Korean Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

This study examines the variant readings among manuscript witnesses of the three cittamātra verses (X.256-258) in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (hereafter LAS) and their philosophical implications, focusing on Kamalaśīla’s First Bhāvanākrama (hereafter BhK I).
Two distinct interpretative tendencies can be identified in the LAS cittamātra verses: (A) an “Affirmative tendency” (mahāyānaṃ sa paśyati, nirābhāsena paśyati) and (B) a “negative tendency” (mahāyānaṃ na paśyate, nirābhāse na paśyati). These differences arise from two grammatical issues: first, the choice between the pronoun sa and the negative particle na; and second, whether nirābhāsa is to be constructed in the locative case (nirābhāse), governing a negative construction (na paśyati), or in the instrumental case (nirābhāsena), governing an affirmative construction (paśyati). Despite the diversity of Nepalese manuscript paleography, the likelihood of confusion between sa and na is exceedingly low, suggesting that this variation reflects intentional divergence in textual transmission rather than mere scribal error. The “negative tendency” is widely attested in LAS^N, the majority of Nepalese manuscripts, two Chinese translations, and most Tibetan translations.
What merits particular attention, however, is the fact that Kamalaśīla explicitly cites the “affirmative tendency” in BhK I, rather than the more widely attested negative reading. This reading is consistently confirmed across the Sanskrit text of BhK I, the Dunhuang Tibetan manuscripts IOL Tib J 648 and PT 825, the Chinese translation, and various Tibetan versions. Kamalaśīla reinterprets this reading from a Yogācāra-Madhyamaka perspective, systematizing a gradual meditative progression: external realism → sākāravādayogācāra → nirākāravādayogācāra → advayajñāna → paramatattva, namely, non-conceptual yoga or samādhi. This progression represents a systematic development of contemplative praxis moving from Yogācāra toward Madhyamaka, and thus constitutes a meditation theory that practically actualizes the experience of emptiness as envisioned within Yogācāra-Madhyamaka.
Kamalaśīla’s hermeneutical strategy exemplifies what Paul Hacker and Lambert Schmithausen have defined as inclusivism, namely, the appropriation and reinterpretation of authoritative texts from antecedent traditions in order to establish the theoretical and practical legitimacy of one’s own philosophical position. In this case, Kamalaśīla strategically recontextualizes the LAS verses within a Yogācāra-Madhyamaka framework.
The significance of this study lies in demonstrating that the variant readings of the LAS cittamātra verses extend beyond a merely philological issue. Rather, they illuminate how Yogācāra-Madhyamaka, as represented by Kamalaśīla, textually legitimizes and systematizes its distinctive philosophical position and meditation theory through deliberate and strategic textual interpretation.