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

Prof. Schmithausen insisted that Ālayavijñāna was introduced as a kind of “gap-bridger” of the nirodhasamāpatti in the sense of “the mind sticking in [the material sense-faculties]” on the basis of his Initial Passage found in the Samāhitā Bhūmi . Once introduced, Ālayavijñāna developed from a “gap-bridger” into the very basis of personal existence and even of all phenomena integrating all other related notions, because of its convenience. However, in light of the nirodhasamāpatti ’s peripheral situation and the problems related to the passage of Dharmādinnasūtra , which was Schmithausen’s decisive evidence of the introduction of the new mind, his working hypothesis is not fully satisfactory.Dr. Buescher criticized Schmithausen’s hypothesis and insisted that Ālayavijñāna was introduced in the sense of “latent consciousness” on the basis of new philosophical/ hermeneutical background of Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra . Buescher’s criticism, however, was based on his misunderstanding of the term “a(vi)pariṇata ” of Schmithausen’s Initial Passage, as well as on his misinterpretation of the context of his own Initial Passage from Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra . Because of the errors mentioned above, Buescher’s refutation on Schmithausen’s hypothesis is not persuasive enough.This would mean that there is still a necessity to reinterpret the two Initial Passages or investigate a new context of the introduction of Ālayavijñāna .