NOTE ON V/kR.SAGA131YA AND THE YOG,~C.~RABHOMI by D. SEYFORT RUEGG Paris In a series of recent articles E. Frauwallner and G.

Oberhammer have dealt with certain aspects of the early history of the S~fikhya and with some of the early S~fikhya masters, notably Vfir.saga.nya (or VLsaga.na).1 In his article of 1958, E. Frauwallner concludes (p. 125): "Die Erkenntnislehre VF~aga.na's stammt etwa aus dem Anfang des 4. J'ahrhunderts n. Chr. Sic ist also wesentlich/ilter als die massgebende Ausgestaltung der Schlusslehre durch die buddhistischen Logiker Vasubandhu und Dign~ga..." (When Frauwallner refers to the logician Vasubandhu, he is speaking of his Vasubandhu II (ca. 400-480), the Ko~ak~a, and not of his Vasubandhu I, the brother of Asafiga). While in his article of 1960 Oberhammer does not express himself as explicitly regarding VLsaga.na's historical position, his opinion is evidently the same inasmuch as he writes (p. 83-84): 'Tradition regarding him begins with Vasubandhu who makes mention of the followers of VLsaga.na. in Paramirtha's "Life of Vasubandhu" we meet with VLsaga .na having a mythical form as the teacher of Vindhyav~sin (BEFEO, 4, p. 40 f.) and therefore he must have lived about one and a half generations before the junior Vasubandhu (... Frauwallner, On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law .... p. 55 f.; ... cf. Abhidharmako~a V, 63 f.), a fact which is known to us also from the Yuktidipik~t as Vl~aga.na's followers are often mentioned there... All these facts show sufficiently that VLsaga.na was the most important representative of the S~m.khya from the fourth century...' Now in the Yogcicarabhfani there is to be found a reference which is of the greatest interest in determining Varsagan. ya's position in this period of Indian philosophy and which, though it has not been mentioned by either Frauwallner or Oberhammer, would appear to confirm Frauwallner's x E. Frauwallner, ,,Die Erkenntnislchredes ldassischenSgtrldohya-Systems",WZKSO, 2 (1958), p. 84-129.-- G. Oberhammer,"The Authorship of the Sa~itantram", WZKSO, 4 (1960), p. 71-91.

138

D. SEYFORTRUEGG

date of the early fourth century - at least as a terminus ante quem. In the Tibetan translation of the Yogacaryabhftrni we find a reference to the sixteen heterodox philosophical schools (pha rol smra ba ----parav~din) and their doctrines, the first of which is a school that maintains that the fruit or effect exists in the cause. The text of the YBh then proceeds to give the following details (sDe dge edition, Sems tsam, vol. tshi, fo160b5 f.): rgyu la "bras bu yod par smra ba gali ~e na/ "di ltar 'di na dge sbyoh ham bram ze kha ?ig/ rtag pa rtag pa'i dus daft/ther zug ther zug gi dus su/ rgyu la 'bras bu yod pa kho na ~es de ltar lta ~ift/ de skad smra ba dag yod de/ 'di lta ste/ khyu m?hog pa'i tshogs lta bu' o/ / That this name Khyu mchog pa'i tshogs is in fact the Tibetan equivalent of V~.saga.nya (or VLsaga.na) is now confirmed by the Sanskrit version of the YBh (published by Vidhu~ekhar BhaLt~c~ya, Calcutta, 1957, p. 118-119):

hetuphalasadvdda.h katama.h/ yatht~pfh~ikatya.h grama~o brahma.no v~ evam. d.rr bhavaty evam. vddi nitya.m nityakdlam, dhruva.m dhruvakdlam, vidyata eva hetau phalam iti tad yathd vdr~aga.nya.h/[ (the MS has varcaga.nya.h)
"As to the nature of the doctrine according to which the effect exists in the cause, a certain ~rama.na or Brhhma.na holds this opinion saying that the effect in fact exists in the cause perpetually through perpetual time and constantly through constant time; such a one is Var.saga.nya." The question arises as to the exact historical significance to be attached to this passage. The YBh is ascribed by the I_ndo-Tibetan tradition to Asafiga, while the Chinese tradition appears to ascribe it to MaitreyaAsafiga; one of its chapters, the Bodhisattvabhftmi, was translated into Chinese in the second decade of the fifth century. ~ Now, if we accept with Frauwallner and others the fourth century as the date of Asaflga, ~ it follows that V~r.saga.nya and his pupils flourished at the latest about the beginning of the fourth century. It would then not only appear that the tradition regarding V~tr.saga.nya starts some time before the time of the author of the Abhidharrnakoga, assuming him with Frauwallner to be Vasubandhu II (ca. 400-480), but it would appear likely that V~r.sagan.ya lived somewhat more than a generation and a half before this younger Vasubandhu, as supposed by 2 Cf. D. Shimaji et P. Demi6ville in S. L6vi, Mat~riaux pour l'ktude du syst~me Vij~aptimatra (Paris, 1932), p. 30--31; E. Frauwallner, On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu (Roma, 1951),p. 61. 3 V. Frauwallner, Date.... pp. 23, 32 f., 54-56; cf. J. Filliozat, JA, 1952, p. 400--403.

NOTE ON VA,R,SAGA/':IYA AND THE "YOG.i.CTd~.ABHI.~MI"

139

Oberhammer. Frauwallner's suggestion of the early fourth century is at any rate on this hypothesis a possible terminus ante quem. It could on the other hand also be supposed that, even if it be true that Asafiga is in fact the author or at least the redactor of the bulk of the YBh, the reference in question to Vfir.sagan.ya may be a later gloss or addition not stemming from Asafiga's time. The mention of V~.saga.nya in a work of the fourth century has important repercussions if we at the same time accept with Param~rtha that Vfir.sagan.ya was the teacher of Vindhyavfisin.4 For according to Param~rtha also, this Vindhyav~sin was a contemporary of Vasubandhu the Ko~akara; 5 and the latter was according to him a contemporary of the grammarian Vasur~ta, e who in his turn is supposed to have been the teacher of the grammarian Bhartrhari. 7 The preceding synchronisms may accordingly be tabulated as follows (assuming the distinction between two Vasubandhus): /V~tr.saga.nya (if known to Asa~ga, beginning i of 4th cent. at latest) J Asanga (4th cent. and brother of Vasubandhu (I) Vindhyavasin (early : Vasubandhu (II) : Vasur~ta in Vasubandhu's (ca. 400-480) I career) Bhartrhari (2ndhalfof 5th cent. to beginning of 6th cent.)
f4 .s" f

If this table is to be accepted as it stands, it would be necessary to ascribe very long spans of active life to V~tr.sagan.ya and Vindhyav~sin; such a long life span is however within the limits of possibility, for it could be assumed that when Vindhyav~sin was his pupil VS.r.saga.nya was already
4 V.J. Takakusu in BEFEO, 4, p. 40f. (But on another Vindhyav~in, a Mim~r0saka authority (?), v. A. B. Keith, Karmamimarosa, p. 59 and BSOS, 1924, p. 554.) s Cf. Frauwallner, Date .... pp. 14, 24-25. e Cf. id., p p . 15, 25. 7 Cf. H. R. Rangaswami Iyengar, JBBRAS, 1951, p. 147-149; etc.

140

D. SEYFORTRUEGG

aged, and that when he was confuted by Vasubandhu early in the latter's career, Vindhyavgsin was himself already quite old. Alternatively, it would be possible to reject a direct connexion as teacher and pupil between Vgr.sagan.ya and Vindhyav~sin. It could also be argued that the passage in the YBh mentioning Vftr.sagan. ya is a later gloss - in which case however it would become very difficult to rely on passages o f the YBh as expressions o f Asa.nga's own views, s It is hoped that the preceding note, despite its inconclusiveness, m a y have at least contributed to putting into focus some aspects o f the vexed problem o f the relations between the great Indian philosophers o f the fourth and fifth centuries. In any case, irrespective o f the related questions o f the two Vasubandhus and o f the connexions between Vgr.saga.nya, Vindhyav~sin, Vasubandhu, Vasurgta and Bhartrhari, 9 the reference to the first o f these philosophers in the Yogacarabhftmi deserves notice. It is, if genuine, no doubt the earliest datable reference to this S~/lkhya teacher.

It is to be noted that Frauwaliner's view about Vr~aga0a does not entail this; and he adds (WZKSO, 2, 1958, p. 129) that Vr~agaoa should not be put earlier than the leading exponents of the M~tdhyamika school. It may, however, be recalled here that E. H. Johnston thought that Var~agaoya was very probably earlier than A~vagho~a; cf. his edition of the Buddhacarita, Pt. II (Calcutta, 1936), pp. xlvi, lvi, 172. Johnston based his opinion on Buddhacarita 12.33 which mentions the five-membered avidya comprising tamas, moha, mahamoha, and two tdmisra's; for V~caspatimi~ra in his Tattvakaumud[ (v. 47) ascribes this doctrine of the five kinds of vipary~a, called precisely pa~caparvavidya, to Bhagavat VS.r~agaoya. It might be added here that evidence pointing to Bhartl:hari's having lived about 300 A. D. and therefore having been a contemporary of Vasubandhu (I) is mentioned by Yudhi~thir Mimftffisak (Sa~sk~t vy~kara~ kd itihas, p. 262) and by Sftdhu R~.m (JGJhaRI 9 (1952), pp. 135-151); these works are not available to the writer at present.