The study of the
Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra[1]) has a long history. French, Chinese and Japanese scholars have participated in the discussion, some of them great authorities in the field of Sino-Indian Studies, as P. Demieville, Ui Hakuju, Tokiwa Daijō, and Mochizuki Shinkō
[2]) . That I dare to add my grain to the store of knowledge already collected, though not even fully acquainted with the earlier efforts , demands an explanation. When studying Chinese Buddhism and slowly progressing through the centuries I came before the stumbling block of this text and found that without more definite knowledge about the
Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra a clear picture of Medieval Buddhism could not be attained. As no answer has yet been given to this problem acceptable to all the debaters I had to look into it myself. Unfortunately, the Indian libraries in my reach are very incomplete with respect to Japanese and Chinese books and periodicals. So I was confronted with a dilemma which worries many scholars to-day, namely, whether I should continue my studies in spite of this handicap or stop altogether. Finally I decided that I would try to get a result by using what was available to me and adding material which I collected myself. This led to what I consider as a result worth while to be submitted as a basis of discussion. The professors Matsunami Seiren and Hayashi Kemmyō kindly sent me reprints of their papers.
The present state of the discussion may in short be characterized as follows. The traditional view that (1) the
Śāstra is a translation of a Sanskrit original and (2) that the translator is Paramārtha, is now generally abandoned
[3]). It is also known that the
lntroduction is forged.
[4]) It is further known that the Sanskrit text translated by Śikṣānanda was itself a translation from the extant Chinese version
[5]). If so much is accepted, early doubts of Chinese Buddhists concerning the
Śāstra gain weight
[6]).
Hui-chün, an early seventh century witness, in the passage quoted above p. 156 note 4, speaks of "former" Dāśabhūmikas who forged the
Śraddhotpāda. Chi-tsang (549-623) blames Dāśabhūmikas "of a former generation"
that they mistook the eighth
vijñāna for Buddha-nature (T. vol. 34 380 b 20 f.). In another place he speaks of "old" Dāśabhūmikas (T. vol. 42 104 c 7). This implies that we have to distinguish between late Dāśabhūmikas (after the arrival of the
Mahāyāna-saṁgraha) and early ones (the first and second generations after the translators of the
Daśabhūmika Śāstra)
[7]) . Among them, those who belonged to the early generation are said to have forged the
Śraddhotpāda Śāstra[8]).
Tokiwa believes in a Chinese author who mainly relied on the
Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra both translations of which (Sung and Wei) he amalgamated. This may be correct though I could not find allusions peculiar to Guṇabhadra's (Sung) translation.
Mochizuki has proved that the Chinese author was acquainted not only with the
Laṅkāvatāra but with several other texts. He proposes as author T'an-tsun, a disciple of Fa-shang who dictated the
Śāstra to his disciple T'an -ch'ien. See below p. 160.
Hayashi Kemmyō, has traced material in Liang Wu-ti's writings and the
Pao-tsang lun. Liang Wu-ti believed in immortal souls
[9]). The
Śraddhotpāda Śāstra contains nothing of that sort. Though influence from that side cannot be excluded, I do not feel this material to be significant enough to permit us to place the author in the South.
Matsunami Seiren believes in Aśvaghoṣa if not as author yet as the spiritual father of the
Śraddhotpāda. I have compared his quotations from the
Sauṇdarānanda Kāvya etc . which are interesting. But I think we might consider as established that the author of the
Śraddhotpāda Śāstra was a Chinese and work upon that assumption
[10]). Besides, the main tenets of the
Śāstra have not been found in the
Kāvya.
I pass by other theories of which I have only heard . Scholars are searching in all directions and undoubtedly will find material unknown to me which will throw even more light on the intricate problem of our text. Meanwhile I shall consider as established that the
Śāstra was composed by an early Dāśabhūmika and limit my investigation to the question who this person was. (Liebenthal, "New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra," 155–58)
