Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c34.s4: V (b). Are anusaya and paryavasthāna associated with mind or not?

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c34.s4

Language: English

V (b). Are anusaya and paryavasthāna associated with mind or not?

v2.c34.s4.1

There are in Vasumitra two statements relating to *anusaya* and *paryavasthāna*, which will clear up the above problem further.—

v2.c34.s4.2

(i) *Anuśayas* (dormant passions or latent bias) are neither *citta* nor *caitasika* dharmas: and again they never become the object of thought (*anālambana*).

(ii) *Anuśaya* is different from *paryavasthāna* (pervading passion) and *paryavasthāna* is different from *anuśaya*. It must be said that the *anuśaya* does not combine (*samprayuj*) with the *citta* whereas the *paryavasthāna* does.

v2.c34.s4.4

Relating to the above topics, the *Kvu.* has,

v2.c34.s4.5

(i) *Anusayā anārammaṇā ti?* (IX. 4) and *cittavippayuttā*
(ii) *Anusayā avyākatā ti* (XI. 1)
(iii) *Añño kāmarāgānusayo aññaṃ kāmarāgapariyuṭṭhānan ti?* (XIV. 5)
(iv) *Pariyuṭṭhānan cittavippayuttan ti?* (XIV. 6)

v2.c34.s4.6

Masuda offers the following interpretation from the *Shu-chi*: The *anuśayas* are really *bījas* (germs inborn in the mind) of *rāga* and other passions. They remain dormant unless excited by the corresponding impulse. They remain always in the mind, even in *kusalacitta*, so they are dissociated from the mind and do not require any object (*ālambana*) for support. When the *anuśaya* is excited by a suitable impulse, it becomes *paryavasthāna* (*pariyuṭṭhāna*) and as such becomes a mental function (*caitasika*), and then only it becomes an impurity and clogs the way to spiritual progress. The interpretation given above is corroborated by the *Kvu.*¹ The Theravādins however do not distinguish between *kāmarāgānusaya* and *kāmarāgapariyuṭṭhāna* and maintain that as the *anusayas* are included in the *Saṃkhārakkhandha*, they are all *sārammaṇa*. But according to the Andhakas some saṃkhāras are sārammaṇa (with basis) and some are anārammaṇa (without basis),¹ but not so are the remaining four khandhas. The Andhakas further maintain that as a puthujjana having kusalāvyākata-citta is sometimes described as “sānusayo ti” when their anusayas are without any ārammaṇa, it must be admitted that anusayas may be anārammaṇā.

v2.c34.s4.7

¹ *Kvu. A.* p. 117: *Tattha yesāṃ anusayā nāma cittavippayuttā ahetukā avyākatā ten' eva anārammaṇā 'ti laddhi seyyathā pi Andhakānañ c' eva ekaccānañ ca Uttarāpathakānaṃ.*

v2.c34.s4.8

¹ Kvu., p. 407: Saṃkhārakkhandho ekadeso sārammaṇo, ekadeso anārammaṇo.

v2.c34.s4.9

From the above discussion it is apparent that the anusayas, according to the Andhakas, are avyākata² i.e. neither good nor bad, and consequently they are citta-vippayutta, and also causeless (ahetuka). The Andhakas in the third discussion assert that anusayas are different from pariyuṭṭhānas, but in the fourth the Kvu. makes the Andhakas contend that pariyuṭṭhānas are also cittavippayuttas, which, however, apppear to be contradictory. Vasumitra says that the pariyuṭṭhānas according to these schools are cittasampayuttas, so we must dismiss the statement of the Kvu. as unwarranted.

v2.c34.s4.10

² The Andhakas, it seems, looked upon the anusayas as vipākacitta and treated the same as avyākata. Cf. Dhammasaṅgaṇi

v2.c34.s4.11

“The world in its variety originates out of actions (karma) which accumulate on account of anusayas. In the absence of anusayas, karma is not capable of producing a new existence (punarbhava). Consequently the root of bhava or rebirth is karma, in other words, anusaya.” With these words Vasubandhu opens the fifth book of Kośa. (See Kośa, V, p. 1).

v2.c34.s4.12

The Sarvāstivādins like the Theravādins regard anusaya, paryavasthāna and kleśa as same, the only distinction being that anusaya is the subtle, while paryavasthāna the manifest, state of rāga, dosa, moha, etc.

v2.c34.s4.13

The *Kośa* too deals with the problem under discussion, viz., whether or not *anuśaya* (e.g. *kāmarāgānusaya*) is a dharma by itself dissociated from mind, the *prāpti* of *kāmarāga*, etc.? The answer of the Sarvāstivādins is in the negative as that of the Theravādins. The former quote as their authority the *Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra*, in which *anuśaya* is shown to be associated with mind (*cittasamprayukta*). They assert that *anuśayas* are *kleśas*, and hence they cannot but be *citta-samprayuktas*.

v2.c34.s4.14

In this connection the *Kośa* refers to the opinion of the Sautrāntikas, who hold that *anuśaya* is different from *kleśa* inasmuch as it is neither associated with, nor dissociated from, mind because it is not a *dravya* apart; it is a *śakti* left in certain individuals by the previously existing *kleśas* and has the power of reproducing further *kleśas*. According to the Sautrāntikas, *kleśa* when non-manifest is *anuśaya* and when manifest, an act, it is *paryavasthāna* (*Kośa*, V, p. 7).¹

v2.c34.s4.15

¹ For exhaustive treatment of *Anuśayas*, see La Vallée Poussin's *Abhidharmakośa*, V.

Cites (4)

Kathāvatthu — Moggaliputta Tissa, Pāli
Dhammasaṅgaṇī — Pāli
Abhidharmakośa — Vasubandhu, Sanskrit
Jñānaprasthāna — Kātyāyanīputra, Classical Chinese