Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


The Nanatsu-Dera Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search




Stuart H. Young


IN MEDIEVAL CHINA there were several distinct yet overlapping biographical traditions of the Indian patriarch Aśvaghoṣa. These traditions are represented most prominently in the DharmaTreasury Transmission (Fu fazang zhuan 付法藏傳), the Baolin Tradition (Baolin zhuan 寳林傳), the separate biography of Aśvaghoṣa preserved in the Taishō canon, and a little-known Chinese text extant only in Japanese monastery collections. In chapter 2 I examine the Dharma-Treasury Transmission and in chapter 5 the Baolin Tradition, which both foreground Aśvaghoṣa’s position in the Indian Buddhist patriarchate. In this appendix, I introduce and translate the earliest independently circulating biography of

Aśvaghoṣa, which details his conversion to Buddhism through public debate and his efforts to revive a failing Dharma by authoring doctrinal treatises. This version of Aśvaghoṣa’s biography, titled Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 (Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva), is preserved not in any printed canon but in a family of manuscripts copied in Japan (and is hereafter referred to as the Nanatsu-dera 七寺 edition, after the bestknown monastery collection in which it appears). It is clearly attested in Sui-Tang sources and may have originated with Kumārajīva’s disciples. By contrast, the biography of Aśvaghoṣa reproduced in the Taishō canon—also titled Maming pusa zhuan—is not evidenced

before the tenth century and may have originated with the first printing of the Chinese Buddhist canon (Ochiai 2000, 5:635). This latter account also details Aśvaghoṣa’s conversion through debate but otherwise emphasizes his royal connections and his skill as an orator. Following Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典, who first brought the Nanatsu-dera edition to scholarly attention, I argue that this earlier biography is closely aligned with the writings of Kumārajīva’s associates and thus likely stands among the earliest extant representations of the Indian Buddhist patriarchs.


In appendix 2, I discuss the provenance of the separate biographies of Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva —the Longshu pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 and Tipo pusa zhuan 提婆菩薩傳—which are both traditionally ascribed to Kumārajīva. In Buddhist catalogues from the late sixth century, these texts were grouped together with the Maming pusa zhuan, also attributed to Kumārajīva, and the Tradition of Dharma-Master Vasubandhu (Poshupandou fashi zhuan 婆藪槃 (p.252) 豆法師傳),


PRINTED FROM HAWAII SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.hawaii.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Hawaii University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in HSO for personal use (for details see http://www.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: Stuart Young; date: 12 April 2017

translated by Paramārtha (499–569), to form a tetralogy of Indian patriarch biographies.1 Through all the editions of the Chinese Buddhist canon, these were the only Indian patriarch biographies to be reproduced independent from larger compilations like the Dharma-Treasury Transmission—a fact that attests the unique importance of these Indian figures in China. But this biographical grouping was initially a product of Suiera bibliographic exigencies; it was not Kumārajīva’s arrangement. The patriarchal triad of Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna, and Āryadeva was apparently first drawn together by Kumārajīva and his disciples, but of the extant patriarch biographies only the Nanatsu-dera edition is likely to have circulated among this group. The Longshu pusa zhuan and Tipo pusa zhuan were perhaps excerpted from the late-fifth- or sixthcentury Dharma-Treasury Transmission, while the Maming pusa zhuan preserved in the Taishō canon is a completely different text than its earlier namesake and has little in common with the extant writings of Kumārajīva’s associates.


This latter Aśvaghoṣa biography is now readily accessible to English readers through translations done by myself (2002), Li Rongxi (2002b), and most recently Saroj Kumar Chaudhuri (2008). These translations are all based on the Taishō edition of the text, which probably derives from that included within the first printed edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka—the Kaibao 開寳 canon of 972–983. That earlier version of Aśvaghoṣa’s biography was reprinted in numerous editions of the Buddhist canon with relatively few stylistic or typographic variants.2 According to this account, Aśvaghoṣa was a brilliant non-Buddhist from central India who challenged the Buddhists to prove their worth by defeating

him in debate. None answered this call but the elder Pārśva, who sounded the local monastery bell to summon Aśvaghoṣa. In a week’s time the two met before a grand assembly of Buddhist and non-Buddhist masters, court ministers, and the king himself. Pārśva offered the first volley, stipulating that “the world should be made peaceable, with a long-lived king, plentiful harvests, and joy throughout the land, with none of the myriad calamities.”3 Unable to refute this seemingly banal claim, Aśvaghoṣa lost the debate and was converted to Buddhism. In due course he became a great leader of the sangha and counselor to the king of central India (Pāṭaliputra, in the Dharma-Treasury Transmission).

However, soon the kingdom was besieged by an Indo-Scythian (Yuezhi 月支) army, whose king— identified in the Dharma-Treasury Transmission as Caṇḍa-Kaniṣka—demanded Aśvaghoṣa and the Buddha’s begging bowl as reparation. After returning to his kingdom with these great treasures in tow, the Yuezhi king sought to test Aśvaghoṣa’s powers. To this end the king starved seven horses for six days, and then asked Aśvaghoṣa to preach the (p.253) Dharma before them. Upon hearing Aśvaghoṣa’s sermon, the horses were so overcome with emotion that they refused to eat even their favorite grass. The horses wept at the profundity of Aśvaghoṣa’s words, which, according to this account, was how he got his name, which means “Horse Neigh.”


In broad outline, this version of Aśvaghoṣa’s biography bears some resemblance to both the Nanatsu-dera Maming pusa zhuan and the Dharma-Treasury Transmission. All three accounts detail Aśvaghoṣa’s conversion to Buddhism through public debate, while the Taishō biography and the Dharma-Treasury Transmission both focus on Aśvaghoṣa’s relations with Indian kings. But clearly these texts were all written by different hands; they share none of the same vocabulary and are stylistically dissimilar. Moreover, they present divergent narratives and emphasize different aspects of the episodes they do share.4 The Nanatsu-dera edition begins by introducing Aśvaghoṣa as an East Indian Brahman born roughly three-hundred years after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa. Aśvaghoṣa was renowned for his skills as an author and expositor, and Appendix 1 The Nanatsu-Dera Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva

traveled the country looking for wise men to vanquish in debate. He heard of an accomplished arhat by the name of Pūrṇa, whom he tracked down and challenged: “Śramaṇa, speak! If you dare offer any insights I will surely defeat you.” But Pūrṇa just sat there in silence, leading Aśvaghoṣa to realize the fallibility of all discourse, admit his own failure, and submit to becoming Pūrṇa’s disciple. At that time, according to this account, the True Dharma was in decline and people’s intellectual and spiritual capacities had diminished. So Aśvaghoṣa composed clear, concise doctrinal treatises that enabled people to grasp the truth. For this he was renowned like the greatest disciples of Śākyamuni and Confucius and was worshipped like a buddha. At this point the text offers a brief account of Nāgārjuna, who appeared five centuries after Aśvaghoṣa and once again rejuvenated a declining Dharma by authoring doctrinal treatises. The text concludes by joining Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna with Dharma-masters Vīra and Kumāralāta as the greatest Buddhist saints from the four quarters of India: east, south, west and north, respectively.

Extant physical examples of this text held at Nanatsu-dera in Nagoya and Kōshō-ji 興聖寺 in Kyoto probably date to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, respectively.5 But how far back in Chinese history can it be confidently placed? As it turns out, this text is demonstrably archaic, certainly much older than the Taishō Maming pusa zhuan and probably predating the (p.254) Dharma-Treasury Transmission as well. As Ochiai has shown, the evidence for its circulation during the Sui-Tang period is definitive. Fei Zhangfang’s Record of the Three Jewels through the Ages (598), discussed in Chapter 1, briefly outlines Aśvaghoṣa’s career in language that closely matches the extant manuscripts. The Buddhist encyclopedia Grove of Pearls in a Dharma Garden, completed by Daoshi (ca. 596–683) in 668, quotes extensively from a Maming pusa zhuan that was much the same as the first half of the Nanatsu-dera edition.6 And the latter half of this text may also have existed during the Tang, as Huilin’s 慧琳 (737–820) Pronunciation and Meaning of [Terms in] the All the Scriptures defines two terms that do not appear in Daoshi’s work but are found in the Japanese manuscripts.7 Several other sources verify that this version of Aśvaghoṣa’s biography remained current in China through the tenth century, when the printed edition first appeared on the scene.8 Ochiai has rightly hailed these manuscripts as conclusive proof that the canons of Nanatsu-dera and other Japanese monasteries are not just copies of the Chinese Tripiṭaka printed from Song times, but rather derive from Nara-period (710–794) manuscripts that preserve recensions of texts as they circulated in Tang times and earlier.9 But for our present purposes this text is important as a testament to how the Indian patriarchs were conceived in China during the Sui-Tang period, at the latest, and probably from the time Kumārajīva first introduced them to his Chinese associates.

How far back before the sixth- and seventh-century works of Fei Zhangfang and Daoshi can we trace the Nanatsu-dera biography? It is first attested explicitly in the Catalogue of All the Scriptures of around 594, as previously noted, but what evidence do we have that it actually circulated in Kumārajīva’s time, as the text itself claims? As argued by Ochiai and discussed later in this appendix, there is good reason to believe that a biography quite similar to the Nanatsu-dera text did exist in some form during the early fifth century in Chang’an. However, since no member of this early Chang’an group mentioned an independently circulating biography of Aśvaghoṣa, whether by the hand of Kumārajīva or not, and the title Maming pusa zhuan does not appear in the Chu sanzang jiji of ca. 515, we should remain cautious in assigning the text as a whole to this time and place. While it is difficult to defend every item of the

Nanatsu-dera edition, and it may not have been an independently circulating document until the late sixth century, (p.255) it is plausible that some version of this text did exist in early-fifthcentury Chang’an and thus represents this community’s conceptions of Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna.

In a series of articles from 1992 to 2000, Ochiai presents a thorough comparative analysis of the Maming pusa zhuan preserved at Nanatsu-dera and Kōshō-ji, as well as a number of other texts containing similar narratives. Collating the variants in these copies of a presumed ur-text and determining the optimal reading based on internal and external evidence, Ochiai reconstructs the “original” Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva and sets about comparing it to documents confidently ascribed to this fifth-century Chang’an group, especially those attributed to Sengrui 僧叡 (ca. 352–436). In his 1996 article “Sengrui and the Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva,” Ochiai discusses a number of similarities in language and structure that he found between this reconstructed Maming pusa zhuan and the prefaces composed by Sengrui.10 He notes at least ten specific instances in which the wording of the reconstructed biography closely matches that of Sengrui’s writings—most frequently his preface to the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise— and also highlights several thematic similarities between the biography and Sengrui’s works. After examining the evidence and discussing possible interpretations, Ochiai concludes that the Nanatsu-dera edition was probably first transmitted orally by Kumārajīva and then transcribed and edited by Sengrui (1996, 567).

I will not rehash the linguistic component of Ochiai’s comparative analysis; suffice it to say that he has certainly demonstrated a strong affinity between the language of the Nanatsu-dera edition and that of Sengrui’s writings. However, his argument is not conclusive. In particular, as Ochiai himself confesses, it is possible that the biography was produced by a later hand and intentionally modeled on Sengrui’s writing style (1996, 565). Further, there are two significant discrepancies between the Nanatsu-dera biography and another prominent account of Aśvaghoṣa that is confidently dated to Kumārajīva’s time. This is the Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa (Zhu weimojie jing 注維摩詰經, discussed in chapter 1), by Sengzhao 僧肇 (384– 414) and Kumārajīva, which also describes how Aśvaghoṣa was vanquished in debate and converted to Buddhism. According to this account, the arhat who converted Aśvaghoṣa was Pārśva rather than Pūrṇa, as in the Nanatsu-dera edition; and, in the Vimalakīrti Commentary, Aśvaghoṣa arose in the seventh century after nirvāṇa rather than the fourth century.11 These discrepancies would seemingly militate against the hypothesis that Kumārajīva’s associates wrote the Nanatsu-dera edition, given that they certainly had a (p.256) hand in the Vimalakīrti Commentary. Nevertheless, we can imagine at least one possible scenario to account for this contradiction. If we take the Nanatsu-dera edition to have been composed slightly later than the Vimalakīrti Commentary, which was compiled sometime between 406 and 410, and follow Ochiai’s assertion that Sengrui was the architect of that later text, is it possible that he was simply correcting what he saw as errors in the account of Sengzhao and Kumārajīva? This would seem in line with Sengrui’s character, as he is documented on more than one occasion to have disagreed with and amended Kumārajīva’s interpretation in translation matters.

If, as outlined in chapter 1, Chinese Buddhists of the early fifth century held the parinirvāṇa date to be sometime in the seventh century BCE, then six hundred years after nirvāṇa for Aśvaghoṣa plus five centuries for Nāgārjuna would put the latter in the fifth century CE, perhaps even some


decades after this Chang’an group. Therefore Sengrui may have seen fit to adjust the figures, assigning Aśvaghoṣa to the early fourth century after nirvāṇa and thus moving Nāgārjuna back some two centuries before Kumārajīva’s time in China. Aside from specific numbers, the presentation of Dharmic history in the Nanatsu-dera edition is quite in line with Sengrui’s preface to the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise. In the Nanatsu-dera edition, Aśvaghoṣa lived when “the end of the True Dharma [period] was approaching,” and people could still be enlightened if the proper methods were utilized. Likewise, when Nāgārjuna appeared a halfmillennium later, times were much worse, and through his efforts the Buddhadharma flourished once again. Here, the Nanatsu-dera text does not use the phrase “Semblance Dharma,” even if its description of Nāgārjuna’s era matches the accounts of the Semblance Dharma period in Sengrui’s writings; rather, it employs the phrase “Final Dharma” (mofa 末法), which was a rare if not altogether non ex is tent expression of Dharma decline in early-fifth-century Chang’an.13

The discrepancy between Pārśva and Pūrṇa is somewhat more complex, and perhaps relates to how these patriarchs were conceived by Kumārajīva’s associates. As described in the Vimalakīrti Commentary and Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise,14 Pārśva was a śramaṇa who left the house hold life at a very late age but was still able to accomplish great deeds as a Buddhist devotee. He became an expert in the Threefold Canon and composed an “upadeśa on the four Āgamas” before turning his attention to the perfection of dhyāna practice. As part of this effort, he vowed never to lay on his side to rest until attaining liberation, which is how he got the name Pārśva (Xie 脅 or Le 勒, meaning “side” or “rib”). Eventually he achieved the fruit of arhatship and became endowed with the “three insights and six penetrations,” as the (p.257) Vimalakīrti Commentary has it, or the “six spiritual penetrations” (liu shentong 六神通) according to the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise.

The Pūrṇa of the Nanatsu-dera edition is most probably Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra (Fulounamiduoluonizi 富樓那彌多羅尼子), one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha known as foremost among Dharma preachers. However, given the apparent historical incongruity in associating Aśvaghoṣa with one of the Buddha’s original disciples, Ochiai tries to identify the Chinese transliteration “Fulouna” (富樓那) with an Indian figure who could have been Aśvaghoṣa’s contemporary (Ochiai 1993, 32–33n1). Ochiai cites a number of later sources in which Aśvaghoṣa was associated with other Buddhist masters and suggests that the Fulouna of the Nanatsu-dera edition may have stood for the relatively unknown

Pūrṇāśa, who apparently lived closer to Aśvaghoṣa’s time (ca. 1st century CE). However, the Pūrṇa with whom the fifthcentury Chang’an community would have been most familiar is certainly the famed Dharma preacher and disciple of the Buddha, Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra. This character figures prominently in a number of important Kumārajīva translations, including the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 Lines (Pañcaviṁśati prajñāpāramitā), the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise, and Inquiry of Pūrṇa (Pūrṇa paripṛcchā).15 In the

Lotus Sūtra, he is specifically associated with the attainment of “six penetrations and three insights.”16 Moreover, this Pūrṇa appears in the Lotus as a disciple-cum-arhat who assumes the guise of voice-hearer only as an expedient device to awaken beings to the Greater Vehicle, and he is the greatest of Dharma preachers because he had in fact propagated the True Dharma under millions of past buddhas and would continue to do so for eons to come.17 In keeping with the avowed aim of the Lotus Sūtra to reconceptualize Buddhist history—particularly in its assertions of Śākyamuni’s atemporality—Pūrṇa is explicitly removed from the timeframe of normal human existence and identified as a cosmic bodhisattva working

to benefit beings across the vast expanses of Buddhist time and space. Therefore, it is certainly possible that Kumārajīva’s associates saw Pūrṇa’s attainments as enabling him to extend his lifespan well into Aśvaghoṣa’s generation.

Why would Sengrui have felt compelled to substitute Pūrṇa for Pārśva? Aside from the obvious consideration that there could be no better master for one’s patriarch than the foremost of TrueDharma preachers, in the Inquiry of Pūrṇa and Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise, Pūrṇa is depicted as a purveyor of doctrines commonly associated with the Greater Vehicle. One must be cautious not to overstate the valorization of Greater Vehicle Buddhism over and against the Lesser Vehicle by Kumārajīva and associates. Nevertheless, there are indications that, for this group, a given patriarch’s (p.258) association with the Mahāyāna rendered him worthy of praise, while exclusively Hīnayāna connections could be somewhat deleterious to one’s reputation. We see this in the separation of four patriarchs mentioned in the Nanatsu-dera edition into two distinct camps:

“The two Dharma-masters Kumāralāta and Vīra performed the meritorious act of [contributing to] the Threefold Canon, but they did not believe in the Greater Vehicle. Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna combined the Greater and Lesser [Vehicles] into one.” Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna were not slavishly attached to the Greater Vehicle as the absolute truth; rather, they followed the prototypical Mahāyāna dialectic according to which reification of any dichotomy (here Greater versus Lesser Vehicles) was explicitly proscribed. In contrast, Kumāralāta, who is mentioned in Sengrui’s “Preface to the Dhyāna Scriptures Translated within the Passes,” and Dharma-master Vīra, who is otherwise largely unknown, were implicitly denigrated for not following the Greater Vehicle, a trait that was seemingly tied to their focus on the Three-fold Canon.18 Likewise, Pārśva was thought to have

composed an “upadeśa on the four Āgamas”—a section of the canon particularly associated with Lesser Vehicle teachings—and his attainment of arhatship was not described as mere expedient means as with Pūrṇa. Thus we can see how Kumārajīva’s associates may have considered Pūrṇa a more appropriate master for Aśvaghoṣa, even at three hundred years after the death of the Buddha, and substituted him for Pārśva sometime after the appearance of the Vimalakīrti Commentary. Such a switch would have been less likely in subsequent centuries, when there were concerted efforts to form discrete lineages of generational descent from the numerous arhats encountered throughout the early scriptural literature. Nevertheless, even if the above scenario cannot be proven conclusively, it is clear that Aśvaghoṣa’s placement in the fourth century after nirvāṇa and his association with

Pūrṇa fit quite well with the beliefs of this Chang’an community. And, regardless of whether Sengrui actually altered the tradition preserved some years prior in Sengzhao’s Vimalakīrti Commentary, it was not unusual for different notions of Aśvaghoṣa’s dates and master to coexist at the same time and place in China. As I have demonstrated throughout this book, there were numerous traditions regarding these facts of Aśvaghoṣa’s career, and it is certainly plausible that more than one of them had developed in India or Central Asia prior to the early fifth century and come to Chang’an with Kumārajīva or another of the Western missionaries who visited the Later Qin capital at the time. For even with these discrepancies, given the overwhelming thematic and stylistic similarities between the Nanatsu-dera edition and the writings of the Chang’an group, (p.259) particularly Sengrui, it remains most probable that the biography was produced at this time and place.

The remainder of this appendix provides a complete annotated translation of the Nanatsu-dera edition of the Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva. I follow the reconstruction and transcription of the text provided by Ochiai and Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信, which I append to the end of the translation.19 I closely consulted the Japanese translations of this text first done piecemeal by Ochiai (1992a, 1993, 1994) and later in toto by Ochiai and Saitō (2000, 275–277). Otherwise, the following is the only translation of the manuscript Maming pusa zhuan available in any language. Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva, one scroll Translated by Kumārajīva Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva was born a Brahman some three-hundred years after the death of the Buddha in the kingdom of Sāketa,20 eastern India. As a youth he was greatly renowned, praised for his skill in letters. As per Indian custom, the masters of discourse and gentlemen of letters all proclaimed those aspects [of debate] in which they excelled in order to display their virtue. Following this custom, Aśvaghoṣa capped his walking staff with a sharp blade and thereunder inscribed this proclamation: “If there is any wise gentleman throughout the land who can gain my submission through any logical argument or vanquish me with any word, I will sever my own head with this blade.”


He always carried this walking staff as he traveled throughout the various kingdoms. No gentleman of letters or debate dared contend with him in any discourse or oppose him in any word. At that time on Mount Indra21 was an arhat possessed of the six penetrations and three insights. His (p.260) name was Pūrṇa (Fulouna 富樓那).22 There were no non-Buddhist terms or logical arguments that he had not thoroughly mastered.23 Aśvaghoṣa went there to look for him and saw him sitting upright under the trees. [Pūrṇa’s] aura of resolve lent him a lofty and distant appearance, as if unfathomable. He wore a retiring expression that made him seem like he could be brought to submission. Accordingly, [[[Aśvaghoṣa]]] said to him, “Śramaṇa, speak! If you dare offer any insights I will surely defeat you. If I am not victorious then I will cut my throat in admission of defeat.” The śramaṇa remained silent, and he had neither the appearance of the vanquished nor the countenance of the victorious. [[[Aśvaghoṣa]]] repeated this several times but [[[Pūrṇa]]] remained completely unmoved. Aśvaghoṣa withdrew and thought to himself, “I have been vanquished! He is the victor! He said nothing so he cannot be defeated. I said something even though I know that words can be defeated. Indeed, I have not yet escaped the fetters of words—how truly shameful!”

He approached to admit his defeat and intended to sever his own head with his blade. The śramaṇa stopped him. “As you would sever your own head in submission before me, you should follow my intention and shave your cūḍā (topknot) to become my disciple. If you approach you will be able to listen to the Way and purify your mind, and when you withdraw you can be undefeated in essential discourse.” For this reason [[[Aśvaghoṣa]]] submitted, took the tonsure and removed his hair ornaments, and received the full precepts. When settled he [composed] texts to proclaim the Buddhadharma; when traveling he explicated and converted others to the Way. He composed many treatises in millions of words that glorified the Buddhadharma,24 and performed great deeds throughout India.

At that time, although the end of the True Dharma [period] was approaching, people’s minds could still attain [the Way]. Their ability to realize it themselves was insufficient and awakening through texts and words was still incomplete.25 Therefore, Aśvaghoṣa abbreviated superfluous words (p.261) that strayed from the truth and omitted flowery expressions that [merely] implied meaning. He pronounced the supple teaching through clear principles and related their essentials and fundamentals with the utmost beauty. How could this not be the case? His skillfully composed texts were direct in their expression, and he was without match in his excellence. At that time [his writings] were praised and revered throughout the world, taken as models of composition. Although when he returned to Xihe 西河 [Zixia 子夏] was confused with Confucius26 and Śāriputra was taken for the Saintly Master,27 [the renown of these disciples] did not surpass [that of Aśvaghoṣa].

Five-hundred years thereafter, Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva appeared in the world. His vast talents were unsurpassed, his clear discernment like that of a god. He invigorated prajñā amidst the bonds of great destruction28 and grounded [the teaching of] birthlessness at the beginning of [the world’s] (p.262) demise. He made the Way of the Greater Vehicle [flourish] once more throughout Jambu[[[dvīpa]]], again proclaiming the teaching of non-attachment during the Final Dharma [period]. Each time [[[Nāgārjuna]]] inked his quill and began composing treatises, he never failed to pay the utmost respect to Aśvaghoṣa. He composed verses for personally taking refuge and expressed his wish to rely on [Aśvaghoṣa’s] profound illumination so as to become enlightened himself. It is said that now in India many kings and powerful gentlemen all build temples in homage to them and worship them like buddhas.

It is explained in this saying: “Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva is the light of the south, like a bright moon illuminating the deep night. Dharma-master Vīra (Weiluo 韋羅)29 is the hero of the west, like Venus among the myriad stars. Dharma-master Kumāralāta (Jiumoluoluotuo 鳩摩羅羅陀)30 is the beauty of the north, like Mercury amidst the constellations. Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva unifies the three directions, and in the Eastern Civilization [of India?]31 he is like the rays of light from the morning sun illuminating all in the six directions.” Some say that Kumāralāta dwelt in the north, like the light of the moon at night, and that Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva in the south succeeded him in being like the polestar encircled by constellations.32 The two Dharma-masters Kumāralāta and Vīra performed the meritorious act of [contributing to] the Threefold Canon, but they did not believe in the Greater Vehicle. (p.263) Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna combined the Greater and Lesser [Vehicles] into one, and the commentaries that they composed only clarified the true aspect of the former Sage (the Buddha). They rescued the weak and dying from this dream world, thus they are praised by the bodhisattvas.33 馬鳴菩薩傳一卷 羅什譯 馬鳴菩薩, 佛滅後三百餘年, 出自東天竺, 桑岐多國婆羅門種也. 弱枝奇譽, 以文談見稱. 天竺俗法, 論師文士, 皆執 勝相, 以表其德. 馬鳴用其俗法, 以利刀冠杖, 銘其下曰, “天下智士, 其有能以一理見屈, 一文見勝者, 當以此刀自刎 其首.”

常執此杖, 周遊諸國. 文論之士, 莫敢有抗一言而對一文者. 是時韻陀山中有六通三明阿羅漢, 名富樓那, 外道名理, 無不綰達. 馬鳴詣而候焉. 見其端坐林下, 志氣眇然, 若不可測. 神色謙退, 似如可屈. 遂與之言, “沙門, 說之. 敢有所 . 要必屈汝. 我若不勝, 便刎頸相謝.” 沙門黙然, 容无負色, 亦无勝顏. 加之數四, 曾无應情. 馬鳴退自思惟, “我負矣. 彼勝矣. 彼自無言, 故無可屈. 吾以言 之, 雖知言者可屈. 自亦未免於言. 真可愧也.” 進謝其屈, 便欲以刀自刎. 沙門止之. “汝以自刎謝我. 當隨我意, 剃汝周羅, 為我弟子. 進可問道洗心, 退可不負要 言.” 即以理伏, 落髮投簪, 受具足戒. 坐則文宣佛法, 遊則闡揚道化. 作莊嚴佛法諸論數百萬言, 大行於天竺. 是時雖近正法之末, 而人心猶得. 目擊之勢不足, 而文言之悟有餘. 馬鳴所以略煩文於理外, 簡華辭於意表. 敷婉旨 以明宗, 述略本以盡美. 不其然乎? 其善屬文, 直爾言之, 便自妙絕. 於時擧世推崇, 以為造作之式. 雖復西河之亂孔 父, 身子之疑聖師, 蔑以過也.

其後五百年, 龍樹菩薩出世. 宏才卓犖, 明鑒若神. 振般若大壞之綱, 紐無生已落之緒. 使大乘之道, 再一於閻浮, 執之化, 重宣於末法. 及其染翰之初, 著論之始, 未嘗不稽首馬鳴, 作自歸之偈, 庶幾憑其冥照以自悟焉. 云今天竺諸 王勢士, 皆為之立廟宗之若佛. 說訊有之曰, “龍樹菩薩南方之照, 若朗月之燭幽夜. 韋羅法師西方之桀, 若太白之在眾星. 鳩摩羅羅陀法師北方之 美, 若辰星之在眾宿. 馬鳴菩薩兼三方, 於東夏, 其猶朝陽燈暉, 六合俱照.” 或稱鳩摩羅(羅)34陀處於北方, 若月照於夜, 龍樹菩薩南方繼之, 若眾宿之環極. 鳩摩羅(羅)陀, 韋羅二法師, 善業三 , 不信大乘. 馬鳴, 龍樹兼大小而一之. 其所著述, 但明實相於先賢. 拯弱喪於夢境, 故菩薩稱之焉. (p.264) Notes: (1.) See, e.g., Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄, T no. 2146, 55:146a. (2.) See Cai 1983, 234; and Young 2002. NB: I have not checked every edition of the text in every canon. (3.) Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳, T no. 2046, 50:183c: 當令天下泰平, 大王長壽, 國土豐樂, 無諸災患. (4.) On the textual history of the printed Maming pusa zhuan, see Ochiai 2000, 634–636; and Young 2002. For a comparison between the contents of the printed and manuscript versions, see Ochiai 2000, 640–641.

(5.) These manuscripts are examined in several articles by Ochiai, which are listed in the bibliography. For their dates, see, e.g., Ochiai 2000, 622; and Ochiai and Saitō 2000, 288. This version of the Maming pusa zhuan has also been preserved in the canons of Ishiyama-dera 石山 , Myōren-ji 妙蓮寺 (Matsuo-sha 松尾社), and Saihō-ji 西方寺; see Kokusai Bukkyōgaku Daigakuin Daigaku Gakujutsu Furontia Jikkō Iinkai 2007, 325; and Ochiai 2000, 621. I have also consulted the Saihō-ji manuscript in preparing this appendix. (6.) Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林, T no. 2122, 53:681b–c; see also Ochiai 2000, 623–624.


(7.) Yiqie jing yinyi 一切經音義, T no. 2128, 54:804a. See also Ochiai 1994, 16, 20; and Ochiai 2000, 624–625. It is possible that the latter portion of the text was added after Daoshi saw it and before Huilin’s dictionary, compiled between 783 and 807. In the Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 of 730 a note is appended to the Maming pusa zhuan entry that reads, “some lost sections have been gathered and placed in this separate edition” (T no. 2154, 55:623c: 拾遺編入單本). (8.) See Ochiai 2000, 625–629. Zongjing lu 宗鏡錄, by Yanshou 延壽 (904–975) in 961 (T no. 2016, 48:658a), should be added to Ochiai’s list of sources that quote the Nanatsu-dera Maming pusa zhuan.

(9.) See Ochiai 1991 and 2000. (10.) Ochiai’s essay is mostly reproduced in Ochiai 2000, 630–633. (11.) The expression in the Nanatsu-dera edition is sanbai yu nian 三百餘年. According to Fei Zhangfang, this meant exactly 315 AN, which for Fei equaled 296 BCE since he took the parinirvāṇa date to be 611 BCE (or 297 years prior to the dingwei 丁未 year of Zhou dynasty King Nan’s reign [r. 314–256], which is 314 BCE); see Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀, T no. 2034, 49:28a.

(12.) See Chou 2000, 29–31. (13.) See Nattier 1991, 91, 101n106. (14.) See Da zhidu lun 大智度論 (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra), T no. 1509, 25:748c. (15.) Translated by Kumārajīva in 405, the Fulouna hui 富樓那會 was included as text number seventeen (scrolls 77–79) in the Da baoji jing 大寶積經 by Bodhiruci (ca. 572–727) in the early eighth century. See Ono 1933–1936, 9:237c–38b. (16.) Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮華經, T no. 262, 9:28a; trans. Hurvitz 1976, 159. (17.) Miaofa lianhua jing, T no. 262, 9:27c; trans. Hurvitz 1976, 158.

(18.) The transliteration used for Kumāralāta in the biography—Jiumoluoluotuo 鳩摩羅羅陀—is only attested in Sengrui’s “Dhyāna Scriptures” preface, a fact which lends further support to the attribution of the Nanatsu-dera edition to Sengrui, or at least its placement in early-fifth-century Chang’an. (19.) Ochiai and Saitō 2000, 268–271, with minor modifications.

(20.) Sangqiduo 桑岐多is the transliteration used here for Sāketa in the Nanatsu-dera and Saihōji editions, the Fayuan zhulin (T no. 2122, 53:681b), and the Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀 (T no. 2035, 49:173b). There are variants in other editions of the text; see Ochiai 1992a, 7. This particular transliteration is indeed a strange bird, appearing nowhere but this biography and standing in for other more common renderings of the same place name. See, e.g., Akanuma 1967, 558–560; and Ochiai and Saitō 2000, 278–279n4. In light of later associations between Aśvaghoṣa and sericulture, it is tempting to see this rendering—literally “kingdom of many mulberry branches”—as no mere accidental selection of phonemes but rather the earliest literary

Appendix 1 The Nanatsu-Dera Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva

connection between Aśvaghoṣa and silkworms. Sāketa was in northeastern India, in the ancient district of Kosala near the modern border with Nepal. (21.) Mount Indra, or Indrakūṭa (Yuntuo shan 韻陀山), is so named because of its legendary designation as the abode of the god Indra and is located near the ancient city of Rājagṛha, in northeastern India (Ochiai 1992a, 11; Ochiai and Saitō 2000, 279n6). This transliteration does not appear in any lexicographic source of which I am aware, and the only primary sources in which I have found it are the Fayuan zhulin (T no. 2122, 53:681c) and Zongjing lu (T no. 2016, 48:658a), in both instances where they reproduce portions of the present biography.

(22.) This is most likely an abbreviation for Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra, as discussed earlier in this appendix. Cf. Mochizuki 1954–1963, 5:4508c. (23.) I part with Ochiai in my interpretation of the sentence: 外道名理無不綰達. Ochiai (1993, 43) translates it as “there was no reason why the non-Buddhist’s (Aśvaghoṣa’s) name would not have reached the ear [of Pūrṇa]” (外道 [[[馬鳴]]] の名が知られわたっていないという道理はないであろう). However, because Pūrṇa is being introduced in the immediately preceding sentences, I believe that he is the topic here, not Aśvaghoṣa. Thus waidao 外道 refers not to Aśvaghoṣa in particular but to non-Buddhists in general. I have altered the punctuation of this sentence accordingly (moving the comma from after ming 名, as Ochiai has it, to after li ). (24.) See chapter 1 on the interpretation of this sentence (作莊嚴佛法諸論數百萬言) as a reference to the Da zhuangyan jing lun 大莊嚴經論 (Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā or Sūtrālaṃkāraśāstra), T no. 201.

(25.) The expression here “to realize” (muji 目擊) is perhaps drawn from the “Tian Zifang 田子方,” chapter 21 of the Zhuangzi 莊子 (Zhuangzi jinzhu jinyi 莊子今注今譯, p. 533): “Confucius said, ‘With that kind of man one glance tells you that the Way is there before you. What room does that leave for any possibility of speech?” (仲尼曰, “若夫人者, 目擊而道存矣, 亦不可以容聲矣?”) Trans. Watson 1968, 223; cf. Luo 1987–1995, 4546a. My thanks to Chen Jinhua for this point. Here ends the presentation of variants in different editions of the text, kundoku 訓読 reading, and Japanese translation of the revised version in Ochiai 1993. Cf. the alternate punctuation, kundoku, and abbreviated translation in Ochiai and Saitō 2000, which I mostly follow.

(26.) As noted by Ochiai and Saitō (2000, 281n21), 復西河之亂孔父 refers to a well-known disciple of Confucius by the name of Zixia 子夏 (a.k.a. Bu Shang 卜商; ca. 507–420 BCE), who resided in the area of Xihe, modern Shaanxi province. Ochiai and Saitō assert that Zixia being confused with Confucius is an unknown tradition. However, as early as the Li ji 禮記 we find the tale of Zengzi 曾子 accusing Zixia of making the people of Xihe confuse him (Zixia) with Confucius. See Legge (1885) 1967, 1:135. This is also alluded to in the Sanguo zhi 三國志 (juan 卷 31) 4:867 (“At Xihe Zixia confused the teachings of the Sage” 子夏在西河疑聖人之論), and is repeated in later Buddhist texts such as Beishan lu 北山錄 by Shenqing 神清 (d. ca. 814) (T no. 2113, 52:622b).

(27.) Śāriputra was one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha, known as being foremost among the wise. The Saintly Master here refers to the Buddha. 身子之疑聖師 could be interpreted to mean either that Śāriputra doubted the Buddha’s teachings or that he himself was taken for (i.e., suspected to be) the Buddha. In the former case, the source for this allusion could be Kumārajīva’s translation of the Lotus Sūtra (Miaofa lianhua jing, T no. 262, 9:6b), in which Appendix 1 The Nanatsu-Dera Tradition of Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva

Śāriputra laments, “Of the multitude of voice-hearers / The Buddha has said that I am the first. / Now, with respect to my own knowledge, I / Cannot resolve my doubts / As to whether this is the ultimate Dharma” (trans. Hurvitz 1976, 27). The latter possibility could stem from conflicting traditions that take either Śāriputra or the Buddha himself as author of the Abhidharma. See Lamotte 1944–1980, 1:112–113; and Lamotte 1988, 190. I accept this latter possibility because it makes more sense as continued praise of Aśvaghoṣa’s reputation. Ochiai and Saitō (2000, 281– 282n22) speculate that the “Saintly Master” refers to Śāriputra’s non-Buddhist teacher before Śāriputra converted to Buddhism.

(28.) Here I read huai 壞 for rang 壤 as a parallel to luo 落 in the following sentence, as suggested by Chen Jinhua (personal communication). Ochiai reads rang on the basis of a parallel passage in Sengrui’s Yuyi lun 喻疑論 (Ochiai 1994, 16n4; Ochiai and Saitō 2000, 283n27). However, the Nanatsu-dera manuscript appears to have huai, as does the Saihō-ji manuscript, which Ochiai did not use for collating. The Kōshō-ji manuscript has insect damage at this point so is illegible. My thanks to Prof. Ochiai for giving me access to high-quality photographic reproductions of these manuscripts.

(29.) This Sanskrit reconstruction is from Ochiai 1994, 20. Cf. Akanuma 1967, 769–70 (which lists two Vīras, but both with different transliterations and both from eastern India). I have not found this transliteration in any lexicographic source, and it is nearly as absent from the extant Buddhist canon. Different editions of the biography offer Dharma-master Shiluo 事羅法師 and Dharma-master Jie 界法師, neither of whom is any more identifiable (Ochiai 1994, 20). Because Weiluo appears in the Chu sanzang jiji not far from Aśvaghoṣa in the first of Sengyou’s Sarvāstivādin lineage lists (T no. 2145, 55:89a), Ochiai views this as the proper reading.

(30.) I follow Yamabe and Sueki (2009, xvi) for this Sanskrit reconstruction. As Lamotte (1944– 1980, 3:ln1) notes, this figure was also known as Kumāralabdha, which Minowa (2003, 179) and Ochiai (1994, 21) favor. The only other source in which I have seen this transliteration is Sengrui’s Guanzhong chu chanjing xü 關中出禪經序 (in Chu sanzang jiji, T no. 2145, 55:65a). Minowa and Ochiai identify this Jiumoluoluotuo with patriarch number twelve in the previously mentioned Sarvāstivādin lineage list, Jiumoluotuo 鳩摩羅駄 [sic—tuo 馱]. Cf. Mochizuki 1954– 1963, 1:717a–c (s.v. “Kumarata 鳩摩羅多”). In the following paragraph of the present text, the transliterations given are Jiumoluotuo 鳩摩羅陀, lacking the second luo 羅, in all editions except Kōshō-ji and Saihō-ji.

(31.) Dongxia 東夏 was a conventional designation for China in medieval times, and is read as such by Ochiai and Saitō (2000, 294). However, as Chen Jinhua points out (personal communication), since the narrative here centers itself in India and radiates from there, Dongxia could also mean eastern India (Xia referring to the semi-mythical first Chinese dynasty of that name and thus being a general expression for “civilization”), which would fit with Aśvaghoṣa’s placement in Sāketa at the beginning of the biography. On the juxtaposition of Xixia 西夏, Dongxia, and related terms, see Chen 2004, 237–246. (32.) Perhaps adapted from the Analects 2.1: “The rule of virtue can be compared to the polestar that commands the homage of the multitude of stars without leaving its place.” 為政以德, 譬如北辰 居其所而眾星共之. Translation adapted from Lau 1979, 63.

(33.) The second half of the text is discussed and translated in Ochiai 1994 and Ochiai and Saitō 2000. (34.) Only the Kōshō-ji and Saihō-ji editions have the character luo 羅 twice here and in the following instance; cf. Ochiai 1994, 22–23.





Source