What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style?

Dan Lusthaus

Abstract: Xuanzang is one of the rare translators of Indic material into Chinese who was himself Chinese, and the most proli c of any translator. His translations cover all Buddhist genres, including āgamas, Mahāyāna sutras, devotional sutras on speci c buddhas and bodhisattvas (e.g. Maitreya, Avalokiteśvara, Amitābha, and Kṣitigarbha), avadāna, dhāraṇīs, abhidharma, Indian commentaries, Madhyama- ka, Yogācāra, hetu-vidyā, and his famous travelogue, Xiyu ji 西域記. His translation of the Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras (600 fascicles in three entire Taishō volumes) is by far the largest translation in the Chinese canon, followed by his 200-fascicle translation of the Sarvās- tivādin Mahāvibhāṣa. His Heart Sūtra translation is still recited daily throughout the East Asian Buddhist world. His translations are often labeled the ‘New Translation’ style, indicating a break or change with his predecessor’s e orts. This presentation will examine what is ‘new’ in his translations. Xuanzang introduced new Chinese equivalents for Indic terms that had already acquired standard Chinese renderings, though this was a gradual process, as I will illustrate with a few examples (e.g., his treatment of √kḷp terms). He is also frequently credited with being a more literal translator, which turns out to not always be the case (e.g. his translation of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya), though often his translations are more accurate than earlier translations of the same texts (e.g. Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa sūtra). But these technical details are only part of the story. What was truly new and revealing about his philosophical orientation were his choices of texts to translate, which included numerous texts previously translated by others that he felt needed newer, more accurate translations, as well as new texts that introduced new facets of Indian thinking to a Chinese audience pre- viously unaware of these Indian developments. Taking all of this into account, I will attempt to shed some light on Xuanzang’s thinking and orientation beyond the usual stereotypical accounts.

From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664) All but one of the articles collected in this volume are selected from over fifty papers originally presented at the first international conference on Xuanzang 玄奘 (602?–664) and Silk Road Culture, held in the summer of 2018 at Guiyuan Monastery 歸元寺 in Chang’an. The Guiyuan Monastery was built during the Zhenguan reign (627– 649) of the Tang dynasty to celebrate Xuanzang’s epochal return to Chang’an from his protracted pilgrimage to Central and South Asia. His epic journey resulted in some of the most significant Sanskrit-to-Chinese translations and commentaries of Buddhist scriptures, and the records of his extraordinary exploration are no less impressive that centuries later, still fascinates the world. This volume of scholarship delves into aspects of Xuanzang’s life, legacy, and impact that continues to affect us today. JI Yun and SHI Xingding Guiyuan Temple 00068（平） From the Ground Up: Buddhism & East Asian Religions Edited by SHI Ciguang, CHEN Jinhua, Association for the Promotion of Xuanzang Culture From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664) Edited by SHI Ciguang, CHEN Jinhua, JI Yun and SHI Xingding From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Xuanzang and Silk Road Culture Edited by SHI Ciguang CHEN Jinhua JI Yun SHI Xingding COVER IMAGE: Map showing Xuanzang’s travels from Sogdians website. Courtesy of Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., Map by CHIPS. Table of Contents From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664) Shi Ciguang 釋慈光 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. Doctrinal Studies 1.1. Yamabe Nobuyoshi 山部能宜 A Hypothetical Reconsideration of the ‘Compilation’ of Cheng Weishi Lun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2. Ernest Billings (Billy) Brewster Survivability: Vasubandhu and Saṅghabhadra on the Continuity of the Life of a Sentient Being as Translated by Xuanzang . . . . . . . 79 1.3. Li Zijie 李子捷 The Transformation of the Theory of Zhongxing 種姓 (Skt. Gotra) before Xuanzang’s Translations: With a Focus on the Pusa Yingluo Benye Jing 菩薩瓔珞本業経 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 1.4. Dan Lusthaus What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style? . . . . . . . . . . . 159 1.5. Richard D. McBride II How Did Xuanzang Understand Dhāraṇī?: A View from His Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 FROM CHANG’AN TO NĀLANDĀ: THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF THE CHINESE BUDDHIST MONK XUANZANG (602?–664) 2. Historical And Biographical Studies 2.1. Shigeki Moro 師茂樹 Biography as Narrative: Reconsideration of Xuanzang’s Biographies Focusing on Japanese Old Buddhist Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 2.2. Jeffrey Kotyk Chinese State and Buddhist Historical Sources on Xuanzang: Historicity and the Da Ci’en Si Sanzang Fashi Zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 2.3. Guo Wu 伍國 Context and Text: Historicizing Xuanzang and the Da Tang Xiyu Ji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 3. Transborder And Transcultural Perspectives 3.1. Max Deeg How to Create a Great Monastery: Xuanzang’s Foundation Legend of Nālandā in Its Indian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 3.2. Arun Kumar Yadav The Mahābodhi Temple: Centre of Indo-Chinese Cultural Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 3.3. Yu Xin 余欣 Archaeological Evidence, Cultural Imagination and Image of the Medieval World: New Perspectives on Treasures from Qiuci. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 FROM CHANG’AN TO NĀLANDĀ: THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF THE CHINESE BUDDHIST MONK XUANZANG (602?–664) 3.4. George A. Keyworth On Xuanzang and Manuscripts of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra at Dunhuang and in Early Japanese Buddhism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 4. Appendix 4.1. Siglinde Dietz The Xuanzang Project at the University of Göttingen . . . . . . . . . . . 498 Author Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style? DAN LUSTHAUS Harvard University Abstract: Xuanzang is one of the rare translators of Indic material into Chinese who was himself Chinese, and the most prolific of any translator. His translations cover all Buddhist genres, including āgamas, Mahāyāna sutras, devotional sutras on specific buddhas and bodhisattvas (e.g. Maitreya, Avalokiteśvara, Amitābha, and Kṣitigarbha), avadāna, dhāraṇīs, abhidharma, Indian commentaries, Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, hetu-vidyā, and his famous travelogue, Xiyu ji 西域記. His translation of the Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras (600 fascicles in three entire Taishō volumes) is by far the largest translation in the Chinese canon, followed by his 200-fascicle translation of the Sarvāstivādin Mahāvibhāṣa. His Heart Sūtra translation is still recited daily throughout the East Asian Buddhist world. His translations are often labeled the ‘New Translation’ style, indicating a break or change with his predecessor’s efforts. This presentation will examine what is ‘new’ in his translations. Xuanzang introduced new Chinese equivalents for Indic terms that had already acquired standard Chinese renderings, though this was a gradual process, as I will illustrate with a few examples (e.g., his treatment of √kḷp terms). He is also frequently credited with being a more literal translator, which turns out to not always be the case (e.g. his translation of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya), though often his translations are more accurate than earlier translations of the same texts (e.g. Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa sūtra). But these technical details are only part of the story. What was truly new and revealing about his From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664): 000–000 159 160 philosophical orientation were his choices of texts to translate, which included numerous texts previously translated by others that he felt needed newer, more accurate translations, as well as new texts that introduced new facets of Indian thinking to a Chinese audience previously unaware of these Indian developments. Taking all of this into account, I will attempt to shed some light on Xuanzang’s thinking and orientation beyond the usual stereotypical accounts. Keywords: Xuanzang, translation, Yogācāra, Heart Sūtra, Yogācārabhūmi, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, body Overview uanzang 玄奘 (600–664) is credited with having introduced a ‘new translation’ style. Usually, this is taken to mean that he replaced previously established Chinese equivalents that had been used for Sanskrit and Indic terms with new equivalents, many of which became the new standard equivalents. That is certainly part of what was new about his translations. Also, frequently Xuanzang is acclaimed as a more ‘literal’ translator, meaning that unlike many of his predecessors, his translations more literally reproduced Sanskrit texts in Chinese idiom, even, at times, following Sanskrit syntax rather than the normative Chinese syntax of the day. While Xuanzang did provide a wealth of new equivalents, and some of his translations are closer to Indian originals than were the efforts of earlier translators, some of his translations take liberties, introducing glosses and interpretive extrapolations; he was not the literal translator he is often imagined to be. I shall illustrate that with some examples later. However, while not a strict literalist, his translations were usually ‘accurate’, in the sense of conveying the meaning of the Indian texts, even when he took liberties, made tacit implications in the Sanskrit explicit in Chinese, rearranged the order of passages, dropped superfluous phrases, and in other ways produced a Chinese text that was not an isomorphic representation of its Sanskrit original. X 161 What has received less attention is the contextual agenda that guided his choice of which texts to translate. Xuanzang was driven to make the perilous journey to India due to a strong desire to resolve the multitude of conflicting understandings of Buddhism that were roiling in early seventh-century China. Buddhism in sixth-century China had largely been a battleground of competing Yogācāra schools—the so-called northern and southern Dilun 地論 schools, several texts and commentaries by Vasubandhu translated in the mid-sixth century by Vimokṣaprajñā (Pimu zhixian 毘目智仙) and Gautama Prajñāruci (Qutanboreliuzhi 瞿曇般若流支),1 and of course the Yogācāra translations by Paramārtha (Zhendi 真諦, 499–569). During Xuanzang’s early training in China, Paramārtha’s works, especially the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (She Dasheng lun 攝大乘論, T no. 1592; Shelun for short), and for the more studious, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (Apidamo jushe lun 阿毘達磨倶舍論, T no. 1558) dominated discussions. Harivarman’s Tattvasiddhi (Chengshi lun 成實論, T no. 1646) was also still well studied at that time. Xuanzang’s Biography by his contemporary colleagues, Huili 慧立 and Yancong 彥悰, the Da Cien si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 (T no. 2053; hereafter Sanzang fashi zhuan), reports that before he went to India, Xuanzang studied and lectured on the Shelun, and an abhidharma text, and studied well the Abhidharmakośa and Tattvasiddhi.2 Since none of the central Asian monasteries he encounAmong their translations, jointly or together: Vasubandhu’s Karmasiddhi-prakaraṇa (Yechengjiu lun 業成就論, T no. 1608), Vasubandhu’s Sanjuzujing-upadeśa 三具足經憂波提舍 (T no. 1534), Vasubandhu’s upadeśa on the Ratnacūḍa sūtra 寶髻經四法憂波提舍 (T no. 1526), all translated in 541, Vasubandhu’s Viṃśikā-vṛtti (Weishi lun 唯識論, T no. 1588, tran. ca. 538–543), etc. 2 On Xuanzang’s early education, the Biography says: …the Master attended the lectures given by Daoji and Baoxian on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha Śāstra and he studied abhidharma with instruction by Dharma master Daozhen on Kātyāyana’s (or Katyāyanīputra 迦多衍尼子) Jñānaprāsthana. Not wasting a moment of time, he studied with full effort tirelessly; and within two or three years he thoroughly mastered the Buddhist texts of different schools…. 諸德既 1 萃, 大建法筵, 於是更聽基, 暹《攝論》,《毘曇》及震法師《迦延》, 敬惜寸陰, 勵精 162 無怠, 二三年間, 究通諸部. (T no. 2053, 50: 1.222a17–20) [At the age of twenty, f]rom summer to winter, the Master lectured on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Jñānaprāsthana, each three times…. 法師為講《攝論》、《毘曇》, 自夏及冬, 各得三遍. (T no. 2053, 50: 1.222b10–11) Then he went to Zhaozhou and visited the reverend teacher Daoshen, from whom he learned about the Satyasiddhi (i.e. Tattvasiddhi) Śāstra. Then he entered Chang’an and stayed at the Great Enlightenment Monastery, where he learned about the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra from the reverend teacher Daoyue. 又到趙州, 謁深法師學《成實論》. 又入長安, 止大覺寺, 就岳法師學《俱舍論》. (English translation from Li, Record of the Western Regions, 15–17, modified; T no. 2053, 50: 1.222b18–20) Note that Li, in his translation of this passage, misunderstood 毘曇 (modern pronunciation pitan, medieval probably closer to bhidham), an abbreviation for ‘abhidharma’, as referring to Asaṅga’s Abhidharmasamuccaya, that text had not been translated into Chinese yet, so he would have been unable to study it prior to encountering it later in Sanskrit; it was Xuanzang himself who first translated it after returning to China. There is some speculation that a translation by Paramārtha of the Abhidharmasamuccaya might be one of his works no longer extant, but if Paramārtha didn’t translate the Abhidharmasamuccaya, then we can probably rule that out. 毘曇 by itself is insufficient to identify a specific text, it seems, unless one takes the whole phrase《毘曇》及震法師《迦延》as ‘he studied abhidharma with instruction by Dharma master Daozhen on Kātyāyana’s (or Katyāyanīputra 迦多衍尼子) Jñānaprāsthana’. If so, then it may refer to the Jñānaprāsthana 阿毘曇八犍度論 (T no. 1543), a core Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma text attributed to *Kātyāyana 迦旃延, translated by Saṃghadeva (Sengqietipo 僧伽提婆) and (Zhu) Fonian 竺佛念 in 383 CE. Xuanzang later served up another translation of this text: Apidamo fazhi lun 阿毘達磨發智論 (T no. 1544). Also known by the titles Apitan jing ba jiandu lun 阿毘曇經八犍度論, Jiazhanyan apitan 迦旃延阿毘曇; this is the seventh volume of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma piṭaka, often considered—along with the Mahāvibhāṣa which is a commentary on it—the central canonical text of the Sarvāstivādins. In general, Li Rongxi’s translation is good at the Chinese idioms and syntax, but less reliable at identifying Sanskrit terms, names, titles. The punctuation framing 毘曇 as a text title is from CBETA. 毘曇 is sometimes used as a shorthand title of the Abhidharmakośa, but since the Biography identifies the Kośa a short bit later as 俱舍論, when it says Xuanzang was first introduced to it, 毘曇 would have to be something else. 163 tered on his way to India were Mahāyāna, his discussions and debates with their scholars focused on abhidharma topics, and, according to the Biography, in debate he was invariably victorious, indicating his mastery even then of the intricacies of abhidharma doctrines. Even later in life, as a full-fledged Yogācāra, he was at heart an ābhidharmika and understood Yogācāra theory through an abhidharmic lens. Usually it is said that he went to India to obtain the complete Yogācārabhūmi (Yuqieshi di lun 瑜伽師地論), which Paramārtha had only partially translated (Shiqi di lun 十七地論, no longer extant), believing its comprehensive overview of Buddhist doctrine and practice would resolve the discrepancies and disputes raging in China at that time. That is partially true, but while in India he came to recognize that Indians understood Buddhism quite differently from what had developed in China. After many years in India, he had a dream which he took as a portent that Buddhism would disappear from India. That disturbed him, but when he spoke about it with alarm to his Indian colleagues, their calm resignation that all things are impermanent disturbed him further. Since the full and correct range of Buddhist teachings had not reached China yet, if it disappeared from India then China and East Asia would always be following an incomplete and, in some ways, misunderstood Buddhism. Asking a Jain fortune teller whether he should stay in India, where he had achieved prestigious status, or return to China by the difficult central Asian route, the fortune teller told him he would live a long and successful life if he remained in India, but if he returned to China, his health would suffer, and his life would be shortened. Alarmed that Buddhism might disappear from India, and concerned that the proper context and understanding of Buddhism was yet to be implanted in China, he decided to make the journey back, bringing over 600 texts from various Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools, as well as Buddhist artworks. As the fortune teller predicted, Xuanzang did suffer health problems at various times after his return, sometimes temporarily impacting his productivity and output, but he endeavored to provide China with as much of the context of Indian Buddhism as he could, becoming the most prolific translator in Chinese Buddhist history. One text alone, his translation of the Prajñāpāramitā corpus, is 600 fascicles, fills three entire Taishō volumes, and he ac- 164 complished this during his final years, when his health continued to decline, while simultaneously translating numerous other texts. His prolific activity was driven by his wish to provide Chinese Buddhists with a fuller and more accurate context for understanding Buddhism. He didn’t write original philosophical treatises of his own,3 so trying to determine his own thoughts on things is challenging. One type of source for discovering what he himself thought and said would be to examine reports from his contemporaries, such as Kuiji and Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測 (613–696), being cautious to gauge their His travelogue, Record of Western Lands (Datang Xiyu ji 大唐西域記, T no. 2087), was compiled by Bianji 辯機 (?–649) from meticulous notes Xuanzang had taken during his travels, indicating distances and directions so accurately that Aurel Stein and others found forgotten sites in Central Asia by following his directions and descriptions. It contains geographic, ethnographic, anthropological and religious accounts of different localities and their people, but provides legendary anecdotes of key figures rather than philosophical depositions. The Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (T no. 1585) is mistakenly considered a compendium of ten Sanskrit commentaries on the Triṃśikā championing the opinions of Dharmapāla, since that is how Kuiji 窺基 (632–682) claimed it was composed, but actually, its core structure is Sthiramati’s commentary on the Triṃśikā, embellished with a wide variety of other sources, not just Triṃśikā commentaries. This is the only translation he produced that was not a direct translation of a text, but an edited compendium, which he produced at Kuiji’s insistence, despite his own intention to translate each text individually. Xuanzang felt guilty about producing this hodgepodge, which is why he determined to not omit a single word or phrase, no matter how redundant, in his Prajñāpāramitā translation which he started the year after finishing the Cheng weishi lun. Cf. Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology, ch. 15. While Kuiji promoted the Cheng weishi lun as the catechism for his Weishi school, the extent to which it reflects Xuanzang’s own thinking, rather than a survey of Buddhist theories is unclear. It is Kuiji, not the Cheng weishi lun that attributes positions to various authors, invariably claiming which is the correct interpretation and attributing that to Dharmapāla. The only Triṃśikā commentary that has survived in the original Sanskrit is Sthiramati’s, and it turns out that many of the positions Kuiji attributed to Dharmapāla are actually Sthiramati’s. Cf. Keenan, ‘A Study of the Buddhabhūmyupadeśa’, 306. 3 165 reliability. Another, sounder, way to investigate Xuanzang’s priorities and agenda would be to survey what he selected for translation and the order in which they appeared. His Agenda and Motivations: Xuanzang’s Early Translations What does his early translation activity reveal about Xuanzang’s motives and agenda? If we assume, as we probably should, that his order of translation was not random, but cumulative, so that earlier translations were intended to provide context and requisite background to profitably work through later works, then the order may be viewed as a systematic syllabus of sorts. That he may have modified his subsequent efforts based on how earlier ones were received should also be considered. Also, it was common for translators to accede to requests by patrons and disciples, so that too would have affected his choices over the years. We are told in his Biography that his last major translation was to be the Ratnakūta sūtra, which he began, and then, his failing health overcoming him, he stopped after a few lines.4 In any From Huili’s Biography of Xuanzang: On the first day of the first month, in the spring of the first year of Linde (664), the monk-translators and other monks of Yuhua Monastery earnestly requested that the Master translate the Maha-ratnakūta Sūtra into Chinese. Upon seeing the sincerity of the monks, he exerted himself to translate the sutra; but after doing just a few lines he closed the Sanskrit text and stopped the task. He told the monks, ‘This sutra is as voluminous as the Mahā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Estimating my own strength, I shall not be able to complete this work. I am approaching my time, and it is not far-off. Now I wish to go to the Lanzhi Valley and other places to pay my last homage to a koṭi of Buddha’s images.’ Then he went out with his disciples, and the monks looked at one another with tearful eyes. After worshipping the images, he returned to the monastery and engaged exclusively in practising the Way, doing no more translation. 麟德元年春正月朔 4 一日, 翻經大德及玉華寺眾慇懃啟請翻《大寶積經》. 法師見眾情專至, 俛仰翻數行訖, 便攝梵本停住, 告眾曰:‘此經部軸與《大般若》同, 玄奘自量氣力不復辦此, 死期已至, 勢非賒遠. 今欲往蘭芝等谷, 禮拜辭俱胝佛像.’於是與門人同出, 僧眾 166 case, his translations provide his idea of what constitutes the necessary orientation, and where he wanted to intersect with and modify the trajectory of Chinese Buddhism. Let us examine the order of translations during his first years back in China. First Year In 645, freshly returned from India via the Silk Road, the first text he produced was a translation of the Bodhisattva-piṭaka-sūtra (Da pusa zang jing 大菩薩藏經, T no. 310, fascs. 35–54),5 which at some point was incorporated into the Ratnakūta sūtra compilation as the twelfth sūtra of that collection. It provides a detailed overview of the bodhisattva project, taking up topics such as the six pāramitās, the Four Immeasurables, the four methods for converting people to Buddhism, and so on—a perfect choice for an introductory text on pursuing the bodhisattva path. This was followed by Asaṅga’s (Wuzhu 無著) Root Verses of the Exposition of the Ārya Teachings (Xianyang shengjiao lun song 顯揚聖教論頌, *Prakaraṇāryavākā?, T no. 1603), a summary extract of important themes in the Yogācārabhūmi, sometimes with verbatim passages, sometimes with slight variations.6 To prepare Chinese readers for the full-fledged Yogācārabhūmi, he first offers these selections. Next, he translated a sutra that clearly was of great importance for him, the Buddhabhūmi sūtra (Fodi jing 佛地經, 1 fasc., T no. 相顧, 莫不澘然. 禮訖還寺, 專精行道, 遂絕翻譯. (Li, Record of the Western Re- gions, 331; Sanzang fashi zhuan, T no. 2053, 50: 10.276c2–9) 5 On the Bodhisattva-piṭaka-sūtra, cf. de Jong’s review of Ulrich Pagel’s Bodhisattvapiṭaka. 6 Since this text is unknown apart from Xuanzang’s translations, it is impossible to determine whether the discrepancies are simply due to different translation choices on Xuanzang’s part or substantial differences in the underlying Sanskrit, or even whether and how this text might have circulated India. Perhaps it had served as a students’ primer, or perhaps even compiled by Xuanzang himself while in India during his studies of the Yogācārabhūmi. 167 680). But this sūtra was overshadowed in subsequent tradition by later works, possibly since this early work long preceded Kuiji’s involvement (Kuiji, born in 632, was only twelve or thirteen years old at the time, and would not join the saṅgha for at least another five years, and some years after that came into Xuanzang’s inner circle). While much later Xuanzang obviously encouraged Kuiji to study the Yogācārabhūmi, which Kuiji wrote a commentary on, his knowledge of the Buddhabhūmi sūtra and its composite commentaries, the Buddhabhūmyupadeśa,7 was much weaker judging by his scant and largely uninformative remarks on them.8 The sūtra, like Asaṅga’s verse text noted above, consists of a single fascicle, but is necessary for following the commentaries on it contained in the Buddhabhūmyupadeśa, which Xuanzang was eager to introduce to the Chinese audience. His next translation was a single fascicle dhāraṇī text, Saṇmukhidhāraṇī (Liumen tuoluoni jing 六門陀羅尼經, T no. 1360).9 This was intended in part, perhaps, to commemorate his return to China. This was quickly followed by Asaṅga’s prose autocommentary to the root verses that Xuanzang had recently translated, this one titled Exposition of the Ārya Teachings (Xianyang Shengjiao lun 顯揚聖教論, 20 fascs., T no. 1602), which he began in October of 645 and completed in February 646. Again, these are excerpted summaries of important themes in the Yogācārabhūmi, such as pramāṇa theory. To sum up Xuanzang’s first year of translation, he began with an introductory summary of the bodhisattva project; a summary of imBuddhabhūmyupadeśa (Fodi jing lun 佛地經論, T no. 1530, 7 fascs.), a rich commentary on the Buddhabhūmi sūtra attributed to ‘Bandhuprabha (Qinguang 親光), etc.’, translated between November 12, 649 and January 2, 650. 8 For instance, he seems to not have noticed that large passages are quoted in the Cheng weishi lun verbatim. 9 Katsumi Mimaki published a critical edition of the Sanskrit text along with the Tibetan and Chinese and his French translation: ‘La Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī ou “Incantation des SIX PORTES”’, and ‘La Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī ou ‘Incantation des SIX PORTES”’. Davidson, ‘Studies in dhāraṇī literature II’, 5–61, includes excerpts from this text. 7 168 portant themes in the Yogācārabhūmi; a key sutra important to the Yogācāra of that day, which envisions what a Buddha land entails and how things look through awakened cognition; and a dhāraṇī text designed to open the six gates, i.e., one’s cognitive apprehension of reality. Second Year In April of 646, Xuanzang’s translation of Sthiramati’s (Anhui 安慧) commentary on Asaṅga’s Abhidharmasamuccaya (Dasheng apidamo zaji lun 大乘阿毗達摩雜集論, 16 fascs., Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā, T no. 1606) appeared.10 Let’s pause to take note of what this indicates. We are in the second year of his translation activity, and so far nothing from Vasubandhu (Shiqin 世親) has been tackled, but we now have three Asaṅga texts (albeit one is a prose fleshing-out of another). Also, nothing from Dharmapāla has been presented. Instead, Sthiramati’s commentary on an important Asaṅga text is delivered. Also, he has presented this commentary before having translated Asaṅga’s own root text (which he translated in 652). Much later, Kuiji, certainly at Xuanzang’s urging, did study this Sthiramati commentary well, and wrote his own commentary on it.11 Notably, this text further introduces the abhidharmic approach to Yogācāra and vice versa in great detail. Next, Xuanzang’s famous ethnographic travelogue, the Record of Western Lands, appeared. Not long after, Bianji, who had compiled it, was caught up in a sex scandal involving the emperor’s daughter, and was summarily executed. That Xuanzang had entrusted such an important task to Bianji suggests that he was grooming him to be a key disciple; that Bianji had connections with the court, and lived on the grounds of the emperor’s sister rather than a monastery, is a 10 The Sanskrit for this text was rediscovered in the twentieth century, and published by N. Tatia, Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣyam. 11 Zaji lunshu ji 雜集論述記, Dasheng Apidamo zaji lun shuji 大乘阿毗達磨雜集論述記 (X no. 796). 169 reminder of Xuanzang’s own frequent diplomatic successes with rulers in India and Central Asia, almost all of whom took pains to accommodate him and grant him favors. That the sex scandal did not tinge his own reputation indicates the power of his personality and the prestige accorded him. Third Year An important Vasubandhu text finally appeared the following year, in April 647: Pañcaskandha-prakaraṇa (Dasheng wuyun lun 大乘五蘊論, 1 fasc., T no. 1612). This text is a proto-Yogācāra work; it still retains many elements eventually jettisoned in mature Yogācāra, such as the concept of rūpa-prasāda (qingjing se 淸淨色), but gives an early version of ālayavijñāna while discussing the fifth skandha, vijñāna. Its approach, like the Abhidharmasamuccaya, was primarily abhidharmic: defining terms with brief examples and exposition. This was followed by working on a text that should shed important light on Xuanzang’s agenda. As mentioned previously, Paramārtha’s translation of Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha had become a dominant text among Chinese Buddhists. Surveys of what study groups of all sects at that time were reading invariably include the Shelun on their lists, including early Chan schools. Xuanzang’s experience in India indicated to him that Paramārtha’s text had engendered a variety of faulty, even pernicious ideas, that were detrimental to a proper understanding of Buddhism and especially Asaṅga’s Yogācāra. Since he himself had lectured in China on Paramārtha’s translation of the Shelun, he was closely familiar with its contents, and therefore must have been all the more surprised to discover how differently the text itself read in Sanskrit and how Indians understood it. Rather than write a critique disputing Paramārtha’s interpretation, he chose instead to re-translate it in a way that would provide a superior rendering and representation of the ideas in the original. However, instead of merely offering up his own translation of the Shelun, or even his own translation of Vasubandhu’s bhāṣya on it, both of which Paramārtha had translated (T no. 1593 and no. 1595, respectively), he began to address the 170 misconceptions that had developed in China by translating *Āsvabhāva’s (Wuxing 無性) sub-commentary on Vasubandhu’s commentary, to make sure that readers could clearly see how Indians understood these texts. This was the *Mahāyānasaṃgrahopani-bandhana (She Dasheng lun wuxing shi 攝大乘論無性釋, 10 fascs., T no. 1598). This translation was finished in 649, taking more than two years to complete (April 10, 647–July 31, 649). He had begun working on the Yogācārabhūmi (Yuqieshi di lun 瑜伽師地論, 100 fascs., T no. 1579) in July 646 and finished it in June 648. The finished text as it has come down to us contains two colophons that give conflicting details on dates, translation assistants, etc., but over twenty monks assisted. The emperor drafted monks from their home temples to work with Xuanzang on this project; some taking dictation, some serving as copyists, copy-editors, proof readers, etc. The Chinese version attributes authorship to Maitreya, while the Tibetan tradition attributes authorship to Asaṅga. While the Yogācārabhūmi project continued, he tackled the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra (Jie shenmi jing 解深密經, T no. 676), the key Yogācāra sutra credited by historians with introducing signature Yogācāra doctrines, such as vijñapti-matra 唯識, ālayavijñāna, and trisvabhāva 三自性. This sutra had been translated several times before. Of the texts translated by Xuanzang up to this point, while the Āsvabhāva’s commentary to the Shelun had not been translated before, Paramārtha had translated the Shelun itself; and Paramārtha had also partially translated the Yogācārabhūmi, so now it was clear that Xuanzang was dedicating himself to revising the Chinese understanding of texts Paramārtha had made important with translations that, in Xuanzang’s understanding, had led to misconceptions. Prior to Xuanzang, translations of the Saṃdhinirmocana were made by Guṇabhadra (partial), Bodhiruci, and Paramārtha.12 Xiangxu jietuodi boluomi liaoyi jing 相續解脫地波羅蜜了義經, T no. 678, tran. btw. 435–443 by Guṇabhadra (Qiunabatuoluo 求那跋陀羅 [394–468]), which corresponds to the tenth chapter of the Samdhinirmocana; Xuangxu jietuo rulai suozuo shuishunchu liaoyi jing 相續解脱如來所作隨順處了義經 12 171 In September of 647, Xuanzang introduced something that had yet to appear in China: Buddhist hetuvidyā reflecting the sharpening of Buddhist logic engineered by Dignāga. The Nyāyapraveśa (Yinming ru zhengli lun 因明入正理論, 1 fasc., T no. 1630), which was written by Śaṃkarasvāmin (Shangjieluozhu 商羯羅主), provided a concise manual of Dignāga’s logic system (with a few slight variations). To sum up so far, Xuanzang is building a foundation for bodhisattva practice, based on foundational Yogācāra texts and concerns, from how to understand the five aggregates that comprise a person, to the progression of practice and understanding, to tools such as dhāraṇīs and logic. He is introducing new materials to Chinese Buddhists, but also starting to ‘correct’ previous translations—especially those of Paramārtha, in whose texts he had been immersed before leaving China—to bring Chinese Buddhists closer to what he had witnessed and absorbed of Indian Buddhism. Fourth Year In 648, he expanded the contextual framework. The Devatā sūtra (Tian qingwen jing 天請問經, 1 fasc., T no. 592) recounts how Buddha responded to questions from various devas, its main theme being to replace the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion by practicing Buddhist ethics and following the precepts. This dimension of Xuanzang’s project, perhaps best appreciated by his contemporary and sometimes associate, Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667), (T no. 679) translated by Guṇabhadra, corresponding to the ninth chapter; Shenmi jietuo jing 深密解脫經 (T no. 675) translated by Bodhiruci (Putiliuzhi 菩提流支 [d. 527]) in 514; Foshuo jiejie jing 佛說解節經 (T no. 677) translated by Paramārtha in 557. Guṇabhadra’s Chinese apparently was not up to the task of translating these texts, so the actual translators were probably Baoyun 寶雲 along with Bodhi 菩提, Fayong 法勇, and Tanwujie 曇無竭. Cf. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 by Sengyou 僧祐 (445–518), T no. 2145, 55: 2.12.c19–13a8. And Radich, ‘Text T. 0679’. 172 considered one of the founding figures of the East Asian vinaya tradition, is often neglected in favor of either his travel writings or more scholastic works. However, ethics and precepts were important for Xuanzang, and the early Weishi 唯識 and Japanese Hossō 法相 groups engaged in social services of various kinds, from caring for the ill to building bridges. They are also something emphasized repeatedly in the Yogācārabhūmi and a variety of other texts that Xuanzang translated over the years. Next he introduced a non-Buddhist text, *Daśa-padārtha (Shijuyi lun 十句義論, 1 fasc., T no. 2138), a Vaiśeṣika text by Candramati (Huiyue 慧月) that was eventually forgotten in India.13 Early Vaiśeṣika posited six padārthas (fundamental components of reality), while a key Vaiśeṣika reformer, Praśastapāda, increased that to nine padārthas, but, aside from this Candramati text preserved for us by Xuanzang, no trace of a ten padārtha system is found in the extant Vaiśeṣika literature. Why did Xuanzang choose this unusual Vaiśeṣika text to translate? There are several possibilities. First, this may have been the Vaiśeṣika manual that Indian Buddhists at that time studied to prepare for debates with Vaiśeṣikas. Another obvious reason is that the primary polemical targets of many Buddhist texts during the centuries leading up to Xuanzang’s time were Vaiśeṣika and, and while Paramārtha had translated a Sāṃkhya text,14 no one had provided a Vaiśeṣika text in Chinese. Chinese Buddhists must have been curious about the actual tenets of that school, being only familiar with the narrow arguments focused against them. Also, Xuanzang valued debate as an important tool for sharpening the mind and overcoming misconceptions; to debate, the better one knows the opponent’s framework, the more effectively one can recognize and exploit its weaknesses. Additionally, most Buddhist ābhidharmikas accepted some version of atomic theory, and the Vaiśeṣika held the most developed non-Buddhist atomic theory in India. So this text 13 This was translated into English by Ui Hakuju with the Chinese text on facing pages, Vaiśeṣika Philosophy, 93–119. A later, improved translation can be found in Miyamoto, Daśapadārthī, 7–25. 14 Jin qishi lun 金七十論 (Sāṃkhya-kārikā), T no. 2137. 173 was probably translated to sate the curiosity of his students as well as to help provide some understanding of the context in which Indian Buddhism operated. Next, he translated Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā (Weishi sanshi lun 唯識三十論, 1 fasc. T no. 1586), which would later become the underlying foundation for the Cheng weishi lun. The version that has come down to us includes a variety of deviations from the Sanskrit, as well as framing interpolations.15 Paramārtha had produced an unusual rendering of this text, the Zhuanshi lun 轉識論 (T no. 1587), in which Vasubandhu’s text is inextricably intermingled with a commentary of uncertain authorship (some speculate it was Paramārtha’s own commentary). That would have been the only exposure East Asian Buddhists had to this important Vasubandhu text prior to Xuanzang’s new translation. Compared to the Zhuanshi lun, Xuanzang’s rendering is much closer to the Sanskrit original, despite his deviations and interpolations, and many of those are accounted for and explained in the Cheng weishi lun, so they were neither inadvertent nor accidents nor mistakes, but deliberate interpretive overlays. He next translated the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā sūtra; Jin’gang banruo jing 金剛般若經, 1 fasc., T no. 220), which had been previously translated by Kumārajīva (in 401), Bodhiruci (in 509), and Paramārtha (in 558). While Xuanzang’s translation continued to receive attention, Kumārajīva’s version remained the traditional favorite. This was followed by his translation of Vasubandhu’s Introduction to the One Hundred Dharmas (Baifa mingmen lun 百法明門論, 1 fasc., T no. 1614), a listing of the Yogācāra abhidharma system of 100 dharmas, divided into categories.16 And then finally he completed his translation of Vasubandhu’s bhāṣya to Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha (She Dasheng lun Shiqin shi 攝大乘論世親釋, 10 fascs., T no. 1597). So now he had translated *Āsvabhāva’s subcommentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha Some of this is discussed in Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology, Part IV. Cf. Lusthaus, ed. ‘The One Hundred Dharmas’. http://www.acmuller.net/ yogacara/outlines/100dharmas.html. 15 16 174 and Vasubandhu’s commentary, reinforcing that he was correcting Paramārtha’s version by pointing out how Indian Buddhists understood the text. Fifth Year It is not until the following year, 649, that he finally tackled Asaṅga’s root text without the commentaries, Mahāyānasaṃgraha (She Dasheng lun ben 攝大乘論本, 3 fascs., T no. 1594). Having instructed his readers on how to read the text by providing the expositions of Vasubandhu and his sub-commentator, Āsvabhāva, they were now ready to enjoy Asaṅga’s text without the distortions and misconceptions introduced by Paramārtha’s popular translation. As history has shown, however, his versions never fully eclipsed the Paramārtha versions, since, after his death there was a concerted movement by a variety of leading figures, such as Fazang 法藏 (643–712) and Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686), et al., to return to the Paramārtha approach. At this point, in 649, Xuanzang produced the following translations: Five sutras: Yuanqi Shengdao jing 緣起聖道經, 1 fasc. (T no. 714, Nidāna sūtra [Sutra on the Noble Way of Conditional Co-arising]), a sutra on pratītya-samutpāda. Shen xiyou jing 甚希有經, 1 fasc. (T no. 689, *Adbhūta-dharmaparyāya sūtra [Sutra on the Miraculous Acts of the Buddha]). Wangfa zhengli jing 王法正理經, 1 fasc. (T no. 1615, Sutra of [Maitreya’s] Correct Principles of Royal Rule), a sutra derived from the Yogācārabhūmi, authorship therefore attributed to Maitreya 彌勒 (rather than Śākyamuni or Asaṅga). Actually a combination of two sutras, the first advising on how to govern, how to correct faults, and pursue the wholesome; the second divides people into three types and how to help each make progress. Zui wubi jing 最無比經, 1 fasc. (T no. 691, Supreme 175 Incomparable Sutra), extolling the benefits of faith in the three jewels (Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha), which, according to this sutra is superior to following precepts. Rulai shijiao Shengjunwang jing 如來示教勝軍王經, 1 fasc. (T no. 515, Rājavavādaka sūtra, Sutra in which the Tathāgata Reveals Teachings to King Prasenajit), encouraging the king to pursue the Dharma rather than wealth or power. The primary audience for these texts is the emperor, whose health was fading at this time. He died either this year or the next (depending on which source one consults), and according to several sources turned devotedly to Buddhism at the end of his life, in part due to Xuanzang’s influence. For the more ‘professional’ or scholarly readers he produced the following. One Madhyamaka text: Bhāviveka’s (Qingbian 清辯) Dasheng zhangzhen lun 大乘掌珍論, 2 fascs. (T no. 1578, *Karatala-ratna or *Hasta-maṇi? Jewel in the Palm). One Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma text Shishen zu lun 識身足論, 16 fascs. (T no. 1539, Vijñāna-kāya pāda), the third member of the Sarvāstivādin abhidharma canon, attributed to Devakṣema (Tiposhemo 提婆設摩). Two texts on Bodhisattva Precepts related to the Yogācārabhūmi Pusa jie jiemo 菩薩戒羯磨, 1 fasc. (T no. 1499, The Rituals and Customs for Bodhisattvas), excerpted from fasc. 40 of the Yogācārabhūmi; 羯磨 = karma, in the technical sense of rituals, precepts and customs. It deals with ordination, repentance, and what happens when precepts are violated. Pusa jie ben 菩薩戒本, 1 fasc. (T no. 1501, *Bodhisattva-śīla sūtra), excerpts from the Yogācārabhūmi on forty-two precepts guiding a monastic’s behavior. Since drawn from the Yogācārabhūmi, the authorship of these two texts is attributed to Maitreya. These again highlight Xuanzang’s 176 concern with ethics, and the orderly and proper behavior expected of sincere practitioners, especially in the context of Yogācāra practice. One important Yogācāra commentary: Fodi jing lun 佛地經論, 7 fascs. (T no. 1530, Buddhabhūmyupadeśa), attributed to Bandhuprabha (Qinguang 親光), etc. A commentary on the Buddhabhūmi sūtra which he had translated during his first year back in China. This composite of what appear to be at least three or four distinct commentaries was already mentioned above. Many key Yogācāra ideas are explained here with details not found in other texts. Since Bandhuprabha was apparently active at Nālandā when Xuanzang was there, this represents the state of the art in Yogācāra thinking among Xuanzang’s Indian contemporaries. That brings us to the year 650—he goes on to translate more abhidharma, Yogācāra and Prajñāpāramitā texts, and more dhāraṇī texts—but we can stop this survey here, and turn to another issue already raised but played out in another series of texts. The Case of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāsya (and Mahāyānasaṃgraha) First, to quickly summarize what has been shown so far. What is new in Xuanzang’s approach includes not only new texts (and the new terminology they introduced, which we haven’t discussed yet), but a reframing of Buddhism to align Chinese Buddhism with the theories and practices of Indian Buddhists, for whom, for instance, logic was key, and for whom there were Mahāyānic precepts (not just the Dharmagupta, etc. vinayas that had been adopted by East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhists), and, of course, a more precise and accurate presentation of Yogācāra ideas. In order to challenge the popular translations by Paramārtha, he approached that by first translating Indian commentaries on those texts to make clear how Indians read those texts, and only then re-translating the root texts themselves. As mentioned above, even prior to leaving China, Xuanzang was 177 considered an expert in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, which he had studied in Paramārtha’s translation. …he entered Chang’an and stayed at the Great Enlightenment Monastery, where he learned about the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra from the reverend teacher Daoyue. He grasped the essential meanings of all these texts by studying them only once, and could memorize whatever had passed his eyes, an ability unsurpassed even by senior scholars of deep learning. He studied with such profundity that he could comprehend subtle meanings and reveal what was hidden in the texts when others failed to reach it. On more than one abstruse point he had his own particular views. 又入長安, 止大覺寺, 就岳法師學《俱舍論》. 皆一遍而盡其旨, 經目而記於心, 雖宿學耆年不能出也. 至於鉤深致遠, 開微發伏, 眾所不至. 獨悟於幽奧者, 固非一義焉.17 He continued to study and learn, and when he reached Kashmir he studied with Saṃghakīrti, who was over seventy at the time. But as he [Saṃghakīrti] was glad to have met an intelligent person, he exerted himself to the utmost to teach him by lecturing on the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra before noon, the Nyāyānusāra in the afternoon, and hetuvidyā [logic] and śabdavidyā [grammar] after the first part of the night. Thus all the scholars in the locality assembled to attend the lectures. The Master comprehended whatever was spoken by the teacher without missing anything. He studied the subtle teachings with appreciation and thoroughly mastered the mysteries. 彼公是時年向七十, 氣力已衰, 慶逢神器, 乃勵力敷揚. 自午已前講《俱舍論》, 自午已後, 講《順正理論》, 初夜後講《因明》、《聲明論》. 由是境內學人, 無不悉集. 法師隨其所說, 領悟無遺, 研幽擊節, 盡其神祕.18 Here from Li Rongxi’s English translation, see Li, Record of the Western Regions, 17, italics added; Sanzang fashi zhuan, T no. 2053, 50: 1.222b19–23. 17 178 In Kashmir further study of the Kośa, in Sanskrit, not Chinese, was taught by Saṃghakīrti in tandem with Saṃghabhadra’s (Sengqiebatuoluo 僧伽跋陀羅; i.e. Xianzhong 衆賢) Nyāyānusāra, a detailed critique of the Kośa, defending the orthodox Kashmiri Vaibhāṣika positions from the Kośa’s misrepresentations and fallacies. Xuanzang eventually also translated the Nyāyānusāra in 80 fascicles (Apidamo shun zhengli lun 阿毘達磨順正理論, T no. 1562). Saṃghakīrti also gave Xuanzang instruction in Buddhist logic and Sanskrit grammar, so at this point Xuanzang was learning the Kośa in its original Sanskrit, along with the fuller context of the Vaibhāṣika disputes it engaged. Discrepancies between what he knew from Paramārtha’s Chinese translation and what he was now learning encouraged him to dig more deeply and critically into not only new sources but the sources he thought he already knew. Just as was the case with the Mahāyānasaṃgraha in which Xuanzang first translated the sub-commentary, then the commentary, and finally the basic text itself, in the case of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, he first set out to translate Indian contextual material before attempting to replace the earlier Paramārtha translation with his new version. Saṃghabhadra had written two critiques of the Kośa. First Xuanzang translated Saṃghabhadra’s Revealing the Tenets of the Abhidharma piṭaka (Apidamo zang xianzong lun 阿毘達磨藏顯宗論, T no. 1563) in 40 fascicles which he worked on between April 30, 651 and November 26, 652. He then translated Saṃghabhadra’s more detailed and comprehensive critique, the aforementioned Nyāyānusāra in 80 fascicles, between February 3, 653 and August 27, 654. He was working on his translations of the Kośa verses and the Kośa with Vasubandhu’s autocommentary during the same period (T no. 1560 and T no. 1558, respectively; June 3, 651–September 13, 654), but they were released only after the Saṃghabhadra critiques. Again, this illustrates that for Xuanzang context is necessary for proper reading and understanding. The message for modern scholars is that the Kośa should be read in English translation quoted from Li, Record of the Western Regions, 62, with modifications; Sanzang fashi zhuan, T no. 2053, 50: 2.231b4–8. 18 179 tandem with the Mahāvibhāṣa and Nyāyānusāra, which, since they only survive in Chinese have been largely ignored by scholars who work with Sanskrit and/or Tibetan materials. Literal, Non-literal: Contextual At the beginning, I mentioned that Xuanzang was not the strictly literal translator he is often imagined to be, which may have surprised some of you if you have never carefully read a Xuanzang text in tandem with its Sanskrit counterpart. Examples to illustrate this would fill volumes, so the examples to follow are only a very brief sampling which could be multiplied many times over. It would also go beyond what this current paper can address to sort the ‘deviations’ from received Sanskrit counterparts into various types and further analyze, on a case by case basis, how and why Xuanzang’s texts don’t exactly match the Sanskrit—is it because our received Sanskrit version(s) are later redactions that differ from what Xuanzang was working with? Was he drawing on an exegetical tradition or principle, written or oral, that guided his modifications? Did he misunderstand the original text? Was he unduly influenced by prior translations and/ or translators in ways he failed to overcome? Since the translation process often involved the main translator orally reciting and orally translating the Indic original, with others, namely assistants, transcribing by dictation, and still others polishing, proof-reading, and comparing what was being captured in writing against prior related texts, and, in the case of Xuanzang, often turning the Chinese into neat four- or eight-character phrases, which requires padding here and abbreviating there, could deviations inadvertently have entered in this ‘transmission’ process? I am confident that given his prodigious output and the pace at which he worked, he rarely proof-read the final products, perhaps at most spot checking, or addressing concerns assistants would bring to his attention. He was too busy translating to explain the texts to his assistants in detail, trusting them to make sense of the texts they were working on with minimal explanation from him. The most famous example of this, leading to divergent com- 180 mentaries and subsequently a major political conflict, concerned his translation of Dignāga’s Nyāyamukha, a logic manual. His ten assistants on that translation each wrote their own commentary, but their lack of clear understanding is evident in the fact that each had a different interpretation from the other, often missing key points in the logic system, so that a court Daoist, Lü Cai 呂才, to one-up the Buddhists and prove he could understand anything no matter how arcane or obscure, arrogantly claimed to have outsmarted all of them and offered his own commentary. Buddhists and Daoists in the capital fought over it, outraged Buddhists submitted memorials to the emperor to censure Lü, and rancor between Buddhists and Daoists intensified throughout China until the emperor forced Xuanzang to declare one way or another whether Lü’s commentary had merit. After unsuccessfully trying to avoid passing judgement, Xuanzang finally conceded that Lü’s interpretation was baseless, so Lü lost face. Xuanzang never translated another logic text, to the detriment of the East Asian Buddhist tradition. The entire eighth fascicle of Huili’s Biography of Xuanzang documents that controversy, Huili himself being one of the people who petitioned the emperor against Lü Cai. To provide quick and clear examples in which Xuanzang can be shown to be doing something other than faithfully reproducing the Sanskrit, rather than wade into technical and complicated philological waters (such as his use of xingxiang 性相 in his Triṃśikā translation when nothing corresponds in the Sanskrit, though he unpacks this in the Cheng weishi lun as shorthand for zixing 自性 and xingxiang 行相, svabhāva and ākāra, i.e., what something is and what it does, which he uses to analyze types of consciousness, though neither term appears in the Sanskrit Triṃśikā), I will instead offer two types of illustrations. First, there are some significant differences between Xuanzang’s Heart Sūtra and the Sanskrit versions that have come down to us. Second, it can be easily shown that Xuanzang deviates from the Sanskrit when lists are given, and even something as basic as the number of items in Sanskrit and Chinese is not the same, and further the order of items do not match all the way through. Two lists from the Yogācārabhūmi will be used to illustrate this, both from the Śrāvakabhūmi section.19 181 Heart Sūtra Discrepancies Turning to the Heart Sūtra, in the Sanskrit, when Avalokiteśvara looks down at the world, he ‘sees that the five skandhas are empty of svabhāva’ (pañca-skandhās tāṃś ca svabhāva-śūnyān paśyati sma), while Xuanzang’s Chinese says only that he sees that the five skandhas are all empty (zhaojian wuyun jie kong 照見五蘊皆空). Philosophically, failing to mention svabhāva is a significant omission while adding ‘all’ 皆 is a trivial gloss. Additionally, the Sanskrit term for ‘looks down’ is a pun on Avalokiteśvara’s name: Ārya Āvalokiteśvaro bodhisattvo gambhīraṃ prajñāpāramitā-cāryāṃ caramāṇo vyavalokayati sma. The pun is lost in Chinese: 觀自在菩薩行深般若波羅蜜多. Instead of ārya Avalokitsvara, the Chinese entitles him ‘bodhisattva’ 菩薩. In the next section, the Sanskrit gives three paired phrases, while Xuanzang’s Chinese gives only two (see detailed analysis in Appendix I): Iha Śāriputra rūpaṃ śūnyatā, śūnyat'aiva rūpaṃ, rūpān na pṛthak śūnyatā, śūnyatāyā na pṛthag rūpaṃ, yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā, yā śūnyatā tad rūpaṃ. Here, Śāriputra, form is emptiness, emptiness is only form; form is not different than emptiness, emptiness is not different than form; what is form is emptiness, what is emptiness that is form. 19 Deviations in lists between Sanskrit and Chinese versions of a text is not unique to Xuanzang, but we are solely concerned with his translations in this paper. For an example of Kumārajīva deviating from the received Sanskrit Pañcaviṃśatikasāhasrikā, cf. Orsborn, ‘Something for Nothing,’ 179. 182 舍利子! 色不異空, 空不異色. 色即是空, 空即是色. Śāriputra, form is no different than emptiness, emptiness is no different than form. Form precisely is emptiness, emptiness precisely is form. The Chinese omits the first line of the Sanskrit. Further down, the Chinese says: ‘No suffering, no origination [of suffering], cessation [of suffering], nor way [to end suffering]. No wisdom and no attainment, and nothing to be attained.’ 無苦集滅道, 無聖亦無得以無所得. The Sanskrit contains an additional phrase: ‘no non-attainment’ (na duḥkha-samudaya-nirodha-mārgā na jñānaṃ na prāptir n’āprāptiḥ). Citt’āvaraṇa-nāstitvād atrasto viparyās’ātikrānto niṣṭhānirvāṇaḥ. Because an obstructed mind does not exist, he is not frightened. He has stepped over the conceptual perversions, finally attaining Nirvāṇa. 故心無罣礙. 無罣礙故, 無有恐怖. 遠離一切顛倒夢想, 究竟涅槃. Because the mind has no obstructions, having no obstructions therefore there is no fear. Completely detached from conceptually-perverted dream thoughts, this is final Nirvana. The Chinese adds ‘dream’ 夢. Whether one considers such deviations significant or trivial, at the least they indicate that Xuanzang’s text is not a strictly literal rendering of the Sanskrit as that has come down to us, and that even is such a short text which was one of Xuanzang’s own most treasured recitation texts, deviations from the Sanskrit are present. 183 Lists, Terms, and Discrepancies We now will look at two sets of lists found in the Śrāvakabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmi. While this can seem tedious, they are useful for simply and unambiguously highlighting non-literal renderings, since for the most part grammar and syntax become irrelevant and it becomes simply a matter of matching equivalents—until they fail to match. The first is a list of body parts considered impure. The Sanskrit list and Xuanzang’s translation begin in alignment, and then things grow increasingly harder to align. The Tibetan varies from both. We will not dwell on all the specifics and complexities, but just take note of their more obvious non-alignments. First, here are the texts, the Sanskrit followed by the corresponding Chinese and then Tibetan. Śrāvakabhūmi, list of internal (= in the body) impurities -II-3-b-(1)-i-(a) Ms.72a1L, Sh.203-1, P.95b5, D.79a5, N.83b1, Co.84a5, Ch.428c22 tatra pratyaśubhatā katamā / āha / pratyaśubhatādhyātmam upādāya bahirdhā copādāya veditavyā // tatrādhyātmam upādāya / tadyathā keśā, romāṇi, nakhā, dantā, rajaḥ, (Śbh II 60) malaṃ, tvak, māṃsaṃ, asthi, snāyu, sirā, vṛkkā, hṛdayaṃ, plīhakaṃ, klomam, antrāṇi, antraguṇaḥ, āmāśayaṃ, pakvāśayaṃ, yakṛt, purīṣam, aśru, svedaḥ, kheṭaḥ, śiṅghāṇakaṃ, vasā, lasīkā, majjā, medaḥ, pittaṃ, śleṣmā, pūyaḥ, śoṇitam, mastakaṃ, mastakaluṅgaṃ, prasrāvaḥ //20 Numbering the items for cross-referencing purposes: tatrādhyātmam upādāya / tadyathā keśā1, romāṇi2, nakhā3, dantā4, rajo5, malam6, tvak7, māṁsam8, asthi9, snāyu10, sirā11, vṛkkā12, hṛdayam13, plīhakam14, kloman15, antrāṇi16, antraguṇaḥ17, āmāśayam18, pakvāśayam19, yakṛt20**, purīṣam21, aśru22, svedaḥ23, kheṭaḥ24, śiṁghāṇakam25, 20 Matsunami, Śrāvakabhūmi, 58–60. 184 vasā26, lasīkā27, majjā28, medaḥ29, pittam30, śleṣmā31, pūyaḥ32, śoṇitam33, mastakaṁ34, mastaka-luṁgam35, prasrāvaḥ36 / **The Shukla edition has mūtraṃ (water from the kidneys, urine) here instead of yakṛt.21 The corresponding Chinese passage in Xuanzang’s translation reads: 云何依內朽穢不淨謂內身中髮毛爪齒塵垢皮肉骸骨筋脈心膽肝肺大腸小腸生藏熟藏肚胃髀/脾腎膿血熱痰肪膏肌髓腦膜洟唾淚汗屎尿如是等類名為依內朽穢不淨 22 This is sometimes parsed this way: 云何依內, 朽穢不淨? 謂內身中, 髮、毛、爪、齒、塵、垢、皮、肉、骸、骨、筋、脈、心、膽、肝、肺、大腸、小腸、生藏、熟藏、肚、胃、髀 [or 脾 ]、腎、膿、血、熱、痰、肪、膏、肌、髓、腦、膜、洟、唾、淚、汗、屎、尿. 如是等類、名為依內朽穢不淨. While the Sanskrit lists 36 items, this way of parsing the Chinese yields 40 distinct items. The Tibetan text seems to contain 35 items. བརྟེན་པ་ཡིན་པར་རིག་པར་བྱའོ། །དེ་ལ་ནང་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་མི་གཙང་བའི་མི་སྡུག་པ་ཉིད་གང་ཞེ་ན། འདི་ ལྟ་སྟེ། སྒྲ་དང༌། སྤུ་དང༌། སེན་མོ་དང༌། སོ་དང༌། གློག་པ་དང༌། དྲི་མ་དང༌། པགས་པ་དང༌། ཤ་དང༌། རུས་པ་དང༌། ཆུ་རྒྱུས་དང༌། རྩ་དང༌། མཁལ་མ་དང༌། སྙིང་ དང༑ མཆིན་པ་དང༌། གློ་བ་དང༌། རྒྱུ་མ་དང༌། གཉེ་མ་དང༌། ཕོ་བ་དང༌། ལོང་ཀ་དང༌། མཆེར་བ་དང༌། ཕྱི་ས་དང༌། མཆི་མ་དང༌། རྡུལ་དང༌། མཆིལ་མ་དང༌། སྣབས་དང༌། ཞག་དང༌། ཆུ་སར་དང༌། རྐང་དང་ ཚིལ་དང་མཁྲིས་པ་དང༌། བད་ཀན་དང༌། རྣག་དང༌། 21 22 Shukla, Śrāvakabhūmi of Acarya Asanga, 203. Yuqieshi di lun 瑜伽師地論, T no. 1579, 30: 26.428c24–28. 185 ཁྲག་དང༌། གླད་སྤྲི་དང༌། གླད་རྒྱས་དང༌། གཅིན་དང༌། དེ་ལྟ་བུ་དང་མཐུན་པ་དག་ནི་ནང་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་ མི་གཙང་བའི་མི་སྡུག་པ་ཉིད་ཡིན་པར་རིག་པར་བྱའོ་།དེ་ལ་ཕྱི་རོལ་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་མི་གཙང་བའི་མི་སྡིག་ པ་ཉིད་གང་ཞེ་ན། འདི་ལྟ་སྟེ། རྣམ་པར་བསྡོས་པ་དང༌། རྣམ་པར་རྣགས་ Additionally, while the Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan lists initially begin with corresponding items in the same order, they soon go out of easy alignment. The numbering, S for Sanskrit (e.g., S1 = Sanskrit 1); C for Chinese (C1, etc.); T for Tibetan: pratyaśubhatādhyātmam upādāya 依內朽穢不淨, 謂內身中 nang la brten pa Inner bases of gang zhe na impurity S1. keśā C1. fa 髮 T1. སྐྲ་ skra fine hair, head hair S2. romāṇi C2. mao 毛 T2. སྤུ་ spu body hair S3. nakhā C3. zhao 爪 T3. སེན་མོ་ sen mo nails S4. dantā C4. chi 齒 T4. སོ་ so teeth C5. chen 塵 (dust particles) T5. གློག་པ་ glog pa, (ulcer, sore, see T22) specks of dirt S6. malam C6. gou 垢 T6. དྲི་མ་ dri ma stain, taint S7. tvak C7. pi 皮 T7. པགས་པ་ pags pa skin S8. māṁsam C8. rou 肉 T8. ཤ་ stha flesh S9. asthi C9. hai 骸 (and 10. 骨 gu) T9. རུས་པ་ rus pa bones S5. rajas (impurity, dirt, dust, any small particle of matter; the dust or pollen of flowers) S10. snāyu C10. jin 筋 T10. ཆུ་རྒྱུས་ chu rgyus muscles, tendons, sinews, ligaments S11. sirā C11. mai 脈 T11. རྩ་ rtsa (channels, vessels) blood vessels 186 依內朽穢不淨, 謂內身中 nang la brten pa Inner bases of gang zhe na impurity [Ch. includes kidneys as C24 shen 腎 ] T12. མཁལ་ མ་ mkhal ma (kidneys) ** C12. xin 心 T13. སྙིང་ snying heart --[but cf. C22, alternate] T14. མཆིན་པ་ mchin ** pa (liver, midriff); but cf. T20 below --- C13. dan 膽 (gall bladder) --- ** S15. kloman C15. fei 肺 T15. གློ་བ་ glo ba lungs S16. antrāṇi C16. dachang T17. གཉེ་མ་ gnye ma large intestine S17. antraguṇaḥ C17. xiaochang T16. རྒྱུ་མ rgyu ma small intestine S18. āmāśayam (digesting nutrients) C18. shengcang 生藏 “rawstorage” --- āma is an technical Indian medical term; āmāśayam digestive action associated with the stomach and upper torso C19. shucang --- pakva is a related technical term; pakvāśayam is assoc. with the large intestine and lower torso T19. ལོང་ཀ་ long ka, intestines, entrails, guts bowels, abdomen pratyaśubhatādhyātmam upādāya S12. vṛkkā (kidneys) S13. hṛdayam S14. plīhakam (spleen) S19. pakvāśayam (digested nutrients) 大腸小腸熟藏 ‘processed- storage’ --- C20. du 肚 bowels/abdomen 187 pratyaśubhatādhyātmam upādāya --- --- 依內朽穢不淨, 謂內身中 C21. wei 胃 stomach C22. bi 髀 buttocks/thigh [more likely: pi 脾 , spleen] nang la brten pa Inner bases of gang zhe na impurity T18. ཕོ་བ pho ba, (stomach, ruminating stomach) stomach --- [if 脾 , then this would be ‘spleen’ corresponding to S#14 plīhakam. Stomach and spleen 胃脾 are commonly paired in Chinese medicine.] S20. yakṛt C14. gan 肝 T20. མཆེར་བ mcher pa (spleen) liver S21. purīṣam C38. shi 屎 T21. ཕྱི་ས་ phyi sa excrement S22. aśru C36. lei 淚 T22. མཆི་མ་ mchi ma tears S23. svedaḥ C37. han 汗 Tib has T23. རྡུལ་ rdul, dirt particle (rajas) here, but since it had 4. གློག་པ་ glog pa, ulcer, sore, for rajas above, it is unclear how the translator duplicated rajas here or mistook sveda for rajas. This should probably be amended to རྔུལ་དང་། rngul ‘perspiration’. sweat --- C35. tuo 唾 T24. མཆིལ་མ་ mchil saliva ma S24. kheṭaḥ C34. ti 洟 T25. སྣབས་ snabs nasal mucuous 188 pratyaśubhatādhyātmam upādāya 依內朽穢不淨, 謂內身中 nang la brten pa Inner bases of gang zhe na impurity How the next few items align is unclear. These are only suggestions. S25. śiṁghāṇakam S26. vasā (marrow; fat, grease, lard, melted fat, any fatty or oily substance) S27. lasīkā (watery humour in the body, lymph, serum; a tendon, muscle) S28. majjā (marrow, urinary, semen producing) S29. medaḥ C29. gao 膏 T26. ཞག་ zhag (grease, oil [liquid] fat/ butter; 2) body oil; 3) blood clot) greasy fat (in Ch. medicine, 膏 can be the fatty tissue surrounding organs, or stuff that lubricates joint capsules) C31. sui 髓 T28. རྐང་ rkang marrow T27. chu sar (lymph; several types of disease involving fluids in the joints causing arthritis or itching, sores, e.g. leprosy) lymph; watery humour C23. shen 腎 kidneys/testes Urogenital system. neishen 內腎 = kidneys, waishen 外腎 =testes [T27a. If ཆུ་ས་ chu sa is amended to chu so, ‘bladder, external and internal urinary organs’, then it would correspond with the meaning of majjā as urinary, semen producing, and the Chinese 腎 with similar meaning. ‘Marrow’ was already expressed by vasā / 髓 / rkang (cf. S26; C31; T28) ?? C28. fang 肪 T29. ཚིལ་ tshil fat C30. ji 肌 (muscle) / [alt: fei 肥 (fat)] 189 pratyaśubhatādhyātmam upādāya 依內朽穢不淨, 謂內身中 nang la brten pa Inner bases of gang zhe na impurity S30. pittam C26. re 熱 (heat/ fever) T30. མཁྲིས་པ་ mkhris pa (bile) ‘heat’ doṣa, ‘bilious humor’ S31. śleṣmā C27. tan 痰 (phlegm/mucous) T31. བད་ཀན་ bad kan (phlegm) ‘phlegmatic’ doṣa S32. pūyaḥ C24. nong 膿 T32. རྣག་ rnag pus S33. śoṇitam C25. xue 血 T33. ཁྲག་ khrag blood S34. mastakaṁ C32. nao 腦 T34. གླད་སྤྲི་ glad spri brain S35. mastaka-luṁgam C33. mo 膜 (membrane) T35. གླད་རྒྱས་ glad rgyas brain membrane S36. prasrāvaḥ C39. niao 尿 T36. གཅིན་ gcin urine What happens at S18 and S19, āmāśayam and pakvāśayam, is interesting. Xuanzang’s Chinese translation first offers neologisms for each, shengcang 生藏 and shucang 熟藏, respectively, and then, in addition offers two glosses on them, du 肚 bowels, abdomen and 胃 stomach. Āma is food in initial stages of digestion, i.e., ‘raw’ and being broken down, associated with the stomach but understood to disperse esp. in the upper body. Pakva, meaning ‘matured food’, is food further digested, ‘mature’, ‘processed’, and nearing time of expulsion from the body; it is associated with the large intestine and lower torso. Āśaya means a vessel or receptacle in the body. In Chinese, the contrast between sheng 生 and re 熟 similarly signals ‘raw’ vs. ‘processed’. So those terms are apt; and cang 藏, ‘storage’ was used in Chinese medical literature for organ systems, so that too is apt. The Tibetan does not attempt to generate a technical neologism for these distinctly Indian medical terms, but instead glosses them in the same manner as Xuanzang’s gloss, but while Xuanzang’s glosses reversed the order from the Sanskrit, the Tibetan retains the Sanskrit order. If, as some recensions record, C22 is pi 脾 spleen, instead of bi 髀 190 buttocks/thigh, then the Chinese has a corresponding term for S14, plīhakam (spleen); the Tibetan counterpart at T20, mcher pa, is closer to the place in the Sanskrit order than the Chinese, but still not precisely aligned. For purposes of further comparison, first a list gives the Sanskrit terms in the order they appear in the extant Sanskrit text, with likely Chinese and Tibetan equivalents alongside. Then another list, this time with the Chinese order, and the Sanskrit and Tibetan bracketed alongside. Finally, the Tibetan list, with Sanskrit and Chinese bracketed alongside. Certain terms only appear on one or two of the lists; e.g. Chinese and Tibetan have ‘saliva’, but the Sanskrit has no corresponding term; ‘gall bladder’ only appears in Chinese, etc. List in order of Sanskrit terms (with attempted Chinese matching): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. keśā; fa 髮, fine hair; T1. སྐྲ་ skra, head hair romāṇi; mao 毛, coarse hair; T2. སྤུ་ spu, body hair nakhā; zhao 爪, nails; T3. སེན་མོ་ sen mo dantā; chi 齒, teeth; T4. སོ་ so rajo; chen 塵, dust; T5. གློག་པ་ glog pa, ulcer, sore [cf. T23. རྡུལ་ rdul, dirt particle (rajas)] malam; gou 垢, dirt; T6. དྲི་མ་ dri ma, stain, taint tvak; pi 皮, skin; T7. པགས་པ་ pags pa māṁsam; rou 肉, flesh; T8. ཤ་ stha asthi; hai 骸, skeleton (and 10. 骨 gu) bones; T9. རུས་པ་ rus pa, bone snāyu; jin 筋, muscles/tendons; T10. ཆུ་རྒྱུས་ chu rgyus, sinews, ligaments sirā; mai 脈, blood vessels; T11. རྩ་ rtsa, channels/vessels vṛkkā; (can mean ‘kidneys’ or ‘heart’, so either C24. shen 腎 kidneys/testes, or compound with next term, hṛdayam; the Tibetan treats it as ‘kidneys’ – T12. མཁལ་མ་ mkhal ma) hṛdayam; xin 心, heart; T13. སྙིང་ snying plīhakam (spleen); (no obvious corresponding term here in Chinese, which has 14. dan 膽, gall bladder and 15. gan 肝, liver; though, as mentioned above, if C22 is pi 脾, spleen, instead of bi 髀, buttocks/thigh, then ‘spleen’ does appear in Chinese, but in a different location on the list. ‘Liver’ is S20 [yakṛt] below, so the numbering and order between the differ- 191 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ent versions is beginning to diverge at this point. Tibetan has T14. མཆིན་པ་ mchin pa, liver) kloman; [C15] fei 肺, lungs; T15. གློ་བ་ glo ba antrāṇi; [C16] dachang 大腸, large intestine; T17. གཉེ་མ་ gnye ma, colon antraguṇaḥ; [C17] xiaochang 小腸; T16. རྒྱུ་མ rgyu ma, intestines, bowels (Tibetan reverses the order of large and small intestine) āmāśayam ‘digesting nutrients’; [C18] shengcang 生藏 ‘raw-storage’; T18. ཕོ་བ pho ba, stomach, ruminating stomach pakvāśayam ‘digested nutrients’; [C20] shucang 熟藏 ‘processed-storage’; T19. ལོང་ཀ་ long ka, intestines, entrails, guts (It might be that the Tibetan interprets āmāśayam and pakvāśayam as basic and secondary stomachs, like a ruminating animal! But the Chinese has terms meaning ‘stomach’ and ‘bowels, entrails’ that do not correspond to anything in Sanskrit, so pho ba and long ka might be intended as parallels to those Chinese terms instead of shaky renderings of āmāśayam and pakvāśayam. If so, that might suggest that the Tibetan translators had an eye on the Chinese as well as the Sanskrit, or that a later redactor consulted the Chinese and modified accordingly. See below.) yakṛt; [C14] gan 肝, liver; cf. S14. plīhakam; Tibetan has T20. མཆེར་བ་ mcher pa here meaning spleen purīṣam; [C38] shi 屎, excrement; T21. ཕྱི་ས་ phyi sa aśru; [C36] ti 淚, tears; T22. མཆི་མ་ mchi ma svedaḥ; [C37] han 汗, sweat (Tibetan has T23. རྡུལ་ rdul, dirt particle [rajas] here, but since it had T5 གློག་པ་ glog pa, ulcer, sore, for rajas above, it is unclear how the translator duplicated rajas here or mistook sveda for rajas.) (The Tibetan has T24. མཆིལ་མ་ mchil ma, saliva, here; the Chinese has C35. tuo 唾, saliva later; but the Sanskrit lacks any term for ‘saliva’) kheṭaḥ; [C34] ti 洟, nasal mucous; T25. སྣབས་ snabs (How the next few items align is unclear) śiṁghāṇakam; [C30] gao 膏, greasy fat; T26. ཞག་ zhag, 1) grease, oil [liquid] fat/ butter; 2) body oil; 3) blood clot 192 26. vasā = marrow, fat, grease, lard, melted fat, any fatty or oily substance; [C31] sui 髓, marrow; T28. རྐང་ rkang, marrow 27. lasīkā = watery humour in the body, lymph, serum; a tendon, muscle; [C30] ji 肌, muscle tissue (alt. fei 肥 = fat) ; T27. ཆུ་སེར་ chu s[e]r = lymph fluid 28. majjā = marrow, urinary, semen producing; [C23] shen 腎, kidneys/testes (?) 29. medaḥ; C28. fang 肪, fat; T29. ཚིལ་ tshil, grease, fat 30. pittam = ‘heat’ doṣa, ‘bilious humous’; [C26] re 熱, heat/ 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. fever; T30. མཁྲིས་པ་ mkhris pa, bile śleṣmā = ‘phlegmatic’ doṣa; [C27] tan 痰, phlegm/mucous; T31. བད་ཀན་ bad kan, phlegm pūyaḥ; [C24] nong 膿, pus; T32. རྣག་ rnag śoṇitam; [C25] xue 血, blood; T33. ཁྲག་ khrag mastakaṁ; [C32] nao 腦, brain; T34. གླད་སྤྲི་ glad spri = brain mastaka-luṁgam = membrane of the brain; [C33] mo 膜, membrane; T35. གླད་རྒྱས་ glad rgyas, brain membrane prasrāvaḥ; [C39] niao 尿, urine; T36. གཅིན་ gcin, urine The Chinese order, with attempted Sanskrit and Tibetan equivalents: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. fa 髮, fine hair (keśā; T skra) mao 毛, coarse hair (romāṇi; T spu) zhao 爪, nails (nakhā; T sen mo) chi 齒, teeth (dantā; T so) chen 塵, dust (rajo = rajas = impurity, dirt, dust, any small particle of matter; the dust or pollen of flowers; T glog pa = ulcer, sore) gou 垢, dirt (malam = [in med.] any bodily excretion or secretion (especially those of the dhātus q.v., described as phlegm from chyle, bile from the blood, nose mucus and ear wax from the flesh, perspiration from the fat, nails and hair from the bones, rheum of the eye from the brain); T dri ma = stain, taint pi 皮, skin (tvak = tvac = skin; T pags pa) rou 肉, flesh (māṁsam = flesh, meat; T stha) hai 骸, skeleton (asthi = a bone; T rus pa) 193 10. gu 骨, bones (While the Chinese seems to list two separate ‘bone’ items, since the Sanskrit and Tibetan both only offer one ‘bone’ term, we should probably take haigu 骸骨 as a compound for ‘bones, skeleton’. That would reduce the count by one, but for this exercise we will follow the standard parsing and retain the non-compounded numbering. In the chart, I have treated haigu 骸骨 and renumbered accordingly, so the following numbers will be one number higher than the chart.) 11. jin 筋, muscles/tendons (snāyu = any sinew or ligament in the human and animal body, tendon, muscle, nerve, vein; [T10] chu rgyus) 12. mai 脈, blood vessels (sirā =any tubular vessel of the body, a nerve, vein, artery, tendon; [T11] rtsa, channels/vessels) 13. xin 心, heart ([vṛkkā?]-hṛdayam = the heart; [T12] snying) 14. dan 膽, gall bladder (No term in Sanskrit or Tibetan corresponds. Sanskrit has plīhakam = spleen; the Chinese alternate for C22 bi 髀 (thigh/ buttocks) is pi 脾, spleen, and [T20] is mcher pa, spleen.) 15. gan 肝, liver ([S20] yakṛt = the liver; [T13] mchin pa, liver 16. fei 肺, lungs ([S15] kloman = lungs; [T15] glo ba) 17. dachang 大腸, large intestine (antrāṇi = intestine, entrails; [T17] gnye ma) 18. xiaochang 小腸, small intestine (antraguṇaḥ; [T16] rgyu ma) 19. shengcang 生藏, raw-storage (āmāśayam = latent nutrients being digested [no Tib]) 20. shucang 熟藏, processed-storage (pakvāśayam = digested nutrients [no Tib]) 21. du 肚, bowels/abdomen [no Skt, but [T19] long ka, intestines, entrails, guts] 22. wei 胃, stomach [no Skt, but [T18] pho ba, stomach] 23. bi 髀, buttocks/thigh [if pi 脾, then this would be spleen] 24. shen 腎, kidneys/testes (majjā ? = urinary, marrow producing semen [S28]; if intended as a translation for 12. vṛkkā [S12]; [T12 mkhal ma], then the Chinese appears in an odd location.) 25. nong 膿, pus (pūyaḥ = pus [S32]; [T31] rnag) 26. xue 血, blood (śoṇitam = blood [S33]; [T33] khrag) 194 27. re 熱, heat/fever (pittam = the bilious humour (one of the three humours [cf. kapha and vāyu] or that secreted between the stomach and bowels and flowing through the liver and permeating spleen, heart, eyes, and skin; its chief quality is heat [S30]; [T30] mkhris pa, bile) 28. tan 痰, phlegm/mucous (śleṣmā = phlegm, mucus, rheum, the phlegmatic humour (one of the three humours of the body [S31]; T[31] bad kan, phlegm) (The list includes two of the three doṣas: pitta and śleṣmā, but omits kapha. Both the Chinese and Tibetan offer interpretive translations: pitta = Chinese ‘heat’, Tibetan ‘bile’; śleṣmā = Chinese and Tibetan ‘phlegm’) 29. fang 肪, fat (medaḥ = fat [S29]; [T29] tshil) 30. gao 膏, greasy fat (śiṁghāṇakam [S25]; [T26] zhag) 31. ji 肌 [alt. fei 肥 = fat] muscle tissue (lasīkā = watery humour in the body, lymph, serum; a tendon, muscle [S27]; [T27] chu sar) 32. sui 髓, marrow (vasā = marrow, fat, grease, lard, suet, melted fat, any fatty or oily substance; brain [S26]) (Tibetan has three terms indicating ‘fat, grease’, etc. and it is unclear which of the Sanskrit or Chinese terms indicating something similar each is meant to indicate: T26 zhag, T27a chu sa, T29 tshil) 33. nao 腦, brain (mastakaṁ = the head, skull [S34]; [T34] glad spri) 34. mo 膜, membrane (mastaka-luṁgam = the membrane of the brain [#35]; [T35] glad rgyas) 35. ti 洟, nasal mucous (kheṭaḥ = snot [S24]; [T25] snabs) 36. tuo 唾, saliva (Not in Sanskrit, but [T24] mchil ma = saliva) 37. lei 淚, tears (aśru = tears [S22]; [T22] mchi ma) 38. han 汗, sweat (svedaḥ = sweat [S23]; omitted in T) 39. shi 屎, excrement (purīṣam = feces, excrement [S21]; [T21] phyi sa) 40. niao 尿, urine (prasrāvaḥ = urine [S36]; [T36] gcin) 如是等類, 名為依內朽穢不淨. These are what is called the basis of internal decay and impurity. 195 Two of the three doṣas appear, but kapha is omitted. S30. pittam = ‘heat’ doṣa, ‘bilious humous’, [C27] re 熱, heat/fever S31. śleṣmā = ‘phlegmatic’ doṣa, [C28] tan 痰, phlegm/mucous Tibetan order: (omits 1. keśā, fa 髮, fine hair) 1. སྤུ་ spu, body hair (romāṇi) 2. སེན་མོ་ sen mo, nails (nakhā) 3. སོ་ so, tooth/teeth (dantā) 4. གློག་པ་ glog pa, ulcer, sore (for rajas) 5. དྲི་མ་ dri ma, stain, taint (for malam) 6. པགས་པ་ pags pa, skin (tvac/tvak) 7. ཤ་ stha, flesh (māṁsam) 8. རུས་པ་ rus pa, bone (asthi) 9. ཆུ་རྒྱུས་ chu rgyus, sinews, ligaments (snāyu) 10. རྩ་ rtsa, channels/vessels (sirā = blood vessels) 11. མཁལ་མ་ mkhal ma, kidneys (vṛkkā) 12. སྙིང་ snying, heart (hṛdayam) ([14] dan 膽, gall bladder: Neither the Sanskrit nor Tibetan mention gall bladder; gall bladder was an important organ system in Chinese medicine since ancient times, but unknown in Indian medicine until late medieval times.) 13. མཆིན་པ་ mchin pa, liver (yakṛt) 14. གློ་བ་ glo ba, lungs (kloman) 15. རྒྱུ་མ rgyu ma, intestines, bowels (18. xiaochang 小腸, small intestine [antraguṇaḥ]) 16. གཉེ་མ་ gnye ma, colon (17. dachang 大腸, large intestine [antrāṇi = intestine, entrails] reversing order of small and large intestines) 17. ཕོ་བ pho ba, stomach, ruminating stomach (replaces: [19] shengcang 生藏, life-store [āmāśayam = latent nutrients being digested]; [20] shucang 熟藏, maturation-store [pakvāśayam = digested nutrients]) 18. ལོང་ཀ་ long ka, intestines, entrails, guts (pakvāśayam?) (Again, it might be that the Tibetan interprets āmāśayam and pakvāśayam as basic and secondary stomachs, like a ruminating animal. However, the Chinese lists, apart from āmāśayam 196 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. and pakvāśayam, have two items not found in Sanskrit, but that correspond to pho ba and long ka: C20. du 肚, bowels/ abdomen and C21. wei 胃, stomach. This raises the possibility that the Sanskrit list as now extant is incomplete and that it originally contained terms for stomach and bowels, preserved in both Chinese and Tibetan, albeit is slightly different locations on the list. If so, then the Tibetan translation failed to include any equivalents for āmāśayam and pakvāśayam, which, given their somewhat unique technical application to Indian medical theory, may simply be a matter of prudently choosing to ignore terms too difficult to successfully translate. Comparable lists of ‘unpleasant’ body parts are already given in several Nikāyas (e.g. 29. Udāyīsutta of Aṅguttara Nikāya 6.3.29, Bhāradvājasutta of Saṃyutta Nikāya 35.13.127, etc.), which tend to include udariyaṃ, ‘undigested food’ or ‘stomach contents’, but do not list āma and pakva as distinct items, so udariya may have expanded into differing Sanskrit expanded versions.) མཆེར་བ་ mcher pa, spleen ཕྱི་ས་ phyi sa, excrement (purīṣam) (S21. in Sanskrit, C38. in Chinese) མཆི་མ་ mchi ma, tears (aśru) རྡུལ་ rdul, dirt particle (rajas) (This is where S23. svedaḥ, [C37] 汗 sweat appear) མཆིལ་མ་ mchil ma, saliva སྣབས་ snabs, nasal mucous (kheṭaḥ) ཞག་ zhag, grease, oil (liquid) fat/ butter; 2) body oil; 3) blood clot (śiṁghāṇakam? lasīkā? vasā?) ཆུ་སེར་ chu ser (S27. lasīkā = watery humour in the body, lymph, serum) རྐང་ rkang, marrow (S26. *vasā? S28. majjā?) ཚིལ་ tshil, grease, fat (S29. medaḥ; or śiṁghāṇakam? lasīkā? vasā?) མཁྲིས་པ་ mkhris pa, bile (S30. pitta) བད་ཀན་ bad kan, phlegm (S31. śleṣmā) རྣག་ rnag, pus (S32. pūyaḥ) ཁྲག་ khrag, blood (S33. śoṇitam) གླད་སྤྲི་ glad spri, brain (S34. mastakaṁ) 197 34. གླད་རྒྱས་ glad rgyas, brain membrane (S35. mastaka-luṁgam) 35. གཅིན་ gcin, urine (S36. prasrāvaḥ) Why the discrepancies? Some can be attributed to accommodating differences in medical and anatomical understandings between the three cultures during the times of translation. While the gall bladder played an important role in Chinese medicine as one of the internal organ systems, Indian sources fail to mention it at all until much later than the time when the Yogācārabhūmi was written. Why would Xuanzang add the gall bladder when the Sanskrit never mentioned it? Perhaps to meet expectations of his Chinese audience, with their knowledge of medicine and anatomy, so that they wouldn’t raise doubts about limitations in Indian medical knowledge, and by extension, of other basic components of reality. That of course doesn’t explain the other discrepancies, and the rearrangement of the order. Similar lists of bodily impurities appear in other Buddhist texts, and they tend to vary from each other in some details, so it is not inconceivable that Xuanzang’s Sanskrit text was different from the version that came down to us. But there are too many to simply attribute it to that. Again, to find a Sanskrit text mentioning a gall bladder would have been anomalous at that time. Our task here is not to solve the incommensurables between these three lists, but merely to point out that Xuanzang’s version is not a one-for-one strictly literal version of what he read in Sanskrit. In addition to listing items in a different order, he included an item important in Chinese medicine at that time but unknown in Indian medicine: the gall bladder. Turning to the next list, which is shorter, discrepancies again appear, and, once again, the Chinese list is longer than the Sanskrit. These are types of vyāyāma, ‘exertions’, or, as the context makes clear, forms of strenuous exercise. Xuanzang renders vyāyāma with the unusual term juewu 角武 (combative martial exercises). One presumes he intends jue (second tone) rather than jiao (‘horn’) meaning ‘dispute, contend, fight over’, rather than ‘horn’, so that the compound jue wu would mean something like physical competitions that might have applications in combat. We will return to the ‘martial’ implication once the list has been presented. 198 The passage reads: 隨力隨能, 食噉肥膩. 增房補益, 色香味具, 精妙飲食. 過今夜分, 至於明日, 於角武事, 當有力能. 所謂按摩, 拍毱托石, 跳躑蹴蹋, 攘臂扼腕, 揮戈擊劍, 伏弩控弦, 投輪擲索. 依如是等, 諸角武事. 當得勇健, 膚體充實. 長夜無病, 久時少壯. 不速衰老, 壽命長遠. 能多噉食, 數數食已. 能正消化, 除諸疾患. 如是為於無病憍逸, 少壯憍逸. 長壽憍逸, 而食所食. 既角武已, 復作是思.23 But here we are only concerned with the actual list of exercises. 於角武事, 當有力能. 所謂按摩、拍毱、托石、跳躑、蹴蹋、攘臂、扼腕、揮戈、擊劍、伏弩、控弦、投輪、擲索. 依如是等, 諸角武事. The corresponding Sanskrit passage reads: pratibalā vyāyāmakaraṇaḥ, yadutātatikriyayā vā, nirghātena, vyāyāmaśilayā vā, ulloṭhanena vā, pṛthivīkhātena vā, bāhuvyāyāmena vā, pādāvaṣṭambhanena vā, plavanena vā laṅghanena vā cakravyāyāmena vā / taṃ ca punar vyāyāmaṃ… The following chart aligns them to the extent they can be aligned. Sanskrit Sanskrit meaning Wayman’s rendering Chinese meaning Chinese vyāyāmakaraṇaḥ Combative strenuous exercise the skill of athletic exercise24 Combative martial activities / exercises, by which one becomes strong Juewu shi A dang you lineng 2 yaduta ātatīkriyayā Drawing a vā bow Cf. L and M drawing [the bow] 3 nirghātena 1 23 24 ‘destroying’ rubbing (sic) (nirghāta [the body] ‘destroy’ > nirgharṣaṇa ? ‘rubbing, friction’25 角武事當有力能 B massage anmo 按摩 C Yuqieshi di lun, T no. 1579, 30: 23.409c8–17. This column follows Wayman, Analysis of the Śrāvakabhūmi Manuscript, 156. 199 Sanskrit Sanskrit meaning 4 vyāyāmaśilayā vā vyāyāmaśilayā lifting the = exercising contest with a stone, stone Cf. E 5 ulloṭhanena vā Rolling on the ground? Kicking a ball to prevent it from dropping paiju 拍毱 D 6 pṛthivīkhātena vā Excavating, digging the Carrying stones digging up the soil (weight lifting) ground tuoshi 托石 E 7 bāhuvyāyāmena vā Exercising contesting arms (or with arm upper body) = H 攘臂 Leaping, jumping tiaozhi 跳躑 F 8 pādāvaṣṭambhanena Kicking (lit. running vā resolute foot) (= I stomping) Kicking and stomping cuta 蹴蹋 G 9 plavanena vā rangbi 10 laṅghanena vā 25 Wayman’s rendering Chinese meaning Chinese [see E] swimming swimming Raising hands (to fight); roll up sleeves to fight, to force others, cf. WB-DDJ 38 攘臂 H Leaping, jumping over = F 蹴蹋 jumping Stomping = ewan pādāvaṣṭambhana? 扼腕 I Brandishing a spear huige 揮戈 J Fencing (lit. striking with a sword jijian 擊劍 K Loading a crossbow funu L Wayman suggests nirghātena > nirghaṭṭena. 伏弩 200 Sanskrit Sanskrit meaning Wayman’s rendering 11 cakravyāyāmena vā Wheel exercise or contesting there Chinese meaning Chinese Drawing a bow kongxian M 控弦 Throwing a wheel, toulun discus? 投輪 N zhisuo O Casting a rope 擲索 Alex Wayman’s translation of the relevant portion:26 Not for the purpose of intoxication, not for the purpose of smartening, not for the purpose of embellishment means—a case in point— those with enjoyment of passions, who eat food thinking: ‘Today we are eating food that is of large quantity, has oily power as satisfying as possible, is nourishing, nutritious, has perfect color, perfect odor, perfect taste, is heated. When night is past, we shall be capable, be powerful, have the skill of athletic exercise, namely, for drawing [the bow], rubbing [the body], lifting the contest stone, digging the soil, contesting with arm, running, swimming, jumping, or contesting there; and, furthermore, having taken recourse to that athletic exercise, we shall be strong, have athletic bodies, be free from illness for serious purposes (dīkṣaṃ); and for a long time that strength will cleave to us, and not speedily will disfigurements overcome the body of old age; and we shall live for a very long time, and we shall be able to eat much; and there will be proper transformation of what is eaten, and there will be effected a reduction of faults.’ Thus one eats for the purpose of intoxication with freedom from illness, intoxication with youth, intoxication with life. Wayman seems to understand pādāvaṣṭambhanena as ‘running’ 26 Wayman, Analysis of the Śrāvakabhūmi Manuscript, 156. 201 and, I think perhaps correctly, plavana as ‘swimming’ (one of its meanings, others being jumping, stooping over, etc.), though Xuanzang doesn’t mention swimming (he has two different compounds which each suggest jumping, so he seems to have read plavana and laṅghana as two types of jumping). Wayman seems to ignore cakravyāyāmena (wheel exercise?) or simply takes it as ‘contesting’. Now, for contrast, we offer a chart that follows the Chinese order of items. That, as with the example of the body parts, the lists are so misaligned that cross-referencing the Sanskrit and Chinese is not simple, is the main point. The chart follows Xuanzang’s order: 於角武事當有力能所謂 1 按摩 2 拍毱 3 托石 4 跳躑 One will become strong pratibalā through combative27 vyāyāmakaraṇaḥ, martial activities anmo massage Nirghātena (2) (nirgharṣaṇa?)28 One is strengthened by strenuous exercise ‘massage’ (rubbing the body) paiju Kicking a ball to prevent it from dropping tuoshi Carrying a stone (weight lifting) tiaozhi leaping, jumping vyāyāmaśilayā vā, (3) ulloṭhanena vā, (4) pṛthivīkhātena vā (5) Rolling around, digging plavanena (8) vā laṅghanena (9) vā Swimming, jumping As explained above, 角 when pronounced jue rather than the more common jiao, means ‘dispute, contend, fight over’; sv. 角 in Kroll, Student’s Dictionary. 28 Nirghātena (‘destruction’) is clearly an error, probably for something like nirgharṣaṇa, since the Chinese and Tibetan suggest the term means massage or body rub. Wayman suggests that nirghātena be changed to nirghaṭṭena, I’m guessing to derive from āghaṭṭana, friction, rubbing. lus mnye ba means to rub the skin, i.e., massage and anmo 按摩 clearly means ‘massage’. 27 202 於角武事當有力能 5 蹴蹋 6 攘臂 7 扼腕 8 揮戈 9 擊劍 10 伏弩 11 控弦 12 投輪 13 擲索 One will become strong pratibalā through combative27 vyāyāmakaraṇaḥ, martial activities One is strengthened by strenuous exercise cuta kicking and stomping pādāvaṣṭambhanena vā (7) Running? rangbi Bare arms to fight bāhuvyāyāmena vā (6) Exercising arms (or upper body) ewan grabbing the wrists Grappling? huige Brandishing spears jijian Striking with a sword (fencing) funu Pulling a crossbow yadutātatikriyayā vā, (1) kongxian Drawing a long bow ditto toulun Throwing a wheel cakravyāyāmena vā (10) Wheel exercise zhisuo Casting rope Xuanzang lists twelve things, the Sanskrit only has ten. The order in the Sanskrit is in parentheses after the Sanskrit term. But with this list, the additional Chinese items are easier to explain. The extra two can be attributed to Xuanzang splitting two items into two separate items: ‘drawing a bow’ he splits into drawing a crossbow and drawing a longbow, and the upper-body or arm work he breaks into what may be boxing and wrestling. There are items with no parallels — the Sanskrit terms for rolling around and digging have no Chinese counterpart, and the Chinese paiju 拍毱 has no obvious Sanskrit counterpart. Plavana has several meanings, including to jump and to swim. 203 Xuanzang seems to have perhaps taken the former meaning, while it is possibly the latter was implied by Asaṅga. For good measure, here is the Tibetan counterpart: ༄༅། །འདོད་པ་ལ་ལོངས་སྤྱོད་པར་བྱེད་ལ། དེ་དག་ཉིད་ལྟར་བདག་ཅག་དེང་འདི་ལྟ་སྟེ། ཟས་སྣུམ་ པ་འདོད་པའི་འདོད་ཆགས་སྐྱེད་པ། འཕེལ་བར་བྱེད་པ། བསོད་པ། ཁ་དོག་ཕུན་སུམ་ཚོགས་པ། དྲི་ ཕུན་སུམ་ཚོགས་པ། རོ་ཕུན་སུམ་ཚོགས་པ་མང་པོ་དག་ གཡོས་དྲོད་ཀྱིས་ཅི་ནུས་སུ་ཟོས་ཏེ། ཚིམ་ པར་བྱས་ན་སང་ནམ་ལངས་པར་གྱུར་པ་ན་མཐུ་དང་ལྡན་པར་འགྱུར་ཞིང་འདི་ལྟ་སྟེ། གཞུ་དགང་བའམ། ལུས་མཉེ་བའམ། རྡོ་གདེག་པའམ། དྲིལ་བའམ། ས་བརྐོ་བའམ། སྟོབས་བརྒལ་བའམ། རྐང་འཁྱོག་ བྱ་བའམ། རྒྱུག་པའམ། རྒྱལ་ བའམ༑ མཆོང་བའམ། འཁར་ལོ་འཕང་བའི་བརྩལ་བ་བྱེད་ནུས་པར་ འགྱུར་ཏེ། བརྩལ་བ་དེ་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་མཐུ་དང་ལྡན་པ་དང༌། ལུས་ཤིན་ཏུ་བཅགས་པ་དང༌། ཡུན་རིང་ དུ་ནད་རྣམས་མེད་པར་འགྱུར་བ་དང༌། བདག་ཅག་གི་ལང་ཚོ་ཡུན་རིང་དུ་རྗེས་སུ་འཇུག་པར་འགྱུར་བ་ དང༑ མི་སྡུག་པར་བྱེད་པའི་རྒ་བས་ལུས་མྱུར་དུ་ཟིལ་གིས་མི་ནོན་པར་འགྱུར་བ་དང༌། ཤིན་ཏུ་ཡུན་རིང་ དུ་འཚོ་བར་འགྱུར་བ་དང༌། མང་དུ་ཟོས་ན་ཡང་ཤིན་ཏུ་སྟོབས་དང་ལྡན་པར་འགྱུར་བ་དང༌། ཟོས་སོ་ཅོག་ ཀྱང་ལེགས་པར་ཡོངས་སུ་འཇུ་བར་འགྱུར་བ་དང༌། སྐྱོན་རྣམས་ཀྱང་ སེལ་བར་བྱེད་པར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེས་ དེའི་དོན་དུ་ཟས་ཟ་བར་བྱེད་པ་དེ་ནི། ནད་མེད་པས་རྒྱགས་པ་དང༌། ལང་ཚོས་རྒྱགས་པ་དང༌། གསོན་ པས་རྒྱགས་པའི་དོན་དུ་ཟ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་དག་ཡང་འདི་སྙམ་དུ་སེམས་ཏེ། བདག་ཅག་གིས་བརྩལ་ བར་བྱས་ཟིན་པས། ཁྲུས་ཀྱི་ཆོ་ག་དག་ བྱས་ཏེ། འདི་ལྟ་སྟེ། ཆུ་གཙང་མས་ལག་པ་དག་བཀྲུ་བར་བྱ་ ཞིང༌། ལུས་དག་བཀྲུས་ནས་སྐྲ་དག་ཀྱང་བཅོས་པར་བྱ། བྱུག་པ་སྣ་ཚོགས་ཀྱིས་ལུས་དག་བྱུགས་ལ། གོས་སྣ་ཚོགས་དང༌། མེ་ཏོག་ཕྲེང་བ་སྣ་ཚོགས་དང༌། རྒྱན་སྣ་ཚོགས་དག་གིས་ལུས་བརྒྱན་པར་ བྱའོ་ སྙམ་དུ་སེམས་ཏེ། དེ་ལ་ཁྲུས་དང༌། བཅོས་པ་དང༌། བྱུགས་པ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ནི་དེ་དག་གི་སྒེག་པ་ཡིན་ ནོ། །དེ་ལྟར་སྒེག་པར་གྱུར་པ་དག་གོས་དང༌། མེ་ཏོག་ཕྲེང་དང༌། རྒྱན་དག་ཐོགས་པ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ནི་ བརྒྱན་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་སྟེ། དེ་ལྟར་ན་སྒེག་པའི་དོན་དང་བརྒྱན་པའི་དོན་29 29 D 4036: vol. 128, folio 34a. 204 Extracting the terms we are concerned with: gzhu dgang ba = ātatī-kriyā lus mnye ba = nirgata. aṅga-prapīḍana rdo gdeg pa = vyāyāma-śilā dril ba = to roll/ twirl/ spin; to roll/ coil up; to blend sa brko ba = excavation stobs = strong, power brgal ba = overcoming rkang ’khyog bya ba (lit. ‘activities lifting the foot’) = pādāvaṣṭambhana rgyug pa = to run, a stick rgyal ba = conqueror, jina; winning mchong ba = laṅghana = jump, rush, dash, hop, leap, plunge, pounce, skip, vault, leap up, bathe in water I am not sure what to make of rkang ’khyog bya ba which seems more to suggest carrying bundles of earth than ‘running’. Could brgal pa means something like leaping over, jumping over? rgyal ba seems to simply mean ‘winning’ (in sports, betting, war, etc.). rgyug pa would mean to run. rdo gdeg pa clearly means to lift stones. If brgal pa and mchong ba both mean types of jumping, then the Tibetan, like Xuanzang, sees two types. The Tibetan obviously omits the wheel toss. The Tibetan list of exercises seems to contain ten items, like the Sanskrit, and tracks closer to the Sanskrit than Xuanzang’s version. It is obvious that Wayman was relying on the Tibetan for help with his Sanskrit. What is curious is that Xuanzang’s version is more ‘martial’ than the other two, and explicitly declares itself such by using the term wu 武, ‘martial, war’. While the Sanskrit is not devoid of martial mentions (it does mention drawing a bow), Xuanzang frames the exercise as ‘martial’ (武) and competitive fighting (jue 角; 角武 = martial arts), and includes martial items with no Sanskrit counterparts: raise hands to fight (rangbi 攘臂), grabbing the wrists (grappling?) (ewan 扼腕), brandishing a spear (huige 揮戈), strike with a sword (jijian 擊劍), pull a crossbow (funu 伏弩), drawing a bow (kongxuan 控弦), throwing a wheel (?) (toulun 投輪), casting a rope (zhisuo 擲索).30 Per- 205 30 One possible explanation for Xuanzang tilting the passage toward a martial account might be the following passage from the Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra which prohibits a variety of activities, including visiting military camps or engaging in martial-like competitive or strengthening sports (I wish to thank Mark Blum for generously sharing his soon to be published translation of this passage, along with his annotations, though I present my own translation here): …[Do not use fancy pillows]. Finally, don’t watch elephant competitions, horse competitions (i.e., races), cart competition (races), weapons competitions, men competing, women competing, or bull fights, sheep fights, competitions between water buffalos, or cock fights, or pheasant fights, nor should you go to watch military encampments. You shouldn’t therefore listen to the musical tones (jiyue zhisheng 伎樂之聲) of clattering shells (chuibei 吹貝), drum and horn (gujue 鼓角 [used in military activities, like drum and bugle), qin 琴 and se 瑟 (stringed musical instruments), zheng 箏 (zither with from 5 to 16 strings; Jp: koto), flute 笛, konghou 箜篌 (Chinese harp), or sing songs of praise (gejiao 歌叫), except when making offerings to the Buddha. Competitions (dou 鬪) between game-masters (shizi 師子) of games (xi 戲) like playing dice (chupu 摴蒱 = Indian dice game chaupar), entrapment chess-like games (weqi 圍碁), and Indian chess (boluosai 波羅塞 = prāsaka, prasena?), shooting chess (danqi 彈碁, Mark Blum explains this is ‘Described as a game of two opposing teams each originally having 6 pieces, white and black, that are laid out facing each other and pebbles are tossed or rolled to knock over the opponent’s pieces. The number expands to 16 in the Wei period, and 24 in the Tang. The edge of a hand-towel is used in some manner to brush away the chips’; involving polished stones dan 彈 and a board qi 碁), Six stacks (liubo 六愽, a board game played with 15 white and black pieces pitted against each other. Six sticks were thrown to determine each move, performing the function of dice. It came to Japan from China prior to the Nara period.), paiju 拍毱 kicking a ball, zhishi 擲石 hurling stones, touhu 投壺 (ancient banquet game of throwing arrows into a pot, the winner determined by the number of arrows thrown in, and the loser required to drink as punishment), qiandao 牽道 sport of pulling/ dragging (probably 道 here is like the dō in ken-dō, ju-dō, karate-dō, etc.), badao xingcheng 八道行成 practicing to perfect the eight sports. One shouldn’t watch or engage in any such games. 206 haps the Sanskrit upper body and arm exercises could be paired with rangbi 攘臂, but the Sanskrit only mentions drawing a bow without distinguishing between cross-bows and long bows, and there is nothing in the Sanskrit about spear/halbert or sword forms or sparring. Exactly what the ‘wheel exercise’ or ‘wheel toss’ was—whether something like a discus, or doing something with a larger wheel or something like a medicine ball, etc.—is unclear. I am not familiar with any specific exercise in either Chinese or Indian traditions by that name. It may be that Xuanzang is drawing on contemporary martial exercises. If so, then the vocabulary for such things likely changed over time, so later texts would designate these or similar exercises with different labels. Clearly the fuller passage begins with a discussion of food, moves to exercise, then talks about getting strong and fit, being free from disease and living a long time as a result. As for translation stylistics, Xuanzang seems willing to adjust his translation for his intended audience, and even editorialize and embellish for affect. His renderings are usually ‘accurate’ in the sense of conveying the basic meaning, but may stray from strict adherence to the details of original Sanskrit. All translators into Chinese did so to varying degrees as well. Finally, one shouldn’t examine physical features such as hand and foot or face (i.e. fortune telling by examining physical features; physiognomy and phrenology). … [then names and prohibits types of divination]. And no gazing at the stars in admiration (i.e. astrology 亦不仰觀虛空星宿), except when one wishes to go to sleep. [No tales of royalty, etc.]. Finally, no self-aggrandizement through flattery or nefarious plots against others’ lives… 其床兩頭, 不置二枕. 亦不受畜妙好丹枕, 安黃木枕. 終不觀看象, 鬪馬、鬪車、鬪兵、鬪男、鬪女、鬪牛、鬪羊、鬪水、牛、鷄、雉、鸚鵡等鬪; 亦不故往觀看軍陣, 不應故聽吹貝、鼓角、琴瑟、箏笛、箜篌、歌叫、伎樂之聲, 除供養佛. 摴蒱圍碁波羅塞戲、師子象鬪、彈碁六愽、拍毱擲石、投壺牽道、八道行成. 一切戲笑, 悉不觀作. 終不瞻相手脚面目, 不以抓鏡、芝草、楊枝、鉢盂、髑髏而作卜筮. 亦不仰觀, 虛空星宿, 除欲解睡. 不作王家往返使命, 以此語彼, 以彼語此. 終不諛諂, 邪命自活. (Da boniepan jing 大般涅槃經, T no. 374, 12: 11.433a7–21) 207 Important Terms The prior examples, with the possible exception of ‘empty of svabhāva’, are more a reflection of cultural differences than issues with implications for core Buddhist ideas. The new vocabulary introduced by Xuanzang, on the other hand, frequently signaled philosophical nuances that he sought to express more clearly with better semantic equivalents. One way that the differences and overlaps between Paramārtha and Xuanzang’s equivalents can be studied is to work through Hirakawa’s Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya indexes. There are hundreds of terms to examine, and it becomes clear that for both translators, one-to-one equivalences were not their desideratum, since both rendered Sanskrit terms with varying Chinese terms, as well as using the same Chinese term for different Sanskrit words. What does become evident, however, when one compares Xuanzang’s rendering of Kośa passages against Paramārtha’s previous translations, Xuanzang sometimes echoes Paramārtha even when he seems to know a different rendering is in order, reflecting the lasting influence of Paramārtha’s version on his own understanding of the Kośa. Scholars have noted that at times Paramārtha’s translation of the Kośa adheres more closely to the Sanskrit than Xuanzang’s. As his Biography points out when discussing his early studies of the Kośa in China: ‘He studied with such profundity that he could comprehend subtle meanings and reveal what was hidden in the texts when others failed to reach it. On more than one abstruse point he had his own particular views’ (see fn. 17 above). But nothing as complex or in depth as analyzing the gamut of terminology in Hirakawa’s index will be attempted here. Instead a few well known examples will have to suffice. Earlier translators, such as Paramārtha, did not clearly distinguish between various cognates and derivatives of the root √kḷp which forms important terms such as vikalpa, kalpanā, kalpita, parikalpa/ parikalpita, etc., using fenbie 分別 for all of them on many occasions, despite the different connotations and implications of each. Since fenbie graphically evokes ‘knives’, it is often taken to mean ‘discrimination’, ‘cutting apart’ something whole. So many passages that criticize fenbie come to be understood and translated as advocating ‘non-discrimination’, a kind of thoughtless or less-than-discerning 208 fuzziness to replace recognizing distinctions. But vikalpa often doesn’t mean discrimination in Buddhist and especially Yogācāra contexts, but something more akin to misguided imagining, superimposing a mistaken presupposition. Kalpanā means conceptualizing. Parikalpa/parikalpita takes the prefix pari- which means to encircle, surround, to emphasize that this kind of vikalpa becomes immersive, ubiquitous. So when Paramārtha translates parikalpita-svabhāva or parikalpita lakṣaṇa as 分別(自)性, it gives the impression that the problem is making distinctions, which is not the case. The problem is imposing erroneous misconceptions, false imagining, not the ability to distinguish a door from a wall, or healthy from unhealthy food, or wholesome from unwholesome behaviors. To bring this out, Xuanzang replaced that translation with bianji suozhi xing 遍計所執性 ‘pervasive presuppositions that are held’ or ‘immersed in speculative (erroneous) opinions to which one is attached’. For parikalpita Bodhiruci had used 分別虛妄(體相), which at least had the merit of signaling that something ‘erroneous’ (xuwang 虛妄) was involved, but again implying to a Chinese reader that the problem was discrimination rather than false imagination. Comparing Xuanzang’s rendering of the trisvabhāva terms brings out some of their differences as well as their affinities: parikalpita-svabhāva = XZ 遍計所執性 = P. 分別性 paratantra-svabhāva = XZ 依他起性 = P. 依他性 pariniṣpanna-svabhāva = XZ 圓成實性 = P. 實實性 Their rendering of paratantra is close. Paramārtha’s incidentally is more literally accurate, since para-tantra literally means ‘dependent on other’, which 依他 captures. Xuanzang adds 起 (依他起) to emphasize that the dependence is causal, ‘produced in dependence on an other’. This is in line with Yogācāra’s associating paratantra with pratītya-samutpāda. Paramārtha’s 實實性 for parinispanna-svabhāva certainly emphasizes its superlative nature, but loses the sense of achievement or the fulfilling of a process which the grammatical suffix -anna signals in Sanskrit, whereas the cheng 成 in Xuanzang’s version captures that, as well as the sense of bringing something to perfection, becoming consummate. 209 A simpler example is replacing yin 陰, which earlier translators used for skandha, with yun 蘊. Even when not viewed as the counterpart to yang 陽, yin’s meanings (dark, hidden, etc.) do not correspond very well with skandha, which means an aggregate or heap, like a pile of straw neatly stacked. Yun on the other hand means to gather, collect, etc., which is much closer. Yun’s meanings include: collect; bring together; raise; contain; hide; deep; hidden; mysterious; abstruse; (Traditional Chinese Medicine) unhealthy fermentation inside the body. Altogether a very evocative rendering for skandha, containing both the literal sense and the more Buddhistic connotations.31 Earlier translators had used yin 陰, ru 入, jie 界 for the basic categories skandha, āyatana, dhātu, i.e., the five aggregates, twelve sense-spheres, and eighteen basic factors of experience (six sense faculties, six corresponding sense-spheres, and six-corresponding consciousnesses). Xuanzang’s equivalents for the three categories are yun 蘊, chu 處, jie 界. The earlier ru 入 (lit. ‘enter’) for āyatana probably was meant to imply that the senses are the means by which information ‘enters’ one’s awareness. But āyatana, which in Sanskrit means a sphere or domain, indicates both the sense faculties (indriya) and their corresponding sense-fields (viṣaya), a notion better envisioned by 處, a locus in which sensation occurs. Transcriptions Like his predecessors, Xuanzang proposed new transcriptions for the sounds of indic words. If one reads the travel accounts of Buddhist pilgrims over the centuries, they invariably ‘correct’ the transcriptions of place names and personal names that their predecessors had used, often declaring the predecessors’ renderings ‘false’, unaware that the phonetic value of Chinese characters altered over time and from region to region. Kūkai 空海 (774–835), in his commentary on the Heart Sūtra, evaluates the various Chinese versions available to him, 31 Cf. Ricci Association, ‘蘊’ . 210 his main criticism of Xuanzang’s version being that its concluding mantra is useless since it mispronounces the power-sounds of the Sanskrit. Nonetheless, if one listens even today to Koreans chanting the Heart Sūtra using Xuanzang’s version, one will hear something very close to gate gate paragate parasaṃgate bodhi svāhā, whereas the modern mandarin pronunciation of the mantra is, as Kūkai complains, far from the Sanskrit sounds it is meant to invoke. I will only discuss one example of a transcription change since, as far as I can tell, no one has addressed this adequately yet. The term ālayavijñāna is a signature Yogācāra concept. Prior to Xuanzang there was either the translation used by Guṇabhadra in his translation of the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra: zangshi 藏識 which he presumably used to highlight its relation in that text to the tathāgatagarbha (rulaizang 如來藏), the latter being covered over (zang) by the ālaya which receives the coarse obscurations from the vāsanās produced by the other consciousnesses. Or, it was transcribed, as by Bodhiruci and Paramārtha, as 阿梨耶識 or 阿黎耶識, the latter the more frequently occurring.32 At some point, apparently around the time of the Sui or early Tang, the pronunciation of the second character shifted. It had originally been lai or something close—and that pronunciation is still preserved in Cantonese and some other dialects. It had drifted from lai to li. So it was no longer an adequate phonetic sign. Some were now sounding out 阿黎耶識 as ‘ā-li-ye shi’, instead of approximating ālaya. Xuanzang replaced 黎/梨 with lai 賴. Thus 阿賴耶識 phonetically renewed rather than replaced its predecessors, so Chinese would continue to pronounce it as ālaya rather than aliya. However, since the phonetic value apparently shifted around the beginning of the Tang, texts that preserved the earlier graph were read with the shifted value and that was preserved in Korean and 32 阿梨耶, which most standard modern discussions use, actually appears only once in Paramārtha’s version of the Shelun: 復次此識於聲聞乘由別名如來曾顯, 如增一阿含經言, ‘於世間喜樂阿梨耶、愛阿黎耶、習阿黎耶、著阿黎耶, 為滅阿黎耶’. (T no. 1593, 31: 1.114b26–29) Note the variants for li 梨 here, 阿黎耶識 or 阿黎耶 are found many times in this text. 211 Japanese. That led to some confusion over the centuries, reflected not just in the continued used of ‘aliya’ even today by some when discussing the eighth consciousness, but it even motivated certain scholars to attempt to derive a Sanskrit etymology for ālīya—although no such word exists in Sanskrit. A most pronounced form of this misconception—this parikalpita— is demonstrated in an early essay by D. T. Suzuki, titled ‘Philosophy of the Yogācāra’ that appeared in 1904 in Le Muséon.33 In this essay, Suzuki posited that the original Sanskrit term was ālīya-vijñāna, and only later became ālaya-vijñāna, apparently misled by the history of the transcriptions and their modern Japanese (and Mandarin) pronunciations. Interestingly, L. de la Vallée Poussin, an editor of the journal, adds in a footnote in French that no such Sanskrit term as ālīya is known to him. He apparently urged Suzuki to defend the claim, so Suzuki added a ‘note additionelle’ at the end of his essay (page 385) spelling out his theory of ālīya > ālaya. Tellingly, in his later writings the term ālīya never appears; he had learned that ālaya was always the Sanskrit term. It is not clear if he knew that 阿黎耶識 had, at least during the sixth century, been pronounced ālaya shi, and not ālīya-shi, even though one of the popular ways 黎 is still pronounced in Japanese is rei (= Ch. lai). 33 Suzuki, ‘Philosophy of the Yogācāra’. 212 Appendix I Heart Sūtra Discrepancies Analysis The issue of the missing phrase gets complicated when one compares the various Chinese editions. It is also missing in the Kumārajīva version, and neither Kuiji nor Wŏnch’ŭk mention it in their commentaries, though Wŏnch’ŭk in particular in several places not only compares Xuanzang’s with Kumārajīva’s, but also says that he consulted the Sanskrit original. However, the Dunhuang version (Stein collection, S. 700, included in T no. 256), which transcribes the Sanskrit in Chinese characters, and claims this is the version of the Ci’en master, i.e., Xuanzang (not Kuiji, as some have claimed), does include the first phrase.34 If we compare how the different Chinese translations of the Heart Sūtra present these two or three lines, similarities and differences become evident. In addition to the Heart Sūtra versions by Kumārajīva and Xuanzang, there are: Pubian zhizang bore boluomiduo xin jing 普遍智藏般若波羅蜜多心經 (T no. 252) translated by Dharmacandra (Fayue 法月 [653–743]) in 738; Boreboluomiduo xin jing 般若波羅蜜多心經 (T no. 253) translated by Prajña (Bore 般若 [fl. 741−798]) and Liyan 利言 (*Candra [?], c. 707–788+), etc., ca. 790; Boreboluomiduo xin jing 般若波羅蜜多心經 (T no. 255) translated by Facheng 法成 in the early ninth century; Boreboluomiduo xin jing 般若波羅蜜多心經 (T no. 254) translated by Prajñācakra (Zhihuilun 智慧輪 [?–876]) in the mid-ninth century; Foshuo shengmu boreboluomiduo xin jing 佛說聖佛母般若波羅蜜多經 (T no. 257) translated by Dānapāla (Shihu 施護 [fl. 970s]) ca. 1005. Cf. Hurvitz, ‘Hsüan-tsang and the Heart Scripture’; and Chen, ‘On Xuanzang’s Transliterated Version of the Sanskrit Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasūtra’. 34 213 To quickly compare the passage in question, the translated by Dharmacandra reads: Addressing Śāriputra: ‘Bodhisattvas and Mahāsattvas should learn as follows: The nature of form [= *rūpatva] is emptiness, the nature of emptiness is form. Form is not different from emptiness; emptiness is not different from form. Form precisely is emptiness, emptiness precisely is form. Hedonic tone, associative thinking, embodied-conditioning and consciousness are also like this.’ 於斯告舍利弗,“諸菩薩摩訶薩應如是學. 色性是空, 空性是色, 色不異空, 空不異色. 色即是空, 空即是色. 受、想、行、識亦復如是.35 So Dharmacandra includes all three lines found in the received Sanskrit, including the first line, omitted by Kumārajīva and Xuanzang. Prajña and *Candra has: Śāriputra, form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form. Form precisely is emptiness, emptiness precisely is form; also likewise for hedonic tone, associative thinking, embodied-conditioning and consciousness. 舍利子! 色不異空, 空不異色. 色即是空, 空即是色. 受、想、行、識亦復如是.36 Both the Dharmacandra and Prajña versions reflect the longer Heart Sūtra version, so they are not drawn from the same source as the Kumārajīva or Xuanzang versions, and would have been translated afresh from Sanskrit. While Dharmacandra includes the line otherwise only in the Sanskrit, Prajña’s version omits that line, like Kumārajīva and Xuanzang. Prajñācakra arrived in China in mid-ninth century. One of the monasteries he worked at was the Da Xingshan Monastery, the one 35 36 T no. 252, 8: 849a27–b1. T no. 253, 8: 849c6–8. 214 associated with the transcribed Heart Sūtra cited above. Being an Esoteric monk, he would have been associated with the Amoghavajra lineage; Hurvitz does comment that some of the preface has tantric overtones. Starting in 855, he transmitted, in the Da Xingshan Monastery, teachings and new translations to Ennin 圓仁 (794–864), the famous Japanese pilgrim. His version of the passage in question reads: Śāriputra, form (is) empty, emptiness is seen to be form; form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form; it is form that is emptiness, it is emptiness that is form; the same applies to hedonic tone, associative-thinking, embodied conditioning and consciousness. 舍利子! 色空, 空性見色. 色不異空, 空不異色. 是色即空, 是空即色. 受、想、行、識亦復如是.37 So Prajñācakra also includes the first Sanskrit line. Facheng, a Dunhuang scholar and translator, including of Chinese texts into Tibetan; mid-ninth century. Form precisely is emptiness, emptiness precisely is form; form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form; the same applies… 色即是空, 空即是色. 色不異空, 空不異色. 如是受、想、行、識亦復皆空.38 So he omits the first Sanskrit line. Dānapāla (Shihu 施護), T no. 257, tran. ca. 1005. Dānapāla was virtually the last translator of Indian texts into Chinese. 37 38 T no. 254, 8: 850a20–22. T no. 255, 8: 850c4–5. 215 Why is the svabhāva of the five skandhas called emptiness? It is referred to that way [because] precisely form is emptiness, precisely emptiness is form; form is without difference from emptiness, emptiness is without difference from form. Likewise… 何名五蘊自性空耶? 所謂即色是空, 即空是色; 色無異於空, 空無異於色. 受、想、行、識, 亦復如是.39 He appears to reverse the phrases, omitting the last line from both the Sanskrit as well as from the Kuiji and Xuanzang Chinese versions. 39 T no. 257, 8: 852b20–22. 216 Bibliography Abbreviation D T Derge (sDe dge bsTan ‘gyur Canon). See Bibliography, Primary Sources, D. 4036. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大蔵経. See Bibliography, Secondary Sources, Takakusu and Watanabe, eds. Primary Sources Boreboluomiduo xin jing 般若波羅蜜多心經 [Prajñā-pāramitāhṛdaya sutra; Heart Sūtra]. 1 fasc. Trans. Xuanzang 玄奘 on July 8, 649. T no. 251, vol. 8. Boreboluomiduo xin jing 般若波羅蜜多心經, 1 fasc. Trans. Facheng 法成 in the early ninth century. T no. 255, vol. 8. Boreboluomiduo xin jing 般若波羅蜜多心經. 1 fasc. Trans. Prajña (Bore 般若 [fl. 741−798]) and Liyan 利言 (Candra? [c. 707– 788+]), etc., ca. 790. T no. 253, vol. 8. Boreboluomiduo xin jing 般若波羅蜜多心經. 1 fasc. Trans. Prajñācakra (Zhihuilun 智慧輪 [?–876]) in the mid-ninth century. T no. 254, vol. 8. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 [Compilation of Notes on the Translation of the Tripiṭaka. 15 fascs. Comp. Sengyou 僧祐 (445–518), T no. 2145, vol. 55. D. 4036 = Derge edition of the Tibetan translation of the Śrāvakabhūmi of Asaṅga’s Yogācārabhūmi: rnal ’byor spyod pa’i sa las nyan thos kyi sa (རྣལ་འབྱོར་སྤྱོད་པའི་ས་ལས་ཉན་ཐོས་ཀྱི་ས།). Translation into Tibetan attributed to Jinamitra and Ye-shes-sde. Da boniepan jing 大般涅槃經 [Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra; The Great Parinirvana Sutra], 40 fascs. Trans. Dharmakṣema (Tanwuchen 曇無讖 [385–433]). T no. 374, vol. 12. Da Cien si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 [Biography of (Xuanzang) the Tripiṭaka Master of Dacien Temple]. 10 fascs. Written by Huili 慧立 and Yancong 彥悰. T no. 2053, vol. 50. Datang Xiyu ji 大唐西域記 [(Xuanzang’s) Record of Travels to 217 Western Lands].12 fascs. Comp. Bianji 辯機 (?–649). T no. 2087, vol. 51. Foshuo shengmu boreboluomiduo xin jing 佛說聖佛母般若波羅蜜多經 [Perfection of Wisdom of the Sacred Buddha-Mother (Heart Sūtra)]. 1 fasc., tran. Dānapāla (Shihu 施護 [fl. 970s]) ca. 1005. T no. 257, vol. 8 Pubian zhizang bore boluomiduo xin jing 普遍智藏般若波羅蜜多心經 [The Heart Sūtra, Universal Storehouse of Wisdom]. 1 fasc. Trans. Dharmacandra (Fayue 法月 [653–743]) in 738. T no. 252, vol. 8. Yuqieshi di lun 瑜伽師地論 [Yogācārabhūmi śāstra; Stages of Yoga Practice Treatise]. 100 fascs. Wrriten by Maitreya (or Asaṅga), trans. Xuanzang between July 3, 646–June 11, 648. T no. 1579, vol. 30. Secondary Sources Chen, Shu-fen. ‘On Xuanzang’s Transliterated Version of the Sanskrit Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasūtra (Heart Sūtra)’. Monumenta Serica 52 (2004): 113–59. Davidson, Ronald. ‘Studies in dhāraṇī literature II: Pragmatics of dhāraṇīs’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 77, no. 1 (2014): 5–61. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism 電子佛教辭典, edited by Charles Muller, editor-in-chief. http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb/ Hurvitz, Leon. ‘Hsüan-tsang 玄奘 (602–664) and the Heart Scripture’. In Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems: Studies in Honor of Edward Conze, edited by Lewis Lancaster and Edward Conze, 103–13. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley Press, 1977. de Jong, Jan Willem. ‘Review of Ulrich Pagel’s The Bodhisattvapiṭaka: Its Doctrines, Practices and Their Position in Mahāyāna Literature’. Indo-Iranian Journal 39, no .2 (April 1, 1996): 176–82. Keenan, John. A Study of the Buddhabhūmyupadeśa: The Doctrinal Development of the Notion of Wisdom in Yogācāra Thought. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1980. 218 Kroll, Paul. A Student’s Dictionary of Classical and Medieval Chinese. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Li, Rongxi, trans. The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation & Research, 1996. Lusthaus, Dan. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of the Ch’eng Wei-shih lun. Curzon Critical Studies in Buddhism Series. London: Routledge, 2002. ———. ‘The One Hundred Dharmas’. http://www.acmuller.net/ yogacara/outlines/100dharmas.html Matsunami, Yasuo, and Śrāvakabhūmi Study Group, eds. Śrāvakabhūmi, The Second Chapter with Asamāhitā bhūmiḥ, Śrutamayī bhūmiḥ, Cintāmayī bhūmiḥ, Revised Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation. Tokyo: Sankibo Press, 2007. Mimaki, Katsumi. ‘La Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī ou “Incantation des SIX PORTES”, texte attribué aux Sautrāntika (I): Introduction’ [The Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī, or ‘Incantation of Six Doors’, text attricuted to Sautrāntika (I): Introduction]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 ( Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 25, no. 2 (1977): 972–965. ———. ‘La Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī ou “Incantation des SIX PORTES”, texte attribué aux Sautrāntika (II): Textes et Traduction’ [The Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī, or ‘Incantation of Six Doors’, text attricuted to Sautrāntika (II): Texts and Translation]. Nihon Seisō gakkai kaihō 日本西蔵学会会報 (Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies) 23 (1977): 9–13. Miyamoto, KeiiCh. Daśapadārthī: An Ancient Indian Literature of Thoroughly Metaphysical Realism. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Company, 2007. Orsborn, Matthew. ‘Something for Nothing: Cognitive Metaphors for Emptiness in the *Upadeśa (Dàzhìdù lùn)’. Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 31 (2018): 171–222. Pagel, Ulrich. The Bodhisattvapiṭaka: Its Doctrines, Practices and Their Position in Mahāyāna Literature. Tring: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1995. Radich, Michael. ‘Text T. 0679’. The Chinese Buddhist Canonical Attributions. No date. https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/text/984/. 219 Ricci Association, ed. ‘Le Grand Ricci Online’. Brill. Published online Oct. 2017 https://chinesereferenceshelf.brillonline.com/ grand-ricci. Shukla, Karunesha, ed. Śrāvakabhūmi of Acarya Asanga. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1973. Suzuki, D. T. ‘Philosophy of the Yogācāra’. Le Muséon 23, no .5 (January 1, 1904): 370–86. Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭, eds. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經 [Buddhist Canon Compiled under the Taishō Era (1912–1926)]. 100 vols. Tokyo: Taishō issaikyō kankōkai 大正一切經刊行會, 1924–1932. Tatia, Nathmal, ed. Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣyam. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 17. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1976. Ui, Hakuju. The Vaiśeṣika Philosophy according to the Daśapadārthaśāstra: Chinese text with introduction, translation and notes. Edited by F. W. Thomas. London: Royal Asiatic Society 1917. 2nd ed. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1962. Wayman, Alex. Analysis of the Śrāvakabhūmi Manuscript. University of California Publications in Classical Philology, vol. 17. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1961. From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Xuanzang and Silk Road Culture EDITORS: SHI Ciguang, CHEN Jinhua, JI Yun and SHI Xingding BOOK DESIGN: Carol Lee PUBLISHER: World Scholastic Publishers 560416, AMK AVE 10, 13-1001, Singapore EMAIL: eurice.d.shih@worldscholastic.com ISBN: 978-981-14-6185-9 FORMAT: Paperback / Softcover DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2020-05-01 LANGUAGE: English All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher. National Library Board, Singapore Cataloguing in Publication Data Names: Ciguang, Shi, editor. | Chen, Jinhua, 1966- editor. | Ji, Yun, editor. | Xingding, Shi, editor. Title: From Chang'an to Nālandā : the life and legacy of the Chinese Buddhist monk Xuanzang (602?-664) / edited by Shi Ciguang, Chen Jinhua, Ji Yun and Shi Xingding. Description: Singapore : World Scholastic Publishers, 2020. Identifiers: OCN 1156317437 | ISBN 978-981-14-6185-9 (paperback) Subjects: LCSH: Xuanzang, approximately 596-664. | Buddhist monks--China-Biography. Classification: DDC 294.361--dc23

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style?

What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style?

What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style?

What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style?

What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style?

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS