New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra

{{Article
|ArticleLayout=Academic Layout
|ArticleTitle=New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra
|AuthorPage=People/Liebenthal, W.
|PubDate=1958
|ArticleSummary=The study of the ''Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra''<ref>T. 1666. I have compared the photos of manuscripts mentioned in Giles, ''Chinese
Manuscripts from Tunhuang'', nos. 4318-20, 5771-84. But I found no interesting versions. (No. 5783 seems to be a commentary of the ''Samyuktābhidharma-sāra''!)</ref>) has a long history. French, Chinese and Japanese scholars have participated in the discussion, some of them great authorities in the field of Sino-Indian Studies, as P. Demieville, Ui Hakuju, Tokiwa Daijō, and Mochizuki Shinkō<ref>Of this literature I had at my disposal : P. Demiéville: ''Sur l'authenlicité du Ta Tch'eng K'i Sin Louen''. Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise, tome II, no. 2 , Tokyo 1929, reprint pp. 1-78 (Demiéville, ''Authenticité'').<br>
Mochizuki Shinkō: ''Bukkyo daijüen'' (1935} (Mochizuki, ''Dictionary'').<br>
Same : ''Daijo Kishinron no Kenkyū'' (1922) (Mochizuki , ''Study'') .<br>
Same: ''Kōjutsu Daijō Kishinron'' (1938} (Mochizuki, ''Kishinron'').<br>
Same : ''Kokuyaku Issaikyō'', Ronshu-bu 5 (1953}. A translation with a detailed outline.<br>
Same : ''Bukkyō kyōten. seiritsu shiron'' (1949}, pp. 532–624.<br>
Ui Hakuju: ''Daijō Kishinron''. Tokyo 1936.
Matsunami Seiren: ''Yugagyoha no taikei lo nendai'' (Nippon bukkyō gakkai nempō, No. 22) . 1957.<br>
Same: ''Yugagyoha. no so lo shite no Memyō'' (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 39). 1954 .<br>
Same: ''Kishinron-shisō no taikei to nendai'' {Nippon bukkyō gakkai nempō, No. 22) . 1957.<br>
Same: ''Tensei naru Nanda'' (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 42). 1957.<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. 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hui-chün, an early seventh century witness, in the passage quoted above p. 156 note 4, speaks of "former" Dāśabhūmikas who forged the ''Śraddhotpāda''. Chi-tsang (549-623) blames Dāśabhūmikas "of a former generation"
that they mistook the eighth ''vijñāna'' for Buddha-nature (T. vol. 34 380 b 20 f.). In another place he speaks of "old" Dāśabhūmikas (T. vol. 42 104 c 7). This implies that we have to distinguish between late Dāśabhūmikas (after the arrival of the ''Mahāyāna-saṁgraha'') and early ones (the first and second generations after the translators of the ''Daśabhūmika Śāstra'')<ref>Cf. my "Notes on the ''Vajrasamādhi''." ''T'oung Pao'' vol. xliv, 4-5, pp, 378-382 . I have in this paper discussed several allusions which l had found in the ''Vajrasamādhi'' and wish to add one more which I had overlooked. It is the famous half ''gāthā'' for which the ''rākṣasa'' gives away his body. Cf. T. vol. 9, 733b, c and ''Nirvāṇa Sūtra'', Sheng -hsing p'in [Chinese not available], T. vol. 12 xiv 450a-451b.</ref>) . Among them, those who belonged to the early generation are said to have forged the ''Śraddhotpāda Śāstra''<ref>To say that the ''Śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' was forged is perhaps not correct. Aśvaghoṣa may appear in the title as spiritual author as he appears in the biography of T'an-yen dictating, in the shape of a horse, a commentary on the ''Nirvāṇa Sūtra''. He and Nāgārjuna were worshipped as bodhisattvas under the Wei (''Daśabhūmika'', Introduction). He seems to have a function of inspirator similar to Maitreya. See Demiéville, ''La Yogācārabhūmi de Saṅgharakṣa'', B.E.F.E.O.  XLIV, 2. {1954) pp. 377-387, anti cf. T. vol. 50 334c 10 and vol. 8 530b 25 seq.</ref>).<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tokiwa believes in a Chinese author who mainly relied on the ''Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra'' both translations of which (Sung and Wei) he amalgamated. This may be correct though I could not find allusions peculiar to Guṇabhadra's (Sung) translation.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mochizuki has proved that the Chinese author was acquainted not only with the ''Laṅkāvatāra'' but with several other texts. He proposes as author T'an-tsun, a disciple of Fa-shang who dictated the ''Śāstra'' to his disciple T'an -ch'ien. See below p. 160.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hayashi Kemmyō, has traced material in Liang Wu-ti's writings and the ''Pao-tsang lun''. Liang Wu-ti believed in immortal souls<ref>Cf. ''Mon. nipponica'' Vlll I–2 pp. 376 seq.</ref>). The ''Śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' contains nothing of that sort. Though influence from that side cannot be excluded, I do not feel this material to be significant enough to permit us to place the author in the South.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Matsunami Seiren believes in Aśvaghoṣa if not as author yet as the spiritual father of the ''Śraddhotpāda''. I have compared his quotations from the ''Sauṇdarānanda Kāvya'' etc . which are interesting. But I think we might consider as established that the author of the ''Śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' was a Chinese and work upon that assumption<ref>Quite apart from all other reasons, even the Chinese phrases make one often wonder whether they could be used in translation. Cf. ''Śraddhotpāda Śāstra'' T. vol. 32 577b II: [Chinese not available]</ref>). Besides, the main tenets of the ''Śāstra'' have not been found in the ''Kāvya''.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I pass by other theories of which I have only heard . Scholars are searching in all directions and undoubtedly will find material unknown to me which will throw even more light on the intricate problem of our text. Meanwhile I shall consider as established that the ''Śāstra'' was composed by an early Dāśabhūmika and limit my investigation to the question who this person was.  (Liebenthal, "New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra," 155–58)
|DisableDropcap=No
}}