『サーンキヤ・カーリカー』を根拠とする意識→成所作智、五識→妙観察智の正当性=The Legitimacy of the Transformation of Manovijnana into Krtysnusthanajnana and the Five Consciousnesses into Pratyaveksajnana as Based on the Samkhya-karika
In an earlier article entitled "The Connection between the Jnana and Vijna in the Fa-hsiang School in China and Japan: On the Rightness of the Sealed-up Connections-Sixth Vijnana → Krtyanusthanajnana and First Five Vijnana → Pratyaveksajinana" (Felicitation Volume for Professor Kiyotaka Kimura on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday [Tokyo: Shunjisha, 2002], pp. 65-86), I pointed out that the correspondence between the four knowledges and eight consciousnesses which have been assumed by modern scholars to represent the ideas of the Indian Yogacara school were in fact legitimized by and took root on account of the doctrines of the Chinese Faxiang (Fa-hsiang)法相 school. The correspondences deemed to be legitimate in Faxiang doctrine were as follows: alayavijnana → adarsajnana, manas → samatajnana, manovijnana → pratyaveksajnana, and five consciousnesses → krtyanusthanajnana. The foundations of this theory were of course provided by Xuanzang's 玄奘 translations of the Buddhahumisastra and Cneng weishi lun 成唯識論, and the same correspondences are given in Sthiramati's commentary on the Mahayanasutralamkara. But in his translation of Asvabhava's commentary no the Mahayanasamgraha Xuanzang altered the correspondences of the final two items, with manovijnana turn into Krtyanusthanajnana and the five consciousnesses turning into pratyaveksajnana. This is identical to the scheme found in Prabhakaramitra's Chinese translation of the Mahayanasutralamkara. I thus concluded that it was this latter scheme of correspondences between the four knowledges and eight consciousnesses that represented the scheme conceived of by the Indian Yogacara school, and as grounds for this conclusion I cited verses XI.40 and XI.45 of the Sanskrit text of the Mahayanasutralamkara. According to these verses, it is appropriate for the five consciousnesses to turn into pratyaveksajnana, which is intent on observing sentient beings and the physical world, and for manoveksajnana to turn into krtyanusthanajnana, which combines the qualities of perception and action for integrating the information provided by manovijnana and taking action. In the original Sanskrit, the dvamdva compound jnanakarmanos is used to express this. But this alone was insufficient grounds for drawning my conclusion. Since then it has come to my notice that in verses 26 and 27 of the Samkhya-karika, a work representative of Indian thought, it is stated that consciousness possesses the essence of both the organs of perception and the organs of action, and the explanation also makes clear the reason for the use of a dvamdva compound. In discussions of the five consciousnesses in the Yogacara school, the emphasis is usually on their function as organs of perception, and there is no mention of organs of action. The reason for this lies in the Abhidharmakosabhasya, where in the prose section immediately preceding verse II.5 it is stated that organs of actions are not recognized as sense organs. Therefore, in contrast to Indian thought, the Yogacara school of Indian Buddhism usually confined its discussions to organs of perception. As a result, it is also evident that the arguments I cited as grounds for associating manovijnana with krtyanusthanajnana and the five consciousnesses with pratyaveksajnana represented a quite conventional mode of thinking within the context of Indian thought and that the corresponding section in the Mahayanasutralamkara did not appear out of the blue. In this fashion, by referring to the Samkhya-karika, it can be confirmed that the scheme of correspondences regarded as legitimate in the doctrines of the Chinese Faxiang school differed from the theory regarded as legitimate by the Indian Yogacara school.
