Source: Katō 1996

Katō Junshō 加藤純章. "Rajū to Dai chido ron" 羅什と『大智度論』. Indo tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku 印度哲学仏教学 11 (1996): 32-59.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Katō explores the possibility that Kumārajīva himself is the author of MPPU T1509. [This might imply that the text is not in fact a translation, as the tradition informs us, unless Kumārajīva first composed in Sanskrit and then translated his own work; but note that it would still in a sense not require us to overturn the received ascription of the text in T --- MR.]

Katō first summaries various theories concerning the authorship of T1509: those of Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 (1957), Yinshun 印順 (1993), Higata Ryūshō 干潟龍祥 (1958), and Étienne Lamotte (1970). Katō then provides three arguments for Kumārajīva's authorship: (1) the quantity of the original text of T1509; (2) commonalities with the Chengshi lun 成實論 T1646 (*Tattvasiddhi/Satyasiddhi); (3) citations from the works of Nāgārjuna's disciples.

The number of fascicles in T1509 show that T1509 might have been composed by Kumārajīva. According to Sengrui 僧叡's preface, the Mohe banrebuoluomijing shilun xu 摩訶般若波羅蜜經釋論序, the abridged version of the treatise contains 100,000 verses and 3,200,000 words (論之略本有十萬偈，偈有三十二字，并三百二十萬言). From this is derived the statement in the Longshu Pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 that "[Nāgārjuna] expounded at length the Mahāyāna, composing the upadeśā in a hundred thousand verses 廣明摩訶衍作優波提舍十萬偈 (優波提舍 = *upadeśa cannot refer to anything other than T1509). " Whether we infer from Sengrui's 僧叡words (34×30=1020 juan 卷), or according to Lamotte's (34 juan + 66 × 3 juan = 232 juan 卷) and Yinshun's 印順 (33 juan +37 × 3 juan = 144 juan卷) estimates of the number of fascicles that would be required for a full translation, if each juan 卷 contains ten thousand words, the result does not match 3,200,000, as Sengrui recorded (that would require approx. 320 juan). Katō argues that we should not be overly dependent on Sengrui's preface. This might indicate that the phrase "one hundred thousand verses" 十萬偈 is merely have been used as a generic number for any extensive theoretical work in the Buddhist tradition. On the other hand, if Kumārajīva were the author, he might have simplified and reduced the amount of commentary after the general concept is mostly transmitted in first pin 品. This would lead to the unbalanced ratio of the first pin against the others among the hundred juan 卷 passed down to us.

Both T1646 and T1509 criticise the notion of substantial existence (實有思想, *dravyasat) of the Sarvāstivādins, but nonetheless generally respect their Abhidharma. Both argue against the thesis that all phenomena in the three times truly exist (三世實有) using the same metaphor: 如人從一房入一房，不名失人？ (T1509254c); 如從舍至舍則無無常 (T1646255a29). No such metaphor is found in the Madhyamaka-śāstra 中論 T1564, the Shi'er men lun 十二門論 T1568, or the Śata-śāstra 百論 T1569. The same metaphor occurs in the *(Mahā-)Vibhāṣā, 大毘婆沙論 T1545, but it is quoted in the statement of a Vibhajyavādin 分別論師 against the doctrine that all phenomena in the three times truly exist . It is more likely that T1509 cites T1646 than that T1509 and T1646 cite T1545 respectively. The distinct similarity between T1646 and T1509 shows that Kumārajīva might have been influenced by his translation project when he was writing T1509.

T1509 quotes a lengthy passage from the Śata-śastra 百論 T1569, ascribed to Āryadeva with commentary by Vasu. If Nāgārjuna is the author of T1509, this is unusual, considering the chronological order of Nāgārjuna and his disciples: Nāgārjuna 龍樹—Āryadeva 提婆—Rāhulabhadra 羅睺羅—Vasu 婆藪. When citing Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka 四百論 and Rāhulabhadra's Zan banremiduo ji 讚般若波羅蜜偈, T1509 also includes the full title of the sources. This indicates that the author of T1509 was consciously quoting the Catuḥśataka and the Zan banremiduo ji.

Edit

 Kato explores the possibility that Kumarajiva himself is the author of MPPU T1509. [This might imply that the text is not in fact a translation, as the tradition informs us, unless Kumarajiva first composed in Sanskrit and then translated his own work; but note that it would still in a sense not require us to overturn the received ascription of the text in T --- MR.] Kato first summaries various theories concerning the authorship of T1509: those of Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 (1957), Yinshun 印順 (1993), Higata Ryusho 干潟龍祥 (1958), and Etienne Lamotte (1970). Kato then provides three arguments for Kumarajiva's authorship: (1) the quantity of the original text of T1509; (2) commonalities with the Chengshi lun 成實論 T1646 (*Tattvasiddhi/Satyasiddhi); (3) citations from the works of Nagarjuna's disciples. The number of fascicles in T1509 show that T1509 might have been composed by Kumarajiva. According to Sengrui 僧叡's preface, the Mohe banrebuoluomijing shilun xu 摩訶般若波羅蜜經釋論序, the abridged version of the treatise contains 100,000 verses and 3,200,000 words (論之略本有十萬偈,偈有三十二字,并三百二十萬言). From this is derived the statement in the Longshu Pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 that "[Nagarjuna] expounded at length the Mahayana, composing the upadesa in a hundred thousand verses 廣明摩訶衍作優波提舍十萬偈 (優波提舍 = *upadesa cannot refer to anything other than T1509). " Whether we infer from Sengrui's 僧叡words (34×30=1020 juan 卷), or according to Lamotte's (34 juan + 66 × 3 juan = 232 juan 卷) and Yinshun's 印順 (33 juan +37 × 3 juan = 144 juan卷) estimates of the number of fascicles that would be required for a full translation, if each juan 卷 contains ten thousand words, the result does not match 3,200,000, as Sengrui recorded (that would require approx. 320 juan). Kato argues that we should not be overly dependent on Sengrui's preface. This might indicate that the phrase "one hundred thousand verses" 十萬偈 is merely have been used as a generic number for any extensive theoretical work in the Buddhist tradition. On the other hand, if Kumarajiva were the author, he might have simplified and reduced the amount of commentary after the general concept is mostly transmitted in first pin 品. This would lead to the unbalanced ratio of the first pin against the others among the hundred juan 卷 passed down to us. Both T1646 and T1509 criticise the notion of substantial existence (實有思想, *dravyasat) of the Sarvastivadins, but nonetheless generally respect their Abhidharma. Both argue against the thesis that all phenomena in the three times truly exist (三世實有) using the same metaphor: 如人從一房入一房,不名失人? (T1509254c); 如從舍至舍則無無常 (T1646255a29). No such metaphor is found in the Madhyamaka-sastra 中論 T1564, the Shi'er men lun 十二門論 T1568, or the Sata-sastra 百論 T1569. The same metaphor occurs in the *(Maha-)Vibhasa, 大毘婆沙論 T1545, but it is quoted in the statement of a Vibhajyavadin 分別論師 against the doctrine that all phenomena in the three times truly exist . It is more likely that T1509 cites T1646 than that T1509 and T1646 cite T1545 respectively. The distinct similarity between T1646 and T1509 shows that Kumarajiva might have been influenced by his translation project when he was writing T1509. T1509 quotes a lengthy passage from the Sata-sastra 百論 T1569, ascribed to Aryadeva with commentary by Vasu. If Nagarjuna is the author of T1509, this is unusual, considering the chronological order of Nagarjuna and his disciples: Nagarjuna 龍樹—Aryadeva 提婆—Rahulabhadra 羅睺羅—Vasu 婆藪. When citing Aryadeva's Catuhsataka 四百論 and Rahulabhadra's Zan banremiduo ji 讚般若波羅蜜偈, T1509 also includes the full title of the sources. This indicates that the author of T1509 was consciously quoting the Catuhsataka and the Zan banremiduo ji. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T1509; 大智度論