Source: Hirai 1966

Hirai Shun'ei 平井俊栄. “Kashō daishi Kichizō no kisoteki kenkyū: chojutsu no zengo kankei o megutte” 嘉祥大師吉藏の基礎的研究――著述の前後関係おめぐつて. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學仏教學研究 14, no.2 (1966): 231-239.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Hirai Shun'ei argues against the previously dominant view that the Sanlun xuanyi 三論玄義 T1852 was composed after the Dasheng xuanlun 大乘玄論 T1853 and the Zhongguan lun shu 中觀論疏 T1824, and later than 608 (the fourth year of Daye 大業). In prior scholarship, there were two main items of evidence: 1. With regard to the topic of T1852, which builds a general picture of the thought within the three śāstras [i.e., the three major works of Mādhyamaka: Zhonglun 中論, Bailun 百論, and Shi'ermenlun 十二門論 -- LX], scholars believed that T1852 is a mature work. and should have been completed when Jizang's thought was fully developed, in the final phase of his career. 2. In some places, T1852 mentions T1824 as well as T1853, and so T1852 is chronically later than these two works.

However, Hirai points out that these two points are not convincing, especially the second. Actually, T1852 does not mention T1824 and T1853 directly. In fact, the evidence given by prior scholars are very ambiguous, and those expressions possibly relate to other earlier works by Jizang, e.g., the Fahua xuanlun 法華玄論 T1720 and the Jingming xuanlun 淨名玄論 T1780. Moreover, in the preface of the Shi'ermen lun shu 十二門論疏 T1825, which is believed to have been composed in the same year as T1824, Jizang claimed: "In the past, I [already] wrote a text about the three śāstras" 餘昔已著三論玄文 [in Hirai’s citation of Taishō, the phrase is “玄文”, but at this point, T carries 文玄, with no variant reading. – LX]. Hirai argues that the work 三論玄文 here referred to is the Sanlun xuanyi 三論玄義 T1852. Besides, Hirai gives two examples to indicate that T1852 is cited in T1824:

(1) In T1824, we read: 要具斯三義乃圓足。玄章內已釋之, T1824 (LXII) 2a12-13. Xuanzhang 玄章 here refers to T1852. According to Hirai, si san 斯三 refers to zhong 中, guan 觀, and lun 論, which can correspond to this issue in T1852: 次別釋中論名題門, T1852 (XLV) 13b21. [Hirai’s argument might be inspired by the excerpt discussing 中論名題 in T1852: 答因中發觀。由觀宣論。要備三法義乃圓足也T1852 (XLV) 13c1-2). Jizang justified 中論 by analyzing the relationship between these three key words. Therefore, 斯三 in T1824 is equal to 三法 in T1852, which means the three signifiant terms: 中, 觀, and 論. -- LX]. The contents above could correspond to another locus in T1824: 所言中論者玄義具述, T1824 (XLII) 1b2-3. Consequently, we can safely draw the conclusion that the 玄章 mentioned in T1824 is T1852.

(2) In T1824, we read: 問薩婆多犢子何時出耶。答佛滅後三百年中從上座部生薩婆多。從薩婆多出犢子部。玄義論以明之, T1824 (XLII) 100b5-7. xuanyilun 玄義論 in this excerpt refers to T1852, since we can see a similar expression in T1852: 至三百年初。迦旃延尼子去世。便分成兩部。一上座弟子部。二薩婆多部, T1852 (XLV) 9b21-22. Apart from this case, the term xuanyi 玄義 is often used to refer to T1852 in many other places in Jizang’ works.

Once we have figured out the sequence of T1824 and T1852, the relationship between T1853 and the other two works is of equal significance. Taking directly into consideration the fact that T1853 cited T1824: 先依中論疏。先立異家義, T1853 (XLV) 59c26, it is safe to place T1853 in a later period than T1824.

Unlike those previous scholars, then, Hirai argues that T1852 was not written when Jizang was old. To the contrary, this work was followed by T1824 and T1853, because we can see the citation of T1824 in T1853, and passages corresponding to T1852 in T1824, so the sequence should be T1852 → T1824 → T1853.

As for the exact year in which T1852 was produced, at the beginning of T1852, we read, “Written by Monk Jizang of the Huiri Terrace at imperial behest” 慧日道場沙門吉藏奉命撰 . On this basis, Hirai holds the view that the date of T1852 can be determined as falling between 597 and 599, when Jizang was in Huiri terrace at Yangzhou. Hirai pays attention to three records: (1) In the Guoqing bailu 國清百錄 T1934, we read 會稽縣嘉祥寺吉藏稽首和南, T1934 (XLVI) 822a8, and 謹請開皇十七年八月二十一日, T1934 (XLVI) 822b1, so we can infer that Jizang was still in 嘉祥 in the eighth month of 597. (2) In the Zhongguan lun shuji 中觀論疏記 T2255 and the Sanlun xuanyi jianyouji 三論玄義檢幽集 T2300, both authors wrote: 十九年從王入京停日嚴寺, T2255 (LXV) 2c20&T2300 (LXX) 381b09. This record implies that Jizang might have left Yangzhou for Chang’an along with King Yang Guang in 599. (3) In the Suishu 隋書 vol.2, Diji di'er, Gaozu zhuan 帝紀第二·高祖傳, we read: 十九年春正月癸酉大赦天下戊寅大射武德殿宴請百官二月巳亥晉王廣來朝. In the second year of 599, Yang Guang came to the capital, i.e., Chang’an. Based on these historical textual materials, Hirai presumes that Jizang stayed at the Huiri Terrace from the ninth month of 597 to the second month of 599. Therefore, Hirai also rejects the record that occurs in the Sanlun xuanyi jianyouji 三論玄義檢幽集 T2300: 奉命撰者，或本云，大隋仁壽二年四月奉令撰, T2300 (LXX) 381c. Hirai holds that the phrase huoben yun 或本云 ("a certain text says") implies that the author lacks confidence in this statement, and that this date (Renshou ernian 仁壽二年: the second year of Renshou, i.e., AD 602) is uncertain.

Edit

235-236, 239

 Hirai Shun'ei argues against the previously dominant view that the Sanlun xuanyi 三論玄義 T1852 was composed after the Dasheng xuanlun 大乘玄論 T1853 and the Zhongguan lun shu 中觀論疏 T1824, and later than 608 (the fourth year of Daye 大業). In prior scholarship, there were two main items of evidence: 1. With regard to the topic of T1852, which builds a general picture of the thought within the three sastras [i.e., the three major works of Madhyamaka: Zhonglun 中論, Bailun 百論, and Shi'ermenlun 十二門論 -- LX], scholars believed that T1852 is a mature work. and should have been completed when Jizang's thought was fully developed, in the final phase of his career. 2. In some places, T1852 mentions T1824 as well as T1853, and so T1852 is chronically later than these two works. However, Hirai points out that these two points are not convincing, especially the second. Actually, T1852 does not mention T1824 and T1853 directly. In fact, the evidence given by prior scholars are very ambiguous, and those expressions possibly relate to other earlier works by Jizang, e.g., the Fahua xuanlun 法華玄論 T1720 and the Jingming xuanlun 淨名玄論 T1780. Moreover, in the preface of the Shi'ermen lun shu 十二門論疏 T1825, which is believed to have been composed in the same year as T1824, Jizang claimed: "In the past, I [already] wrote a text about the three sastras" 餘昔已著三論玄文 [in Hirai’s citation of Taisho, the phrase is “玄文”, but at this point, T carries 文玄, with no variant reading. – LX]. Hirai argues that the work 三論玄文 here referred to is the Sanlun xuanyi 三論玄義 T1852. Besides, Hirai gives two examples to indicate that T1852 is cited in T1824: (1) In T1824, we read: 要具斯三義乃圓足。玄章內已釋之, T1824 (LXII) 2a12-13. Xuanzhang 玄章 here refers to T1852. According to Hirai, si san 斯三 refers to zhong 中, guan 觀, and lun 論, which can correspond to this issue in T1852: 次別釋中論名題門, T1852 (XLV) 13b21. [Hirai’s argument might be inspired by the excerpt discussing 中論名題 in T1852: 答因中發觀。由觀宣論。要備三法義乃圓足也T1852 (XLV) 13c1-2). Jizang justified 中論 by analyzing the relationship between these three key words. Therefore, 斯三 in T1824 is equal to 三法 in T1852, which means the three signifiant terms: 中, 觀, and 論. -- LX]. The contents above could correspond to another locus in T1824: 所言中論者玄義具述, T1824 (XLII) 1b2-3. Consequently, we can safely draw the conclusion that the 玄章 mentioned in T1824 is T1852. (2) In T1824, we read: 問薩婆多犢子何時出耶。答佛滅後三百年中從上座部生薩婆多。從薩婆多出犢子部。玄義論以明之, T1824 (XLII) 100b5-7. xuanyilun 玄義論 in this excerpt refers to T1852, since we can see a similar expression in T1852: 至三百年初。迦旃延尼子去世。便分成兩部。一上座弟子部。二薩婆多部, T1852 (XLV) 9b21-22. Apart from this case, the term xuanyi 玄義 is often used to refer to T1852 in many other places in Jizang’ works. Once we have figured out the sequence of T1824 and T1852, the relationship between T1853 and the other two works is of equal significance. Taking directly into consideration the fact that T1853 cited T1824: 先依中論疏。先立異家義, T1853 (XLV) 59c26, it is safe to place T1853 in a later period than T1824. Unlike those previous scholars, then, Hirai argues that T1852 was not written when Jizang was old. To the contrary, this work was followed by T1824 and T1853, because we can see the citation of T1824 in T1853, and passages corresponding to T1852 in T1824, so the sequence should be T1852 → T1824 → T1853. As for the exact year in which T1852 was produced, at the beginning of T1852, we read, “Written by Monk Jizang of the Huiri Terrace at imperial behest” 慧日道場沙門吉藏奉命撰 . On this basis, Hirai holds the view that the date of T1852 can be determined as falling between 597 and 599, when Jizang was in Huiri terrace at Yangzhou. Hirai pays attention to three records: (1) In the Guoqing bailu 國清百錄 T1934, we read 會稽縣嘉祥寺吉藏稽首和南, T1934 (XLVI) 822a8, and 謹請開皇十七年八月二十一日, T1934 (XLVI) 822b1, so we can infer that Jizang was still in 嘉祥 in the eighth month of 597. (2) In the Zhongguan lun shuji 中觀論疏記 T2255 and the Sanlun xuanyi jianyouji 三論玄義檢幽集 T2300, both authors wrote: 十九年從王入京停日嚴寺, T2255 (LXV) 2c20&T2300 (LXX) 381b09. This record implies that Jizang might have left Yangzhou for Chang’an along with King Yang Guang in 599. (3) In the Suishu 隋書 vol.2, Diji di'er, Gaozu zhuan 帝紀第二·高祖傳, we read: 十九年春正月癸酉大赦天下戊寅大射武德殿宴請百官二月巳亥晉王廣來朝. In the second year of 599, Yang Guang came to the capital, i.e., Chang’an. Based on these historical textual materials, Hirai presumes that Jizang stayed at the Huiri Terrace from the ninth month of 597 to the second month of 599. Therefore, Hirai also rejects the record that occurs in the Sanlun xuanyi jianyouji 三論玄義檢幽集 T2300: 奉命撰者,或本云,大隋仁壽二年四月奉令撰, T2300 (LXX) 381c. Hirai holds that the phrase huoben yun 或本云 ("a certain text says") implies that the author lacks confidence in this statement, and that this date (Renshou ernian 仁壽二年: the second year of Renshou, i.e., AD 602) is uncertain. T1852; 三論玄義