What is Lacking in the abhūtaparikalpa?

Abstract

This paper considers the question of Kitayama Yusei’s translation of the term grāhyagrāhakabhāva （g.g.bh.） as “the way of the existence of subject and object of cognition” （所取・能取というあり方）. As is well known, in the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya Vasubandhu glosses the term śūnyatā in Madhyāntavibhāga I.1 as “śūnyatā tasyā­bhūtaparikalpasya grāyagrāhakabhāvena virahitatā.” Kitayama translated the term “grāyagrāhakabhāvena” in this passage as “the way of the existence of subject and object of cognition.” Here we notice that the term “virahitatā” expresses the same meaning as “sadā rahitatā” in Triṃśikākārikā 21cd, that is, “niṣpannas tasya pūrveṇa sadā rahitatā tu yā.” In this case, tasya is paratantra-svabhāva, and pūrveṇa is parikalpita-svabhāva. Sthiramati says “grāhyagrāhakabhāvaḥ parikalpitaḥ （g.g.bh. is parikalpita-svabhāva）.” It must be noted that Sthiramati uses the term “sarvakālaṃ śūnyā” when he explains the term “grāyagrāhaka-bhāvena” in the Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā. It is clear that “sadā rahitatā” and “sarvakālaṃ śūnyā” have the same meaning. Abhūtaparikalpa is not the mere subject of cognition, but is inclusive of the mental material. We should note that the mental material is inclusive of “the way of the existence of subject and object of cognition.” Therefore the translation by Kitayama is not appropriate.