Text: T1585; 成唯識論

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.

• T1585; 成唯識論

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 成唯識論
• People: Xuanzang, 玄奘 (translator 譯)
• Identifier: T1585

No

[Shi 2008]  Shi Zhaohui 釋昭慧. “Cheng weishi lun yishi jueze tan 成唯識論譯史抉擇談.” In Chuqi weishi sixiang – Yuqie xingpai xingcheng zhi mailuo 初期唯識思想——瑜伽行派形成之脈絡, by Shi Zhaohui, 105-112. Taipei: Fajie, 2008. — 105

• T1585; 成唯識論

According to the postface by Shen Xuanming 沈玄明 (成唯識論後序, T1585 [XXXI] 59c2), Xuanzang began work on the Cheng weishi lun in 645-6 (Zhenguan貞觀 19) and completed it in 660-661 ( 顯慶之末). However, Shi Zhaohui doubts the accuracy of these dates. The start date is too soon after Xuanzang returned to China (645), given that Kuiji reports that Xuanzang only began to compose the Cheng weishi lun after a period of repeated urging (成唯識論掌中樞要 T1831 [XLIII] 608c3). Shen’s end date is later than that recorded by the Kaiyuan shijiao lu (開元釋教錄T2154 [LV] 556c18), which says the work was completed in Xianqing 4 (659), during the tenth intercalary month 顯慶四年閏十月 (October or November) at Yuhuasi 玉華寺 (T2154 [LV] 556c18).

Entry author: Billy Brewster

Edit

No

[Sakuma 2006]  Sakuma, Hidenori 佐久間秀範. “On Doctrinal Similarities Between Sthiramati and Xuanzang.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 29, no. 2 (2006): 357-382. — 358

• T1585; 成唯識論

Sakuma accepts the idea that the compiler of the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 T1585, Xuanzang, sought to attribute the “correct doctrines”正義 found in the text to Dharmapāla, who is assumed by traditional authorities to be the primary author of the text. Sakuma writes: “While we can accept that the Cheng weishi lun was compiled from a position that regarded Dharmapāla’s views as legitimate, there survives no commentary on the Triṃśikā by Dharmapāla himself in either the original Sanskrit or a Tibetan translation.” This lack of evidence makes it difficult to assess the accuracy of the views ascribed to Dharmapāla in T1585, against suggestions by some scholars that some of those views are in fact the views of Xuanzang himself. However, Dharmapāla’s Viṃśīkā commentary is extant in the Chinese translation of Yijing, the Bao sheng lun 寶生論, T1591. A commentary by Dharmapāla on the Ālambanaparīkṣā also survives, again in translation by Yijing, T1625. A commentary on the *Catuḥ-śataka-śāstra translated by Xuanzang is also ascribed to Dharmapāla, T1571. None of these three works seems to survive in Sanskrit or in Tibetan translation. Because these works are all “translations” and evince a understanding of the original Indic text that has been altered through the process of being rendered into Chinese, Sakuma contends that “there exist no sources by which we can ascertain Dharmapāla’s true intent.” In view of this dearth of independent evidence, Sakuma doubts that Dharmapāla really is the author of certain materials found in T1585. Setting aside the historical facts about the elusive figure of Dharmapāla, Sakuma marshals evidence to show that the materials found in T1585 bear a closer resemblance to Sthiramati’s and Śīlabhadra’s views, and the views of Xuanzang, the compiler, than previously recognized by traditional commentators and by modern secondary scholarship. As basic reference points for these three authors’ views, Sakuma looks to the following works: 1) the Triṃśikā commentary of Sthiramati, the only one of the ten fabled Triṃśikā commentaries upon which T1585 is based to survive in Sanskrit; 2) the Tibetan translation of the *Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa commentary of Śīlabhadra, D3997; and 3) for Xuanzang, the *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha T1594, and the *Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa T1530, two works rendered into Chinese by Xuanzang prior to the compilation of T1585 and cited heavily in T1585. In particular, Sakuma finds that the stance of T1585 on two important Yogācāra doctrines—the four forms of gnosis 四智, and the three Buddha bodies 三身—are more closely aligned to Sthiramati and Śīlabhadra than to Dharmapāla.

Entry author: Billy Brewster

Edit

No

[Funayama 2017]  Funayama Tōru 船山徹, “Shinnyo no sho kaishaku – bongo tathatā to kango, honmu, nyo, nyonyo, shinnyo 眞如の諸解釋--梵語tathatāと語, 本無, 如, 如如, 眞如.” Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 92 (2017): 1-75. — 73, n. 18

• T1585; 成唯識論

Funayama argues that the Cheng weishi lun T1585 is a polemical compilation of various materials of Indic and Sinitic provenance and is not a “word-for-word translation” (Jpn. chikugo yaku 逐語譯) of an Indic original. Funayama gives four reasons in support of this contention. First, the Cheng weishi lun is described in traditional East Asian bibliography as an “interspersed translation” (Chi. rouyi 糅譯) which combines materials attributable to various Indic Yogācāra masters, including Dharmapāla, a 6th-century figure often presumed by traditional East Asian exegetes to be the primary author of the Cheng weishi lun, and Sthiramati, a contemporary of Dharmapāla. Thus, the Cheng weishi lun is not a word-for-word rendition of any single original text. Second, there is no record of an Indic treatise (Skt. śāstra) corresponding to the Cheng weishi lun in available Sanskrit sources. Third, the Cheng weishi lun offers the epistemological model of four parts of perception (Chi. sifen shuo四分說), a model not attested in genuine Indic sources. Fourth, the “generic conventions” (Jpn. taisai 體裁) and “format” (Jpn. shoshiki 書式) of the Cheng weishi lun are radically different from that of the extant works reliably attributed to Dharmapāla, including the Cheng weishi baosheng lun 成唯識寶生論 T1591, *Catuḥśataka-vṛtti (Dasheng guang bai lun shi lun 大乘廣百論釋論) T1571, and Guan suoyuan lun shi 觀所緣論釋 (Commentary on the Ālambanaparīkṣā) T1625.

Funayama’s reasoning implies that key parts of the Cheng weishi lun comprise the original writings of Xuanzang and his disciples. For example, Funayama observes that the Cheng weishi lun (T1585 [XXXI] 48a24-26) glosses the binome zhenru 眞如, the Chinese equivalent to the Sanskrit word tathatā, as an adjectival compound (Chi.: chiye shi 持業釋; Skt. karmadhāraya), where zhen, meaning “real”, modifies ru, meaning “thusness,” reality as it really is. Since this gloss treats the word zhenru as a compound, when its Sanskrit equivalent is not, Funayama argues that this gloss comprises a piece of original Sinitic exegesis by Xuanzang and his disciples, and is not a translation of any Indic source.

Entry author: Billy Brewster

Edit