Source: Funayama 2012

Funayama Tōru 船山徹. “Shintai no katsudō to chosaku no kihonteki tokuchō 眞諦の活動と著作の基本的特徴.” In Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramartha], edited by Funayama Tōru 船山徹, 1-86. Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo/Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Funayama notes that according to Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測, both these texts discuss the categories of 十信, 十解, 十行, 十回向, which is related to the 十信, 十住, 十行, 十回向, which is found only in Chinese Buddhism.

Edit

49-50

 Funayama notes that according to Wonch’uk 圓測, both these texts discuss the categories of 十信, 十解, 十行, 十回向, which is related to the 十信, 十住, 十行, 十回向, which is found only in Chinese Buddhism. Jiu shi zhang 九識章 Renwang bore shu 仁王般若疏

Paramārtha is attributed with a translation of a 大空論 in LDSBJ. That work was lost, but Funayama mentions that Ōtake Susumu 大竹晋, in work undertaken as part of Funayama's project on Paramārtha, proposed that the author of the lost work was Asaṅga, and that it is possible to collect from later citations fragments 佚文 of a commentary by Paramārtha that seems to have been on this work. The title 大空論疏 is unattested, and is merely a provisional convenience for the purposes of analysis.

Edit

21

 Paramartha is attributed with a translation of a 大空論 in LDSBJ. That work was lost, but Funayama mentions that Otake Susumu 大竹晋, in work undertaken as part of Funayama's project on Paramartha, proposed that the author of the lost work was Asanga, and that it is possible to collect from later citations fragments 佚文 of a commentary by Paramartha that seems to have been on this work. The title 大空論疏 is unattested, and is merely a provisional convenience for the purposes of analysis. Da kong lun commentary 大空論疏

Funayama notes that 顯識論 T1618 contains Sāṃmatīya elements of a commentarial nature, which include statements with identifiable sources in Chinese Buddhist texts. Similar elements, which "are inconsistent with our common understanding of translation documents" are also found in the Si di lun 四諦論 T1647.

Edit

7-8

 Funayama notes that 顯識論 T1618 contains Sammatiya elements of a commentarial nature, which include statements with identifiable sources in Chinese Buddhist texts. Similar elements, which "are inconsistent with our common understanding of translation documents" are also found in the Si di lun 四諦論 T1647. T1647; 四諦論

Funayama notes that 顯識論 T1618 contains Sāṃmatīya elements of a commentarial nature, which include statements with identifiable sources in Chinese Buddhist texts. Similar elements, which "are inconsistent with our common understanding of translation documents" are also found in the Si di lun 四諦論 T1647.

Edit

7-8

 Funayama notes that 顯識論 T1618 contains Sammatiya elements of a commentarial nature, which include statements with identifiable sources in Chinese Buddhist texts. Similar elements, which "are inconsistent with our common understanding of translation documents" are also found in the Si di lun 四諦論 T1647. T1618; 顯識論

These texts are included in a list Funayama gives of works "more naturally to be regarded as Paramārtha’s compositions, rather than translations" 譯とみるよりも真諦の著作と考えるほうが自然であるもの.

Edit

18-20

 These texts are included in a list Funayama gives of works "more naturally to be regarded as Paramartha’s compositions, rather than translations" 譯とみるよりも真諦の著作と考えるほうか自然てあるもの. T1528; 涅槃經本有今無偈論; San shi fenbie lun 三世分別論; Ben you jin wu lun 本有今無論 T1610; 佛性論 T1616; 十八空論 T1617; 三無性論 T1618; 顯識論 T2049; 婆藪槃豆法師傳

Funayama shows by citation of later fragments that the tradition holding that Paramārtha composed a commentary on the "Scripture of Humane Kings" (Renwang bore shu 仁王般若疏) is probably in some sense true. However, the wording of the root text in those same citations is identical to the extant (apocryphal) version (ascribed to Kumārajīva), and therefore shows also that it is highly unlikely that Paramārtha "retranslated" the root text, as a number of sources also hold. He notes that Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測 already stated that Paramārtha's "translation" was not extant in his time [as did Zhisheng---MR]. Fragments of this commentary evince a special panjiao 判教 schema, which is also found in the "Extinction of Karmic Obstructions" chapter 業障滅品 of the Suvarṇa(pra)bhāsottama ascribed to Paramārtha in Baogui's 寶貴 synoptic T664. In the the Suvarṇa(pra)bhāsottama, the threefold categorisation in question reads 轉法輪、照法輪、持法輪 (T664:16.368b11). In the fragment of the commentary, this rubric is used in a way that cannot make any imaginable sense in an Indic language: 轉轉法輪、轉照法輪、轉持法輪.

Edit

44-46

 Funayama shows by citation of later fragments that the tradition holding that Paramartha composed a commentary on the "Scripture of Humane Kings" (Renwang bore shu 仁王般若疏) is probably in some sense true. However, the wording of the root text in those same citations is identical to the extant (apocryphal) version (ascribed to Kumarajiva), and therefore shows also that it is highly unlikely that Paramartha "retranslated" the root text, as a number of sources also hold. He notes that Wonch’uk 圓測 already stated that Paramartha's "translation" was not extant in his time [as did Zhisheng---MR]. Fragments of this commentary evince a special panjiao 判教 schema, which is also found in the "Extinction of Karmic Obstructions" chapter 業障滅品 of the Suvarna(pra)bhasottama ascribed to Paramartha in Baogui's 寶貴 synoptic T664. In the the Suvarna(pra)bhasottama, the threefold categorisation in question reads 轉法輪、照法輪、持法輪 (T664:16.368b11). In the fragment of the commentary, this rubric is used in a way that cannot make any imaginable sense in an Indic language: 轉轉法輪、轉照法輪、轉持法輪. Renwang bore shu 仁王般若疏