|
|
Wagner argues that the Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章 T1856 (also known as the Jiumoluoshi fashi dayi 鳩摩羅什法師大義) was scrambled in transmission, and attempts, on the basis of close philological scrutiny of the text, to reconstruct the original order in which Huiyuan's questions and Kumārajīva's answers were produced and would have been presented. Essentially, Wagner argues as follows. Given the probable dating of the exchange (in Wagner´s view, approx. spring 406 to the end of 407), and the logistical realities of postal exchange at the time, Wagner contends that there would not have been sufficient time for an exchange of eighteen or twenty-eight questions and answers to have been delivered to and fro between Lushan and Chang'an, as the present structure of the text would make it appear. On the basis of rigorous formal criteria for determining the relative sequence of questions and answers (1971: 43), Wagner concludes that there were in fact only two exchanges of a total of four letters, each containing multiple questions (from Huiyuan) or answers thereto (from Kumārajīva). "I hope to have established that there were two letters with questions by Hui-yüan and two letters with answers by Kumārajīva, and that Hui-yüan knew only the answers to his first series of questions when he formulated the second series."
Edit
|
Wagner (1969): 6-11, 28-37; reprised in English in Wagner (1971). |
Wagner argues that the Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章 T1856 (also known as the Jiumoluoshi fashi dayi 鳩摩羅什法師大義) was scrambled in transmission, and attempts, on the basis of close philological scrutiny of the text, to reconstruct the original order in which Huiyuan's questions and Kumarajiva's answers were produced and would have been presented. Essentially, Wagner argues as follows. Given the probable dating of the exchange (in Wagner s view, approx. spring 406 to the end of 407), and the logistical realities of postal exchange at the time, Wagner contends that there would not have been sufficient time for an exchange of eighteen or twenty-eight questions and answers to have been delivered to and fro between Lushan and Chang'an, as the present structure of the text would make it appear. On the basis of rigorous formal criteria for determining the relative sequence of questions and answers (1971: 43), Wagner concludes that there were in fact only two exchanges of a total of four letters, each containing multiple questions (from Huiyuan) or answers thereto (from Kumarajiva). "I hope to have established that there were two letters with questions by Hui-yuan and two letters with answers by Kumarajiva, and that Hui-yuan knew only the answers to his first series of questions when he formulated the second series." T1856; Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章; 鳩摩羅什法師大義 |
|
|
Wagner notes that in his side of the exchange of letters with preserved in the Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章
T1856 (XLV) 130c27-28, Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠 mentions [appears to mention? --- MR] a *Dharmakāya-sūtra 法身經. He cites Liebenthal, who speculated that this title corresponded to the 寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 T356 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高, which is paralleled by a second translation ascribed to *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta, 入法界體性經 T355.
[Note that Nattier 2008 does not consider T356 a genuine An Shigao work, and in fact, gives it as the example of her silent method of dealing with inauthentic works, p. 29 and n. 60 --- MR.]
Edit
|
82, 177, 179 |
Wagner notes that in his side of the exchange of letters with preserved in the Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章
T1856 (XLV) 130c27-28, Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠 mentions [appears to mention? --- MR] a *Dharmakaya-sutra 法身經. He cites Liebenthal, who speculated that this title corresponded to the 寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 T356 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高, which is paralleled by a second translation ascribed to *Jnanagupta/Jinagupta, 入法界體性經 T355.
[Note that Nattier 2008 does not consider T356 a genuine An Shigao work, and in fact, gives it as the example of her silent method of dealing with inauthentic works, p. 29 and n. 60 --- MR.] Fashen jing 法身經, *Dharmakaya-sutra? |