15-THE IDEA OF DHATU-VADA.pdf

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

➛

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)

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

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: