Balancing Indic Fidelity and Chinese Expression: Xuanzang’s Approach to Translating the Yogācārabhūmi

Abstract

This study examines Xuanzang’s methodology for translating the Yogācārabhūmi into Chinese, with particular focus on his translation of passages explaining the central concept of volition (cetanā). Through comparative analysis of Chinese and Tibetan translations—particularly passages for which Sanskrit parallels are not available—this paper investigates textual divergences and interpretative challenges in the two translations. Comprehensive examination of textual evidence across the Yogācārabhūmi corpus confirms that a problematic term in Xuanzang’s Chinese translation—suiyu—authentically reflects the Sanskrit source text, specifically corresponding to the Sanskrit term anupradāna. This allows us greater insight into Xuanzang’s translational strategy and its reception among his disciples. While previous scholarship has traditionally emphasized Xuanzang’s strict fidelity to Sanskrit grammatical structures, this study reveals a more sophisticated approach: he employed suiyu as a translation of anupradāna specifically for technical discussions of consciousness and mental factors, but adopted more idiomatic renderings of anupradāna in general contexts. However, the interpretations of suiyu among his disciples suggest that even this careful methodology sometimes failed to achieve its intended clarity, highlighting the inherent tension between preserving original textual features and ensuring accurate semantic transmission—a fundamental challenge in cross-cultural Buddhist transmission that continues to shape our understanding of Buddhist traditions.

1. Introduction

The Yogācārabhūmi (hereafter YBh) is the earliest and most fundamental treatise of the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism, composed approximately in the 4th century CE. Its core doctrines provided the theoretical basis for subsequent Yogācāra texts such as the Abhidharmasamuccaya and the Triṃśikā vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, establishing the YBh as an essential resource for understanding Yogācāra philosophy. The text, however, has a long history of transmission, and the current state of extant sources is intricate and, in some cases, fragmentary. The original Sanskrit version has not survived in its entirety and was not preserved through an unbroken tradition. Nevertheless, complete translations exist in both Chinese and Tibetan. The last century has witnessed the gradual rediscovery and critical editing of Sanskrit manuscripts comprising approximately half of the text; contemporary scholars now primarily rely on these Sanskrit witnesses for doctrinal analysis. For the remaining sections, where Sanskrit texts remain undiscovered or unedited, scholars must depend on comparative readings of the Chinese and Tibetan translations.

The fragmentary state of the sources presents several complexities. For instance, while the Sanskrit text of the initial portion (the first six bhūmis) of the YBh serves as a primary source, it survives in only a single manuscript.1 This manuscript is estimated to have been composed between the 10th and 12th centuries, thus postdating both the 7th-century Chinese translation and the 9th-century Tibetan translation. This chronological gap has resulted in textual discrepancies through scribal errors and other factors. A representative example can be found in the Manobhūmi (The Stage of the Mental Consciousness, 意地) section of the Basic Section 本地分, where the extant Sanskrit text enumerates 51 “mental factors” (caitta/caitasika, 心所有法 or 心所)2 while subsequently referencing a total of 53.3 The Tibetan translation consistently lists 51 items4, whereas a comparison with the Chinese translation indicates that early Sanskrit manuscripts consistently enumerated 53 mental factors, with the factors “incorrect craving” 邪欲 and “incorrect ascertainment” 邪勝解 being subsequently omitted.5 In such cases, the Chinese translation preserves crucial evidence of the early Sanskrit tradition, rendering it indispensable for understanding both the doctrinal structure of early Yogācāra and the historical development of Yogācāra thought.

The complete Chinese translation of the YBh was produced in the mid-seventh century CE by the great Chinese pilgrim translator Xuanzang 玄奘 (ca. 602–664 CE). Xuanzang is famous for his journey from Tang China to India and then back again, in search of Buddhist learning and, specifically, for Indic Buddhist texts to collect and translate. Notably, studying and acquiring the YBh constituted Xuanzang’s primary objective during his westward journey. After studying under Śīlabhadra 戒賢 (6–7th century CE) at Nālandā Monastery, he completed the comprehensive translation in one hundred fascicles upon returning to China. Though other partial translations exist, references to the Chinese translation of the YBh generally denote Xuanzang’s complete rendition. His translation endeavored to preserve the original meaning with exceptional fidelity; in a departure from typical Chinese rendering of Sanskrit texts, Xuanzang even incorporated Sanskrit grammatical features into Chinese word/sentence structures. As Fu (2006, p. 73) observes, Xuanzang’s translation “established an innovative linguistic system within the Chinese framework by incorporating Sanskrit elements […], and has maximized Chinese philosophical expressiveness.”

Nevertheless, this newly constructed linguistic framework, though embedded within Chinese language structures, often remained foreign to native Chinese speakers. The YBh contains numerous definitional passages that are remarkably concise yet engage with complex doctrinal contexts, many of which are critical for comparative studies of Buddhist sects and schools. Some, for instance, illuminate points of convergence with and divergence from the doctrinal understandings of other traditions such as the Sarvāstivāda. These passages thus offer valuable insight into how Buddhist philosophical concepts were transformed during cross-cultural transmission. In cases where these definitional passages appear in portions for which no Sanskrit manuscripts have been discovered or critically edited, interpretation must depend on the Chinese and Tibetan translations. However, interpreting the Chinese translation poses challenges not only for modern scholars but also for historical Buddhist exegetes, even those well-versed in doctrines and languages. They often found themselves caught between the norms of classical Chinese grammar and the specialized lexicon of Buddhist texts. In contemporary research, scholars often draw on the Tibetan translation for a more comprehensive understanding. However, when the Chinese and Tibetan translations diverge, they face the delicate task of assessing the reliability of each translation’s version and, when possible, adjudicating between them. Thus, interpreting certain passages in both Xuanzang’s Chinese translation and the Tibetan translation remains a significant and ongoing challenge for Buddhological research.

This article undertakes an illustrative case study from the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī 攝抉擇分 (hereafter VinS) section of the YBh corpus, examining the term “suiyu” 隨與 that appears in the definition of “volition” (cetanā, 思). Volition occupies a significant position within various Buddhist doctrinal systems, including Sarvāstivāda and Yogācāra traditions, where it is categorized as a “mental factor” (caitasika dharma). Specifically within the Yogācāra system, volition is classified as one of the five “omnipresent mental factors” (sarvatraga, 遍行), alongside “contact” (sparśa, 觸), “attention” (manaskāra, 作意), “feeling” (vedanā, 受), and “ideation” (saṃjñā, 想). A nuanced understanding of how the YBh conceptualizes volition is therefore crucial for understanding the Yogācāra doctrinal framework as a whole.

However, the YBh’s treatment of these terms presents several interpretative challenges. Through an examination of suiyu, this case study demonstrates more pronounced divergences between the Chinese and Tibetan translations. This reflects Xuanzang’s distinctive translational strategy, which sought to balance fidelity to the Indic source with adaptation to the Chinese linguistic and conceptual environment. It also illustrates the difficulty his exegetical successors faced in fully assimilating his innovative approach. This example brings into focus broader issues of localization, reception, and doctrinal interpretations in cross-cultural transmission of Buddhist texts. Through close analysis of this specific lexical item within the definition of the key mental factor, this article argues that a comparison of the Chinese and Tibetan translations not only clarifies doctrinal content but also sheds light on how Xuanzang’s innovative translational method shaped the interpretation and reception of Yogācāra thought across cultural and linguistic boundaries.

2. Defining Suiyu: A Philological Approach to Chinese–Tibetan Translational Divergence

According to Xuanzang’s translation, the YBh consists of 100 fascicles organized into five sections, including the Basic Section and the VinS section which serve as the first two sections. The initial 50 fascicles contain the Basic Section, while fascicles 51–80 encompass the VinS section, which provides exegetical material corresponding to the structure of the Basic Section. While Sanskrit versions of much of the Basic Section are extant, Sankrit witnesses are largely unavailable for the remaining portions of the YBh. The YBh presents explanations of volition in both the Basic Section and the VinS section. The Basic Section offers a concise definition6:

Skt: cetanā katamā|cittābhisaṃskāraḥ||(YBh p. 60, ll. 2−3)

Tib. trans.: sems pa gang zhe na/sems mngon par ‘du byed pa’o//(D tshi 30b1; P dzi 34a3)

Chi. trans.: 思云何？謂心造作。        

(T30, p. 291b29)

English Trans. of Skt: What is volition? It is the activation of the mind.

The VinS provides a more elaborate definition, adding a statement—which is unseen in other Yogācāra texts—to illustrate the expression “the activation of the mind” (cittābhisaṃskāra, 心造作, sems mngon par ‘du byed pa)7:

Skt: (unavailable)

Tib. trans.: sems pa gang zhe na/gsum ‘dus pa las dmigs pa de la tshor ba dang/phrad pa dang/‘bral ba’i phyir sems mngon par ‘du byed pa gang yin pa’o//(D zhi 59a2; P zi 62a3−4)

Chi. trans.: 思云何？謂三和合故，令心造作，於所緣境隨與領納和合乖離。

(T30, p. 601c19-21)

While superficially straightforward, detailed analysis of this passage reveals several ambiguities that complicate its precise meaning.

2.1. Interpretative Challenge 1: Ambiguity in the Tibetan Translation

Analysis of the Tibetan translation reads as follows:

sems pa gang zhe na/gsum ‘dus pa las dmigs pa de la tshor ba dang/phrad pa dang/‘bral ba’i phyir sems mngon par ‘du byed pa gang yin pa’o//(D zhi 59a2; P zi 62a3−4)

The underlined segment contains two instances of dang, which can function as a conjunction (“and”), an associative marker (“with”), or a directional marker (“from”). The interpretation depends significantly on the surrounding syntactic context. The term tshor ba (feeling) presents particular complexity, as it can function either nominally or verbally. If interpreted nominally, tshor ba could serve as the object of the subsequent actions phrad pa (combining) and ‘bral ba (separating). This interpretation is reflected in Muroji et al. (2017, p. 21):

What is volition? It is the construction of the mind based on the combination of three factors [—sensory faculty through thinking faculty, object, and consciousness—] in order to combine with or separate from the feeling towards the object. 意思とは如何なるものか。〔感覚能力ないし思考能力と、対象と、認識という〕三者の和合に基づき、その認識対象に対する感受と結び付いたり離れたりするために、心を造り上げることである。

Alternatively, interpreting tshor ba verbally suggests a parallel structure with phrad pa and ‘bral ba, resulting in three coordinate actions:

What is volition? It is the activation of the mind that, based on the combination of three factors, [occurs] through feeling [the object], combining [with the object], and separating [from] the object.

This syntactic ambiguity in the Tibetan translation presents a significant challenge for definitive interpretation; as it turns out, the resolution of this difficulty is entangled with a second set of problems in this passage, which we consider below.

2.2. Interpretative Challenge 2: Chinese–Tibetan Textual Divergence

Comparative analysis of the Chinese and Tibetan translations reveals significant variations in vocabulary and syntax:

Chi. Trans.: 思云何？謂三和合故，令心造作，於所緣境隨與領納和合乖離。

Tib. Trans.: sems pa gang zhe na/gsum ‘dus pa las dmigs pa de la tshor ba dang/phrad pa dang/‘bral ba’i phyir sems mngon par ‘du byed pa gang yin pa’o//

While direct correspondences exist between certain terms—“combining with” 和合 parallels phrad pa, “separating from” 乖離 corresponds to ‘bral ba, and “experiencing” 領納 aligns with tshor ba8—the Chinese term 隨與 (suíyǔ, hereafter suiyu) lacks a clear Tibetan equivalent.

Moreover, the Chinese phraseological sequence presents its own interpretative challenges, particularly regarding the structural relationship between components in the “suiyu lingna” 隨與領納 segment. The term suiyu proves especially problematic, suggesting two potential explanations for the textual divergence:

(1)

Suiyu represents an interpolation during the translation process, potentially serving metrical requirements rather than reflecting the Sanskrit text.

(2)

Suiyu accurately renders the Sanskrit source, but this element was not preserved in the Tibetan translation tradition.

2.3. Contextual Analysis: Suiyu in the Discussion of Saṃskāra-Skandha

These interpretative challenges necessitate examination of broader textual context. A discussion of saṃskāra-skandha (the aggregate of volitional formations, 行蘊) in the same portion of the VinS section proves particularly illuminating. This statement defines saṃskāra-skandha as phenomena arising from six types of contact (e.g., the contact of the eye, etc.), characterized by “activation” 造作.9 Given the YBh’s definition of volition as “the activation of the mind” 心造作 and the historical association between the saṃskāra-skandha and the “six groups of volitional activity” 六思身 in early Buddhism10, this parallel discussion provides valuable interpretative context. The text specifically addresses the relationship between “the activation of the mind” and objects:

Chi. trans.: Furthermore, this characteristic of volitional formations brings the mind into activation through five modalities: first, making [the mind] suiyu to objects; second, making [the mind] combine with them; third, making [the mind] separate from them; fourth, producing defiled karma; fifth, causing [the mind] to function autonomously. 又此行相，由五種類令心造作。一為境隨與，二為彼合會，三為彼別離，四能發雜染業，五令心自在轉。

(T30, p. 593c8-10)

Tib. trans.: de yang ‘di lta ste (ste D; sta P) yul dang mthun par byed pa dang/de dang phrad par bya ba dang/de dang ‘bral (‘bral P; bral D) bar bya ba dang/kun nas nyon mongs pa dang/las (las D; lus P) kun tu (tu P; du D) blang bar bya ba dang/sems kyis dbang bsgyur bar (bar D; ba P) bya ba’i phyir sems mngon par ‘du byed pa rnam pa lngar (lngar D; sngar P) blta bar bya’o//(D zhi 38b3−38b4; P zi 40b7−41a1)

The underlined Tibetan segment can be rendered as “causing [the mind] to adapt to objects, to combine with them, to separate from them.” This set of three parallel actions—adaptation to objects, combination with objects, and separation from objects—corresponds to the three actions in the Chinese translation: “adapting to objects” corresponds to “suiyu to objects 境隨與;” “combining with them” is parallel to “combining with them 彼合會;” and “separating from them” aligns with “separating from them 彼別離.” These direct correspondences establish two crucial points:

(1)

The Tibetan mthun par byed pa (causing to adapt) corresponds to Chinese suiyu, occurring in the same sequential position before “combining” and “separating.”

(2)

These three functions—suiyu/adaptation, combination, and separation—consistently act in relation to objects.

This contextual evidence resolves both previously identified challenges. Regarding the Chinese–Tibetan divergence, it confirms suiyu as an authentic translation of the Sanskrit source, representing a specific cognitive function. Concerning the Tibetan definition’s ambiguity, while the volition definition lacks the term corresponding to suiyu, the saṃskāra-skandha discussion provides crucial comparative context for interpretation. Given the insufficient information in the Tibetan definition of volition alone, analysis must proceed primarily from the Chinese translation.

3. Xuanzang’s Translational Strategy: Balancing Fidelity to the Indic Source with Adaptation to Chinese Expression

3.1. Semantic Analysis of Suiyu

The term suiyu 隨與 presents interpretative difficulties due to its limited occurrence in Chinese translations. The character 隨 (suí) primarily denotes the action of following or complying with, while the character 與 (yǔ) has two primary semantic fields:

(1)

A verb denoting bestowal or assistance, exemplified in Prajñā’s 般若 (8th century CE) translation of Da Fangguang Fo Huayan Jing 大方廣佛華嚴經: “The bodhisattva, having achieved contentment in this way, accepts according to what is given, without discriminating between refined and coarse.”11

(2)

A verb or adverb indicating accordance or accompaniment, similar to the meaning of 隨 (suí), or as a preposition meaning “with, together with,” as in Dharmarakṣa’s 竺法護 (3–4th century CE) translation of Foshuo Xuzhen Tianzi Jing 佛說須真天子經: “Wisdom and the knowledge of upāya always go together along with each other, like paired oxen sharing a yoke.”12

3.2. The Original Sanskrit Term Behind Suiyu

Analysis of the Basic Section reveals two instances where suiyu renders terms indicating specific actions, occurring in the Śrāvakabhūmi (The Stage of the Śrāvakas, 聲聞地) and Bodhisattvabhūmi (The Stage of the Bodhisattvas, 菩薩地) sections, respectively. In the Bodhisattvabhūmi’s exposition of the precepts and merits of bodhisattvas, the text states13:

Skt: tat punar etac caturbhir guṇair yuktaṃ svabhāvaśīlaṃ bodhisattvānāṃ… mahāphalānuśaṃsaṃ veditavyaṃ anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhiphalaparigrahānupradānatayā.

(BBh p. 138, ll. 9−17)

English Trans. of Skt: Moreover, this is the bodhisattvas’ self-nature precept endowed with four merits. […] It should be known that this [self-nature precept, endowed with the merit of] comprehending and bestowing the fruit of supreme perfect enlightenment, brings great fruits and benefits.

Chi. trans.: This is the bodhisattva’s self-nature precept endowed with four merits. […] It should be known that [this precept] is a pure precept that brings great fruits and benefits, resulting from receiving and bestowing the fruit of supreme perfect enlightenment. 如是菩薩具四功德自性尸羅。 … 應知即是能獲大果勝利淨戒，攝受隨與無上正等菩提果故。

(T30, p. 511a3-10)14

Here, suiyu 隨與 translates anupradāna,15 where the basic semantic value of dāna (“giving, bestowing”) remains evident, though the precise semantic contribution of the prefixes anu- and pra- requires further investigation.

The Śrāvakabhūmi provides another notable example in its explanation of equanimity (upekṣā, 捨), where suiyu again renders anupradāna:

Skt: tatropekṣā katamā/yālambane ’saṃkliṣṭacetasaś cittasamatā, śamathavipaśyanāpakṣye praśaṭhasvarasavāhitā, karmaṇyacittasya ca karmaṇyatā, cittasyānupradānam *anābhogakriyā/(ŚrBh-T3 p. 80, ll. 2−4. *I emended anābhogakriyāyāḥ to anābhogakriyā based on the manuscript.)16

English Trans. of Skt: What is equanimity? It is, for those who have an undefiled mind, the mind’s equilibrium towards objects, and it is operating straightforwardly and naturally towards the objects in both aspects of śamatha and vipaśyanā. And [equanimity is] the suitability of those whose mind is suitable [for meditation]. [The suitability that] functions effortlessly is anupradāna of the mind.

This passage addresses meditation rather than volition specifically. However, two significant parallels emerge: both equanimity and volition function as mental factors, and both concern the mind–object relationship. Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi in the VinS section enumerates five practice types, including “combination activation” 合會加行, “separation activation” 別離加行, and “equanimity-suiyu activation” 捨隨與加行17, demonstrating remarkable structural similarity to the previously discussed definition of volition; the expression “equanimity-suiyu practice” also demonstrates the correlation between equanimity and suiyu. These correlations support our judgment that suiyu renders anupradāna in the volition definition.

Moreover, given that the Basic Section employs anubhavanā for feeling 受, the phrase “suiyu lingna” 隨與領納 likely represents a compound incorporating both anupradāna and anubhavanā.

These attestations indicate that anupradāna in this context transcends its basic meaning of “giving, bestowing.” Previous research on the Savitarkasavicārabhūmi (The Stage of Investigation and Analysis, 有尋有伺地) suggests that anu-pra-√dā in the YBh can denote “maintaining [a particular state] or facilitating its continuation.”18 According to this interpretation, suiyu in the context of equanimity signifies “maintaining [the state of equanimity].” This technical usage intersects with broader Yogācāra theoretical frameworks regarding mental factors, though detailed analysis of the significance of this fact lies beyond the scope of this paper.

3.3. Divergent Treatments of anupradāna in Chinese and Tibetan Translations

The discussion above is summarized in

Table 1. [Suiyu in the contexts related to volition and equanimity].

	Location in the YBh	The Subject	Chi. Trans.	Tib. Trans.	Sanskrit Text
(a)	The Basic Section: Śrāvakabhūmi	Equanimity (upekṣā)	令心隨與，任運作用	sems las su rung ba’i rjes su rtsol ba med pa’i bya bas gtod pa	cittasyānupradānam anābhogakriyā
(b)	The VinS Section: Manobhūmi	Saṃskāra- skandha	為境隨與	yul dang mthun par byed pa
(c)	The VinS Section: Manobhūmi	Volition (cetanā)	隨與	-
(d)	The VinS Section: Bodhisattvabhūmi	The attachment generated from activation	捨隨與加行	btang snyoms su ‘jog pa’i mngon par ‘du byed pa

, which presents the discrepancies in translations of suiyu in the definition of volition (c) across the Chinese and Tibetan versions of the VinS Section. Through comparison of the explanation of Saṃskāra-Skandha (b), we identified the Tibetan equivalent mthun par byed pa, confirming the Sanskrit origin of suiyu. Further investigation of the term in the Śrāvakabhūmi of the Basic Section (a) and the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the VinS Section (d) revealed that suiyu corresponds to the Sanskrit term anupradāna, thereby resolving the terminological discrepancy in the definition of volition.

Xuanzang’s translation methodology deliberately incorporated Sanskrit grammatical features into his Chinese renderings. This approach is exemplified in his translation of anupradāna as suiyu 隨與 in these passages: the prefix anu(pra)- was rendered as sui 随 (accordance), while the stem dāna became yu 與 (bestowal). However, examination of the Sanskrit YBh reveals that Xuanzang’s translation of anupradāna exhibits contextual variation. Within the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Basic Section, the term suiyu appears exclusively in the previously discussed instance, while other occurrences of anupradāna as shown in

Table 2. [Other renderings of anupradāna in the Bodhisattvabhūmi].

Sanskrit Text	Chi. Trans.	Tib. Trans.
(1) BBh p. 82, l. 4: dharmāṇām anupradānam (bestowing dharmas)	正法施 (T30, p. 497b21)	chos rnams sbyin par byed pa (D wi 44b5; P zhi 52b8)
(2) BBh p. 112, l. 4: smṛtikaraṇānupradānam (bestowing causing to mindfulness)	與作憶念 (T30, p. 504c13)	dran par byed du gzhug pa (D wi 60b4; P zhi 70b2)
(3) BBh pp. 127, l. 24–128, l. 1: dharmadānaṃ … ananupradānāt (bestowing the dharma … out of non-bestowing)	法施…非施 (T30, p. 508b22)	ma byin na (D wi 69a4; P zhi 79b2)
(4) BBh p. 140, l. 23: daṇḍakarmānupradānaṃ (giving punishment)	治罰 (T30, p. 511c4)	chad pa’i las byed du gzhug pa (D wi 76a2; P zhi 87a5)
(5) BBh p. 146, ll. 6–7: āsanasthānānupradānena (arranging a seat)	設座 (T30, p. 513a6)	stan dang gnas sbyin pas (D wi 79a2; P zhi 90a4–5)
(6) BBh p. 380, l. 20: dharmarasānupradānād (bestowing the flavour of the dharma)	施法味故 (T30, p. 568a4)	chos kyi bcud byin pa (D wi 195b1; P zhi 225b2)

were translated differently by Xuanzang19:

As we can see, in the Bodhisattvabhūmi, anupradāna primarily denotes “giving” or “bestowing” without specialized connotations. Thus, Xuanzang’s translation strategy appears to have been deliberately bifurcated: for specialized philosophical contexts, he consistently translated anupradāna with suiyu—a more technically precise but semantically opaque rendering—while adopting more idiomatic translations in general contexts to enhance comprehensibility. The term suiyu in the context of the mental factor of volition also appears in the Xianyang Shengjiao lun 顯揚聖教論, a compendium of the YBh.20 Since this text was translated before the YBh, it appears that Xuanzang’s approach to translating anupradāna in the definition of volition was already established during his work on the Xianyang Shengjiao lun and maintained consistently in his subsequent translation of the YBh. The Tibetan translation of YBh, possibly due to multiple translators working on different sections, demonstrates no consistent rendering of anupradāna. The fact that we can trace suiyu to its underlying Sanskrit analog at all is due entirely to Xuanzang’s systematic method of translation.

4. Acceptance of Suiyu: The Struggles of Xuanzang’s Successors to Assimilate His Translational Innovations

4.1. Interpretation of Suiyu Among Xuanzang’s Disciples

Xuanzang’s scrupulous system of translation allows modern scholars, with the benefit of comparison to Sanskrit and Tibetan parallels, to precisely interpret some of his more unusual constructions. This is not to say, however, that his method was effective at conveying semantic distinctions to his contemporaries and successors. We can get a sense for whether Xuanzang’s methodical approach was effective by looking to his disciples’ interpretations of suiyu in relation to volition. Three distinct interpretations emerge: two addressing the phrase “making [the mind] suiyu to the object” 為境隨與 in the description of saṃskāra-skandha, and one examining “regarding the object, suiyu and experiencing [it], combining with [it] and separating from [it]” 於所緣境隨與領納和合乖離 in the definition of volition21:

(1) Master Jing interprets: “That is to say, regarding the object of combination and separation and so forth, volition follows along with this object and functions together with consciousness.” (2) Master Bei interprets: “That is to say, volition activates the mind, causing objects to accord with the mind. The term ‘making’ (為) denotes action, indicating objects’ accordance with the mind.” 景師云： “謂於和合乖違等境，思隨此境，與識倶轉。”備師云： “謂思能發心，令境随心轉。為之言作，作境隨與心也。”22

(3) As for the phrase “sui lingna” 隨領納, it means that following the encounter with any object, [the mind] experiences [that object] immediately. 而隨領納者，隨與何境相遇，即便領納。23

The first two interpretations were documented by Kuiji 窺基, a direct disciple of Xuanzang, in his commentary on the YBh titled Abbreviated Commentary on Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽師地論略纂. Kuiji himself merely mentioned “suiyu and lingna” 隨與與領納 (T43, p. 188c11) without offering his own analysis of suiyu. The three disciples listed above were the only ones who explicitly articulated interpretations of this term. In the first interpretation, Master Jing 景師 (possibly Huijing 恵景) parsed sui and yu separately, adding “this object” as the object of sui, and treats yu as a preposition indicating temporal accompaniment through the phrase “functions together with consciousness” 與識俱轉. In the second interpretation, Master Bei 備師 (possibly Wenbei 文備) treats suiyu primarily through the verbal function of sui, interpreting yu as a preposition relating to “mind.” The third interpretation by Dunlun 遁倫 is more complex; “following(=sui) the encounter with(=yu) any object” 隨與何境相遇 suggests that he adds “encounter… any object” 何境相遇 regarding yu, and interprets yu as a preposition indicating the object of “encounter.” Thus, the entire phrase “the encounter with any object” functions as the object of sui.

As established previously, suiyu renders the Sanskrit term anupradāna, with yu 與 translating the stem dāna and sui 隨 representing the prefix anu(pra)-. The semantic weight of suiyu should therefore rest on yu (dāna), which denotes an action—primarily signifying “giving” or “bestowing”—rather than expressing accordance or accompaniment. Although Xuanzang’s disciples correctly understand suiyu as expressing an action, all three interpretations take sui as the main verb and misinterpret yu as “with,” denoting accordance or accompaniment. This approach derives the primary verbal meaning from the prefix anu(pra)- while misconstruing the stem dāna as a preposition—a significant departure from the original structure and meaning of anupradāna, which Xuanzang was so careful to preserve.

4.2. Analysis of Xuanzang’s Disciples’ Interpretations of Suiyu

The interpretations offered by Xuanzang’s disciples have comprehensible origins. A fundamental issue, as Delhey (2024, pp. 205–6) summarizes, is that the character sui 隨 in Xuanzang’s translations typically renders the prefix anu-, but unlike this Sanskrit prefix, sui can function as an independent verb in Chinese. Consequently, even though Xuanzang employed sui to translate the prefix anu-, Chinese lacks grammatical structures corresponding to Sanskrit prefixes. In the resulting translations, readers cannot readily determine whether sui functions as a verb or a prefix. Additionally, the character yu 與 carries connotations of accompaniment, further complicating accurate interpretation.

These interpretations cannot be dismissed as merely superficial readings. Section 3 demonstrated that Xuanzang consistently translated anupradāna as suiyu in contexts related to mental factors such as volition and equanimity, while occasionally using this term for anupradāna in bodhisattva-giving contexts. Notably, suiyu was not Xuanzang’s exclusive translation for anupradāna, as he employed it for other terms and grammatical constructions.

For instance, in the Manobhūmi of the YBh’s Basic Section, when explaining defiled imagination (kliṣṭa-vikalpa) and undefiled imagination (akliṣṭa-vikalpa), the following expressions appear:

Chi. trans.: 或隨與一煩惱、隨煩惱相應所起分別

(T30, p. 280c13-14)

Skt.: ’nyatamenānyatamena vā kleśopakleśena yaḥ samprayuktaḥ saṅkalpaḥ…

(YBh p. 12, ll. 20−21)

Chi. trans.: 或隨與一信等善法相應…所有分別

(T30, p. 280c16-17)

Skt.: ’nyatamānyatamena vā punaḥ śraddhādikena kuśalena dharmeṇa yaḥ samprayukto vikalpa…

(YBh p. 13, ll. 2–3)

Comparison with the Sanskrit reveals that suiyu in these sentences does not translate an action verb but forms part of the phrase suiyu yi 隨與一 (with any one). Here, sui yi 隨一 (any one) translates anyatama- anyatama- from anyatamenānyatamena (meaning “any one of many”)24, while yu 與 (with) represents the instrumental case of anyatamenānyatamena and subsequent terms, indicating association with samprayuktaḥ.

Similarly, in Xuanzang’s translation of the fifth chapter of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, we find the combination suiyu…xiangying 隨與…相應:

Chi. trans.: 隨與見此諦所斷相應，即說名為見此諦所斷。

(T29, p. 109c23-24)

Skt.: yaś ca yaddarśanaheyasamprayuktaḥ sa taddarśanaprahātavyaḥ |

(AKBh: p. 314, ll. 5–6)

Here, yu 與 functions as a preposition indicating an associative relationship, while sui 隨 appears to work with ji 即 to express the relative clause structure of “yaś…sa…”. Interestingly, in the previous example, the association between anyatamenānyatamena… samprayuktaḥ would be more naturally rendered in Chinese grammar as “與隨一…相應” with 與 placed first. The unusual ordering as “隨與一” may relate to the relative pronoun yaḥ in the sentence. Additionally, the Apidamo Dapiposha lun 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 contains two instances of suiyu that, while lacking Sanskrit parallels, appear from the Chinese to indicate relationships of accompaniment or mixture25.

These examples demonstrate that in Xuanzang’s work, yu 與 in suiyu also expresses association or accompaniment relationships—a natural reading in Chinese, particularly since such examples exist within the YBh itself. In these cases, suiyu represents the incidental combination of sui and yu rather than translating a specific Sanskrit term. The difficulty in distinguishing between these two scenarios in Chinese explains why Xuanzang’s disciples might reasonably interpret the yu in suiyu as indicating accompaniment when analyzing the definition of volition.

5. Conclusions

This study, by examining the interpretation of suiyu in the YBh as a case study, has highlighted the methodological challenges inherent in comparative analyses of Chinese and Tibetan translations. It has also proposed systematic approaches for addressing these difficulties. The findings demonstrate that, in the absence of extant Sanskrit sources, a thorough examination of related textual evidence—across multiple languages and traditions—is essential to avoid overlooking crucial semantic and structural relationships.

Through an analysis of the term suiyu, this paper has demonstrated that Xuanzang’s translation methodology was sophisticated and context-sensitive: he consistently employed suiyu—a term closely adhering to the Sanskrit anupradāna—in technical discussions involving consciousness and its associated mental factors, such as volition (cetanā) and equanimity (upekṣā). In contrast, he adopted more idiomatic renderings in contexts where anupradāna carries its basic sense of “giving” or “bestowing” in the Bodhisattvabhūmi. It is generally accepted that Xuanzang sought to preserve Sanskrit grammatical features, yet Delhey (2024, p. 7) observes the following: “his translations of the Yogācārabhūmi are faithful to the meaning of each paragraph and, in many cases, each sentence. Regarding the wording of these brief textual passages, he displays considerable freedom, except for the basic technical vocabulary, which remains almost completely unaltered.” The examples discussed in this paper exhibit similar characteristics, revealing Xuanzang’s nuanced approach and his sophisticated understanding of Buddhist doctrinal subtleties.

However, due to constraints imposed by Chinese grammar and the influence of prior translations, Xuanzang’s meticulous strategies sometimes failed to convey his intended meaning with full clarity. The term suiyu, for instance, proved difficult to comprehend accurately, even for his immediate disciples.

This case exemplifies the complex dynamics of localization in medieval China, illustrating how translators navigated the tension between fidelity to the source text and adaptation to local linguistic and conceptual frameworks. This dialectic between preservation and adaptation constitutes a defining feature of the transmission of Buddhist texts across Asia. The interpretive difficulties surrounding terms like suiyu remind us that the spread of Buddhist thought was never merely a matter of linguistic transfer, but rather a deeply layered process of cultural negotiation and philosophical reinterpretation that continues to shape our understanding of Buddhist traditions today.