Zgryźliwość kojarzy mi się z radością, która źle skończyła.
The Idea of
Dh„tu-v„da
in
Yogacara and
Tath„gata-garbha
Texts
Y
AMABE
Nobuyoshi
H
AKAMAYA NORIAKI AND
Matsumoto Shirõ are convinced that
tath„gatagarbha
theory and the Yogacara school share a com-
mon framework that they call
dh„tu-v„da
or “locus theory.”
The word
dh„tu-v„da
itself is a neologism introduced by Matsumoto
1
and adopted by Hakamaya.
2
They argue that the
dh„tu-v„da
idea stands
in direct contradiction to the authentic Buddhist theory of
prat‡tya-
samutp„da
or “dependent origination,” which in turn leads them to con-
sider
tath„gata-garbha
and Yogacara theories to be non-Buddhist. In
their opinion, not only these Indian theories but also the whole of “orig-
inal enlightenment thought” (
hongaku shisõ
) in East Asia fell under the
shadow of the
dh„tu-v„da
idea,
3
with the result that most of its
Buddhism is dismissed as not Buddhist at all.
4
The idea of
dh„tu-v„da
is thus an integral part of the Critical
Buddhism critique and as such merits careful examination in any evalua-
tion of the overall standpoint. Since Matsumoto ³rst found the
dh„tu-
v„da
structure in Indian
tath„gata-garbha
and Yogacara literature, we
need to begin with a look at the texts in question. My approach here will
be purely philological and will limit itself to the theoretical treatises (sastras).
BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE
DHÃTU-VÃDA
THEORY
For Hakamaya and Matsumoto, the cardinal tenet of Buddhism is
prat‡tyasamutp„da
, which they understand as consisting of a temporal
sequence of causally linked dharmas or “phenomena” that lack any solid
basis in reality. Matsumoto illustrates this by means of the following
chart.
5
193
YAMABE NOBUYOSHI
C
HART
1
dharma
dharma
dharma
➛
➛
➛
➛
dh„tu
Chart 2, in contrast, illustrates the basic structure of
dh„tu-v„da.
6
C
HART
2
šr„vaka-dharma pratyekabuddha-dharma tath„gata-dharma
= super-locus
dharmadh„tu = ekay„na
= locus
This second model, in contrast to the
prat‡tyasamutp„da
model,
introduces a universal, solid basis under such names as
dharmadh„tu
and
buddhadh„tu
. In Matsumoto’s terminology, this universal
dh„tu
is a
“locus” that supports phenomenal dharmas as “super-loci.” He enumer-
ates the characteristic features of this
dh„tu-v„da
model as follows:
7
1. “Locus” is the basis for “super-loci.”
2. “Locus” gives rise to “super-loci.”
3. “Locus” is one, “super-loci” are many.
4. “Locus” is real, “super-loci” are not real.
5. “Locus” is the essential nature of “super-loci.”
6. “Super-loci” are not ultimately real, but have some reality in that
they have arisen from the “locus” and share its nature.
8
Thus, the
dh„tu-v„da
model is essentially a monism (or, according to
Matsumoto’s own terminology, a “generative monism”
n
´
Ç
í
s
â
Ç
).
9
194
THE IDEA OF
DHÃTU-VÃDA
Hakamaya and Matsumoto take this to be an Upani¤adic model and thus
not authentically Buddhist. Particularly problematic for them is the fact
that this
dh„tu-v„da
framework is not as egalitarian as it appears. As they
see it, one can classify any number of different elements—from the three
vehicles to social castes—as “super-loci” resting on the universal “locus.”
Since the diversity of the “super-loci” is an essential element of the
dh„tu-
v„da
structure, the distinction among “super-loci” remains unaffected.
On the other hand, the apparent equality that obtains on the absolute
level serves at once to justify, obscure, and con³rm the discrimination that
appears on the phenomenal level.
10
In Matsumoto’s opinion, this essen-
tially discriminatory nature of the
dh„tu-v„da
structure is clearly
expressed in verse
I
.39 of the
Abhisamay„la½k„ra
:
11
Because the
dharmadh„tu
has no distinction, any distinction among
gotra
is unreasonable. Nevertheless, because the dharmas
to be posited
[on the “locus” of
dharmadh„tu
] are distinct, a distinction [among
gotra
] is proclaimed.
12
In the same way, the ideas of universal “Buddha-nature” and
icchan-
tika
in the Mahayana
Mah„parinirv„«a Sutra
do not contradict each
other but combine to form a harmonious whole. The
Mah„y„nasðtr„-
la½k„ra
asserts, on the one hand, that all sentient beings have
tath„gata-
garbha
(verse
IX
.37)
13
and, on the other hand, admits that some people
will never be able to attain nirvana (verse
III
.11). Hence the
dh„tu-v„da
structure also represents a principle supporting the discriminatory
gotra
theory of the Yogacara school.
14
MONISM OR PLURALISM?
Matsumoto’s arguments are well prepared, and the coexistence of a univer-
sal “Buddha-nature”
15
and unequal attainments is indeed problematic.
Still, it may well be possible to explain this coexistence in somewhat dif-
ferent terms.
A good place to begin is the famous de³nition of
gotra
in the
Bodhisattvabhðmi
section of the
Yog„c„rabhðmi
:
What is
gotra
? In brief,
gotra
is twofold:
the one existing by nature
(
prak£tistha
)
and
the attained one (
samud„n‡ta
)
.
The
gotra
existing by nature is the distinct state of the six-sense-basis
(
¤a^„yatana-više¤a
) of bodhisattvas. That [distinct state] was naturally
195
YAMABE NOBUYOSHI
acquired in the beginningless past and has been transmitted as such [to
the present].
The attained
gotra
is what is acquired through the practice of merits
in the past [lives].
In this case, both meanings are intended. Further, this
gotra
is also
called seed (
b‡ja
),
dh„tu
, and origin (
prak£ti
).
16
Since Hakamaya himself quotes this last sentence as an example of the
monistic
dh„tu
model,
17
it is clear that he considers the
gotra
theory of
the
Bodhisattvabhðmi
to be a form of monism. His argument is based on
the fact that all the terms given (
gotra
,
b‡ja
,
dh„tu
,
prak£ti
) appear in sin-
gular forms.
18
But the argument is not without its weaknesses.
First, the paired terms
prak£tistha-gotra
and
samud„n‡ta-gotra
have a
close analogue in the
Vastusa½graha«‡
section of the
Yog„c„rabhðmi
:
In sum,
dh„tu
s are twofold:
the ones existing by nature
(
rang-bzhin gyis
gnas pa,
WÀ§ƒ, *
prak£tistha
19
) and
the ones enhanced through habitu-
al practice
(
goms-pas yongs-su-brtas-pa,
H
†
˜ƒ, *
abhy„sa-paripu¤¦a
).
The ones existing by nature are, for example,
the eighteen
dh„tu
s
(
khams
), which are seeds (
sa-bon
, *
b‡ja
) staying in their own respective
continuities.
The
dh„tu
s enhanced through habitual practice are enhanced seeds
resting in the body (
rten
, *
„šraya
) so that the good or bad dharmas
habitually practiced in other, former lives might arise [easily]….
20
In these two passages, it is clear that the
prak£tistha-gotra
of the
Bodhi-
sattvabhðmi
corresponds to the *
prak£tistha-dh„tu
of the
Vastusa½-
graha«‡
. The correspondence between the
samud„n‡ta-gotra
, “attained
gotra
,” of the
Bodhisattvabhðmi
and the *
abhy„sa-paripu¤¦a-dh„tu,
“the
dh„tu
enhanced through habitual practice,” of the
Vastusa½graha«‡
may
not be immediately evident, but is con³rmed by the
Mah„y„na-
sðtr„la½k„ra-bh„¤ya,
which equates
samud„n‡tam
[
gotram
], “attained
gotra
,” and
paripu¤¦a½
[
gotra½
], “enhanced
gotra
.”
21
Consequently, a
correspondence between this portion of the
Vastusa½graha«‡
and the
aforementioned portion of the
Bodhisattvabhðmi
seems beyond dispute.
The basic message of the passage of the
Vastusa½graha«‡
is that
there are innumerable good and bad elements (
dh„tu
) in sentient beings
that correspond to good and bad mental functions, and that one must
accordingly cultivate the good elements in order to realize good mental
states.
22
In other words, here the
dh„tu
theory is clearly of a pluralistic
sort. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the pluralistic structure of this
196
THE IDEA OF
DHÃTU-VÃDA
passage was recognized by Hakamaya himself in an earlier essay.
23
At the
same time, we have established that the
gotra
theory of the
Bodhisattva-
bhðmi
was closely related to the
dh„tu
theory of the
Vastusa½graha«‡
.
This being the case, it is likely that the
gotra
theory of the
Bodhisattva-
bhðmi
itself was pluralistic in structure.
24
The pluralistic
dh„tu
model and the
gotra
theory are intrinsically
related to one another. In the same way that the
dh„tu
of desire is inca-
pable of generating hatred, the
gotra
of sravakas is unable to generate the
supreme wisdom of the Buddha. Without such distinct
gotra
s, therefore,
it would not be possible to establish a distinction among the three vehi-
cles.
25
Accordingly, at least as far as these passages are concerned, the only
chart we are able to draw is the one below (Chart 3). Obviously the plu-
ralism it presents is not the same as the “generative monism” that
Matsumoto offers.
C
HART
3
sravaka pratyekabuddha
bodhisattva
šr„vaka-dh„tu pratyekabuddha-dh„tu bodhisattva-dh„tu
(gotra)
(gotra)
(gotra)
SA¢SK
.
TA
OR
ASA¢SK
.
TA
?
There is more involved in what has been discussed above than merely
whether
dh„tu
is singular or plural. It has to do with the foundation for
supramundane attainment. If there is any possibility at all for us to acquire
supramundane wisdom, on what does such a possibility rest? The
Bodhisattvabhðmi
responds by referring to inherent
gotra
and de³nes the
foundation as
¤a^„yatana-više¤a,
or “the distinct state of the six-sense-
basis.” But just what does this
¤a^„yatana-više¤a
mean? We get a clue, I
believe, from the following passage of the
Abhidharmakoša-bh„¤ya
:
The [distinction between noble ones and ordinary ones] is made in terms
of
the distinct states of bodies
(
„šraya-više¤a
). [This distinction is possi-
197
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl hannaeva.xlx.pl
Dh„tu-v„da
in
Yogacara and
Tath„gata-garbha
Texts
Y
AMABE
Nobuyoshi
H
AKAMAYA NORIAKI AND
Matsumoto Shirõ are convinced that
tath„gatagarbha
theory and the Yogacara school share a com-
mon framework that they call
dh„tu-v„da
or “locus theory.”
The word
dh„tu-v„da
itself is a neologism introduced by Matsumoto
1
and adopted by Hakamaya.
2
They argue that the
dh„tu-v„da
idea stands
in direct contradiction to the authentic Buddhist theory of
prat‡tya-
samutp„da
or “dependent origination,” which in turn leads them to con-
sider
tath„gata-garbha
and Yogacara theories to be non-Buddhist. In
their opinion, not only these Indian theories but also the whole of “orig-
inal enlightenment thought” (
hongaku shisõ
) in East Asia fell under the
shadow of the
dh„tu-v„da
idea,
3
with the result that most of its
Buddhism is dismissed as not Buddhist at all.
4
The idea of
dh„tu-v„da
is thus an integral part of the Critical
Buddhism critique and as such merits careful examination in any evalua-
tion of the overall standpoint. Since Matsumoto ³rst found the
dh„tu-
v„da
structure in Indian
tath„gata-garbha
and Yogacara literature, we
need to begin with a look at the texts in question. My approach here will
be purely philological and will limit itself to the theoretical treatises (sastras).
BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE
DHÃTU-VÃDA
THEORY
For Hakamaya and Matsumoto, the cardinal tenet of Buddhism is
prat‡tyasamutp„da
, which they understand as consisting of a temporal
sequence of causally linked dharmas or “phenomena” that lack any solid
basis in reality. Matsumoto illustrates this by means of the following
chart.
5
193
YAMABE NOBUYOSHI
C
HART
1
dharma
dharma
dharma
➛
➛
➛
➛
dh„tu
Chart 2, in contrast, illustrates the basic structure of
dh„tu-v„da.
6
C
HART
2
šr„vaka-dharma pratyekabuddha-dharma tath„gata-dharma
= super-locus
dharmadh„tu = ekay„na
= locus
This second model, in contrast to the
prat‡tyasamutp„da
model,
introduces a universal, solid basis under such names as
dharmadh„tu
and
buddhadh„tu
. In Matsumoto’s terminology, this universal
dh„tu
is a
“locus” that supports phenomenal dharmas as “super-loci.” He enumer-
ates the characteristic features of this
dh„tu-v„da
model as follows:
7
1. “Locus” is the basis for “super-loci.”
2. “Locus” gives rise to “super-loci.”
3. “Locus” is one, “super-loci” are many.
4. “Locus” is real, “super-loci” are not real.
5. “Locus” is the essential nature of “super-loci.”
6. “Super-loci” are not ultimately real, but have some reality in that
they have arisen from the “locus” and share its nature.
8
Thus, the
dh„tu-v„da
model is essentially a monism (or, according to
Matsumoto’s own terminology, a “generative monism”
n
´
Ç
í
s
â
Ç
).
9
194
THE IDEA OF
DHÃTU-VÃDA
Hakamaya and Matsumoto take this to be an Upani¤adic model and thus
not authentically Buddhist. Particularly problematic for them is the fact
that this
dh„tu-v„da
framework is not as egalitarian as it appears. As they
see it, one can classify any number of different elements—from the three
vehicles to social castes—as “super-loci” resting on the universal “locus.”
Since the diversity of the “super-loci” is an essential element of the
dh„tu-
v„da
structure, the distinction among “super-loci” remains unaffected.
On the other hand, the apparent equality that obtains on the absolute
level serves at once to justify, obscure, and con³rm the discrimination that
appears on the phenomenal level.
10
In Matsumoto’s opinion, this essen-
tially discriminatory nature of the
dh„tu-v„da
structure is clearly
expressed in verse
I
.39 of the
Abhisamay„la½k„ra
:
11
Because the
dharmadh„tu
has no distinction, any distinction among
gotra
is unreasonable. Nevertheless, because the dharmas
to be posited
[on the “locus” of
dharmadh„tu
] are distinct, a distinction [among
gotra
] is proclaimed.
12
In the same way, the ideas of universal “Buddha-nature” and
icchan-
tika
in the Mahayana
Mah„parinirv„«a Sutra
do not contradict each
other but combine to form a harmonious whole. The
Mah„y„nasðtr„-
la½k„ra
asserts, on the one hand, that all sentient beings have
tath„gata-
garbha
(verse
IX
.37)
13
and, on the other hand, admits that some people
will never be able to attain nirvana (verse
III
.11). Hence the
dh„tu-v„da
structure also represents a principle supporting the discriminatory
gotra
theory of the Yogacara school.
14
MONISM OR PLURALISM?
Matsumoto’s arguments are well prepared, and the coexistence of a univer-
sal “Buddha-nature”
15
and unequal attainments is indeed problematic.
Still, it may well be possible to explain this coexistence in somewhat dif-
ferent terms.
A good place to begin is the famous de³nition of
gotra
in the
Bodhisattvabhðmi
section of the
Yog„c„rabhðmi
:
What is
gotra
? In brief,
gotra
is twofold:
the one existing by nature
(
prak£tistha
)
and
the attained one (
samud„n‡ta
)
.
The
gotra
existing by nature is the distinct state of the six-sense-basis
(
¤a^„yatana-više¤a
) of bodhisattvas. That [distinct state] was naturally
195
YAMABE NOBUYOSHI
acquired in the beginningless past and has been transmitted as such [to
the present].
The attained
gotra
is what is acquired through the practice of merits
in the past [lives].
In this case, both meanings are intended. Further, this
gotra
is also
called seed (
b‡ja
),
dh„tu
, and origin (
prak£ti
).
16
Since Hakamaya himself quotes this last sentence as an example of the
monistic
dh„tu
model,
17
it is clear that he considers the
gotra
theory of
the
Bodhisattvabhðmi
to be a form of monism. His argument is based on
the fact that all the terms given (
gotra
,
b‡ja
,
dh„tu
,
prak£ti
) appear in sin-
gular forms.
18
But the argument is not without its weaknesses.
First, the paired terms
prak£tistha-gotra
and
samud„n‡ta-gotra
have a
close analogue in the
Vastusa½graha«‡
section of the
Yog„c„rabhðmi
:
In sum,
dh„tu
s are twofold:
the ones existing by nature
(
rang-bzhin gyis
gnas pa,
WÀ§ƒ, *
prak£tistha
19
) and
the ones enhanced through habitu-
al practice
(
goms-pas yongs-su-brtas-pa,
H
†
˜ƒ, *
abhy„sa-paripu¤¦a
).
The ones existing by nature are, for example,
the eighteen
dh„tu
s
(
khams
), which are seeds (
sa-bon
, *
b‡ja
) staying in their own respective
continuities.
The
dh„tu
s enhanced through habitual practice are enhanced seeds
resting in the body (
rten
, *
„šraya
) so that the good or bad dharmas
habitually practiced in other, former lives might arise [easily]….
20
In these two passages, it is clear that the
prak£tistha-gotra
of the
Bodhi-
sattvabhðmi
corresponds to the *
prak£tistha-dh„tu
of the
Vastusa½-
graha«‡
. The correspondence between the
samud„n‡ta-gotra
, “attained
gotra
,” of the
Bodhisattvabhðmi
and the *
abhy„sa-paripu¤¦a-dh„tu,
“the
dh„tu
enhanced through habitual practice,” of the
Vastusa½graha«‡
may
not be immediately evident, but is con³rmed by the
Mah„y„na-
sðtr„la½k„ra-bh„¤ya,
which equates
samud„n‡tam
[
gotram
], “attained
gotra
,” and
paripu¤¦a½
[
gotra½
], “enhanced
gotra
.”
21
Consequently, a
correspondence between this portion of the
Vastusa½graha«‡
and the
aforementioned portion of the
Bodhisattvabhðmi
seems beyond dispute.
The basic message of the passage of the
Vastusa½graha«‡
is that
there are innumerable good and bad elements (
dh„tu
) in sentient beings
that correspond to good and bad mental functions, and that one must
accordingly cultivate the good elements in order to realize good mental
states.
22
In other words, here the
dh„tu
theory is clearly of a pluralistic
sort. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the pluralistic structure of this
196
THE IDEA OF
DHÃTU-VÃDA
passage was recognized by Hakamaya himself in an earlier essay.
23
At the
same time, we have established that the
gotra
theory of the
Bodhisattva-
bhðmi
was closely related to the
dh„tu
theory of the
Vastusa½graha«‡
.
This being the case, it is likely that the
gotra
theory of the
Bodhisattva-
bhðmi
itself was pluralistic in structure.
24
The pluralistic
dh„tu
model and the
gotra
theory are intrinsically
related to one another. In the same way that the
dh„tu
of desire is inca-
pable of generating hatred, the
gotra
of sravakas is unable to generate the
supreme wisdom of the Buddha. Without such distinct
gotra
s, therefore,
it would not be possible to establish a distinction among the three vehi-
cles.
25
Accordingly, at least as far as these passages are concerned, the only
chart we are able to draw is the one below (Chart 3). Obviously the plu-
ralism it presents is not the same as the “generative monism” that
Matsumoto offers.
C
HART
3
sravaka pratyekabuddha
bodhisattva
šr„vaka-dh„tu pratyekabuddha-dh„tu bodhisattva-dh„tu
(gotra)
(gotra)
(gotra)
SA¢SK
.
TA
OR
ASA¢SK
.
TA
?
There is more involved in what has been discussed above than merely
whether
dh„tu
is singular or plural. It has to do with the foundation for
supramundane attainment. If there is any possibility at all for us to acquire
supramundane wisdom, on what does such a possibility rest? The
Bodhisattvabhðmi
responds by referring to inherent
gotra
and de³nes the
foundation as
¤a^„yatana-više¤a,
or “the distinct state of the six-sense-
basis.” But just what does this
¤a^„yatana-više¤a
mean? We get a clue, I
believe, from the following passage of the
Abhidharmakoša-bh„¤ya
:
The [distinction between noble ones and ordinary ones] is made in terms
of
the distinct states of bodies
(
„šraya-više¤a
). [This distinction is possi-
197