Who Was Ch’ing-mu (“Blue-Eyes”)?
Kiyotaka GOSHIMA
1. Preamble
In an earlier examination of the of the content and structure of the of the Twelve-Gate Treatise (Shiherh-men lun 十二門論), I showed that it was premised on the Akutobhayāand Ch’ing-mu’s Commentary (Chung-lun 中論 [ Middle Treatise, * Madhyamaka Madhyamaka-śāstra]), with some chapters making use sometimes of passages of passages from the former and sometimes of passages of passages from the latter, and I surmised that the author postdated Ch’ing-mu 青目 and predated Kumā Kumāraj ī va (or may possibly have been Kumā Kumāraj ī va himself) (Goshima 2002). This ī va ī va leads to the question of who Ch’ing-mu actually was. From the time of Chi-tsang 吉蔵 down to the present day he has been regarded as the compiler of the of the Twelve-Gate Treatise (Goshima 2004), and since the Meiji era (1868-1912) he has also come to be identified by some with Āryadeva, but some confusion is evident in this latter view. In the following, I shall review as faithfully as possible the history of research pertaining to Ch’ing-mu.1 2. Historical Source Material Relating to Ch’ing-mu
The only historical information on Ch’ing-mu is the following passage found in Seng-jui’s 僧叡 preface to the Middle Treatise. 今所出者，是天竺(1) 梵志名 (2) 賓伽羅 (3) 秦言青目之所釈也．(4) 其人雖信解深 法而辞不雅中．其中乖闕煩重者，法師皆裁而裨之，於経通之理尽矣.2 Problematic in this passage are the four underlined sections. (1) Why is Ch’ing-mu fan-chih 梵志) rather than an ordained monk? (2) The main described as a br āhmaṇa ( fan-chih text of the of the Taishō Taishōedition edition has Pin-chia-lo 賓伽羅, but a footnote gives the variant reading Pin-lo-chia 賓羅伽, and one needs to consider which was the orginal form. (3) Is Ch’ingmu 青目 (“Blue-Eyes”) a translation of Pin-chia-lo (or Pin-lo-chia)? (4) Did Seng-jui know by hearsay of “this person” (其人) who “believed and understood the profound Dharma” (信解深法) but whose “language was not elegant and apposite” (辞不雅中), or was he personally acquainted with him? 3. “Pin-chia-lo” or “Pin-lo-chia”? 1
This article elaborates in greater detail on my earlier article “ J ūnimonron to Ryū ju, Shōmoku, Rajū(2) Indogaku — toku ni Shōmoku ni tsuite”『十二門論』と龍樹・青目・羅什 (2) — 特に青目について , Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū印度学仏教学研究 55-2 (2007), pp. pp. (97)-(103). 2 Taishō30: 1a26-b1.
1
I shall begin with (2), which will serve as the basis of our subsequent observations. Many modern Japanese scholars have equated Ch’ing-mu with Piṅgala, and this is because they consider Pin-chia-lo to be a transliteration of Piṅgala. For example, Ui has “Pin-chia-lo (Piṅgala) = Ch’ing-mu, ca. 300-350,”3 and this view was endorsed by Hatani, who likewise has “Pin-chia-lo (Piṅgala) = Ch’ing-mu, first half of 4th century.”4 However, judging from the footnote in the Taishōedition, the form Pin-chia-lo is found in Seng jui’s preface to the Middle Treatise only in the Koryŏedition, while the Sung, Yüan, and Ming editions all have Pin-lo-chia, and in the same preface quoted in the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi 出三蔵記集 all editions have Pin-lo-chia. 5 The Fan-i ming-i chi 翻訳名義集, on the other hand, quoting the “Preface to the Middle Treatise,” has Pin-chia-lo. 6 On the basis of these scant materials it is impossible to determine which was the original form. 4. The Identification of Ch’ing-mu (Pin-chia-lo) withĀryadeva
It was probably Nanjio who first identified Pin-chia-lo with Piṅgala, although he did so with some reservations, writing, “N ī lacakṣus (? ‘blue eye,’ or Piṅgalanetra).”7 At the time, there had as yet been little research on commentaries of the M ūlamadhyamakak ārik ā, and Nanjio confused N ī lanetra (i.e., Ch’ing-mu), the author of the Middle Treatise preserved in Chinese translation, with Āryadeva, Candrak ī rti, and also Bhāviveka. Of particular interest is the following statement: “Ārya Deva, also called N ī lanetra, on account of his having two spots, as large as the eyes, on his cheeks. His real name was Candrak ī rti.”8 Suzuki also considered “Ch’ing-mu” to be a translation of Piṅgalanetra, “otherwise called Kāṇadeva or Candrak ī rti.”9 Takakusu subsequently pointed out that Piṅgala means “tawny” and could not be the original term underlying “Ch’ing-mu,” whom he identified with Candrak ī rti, otherwise known as Āryadeva. 10 Not surprisingly, there have since then been no researchers who have associated the seventh-century Candrak ī rti with the third-century Āryadeva. Teramoto, who published a Japanese translation of the Tibetan translation of the Akutobhayā, considered Pin-chia-lo (i.e., Piṅgala) to be an abbreviation of Piṅgalākṣa, meaning “tawny-eyed,” which he regarded 3
Ui 1921: 15-19. As is explained below, Teramoto tries to link ch’ing 青 (“blue”) with piṅgala by interpreting ch’ing as “dark reddish-brown,” but Ui points out with reference to the entry 氷伽羅，梁言蒼 色 in the Fan-i ming-i chi (Taish ō 54: 1109c16), etc., that the Chinese translations of colour words are not necessarily accurate. As further examples of the inaccuracy of the translations of colours, one could cite Mvyut. 2090 & 3315 “Piṅgala˙Ser-skya 黄白色” and Mvyut. 3240 “Piṅgalo nāgarā jāSer-skya 青白龍王， 黄色龍.” The Tibetan word ser skya is usually used as the equivalent of kapila or pāṇḍ ara, but the former means “ tawny, reddish,” while the latter means “pale-white.” 4 Hatani 1930: 33. 5 An examination of currently accessible editions of the Chinese canon reveals that, in the case of Seng jui’s preface, the Koryŏ 高麗 edition and Fang-shan 房山 Stone Canon have Pin-chia-lo, while the Chi-sha 碩沙, Southern and Northern Ming, and Dragon editions all have Pin-lo-chia, as does the Chin 金 edition. In Seng-jui’s preface as reproduced in the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi, the Chi-sha, Koryŏ, Chin, and Southern and Northern Ming editions all have Pin-lo-chia (with the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi not being included in the Fang-shan Stone Canon and Dragon edition). 6 Taishō 54: 1066c. The Taishōedition gives no variant readings. Robinson (1967: 29) surmises that the editors of the Taishōedition altered the reading, but the Southern Ming and Dragon editions (with the Chin edition adding it from the Southern Ming edition), as well as the Chia-hsing 嘉興 edition of the Ming, which all include the Fan-i ming-i chi, have Pin-chia-lo. 7 Nanjio 1883: s.v. 1179 (K uṅ-lun 中論). 8 Nanjio 1883: Appendix I, Bodhisattvas, 4 Deva. Nanjio is here quoting Das 1882: 96. 9 Suzuki 1898: 20. Suzuki mentions the view that Candrak ī rti, also known as N ī lanetra or Piṅgalanetra, was the author of the Hundred Treatise (Pai-lun 百論), i.e.,Āryadeva or Kaṇadeva (sic) (ibid.: 22). 10 Takakusu 1903: 182.
2
as a type of nickname rather than a proper name, and he identified him with Āryadeva, who had the nickname of Kāṇadeva (“One-Eyed Deva”). His single eye (k āṇa) was, namely, tawny ( piṅgala), and accordingly in Seng-jui’s preface we find the comment “called in Chinese ‘Blue-Eyes’” (秦言青目). Teramoto further notes with regard to Ch’ing-mu that ch’ing 青 “is not green, but refers to a colour between light ink-black and grey, that is, dark reddish-brown or dark blue.”11 In other words, Teramoto identified the author of the Middle Treatise (i.e., Ch’ing-mu’s Commentary) withĀryadeva. In addition, Demiéville writes that the author of the Madhyamaka-śāstra was Ts’ing-mou (Ch’ingmu), whom he equates with Piṅgala, and that this name is perhaps a nickname of Āryadeva.12 Lamotte too identifies the author of the Madhyamaka-śāstra withĀryadeva, and he mentions several of Āryadeva’s sobriquets — Kāṇadeva, N ī lanetra, Piṅgalanetra, Piṅgalacakṣus, and Karṇaripa — without, however, citing any sources.13 Since then, there have been no scholars who explicitly argue for the identity of Ch’ing-mu andĀryadeva, but a number of scholars have remained open to the possibility that they may be the same person. For instance, May writes that if one accepts the identity of Āryadeva with Shōmoku (Ch’ing-mu), Āryadeva would also be the author of the Chūron (Chung-lun) and he may also have written the commentary on the J ūnimonron (Shih-erh-men lun).14 Ruegg mentions in a note that the identity of Āryadeva and Ch’ing-mu was rejected by Tucci,15 but in the main body of his text he also notes that Ch’ing-mu (whose other name he gives as Pin-lo-chieh [=Pin-lo-chia]) has been identified withĀryadeva and has also sometimes been credited with the commentary preserved in Chinese on the Shih-erh-men lun.16 Mimaki too writes that if the identification of Piṅgalanetra (i.e., Ch’ing-mu) with Āryadeva is correct, then Āryadeva would have composed a commentary on the M ūlamadhyamaka-k ārik ā(i.e., Chung-lun).17 The Grub mtha’ shel gyi me long, the original of Das’s English translation on which Nanjio relied, has “the blue-eyed ācārya — this is another name for Candrak ī rti, who was so called because he had a pair of blue spots like eyes on both cheeks,” and there is no mention of Āryadeva.18 This occurs in a passage explaining the lineage of the 11 12 13
Teramoto 1974: 13-17. Demiéville 1953: 447. Lamotte 1970: 1373. In his review of Lamotte’s book, De Jong (1971: 109) rejects Lamotte’s view, stating that the Akutobhayā and Ch’ing-mu’s Commentary were written by authors familiar with Āyadeva’s works. 14 May 1979: 480. 15 Tucci 1929: xvii. 16 Ruegg 1981: 48. 17 Mimaki 1987: 432. 18 Das took considerable liberties in his English translation, and by way of comparison I shall give his translation of the passage in question, the original Tibetan, a more literal English translation, and a Chinese translation. ⅣThe Spread of theŚūnyatāPhilosophy. Buddha delivered this philosophy to Manju Ghosha who in turn delivered it to Nāgārjuna. The following were the eminent teachers of this philosophy: — 1. Nāgārjuna. 2.Ā rya Deva, also called N ī la-netra, on account of his having two spots, as large as the eyes, on both his cheeks. His real name was Candrak ī rti. 3. Svāmi Prajñā-raśmi. 4. the Chinese sage Yeśe-pal who was miraculously visited by Nāgārjuna. 5. Yeśe-Lodoi, from whom Ti-chi-ta- śi learnt it. (Das 1882: 96-7) bzhi pa zab mo lta ba’i brgyud pa ni / ston pa bcom ldan ’das / rje btsun ’jam pa’i dbyangs / dpal mgon ’phags pa klu sgrub / slob dpon mthing mig can / ’di zla ba grags pa’i mtshan gyi rnam grangs te [m]khur tshos gnyis la sme ba mthing kha zung mig dang ’dra ba yod pas de ltar grags / rje legs ldan ’byed phyi ma’am legs ldan ’byed chung ba / rje pra jnyāra smi / rgya nag slob dpon ye shes dpal / ’di la klu sgrub kyi nye brgyud kyang yod par gda’ / de nas slob dpon ye shes blo gros / de laṭ i ce d āshi’u
3
Indian Madhyamaka school, a precursor of the Chinese T’ien-t’ai 天台 and Hua-yen 華厳 schools, and it would seem that Das identified the said ācārya withĀryadeva on account of his position in the lineage. If this is so, then this would mean that this English translation by Das was the starting point of the (groundless) identification of Ch’ing-mu with Āryadeva, which was to perdure for more than one hundred years after the publication of Nanjio’s Catalogue. 5. The Identification of Ch’ing-mu (Pin-lo-chia) with Vimalākṣa
Teramoto’s views had been based on the earlier views of Walleser,19 who had deemed Pin-lo-chia rather than Pin-chia-lo to be the correct form and speculated that it might correspond to either Piṅgalakkha (a Prakrit form of Piṅgalākṣa) or a corrupt form of Vimalākṣa, and while no one with the former name is mentioned in Tibetan histories of Buddhism, the latter would correspond to Kumāraj ī va’s Vinaya master Pei-mo-lo-ch’a 卑 摩羅叉 in Kucha. According to Walleser, Pei-mo-lo-ch’a, who arrived in Ch’ang-an 長安 five years after Kumāraj ī va and edited the Shih-sung lü 十誦律 ( Daś abhāṇavāra-vinaya), revised an early commentary on the M ūlamadhyamaka-k ārik ā, traces of which survive in the Tibetan translation of the Akutobhayā, and composed Ch’ing-mu’s Commentary. As is indicated by the statement at the start of Kao-seng chuan 高僧伝 2 that “Pei-mo-lo-ch’a means Untainted Eyes” (卑摩羅叉，此云無垢眼), Vimalākṣa does not mean “blue-eyed” (Ch’ing-mu 青目), but a close equivalent would be Ch’ing-mu 清目 (“pure-eyed”). Walleser suggested that if the author of the Middle Treatise was Vimalākṣa, then Seng-jui ste slob dpon chen po ye shes ldan bya bas gsan / (Grub mtha’ shel kyi me long, in Collected Works of Thu’u-bkwan Blo-bzang-chos-kyi-nyi-ma, ed. and reproduced by Ngawang Gelek Demo, with introd. by E. Gene Smith, 1969, vol. 2, Kha, p. 468) IV. The lineage of the profound view is: the Teacher Bhagavān, the Venerable Mañjughoṣa, the glorious protector Holy Nāgārjuna, the blue-eyed ācārya — this is another name for Candrak ī rti, who was so called because he had a pair of blue spots like eyes on both cheeks —, the master Later Bhāviveka or Small Bhāviveka, the master Prajñāraśmi, and the Chineseācārya Hui-wen 慧文. Here is the lineage close to Nāgārjuna. Next, theā cārya Hui-śu 慧思, from whom Chih-che Ta-shih 智者 大師, that is, the GreatĀcārya Endowed with Wisdom, heard [the teachings]. 四，深观派．由本师薄伽梵依次递传有文殊菩萨，圣龙树，青目．青目为月称论师的名．因 为师的二面 颊上有二青痣，如二眼相似，故有此称．还有后清 辩论师或名小清辩论师，般若 罗什 弥与及 汉土大师慧文等．慧文得有龙树菩萨之亲传，慧文 传慧思，思传智凯大师，凯是具有智慧 的大阿闍黎．(Lo-sang-ch’üeh-chi-ni-ma 羅桑却吉尼瑪 [Blo-bzang-chos-kyi-nyi-ma], tr. Liu Lich’ien 劉立千, T’u-kuan tsung-p’ai yüan-liu, chiang-shu i-ch’ieh tsung-p’ai yüan-liu ho chiao-i shanshuo ching-ching shih 土観宗派源流・講述一切宗派源流和教義善説晶鏡史, Lhasa: Hsi-tsang Ch’u-pan-she 西蔵出版社, 1985 [repr. 1999], p. 211) Fa-tsang 法蔵 of the T’ang writes in his Shih-erh-men lun tsung-chih i-chi 十二門論宗致義記 (Taishō
42: 213a5-25) that he heard directly from Divākara, a monk from Central India, that Prajñāraśmi, who was at Nālandā Monastery in Central India together with Śī labhadra, had transmitted the teachings of the middle view and true emptiness, having received them distantly from Mañjuśr īand Nāgārjuna and directly from Ch’ing-mu and Bhāviveka. A similar account appears in the Fan-i ming-i chi (Taishō54: 1159b18-20) and T’ang Ta-chien-fu-ś u ku ś u-chu fan-ching ta-te Fa-tsang ho-shang chuan 唐大薦福寺故寺主翻経大徳 法蔵和尚伝 (Taish ō 50: 284c26-27). The author of the Tibetan doxography quoted above probably based himself on works such as these. It is, however, unlikely that the Indian monk Divākara would have mentioned Ch’ing-mu, and the Tibetan text records the lineage found in the Hua-yen ching t’an-hsüan chi 華厳経探玄記 (Taish ō 35: 112a2) and Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun i-chi 大乗起信論義記 (Taish ō 44: 242b20), which give more or less the same account, namely, Mañjuśr ī→ Nāgārjuna→Āryadeva→ Bhāviveka→ Prajñāraśmi. It is not clear why Ch’ing-mu was confused withĀ ryadeva in China, but it would seem to be unrelated to the thesis identifying Ch’ing-mu withĀryadeva. Cf. Peri 1911: 367; Huntington 1986: 181. 19 Teramoto based himself on Walleser, who, however (as is discussed below), speculated on the original Sanskrit on the basis of the form Pin-lo-chia, whereas Teramoto changed this to Pin-chia-lo when developing his own arguments.
4
mistakenly wrote 青目 for 清目, or, if the author was Piṅgalakkha, then Seng-jui misinterpreted piṅgala as “blue” rather than “tawny.”20 In this connection, Robinson suggests that the two words “pure” (清) and “blue” (青) might have been identical in Ch’ang-an speech or that Kumāraj ī va’s Kuchean accent may have obscured the diff erence; alternatively, a scribe may simply have omitted the water radical in what had originally been 清目, resulting in 青目. In other words, Robinson regards Pin-lo-chia (賓 羅伽) as a corrupt form of Vimalākṣa and considers the Chinese equivalent to have been 清目 (though it was actually written as 青目). If this was case, it is not necessary, according to Robinson, to equate this Vimalākṣa with Kumāraj ī va’s Vinaya master Peimo-lo-ch’a, and he may have been some otherwise unknown Indian.21 6. Is “Ch’ing-mu” (Pin-chia-lo/Pin-lo-chia) a Translated Name?
Here I wish to consider the third question raised earlier, namely, whether “Ch’ing-mu” is a translation. As was noted above, Teramoto considered “Ch’ing-mu” to be a translation of “Pin-chia-lo (Piṅgalākṣa),” and he took ch’ing 青 (“blue”) to mean “dark reddishbrown.” Walleser, taking Pin-lo-chia to be the original form, considered “Ch’ing-mu” 青 目 either to be a scribal error for Ch’ing-mu 清目 if Pin-lo-chia corresponded to a corrupt form of Vimalākṣa or, if Pin-lo-chia corresponded to Piṅgalakkha, to be the result of a misunderstanding of the colour designated by piṅgala. Robinson too took “Ch’ingmu” to be a translation of Pin-lo-chia, with 清目 having been mistakenly written as 青目. In other words, these three scholars all considered “Ch’ing-mu” to be a translation. In contrast, Bocking, while taking Pin-lo-chia to correspond to Vimalākṣa, as Walleser had suggested, considers “Ch’ing-mu” to be not a translation of Vimalākṣa but a descriptive nickname given to him by the Chinese.22 In support of this he cites the biography of Peimo-lo-ch’a in the Kao-seng chuan, at the end of which it is stated that because he actually had blue eyes, people at the time called him the “blue-eyed Vinaya master” (又為人眼 青，時人亦号為青眼律師).23 Bocking accordingly translates the opening section of Seng-jui’s preface quoted above as follows: “The commentary which is now issued is by the Indian Brahman Vimalākṣa, called in Chinese ‘Blue-eyes’.” 7. Was Seng-jui Personally Acquainted with Ch’ing-mu?
If the author of the Middle Treatise preserved in Chinese translation is considered to correspond to Pei-mo-lo-ch’a, Kumāraj ī va’s Vinaya master and the editor of the Shih-sung lü, the answer to the fourth question posed earlier, regarding whether or not Seng-jui was personally acquainted with the author of the Middle Treatise, would be that he was from the year 406 onwards. According to Bocking, it was because Seng-jui knew him well that he was able to write that though the author of the Middle Treatise believed and understood the profound Dharma, his language was not elegant and apposite. 24 But this 20 21 22
Walleser 1912: ix-xiii. Robinson 1967: 29-30. I have not seen Bocking 1985 and have relied on the published version of his dissertation (Bocking 1995). 23 Taishō 54: 333c13. In the entry on Pei-mo-lo-ch’a 卑摩羅叉 in the Fan-i ming-i chi it is stated that “he was widely known as the Blue-Eyed Vinaya Master” (世号青目律師; Taishō 54: 1069a11). In the Hsü Kao-seng chuan 続高僧伝, Pei-mo-lo-ch’a is also referred to as the “Blue-Eyed Vinaya Master” (青目律師; Taishō50: 620b3-4). 24 Bocking 1995: 395-405 (Appendix: The Problem of the Authorship of the Middle Treatise).
5
raises a question: Why would Pei-mo-lo-ch’a, a Vinaya master of the so-called H ī nayāna, have written a commentary on Nāgārjuna’s M ūlamadhyamaka-k ārik ā, which expounds the teachings of śūnyat ā? Moreover, according to Kumāraj ī va’s biography in the Kaoseng chuan, he studied the Mahāyāna under Sūryasoma and converted to the Mahāyāna, at which time he committed to memory the Middle Treatise, Hundred Treatise (Pai-lun 百論), Twelve-Gate Treatise, etc., which means that he would have been familiar with the Middle Treatise in Kashghar or Kucha, long before he arrived in China. Bocking addresses this question in the following manner. If Kumāraj ī va had arrived in Ch’ang-an in 401 with a copy of the original version of the Middle Treatise (or carrying it in his memory), he would have translated it well before 409, when it was actually translated. In contrast, the Hundred Treatise was translated in 402 and revised in 404.25 The Middle Treatise represented the core of Nāgārjuna’s thought, and if Kumāraj ī va had already had a copy when he arrived in Ch’ang-an he would have immediately set about translating it. It took him less than five months to translate the Lotus S ūtra in seven fascicles and about two years to translate the voluminous Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise (Ta chih-tu lun 大智度論) in 100 fascicles, and it is therefore inconceivable that it should have taken him eight years to translate a work of only four fascicles. What is more, there are no direct quotations from the Middle Treatise in any work produced in Ch’ang-an before 409.26 For instance, in 406 Seng-chao 僧肇, one of Kumāraj ī va’s leading disciples, wrote a treatise called the Pan-jo wu-chih lun 般若無知論,27 in which he shows hardly any knowledge of the Middle Treatise and relies for his understanding of the Mādhyamika on the Hundred Treatise and Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise.28 Though Seng-chao would have received direct instruction in Mādhyamika ideas from Kumāraj ī va, he does not quote directly from the Middle Treatise. This implies that no written text of the Middle Treatise was available during the first five or six years after Kumāraj ī va’s arrival in Ch’ang-an. Bocking suggests that Pei-mo-lo-ch’a arrived in Ch’ang-an in 406 together with the M ūlamadhyamaka-k ārik ā and his own commentary, which Kumāraj ī va then spent two to three years revising and translating. In this fashion, Bocking accepts the identification of Ch’ing-mu with Pei-mo-loch’a, suggested as one possibility by Walleser. But is it conceivable that a master of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, hailing from Kashmir, would have written a commentary on a 25
Bocking cites no sources in regard to this point, but in his commentary on the preface to the Hundred Treatise in his Pai-lun su 百論疏 Chi-tsang writes in regard to the two prefaces to the Hundred Treatise, “Master [Seng-]jui’s preface is an early version from the fourth year of the Hung-shih 弘始 era.… Master [Seng-]chao’s preface is the present text, which is a second version from the sixth year [of the Hung-shih era]” (Taishō42: 232a13-15). 26 A number of verses considered to have been quoted from the M ūlamadhyamaka-k ārik ā are found in the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise (translated in Hung-shih 7 [405]), and according to Saitō (2003: 196) there are at least 14 such verses, quoted 18 times in all. But Bocking writes that a comparison of the two works would suggest that whatever borrowing took place was completed before the translation of the Middle Treatise. 27 According to Tsukamoto (1972: 150), it was composed around Hung-shih 7 (405). 28 The Pan-jo wu-chih lun contains a single half-verse thought to have been taken from the M ūlamadhyamaka-k ārik ā (XXIV.18ab). The three Chinese translations of the full verse are given below (with underlines indicating the corresponding half-verse). Pan-jo wu-chih lun: 故中観云，「物従因縁有 故不真 不従因縁有 故即真」 (Taishō 45: 154a20-21) Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise:「因縁生法 是名空相 亦名仮名 亦名中道」 (Taishō 25: 107a11-12) Ch’ing-mu’s Commentary:「衆因縁生法 我説即是無 亦為是仮名 亦是中道義」 (Taishō 30: 33c11-12)
6
Mahāyāna work? In this regard, Walleser mentions the possibility that Pei-mo-lo-ch’a may have been led to the Mahāyāna by his disciple Kumāraj ī va in Kucha. Huntington, meanwhile, regards Bocking’s views as the only comprehensive thesis to connect the transliterated name “Pin-lo-chia” with the supposedly translated name “Ch’ing-mu” through the intermediary of a historical figure (Pei-mo-lo-ch’a).29 In the above three sections (§§ 5-7), we have examined chiefly the identification of Ch’ing-mu with Pin-lo-chia. But is it actually possible to link Pin-lo-chia to Vimalākṣa? According to Coblin, the character pin 賓 can be used to transcribe piṅ(g)-, but not viṃ-, vin-, biṃ-, etc.,30 and the character chia 伽 is not used to transcribe -kkha or -k ṣa.31 In other words, when considered from a phonological point of view, Pin-lo-chia cannot correspond to Vimalākṣa, and the form Pin-chia-lo, equating with Piṅgala, is supported. If this is the case, then the arguments of Walleser (who posited viṃ-)32 and also Robinson and Bocking, as well as Huntington’s endorsement of Bocking’s thesis, all turn out to be without foundation. 8. Was Ch’ing-mu a Brahman?
Lastly, I wish to consider the question of why Ch’ing-mu is described as a br āhmaṇa ( fan-chih 梵志) rather than an ordained monk. In this connection Ui writes, “He would have been a Brahman scholar who had converted to Buddhism, which he was studying, and rather than being ordained and becoming a monk, he would have maintained the outward appearance of a Brahman instead of assuming the appearance of a monk.”33 Likewise, Hatani considers him to have been “not a Buddhist ś ramaṇa but a layman who, though a Brahman, had studied Buddhism and attained a quite deep understanding.” 34 Teramoto, on the other hand, who identified Ch’ing-mu with Āryadeva, makes no mention of this point, while Bocking, who argues for the identification of Ch’ing-mu with Pei-mo-lo-ch’a, has “the Indian Brahman Vimalākṣa” in his translation, but he essentially ignores this issue. Saigusa, to whom Bocking submitted a paper entitled “The Problem of the Authorship of the Chung-lun” shortly before his departure from Japan in 1982, takes Bocking’s Pei-mo-lo-ch’a thesis into account in an overview of past research on Ch’ingmu, but ultimately rejects Bocking’s thesis on the grounds that the Vinaya master Pei-molo-ch’a could not have been a br āhmaṇa and it would have been quite strange for Kumāraj ī va, who had already gained a good understanding of the Middle Treatise while in Kashghar (or Kucha) and had even committed it to memory, to have obtained a copy of the Middle Treatise from Pei-mo-lo-ch’a, who arrived in Ch’ang-an after Kumāraj ī va.35 It should also be noted that only Takakusu equates fan-chih with brahmacar ī (sic; = 29
Huntington 1986: 185. This is merely the conclusion to Huntington’s discussion of the name “Ch’ingmu,” and he himself considers that there is a possibility that Ch’ing-mu may have written an Indian work possessing points in common with the Akutobhayā and Middle Treatise or that he may have edited and enlarged on such a work (ibid.: 187). 30 Coblin 1994: 356. I should like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Seishi Karashima (Soka University). Without his advice on phonological reconstructions of “Ancient Chinese”, I could not have completed this paper. 31 Ibid.: 128. 32 Walleser 1912: xii. 33 Ui 1921: 16. 34 Hatani 1930: 33. 35 Saigusa 1984: 51-52.
7
brahmacārin).36 Because there is so little material on the basis of which to form a judgement, nothing conclusive can be said about the meaning of fan-chih in the present context, but I would nonetheless like to refer to the example of “Ch’ang-chao (D ī rghanakha: ‘LongNailed’) fan-chih” 長爪梵志, mentioned in the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise translated into Chinese by Kumāraj ī va.37 “D ī rghanakha” was, as is well-known, a nickname, and his real name was Koṣṭhila (Chü-ch’ih-lo 倶絺羅), who was a maternal uncle of Śāriputra, a leading disciple of the Buddha. Modern translators of the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise have all rendered fan-chih in this case as brahmacārin,38 presumably because it is stated that “in order to broaden his discussions he left home and became a fan-chih” (為広論議故出家作梵志).39 But in other texts that record the story of D ī rghanakha he is described as a wandering mendicant ( parivr ā jaka),40 and in the above example too fan-chih should probably be understood in the sense of parivr ā jaka. Likewise, in Kumāraj ī va’s translation of the Lotus S ūtra the term fan-chih corresponds to parivr ā jaka,41 and the term paribbā jaka appearing in the “D ī ghanakka Sutta” ( Majjhima Nik ā ya 74) is translated in the Tsa a-han ching 雑阿含経 and Pieh-i tsa a-han ching 別訳 雑阿含経 as wai-tao ch’u-chia 外道出家 and fan-chih 梵志 respectively.42 In other words, “Ch’ang-chao fan-chih” was a nickname for a “non-Buddhist wandering mendicant ( parivr ā jaka) with long nails.”43 Similarly, would it not be possible to take the appellation “Ch’ing-mu fan-chih” in the sense of a “former parivr ā jaka with blue eyes”? 9. Concluding Remarks
When considered in light of the above, it is evident that, in spite of a long history of research on the subject, almost nothing about Ch’ing-mu has been clarified. About all that can be said with any certainty is that the author of the Middle Treatise preserved in Chinese translation was called Pin-chia-lo, i.e., Piṅgala, and in China he was known as “Ch’ing-mu ” or “Ch’ing-mu fan-chih.” Setting aside this research on Ch’ing-mu’s name, there are also some researchers 36 37 38
Takakusu 1903: 182. Taishō25: 61b18-62a28. Lamotte (1949: 46): “le brahmacārin D ī rghanakha”; Saigusa (1973: 24): “Chōsō bonji [Ch’ang-chao fan-chih] (brahmacārin D ī rghanakha)”; Kajiyama and Akamatsu (1989: 36): “the seeker of the way, Chōsō [Ch’ang-chao] (Brahmacārin D ī rghanakha).” 39 Taishō25: 61b28. 40 Avad ānaś ataka (ed. P. L. Vaidya, BST No. 19, Darbhanga, 1958), “D ī rghanakha˙,” pp. 255-259; M ūlasarvāstivāda-Vinayavastu (ed. N. Dutt, Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. 3, Part 4), “Pravrā jakavastu,” pp. 1-25. For the Chinese equivalent of the former, see note 43. In the case of the latter, parivrā jaka is invariably translated as fan-chih (Ken-pen shuo i-ch’ieh yu-pu p’i-na-yeh ch’u-chia shih 根本説一切有部毘奈耶出家 事, Taishō23: 1020b-1031a). 41 Karashima 2001: 88, s.v. 梵志 (fàn zhì). 42 Majjhima-Nik ā ya, Vol. 1, No. 74, “D ī ghanakhasutta” (PTS, pp. 497-501); Tsa a-han ching, no. 969 (Taishō 2: 249a-250a); Pieh-i tsa a-han ching, no. 203 (Taishō 2: 449ab). There is also the Ch’ang-chao fan-chih ch’ing-wen ching 長爪梵志請問経 (Taishō 14: 928*a-c), and according to Hosoda (1989), the title of the corresponding Sanskrit text is Dī rghanakhaparivr ā jakaparipṛ cchā. 43 Slightly anomalous among versions of the story of D ī rghanakha is the Chuan-chi pai-yüan ching 撰集 百縁経, at the start of which the Brahman father of D ī rghanakha is referred to as “a fan-chih” (一梵志). Elsewhere in the same text the word fan-chih is used several times to refer to people other than D ī rghanakha, and since the word p’o-lo-men 婆羅門 is used to refer to Brahmans, fan-chih should presumably be understood to mean parivrā jaka. After D ī rghanakha has become a ś ramaṇa and gained the state of an arhat , other monks call him “ fan-chih pi-ch’iu” 梵志比丘, which, judging from the context, probably means a “bhik ṣu who was formerly a parivr ā jaka.”
8
who, basing themselves on comparative textual research, regard him as the compiler of the Twelve-Gate Treatise or Akutobhayā. Gard (1954) and Tanji (1982) may be mentioned as examples of the former and latter respectively, and Lindtner (1982) suggests that he may have compiled both of these works. These scholars all base themselves on the connections between the Akutobhayā, Ch’ing-mu’s Commentary, and Twelve-Gate Treatise to be seen in quotations, borrowings, and appropriated passages in these three works, and this type of research may also be assumed to have been influenced, albeit indirectly, by earlier research on Ch’ing-mu. In order to probe the truth about Ch’ing-mu, careful text-based research, such as that conducted by Huntington (1986) and Saitō(2003), will need to be continued and accumulated. I too hope to be able to make some contribution, even if it is only small, through an examination of the relationship between the Twelve-Gate Treatise, the Tibetan translation of the Akutobhayā, and the Middle Treatise preserved in Chinese translation. References Bocking, B. 1985. “An Annotated Translation of the Chung-lun with Nāgārjuna’s Middle Stanzas, a Basic Text of Chinese Buddhism.” Ph.D. diss., University of Sterling (Scotland). ———. 1995. N āgārjuna in China: A Translation of the Middle Treatise. Studies in Asian Thought and Religion, Volume 18. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter. Coblin, W. S. 1994. A Compendium of Phonetics in Northwest Chinese. Berkeley. Das, S. C. 1882. “VIII Rise and Progress of Jin or Buddhism in China.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 51-2, pp. 87-99. De Jong, J. W. 1971. Review of Lamotte 1970. Asia Major 17, pp. 105-112. Demiéville, P. 1953. “Sources chinoises sur le buddhisme.” In L. Renou et J. Filliozat, L’Inde classique , pp. 398-463. Gard, R. A. 1954. “On the Authenticity of the Pai-lun 百論 and Shih-erh-mên-lun 十二門論.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū印度学仏教学研究 2-2, pp. 751-742. Goshima Kiyotaka 五島清隆. 2002. “ J ūnimonron no kōsei to chosha mondai”『十二門論』の構成と著者 問題. In Sakurabe Hajime hakase kiju kinen ronshū: shoki Bukkyōkara Abidaruma e 櫻部建博士喜寿記 念論集 初期仏教からアビダルマへ, pp. 447-465. Heirakuji Shoten 平楽寺書店. ———. 2004. “ J ūnimonron to Ryū ju, Shōmoku, Rajū”『十二門論』と龍樹・青目・羅什. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū印度学仏教学研究 53-1, pp. (101)-(105). Hatani Ryōtai 羽渓了諦. 1930. Kokuyaku issaikyō: Chūganbu 国訳一切経 中観部, Vol. 1. Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社. Hosoda Noriaki 細田典明. 1989. “Bonbun Z ō agonkyōButsu shosetsubon gedō sōō” 梵文『雑阿含経』仏 所説品外道相応, pt. II. Indo Tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku 印度哲学仏教学 4, pp. 140-153. Huntington, C. W. 1986. “The Akutobhayā and Early Indian Madhyamaka,” Vols. I & II. Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Kajiyama Yūichi 梶山雄一 and Akamatsu Akihiko 赤松明彦 (tr.). 1989. Daijō Butten (Chūgoku, Nihon hen) 1: Dai chidoron 大乗仏典〈中国・日本篇〉1 大智度論. ChūōKōronsha 中央公論社. Karashima Seishi 辛嶋静志. 2001. A Glossary of Kumārajī va’s Translation of the Lotus Sutra. The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University. Lamotte, É. 1949. Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de N āgārjuna, Tome I. Louvain. ———1970. Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de N āgārjuna, Tome III. Louvain. Lindtner, C. 1982. Nagarjuniana. Indiske Studier IV. Copenhagen. May, J. 1979. s.v. “Chūgan 中観.” H ōbōgirin, Ve Fascicule, pp. 470-493. Mimaki, K. 1987. s.v. “Āryadeva.” The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 1, pp. 431-432. Nanjio, B. 1883. A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripiṭ aka, the Sacred Canon of the Buddhists in China and Japan. Oxford (repr. Dai Min sanzōshōgyōmokuroku (fu hosei sakuin) 大明三 蔵聖教目録 (附補正索引), Kaimei Shoin 開明書院, 1977). Peri, N. 1911. “A propos de la date de Vasubandhu.” Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient XI, pp. 339-390. Robinson, R. H. 1967. Early M ādhyamika in India and China. Madison (repr. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1976). Ruegg, D. S. 1981. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. A History of Indian Literature, Vol. VII, Fasc. 1. Wiesbaden.
9
Saigusa Mitsuyoshi 三枝充悳. 1973. Dai chidoron no monogatari 大智度論の物語, Vol. 1. Daisan Bunmeisha 第三文明社. ———. 1984. Chūron — engi, k ū , chū no shisō 中論 — 縁起・空・中の思想, Vol. 1. Daisan Bunmeisha (rev. ed. 1991). SaitōAkira 斎藤 明. 2003a. “ Muiron no chosha to seiritsu o meguru shomondai” 『無畏論』の著者と成 立をめぐる諸問題. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū印度学仏教学研究 51-2, pp. (164)-(170). ———. 2003b. “ Muiron to sono seiritsu nendai — ‘Hannyakyō’ no in’yō o tegakari to shite —”『無畏 論』とその成立年代 — <般若経>の引用を手かがりとして —. Bukkyōgaku 仏教学 45, pp. (1)-(29). Suzuki, T. 1898. “Notes on the Mādhyamika Philosophy.” Journal of the Buddhist Text and Anthropological Society of India 6-3, pp. 19-22. Takakusu, J. 1903. “Notes on Chinese Buddhist Books.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp. 181-183. Tanji Teruyoshi 丹治昭義. 1982. “Mui to Shōmoku chū” 無畏と青目注. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 印 度学仏教学研究 31-1, pp. 83-88. Teramoto Enga 寺本婉雅. 1937. Bon-Kan-Doku taik ōChibettobun wayaku Ryū ju-zōChūron Muiso 梵漢独 対校 西蔵文和訳 龍樹造・中論無畏疏. Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社 (repr. Kokusho Kankōkai 国書刊行会, 1974). Tsukamoto Zenryū塚本善隆. 1972. “Bukkyōshijōni okeru Jōron no kenkyū” 仏教史上における肇論の研 究. In J ōron kenkyū肇論研究. Hōzōkan 法蔵館. Tucci, G. 1929. Pre-Diṅnāga Buddhist Texts on Logic from Chinese Sources. Baroda. Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿. 1921. Kokuyaku daizōkyō: ronbu 国訳大蔵経 論部, Vol. 5. Kokumin Bunko Kankōkai 国民文庫刊行会 (repr. Daiichi Shobō第一書房, 1974). Walleser, M. 1912. Die Mittlere Lehre des N āgārjuna nach der chinesischen Version übertragen. Heidelberg.
10
