Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flowers Perfume Sesame: On the Contextual Shift of Perfuming from Abhidharma to Yogācāra

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the Abhidharma texts, that flowers perfume sesame is used as a simile describing the mechanism of perfuming (vāsanā/paribhāvanā) in the context of meditative cultivation. According to the Sarvāstivādins, the meditative perfuming requires the co-existence of the perfumer and the perfumed. In comparison, the Yogācāra-vijñānavādins employ the same simile to explain their doctrine of the perfuming of all dharmas in ālayavijñāna, which demands the bīja as the perfumed and the manifested dharmas as the perfumer to be simultaneous. My hypothesis is that the Yogācāra idea of the perfuming of all dharmas is derived from the Abhidharma doctrine of meditative perfuming through the Sautrāntika theory of perfuming in non-concentrated (asamāhita) state. The idea of equating vāsanā and bīja probably took place under the doctrine of successive causality during the sectarian communication among the Sarvāstivādins, the Dārṣṭāntika-Sautrāntikas, and the early Mahāyānists. The Vaibhāṣika principle of simultaneous perfuming, which requires that the perfumed must co-exist with the perfumer, makes it possible in the Yogācāra-vijñānavāda that a bīja in ālayavijñāna is simultaneous with its manifestation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. MW, s.v. “√vās”, p. 932.

  2. See also McHugh’s (2012, p. 277 n. 33) etymological discussion of vāsana and vāsanā.

  3. MW, s.v. “upa-√sev”, p. 210.

  4. McHugh (2012, p. 140) points out that Gaṅgādhara’s Gandhasāra distinguishes bhāvana (“steeping”) from vāsana (“enfleurage”) in the process of Indian perfumery. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the different meanings of the perfumery terms seemingly came to be made clear as late as the 10th century CE in the Gandhasāra. On the other hand, even if the semantic discrepancy could be traced back to an earlier time, the Buddhist philosophers were not so likely to clearly understand the nuance between the perfumery terms, because monastics are prohibited from using perfume.

  5. In Yogācāra texts, the causative past passive participles of √vās and (pari-)√bhū —vāsita and (pari-)bhāvita— are also taken as synonyms (see Takeuchi, 1950, p. 86 n. 2). Note that the two words are translated identically by Xuanzang into Chinese as “所熏” (suǒ xūn).

  6. It is interesting to note that in terms of this usage, Xuanzang sometimes translates vāsanā as “熏習” (xūn xí) instead of a more common rendering “習氣” (xí qì), to emphasize its verbal sense.

  7. MSg I.23: brtan lung ma bstan bsgo bya ba // sgo bar bhyed dang ’brel pa la // sgo byed de las gzhan ni min // de ni bag chags mtshan nyid do // (Nagao, 1982, 29)

  8. See Chéng wéishí lùn 成唯識論 (*Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi, T31, no. 1585, 8b8–9): 種子既是習氣異名, 習氣必由熏習而有, 如麻香氣, 花熏故生。

  9. According to Yinshun (1968, p. 466), Saṅghasena, a contemporary to Aśvaghoṣa, has made a commentary on this treatise. Since Aśvaghoṣa is said to have participated in the compilation of the Mahāvibhāṣā, the *Tridharmaka-śāstra should be regarded to be earlier than that.

  10. The Sì āhánmù chāojiě 四阿鋡暮抄解 (T no. 1505), an earlier Chinese translation of the treatise, reads “分別” (*bhedana?), which was perhaps translated from a corrupted Prakrit form. For the possible change from -v- to -d- in Prakrit, see Karashima (2015, pp. 136–137, particularly n. 73).

  11. Cf. the corresponding paragraph in the earlier Chinese translation Sì āhánmù chāojiě (T25, no. 1505, 2a7–10): 問: 是分別何法? 答: 分別禪、無量、無色(修妬路)。分別是善行。是故分別如麻油花合。行分別, 如王求。如等求王, 果得有是求。行淨果相應。According to this earlier version, this statement should be an elaborative interpretation of a sūtra passage (Probably the Samgīti-sūtra in the Dīrghāgama, which corresponds to the Saṅgīti-sutta. See T1, no. 1, 50c, cf. DN iii 222–224).

  12. Park (2014, pp. 193–194) noted that vāsanā is related to “the intermingled state of divergent mental entities in the mental continuum in meditation”. However, Park, without sufficient argument, takes it as being connected with the Sautrāntika theory of karmic vāsanā. In contrast to Park’s opinion, I consider the statement in the Mahāvibhāṣā as a precursory theory of the Yogācāra doctrine of vāsanā of all dharmas (sarva-dharma-vāsanā).

  13. In this article, the lower case of “yogācāra” refers to a professional Śrāvakayānist meditator, who belongs to the broad Sarvāstivāda tradition, whereas the upper case of “Yogācāra” refers to either the specific Mahāyāna school or a member of this school.

  14. Cf. AKVy 437: tat samāhitaṃ kuśalam atyarthaṃ cittaṃ saṃvāsayati |

  15. In this context, yogin refers to a yogācāra.

  16. Cf. Dhammajoti’s (2011, p. 31) partial translation.

  17. See T27, no. 1545, 880b13-27.

  18. Note that Dessein (1999, pp. 515–516) seems to understand “熏” (perfuming) as mixing.

  19. Kimura (1968, pp. 242–262) points out that the composition of the AKBh is based on the *Abhidharmahṛdaya (T no. 1550) and the MAH.

  20. Note that Yaśomitra’s AKVy (p. 437) quotes “puṣpais tila-vāsanāvad”. Yaśomitra also clearly explains that bhāvanā is vāsanā.

  21. Cf. P. No. 5591, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, gu 263a8-b2; D. No. 4090, mngon pa, ku 225a7-b1: ’di ci’i phyir bsgom pa zhes bya zhe na / sems la sgo phyir ro // mnyam par bzhag pa’i (D: ma bzhag pa’i) dge ba de ni rgyud yon tan rnams kyis de’i bdag nyid du byed pa’i phyir sems la shin du (D: tu) sgo bar byed pa yin te / me tog rnams kyis til la bsgos pa bzhin no // Also cf. T29, no. 1558, 97c11–13.

  22. Note that the Tibetan translation uses “sog” instead of the common rendering of “bag chags” to translate the Sanskrit word “vāsanā”. It is clear that the Tibetan word “bag chags”, which literally means “slight desire”, is by no means proper to be applied to the context of cultivating wholesomeness. This demonstrates that the translators were clearly aware of the two distinct meanings of the same Sanskrit word.

  23. Cf. AKVy 437: samādhi-guṇais tan-mayī kriyate citta-saṃtatiḥ | (The serial continuity of citta, by the qualities of equipoise, is made to have the substance of them.) According to Xuanzang and Paramārtha’s Chinese translations, the “tat” (tan-) here refers to the qualities (guṇa). See also Funahashi (2011, pp. 521–522).

  24. AKVy 437. Note that the term “kliṣṭa-dhyāna” is not seen in Sthiramati’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Tattvārthā: dge ba smos pa ni mnyam par gzhag pa ro myang ba dang mtshungs par ldan pa bzlog pa’i phyir ro // (D. No. 4421, sna tshogs, do 96a5)

  25. ADV 217: samāhitam eva cittaṃ bhāvanāmayaṃ puṇya-kriyā-vastu maitryādi-guṇa-saṃprayuktaṃ draṣṭavyam |

  26. See AKBh 452ff.

  27. Note that “bhāvana” here is used as a synonym of “vāsana”, as the AKBh (p. 273) puts “citta-vāsanāt”.

  28. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Tattvārthā (D. No. 4421, sna tshogs, do 96a6): shin tu yang zhes bya ba ni mnyam par gzhag pa ma yin yang bsgom par ni byed mod kyi / mnyam par gzhag pa bzhin du ni ma yin no // Cf. AKVy 437: tat samāhitaṃ kuśalam atyarthaṃ cittaṃ saṃvāsayati | bhāvayati | asamāhitam api vāsayati | na tv evam atyartham… Similarly, the MAH clearly suggests that defilements (kleśa) also perfume, but it is only *mārga-vāsanā that is bhāvanā. (See T28, no. 1552, 930a20–22: 淨禪三種: 一、煩惱勳, 二、道勳, 三、不勳。煩惱勳者, 退分(有漏有煩惱氣, 故名煩惱勳也)。道勳者, 道所勳, 謂勳修。餘者非勳。)

  29. Park (2014, p. 194) provides a partial translation of what follows this paragraph. It should be noted that Śrīlāta’s anudhātu theory not only concerns karma, but also explains all internal dharmas. Park seems to understand the expression “業煩惱” as “defiled karma”, which, however, should be regarded as a dvandva compound, meaning “karma and defilements”.

  30. As noted by Yinshun (1968, pp. 372–373), the Dārṣṭāntikas have a trend to simplify and unify the complicated doctrines. The Sautrāntika theory of perfuming in the six sense bases can be considered as an example of doctrinal unification of the operation of defiled dharmas and that of karma. As this article focuses only on the perfuming concerning dharmas rather than the karmic vāsanā, the idea of perfuming in the six sense bases will not be further discussed here.

  31. For relevant discussion, see Yamabe (2021, pp. 473–475) and Gao (2021, pp. 7–12).

  32. YBhBh 219-20: saṃskārā vijñānasya kathaṃ triprakāra-pratyayatayā draṣṭavyāḥ | bījabhāva-paribhāvanayā sahabhāva-pratyayaḥ |… bhavo jāteḥ kathaṃ triprakāra-pratyayatayā pratyayaḥ | sahabhāva-pratyayo bījabhāva-paribhāvanatayā | Cf. D. No. 4035, sems tsam, tshi 113a5-b5; T30, no. 1579, 325c21-326a11. I read “bījabhāva-paribhāvanatayā” here as a karmadhāraya compound—the paribhāvanatā that is bījabhāva. A brief discussion of bījabhāva will be given in note 49. Cf. Yamabe (2018, p. 300 n. 66).

  33. See BoBh 3: tatra gotraṃ katamat | samāsato gotraṃ dvi-vidham| prakṛti-sthaṃ samudānītaṃ ca | tatra prakṛti-sthaṃ gotraṃ yad bodhisattvānāṃ ṣaḍ-āyatana-viśeṣaḥ | sa tādṛśaḥ parampar’āgato ’nādikāliko dharmatā-pratilabdhaḥ | tatra samudānītaṃ gotraṃ yat pūrva-kuśala-mūlābhyāsāt pratilabdhaṃ | tad asminn arthe dvi-vidham apy abhipretaṃ |

  34. Yamabe (1987, p. 28; 2021, p. 471) restores the Sanskrit original as “samudāgamāya”. However, in the BoBh (p. 3), “samudānīta”, one type of Bodhisattva’s lineages (gotra), is translated as “yang dag par bsgrubs pa” in Tibetan and “習所成” in Chinese (See D. No. 4037, sems tsam, wi 2b4-5; T30, no. 1579, 478c13-17). In this respect, the restoration of “yang dag par grub par bya ba” here could be a future participle, i.e. samudāneya. I thus take Yamabe’s restoration as an alternative possibility.

  35. Note that the Chinese translation provides “依附相續” at the place where the Tibetan is “rten la gnas pa”. I take “相續” (serial continuity) as a paraphrase of “āśraya”, which refers to the mental-physical basis. Accordingly, “gnas pa” corresponds to “依附”, which can be restored as “saṃniviṣṭa”. Yamabe’s (2021, p. 471) new restoration also suggests a similar reading. Cf. Yamabe (1987, p. 28).

  36. Note that the Tibetan translation shows “’gro bar ’gyur” (it will be brought about), but the Chinese translation is “定不可轉” (it definitely cannot arise).

  37. Cf. T30, no. 1579, 846c20-23. For Sanskrit restoration, see Yamabe (1987, pp. 26–28).

  38. For instance, the Viniścaya of Bodhisattvabhūmi contains an expression which connects vāsanā and abhyāsa: “the proclivity as imprint habituated to that [awareness (*anubodha)]” (de la goms pa’i bag chags bag la nyal ba; 串習習氣隨眠; *tad-abhyāsa-vāsanā-anuśaya). See D. No. 4038, sems tsam, zi 23b5-6; T30 no. 1579, 705b12.

  39. See Śrāvakabhūmi (D. No. 4036, sems tsam, dzi 2a1–2): rigs de’i ming gi rnam grangs dag gang zhe na / sa bon dang / khams dang / rang bzhin zhes bya ba ni ming gi rnam grangs dag yin no // Cf. T30, no. 1579, 395c22–24. BoBh 3: tat punar gotraṃ bījam ity apy ucyate dhātuḥ prakṛtir ity api |

  40. See SNS 55; Cf. T16, no. 676, 692b8-14.

  41. The Sanskrit is restored by Lamotte (1935, p. 55).

  42. Cf. MAVBh 40: vāsanā-samudayārthaḥ parikalpita-svabhāvābhiniveśa-vāsanā |

  43. D. No. 4038, sems tsam, zhi 27b1-2: sa bon mdor bsdus pa’i rnam par gzhag pa yang brjod par bya ste / sa bon mdor bsdus pa’i rnam par gzhag pa gang zhe na / chos thams cad kyi kun brtags pa’i ngo bo nyid la mngon par zhen pa’i bag chags kun gzhi rnam par shes pa la yod pa gang yin pa ste / Cf. T30, no. 1579, 589a9-11.

  44. See Hakamaya ([1979] 2001, pp. 390–391): #1.b.A, and Waldron (2003, p. 179). Schmithausen (1987, pp. 90–97) provides a detailed discussion on the idea of the twofold appropriation.

  45. The restoration of the title as *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra can be deduced from the verses at the beginning of the treatise (T32, no. 1646, 239a29–b2): 欲造斯實論 (*tattvaśāstra)……故我欲正論, 三藏中實義 (*tattvārtha)。 The Sanskrit title of the work has also been restored as *Satyasiddhi-śāstra. Other restorations of the title according to a single Japanese record seem not to be very convincing.

  46. Cf. Sastri (1978, pp. 452–453).

  47. See T32, no. 1646, 276b4–278b4. See Sastri (1978, pp. 132–141).

  48. Hyōdō (1980, pp. 68–75) was the first who noted the difference between bīja and bījabhāva in the AKBh. According to Hyōdō, bīja refers to nāmarūpa, while bījabhāva refers to the capacity (śakti) to generate effect. Dhammajoti (2011, pp. 38–39), however, rejects this distinction as he shows a YBh passage about bīja that is comparable with the AKBh passage concerning bījabhāva. In line with Hyōdō’s analysis, Park (2014, pp. 262–264), in his study of the Sautrāntika notion of bīja, argues that bīja represents the botanical aspect of seed, which refers to the process of karmic retribution, while bījabhāva represents the subliminal aspect of seeds, which refers to the anuśaya that co-exists with paryavasthāna. The former aspect is diachronic and the latter synchronic (see my review on Park’s book: Gao, 2019, p. 217). However, I do not take the term bījabhāva as having any implication of simultaneity. Bījabhāva, “seed-nature”, only indicates the mechanism of seed’s growing (in the sense of “becoming of bīja”), or the capacity to generate effect in a serial continuity. Whether bījabhāva requires a seed to co-arise with its fruit depends on the theoretical paradigm.

  49. See AKBh 477.

  50. See T55, no. 2145, 78c3–79a20.

  51. See Xuanzang’s Dàtáng xīyù jì 大唐西域記 (T51, no. 2087, 896b20–24).

  52. According to Xuanzang’s Dàtáng xīyù jì (T51, 942a16–18), the ranges of dates of Nāgārjuna and Kumāralāta overlap. See also Yinshun (1968, p. 536).

  53. According to his biography, Kumārajīva, who translated the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra in 412 CE, was captured in Kucha by Lü Guang in 382 CE (see T50, 331b20–c3; T55, 78a7–10). Thus, the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra must have been circulated in India before the mid-4th century.

  54. Though the Tibetan text here uses past tense “’gags”, it is most likely a rendering of “nirodha”.

  55. Cf. T31, no. 1594, 134c2–10.

  56. Lamotte (1935, p. 212) renders “gzugs la sogs par snang ba sems kyi gzugs brnyan” as “des images de pensée qui ont l’apparence matérielle, etc.” According to the commentaries on the SNS (Nozawa, 1957, pp. 195, 200), “rūpa” (gzugs) here is interpreted as the entity (dravya) of blue and so on. The entity of blue colour is also a material dharma.

  57. The term “rang bzhin du gnas pa” (*svabhāvāvasthita) should be understood as external state (*bāhya-bhāva), which amounts to the non-concentrated (*asamāhita) state. See Nozawa (1957, pp. 195, 200). Schmithausen (1987, pp. 88–89) interprets it as “everyday experiences”.

  58. See SNS 90–91: bcom ldan ’das rnam par lta bar bgyid pa’i ting nge ’dzin gyi spyod yul gzugs brnyan gang lags pa de ci lags / sems de dang tha dad pa zhes bgyi ’am / tha dad pa ma lags zhes bgyi / byams pa tha dad pa ma yin zhes bya’o // ci’i phyir tha dad pa ma yin zhe na / gzugs brnyan de rnam par rig pa tsam du zad pa’i phyir te / byams pa rnam par shes pa’i dmigs pa rnam par rig pa tsam gyis rab tu phye ba yin no zhes ngas bshad do / … / bcom ldan ’das sems can rnams kyi gzugs la sogs par snang ba sems kyi gzugs brnyan rang bzhin du gnas pa gang lags pa de ’ang sems de dang tha dad pa ma lags zhes bgyi ’am / bka’ stsal pa / byams pa tha dad pa ma yin zhes bya ste / Cf. T16, no. 676, 698a27-b11. See Nozawa (1957, pp. 191–200). For relevant discussion, see Schmithausen (1987, pp. 88–89: §5.5.1) and Yinshun (1988, p. 271).

  59. PratyS 37 (§3O): sems kyis sangs rgyas byed pa ste // sems nyid kyis kyang mthong ba’o // sems nyid nga yi sangs rgyas te // sems nyid de bzhin gshegs pa’o // Cf. T13, no. 418, 906a1-2.

  60. Takahashi (2005, p. 110 (§8.4)): tac caitad dvayaṃ bhavati samāsataḥ vikalpaś ca vikalpādhiṣṭhānaṃ vikalpālambanaṃ ca vastu | tac caitad ubhayam anādikālikaṃ cānyonya-hetukaṃ ca veditavyam || pūrvako vikalpaḥ pratyutpannasya vikalpālambanasya vastunaḥ prādurbhāvāya | pratyutpannaṃ punar vikalpālambanaṃ vastu prādurbhūtaṃ pratyutpannasya tad-ālambanasya vikalpasya prādurbhāvāya hetuḥ | tatraitarhi vikalpasyāparijñānam āyatyāṃ tad-ālambanasya vastunaḥ prādurbhāvāya || tat-saṃbhāvāc ca punar niyataṃ tad-adhiṣṭhānasyāpi tad-āśritasya vikalpasya prādurbhāvo bhavati || Cf. BoBh 52–53; D. No. 4037, sems tsam, wi 29b3-5; T30, no. 1579, 490a22-b1. According to Schmithausen (2014, p. 357: §303.2), this paragraph does not lead to the conclusion that the individual things generated from conceptual constructions can be reduced to mere images in mind, but seemingly demonstrates that they still have objective reality.

  61. MSABh 64: yathā-jalpārtha-saṃjñāyā nimittaṃ tasya vāsanā | tasmād apy artha-vikhyānaṃ parikalpita-lakṣaṇaṃ || (XI.38) yathā-nāmārtham arthasya nāmnaḥ prakhyānatā ca yā | asaṃkalpa-nimittaṃ hi parikalpita-lakṣaṇam || (XI.39) Cf. D. No. 4020, sems tsam, phi, 14b5-6; T31, no. 1604, 613c14-15. What the author intends to express here is that because of the ideation (saṃjñā) of object (artha) in conformity to verbalization, the continuously repeated practices of conceptualization bring about vāsanā; then, the vāsanā, in turn, serves as the cause of manifestation of the object of cognition. Note that according to the Chinese translation, the term “word” (nāman) here should be understood as vāsanā, which refers to the bīja of mental chatter. (T31, no. 1604, 613c21-23: 習光者, 習謂意言種子, 光謂從彼種子直起義光。)

  62. See Hakamaya ([1979] 2001, pp. 395–396): #3.b.B, and Waldron (2003, p. 182).

References

  • Deleanu, F. (2006). The Chapter on the Mundane Path (Laukikamārga) in the Śrāvakabhūmi (Vol. 1). The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

  • Dessein, B. (Trans.). (1999). Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya: Heart of scholasticism with miscellaneous additions. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

  • Dhammajoti, K. L. (2011). Śrīlāta’s Anudhātu Doctrine. Bukkyo Kenkyū 仏教研究, 39, 19–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funahashi, I. 舟橋一哉. (2011). Kusharon no genten kaimei: gōbon 俱舎論の原典解明·業品. Hōzōkan.

  • Gao, M. (2019). “Vasubandhu, Śrīlāta, and the Sautrāntika Theory of Seeds, by Changhwan Park. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2014. 498+xvi pp. (ISBN: 9783902501226).” International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture, 29(1), 215–223.

  • Gao, M. (2021). The doctrine of perfuming (vāsanā) in the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra and the Theory of Seed (bīja) in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Religions of South Asia, 15(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakamaya, N. 袴谷憲昭 ([1979] 2001). “Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī ni okeru ālaya shiki no kitei” Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇīにおけるアーラヤ識の規定. In Yuishiki shisō ronkō 唯識思想論考 (pp. 362–445). Daizō shuppan kabushikikaisha.

  • Hyōdō, K. 兵藤一夫. (1980). “Kusharon ni mieru setsu’issai’ubu to kyōryōbu no ijuku setsu” 『倶舎論』に見える説一切有部と経量部の異熟説. Bukkyō shisō shi 仏教思想史, 3, 57–88.

  • Karashima, S. (2015). Who Composed the Mahāyāna Scriptures?—The Mahāsāṃghikas and Vaitulya Scriptures. Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University, 18, 113–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, T. 木村泰賢. (1968). Kimura Taiken zenshū 4: Abidatsumaron no kenkyū 木村泰賢全集4: 阿毘達磨論の研究. Daihōrinkaku.

  • Kondō, S. 近藤伸介. (2014). “Yugagyōha ni okeru ingadōji setsu no kakuritu ni tsuite” 瑜伽行派における因果同時説の確立について. Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究, 132(62(2)), 107–110.

  • Lamotte, É. (1935). Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra: l’explication des mystères. Bureaux du recueil, Bibliothèque de l’Université.

  • McHugh, J. (2012). Sandalwood and Carrion: Smell in Indian religion and culture. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mikogami, E. 神子上恵生. (1965). “Yugashijiron ni okeru shūji no mondai” 瑜伽師地論における種子の問題. Ryūkoku daigaku bukkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 龍谷大学佛教文化研究所紀要, 4, 118–121.

  • Mizuno, K. 水野弘元. (1931). “Hiyushi to jōjitsuron” 譬喩師と成實論. Komazawa daigaku bukkyō gakkai nenpō 駒澤大學佛教學會年報, 1, 131–156.

  • Nagao, G. 長尾雅人. (1982). Shōdaijōron: wayaku to chūkai (jð) 摂大乗論: 和訳と注解. Kðdansha.

  • Nozawa, J. 野澤靜證. (1957). Daijō bukkyō yugagyō no kenkyū: Gejinmikkyō shōja jishishō oyobi sho no yakuchū 大乘佛敎瑜伽行の硏究: 解深密經聖者慈氏章及び疏の譯註. Hōzōkan.

  • Park, C. (2014). Vasubandhu, Śrīlāta, and the Sautrāntika Theory of Seeds. Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Śarmā, K. (1969). The Dhātupāṭha of Pāṇini with the Dhāvartha Prakāśikā Notes. The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.

  • Sastri, N. A. (1978). Satyasiddhiśāstra of Harivarman (Vol. II). Oriental Institute.

  • Schmithausen, L. (1987). Ālayavijñāna: On the origin and the early development of a central concept of Yogācāra philosophy. The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

  • Schmithausen, L. (2014). The Genesis of Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda: Responses and reflections. The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

  • Takahashi, K. 高橋晃一. (2005). Bosatsuji shinjitsugibon kara shōkecchakubun chū bosatsuji e no shisō tenkai 『菩薩地』「真実義品」から「摂抉択分中菩薩地」への思想展開. The Sankibo Press.

  • Takeuchi, S. 武内紹晃. (1950). “Shōdaijyōron ni okeru monkunjū ron” 『攝大乘論』に於ける聞熏習論. Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū 龍谷大學論集, 339, 76–87.

  • Thich, T. C. (1984). The Literature of the Pudgalavādins. The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 7(1), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, W. S. (2003). The Buddhist Unconscious: The Ālaya-vijñāna in the context of Indian Buddhist thought. RoutledgeCurzon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yamabe, N. 山部能宜. (1987). “Shoki yugagyōha ni okeru kai no shisō ni tsuite” 初期瑜伽行派に於ける界の思想について. Machikaneyama ronsō 待兼山論叢, 21, 21–36.

  • Yamabe, N. 山部能宜. (1989). “Shūji no honnu to shinkun no mondai ni tsuite” 種子の本有と新熏の問題について. Nihon bukkyō gakkai nenpō 日本佛教學會年報, 54, 48–58.

  • Yamabe, N. 山部能宜. (2017). On Bījāśraya: Successive causality and simultaneous causality. In S. Kim & J. Nagashima (Eds.), Śrāvakabhūmi and Buddhist Manuscripts (pp. 9–23). Nombre.

  • Yamabe, N. 山部能宜. (2018). Ālayavijñāna from a practical point of view. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 46(2), 283–319.

  • Yamabe, N. 山部能宜. (2021). The position of conceptualization in the context of the Yogācāra Bīja theory. In T. Endo (Ed.), Illuminating the Dharma: Buddhist studies in honour of venerable Professor KL Dhammajoti (pp. 463–486). Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong.

  • Yinshun 印順. (1968). Shuōyíqièyǒubù wéizhǔ de lùnshū yǔ lùnshī zhī yánjiù 說一切有部為主的論書與論師之研究. Jeng Wuen Publishing Store.

  • Yinshun 印順. (1988). Yìndù fójiào sīxiǎngshǐ 印度佛教思想史. Jeng Wuen Publishing Store.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Mingyuan Gao

Authors
  1. Mingyuan Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingyuan Gao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

ADV

Abhidharmadīpa with Vibhāṣāprabhāvṛtti. Edited by P. S. Jaini. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1959.

AKBh

Abhidharmakośabhāśyam of Vasubandhu. Edited by P. Pradhan. Revised 2nd edition. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1959.

AKVy

Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra. Edited by Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo: 1932-1936.

BoBh

Bodhisattvabhūmi: A Statement of Whole Course of the Bodhisattva (Being Fifteenth Section of Yogācārabhūmi). Edited by Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo: 1930.

D.

Derge edition of the Tibetan Tripiṭaka.

DN

The Dīgha Nikāya. Edited by T. W. Rhys Davids and J. Estlin Carpenter. London: Luzac, 1960.

MAVBh

Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya. Edited by Gadjin M. Nagao. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964.

MSABh

Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Exposé de la doctrine du Grand Véhicule. Tome I. Edited by Sylvain Lévi. Paris, 1907.

P.

Peking edition of the Tibetan Tripiṭaka.

PratyS

The Tibetan Text of the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra. Edited by Paul M. Harrison. Tokyo: The Reiyukai Library, 1978.

SNS

Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra: l’explication des mystères. Edited by Lamotte, Étienne. Louvain: Bureaux du recueil, Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1935.

T

Taishō edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka.

MSg

Shōdaijōron: wayaku to chūkai 摂大乗論: 和訳と注解. Edited by Gadjin Nagao 長尾雅人. Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1982-1987.

MW

A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. M. Monier-Williams. Oxford: The Claredon Press, 1899.

YBhBh

The Yogācārabhūmi of Ācārya Asaṅga: The Sanskrit Text Compared with the Tibetan Version. Edited by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya. Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1957.

[>…]

Emendation

\(\{\overline{\ldots}\}\)

Deletion

  1. References to the Taishō edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka are to the CBETA 電子佛典集成光碟 2016 version with my repunctuation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gao, M. Flowers Perfume Sesame: On the Contextual Shift of Perfuming from Abhidharma to Yogācāra. J Indian Philos 51, 1–23 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-022-09511-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-022-09511-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation