Funayama Tōru 船山徹, “Shinnyo no sho kaishaku – bongo tathatā to kango, honmu, nyo, nyonyo, shinnyo 眞如の諸解釋--梵語tathatāと語, 本無, 如, 如如, 眞如.” Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 92 (2017): 1-75.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Funayama argues that the Cheng weishi lun T1585 is a polemical compilation of various materials of Indic and Sinitic provenance and is not a “word-for-word translation” (Jpn. chikugo yaku 逐語譯) of an Indic original. Funayama gives four reasons in support of this contention. First, the Cheng weishi lun is described in traditional East Asian bibliography as an “interspersed translation” (Chi. rouyi 糅譯) which combines materials attributable to various Indic Yogācāra masters, including Dharmapāla, a 6th-century figure often presumed by traditional East Asian exegetes to be the primary author of the Cheng weishi lun, and Sthiramati, a contemporary of Dharmapāla. Thus, the Cheng weishi lun is not a word-for-word rendition of any single original text. Second, there is no record of an Indic treatise (Skt. śāstra) corresponding to the Cheng weishi lun in available Sanskrit sources. Third, the Cheng weishi lun offers the epistemological model of four parts of perception (Chi. sifen shuo四分說), a model not attested in genuine Indic sources. Fourth, the “generic conventions” (Jpn. taisai 體裁) and “format” (Jpn. shoshiki 書式) of the Cheng weishi lun are radically different from that of the extant works reliably attributed to Dharmapāla, including the Cheng weishi baosheng lun 成唯識寶生論 T1591, *Catuḥśataka-vṛtti (Dasheng guang bai lun shi lun 大乘廣百論釋論) T1571, and Guan suoyuan lun shi 觀所緣論釋 (Commentary on the Ālambanaparīkṣā) T1625. Funayama’s reasoning implies that key parts of the Cheng weishi lun comprise the original writings of Xuanzang and his disciples. For example, Funayama observes that the Cheng weishi lun (T1585 [XXXI] 48a24-26) glosses the binome zhenru 眞如, the Chinese equivalent to the Sanskrit word tathatā, as an adjectival compound (Chi.: chiye shi 持業釋; Skt. karmadhāraya), where zhen, meaning “real”, modifies ru, meaning “thusness,” reality as it really is. Since this gloss treats the word zhenru as a compound, when its Sanskrit equivalent is not, Funayama argues that this gloss comprises a piece of original Sinitic exegesis by Xuanzang and his disciples, and is not a translation of any Indic source. |
73, n. 18 |
Funayama argues that the Cheng weishi lun T1585 is a polemical compilation of various materials of Indic and Sinitic provenance and is not a “word-for-word translation” (Jpn. chikugo yaku 逐語譯) of an Indic original. Funayama gives four reasons in support of this contention. First, the Cheng weishi lun is described in traditional East Asian bibliography as an “interspersed translation” (Chi. rouyi 糅譯) which combines materials attributable to various Indic Yogacara masters, including Dharmapala, a 6th-century figure often presumed by traditional East Asian exegetes to be the primary author of the Cheng weishi lun, and Sthiramati, a contemporary of Dharmapala. Thus, the Cheng weishi lun is not a word-for-word rendition of any single original text. Second, there is no record of an Indic treatise (Skt. sastra) corresponding to the Cheng weishi lun in available Sanskrit sources. Third, the Cheng weishi lun offers the epistemological model of four parts of perception (Chi. sifen shuo四分說), a model not attested in genuine Indic sources. Fourth, the “generic conventions” (Jpn. taisai 體裁) and “format” (Jpn. shoshiki 書式) of the Cheng weishi lun are radically different from that of the extant works reliably attributed to Dharmapala, including the Cheng weishi baosheng lun 成唯識寶生論 T1591, *Catuhsataka-vrtti (Dasheng guang bai lun shi lun 大乘廣百論釋論) T1571, and Guan suoyuan lun shi 觀所緣論釋 (Commentary on the Alambanapariksa) T1625. Funayama’s reasoning implies that key parts of the Cheng weishi lun comprise the original writings of Xuanzang and his disciples. For example, Funayama observes that the Cheng weishi lun (T1585 [XXXI] 48a24-26) glosses the binome zhenru 眞如, the Chinese equivalent to the Sanskrit word tathata, as an adjectival compound (Chi.: chiye shi 持業釋; Skt. karmadharaya), where zhen, meaning “real”, modifies ru, meaning “thusness,” reality as it really is. Since this gloss treats the word zhenru as a compound, when its Sanskrit equivalent is not, Funayama argues that this gloss comprises a piece of original Sinitic exegesis by Xuanzang and his disciples, and is not a translation of any Indic source. T1585; 成唯識論 |
|
Funayama argues that the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith was (at least partially) composed in China. In support of this argument, Funayama points to exegetical materials found in the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith that must have originally been written in Chinese. In particular, Funayama points to the gloss on the Chinese binome, zhenru 真如, the equivalent to the Sanskrit word tathatā, found early on in the treatise (T1666 [XXXII] 576a16), which breaks apart the binome into its two components, zhen, meaning “truly,” and ru, meaning “thus.” Funayama argues that this gloss on the binome zhenru was composed in China because it treats the binome zhenru as a compound, where its equivalent, the Sanskrit word tathatā, is not a compound. Funayama refers to the work of Kashiwagi Hiroo 柏木弘雄, who argues that in the Mahāyāṇa Awakening of Faith, the Chinese binome zhenru refers to tathatā and not to the compound bhūtatathatā. Because zhenru is the equivalent to tathatā, which is not a compound, and would not have been treated as such by Indic authors, Kashiwagi argues that the gloss which treats zhenru as a compound would have had to have been a later addition not found in the “original [Indic] text” (Jpn. genbun 原文) forming the core of the “translated” portion of Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith. Thus, according to Kashigawi, this gloss on zhenru must represent a later interpretation by Sinitic exegetes, and does not comprise part of the ostensibly “original [Indic] text” of the *Mahāyānaśraddhotpāda-śāstra. In sum, this gloss of the word zhenru adds another small piece of evidence in support of the current consensus view, that the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith cannot be a simple translation from a single Indic original text, and must have been (at least partially) composed in China. |
25 |
Funayama argues that the Mahayana Awakening of Faith was (at least partially) composed in China. In support of this argument, Funayama points to exegetical materials found in the Mahayana Awakening of Faith that must have originally been written in Chinese. In particular, Funayama points to the gloss on the Chinese binome, zhenru 真如, the equivalent to the Sanskrit word tathata, found early on in the treatise (T1666 [XXXII] 576a16), which breaks apart the binome into its two components, zhen, meaning “truly,” and ru, meaning “thus.” Funayama argues that this gloss on the binome zhenru was composed in China because it treats the binome zhenru as a compound, where its equivalent, the Sanskrit word tathata, is not a compound. Funayama refers to the work of Kashiwagi Hiroo 柏木弘雄, who argues that in the Mahayana Awakening of Faith, the Chinese binome zhenru refers to tathata and not to the compound bhutatathata. Because zhenru is the equivalent to tathata, which is not a compound, and would not have been treated as such by Indic authors, Kashiwagi argues that the gloss which treats zhenru as a compound would have had to have been a later addition not found in the “original [Indic] text” (Jpn. genbun 原文) forming the core of the “translated” portion of Mahayana Awakening of Faith. Thus, according to Kashigawi, this gloss on zhenru must represent a later interpretation by Sinitic exegetes, and does not comprise part of the ostensibly “original [Indic] text” of the *Mahayanasraddhotpada-sastra. In sum, this gloss of the word zhenru adds another small piece of evidence in support of the current consensus view, that the Mahayana Awakening of Faith cannot be a simple translation from a single Indic original text, and must have been (at least partially) composed in China. T1666; 大乘起信論 |