Young, Stuart. Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2015.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
The Dazhuangyan jing lun 大莊嚴經論 T201 (*Kalpanamaṇḍitikā) was falsely ascribed to Aśvaghoṣa. It is not treated in CSZJJ T2145, and first appears in Fajing T2146 and then in LDSBJ T2034. There is no evidence that the Chang'an group of Kumārajīva ever had the text of T201 in their hand. Fajing 法經 and Fei Changfang 費長房 might have misread the line 作莊嚴佛法諸論述百萬言 in the Nanatsu-dera edition of T2047, and established a false connection between T201 and Aśvaghoṣa. However, in this line, 莊嚴佛法 is merely an adjectival phrase modifying 諸論, and does not refer to any specific text. |
52 ff. |
The Dazhuangyan jing lun 大莊嚴經論 T201 (*Kalpanamanditika) was falsely ascribed to Asvaghosa. It is not treated in CSZJJ T2145, and first appears in Fajing T2146 and then in LDSBJ T2034. There is no evidence that the Chang'an group of Kumarajiva ever had the text of T201 in their hand. Fajing 法經 and Fei Changfang 費長房 might have misread the line 作莊嚴佛法諸論述百萬言 in the Nanatsu-dera edition of T2047, and established a false connection between T201 and Asvaghosa. However, in this line, 莊嚴佛法 is merely an adjectival phrase modifying 諸論, and does not refer to any specific text. T0201; 大莊嚴論經 |
|
Young reports that although T1166 was attributed to Vajrabodhi in the first half of the eighth century, Endo (2001), Iyanaga (2002), Mikkyō daijiten saikan i'inkai (1979) and Mochizuki (1954-1963) all deny this attribution. Mochizuki bases his doubt concerning the text’s authenticity on its “clumsy wording” (文辭拙劣). Young himself argues that T1166 might have been compiled after the ninth-century Baolin Tradition 寶林傳, considering the thematic affinity with Aśvaghoṣa’s hagiography therein. Considering the presentation in the text of an etiology of Buddhist sericulture, the place of composition should have been a silk-producing region like southeastern Jiangnan. |
206 |
Young reports that although T1166 was attributed to Vajrabodhi in the first half of the eighth century, Endo (2001), Iyanaga (2002), Mikkyo daijiten saikan i'inkai (1979) and Mochizuki (1954-1963) all deny this attribution. Mochizuki bases his doubt concerning the text’s authenticity on its “clumsy wording” (文辭拙劣). Young himself argues that T1166 might have been compiled after the ninth-century Baolin Tradition 寶林傳, considering the thematic affinity with Asvaghosa’s hagiography therein. Considering the presentation in the text of an etiology of Buddhist sericulture, the place of composition should have been a silk-producing region like southeastern Jiangnan. T1166; 馬鳴菩薩大神力無比驗法念誦軌儀 |
|
The Longshu wuming lun 龍樹五明論 T1420 "identifies itself as the sole remaining fragment of an enormous text of some ten thousand scrolls". The text (T1420 21.967b) attributes itself to Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna. Young cites Strickmann (2002, 170), who speculates that the larger text was composed in northern China during the sixth century, following Osabe Kazuo‘s 長部和雄 suggestion that it is an excerpt from the Wuming lun 五明論 listed in the Sui-Tang Buddhist catalogues as a translation completed in 558 by Jñānabhadra and Jinayaśa at Poqie si 婆伽寺 in Chang'an. Young argues that T1420 was attributed to Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna during the mid-Tang dynasty, around the time that the Wuming lun and the Poluomen tianwen 婆羅門天文 went missing from the canon, namely the 8th or 9th century. The evidence supporting this conclusion is threefold: (1) In the Xin Huayan jing lun 新華嚴經論 T1739 by Li Tongxuan 李通玄 (ca. 635-730), there is a passing reference to Nagārjuna’s talismanic seals. (2) Like T1420, The Jinpiluo tongzi weide jing 金毘羅童子威德經 T1289, composed around the 8th-9th centuries, gives a similar portrayal of Nāgārjuna and Aśvaghoṣa prescribing ritual techniques. This may have prompted some editor to ascribe T1420 to the two (Young refers to Osabe 1982, 243). (3) The Wuming lun and Poluomen tianwen were often associated with the non-Buddhist forms of the “five sciences”. "It is not difficult to imagine" that in order to ensure their preservation, an anonymous editor made an excerpt from the Wuming lun and ascribed it to Nāgārjuna. Furthermore, "by the middle of the Tang, Nāgārjuna had become associated with broader canons of Buddhist spell-craft, and was incorporated into the lineage of the burgeoning Esoteric Buddhist tradition." |
170 ff. |
The Longshu wuming lun 龍樹五明論 T1420 "identifies itself as the sole remaining fragment of an enormous text of some ten thousand scrolls". The text (T1420 21.967b) attributes itself to Asvaghosa and Nagarjuna. Young cites Strickmann (2002, 170), who speculates that the larger text was composed in northern China during the sixth century, following Osabe Kazuo‘s 長部和雄 suggestion that it is an excerpt from the Wuming lun 五明論 listed in the Sui-Tang Buddhist catalogues as a translation completed in 558 by Jnanabhadra and Jinayasa at Poqie si 婆伽寺 in Chang'an. Young argues that T1420 was attributed to Asvaghosa and Nagarjuna during the mid-Tang dynasty, around the time that the Wuming lun and the Poluomen tianwen 婆羅門天文 went missing from the canon, namely the 8th or 9th century. The evidence supporting this conclusion is threefold: (1) In the Xin Huayan jing lun 新華嚴經論 T1739 by Li Tongxuan 李通玄 (ca. 635-730), there is a passing reference to Nagarjuna’s talismanic seals. (2) Like T1420, The Jinpiluo tongzi weide jing 金毘羅童子威德經 T1289, composed around the 8th-9th centuries, gives a similar portrayal of Nagarjuna and Asvaghosa prescribing ritual techniques. This may have prompted some editor to ascribe T1420 to the two (Young refers to Osabe 1982, 243). (3) The Wuming lun and Poluomen tianwen were often associated with the non-Buddhist forms of the “five sciences”. "It is not difficult to imagine" that in order to ensure their preservation, an anonymous editor made an excerpt from the Wuming lun and ascribed it to Nagarjuna. Furthermore, "by the middle of the Tang, Nagarjuna had become associated with broader canons of Buddhist spell-craft, and was incorporated into the lineage of the burgeoning Esoteric Buddhist tradition." T1420; 龍樹五明論 |
|
In T2058 there is a summary of Nāgārjuna’s oeuvre. Four titles are mentioned: an *Upadeśa 優波堤舍 (referring to T1509), the Zhuangyan Fodao 莊嚴佛道, the Daci fangbian 大慈方便, and the Wuwei lun 無畏論. Zhuangyan Fodao suggests a relation to the Shizhu piposa lun 十住毘婆沙論 T1521 ascribed to Nāgārjuna, but no equation of such a title with this work is elsewhere attested. Daci fangbian is reminiscent of the Fangbian xin lun 方便心論 T1632, which is ascribed in CSZJJ T2145 to Kiṅkara and Tanyao, working in 472. The text was first attributed to Nāgārjuna in the Shi'er men lun zongzhi yiji 十二門論宗致義記 T1826. There appears to be no possible Chinese equivalent to the title Wuwei lun, but Ramanan (1966, 34) identifies a similarly titled text in the Tibetan canon also attributed to Nāgārjuna. |
88 n. 59 |
In T2058 there is a summary of Nagarjuna’s oeuvre. Four titles are mentioned: an *Upadesa 優波堤舍 (referring to T1509), the Zhuangyan Fodao 莊嚴佛道, the Daci fangbian 大慈方便, and the Wuwei lun 無畏論. Zhuangyan Fodao suggests a relation to the Shizhu piposa lun 十住毘婆沙論 T1521 ascribed to Nagarjuna, but no equation of such a title with this work is elsewhere attested. Daci fangbian is reminiscent of the Fangbian xin lun 方便心論 T1632, which is ascribed in CSZJJ T2145 to Kinkara and Tanyao, working in 472. The text was first attributed to Nagarjuna in the Shi'er men lun zongzhi yiji 十二門論宗致義記 T1826. There appears to be no possible Chinese equivalent to the title Wuwei lun, but Ramanan (1966, 34) identifies a similarly titled text in the Tibetan canon also attributed to Nagarjuna. T1509; 大智度論 T1521; 十住毘婆沙論 T1632; 方便心論 |
|
Young notes that Aśvaghoṣa himself is glaringly absent from the "account of Dharmic history and justification for authoring the Awakening of Faith" in the Nanatsu-dera version of the Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046. His name also appears nowhere in the extant text of the the Awakening of Faith itself. His name does appear in the preface attributed to Zhikai 智愷 or Huikai 惠愷, but this preface is considered spurious by Demiéville (1929, 8; 11-15) and Girard (2004, xvii, lxvii). The motivation for the ascription of the Awakening of Faith to Aśvoghoṣa is easy to understand: Aśvaghoṣa offered a kind of Indian authority that was particularly attractive to medieval Chinese audiences. The earliest undisputed source that attributes the Awakening of Faith to Aśvaghoṣa is Huiyuan's Dasheng yi zhang 大乘義章 T1851, completed around 590. The attribution also appears in a range of supposedly earlier texts, but the authenticity of all these sources is disputed: (1) the preface attributed to Zhikai 智愷 or Huikai惠愷 in T1666; (2) the Qixin lun yishu 起信論義疏 attributed to Tanyan 曇延; (3) the Dasheng qi xin lun yishu 大乘起信論義疏 T1843 attributed to Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠. |
134, 139-141 with n. 29 |
Young notes that Asvaghosa himself is glaringly absent from the "account of Dharmic history and justification for authoring the Awakening of Faith" in the Nanatsu-dera version of the Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046. His name also appears nowhere in the extant text of the the Awakening of Faith itself. His name does appear in the preface attributed to Zhikai 智愷 or Huikai 惠愷, but this preface is considered spurious by Demieville (1929, 8; 11-15) and Girard (2004, xvii, lxvii). The motivation for the ascription of the Awakening of Faith to Asvoghosa is easy to understand: Asvaghosa offered a kind of Indian authority that was particularly attractive to medieval Chinese audiences. The earliest undisputed source that attributes the Awakening of Faith to Asvaghosa is Huiyuan's Dasheng yi zhang 大乘義章 T1851, completed around 590. The attribution also appears in a range of supposedly earlier texts, but the authenticity of all these sources is disputed: (1) the preface attributed to Zhikai 智愷 or Huikai惠愷 in T1666; (2) the Qixin lun yishu 起信論義疏 attributed to Tanyan 曇延; (3) the Dasheng qi xin lun yishu 大乘起信論義疏 T1843 attributed to Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠. T1666; 大乘起信論 |
|
Young cites Satō (2005, 665-674), who argues that the Renwang huguo banre jing shu 仁王護國般若經疏 T1705, attributed to Zhiyi 智顗, was most likely compiled by an anonymous Tiantai exegete between the mid-seventh and the mid-eighth centuries. |
118 ff. |
Young cites Sato (2005, 665-674), who argues that the Renwang huguo banre jing shu 仁王護國般若經疏 T1705, attributed to Zhiyi 智顗, was most likely compiled by an anonymous Tiantai exegete between the mid-seventh and the mid-eighth centuries. T1705; 仁王護國般若經疏 |
|
Young notes briefly that Lai (1975, 193) considered the attribution of the Dasheng qi xin lun yishu 大乘起信論義疏 T1843 to Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 to be spurious. Young argues that T1843, attributed to Huiyuan 慧遠 and composed by Fazang 法藏, should be no later than the seventh century. |
121 n. 25 |
Young notes briefly that Lai (1975, 193) considered the attribution of the Dasheng qi xin lun yishu 大乘起信論義疏 T1843 to Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 to be spurious. Young argues that T1843, attributed to Huiyuan 慧遠 and composed by Fazang 法藏, should be no later than the seventh century. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1843; 大乘起信論義疏 |
|
Following and building on work by Ochiai, Young argues that the Nanatsu-dera version of the Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046 was most probably produced in the early fifth century within Kumārajīva’s group in Changan. He bases this judgement on overwhelming thematic and stylistic similarities between the Nanatsu-dera edition and the writings of the Changan group. The potential evidence that militates against this hypothesis, i.e. the two major discrepancies between T2046 and T1775, can be explained thus: (1) The Nanatsu-dera edition dates Aśvaghoṣa to the fourth century after the parinirvāṇa, but T1775 to the seventh century after the parinirvāṇa. The dating of the Nanatsu-dera edition might be a self-correction on the part of Sengrui 僧睿, after he composed T1775 between 406 and 410. (2) In T1775, *Pārśva is the arhat who converts Aśvaghoṣa; in the Nanatsu-dera edition it is *Pūrṇa. Sengrui might have substituted Pūrṇa for Pārśva, because of the association of the latter with the “Lesser Vehicle”. |
255-259 |
Following and building on work by Ochiai, Young argues that the Nanatsu-dera version of the Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046 was most probably produced in the early fifth century within Kumarajiva’s group in Changan. He bases this judgement on overwhelming thematic and stylistic similarities between the Nanatsu-dera edition and the writings of the Changan group. The potential evidence that militates against this hypothesis, i.e. the two major discrepancies between T2046 and T1775, can be explained thus: (1) The Nanatsu-dera edition dates Asvaghosa to the fourth century after the parinirvana, but T1775 to the seventh century after the parinirvana. The dating of the Nanatsu-dera edition might be a self-correction on the part of Sengrui 僧睿, after he composed T1775 between 406 and 410. (2) In T1775, *Parsva is the arhat who converts Asvaghosa; in the Nanatsu-dera edition it is *Purna. Sengrui might have substituted Purna for Parsva, because of the association of the latter with the “Lesser Vehicle”. T2046; 馬鳴菩薩傳 |
|
Young reports that Ochiai (1996) concludes that the Nanatsu-dera version of the Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046 was probably first transmitted orally by Kumārajīva and then transcribed and edited by Sengrui 僧睿. Ochiai's argument is based upon similarities in language and structure that he found between his reconstructed “original” Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva and prefaces composed by Sengrui. |
255 |
Young reports that Ochiai (1996) concludes that the Nanatsu-dera version of the Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046 was probably first transmitted orally by Kumarajiva and then transcribed and edited by Sengrui 僧睿. Ochiai's argument is based upon similarities in language and structure that he found between his reconstructed “original” Tradition of Asvaghosa Bodhisattva and prefaces composed by Sengrui. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 Sengrui 僧叡 T2046; 馬鳴菩薩傳 |
|
Young argues that the Longshu pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 and the Tipo pusa zhuan 提婆菩薩傳 T2048 were most likely composed not by Kumārajīva’s coterie, but in the decades following the compilation of T2058. An index for the authorship of Kumārajīva and his associates, which Kumārajīva’s circle always emphasized (with the sole exception of T1775), is the narrative of the decline of the Dharma, and Buddhist saints reviving the dharma through public debate and doctrinal authorship. But both T2047 and T2048 did not evince these characteristics. Both texts are also missing from CSZJJ T2145 and other catalogues before the sixth century. Two further pieces of evidence against Kumārajīva’s authorship are (1) Huiyuan’s慧遠 treatment of the biography of Nāgāruna in his preface to his abridged version of the Da zhidu lun (= MPPU T1509): Against Robinson, who believed that T2047 was a probable source for Huiyuan, Young suggests that there are significant differences between Huiyuan’s preface and T2047, but these features are shared by both T2047 and T2058. This suggests that Huiyan likely did not have T2047 before him when composing the preface. Young suggests that the only item common to Huiyuan and T2047, the journey to the dragon palace, was more likely derived by Huiyuan from two prefaces by Kumārajīva's disciples. (2) Sengrui’s 僧睿 reference to a certain “Indian Tradition” (天竺傳) at T2145 55:75a: this „Indian Tradition“ was not reproduced in any separate biography we have today, and it suggests that T2047 and T2048 were not in circulation in early-fifth-century-Chang'an. Sengrui quoted this “Indian Tradition” expressing the notion of the decline of the Dharma (像正之末微馬鳴龍樹。道學之門其淪湑溺喪矣). This notion of the decline of the Dharma, although present in the Nanatsu-dera edition of Maming pusa zhuan 馬明菩薩傳 and other writings of Kumārajīva, is included in neither T2047 nor T2048. |
265-273 |
Young argues that the Longshu pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 and the Tipo pusa zhuan 提婆菩薩傳 T2048 were most likely composed not by Kumarajiva’s coterie, but in the decades following the compilation of T2058. An index for the authorship of Kumarajiva and his associates, which Kumarajiva’s circle always emphasized (with the sole exception of T1775), is the narrative of the decline of the Dharma, and Buddhist saints reviving the dharma through public debate and doctrinal authorship. But both T2047 and T2048 did not evince these characteristics. Both texts are also missing from CSZJJ T2145 and other catalogues before the sixth century. Two further pieces of evidence against Kumarajiva’s authorship are (1) Huiyuan’s慧遠 treatment of the biography of Nagaruna in his preface to his abridged version of the Da zhidu lun (= MPPU T1509): Against Robinson, who believed that T2047 was a probable source for Huiyuan, Young suggests that there are significant differences between Huiyuan’s preface and T2047, but these features are shared by both T2047 and T2058. This suggests that Huiyan likely did not have T2047 before him when composing the preface. Young suggests that the only item common to Huiyuan and T2047, the journey to the dragon palace, was more likely derived by Huiyuan from two prefaces by Kumarajiva's disciples. (2) Sengrui’s 僧睿 reference to a certain “Indian Tradition” (天竺傳) at T2145 55:75a: this „Indian Tradition“ was not reproduced in any separate biography we have today, and it suggests that T2047 and T2048 were not in circulation in early-fifth-century-Chang'an. Sengrui quoted this “Indian Tradition” expressing the notion of the decline of the Dharma (像正之末微馬鳴龍樹。道學之門其淪湑溺喪矣). This notion of the decline of the Dharma, although present in the Nanatsu-dera edition of Maming pusa zhuan 馬明菩薩傳 and other writings of Kumarajiva, is included in neither T2047 nor T2048. T2047; 龍樹菩薩傳 T2048; 提婆菩薩傳 |
|
Young reports that later sources, beginning from the 寶林傳 Baolin zhuan, often set the date of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 before the persecution of Buddhism under the Northern Wei in the mid-fifth century. On such accounts, the text was lost for a time, and then reconstructed by 曇曜 Tanyao and his associates. Young summarises the theories of a number of studies in connection with such traditions. Linda Penkower (2000, 250) and Whalen Lai (1990, 201n40) both speculate that T2058 served to rebut charges by the Confucian official 崔浩 Cuihao that the continuity of Indian Buddhism could not be verified. Matsuyama Sadayoshi 松山貞好 (2009a, 208; 2009b, 806) argues that the Indian lineage of T2058 served to legitimate Chinese Buddhism and to warn against those in power with stories of their anti-Buddhist predecessors. Henri Maspero (1911, 142-146) maintains that T2058 was revised in the sixth century to include mention of Mihirakula, who persecuted Buddhists in India until his defeat around 530. Wendi Adamek (2007, 101) views T2058 as a product of “final age pessimism” stemming from sociopolitical instability after the fall of the Northern Wei in 534. |
73-79 |
Young reports that later sources, beginning from the 寶林傳 Baolin zhuan, often set the date of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 before the persecution of Buddhism under the Northern Wei in the mid-fifth century. On such accounts, the text was lost for a time, and then reconstructed by 曇曜 Tanyao and his associates. Young summarises the theories of a number of studies in connection with such traditions. Linda Penkower (2000, 250) and Whalen Lai (1990, 201n40) both speculate that T2058 served to rebut charges by the Confucian official 崔浩 Cuihao that the continuity of Indian Buddhism could not be verified. Matsuyama Sadayoshi 松山貞好 (2009a, 208; 2009b, 806) argues that the Indian lineage of T2058 served to legitimate Chinese Buddhism and to warn against those in power with stories of their anti-Buddhist predecessors. Henri Maspero (1911, 142-146) maintains that T2058 was revised in the sixth century to include mention of Mihirakula, who persecuted Buddhists in India until his defeat around 530. Wendi Adamek (2007, 101) views T2058 as a product of “final age pessimism” stemming from sociopolitical instability after the fall of the Northern Wei in 534. T2058; 付法藏因緣傳 |