Source: Takasaki 1980

Takasaki Jikidō 高崎直道. Butten kōza 17: Ryōga kyō佛典講座17: 楞伽経. Tokyo: Daizō shuppan, 1980.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0670; 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經	Takasaki observes that the term ‘real consciousness’ 真識 appears for the first time in Guṇabhadra’s Chinese rendition of the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra (T670) and has no Sanskrit correlate. Real consciousness is the third of three general types of consciousness 三種識, including perceptual consciousness (khyātivijñāna 現識) and object-discriminating consciousness (vastuprativikalpavijñāna 分別事識), taught in Guṇabhadra’s rendition of this important Mahāyāna sūtra. The corresponding passage as rendered by Bodhiruci (T671 [XVI] 522a1-8) and Śikṣānanda (T672 [XVI] 593b16-23) includes only two general types of consciousness: namely, perceptual consciousness and object-discriminating consciousness. Because the corresponding Sanskrit passage (Vaidya 1963, 18) and its Tibetan counterpart (H110 [LI] 234a3) include only two general types of consciousness in their teachings on sensory perception and cognition, Takasaki concludes that the term ‘real consciousness’ must be an interpolation by Guṇabhadra into the original Sanskrit text of the sūtra. As such, the inclusion of three types of consciousness represents a piece of original Sinitic exegesis on the theory of consciousness taught in the sūtra. Takasaki’s findings provide a small piece of evidence in support of the view that the rendition of the sūtra by Guṇabhadra is not a ‘direct translation’. Edit	136	Takasaki observes that the term ‘real consciousness’ 真識 appears for the first time in Gunabhadra’s Chinese rendition of the Lankavatara sutra (T670) and has no Sanskrit correlate. Real consciousness is the third of three general types of consciousness 三種識, including perceptual consciousness (khyativijnana 現識) and object-discriminating consciousness (vastuprativikalpavijnana 分別事識), taught in Gunabhadra’s rendition of this important Mahayana sutra. The corresponding passage as rendered by Bodhiruci (T671 [XVI] 522a1-8) and Siksananda (T672 [XVI] 593b16-23) includes only two general types of consciousness: namely, perceptual consciousness and object-discriminating consciousness. Because the corresponding Sanskrit passage (Vaidya 1963, 18) and its Tibetan counterpart (H110 [LI] 234a3) include only two general types of consciousness in their teachings on sensory perception and cognition, Takasaki concludes that the term ‘real consciousness’ must be an interpolation by Gunabhadra into the original Sanskrit text of the sutra. As such, the inclusion of three types of consciousness represents a piece of original Sinitic exegesis on the theory of consciousness taught in the sutra. Takasaki’s findings provide a small piece of evidence in support of the view that the rendition of the sutra by Gunabhadra is not a ‘direct translation’. T0670; 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0670; 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經

Takasaki observes that the term ‘real consciousness’ 真識 appears for the first time in Guṇabhadra’s Chinese rendition of the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra (T670) and has no Sanskrit correlate. Real consciousness is the third of three general types of consciousness 三種識, including perceptual consciousness (khyātivijñāna 現識) and object-discriminating consciousness (vastuprativikalpavijñāna 分別事識), taught in Guṇabhadra’s rendition of this important Mahāyāna sūtra. The corresponding passage as rendered by Bodhiruci (T671 [XVI] 522a1-8) and Śikṣānanda (T672 [XVI] 593b16-23) includes only two general types of consciousness: namely, perceptual consciousness and object-discriminating consciousness. Because the corresponding Sanskrit passage (Vaidya 1963, 18) and its Tibetan counterpart (H110 [LI] 234a3) include only two general types of consciousness in their teachings on sensory perception and cognition, Takasaki concludes that the term ‘real consciousness’ must be an interpolation by Guṇabhadra into the original Sanskrit text of the sūtra. As such, the inclusion of three types of consciousness represents a piece of original Sinitic exegesis on the theory of consciousness taught in the sūtra. Takasaki’s findings provide a small piece of evidence in support of the view that the rendition of the sūtra by Guṇabhadra is not a ‘direct translation’.

Edit

136