New History Of Tantric Lieterature In India

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 12

102
J. W. de Jong commentaries written by Buddhaguhya, Sākyamitra and Anandagarbha in the eighth century are found in the Tanjur. The text must therefore have been in existence in its final form at the end of the eighth century. The recensions translated by Amoghavajra and Vajrabodhi date from the first half of the eighth century and the end of the seventh century. At the end of the seventh century the original recension of the Tattvasamgraha was already in existence. Until the end of the eighth century the text was continually expanded. As to its place of origin, several traditions seem to confirm that the Tattvasamgraha was written in the South of India.
In Japan the name Rishukyo is normally used for Amoghavajra's translation, (T. 243) which is regularly recited in Shingon temples. However, there are six Chinese translations, by Hsüan-tsang (T. 220, no. 10; 660—663 A. D.), Bodhiruci (T. 240 ; 693 A. D.), Vajrabodhi (T. 241 ; the attribution of this translation to Vajrabodhi is doubtful), Amoghavajra (T. 243; 765—771 A. D.), Shih-hu (T. 242; 991 A. D.) and Fa-hsien (T. 244 ; 999 A .D.). There are three Tibetan translations, Sriparamādya nāma mahāyānakalparāja and Sriparamadya mantrakalpakhanda nāma (Tōhoku nos. 487—488), Srivajramandalalamkāra nāma mahātantrarāja (Tohoku no. 490) and Āryaprajña pāramitānayasata pañcaśatikā (Tōhoku no. 489). Finally, there is a text written partly in Sanskrit and partly in Khotanese (cf. E. Leumann, 'Die nordarischen Abschnitte des Adhyardhaśatikā-Prajñāpāramitā', Taisho daigaku gakuho, 1930, pp. 47-87). The translation by Fa-hsien and the first two Tibetan translations are designated as the larger recension, and all the other texts as belonging to the smaller recension. The relations between these different translations and the development of the text have been studied first by Toganoo Shoun in his book Rishukyo no Kenkyū (Köyasan, 1930; cf. Biblio.' graphie bouddhique, IV–V, 1934, no. 450), and, in recent years, by Nasu Seiryū, Nagasawa Jitsudo, Kanaoka Shūyū and Fukuda Ryōsei. All scholars agree on two points, The oldest and most primitive recension is the one translated by Hsüan-tsang. Out of this recension developed the one translated by Bodhiruci. However, there is no agreement at all with regard to the text's further development. Some think that the larger recension is older and the smaller an extract from it. Others think that the larger recension has developed out of the smaller one. Still others suppose that the original text was different from both the larger and smaller recensions.
M. recapitulates the different theories proposed and subjects them to a critical examination. He points out that it is wrong to assume that the different texts can be supposed to have developed in a direct line one out of the other because there are too many discrepancies between them. In the first half of the seventh century a brief quotation from the Prajñaparamita-ardhaśatika or Dvyardhasatikā is made by Candrakīrti in his