J□□na□r□bhadra and J□□navajra:

Their Biographical Approaches

J□□na□r□bhadra and J□□navajra: Their Biographical Approaches

大覺思想 / 第五輯

Kim, Su-ah *

* Harvard Univ. Ph.D / Researcher, Korean Buddhist Research Institute.

□ Table of Contents □

I. Introduction

II. Biographical Accounts of J□□na□r□bhadra

III. Biographical Accounts of J□□navajra

IV. Conclusion

· Bibliography

· 국문초록

I. Introduction

Although  not well known by modern Buddhist scholars, J□□na□r□bhadra of Kashimir and J□□navajra, born in India during the eleventh and twelfth centuries respectively, each wrote a commentary on the La□k□vat□ras□tra (abb. LAS), which is currently included in the Tibetan canon.  In addition to his commentary on the LAS, J□□na□r□bhadra also wrote a commentary entitled the Mah□y□nas□tr□la□k□rapi□□□rtha, which is based on Maitreyan□tha's Mah□y□nas□tr□la□k□ra, and another on Dharmak□rti's Pram□□avini□caya, which is called the Pram□□avini□caya□□k□.  J□□na□r□bhadra was an exponent to the Yog□c□ra school Maitreyan□tha founded in the early third century in India, but also followed the school of Buddhist logic and epistemology, established in India during the sixth century by Dign□ga and Dharmak□rti in the seventh century.

A. Chattopadhyaya and Lama Chimpa, T□ran□tha's History of Buddhism in India (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990), 430-431, and G. N. Roerich, (tr.) The Blue Annals (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1996), 70, and 355.

Furthermore,  regarding J□□navajra we can assume that he belonged to the Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school during the twelfth century, due to the fact that the content of his commentary on the LAS relied on the philosophical methods of the Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school.  The personal and philosophical backgrounds of  J□□na□r□bhadra and J□□navajra have yet to be thoroughly uncovered.  Because of the lack of data on J□□na□r□bhadra and J□□navajra's life and scholarship, I will explore these by focusing on their connections not only with other Indian Buddhists, but also in the transmission of Tibetan Buddhism by analyzing the contents of their commentaries on the LAS.  Also I will explain the historical events of this period, which affected their lives and writings.

Due to the lack of traditional accounts of the history of Indian Buddhism, biographical information about later eminent Indian Buddhist scholars also needs to be investigated especially in relation to Tibetan historical materials.  From the eighth through the twelfth centuries, Indian Buddhists were involved in the transmission of Buddhism into Tibet.  Relying on the modern scholarship concerning J□□na□r□bhadra, we know that he was a famous Buddhist logician who was educated in Kashmir during the rule of King Har□adeva.  While in Tibet he was connected to the so-called □Old Epistemology□ school (tshad ma rnying ma), originally established by Rma Lo ts□ ba Dge ba'i blo gros (ca. 1020∼1080), in the middle of the eleventh century.  Thus, J□□na□r□bhadra's identity may be approached  from two means:  first, by his relationship with other eleventh century Buddhist logicians in India, and secondly, by his connections to early Tibetan Buddhists.

H. Hadano, □A Note on the □ryala□k□vat□rav□tti by J□□na□r□bhadra, Toh. 4018," Acta Asiatica 29 (1975): 82.  L.W.J. van der Kuijp, Introduction Gtsang-nag-pa's Tshad-ma rnam-par nges-pa'i □i-ka legs-bshad bsdus-pa: An Ancient Commentary on Dharmak□rti's Pram□□avini□caya, □tani University Collection No. 13971, in The □tani University Tibetan Works Series Volume II (Kyoto: □tani University, 1989), 19.  J. Naudou, Les bouddhistes Kasmiriens au Moyen Age (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1968): English translation, Buddhists of Ka□m□r by Bareton and Picron (Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1980), 221-227.

Unlike J□□na□r□bhadra, the identity of J□□navajra is difficult to ascertain, because the details of his life have not been adequately established.  H. Hadano focused primarily on J□□na□r□bhadra and his works, although he does briefly mention J□□navajra's philosophical position.

Hadano (1975), 85.

Based on his philosophical position, regarding 'cognitive centrism' (vij□aptimadhyama, rnam rig dbu ma), unique to the school of Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka in the late Indian Buddhism, I believe that J□□navajra is one of the later Indian Buddhist philosophers of  Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-M□dhyamikas.  Therefore, in my clarification of J□□navajra's identity, I will focus mainly on  the traditions of the Indian Buddhist school of Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka in addition to some schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

J□□navajra, D: 1a-5, P: 2b-1, C: 1b-5: mtha gnyis rnam spangs rnam rig dbu ma'i tshul lugs mdo don gsal bar bya/.

Furthermore, J□□navajra's nationality has been uncertain because of a lack of biographical information and due to the fact that his commentary, preserved only in the Tibetan canon, does not contain the translator's name on the colophon.  His name has only come down to us in a Tibetan translaton: □Ye shes rdo rje.□ In Sanskrit this name would read □J□□navajra.□  His only work known to us is Tath□gatah□day□la□k□ra, his commentary on the LAS found in the Tibetan canon.  In all colophons, this work is ascribed to Ye shes rdo rje who, they say, was a □Chinese abbot□ (rgya'i mkhan po).  I believe there is plenty of evidence in the text itself to show that this colophone is incorrect.  He was an Indian, and not a Chinese scholar.  I hope to resolve the issue of J□□navajra's nationality utilizing the contents of his commentary, although the relationship between J□□navajra and the Tibetan Buddhist schools of that period is obscure.  Because J□□navajra cites J□□na□r□bhadra in his commentary on the LAS.  It can be assumed that J□□navajra lived later than J□□na□r□bhadra.  Based not only on the contents of his commentary on the LAS in relation t   J□□na□r□bhadra's commentary, both of which were translated into Tibetan, I believe that J□□navajra's work influenced twelfth century Tibetan Buddhism.  However, here,  I will attempt to clarify his biographical data.

II. Biographical Accounts of J□□na□r□bhadra

Due to the lack of biographical information regarding J□□na□r□bhadra's life, the earliest actual accounts available to date are T□ran□tha's (1575∼1634) History of Buddhism in India  and 'Gos Lo ts□ ba Gzhon nu dpal's (1392∼1482) The Blue Annals.  However, although modern scholars also have been unable to ascertain J□□na□r□bhadra's date of birth, they estimate J□□na□r□bhadra's date of birth to have been during the eleventh century.

Chattopadhyaya (1990), 430-431, and  Roerich (1996), 70 and 355.

Hadano, after examining Tibetan historical materials, notes:

It would certainly be mistaken to place the period of his [J□□na□r□bhadra's) activities somewhere in the middle to the late years of the eleventh century A.D., in view of the above-mentioned people, such as Sajjana,  Rma Dge ba'i blo 'gros, Khyung po Chos kyi brtson 'grus, and Khyung po Grags seng, who surrounded him.

Hadano (1975), 84.

Hadano's major criterion revolved around the Tibetan Buddhist religious council of 1076 A.D., which was sponsored by King Mnga' bdag Rtse lde in Tibet.  Hadano also mentions other council participants, some of whom included J□□na□r□bhadra's name in their biographical works about the eleventh century Tibetan Buddhist scholars studying in northern India.  Another possible date is proposed by J. Naudou, who places J□□na□r□bhadra's birth during the eleventh century, sometime during the reign of king Kala□a and Har□adeva.

Even though the aforementioned date is useful, to some extent, it is, in my opinion, still unsatisfactory.  In an effort to argument material centered on J□□na□r□bhadra's biography, I will begin with his significance in the history of Indian Buddhism.

Steeped in the tradition of Indian Buddhist logic, J□□na□r□bhadra studied the extensive works of both Maitreyan□tha's five works and Dharmak□rti's works, attaining eminence in Kashmir as a Buddhist logician.  In fact, T□ran□tha mentions J□□na□r□bhadra's fame in Kashmir, noting that J□□na□r□bhadra was too busy to accept the many invitations offered by the Tibetan king.  However, J□□na□r□bhadra finally did travel to Tibet, where he was regarded as a famous Buddhist logician, and called him Mah□pa□□ita or Kashmirian pa□□ita by Tibetan Buddhists.

Chattopadhyaya (1970), 431.

However, there is still a point of difficulty regarding the details of J□□na□r□bhadra's life.  T□ran□tha has influenced the already controversial details of J□□na□r□bhadra's biography by stating that J□□na□r□bhadra was one of the four major followers of Suvar□adv□pa (Dharmak□rti or Dharmap□la).  This observation presents further  confusion in that J□□□r□mitra was one of Dharmap□la's disciples in the Vikrama□□la monastery in northern India while J□□na□r□bhadra was a Buddhist logician in Kashmir, as has been noted by the Buddhist scholar Naudou.  Because of the discrepancies concerning this issue I will look more closely at J□□na□r□bhadra's career as a Buddhist logician.

See Note 15.

H. Nakamura, Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes,

Intercultural Research Institute Monograph, no. 9 (Hirakata: KUFS

Publication, 1980), 309.

Naudou (1980), 221-222.

During the tenth and eleventh centuries, the cities of Kashmir and Magadha both located in northern India were appropriate places for the study of Buddhism, especially for the study of Buddhist logic and Madhyamaka thought.	In The Religions of Tibet author G. Tucci writes:

Ye shes 'od chose several youths and sent them to Kashmir to study the Buddhist teachings. One of these youths was later to become prominent under the name of Rin chen bzang po (958-1055). Kashmir was an appropriate place not only because of its nearness, but also because the last splendor of Buddhist schools then held sway there, and famous religious teachers preserved both the speculative and logical tradition, and the practice of tantra and ritual.

G. Tucci, The Religions of Tibet, tr. Geoffrey Samuel (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1988), 27.

In addition, Naudou divides the relationship between Kashmirian Buddhist teachers and Tibetan Buddhists into two periods:

1. Buddhists in Kashmir and the activity of Kashmiri Buddhists in Tibet     at the beginning of the seventh century until the persecution by          Glang-Dar-ma.

2. The contribution of Kashmir to the second propagation of the doctrine     and, in particular, her role in diffusion of logic and of the Vajrayana.

Naodou (1980), 27.

Based on the information presented above, and the strength of Buddhist study in Kashmir, I believe that J□□na□r□bhadra was a well versed scholar of Buddhist logic.

On the other hand, during the tenth and the eleventh centuries in the Vikrama□□la monastery, there were three Buddhist logicians:  Ratn□kara□□nti, J□□na□r□mitra, and Ratnak□rti.  It is from the biography of Ati□a (ca. 982∼1054), the most famous Buddhist scholar of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism that the identities of these three logicians are known.

According to Kajiyama's work, when Ati□a stayed in Vikrama□□la monastery, he studied Buddhist logic with Dharmap□la's disciples, among whom were included Ratn□kara□□nti, J□□na□r□mitra, and Ratnak□rti.  Around 1041, when Ati□a left Vikrama□□la monastery and traveled to Tibet, Ratn□kara□□nti was the chief abbot in Vikrama□□la monastery. Kajiyama suggests that these three above Buddhist logicians were active in the early and middle eleventh century.  He also notes that, in their texts of logic, they frequently mention the ideas of contemporary Buddhist and non-Buddhist logicians.  To date, J□□na□r□bhadra's name is not mentioned in the works of any of these logicians.  I believe that this strongly indicates that J□□na□r□bhadra was not their contemporary, but instead wrote later in the eleventh century.

Y. Kajiyama, An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy (Wien:

Arbeitskreis f□r Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universit□t

Wien 1998), 6-8.

Kajiyama, (1998), 1-13. The Antarvy□ptisamarthana of Ratn□kara□□nti (Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology Soka University, 1999), 1-39.

J□□na□r□bhadra's move to Tibet was a popular story in the history of Indian Buddhism, mainly because it is described in the T□ran□tha's History and in the The Blue Annals the details of J□□na□r□bhadra's life initially appeared in the historical sources of Tibetan Buddhism, especially the texts of the "Old Epistemology" school, established by Rma Lo ts□ ba.  While living in Tibet, J□□na□r□bhadra translated his own commentaries, the Mah□y□nas□tr□la□k□rapi□□□rtha (Toh. 4031) and the Pram□□avini□caya□□k□ (Toh. 4211), into Tibetan  with the assistance of the translator Khyung po Chos kyi brtson 'grus, and he also translated  Dharmak□rti's V□dany□ya with the help of the famous Tibetan Buddhist Rma Lo ts□ ba.  Because of these translations, I think that J□□na□r□bhadra worked in Tibet with some Tibetan logicians and as a result, was called  □Mah□pa□□ita□ or □Kashmirian pa□□ita□ by Tibetan Buddhists.

Chattopadhyaya (1970), 430: The great Pa□□ita J□□na□r□ of Ka□mir who went to Tibet without having been invited. Sum-pa 118 mentions J□□na□r□ as one of the four eminent disciples of the guru of Suvar□adv□pa (Dharmak□rti or Dharmap□la). And Roerich (1996), 355: Later, when the Ka□mirian J□□na□r□ came to Tibet, he took up residence at Chos-'khor Ta-bo (in Spiti). After three years' stay, this Pa□□ita learned to speak Tibetan, and Gnal studied under him for three years.

Hadano (1975), 78.

Unlike Ati□a, whose biography indicates that he traveled to Tibet in 1042, there are no traditional accounts which date J□□na□r□bhadra's move to Tibet.  At this point I must clarify some of the dates which I have already discussed. While studying Buddhist logic and Madhyamaka ideas Rngog Lo ts□ ba Blo lden ses rab (1059∼1109) resided in Kashmir from 1076 until 1092; and Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, born in 1055, lived and studied in Kashmir for 23 years sometime between the late eleventh and early twelfth century.  Both of the Tibetan Buddhist scholars mentioned above, did not cite  J□□na□r□bhadra's activities in their own time spent in Kashmir. In addition, Naodou suggests that J□□na□r□bhadra's career preceded the arrival of  Rngog Lo ts□ ba and Nyi ma grags.

D. Jackson, An early biography of Rngog Lo ts□ ba Blo ldan shes rab, Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994), 372-392.

Naudou (1980), 227.

Based on Rngog Lo ts□ ba's biography, the most plausible theory is that J□□na□r□bhadra left Kashmir for Tibet just after Rngog Lo ts□ ba had arrived in Kashmir in 1076; and, by the time Rngog Lo ts□ ba returned to Tibet in 1092, after 17 years of study in Kashmir, J□□na□r□bhadra had already passed away.  In Tibetan Buddhism, the □New Epistemology□ (tshad ma gsar ma) was founded after Rngog Lo ts□ ba returned to Tibet in 1092.  Therefore, since J□□na□r□bhadra's translations contributed to the □Old Epistemology□ school in Tibetan Buddhism, he obviously lived in Tibet between 1076 and 1090. Taking into account all the currently existing historical materials found in both Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, I can say with a large degree of certainty that J□□na□r□bhadra's date of birth is some time between 1020∼1080.

Based on L. W. J. van der Kuijp's periodicization of the Tibetan Epistemology school, both of the old and the new belong to the pre-classical period.  Although J□□na□r□bhadra is connected to the □Old Epistemology□ school in Tibetan Buddhism, his educational lineage is continuously connected to the □New Epistemology□ school.  In the same context, Onoda points out that, during the time of Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge (1109∼1169), there existed both old and new epistemology schools in the gSang phu ne'u thog monastery.  After returning from Kashmir in 1092, this is the monastery where Rngog Lo ts□ ba wrote many Buddhist commentaries.

van der Kuijp (1989), 9-19.

Detailed information concerning Tibetan scholars and their works during the early period of the Tibetan Epistemology school are found in the works of L. W. J. van der Kuijp, D. P. Jackson, and S. Onoda. See L. W. J. van der Kuijp, Contributions to the development of Tibetan Buddhist epistemology: From the eleventh to the thirteenth century, Alt-und Neu-Indische Studien 26 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983), 29-96 and 268-300, D.  Jackson, The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III): ): Sa-skya pa□□ita on Indian and Tibetan traditions of pram□□a and philosophical debate, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 17 (1-2) (Wien: Arbeitskreis fr Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universitt Wien, 1987), 165-171, and  S. Onoda, The primary Course in Tibetan Monastic Universities, T□y□ Gakujutsu Kenky& 21-2  (1982): 193-203.

Onoda (1982), 193-194.

At this point, I will concentrate on the relationships that existed between J□□na□r□bhadra and the Tibetan Buddhist school, rather than detailing the history of the Tibetan Epistemology school.  A parallel to J□□na□r□bhadra's educational background appears in Gser mdog Pan chen's brief biography of Rngog Lo ts□ ba, considered to be the founder of the □New Epistemology□ school in Tibetan Buddhism.  During his 17 years in India, Rngog Lo ts□ ba studied the seven works of Dharmak□rti and the five works of Maitreyan□tha.  The Blue Annals also contains a short biography of Rngog Lo ts□ ba, but there is no detailed information regarding his studies.  Only mention is made that while in Kashmir, he was the attendant of six teachers, including the pa□□ita Sajjana and Par□hitabhadra.  However, after returning to Tibet, he composed commentaries, taught logic (tshad ma), the Five Treatises of Maitreyan□tha (byams chos sde l□a), the M□dhyamika doctrine, and extensive other texts.  I think that we can infer the focus of his studies while in Kashmir by noting his activities in Tibet.

van der Kuijp (1983), 33.

Roerich (1996), 325-326.

III. On J□□navajra

I now turn to the question of the identity of J□□navajra, which can be inferred from his LAS commentary and his relation to J□□na□r□bhadra.  J□□navajra was a commentator on the LAS who came from India.  J□□navajra's commentary contains quotations from J□□na□r□bhadra's commentary.  For example:

Furthermore, since the learned □carya J□□na□r□bhadra has stated the connectedness of this very sutra, do not doubt (this).

J□□navajra, D: 50a-3, P: 51a-4, C: 50a-3: gzhan yang mang du thos pa'i slob dpon ye shes dpal bzang pos mdo sde `di nyid kyi `brel par gsungs bas the tshom mi byao/  This is the first of a number of times that J□□navajra refers to J□□na□r□bhadra.  The term 'brel pa suggests the text's philosophical connectedness.

This quote serves as an evidence that J□□navajra wrote his work after J□□na□r□bhadra.  There is not, however, any information about his date of birth.  Based on my previous assumption in the second section, namely that J□□na□r□bhadra probably lived between 1020 and 1080, I conclude that J□□navajra's date of birth or the period in which he lived was during the late eleventh and the early twelfth century, or 1050∼1110.

Despite the lack of biographical data, we can assume that J□□navajra belongs to the Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school's philosophical lineage.  Especially, he belongs to the Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school since he relies heavily on Kamala□□la's ideas.  When J□□navajra explains the argument of one and many in his work, he states that it is said like what was taught from the master Kamala□□la.  In addition, in his commentary, he applies the probative syllogism (*svatantra hetu) to his argument:

J□□navajra, D: 42a-7-42b-2, P: 48b-5-49a-1, C: 42a-5-7:  gtan tshig sbyor ba'i tshul yang/ gang gcig dang du ma dang bral ba'i ngo bo de ni sgyu ma nyid yin te/ dper na sgyu ma'i glang po la sogs pa bzhin no/ gzugs la sogs pa'i phyir rol gyi rnam pa snang ba yang gcig dang du ma dang bral ba'i ngo bo yin pa'i phyir zhes ba ste/ rang bzhin gyi gtan tshig sam sam rnam grangs kyis na khyab byed mi dmigs par yang `gyur te/ ji skad du slob dpon kha ma la sh□ las bshad pa bzhin no/ gal te `dir sgyu ma'i glang po la sogs pa ni rnam par shes pa'i ngo bo bden pas/ dpe ma grub po zhe na/ de ltar bden pa nyid ni og nas `gog par `gyur mdo kyi/ `dir ni re zhig de ltar snang ba phyi rol gyi dngos por gzhan pa'i cha nas bden pa ma yin zhing/ de `dra ba'i gcig dang du mas stong pa nyid dper byed pao/.

Therefore, if by means of a probative syllogism (*svatantra hetu), the cessation [of a belief in things] is made understood for oneself or others, in this case, the subject is the subject when it appears commonly to the opponent and proponent for denying the external object such as form etc.  The mere appearance established by the valid cognition of the direct perception etc. is liberated the fault of it being a non-established subject.

J□□navajra, D: 38a-7-38b-1, P: 44a-5-7, C: 38a-6-7: des na rang gi rgyud kyi gtan tshig kyis/ rang nyid dam gzhan dag la dgag pa rtogs par byed oa na/ `dir chos can ni gzugs la sogs pa phyi rol chad pa'i rnam par rgol ba dang/ phyir rgol ba la sogs pa la bthun par snang ba na chos can te/ snang tshad tsam 1 mngon sum la sogs pa'i tshad mas grub pa chos can ma grub ba'i nyes pa las grol bao/

1. p. tsam du

Hadano has also observed:

The Tath□gatah□day□la□k□ra corresponds completely to the Tibetan translation of the □ryala□k□vat□ras□tra (Toh. 107), and it takes the standpoint that the myriad pure and defiled dharmas are all manifestations of mind (citta), that they are not different to mind, and that they are mind-itself, in other words, the standpoint of the Rnam par rig pa tsam gyi dbu ma (vij□apti-m□trika-m□dhyamika) which considers sa□v□tti and param□rtha as two sides of the same coin, and discards duality.

Hadano (1975), 85.

Let us examine the term rnam par rig pa tsam gyi dbu ma (vij□apti-m□trika-m□dhyamika) in the above quotation.  In J□□navajra's first chapter, as mentioned above, he refers to himself as one who practices □cognitive centrism□ (rnam rig dbu ma, vij□aptimadhyama), thereby revealing his philosophical identity with the notion of mind-only.  Ruegg and Kajiyama reveal that throughout the history of Indian Buddhism, to date, the word *vij□aptimadhyama appears only in Ratn□kara□□nti's works.  Ratn□kara□□nti, in the eleventh century, wrote several Buddhist commentaries from the perspective of *vij□aptimadhyama.  In later Indian Buddhism, the above word is considered to be an epithet for the Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school.

See note. 40.

D. Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), 122. Ruegg indicates that *vij□aptimadhyamaka is a unique theory in Ratn□kara□□nti's work.

Kajiyama (1998), 1-13.

Even though J□□navajra utilizes the term rnam rig dbu ma, he does not entirely follow Ratn□kara□□nti's idea.  This is because in the beginning of his commentary he mentions his opponents:

So, also to say that those who claim specifically the color-form aggregates that derived from elements, the essence of the external (world) and those who speck of the mere cognition is false deal with what does not exist, is not correct;  (this) will be shown below.

J□□avajra, D: 2b-3-2b-4, P: 3a-1-3a-2, C: 2b-3-2b-4: de bzhin du phyi rol gyi ngo bo `byung ba las gyur pa'i gzugs kyi phung po la 1 khyad par du `dod pa dang/ rnam par rig pa tsam du smra ba rnam pa brdzun par `dod pa gang dag `di dngos po med pa nyid du smra ba yang mi `thad 2 de/ og nas bstan par byao/

1. p. po'i    c.po'i      2. P.thad

In fact, Ruegg indicates that Ratn□kara□□nti is considered to hold the Al□k□k□ravada  position.  Although it is not clear that J□□navajra held the S□k□ravada position only from the above quotation, it can be assumed that he rejected the Al□k□k□ravada position in his work.  Thus, I believe that he definitely follows the lineage of Kamala□□la because he relies on Kamala□□la's Madhyamak□loka, and also he is one among the *vij□aptimadhyama's philosophers of late eleventh and early twelfth century Indian Buddhism.

Ruegg (1981), 122-123.

Due to insufficient biographical materials, J□□navajra's nationality has been a subject of some dispute.  It seems strange that T□ran□tha would include J□□navajra'a name in his History of Indian Buddhism because T□ran□tha considers J□□navajra to have been Chinese.  This is based on the colophon on J□□navajra's commentary.  However, based on J□□navajra's work, Hadano does not consider him to be Chinese.  Interestingly, according to K. Mimaki's research on Tibetan Grub mtha' literature, the term, rnam par shes pa dbu ma, which we meet with in J□□navajra's work, cannot be found in either the early period or the later period of Tibetan Buddhism.  Instead, Tibetan Buddhists prefer Mdo sde pa'i dbu ma and Rnal 'byor spyod pa'i dbu ma to classify the Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school.  Consequently, I assume that, unlike Mdo sde pa'i dbu ma and Rnal 'byor spyod pa'i dbu ma, the word vij□aptimadhyama was created by later Indian Buddhists.  Thus, J□□navajra was neither Chinese nor Tibetan, but Indian.

Chattopadhyaya (1970), 432.

Hadano (1975), 85.

K. Mimaki, "The Blo gsal grub mtha', and the M□dhyamika Classification in Tibetan grub mtha' literature," Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhists Religion and Philosophy: Preceedings of the Csoma de k□r□s Symposium, vol. 2. eds. E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (Wien: Arbeitskreis f□r Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universit□t Wien, 1983), 161-167.

Now, I will present three factors that are given as proof that J□□navajra is not of Chinese origin.  First, interspersed throughout the history of Chinese Buddhism,  there are fifteen official commentaries on the LAS.  Due to the tradition of Chinese Buddhism, most Chinese commentaries written on this sutra were based on the four-volume version of the LAS.  Both Hadano and Yamaguchi note that the basic text of J□□na□r□bhadra's and J□□navajra's commentaries on the LAS are the seven-volume-version of the LAS, which was translated into Chinese in 704 A.D. and into Tibetan during the first half of the ninth century.  This means that J□□navajra followed the Indian tradition as did J□□na□r□bhadra.

S. Yamaguchi, J□□na□r□bhadra's □ryala□k□vat□rav□tti, Collection of Yamaguchi Susumu's BuddhistStudies (in Japanese), vol. 1 (Tokyo:  Shunjusha, 1973), 215-247.

Taish□ Vol. 16, no. 672 and Toh. No.107.

Secondly, as mentioned before, J□□navajra is certainly one of the later Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-M□dhyamikas of the twelfth century.  In later Indian Buddhism, from the eighth to the twelfth centuries, the tradition of the Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school held a strong position.  Ruegg mentions that this school is not known to have been influential in China.  This is further clarified by the famous Bsam yas debate in Tibet.  This debate, held in the late eighth century, was between the Chan tradition of Chinese Buddhism and the tradition of the Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school of Indian Buddhism.  If J□□navajra had been Chinese, it would have been impossible for him to have adhered to Kamala□□la's Indian Buddhist position.

Ruegg (1981), 95 note. 308.

Ruegg (1981), 95.

Finally, in the twelfth century, the Chinese had already created their own style of Chinese Buddhism and subsequently developed methods which were based on practice rather than the scholastic study of Buddhism.  According to Takasaki, there are several twelfth-century Chinese Buddhist commentaries on the LAS written by Chan masters. Compared to the earlier works on the LAS from the Tang dynasty, which remain fragmentary, the later Chinese commentaries on the LAS lack sophisticated scholastic qualities.  J□□navajra's commentary, on the other hand, is a highly academic work.  His commentary does not belong to the twelfth-century Chinese Buddhist tradition.

J. Takasaki, (tr.) The La□k□vat□ras□tra (Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan, 1980)

IV. Conclusion

Although biographical data for the two Indian commentators is insufficient, their identities can be determined by investigating not only their connections with other Indian and Tibetan Buddhists during the tenth and eleventh centuries, but also through the contents of their own commentaries on the LAS.  As a result of my investigation, certain aspects of their biographical information have been clarified.

In J□□na□r□bhadra's case, his date of birth has been approximated by comparing details of his life and works with those of other Indian Buddhist logicians.  The main Indian Buddhist logicians are the late tenth and mid-eleventh centuries scholars, Ratn□kara□□nti, J□□na□r□mitra, and Ratnak□rti from the Vikrama□□la monastery, and, in addition the late eleventh century Tibetan Buddhist scholars, Rngog Lo ts□ ba and Nyi ma grags, who studied in Kashmir.  After making these comparisons, I have come to the conclusion that his date of birth was probably between 1020 and 1080, and that his time of life in Kashmir occurred between the former group of Indian Buddhist logicians in the Vikrama□□la monastery and the latter group of Tibetan Buddhists in Kashmir.

Moreover, I believe that he was educated under Sajjana and other Buddhist teachers in Kashmir, and that his basic philosophical viewpoint is based on both the works of Dharmak□rti and Maitreyan□tha. And we know that J□□na□r□bhadra's educational background is similar to Rngog Lo ts□ ba's educational background in Kashimir.  Even though J□□na□r□bhadra's translations of Dharmak□rti's works seem to have been influenced by the □Old Epistemology□ school, originally established by Rma Lo ts□ ba, J□□na□r□bhadra's educational lineage is also connected to the □New Epistemology□ school in Tibetan Buddhism, founded by Rngog Lo ts□ ba.

On the other hand, due to a lack of biographical detail pertaining to J□□navajra, I investigated his date of birth in relation to J□□na□r□bhadra's chronology and the contents of his commentary on the LAS.  As a result of my investigation, I have concluded that J□□navajra's birth date was later than J□□na□r□bhadra's.  The reason is that, in his commentary on the LAS, there are a few quotations from J□□na□r□bhadra. Consequently, I assume that J□□navajra's time of life is in the twelfth century.  In addition, J□□navajra defines himself as a Vij□apti-M□dhyamika, a word established by Ratn□kara□□nti in eleventh-century Indian Buddhism.  From the early stage of Tibetan Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhists classified the Indian Buddhist school utilizing their own criteria.  The word, vij□aptimadhyamaka preferred by Indian Buddhists, however, does not appear in the early period or the late period of Tibetan Grub mtha' literature.  Instead, Mdo sde pa'i dbu ma (Sautr□ntika-Madhyamaka) and Rnal 'byor spyod pa'i dbu ma (Yog□c□ra-Madhyamaka) are the preferred words.  It is understood that the Vij□apti-M□dhyamika was classified by later Indian Buddhists.  Therefore, even though his date of birth and life active are uncertain, J□□navajra was born later than Ratn□kara□□nti and J□□na□r□bhadra.  On this basis, I conclude that J□□navajra lived between 1050∼1110 and that he was a later Indian Buddhist who belonged to the Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school.

Subsequently, the doubt concerning J□□navajra's possible Chinese origin is resolved from the fact that he belonged to the Vij□apti-Madhyamaka school of the twelfth century. This is because this school was not only  an influence on Chinese Buddhism, but also twelfth century Chinese Buddhism lacked high scholarship in its Chinese commentaries on the LAS. I propose, however, that J□□navajra's work, Tath□gatah□day□la□k□ra (Toh. 4019), is discussed in the doctrine of mind-only by contrasting the positions of both Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools.  J□□navajra also mentions various different branches of his own Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school, which were developed in later Indian Buddhism.

Key word - J□□na□r□bhadra  J□□navajra  H. Hadano

Rngog Lo ts□ ba Blo lden ses rab  La□k□vat□ras□tra(楞伽經)

Yog□c□ra-Sv□tantrika-Madhyamaka school(유가행중관학파)

Yog□c□ra school(유식학파)  □ryala□k□vat□rav□tti(聖楞伽釋)

Tath□gatah□day□la□k□ra(如來心莊嚴)

tshad ma rnying ma(古因明)

< Bibliography >

Primary Sources

La□k□vat□ras□tra

Nanjio, B. ed. The La□k□vat□ras□tra. Kyoto: □tani University          Press, 1956.

Suzuki, D. T. An Index to the La□k□vat□ras□tra (Nanjio,              eds.) with the Chinese and Tibetan index.

Kyoto: The Sanskrit Buddhist Texts Publishing Society,              1934.

Chandra, L. La□k□vat□ras□tra: Sanskrit Manuscript from               Nepal. New Delhi: Jayyed Press, 1977.

□ryadeva: Taisho, vol. 32 no. 1639, pp. 155-156 and no. 1640, pp. 156-

158.

Tucci, G. Un trait d'□ryadeva sur le Nirvqza des hrtiques.	T'oung Pao 24 (1925/26):16-31.

□ryala□k□vat□ras□trav□tti , Sde dge edition: T□hoku catalogue,	vol. 223 no. 4018, Ni 1b-262a.

Hadano, H. ed. The □ryala□k□vat□ras□trav□tti. Sendai:	Tibetan Buddhist Society, T□hoku University,1973.

Tath□gatah□day□la□k□ra,

Sde dge edition: T□hoku catalogue, vol. 224 no.4019, Pi	1b-310a.

Peking edition: tani catalogue, vol. 107 no. 5520, Pi	1b-363a.

Co ne edition: Microfiche ed. of the Tibetan canon.	New York: Institute for Advanced Studies of World	Religions. no. 43, Ni 1b-309a.

A Complete Catalogue of The Tibetan Buddhist Canons, eds. Ui,

H. Suzuki, M. Kanakura, Y. Tada, T. Sendai: T□hoku	University, 1934.

The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition, ed. Suzuki, D.T. Tokyo:	Suzuki Research Foundation, 1962.

Bu ston rin chen grub, Bu ston chos 'byung, Shining:	Zhongguo Zangxue Chubanshe, 1988.

Si tu Paz chen Chos kyi 'byung gnas, Sde dge'i bka''gyur	dkar chag, Sichuan: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1989.

Secondary Sources

Chattopadhyaya, A. and Lama Chimpa. T□ran□tha's History of	Buddhism in India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990.

Hadano, H. A Note on the □ryala□k□vat□rav□tti by	J□□na□r□bhadra, Toh. 4018. Acta Asiatica 29	(1975):75-94.

Jackson, D. P. The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III):	Sa-skya Pa□□ita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of	pram□□a and Philosophical Debate. Wiener Studien zur

Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 17 (1-2). Wien:	Arbeitskreis f□r Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien,	Universit□t Wien, 1987.

Jackson, D. P. An Early Biography of  Rngog Lo-ts□-ba Blo	ldan shes rab.  In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th            Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies,           vol. 2, ed. Per	Kvaerne. Pp. 372-392. Oslo: Institute for

Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994.

Kajiyama, Y.  An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy:

An Annotated Translation of The Tarkabh□□□ of	Mok□□karagupta. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und	uddhismuskunde heft 42. Wien: Arbeitskreis f□r	Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universit□t Wien,	1998.

Kajiyama, Y.  The Antarvy□ptisamarthana of Ratn□kara□□nti.

Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced	Buddhology Soka University, 1999.

van der Kuijp, L. W. J. Contributions to the Development of	Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology: From the Eleventh to	the Thirteenth Century, Alt-und Neu-Indische Studien	26.  Wiesbaden: F. Steiner Verlag, 1983.

van der Kuijp, L. W. J. Introduction Gtsang-nag-pa's	Tshad-ma rnam-par nges-pa'i wi-ka legs-bshad	bsdus-pa. An Ancient Commentary on Dharmak□rti's                  Pram□□avini□caya, □tani University Collection  No. 13971. In	□tani University Tibetan	Works Series, Volume II. Pp. 1-33.           Kyoto: □tani University, 1989.

Mimaki, K.  The  Blo  gsal  grub  mtha',  and  the  M□dhyamika

classification  in  Tibetan  grub  mtha'  literature.  In

Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and                  Philosophy: Proceedings of the Csoma de K□r□s	Symposium, vol. 2. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und	Buddhismuskunde11, eds. E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher.             pp. 161-167. Wien: Arbeitskreis f□r Tibetische und                    Buddhistische Studien, Universit□t Wien, 1983.

Naudou, J. Les bouddhistes Kasmiriens au Moyen Age. Paris:	Presses universitaires de France, 1968. English translation,             Buddhists of Ka□m□r by Bareton	and Picron Delhi: Agam            Kala Prakashan, 1980.

Nakamura, H. Indian Buddhism A Survey with Bibliographical	Notes. Intercultural Research Institute Monograph no. 9.               Hirakata: KUFS Publication, 1980.

Onoda, S. The Primary Course in Tibetan Monastic Universities.	T□y□ Gakujutsu Kenky& 21-2 (1982): 193-203.

Roerich, N. George. tr. The Blue Annals. part I &II. Delhi:	Motilal Banarsidass, 1976.

Ruegg, D. S. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of	Philosophy in India. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981.

Ruegg, D. S. Towards A Chronology of the Madhyamaka	School. In Indological and Buddhist Studies: Volume in	Honour of Professor J.W.de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday,            eds. L. A. Hercus, F. B. J. Kuiper, T. Rajapatirana, and E.R.           Skrzypczak. pp. 505-530. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications,              1984.

Ruegg, D. S. On the Thesis and Assertion in the Madhyamaka/	Dbu ma. In Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist	Religion and Philosophy: Proceedings of the Csoma de	K□r□s Symposium, vol. 2, eds. E. Steinkellner and H.	Tauscher. pp. 205-241. Wien: Arbeitskreis f□r Tibetische und           Buddhistische Studien, Universit□t	Wien, 1983.

Tucci, G. The Religions of Tibet. Translated from the German	and Italian by Geoffrey Samuel. Berkeley: University of	California Press, 1980.

Yamaguchi, S. J□□na□r□bhadra's □ryala□k□vat□rav□tti. (in Japanese) In          Collection of Yamaguchi Susumu Buddhist Studies, vol. 1.

pp. 215-247. Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1973.

국문초록

즈냐냐쓰리브하드라와 즈냐냐바즈라 :

그들의 전기를 중심으로

김 수 아

미국 하버드대 박사, 동국대 불교문화연구원 연구원

능가경의 두 주석가인 즈냐냐쓰리브하드라(J□□na□r□bhadra, 이후 즈냐냐쓰리)와 즈냐냐바즈라(J□□navajra)는 11세기와 12세기경에 인도에서 활동한 불교학승들이며 그들의 □능가경□ 주석서를 포함한 대부분의 저서들이 티베트 대장경에 남아있다. 즈냐냐쓰리는 □능가경□ 이외에도 미륵보살의 □대승장엄경론□의 주석서와 법칭의 □量決擇□의 주석서를 쓴 것으로 미루어 인도불교의 유가행유식학파, 특히 불교논리학에 정통한 북인도 캐스미르의 학승으로 여겨진다. 한편 즈냐냐바즈라는 그의 능가경주석서의 관점으로 미루어 보아 유가행중관학파에 속하며 연화계(Kamala□□la, ca. 740∼795)의 불교철학체계를 계승한 것으로 보인다.

이 논문에서는 정확히 알려지지 않은 이들 두 주석가들의 생애, 특히 활동 연대를 밝혀 보고자 한다. 그러나 이들의 전기가 남아있지 않아 주변관계, 즉 10세기와 11세기의 인도불교와 티베트불교의 학승들과의 관계와 이들의 □능가경□ 주석서의 철학체계와 내용을 바탕으로 전기를 밝히고자 한다.

즈냐냐쓰리의 연대를 밝히는데 있어서는 두 가지 접근방법이 있다. 첫째는 북인도 불교논리학의 학승들과의 관계이고, 둘째는 캐스미르에서 수학한 티베트 승려와의 관계이다. 10세기와 11세기의 인도와 티베트의 최고의 고승으로 불리는 아티싸(Ati□a, ca. 982∼1054)의 전기에 따르면, 1041년 그가 티베트로 출발하기 전까지 머무른 비크라마 대사원에 라트나카라싼티와 즈냐냐쓰리미트라 그리고 라트나키르티 등의 세 학승이 있었다고 전하고 있다. 가지야마 유이치는 이들 세 학승의 활동연대를 11세기 초기와 중기로 추정하고 있으며, 이들의 불교논리학 저서들에 다른 불교도와 비불교도들의 학설을 소개하고 있다고 하나, 캐시미르에서 유명한 학승인 즈냐냐쓰리를 언급하지 않은 점을 미루어 즈냐냐쓰리는 이들과 동시대에 활동하지 않았을 것으로 추정된다.

둘째는 즈냐냐쓰리가 만년에 티베트로 가서 활동을 했지만 언제 갔으며 어떤 활동을 했는지 전해 오지 않는다. 그러나 그의 주변의 티베트불교도들의 전기를 통해서는 그가 그의 저서들을 티베트불교도들의 도움을 받으며 티베트어로 번역한 것으로 보이며, 특히 그의 논리학관계 서적은 티베트불교의 고인명(古因明)에 영향을 준 것으로 보인다. 한편 티베트불교의 신인명(新因明)의 창시자인 록 로짜와 로덴세랍(1059∼1109)은 캐스미르에 1076년부터 1092년까지 수학했으며, 파잡 니마작(1055∼?)은 11세기 후반에서 12세기 전반에 걸쳐 23년 간 캐스미르에서 수학했으나 이들은 즈냐냐쓰리에 관해 언급하지 않았다. 그 이유로 추정되는 것은 즈냐냐쓰리는 티베트불교의 대법회가 열린 1076년경에 티베트에 도착한 것으로 추측되며 위의 캐스미르에서 수학한 두 티베트 학승과 엇갈린 것으로 보인다. 그러므로 즈냐냐쓰리의 연대는 1020∼1080년으로 추정된다.

즈냐냐바즈라의 경우는 그의 능가경 주석서에 즈냐냐쓰리의 □능가경□ 주석을 인용한 점을 미루어 즈냐냐쓰리보다 후대의 인물임을 알 수 있다. 그러나 이들 주석서의 인용관계만으로는 얼마나 후대인지는 불투명하다. 그렇지만 그의 주석서에서 □식중관□(識中觀, rnam rig dbu ma, vij□aptimadhyama)이란 개념에 유의해야 한다. 이 개념은 11세기의 학승인 라트나카라싼티에 의해 처음으로 도입된 개념이며, 후기 인도불교에서는 유가행중관학파의 다른 이름으로 사용된 점으로 미루어 즈냐냐바즈라가 인도불교철학이 북인도에서 활발히 활동하고 있을 시기에 생존했을 가능성이 보인다. 그러므로 즈냐냐바즈라의 활동연대를 1050∼1110년으로 추정한다.

또한 타라나타하(T□ran□tha)의 인도불교사에 따르면 즈냐냐바즈라가 인도인이 아니라 중국인이라는 견해가 있는데, 이는 그의 타이틀인 □중국인 학승□(rgya'i mkhan po)때문이다. 하지만 티베트어 □rgya□의 의미가 정확히 중국을 가리키는지는 알 수 없고 타라나타하가 이 단어의 의미를 중국이라 해석한 데서 비롯되었다고 본다. 그러나 그의 □능가경□ 주석서의 성격으로 보아 그는 중국인이 아니라 인도불교 학승으로 보인다. 첫째, 위에서도 언급한 바 있으나, 그는 □능가경□을 유가행중관학파의 철학체계로 주석하고 있다. 이는 후기 인도불교를 대표하는 학파이고, 이 학파의 창시자인 연화계는 티벳의 삼예 대토론에서 중국 승려 마하연을 대파했다. 또한 이 학파가 중국불교에 영향을 미친 기록이 보이지 않는다. 만약 즈냐냐바즈라가 중국인이라면 어떻게 □능가경□을 유가행중관학파의 관점에서 저술했겠는가? 둘째, 중국불교에 있어서의 능가경의 주석서들은 7세기부터 만들어져 오고 있다. 그러나 즈냐냐바즈라는 인도학승인 즈냐냐쓰리의 주석서를 참조하면서도 중국어 주석서에 관한 언급은 하고 있지 않다.