Text: T1598; 攝大乘論釋


Identifier T1598 [T]
Title 攝大乘論釋 [T]
Date [None]
Author Xuanzang, 玄奘 [Hakamaya 1969]
Compiler 編集 Xuanzang, 玄奘 [Hakamaya 1969]
Translator 譯 Xuanzang, 玄奘 [T]
Author of Indic original Asvabhāva; Dignāga; Sthiramati [Hakamaya 1969]

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).


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.

Entry author: Michael Radich


  • Title: 攝大乘論釋
  • People: Xuanzang, 玄奘 (translator 譯)
  • Identifier: T1598


[Hakamaya 1969]  Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭. “Genjō yaku Setsu daijō ron shaku ni tsuite: Chibetto yaku no hikaku ni yoru ichi kōsatsu 玄奘訳 『摂大乗論釈』 についてチベット訳との比較による一考察.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 印度學佛教學研究 18, no. 1 (1969): 140–141. — 140

Xuanzang’s 攝大乘論釋 T1598 is traditionally recognized as a translation of *Asvabhāva’s commentary on the *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, which is also extant in Tibetan, D 4051. Hakamaya agrees with the Taishō editors and traditional catalogues in treating Xuanzang's text as a “translation” (Jpn. honyaku 翻訳) of a commentary by *Asvabhāva (Chi. Wuxing無性; Tib. Ngo bo nyid med pa) on Vasubandhu’s *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha. However, Hakamaya argues that *Asvabhāva’s commentary has not only been translated in T1598, but supplemented by the inclusion of additional material, so that the resulting work is in fact a polemical and agenda-driven work comprising the views of various authors, including not only *Asvabhāva, but also such figures as Dignāga, Sthiramati, and Xuanzang himself.

Hakamaya shows that Xuanzang played a heavy editorial role in the assembly of these various views to constitute T1598. He supports this claim by showing doctrinal and textual correspondences between these other authors’ works and the content of T1598. Hakamaya also bases his argument on the observation of significant discrepancies between the Chinese and Tibetan counterparts of *Asvabhāva’s commentary. These discrepancies include numerous and even original pieces of exegetical work added by Xuanzang. According to Hakamaya, this original exegetical work takes the form of (1) interpolations, even whole sentences, added into the Indic original, and (2) the imposition of agenda-driven doctrinal interpretations. In short, in 1598, Xuanzang does not restrict himself to faithfully translating *Asvabhāva’s commentary, but adds his own exegesis, and imposes other “interpolations” (Jpn. kahitsu 加筆) into the Indic “original”.

As an example of (1) Xuanzang’s practice of adding new interpolations into the Indic original, T1598 adduces the same commentarial material as the Cheng weishi lun (T1585 [XXXI] 31.10b13-28) and Fo di jing lun (T1530 [XXVI] 303b10-20) on the doctrinal theory of either three 三分説 or four parts 四分說 of perception (T1598 [XXXI] 415b28). This material is paralleled in Dignāga’s Pramāṇa-samuccaya 集量論 (verse 10 and auto-commentary), and the same line of interpretation is also developed by Xuanzang in T1585 (T1585 [XXXI] 10.b17-b22). The Tibetan translation does not contain this material (D 4051 245a5-6). Hakamaya argues that the appearance of this material in T1598, and its absence in the Tibetan, shows that “it is likely that Xuanzang contributed his own interpolation” in this case, rather than that he translated from a different Indic version of *Asvabhāva’s commentary.

[For Sanskrit fragments and Tibetan translation of this material, see Hattori (1968) :107; for an English translation, see Hattori 29; for an interpretation, 27. Franco (1993): 295 agrees with this interpretation of Dignāga as asserting three parts of perception. For analysis of the Sanskrit and an interpretation, see Yao (2004): 73-75. --- BB]

As an example of (2) an original interpretation by Xuanzang, Hakamaya shows that the correspondence between the four forms of gnosis 四智 and the eight layers of consciousness 八識 is found in Xuanzang’s Chinese, but not in Tibetan.

On this basis of these observations, among others, Hakamaya concludes that T1598 does to some extent represent the views of *Asvabhāva, but that Xuanzang should be regarded not only as the “translator” of the text, but in part, as one of its composers. Hakamaya believes that the Tibetan translation is much closer to a “word-for-word translation of the original Sanskrit”.

Franco, Eli. “Did Dignāga Accept Four Types of Perception?” Journal of Indian Philosophy 21, no. 3 (1993): 295-299.

Hattori Masaaki. Dignaga, On Perception, Being the Pratyakṣapariccheda of Dignaga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya from the Sanskrit Fragments and the Tibetan Versions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968.

Yao Zhihua. “Dignāga and Four Types of Perception.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 32, no. 1 (2004): 57-79.

Entry author: Billy Brewster