Source: Keng 2023

Keng, Ching. Toward a New Image of Paramārtha: Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha Buddhism Revisited. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: S.2747; T2805; 攝大乘講疏卷第五．第七 People: Daoni 道尼 (author) Dates: 590 Identifiers: S.2747	Keng attempts to pinpoint, as closely as possible, the author and context of production for the She dasheng jiangshu juan diwu, diqi 攝大乘講疏卷第五．第七 T2805, a commentary on Paramārtha's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya T1595, which was preserved only in a partial Dunhuang manuscript, S.2747. Keng argues as follows: The terminus post quem for T2805 must be 568, the date of Huikai/Zhikai's death; Huikai was involved in the translation of T1595, and so 568 is a terminus ante quem for T1595. Paramārtha himself could not have been the author, because of a doctrinal inconsistency between T2805 and Paramārtha's T1595, and also, because of evidence that T2805 was produced in the North around 590 (see below) (53-54) (cf. also Table 3.15 76). T2805 must predate Xuanzang (returned from India 645), because none of Xuanzang's characteristic terminology appears in the text. T2805 differs from all four of the other fragmentary commentaries on T1595 in the fact that it does not mention or quote from the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith T1666. On the other hand, it refers to the Satyasiddhi T1646 and the Saṃyuktābhidharmahr̥daya 雜阿毘曇心論 T1552. It also cites the Jueding zang lun 決定藏論 T1584 (55-56). A signifiant part of Keng's argument depends upon the close analysis of patterns of distribution of an unusually large number of items of phraseological evidence. Keng uses such evidence to build a case in steps, adding up to a multi-dimensional profile of the author of T2805, and the context(s) most closely associated with it. One body of phraseological evidence shows affinities between T2805 and the Paramārtha corpus in general, in distinction to (a) points of contrast in translation works before Paramārtha, and (b) between Paramārtha and Xuanzang (the latter including non-translation works by such figures as Jingying Huiyuan, Jizang, and Zhiyi) (§3.4, 60-71). Keng summarises: "It cannot be overemphasized that in the entire Chinese Buddhist canon, no text is as similar in terminology to Paramārtha's Chinese translations as T2805" (71). A second body of phraseology shows a more specific close connection between T2805 and the Suixiang lun 隨相論 T1641 (§3.5, 71-75). The strongest items in this set are 既無復 and 豈復有. On the basis of such diction, Keng argues that "the author of T2805 was probably the Chinese scribe (bishou 筆受) of [T1641]" (73). A third body of phraseology shows that T2805 was probably composed by an author who had a strong connection with traditions current in the South in the sixth century (§3.6, 75-89; this evidence includes, significantly, a set of terms NEVER used by Paramārtha, Table 3.15 76); and a fourth, that it is most unlikely that the author came from the North (§3,7, 90-95). Two final sets of clues suggest that the author of T2805 may have had contact with the ideas of Jingying Huiyuan, specifically (§3.9, 100-104); and more broadly, with some Buddhist traditions particular to the North (§3.10, 104-105). Keng cautiously concludes: "(1) T2805 is closely tied to Paramārtha's translations, especially to his Suixiang lun. (2) The author of T2805 came from Southern China. (3) Nevertheless, a few anomalous details suggest that T2805 was composed after its author had some contact with Buddhism in northern China around 590, especially with Huiyuan." In Chapter 5 of his work, Keng further reviews historical information about Paramārtha's various disciples who were active in Chang'an around 590, to suggest that the author of T2805 was probably a direct disciple (meaning one who had personal contact with Paramārtha himself) from Southern China, who moved to Chang'an. In Chapter 4, Keng reviews evidence from the details of doctrinal positions argued in T2805 to argue that it is close to and coherent with documented positions in Paramārtha's own works, thus buttressing his arguments from internal phraseological evidence. On the basis of this profile, Keng argues that the probable author of T2805 was Daoni 道尼 (§5.3.5, 141-143). Edit	Chapter 3, 51-105; 141-143	Keng attempts to pinpoint, as closely as possible, the author and context of production for the She dasheng jiangshu juan diwu, diqi 攝大乘講疏卷第五.第七 T2805, a commentary on Paramartha's Mahayanasamgraha-bhasya T1595, which was preserved only in a partial Dunhuang manuscript, S.2747. Keng argues as follows: The terminus post quem for T2805 must be 568, the date of Huikai/Zhikai's death; Huikai was involved in the translation of T1595, and so 568 is a terminus ante quem for T1595. Paramartha himself could not have been the author, because of a doctrinal inconsistency between T2805 and Paramartha's T1595, and also, because of evidence that T2805 was produced in the North around 590 (see below) (53-54) (cf. also Table 3.15 76). T2805 must predate Xuanzang (returned from India 645), because none of Xuanzang's characteristic terminology appears in the text. T2805 differs from all four of the other fragmentary commentaries on T1595 in the fact that it does not mention or quote from the Mahayana Awakening of Faith T1666. On the other hand, it refers to the Satyasiddhi T1646 and the Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya 雜阿毘曇心論 T1552. It also cites the Jueding zang lun 決定藏論 T1584 (55-56). A signifiant part of Keng's argument depends upon the close analysis of patterns of distribution of an unusually large number of items of phraseological evidence. Keng uses such evidence to build a case in steps, adding up to a multi-dimensional profile of the author of T2805, and the context(s) most closely associated with it. One body of phraseological evidence shows affinities between T2805 and the Paramartha corpus in general, in distinction to (a) points of contrast in translation works before Paramartha, and (b) between Paramartha and Xuanzang (the latter including non-translation works by such figures as Jingying Huiyuan, Jizang, and Zhiyi) (§3.4, 60-71). Keng summarises: "It cannot be overemphasized that in the entire Chinese Buddhist canon, no text is as similar in terminology to Paramartha's Chinese translations as T2805" (71). A second body of phraseology shows a more specific close connection between T2805 and the Suixiang lun 隨相論 T1641 (§3.5, 71-75). The strongest items in this set are 既無復 and 豈復有. On the basis of such diction, Keng argues that "the author of T2805 was probably the Chinese scribe (bishou 筆受) of [T1641]" (73). A third body of phraseology shows that T2805 was probably composed by an author who had a strong connection with traditions current in the South in the sixth century (§3.6, 75-89; this evidence includes, significantly, a set of terms NEVER used by Paramartha, Table 3.15 76); and a fourth, that it is most unlikely that the author came from the North (§3,7, 90-95). Two final sets of clues suggest that the author of T2805 may have had contact with the ideas of Jingying Huiyuan, specifically (§3.9, 100-104); and more broadly, with some Buddhist traditions particular to the North (§3.10, 104-105). Keng cautiously concludes: "(1) T2805 is closely tied to Paramartha's translations, especially to his Suixiang lun. (2) The author of T2805 came from Southern China. (3) Nevertheless, a few anomalous details suggest that T2805 was composed after its author had some contact with Buddhism in northern China around 590, especially with Huiyuan." In Chapter 5 of his work, Keng further reviews historical information about Paramartha's various disciples who were active in Chang'an around 590, to suggest that the author of T2805 was probably a direct disciple (meaning one who had personal contact with Paramartha himself) from Southern China, who moved to Chang'an. In Chapter 4, Keng reviews evidence from the details of doctrinal positions argued in T2805 to argue that it is close to and coherent with documented positions in Paramartha's own works, thus buttressing his arguments from internal phraseological evidence. On the basis of this profile, Keng argues that the probable author of T2805 was Daoni 道尼 (§5.3.5, 141-143). Daoni 道尼 S.2747; T2805; 攝大乘講疏卷第五.第七
Texts: T2807; 攝大乘論章卷第一	"Shengkai made the important discovery that T2807 and S.6715 are fragments of the same text." Referring to Shengkai 聖凱, 攝論派研究 (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2006): 57-58. Edit	52	"Shengkai made the important discovery that T2807 and S.6715 are fragments of the same text." Referring to Shengkai 聖凱, 攝論派研究 (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2006): 57-58. T2807; 攝大乘論章卷第一

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: S.2747; T2805; 攝大乘講疏卷第五．第七
People: Daoni 道尼 (author)
Dates: 590
Identifiers: S.2747

Keng attempts to pinpoint, as closely as possible, the author and context of production for the She dasheng jiangshu juan diwu, diqi 攝大乘講疏卷第五．第七 T2805, a commentary on Paramārtha's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya T1595, which was preserved only in a partial Dunhuang manuscript, S.2747.

Keng argues as follows:

The terminus post quem for T2805 must be 568, the date of Huikai/Zhikai's death; Huikai was involved in the translation of T1595, and so 568 is a terminus ante quem for T1595.

Paramārtha himself could not have been the author, because of a doctrinal inconsistency between T2805 and Paramārtha's T1595, and also, because of evidence that T2805 was produced in the North around 590 (see below) (53-54) (cf. also Table 3.15 76).

T2805 must predate Xuanzang (returned from India 645), because none of Xuanzang's characteristic terminology appears in the text.

T2805 differs from all four of the other fragmentary commentaries on T1595 in the fact that it does not mention or quote from the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith T1666. On the other hand, it refers to the *Satyasiddhi T1646 and the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahr̥daya 雜阿毘曇心論 T1552. It also cites the Jueding zang lun 決定藏論 T1584 (55-56).

A signifiant part of Keng's argument depends upon the close analysis of patterns of distribution of an unusually large number of items of phraseological evidence. Keng uses such evidence to build a case in steps, adding up to a multi-dimensional profile of the author of T2805, and the context(s) most closely associated with it.

One body of phraseological evidence shows affinities between T2805 and the Paramārtha corpus in general, in distinction to (a) points of contrast in translation works before Paramārtha, and (b) between Paramārtha and Xuanzang (the latter including non-translation works by such figures as Jingying Huiyuan, Jizang, and Zhiyi) (§3.4, 60-71). Keng summarises: "It cannot be overemphasized that in the entire Chinese Buddhist canon, no text is as similar in terminology to Paramārtha's Chinese translations as T2805" (71).

A second body of phraseology shows a more specific close connection between T2805 and the Suixiang lun 隨相論 T1641 (§3.5, 71-75). The strongest items in this set are 既無復 and 豈復有. On the basis of such diction, Keng argues that "the author of T2805 was probably the Chinese scribe (bishou 筆受) of [T1641]" (73).

A third body of phraseology shows that T2805 was probably composed by an author who had a strong connection with traditions current in the South in the sixth century (§3.6, 75-89; this evidence includes, significantly, a set of terms NEVER used by Paramārtha, Table 3.15 76); and a fourth, that it is most unlikely that the author came from the North (§3,7, 90-95).

Two final sets of clues suggest that the author of T2805 may have had contact with the ideas of Jingying Huiyuan, specifically (§3.9, 100-104); and more broadly, with some Buddhist traditions particular to the North (§3.10, 104-105).

Keng cautiously concludes: "(1) T2805 is closely tied to Paramārtha's translations, especially to his Suixiang lun. (2) The author of T2805 came from Southern China. (3) Nevertheless, a few anomalous details suggest that T2805 was composed after its author had some contact with Buddhism in northern China around 590, especially with Huiyuan."

In Chapter 5 of his work, Keng further reviews historical information about Paramārtha's various disciples who were active in Chang'an around 590, to suggest that the author of T2805 was probably a direct disciple (meaning one who had personal contact with Paramārtha himself) from Southern China, who moved to Chang'an. In Chapter 4, Keng reviews evidence from the details of doctrinal positions argued in T2805 to argue that it is close to and coherent with documented positions in Paramārtha's own works, thus buttressing his arguments from internal phraseological evidence.

On the basis of this profile, Keng argues that the probable author of T2805 was Daoni 道尼 (§5.3.5, 141-143).

Edit

Chapter 3, 51-105; 141-143

Keng attempts to pinpoint, as closely as possible, the author and context of production for the She dasheng jiangshu juan diwu, diqi 攝大乘講疏卷第五.第七 T2805, a commentary on Paramartha's Mahayanasamgraha-bhasya T1595, which was preserved only in a partial Dunhuang manuscript, S.2747. Keng argues as follows: The terminus post quem for T2805 must be 568, the date of Huikai/Zhikai's death; Huikai was involved in the translation of T1595, and so 568 is a terminus ante quem for T1595. Paramartha himself could not have been the author, because of a doctrinal inconsistency between T2805 and Paramartha's T1595, and also, because of evidence that T2805 was produced in the North around 590 (see below) (53-54) (cf. also Table 3.15 76). T2805 must predate Xuanzang (returned from India 645), because none of Xuanzang's characteristic terminology appears in the text. T2805 differs from all four of the other fragmentary commentaries on T1595 in the fact that it does not mention or quote from the Mahayana Awakening of Faith T1666. On the other hand, it refers to the *Satyasiddhi T1646 and the *Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya 雜阿毘曇心論 T1552. It also cites the Jueding zang lun 決定藏論 T1584 (55-56). A signifiant part of Keng's argument depends upon the close analysis of patterns of distribution of an unusually large number of items of phraseological evidence. Keng uses such evidence to build a case in steps, adding up to a multi-dimensional profile of the author of T2805, and the context(s) most closely associated with it. One body of phraseological evidence shows affinities between T2805 and the Paramartha corpus in general, in distinction to (a) points of contrast in translation works before Paramartha, and (b) between Paramartha and Xuanzang (the latter including non-translation works by such figures as Jingying Huiyuan, Jizang, and Zhiyi) (§3.4, 60-71). Keng summarises: "It cannot be overemphasized that in the entire Chinese Buddhist canon, no text is as similar in terminology to Paramartha's Chinese translations as T2805" (71). A second body of phraseology shows a more specific close connection between T2805 and the Suixiang lun 隨相論 T1641 (§3.5, 71-75). The strongest items in this set are 既無復 and 豈復有. On the basis of such diction, Keng argues that "the author of T2805 was probably the Chinese scribe (bishou 筆受) of [T1641]" (73). A third body of phraseology shows that T2805 was probably composed by an author who had a strong connection with traditions current in the South in the sixth century (§3.6, 75-89; this evidence includes, significantly, a set of terms NEVER used by Paramartha, Table 3.15 76); and a fourth, that it is most unlikely that the author came from the North (§3,7, 90-95). Two final sets of clues suggest that the author of T2805 may have had contact with the ideas of Jingying Huiyuan, specifically (§3.9, 100-104); and more broadly, with some Buddhist traditions particular to the North (§3.10, 104-105). Keng cautiously concludes: "(1) T2805 is closely tied to Paramartha's translations, especially to his Suixiang lun. (2) The author of T2805 came from Southern China. (3) Nevertheless, a few anomalous details suggest that T2805 was composed after its author had some contact with Buddhism in northern China around 590, especially with Huiyuan." In Chapter 5 of his work, Keng further reviews historical information about Paramartha's various disciples who were active in Chang'an around 590, to suggest that the author of T2805 was probably a direct disciple (meaning one who had personal contact with Paramartha himself) from Southern China, who moved to Chang'an. In Chapter 4, Keng reviews evidence from the details of doctrinal positions argued in T2805 to argue that it is close to and coherent with documented positions in Paramartha's own works, thus buttressing his arguments from internal phraseological evidence. On the basis of this profile, Keng argues that the probable author of T2805 was Daoni 道尼 (§5.3.5, 141-143). Daoni 道尼 S.2747; T2805; 攝大乘講疏卷第五.第七

Texts: T2807; 攝大乘論章卷第一

"Shengkai made the important discovery that T2807 and S.6715 are fragments of the same text." Referring to Shengkai 聖凱, 攝論派研究 (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2006): 57-58.

Edit