Sthiramati (Sanskrit; Chinese: Anhui å®Âæ §, and Jianhui å  æ §; Tibetan: Blo gros brtan pa) was a 6th-century Indian Buddhist scholar-monk. Sthiramati was a student of a YogÃÂcÃÂra scholar named Gunamati, and he was also a contemporary of another 6th century YogÃÂcÃÂra scholar, Dharmapala of NÃÂlandÃÂ. Sthiramati is connected with ValÃÂbhi university (present-day Gujarat), and also with NÃÂlandÃÂ. Evidence from two inscriptions indicate that a figure named Sthiramati founded a monastery at ValÃÂbhi.
Sthiramati is mainly known for his numerous commentaries to YogÃÂcÃÂra and Abhidharma works which synthesized a varied tradition into a more coherent system.
While Sthiramati closely follows the classic philosophy of YogÃÂcÃÂra Buddhism found in the works of Vasubandhu and Asanga, his work also contains several innovative interpretations of YogÃÂcÃÂra philosophy.
One of Sthiramati's innovative contributions is his theory of meaning found in his Triá¹Âà ÂikÃÂ-bhÃÂá¹£ya. According to Sthiramati, all language use is figurative or metaphorical (Sanskrit: upacÃÂra). Drawing on a passage in Vasubandhu, Sthiramati argues that all phenomena (dharmas) are mere mental appearances (nirbhÃÂsa), i.e. mental representations (vijñapti). As such, no word can relate to an objectively existent phenomena (since no such thing exists). Words are only related to constructed mental appearances which come from the dependently arisen transformation of consciousness (vijñÃÂna-pariá¹ÂÃÂma). These phenomena deceptively appear as objectively existent things, but are ultimately unreal, like optical illusions. Thus, no words have an objective referent, and thus all language is necessarily figurative, a theory that has been termed pan-figurative or pan-metaphorical.
Sthiramati's philosophy is one of various attempts to systematize and develop YogÃÂcÃÂra Buddhism. His system differed from that of other YogÃÂcÃÂra thinkers of his time, like Dharmapala of Nalanda, in various ways. Their varying interpretations are also discussed in Xuanzang's (7th century) Chéng Wéishì Lùn. One point of contention was the status of the dependent nature. Sthiramati thought that the dependent nature was characterized by duality (of subject-object), which is the result of false imagination. So for Sthiramati, the dependent nature is empty and not ultimately real. In Sthiramati's system, the only thing that has real existence (dravyasat) is "the bare reality, free from the differentiation into subject and object". This is the true essence of the dependent nature (i.e. the perfected nature). Because of this, Sthiramati's view has also been compared to the NirÃÂkÃÂravÃÂda ("false aspectarian") view of YogÃÂcÃÂra by modern scholars, since he holds that all mental images are unreal and false.
Meanwhile, in Dharmapala's system, the dependent nature is the basis or pivot for both the imagined nature (if the dependent nature is discriminated dualistically) and the perfected nature (if duality is removed). For him, the dependent nature is both empty in one sense (when it is falsely discriminated) but also not-empty is another sense (in its true non-dual structure). Thus, for Dharmapala, the dependent nature and the perfected nature are both real, and they are also understood as being neither the same nor different. Because of this, Dharmapala's view has been seen as prefiguring the SÃÂkÃÂravÃÂda view.
Another disagreement between these two leading YogÃÂcÃÂra interpretations was their understandings of the doctrine of the transformation of consciousness (vijñÃÂna-pariá¹ÂÃÂma). According to some YogÃÂcÃÂra thinkers, consciousness transforms into various aspects: the seeing aspect (darà Âana-bhÃÂga, i.e. subjectivity), the objective aspect (nimitta-bhÃÂga, i.e. all objects of experience), the self-reflexive or self-knowing aspect (saá¹Âvitti-bhÃÂga, a division introduced by Dignaga), and (in Dharmapala's system), awareness of self-awareness (svasaá¹Âvitti-saá¹Âvitti). For Dharmapala, these four divisions were seen as working simultaneously to give rise to experience. However, Sthiramati's system only accepts the first three divisions. Furthermore, for Sthiramati, the first two divisions are imagined and ultimately unreal, while only the self-reflexive aspect is ultimately real. Thus, in Sthiramati's system, there is truly only one aspect (bhÃÂga), one single dynamic self-aware consciousness in which causes and effects arise moment by moment.
The view outlined above is the traditional understanding of Sthiramati's philosophy in Chinese YogÃÂcÃÂra scholasticism. Some modern scholars like Hidenori Sakuma have questioned theis tradition understanding of Sthiramati's YogÃÂcÃÂra views due to a lack of primary source evidence. Sakuma argues that this view derives from the work of Kuiji, and that this is unreliable.
Furthermore, Sakuma also argues that it is likely there were different Indian commentators whose work later became conflated into one figure named "Sthiramati".
Sthiramati wrote ten surviving commentaries on various Buddhist treatises:
Furthermore, "SÃÂramati" (Chinese: Suoluomodi å¨ÂÃ¥ÂÂæ«åºÂ) is the author of the RatnagotravibhÃÂga according to the Chinese translator and scholar Fazang (643âÂÂ712). However, this is likely to be a different figure than the commentator Sthiramati according to Sakuma. Takasaki Jikido is certain that the author of the embedded commentary (verse and prose) to the core text (verse) of the RatnagotravibhÃÂga is "SÃÂramati".