depends on the other. Its twomeanings are: Original Awakening and Unawakening. Paramarthasays:

Because of resting on Original Awakening there isUnawakening; because of Unawakening there is AwakeningAttained. (Ibid., 576b)

No sentient beings are Awakened. From the beginning theyhave had discrimination continue and have never been free from it. Icharacterize this as beginningless ignorance. If they get free fromdiscrimination, immediately they will know arising, abiding,

changing, and perishing as the characteristics of the mind. Becauseof the equality of no-discrimination, actually there is no distinctionof Awakening Attained. The four characteristics [arising, abiding,changing, and perishing] being simultaneous, none of them hasseparate beings; originally Awakening is equal and one. (Ibid.,576bc)

Breaking of the co-habiting character of the alayavijnana has

lxix

"Awakening Attained" or "the Awakened self (dharmakaya) of tathagatas" fulfil itself. That is another way of exposition byParamartha of the Srimala's on the attainment of the Noble Truth,"Extinction of Suffering" or "nirvana," as the working source of tathagata-activities. In Paramartha we see a penetrating expounder of the tathagata-garbha thought.

III. The Historical Significance of the Lankavatara Sutram

The first two fascicles of the Gunabhadra Chinese version,which divide the whole thirty-six sections of the Sanskrit secondchapter into two parts — thirteen and twenty-three sections in order,


30/34



roughly speaking, deal with the bodhisattva path. The other twofascicles, excluding the final eighth chapter in the Sanskrit text on prohibiting meat-eating, deal with the buddhas' path. In other words:

Gunabhadra's third fascicle includes seventeen sections of theSanskrit third chapter; while Gunabhadra's fourth fascicle includesremaining three sections of the Sanskrit third chapter, the Sanskritfourth chapter (one section), the Sanskrit fifth chapter (one section),the Sanskrit sixth chapter (five sections), and the Sanskrit seventh

chapter (one section), besides the eighth.

The Lankavatara sutram, when it takes up the bodhisattva path,does so in a very critical way, and offers its critical, bodhisattva

lxx

interpretation of the traditional sravaka path. Then, in itsconsideration of the buddhas' path, the scripture shows a verythoroughgoing way to criticize both traditional and non-Buddhist paths, to suggest what is truly mahayana. Later, Chinese ChanBuddhists seem to have learned much from this manner of its

presenting the buddhas' path. Its criticism of the Samkhya thought isoutstanding, as is seen in connection with its "tathagatagarbha-alayavijnana" concept. This critical attitude must have beenremarkable even among Buddhists contemporary to the Lankavatara-compilers. But this does not seem to have attracted theattention of many present-day Buddhist scholars, who tend to rebukethe scripture for its mixture of the two opposite natures,"tathagatagarbha" and "alayavijnana." As far as my limitedknowledge is concerned, no investigators have ever noticed thesupremely Buddhistic significance of the Lankavatara-criticism of the Samkhya thought. It is in this regard that I make much of the way

Paramartha chose Asvaghosa as the author of his writing, the Dasheng-Qixing-lun, because, so I assume as mentioned above, inthe hymn-story of Sakyamuni's early life, Buddhacarita, Asvaghosadescribed how Siddhartha before attaining Buddhahood had

criticized Samkhya thought.*19

Against the general disregard towards this scripture amongmodern

lxxi

Buddhist scholars, in India there is no reason that we must believe itwas neglected; to the contrary, it seems to have been paid due regard by specialists, including Paramatha (sixth century, as we saw above)and Candrakirti (seventh century, who quoted two verses: 48th and51st, G,NIII, from the Lankavatara-sutram in his Prasannapada).

The Sanskrit eighth chapter, the final part of Gunabhadra'sFourth Fascicle, seems to have had a very important meaning for those mahayanists who had met with rebuke from traditionalBuddhists against their mahayana way of thinking and practice.That, possibly, is the reason why the original form had to suffer somany rewritings as we see when we compare the Gunabhadra


31/34



version to the Sanskrit text. We know that Santideva (seventh toeighth century) quoted nineteen of the whole twenty-four verseswith a short passage from the Sanskrit eighth chapter, as we see inthe extant text, in his Siksasamuccaya, in the course of his discussionon how to preserve practitioners' health. It must have been those practitioners who followed the practical instruction of the scripturefaithfully that had inherited the Lankavatar a-teaching with utmosthonesty to themselves.

At the beginning of the fifth century in Lanka the Theravadaschool had Buddhaghosa, who had come from India to stay with

lxxii

them, as a great spokesman of their tradition; his continued work for the Pali Tripitaka must have urged the then mahayanists to producetheir own words to clarify what the mahayana meant. Or it may bequite the opposite: Because of the powerful contents of the Lankavatara-sutram, the Theravadins were afraid of the mahayanainfluence to become too strong, and invited Buddhaghosa to proclaim the authenticity of the traditional position.

Anyway, I believe that the influence of the mahayanamovement in Lanka was very great, and that the mahayanists of theAbhayagiri-vihara must have had good communications withmahayana thinker-practitioners of the Indian continent. Consideringsuch situations as well as the scriptural contents, I feel I can assertthat the Lankavatara-sutram represents the most critical mahayanaBuddhist thought ever attempted. I sincerely hope this impression of mine will be shared by other people through my poor efforts of presenting this translation to the contemporary world.

lxxiii

Notes to Preface and Introduction: --

1 Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London 1930,

and The Lankavatara Sutra, a Mahayana Text, R. & K., 1932.

2 %% [%%%%%%%], Taisho vol. 39, no. 1790, p. 430b.

3 Ibid.

4 The Lankavatara Mahayanasutram Rendered into Modern Japanese with

Studies, by Tokiwa, Gishin, Studies of THE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCHINSTITUTE FOR ZEN BUDDHISM, vol. 2, published by the IRIZB, Hanazono

University, Kyoto, Japan 1994.

This second volume of the Institute Studies Report consist

Documents

Preface to: Four Fascicle Lankavatara