- T. 1666. I have compared the photos of manuscripts mentioned in Giles, Chinese Manuscripts from Tunhuang, nos. 4318-20, 5771-84. But I found no interesting versions. (No. 5783 seems to be a commentary of the Samyuktābhidharma-sāra!)
- Of this literature I had at my disposal : P. Demiéville: Sur l'authenlicité du Ta Tch'eng K'i Sin Louen. Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise, tome II, no. 2 , Tokyo 1929, reprint pp. 1-78 (Demiéville, Authenticité).
Mochizuki Shinkō: Bukkyo daijüen (1935} (Mochizuki, Dictionary).
Same : Daijo Kishinron no Kenkyū (1922) (Mochizuki , Study) .
Same: Kōjutsu Daijō Kishinron (1938} (Mochizuki, Kishinron).
Same : Kokuyaku Issaikyō, Ronshu-bu 5 (1953}. A translation with a detailed outline.
Same : Bukkyō kyōten. seiritsu shiron (1949}, pp. 532–624.
Ui Hakuju: Daijō Kishinron. Tokyo 1936. Matsunami Seiren: Yugagyoha no taikei lo nendai (Nippon bukkyō gakkai nempō, No. 22) . 1957.
Same: Yugagyoha. no so lo shite no Memyō (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 39). 1954 .
Same: Kishinron-shisō no taikei to nendai {Nippon bukkyō gakkai nempō, No. 22) . 1957.
Same: Tensei naru Nanda (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 42). 1957.
Hayashi Kemmyō: Kishinron no shin Kenkyū. 1945.
Suzuki D. Teitarō: Awakening of Faith. Chicago l900. - Also by Demiéville, see Le Concile de Lhasa (Bibliothèque de l'lnstitut des Hautes Études Chinoises, t. vii, Paris 1952), part 1 p. 57.
- Though old.
- Tao-hsüan's note following upon the biography of Hsüan-tsang in Hsü kao-seng chuan T. vol. 50 428 b 27.
- Cf. Mochizuki, Dictionary 3256b, also Ching-lu T. vol. 55 142a; Chinkai, Sanron gensho Mongiyō [Chinese characters not available] ch. ii (T . 2299 vol. 70 228c) quotes two passages from the Ta-ch'eng ssu-lun hsüan-i [Chinese characters not available] ch. 5 and 10 which, however, are not found in the extant fragmentary version (Hsü•tsang ching I. 74/I). It looks as if ch. 10 of that edition should more correctly be labelled ch. 12. I am translating these quotations: Ch. 5. '"The Śraddotpāda is made by a prisoner-of-war who borrowed the name of Aśvaghoṣa." Ch. 10. "Śraddotpāda. Some say that it is made by Dāśabhūmikas of the North . . . It is not by Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva. Former [Chinese characters not available] Dāśabhumikas made it. They borrowed the name (of Aśvaghoṣa) for the headline". The "prisoner -of-war" is perhaps imagination. The "former" Dāśabhūmikas seem to be correct.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Same: ''Tensei naru Nanda'' (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 42). 1957.<br> | Same: ''Tensei naru Nanda'' (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 42). 1957.<br> | ||
Hayashi Kemmyō: ''Kishinron no shin Kenkyū''. 1945.<br> | Hayashi Kemmyō: ''Kishinron no shin Kenkyū''. 1945.<br> | ||
Suzuki D. Teitarō: ''Awakening of Faith''. Chicago l900.</ref>) . 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. | Suzuki D. Teitarō: ''Awakening of Faith''. Chicago l900.</ref>) . 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.<br> 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<ref>Also by Demiéville, see ''Le Concile de Lhasa'' (Bibliothèque de l'lnstitut des Hautes Études Chinoises, t. vii, Paris 1952), part 1 p. 57.</ref>). It is also known that the ''lntroduction'' is forged.<ref>Though old.</ref>) It is further known that the Sanskrit text translated by Śikṣānanda was itself a translation from the extant Chinese version<ref>Tao-hsüan's note following upon the biography of Hsüan-tsang in ''Hsü kao-seng chuan'' T. vol. 50 428 b 27.</ref>). If so much is accepted, early doubts of Chinese Buddhists concerning the ''Śāstra'' gain weight<ref>Cf. Mochizuki, ''Dictionary'' 3256b, also ''Ching-lu'' T. vol. 55 142a; Chinkai, ''Sanron gensho Mongiyō [Chinese characters not available] ch. ii (T . 2299 vol. 70 | ||
228c) quotes two passages from the ''Ta-ch'eng ssu-lun hsüan-i [Chinese characters not available] ch. 5 and 10 which, however, are not found in the extant fragmentary version (''Hsü•tsang ching'' I. 74/I). It looks as if ch. 10 of that edition should more correctly be labelled ch. 12. I am translating these quotations: Ch. 5. '"The ''Śraddotpāda'' is made by a prisoner-of-war who borrowed the name of Aśvaghoṣa." Ch. 10. "''Śraddotpāda''. Some say that it is made by Dāśabhūmikas of the North . . . It is not by Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva. Former [Chinese characters not available] Dāśabhumikas made it. They borrowed the name (of Aśvaghoṣa) for the headline". The "prisoner -of-war" is perhaps imagination. The "former" Dāśabhūmikas seem to be correct.</ref>).<br> | |||
|DisableDropcap=No | |DisableDropcap=No | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 12:54, 11 May 2020
New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra
Article
Article
| Citation: | Liebenthal, Walter. "New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra." T'oung Pao 46, no. 3/5 (1958): 155–216. |
|---|
Article Summary
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]).
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]).
