On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of
Daśa-āvaraṇa:
East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model
Lawrence Y.K. LAU ( 劉宇光 )
Associate Professor, School of Philosophy, Fudan University
Abstract
This essay provides a concise, yet comprehensible, explanation for the
concept of Jñeyāvaraṇa, according to East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavāda. The
discussion is mainly based on the presentation from Xuanzang's Cheng Wei
Shih Lun (成唯識論, CWSL), since the treatise is the major text among the
existing materials in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese, that able to provide a clear,
detailed and comprehensible interpretation on Jñeyāvaraṇa. According to CWSL,
Jñeyāvaraṇa is composed of three layers of different meaning, namely (1) the
inborn realist attitude of cognition ; (2) Mahāyāna practitioner's unable to keep
balance between the two truths or the middle way between emptiness and
dependent arising ; and (3) unable to achieve omniscience, or otherwise unable to
break from Incompleteness of Knowledge.
Keywords: Jñeyāvara ṇa , Cheng Wei Shih Lun , Xuanzang, Sākāra-vijñānavāda
宜蘭：佛光大學佛教研究中心， 2015年04月，頁139-156
140 漢傳佛教研究的過去現在未來
The theory of Two Obstructions (dvi āvaraṇa, 二障) is one of the unique
doctrines in Mahāyāna Buddhism. It is composed of the obstructions of defiled
(kleśāvaraṇa, 煩惱障) and knowledge (Jñeyāvaraṇa, 所知障). Although
Mahāyāna’s interpretation on defiled obstruction is different from tradition to
tradition, the concept itself is not a new invention. Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda and
other systems of Sectarian Buddhism had developed sophisticated explanations
on the topic. On the other hand, the concept of Jñeyāvaraṇa, or Obstruction of
Knowledge, translated as “shes bya’i sgrib pa” or “shes sgrib” in Tibetan, is supposed
to be a new invention of Mahāyāna Buddhism, not just in the contrast with Early
1
2
Buddhism , but also with the Indian religious-intellectual systems in general .
It is the one among a series of key concepts that distinguish Mahāyāna from the
Early Buddhism.
1
2
The term that occupational used by Early Buddhism and Theravāda, the self-claimed
successor of Early Buddhism, in fact is jñāṇa-nīvaraṇa, rather than jñeyāvaraṇa. See
K.N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, 1963, pp. 166, 419. Furthermore, Dhammapāla, the famous Theravāda monastic scholar at 6th Century, had
used jñāṇa-nīvaraṇa and jñeyāvaraṇa in both of his major works. Namely, they are
Paramattha-mañjūsā, with the sub-title of Visuddhimagga-mahāṭīka, a commentary
on 5th scholar Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhi-magga and Cariyāpiṭaka
Aṭṭhakatha. However, neither of the terms is invention of Sectarian Buddhism, it is
adopted at the later period of Sectarian schools (e.g. Theravāda), from Mahāyāna
Buddhism. See ENDO Toshiichi ( 遠藤 敏一 ), “From Self-Liberation to Universal
Salvation: A Theravāda Buddhist Perspective”, International Conference on Humanistic
and Engaged Buddhism: Patterns and Prospects, Fo-Guang University, Taiwan, 18th20th May 2009, p. 5. I would like to express my thanks to Prof. Endo’s insightful
discussion about how Yogācāra Buddhism delivered her intellectual influence to the
later tradition of Theravāda, during the conference at May 2009, taken at Taiwan,
mentioned.
Although the later traditions of Jainism also have the concept of Jñeyāvaraṇa, it is argued by modern scholarship that, it was adopted from Mahāyāna Buddhism. Please
check with Nagendra Kr. Singh, Encyclopaedia of Jainism, 2001, pp. 4311, 4318.
On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of Daśa-āvaraṇa:East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model 141
It is an important idea that deserves extensive academic attention. Yet, it is
not the case in modern scholarship. The quantity of research on Jñeyāvaraṇa is
low. Other than a handful number of articles, which were published in Japanese
and English, there is not even one book chapter, let alone a book volume research,
3
on Jñeyāvaraṇa. However, for the scholars, such as Charles Muller and Paul
4
Swanson , who recognized the apparent tension between significant importance
of the doctrine, and ignorance and neglects of subject in Buddhist scholarship,
they explicitly confessed that they are confused by the incoherence content of the
concept Jñeyāvaraṇa.
It is due to two major reasons. Firstly, Jñeyāvaraṇa is universally adopted by
all Mahāyāna traditions, but with competitive interpretations. Secondly, in some
situation, even within the same system, Jñeyāvaraṇa can be approached from
several perspectives. Furthermore, the multi layers of its major concern keeps
on shifting, according to the progress in the discourse about the development of
spiritual cultivation, in terms of path (mārga, 道) and stages (bhūmi, 地). It seems
that, the relationship among the various components is far from clear. In some
situation, it may even be incoherent, or discontinued, with each other, which
makes the concept incomprehensible.
The purpose of this essay is with a pursuit to provide a concise, yet
comprehensible, explanation for the concept of Jñeyāvaraṇa, based on East
Asian Sākāra-vijñānavāda. The major text of this intellectual tradition is Cheng
Wei Shih Lun (following is abbreviated as CWSL, 成唯識論), which is said to
3
C. Muller, “Wŏnhyo’s Doctrine of the Two Hindrances (Ijangui)”, Journal of Korean
Buddhist Seminar, Vol. 8 (2000): 322-326.
4
Paul L. Swanson, “Chil-I’s Interpretation of Jñeyāvaraṇa: An Application of the Three
Fold Truth Concept”, Annual Memoirs of the Otani University Shin Buddhist Comprehensive Research Institute Vol.1, 1983, p. 51.
142 漢傳佛教研究的過去現在未來
be translated, and compiled, by Xuanzang, the founder of Chinese Yogacara
Buddhism in the 7th Century, from various Indian commentaries. The reason
that the present article primarily focuses on East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavāda’s
version of Jñeyāvaraṇa is that, among the existing materials in Sanskrit, Tibetan
and Chinese, very likely CWSL is one of the, if not THE only one, major textual
sources able to provided a clear, detail and comprehensible interpretation
on Jñeyāvaraṇa, along with significant aspects about Jñeyāvaraṇa that other
traditions may lack of.
Double Meanings of Jñeya and Jñeyāvaraṇa The term Jñeyāvaraṇa is
composed of two nouns, namely, known (jñeya, 所知) and obstruction (avaraṇa,
5
障). Based on the morphology of Sanskrit (ṣaṭ-samāsa, 六離合釋) , the two
nouns that formulate a new term can be connected according to different
morphological principles. Thus, different combination in grammar would imply
different semantic implication, although with the same items of components.
No matter for ancient East Asian monastic scholars from various traditions
such as Kuījī (窺基632-682 A.D., China), Shōnin (良遍上人 1195-1252
A.D., Japan) and Wŏnhyo (元曉 617-686 A.D., Korea), or modern scholars of
6
academic Buddhist Studies, such as P. Swanson, C. Muller, K.L. Dhammajoti ,
7
IKEDA Michihiro (池田 道浩), MATSUSHITA Shunei (松下 俊英) , and
5
6
7
Chapters on the Forest of Meanings in the Mahāyāna Dharma Garden 大乘法苑義
林章 , "Zongliao jianzhang 總科簡章 ," T45, pp. 254c-255c.
K.L. Dhammajoti, “The Defects in the Arhat’s Enlightenment: His akliṣṭa-ajñāna and
vāsanā”, Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyū,《仏教研究》) Vol.27, 1998, p.65 .
Matsushita Shunei 松下俊英 ’s Japanese works on Jñeyāvaraṇa mainly according to
Madhyānta-vibhāga and Madhyānta-vibhāga-ṭīkā: "Jneyavarana in the Madhyantavibhagabhasya: with reference to Sthiramati's commentary 《中辺分別論》における
所知障 -- 安慧 の 註釈 を 手掛 かりに ," pp. 35-61; "Consideration of Jneyavarana
in Sthiramati's Madhyantavibhagatika 《中辺分別論》安慧釈における所知障
On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of Daśa-āvaraṇa:East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model 143
Shi Jien-hong (釋 見弘), all of them commonly emphasize that, it is necessary
to make the distinctions, grammatically, between the readings of Determinative
Compound (tat-puruṣa, 依主釋) and Descriptive Compound (karmadhāraya, 持
業釋) of jñeyāvaraṇa,and then semantically, that between Obstruction to Known
/ Knowledge vs. Obstruction by Known (P. Swanson),Hindrance to the Known vs.
8
Hindrance by Known (C. Muller) , or being obstructed vs. being an obstruction.
Philosophically speaking, the distinctions made at above would further
imply that, there are competitive double meanings for Jñeya, and Jñeyāvaraṇa
as well. According to the tat-puruṣa reading, Jñeya, the object of cognition,
is applied in a positive or affirmative sense, namely, the cognitive object is the
truth that supposed to be fully recognized or achieved by the cognizer. Based on
this explanation of Jñeya, what Jñeyāvaraṇa means is the known or the truth is
covered or hidden, thus, in C. Muller and P. Swanson’s term, it is Obstruction
to Known. In this context, Jñeya as the truth, it cannot be realized correctly and
completely.
However, in case Jñeyāvaraṇa is read according to principle of karmadhāraya,
Jñeya, the object of cognition, would be understood as a negative sense, namely,
Jñeya is a cognitively distorted object that misleads, and blocks, the cognizer
away from the truth. Jñeyāvaraṇa being interpreted along this reading is the
Obstruction by Known, when C. Muller and P. Swanson’s expression is taken.
Due to the complexity caused by the multiple layers of Jñeyāvaraṇa, it is
impossible to provide a full-scale explanation on whether these two readings are
8
についての一考察 ," pp.448-445; "Yugagyō yuishiki gakuha ga toku Gomyō sho no
haikei 瑜伽行唯識学派が説く五明処の背景 ."
Charles Muller, “Wŏnhyo’s Doctrine of the Two Hindrances (Ijangui)”, Journal of Korean Buddhist Seminar, Vol. 8 (2000): 322-326.
144 漢傳佛教研究的過去現在未來
9
definitely incompatible or contradictory with each other in present essay . Yet,
there is still one helpful point that can be made in here. Several researches strongly
suggested that, the two readings, in certain degree, is corresponded with different
intellectual traditions in Indo-Tibetan, and Indo-Sina, Mahāyāna Buddhism,
respectively. The tat-puruṣa reading of Jñeyāvaraṇa, Obstruction to Known,
is extensively adopted by Sarvāstivāda, Early Yogācāra, Nirākāra-vijñānavāda
(e.g. Sthiramati’s Trimśikā-vijñapti-bhāṣya ), Sākāra-vijñānavāda (e.g. East Asian
traditions), and Svātantrika-Mādhyamika, while karmadhāraya reading of
Jñeyāvaraṇa, Obstruction by Known, is never adopted, until Candrakirti in the
7th Century, one of the key figures of later period of Indian Mādhyamika, and
10
said to be the founder of Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamika . Furthermore, as P. Swanson
has suggested, quasi-Mādhyamika in Chinese tradition, e.g. Tiantai Buddhism,
11
her understanding of Jñeyāvaraṇa is close to karmadhāraya reading , rather than
the other one.
Although not entirely without controversy, it may be still reasonable
to make a conclusion that, tat-puruṣa reading, Obstruction to Known, is a
mainstream model to understand the concept of Jñeyāvaraṇa, while Yogācāra’s
12
interpretation is always along with this line . Series of key figures in East Asian
9
It has been substantially investigated in the Chs.1, 9, at my book under the title A Philosophy Study of East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Conception of Jñeyāvaraṇa 東亞有
相唯識所知障概念的哲學研究 .
10
Ikeda Michihiro 池田道浩 , "Aklistajnana, Aklistavidya and Jneyavarana 不染污無
明 ( 不染污無知 ) と所知障 ," pp361-358.
11
Paul L. Swanson, “Chil-I’s Interpretation of Jñeyāvaraṇa: An Application of the Three
Fold Truth Concept”, Annual Memoirs of the Otani University Shin Buddhist Comprehensive Research Institute, Vol.1, 1983, p. 64.
12
Charles Muller, “The Yogācāra Two Hindrances and their Their Reinterpretations
in East Asia”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 27, No.1
(2004):207-208.
On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of Daśa-āvaraṇa:East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model 145
Sākāra-vijñānavāda, e.g. Xuanzang, Kuījī and Shōnin etc, coherently reconfirm,
cross over the history, that the connection between the tat-puruṣa reading
of Jñeyāvaraṇa and Vijñānavāda’s position. Other than the direct and explicit
expression in the text, it was also indirectly, but significantly, supported by
the unique presentation of Jñeyā provided by East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavāda.
In CWSL’s ontological frame of Three Nature (tri-svabhāva, 三性), Jñeya
is composed of perfected nature (paraniṣpanna-svabhāva, 圓成實性) and
dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva, 依他起性). For the East Asian Sākāravijñānavāda, two types of dependent nature, namely, defiled and purified, are
proposed. Based on this classification, further step is taken to make a clear-cut
distinction between the purified dependent nature and the imagined nature
13
(parakalpita-svabhāva, 遍計執性) , while for most other traditions of YogācāraVijñānavādas, no matter whether East Asian one, is much more indefinite on
this point, and then, BOTH the natures of perfected and dependent are clearly
indicated as co-existing, and essential aspects of Jñeya. This fact clearly suggests
that, Sākāra-vijñānavādaian idea of Jñeya is always giving equal weight to the
14
complete domain of concrete object of knowable, namely all existents , and,
that of particular attribute, which always indicated by semi-abstracted concepts,
originally abstracted from concrete object.
Among the existing texts, CWSL for certain is one of the most important
materials for us to understand the idea of Jñeyāvaraṇa, in the sense that CWSL
provided a systematical interpretation for Jñeyāvaraṇa. Although the term
“Jñeyāvaraṇa” can be frequently found in early Yogācāra treatises (śāstra) such as
13
14
CWSL Ch.7 (T31, p.39b); CWSL Ch.8 (T31, p.46b).
Buddhabhūmi-sūtra-śāstra (T26, p.310c).
146 漢傳佛教研究的過去現在未來
15
16
Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra , Yogācarabhūmi and Mahāyānasaṃgraha-śāstra
17
etc.,
but none of them presented a simple, yet clear and coherent, definition about
what exactly Jñeyāvaraṇa is.
In CWSL, Jñeyāvaraṇa is explained from three perspectives. Firstly, the
argumentation counter epistemological realism, from Idealistic standpoint,
is presented in Ch.1, CWSL. Secondly, the theoretical description about the
relationship between the Vijñānavāda doctrine of eight consciousnesses (vijñāna)
and Jñeyāvaraṇa is presented in Ch.2, CWSL. It is focused on the issue that I
would like to predicate it as the “Subjectivity of Jñeyāvaraṇa”. Thirdly, various
levels of Jñeyāvaraṇa on the path (mārga) are explained within the frame of ten
obstructions (āvaraṇa), in Ch.9 and 10, CWSL. In the following discussion, I will
use the expression of Jñeyāvaraṇa I, II and III, respectively, to indicate the three
different meanings of Jñeyāvaraṇa in the discourse of ten obstructions.
Jñeyāvaraṇa I: Inborn Attitude of Cognitive Realism According to the
Sākāra-vijñānavāda presented in the CWSL, Jñeyāvaraṇa is composed of three
different layers of issues. The first layer is the ordinary sentient being’s inborn
attitude of cognitive realism. According to Yogācāra-vijñānavāda’s idealistic point
of view, what reflected by our cognition is the cognizer’s personal experience,
expectation and desire, rather than the objective reality in the external world.
Furthermore, the present cognition is projected from previous cognition and
experience. Therefore, object of cognition is constructed and projected by the
cognizer.
However, for ordinary sentient being, they would mistakenly assume that,
15
16
17
Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra Ch.4 (T16, pp.703b-704a, p.704b-c).
Yogācarabhūmi Vol.78 (T30, p.729b-c, p.730a-b).
Mahāyānasaṃgraha-śāstra (T31, p.145b-c).
On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of Daśa-āvaraṇa:East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model 147
our cognition is merely a direct reflection of the objective reality, while the object
cognized is separated, or independent, from the cognizer, and “free from” any
mutual relationship with the subject. From Yogācāra-vijñānavāda’s perspective,
this mistaken assumption of the separated relationship of cognizer-cognized, or
the subject-object dichotomy of cognition, is a special form of ignorance (avidyā).
The dependant arising in the context of subject-object relationship is denied, and
then, the non-substantial condition of both sections is also ignored respectively, by
this position. Due to this problematic assumption, both the subject and object are
perceived as if they are epistemologically separated, and then, also ontologically
self-sufficient.
The point of view described above is in direct conflict with Buddhist basic
philosophical standpoint that all existence is impermanence, non-substantial
and dependant arising. Thus, from Buddhist perspective, the inborn realist
attitude of cognition is a distortion of the reality. According to Xuanzang’s
Sākāra-vijñānavāda, Jñeyāvaraṇa at this level is the elementary obstruction that
generally shared by all sentient beings, while the Buddhist practitioners at the
paths of accumulation (sambhāramārga) and preparation (prayogamārga), who
had not yet directly realized the emptiness of the subject and the object, are
included as well. Furthermore, the textual sources from Sanskrit, Chinese and
Tibetan traditions commonly supported that the realist attitude of cognition, or
the objective, yet distorted, assumption about the external status of the cognitive
object, is the basic definition of Jñeyāvaraṇa.
Another approach to Jñeyāvaraṇa I is the analysis under the title
“Subjectivity of Jñeyāvaraṇa” above mentioned. It is composed of a long chain
of doctrinal or philosophical concepts of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The analysis
is begun from the concepts such as ignorance (avidyā, 無明), imagined
148 漢傳佛教研究的過去現在未來
nature (parakalpita-svabhāva), two grasping (grāhadvaya, 二取) or graspinggrasped (grāhya-grāhaka, 能取-所取), the grasping of substantial phenomena
18
(dharmātmagrāha) . And then, gradually moved on up to the theory about
the operational pattern within the complicated structure, which is composed of
mental consciousness (manovijñāna), defiled consciousness (kliṣṭa-vijñāna) and
store consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). Finally it would also provide an explanation
19
on how defiled obstruction (kleśāvaraṇa) is related to Jñeyāvaraṇa . This
perspective is especially concern about the structure of the “Subjectivity” that
Jñeyāvaraṇa I is relied on. Namely, how the ignorance (avidyā) that operated at
empirical and self-aware level through the mental consciousness (manovijñāna) is
connected with the unaware ignorance that operated at the continued but subtle
level, through the mental mechanism composed of kliṣṭa-vijñāna and ālaya20
vijñāna .
Therefore, Jñeyāvaraṇa I, the elementary level of obstruction of knowledge,
distressed all sentient beings and the junior Bodhisattva from the 1st to 3rd stages
21
(bhūmi) on the Mahāyāna path of spiritual cultivation.
Jñeyāvaraṇa II: Unable to balance the Two Truths The second layer of
Jñeyāvaraṇa is shifted from the subject-object dichotomy of cognition, to the
intermediate Bodhisattva’s inability to keep balance between conventional and
ultimate truths. For the intermediate Bodhisattva at the 4th to 7th stages (bhūmi)
18
19
20
21
Dharmātmagrahā is one of the major conditions to cause Jñeyāvaraṇa. CWSL Ch.2,
(T31, p.6c).
According to the explanation presented in CWSL, Jñeyāvaraṇa is more or less related
to, or the extension of kleśāvaraṇa. It is because both obstructions (āvaraṇa) share the
same series of basic kleśa, see CWSL Ch.9 (T31, p.48c).
CWSL Ch.2 (T31, p.6c-7a).
CWSL Ch.9, 10 (T30, p.52b-53a).
On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of Daśa-āvaraṇa:East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model 149
on the path, their religious practice is motivated by the Mahāyāna aspirations
of liberating all sentient beings from ignorance (avidyā) and suffering (duh.kha).
The Mahāyāna aspiration is one of the essential principles, as the guideline for
the practitioners to keep their major orientation on the right track. Although
this is supposed to be the case, theoretically speaking, yet, in the reality, it is not
uncommon for even the Bodhisattva at the intermediate level on the Mahāyāna
path, to be temporarily attached, or even addicted, to the individual experience
on emptiness, or the horizon of the ultimate truth that has previously achieved
or disclosed on the path. In case the practitioner is not skillful enough to reflect
on the limitation of one’s own horizon, s/ he would be overridden by the personal
experience on the ultimate truth. It would cause the Bodhisattva unable to keep
the balance between the ultimate and conventional truths on the path of further
cultivation. The obstruction of knowledge then caused is the Jñeyāvaraṇa II.
The major problem of Jñeyāvaraṇa II is the practitioner’s over-emphasizing
the superior ontological status of the emptiness, ultimate truths and the
transcendental dimension in religious practice. The typical problem that derived
from this over-emphasizing forms a dualistic tension, or unbalance, between
the aspects mentioned above and their opposites, namely, the phenomena of
dependant-arising, conventional truth and the engaged dimension in religious
practice.
Jñeyāvaraṇa II is the unique type of shortcomings for the Bodhisattva at
the middle level of the path, namely, it happen at the 4th to 7th stages (bhūmi).
Therefore, it is NOT a problem that would also distress the ordinary sentient
beings. The latter has NOT YET achieved this level of spiritual cultivation.
Jñeyāvaraṇa III: Imcompleteness of Knowledge The third layer of
Jñeyāvaraṇa is the advanced Bodhisattva’s inability to achieve Omniscience
150 漢傳佛教研究的過去現在未來
(sarvajñāna), which is the Buddha’s special intellectual virtue of all-knowing.
According to the explanation presented in series of early Yogācāra treatises
(śāstra), especially the Mahāyāna-sūtrā-alaṃkāra, the last three types of
incompetence in knowledge on the path of cultivation can be grouped as one
22
separated issue , which is different from the previous seven obstructions in its
23
nature. They are unable to conceive , articulate
24
and actualize
25
five sciences
(pañca-vidyā) as completely as possible, to fulfill the practical need to remove
other being’s ignorance and suffering.
The five sciences is a unique idea of systematical knowledge and scholastic
civilization in Indo-Tibetan Mahāyāna Buddhism. Neither Early Buddhism
(sectarian traditions included), nor Brahminism adopted this concept. It is
composed of Buddhist Philosophy & religious doctrine (abhyātma-vidyā), LogicEpistemology (hetu-vidyā & pramāṇavāda), Medical Science (cikitsa-vidyā),
Science of Language (śabda-vidyā) and various technologies (śilpa-vidyā). The
five sciences is supposed to be a thorough list and systematical classification of
human being’s knowledge and cultural-intellectual activities, which as a whole, is
integrated into religion, and becomes part of Buddhist civilization.
Jñeyāvaraṇa III refer to the situation that Bodhisattva at the advanced
level is still distressed by the shortage of knowledge, in five sciences. This type of
shortage is Bodhisattva’s inability to achieve the complete knowledge about the
detail in the world of phenomena. Thus, he is neither able to help other beings to
understand the truth and reality successfully, through verbal communication, nor
able to solve various difficulties by real action in an effective way.
22
23
24
25
Mahāyāna-sūtrā-alaṃkāra Ch.5 (T31, p.614b-c).
CWSL Ch.9, 10 (T30, p.53b).
CWSL Ch.9, 10 (T30, p.53b-c).
CWSL Ch.9, 10 (T30, p.53c).
On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of Daśa-āvaraṇa:East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model 151
The insufficient knowledge may also produce indirect, but negative,
impact on Bodhisattva’s ethical practice of compassion. Namely, the shortage of
knowledge may frustrate the intended consequence of compassion, and impede
compassion to be fully actualized in the reality. Therefore, Jñeyāvaraṇa III, as
shortage of knowledge, in fact does logically imply the possible consequence that
the ethical action to other beings could be unable to achieve its end. It would be
reasonable to make the claim that, according to Mahāyāna Buddhism, without
sufficient knowledge, compassion cannot be fully actualized in the social reality.
Hence, Jneyāvaraṇa III also implies an unsuccessful ethical action, which is due to
the lacking in necessary support of knowledge.
The obstructions in Jñeyāvaraṇa III are the special group of unique
shortcomings for merely the advanced practitioners from the 8th to 10th stages
(bhūmi), on the Bodhisattva’s path. It is not yet a problem for the practitioners at
the elementary or middle levels on the Mahayana path.
Final Remark Philosophically speaking, all the three different levels of
Jñeyāvaraṇa are more or less related to cognitive or intellectual defect, albeit in
different sense. Jñeyāvaraṇa I is about the inborn attitude of epistemological
realism, Jñeyāvaraṇa II is the Mahāyāna practitioners temporarily obstructed
by individual religious experience and limited horizon. Jñeyāvaraṇa III is about
the advanced practitioners’ inability to achieve omniscience, or they face the
problem of shortage of knowledge in Five Science. In certain degree, these are
three different problems. But they are combined as if they are one issue, under
the same title of Jñeyāvaraṇa by Xuanzang. This combination aroused confusion
for some modern scholars. It seems that the content of Jñeyāvaraṇa keeps on
changing without coherence. However, Xuanzang solved this problem by the
frame of paths and stages, namely, for practitioners at different levels, they face
152 漢傳佛教研究的過去現在未來
with different types of cognitive obstructions.
Jñeyāvaraṇa II and III that described above are very likely the East Asian
Sākāra-vijñānavāda’s unique understanding. No such description of Jñeyāvaraṇa
can be found in Sanskrit, Tibetan and other Chinese Yogācāra traditions. On
the other hand, exactly the same package of description still can be found in the
Mahāyāna narration of religious cultivation in terms of paths and stages, although
they are NOT counted as part of Jñeyāvaraṇa in various Mahāyāna traditions of
26
Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan . In other word, most Mahāyāna traditions, in
fact, are not entirely without the content of Jñeyāvaraṇa II and III, but they do
not use the explicit designation to put it under the title of Jñeyāvaraṇa. Thus, for
these traditions, Jñeyāvaraṇa II and III are anonymous.
East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavāda’s Jñeyāvaraṇa described above is articulated
in the Bodhisattva’s developmental sequence according to the Mahāyāna theory
of spiritual cultivation in terms of path (mārga) and stages (bhūmi). It provides a
full picture about the processing of religious practice. Its narration of cultivation
starts from how an ordinary sentient being (sattva), who is still heavily drawn by
ignorance (avidyā), is gradually able to become Bodhisattva of different levels or
“rank”, after religious practice, and then finally some day in long-term of future,
achieves the complete Enlightenment in Mahāyāna sense.
26
Jeffrey Hopkins, Maps of the Profound: Jam-yang-shay-ba’s Great Exposition of Buddhist
and Non-Buddhist Views on the Nature of Reality, 2003, pp.718-719, 791-792; D.Cozort
and C.Preston (translated), Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gönchok’s Short Commentary
to Jamyang Shayba’s Root Text on Tenets, 2005, p.34; Jeffrey Hopkins, Cutting Through
Appearance, 1987.
On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of Daśa-āvaraṇa:East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model 153
Bibliography
Buddhabhūmi-sūtra-śāstra (T26).
Cheng Wei Shih Lun (T31)
Mahāyānasaṃgraha-śāstra (T31).
Mahāyāna-sūtrā-alaṃkāra (T31).
Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (T16).
Yogācarabhūmi (T30).
Chapters on the Forest of Meanings in the Mahāyāna Dharma Garden 大乘法苑義林章 .
T45, no. 1861.
Chatterjee, K.N. Vasubandhu’s Vijñapti-matrata-siddhi with Sthiramati’s Commentary.
India: Vani Vihar Press, 1980, pp.31-32.
Cozort, D. and Preston, C. (translated). Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gönchok’s Short
Commentary to Jamyang Shayba’s Root Text on Tenets. New York: Snow Lion
Publications, 2005.
Dhammajoti, K.L. “The Defects in the Arhat’s Enlightenment: His akliṣṭa-ajñāna and
vāsanā”, Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyū,《仏教研究》日本：浜松国際仏教
徒協会発行 ) Vol.27, 1998.
Endo Toshiichi ( 遠藤 敏一 ). “From Self-Liberation to Universal Salvation: A
Theravāda Buddhist Perspective." International Conference on Humanistic and
Engaged Buddhism: Patterns and Prospects, Fo-Guang University, Taiwan, 18th20th May 2009.
Hopkins, Jeffrey. Maps of the Profound: Jam-yang-shay-ba’s Great Exposition of
Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Views on the Nature of Reality, New York: Snow Lion
Publications, 2003.
Hopkins, Jeffrey. Cutting Through Appearance, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1987.
Ikeda Michihiro 池田道浩. "Aklistajnana, Aklistavidya and Jneyavarana 不染污無明
(不染污無知)と所知障." Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 52 (2003): 361-
358.
154 漢傳佛教研究的過去現在未來
Ikeda Michihiro 池田道浩 . "Yugagyōha ni okeru shochishō kaishaku no saikentō 瑜
伽行派における所知障解釈の再検討 ." Journal of Buddhism, Komazawa Junior
College 駒沢短期大学仏教論集 6 (2000): 298-327.
Ikeda Michihiro 池田道浩 . "Candrakīrti's Understanding of jneyavarana Candrakīrti
の所知障解釈 ." Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 149, 1 (2000): 395-392.
Ikeda Michihiro 池 田 道 浩 . "Fu kyō mumyō to wa nanika 不 共 無 明 と は 何 か ."
Journal of Buddhism, Komazawa Junior College 駒 澤 短 期 大 学 仏 教 論 集 69
(2011): 170-164.
Ikeda Michihiro 池田道浩 . "Shochishō no tokoro chi to wa nanika 所知障の所知と
は何か ." Journal of the Faculty of Buddhism of Komazawa University 駒澤大学仏
教学部研究紀要 69, (2011): 170-164.
Jayatilleke, K.N. Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publications, 1963.
Lau, Lawrence Y. K. 劉 宇 光 . A Philosophy Study of East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian
Conception of Jñeyāvaraṇa 東亞有相唯識所知障概念的哲學研究 . Shanghai:
Fudan Press 復旦大學出版社 , 2014.
Matsushita Shunei 松 下 俊 英 . "Jneyavarana in the Madhyantavibhagabhasya: with
reference to Sthiramati's commentary 《中辺分別論》における所知障――
安 慧 の 註 釈 を 手 掛 か り に ." Research report of the Graduate School of Otani
University 大谷大学大学院研究紀要 25 (2008): 35-61.。
Matsushita Shunei 松下俊英 . "Consideration of Jneyavarana in Sthiramati's
Madhyantavibhagatika 《中辺分別論》安慧釈における所知障についての
一考察." Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 58, 1 (2009): 448-445.
Matsushita Shunei 松下俊英 . "Yugagyō yuishiki gakuha ga toku Gomyō sho no haikei
瑜伽行唯識学派が説く五明処の背景 ." Paper presented at the 63rd Annual
Conference of Indian Society for Buddhist Studies, Tsurumi University, Tsurumi,
June 30-July 1, 2012.
Muller, Charles. “Wŏnhyo’s Doctrine of the Two Hindrances (Ijangui).” Journal of
Korean Buddhist Seminar, vol. 8 (2000): pp. 322-326.
On Jñeyāvaraṇa against the Background of Daśa-āvaraṇa:East Asian Sākāra-vijñānavādian Model 155
Muller, Charles. “The Yogācāra Two Hindrances and Their Reinterpretations in East
Asia.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 27, no.1, 2004.
Singh, Nagendra Kr. Encyclopaedia of Jainism.
Swanson, Paul L. “Chil-I’s Interpretation of Jñeyāvaraṇa: An Application of the Three
Fold Truth Concept." In Annual Memoirs of the Otani University Shin Buddhist
Comprehensive Research Institute, vol.1, 1983, p. 51.
Shi Jien-hong 釋見弘 . "Several Issues Regarding Candrakīrti’s Theory of Two Truths
(Part I) 關 於 Candrakīrti 的 二 諦 說 中 的 幾 個 問 題 ( 上 )." The Journal of
Chinese Buddhist Studies 中華佛學學報 19 (2006): 293-324.
Shi Jien-hong 釋見弘 . "Several Issues Regarding Candrakīrti’s Theory of Two Truths
(Part II): Conventional Truth and Svabhāva 關於 Candrakīrti 的二諦說中的幾
個問題 ( 下 )." The Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 中華佛學學報 1 (2007):
1-33.
Shi Jien-hong 釋見弘 . "Bodhisattvacaryāvatāravyākyāna-pañjikā niokeru shochishō no
satoru no shoki 《入菩提行論細疏》における所知障の覚え書き ." Journal
of Nishi-Nippon Association for the History of Religions 西 日 本 宗 教 學 雜 誌 19
(1997): 82-92.
Shi Jien-hong 釋見弘 . "The Approach of Jayānanda’s Annotation and Commentaries
Characteristics on vers. 22-33 in the Sixth Chapter of Madhyamakāvatāra-tīkā 勝
喜《入中論釋疏》注釋風格之考察 ―― 以《入中論釋疏》 ad. 《入中
論注》VI vers. 22-33 為主 ." Satyabhisamaya 60 (2012): 5-60.
Ui Hakuju 宇 井 伯 壽 translated. Commentaries by Sthiramati and Dharmapala on
Vasubandhu's Trimsika-vijnaptimatrata 安 慧 護 法 唯 識 三 十 頌 釈 論 . Tokyo:
Iwanami 岩波書店 , 1952.
Teramoto Enga 寺 本 婉 雅 . Bonn zō kan wa shiwake taishō anne zou yuishikisanjuron
shaku 梵 藏 漢 和 四 譯 對 照 安 慧 造 唯 識 三 十 論 疏 . 1933. Reprint, Tokyo:
Kokusho 國書刊行會 , 1957.