Advertisement

Journal of Indian Philosophy

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 565–601 | Cite as

Three Senses of Atomic Accumulation—An Interpretation of Vasubandhu’s Viṃśikā Stanzas 12–13 in Light of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and Dharmapāla’s Dasheng Guangbailun Shilun

  • Ching KengEmail author
Article

Abstract

Vasubandhu’s Twenty Stanzas (Viṃśikā) is among the most influential anti-Realist philosophical treatises in the history of Indian Buddhism. In particular, his refutation of the theories about the accumulation of atoms (paramāṇu) in stanza 12 if often regarded as compelling or even conclusive. But if this is the case, then the transition from stanza 12 to 13 would seem very odd, because in stanza 13 Vasubandhu bothers himself with yet another version of atomic accumulation. In this paper, I give an interpretation of stanzas 12–13 by drawing clues from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and Dharmapāla’s Dasheng guangbailun shilun (Taishō 1571). I argue that Vasubandhu’s refutation in stanza 12 is valid only if we assume that the only possible way atoms can accumulate is by means of physical contacts with neighboring atoms. Conversely, if the opponents do not accept this assumption, then Vasubandhu’s refutation would miss its target. Given that stanza 13 cites the theory of the Kāśmīravaibhāṣikas and seeks to refute it, we must interpret that the Kāśmīravaibhāṣikas hold that atoms can form an accumulation in which atoms do not come into physical contact with each other, because this would be the only way to deal with the challenge previously posed in stanza 12. Dharmapāla provides more details about this theory and seeks to refute it again. Assuming the same Vasubandhu to be the author of Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, in which the author deals with the same issue, we must judge that Vasubandhu himself is quite aware of the limitations of his refutation in stanza 12, and this explains why he feels the need to devote stanza 13 to further refuting the theory of the Kāśmīravaibhāṣikas. However, I also argue that Vasubandhu’s refutation of this theory fails. If my argument holds, then we must conclude that the refutation of the accumulation of atoms in the Twenty Stanzas may not be successful. This explains, at least in part, why Dignāga feels the need to find new arguments in his Ālambanaparīkṣā.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Academy of Korean Studies (KSPS) Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOE) (AKS-2012-AAZ-2102) and by Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 106-2410-H-004-169-MY3). My special thanks are due to Professor Jeson Woo for involving me in the very prestigious project. I would like to thank the following scholars for their insightful comments and suggestions: Eli Franco, Shōryū Katsura, Tōru Funayama, Ven. K.L. Dhammajoti, Jeson Woo, Dan Lusthaus, Achim Bayer and Michael Radich. Thanks also to Michel Radich and Ernest Brewster for their generous help with editing my manuscript.

References

Primary Sources

  1. T: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經 (Tōkyō: Daizōkyō kankōkai, 1924–1935).Google Scholar
  2. X: Shinsan Dai Nihon zoku zōkyō 新纂大日本續藏經 (Tōkyō: Kokusho kankōkai, 1975–1989).Google Scholar
  3. Lévi, S. (Ed.). (1925). Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi: Deux traités de Vasubandhu: Viṁśatikā (La vingtaine) accompagnée d’une explication en prose/ et Triṁśikā (La trentaine) avec le commentaire de Sthiramati. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
  4. Pradhan, P. ed. (1967). Abhidharmakoshabhāṣya of Vasubandhu. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Miyamoto, K. 宮本 啓一. (2007). Daśapadārthī: An Ancient Indian Literature of Thoroughly Metaphysical Realism (勝宗十句義論). Tōkyō: Rinsen Book Co.Google Scholar
  6. Pruden, L. M. trans. (1988-1990). Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. From Louis de La Vallée Poussin’s French version. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  7. Silk, J. (2016). Materials towards the study of Vasubandhuʼs Viṁśikā (I): Sanskrit and Tibetan Critical Editions of the Verses and Autocommentary, an English Translation and Annotations. Cambridge, MA: Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Burke, B. D. (1983). On the measure “Parimaṇḍala”. Philosophy East and West, 33(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dhammajoti, K. L. (2012). Abhidharma debate on the nature of the objects of sensory perception. Journal of Buddhist Studies, 10, 203–234.Google Scholar
  3. Eltschinger, V. (2010). Dharmakirti. Revue internationale de philosophie, 64(3), 397–440.Google Scholar
  4. Hirakawa A. 平川 彰. (1973) Abidatsuma kusharon sakuin (阿毘達磨倶舎論索引). Tōkyō: Daizō Shuppan.Google Scholar
  5. Kano, K. (2008). Two short glosses on Yogācāra texts by Vairocanarakṣita: Viṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti and *Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti. In F. Sferra (Ed.), Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci’s Collection Part I [Manuscripta buddhica 1]. Roma: IsIAO, pp. 343–380.Google Scholar
  6. Karunadasa, Y. (1967). Buddhist analysis of matter. Colombo: Dept. of Cultural Affairs.Google Scholar
  7. Kapstein, M. (2001). Reason’s traces: Identity and interpretation in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist thought. Boston: Wisdom Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Kellner, B., & Taber, J. (2014). Studies in Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda Idealism I: The interpretation of Vasubandhu’s Viṃśikā. Asiatische Studien. Études Asiatiques, 68(3), 709–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kurihara, S. 栗原 尚道. (1999). Tattvasaṃgraha, Bahirarthaparīkṣā ni arawareru gokumi setsu hihan (Tattvasaṃgraha, Bahirarthaparīkṣāにあらわれる極微説批判). Kyūshū Ryūkoku tankidaigaku kiyō (九州龍谷短期大学紀要), 45, 171–182(L).Google Scholar
  10. Sasaki, S. 佐々木 閑. (2009). Ubu no gokumi setsu (有部の極微説). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū (印度学仏教学研究), 117(57-2), 211–217.Google Scholar
  11. Schmithausen, L. (1987). Ālayavijñāna: On the origin and the early development of a Central Concept of Yogācāra Philosophy. Tōkyō: International Institute for Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
  12. Shen, J. 沈 劍英. (2007) Wengui jiqi Yinming ruzhenglilun shu (文軌及其因明入正理論疏). Shijie zongjiao yanjiu (世界宗教研究), 1, 15–25.Google Scholar
  13. Suganuma, A. 菅沼 晃. (1964). Śāntarakṣita’s Criticism on the Paramāṇvāda in the Tattvasaṃgraha. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū (印度学仏教学研究), 24(12.2), 26–32.Google Scholar
  14. Tillemans, T. J. F. (2008). Materials for the study of Āryadeva, Dharmapāla, and Candrakīrti : the Catuḥśataka of Āryadeva, Chapters XII and XIII with the Commentaries of Dharmapāla and Candrakīrti: Introduction, translation, notes, Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese Texts, Indexes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Tola, F., & Dragonetti, C. (2004). Being as consciousness: Yogācāra philosophy of Buddhism. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
  16. Yoshimoto, S. 吉元 信行. (1971). Ubu no hachiji gushō setsu (有部の八事倶生説). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū (印度学仏教学研究), 39(20-1), 331–336.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations