|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
| Same: ''Tensei naru Nanda'' (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 42). 1957.<br> | | Same: ''Tensei naru Nanda'' (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 42). 1957.<br> |
| Hayashi Kemmyō: ''Kishinron no shin Kenkyū''. 1945.<br> | | Hayashi Kemmyō: ''Kishinron no shin Kenkyū''. 1945.<br> |
| Suzuki D. Teitarō: ''Awakening of Faith''. Chicago l900.</ref>) . That I dare to add my grain to the store of knowledge already collected, though not even fully acquainted with the earlier efforts , demands an explanation. When studying Chinese Buddhism and slowly progressing through the centuries I came before the stumbling block of this text and found that without more definite knowledge about the ''Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' a clear picture of Medieval Buddhism could not be attained. | | Suzuki D. Teitarō: ''Awakening of Faith''. Chicago l900.</ref>) . That I dare to add my grain to the store of knowledge already collected, though not even fully acquainted with the earlier efforts , demands an explanation. When studying Chinese Buddhism and slowly progressing through the centuries I came before the stumbling block of this text and found that without more definite knowledge about the ''Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' a clear picture of Medieval Buddhism could not be attained. As no answer has yet been given to this problem acceptable to all the debaters I had to look into it myself. Unfortunately, the Indian libraries in my reach are very incomplete with respect to Japanese and Chinese books and periodicals. So I was confronted with a dilemma which worries many scholars to-day, namely, whether I should continue my studies in spite of this handicap or stop altogether. Finally I decided that I would try to get a result by using what was available to me and adding material which I collected myself. This led to what I consider as a result worth while to be submitted as a basis of discussion. The professors Matsunami Seiren and Hayashi Kemmyō kindly sent me reprints of their papers.<br> The present state of the discussion may in short be characterized as follows. The traditional view that (1) the ''Śāstra'' is a translation of a Sanskrit original and (2) that the translator is Paramārtha, is now generally abandoned<ref>Also by Demiéville, see ''Le Concile de Lhasa'' (Bibliothèque de l'lnstitut des Hautes Études Chinoises, t. vii, Paris 1952), part 1 p. 57.</ref>). It is also known that the ''lntroduction'' is forged.<ref>Though old.</ref>) It is further known that the Sanskrit text translated by Śikṣānanda was itself a translation from the extant Chinese version<ref>Tao-hsüan's note following upon the biography of Hsüan-tsang in ''Hsü kao-seng chuan'' T. vol. 50 428 b 27.</ref>). If so much is accepted, early doubts of Chinese Buddhists concerning the ''Śāstra'' gain weight<ref>Cf. Mochizuki, ''Dictionary'' 3256b, also ''Ching-lu'' T. vol. 55 142a; Chinkai, ''Sanron gensho Mongiyō [Chinese characters not available] ch. ii (T . 2299 vol. 70 |
| | 228c) quotes two passages from the ''Ta-ch'eng ssu-lun hsüan-i [Chinese characters not available] ch. 5 and 10 which, however, are not found in the extant fragmentary version (''Hsü•tsang ching'' I. 74/I). It looks as if ch. 10 of that edition should more correctly be labelled ch. 12. I am translating these quotations: Ch. 5. '"The ''Śraddotpāda'' is made by a prisoner-of-war who borrowed the name of Aśvaghoṣa." Ch. 10. "''Śraddotpāda''. Some say that it is made by Dāśabhūmikas of the North . . . It is not by Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva. Former [Chinese characters not available] Dāśabhumikas made it. They borrowed the name (of Aśvaghoṣa) for the headline". The "prisoner -of-war" is perhaps imagination. The "former" Dāśabhūmikas seem to be correct.</ref>).<br> |
| |DisableDropcap=No | | |DisableDropcap=No |
| }} | | }} |
