An analytical study of the doctrine of the doctrine of the twenty-two faculties in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, with annotated translation of the relevant portions of the Sanskrit and Xuanzang's version

Abstract

Abstract of thesis entitled “An Analytical Study of the Doctrine of The Twenty-two Faculties in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, with Annotated Translation of the Relevant Portions of the Sanskrit and Xuanzang’s version”

Submitted by

Fok Ho Yi Wah Eliza

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong in April 2020

This thesis is an analytical study of the Sarvāstivāda doctrine of the twenty-two faculties (indriya) and offers a translation of the relevant portions of the Sanskrit version of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and from Xuanzang’s Chinese version. This doctrine is an ancient one, already attested to the Pali nikāya and Chinese āgama texts. In the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma texts, it was described in great detail and discussed philosophically.

This thesis consists of two major parts. Part I, the introduction, represents my study and analysis based on the research topic. In this part, I have analyzed the style of Xuanzang’s translation and discussed its contribution as a subcommentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKB). I have also assessed the accuracy of his translation and the correctness of his doctrinal understanding. In addition, I have outlined some of the Abhidharma controversies that are related to the doctrine of the twenty-two faculties. My discussion on the soteriological perspectives of this doctrine highlights the Sarvāstivāda’s emphasis on the twenty-two faculties as the fundamental forces that control the processes of saṃsāra and purification in the experience of the ordinary worldling. Indeed, as reflected in AKB, the processes of bondage and liberation, or of pollution (saṃkleśa) and purification (vyavadāna) ––often also formulated as “progression” (pravṛtti) and “regression” (nivṛtti)––– constitute the fundamental doctrinal concern of the entirety of Buddhism from its outset.

A final section offers two comparisons, one between AKB (particularly Xuanzang’s version) and the *Abhidharma-mahā-vibhāṣā (T no. 1545) and the other between AKB and Saṃghabhadra’s *Nyāyānusāra to further understand the development of the doctrine. The results show that, on the whole, there is little deviation in Vasubandu’s exposition from the orthodox Sarvāstivāda tradition. This finding provides further confirmation that Vasubandhu’s doctrinal expositions are in fact essentially based on the mahāvibhāṣā sources.

In Part II, I provide a literal translation of the Sanskrit original and of Xuanzang’s Chinese version into English. S. Jha (1983) has previously translated the Sanskrit original into English, but his understanding of the doctrine seems limited. Thus, I hope that my translation can be of use to students of Buddhist Studies. For Xuanzang’s Chinese version, although L. V. Poussin (1923–1931) has provided an excellent translation of AKB, closely consulting Xuanzang’s version, it is not a translation per se of the latter. My translation constitutes an attempt to literally translate Xuanzang’s translation into English for the first time. My two translations are fully annotated.