Text: T1667; 大乘起信論

Summary

Identifier	T1667 [T]
Title	大乘起信論 [T]
Date	[None]
Translator 譯	Śikṣānanda, 實叉難陀 [T]

There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.

There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
No	[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014.	T1667; 大乘起信論	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: 大乘起信論 People: Śikṣānanda, 實叉難陀 (translator 譯) Identifier: T1667
No	[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.	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." Entry author: Hyungrok Kim Edit

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014.

T1667; 大乘起信論

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: 大乘起信論
People: Śikṣānanda, 實叉難陀 (translator 譯)
Identifier: T1667

[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.

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."

Entry author: Hyungrok Kim

Edit