| Part ofa series on |
| Buddhism |
|---|
 |
Sthiramati (Sanskrit; Chinese: Anhui 安慧, and Jianhui 堅慧;Tibetan:Blo gros brtan pa) was a 6th-centuryIndianBuddhist scholar-monk.[1][2] Sthiramati was a student of aYogācāra scholar named Gunamati, and he was also a contemporary of another 6th century Yogācāra scholar,Dharmapala of Nālandā. Sthiramati is connected withValābhi university (present-dayGujarat), and also withNālandā. Evidence from two inscriptions indicate that a figure named Sthiramati founded a monastery atValābhi.[1]
Sthiramati is mainly known for his numerous commentaries toYogācāra andAbhidharma works which synthesized a varied tradition into a more coherent system.[1]
While Sthiramati closely follows the classic philosophy ofYogācāra Buddhism found in the works ofVasubandhu andAsanga, his work also contains several innovative interpretations of Yogācāra philosophy.[1]
One of Sthiramati's innovative contributions is his theory of meaning found in hisTriṃśikā-bhāṣya. According to Sthiramati, all language use is figurative ormetaphorical (Sanskrit: upacāra).[1] Drawing on a passage in Vasubandhu, Sthiramati argues that all phenomena (dharmas) are mere mental appearances (nirbhāsa), i.e. mental representations (vijñapti). As such, no word can relate to an objectively existent phenomena (since no such thing exists).[1] Words are only related to constructed mental appearances which come from thedependently arisen transformation of consciousness (vijñāna-pariṇāma). These phenomena deceptively appear as objectively existent things, but are ultimately unreal, likeoptical illusions. Thus, no words have an objective referent, and thus all language is necessarilyfigurative, a theory that has been termed pan-figurative or pan-metaphorical.[1]
Sthiramati's philosophy is one of various attempts to systematize and develop Yogācāra Buddhism. His system differed from that of other Yogācāra thinkers of his time, likeDharmapala of Nalanda, in various ways. Their varying interpretations are also discussed inXuanzang’s (7th century)Chéng Wéishì Lùn. One point of contention was the status of thedependent nature. Sthiramati thought that the dependent nature was characterized by duality (of subject-object), which is the result of false imagination. So for Sthiramati, the dependent nature is empty and not ultimately real.[3] In Sthiramati's system, the only thing that has real existence (dravyasat) is "the bare reality, free from the differentiation into subject and object".[4] This is the true essence of the dependent nature (i.e. the perfected nature). Because of this, Sthiramati's view has also been compared to theNirākāravāda ("false aspectarian") view of Yogācāra by modern scholars, since he holds that all mental images are unreal and false.[5][6]
Meanwhile, in Dharmapala's system, the dependent nature is the basis or pivot for both the imagined nature (if the dependent nature is discriminated dualistically) and the perfected nature (if duality is removed). For him, the dependent nature is both empty in one sense (when it is falsely discriminated) but also not-empty is another sense (in its true non-dual structure). Thus, for Dharmapala, the dependent nature and the perfected nature are both real, and they are also understood as being neither the same nor different.[3] Because of this, Dharmapala's view has been seen as prefiguring the Sākāravāda view.[5][6]
Another disagreement between these two leading Yogācāra interpretations was their understandings of the doctrine of the transformation of consciousness (vijñāna-pariṇāma). According to some Yogācāra thinkers, consciousness transforms into various aspects: the seeing aspect (darśana-bhāga, i.e. subjectivity), the objective aspect (nimitta-bhāga, i.e. all objects of experience), the self-reflexive or self-knowing aspect (saṃvitti-bhāga, a division introduced byDignaga), and (in Dharmapala's system), awareness of self-awareness (svasaṃvitti-saṃvitti).[3][7] For Dharmapala, these four divisions were seen as working simultaneously to give rise to experience. However, Sthiramati's system only accepts the first three divisions. Furthermore, for Sthiramati, the first two divisions are imagined and ultimately unreal, while only the self-reflexive aspect is ultimately real.[8] Thus, in Sthiramati's system, there is truly only one aspect (bhāga), one single dynamic self-aware consciousness in which causes and effects arise moment by moment.[8]
The view outlined above is the traditional understanding of Sthiramati's philosophy in Chinese Yogācāra scholasticism. Some modern scholars like Hidenori Sakuma have questioned theis tradition understanding of Sthiramati's Yogācāra views due to a lack of primary source evidence. Sakuma argues that this view derives from the work ofKuiji, and that this is unreliable.[9]
Furthermore, Sakuma also argues that it is likely there were different Indian commentators whose work later became conflated into one figure named "Sthiramati".[9]
Sthiramati wrote ten surviving commentaries on various Buddhist treatises:[10][9]
Furthermore, "Sāramati" (Chinese: Suoluomodi 娑囉末底) is the author of theRatnagotravibhāga according to the Chinese translator and scholarFazang (643–712). However, this is likely to be a different figure than the commentator Sthiramati according to Sakuma.[9] Takasaki Jikido is certain that the author of the embedded commentary (verse and prose) to the core text (verse) of theRatnagotravibhāga is "Sāramati".[11][12]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
.svg)
