Lamotte, Étienne. "Der Verfasser des Upadeśa und seine Quellen." Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Philologisch-Historische Klasse Jahrgang 1973, no. 2 (1973): 31-50.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
[Note: This information is recorded here because some scholars have proposed that Kumārajīva was the author, and not merely the translator, of MPPU T1509. Any theory of authorship for the text therefore has implications for its status as a translation --- MR.] Lamotte argues that the author of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Upadeśa) T1509 is not identical with the author of the Madhyamaka-śāstra [as should be the case if it were Nāgārjuna --- MR]. Rather, the author of Upadeśa is most likely a Sarvāstivādin monk from North-West India, who was converted to Madhyamaka. Lamotte declares traditional biographies of Nāgārjuna untrustworthy and full of contradictions. Particularly, the association between Nāgārjuna and Kaniṣka is not credible, because it is common for Buddhist chronicles to associate Buddhist sages with famous kings. Lamotte uses internal evidence to show the geographical origin and date of the Upadeśa. Lamotte's overall purpose is to build a picture of the life of the monastic composer of the text, and understand how he came to compose the Upadeśa. The Upadeśa originated in North-West India, in the Indian provinces of the Kuṣāṇa kingdom, while Nāgārjuna was mostly active in South-India according to the traditional historiography. The evidence is threefold: (1) the Da Yuezhi and Xiao Yuezhi, the ancestors of the Kuṣāṇa, are often mentioned in the Upadeśa. Out of enmity against foreign rulers, the Kuṣāṇa kings are not mentioned by name, but only with the title devaputra. The author's contempt for the "border regions" (pratyantajanapada) is obvious. All the non-Aryan peoples are barbarians for him. (2) The author possesses thorough knowledge of North-West India. Many descriptions of the region, e.g. of Puṣkarāvatī and Anavatapta in the Himalayas, are given in great detail. (3) Most of the stories taken from the jātakas and nidānas take place in the region of Kaśmīr-Gandhāra. The Upadeśa was composed after the second Kuṣāṇa Dynasty, more precisely, around the 4th century CE, whereas Kumārajīva dates Nāgārjuna to the 3rd century CE. The reasons are the following: (1) The author cites many established sources that report upon Kaniṣka, e.g. the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādin, the *Mahāvibhāṣā from Kaśmir, the Za baozang jing 雜寶藏經 T203 and the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā. (2) The Mahāyāna sūtras cited in the Upadeśa were translated into Chinese between 179 and 430 CE. The Upadeśa might have been composed in an age when the Mahāyāna texts had already been known for three centuries. (3) The Upadeśa cites the Madhyamaka-śāstra of Nāgārjuna, the Catuḥśataka of Āryadeva and the Prajñāpāramitā-stotra of Rāhulabhadra. The Upadeśa must postdate these three masters of the Mādhyamika school. Growing up in a Sarvāstivādin monastery and well-versed in the Ṣatpādābhidharma and the Mahāvbhāṣa, the author of the Upadeśa was inspired to compose a commentary of similar extent for the Prajñāparamita, which was widespread in his time. Firmly convinced of the doctrine of the twofold emptiness of [sentient] beings and of things ("die doppelte Leere der Wesen und der Dinge", pudgalanairātmya and dharmanairātmya), he treated both the Tripiṭaka and the Mahāyāna sūtras as authoritative. While the Tripiṭaka obtains its authority through fixed historical occurrences, the Mahāyāna sūtras rely on their internal value, the result of samādhi or absorption (Versenkung). Lamotte also notes that our author portrays more of the Abhidharma theories than required for their refutation. Perhaps the author wishes to showcase his familiarity with the Sarvāstivātin scholasticism. |