Sunteți pe pagina 1din 18

ACTA ASIATICA

BULLETIN
OF

THE INSTITUTE OF EASTERN CULTURE

66
Buddhism in East Asia

THE TOHO GAKKAI


TOKYO 1994

AnOyerview of Research on Chinese Commentaries


of the Lotustra

KANNO Hiroshi

I. INTRODIJCTION

1. Chinese Buddhism and Su-ira Commc22iaries


Buddhist texts began to be translated into Chinese around the mid-second cen-

tury AD, and as a result it became possible for the Chinese to study Buddhism through the medium of the Chinese language The Buddhist canon may
be broadly divided into scriptures (su-ira), treatises (abhidhaTma) and precepts

(vinaJa), and as the study of Buddhism gradually advanced, Commentaries began


to be composed on works belonging tO each of these three divisions There
already existed in China a long tradition of commentarial wntlngS On the Con-

fucian classics, and this tradition may have stimulated the composition of commentaries on Buddhist texts. This commentarialliterature, whichourished

especially from the Northern and Southern dynasties (Nanpeichao) period


throughthe Suiand T'angdynasties, was such that it even surpassed in

both quantity and quality commentaries on the Confucianclassics produced


during the same period

Among Buddhist texts, the su-Eras were the most suited to the study of Sakyamuni's thought, and so the greatest energy was devoted to eomposlng COmmentaries on the su-Eras. In addition, there wasalso a strong tendencyprobably in
enced by the above-mentioned native Chinese commentarial tradition, for

chinese Buddhists to give expression to their thought while adhering to the


format of a scriptural commentary rather than by composing an independent
work.
For example, in the case ofHui-yiian(523-592) of Ching-ying-ss,

T`ien-t`ai Ta-shih Chih-i(538-597) and Chia-hsiang Ta-shih Chitsang(549-623), known as the three great Dharma-masters of the

sui,H commentaries on the su-Eras account for a considerable proportion of their


writings In the case of Chi-tsang wend that among the twentyve works

that he wrote, eighteen were commentaries on the following eleven Mahayana


su-Eras : AyaiaqlSaka-su-ira, Vl'malakl-riinirde3a-su-ira, Srl-ma-la-deiqlhana-da-sl?ira, Suuar

rabhdioiiama-su-ira, Larger Sukha-uaiu-ha, Kuan wu-liang-shou ching,


7

KANNO

HIROSHI

paa3ail'sa-hasrika- Prajha-Pa-ramita-, Vajracchedika- Prajnaa-ramita-, Je^n-wang Pan-jo

chiwg, SaddharmapQan-ka-su-ira and the Mahayna Maha-parinira-

su-ira. A further feature characteristic of the period up until the Sui dynasty
was that, as in the case orthese H three great Dharma-masters,H a slngle author
would write commentaries on many different su-iras In other words, one may

perceive a stance on the part of the commentators such that, rather than selectlng One particular su-ira) they would approach in an impartial fashion the sy-Eras

representative of Mahayana Buddhism, such as those dealt with by Chi-tsang

Asmay be inferred from the above, there exist in China a large number of
commentaries n the su-Eras. It is thus not unusual for there to exist several

commentaries on the same su-ira, and tracing Changes in the manner in which a

particular su-ira was interpreted in China becomes a topic for research. The
saddharmaPu4arika-su-ira, or Lotus Su-ira, is a typical example of such a u-ira

2. Chinese Commentaries on ike Loins Su-ira

lt goes without saying that the Lotus Su-ira has been widely revered in lndia,
china and Japan as a su-ira representative ofMahyna Buddhism, and in China
it was translated as the Che^ngja-hua chlng(Sra of the Flower of the

True Dharma) in 286 by Chu Fa-hu(Dharmarak!a; born ca 230, died at


ge of 78)I But because his translation was dcult to comprehend and, more
Importantly, because the study of Buddhism was at the time centered on Praja
paramitdoctrine) lt may be said of this translation of the Loins Su7ra that it did

not attract the attention of Buddhist circles to any great extent But when it
was subsequently translated anew by Chiu-m0-10-shih(Kumrajiva;

344A13 or 3501409) in 406 as the Miaofa lieu-hua ching(Satra of the

Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma), itfinally moved into the limelight,
as it were, and came to be widely studied

The oldest extant Chinese commentary on the Lotus Su-ira is the MiaoJa lienhua chins hu(Commentary on the Su-ira of ike Lotus Blosom of ike

wodrous Dharma) by ClmTao-sheng(car 3551434)I Tao-sheng studied

under Kumarajiva, and he was highly appraised for his orlglnal and penetrating
understanding of Buddhism on account orhis views supportlng the attainment or
Buddhahood by icchaniika (i-ch'an-i`i) and sudden enlightenment (iun-wu
). The version of the Mahayna Maha-parinirva-pa-su-ira in 6 fascicles intro-

duced to China by Fa-hsien(Ta-pan-ni-Jh'an ching) expressed a

negative attitude towards the attainment or Buddhahood by the lowly class or

people called icchaniika, but Tao-sheng, in spite Of being criticized for going
agalnSt the purport of the su-ira, nevertheless maintained in anticipation of the
thought of the Mahayna Maha-parinirvaa-Su-ira in 40 fascicles translated by T`an-

wu-ch`en(Ta-pan-nieh-p'Gn Ching) that the icchaniika wasalso

endowed with Buddha-nature and would eventually attain Buddhahood;fur-

CHINESE

COMMENTARIES

OF

THE

LOTUS

SUTRA89

thermore, assertlng that Buddhist truth was indivisible and unitary, he also criticized the theory of gradual enlightenment (chien-wu), according to which

this truth was realized in partial and gradual stages, and he maintained that in

regard to enlightenment it was only a question of whether one was enlightened


ornot.
Next there appeared the Fa-hua i-ch(Commentary on the Lotus Su-tva)

by Fa-yan(467-529) of Kuang-chai-ss, which was however not

actually written by Fa-yam, but recorded by one of his disciples Fa-yin was

one of the " three great Dharma-masters ofLiang A" along with Chih-tsang g
(458-522) and Sang-min(467-527), and his exegesis of the Lotus Su-ira

was held in highregard throughout the Northern and Southern dynasties period
(ie, from the era of contention in the early Afth century between the Sung

dynasty l42079] in Chiang-nanin the south and the Northern Wei


dynasty that unied northern China until the reuniLcation of the Northern and

southern dynasties by Emperor Wenofthe Sui dynasty in 589) Fa-yGn's

eminence was such that when interpreting the term 'wondrous Dharma '(miaofa) in his Fa-hua hsdan(Profound Meaping of the Lotus Su-ira),
chih-i wrote, H of all the past and present interpretations, that of lFan Of]

Kuang-chai l-ssa] is generally considered to be the best H (Taish6 Ed, Vol 33,
p 69lc), and, treating Fa-yiin,s interpretation as representative of earlier interpretations, made him the target orhis criticism

Asfor Chih-i himself, there is ascribed to him, in addition to the above Fa-hua

hSh-an-i, an annotated commentary on the Lou Su-ira entitled Fa-hue we^n-chh.

(Textual Commentary on the Lotus Su-ira), but neither of these two works

was in fact written by Chih-i, and they are said to be based on notes ofChih-i's
lectures taken by his disciple Chang-an Ta-shih Kuan-ting(561-

632), who later edited his notes and thus brought these two works to completion
As will be discussed below) an epochmaking study of their compilation has been

made by Hirai Shun'ei ((10))

chi-tsang'who isknown for having completed theformulation of the doctrines


f the Sam-lunor H Three Treatises , school (which attached greatest im-

portance to Nagarjuna,s Madlyamaka-3dstra and Dud-da3amukha-La-siva and the


saiaka-SLbira by his disciple Aryadeva), was the most proliBc of the commentators
on the Lotus Su-ira, Writing the Fa-hue hShan-lun(Treatise on the Profundity of the Lotus Su-ira), Fa-hun i-shu(Commentary on the Lotus Su-ira),

Fa-huaJu-i(Elucidation of the Lotus Su-ira) and Fa-hua i'ung-lb'eh

(synopsis of the Lotus Su-ira).


Lastly, Tz`a-en Ta-shih Chi(632-682) of the Fa-hsiangschooI
composed the Fa-hue hShan-isan(Eulogy on the Profundity of the Lotus

Su-ira).
The aboveures were all Buddhists of renown in the history of Chinese Bud-

90KANNO

HIROSHI

dhism, and they each engaged in the study of the Lotus Su-ira from their respective religious and scholastic standpoints

. RESEARCH HISTORY

In the following l shall present a survey of the research that has been under-

taken hitherto on the representative commentaries of the Lotus Su-ira alluded to


in the fbregolng SeCtion I shall, however, take up fr consideration only studies

that have been published in book fbrm

(1) Yamakawa Chi6, Hokke shiso-shljo- no Nl'chiren sh0-m.n


(Saint Nichiren in the history ofLoius thought) Tokyo: Shinch6sha

, 1934 (repr. Tokyo: J6mya ZenshKankbkai, 1978)

The aim of this work is to determine Nichiren's position in the history of Lotus

(or Loins Su-ira-oriented) thought and to examine his own thought and religion,
and in order to accomplish the former of these two objectives the author ex-

amines the thought associated with the Lotus Su-ira in India and China That

which concerns us here is Part 1, Section 3, dealing with Loins Su-ira thought in
china. The contents of this section are as follows:
chapter 1: The Period Prior to the Establishment of Orthodox Lotus
Thollght

l. The Views ofChu Fa-hu and His Disciples on the Lotus Su-ira
2. The Views of Chin-m0-10-shih and His Disciples on the Lotus Su-ira
3. The Views of Fa-yiin of Kuang-chai-sson the Loins Su-ira

4. The Views of Chia-hsiang Ta-shih Chi-tsang on the Lotus Su-ira

chapter 2 : The Establishment of Orthodox Loins Thought


l. The Views ofT'ien-t'ai Ta-shih Chih-i on the Lotus Su-ira
2. The Views of Mia0-1e Ta-shih Chanjanon the Lotus

Su-ira
3. The Views of Ssming Tsun-che Chih-lion the Lotus

Su-ira

chapter 3 : The Emergence of Subsidiary Lotus Thought


l. The Views of Tz'en Ta-shih K`uei-chion the Lotus

Sulira
2. The Views of Hsien-shou Ta-shih Fa-tsangand Ch`ingliang Ta-shih Ch'eng-kuanon the Lotus Su-ira
3. The Views of San-tsang Shan-wu-weiand Ta-kuang-chih

san-tsang pu-k'ungon the Lotus Su7ra

Asis evident from the the above table of contents, Yamakawa regarded the
views of Chih-i and his successors as representing tO Orthodox interpretation of

the Lotus Su-ira, while the views of people such as Tao-sheng, Fa-yiin and Chi-

CHINESE

COMMENTARIES

OF

THE

LOTtLS

SUTRA91

tsang were considered to belong to the " period prior to the establishment of

orthodox Lotus thought,H and interpretations differing from that of Chih-i, such

as those of Chi of the Fa-hsiang school, Fa-tsang and Ch`eng-kuan of the Huayenschool, and Sham-wu-wei (ubhakarasirPha) and Pu-k`ung (Amogha-

vajra), bothknown as translators of Esoteric Buddhist scriptures, are dealt with

collectively as - subsidiary Lotus thought" One distinctive feature of the method


adopted by Yamakawa in treating Of the views of Chinese Buddhists on the
Lotus Su-ira was to examine their respective interpretations of important doctrinal
points expounded in each of the twenty-eight chapters of the Lotus Su-ira

Yamakawa must begiven credit for his achievement in having surveyed for

the Arse time the various interpretations of the Loins Su-ira found in China In
addition, there is still much that merits our attention today in his observations

on these diverse interpretations of the Lotus Su-ira and in his understanding of

individual thinkers. But his view that Chih-i'S interpretation represented the

orthodox interpretation) as a result of which he set less value on other interpretations, was not necessarily based on an objective comparison of Chih-i and
the other commentators, and there is no denying the impression that his com-

ments do at times tend towards the extreme In particular) given that it has

n.w been demonstrated by Hirai Shun'ei (see (10) below) that there is considerable evidence of the influence of Chi-tsang's commentaries in the Fa-hun hsh'ani and Fa-hua we,a-chH compiled by Kuan-tlng'Yamakawa's examination of Chitsang lS Outdated when considered in the light of the current state of research
Furthermore, since he deals with the views of a considerable number of people

on the Loins Su-ira within the space of only a limited number of pages, his presen-

tation as a whole assumes the character ofa very general outline

(2) Kusaka Daichi, TaigGku shishin-Hokke gengi leik0-


(A guide to Tien-tai studiesAnexposition of the Fa-hua hsh'an-i)

Kyoto: Kaky6 Shoin, 1936 (repr Kyoto: Hyakkaen, 1976)

This work is an exposition of the content of the Fa-hue hsaan-i as a whole

(3) Shioda Gisen, Hokke TV,Ggakushi no kenu(A study


of the history ofLoius doctrine) Tokyo: Chih6 Shoin, 1960

This work resembles that by Yamakawa Chi6 ((1)) in that it too is a study of

the history of Lotus Su-ira thought in hdia, China.and Japan The contents of
part 2 (- History of Studies in China "), the section relevant to the subject of
research on Chinese commentaries of the Lotus Su-ira with which we are concerned here, are as fbllows:

chapter 1 : Chinese Translations and the Study of the Lotus Su-ira


l. Chinese Translations of the Lotus Su-ira

2.AnOverview of Studies on the Lotus Su-ira

r`

KANNO HIROSHI

92

Chapter 2: Early Chinese Commentators

l. Tao-sheng's Fa-hun chins shu


2. Fa-ytin's Fa-hue i-chi

Chapter 3: The Period or the Revelation or the True Meanlng Or the


Loius Su-ira
l. The Doctrines of Nan-yiieh Hui-ss

2. T'ien-t'ai Chih-i's Three Main Works on the Lotus Su-ira


Chapter 4: The Period or Exchange with Exoteric Buddhism
L Sam-lun Chi-tsang's Commentaries on the Lotus Su-ira
2 Fa-hsiang KCuei-chi's Fa-hue hiian-iran

3. Hua-yen Wan-hyo's Fa-hum isung-JaO(Essentials of the

Loius Su-ira )

Chapter 5: The Period orExchange with Esoteric Buddhism


l. -hsingAcarya's Taj.ih chins shu(Commentary on the

Maha-uairocana-bhisam bodhi-su-ira )
2, Pu-k`ung Sam-tsang's Fa-hum kuan-chih i-kuei(Ritual Man-

ual for lAttaining] the Wisdom of the Lotus Su-ira)

Asis evident from the above table of contents, Shioda's perspective is the same
as that ofYamakawa insofar that he considers Chih-i's three main works to have
revealed the true signicance of the Loiys Su-ira This book still merits reference

today, however, in that Shioda summarizes in succinct terms the views or each

thinker on the Lotus Su-ira, but his presentation as a whole is inevitably introduc-

tory ln nature As regards the relationship between Chih-i's three main works
and Chi-tsang's commentaries, the comments made on Yamakawa's study apply
in this case too.

(4) Sat6 Tetsuei, Tendai Daishi no kenu(A study of

T`ien-t`ai Ta-shih). Kyoto: Hyakkaen, 196L


This work essays a textual crltlque Of all works ascribed to Chih-i himself or
traditionally considered to represent records of his lectures, and it is a study

that broke fresh ground in the history of research on T'ien-t'ai doctrine Part 3

(HA Study of the Three Main Works of the T'ien-t`ai School") examines in
detail the process whereby Chih-i's three main works were compiled, and Sat6
points Out links between the Fa-hue hsban-i and Chi-isang' Fa-hue hsb'an-lun and
between the Fa-hua ze)e^n-chit and Chi-isang's Fa-hua hsiian-lun and Fa-hua i-hu But

as is noted in Hirai's criticism discussed below, Sat6 does not go far enough in
clarifying the manner in which Kuan-tlng composed the Fa-hue zve^n-chh'by referlng tO and modelling himselfon Chi-tsang's commentaries
(5) Och6 Enichi(ed.), Hokke shiso(Lotus thought) Kyoto:
Heirakuji Shoten, 1969

CHINESE COMMENTARIES OF THE LOTUS SDTRA93

This is a volume of collected papers, and the papers relating to the subject
under consideration here are Och6 Enichi, H Choku ni okeru Hokke shis6

shi"(The history of Lotus thought in China Part i,


Chapter 3]), and And6 Toshio, " Hokeky6 to Tendai kyagaku "
(The Lotus Su-ira and T`ien-t`ai doctrine lPart 2, Chapter 2, Section l])

In Section 1 (" Lotus Doctrine at the Time of Chiu-m0-10-shih's Translation ")


in the former of these two papers E)chb deals very brieny with the views of
Kumrajiva, Sang-jui, Chu Tao-sheng, Tao-jungand Hui-kuan

on the Lotus Su-ira; this is because he deals in greater detail with this subject in
(7) below In Section 3 of the same paper ("The Study of the Lotus Su-ira in

China ") Och6 examines the views of Fa-ydn, Chi-tsang, Chih-i and K'uei-chi
on the Lotsu SuTira His presentation is on the whole ofa general, introductory
nature.

(6) Sakamoto Yukio(ed.), HokeTgo- no Chu-gokuteki ienkai


(The Lotus Su-ira and Chinese Buddhism). Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten,

1972.

This is a volume ofcollected papers, and it contains a number of papers relat-

ing tO the subject under consideration here. English summaries of the papers
are appended to the end of the volume, and I shall accordingly g"e only the
English titles of the relevant papers (with someminor emendations)
Partl
Chapter 1 :

Sakamoto Yukio, "A History of Studies of the Lotus Su-traA"

Part 2

Chapter 1 :

Och6 Enichi, H Chu Tao-sheng's View on the Lotus Su-ira"

Chapter 2:

Tamura Yoshir6" Fa-yiin's Fa-hua i-chi"

Chapter 3 :

Sat6 Tetsuei, H The Fa-hua hSiian-i and Fa-hua ze)e^n-chit."

Chapter 4:

Satomi Taion, " Chi-tsang's Fa-hue chins hs&.an-luZZ"

Chapter 5 :

Maruyama Takao, " Chi-tsang's Fa-hun i-shu"

Chapter 6 :

Hirakawa Akira, " Tao-hstianand the Lotus

Su-ira. M

Chapter 7:

Suguro Shinj6" K`uei-chi's Fa-hum hsh'an-an"

Cbapter 8 :

Hibi Nobumasa, " han-jan's Fa-hua zvu-iai-zeJe^n lun

."
Chapter 9: Mizuno K6gen, " Chieh-huan's Fa-hua chiZlg

JaO-Chieh"
Chapter 10: Asai End6, " Chih-hsii's Fa-hua chins hut-i

."

(7) Och6 Enichi, Hokke hiso- no ke2%tJu-(Studies in Lotus

thought)A Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1975

KANNO HIROSHI

94

Tbis is a volume or collected papers and contains two papers relating to the
subject under consideration here: HJiku D6sh6 Ben Hoke0- She no kenkyd H

(A study of Chu Tao-sheng's Fa-hua chins shu) and


Hokke ky6gaku ni okeru busshin muj6 setsu "(The

theory of the impermanence of the Buddha's body in Lotus doctrine).


The frmer paper is divided into two parts) which the introduction, entitled

" chu Tao-sheng,s PhilosophicalBackground)M consisting of the following Six


sections:

l. Chu Tao-sheng's Philosophical Status


2. The Study of the Che^ngJa-hua chins during the Eastern ChinPeriod

3. The Buddhist Studies ofChih-tunin Chiang-nan


4. The Btlddhist Studies ofTao-anin Ch`ang-an

5. The Views of Hui-yiian and lChiu-mo-]10-shih on the Lotus Su-ira


6. The Views of lChiu-mo-]10-shih's Disciples on the Lotus Su-ira
The main body of this paper, entitled " Chu Tao-sheng's Fa-hua chins shu}'consists or the fbllowlng nine sections :
1. The Origins of the Organization and Composition ofTao-sheng's Com

mentary

2. Doctrinal Organization
3. The Ultimate lmplications of the Lotus Su-ira

4. The Interpretation oftheTitle


5. The Subdivision ofthe Text

6. The Understanding oHts Diction


7. The Theory orthe Three Carts) and the One Vehicle as an Expedient

Means
8. The Meaning Of Longevity and the JVTl'rvaa-Su-ira

9. Conclusion
This paper constitutes the most reliable study of Tao-sheng's Fa-hue chins shu,
and as such it ba served as arm base fb subsequent research by other scholars
Its exposition of the views of Kumrajva and his disciples on the Louius Su-ira

may also be considered to retain its value even today

The second paper noted above deals with Fa-yiin's views that the Buddha's
body as described in the Lotus Su-ira is impermanent in nature and that the eternalness of the Buddha's body wasrst expounded in the Mahyna Mahdl'ariirvaa-Su-ira and with Chi-tsang's and Chih-i's criticism oftheseviews Ochb's
treatmenis very much to the point and laid the fundations fb subsequent

research on this subject, but more detailed studies have now appeared

(8) Inari NissenHoke0- ichtj.0- shiso- no kenu(A

study of the One Vehicle thought of the Loins Su-ira) Tokyo: Sankib6 Busshorin, 1975.

CHINESE

COMMENTARIES

OF

THE

LOTUS

SDTRA95

tbanda,t d.i

This work contains a discussion of the different ways ln Which the text of the

Lotus Su-ira was subdivided in China, and it also deals with various interpretations of the concept of the One Vehicle In content it is of an introductory
nature.

(9) Maruyama Takao, Hokke0-gaku kenkEyu- joselsu-KichiZO- ni okeru

juJO- io icnkai-(Anintroduction to the

study of Lotus doctrine: Its acceptance and development in the case of Chi-

tsang). Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1978


As is indicated by the subtitle> this work brings together the author's research
on chi-tsang,s commentaries on the Lotus Su-ira Since the amount of research
on chi-tsang,s commentaries pr"r to the publication of this volume was by no

means substantial, it may be considered to have greatly stimulated subsequent


research Chapter 2 of the " Introduction " contains a convenient overview of

previous research on Chi-tsang,s commentaries on the Lotus Su-ira entitled H The

study of Chinese Lolus Doctrine in Modern Japan: With a Focus on Chitsang" The main body of the book is divided into two parts, and Part 1 (" The

Acceptance and Development of the Idea of the Integration of Three Vehicles


into One Vehicle in the Lotus Su-ira H) consists of the following six chapters.:
chapter 1 : A Summary of Chi-tsang's Conception Of the Integration Of
Three Vehicles into One Vehicle in the Lotus Su-ira
chapter 2: The Five Vehicles and Three inductions in the Fa-hua hsh-anltLTZ

chapter 3: The Five Vehicles and the Three Herbs and Two Trees in the

Cbapter H Parable of Medicinal Herbs "

.&

chapter 4: The Theory that the One Vehicle is True and the Two Vehicles are Provisional and the Theory that the One Vehicle is True and
the Three Vehicles are Provisional in the Fa-hue i-shu
chapter 5: The Inclusion of the One Vehicle in the Three Vehicles and
Exclusion of the One Vehicle from the Three Vehicles in the Fa-huaJu-i
chapter 6: The View of the Buddha's Body in the Fa-huaJu-i

part 2 (H Various Q5'eStions in the Study of Loins Doctrine H) consists of four


chapters, and the chapters of relevance here are as follows :

chapter 2: Chi-tsang's View of the Three Periods lofthe True Dharma,


Imitative Dharma and Latter Dharma] and the Subsequent Five Hundred Years
chapter 3: The Concept of the Last lDays of the] Dharma and the

Subsequent Five Hundred Years in China


This book closes with an annotated Japanese translation of the Fa-huaJu-i (in the
traditionalkuZldokustyle)

KANNO HIROSHI

96

(10) Hirai Shun'ei, Hokke mongu no seiriisu ni kanuru kenTJu-


(A study of the compilation of the Fa-hun we^n-chh') Tokyo:

Shunjtisha, 1985

The objective of this work is to demonstrate that the Fa-hum we'n-chbl, counted
among the three main works orthe T`ien-t`ai school, was composed aRer Chih-

i's death by his disciple Kuan-ting, Who based himselfcompletely on Chi-tsang's


Fa-hua hiian-lun and Fa-hun i-hu, to which he referred and on which he modelled

the Fa-hua we^n-chii The text-critical study of Chih-i's wrltlngS had been initiated by Sat6 Tetsuei (see (4) above), but it was still not totally free of-the con-

straints of sectarian loyalties and it had not been sufBciently thorough-going aS


textualcriticism per se But as a result of- Hirai's study, the dependence of the
Fa-hua ze)e^n-chhl on Chi-tsang's commentaries wasfully elucidated. Since this
work represents an epochmaking study or the relationship obtaining between

Chih-i's and Chi-tsang's commentaries on the Lotus Su-ira, I shall discuss it in


some detail. The table orcontents is as fllows:

Parl Introduction: Chih-i and Chi-tsang-Problems Surrounding

Their Commentaries on the Su-Eras


Chapter 1 : Chih-i and Chi-tsang's Commentaries on the Su-Eras

Chapter 2: Various Problems concerning Chih-i's Commentaries on the


Vl.malakiriin irdes'a

Chapter 3 : The Fa-hun hsiian-i and Fa-hun hsiian-lun


Part 2Criticisms or the Compilational Background and Tradition or the

Fa-hua ze)e^n-chit

Chapter 1 :

Compilational Background of the FaThua we^n-chit

Chapter 2:
Chapter 3 :

Textual Editions of the Fa-hun we^n-chit


Problems concerning the Analytical Breakdown of the Su-ira

Chapter 4:
ployed in

The Meaning Or the Four Methods oHmterpretation Emthe Fa-hua we^n-chit and Chi-tsang's Four Methods of lnterpre-

tatlOn

Chapter 5:

QyLOted Works Found in the Fa-hum we^n-chh'and Fa-hua

hiia72_ fun

Chapter 6:

Accounts of Chi-tsang Found in Sh6shin's Hokkeho shiki

Part 3 (10tations from Chi-tsang's Commentaries and Treatises in the

Fa-hua we^n-chit

Section 1 : The Fa_hua we^n_ch&'and Fa_hua hsiian_lun


Section 2: The Fa-hua we^n-chit and Fa-hum i-shu
In Chapter I of Part 1 Hirai criticizes Sat6 Tetsuei's study of the commentaries
on the Vajracchedika- Praja-ga-ramiia- ascribed to Chih-i and Chi-tsang and puts

forward a newview It is believed that the Chin-kGngPan-jo chins shu


(Commentary on the Vajracchedika--prajna-pa-ramiia--su-ira) in 1 fascicle ascribed to

Chih-i was not actually composed by Chih-i, and when it is compared with the

cHINESE COMMENTARIES OF THE LOTtj-S SE7TRA97

chin-hang pan-jo sho(Commentary on the Vajracched%-ka- Praja-ramiia-)

in 4 fascicles by Chi-tsang) a considerable number of parallel passages are found


_g-Sasb-S1m

in both works According to Sat6) when this is taken into consideration with
the fact that the author of passages from the commentary ascribed to Chih-i is

criticized by Chi-tsang and referred to as H a certain person,H it would suggest


that the commentary ascribed to Chih-i predates that by Cbi-tsang Sat6 maintains, moreover, that since Chi-tsang goes so far as to adopt in ioio the su-ira sub-

divisions orthe commentary ascribed to Chih-i, it may be assumed that the real
author of this commentary,althoughdiCult to plnPOlnt, Was SOmeOne Whom

Chi-tsang held in high regard

By carefully companng the two textsD however) Hirai demonstrates that the

author of the commentary ascribed to Chih-i plagiarized the "views ofa certain
person " in Chi-tsang's commentary'cltlng them as if they were his own, and
that he based himself completely on Chi-tsang's commentary) referring to it and
modelling his own commentary on it It is thus shown that the Chill-kangpan-jo
chins hu, traditionally ascribed to Chih-i, was, as already recognized by Sat6,

an apocryphalwork and that its real author was not someone predating Chitsang, as maintained by Sat62 but an adherent of the T'ien-t'ai school postdating Chi-tsang
chapter 2 deals with Chih-i's commentaries on the VZ'malakl-riinirdes'a-u-ira

L
e

( wet-mo chins hsh'an-shu[Profound Commentary on the VimalSu-tva ; 6


fasc.] and fascicles 1-25 of the Wei-mo chins we^n-shu[Annotated Com-

mentary on the Vl'mala-Su-ira; 28 fasc]), to which great importance has been


traditionally attached since they have been regarded as representative of the

few works actually composed by Chih-i In 598, the year following Chih-i's
death, they were presented by Kuan-ting and P'u-mlngto King Kuang of
chin(who later became the emperor Yang-ti), and since Chi-tsang,

who was then in Ch'ang-an) would have written his commentaries on the Vimalaki-rtinirdes'a-su-tva (Chg-ming hsh'an-lu[Treatise on the Profundity of

the Vi'malakz-rii; 8 fasc.], Wci-mo chins liieh-shu[Brief Commentary on


the Vl'mala-su-ira; 5 fasc.] and Wet-mo chins i-shu[Commentary on the

vl'mala-su-ira; 6 fasc.]) no earlier than 599, it is properly speaking inconceivable


that there should be evidence of any inence of Chi-tsang's commentaries in

chih-i's commentaries But given that Chih-i himself expected his disciples to
make additions and corrections to bi commentaries and that there is a strong

possibility that Kuan-ting and Chi-tsang met in Ch'ang-an, it is possible that


there may be evidence of inence from Chi-tsang's commentaries in Chih-i's

commentaries, and when the commentaries of both are comparedD it is in fact

possible to discover a number of passages in Chih-i's commentaries,although


few in number, where reference has been made to Chi-tsang's commentaries

By this means Hirai seeks to demonstrate that even Chih-i's commentaries on

98

KANNO HIROSHI

the Vl'malakiril'nirdes'a-su-ira are not untouched by the general tendency evident


in Chih-i's su-ira commentaries, namely, the tendency to be marked by the in

ence of Chi-tsang's commentariesI

Chapter 3 deals with the Fa-hue hsb'an-a work which according to the later

traditions of the T'ien-t'ai school represents either a record of notes taken by


Kuan-ting Of lectures given by Chih-i on speciBc dates at specic places or a

record of Chih-i's lectures to which Kuan-ting added his own views But according tO Hirai, the Fa-hum ksita32-i is of a totally diqerent character, and he entertains strong suspICIOnS that the entire work was composed by Kuan-ting himself
and that Chih-i played no part whatsoever in its composition As is discussed
below, Hirai entertains similar suspICIOnS in regard to the Fa-huaC^n-Chit, and in

this latter instance they arefully borne out by his arguments But in the case
of the Fa-hua hsb'an-i they are not adequately proven and remain no more than
suspICIOnSI He ascertains the inence of the Fa-hum hsb'an-lan on the Fa-hua
hsan-i> already pointed out by earlier scholars, and also discusses fresh evidence

of this inence, demonstrating that the section " Introducing Old Interpreta-

tions " among the four sections on " Revealing the Essence of the Lotus Su-ira "
in the Fa-hue hsiian-i was composed on the basis of the Fa-hue hsiian-lun But since
these sections that have come under the inauence of the Fa-hue hsh'an-luCOnSti_
tote but a small portion of the Fa-ua hshlan-i as a whole, One is forced to conclude

that Hirai's suspIC10nS have not been adequately proven


In Chapter i of Part 2 Hirai summarizes the results of his research on the
compilation of the Fa-huae^7l-Chgi. Kuan-ting himself states that he heard Chih-

i lecture on the Loins Su-ira only once at Chin-ling(Chien-yeh) when he

was 27 years old (587) and that he later revised his notes at the age of69 (629),
thus producing the Fa-hue we^n-ch&l When compared with the Fa-hue hsh-an-

however, the Fa-hua we^n-Chit contains in its extant form an incomparably larger
number of passages that were written on the basis of Chi-tsang's Fa-hum hsiianlun and Fa-hue i-shu. The text of the Fa-huae^n-Chit was, moreover, made public

only in 629, considerably later than the Fa-hue hsn-, and it isalso known that

Kuan-tlng's revised text of the Fa-hue we^n-chit was so confused that Tso-hsi
Hsiian-lang(673-754) had to reedit it

On the basis of the above facts, Hirai conjectures that the stance of Chih-i, a
revolutionary practitioner of rare genius whose expositions of the Lo Su-ira were

marked by pithiness and profundity, would have been in direct contrast to that
of the traditionalexpositors of the siraf, Whose expositions werealways literal,

and he therefore suggests that Chih-i himself did not in fact give any lectures
expounding the su-ira text word-by-word or, if he did, it would have been only in
a very Incomplete form If this should have been so, it then becomes possible

to explain the reasons for the considerable delay in the compilation of the Fa-hun
ule^Zl-Chit and for the marked inlenCe Of Chi-tsang's commentaries. Hiraialso

cHINESE

COMMErARIES

OF

THE

LOTUS

SOTRA99

makes the bold suggestion that Kuan-ting Waited until after the death of Chitsang (623), author of the Fa-hua hshan-lan and Fa-hua i-Shu on which the Fa-hum
we,a-chh is totally dependent) before making public the text of the Fa-hua we'n-chh'

As for Kuan-ting,s motivation in composing the Fa-hua we'n-chh, Hirai perceives


here a strong desire on the part of Kuan-tlng tO exalt the achievements of Chih1, a revolutionary practitioner of rare qualities, by further attributing to him the

status ofa traditionalsu-ira commentatOr In addition, Hiraialso speculates that


Kuan-ting himself wrote only a part of the extant text of the Fa-hua we^ha and

that it may have been revised and expanded by later scholars


In Chapter 2 Hirai collates the Mingedition of the Fa-hua we^n-ckh', used as

the base text.f the Taisha edition, with the H6rya-jimanuscript (also

referred to by the editors of the Taish6 edition) and the manuscript formerly
kept at lshiyama-deraand thought to date from the early Heian

period (with only fasc 1 extant), and he presents some fresh materialbased on
his collation offascicle 1.

chapter 3 deals with the subdivision of the text of the LotlLS Su-ira as presented
in the Fa_hum we,nchh., where it is divided into the essentialteachings (Pe^n-we^n

) and trace teachings (chi-we'n), both of which are further subdivided into

an introductory section, a main section and a closing section Hirai suggests


that this method of subdivision is not based on Chih-i's exposition, but was de-

tb . hat.:

vised anew by Kuan-ting With reference to Chi-tsang's Fa-hum i-shu, and healso

bats r ln

fang-shih(interpretation that takes cognlZanCe Of the free play of ultimate

makes the comment that it is not as logically consistent as Cbi-tsang's subdivision of- the text.

In Chapter 4 Hirai examines the four methods of interpretation employed in


the Fa-kua we^n-chd (-Jhan-Shih, Jdeh-chiao-shih, Pe^n-chi-shih
and kuan-kin-shih), maintaining that as methods ofscripturalexegesis they
have neither universality nor validity'and be sgeStS that when one takes into

account the similarities between the basic ideas behind these methods of interpretation and Chi-tsang,s fourfold interpretation, consisting ofsui-ming-shih
(Ordinary interpretation based on literal meaning), yi-Jh'an-Shih (interpretation

focusslng On the relative relationship between one concept and another and on
their interdependence), li-chiao-shih(interpretation that presents by means

of concepts theultimate truth transcending co.nceptual understanding) and wutruth from the standpoint ofultimate truth), there is a possibility that they were

formulated by Kuan-ting under the inauence of Chi-tsang


in Chapter 5 Hirai compares the works quoted in the Fa-huae^n-Ckh- with those

quoted in the Fa-hun hshan-lan and, pointlng Out that not only do both works

sha,e a considerable number of sources, but there are also many identicalpassages quoted in both works) he suggests that this too is the result of the author
of the Fa-hum we^n-chh having referred to the Fa-hua hSh'an-lu

KANNO HROSH

(12th cent-early 13th cent.), and, noting that this work refers to Chi-tsang's

Fa-hue hsh'an-lan, Hirai points Out that Sh6shin levels severe criticism at Mia0-1e
Ta-shih Chanjan(71 11782) for having presented erroneous interpretations in his Fa-huae^nhh'chi(Notes on the Fa-hua we^n-chd) as a

result of-his failure to refer to the Fa_hum hsb.an_lun.

Part 3 constitutes the central part of Hirai's book, and jn Section 1 he compares parallel passages in the Fa-huae'n-Chh and Fa-hua hSh.an-fun and demon-

strates that the Fa-hua we^n-chit was written after the model of the Fa_hun hskan_
lun, while in Section 2 he compares parallel passages in the Fhua we'n-chh and
Fa-hua i-hu and similarly demonstrates that the Fa-hue we^n-chb. was written with

reference to the Fa,hum i-hu too, althoughits dependence on the Fa-hue i-hu is
not as great as its dependence on the Fa-hua hiian-lun.

Asa result ofHirai's research, it has now become necessary to undertake careful comparisons with Chi-tsang's commentaries on the Lotus Su-ira when studying

Chih-i's Fa-hue we^n-chh) and this is greatly facilitated by the fact that Hirai,s
book presents all the material from Chi-tsang's commentaries on which the Fahua zLIe^n-Chit draws.

(ll) Tada K6sh6, Hokkegengi(The Fa-hue h&'afl-i). Tokyo

Daiz6 Shuppan, 1985.

This work presents the orlglnal text of fascicle 1 of the Fa-hue hsh.an-i together
with a rendition in the traditional kundoku style, a modern Japanese translation,
notes, and an exposition of its content.

(12) Muranaka YBsh6, Tendai kanmon no kicho-(The

keynote ofT'ien-t'ai practice) Tokyo: Sankib6 Busshorin, 1986.


This is a volume ofcollected papers) and those ofrelevance here are the foL
lowing Papers dealing primarily with Chi-tsang,s commentaries on the Lotus
Su-ira :

1 A Consideration of the Formation of Chia-hsiang Ta-shih,s Concept of


` Two Canonical Divisions '
2 Chia-hsiang Ta-shih's Ideas on Doctrinal Classiacation
3 The Development of Chia-hsiang Ta-shih's Ideas on Doctrinal Classi

cation

4 The Compilation and Revision ofChia-hsiang Ta-shih's Su-ira CommentarleS

(13) Hirai Shun'ei, Hokke genron no chdshakuieki kenTgu(An

annotative study of the Fa-hue hSh'an-lun) Tokyo: ShunjGsha, 1987.

-T-Tg.t hjq.

Chapter 6 deals with the Hokkeho hiki(Private Notes for a Commentary on the Lotus Su-ira) by theJapanese scholar H6chib6 Sh6shin

CHINESE COMMEhTTARIES OF THE LOTLLS SUTlu 101

This work represents a study of Chi-tsang's Fa-hua hsh'an-lun Part 1

(" study H) consists ofave chaptersI Chapter 1 (" The Compilation of the Fahua hsb'an-luZZ H) surveys the history of the study of the Lotus Su-ira prior to Chi-

tsang and discusses the stance and methodology or Chi-tsang's commentary ln


the Fa-hua Ash-a22-fun. Chapter 2 (" The Fa-hua hsdan-fun and Fa-hua i-chi ") focusses on the criticism of Fa-yiin's Fa-hua i-chi in the Fa-hua hsiian-fun, and Hirai
discusses in particular Chi-tsang's criticism of Fa-y's view that therst half

of the Lotus Su-ira reveals the cause and the second half reveals the effect and his
criticism of Fa-y's view that the Buddha's body as described in the Lotus SuJtra
is impermanent. Chapter 3 (H The Transmission of the Fa-hua hsHan-luH) is

a study of the transmission of the Fa-hua hsdan-lun in the Japanese Sanron

sect (corresponding to the Chinese San-Inn school) In Chapter 4 (" The Fahua hsh'an-lun and Subsequent Commentaries on the Lotus Su-ira ") Hirai examines

the inauence of the Fa-hue hSiia22-fun on Wan-hyo's Fa-hua isung-JaO, Chi's Fa-hua
hsiian-an and Shatoku Taishi's Hokkc gisho(Commentary on

the Lotus Su-ira). Chapter 5 (= The Text of the Fa-hua hSh'an-lun ") describes the
various manuscripts Of the Fa-hua hsiialun

part 2 (HAnnotated Translation ") presents the text of the arst 4 fascicles of
the 10 fascicles of the Fa-hua hiian-lun together with aJapanese translation in the

traditionalkundoku style and notes In particular, the elucidation in the notes


of sources quoted in the Fa-hua Ash.an-lun is the result of considerable effort on the
part of the author and will be of great benet to future researchers

(14) Young-ho Kin, Tao-he^ng' CommeniarJ OZl ihc Lotus Su-ira: A Siand

Translation. Albany: State University OfNew York Press, 1990


This work presents a study and annotated English translation of Tao-sheng's
commentary on the Lotus Su-ira Since Tao-sheng's commentary has not yet
been translated into modern Japanese, this represents itsrst rendition into a

modern language. There hasalready appeared, however, a Japanese translation in the traditional kundoku style (Sanko- Bunka Kenu-}'o Nenpo
Nos. 9 [1976 and 12 [1979]), and a single-character concordance has also

been recently published privately by Okuno Mitsuyoshiand Hareyama


shun'ei(July 1992). The table of contents ofKim's work is asfollows:

Part I: Introduction

Chapter L Tao-sheng's Prehistory: The State of Buddhist Studies in


China
Chapter 2. Tao-sheng's Biography

Chapter 3 Tao-sheng's Works


Chapter 4 Tao-sheng)s Doctrines
Chapter 5 Tao-sheng's Inence and the Impact of His Doctrines

part II : A CriticalStudy ofTao-sheng's Commentary on the Lotus Su-ira

Cbapter 6. Tao-sheng and the


Chapter 7. Literary Aspects
Chapter 8. ccntral ldeas

SaddharmapQarika

Chapter 9 Traces ofTao-sheng's Doctrines


Chapter 10. Conclusions
Part III:

(15) Paul.

Translation
Swanson, Foundations of T`ien-i`ai Philo09. Berkeley: Asian

Humanities Press, 1989.


This work contains an annotated English translation of part of the Fa-hua
ksh-an-i (from towards the end offascicle lb Taish6 Ed, Voll 33, p 691a] to

the end offascicle 2b).

(16) Kanno HiroshiHoL-ke io zva nani ka-HokkcJui oJOmu


-- (What is the LoiusP: Reading the Fa-hua Ju-i)

Tokyo: ShunjBsha, 1992


This work presents a translation in modern Japanese of the Fa-huaJu-i together with a rendition in the traditional kundoku style, notes, and an exposition of
its COntent.

Among the studies of Chinese commentaries on the Lotus Su-ira, I have in the
above surveyed representative works that have been published in book form

Lastly, I wish to comment brieay on the present state of research as renected in


annotated translations of the representative commentaries on the Lotus Sulira

As noted above, an English translation and single-character concordance of


Tao-sheng's commentary havealready been published ((14)).As for Fa-yiin's
Fa-hue i-chi, there has not yet appeared even a kundoku-style translation, and
wlen One COnSiders the extent orthe inuence exerted by this work on the com

memtaries by Chi-tsang and Chih-i, it is to be hoped that an annotated translation and study will be published soon In regard to the Fa-hue we^n-chb', there

has appeared only a kundoku-style translation, while in the case of the Fa-hue
hsiian-i there have appeared in addition to a kundoku-style translation an anno-

tated translation offascicle i in modern Japanese ((I 1 )) and an annotated English translation ofthenal third offascicle lb and all of fascicle 2 ((15)).As

for Chi-tsang's Fa-hua hsh'an-lan, there has appeared an annotated kundoku-style


translation of the Brst 4 fascicles ((13)), while in the case of the Fa-hua i-shu a
kundostyle translation is available, and there have already appeared transla-

tions of the Fa-huaJu-i in both modern Japanese and kundoku style with notes

((9) and (16)). There has not, however, appeared even a kundoku-style rendition of the Fa-hua i'ungJbleh, and among Chi-tsang's commentaries this is the
commentary about which there is the least amount of research available It is

.TmBo:i h

KANNO HIROSHI

102

7
m
7
.
.
,

l
;
J
L

/
.
r

CHINESE

COMMENTARIES

OF

THE

LOTtLS

SUTIL4103

to be hoped at any rate that annotated translations and indexes based on sound

textual research will eventually be made available for each of these commentaries on the Lotus Su-ira.

There have also been published many academic papers dealing with Chinese
commentaries on the Lotus Su-iraJ but space has not permitted me to discuss these

here. Recent years have seen a burgeoning of research in Japan on Chi-tsang's


commentaries.A the Lotus Su-ira, and on this subject reference may be made to
the bibliography appended to Hirai Shun'ei (ed), Sanmn ky0-gaku no keu

(Studies in San-Inn doctrine; Tokyo-: Shunjasha, 1990)

additional note :
(17) Kanno Hiroshi, Chagoku Hokkc shiso- no kenu(A study

of Chinese Fa-hue thought) Tokyo : ShunjGsha, 1994

._-.

S-ar putea să vă placă și