Source: Lai 1980

Lai, Whalen [黎惠倫]. “A Clue to the Authorship of the Awakening of Faith: ‘Śikṣānanda’s’ Redaction of the Word ‘Nien’.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 3, no. 1 (1980): 34–53.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T1667; 大乘起信論	Lai argues that T1667 was a redaction of T1666 to better reflect the Yogācāra teachings brought to China by Xuanzang. "It would appear that the AFM [T1666] was authored in China and the AFMS [T1667] was a conscious redaction of the AFM in China (or Korea?³) to bring this work into line with the demands of Hsüan-tsang’s [玄奘] Wei-shih [唯識] philosophy .... Mochizuki [Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨, Daijō Kishinron no kenkyū 大乗起信論之研究, 1922, Kyōto, Kanao Bun’endō 金尾文淵堂] suggests Korea because of the discovery of the AFMS [T1667] in Korea" (n. 3). […] "Because the AFM [T1666] has more internal consistency than the AFMS [T1667] in this and other areas, it can be assumed that the AFM is the original and the AFMS a redaction, and not the other way around." […] "Within fifty years after the appearance of the AFM [T1666] in China, there were already charges that the AFM was a six-century forgery by the masters of the Daśabhūmika śāstra in the North. The criticism came from the Saṃgraha school founded by Paramārtha in the South. […] Due to [Xuanzang’s] translation of the Vijñāptimātratrā-siddhi, Ch’eng Wei-shih-lun [T1585 成唯識論 Cheng weishi lun], the AFM was further discredited. […] The AFMS [T1667] was probably produced in China, during that debate or in Wŏnhyo’s Korea, known for “harmonious” teachings. […] I would suggest that the AFMS was authored to counter the attacks of the new Wei-shih [唯識] school. At that time, someone […] tried to rectify the AFM by rendering it in such a way that it would not be too offensive to the better Yogācāra rationality." Edit		Lai argues that T1667 was a redaction of T1666 to better reflect the Yogacara teachings brought to China by Xuanzang. "It would appear that the AFM [T1666] was authored in China and the AFMS [T1667] was a conscious redaction of the AFM in China (or Korea?3) to bring this work into line with the demands of Hsuan-tsang’s [玄奘] Wei-shih [唯識] philosophy .... Mochizuki [Mochizuki Shinko 望月信亨, Daijo Kishinron no kenkyu 大乗起信論之研究, 1922, Kyoto, Kanao Bun’endo 金尾文淵堂] suggests Korea because of the discovery of the AFMS [T1667] in Korea" (n. 3). [...] "Because the AFM [T1666] has more internal consistency than the AFMS [T1667] in this and other areas, it can be assumed that the AFM is the original and the AFMS a redaction, and not the other way around." [...] "Within fifty years after the appearance of the AFM [T1666] in China, there were already charges that the AFM was a six-century forgery by the masters of the Dasabhumika sastra in the North. The criticism came from the Samgraha school founded by Paramartha in the South. [...] Due to [Xuanzang’s] translation of the Vijnaptimatratra-siddhi, Ch’eng Wei-shih-lun [T1585 成唯識論 Cheng weishi lun], the AFM was further discredited. [...] The AFMS [T1667] was probably produced in China, during that debate or in Wonhyo’s Korea, known for “harmonious” teachings. [...] I would suggest that the AFMS was authored to counter the attacks of the new Wei-shih [唯識] school. At that time, someone [...] tried to rectify the AFM by rendering it in such a way that it would not be too offensive to the better Yogacara rationality." T1667; 大乘起信論

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T1667; 大乘起信論

Lai argues that T1667 was a redaction of T1666 to better reflect the Yogācāra teachings brought to China by Xuanzang.

"It would appear that the AFM [T1666] was authored in China and the AFMS [T1667] was a conscious redaction of the AFM in China (or Korea?³) to bring this work into line with the demands of Hsüan-tsang’s [玄奘] Wei-shih [唯識] philosophy .... Mochizuki [Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨, Daijō Kishinron no kenkyū 大乗起信論之研究, 1922, Kyōto, Kanao Bun’endō 金尾文淵堂] suggests Korea because of the discovery of the AFMS [T1667] in Korea" (n. 3).

[…]

"Because the AFM [T1666] has more internal consistency than the AFMS [T1667] in this and other areas, it can be assumed that the AFM is the original and the AFMS a redaction, and not the other way around."

[…]

"Within fifty years after the appearance of the AFM [T1666] in China, there were already charges that the AFM was a six-century forgery by the masters of the Daśabhūmika śāstra in the North. The criticism came from the Saṃgraha school founded by Paramārtha in the South. […] Due to [Xuanzang’s] translation of the Vijñāptimātratrā-siddhi, Ch’eng Wei-shih-lun [T1585 成唯識論 Cheng weishi lun], the AFM was further discredited. […] The AFMS [T1667] was probably produced in China, during that debate or in Wŏnhyo’s Korea, known for “harmonious” teachings. […] I would suggest that the AFMS was authored to counter the attacks of the new Wei-shih [唯識] school. At that time, someone […] tried to rectify the AFM by rendering it in such a way that it would not be too offensive to the better Yogācāra rationality."

Edit