This article is a critical edition and an annotated Japanese translation of the first half (kk. 1785–1808) of the 21st chapter (Traikālyaparīkṣā) of the Tattvasaṃgraha (TS) and Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā (TSP) thereon. The portion that I edit and translate here contains the following subjects and topics: (1) the Sarvastivādins’ doctrine that the intrinsic nature (svabhāva) of a factor (dharma) exists as a real entity (dravya) in the three time periods (the past, present and future), even though the factor’s mode, characteristic, or phase changes (TS 1785–1786), which is the so-called sarvāstivāda, (2) the six grounds for the sarvāstivāda (TS 1787–1789), (3) the theory of activity (kāritra) asserted by the Sarvastivādins and Samghabhadra (that which occurs when there is an activity is called ”[the thing at] the present time,” that which loses its activity is called ”[the thing at] the past time,” and that which has not yet obtained its activity is called ”[the thing at] the future time.”) (TS 1790–1792); and (4) the criticism of the theory from the position of the Sautrantikas (TS 1793–1808). According to Kamalaśīla, the 21st chapter of the TS was written to justfy the term “asaṃkrānti” in TS 4, which qualifies the term pratyītyasamutpāda, a central teaching of Buddhism. In the 21st chapter of the TS and TSP, the sarvāstivāda is considered to be the same as the theory of saṃkrānti and has been refuted as a dogma opposed to the pratītyasamutpāda by Santaraksita and Kamalaśīla. The sarvāstivāda maintained by the four Vaibhasika masters (Dharmatrata, Ghosaka, Vasumitra, Buddhadeva) can be traced back to the *Mahāvibhāṣāśāstra (ca. 2–3rd cent.). This tradition is also found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh) and Abhidharmadīpavibhāṣāprabhāvrtti (ADV). Vasubandhu introduces the sarvāstivāda and its grounds by the four masters and criticizes it in the fifth chapter of the AKBh. It is clear that the arguments in the TS and TSP presuppose those in the AKBh, and we can find many parallel and similar passages between the two texts. As Ejima [1986] rightly points out, we can assume that at least Kamalaśīla consults and uses the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṭīkā by Sthiramati (ca. 510–570). Through editing and translating the 21st chapter of the TS and TSP, I would also like to explore the relationships among texts such as the TS, TSP, commentaries on the AKBh, ADV, and *Nyāyānusāraśāstra by Saṃghabhadra.
