chih-i on jneyavarana / paul swanson

7/29/2019 Chih-i on Jneyavarana / Paul Swanson

1/23

Chih-1's Interpretation o f jneyavaranaAn Application o f the Three-Fold Truth Concept

Paul L. Swanson

Reprinted from

Annual Memoirsof the

Otani University Shin BuddhistComprehensive Res earch Institute

Vol. 1 1983


2/23

Chih-1's Interpretation of jneyavaranaAn Application of the Three-Fold Truth Concept

P a u l L. w a n s o n( V ~ s ~ t i n gesearch F e l l o w 1

I . The Meaning of jiieyavaranaa ) In t roduct ion

The t echn ica l t e rm kle&zjrieyavarana refers to an important d is t inc t ionmade by Mahayi ina B udd his t s , for i t i s on e way in which the Mahi iy i inaBodhisa t tva or Buddha i s c la imed to be superior to the Hinayi ina Arhat . TheArhat , i t i s sa id . severs the pass ions [kleias]which are an obstac le lavaranalto en l ightenm ent , bu t i t i s only the MahZyZna Bodh isa t tv a or Buddha w hichseve rs o r ove rcomes the more bas i c obs t ac l e ca l l ed jiieytivarana. T h e c o nt en tof kleiavarana i s c l ea r ; t hey a re the va r ious and sundry pass ions , de lus ions ,and a t tachments to which the average man i s subjec t . The content ofjiieyavarana i s no t a t a l l c l ea r I s ji2ey6varana l ike kleiavarana, a karmadharayacompound , i n wh ich case the jneya i tself is the obstacle. consist ing of mis-taken , imperfec t knowledge? If so , then jiieyavarana should be unders tood as" the obstac le of knowledge." Or, i s jrieyivarana a tatpuruja compound , i nwhich case the jrieya i t se l f i s the goal of correc t knowledge? If so , t henjiey?marana should be unders tood as " the obstac le to knowledge," and thecon ten t o f t h i s obs t ac l e wou ld need fu r the r i nves t iga t ion . Th i s i s a comph-cated i ssue which c ann ot be fu l ly covered here , but the purpose of th is paperi s t o a rgue that jrieyivarana was in terpre ted as the "obstac le to knowledge" inthe Yogacara t rad i t ion . in terpre ted as the "obstac le of knowledge" in o ther

51


3/23

t rad i ti ons . i nc lud ing pe rhaps the la t e r Madhyamikan t rad i ti on . and tha t bo thof these in terp re ta t ions were incorpora ted and in tegra ted in to Chih-1 's T ' i en -t 'a i phi los oph y by m eans of the conc ept of the three-fo ld t ruth.

b ) jney2varana in the Yogi icara Tradi t ionSince the in terpre ta t ion of jneyavarana as " the obs t ac l e t o knowledge ."

o r more l i t e ra l ly " the obs t ac l e t o knowab les . " i s common knowledge . e spe -c i a l ly among Japanese scho la rs . ] I will refer only to a couple of sourcesfrom among the many Yogacaran references to th is te rm.

1) T h e Bodhisattvabhumi dis cu ss es four as pe cts of the nature of real i ty ini t s fourth chapter [tattvarthapatalam].T h e fou rth a spe c t i s exp la ined wi th re -ference to Jneyavarana.

JneyavaranaviSuddhiJrianagocaras attv am katamat /jneye Jniinasya pratighata avaranamit,yucyate/'Wha t i s the rea l i ty [which occur s wi th in ) the range of kn owledg e whichis comple te ly puri f ied of obstac les to what i s knowable? When there i sobst ruc t ion to the know ledg e of a know able , one spea ks of an obstac le . ' .

In t h i s case jiieyavarana is a tatpuruja compound wi th a l oca t ive case re l a -t i onsh ip be tween the m embers and shou ld be unders tood as " the obs t ac l e t oknowledge ," o r " the obs t ac l e t o wha t i s knowab le . " Jrieya is the goal of theBud dha ' s pe r fec t know ledge o r om ni sc i ence , and jiieyavarana i s someth ing ,as yet undefined , which rem ains af ter kleSas a re des t royed and wh ich h inde rsthe a t ta inment of the om nisc ienc e of the Bu ddh a.

2) St h i r a ma t i (510 to 570?), n h is commentary on the TrimSikavijnapti-karika def ines jneyavut-a?~a s fol lows:

pieyavaranam api sarvasmin pieye jnanapravrttipratibandhabhutam aklis.tam


4/23

S h ~ n uddhis t Comprehens ive Research Ins t it u t e Annual Memoirs 1

jrieyiivarana i s the undef i led lack of knowledge which h inders the ac t i -v i ty of know ledge conc erning a l l knowables."

In th i s case a l so jlieyavaruna i s a t a t pur qa compound and "knowledge" is thedes i red goa l wh ich i s be ing obs t ruc ted . T h e obs t ruc t ion i s caused by a lackof knowledge [ajiiiinam] which is never theless undef i led [akli$a] d u e t o t h eprevious severence of the kle&ivara?za. Whatever the content of the obstruc-tion may be, jiieya is good, positive, and desirable. '

c ) Other In terpre ta tions of f ieyivaranaT h e unders tanding of jiie$varana in Western languages , in contras t to

Japan, has tended towards the in terpre ta t ion of Jneya i t se l f as the obstac le ,i.e. jneyavarana as " the obstac le of [d iscr iminat ive , congni t ive , mis taken]knowledge." Conze. in his dictionary of Praf i ip i rami ta terms, definedfieycivara?za as "the covering produced by the cognizable ."' Ta ka sak i J ik ido ,in h is Engl ish t rans la t ion of the Ratnagotra. has an "obstruct ion on accountof knowab le th ing sn6 D.T. Suzuki t rans la tes kles'ajiieyivarapa in the Lafikiiva-tara Siitra as "the two-fold hindrance of passion and knowledge." which isexpla in ed la ter as " . . .knowledge-hindrance , Maham ati , i s pur i f ied when theego less nes s of th ing s is distinctly perceived." ' E dge rton , in his BuddhistHyh* Sanskrit Dictionary. refers t o the work of Suzuki and def ines kleiajneya-varana as "(hindrances constituted by) depravities and objects of (false, f i-n i te) knowledge."* Lam otte , on the o ther hand. probably because he wasworking on a Yogacaran te xt, translates %varaw in the Makyana Samgr ihaa s "I'obstacle au savoir."!'

These def in i t ions [with the except ion of Lamotte] come c lose to what53


5/23

may have been the interpretation of jfieyavarana in the la te r Midyamikantradi t io n . Rec ent ly O a a u a Ichi jo of Otani U nivers i ty publ ished an ar tic leentit led . 'Notes on ,jriex?varapow"' in which he argues that the laterMadhyam ikan t rad it ion of Candrak i rt i and ~ s o h - k h a - p a " s p rese rved inTibetan c lear ly def ines jneyiivarana as the "obs tac le o l knowledge . "

In Candrak i r t i ' s Madyamaka-avatara-bh@ya,with commentary a t t r ibutedt o ~ a ~ 2 n a n d a . l -he concept of jiieyiivarapa is uti l ized to explain how aBodhisa t tva who has ext inguished a l l "def i led ignorance" [kleial c a n c o n -t inue to perceive th is i l lus ionary world which ar ises through dependent co-ar is ing . T h e answer is tha t the Rodhisa t tva st i l l has the "undef iled ignor-ance'' of jiieyiivarana, i .e . the obstacle of [discrim inative con cep tua l] know-ledge. The Bodhisa t tva s t i l l exper iences and has knowledge of th is i l lusoryworld through conceptual thoughts . Objects which are "blue" are s t i l l per-ce ive d by the B odhis a t tvas as "blue ." T h e Buddhas . on the o ther hand. areperfec t ly awakened and have put an end to a l l thoughts and conceptualknowledge. The Buddha never perceives " th is world only" [samvrti m atra].The "exper ience" of the Buddha is beyond words and h is "knowledge" canbe expressed o nly by negat ive m eans .

Tson-kha-pa ' s commentary on th is sec t ion c lar i f ies fur ther the meaningof j7ieyavara~aas "the obstacle of knowledge." He writes:

'T he hab i tual p ropens i ti e s o l ignorance [avidvavcisana] obstruct theseverence of jiieya ......... t is explained that the habitual propensities ofcovet ousne ss and s o for th obstruct the se veren ce of jfieya, therefore thehabitual propensities of k l d a are [the content of] j?zeyimarana.'H

In th is case jfieya i s not the goal which is be ing obstructed , but something5 4


6/23

which is act ing as the obs t ruct ion and which needs to be removed. T so h-kha-pa fu r ther exp la ins tha t the Buddhas have comple te ly s evered jneyavar.ana because they are forever in samadhi where "all mental activity is forevers t i l l ed . " l i Bodhisa t tvas can sever jfit.yGvara?za temporar i ly by enter ingsamadhi, but when they come out of samadhi back into this world of con ce p-tual thoughts and unders tanding. jEeyiivarana i s once aga in p resen t . Thus i tis in samadhi where all mental activity IS surpressed that Jneyavarana i s absent :wh en o n e co m es o u t o f samadhi. there i s jrieyrivarana. Therefore i t i s mentalac t iv i ty i t s e l f . concep tua l thoughts and the i r "knowables" [Jneyal. which i st h e o b s t ac le t o B u d d h ah o o d .

TI. Chih-1's Application of the Three-Fold Truth Concept in Inter-preting jiieyavarana.

a ) C h ih .1 '~ oncept of the three- fold truth i s an extens ion of the t radi -t iona l Ma dya mik an doc tr ine of the two truths. i .e. worldly truth [sarnvrti-satya] and ul t imate t ruth [paramitrtha-satya].'" he classical formulation of thisteachlng is found in the Mzilarnadhyamakak2rik& par t icular ly in chaptertwenty. four , verses e ight and nine:

T he t each ing of the Bud dhas i s wholly based on there be ing two t ru ths:that of a personal eve ryd ay wor ld an d a higher t ruth which surpasses i t .Th os e who d o not c l ear ly know the du e d i st inc tion be tween the twotruths cannot c lear ly know the hidden de pth s of the Bud dha 's teaching.' '

T h e direct l i terary inspirat io n for Chih -1's formulation of the three-fold truthcon cep t . however, i s found in verse e ighteen of the sam e chapter .

yah pratityasamutpaahh Sunyatam tam pracaksmahe


7/23

Chih-1's Interpretatlon of jripvirvaranusii prajiiaptirupa&ya pratipat sa iva madhyam?i

T hi s verse s pea ks of the ident i ty of the two t ru ths . i .e . em pt iness [.kunyata =paramiirthasatya] and co-ar i s ing [pratityasamutpcida= samvrtisatya], a s t h e M i d -d l e W a y [madyamii] .Kumara j iva ' s Ch inese t rans l a t ion , on wh ich Ch ih - I re -l ie d c o m p l e t e l y , mo re c l e a rl y i mp l ie s t h e u n de r s ta n d in g of t h e M ~ d d l eW a yas a t h i rd com pone n t i n a s ing le un ity .

%a$&&?&-82kPS% (2)&@%.mi;& &E+S$!$ IT.30.33 b 111T h e co-ar i s ing of a l l th ingsI e x p l a i n a s e mp t i n e s s ($1.Ag ain , i t i s a conven t ion a l des igna t ion [ f2%],Ag ain , i t i s t he mean ing of t he Midd le Way [FpB].

Thus rea l i ty i s a single uni ty with three aspects. First . emptiness [Sun.wG '?I.or abs enc e of substant ia l B eing , which i s of ten identi f ied wi th the u l t imatet ru th [paramarthasatyal; second , conven t iona l ex i s t ence [@,I, t he t empora ryexis tenc e of th e phenom enal world which i s co-ar i s ing , which i s of ten ident i -fied with the worldly t ruth [samvrtisatya];a n d t h i rd , t h e M i d d l e [ $ ] W a y ,which i s a s im ul ta neo us aff i rmat ion of both empt iness a nd convent ional ex -i s t ence a s a spec t s of a s ing le in t eg ra ted rea l it y .

F o r C h ih - I t hese th ree com ponen t s a re no t sepa ra t e from each o the r bu tinteg ral parts of a unified real i ty. T he y do not form a pyramid of con trast in grea l i t ies [d iagram A] but are s imul taneous a spe cts of a l l of One Rea l i ty [d ia-g ra m B]:

,R-


8/23

S h i n B u d d hi s t (h n p reh en s i ve Res earch In s ti tute An n ua l M em ol t s IT h e ob jec t s of o u r exper ience have a temporary rea l ity . W e do exper iencesom ething . Never theless , the world which we expe r ience is empty of a n e ter-na l . unchang ing subs tance . Les t one lapse in to a mis taken n ih i l i sm, onemust rea l ize the Mid dle W ay. One must rea l ize the emptiness of phenom enalreality sim ulta neo usly with the temporal reali ty of these empty objec ts . ThisMiddle Way, however. must not be grasped as an et .erna1, transcendentalReality; i t is , rather, manifested in and through temporal, phenomenal real-i ty , which is again in turn empty of an unchanging substa nce . T h e c irc le iscomple te in i tself , a perfectly integrated three-fold truth.

T h i s concep t i s summarized by Ch ih- I in h i s Fa-hua-hsiian-is follows:T h e 'perfec t three-fo ld t ru th ' means tha t the B uddh a-D harm a conta insnot only the Mid dle Way but a lso the 'rea l ' and the ' convent ional . ' T hi sthree fold truth is perfectly integrated; one-in-three and three-in-one.B.Zz*go # {B . $ I ~ R ~ {%&~'&&F.o


9/23

46, N o. 19111. Chih -1 ' s magnum opus on the theory and pract ice of contem-pla t ion . In the fo l lowing pages I h a v e t r a n s l a t e d t h e s e t w o s e c t ~ o n s rom theMo-ho-chih-kuun. I t wi ll soon be c l ea r tha t Ch ih - I ~n te rp re t e d ney2varuna tobe both the obsta c le to wisdom and the obstac le of wisdom . Both ex cerp tsare from the sect ion in which Chih-l discusses the fourth of the ten kinds ofc o n t e mp l a t i o n , t ha t of ' d e s t ro y ~ n gundes i rab le dha rmas [ h f i& i& l . ' which i son e of th e long est and m ost detai led sect io ns of this wor k. Ch ih- I ha- justd iscussed the contempla t ion of empt iness [ '% I and the contempla t ion of con-vent ional ex is tenc e and is about to d isc uss the contem pla t ion of theM i d d l e [ cf l ] :

Sec t ion on Con templa t ing the Midd le Way [T. 46, pg . 80b f f . ][ 8 1 c 1 2 ] . . . . . . .Th i rd , t he co r rec t cu l t iva t ion of con templa t ing the M idd le .Th i s con templa tion co r rec t ly des t roys ignorance [ % n ! , avi r iya] . Ignor -ance i s h idden and cannot be seen wi th the eyes nor known through in-te l lec tua l specula t ion [BE& RQ].Then , how can one con templa t e ( th i si g n o ra n c e )?

F or ex am ple , it i s l ike the ear l ie r contem pla t ions of the t rue [e,.e .contem pla t ing the t ru th of em pt iness] . T h e t rue has no color nor formnor any exte nsio n . One mere ly contem pla tes the mind from am ong thea g g r e g a t e s ( f ~ v ekundhas] and the sense ob jec t s and sense o rgans andthe i r consc iousnesses ( twe lve tzyatanas and e igh teen dhatus) and analyzesthe th ree de lus ions of conven t iona l ex i s t enceNhwith the tetralemma:ski l l fu l ly cu l t iva tes m ed i t a t ~ on ; nd a t ta ins a s t a te of no-out flow (of pas-s ions ) . Th i s is ca l l ed the " t rue ." Nex t , one con templa t e s conven t iona lex i s t ence . How 1s conven t iona l ex ~ s t en ce on templa t ed? Mere ly by co n-

58


10/23

Shin Hurlrlhist ( ' o r n p r c h t ~ n s i v c ~ w n r c h I n s t i t u t t , An n u a l M t , m o i r s It e rn p l a t ~ n g h e w i sd o m of emptiness and rea l iz ing tha t i t is not empty.a n d ( c o n t e mp l a t e ) a l l a c t i v i ty i n t h e mi n d o n e b y o n e . T h i s m e a n sa rous ing th e D h a rma -e y e [k!;HR, dhamacak~us] nd knowing the an t idotefor a l l d i s-eases . Therefore i t is cal led contempla t ing convent ional ex-l s tence .

Now, contempla t ing ignorance i s l ike th is . I n contempla t ing the wis-dom s (o f empt iness and conven t iona l ex i s t en ce ) ga ined f rom the (above)two contempla t ions , tha t which was ca l led 'wisdom' i s now the de lus ionwhich must be des t royed. Now one 1s asp i r ing fo r t he Midd le Way , sothe wisdom (of empt iness and conven t iona l ex i s t ence ) become de lu -s i o n s . T h e s e d e l u s i o n s a r e t h e o b s t a c l e t o t h e w i sd o m of t h e M i d d l e [$J@ I . t he re fo re th ey a r e c a ll ed 't he o bs ta c le of w is do m [ @ ~ ] . ' " ~ l s o ,h iswisdom (of em pt iness and con ven t iona l ex is tence) is an obs t ac l e t o t hewisdom of t he M idd le , s o the w i sdom o f the Midd le canno t a r ise ; t here -fo re i t i s ca l l ed ' t he obs t ac l e t o w i sdom. ' Th e firs t is called wisdom as anactive obstacle [B$EP$].he second is wisdom which is passively obstructed [@#B$]. (emphas i s m ine)

Here Ch ih-I i s ab le to have i t both ways: jiieyiivarapa as both the wisdomwhich i s obs t ruc ted and the in fe r io r w i sdom which i s t he obs t ruc t ion .

?( I

F o r e x a m p l e , it i s l i ke the s ix ty - two he te rodox v iews . Th ese v i ewsh a v e a c e r t a i n s a p i e n c e [% & 1. Th is sap ience i s a wor ld ly w i sdom. Ifone a sp i re s fo r t he s t a t e of no out f low (of pass ions) , then th is sapience .a long wi th mis taken views and thoughts . is a n o b s t a c l e t o t h e t r u e(rea l iza t ion of em pt in ess ) . In the sa m e way, the wisdom of t he two t ru ths(of empt iness and co nvent ional ex is ten ce/c o-a r i s in g . or the t rue and the


11/23

Chih-1 's Interpretation of jneyi ivarqaworldly: paramarthasatya and samvytisatya). along with ignorance. areobs tac les to the Midd le Way. Tha t which obs t ruc ts i s ca lled a de lusion ;that which i s obstructed is the wisdom of the Middle . It is called'wisdom-obstacle' because it refers both to that which obstructs and that which is ob-structed (em phasis mine).

Ch ih- I then con t inues with an analysis of the contemplat ion of ign oranc e,for the purpo se of i ts destruction [T.46,81c26-85b221. He then picks up thesubject once more to discuss the meaning of jiie@varana in var ious author-i ta t ive te xts and i ts content . Th e s ignif icance of Chih-1 's phi losophy l iespartially in the fact that he brought together all of the teaching of Buddhismavai la ble in the C hin a o i his day in to an a l l -inclusive syncret is t ic phi loso-phy . Th is i s c lea r in h is ana lys i s o f jfie@varana: he a t tempts to come toterms with a l l the in terpreta t ions and a l l of the texts deal ing with th is ideawhich were known in his day."

(85b221 ..There are d ifferent unders tandings and disagreements concern-ing the wisdom-obstacle . Now I will d iscuss the in terpreta t ion of

9,D harmauttara.--K l e h are deluded thoughts , therefore kleSas are an obstacle ( to en-

lightenm ent). Wisd om is clear un derstand ing [Q",@], so how ca n on e ex-plain wisdom as an obstacle? [Answer] Th er e are two kinds of wisdom:the wisdom of awakening [E@]nd the wisdom of [human] consc ious-ness [%k?3].h e wisdom of consciousness discr iminates . It differs fromthe essence (of t rue unders tanding) and corresponds to conceptualunders tanding. Beca use i t corresponds to conceptu al unders tanding, i t iscal led 'wisdom'( in a worldly sense) . S i nc e i t d iffers f rom the essenc e (of

60


12/23

S h i n B u d d h ~ s tC omprehens i ve Kcsearch I n s t ~ t u t eAnnua l M emoi r s 1true understanding ) a nd discrimina tes, it hinders the wisdom of aw aken-ing . There fo re wlsdom is ca l led an obs tac le .

Also . ( the su tras say tha t) the B uddh a a t ta ins l ibera t ion from the obsta-c l e s . T h e Ma&parinirvci?za Siitra says , "By sever ing pass ion one a t ta insth e mind of l iber atio n. B y sever in g ignorance one a t ta ins the wisdom of

,,2?l i b e r a t i o n . Th e Bodhisattva bhumi says that "passion is the essence ofkleia, therefore the mind of l iberation is the antidote for the obstacle ofklesas. T o par t f rom al l ignorance and def i lement and to know a l l thereis to know [ % a - j i i q a ] without obstruct ion is ca l led pure wisdom. Pure

,r Z4wisdom is the wisdom of l ibera t ion . If we say that the hinderance tothe knowables [Hi%-jlieya] of wisdom [ E l s the wisdom obstac le , thenignorance i s the obs tac le to wisdom. Thus , t ru ly , ignorance i s the e ss -

25en ce of t he wisdom-obstac le .T h e Ju-ta-ch'eng-lun says tha t t ransworld ly ignorance is the wisdom-

26obstac le . T h e wise are a l read y far removed from world ly ignorance;tha t is , they f i rs t sever the obstac le of kleias. Th e two obs tac les (o f pas -s ions and ignorance) are both kleias. How can one say tha t ignorance isthe wisdom obstac le? Ignorance is the delus ion tha t corresponds to wis-dom. Wisdom is the essence and i t i s in reference to th is wisdom thatone speaks of an obs tac le . Fo r example , i t i s a s when one speaksof ' un -condi t ioned t ransmigra tion ' [ a s a ~ k ~ t a ~ s a r ( l s c i r a h ? % % % % ] ,t is in refer-ence to t ransmigra t ion tha t one uses the (convent ional) name

P i'unconditio ned. ' Th er e are four categorie s of passions which are abl eto obstruct wisdom. However , these are delus ions which are d if ferentf rom the mind, in which unders tanding and delus ion are not together

61


13/23

and k k h s a re i t s e ssence . There fo re . due to i t s e s sence . ~t I S cal led theobs t ac l e of kleia.

Also . pass ions I'E, w h ~ c h re id en ti fie d by the Mah@arinirvana Sutraand Bodhisattw bhiimi a s an o b s t a c l e l o en l igh tenm en t ] l ead a l l phe -nom ena to cont in ue . enf lam es the mind and m akes the mind t roubled .Though ( sen t i en t bemgs) a re covered wl th ignorance . neve r the l e ss t heimpe tus for b ir th i s watered and s t rengthene d by pass ion . Therefo re pas-s ion i s t he (con ten t o f) t he k lda -obs t ac l e . Ignorance i s someth ing incom-p l e te ; it is t ru ly t h e o p p o s ~ t e of l i b e r a t ~ o n .T he nature of pa ss ion ,~hl .)ugh t i s d ~ f f e r e n t f ro m i g n o ra n ce ) . h as ~ g n o ra n c e s i t s b a s i s. T h enature of ignorance i s de lus ion: i l i s c lear how th is i s an ob stac le towisdom I P$'W 1. There fore . because i t i s an obs tac le , i t i s ca l led thewisdom-obs tac l e .

Ignorance [which i s ident i f ied by the Mahaparinir-Jana Sutra and Ju-ta-ch'eng-lun as an obs tac le to en l ightenmen t] i s of two types . Fi rs t , de lu -s ion concern ing rea l i ty [ & 1, and seco nd , de lus ion conce rn ing phe -n o me n a [ & % 1 . W hich of t hese is ca ll ed the w i sdom-obs tac l e? T h eBodhisattva bhumi says tha t lor those of the two vehic les who haveat tain ed the state of no- outflo w (of passions). the know ledg e of the non -substant ian t ia l i ty o l the se l l i s the know ledge puri l ied of the obs tac le so l klehs: and for Budd has and Bo dhisa t tvas , the know ledge of th e no n-substant ial i ty of phenomena is the knowledge purified of the wisdom-obstacle." If th i s is so , then ior both ( thos e of the two vehicle s an dBo dhis a t tva s and B uddhas) . the de lus ion concern ing rea l i ty i s the wis-dom -obstac le . How ever , if the h indran ce of th a t known [Pfi%-Jnr,va] by

62


14/23

S h l n Buddhist ( ' ~ ~ m p r e h e n s ~ v ves ea rch Institute A nnua l M e m o i r s Iwisdom i s ca l l ed the w i sdom-obs tac l e . s ince the knowledge (o f a Bud-dha) i s unobs t ruc t ed conce rn ing a l l phenomena , t hen the w i sdom-obstac le refers only to the de lus ion concern ing phenomena.

If so . then w ha t i s ou r conc lus ion? Wisdom unders t ands bo th rea l i t yand phenom ena . Th ou gh ( in th i s sens e ) t here a re two wi sdoms , t he re i sno (u l t imate) d is t inc t ion in the ess enc e (of rea l i ty ; i .e , rea l i ty i s not at ranscenden t ex i s t enc e apa r t f rom th i s phenomena l w or ld . ) T h e wi sdom-obs tac l e and ignorance thus do no t have two (d i f fe ren t ) na tu res ; thoughi t i s sa id to be tw o, they are not two.

A lso , if we s ay that the m ind of wisdo m [L \E] s t he obs t ac l e , t hen(th is refers to) d iscr imin atory wisdo m [vikalpajri8naq which in the finalana lys is (conceptua l izes the objec ts of experience) ." ' T hi s h inders ( in-s igh t i n to ) Suc hne ss so tha t one does no t a t ta in the w i sdom of awaken-in g [ER].h i s a l so i s a w i sdom which i s neve r the l ess an obs t ac le . T oex t ingu i sh concep tua l t hough t s and thus ex t ingu i sh though t [ t i . ] ; this isthe mean ing o l " seve r ing (d i sc r imina t ive ) w i sdom [@B]."f o n e a b a n -dons d i sc r im ina t ion , t hen th is w i sdom-obs tac l e i s pu r if ied .

Chih-1 's ra t ionale i s a t t imes unclear , bu t he i s t ry ing to deal wi th the prob-lem of hav ing both ignorance and ( imperf ec t ) wisdom as tha t which obst ruc tsthe h ighest , perfec t wisdom of the Buddha, and a t tempt ing to in terpre t theva r iou s in t e rp re t at ions o f jneyavarana as found in d i fferent avai lab le tex ts .His so lu t ion i s tha t a cer ta in level of wisdom is a t ta ined upon severing thep a s s i o n s [kleiavarana].However. a more fundamen ta l i gnorance , o r wha t i s att imes ca l led the 'habi tua l propensi t ies of i gnorance [ a v i d y a v a s a n~ t i l l re-

63


15/23

mains . This ac ts as an obstac le to the h ighest wisdom of the Buddha, whichis the wisdom of the M iddl e Way Also . if o ne c l ings to the imperfec t wls-dom al ready a t ta ined by seve r ing the pass ions . th is can be an obstac le toa t t a in ing the h ighes t w i sdom. Thus bo th igno rance and ~mper fec twisdomare obs tac le s to that h ighest wisdom wh ich i s being obst ruc ted .

CONCLUSION

The p rob lem of in terpre t ing the meaning of jizeyavarana i s a compl ica tedone wh ich ra i ses many fundamen ta l ques tions . Shou ld jfieya. and @ , beunders tood as know ledge , w i sdom. or t he more l i te ra l ' know ab les? ' Wha t isthe d i f ference between knowledge and wisdom? What i s the content of jizeya?Is i t the goal to be a t ta ine d , or an obs tac le to the goal of Bu ddh aho od? Whata re the ph i lo soph ica l and p rac t ica l imp l i ca t ions and assumpt ions that accom -pany the interpretat ion of jizeyZvara?za as an obstac le to knowledge or t h eobs t ac l e of know ledge? As we have s een , d i ffe ren t Madkyam ikan and Yoga-caran tex ts g ive var ious in terpre ta t ions .

We can make the fo l lowing summary conc lus ions conce rn ing Ch ih -1 ' sinterpretat ion of jiieyavara?za:

1 ) jiieyavarana [ f f e O I%] was in terpre ted wi th in the s t ruc ture of Chih- i ' sth ree-fo ld t ru th conce pt . T h e wisdom -obstac le is expla ined in the context ofreal izing the highest wisdom of the Middle in contrast to the imperfect wis-dom of mere ly empt iness or convent ional ex is tence .

2 ) Chih - I quo tes t he Mahaparinirvina Sutra, Bodhisattva bhumi, and theJu-ta-ch'eng-lun to show that the more fundamenta l obstac le of ' ignorance ' re -mains af ter kleias are severed . T h e h ighest wisdom of the M iddle (which in-64


16/23

S h ~ n u dd h~ s tC o m p r e h e n s l v r R e s e a rc h I n s t ~ t u t rA n n u a l M e m o u s 1t egra tes the wisdom of em pt iness and conven t ional ex is te nce ) is at ta inedthrough the contem pla t ion o l ignorance and the as ye t imperfec t wisdomconce rn ing em pt iness and conven t iona l ex i s t ence .

3) T h e rea l iza t ion of the t ruth of empt iness and convent ional e x is te nceis ca l led 'wisdom' because i t reveals a h igh level of unders tanding . Never-the less i f one remains a t th i s level of wisdom, th is becomes a de lus ion andan obs tac le to the at tainment of the highest wisdo m.

4) In sho r t , jfieyavarana i s unders tood in both ways:a] tha t the h ighest wisdom is obst ruc ted by both incomp le te under-

s tanding or imperfec t knowledge (which i s neverthe less a k ind of wisdom),and by fundamenta l ignorance or the habi tua l propensi t ies of ignorancewhich remain even af ter kleias a re seve red ;

b] tha t the a t ta inm ent of the h ighest wisdom i s be ing obst ruc ted .Thus the wisdom-obstac le refers to both tha t which obstucts the h ighest wis-dom and the wisdom of B uddhah ood which i s obst ruc ted .

NOTES

In iac t i t is assumed by Japanese scholars tha t th i s i s the correc t in ter-pre ta t ion . I bel ieve th is i s due to the inf luence of Hsi ian- t sang (.s%,00-664) and the Fa -h s i ang (Hosso ) schoo l w i th the i r C h inese t rans la t ion ofjrieyavarana as Fh?%l%,n c ont ras t to the pre-Hsi ian- t sang t ransla t ion of B E ,and a lso the numerous Yogaci i ra tex ts which more or less c lear ly in terpre tjiieyavaraga in th is way. Most Japanese Buddhis t d ic t ionaries def inejiieyavaraga under the heading of Pfi?%lP$ and under ?%I$ne i s refered backto Fh%U@. i' s Concise Eukkyi, Jiten [T o k y o : D a i t o Sh u p p a n , 1938, pg. 7281

6.5


17/23

( ' h 1h .1 ' ~ n l ~ , r p r v t ; i t < ) n 1 , ; ~ ~ : V G : * , I I ~ I I I Orefers the reader to PFiQE3. and then def ines gl:'II$ s the st at e of ignoranc e(az idv6Jwhich obstructs hodhi so that correct wisdom cannot arise. Oda'sBukk.w Daijiten [Tokyo: Daiz6 Shuppan . 1969 . pg. 1 3 1 6 ~ 1 i s t ingu ishes be-tween the two transla t ions and def ines Pfi & P$ as that which obstructs theclear manifes ta t ion of know able objects . and -EYE$ s that a h ~ c h bstructs thearis ing of k now led ge, and together they refer to the delusions. Ignorance .and so for th which obstruct the a t ta inment of knowledge /wisdom. The Buk-ky6gaku Jiten [Kyo to: H6zokan. 195 5, pg. 415b1, which is strong on T' ien -t 'aiterminology. nevertheless def ines Pfr ( inc ludmg @ ) as ' de lus ionswhich a re caused by an a t tachment to phenomena (as substant ia l Being ) sothat the true aspects of reality which should be known are hidden and theawaken ing o f bodhi is obstru cted. ' Nakamura's Bukky&go Daijiten [T o k y o :To ky o Sh ose ki . 19751 quote s Sthiramati and gives the t radi t ional YogZcarainterpretation of Jneyivarana as that which obstructs the knowledge of whats h ou ld b e k n ow n ( p g . 6 8 5 ~ ) .However. 'f;O I$. after being identified as asynonym of Pfi !$ E . i s de f ined as ' t he h indrance to fu l ly knowing whatshou ld be known. The obstacle which has conceptualization as its cause. The intel-lect ob stacle'(p g. 952c. emp hasis mine).

* 1 am inde bted for this translation to P a u l Griffiths and his paper "APre l iminary Note on Jney6varana i n Early Yogacara Li tera ture ," unpublishedsem inar paper . Univers i ty of W iscon sin .M adison , Apri l 10. 1 9 8 2. T h ' s textis found in the Bodhisattva bhzimi, ed . Unra i Wogihara, Tok yo: Shogoken-kyuk ai .1930 -1936 , pg. 38, l ine 18-19. F or the Chinese t ransla t ion byHstian-tsang see TaishE, Shinshzi Daizoky6. ed . and comp. Takasak i Jun j i ro ,Watanabe Kaigyoku, e t . a l . , Tokyo: Ta ish o I ssa iky6 Kank6 Kai . 1924-1934 ,


18/23

5h1n Huddhih ~ 'ompr~,h( ,nsivrR c s ~ a r r h n s t ~ t u t eA n n u a l M c m o i r s 1Volume 30. pg. 486, column c. lines 15-17 IT. 0. 486~15-171.

See Lev i. Sy lva in . Vij?iaptim2tratasiddhi,Paris: Librairie Ancienne Hon-ore Champion. 1925. pg. 15, lines 9-10.

There is disagrewnent between texts as to what exactly is the obstruc-tion which hin ders the attainment of the Buddhd's p erfect know ledge. So m edefine the obs tacl e as attachm ent to the idea of ph enomena as subs tantialBe ing . rather than ad m itting the emp tine ss of both the self and phenomena:the habitual propensities [vtisaniil of kleias even after the so-called active kle-Sas are severed: a remnant of fundamental ignorance; and so forth. A discus-sion of what would be the content of the 'obstacle to knowledge' in theYogiicZran tradition is beyond the scope of this paper. Those interested inthis topic are refered to Funahashi Naoya's article "KleSajneyavara~aandPudgaladharmanairGtmya1'n the journal BukkyGgaku Seminar, Kyoto: 0 aniUniversity. vol. 1. May 19 65 , pg. 52-66.

5 Conze. Edward. Materials for a Dictionary of the Praji25piiramita Litertl-ture. Toky o: Suzuki Research Found ation, 1967, pg. 185 .

6 Takasaki J ik ldo, A Study of the Ratnagotra-vibhaga, Roma: Instituto Ita-liano per i t Med ro ed E stremo Oriente, 1966, pg. 161.

7 Suzuki , D.T..he Laizkcivat2ra Sctra, Boulder: Prajii i Press. 1978. pg.208: and Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra, Boulder: PrajiiZ P res s, 1981 , pg.177, 404.

Edgerton. F., Buddhist H,ybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Pre ss. 19 53. pg. 198 .

9 L am otte , ~ t i e n n e . t r . ) L a S om m ed u Grand Vkhicule d'Asanga ( M ~ h U . a ? l usamgraha], Tome 11. Louv ain: Bureaux du Museon, 1938-39, pg. 98.

fii


19/23

C h ~ h - 1 ' s n t e r p r ~ t a t ~ o ni jn~vuvazrnru?la10o ga wa I ch i j6 , "Shoch i sh6 n i kansuru N6to ." in Kokuyaku Issaikyir; Sanzir

shu, vol . 4 , T o k y o : D a i t6 S h u p p a n , 1 9 7 8 , p g. 1 4 1 -1 5 8 . I am indebted toProfessor Ogawa for the informat ion in h is ar t ic le and for h is t ime in d iscus-s ing and c l a r i fy ing th i s i s sue .

Bhavav iveka ' s pos i t ion i s ambiguous . He men t ions jiieyiivarana in hiscommenta ry to the Mdamadhyamakakiirikiis [Prajiia-pradtpa-mula- madyamaka-vrtti? ; not exta nt in San skr i t . see T . 3 0, No. 1566. !06b], but only in re la-tion to kle.iavarana. He does not e laborate on the speci f ic content or meaningof jiieyavarana.

12see Madhyamak3vat2ratika. in the Tibetan Tripi~aka, ek ing ed i t ion , ed . .D.T. Suzu k i , Kyo to : Otan i U niver s ity , 1957 , vo l . 99 , No. 5271 , Ra . 175a4-1 7 7 a 3 . S e e a l so O g a w a , op. cit.. p g 1 4 6- 14 7.

13 ~ i be t a n ri pit ak a, P e k i n g e d i t i o n . v o l . 1 5 4 , N o. 6 1 4 3 , 1 0 7 b -1 0 8 a .1 4 0 p . c i t . , p g . 1 0 9 a .I s s e e Mitlamadhyamakak2irikiis chap te r 24 , e spec ia l ly ve r ses 8 ff . F o r back-

ground on the two t ru ths see any book on Nagar juna o r Madhyamika ph i -l o so p h y , b ut e sp e c ia l ly s e e S p r u n g , Me r v y n , Lucid Exposition of the MiddleW a y The Essential Chapters fro m the PrasannapadZ of Cand rakirti, Boulder :P r a j G P r e s s , 1 9 7 9; a nd S p r u n g , M e r v y n, e d . , The Problem of T w o Truths inBuddhism and Vedanta, Boston : D . Re i d e l , 1 9 7 3 .s p r u n g , op. cit., Lucid Exposition ..., pg. 230-231.

17 T. 33. 705a5-7 .l 8 ZjE , i .e . conven t iona l ex i s t ence d ue to causa l a r i s ing , con t inu i ty , and

rela t iv i ty ;19 A c lass i ca l Japanese commenta ry on th i s t ex t [k@@8jTf$,zl]aises the

68


20/23

S h i n B u d d h ~ s ~' omurc~hrns ivcResearch l n s t ~ t u t pA n n u a l Mt*mo~ r squestion of whether or not fundamental ignorance and the wisdom of empti-ness and conv ention al exis tence are the sam e if they are both the content ofthe wisdom-obstacle . The answer is that of course the two are not the same,yet they are both obstac les to h igher wisdom . Chih -I deals with th is quest ionlater. [see Bukky6 Taikei: Makashikan, Vol. IV . Tokyo: Nakayama Sh6b6 .1919, pg . 246; hereafter B T - M I V ]

20,s pres ente d in th e Mahiiyiina Brahmajda SCtra [ ? E#!@],. 24 , No.1 4 8 4 , p g . 997-1010.

2 1 ~ h e r e re few ex tan t p re -Chih- I tex ts which would a llow us to tracethe ear ly development of cer ta in Buddhis t ideas in China. An indispensabletext is the Ta-ch'eng-i-chang[ k% S $ ]y Hui-yiian. T. 44, No. 18 51. 46 5 f f .This text d iscusses the " two obstacles ." i .e . kleiaj7ieyavara?taon pages 56 1-564.

22 g @@ a: he ident i ty of th is man is uncerta in . Chan-jan , the s ix thT ' ien- t 'a i patr iarch, in h is authori ta t ive comm entary on th is text [kB%jT{Z$$AiA: B T - M I V . pg. 3151 ident i f ies Dharmauttara as an Arhat who l ived 800years after the death of the Buddha, and who took three hundred verses fromth e Abhidharma-mahiivibh&.G-&stra to compile the abbreviated Samyukta-abhidhnna-hrdaya-iastra [SAHS] . The above ment ioned Japanese commen-tary disagree s , point ing o ut that the S A H S does not contain any reference tojrieyivaraaa and that the C hin ese characters for the author 's name [BE8$?lDharmatrata] are different.

2 3 ~ h i h - ~ ' suo te appears to be f rom Dharmak~ema ' s[ S%%]ranslationof the Mahaparinirvaw Sfi tra of 421 AD [ T . 12 , 5 8 7 ~ 1 3 - 41. One interestingdifferen ce is that the or ig inal Dharmaksem a transla t ion uses the character 3

GY


21/23

wisdom, w hereas Ch ih - I subs t i tu t es the charac te r @ . Both Chinese charac -t e r s mean wisdom, and Chih - I may have subs t i tued fi5' i n o rder to make h i st ex t cons i s t en t .

2 4 ~ narly version of the Bodhisattva bhumi section of the Yogi2~6ra.bhumiwas t r ans la t ed in to Ch inese by Dharmaksema in the ear ly f i f th century .Chih-1 's reference is to the Bodhipatalam chapter of the f irst sect ion of thiswork IT . 30 . 901b15-21 ; for an Engl ish t ransla t ion f rom the Sanskr i t seeJoh n Keen an 's t ransla t ion of Hak amay a Nor iaki' s paper on "T he Realm ofE n l i g h t e n m e n t i n Vifiptimatratic: T h e F o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e F o u r K i n d s o fP ur e Dharmas." in The Journal of the International Association of BuddhistStudies, Univer s i ty of Wiscons in , M adi son , Vol . 3 . No .2 , pg . 331. his referencecor respo nds to the B odh ipa ta l am chap te r of the Bodhisattva bhumi sect ion ofth e Yogcicara-bhumi [ fo r Hs i ian -t sang 's t r ans la t ion see T . 30 . 498~2 0-271 .Dharmaksema t r ans la t es fneycivarapa a s o r BP$.

2 5 ~ e r e h ih -I use s th e wo rd s Ph@ later used by Hsiian-tsang to translatejrieya. Here PY&! i s the content of that which i s known by wisdom [@I , and i sused to show that ignorance i s the content of that which obst ructs wisdom.

26 A or Introduction to Mahiyina. T h i s t e x t i s n o t e x t a n t i n S a n -skr i t . A s the t i t le suggests , i t con sis t s of an in t roduc t ion to basic M ahgyan adoct r ine . I t was transla ted in to Ch ines e between the years 397-439 AD byT a o - t ' a i [B@].he t ex t i s a t t r ibu ted to an lnd ian ca l l ed %bffi@Sth i r ama-t i , S a r a m a t i ?I , who Japanese scholars have been unable to ident i fy , but whois bel ieved to have l ived around 350-400 AD. Para ma r tha says that th isman wrote a commentary on the Lotus Sutra, which is very Likely sin ce thlst ext q uo tes the Lotus Sutra e x t e n s i v e l y .70


22/23

Sh ln Buddhist Comprc ,hens ive liesearch In st itu te An n ua l M e m o m IChih-1's reference is found near the end of this work in T . 32. 46c8-9.

A full translation of he context is helpful:The Arhat first severs kleias; later he removes the wisdom.obstacle,

cultivates the bodhi-path, and attains perfect awakening. Among Arhatsthere are those w ho sev er a Tew wisdo m-ob stacles, who have not severe d[wisdom-obstacles] , who have a t ta ined the concentra t ion of non-co nte nti ou sn es s [ara?z&samadhzl, who have not at tain ed the con cent ratio nof non-content iousness , who have a t ta ined the f ive superknowledges[abhijfia]. who have not attained the five superknowledges, who havea t ta ined the four fluencies [c a tz gp ra t i s am d, who have no t a t ta ined thefour fluencies, who have attained the mastery of entering and comingout of medita t ion, who have not a t ta ined the mastery of enter ing andcoming out of meditation

Why i s th i s so? Because they have not severed a l l wisdom-obstac les ,Quest ion: what is that which is cal led wisdom-obstacle? Answer: Tr ans -wo rldly ig no ra nc e [loka-uttara-avidya!] is th e wisdo m- obs tacl e.

I t is as Balaruci I? %E?il@] ex pl ai ns in a verse in th e Jat ak a tales:Th er e are two types of ignorance:T h e worldly and the t ransworldly .Th os e who are wise have long ago partedFro m t he deeds of worldly ignorance.Th os e who are fool ish d o not have su bt le unders tandingAnd are not able to know this t ru th . [T. 32. 45c2-131

27 0r , as Chan -jan explains , t ransmigrat ion is not really unconditionedand ignorance is not real ly wisdom. I t is only in reference to the wisdom-


23/23

Chih-1's I n t e r p r e t a t ~ o nol Inria-wranaobs tac le . i . e . i gnoran ce as the obs tac le to wi sdom, tha t one speak s of ignor -ance in th is way [BK-MIV,pg. 3181.

"T hi s i s a summary of the Bodhisattva bhumi analysis of kles'aJne@varanaa s f o u nd in T . 3 0 . 8 9 3 a a nd 9 0 1 b f f . . a l t h o u g h I could not locate a passagewhich mak es the s am e tidy ident i f ica t ion of th e ide a of non-subs tant ia l i ty ofthe self with kleiavarana and the idea of non-s ubs tantia l i ty of phenom enawith jneyiizrarana. F o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e d e v e lo p m e n t of the ident i f ica t ionof these ideas . se e Funa has hi 's ar t ic le ment ioned ab ove in note 4.

2 9 ~ %8% )Ell@: al tho ugh C hih - I doe s not refer to the sou rce of th isphrase , la ter T ' ien- t 'a i com men tar ies ident ify i t as a quo te fromVasubandhu ' s Treaties on Consciousness-Only [?,R 28 "$% , T . 3 1. 63-76]. T h i st reat i se i s exta nt in three Ch ines e t ransla t ions, the f ir st by Praj iiaruci [ ? luhx$321 roun d 538-542 [T . No. 15881, fo l lowed b y Param ar tha [T . No. 15891and f inal ly by Hsi ian- tsang [T. No. 15901. S e e B T - M I V . p g . 3 2 1 .

chih-i on jneyavarana / paul swanson

Documents