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

The doctrine of Dependent Origination (pratītyāsamutpāda) has generally been accepted as one of the central teachings of the Buddha since the inception of Buddhism. The earliest form of Dependent Origination is embodied in the twelve links of dependent origination. Over the course of time, however, an interpretation of the specific workings of each link of the causal chain varied depending on the Buddhist school. Sarvāstivādins came to understand the causal chain as symbolizing the causal sequence of three-time periods (past, present and future) that sentient beings undergo, impelled by their actions (karma). That is to say, they viewed the twelve links of dependent origination as an endless process of causation through which sentient beings, consisting of five aggregates, die, get reborn, grow, and die again. What plays an important role in this process is, in their perspective, the five aggregates which constitute a human being. Within this interpretative scheme of the chain of DependentOrigination, each link such as ignorance (avidyā) was no longerliterally considered as ignorance per se, but as a symbolicrepresentative of the five aggregates that go through the recycleprocess. This Sarvāstivāda interpretation of Dependent Originationis specifically called ‘the theory of a state (avasthā) [of fiveaggregates]’, which means that it is after all the five aggregateswhich undergo the twelve causal chains of dependent origination. In this respect, the Sarvāstivādins interpreted ‘conditioned bykarmic activities (saṃskāra), consciousness (vijñāna) arises’, asrepresenting that ‘conditioned by a given state or stage of fiveaggregates, the main feature of which is karmic activities in therebirth process, there arises another given state of five aggregateswhich feature consciousness.’ This kind of understanding wasled to as a result of this five aggregates-centered interpretation ofDependent Origination. In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh), Vasubandhu providestwo irreconcilable accounts of the causal chain; one is the standardSarvāstivāda interpretation as outlined above and the other is aSautrāntika critique of it. In the Sautrāntika (scripturalist) view, thetheory of Dependent Origination does not represent developmentalstates or stages of a rebirth process that the five aggregates go through, as Sarvāstivādins argue. For them, the meaning ofeach link of the chain should not be interpreted as symbolic, butas literal. Thus, the above example should be reinterpreted as‘conditioned by karmic activities, [the stream of] consciousnessarises [thus effected]’, which emphasizes the actual role of eachlink in the causal chain. This Sautrāntika understanding furtherdeveloped in Vasubandhu’s post-AKBh Yogācāra-leaning textssuch as the Pratītyasamutpādavyākhyā (PSVy), which resultedin his eventual interpretation of Dependent Origination as thetransformation process of ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness). What this essay aims to explore is how Vasubandu’s viewof Dependent Origination changes through his major textssuch as AKBh and PSVy; more specifically, it focuses on theinterpretation of the phrase ‘conditioned by karmic activities,consciousness arises’ (saṃskārapratyayaṃ vijñānam) and showshow Vasubandhu developed a consciousness-based interpretativescheme of Depedent Origination over time. Thereby it attemptsto shed some new light on the transformative character ofVasubandhu’s ideologies epitomized in his AKBh and post-AKBhtexts. This will help us clear up some of the mischaracterizationsof Vasubandhu, either as an originally Mahāyāna Yogācārin asargued by some of the modern scholars, or as a sudden or dramaticconvert to Mahāyāna as depicted by Paramārtha. Having critiquedthese two extreme views, this paper draws a conclusion thatVasubandhu as a thinker underwent several stages of ideologicaldevelopments from Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna, which makes itharder to characterize his identity as a fixed one and also defies itsextreme interpretations, traditional or modern.