How to parse 轉所依識?

Question

From the Lankavatara Sutra:

sūkṣmamabhivijñānaparāvṛttikuśalānāṃ
Bodhiruci: 能轉一切微細識
Śikṣānanda: 能以妙慧轉所依識
Suzuki: to cause a revulsion in the depth of the mind fittingly by means of an exquisite knowledge
Red Pine: and who make use of the subtlest wisdom to transform their consciousness.

Bodhiruci's version is easy to understand: "able to transform their vijñanas" where 識 means vijñana.

I find Śikṣānanda harder to parse, especially 轉所依識.

My question is: is it 識 (vijñana) that is transformed, or is it 所依 (āśraya)?

The Sanskrit terms mentions the basis of transformation (vijñānaparāvṛtti). It makes sense to say the basis of transformation (understood as the alaya) is being transformed.

But if we were to read the Chinese without being informed by the Sanskrit or by Buddhist philosophy, would we read it this way too? I'm struck by the difference between Bodhiruci and Śikṣānanda.

Answer 1

0. It may read like 轉所依之識 here in Śikṣānanda: 'to transform vijñāna which is the basis'. To me, 所依 sounds like a dummy object (for the transitive 轉) that has a slightly negative connotation, is more generic, and semantically weaker; whereas 識 is specific to the context here. They are however syntactically equivalent.

1. Technically it should be 識, because there is the Sanskrit word for 識 (vijñāna) but not 所依 (āśraya) in the original text (sūkṣmamabhivijñānaparāvṛttikuśalānāṃ).

2. 依 in classical Chinese means 'to rely on' as a verb. The 所-construction passivises and nominalises the verb. So 所依 means 'that which is relied on' (or more idiomatically, 'basis' in English). However, 依, especially when following another verb, can act as a noun, itself meaning exactly 所依 (i.e. the 所 is omitted). An example of which is 轉依 (āśraya-parāvṛtti, or v. 'transform the basis'; n. 'transformation of the basis').

3. Because 轉 (parāvṛtti) is commonly collocated with 依(=所依) (āśraya), even though it is not in this instance (i.e. there is no āśraya in the text), some Chinese translations still add 依.

4. When forming the Sanskrit compound, the accusative case (of vijñāna) is not specified. However, it is quite certain that an entity as brilliant as subtle wisdom (妙慧) itself needs not be transformed, so it is not the accused. It leaves little doubt that the generic vijñāna is the accused, i.e. 轉識.

5. Let us look at a few more (relatively modern) Chinese translations:

   	Translation
   Tam Shek-wing [談錫永] (2005:20)	能以妙慧於內心起轉依
   Huang Baosheng [黃寶生] (2011:22)	善於以妙慧轉變識

   Tam translated vijñāna into 於內心 (in the inner-heart). 轉依 is a noun meaning 'transformation of the basis'. The transformation occurs at the heart of a person. Huang's translation is also straightforward: it is vijñāna that is transformed (轉變識).

---

Edit

6. The modern Japanese translation by Tokiwa (1994:20) is as follows:

   微細なところまで知覚の根拠の転換を果たすことに優れた人々

   (translation) People who excel in accomplishing the transformation of the basis of consciousness to even the finest detail

   To compare with the above, Tokiwa has both 轉依 (根拠の転換, where 轉=転換 and 依=根拠) and 識 (知覚), and corresponds well to my interpretation of Śikṣānanda in point 0, because they are linked by the particle 之 (italicised の).

7. A word on sūkṣmamabhi: Huang (2011:22) thinks it may have been sūkṣmamati ('subtle perception') instead, which corresponds to translators adopting 妙慧 (i.e. Śikṣānanda, Suzuki, Red Pine, Tam, and Huang). Those who did not (i.e. Bodhiruci and Tokiwa) placed their focus only on sūkṣmam ('subtle').

References

1. 談錫永（2005）《入楞伽經梵本新譯》。臺北：全佛文化。

2. 黃寶生（2011）《梵漢對勘入楞伽經》。北京：中國社會科學出版社。

3. 常盤義伸（1994）『「ランカーに入る」：梵文入楞伽経の全訳と研究』Part 1. 京都：花園大学国際禅学研究所.