Philosophy; religion and theology; Awakening of Faith; Awakening of Faith (Qixin lun); Paramartha; Tathagatagarbha; Vasubandhu; Yogacara
摘要
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.
目次
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 The Traditional Interpretation of Jiexing: Jiexing [equals] "Original Awakening"9 Problematizing the Traditional Image of Paramârtha11 0.3 Toward a New Image of Paramârtha: Methodological Considerations13 Situating My Dissertation in the Study of Religion17 Difficulties with Reconstructing the Original Teachings of Paramârtha21 (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 Paramârtha27 0.4 Review of Previous Scholarship: Three Dubious Assumptions30 (1) The Awakening of Faith Was Related to Paramârtha in a Certain Way30 (2) Paramârtha Stood Against Xuanzang34 (3) Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha Are Two Distinct and Antagonistic Traditions36 The Internal Diversity of Yogâcāra39 More Than One Kinds of Tathāgatagarbha Thought40 The Unawareness of the Heterogeneity of the Shelun Masters41 Other Related Studies of Paramârtha and of the Sixth Century Chinese Buddhism44 0.5 Outline of Chapters48
Chapter 1. Two Competing Readings of the Notion of Jiexing52 1.1 The Initial Passages on Jiexing52 Shelun Jiexing Passage (1)53 Shelun Jiexing Passage (2)54 The Relation between the Two "Shelun Jiexing" Passages"?54 Ui 's Interpretation of Jiexing56 1.2 The Genealogy of our Current Understanding of Jiexing62 (1) The First Stage: Jiexing Identified with the "Original awakening"62 Dasheng qixinlun yishu 大乘起信論義疏 by Tanyan (516-588)62 Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523-592)65 Dasheng zhiguan famen 大乘止觀法門67 She dasheng lun chao 攝大乘論抄72 Jizang 吉藏 (549-623)74 (2) The Second Stage: Two Kinds of "Original Awakening"75 Faxiang School: Wǒnch'ǔk 圓測 (613-696)76 Huayan School: Wǒnhyo 元曉 (617-686)79 (3) The Third Stage: Return to the First Stage81 Huayan School: Fazang 法藏 (643-712)82 Faxiang School: Tunnyun 遁倫 (active around 700?)84 1.3 "Permanence Reading" (Awakening of Faith) vs. "Impermanence Reading" (T2805)86 The Implications of Reading Jiexing as "Original Awakening"86 The "Permanence Reading" of Jiexing90 1.4 An Alternative Reading of Jiexing Suggested by T280590 T2805 Jiexing Passage (1)91 T2805 Jiexing Passage (2)92 Kimura's Study of Jiexing in T280594 Preliminary Observation of Jiexing in T280595 Impermanence Reading of Jiexing96 The Testimonies for the Impermanence Reading of Jiexing97 Zhiyi 智顗 (538-597)99 Zhaolun shu 肇論疏100 1.5 Conclusion103
Chapter 2. Doubts about the Connection between the Awakening of Faith and Paramârtha105 2.1 The Early Reception of the Awakening of Faith105 2.2 The Inconsistency among the Chinese Buddhist Catalogues108 2.3 Three Claims Made regarding the Provenance of the Awakening of Faith111 (A) Hirakawa: Paramârtha Translated the Awakening of Faith111 Regarding the Doubt Cast by the Fajing lu111 Regarding the Terminological Differences between the Awakening of Faith and other works by Paramârtha112 The Awakening of Faith was Based on Indian Scriptures113 (B) Mochizuki, Takemura: Paramârtha Had Nothing to Do with the Awakening of Faith114 Mochizuki115 The Terminological Differences bet
