Exploring the Intricate Usage and Interpretation Issues of “ 體 ” (t ǐ ) in

: This study delves into the intricate usage and interpretation issues of the Chinese term “ 體 ” (t ı̌ ) in Xuanzang’s translation of the Abhidharmako ś a (AKBh[X]) by providing a Sanskrit-Chinese comparative investigation. Xuanzang’s translations are pivotal in understanding certain Abhidharma scriptures, as some of them are the sole complete versions available. This study focuses on the term “ 體 ” in AKBh[X], evaluating its usage in relation to 16 corresponding Sanskrit equivalents and the instances where Xuanzang introduced “ 體 ” without a Sanskrit equivalent. The analysis uncovers translation errors, potential misinterpretations, and the lack of clarity in certain contexts, emphasizing the need for readers to be cautious and consult additional sources for a comprehensive understanding of his translations

into the intricate usage and interpretation issues of the Chinese term " nslation of the Abhidharmakośa (AKBh[X]) by providing a Sanskrittigation.Xuanzang's translations are pivotal in understanding certain some of them are the sole complete versions available.This study focuses h[X], evaluating its usage in relation to 16 corresponding Sanskrit es where Xuanzang introduced "體" without a Sanskrit equivalent.The on errors, potential misinterpretations, and the lack of clarity in certain need for readers to be cautious and consult additional sources for a ing of his translations.slation; Abhidharmakośabhaṣ ya; 體 (t ı̌ ); Sanskrit-Chinese Comparative ) was a prominent translator in the history of Chinese Buddhism.roundbreaking, evident in the extensive translations he and his mpassing various Buddhist scriptures from different traditions, ajñāpāramitā, and Yogacāra texts.Xuanzang's translations 1 also anslating Buddhist classics, rectifying numerous errors made in is translations are categorized as "new translations", while to his era are referred to as "old translations".Compared to the ng's works stand out for their faithfulness and accuracy to the consistent rendering of the translated language ).uanzang's translations to modern scholars is that some Buddhist ertain Abhidharma texts, such as *Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra, nslations by Xuanzang.As a result, our knowledge of these texts translations.However, accurately comprehending his translated ue to the lack of parallel texts for comparison.Despite this nzang's translation choices is crucial to correctly understanding nally, Xuanzang's translations had a significant impact on the tradition, leading to the neglect of older translations in favor of les extensively annotated his translations of the Abhidharmakośa 1998, pp.136-7).currently limited specialized studies on Xuanzang's translations.dies, such as Sakurabe (1954), Kuwayama and Hakamaya (1991), ), Hirakawa et al. (2016), Delhey (2016), and Nehrdich (2023) have g methods including philology, grammar, linguistics, and textual

Introduction
Xuanzang (602-664) was a prominent translator in the history of Chinese Buddhism.His contributions were groundbreaking, evident in the extensive translations he and his team accomplished, encompassing various Buddhist scriptures from different traditions, such as Abhidharma, Prajñāpāramitā, and Yogacāra texts.Xuanzang's translations 1 also set new standards for translating Buddhist classics, rectifying numerous errors made in previous translations.His translations are categorized as "new translations", while translations made prior to his era are referred to as "old translations".Compared to the old translations, Xuanzang's works stand out for their faithfulness and accuracy to the original texts, and a more consistent rendering of the translated language (Kuwayama and Hakamaya 1991, pp. 301-4).
The importance of Xuanzang's translations to modern scholars is that some Buddhist scriptures, particularly certain Abhidharma texts, such as *Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra, only exist in Chinese translations by Xuanzang.As a result, our knowledge of these texts depends entirely on his translations.However, accurately comprehending his translated terms is challenging due to the lack of parallel texts for comparison.Despite this challenge, grasping Xuanzang's translation choices is crucial to correctly understanding these scriptures.Additionally, Xuanzang's translations had a significant impact on the East Asian Abhidharma tradition, leading to the neglect of older translations in favor of his work, and his disciples extensively annotated his translations of the Abhidharmakośa (AKBh) (Willemen et al. 1998, pp. 136-7).

) in Xuanzang's Translation of Abhidharmakośabhās ˙ya
Shuqing Zhang 1,2 elves into the intricate usage and interpretation issues of the Chinese term " s translation of the Abhidharmakośa (AKBh[X]) by providing a Sanskritinvestigation.Xuanzang's translations are pivotal in understanding certain s, as some of them are the sole complete versions available.This study focuses AKBh[X], evaluating its usage in relation to 16 corresponding Sanskrit stances where Xuanzang introduced "體" without a Sanskrit equivalent.The slation errors, potential misinterpretations, and the lack of clarity in certain the need for readers to be cautious and consult additional sources for a standing of his translations.
; translation; Abhidharmakośabhaṣ ya; 體 (t ı̌ ); Sanskrit-Chinese Comparative -664) was a prominent translator in the history of Chinese Buddhism.ere groundbreaking, evident in the extensive translations he and his encompassing various Buddhist scriptures from different traditions, a, Prajñāpāramitā, and Yogacāra texts.Xuanzang's translations 1 also or translating Buddhist classics, rectifying numerous errors made in ns.His translations are categorized as "new translations", while rior to his era are referred to as "old translations".Compared to the anzang's works stand out for their faithfulness and accuracy to the more consistent rendering of the translated language ).e of Xuanzang's translations to modern scholars is that some Buddhist rly certain Abhidharma texts, such as *Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra, e translations by Xuanzang.As a result, our knowledge of these texts his translations.However, accurately comprehending his translated g due to the lack of parallel texts for comparison.Despite this Xuanzang's translation choices is crucial to correctly understanding ditionally, Xuanzang's translations had a significant impact on the rma tradition, leading to the neglect of older translations in favor of isciples extensively annotated his translations of the Abhidharmakośa t al. 1998, pp. 136-7).are currently limited specialized studies on Xuanzang's translations.studies, such as Sakurabe (1954), Kuwayama andHakamaya (1991), 2014), Hirakawa et al. (2016), Delhey (2016), andNehrdich (2023) have lizing methods including philology, grammar, linguistics, and textual

Introduction
Xuanzang (602-664) was a prominent translator in the history of Chinese Buddhism.His contributions were groundbreaking, evident in the extensive translations he and his team accomplished, encompassing various Buddhist scriptures from different traditions, such as Abhidharma, Prajñāpāramitā, and Yogacāra texts.Xuanzang's translations 1 also set new standards for translating Buddhist classics, rectifying numerous errors made in previous translations.His translations are categorized as "new translations", while translations made prior to his era are referred to as "old translations".Compared to the old translations, Xuanzang's works stand out for their faithfulness and accuracy to the original texts, and a more consistent rendering of the translated language (Kuwayama and Hakamaya 1991, pp. 301-4).
The importance of Xuanzang's translations to modern scholars is that some Buddhist scriptures, particularly certain Abhidharma texts, such as *Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra, only exist in Chinese translations by Xuanzang.As a result, our knowledge of these texts depends entirely on his translations.However, accurately comprehending his translated terms is challenging due to the lack of parallel texts for comparison.Despite this challenge, grasping Xuanzang's translation choices is crucial to correctly understanding these scriptures.Additionally, Xuanzang's translations had a significant impact on the East Asian Abhidharma tradition, leading to the neglect of older translations in favor of his work, and his disciples extensively annotated his translations of the Abhidharmakośa (AKBh) (Willemen et al. 1998, pp. 136-7).

Introduction
Xuanzang (602-664) was a prominent translator in the history of Chinese Buddhism.His contributions were groundbreaking, evident in the extensive translations he and his team accomplished, encompassing various Buddhist scriptures from different traditions, such as Abhidharma, Prajñāpāramitā, and Yogacāra texts.Xuanzang's translations 1 also set new standards for translating Buddhist classics, rectifying numerous errors made in previous translations.His translations are categorized as "new translations", while translations made prior to his era are referred to as "old translations".Compared to the old translations, Xuanzang's works stand out for their faithfulness and accuracy to the original texts, and a more consistent rendering of the translated language (Kuwayama and Hakamaya 1991, pp. 301-4).
The importance of Xuanzang's translations to modern scholars is that some Buddhist scriptures, particularly certain Abhidharma texts, such as *Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra, only exist in Chinese translations by Xuanzang.As a result, our knowledge of these texts depends entirely on his translations.However, accurately comprehending his translated terms is challenging due to the lack of parallel texts for comparison.Despite this challenge, grasping Xuanzang's translation choices is crucial to correctly understanding these scriptures.Additionally, Xuanzang's translations had a significant impact on the East Asian Abhidharma tradition, leading to the neglect of older translations in favor of his work, and his disciples extensively annotated his translations of the Abhidharmakośa (AKBh) (Willemen et al. 1998, pp. 136-37).
However, there are currently limited specialized studies on Xuanzang's translations.Some representative studies, such as Sakurabe (1954), Kuwayama and Hakamaya (1991), Chen (2000), Wang (2014), Hirakawa et al. (2016), Delhey (2016), and Nehrdich (2023) have been conducted, utilizing methods including philology, grammar, linguistics, and textual studies.It is worth noting that although Hajime Sakurabe's article (1954) explored the term "體" in AKBh[X], it did not conduct a comprehensive investigation, probably due to limitations in retrieval tools at that time.And its focus was mainly on the Sanskrit term svabhāva that was translated as "體", overlooking other important instances and Xuanzang's own additions of the term.Therefore, this study aims to complement the deficiencies in Sakurabe's research by conducting a philological study specifically focusing on the term "體" in Xuanzang's translation of AKBh (AKBh[X]).
The study aims to examine the correspondence between "體" and each corresponding Sanskrit term, not solely focusing on svabhāva.Furthermore, it will examine the cases where Xuanzang added the term in the absence of a Sanskrit equivalent.By thoroughly examining these occurrences, the study seeks to evaluate the usage of "體" in AKBh[X] and identify the issues or complexities that might arise in his rendering.
Moving forward, two questions are to be addressed: why the term "體" was selected as the primary focus of this study, and why AKBh was chosen as the main research text.
Firstly, "體" was chosen because it appears extensively in Xuanzang's translations.In AKBh[X], it occurs 437 times, whereas in the translation by Paramārtha (AKBh [P]), it appears only 117 times.This notable discrepancy raises questions about Xuanzang's preference for this translated term.Furthermore, "體" in AKBh[X] corresponds to not just one or two Sanskrit words, but in fact 16 Sanskrit words and suffixes.This prompts further inquiry as to why Xuanzang, renowned for his precision, would use one translated term in such a broad range of contexts.And considering "體" in Chinese philosophy signifies innermost essence and has ontological implications, its usage by Xuanzang may require careful examination to avoid potential misinterpretation within a Chinese philosophical context.Therefore, exploring Xuanzang's usage of "體" in AKBh[X] can provide valuable insights into Xuanzang's translations.
Secondly, AKBh was chosen because it is currently available in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and two Chinese translations 2 .This allows for a comparative study, comparing the Sanskrit manuscript with Xuanzang's translations to identify possible Sanskrit originals for his translated terms.Additionally, AKBh provides a comprehensive introduction to the doctrinal system of the Sarvāstivāda school, covering almost all the topics relevant to this tradition (Sakurabe 1981, p. 36).Using it as the primary literature allows one to investigate the usage of specific translated terms across various aspects of Sarvāstivāda teachings, making the study more comprehensive.

The Overall Situation of "體 體 體" in AKBh[X]
The chosen Sanskrit text for this study was Pradhan's second edition (1975).It is currently the most widely used critical edition, with only minor changes from Pradhan's first edition.Upon comparison, it was observed that while AKBh[X] contains some explanatory content not present in Pradhan (1975), the majority of the sentences align with the Sanskrit originals in Pradhan (1975) 3 .Therefore, using Pradhan (1975) as a reference for comparison with AKBh[X] is a reasonable and appropriate approach.
In ancient Chinese, "體" can function as an independent word and is defined with various meanings, such as "body", "form", "expression", "essence", "intrinsic nature", "subject", and "principles", according to the Editorial Committee of the Comprehensive Chinese Dictionary (《漢語大字典》) (2010, pp. 4708-9).Additionally, as a morpheme, "體" can combine with other morphemes to create compound words, such as "自體" (one's own body, itself) and "實體" (objective existence).Interestingly, even when used as a single morpheme, "體" retains the meanings found in compound words such as "自體" "实體", and so on.In AKBh[X], the term "體" is encountered both as an individual word and as part of compound words alongside other morphemes.When investigating Xuanzang's translation of "體", therefore, it is essential to consider its usage in both standalone and compound-word contexts.
In the subsequent phase of this study, a meticulous investigation will be carried out to analyze the occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], first focusing on the correspondence between "體" and various Sanskrit terms, followed by an analysis of cases where there is no corresponding Sanskrit term.In instances where there exists a corresponding Sanskrit term, our approach will involve initially discerning the meaning of the equivalent term for "體" in the Sanskrit original.Subsequently, we will evaluate the accuracy of Xuanzang's utilization of "體" and its derivative compounds in translating the respective Sanskrit term.This analysis will also encompass an exploration of potential misinterpretations that may arise from Xuanzang's choices.In cases where no Sanskrit equivalents exist, our analysis will involve categorizing the instances where Xuanzang added the term "體".

3."體" and artha
In this section, we will delve into the essential but often overlooked correspondence between the term "體" and the Sanskrit word, artha.Despite being translated as "體", artha only appears in four instances, but these occurrences provide valuable insights into the  ātman, dravya, bhāva, ātmabhāva, jāti, svarūpa, sat, aṅgapratya ṅ ga, -tā, -tva, artha, aikya, dravyabhāva, sattva, and śarīra.Further details are as follows (Table 1):  The table above reveals that among all occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], the ones added by Xuanzang himself without the Sanskrit equivalents are the most numerous.When there are corresponding Sanskrit words, "體" most frequently corresponds to svabhāva, with a total of 54 instances.Following this, there are 25 instances corresponding dravya and 18 instances corresponding to ātman.Additionally, "體" appears frequently with bhāva, totaling nine instances.Moreover, there are ten instances of the compound term ātmabhāva (composed of ātman and bhāva) and one instance of dravyabhāva (composed of dravya and bhāva).Notably, Xuanzang also translated the terms artha, svarūpa, sat, -tā, -tva, aikya, sattva, sat, and śarīra into "體".
In the subsequent phase of this study, a meticulous investigation will be carried out to analyze the occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], first focusing on the correspondence between "體" and various Sanskrit terms, followed by an analysis of cases where there is no corresponding Sanskrit term.In instances where there exists a corresponding Sanskrit term, our approach will involve initially discerning the meaning of the equivalent term for "體" in the Sanskrit original.Subsequently, we will evaluate the accuracy of Xuanzang's utilization of "體" and its derivative compounds in translating the respective Sanskrit term.This analysis will also encompass an exploration of potential misinterpretations that may arise from Xuanzang's choices.In cases where no Sanskrit equivalents exist, our analysis will involve categorizing the instances where Xuanzang added the term "體".
In the subsequent phase of this study, a meticulous investigation will be carried out to analyze the occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], first focusing on the correspondence between "體" and various Sanskrit terms, followed by an analysis of cases where there is no corresponding Sanskrit term.In instances where there exists a corresponding Sanskrit term, our approach will involve initially discerning the meaning of the equivalent term for "體" in the Sanskrit original.Subsequently, we will evaluate the accuracy of gapratya R PEER REVIEW 3 of 14 suffixes, which include svabhāva, ātman, dravya, bhāva, ātmabhāva, jāti, svarūpa, sat, aṅgapratya ṅ ga, -tā, -tva, artha, aikya, dravyabhāva, sattva, and śarīra.Further details are as follows (Table 1):  The table above reveals that among all occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], the ones added by Xuanzang himself without the Sanskrit equivalents are the most numerous.When there are corresponding Sanskrit words, "體" most frequently corresponds to svabhāva, with a total of 54 instances.Following this, there are 25 instances corresponding dravya and 18 instances corresponding to ātman.Additionally, "體" appears frequently with bhāva, totaling nine instances.Moreover, there are ten instances of the compound term ātmabhāva (composed of ātman and bhāva) and one instance of dravyabhāva (composed of dravya and bhāva).Notably, Xuanzang also translated the terms artha, svarūpa, sat, -tā, -tva, aikya, sattva, sat, and śarīra into "體".
In the subsequent phase of this study, a meticulous investigation will be carried out to analyze the occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], first focusing on the correspondence between "體" and various Sanskrit terms, followed by an analysis of cases where there is no corresponding Sanskrit term.In instances where there exists a corresponding Sanskrit term, our approach will involve initially discerning the meaning of the equivalent term for "體" in the Sanskrit original.Subsequently, we will evaluate the accuracy of The table above reveals that among all occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], the ones added by Xuanzang himself without the Sanskrit equivalents are the most numerous.When there are corresponding Sanskrit words, "體" most frequently corresponds to svabhāva, with a total of 54 instances.Following this, there are 25 instances corresponding dravya and 18 instances corresponding to ātman.Additionally, "體" appears frequently with bhāva, totaling nine instances.Moreover, there are ten instances of the compound term ātmabhāva (composed of ātman and bhāva) and one instance of dravyabhāva (composed of dravya and bhāva).Notably, Xuanzang also translated the terms artha, svarūpa, sat, -tā, -tva, aikya, sattva, sat, and śarīra into "體".
In the subsequent phase of this study, a meticulous investigation will be carried out to analyze the occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], first focusing on the correspondence between "體" and various Sanskrit terms, followed by an analysis of cases where there is no corresponding Sanskrit term.In instances where there exists a corresponding Sanskrit term, our approach will involve initially discerning the meaning of the equivalent term for "體" in the Sanskrit original.Subsequently, we will evaluate the accuracy of Xuanzang's utilization of "體" and its derivative compounds in translating the respective Sanskrit term.This analysis will also encompass an exploration of potential misinterpretations that may arise from Xuanzang's choices.In cases where no Sanskrit equivalents exist, our analysis will involve categorizing the instances where Xuanzang added the term "體".

"體 體 體" and artha
In this section, we will delve into the essential but often overlooked correspondence between the term "體" and the Sanskrit word, artha.Despite being translated as "體", artha only appears in four instances, but these occurrences provide valuable insights into the potential inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa).As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā.As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises bot The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-com the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The K position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present t associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt b this distinction.
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by uti "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2 that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Co Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomita alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and through the "yathā.As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā.is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā.is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā...evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one

vijñānamityapare | yathā citta
Religions 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW potential inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.N these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, sp discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa).The f specific occurrences of artha in AKBh[X]: is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both K The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-comme the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kāri position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brill this distinction.
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizi "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34 that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Cons Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant. alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.3 through the "yathā.is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā.is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā.
As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā.: ow, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.rresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, ts represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the he Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, th the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates n. subandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the he Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, tham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the rtha" to "entities" or "objects".
As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhās ˙ya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhās ˙ya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhās ˙ya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhās ˙ya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhās ˙ya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthah ˙", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā…evam…" (just as… in this way…) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā…evam…" construction in the Bhās ˙ya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one entity, so too are Thought and Thought-concomitant, a correlation that does not exist in the Kārikās alone.This allows Vasubandhu to present a view aligned with the Sautrāntika school, while the original Kārikās reflect the Sarvāstivāda perspective.As we are aware, the Sarvāstivāda maintains that Thought and Thought-concomitant are two separate entities, whereas the Sautrāntika views them as one.
Vasubandhu's intricate maneuvering is truly impressive.Without referring to the original Sanskrit text and relying solely on Xuanzang's translation, however, we would be unaware of Vasubandhu's subtle intentions.Xuanzang translated both "artham" and "arthah ˙", which have distinct meanings, as "體".He rendered Kārikā 2.34ab as "心意識體一" (Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one 體).And in the Bhās ˙ya, he translated the lines containing "arthah ˙" as "義雖有異而體是一" (although the meanings differ, the 體 is one) and "而體是一" (yet the 體 is one).Indeed, while "體" carries multiple meanings in Chinese, the close proximity and repeated use of "體" in the same context could lead readers to overlook any subtle differences in its meaning.Without referring to the original Sanskrit text, readers may remain unaware that the first occurrence of "體" corresponds to "artham", while the subsequent two occurrences correspond to "arthah ˙".Furthermore, "體" in Chinese can carry meanings such as "entities" and "objects", supporting Xuanzang's translation of "arthah ˙" as "體".However, according to the Editorial Committee of the Comprehensive Chinese Dictionary (《漢語大字典》) (2010, pp.4708-9), "體" does not encompass the meaning of "meaning", making Xuanzang's rendering of "artham" inaccurate or even incorrect from this perspective.
As a result, Xuanzang's translation in this case falls short of capturing the subtleties of the original text.
In Chapter 4 of AKBh, there is also an occurrence of the term artha translated by Xuanzang as "體".The Sanskrit original along with its corresponding translations is presented below.
akarmasvabhāvam apy asti trividha is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the Upon comparing the Sanskrit original, it becomes evident that although Xuanzang's translation is not a word-for-word rendition, we can still determine that his use of "體" corresponds to "artha".Specifically, "cetanārthāntarabhūtam" is rendered by Xuanzang as "貪等離思別有體 (desiring and others exist apart from Intention with another 體) ".In the Sanskrit original above, "artha" conveys the meaning of "entities" or "objects".Given that "體" can also be interpreted as " entities " or "objects", Xuanzang's choice to translate "artha" as "體" appears justifiable from this perspective.However, as we will see next, the translation like this may also give rise to some potential misconceptions.

"體 體 體" and svabhāva
The significance of svabhāva in Abhidharma doctrines needs no overemphasis.It is not only directly related to the definition of dharma but also widely applied in various contexts throughout the literature.According to Seiji Kimura, AKBh contains a total of 196 occurrences of svabhāva (2002).Among these 196 instances, 54 were translated by Xuanzang as "體" or the compound terms containing "體".Based on the investigation conducted in this study, these 54 usages of svabhāva can be broadly categorized into three types: categorical usage, denoting "itself", and representation of real entities (dravya).

The Svabhāva Used to Denote "Itself"
Xuanzang translated svabhāva, which carries the meaning of "itself", as "體" or its derived compounds.For example: same entity (arthaḥ). [X]: know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, ints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the f the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates tion.Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the n the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the a, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness are the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, u subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the "artha" to "entities" or "objects".dly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure m..." (just as... in  In the above two examples, Xuanzang translated svabhāva, which conveys the meaning of "itself", as "體" and "自體".In Chinese, "體" can mean "entities themselves", while "自體" specifically refers to "itself".Considering the context and the surrounding language, it becomes evident that "體" and "自體" in these instances are intended to convey the meaning of "itself".Therefore, Xuanzang's translation here is highly appropriate and accurate in this regard.But in the following usage, Xuanzang's translation of svabhāva as "體" could potentially lead to some misunderstandings.

The Svabhāva Used for Categorization and to Denote Real Entity
The so-called categorical usage of svabhāva refers to its function in distinguishing one or more things from others.Takumi Fukuda (1988, p. 62) mentioned that svabhāva can be used to form various categories, and Kimura (2002, p. 316) explicitly stated that svabhāva serves a categorization function in AKBh.It is worth noting that this "categorization" occurs not only within the same level but also across different levels.In other words, svabhāva can be employed to differentiate entities at various hierarchical levels.The Sarvāstivada may state "X has Y as svabhāva" and "Y has Z as svabhāva", where X and Y belong to distinct levels.
The following examples illustrate this usage of svabhāva in AKBh.

AKBh[X]：故應風界動為自性。舉業顯體故亦言輕。 [T29, p. 3b12-13]
Xuanzang translated the first occurrence of "svabhāva" in this sentence as "自性" and the second occurrence as "體".However, it is evident that in this sentence, both "svabhāva" have the same meaning, referring to the defining characteristic of Wind as a fundamental material element (mahābhūta).In other words, through the svabhāva of mobility, Wind is distinguished from other elements.Xuanzang's translation of "舉業顯體" can be understood as "manifesting the svabhāva through karman", which aligns with the meaning of the original Sanskrit text.Notably, in this case, Xuanzang translated two "svabhāva" of identical meaning into two different Chinese terms, possibly due to considerations of the fourcharacter style of translation.is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure caturn ˙ā x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 potential inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa is the same entity (arthaḥ).

AKBh[X]
: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly is the same entity (arthaḥ).

AKBh[X]
: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly is the same entity (arthaḥ).

AKBh[X]
: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly is the same entity (arthaḥ).

AKBh[X]
: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā a The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā rep position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the oppos associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly this distinction.
Here, the "svabhāva" should be understood to refer to real entities or substantial existences, because earlier in the text, it was mentioned that there are eight types of Restraints (sa 4 of 14 quacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the e thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa  T29, p. 21c17-26] w, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.esponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the e Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates bandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the varān ˙a), but at the level of real entities (dravyatas), there are only four 6 .In the provided examples, Xuanzang consistently translated the "svabhāva" used for categorization and to denote real entity as "體" in Chinese.While "體" carries a rich set of meanings in Chinese, when applied to abstract entities and material phenomena that are not easily perceivable in our daily experience, such as in the sentence "夷雅之體, 無待韋弦" (The intrinsic nature of elegance does not rely on external influences) where it is applied to elegance, "體" is often understood as "intrinsic nature".In the mentioned examples, "svabhāva" is applied to Wind, sense-sphere (āyatana), Understanding (prajñā), Form (rūpa), and Restraints (sa EW 4 of 14 potential inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa is the same entity (arthaḥ).

AKBh[X]
: vara).According to the Abhidharma doctrines, Wind is one of four fundamental material elements.Although considered as concrete, Wind as a material element is not easily and accurately perceivable in in our daily experience.Consequently, readers may naturally interpret "體" applied to Wind as "intrinsic nature".Similarly, because Understanding is an abstract mental factor, and sense-sphere and Form represent categories that are also abstract, while Restraints are abstract entities, it becomes easy to interpret the use of "體" applied to these entities as signifying their "intrinsic nature".
However, this understanding may lead to a misconception when encountering phrases such as "dharma's svabhāva".It might create the misunderstanding that within the dharma of the Sarvāstivāda school, there is another intrinsic nature of dharma that exists separately from the dharma themselves.Yet, in the Sarvāstivāda view, a fundamental characteristic of dharma lies precisely in its mereological independence (Westerhoff 2018, p. 71).As illustrated in example [1], when Wind is described as having "mobility" as its svabhāva, it does not imply the existence of a separate "mobility" nature distinct from the phenomenon of Wind.Instead, according to the Abhidharmaprakaran ˙apādaśāstra, "What is the Wind as elementary substance?It is called lightness and other mobility (風界云何？謂輕等動性 [T26, p. 692c12])", indicating that the Wind itself is "mobility" 7 .
In summary, regardless of whether svabhāva is used for categorization, represents "itself", or denotes real entities, Xuanzang consistently translates it as "體" or the compound words with "體".When svabhāva refers to "itself", Xuanzang's translation of "體" and "自體" is clear and unambiguous.However, when svabhāva is used for categorization or 2023, 14, 1211 8 of 14 denotes real entities, translating it as "體" may cause the misunderstanding that there is an intrinsic nature distinct from phenomena within the entities.

"體 體 體" and ātman, dravya, bhāva, ātmabhāva, dravyabhāva as Well as Other Sanskrit Equivalents
In addition to svabhāva, Xuanzang frequently translated the Sanskrit terms ātman, dravya, and bhāva, as well as the compound words ātmabhāva and dravyabhāva, as "體" or compounds with it.In AKBh, some usages of ātman, dravya, and dravyabhāva are similar to svabhāva.The following will examine the correspondence between "體" and these Sanskrit terms and identify potential issues that may arise in their translations.

ātman
In AKBh, the Sanskrit term ātman, when translated by Xuanzang as "體", appears in three different contexts: representing "itself", indicating "composing of / being included in", and used for categorization.
When ātman represented "itself", Xuanzang frequently translated it as "自體".Just as in the case of svabhāva, Xuanzang's translation of "自體" for the meaning of "itself" is clear and unambiguous.
However, the appropriateness of Xuanzang's translation becomes questionable when ātman is used in the other two contexts.Firstly, for ātman used in categorization, Xuanzang translated it as a single morpheme "體"; for example, "sa is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the jñā nimittodgrahan ˙ātmikā" [010|16] (AKBh[X]: 想取像為體 [T29, p. 3c28]).Since the usage of ātman for categorization aligns with the usage of svabhāva for categorization, the drawback of translating svabhāva as "體" also applies here.In this case, it may lead to the misunderstanding that there is an intrinsic nature distinct from phenomena within things.
Next, when ātman appears as the last element in a compound word, it can signify "composing of / being included in".Xuanzang also translated this type of ātman as "體".While "體" indeed encompasses the meaning of "inclusion" according to the Editorial Committee of the Comprehensive Chinese Dictionary (《漢語大字典》) (2010, pp. 4708-9), the problem arises, for instance, when readers encounter Xuanzang's translation "體唯三" (tryāyatanātmakah ˙[152|18]).They might misunderstand the meaning of "體" here, interpreting it as a noun denoting "essence" or something else.
In conclusion, while Xuanzang consistently translates ātman as "體" or compounds with it, the appropriateness of the translation depends on the context in which these Sanskrit terms appear.While the translation as "自體" for representing "itself" is clear and unambiguous, translating ātman as "體" for categorization or representing inclusion might lead to potential misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Dravya
In AKBh, the term dravya referring to real entity was translated by Xuanzang as "體" "实體" "體类" "體实", and "有體实".Where Xuanzang translated it as "实體" and other compounds above, there is relatively little ambiguity, since these carry the meaning of "real entity" in Chinese.If he simply translated it as "體" where it applied to something abstract, however, the potential for readers to misinterpret "體" as "intrinsic nature" remains, as highlighted earlier.
Notably, Xuanzang occasionally translated "dravyatas" with the ablative case suffix "tas" as the compounds including "实體", "有體实", or "实有體", which have little difference in meaning.It seems that he did not translate the ablative case ending.In modern literal translations, we generally render dravyatas as "in the aspect of real entities" or "as real entities", and other such phrases in prepositional structures.However, this literal translation style might have been considered verbose and less elegant by ancient Chinese translators.Therefore, in cases where the semantics remain unchanged, Xuanzang often adopted semantic equivalence.Thus, Xuanzang's translation of "dravyatas" as "实體", "实有體", or "有體实" is fully understandable.Furthermore, from a word-by-word comparison perspective, Xuanzang also translated one instance of dravya as "自體类", as shown below: na tvalpakād vedanādidravyāt prabhūta s 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 potential inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā...evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one Modern Translation: But (tu) multiple Sensations (vedanā) and other real entities do not arise from fewer Sensations and other real entities.It is just like that has been said here.
AKBh[X]: 且於受等自體類中，無少生多。以說等義。 [T29, p. 36c8-9] Xuanzang's translation of "dravya" as "自體类" in the context of "vedanādidravyāt" may initially appear perplexing, as "自體类" seems to evoke the term svajāti rather than dravya.However, considering the preceding context, we find that Xuanzang's choice was intended to maintain consistency in his Chinese translation.Earlier in the text, "svajāti" has indeed been mentioned, and the previous themes have consistently revolved around "jāti".In this particular sentence, perhaps Vasubandhu switched to using "dravya" to provide a more specific explanation.
This demonstrates how Xuanzang strived to maintain consistency and clarity in his translation, adapting certain terms to better align with the evolving themes and context of the text.By incorporating "svajāti" into the translation, Xuanzang aimed to make the reading experience more fluid and comprehensible to his Chinese audience.
Furthermore, Xuanzang's translation of the compound term ātmabhāva as "自體", which can be understood to denote body or self-body, fits well with the context.
For dravyabhāva applied to abstract entities, which shares a synonymous meaning with dravya, Xuanzang translated it as "體", introducing the same potential drawback as in the case of dravya translations, wherein "體" may be interpreted as "intrinsic nature".
It is essential to note that Xuanzang also translated the suffixes -tā and -tva as "體".In Sanskrit, -tā and -tva represents abstract qualities or states.Since "體" itself can also imply "quality", Xuanzang's choice to translate them as "體" is reasonable from this perspective.In such cases, however, readers might mistakenly associate "體" with svabhāva, leading to potential misunderstandings of the sentence's intended meaning.
Additionally, in modern language, for sentences with the structure of Genitive case + -tva, such as "tasya tadekatva", the structure is generally translated as "they are the same", without turning "-tva" into a separate word.In AKBh, however, Xuanzang often translated -tva / -tā into terms such as "體", which could be considered a characteristic of his translation style.

Cases Where Xuanzang Added "體" Himself 8
Xuanzang added the term "體" 290 times, which accounts for 68% of all occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], indicating that in over half of the cases "體" was added by Xuanzang himself and does not have a corresponding Sanskrit original.There are two main categories of cases where Xuanzang added "體": (1) The entire sentence containing "體" does not have a corresponding Sanskrit equivalent.
(2) The sentence containing "體" has a corresponding Sanskrit equivalent.Within this category, we can further divide it into: (2.1) Instances where "體" lacks a corresponding Sanskrit word in the sentence but may have a corresponding word found in the context of the surrounding text., p. 21a25-26] In this example, the sentence "愛敬別者，愛謂愛樂，體即是信" (The difference between Affection and Respect is that Affection is thirst, 體 is Faith) are all explanatory content added by Xuanzang in the translation.By the Sanskrit-Chinese collation, it was found that Xuanzang sometimes incorporated explanatory content into his translations.In such cases, since the entire sentence is explanatory, the added "體" by Xuanzang can generally be understood based on the context in preceding text.For the example above, in Kārikā 2.32c, it says "prema śraddhā" [060|08] (Affection is Faith), and therefore, the "體" added by Xuanzang in the sentence "愛謂愛樂，體即是信" (Affection is thirst, 體 is Faith) may refer to the affection itself, just like the usage of svabhāva to signify "itself".
Next, let us consider situation (2.1), where the sentence containing the added "體" has a corresponding Sanskrit original.The added "體" lacks a corresponding Sanskrit word in the specific sentence, but can be found in the surrounding context.The table above reveals that among all occurrences of "體" in AKB added by Xuanzang himself without the Sanskrit equivalents are the m When there are corresponding Sanskrit words, "體" most frequently svabhāva, with a total of 54 instances.Following this, there are 25 instances dravya and 18 instances corresponding to ātman.Additionally, "體" app with bhāva, totaling nine instances.Moreover, there are ten instances of term ātmabhāva (composed of ātman and bhāva) and one instance o (composed of dravya and bhāva).Notably, Xuanzang also translated t svarūpa, sat, -tā, -tva, aikya, sattva, sat, and śarīra into "體".
In the subsequent phase of this study, a meticulous investigation wil to analyze the occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], first focusing on the c between "體" and various Sanskrit terms, followed by an analysis of cases no corresponding Sanskrit term.In instances where there exists a correspo term, our approach will involve initially discerning the meaning of the e for "體" in the Sanskrit original.Subsequently, we will evaluate th Xuanzang's utilization of "體" and its derivative compounds in translatin Sanskrit term.This analysis will also encompass an exploration misinterpretations that may arise from Xuanzang's choices.In cases wh equivalents exist, our analysis will involve categorizing the instances w added the term "體".

3."體" and artha
In this section, we will delve into the essential but often overlooked c between the term "體" and the Sanskrit word, artha.Despite being translate only appears in four instances, but these occurrences provide valuable in ghāvetyaprasādāh ˙śraddhāsvabhāvāh ˙", it can be inferred that "āryakāntāni ca śīlāni" omits the term "svabhāva".Xuanzang noticed this and thus supplemented it during the translation.
Next is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh[X]: As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness (vjñāna) share the same meaning (artham).As "artham" in 2.34ab is a neuter gender noun, the term "artham" is understood to mean "meaning" 5 .However, in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu subtly altered "artham" to the masculine noun "arthaḥ", changing the meaning of "artha" to "entities" or "objects".
Secondly, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure "yathā...evam..." (just as... in this way...) to connect Kārikās 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.The issue is that Kārikā 2.34ab discusses only Thought, Mental Faculty, and Consciousness, while Kārikā 2.34bcd exclusively addresses Thought and Thought-concomitant.From the Kārikās alone, there seems to be no logical connection between 2.34ab and 2.34bcd.However, through the "yathā...evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one In Example [2], Xuanzang translated "svabhāva" as "自性" and then added the term "體" to his translation.According to the context, "體" here refers to entities or things.In Example [3], Xuanzang translated "ātman" as "我" (self / I) and added "體" after "我".In this context, "體" possibly represents entities or things.In both examples, the added "體" seems to function as an expletive and does not significantly alter the meaning of the sentences.In the following instance, however, he chose to replace the original Sanskrit term with "體".
[ is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā and Bhāṣya.The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentary.However, the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opposing view, associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantly illustrates this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully manipulated the term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the standpoint of the Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Consciousness  is the same entity (arthaḥ). AKBh As we know, the AKBh authored by Vasubandhu comprises both Kārikā The former corresponds to verses, while the latter is its prose auto-commentar the viewpoints represented in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya diverge.The Kārikā re position of the Sarvāstivāda school, while the Bhāṣya present the opp associated with the Sautrāntika school.The above Sanskrit excerpt brilliantl this distinction.
Here, Vasubandhu employed two clever tactics.Firstly, he skillfully man term artha in the Kārikā and Bhāṣya.In Kārikā 2.34ab which represents the stand Sarvāstivāda, it is stated that Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (manas), and Co In Example [4], according to the Sanskrit-Chinese comparison, it is easy to assume that Xuanzang translated "varn ˙a" (color) as "體".However, the Chinese term "體" does not carry the meaning of "color", and the Sanskrit word "varn ˙a" does not have the same usage as "體".Therefore, in terms of meaning, "varn ˙a" and "體" cannot correspond to each other, suggesting that "體" in this context was added by Xuanzang himself.
It is worth noting that for the same sentence, Paramārtha translated it as "譬如打破金器 作別莊嚴具，有別形相故有異。不由物類異故異，色等同故 [T29, p. 258a2-3]" (For example, when breaking a golden object to create various ornaments, due to different forms, there are differences.Because of the sameness of color, the differences do not result from a distinction in substance).It is evident that Paramārtha accurately translated "varn • a" as "色" (color) based on the Sanskrit meaning.The question remains: why did Xuanzang translate the Sanskrit original as "體無異" (體 is not different)?
Upon examining the preceding text, we find the expression "na dravyānyathātvam" [296|11] (not different from the real entities) where Xuanzang translated "dravya" as "體".Therefore, it can be inferred that Xuanzang's usage of "體" in Example [4] is also derived from the earlier "dravya".Based on Xuanzang's translation, the sentence now reads: "The broken golden vessel made into other objects may have different shapes, but the '體' remains the same."Here, "體" appears to refer to the gold.While this interpretation does not significantly alter the overall meaning of the sentence, it does involve adding Xuanzang's own understanding in the translation process.
Xuanzang's preference for using "體" is further evident in his frequent translation of dharma as "法體" (法 refers to dharma).For instance: Upon careful examination, we can indeed find that in Example [5], the "體" originates from the preceding term "ātman" 9 representing "itself".Therefore Xuanzang's translation of "法體" would mean the dharma itself.However, if one were to read Xuanzang's translation without referring to other sources, it would be easy to misinterpret "法體" as "dharma's 體", referring to the intrinsic nature of dharma, leading to a misunderstanding.

Conclusions
In AKBh[X], Xuanzang extensively employed the term "體" and its derived compounds.When corresponding to Sanskrit words, "體" and its composites are linked to 16 Sanskrit terms and suffixes: svabhāva, ātman, dravya, bhāva, ātmabhāva, jāti, svarūpa, sat, a The table above reveals that among all occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], the ones added by Xuanzang himself without the Sanskrit equivalents are the most numerous.When there are corresponding Sanskrit words, "體" most frequently corresponds to svabhāva, with a total of 54 instances.Following this, there are 25 instances corresponding dravya and 18 instances corresponding to ātman.Additionally, "體" appears frequently with bhāva, totaling nine instances.Moreover, there are ten instances of the compound term ātmabhāva (composed of ātman and bhāva) and one instance of dravyabhāva (composed of dravya and bhāva).Notably, Xuanzang also translated the terms artha, svarūpa, sat, -tā, -tva, aikya, sattva, sat, and śarīra into "體".
In the subsequent phase of this study, a meticulous investigation will be carried out to analyze the occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], first focusing on the correspondence between "體" and various Sanskrit terms, followed by an analysis of cases where there is no corresponding Sanskrit term.In instances where there exists a corresponding Sanskrit term, our approach will involve initially discerning the meaning of the equivalent term for "體" in the Sanskrit original.Subsequently, we will evaluate the accuracy of Xuanzang's utilization of "體" and its derivative compounds in translating the respective Sanskrit term.This analysis will also encompass an exploration of potential gapratya Religions 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14 suffixes, which include svabhāva, ātman, dravya, bhāva, ātmabhāva, jāti, svarūpa, sat, aṅgapratya ṅ ga, -tā, -tva, artha, aikya, dravyabhāva, sattva, and śarīra.Further details are as follows (Table 1): The table above reveals that among all occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], the ones added by Xuanzang himself without the Sanskrit equivalents are the most numerous.When there are corresponding Sanskrit words, "體" most frequently corresponds to svabhāva, with a total of 54 instances.Following this, there are 25 instances corresponding dravya and 18 instances corresponding to ātman.Additionally, "體" appears frequently with bhāva, totaling nine instances.Moreover, there are ten instances of the compound term ātmabhāva (composed of ātman and bhāva) and one instance of dravyabhāva (composed of dravya and bhāva).Notably, Xuanzang also translated the terms artha, svarūpa, sat, -tā, -tva, aikya, sattva, sat, and śarīra into "體".
In the subsequent phase of this study, a meticulous investigation will be carried out to analyze the occurrences of "體" in AKBh[X], first focusing on the correspondence between "體" and various Sanskrit terms, followed by an analysis of cases where there is no corresponding Sanskrit term.In instances where there exists a corresponding Sanskrit term, our approach will involve initially discerning the meaning of the equivalent term for "體" in the Sanskrit original.Subsequently, we will evaluate the accuracy of Xuanzang's utilization of "體" and its derivative compounds in translating the respective Sanskrit term.This analysis will also encompass an exploration of potential ga, -tā, -tva, artha, aikya, dravyabhāva, sattva, and śarīra.In instances where no Sanskrit equivalents existed, Xuanzang added 292 instances of "體".
Xuanzang's usage of the term "體" was highly intricate.Not only did he translate Sanskrit words such as svabhāva, ātman, and bhāva into "體", each with distinct meanings and usages, but he also introduced various examples of "體" on his own.However, not all instances of "體" in AKBh[X] are accurate and faithful representations of the original Sanskrit texts.There are several issues with his usage: 1. Translation errors: Xuanzang mistranslated the term "artham", which denotes "meaning" in Kārikā 2.34ab, as "體".However, "體" does not carry the connotation of "meaning".Additionally, Xuanzang conflates "artham" with "arthah ˙", translating both as "體", causing confusion between the two.
2. Potential misinterpretations: Xuanzang's translation of svabhāva and ātman as "體" when used in a categorical sense or to denote real entities might lead to misconceptions, suggesting the existence of an intrinsic nature distinct from phenomena.Similarly, rendering dravya and dravyabhāva applied to abstract entities as "體" and dharma as "法體" could also contribute to such misunderstandings.Furthermore, when ātman appears at the end of a compound and means "consisting of", Xuanzang translated it as "體", further adding to possible confusion.
3. Lack of clarity: Due to the extensive usage of "體" throughout AKBh[X], without Sanskrit counterparts for reference, it can be challenging to determine the precise meaning of "體" in certain contexts.For instance, expressions such as "惡所作體" (kukr ˙tasya bhāvah ˙) and "比丘體" (bhiks ˙ubhāva) remain ambiguous unless compared with their corresponding Sanskrit originals, which respectively signify "the state of doing something wrong" and "monkhood".
Based on the above, a question arises: Why did Xuanzang, renowned for his accurate translations, have such a strong preference for using "體" and its compounds, even in cases where other Chinese terms were available or in the absence of corresponding Sanskrit words, to the extent that it caused some ambiguity and even errors in translation?The author speculates two primary reasons.Firstly, "體" in Chinese has a rich range of meanings, allowing it to cover numerous Sanskrit terms, thereby reducing the burden of translation.Secondly, "體" holds a central position in Chinese classical philosophy, forming a complementary pair with "用" (yòng), where the former denotes "essence" and the latter "function"."體" is often seen as fundamental and intrinsic, while "用" represents its external manifestation.As Xuanzang and his translation team were deeply influenced by Chinese classical philosophy, perhaps it was inevitable that this core concept of "體" would find its way into their translations.Notably, Sakurabe pointed out that the representative Sanskrit original for "體" in AKBh[X] is svabhāva, referring to the essential nature of phenomena, contrasting with karman (efficacy) (1954, p. 265).This judgement appears to have been influenced by "the theory of 體and 用" (體用論) in traditional Chinese philosophy.
In such cases, it becomes crucial for readers to be aware of the potential interpretational pitfalls that may arise from relying solely on Xuanzang's translation and to consult other materials for a more comprehensive understanding of the context and nuances of his translated work.
Moreover, besides the aforementioned issues, it is worth mentioning that not only does "體" in AKBh[X] correspond to various Sanskrit words, but even for the same Sanskrit term in identical usage, Xuanzang may use different translations.As pointed out in this study, svabhāva is sometimes translated as "體", while at other times it is translated as "自性".Hence, Xuanzang's translated terms are not entirely consistent.Therefore, without the original Sanskrit or other translations, it is unwise to interpret different renderings of Xuanzang's terms as indications of varying corresponding Sanskrit words.
nature of phenomena, contrasting with karman (efficacy) (1954, p. 265).This judgement appears to have been influenced by "the theory of 體 and 用" (體用論) in traditional Chinese philosophy.
In such cases, it becomes crucial for readers to be aware of the potential interpretational pitfalls that may arise from relying solely on Xuanzang's translation and to consult other materials for a more comprehensive understanding of the context and nuances of his translated work.
Moreover, besides the aforementioned issues, it is worth mentioning that not only does "體" in AKBh[X] correspond to various Sanskrit words, but even for the same Sanskrit term in identical usage, Xuanzang may use different translations.As pointed out in this study, svabhāva is sometimes translated as "體", while at other times it is translated as "自性".Hence, Xuanzang's translated terms are not entirely consistent.Therefore, without the original Sanskrit or other translations, it is unwise to interpret different renderings of Xuanzang's terms as indications of varying corresponding Sanskrit words.This aspect has also been pointed out by Abe (2009).
8 Some readers might anticipate an analysis of the specific meanings of "體" added by Xuanzang without Sanskrit correspondences in this section.However, given that this study is based on a comparison of the Sanskrit and Chinese texts, the author will not engage in purely Chinese literary analysis in this section.Instead, as mentioned earlier, the focus of this section lies in how many different categories can be identified among these instances of Xuanzang's additions of "體".

cittaṃ mano 'tha vijñānamekārthaṃ (2.34ab)
..evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one Also, Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha).(2.34ab)[It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It]contemplates,thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It]discriminates,thus[it]is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that Thoughts and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object (ālambana), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd) Religions 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 potential inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa).The following are the specific occurrences of artha in AKBh[X]: ..evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one manah ˙| āśritabhūta Also, Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha).(2.34ab) [It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that Thoughts and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object (ālambana), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd) inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa).The following are the specific occurrences of artha in AKBh[X]: ..evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu conn 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consci potential Also, Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha).(2.34ab) [It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that Thoughts and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object (ālambana), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd) inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa).The following are the specific occurrences of artha in AKBh[X]: ..evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one cittacaitasā potential [It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that Thoughts and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object (ālambana), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd)

(citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha). (2.34ab)
..evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one [It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that Thoughts

ought (citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) same meaning (artha). (2.34ab) mulates
..evam..." construction in the Bhāṣya, Vasubandhu connects 2.34ab with 2.34bcd, suggesting that just as Thought, Mental faculty, and Consciousness are one , thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental [It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that umulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as ndence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and sness being the same entity, in the same way that s and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object a), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd) e entity (arthaḥ).

Also, Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha). (2.34ab)
[It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that

and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object (ālambana), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd)
The following examples also demonstrate the same usage of svabhāva.If it were through that [knowledge of the Form], the pudgala would have svabhāva that is not distinct from the Form, or just have a name for it with respect to the Form.

Thoughts and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object (ālambana), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd)
, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure Also, Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha).(2.34ab) [It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that

Thoughts and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object (ālambana), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd)
, Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure varān ˙ā Also, Thought (citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha).(2.34ab) [It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that

cittaṃ mano 'tha vijñānamekārthaṃ (2.34ab)
Religions 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW potential inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notabl these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifica discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa).The followi specific occurrences of artha in AKBh[X]: , Vasubandhu employed another clever strategy by utilizing the structure

citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñ share the same meaning (artha
). (2.34ab) [It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is M Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Tho the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it servi the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that

ught (citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) ame meaning (artha). (2.34ab) ulates
).The following are the nces of artha in AKBh[X]: Others assert (apare) that ulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as dence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and ness being the same entity, in the same way that , thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental t] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.

Thoughts and Thought-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object (ālambana), modes of activity (ākāra) (2.34bcd)
).The following are the specific occurrences of artha in AKBh[X]: [It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that

Table 1 .
Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that Modern Translation：The serenity based on trusting faith of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha has Faith as svabhāva.And the beloved ones of the respectable have Restraints [as svabhāva].On the level of existence, there are Restraint [and Faith] such two real entities.Religions 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW suffixes, which include svabhāva, ātman, dravya, bhāva, ātmabhāva, jāt aṅgapratya ṅ ga, -tā, -tva, artha, aikya, dravyabhāva, sattva, and śarīra.Furthe follows (Table 1): 體' in AKBh[X] ). (2.34ab)[It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It] contemplates, thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It] discriminates, thus [it] is Consciousness.

citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha). (2.34ab)
, let us consider situation (2.2), where the "體" added by Xuanzang does not have a corresponding Sanskrit word in the preceding or following context.Here are a few examples of this situation:[It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It]contemplates,thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It]discriminates,thus[it]is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that

citta), Mental Faculty (mana ), and Consciousness (vijñāna) share the same meaning (artha). (2.34ab)
inadequacies and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of these instances are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the discourse on the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa).The following are the specific occurrences of artha in AKBh[X]:[It] accumulates, thus [it] is Thought.[It]contemplates,thus [it] is Mental Faculty.[It]discriminates,thus[it]is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that what accumulates from the gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, the same it serving as the basis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as the dependence is Consciousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and Consciousness being the same entity, in the same way that potential cittaṃ mano 'tha vijñānamekārthaṃ (2.34ab) cinotīti cittam | manuta iti manaḥ | vijānītīti vijñānam | citaṃ śubhāśubhairdhātubhiriti cittam | tadevāśrayabhūtaṃ manaḥ | āśritabhūtaṃ vijñānamityapare | yathā cittaṃ mano vijñānamityeko 'rthaḥ evaṃ cittacaita āḥ | āśrayālambanākārāḥ amprayuktāśca (2.34bcd)

-concomitants having a basis, cognitive object vity (ākāra) (2.34bcd)
] is Thought.[It]contemplates,thus[it]isMental , thus [it] is Consciousness.Others assert (apare) that gathering of good or bad elements (dhātu) is Thought, asis (āśraya) is Mental Faculty, the same it serving as iousness.How about Thought, Mental Faculty and ame entity, in the same way that and challenges faced in Xuanzang's translations.Notably, three of ces are concentrated in the second chapter of AKBh, specifically in the the thought (citta) and thought-concomitant (caitasa).The following are the rrences of artha in AKBh[X]: dequacies