Scholarlink

<p>The <i>Laṅkāvatārasūtra</i> (LAS) refers to two kinds of consciousnesses: the <i>khyātivijñāna</i> (<i>khyāti-v.</i> 現識 <i>xianshi</i>) and the <i>vastuprativikalpavijñāna</i> (<i>vastuprativikalpa-v.</i> 分別事識 <i>fenbieshishi</i>). Their lack of a clear definition has resulted in various interpretations. For instance, commentaries by Jñānaśrībhadra and Jñānavajra, preserved in Tibetan language, interpret the former as five sensory consciousnesses and the latter as mental consciousness. However, recent studies have argued that this interpretation conflicts with the eight-consciousness theory precisely found in the same paragraph of the LAS. In addition, a problem was observed in the description of <i>khyāti-v.</i> in the current Sanskrit edition of the LAS, which has deprived modern scholars of an accurate understanding of the passage. Moreover, if one reads Jñānavajra’s detailed commentary on it, it becomes clear that his interpretation is not inconsistent with the eight-consciousness theory but is rather based on a synthesis of the mind-only theory, the eight-consciousness theory, and the statements in the other sections of the LAS itself. This paper reinvestigates the two kinds of consciousnesses in the LAS by reexamining the Sanskrit manuscripts and Tibetan commentaries, thus revealing one aspect of consciousness theory in the LAS.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Two kinds of consciousnesses in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra: A reexamination of the Sanskrit manuscripts and commentaries

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月3日

查看全文
  • Toshio Horiuchi

摘要

The Laṅkāvatārasūtra (LAS) refers to two kinds of consciousnesses: the khyātivijñāna (khyāti-v. 現識 xianshi) and the vastuprativikalpavijñāna (vastuprativikalpa-v. 分別事識 fenbieshishi). Their lack of a clear definition has resulted in various interpretations. For instance, commentaries by Jñānaśrībhadra and Jñānavajra, preserved in Tibetan language, interpret the former as five sensory consciousnesses and the latter as mental consciousness. However, recent studies have argued that this interpretation conflicts with the eight-consciousness theory precisely found in the same paragraph of the LAS. In addition, a problem was observed in the description of khyāti-v. in the current Sanskrit edition of the LAS, which has deprived modern scholars of an accurate understanding of the passage. Moreover, if one reads Jñānavajra’s detailed commentary on it, it becomes clear that his interpretation is not inconsistent with the eight-consciousness theory but is rather based on a synthesis of the mind-only theory, the eight-consciousness theory, and the statements in the other sections of the LAS itself. This paper reinvestigates the two kinds of consciousnesses in the LAS by reexamining the Sanskrit manuscripts and Tibetan commentaries, thus revealing one aspect of consciousness theory in the LAS.