321

Xuanzang's Inference of Yogacara and

Its Interpretation by Shilla Buddhists

Shigeki Moro*

1. Introduction
Xuanzang's~!JR

(602-664) biographies 1 indicate that he wrote

several texts in India such as Huizong-lun Wr 7Hfili (Treatise for
Reconciling Various Doctrines)/ Zhiejian-lunfr,U~JJtt.fiii (Treatise for
Controlling the Wrong View)/ and Sanshen-lun~Jftrfnft (Treatise on the
Three Bodies of the Buddha). 4 Since none of these texts have been
preserved, we cannot read them; however, a part of their contents could
be gathered from several sources. According to Yinmin-ruzhengli-lun-shu
IZSIBJlAIE:flflrfnftIE (Commentary on Nyiiya-pravesa), authored by Ji~ (632682), Xuanzang made an inference (anumanaY to prove the truth of
Yogacara:

* Hanazono University
1

3
4
5

Xuanzang's biography in the KoshOjiJII!~~ manuscript of the XugaosengzhuanmJI~Jtfit,

differs from the Taisho version. See Masumi Fujiyoshi, J!!J![fi<l)ljifJE (A Study of the
Life ofDau-Xuan), Kyoto University Press, 2002, and Makoto Yoshimura, "~::k:Jl!'i::k:roiL~
~=:i!ttllffifi~O)jjX;:ll.!~--:n,-c." fl.~?Jt (Journal ofBuddhist Studies), Vol. 37, 1995.
See, for example, T50, 452c.
See, for example, T50, 453a.
See, for example, T50, 453b.
Strictly speaking, the term inference is not an accurate translation of anumiina. Although
the word inference may be suitable only when referring to pariirtha-anumiina, the words
proof or demonstration can be used when referring to sviirtha-anumiina. In this paper,
however, we would prefer to use the word inference since according to some studies
Xuanzang and his followers did not distinguish between pariirtha-anumiina and sviirthaanumiina.

Xuanzang's Inference ofYogii.di.ra . . . 323

322 Part III Korean Buddhist Thoughts in East Asian Perspectives

After traveling around India and completing his study, our master,
Xuanzang, wanted to return to China. At that time, Siladitta, who was the
king of India, held a large and uninterrupted Buddhist service that lasted
for eighteen days and asked our master to spread his interpretation of
Yogadira all over India. The king chose those who have wisdom and
goodness, called them to the service. He sent non-Buddhists and
Hinayana Buddhists to dispute with Xuanzang. Our master had made the
following inference and no one could make an argument against it:
In the ultimate reality, generally accepted forms are not apart from
visual consciousness [proposition].
This is because based on the theory which we (Yogacarin) accept
they are categorized in the first three of eighteen elements of human
existence (the eye, from the six organs; sight, from the six objects;
and visual consciousness, from the six consciousnesses); however,
they are not included in the general eyes (which include the eye of
Buddha etc.) [reason].
Like as the visual consciousness [simile]. 6

According to Xuanzang's biography in XugaosengzhuanffiJlf'fifW!{!!J

(the Further Biographies of Eminent Monks), the concepts contained in
Zhiejian-lun were preached during the service held by Siladitta.
Therefore, Xuanzang's inference may be regarded as a part of Zhiejianlun.7
Based on Xuanzang' s biographies, no one present at the Buddhist
service could make an argument against his inference. However,
numerous problems regarding the inference arose immediately after the
service, and there were prolonged discussions on how it would be
interpreted in East Asia. In general, two issues are relevant for the
criticism or the interpretation of the inference.
The first issue is the similarity between the style of Xuanzang's
inference and Bhavaviveka's (c. 490-570) logical method. One of the
6

"JHP::*::Ilill, Ji'fJWiai~, ~ili0liUL ~JJ!ZB::E, ::EMP!'t, ~illt-t/\Bm~::*::fr, q,::*::lliiJ:l'I~lfl!iMIJ'::""':.

f>il~'!;l'Jlt, ~~frJiJi, it7'Hii1.'H~, IJJ!$~~- ::*::llill:l'I:m:, ~Ail!\11X~H!Jj;j!<f, ::*::llill:l'III1E~J:c:i:Zi;: i!'l;/R
:flli)j)(;13l'~m-~~* EH'fW.=:!i!!i~JiJil':lil!i/Rf.'SI, mtm~~~il" (T44, 115b). For readability,
some inferences quoted in this paper are itemized.
Gang Xiao states that Xuanzang's Yogadira inference was the core of Zhiejian-lun ("~
rJ<:'lii*lliiJEI'Ji!'l;II1E~:i: [On Xuanzang's inference to prove the truth of Yogaciira],"JJX:~#Il
~.Vol. 2, 2002).

features of Bhavaviveka's logic is the restriction "in the ultimate reality"

in order to make an argument for si:inyata. In Xuanzang's inference
quoted above, the same restriction is used to prove the truth of Y ogacara.
Yasunori Ejima claims that Xuanzang's inference was based on
Bhavaviveka's method. 8 On the other hand, Bhavaviveka has been
criticized by the Faxiang school (the East Asian branch of Yogacara)
since he was regarded as a master of the Madhyamika school.
The second issue is whether or not fallacies exist in Xuanzang's
inference. Hajime Nakamura claims that the Yogacara inference has
errors; he has a high opinion of the Shilla monks, such as Sunkyong!IIJ'Hl
and Wonhyo:lGU~, because they did not blindly follow authority but
criticized it.9 Nakamura also regards the Shilla Buddhists' interpretations
of Xuanzang's inference as characteristic of the Korean way of thinking.
By citing the development of Han'gul as an example, he states that the
Shilla Buddhists' interpretations of Xuanzang' s inference demonstrate the
rationalism of the Korean people.
In this study, I have collected and examined the Shilla Buddhists'
interpretations of Xuanzang's Yogacara inference in order to clarifY the
intellectual situation of Y ogacara Buddhism in Shilla, and criticize
Nakamura's understanding, and thus, this paper contributes to the studies
on the characteristics of Korean Buddhism.

2. Bhavaviveka's Reputation in Shilla

Before we examine the interpretations of Xuanzang's inference in
Shilla, it is important to understand the transition that Bhavaviveka's
reputation underwent in Shilla. 10 Bhavaviveka's reputation was divided
in East Asia; while some people believed him to be good others had a less
charitable opinion of him. Based on Xuanzang's inference and his
descriptions of Bhavaviveka, it appears reasonable to suppose that
Yasunori Ejima, 'I' till. }il'J, Jl'! <TJ Jl.il f,IJ: Bhiivaviveka J!if J'E (Development of Miidhyamika
Philosophy in India: Studies on Bhiivaviveka), Shunjiisha, 1980, p. 205.
9 Hajime Nakamura, "~00J\.<TJ}il'J:I1ti:Ji't: (The Korean Way of Thinking)," 7- 7 r A ~00
}\,<TJ}il'J:I1ti:Ji't:, Shunjiisha, 1989.
7
7
10 This chapter is based on my paper: Shigeki Moro, "m~:l'ltt:m:<TJ
'}
I="' it ;., '51:.$," -l!1- Ji!.
~~=(- (1)1!l~~J!ifY'E; Journal ofBuddhist Studies), Vol. 8.

324 Part III Korean Buddhist Thoughts in East Asian Perspectives

Xuanzang's Inference ofYogacara . . . 325

Master Tojiing~~ claims that Wonhyo's interpretation is incorrect

since the two inferences have different targets.( ... ) Although both the
inferences were drawn in order to confute the nature of existence that
was a result of attachment, the targets are different. Dashengguangbailun-shilun criticizes only the Hinayiina and non-Buddhist
schools. Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun, however, criticizes the Mahayana,
Hinayana, and non-Buddhist schools.
Master SinbangjjilfllliJ states that the targets of Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun
and Dasheng-guangbailun-shilun are not different( ...) because both
the texts serve the same purpose.(... )
Master Kyonghiing't~~ states that the inferences in these two texts are
different. ( ... ) The concepts in Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun are based on
emptiness, while those of Dasheng-guangbailun-shilun are based on
the absence of reality. Hence, the purposes of both these texts are quite
different. (. . .) For details of this, see the lOth volume of Songyusingnon p y6mryanggj(;lli~~~2:li:. 16

Xuanzang thought highly of Bhavaviveka. According to a narrative on

Bhavaviveka in Datang-xiyu-jj::_J!f;[JfiJff;J,c, Xuanzang praises Bhavaviveka
and refers to him as "broad-minded and virtuous." 11 In addition, he
describes Bhavaviveka's faith in Maitreya in a positive manner. Hence,
we may assume that some ofXuanzang's followers also thought highly of
Bhavaviveka.
On the other hand, Bhavaviveka's inference in Dasheng-zhangzhenlunjc~~~~ had been criticized in East Asia. The opening verse of
Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun is as follows:
In the ultimate reality, a conditioned existence is empty, like an
illusion, since it is produced by causal conditions.
An unconditioned existence also does not have any entities since like
illusory flowers in the sky, it can never be generated. 12

Shun'ei Hirai states that the scholar monks of the Faxiang school
might have studied Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun because it was translated by
Xuanzang. 13 Based on Sh6shin Fukihara's list of the commentaries of
Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun, we can find the names of Wenbei)Z:VI, Jingmai
!lf!fll, Shentaiifr$*, Wonhyo, and T'aehyon:t:~ as the authors of these
commentaries; however, the original commentaries of these authors have
been lost. 14 It may be difficult to accept Hirai, since Wenbei was
regarded as a "schoolmate of Xuanzang", 15 Wonhyo had never met
Xuanzang, and T'aehyon was much younger than Xuanzang.
In this connection, we would like to focus on Zenju'sWif.J;4.: (724-797)
Yuishiki-bunryo-ketsuPl~ir!li'fP:., which discusses the differences in the
inferences in Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun and Dasheng-guangbailun-shilunjc
~!ls~~~ (Dharmapala's commentary on Aryadeva's Guangbailun
!ls~) that quotes Korean scholar monks.

To cite another example on this topic, T'aehyon's Song-yusingnon

discusses whether the controversy between Dharmapala
and Bhavaviveka was a historical fact or not. In the initial part of Songyusingnon hakki, T'aehyon reveals the existence of three groups in
Shilla:
hakki~~~c

There were two groups in India: Bhavaviveka and his followers, who
referred to the Prajiiaparamita siitras, claimed that conditioned and
unconditioned existences are perceived by the ordinary view but
appear empty in the true view, which is similar to the verses of
Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun. (...) On the other hand, Dharmapala and his
followers, who referred to the Samdhinirmocana, claimed that all
existences are perceived both as empty and not empty, which is similar
to the verses of Madhyiintavibhiiga. ( ... )
(a) Some people claim that the controversy between the two masters
is a historical fact since the Buddhabhumisiitra-siistra states that "one
thousand years after the death of Sakyamuni, a controversy will arise
among the Mahayana between the school that professes emptiness and
the one that professes existence." (. . .) Wonch'Uk !ml'J!U and his
followers also claimed that the controversy existed between the two
schools.

Master Wonhyo of Shilla, in his P'an-biryang-non#'UJt:li:~, states that

the inference in Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun is identical to that in
Dasheng-guangbailun-shilun.
11
12

13
14

15

"jjfdi~J!, 3s:~i51i):" (T51, 930c).

"l.!!]ii'f~'!i':, tm:iGti;'t/il<:. i!!\~i!!\i'f'lit, /fR91hl'!l':"'" (T30, 268b).
Sh , . H . . m
~ ~~ Ira~, ,OO.Jllt:t'f.\!!.;m1:Jj)f9t: l'f)ij c.::=:Jli"J!:~, Shunjusha, 1976, p. 237.
Shoshm Fukihara, B;$:llfl'~,'i!,'.;ms!:, Taigado, 1944 (republished by Kokusho Kanko kai,
1989), p. 125.
Sosho's7JH1, Miroku nyorai kan 'no sho)lt!Jtm?f:!!;\\ni!H!J;, Vol. 5 (Jokai Hiraoka, Nihon
mirokujodo shisou tenkai shi no kenkyu, 1977, p. 534).

16

"*Hli5GI%t*t1ilf!J'IJ.lt.itir.iii: '~f&.lt.ii:R!lllfi3.ii:J ~ii:ii:. ~~t1ii!MJit!J'IJ~I'llll, .ii:N-21Jiil<:. (...) l!fHJJ<

=.ir.i'i!i'li'ltJi.Jitl\, l!ITJi.Jilt~. lli'fE'illfl'li'lt 1N~Ji.~. ~f&ioHlt:7;:;N:Uf.. lli:iltt1ilfi\ll, :r&s=.ir.J'Ji.Jifti!!\~.
.ii:N-RIIil<:. (...) ~ltt1ilfi\llii:, =-ir.i.it2U. (...) ~f&ii:'!l':, llii'B11''lit, ~t!li~lil<:. c...) &f!mll:z.itt!f3-t~"
(T71, 449c).

Xuanzang's Inference ofYogacara . . . 327

326 Part III Korean Buddhist Thoughts in East Asian Perspectives

(b) However, others state that the two masters did not dispute. (... )
Sun'gyong and his followers state that no controversy existed.
(c) Other monks such as Wonhyo and his followers claim that although
the two masters expressed their opinions differently, the fundamental
meaning of their teachings is the same.( ... Y7

1.

Hence, based on these two quotations, it is reasonable to suppose

that Shilla had at least two groups with different opinions on the
evaluations of Bhavaviveka's inference in Shilla. 18 In general, Wonhyo,
Sinbang, and Sun'gyong were of the belief that Bhavaviveka and
Dharmapala had a dispute. On the other hand, Tojung, Kyonghilng, and
Wonch'uk believed that they were compatible. Dharmapala was one of
the founders of the Faxiang school and was the master of Silabhadra who
was a master of Xuanzang. Therefore, it may be presumed that the
evaluations of Bhavaviveka's inference were related with those of
Xuanzang's inference.

ronsho-myoto-shoiZSISJl~iEJiEsJlr!ttJ; quotes Wonhyo's P'anbiryangnon, which

points out the flaws in Xuanzang's inference

19
:

When discussing with the schools that accept the mutual use of five
organs, the inference should be as follows:
In the ultimate reality, the generally acceptedforms differ from the
generally accepted visual consciousness.
This is because based on the theory that we accept they are
categorized in the first three; however, they are not included in the
visual consciousness.

Like as the f!!f.

Hence, the inference is free of the anaikantiko viruddhiivyabhicara
(being counterbalanced; ;titi':fe/.E) flaws. 20
For example, in the context of the Yogacara theory, a bodhisattva
who is higher than the eighth bhumi can see with the ears, hear with the
eyes, and so forth. In such a context, we can make the following
inference, which is contrary to Xuanzang's Yogacara inference:
In the ultimate reality, the generally accepted forms differ from the
visual consciousness.

3. Commentaries on Xuanzang's Inference in Shilla

Thus far I have outlined the interpretations
inference. Next, I would like to examine the
interpretations of Xuanzang's Yogacara inference. In
classifY the Shilla scholar monks into two groups
claims on Xuanzang's inference and the arguments
inference discussed above.

of Bhavaviveka's
Shilla Buddhists'
this chapter, I also
according to their
on Bhavaviveka's

Therefore, Wonhyo indicates the anaikontiko viruddhavyabhicara

flaw in Xuanzang's inference and makes a more accurate inference.
On the other hand, according to Ji~, Sun'gyong pointed out that
Xuanzang's inference also contained the anaikantiko viruddhavyabhicara
flaw and made the following inference to counter the flaw in Xuanzang's
inference:
In the ultimate reality, the generally accepted forms definitely
differ from the visual consciousness.
This is because based on the theory which we accept they are
categorized in the first three; however, they are not included in the
visual consciousness.
Like as the eve. 21

The first group consists ofWonhyo and Sun'gyong. Zenju's Inmyo17

18

"iif!=* -lf!rl'~~JillifiJl1:ii, f!~i!\\~it:f!~"l', tm~~l3! (...). =~l*~iiXfi'1i*W, 1-tJJI:*

f!'S"::f'S", :/zp'fjj,l;l! (...). f!OJtJI:t=.J!r;fl~~. tzoi51l:ti~: =f-'Blii:, ::f:J!ie:L'f'S"f!~~. (...) IJ!tl
~mOJtJff!~~. f!OJt=.iliffl!~i!\\ff~. (. .. ) II!IH$(~lll~mi!\\~~. f!OJtJI:t=.~'g~ftl'iU. (...) 5Cili'lilllll~,
~~:@:I"J" (HBC3, 483b-484a).
Moreover, Kyondilng'sJil.:;:l: Taesung kishillon tong'i ya/g'ip:k*i@i~f'iUJII,Ill!~ evaluates
the inference of Dasheng zhangzhen lun in a positive manner and compares it with
Lengyanjing 115.1!ltl1f (HBC3, 691-692). However, this topic is beyond the scope of our
discussion, since, according to Ch'oe Yon-shik, Kyondung's work was relevant in the
Japanese context. "W::k*i@fl~f'iUJII,Ili!:IR~(l)~~l::-::>v'c," Journal ofBuddhism (edited by
Komazawa Junior College), Vol. 7, 2001.

19

For more details on P'anbiryangnon, see Kim Songch'ol's Wonhyo ui P'anbiryangnon

kich 'o yon 'gu, chisik sanopsa, 2003.

w":iili~m*.~-~~,~~-~~--~ ~~w~::f~.~:ii~
21

~~. PJ::f/E" (T68, 317a).

"~f!~liJI!lHJJl.l*iliff~. llilJJ<Jllt'I'~'!*'J', !li~JJ~~'l\'2, &m:rr~ot~. ,iA'1ir~f~. '~][~tlliWl<~'Hx, l:!lE

Xuanzang's Inference ofYogaclira . . . 329

328 Part III Korean Buddhist Thoughts in East Asian Perspectives

However, according to Japanese sources, such as Zenju's Inmyoronsho-myoto-sho, this counter inference appears to be originally based
on Wonhyo's inference:

In Inmyo-daisho-shO, there exists a quotation titled GojOkkiti'iJE,c,

which is supposed to be a fragment ofT'aehyon's commentary:
(a) 11i!)j)(;fS'J!'i, ~ ra1lif''1H~~f9/ltfi:mts, iil:*:~~'Fit!\:!Ji'lllts, llffll)(:jH'fJiJfti<tsi:!1.
:Ei:l'Lllil=, iJ!':tm;J;:tf-:9- 13 it!\JifiJJ!J/f')j)(;, IZS!tr~-Jifi!tR/f')j)(;. tlJI:tJ:t:IE#J:t:IE/jj(J.
:!lB, Jl:tf!~/1'~. lli:&i\11~, i'fLIZSJBJH:i<, #.lt:IE9o5113it!\~~~'F/GIE. '.Ei~ 1l'~JJI.I~'Fzts,
ii!<i!i'!!llfJI:ti'F/f'IE/jj(.
(b) rf.~:fJJ.==_Jll!i~, -t;\3'f.cp:fJJ.==_Jiiii:f1. ili~IIJH:Jili, !1=~/G/Eilil. ~13~'F~. i!l!it!ltf~

This counter inference that demonstrates Xuanzang's anaikiintiko

viruddhiivyabhiciira flaw was originally made by Master Wonhyo of
Shilla. After some time, Master Sun' gyong learned this counter
inference, but could not interpret it. During the Ganfengl?Z;!J era, he
sent this inference to the Great Tang and requested them to interpret it.
Master Dingping5EJ'l: states the following in his commentary on
Nyiiyamukha: "During the Ganfeng era, master Sun'gyong of Shilla
sent the counter inference in order to demonstrate Xuanzang's
anaikantiko viruddhiivyabhiciira flaw that was pointed out by Master
Wonhyo of his country (Korea) to this country (China), and claimed
that 'In the ultimate reality, the generally accepted forms are definitely
different from visual consciousness. The reason and simile follow this
(proposition).' At that time, Xuanzang, faltered and could not provide
an answer."22

~JJ!Jt@;. ~illiE*~~ts. ~!'IE~~ts. ~tf~~JJU. :l'L'J!'i~'F~/G-~13. Mf'~JJU;t@;

:IE~. "~/j)(;zts~Jo~/G~~zts, w.==.JifiJJi!i~/f'Jll!i/jjc, mtm~~-" a;gJJ:t~IJj(RI3~'F.

~Ill 51 13 ~'fit!\:17 19/lts, Wii!<J:t:lll:fF/GIE~. fLII!\ it!l~. &> 13 ~~- lft~/GIE, ilt*t!l@;.
~tr~lill!ll'i:J~Iim, Jf\'JJ:t:!Ei'Fi:R:!Et!lJJ;, lj!l;Mz~~:m~~. "~/jj(11i!)j)(;ts/Em1f\'~~. 13
~Hl.Eil~~/f'Jilli/jj(, Jtm~.tlll." 11~~~. fLIZSJBJJ~. :l'L~I3ft!l#r.li!:1lt,~1'U. lliliil~

:IE!tR#Jt.!lt, 4-!tR 13 r.li!:, JlPi!l'i/Gmi. RDf9/l5flr!lt!lt:'t.lz:, "llt~'iil', Ji)ffFi1c/jj(, JE[~Jflil:~."

~:'t:l'L~:IE, ":It 'ill', JiJfllfli"EIJj(, RD 13 ~'F~i"E." 11!</f')j)(;il:. Jl:t?IJ;I!i'!~. ~!lllz:~ 13 ~\tR#J:t
:llt, i!!Ht!\tf~~JJU;t~. ~ii!<r.li!:.!lt*P;l((~;it, iiliZSI!tRI3, ~-/f')j)(;. :*:~/!'~, "13~~~/G
Jilli/jj("IZSJ, Jf\';JtfSiji!!:. f'Un;l((?IJ;tfJiJf:l'z:/f')j)(;. ::*:J~zq,, .tllliZSI~:l!'!JI'!EJlP*/jj(J.
:!lB, Jl:til:/1'~. r.li!:R rE!~h iifjj)(; r~~/f'Jll!i/jj(J IZSI. :Eiii!<~)j)(;~~/f'Jilli, ffililli::k~li!li
t!lllil!~. ~tl*~~IZS!z:'K. ~Jt~~/f'Jilli/jj('J!'i. f!'.ll)(-t ;\3'f.JJum.
(c) #IJ.lt:IE~ r~~&~ 13~'F. ?IJ;jgtf~~JJI.Iorl'lii, ~!llr.li!:li~'F:IEIE*~~zts. ::k~ililifft!l@;

In addition, Zoshun!Jl!H~ (II 04-1180) in his Inmyo-daisho-shof!jj ~fr}c

~tJ; quoted a story from Gangyo-waji5-engi5E;a~t11J::.~i!:9, which also
regards Wonhyo as the original author of the counter inference and a
reincarnation of Dignaga, and Sun' gyong as the messenger. 23 In contrast,
Shotoin's work Yuishiki-hiryo-shiki;J,~ll'Ji:lll~.lt:l!:f.l.,c, quoted in Inmyodaisho-shO regards Sun'gyong as the author and Master Yu:fft as the
messenger (T68, 525b); this interpretation is based on Ji's work Chengweishi-lun-zhangzhong-shuyaortl;iJl~'fi(irtJt.r::Ftwf,!J!l: (T43, 647a).
In any case, it is reasonable to believe that there was a lineage of
Buddhist logicians in Shilla who originated from Wonhyo.

.!It~. "~jj)(;zfSffiMI'IE1llt~~zts, fJ].==_Jifilll!i~~/f'Jll!i/jjc, E!JRD~.tlll."

:1ts, ill!~ 13~'F~:'K*E =ll.~~t9o 13 ~'F. :E'i!l!imm~~. mlllt"JJJ~. ~lll:Ei,J,~M11i!)j)(;ts,

i;-jj)(;~Jots, ~i'l' 13 * /f')j)(;;t~, ,/!'~ 13, lli1F,1iJI.IJj(. :Ei\l'iftii!<iS/G*~~. ~lEJifi~. ~I'
li~'f/jj(. :Eiii!<~JJI]f~)j)(;\l'ift~, RP:l'L*~ fi'li'~i!\li'ii\', Jifii'FI1c/jj(, mtmJflii:~J. Jf\'Jl:t?IJ;J!i'!tl:lRD
ill<~. ~!ll~i!l'i'iil'z~~"~~'iil'z~. ~tr~~JJIJ. :l'LE~~~'iil'z~. :71-fFtr~~JJu~
~ r~l!i'!~l'~i!l'i'iil'z~.

Jififfi"E/jj(, mtmJflii:~J. l!ftl9'Jifi~. ~'iilz~.g.)j)(;~Jo~. ~/f')j)(;ll'ift.

iifJliJ)j)(;\l'ift. IJj(J::if~~/GPJ!tR.
(d) ~ii!<.==.!Jl:l'Liil~li. imft'J'~:&HJ!!*. llJ!f:7t/f:l'L-t ;\3'f.'J!'i, -:9-~/f')j)(;~/jj(, IZSIR
13 ~rw.==.mt!L. IZSI~ 13 /jj( 13 Jt.!ltlll!i, /jj(ft!\/G~tJ/f'~)j)(;i'llltftmtsllfff'F/GIE, 1f\' 13 :IE~ft!l/1'
lEite 13~E,)j)(;, fiil~it!l*
24
(e) :J01iltili/i ~ riZSJHJJl!J:J.I, Jf\'#Jt:IE 13 ~~t!l~~~/GIE, tJ El :tE~ir.&JiJf~~.tlllz~i'F/1'
IE~. ~~1.1~~. $/:JlP~~. ~IJj(11i!)j)(;fS*111!jj)(;~~. iJ!':~/GIE, 11i!)j)(;~~/Gf.t~/jj(. tl 13
~'F\'IIltfi:mts, Jf\'llil#:IE, it!lfF/GIE. iJ!':i:lY:IZSI~. "13 ~'f11i!)j)(;:fJJ.==_Jiii"~. l'ID~lmts!!=~~!.t.
M-~~ffil~l'11i!)j)(;:fJJ.==_Jll!i, /jj(/f')j)(;/f'IEJ. ~4-l'IDllil 13 :lEa !if.

M:fifJifi~. /G-~~.g.)j)(;~Jots,

ffill\l[~a!J[, IWP.~:ll!:~.

15)!! B ~. ~*>'Wztl'i, !lfl'ii!<ll~~/GJ.', ~:7}1Jfii}Jli7;1J>. Jf\'Jl:tJt:!Ei'Ftf<:IEt!l~,

JtmllJHN" (T44, 116a).
22
"4-JJ:ttt<:IEm~~. *~~li5C~:*:~zJifi~i:!1. f&'Jr~&tJiirli, ~JJ:tJ:t.!lt, /Giltlilli~. Jj![;M'-9o, iiJf\':*:
Ji!f, %tt<::Jt~Ji)fJ;JJl!j;o. IE'!!<~ili/illi1F~i!ilt~: ~lill!&'i:Jiirli, Jj![;M'-9o, 1Wii!<;ifs:lllll/5C~firffi'Ft!l~tt<:IE,
*:'f:JJ:tllllll~. '~1Jj(11i!)j)(;ts, IE*mlu~. IZSJP;l((f'UJJ:t.' .==.!Jiri!/ll\llli*~~~, (T68, 32la).
n"~-=B1f\'a!M9o,a~~~i!a!M9o~~-lirli.ae~~~~~R: z.Aa~
lj![;iffz~. ~imlirliW~: ~IJj(11i!)j)(;fS/E*Jf\'llJU~. 13~'f:fJJ.==_Ji!lllliU~/f'Jll!i/jjc,

-~ilifli/jj(*, ~=e. mi!~~11111#, 1.~-~-. ~tlt:l'L~/jj(11i!)j)(;:Jlt, ffilli!'UN~tl\, i!alM~

ilili~~~JJ:t:IE.JJ:t~w~R:/G~m/Giltl~:llt~.i!~~~1f\'llllllma~~:IE.Il~~~:1E~.m
i!!J!llllla~. :JoWr.ili/ifl'/jlR: /G~m'12fi!i~~:IE~. :E'tr~:lll:~A, !lta:~ti'Fb:!i:!1. m~JJr~&w~~
t:., ~Jf\'lillllll$:Jl'o:IE. i!5C~'12fi!i~: JJ:t.!lttr~~J.il.lt!l~~- mn~&ili/itm:Jt 13 ;;a;mJJ('!l!f~. *-~J\1
/jj(, ~!JtlilllllJj;o~:IE~. i!ili/i~~lol:ll!:.==.iiil':@:11HI~. /jj(J!!~Iirli~~ifiltcp, lilllll/5CH~ilftj~~iii1E9o,
lilllll/WJifi~. Ell~~/jj(j;o, ~m'12fi!i~~,

(T68, 525b-c). Kim Sang-hyon's Wonhyo Yon'gu

(Minjoksa, 2000) indicates the same example found in Saisen'sttf~ Shakumakaen-ron-ketsugi-hanan-eshaku-shi5 ~ I!Jii"Jfrrtl<:~li!Uft1l'r~fP.
5C~lilf'fe

a51 13~'Fi'llltftmts

i'F/GIE~. /jj(~ 13 ~h

24

Based on two reasons, Kosei Ishii supposes that Mun'gwe/Wengiii:JO!ilt, an unidentified

scholar monk who wrote some commentaries on Buddhist logic, came from Shilla: (1)
Similar to Wonch'iik, Mun'gwe was severely criticized by Ji. (2) Mun'gwe belonged to
the XimingsialBJJ~ temple, where many foreign monks, especially Shilla monks like
Wonch'iik, stayed (Kosei Ishii, "iJ.II!\1L~ 1~ 3 It -<> .==.iiiii;~":," Sanron kyi5gaku no kenkyU
.==.iiiii;~"FOJlilfJE, Shunjiisha, 1990. See also '$~~. "Jtlliltlli IZSI~~~~." ~lllll/{'11!~~. 25,

1999).

330 Part III

Korean Buddhist Thoughts in East Asian Perspectives

Xuanzang's Inference ofYogacara . . . 331

(f) 'fOJ:::z3; r:$:Jl!::z3;, "::f-~l":.ml"* ~~ ::tif~;6~~. :V:JF,;::fillffi~~:Z.1!1, {Je:)jl(;'!'i)J;

::f::t.m~.

Jiili,

tm!%111J!;:z3;,

"~*!!ll~~llD~~"IR.

-~~IRJ. ~i!l\Jltill\i,

JlUb:$:;@';,

::fm::t:lil:il::f!Eill\i, JL% E1 ~H)J=:JSJfJiili~JiJPF

EIJJlt?'i-

&!'I~~-, "i'~~IR. ~O~J/Jl!C~ililf!i'il'JI1JlUI'.91N.

Jl!:niJiJJiJT:V:::f)j\(;Z~. Mil~* L#Jlt~:z3;:z3;.2s

In this quotation, sentences enclosed by r... J are the quotations

from Ji's Yinming-ruzhengli-lun-shuf&SAA.lJ1Ji~l3f!. and Wonhyo's P'anbiryangnon. The sentences beginning with "~ B" can be attributed to
T'aehyon or Tojung since Zenju quotes several parts beginning with ":t:.
~ffi!l:ii;" or ":t:.~ffi!l:J':P, ~:fll'~:ii:" instead. Moreover, part (g) should be
attributed to KyonghUng because it nearly coincides with the quotation of
( Zenju that is quoted below:
26

27

.fiM~:~~ftD~~*~~---~*~-~~---~
~EMz!f,f, ~$;1'fz!J\~* Po~~~. "lfiiJ!JllEfllM!lP~-"illl.

tr~!E~.

1'fm' 13 ~vrvr::=:?JfJIE?Jr~m. mMJ'&.28

7f\Jf;l*Jl:

Thus, because of his honorific title ":tuJ:", it may be reasonable to

believe that T'aehyon respected KyonghUng.
In (a), (b), (c), and (e), T'aehyon quotes various critical
interpretations of Xuanzang's inference and claims that "all critical
interpretations miss the original purpose of Xuanzang's inference"
(underlined part of (c)). We must focus on the fact that he criticizes Ji,
who strongly supports Xuanzang's inference. In (a), he criticizes Ji for
premising that the concepts of Xuanzang's inference were accepted both
discussants and disputed only the predicate of the propositions (#.tt.l:).
On the other hand, according to (d) and (f), he regards Xuanzang's
inference as svartha-anumana in order to demonstrate the true purpose of
Xuanzang's inference. Although T'aehyon also criticizes Ji's criticism of
Sun'gyong in (b), we should not assume that T'aehyon agrees with
Sun'gyong because he also criticizes Wonhyo in (c) in the same manner
as he criticized Ji. In addition, in (f), T'aehyon quotes KyonghUng, who
claims that visual consciousness in the Y ogacara inference should be
interpreted as a combination of visual consciousness and alaya vijfiana.

25
26
27
28

T68,
T66,
T66,
T66,

520b-52la.
316a.
3 f8a.
316a.

4. Conclusion
In conclusion, we can find at least two groups of Shilla Buddhists,
one that was headed by Wonhyo and Sun'gyong (and probably Sinbang),
and the other that was headed by KyonghUng, Tojung, and T'aehyon.
The former group intended to interpret and revise the Yogacara inference
following the system of Buddhist logic, especially by using
Bhavaviveka's method, since they believed that Xuanzang's logic was
based on Bhavaviveka's work. On the other hand, it appears that the latter
group attempted to interpret the inference in the context of the general
Yogacara doctrines.
Nakamura examines the rationalism of the Korean people by quoting
Wonhyo and Sun'gyong, but this approach alone is insufficient. In my
opinion, the peculiarity that this indicated maybe one of the
characteristics of Korean Buddhism, while the interpretations in China
and Japan may be unified.

Acknowledgment
I am grateful to Professor Kim Songch'ul of Tongguk University for providing valuable
advice.

KOREAN STUDIES SERIES No. 35

Korean Buddhism
in East Asian Perspectives
Compiled by

Geumgang Center for Buddhist Studies

Geumgang University
written by
Kim Sang-hyon I Robert E. Buswell, Jr. I Sergei Vladimirovich Volkov
Pankaj Mohan I Henrik H. S0rensen I John Jorgensen I Jinhua Chen
Charles Muller I Jorg Plassen I Ch'oe Ki-p'yo I Ishii Kosei
Ch'oe Yon-shikl Shigeki Moro

Jimoondang
Seoul

L_

 2007 by Geumgang Center for Buddhist Studies

All rights reserved.
Jimoondang
514-7 Munbal-ri, Gyoha-eup, Paju-si, Gyeonggi-do 413-756, Korea
Phone: 82-2-743-0227
E-mail: edit@jimoon.co.kr
82-2-743-3192-3
E-mail: sale@jimoon.co.kr
F a x: 82-2-743-3097, 82-2-742-4657
Home page: www.jimoon.co.kr
ISBN 89-88095-97-9
The National Library of Korea Cataloging-in-Publication(CIP)
Korean Buddhism in East Asian perspectives I
compiled by Geumgang Center for Buddhist Studies, Geumgang University.
-- Paju : Jimoondang, 2007 p. ; em. -- (Korean studies series ; No.35)
ISBN 89-88095-97-9 93220 220.911-KDC4 294.309519-DDC21 CIP2007001299
Printed in Korea