Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma treatises started to be carefully studied and commented on by monks in ea... more Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma treatises started to be carefully studied and commented on by monks in early medieval China with the translation of hṛdaya treatises, the *Aṣṭagrantha, and the *Vibhāṣas. However, with the “new” translations undertaken by Xuanzang and his clique, these were regarded as “old” translations and the thoughts of these scholars were gradually marginalized. Examining a doctrinal debate in Puguang’s Jushe lun ji, this article delves into the construction of authority by Xuanzang and his disciples in the feld of Abhidharma. In this debate, Puguang criticizes Zhinian’s viewpoint solely based on its similarity with the view of “westerners” (xifang shi). The evidence Puguang presents is a quote from the newly translated *Mahavibhāṣa, which he uses to extol the value of Xuanzang’s “new” translation. It shows how Xuanzang and his team use the orthodoxy constructed by Kashmiri Vaibhāsikas to justify their own authority. Their success comes at a sacrifice of diversity of Abhidharma studies in China.
Born in Gaochang 高昌 and already a specialist in the
Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous A... more Born in Gaochang 高昌 and already a specialist in the
Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous Additions (Skt. *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra; Ch. Za apitan xin lun 雜阿毘曇心論) at a
young age, Huisong was sent by his king to Northern China. Later,
despite repeated invitations from the king of Gaochang, Huisong
refused to return to his homeland, which he considered as ‘peripheral
and barbaric’ (bianbi 邊鄙). Huisong’s determination to stay in China
contributed to the transmission of Abhidharma. An examination of
Huisong’s social network reveals that there are two lines that connect
Huisong to Xuanzang. However, in the Study Notes on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Jushe lun ji 俱舍論記), a text compiled by Xuanzang’s
student Puguang 普光 (fl. 645–664), the arguments of the two most
significant figures on these lines of transmission were refuted with
evidence from the Indian texts newly translated by Xuanzang. This
shows not only the doctrinal linkage, but also the differences between
Huisong and Xuanzang. While for Huisong China was indeed a
center of Buddhist studies as opposed to the ‘barbaric’ Gaochang,
Xuanzang and Puguang most likely regarded China as a Buddhist borderland as opposed to India. These ‘Borderland complexes’ motivated
both scholarly exchange and the construction of religious orthodoxy.
Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma treatises started to be carefully studied and commented on by monks in ea... more Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma treatises started to be carefully studied and commented on by monks in early medieval China with the translation of hṛdaya treatises, the *Aṣṭagrantha, and the *Vibhāṣas. However, with the “new” translations undertaken by Xuanzang and his clique, these were regarded as “old” translations and the thoughts of these scholars were gradually marginalized. Examining a doctrinal debate in Puguang’s Jushe lun ji, this article delves into the construction of authority by Xuanzang and his disciples in the feld of Abhidharma. In this debate, Puguang criticizes Zhinian’s viewpoint solely based on its similarity with the view of “westerners” (xifang shi). The evidence Puguang presents is a quote from the newly translated *Mahavibhāṣa, which he uses to extol the value of Xuanzang’s “new” translation. It shows how Xuanzang and his team use the orthodoxy constructed by Kashmiri Vaibhāsikas to justify their own authority. Their success comes at a sacrifice of diversity of Abhidharma studies in China.
Born in Gaochang 高昌 and already a specialist in the
Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous A... more Born in Gaochang 高昌 and already a specialist in the
Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous Additions (Skt. *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra; Ch. Za apitan xin lun 雜阿毘曇心論) at a
young age, Huisong was sent by his king to Northern China. Later,
despite repeated invitations from the king of Gaochang, Huisong
refused to return to his homeland, which he considered as ‘peripheral
and barbaric’ (bianbi 邊鄙). Huisong’s determination to stay in China
contributed to the transmission of Abhidharma. An examination of
Huisong’s social network reveals that there are two lines that connect
Huisong to Xuanzang. However, in the Study Notes on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Jushe lun ji 俱舍論記), a text compiled by Xuanzang’s
student Puguang 普光 (fl. 645–664), the arguments of the two most
significant figures on these lines of transmission were refuted with
evidence from the Indian texts newly translated by Xuanzang. This
shows not only the doctrinal linkage, but also the differences between
Huisong and Xuanzang. While for Huisong China was indeed a
center of Buddhist studies as opposed to the ‘barbaric’ Gaochang,
Xuanzang and Puguang most likely regarded China as a Buddhist borderland as opposed to India. These ‘Borderland complexes’ motivated
both scholarly exchange and the construction of religious orthodoxy.
Uploads
regarded as “old” translations and the thoughts of these scholars were gradually marginalized. Examining a doctrinal debate in Puguang’s Jushe lun ji, this article delves into the construction of authority by Xuanzang and his disciples in the feld of Abhidharma. In this debate, Puguang criticizes
Zhinian’s viewpoint solely based on its similarity with the view of “westerners” (xifang shi). The evidence Puguang presents is a quote from the newly translated *Mahavibhāṣa, which he uses to extol
the value of Xuanzang’s “new” translation. It shows how Xuanzang and his team use the orthodoxy constructed by Kashmiri Vaibhāsikas to justify their own authority. Their success comes at a sacrifice
of diversity of Abhidharma studies in China.
Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous Additions (Skt. *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra; Ch. Za apitan xin lun 雜阿毘曇心論) at a
young age, Huisong was sent by his king to Northern China. Later,
despite repeated invitations from the king of Gaochang, Huisong
refused to return to his homeland, which he considered as ‘peripheral
and barbaric’ (bianbi 邊鄙). Huisong’s determination to stay in China
contributed to the transmission of Abhidharma. An examination of
Huisong’s social network reveals that there are two lines that connect
Huisong to Xuanzang. However, in the Study Notes on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Jushe lun ji 俱舍論記), a text compiled by Xuanzang’s
student Puguang 普光 (fl. 645–664), the arguments of the two most
significant figures on these lines of transmission were refuted with
evidence from the Indian texts newly translated by Xuanzang. This
shows not only the doctrinal linkage, but also the differences between
Huisong and Xuanzang. While for Huisong China was indeed a
center of Buddhist studies as opposed to the ‘barbaric’ Gaochang,
Xuanzang and Puguang most likely regarded China as a Buddhist borderland as opposed to India. These ‘Borderland complexes’ motivated
both scholarly exchange and the construction of religious orthodoxy.
regarded as “old” translations and the thoughts of these scholars were gradually marginalized. Examining a doctrinal debate in Puguang’s Jushe lun ji, this article delves into the construction of authority by Xuanzang and his disciples in the feld of Abhidharma. In this debate, Puguang criticizes
Zhinian’s viewpoint solely based on its similarity with the view of “westerners” (xifang shi). The evidence Puguang presents is a quote from the newly translated *Mahavibhāṣa, which he uses to extol
the value of Xuanzang’s “new” translation. It shows how Xuanzang and his team use the orthodoxy constructed by Kashmiri Vaibhāsikas to justify their own authority. Their success comes at a sacrifice
of diversity of Abhidharma studies in China.
Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous Additions (Skt. *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra; Ch. Za apitan xin lun 雜阿毘曇心論) at a
young age, Huisong was sent by his king to Northern China. Later,
despite repeated invitations from the king of Gaochang, Huisong
refused to return to his homeland, which he considered as ‘peripheral
and barbaric’ (bianbi 邊鄙). Huisong’s determination to stay in China
contributed to the transmission of Abhidharma. An examination of
Huisong’s social network reveals that there are two lines that connect
Huisong to Xuanzang. However, in the Study Notes on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Jushe lun ji 俱舍論記), a text compiled by Xuanzang’s
student Puguang 普光 (fl. 645–664), the arguments of the two most
significant figures on these lines of transmission were refuted with
evidence from the Indian texts newly translated by Xuanzang. This
shows not only the doctrinal linkage, but also the differences between
Huisong and Xuanzang. While for Huisong China was indeed a
center of Buddhist studies as opposed to the ‘barbaric’ Gaochang,
Xuanzang and Puguang most likely regarded China as a Buddhist borderland as opposed to India. These ‘Borderland complexes’ motivated
both scholarly exchange and the construction of religious orthodoxy.