衆賢に帰せられるチベット語訳倶舎論注釈書の成立事情：『プトン仏教史』説の再検討=The Circumstances of Establishment of the Abhidharmakośa Commentary Preserved in Tibetan and Ascribed to Saṃghabhadra: Reexamination of the Theory of the Bu ston chos ’byung
This paper reexamines where to position in the historical development of Abhidharma literature a concise commentary of the Abhidharmakośa translated into Tibetan and ascribed to Saṃghabhadra. Saṃghabhadra is known as an Indian Buddhist master who delivered scathing criticism against Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. He composed two texts, the *Nyāyānusāra (T. 1562) and the *Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā (T. 1563), both of which were translated into Chinese by Xuanzang. Furthermore, the Tibetan Bstan ’gyur has another concise work ascribed to Saṃghabhadra—Chos mgon pa mdzod kyi ’grel pa mdo dang mthun pa (D. 4091, P. 5592), or *Sūtrānurūpā nāma abhidharmakośavṛtti.
Matsunami [2001, 2002] proposed a hypothesis that the *Sūtrānurūpā was composed as a commentary on the Abhidharmakośakārikā alone, before the composition of Vasubandhu’s autocommentary. His hypothesis is based on the Bu ston chos ’byung.
The Bu ston chos ’byung says the following in its biography of Vasubandhu: After Vasubandhu wrote the Mdzod kyi tshig le’ur byas pa (referred to as the Abhidharmakośakārikā in the biography), Saṃghabhadra presented a commentary called ’Grel pa mdo dang mthun pa (*Sūtrānurūpā). Subsequently, Vasubandhu presented a ’Grel pa (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya). When compared to the names listed in the Buddhist scripture catalog in the Bu ston chos ’byung, “’Grel pa mdo dang mthun pa,” mentioned in Vasubandhu’s biography, is recognized as an abbreviation for the *Sūtrānurūpā. Therefore, Matsunami’s hypothesis certainly agrees with the Bu ston chos ’byung.
In chapter two, “Indriya-nirdeśa,” of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the “twenty categories of thought” are taught from verse 71b to verse 72. The Abhidharmists classify sentient beings’ minds into 20 categories, according to their nature and realm. In this context, the *Sūtrānurūpā suggests that the reader reference the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, with no explanation. It follows that the *Sūtrānurūpā declares itself to be a summary of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Therefore, we conclude that the *Sūtrānurūpā’s concise style of writing cannot be explained as being in the midst of a process of gradual expansion of the content of the description of the Abhidharmakośakārikā, the *Sūtrānurūpā, and then the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, but must be seen as a summary of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.
