[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.One should be cautious also about assuming that withinany one phase of Mahayana the earliest setras predate systematic treatises (ZAstras).Indeed, the distinction in Mahayana between setras and ZAstras is often very indistinct.The earliest setra clearly of the Yogacara tradition, the SaTdhinirmocana SEtra, seems topostdate at least in part the earliest systematic treatise related to the tradition, the ency-clopedic YogAcArabhEmi.The SaTdhinirmocana SEtra is a fairly short and systematic scripture, although it stillgrew over a period of time.New teachings characteristic of the Yogacara tradition arefound mainly in Chs 5 7.As a setra the SaTdhinirmocana SEtra is quite aware that it rep-resents a new tendency in Buddhism.It speaks of  three turnings of the Wheel of Dharma.This phrasing follows an old and recognized Buddhist precedent.The Buddha s veryfirst setra was called the Dharmacakrapravartana SEtra (Pali: DhammacakkappavattanaSutta)  the  Turning of the Wheel of Dharma.In the AWXasAhasrikA the gods rejoice at theteaching of the Buddha, proclaiming:  We now, indeed, see the second turning ofthe wheel of dharma taking place (Conze 1973a: 150).Of course, true to its message, thesetra adds that in reality no turning actually occurs.The SaTdhinirmocana shows an aware-ness of the thread of Buddhist intellectual history, a need to explain the  turnings of theWheel and to resolve these into what it hopes is a final, definitive explanation.The setraexplains that formerly the Buddha taught in Varanasi (Benares) the mainstream BuddhistHearer (}rAvaka) doctrines of the Four Noble Truths and so forth.This was a wonderfulteaching, but it was not in itself the final teaching; it required interpreting and had to beunderstood correctly.It subsequently became a basis for disagreement.The Buddha alsotaught that all dharmas lack intrinsic existence.This was the second turning of the Wheelof Dharma, also marvellous, but it too was not in itself the final teaching and required9780203428474_4_004.qxd 16/6/08 11:57 AM Page 8686 MahÖyÖna Buddhisminterpreting.It too subsequently became a basis for disagreement.The final teaching,however, the teaching of the SaTdhinirmocana SEtra itself, is completely definitive, absolutelymarvellous and it cannot be surpassed.It is not a basis for disagreement and there is nohigher teaching (see Lamotte 1935: 7: 30).The distinction between texts that are definitive (nCtArtha) contrasted with those requir-ing interpretation in some further sense (neyArtha) forms the basis of Buddhist hermeneu-tics and was an ancient one, found in all Buddhist schools.Tsong kha pa devoted a wholetreatise to explaining how this distinction is made in the different Mahayana traditions(Thurman 1984).According to Tsong kha pa for the Madhyamika, following a setracalled the AkWayamatinirdeZa, texts of definitive meaning are those which teach emptiness,where  emptiness is of course understood in the Madhyamika sense.By way of contrast,the SaTdhinirmocana SEtra states that the Perfection of Wisdom and Madhyamika teach-ings of emptiness were only a skilful means (or  skill-in-means , cleverness in applyinghelpful stratagems) employed by the Buddha.They were not as such his final definitiveteaching.According to this scripture some of those who heard the Buddha s teaching of emptinesscomprehended that as it stood it was not to be taken completely literally but had to bevery carefully interpreted.They meditated and realized accordingly.Others were honestand good folk who did not understand such subtleties but nevertheless recognized theprofundity of the emptiness scriptures and had simple faith in them.Since they did notunderstand the setras they could not meditate on them, of course, but still they did notgo astray in their appreciation.Yet others, on the other hand, were wickedly mischievous.They took the teaching of universal emptiness without any subtlety and quite literally.Thusthey over-negated, effectively destroying the Dharma in the process.Some then took thisas indeed the Buddha s true teaching.Others, from the same basis, concluded that the empti-ness teachings, the Prajñaparamita, could not possibly really be the word of the Buddha(7: 18 23).5 Hence they committed the great mistake of rejecting authentic Dharma teach-ings.Both these have fallen into an abyss of wrong views.For the SaTdhinirmocana SEtra,therefore, the Buddha certainly did not intend complete emptiness in any literal and henceinevitably nihilistic sense.There has been in some circles an over-negation.Something, aswe shall see, must really be undeniably there as a basis for false conceptualization.The YogÄcÄra tradition  scholars and textsAll Tibetans know the hagiography of Asaóga (310 90?).The saint strove for many yearsto have a vision of the great Bodhisattva Maitreya, at that time residing in the Tuwita heavenawaiting his time to return to earth as the next Buddha.Despairing of the results of hismeditation Asaóga gave up but when, full of compassion, he stooped to help a sufferingdog by the roadside, that dog became Maitreya himself.Maitreya had always been there,but he could only be seen through the eyes of compassion.Maitreya took Asaóga to Tuwitaand there taught him five new texts:9780203428474_4_004.qxd 16/6/08 11:57 AM Page 87YogÖcÖra 87(i) AbhisamayAlaTkAra   The Ornament for the Realizations , the treatise on Perfectionof Wisdom practice mentioned in Chapter 2 above.(ii) MadhyAntavibhAga   The Discrimination of Middle from Extremes.(iii) DharmadharmatAvibhAga   The Discrimination of dharmas from their True Nature.(iv) MahAyAnasEtrAlaTkAra   The Ornament of the Mahayana Setras.(v) Finally, the RatnagotravibhAga, often known as the Uttaratantra, a treatise on thetathAgatagarbha or Buddha-nature doctrines which will be examined in the followingchapter.It seems to me unlikely that the AbhisamayAlaTkAra and the RatnagotravibhAga stem fromthe same hand as the other three texts, but it is quite possible that these other three dohave a single author.Modern scholars, doubting the divine, have disagreed over whetherthis charming story indicates that Asaóga himself really composed these texts, or whetherthey can be traced to a genuine human author called Maitreya, perhaps Asaóga s teacher,sometimes referred to as Maitreyanatha to distinguish him from any  mythological figure.Erich Frauwallner has argued that had Asaóga considered himself inspired in a visionby the Bodhisattva Maitreya he would have written not philosophical treatises (ZAstras)but rather Mahayana setras [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]