Katsumata, Shunkyō勝又俊教. “Butsuji kyōron to Jō yuishiki ron: Jō yuishiki ron no genkei o kōkyū suru isshiten shite 佛地經論と成唯識論-成唯識論の原型を考究する一視點して." Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū印度學佛教學研究) 7, no. 1 (1958): 13–22.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
According to KYL, the “translation” of the Fo di jing lun 佛地經論 (*Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa?) T1530 by Xuanzang began on 3.10 Zhenguan貞觀 23, and was completed on 24.11 Zhenguan 24 (Nov. 12 649-Jan. 2 650) (T2154 [XXVI] 556b5) at Daci'ensi大慈恩寺. Through an investigation of parallel passages found in T1530, the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 T1585, and Śīlabhadra’s commentary on the *Buddhabhūmi preserved in Tibetan translation, the Sangs rgyas kyi sa'i rnam par bshad pa (*Āryabuddhabhūmi-vyākhyāna, D 3997), Katsumata concludes that T1530 represents a significantly more detailed understanding of the “original Sanskrit text of Bandhuprabhā, et al.” than that evinced by parallel passages in the Tibetan, and that numerous passages have been interpolated into the text by Xuanzang himself. Katsumata also finds that the doctrinal teachings on the four parts of cognition 四分說 developed in this text are close to the “position of Dharmapāla” as adumbrated in the Cheng weishi lun. Scholars like Lusthaus (2008) and Sakuma (1989) have taken the existence of parallels between this work and Cheng weishi lun as evidence that both works reflect the views of Xuanzang, rather than “Dharmapāla.” On such views, both texts would count as something like a “Chinese composition”, or a text “between composition and translation.” In contrast to such arguments, Katsumata takes the doctrinal similarities between the positions developed in work and the Cheng weishi lun as evidence to strengthen the attribution of the Cheng weishi lun to Dharmapāla. Katsumata bases this argument upon the following grounds: he regards the traditional attribution found in Chinese commentarial works as strong; he believes that the structure and content of the Fo di jing lun served as a “prototype” (Jpn. genkei原型) for the later compilation of the Cheng weishi lun in 659; and he supposes that Banduprabhā was a disciple of Dharmapāla at Nālanda University, and thus Dharmapāla must have “directly influenced” Banduprabhā in the latter’s composition of the *Buddhabhūmi, the Indic “original” from which the Fo di jing lun was “translated.” [Katsumata’s argument for these dates for Bandhuprabhā’s floruit appears circular, in that it relies upon later commentaries and defends the attribution of Fo di jing lun to Bandhuprabhā by observing the incorporation of Fo di jing lun materials into the Cheng weishi lun --- BB]. Sakuma Hidenori 佐久間秀範. “Genjō ni okeru shiki no atsukai-kata玄奘における識の扱い方” (Some Aspects of Hsuan-Tsang's Treatment of Vijñana and Jñāna [in Japanese]). Tōhōgaku 東方學 78 (1989): 55–67. Lusthaus, Dan. “A Pre-Dharmakīrti Indian Discussion of Dignāga Preserved in Chinese Translation: The Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa.” Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka 6 (2008): 1-65. |
13 |
According to KYL, the “translation” of the Fo di jing lun 佛地經論 (*Buddhabhumy-upadesa?) T1530 by Xuanzang began on 3.10 Zhenguan貞觀 23, and was completed on 24.11 Zhenguan 24 (Nov. 12 649-Jan. 2 650) (T2154 [XXVI] 556b5) at Daci'ensi大慈恩寺. Through an investigation of parallel passages found in T1530, the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 T1585, and Silabhadra’s commentary on the *Buddhabhumi preserved in Tibetan translation, the Sangs rgyas kyi sa'i rnam par bshad pa (*Aryabuddhabhumi-vyakhyana, D 3997), Katsumata concludes that T1530 represents a significantly more detailed understanding of the “original Sanskrit text of Bandhuprabha, et al.” than that evinced by parallel passages in the Tibetan, and that numerous passages have been interpolated into the text by Xuanzang himself. Katsumata also finds that the doctrinal teachings on the four parts of cognition 四分說 developed in this text are close to the “position of Dharmapala” as adumbrated in the Cheng weishi lun. Scholars like Lusthaus (2008) and Sakuma (1989) have taken the existence of parallels between this work and Cheng weishi lun as evidence that both works reflect the views of Xuanzang, rather than “Dharmapala.” On such views, both texts would count as something like a “Chinese composition”, or a text “between composition and translation.” In contrast to such arguments, Katsumata takes the doctrinal similarities between the positions developed in work and the Cheng weishi lun as evidence to strengthen the attribution of the Cheng weishi lun to Dharmapala. Katsumata bases this argument upon the following grounds: he regards the traditional attribution found in Chinese commentarial works as strong; he believes that the structure and content of the Fo di jing lun served as a “prototype” (Jpn. genkei原型) for the later compilation of the Cheng weishi lun in 659; and he supposes that Banduprabha was a disciple of Dharmapala at Nalanda University, and thus Dharmapala must have “directly influenced” Banduprabha in the latter’s composition of the *Buddhabhumi, the Indic “original” from which the Fo di jing lun was “translated.” [Katsumata’s argument for these dates for Bandhuprabha’s floruit appears circular, in that it relies upon later commentaries and defends the attribution of Fo di jing lun to Bandhuprabha by observing the incorporation of Fo di jing lun materials into the Cheng weishi lun --- BB]. Sakuma Hidenori 佐久間秀範. “Genjo ni okeru shiki no atsukai-kata玄奘における識の扱い方” (Some Aspects of Hsuan-Tsang's Treatment of Vijnana and Jnana [in Japanese]). Tohogaku 東方學 78 (1989): 55–67. Lusthaus, Dan. “A Pre-Dharmakirti Indian Discussion of Dignaga Preserved in Chinese Translation: The Buddhabhumy-upadesa.” Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka 6 (2008): 1-65. T1530; 佛地經論 |