Ostasien

Page 2

411 Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 80. Jahrgang 1985 Nr. 4 412 I. pratityasamutpada- (yin-yuan) working-hypothesis to assume that *Vimalaksa was a II. satkaryasatkarya- (yu-kuo-wu-kuo) fourth-century Madhyamika now only known for his III. pratyaya- (yuan) . IV. laksana- (hsiang) commentary to Nagarjuna's MK (a commentary V. salaksanalaksana- (yu-hsiang-wu-hsiang) which is closely related to the Akutobhaya) and for his VI. ekaneka- (-i) *Dvadasadvaraka, an independent introductory sumVII. bhavabhava (yu-wu) VIII. svabhava- (hsing) mary of Nagarjuna's thought loosely based on the IX. hetuphala- (yin-kuo) latter's basic philosophical works, MK and S. X. karaka- (tso-che) This review is of course not the place to develop this XI. kalatraya- (san-shih) hypothesis further. To do so we would also have to XII. utpatti- (sheng) consider not only the evidence that might be derived Now, while there can be no doubt that Nagarjuna from two other works translated by Kumarajiva and is the author of all the karikas found in the Shih-erh- attributed to Nagarjuna, viz. Ta-chih-tu-lun t A men-lun we still have to consider whether he also (T. 1509) and Shih-chu-p'i-p'o-sha-lun t compiled them from his own works and then composed (T. 1521) but also the commentaries to "Aryadeva's" the commentary in prose. As for the external evi- Pai-lun (T. 1569) and ZA PC dence the Chinese tradition is not unanimous concern- well as several other early Indian Madhyamika texts ing the authorship of the commentary. As in the of uncertain authorship (cf.my Nagarjuniana, Copencase of Chung-lun it sometimes attributes it to Nagar- hagen 1982, pp. 12-17). juna, sometimes to Ch'ing-mu or Pin-lo-ch'ieh Un, perhaps *Vimalaksa (see May in Hobogirin, Finally some observations on the text and translation pp. 481, 489 with ref.). of the Shih-erh-men-lun, the "Twelve Gate Treatise": p. 54, 33: On the assumption that this verse is taken First of all, I assume, to be sure, that the compilerov over from MK, I, 3 we should read "how can there be of the verses and the author of the prose commentary other-nature" for "how can there be such things", changing is one and the same person. The main reason for this shih (15.9 C 25) to t'a (cf. 16 0 a 10). Cf. also Yuktisastika, 19. assumption is that v. 13 is a reply to an objection only p. 55, 9: Hardly "causal conditions", but "causes and conditions", hetupratyaya. given in the prose, and v. 21 is really (a rhetorical) p. 55. 28! For "Because the so-called other-nature has, obiection. In both cases the verses are bound not to in fact, no self-nature", read "Because there can be no be correctly understood without a commentary. self-nature based on other-nature". Another indication to the effect that verses and com p. 56, 17: Here Ch'ing-mu seems to paraphrase Nagar juna's Sunyatasaptati vrtti (see my Nagarjunas filosofiske mentary form an inseparable whole is the fact that the voerker, Kobenhavn 1982, p. 222). . verses taken by themselves hardly convey a full or p. 57, 4: "Because of ..." is here hardly adequate for coherent summary of Nagarjuna's thought. Actually the technical term upadaya. the commentary forms the core of the Shih-erh-men p. 59, 23: For "How can there be production", read --"How can there be #producer". Here sheng che renders Tun. nirvartako hetur in MK, I, 7c. Let us then briefly see if any internal evidence can p. 60, 7: For "there is no principle of production", read help us come to an opinion concerning the authorship. "in that case it would follow that non-being is produced". As far as the doctrine of the Shih-erh-men-lun is con- (... Wu-yu-sheng-li). . * p. 62, 18: Cf. *Sataka, p. 68; Samkhyakarika, 7 (+ Sasticerned, it hardly contains anything which could not tantra): Prajnapradipa, 24 6 a 4. have been said by Nagarjuna. It is in fact a reshuffled p. 66, 27: Critique of Asatkaryavada (Va isesika). - For summary of MK and SS with some additional passa- the drstantas, see MK, VII, 31; *Sataka, p. 83; Alokamala, ges criticizing Satkaryasatkarya- and I svara-vada (III II 115. p. 67, 33: "is yet to be established" seems too vague for and X). This indicates a somewhat later author than what literally renders samsayasama(hetu) but actually prob w Nagarjuna. Again the very idea of giv g an introduc- ably renders sadhyasamahetu, see Chung-lun, IV, 8-9 and tion to the basic works of the Madhyamika points to a Vigrahavyavartani, 28. somewhat later date than that of the founder of the p. 70, 14: "Briefly and broadly ..." will hardly do for vyastasamasta, MK, I, 11. school. Moreover there are no other precedents for p. 71, 4: For "qualities of the mind", read e.g. "mind Nagarjuna (or Aryadeva for that matter) compiling and mental phenomena", cittacaitta or cittacaitasa as in from his own works. Again the Shih-erh-men-lun, as a the corresponding passages in Chung-lun (2c 4) and Tawhole, is composed in a much more systematic style chih-tu-lun (29 6b 14), etc. - The translations proposed for the four pratyayas are in need of revision. than any of Nagarjuna's or Aryadeva's authentic p. 72, 17: For "are not formed by characteristics", read works, a fact whi gain indicates a somewhat later e.g. "cannot be established by characteristics", laksanastage of development in Madhyamika. Moreover there are, as been pointed out, several close parallelsteristics of created things" sams krtalaksana. p. 72, 18: For "created characteristics", read "characto Shih-erh-men-lun to be found in the commentary to p. 73, 30: For "is originated by", read "originates"; Chung-lun sometimes attributed to Ch'ing-mu, who janayate as in MK, VII, 4. Cf. Ch'ing-mu's commentary. certainly belongs to a later period than Nagarjuna, p. 73, 31: For "there are", read "including itself it creates". The commentary is virtually identical with the above all because he quotes from Aryadeva's Catuh one found ad MK, VII, 4. sataka. Since it seems quite probable that the Shih p. 74, 11: Here and in 1. 20 the negations are missing erh-men-lun as well as the Chung-lun in their critique due to the fact that Kumarajiva here as in Chung-lun, of Samkhya depend on Vrsagana's Sastitantra, this, VII, 5 & 6 wrongly read maulena janitas (for maulena janitas) and tena janitas (for tenajanitas). Note that the again, indicates an author later than Nagarjuna (cf. commentary to Shi-erh-men-lun presupposes the correct E. Frauwallner, Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden 1982, reading in both verses whereas the commentary to Chung lun, VII, 5 & 6 presupposes the wrong readings but seems For these reasons I incline to give the Chinese tra- to feel the difficulty. dition ascribing these commentaries to Ch'ing-mu the p. 75, 4: Here the Chinese (163 a 15-16) is given in prose. It should however, have been printed as a verse (4 x 5 chabenefit of doubt. In fine I would suggest it a good racters!) as it undoubtedly renders MK, VII, 8. 11zoManoton siddha. pp. 270; 278 reasons I incline to gidato Ch'ing-mu the It shouls