Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramārtha (499–569) and His Chinese Interpreters

Revision as of 15:00, 27 May 2020

Dissertation

Abstract

This dissertation argues that the Yogâcāra Buddhism transmitted by the Indian translator Paramârtha (Ch. Zhendi 真諦) underwent a significant transformation due to the influence of his later Chinese interpreters, a phenomenon to which previous scholars failed to paid enough attention.
      I begin with showing two contrary interpretations of Paramârtha's notion of jiexing 解性. The traditional interpretation glosses jiexing in terms of "original awakening" (benjue 本覺) in the Awakening of Faith and hence betrays its strong tie to that text. In contrast, a contrary interpretation of jiexing is preserved in a Dunhuang fragment Taishō No. 2805 (henceforth abbreviated as T2805).
      The crucial part of this dissertation consists in demonstrating that T2805 and the Awakening of Faith represent two competing lineages of the interpreters of Paramârtha. The first clue is that modern scholars have voiced objection to the traditional attribution of the Awakening of Faith to Paramârtha. In addition, I discovered that striking similarities exist between T2805 and Paramârtha's corpus with respect to terminology, style of phrasing, and doctrine. I further draw attention to the historical testimonies about two different doctrinal views held by Paramârtha's interpreters. Therefore, I argue that there were two lineages in the name of Paramârtha's disciples around 590 CE: the indirect lineage interpreted Paramârtha through the lens of the Awakening of Faith; and the direct lineage—represented by T2805—preserved Paramârtha's original teachings but died out prematurely. Later Chinese Buddhist tradition mistakenly regards the indirect lineage as Paramârtha's true heir and attributes the Awakening of Faith to Paramârtha.
      This implies that Paramârtha may have agreed with Xuanzang 2T5c (600–664) much more than scholars used to assume. For example, Xuanzang's characterization of the notion of "aboriginal uncontaminated seeds" looks very similar to how Paramârtha depicts jiexing. It also implies that we should distinguish the strong sense of the notion of "tathāgatagarbha" in the Awakening of Faith from its weak sense. The fact that even Vasubandhu endorses the weak sense of "tathāgatagarbha" strongly challenges the received wisdom that Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha were two distinct and antagonistic trends of thought in India.

Citation	Keng, Ching. "Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramārtha (499–569) and His Chinese Interpreters." PhD diss., Harvard University, 2009.

Abstractiii
Table of Contentv
List of Tables and Figuresxii
Acknowledgementxiii
Abbreviationsxvii
Dedicationxviii
0. Introduction1
0.1 Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha as Two Competing Traditions1
Yogâcāra Tradition (Acquired Gnosis) v.s. Tathāgatagarbha
Tradition (Inherent Gnosis)2
Paramârtha's Life and Work in China4
0.2 The Traditional Image of Paramârtha and Its Problems7
The Traditional Image of Paramârtha7
9
Problematizing the Traditional Image of Paramârtha11

0.3 Toward a New Image of Paramartha: Methodological Considerations .................. 13 Situating My Dissertation in the Study of Religion ....................................... 17 Difficulties with Reconstructing the Original Teachings of Paramartha ................ 21 (A) Reconstructing from Indian Sources with the Help of Chinese and Tibetan Sources? ......................................................................................... 21 (B) Reconstruction from Later Testimonies? .............................................................. .25 A New Approach to the_ Study of Paramartha ............................................... 27 OA Review of Previous Scholarship: Three Dubious Assumptions ........................ .30 (1) The Awakening of Faith Was Related to Paramartha in a Certain Way ............. .30 (2) Paramartha Stood Against Xuanzang ................................................... .34 (3) Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha Are Two Distinct and Antagonistic Traditions ... .36 The Internal Diversity of Yogacara .......................................................... .39 More Than One Kinds ofTathagatagarbha Thought.. .................................... .40 The Unawareness of the Heterogeneity of the Shelun Masters .......................... .41 Other Related Studies of Paramartha and of the Sixth Century Chinese Buddhism .. .44 0.5 Outline of Chapters ............................................................................. 48 Chapter 1. Two Competing Readings of the Notion of Jiexing ........................... 52 1. 1 The Initial Passages on Jiexing ............................................................... 52 Shelun Jiexing Passage (1) .................................................................... 53 Shelun Jiexing Passage (2) .................................................................... 54 The Relation between the Two "Shelun Jiexing Passages"? .............................. 54 Ui 's Interpretation of Jiexing ................................................................. 56 1.2 The Genealogy of our Current Understanding of Jiexing ................................. 62 V

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *{{i|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yogâcāra Tradition (Acquired Gnosis) v.s. Tathāgatagarbha<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tradition (Inherent Gnosis)|2}}
 *{{i|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Paramârtha's Life and Work in China|4}}
-*{{i|0.2 The Traditional Image of Paramârtha's and Its Problems|7}}
+*{{i|0.2 The Traditional Image of Paramârtha and Its Problems|7}}
 *{{i|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Traditional Image of Paramârtha|7}}
 *{{i|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Traditional Interpretation of ''Jiexing'': ''Jiexing''= "Original Awakening"|9}}