Source: Cox 1995

Cox, Collett. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1995.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Cox argues that in rendering Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya into Chinese, Xuanzang and his close disciples take broad editorial license, and significantly diverge from the received Sanskrit text in both form and content. In terms of form, Xuanzang and his disciples combine the parts of each śloka stanza, which had been interspersed with Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary in the Sanskrit text. In terms of content, Cox points to numerous explanatory sentences and references introduced by Xuanzang and his disciples, which represent their own understanding of the assumptions underlying Vasubandhu’s doctrinal arguments. Furthermore, Xuanzang frequently diverges from the syntax of the extant Sanskrit text. Cox’s arguments imply that significant portions of T1558 represent the doctrinal understanding of Xuanzang and his disciples, and not that of Vasubandhu. In this respect, T1558 stands in contrast to Paramārtha’s translation, T1559, which Cox argues is “very literal”, hewing closely to the extant Sanskrit in both form and content. Notably, Paramārtha’s Chinese translation adheres to the verse and commentary divisions of the extant Sanskrit text.

[NOTE: The preface by Jia Zeng 賈曾, regional inspector 刺史 of Jinzhou 晉州, to Yuanhui’s 圓暉 Jushe lun song shu 倶舍論頌疏 (T1823 [XLI] 813a14), a commentary on the 600 stanzas of the Abhidharmakośa, states that Xuanzang rendered the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya from a different Sanskrit original than Paramārtha. Possibly, some of the discrepancies between Paramārtha’s and Xuanzang’s renditions in terms of form and content could then be explained by differences in the Sanskrit original. --- BB]

Edit

62, n. 36

 Cox argues that in rendering Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakosabhasya into Chinese, Xuanzang and his close disciples take broad editorial license, and significantly diverge from the received Sanskrit text in both form and content. In terms of form, Xuanzang and his disciples combine the parts of each sloka stanza, which had been interspersed with Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary in the Sanskrit text. In terms of content, Cox points to numerous explanatory sentences and references introduced by Xuanzang and his disciples, which represent their own understanding of the assumptions underlying Vasubandhu’s doctrinal arguments. Furthermore, Xuanzang frequently diverges from the syntax of the extant Sanskrit text. Cox’s arguments imply that significant portions of T1558 represent the doctrinal understanding of Xuanzang and his disciples, and not that of Vasubandhu. In this respect, T1558 stands in contrast to Paramartha’s translation, T1559, which Cox argues is “very literal”, hewing closely to the extant Sanskrit in both form and content. Notably, Paramartha’s Chinese translation adheres to the verse and commentary divisions of the extant Sanskrit text. [NOTE: The preface by Jia Zeng 賈曾, regional inspector 刺史 of Jinzhou 晉州, to Yuanhui’s 圓暉 Jushe lun song shu 倶舍論頌疏 (T1823 [XLI] 813a14), a commentary on the 600 stanzas of the Abhidharmakosa, states that Xuanzang rendered the Abhidharmakosabhasya from a different Sanskrit original than Paramartha. Possibly, some of the discrepancies between Paramartha’s and Xuanzang’s renditions in terms of form and content could then be explained by differences in the Sanskrit original. --- BB] T1558; 阿毘達磨俱舍論