Zimmermann, Michael. A Buddha Within: The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, the Earliest Exposition of the Buddha-Nature Teaching in India. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica VI. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2002.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Zimmermann points out that in CSZJJ, Sengyou ascribes a work entitled Da fangdeng rulaizang jing 大方等如來藏經 [the exact title borne by T666] in one fascicle to Faju , and states that a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 gives the alternate title Fozang fangdeng jing 佛藏方等經, T2145 (LV) 9c20. By contrast, Sengyou reports of another text with the same title, 大方等如來藏經, and almost the same alternate title, 如來藏, that it was "missing" 今闕 (had not yet been obtained for the library he was cataloguing?), 11c15. In keeping with this information, Sengyou says explicitly elsewhere that the text had been translated in two alternate versions: 大方等如來藏經(釋法炬出大方等如來藏一卷佛馱跋陀出大方等如來藏一卷) 右一經。二人異出, 14b12-13. In subsequent catalogues, Fajing also reports two translations by the same translators, adding that Faju worked with Falu; Zimmermann, in part following Tokiwa Daijō, finds the notion of a translation by Bo Fazu unlikely. However, he argues that the report of a version by Faju (and possibly Fali) is more plausible. Tokiwa argued that Sengyou's "Jiu lu" in this case refers to the catalogue(s) of Dao'an; Hayashiya, by contrast, thought it might refer to a later catalogue by Zhu Daozu. Without resolving this conflict of interpretation, Zimmermann himself concludes, "In any case, we can be sure that at the time of Daoan ... a text called [Fozang fangdeng jing] or even [Dafangdeng rulaizang jing] was known and attributed to Faju" (72). [Note: I cannot follow Zimmermann's reasoning here. Sengyou's report of the Faju translation is included in his "Newly Compiled Catalogue of Sūtras and Śāstras" 新集經論錄, which does not have any necessary basis in Dao'an. Moreover, Zimmermann spends a paragraph discussing problems in the potential reliability of such information as Sengyou supposedly does derive from Dao'an, without drawing any clear link to his own arguments --- MR.] Zimmermann then considers several possibilities, which he acknowledges as speculative, on the historical realities and sources behind Sengyou's report. Zimmermann concludes that "there cannot be any definitive answer to the question of what Indian work lies behind the title of a Chinese translation which has not come down to us" [clearly intending this generalisation to apply to the Faju title, which he thus treats as applying to a lost work], but "the information regarding the TGS translation by Faju seems quite solid, based as it is on the catalogue of Daoan (sic)". |
69-73 |
Zimmermann points out that in CSZJJ, Sengyou ascribes a work entitled Da fangdeng rulaizang jing 大方等如來藏經 [the exact title borne by T666] in one fascicle to Faju , and states that a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 gives the alternate title Fozang fangdeng jing 佛藏方等經, T2145 (LV) 9c20. By contrast, Sengyou reports of another text with the same title, 大方等如來藏經, and almost the same alternate title, 如來藏, that it was "missing" 今闕 (had not yet been obtained for the library he was cataloguing?), 11c15. In keeping with this information, Sengyou says explicitly elsewhere that the text had been translated in two alternate versions: 大方等如來藏經(釋法炬出大方等如來藏一卷佛馱跋陀出大方等如來藏一卷) 右一經。二人異出, 14b12-13. In subsequent catalogues, Fajing also reports two translations by the same translators, adding that Faju worked with Falu; T2146 (LV) 117c15-17. LDSBJ reports these versions, 66b23, 71, a13-14; but also adds a supposed version by Bo Fazu 白法祖, T2034 (XLIX) 66b2. (Zimmermann also notes contradictions in information of the LDSJB account.) In subsequent catalogues, Zimmermann finds no new information. Zimmermann, in part following Tokiwa Daijo, finds the notion of a translation by Bo Fazu unlikely. However, he argues that the report of a version by Faju (and possibly Fali) is more plausible. Tokiwa argued that Sengyou's "Jiu lu" in this case refers to the catalogue(s) of Dao'an; Hayashiya, by contrast, thought it might refer to a later catalogue by Zhu Daozu. Without resolving this conflict of interpretation, Zimmermann himself concludes, "In any case, we can be sure that at the time of Daoan ... a text called [Fozang fangdeng jing] or even [Dafangdeng rulaizang jing] was known and attributed to Faju" (72). [Note: I cannot follow Zimmermann's reasoning here. Sengyou's report of the Faju translation is included in his "Newly Compiled Catalogue of Sutras and Sastras" 新集經論錄, which does not have any necessary basis in Dao'an. Moreover, Zimmermann spends a paragraph discussing problems in the potential reliability of such information as Sengyou supposedly does derive from Dao'an, without drawing any clear link to his own arguments --- MR.] Zimmermann then considers several possibilities, which he acknowledges as speculative, on the historical realities and sources behind Sengyou's report. Zimmermann concludes that "there cannot be any definitive answer to the question of what Indian work lies behind the title of a Chinese translation which has not come down to us" [clearly intending this generalisation to apply to the Faju title, which he thus treats as applying to a lost work], but "the information regarding the TGS translation by Faju seems quite solid, based as it is on the catalogue of Daoan (sic)". T0666; 大方等如來藏經 |