(32) Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Vol. 51, No.

1, December 2002

On the "Additional Leaf" of the Abhidharmasamuccayabhasya

Manuscript

Robert KRITZER

. Textual Considerations

In the discussion of karma in the Abhidharrmasamuccava (AS), there is a brief

passage ([Tibetan] li 101b7-8; [Chinese] T. 1605: 697a23-26) enumerating the vipa-
kaphala, nisyandaphala, and adhipatiphala of the ten bad karmapathas.The Bhasya
(ASBh) comments briefly on each type, the text of this comment being essentially
the same in the Sanskrit (65.1-6) and Tibetan (si 58b6-59a1) ASBh, as well as in
the Tibetan and Chinese Vvakhya (AKVy).
However, just after this brief comment, the texts diverge. In both the Tibetan (li
02a 1-2) and the Chinese (T. 1605: 679a26-bl) translations of AS, the definitions
1
of the results of bad kayrmapathas are followed immediately by definitions of the
results of good karmapathas. The Tibetan text of ASBh similarly proceeds directly
to a very brief summary of the results of good karmapathas. The Tibetan text of
ASBh similarly proceeds to the results of good karmapathas. Both translations of
ASVy, on the other hand, include a long, additional passage, in which the results
of bad karmapathas are explained in greater detail, including descriptions of the
nisyandaphala and adhipatiphala of each of the ten bad karmapathas after this,
ASVy quotes, but does not comment upon, the definitions in AS of the three results
of good kayrmapathas. Finally, it concludes with what resembles an introductory
clause to the summary of the results of good karmapathas.
The Sanskrit text of ASBh is problematic at this point. According to Tatia, there
is an "additional leaf," inserted after the initial comment on the results of bad ka-
rmapathas ; the contents of the leaf are almost identical to the additional passage
in ASVy. After the last sentence of the text, the scribe has written a brief note,
explaining that he has supplied "missing text" and has inserted it beneath leaf 58.
-493-

T
 On the "Additional Leaf" of the Abhidharniasamuccayabadsya Manuscript (R. KRITZER)( 33 )

Tatia includes the contents in the main body of his text (ASBh : 65.7-66.3).
Tatia points out that the Tibetan does not include this passage, while the Chinese
does. However, he seems not to have consulted the Tibetan translation of ASVy ,
which, as I have mentioned, does include it. In the introduction, Tatia states that
"th
e marginal corrections are perhaps based on the text of the Chinese translation."
He then gives eight examples, one of which is the additional leaf. However, the
"Chi
nese translation" is a translation not of ASBh but of ASVy.
In fact, I believe that the contents of the additional leaf, as well as those of the
remaining seven examples mentioned in Tatia's introduction, which also agree with
the Tibetan translation of ASVy, represent Sanskrit fragments of ASVy.
It is strange that Tatia does not come to the obvious conclusion that these "cor-
rections" to the manuscript of ASBh are based on the Sanskrit text of ASVy. Fur-
thermore, all of Tatia's notes should be examined carefully. When he indicates that
marginal additions to the manuscript do not correspond with the Tibetan ASBh,
these should be checked against both translations of ASVy.
Tatia thinks that ASBh and ASVy are basically the same, differing only in that
ASVy includes the entire text of AS, while ASBh only includes the words or phrases
on which it comments. However, the author of ASVy has contributed more than
simply pasting the root text into ASBh. It is misleading for Tatia to have emended
his text on the basis of the corrections or, more properly, additions to the manuscript,
thereby conflating the texts of two different works.

. The nisyandaphala of mithyddr ti

A. Early Expositions of the karmapathas and their Results

I have not been able to locate a traditional sutra passage that enumerates the re-
sults of the karmapathas. The early sources that I have found include the Vibhasa
(T.1545: 588c8-589a18), the Dasabhumikasutra (41.4-42.10), the Samyuktabhidharma-
hrdaya (T. 1552: 895bl 6-25), and the Yogacarabhumi (183.18-184.9).
One significant difference between ASVy and these other sources should be noted:
to the definition of the nisvandaphala of mithyadrrsti, namely intensified ignorance
in a subsequent human birth, only ASVy adds the explanatory phrase : "due to the
predominance of moha on the part of that [mithyadrsti]."
-492-

U
 (34) On the "Additional Leaf" of the Abhidharmasamuccayabhasya Manuscript (R. KRITZER)

B. The Immediate Source of the Exposition in the Abhidharmasamuccayavyakhya

A similar explanation of the three results of the ten bad karmapathas, as Tatia
and Shinoda point out, also appears in the Abhidharmakossabhasya (AKBh). The
fact that the same explanatory phrase regarding the nisyandaphala of mithyadrsti is
found in both ASVy and AKBh, but nowhere else, suggests that AKBh was the
source for ASVy.
C. The Controversial Phrase- tasya mohabhuyastvat
Perhaps Vasubandhu found it necessary to add the phrase tasya mohabhuyastvat
because he was aware that the original definition of the nisyandaphala of mithyadrsti
presented a problem. This definition seems to stem from an attempt to match the
three roots of evil with the three karmas that are classified as mental misbehavior.
However, mithyadrsti is technically an impure type of prajna and antithetical to
avidya; therefore, mithvadrsti should not have moha (= avidya) as a nisvandaphala.
In saying that moha is predominant when one commits the bad karmapatha of mit-
hyadrsti, Vasubandhu does not address this problem directly but merely rationalizes
the definition according to common sense.
Vasubandhu's reasoning may be related to an opinion mentioned in a different
context in the Vibhasa (181c18-20). Like Vasubandhu, this passage points to the
close relationship that exists between mithyddrsti and avidya even though they are
separate items with different functions.
In the Nvdvanusara, Samghabhadra rejects Vasubandhu's explanation and attacks
Vasubandhu for failing to realize that mithyadrsti and moha are completely different
entities. According to Samghabhadra, an intensified state of moha has a different
relationship to mithyadrsti and cannot be its nisyandaphala (T. 1562: 583b7-17).
In fact, Vasubandhu himself recognizes that mithvadrsti and avidya are different
in essence (AKBh: 141.13-14). Vasubandhu's arguments, to one of which Samghabha-
dra approvingly refers, cannot be traced directly back to the Vibhasa or other Sar-
vastivadin texts. Rather, they seem to be basad on a passage in the Viniscayasamg-
rahani (YBht : 612a17-20 ; YBht : zi 88a5-7) that further develops ideas found in the
Vibhasd (Miyashita). Thus, although Samghabhadra criticizes Vasubandhu's explan-
ation of how an increase in avidya can be the nisyandaphala of mithvadrsti, there
does not seem to be an underlying doctrinal disagreement here.
-491-
 On the "Additional Leaf" of the Abhidharnzasamuccayabhasya Manuscript (R. KRITZER)( 35 )

However, it is also possible that Samghabhadra hears in Vasubandhu's phrase,

tasya mohabhuyastvat, an echo of the reasoning used by those who argue that
mithyaddsti and moha are actually identical. In the Tattvasiddhisastra, Harivarman
raises the question of why mithyaddsti is found in the list of the ten akusalakarma-

pathas, while moha is the third akusalamula. He explains that rnithyadrsti is simply
another name for moha when it has increased and become strong (T. 1646: 295c21-24).
Elsewhere, he says that moha is not always akusala. However, intensified moha
becomes mithyadrsti, a karmapatha (305c1-7). Since Vasubandhu sometimes favors
the same non-Sarvastivadin position as Harivarman, Samghabhadra may suspect
him of being unorthodox here, although Vasubandhu elsewhere follows the Sarvas-
tivadin line regarding the difference between mithvadrsti and moha.
D. Conclusion
Many statements of Vasubandhu's attacked by Samghabhadra correspond to posi-
tions found. in YBh. In the case of Samghabhadra's rejection of the explanation
tasva mohabhuvastvat, I have found no such correspondence. However it is interesting
that the author of ASVy, traditionally identified with Sthiramati, includes this phrase.
Perhaps he did not notice that it was Vasubandhu's own addition to the more tra-
ditional passage that surrounds it. Alternatively, the author may have recognized
that the explanation represented a tradition different from orthodox Sarvastivada ,
one more in line with his own, presumably Yogacara, point of view.
(A fuller version of this paper is scheduled to appear in Journal Asiatique 290: 2 [2002].)

Miyashita Seiki. "Mumyo to Shogyo : Kusharon ni okeru kokoro to katachi". Nippon Bukkyd

Gakkai Nenpo 57 (1992) : 1-28.

Shinoda Masashige c. "Abhidharmasamuccayabhasya no seiritsu nendai." Indogaku

Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 36/2 (March, 1970) : 878-882.

q Key Wordsr Abhidharmasamuccayabhasya, Abhidharmasamuccayavyakhya,

Abhidharmakosabhasya, karinapatha, mithyadrsti, moha

(Associate Professor, Notre Dame University of Kyoto)

-490-