Matthew Orsborn | Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts (original) (raw)
Papers by Matthew Orsborn
![Research paper thumbnail of From Exegesis to Hermeneutic: Use of Abhidharmic and Mahāyāna Interpretation in the Prajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (Dazhidu Lun《大智度論》) [PRE-PUB]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/93647708/thumbnails/1.jpg)
](哲學與文化, 2022
The Prajñāpāramitā Upadeśa or Dazhidu Lun is commonly recognized as a Mādhyamaka text, due to its... more The Prajñāpāramitā Upadeśa or Dazhidu Lun is commonly recognized as a Mādhyamaka text, due to its attribution to Nāgārjuna, being a Prajñāpāramitā commentary, and its status in the Sān Lùn school. However, its hermeneutic approach is more complex than mere application of Mādhyamaka principles to the Prajñāpāramitā text alone. Fascicles 11-34, which explain a range of dharmas qua practices which pervade the Sūtra, show a consistent and structured method of exegesis. Typically, the dharmas are first contextualized as to their position within the sūtra. Then this positioning is justified in terms of its necessity. Next, an extensive Abhidharma analysis is given, which covers the majority of the exegesis. The question of which Abhidharma system and sectarian affiliation of the author requires clarification. Lastly, the dharma(s) are interpreted through the Mādhyamaka method, giving a pithy yet ultimate exegetic conclusion. Here we will examine the critical importance of the Ābhidharmika material and its relationship to the Mādhyamaka in the text's hermeneutical method. Its role is more than simply a patsy against Mahāyāna dialectic.
Pacific World, 2021
The use of Chinese tradition bhikṣuṇī ordinations to revitalize female monastic lineages in other... more The use of Chinese tradition bhikṣuṇī ordinations to revitalize female monastic lineages in other traditions has led to disputes as to their Mahāyāna status. Here we examine the Chinese Buddhist triple platform ordination in terms of its Mahāyānic features using a polythetic rather than monothetic definition of what constitutes Mahāyāna Buddhism. Our examination of these ordinations' organizational structures, preceptors and preceptees, and daily lifestyle, as well as the rites themselves for each of the three ordinations and the instructive lectures that accompany the rites, reveals that the Mahāyāna spirit pervades and embraces the entirety of these ordinations.
While the *Mahāprajñāparamitā Upadeśa ( Dàzhìdù lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃśat... more While the *Mahāprajñāparamitā Upadeśa ( Dàzhìdù lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā sūtra and traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, is encyclopedic in its scope, it is perhaps the teachings on emptiness (śūnyatā) that have been most commonly seen as its philosophical focal point. The accurate presentation of this core doctrine is fraught with the perils of the audience falling to the two extremes of eternalism and annihilism, as has been the case since the formation of the Buddha’s own teachings on not self (anātman). The author of the *Upadeśa, following the tra itself, thus chooses the rhetorical strategy of exegesis through metaphor, arguing that: “Although all dharmas are empty, there are distinctions between emptiness which is difficult to comprehend and emptiness which is easy to comprehend. We now use easily comprehended emptiness metaphors [to comprehend] difficultly comprehended emptiness.” The sūtra and *Upadeśa give ten metaphors for emptiness: illusion, mi...
Journal of Buddhist Philosophy
The Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, often translated into English as the “Perfection of Wisdom,” have ofte... more The Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, often translated into English as the “Perfection of Wisdom,” have often been raised as representatives of the literature of the Mahāyāna movement as a whole within modern Buddhist studies. While not the first Western scholar to study the Prajñāpāramitā, Edward Conze spent many decades in the second half of the twentieth century devoted to translation and research on the genre, rightly earning himself the reputation of being the foremost Western spokesperson for this body of literature. His translations from Sanskrit, with reference to the Tibetan, include the core texts of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, its verse summary the Ratnaguṇasamcaya Gāthā (hereafter “Rgs”), an eclectic version of the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā cum Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā based on a hodgepodge of various texts combined together, the Vajracchedikā “Diamond” and Hṛdaya “Heart,” as well as a number of lesser known smaller texts.1 In an article on “Mahāyāna Buddhism,” Conze gave much weight to the Prajñāpāramitā material in introducing the Mahāyāna as a whole.2 In explaining the notion of “Skill in Means” (upāya), and “the goal of
Journal of the Oxford Centre For Buddhist Studies, May 27, 2014
Conze's critical editions, translations and commentary on the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra indicated thre... more Conze's critical editions, translations and commentary on the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra indicated three problematic statements: . "no attainment and no non-attainment" (§.); . "because of non-attainment(ness)" (§.); and . "without thought coverings" (§.). Utilizing Nattier's theory of the text's history (§.), we trace back these three phrases from the Chinese Heart Sūtra, to the Chinese larger Prajñāpāramitā texts, to the Sanskrit Pañcavi. mśati (§.). Subsequently, we generate new readings and incidentally a new structure for these three phrases, distinct from the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra, which is possibly apocryphal. Our new readings are: . "no attainment" as no realization (§). . "due to engagement in non-apprehension" (§). . "the mind does not hang on anything" (§). e new structure ties the usage of the second phrase back to the first phrase within the Sūtra context of "erefore, in emptiness there is no form, … no attainment; due to engagement in non-appre-hension", rather than at the start of the next section. e third phrase indicates the mind which does not take any object, a synonym for non-apprehension. While the readings and overall structure are new, they still reflect the core notions, i.e. the heart, of the A. s. tasāhasrikā and Pañcavi. mśatisāhasrikā, the key Perfection of Wisdom texts (§). . Conze's Heart Sūtra Problems Many years ago, Edward Conze established himself as the leading Western authority on the Prajñāpāramitā in the th century. is was achieved through . (): -.
Asian Literature and Translation
Pacific World, 2021
The use of Chinese tradition bhikṣuṇī ordinations to revitalize female monastic lineages in other... more The use of Chinese tradition bhikṣuṇī ordinations to revitalize female monastic lineages in other traditions has led to disputes as to their Mahāyāna status. Here we examine the Chinese Buddhist triple platform ordination in terms of its Mahāyānic features using a polythetic rather than monothetic definition of what constitutes Mahāyāna Buddhism. Our examination of these ordinations' organizational structures, preceptors and preceptees, and daily lifestyle, as well as the rites themselves for each of the three ordinations and the instructive lectures that accompany the rites, reveals that the Mahāyāna spirit pervades and embraces the entirety of these ordinations.
Asian Literature and Translation, 2021
This paper on the Sadāprarudita Avadāna in Kumārajīva’s Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經 ) ha... more This paper on the Sadāprarudita Avadāna in Kumārajīva’s Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經 ) has two aims. Firstly, to provide the first English translation of this Avadāna story as it appears in Kumārajīva’s text, a version which is distinctly different from the earlier recensions of the sūtra such as the Dàoxíng, including the Sanskrit which has already been translated by Conze. Secondly, to highlight the chiasmic structure of the Avadāna and demonstrate how important understanding that structure is in understanding both the entirety and elements of its content.
Kumārajīva’s early 5th century translation entitled the Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經 ), i.e. the Small Text Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, is the fourth of seven Chinese translations of the early Mahāyāna text commonly known by its Sanskrit name the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, or in English the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines. Within the text as a whole, the penultimate two chapters concerning the Avadāna of Sadāprarudita have long been of interest due to being written in a different style to the reminder of the text. While this has led many text-historical studies to conclude that it is either a later addition to the text, or is in fact the original ur-text, other studies have also largely been in the text-historical mode, attempting to work out various historical strata, inter-textual sourcing and borrowing, and the like. Leaving aside diachronic studies, it is noteworthy that the structure of the story displays chiasmus or inverted parallelism. These forms, with paired literary elements in the form A-B-C-…-X-…-C’-B’-A’, are important in reading and understanding of the content.
Before the translation proper, the Introduction discusses the source and its editions, provides an overview of the content of these two chapters, and discusses the voice and policy of my translation. The English translation is not an attempt to return to some now unknown Sanskrit original, nor a reading of it through later Chinese traditions, but as close as I can understand to Kumārajīva’s own understanding and translation technique. The entire English translation is critically annotated, marking significant points of interest both internally within the text, but also externally when compared to the other Chinese translations and later Sanskrit recensions. This translation complements an earlier translation of the first two chapters of the same text.
Key words: Prajñāpāramitā, Avadāna, Sadāprarudita, Dharmodgata, Kumārajīva, translation, chiasmus
HKU PhD Dissertation, 2012
Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in... more Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in an Early Mahāyāna Sūtra
Shì Hùifēng (釋慧峰) / M B Orsborn
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong in December 2011
Abstract
This study examines the early Prajñāpāramitā sūtras through the theory of “chiasmus”. Chiasmic methodology analyses a text into two parallel halves, identifying complementary “prologue” (A) and “conclusion” (A’), and highlighting the critical “central point” (X), with sub-themes paralleled in the two halves (A-B-C-D…X…D’-C’-B’-A’). Through chiasmus theory, many ancient texts formerly considered fragmentary and incoherent have been shown to be structurally sophisticated wholes. The modern text-critical approach has re-written the traditional account of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Several scholars have proposed theories regarding a pre-textual “ur-sūtra”, though with little consensus on this. In general, most agree that after the formation of an “ur-sūtra” the main body of the text was then chaotically compiled from various fragmentary sub-texts, with the Sadāprarudita Avadāna finally appended at the end. The result is the presently extant smaller sūtra. This modern scholarship then claims gradual growth through expansion into the medium and larger sūtras. The modern academic “discourse on emptiness” portrays the Prajñāpāramitā as focusing on the doctrine of “emptiness” (śūnyatā). This study challenges many of these claims. On analysis, primary and secondary chiasmi were identified in the first two chapters of the sūtra. Their scope is the authority of teaching and training in the Prajñāpāramitā, and maintenance of the lineage of the Buddhas. Their central climax is definitions of “bodhisattva”, “mahāsattva” and “mahāyāna”, in the rhetorical formula “XY is ~Y”. Clearly paralleled sub-themes include “samādhi”, “the illusory”, “Māra” and “entrance into certitude”. A second chiasmus comprising the entire Avadāna at the end of the sūtra was also identified. The scope is Sadāprarudita’s quest for Prajñāpāramitā, “to see and hear the Tathāgatas”. The central climax is his seeing and hearing the “Tathāgata” as one who has realized “suchness” (tathatā) or “dependent origination” (pratītyasaṃutpāda), again expressed in the form “XY is ~Y”. Paralleled sub-themes include “samādhi”, “Māra” and “giving”. These two chiasmi are similar in scope, centers which define key terms through the rhetorical formula “XY is ~Y”, and sub-themes. This suggests a larger chiasmus which spans the entire text, with these chiasmi as prologue and conclusion respectively. While not conclusive, there is evidence for a central climax centered at “suchness” (tathatā), attainment of which results in the bodhisattva’s status of irreversibility. This connects the prologue and concluding chiasmi, “bodhisattvas” to “Tathāgatas”, respectively. Numerous paralleled sub-themes are more or less salient. There are major implications from the discovery of chiasmus in the Prajñāpāramitā. Critically, it suggests that the sūtra was initially composed as a complete chiasmic whole, rather than from accumulated fragmentary parts. Hermeneutically, the core message may be understood more systematically than earlier methods. It proposes “suchness” (tathatā) as the central theme, rather than “emptiness” (śūnyatā). It also rejects the genre designation of the Prajñāpāramitā as a “philosophical” rather than “religious” text. This study also offers direction for uncovering other cases of chiasmus in early Mahāyāna and Buddhist literature in general, with examples. If a range of chiasmi can be analyzed, a general theory of Buddhist chiasmus can be established for use as a standard Buddhological tool.
Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 2018
While the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù Lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃ... more While the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù Lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Sūtra and traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, is encyclopedic in its scope, it is perhaps the teachings on emptiness (śūnyatā) that have been most commonly seen as its philosophical focal point. The accurate presentation of this core doctrine is fraught with the perils of the audience falling to the two extremes of eternalism and annihilism, as has been the case since the formation of the Buddha’s own teachings on not self (anātman).
The author of the Upadeśa, following the Sūtra itself, thus chooses the rhetorical strategy of exegesis through metaphor, arguing that: “Although all dharmas are empty, there are distinctions between emptiness which is difficult to comprehend and emptiness which is easy to comprehend. We now use easily comprehended emptiness metaphors [to comprehend] difficultly comprehended emptiness”. The Sūtra and Upadeśa give ten metaphors for emptiness: illusion, mirage, moon [reflected] in the water, empty space, echo, city of the gandharvas, dream, shadow, image in a mirror, and magical creation. In the Upadeśa, each metaphor is explicated and tailored into its general interpretative strategy of applying Madhyamaka dialectic to interpret and defend the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra against all manner of Ābhidharmika (generic “Hīnayāna”) and non-Buddhist views of realism and nihilism.
A deeper examination of not only the metaphors so employed, but also how metaphors function in general, reveals that the matter is perhaps not quite so “easily” resolved. I will draw upon theories of “cognitive metaphor” from modern philosophy of language, in particular from Kittay’s acclaimed Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By, Ricœur’s classic The Rule of Metaphor (La Métaphore Vive), and other writings. Kittay’s “perspectival” approach utilizes analysis of both the semantic fields and syntagmatic structures of the two sides of metaphor, i.e. the topic (or tenor) and vehicle, to reveal that “the critical feature of metaphor can be seen as a process in which the structure of one semantic field induces a structure on another content domain.” With respect to syntagmatic analysis, due attention will be given to the fact that our present text of the Upadeśa is a Chinese translation of an original Sanskrit, both languages having radically different grammatical syntax.
The “cognitive” or “conceptual” approach is the most appropriate theory of metaphor for our study here, because this is exactly what the author of the Upadeśa claims when explaining the use of easy vehicle metaphors to “comprehend” the difficult topic content of emptiness. A syntagmatic analysis of the Upadeśa’s metaphors enables us to group the text’s ten metaphors in several ways, as it appears that several of the metaphors are possibly merely sub-categories of another metaphor, thus providing little new conceptual comprehension of the topic of emptiness. Furthermore, more thorough analysis reveals that all ten can be divided into quite distinctive categories, distinctions which may have serious implications for the Upadeśa’s interpretation of emptiness of which the author themselves was perhaps unaware. One distinction concerns the issue of external agency, as some metaphors have structures involving active intentional agency, whereas others lack this. A second distinction relates to the presence or absence of an underlying ultimate real beyond the empty in the metaphor in question. Both agency and real ultimates are key issues for the Upadeśa’s Madhyamaka methodology and interpretative standpoint.
While such critical distinctions may possibly be discovered through a very thorough reading of the Upadeśa itself, Kittay and others’ analytic and synthetic methods for the understanding of cognitive metaphors allows us to very quickly and clearly make such issues both apparent and accessible for critical interpretation. Final reflections will be made on the matter of applying kataphatic metaphor vehicles for apophatic empty topics, i.e. how to make nothing out of something.
Keywords: Prajñāpāramitā, Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa, emptiness, cognitive metaphor, metaphor
傳統中，龍樹為詮釋《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》所撰寫的《大智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa），雖然有廣博的範疇，然而一般是以其有關空性（śūnyatā）的教義作為哲學上的焦點。當準確地展現此核心教法時，聽聞者會有落入恆常與滅無二邊極端的風險，就如佛陀教授無我（anātman）教法也是如此。
《論》的作者順著經文本身採取了十則隱喻來解經的修辭策略，認為：「諸法雖空而有分別，有難解空，有易解空；今以易解空喻難解空。」《經》與《論》列出十種空性的隱喻：「解了諸法：幻、如焰、如水中月、如虛空、如響、如犍闥婆城、如夢、如影、如鏡中像、如化。」在《論》當中，每則隱喻被闡明與運用到其通用的解釋策略，就是運用中觀辯證方式來解釋與捍衛《般若波羅蜜經》反對阿毗達摩系統（所謂的「小乘」）與非佛教的實有與滅無論說的攻擊。
透過隱喻以及隱喻作用的深入研究，會發現這個議題可能不是那麼「容易」解決的。我們透過現代語言哲學的「認知隱喻」（cognitive metaphor）理論，以Kittay的《Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure》，Lakoff與Johnson的《Metaphor’s We Live By》，Ricœur的經典《The Rule of Metaphor》（原法文《La Métaphore Vive》）和其他著作來探究《論》的十則隱喻。Kittay的「視角」（perspectival）方法是運用隱喻之「喻體」（topic）和「喻依」（vehicle），進行兩種分析，即語義場（semantic field）和語言結構（syntagmatic structure）分析，揭示「可以看到隱喻的關鍵特徵是一個過程，一個語義場的結構會導致另一個現實域的結構。」在句法結構分析方面，我們注意到並且克服的事實匙：現存《論》的文本是原由梵文翻成中文，此兩種語言有著截然不同的文法與句法。
「認知」或「理解」方法是最適合本研究的隱喻理論，正如《論》的作者所言，用簡易的隱喻喻依來「理解」難懂的空性內容。透過《論》的隱喻句型分析，我們將文中的十則隱喻分類成幾種組別，由於有些隱喻似乎只是另一個隱喻的子類型，對空性議題幾乎沒有提供新的概念性理解。此外，徹底的分析顯示，十個隱喻皆可分為獨特的類型，這些類型對空性的理解產生出《論》的作者本身未曾想到的重大義含。其中一個類型涉及到外在造作者的問題，因為一些隱喻含有造作者的結構，而其他的則缺乏此類結構。第二個類型是有關該隱喻中是否存在著某種空外的實體。對於《論》使用的中觀方法和解釋立場來說，造作者與實體現象都是關鍵議題。
雖然或許此批判性的類型可以通過深入閱讀《論》本身而發現，不過Kittay和其他學者的認知隱喻分析和綜合方法與理解，可使我們更迅速且明確地檢視這些問題，也更易於達到批判性解釋。最後是省思關於應用「肯定式」（kataphatic）隱喻喻依在「否定式」（apophatic）空性喻體上，即是如何「以有為無」的探討。
關鍵詞: 《般若經》、《大智度論》、空性、認知隱喻、隱喻
KUMĀRAJĪVA’s early 5th century translation entitled the Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經), i.... more KUMĀRAJĪVA’s early 5th century translation entitled the Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經), i.e. the Small Section Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, is the fourth of seven Chinese translations of the early Mahāyāna text commonly known by its Sanskrit name the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, or in English the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines. While this text has generated great interest among scholars of Budhism, many have relied on the Sanskrit recensions, which are considerably later than the Xiaŏpĭn, representing an earlier source. Even within the text as a whole, the first two chapters (of the Sanskrit) have been a focus of numerous philological attempts to ascertain a possible ur-text. As such, the translation here is of the corresponding Chinese content of the Xiaŏpĭn, namely chapters one, two, and the start of chapter three. Before the translation proper, the Introduction discusses the source and its editions, provides an overview of the doctrinal content of these two chapters, and discusses the voice and policy of our translation. The English translation is not an attempt to return to its now unknown Sanskrit original, nor by reading it through later Chinese traditions, but as close as we can understand to KUMĀRAJĪVA’s own understanding and translation technique. The entire English translation is critically annotated, marking significant points of interest both internally within the text, but also externally when compared to the other Chinese translations and later Sanskrit recensions.
While the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù Lùn ), the extensive commentary of the Pañcav... more While the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù Lùn ), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Sūtra and traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, is encyclopedic in its scope, it is perhaps the teachings on emptiness (śūnyatā) that have been most commonly seen as its philosophical focal point. The accurate presentation of this core doctrine is fraught with the perils of the audience falling to the two extremes of eternalism and annihilism, as has been the case since the formation of the Buddha’s own teachings on not self (anātman).
The author of the Upadeśa, following the Sūtra itself, thus chooses the rhetorical strategy of exegesis through metaphor, arguing that: “Although all dharmas are empty, there are distinctions between emptiness which is difficult to comprehend and emptiness which is easy to comprehend. We now use easily comprehended emptiness metaphors [to comprehend] difficultly comprehended emptiness”. The Sūtra and Upadeśa give ten metaphors for emptiness: illusion, mirage, moon [reflected] in the water, empty space, echo, city of the gandharvas, dream, shadow, image in a mirror, and magical creation. In the Upadeśa, each metaphor is explicated and tailored into its general interpretative strategy of applying Madhyamaka dialectic to interpret and defend the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra against all manner of Ābhidharmika (generic “Hīnayāna”) and non-Buddhist views of realism and nihilism.
A deeper examination of not only the metaphors so employed, but also how metaphors function in general, reveals that the matter is perhaps not quite so “easily” resolved. I will draw upon theories of “cognitive metaphor” from modern philosophy of language, in particular from Kittay’s acclaimed Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By, Ricœur’s classic The Rule of Metaphor (La Métaphore Vive), and other writings. Kittay’s “perspectival” approach utilizes analysis of both the semantic fields and syntagmatic structures of the two sides of metaphor, i.e. the topic (or tenor) and vehicle, to reveal that “the critical feature of metaphor can be seen as a process in which the structure of one semantic field induces a structure on another content domain.” With respect to syntagmatic analysis, due attention will be given to the fact that our present text of the Upadeśa is a Chinese translation of an original Sanskrit, both languages having radically different grammatical syntax.
The “cognitive” or “conceptual” approach is the most appropriate theory of metaphor for our study here, because this is exactly what the author of the Upadeśa claims when explaining the use of easy vehicle metaphors to “comprehend” the difficult topic content of emptiness. A syntagmatic analysis of the Upadeśa’s metaphors enables us to group the text’s ten metaphors in several ways, as it appears that several of the metaphors are possibly merely sub-categories of another metaphor, thus providing little new conceptual comprehension of the topic of emptiness. Furthermore, more thorough analysis reveals that all ten can be divided into quite distinctive categories, distinctions which may have serious implications for the Upadeśa’s interpretation of emptiness of which the author themselves himself was perhaps unaware. One distinction concerns the issue of external agency, as some metaphors have structures involving active intentional agency, whereas others lack this. A second distinction relates to the presence or absence of an underlying ultimate real beyond the empty in the metaphor in question. Both agency and real ultimates are key issues for the Upadeśa’s Madhyamaka methodology and interpretative standpoint.
While such critical distinctions may possibly be discovered through a very thorough reading of the Upadeśa itself, Kittay and others’ analytic and synthetic methods for the understanding of cognitive metaphors allows us to very quickly and clearly make such issues both apparent and accessible for critical interpretation. Final reflections will be made on the matter of applying kataphatic metaphor vehicles for apophatic empty topics, i.e. how to make nothing out of something.
Keywords:
Prajñāpāramitā, Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa, emptiness, cognitive metaphor, metaphor
中文摘要 本研究考察《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrtinirdeśa）中的難題悖論（aporiaparadox），運用兩種方法：「交錯結構」（chiasticstructures）與「否定性的... more 中文摘要
本研究考察《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrtinirdeśa）中的難題悖論（aporiaparadox），運用兩種方法：「交錯結構」（chiasticstructures）與「否定性的修辭論述」（apophaticrhetoricaldiscourse），來探究本經中的三對重要文段。
在本經的〈第一品〉中，一則文段解釋佛陀為舍利弗示現其佛國（淨土），以及在〈第二品〉與〈第三品〉中，另一則文段描述主角維摩詰居士，此文段常被學者引用來支持本經大乘佛教居士身分勝過於小乘佛教出家角色的宣稱立場。於兩則文段之間也有一段內容描述如來身。但是，從此部經的整體立場來看，在經的末端另有一段描述示現阿閦佛的妙喜佛國，緊接著這段就是如上所說的維摩詰身分與如來身的描述。而在詮釋整部經的學說上，將這些全出自於〈第十一品〉的內容與頭兩品相比較，〈第十一品〉所受到的研究關注相對較少。
為了對本經有整體性的瞭解，我們主張前後兩部份需要同時被考量。若將〈第一品〉、〈第二品〉與〈第十一品〉的相關文段來比對，可看出本經具有倒轉騈行的「交錯結構」（chiasmus），有彼此呼應的兩半，是需要對觀式（synoptic）的解讀。還有，兩則中的修辭論述方式又在前文與後文之間是倒過來的。前半採用並列肯定性（affirmative）的陳述，是合乎主流部派佛教思想體系；後半反而透過一種否定性（apophatic）的「意義事件」（meaningevent）來否定（negate）前面的並列體系，是直接對抗前半所論教理之原有難題悖論（aporiaparadox）。
因此，本經交錯結構的倒轉駢行性是相對於其否定性修辭方式論述的倒轉駢行性。這兩種方法可被視為經文結構與其教理內容的兩個互相支持的文本批評與教理詮釋方法。對於《維摩詰經》主旨之全面性理解而言，這意味著挑戰維摩詰只是居士身分以及佛國就是內在性的這兩個學說。最後，我們依於已確認的交錯與否定性的駢行而提出待研究的經典中段部分之一些假說想法。
關鍵詞：《維摩詰經》，交錯結構，否定論述，佛國，維摩詰，如來身體
Several scholars have cited the statement, “Even nirvāṇa is like an illusion, like a dream?” from... more Several scholars have cited the statement, “Even nirvāṇa is like an illusion, like a dream?” from the early Prajñāpāramitā as evidence of a “shocking” and “novel” Mahāyāna ontology (§1). This paper examines three phases of historical development of the Buddhist metaphor of “illusion” (māyā) through Kittay’s perspectival approach and semantic field theory (§1.1). An analysis of the metaphor in pre- and early Buddhism uncovers its birth in Vedic sources and its adoption by the Buddhists as the absence of a substantial Self in all phenomena without exception (§2). In mainstream Buddhism, the mature metaphor took on a more cognicentric role due to its application specifically to the mind, but excluded the unconditioned, including nirvāṇa (§3). By the early Prajñāpāramitā, the “illusion” metaphor was reestablished as both applying to the conditioned and unconditioned, but it also highlighted the cognitive error of perceiving a Self in what is Selfless, a position more epistemological than ontological (§4). We conclude that “Even nirvāṇa is like an illusion, like a dream?” was thus not a “shocking” or “novel” Prajñāpāramitā creation. We also reflect on the later literal doctrine of illusion, concluding that it was a transformation into common parlance of a now “dead metaphor” (§5).
Keywords: illusion (māyā), metaphor, Buddhism, Prajñāpāramitā, semantic fields
ABSTRACT This study examines aporia paradox in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. We apply two methodologic... more ABSTRACT
This study examines aporia paradox in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. We apply two methodological approaches, chiastic structures and apophatic rhetorical discourse, to examine three pairs of key passages in the text.
The Buddha’s revelation of His Buddha field (pure land) to Śāriputra in Chp. 1 of the text, and descriptions of the layman lead character Vimalakīrti in Chp. 2-3, have often been used to support claims of lay over renunciant roles in early Mahāyāna Buddhism vis-à-vis Hīnayāna Buddhism. Amidst these is a description of the Tathāgata’s body. Taking the text as a whole, however, reveals another display of Akṣobhya’s field Abhirati at the end of the text, immediately following a radically different description of Vimalakīrti’s identity and the Tathāgata’s body. This latter material, all in Chp. 11, has received much less attention than the aforementioned in the text’s interpretation.
In order to understand the text as a whole, we propose that both of these portions be simultaneously taken into consideration. Comparing the relevant passages in Chp. 1-2 and Chp. 11 reveals chiastic inverted parallelism, formed in two opposing and complementary halves, which we shall read synoptically. Moreover, the mode of rhetorical discourse in these passages also shifts between the two halves of the text. The former half utilizes juxtaposed affirmative statements which accord with traditional Buddhism systems of thought. The latter half then negates these juxtaposed systems through performance of an apophatic “meaning event”, which directly confronts the original aporia paradox of the doctrines in question.
The inverted parallelism of the text’s chiastic structure is thus matched by the inverted parallelism of its apophatic rhetorical mode of discourse. The two methodological approaches can be seen as complementary critical and hermeneutical methods for such a text and its teachings. The implications for an overall interpretation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa’s key themes include a challenge to the readings of Vimalakīrti’s layman status, and the immanence of the Buddha field. We end with a hypothesis of what the remaining center of the text should hold on the basis of our ascertained chiastic and apophatic parallelism.
Key Words: Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, chiasmus, apophasis, Buddha field, Vimalakīrti, Tathāgata body
Buddhist Studies Review, 2015
ABSTRACT The Vessantara Jātaka is not only the most popular of all the Buddhist Jātaka tales, bu... more ABSTRACT
The Vessantara Jātaka is not only the most popular of all the Buddhist Jātaka tales, but is important in the tradition as a whole, generally considered by the Theravādin tradition to display the epitome of the Bodhisatta’s perfection of giving (dānapāramī). While most studies have focused on philological approaches, numerous questions as to the text’s structure and how to interpret individual parts within that structure have remained unresolved (§1. The received tradition of the Vessantara Jātaka). My study shall employ the theory of “chiasmus” (inverted parallelism) to shed new light on both the key message of the story and also the sub-themes within it (§2. Chiastic structures as textual approach). In terms of textual criticism, I shall first elucidate the chiastic structure of the text and discuss how this structure can provide insights on text-critical readings (§3. Textual criticism: Chiastic units and structure). In terms of interpretation, I shall then see how the structure clearly demarcates the text’s scope through its prologue and conclusion with surrounding framework, its paired parallel sub-themes, and its central climax point, all in the light of its chiastic structure (§4. Interpretation: A chiastic reading). Finally, considering broader implications, on comparison with other recently discovered Buddhist textual chiasmi I shall present a tentative hypothesis as to the origins of such structures in the “bodhisatt(v)a” literary genre (§5. Conclusions: Critical and interpretive implications).
Keywords: Vessantara, jātaka, chiasmus, structure
It is claimed that one of the innovative contributions of Nāgārjuna in his Madhyamaka thought was... more It is claimed that one of the innovative contributions of Nāgārjuna in his Madhyamaka thought was establishing the equivalence of emptiness (P: suññatā, Skt: śūnyatā; kōng 空, kōngxìng 空性) and dependent origination (P: paṭicca-samuppāda, Skt: pratītyasamutpāda; Ch: yīnyüán 因緣, yüánqĭ 緣起). This present study pre-Nāgārjunian Buddhist textual sources what relationship or equivalence between emptiness and dependent origination was already established.
In Part 1, we broadly outline the near paradigmatic modern Buddhist studies discourse on the teachings of emptiness. We then focus on the role of Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka within this discourse. Lastly, this study rounds off with a literature review of studies on emptiness and dependent origination before Nāgārjuna.
Part 2 covers the early teachings found in the Pāli Nikāyas and (Chinese translations of) the Āgamas. It finds that the term emptiness was sometimes used independently to refer to the process of dependent arising as saṃsāric dissatisfaction and cause, and also as dependent cessation into nirvāṇa. Emptiness as the profound also described these two complementary processes as a whole.
Part 3 continues with the broad range of mainstream sectarian sūtra and śāstra literature. Here, the previous relationships are made more firm and explicit. There is greater association with the two doctrines as rejection of extreme views based on a “self”. The two are also brought within the Abhidharma methodology of analysis into conventional or ultimate truths, and classification as conditioned or unconditioned phenomena.
Part 4 concludes, that while already nascent in the early literature, the relation or equation of emptiness with dependent origination, along with related terms, was quite well developed in pre-Nāgārjunian sectarian literature, and is strongest in the Sarvāstivādin literature. We recommend that aspects of the academic discourse on emptiness should be rectified as a result or these findings.
Conze’s critical editions, translations and commentary on the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra indicated thre... more Conze’s critical editions, translations and commentary on the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra indicated three problematic statements: 1. “no attainment and no non-attain¬ment” (§1.1); 2. “because of non-attainment(ness)” (§1.2); and 3. “without thought coverings” (§1.3). Utilizing Nattier’s theory of the text’s history (§1.4), we trace back these three phrases from the Chinese Heart Sūtra, to the Chinese larger Prajñāpāramitā texts, to the Sanskrit Pañcaviṃśati (§1.5). Subsequently, we generate new readings and incidentally a new structure for these three phrases, distinct from the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra, which is possibly apocryphal. Our new readings are: 1. “no attainment” as no realization (§2). 2. “due to engagement in non-apprehension” (§3). 3. “the mind does not hang on anything” (§4). The new structure ties the usage of the second phrase back to the first phrase within the Sūtra context of “Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, … no attainment; due to engagement in non-apprehension”, rather than at the start of the next section. The third phrase indicates the mind which does not take any object, a synonym for non-apprehension. While the readings and overall structure are new, it still reflects the core notions, i.e. the heart, of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā and Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, the key Perfection of Wisdom texts (§5).
Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in... more Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in an Early Mahāyāna Sūtra
Shì Hùifēng (釋慧峰) / M B Orsborn
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong in December 2011
Abstract
This study examines the early Prajñāpāramitā sūtras through the theory of “chiasmus”. Chiasmic methodology analyses a text into two parallel halves, identifying complementary “prologue” (A) and “conclusion” (A’), and highlighting the critical “central point” (X), with sub-themes paralleled in the two halves (A-B-C-D…X…D’-C’-B’-A’). Through chiasmus theory, many ancient texts formerly considered fragmentary and incoherent have been shown to be structurally sophisticated wholes.
The modern text-critical approach has re-written the traditional account of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Several scholars have proposed theories regarding a pre-textual “ur-sūtra”, though with little consensus on this. In general, most agree that after the formation of an “ur-sūtra” the main body of the text was then chaotically compiled from various fragmentary sub-texts, with the Sadāprarudita Avadāna finally appended at the end. The result is the presently extant smaller sūtra. This modern scholarship then claims gradual growth through expansion into the medium and larger sūtras. The modern academic “discourse on emptiness” portrays the Prajñāpāramitā as focusing on the doctrine of “emptiness” (śūnyatā). This study challenges many of these claims.
On analysis, primary and secondary chiasmi were identified in the first two chapters of the sūtra. Their scope is the authority of teaching and training in the Prajñāpāramitā, and maintenance of the lineage of the Buddhas. Their central climax is definitions of “bodhisattva”, “mahāsattva” and “mahāyāna”, in the rhetorical formula “XY is ~Y”. Clearly paralleled sub-themes include “samādhi”, “the illusory”, “Māra” and “entrance into certitude”.
A second chiasmus comprising the entire Avadāna at the end of the sūtra was also identified. The scope is Sadāprarudita’s quest for Prajñāpāramitā, “to see and hear the Tathāgatas”. The central climax is his seeing and hearing the “Tathāgata” as one who has realized “suchness” (tathatā) or “dependent origination” (pratītyasaṃutpāda), again expressed in the form “XY is ~Y”. Paralleled sub-themes include “samādhi”, “Māra” and “giving”.
These two chiasmi are similar in scope, centers which define key terms through the rhetorical formula “XY is ~Y”, and sub-themes. This suggests a larger chiasmus which spans the entire text, with these chiasmi as prologue and conclusion respectively. While not conclusive, there is evidence for a central climax centered at “suchness” (tathatā), attainment of which results in the bodhisattva’s status of irreversibility. This connects the prologue and concluding chiasmi, “bodhisattvas” to “Tathāgatas”, respectively. Numerous paralleled sub-themes are more or less salient.
There are major implications from the discovery of chiasmus in the Prajñāpāramitā. Critically, it suggests that the sūtra was initially composed as a complete chiasmic whole, rather than from accumulated fragmentary parts. Hermeneutically, the core message may be understood more systematically than earlier methods. It proposes “suchness” (tathatā) as the central theme, rather than “emptiness” (śūnyatā). It also rejects the genre designation of the Prajñāpāramitā as a “philosophical” rather than “religious” text. This study also offers direction for uncovering other cases of chiasmus in early Mahāyāna and Buddhist literature in general, with examples. If a range of chiasmi can be analyzed, a general theory of Buddhist chiasmus can be established for use as a standard Buddhological tool.
Conference Presentations by Matthew Orsborn
The Prajñāpāramitā genre is well known for its generic rhetorical formula “X is not X”, i.e. an a... more The Prajñāpāramitā genre is well known for its generic rhetorical formula “X is not X”, i.e. an affirmation followed immediately by a negation. Often the text proceeds to claim that the ultimate is inexpressible, non-dual, emptiness (śūnyatā). The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa displays a similar rhetoric and philosophy.
Despite this general consensus on Prajñāpāramitā philosophy and rhetoric, modern scholarship largely considers that these texts were random compilations, leading to their chaotic lack of structure. The plot of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa is often considered inconsequential to its philosophy. There thus remains the problem of structured philosophy in a chaotic text.
This paper will argue that the Prajñāpāramitā and the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa are not structurally random, but chiastic in form. This inverted parallelism takes the form A-B-C-…-X-…-C’-B’-A’. This literary form is the ideal vehicle for contrasting the two complementary sides of an apparent paradox (A-A’, B-B’, etc.), while situating an ultimately transcendent solution at its unique core (X).
哲學與文化, 2022
The Prajñāpāramitā Upadeśa or Dazhidu Lun is commonly recognized as a Mādhyamaka text, due to its... more The Prajñāpāramitā Upadeśa or Dazhidu Lun is commonly recognized as a Mādhyamaka text, due to its attribution to Nāgārjuna, being a Prajñāpāramitā commentary, and its status in the Sān Lùn school. However, its hermeneutic approach is more complex than mere application of Mādhyamaka principles to the Prajñāpāramitā text alone. Fascicles 11-34, which explain a range of dharmas qua practices which pervade the Sūtra, show a consistent and structured method of exegesis. Typically, the dharmas are first contextualized as to their position within the sūtra. Then this positioning is justified in terms of its necessity. Next, an extensive Abhidharma analysis is given, which covers the majority of the exegesis. The question of which Abhidharma system and sectarian affiliation of the author requires clarification. Lastly, the dharma(s) are interpreted through the Mādhyamaka method, giving a pithy yet ultimate exegetic conclusion. Here we will examine the critical importance of the Ābhidharmika material and its relationship to the Mādhyamaka in the text's hermeneutical method. Its role is more than simply a patsy against Mahāyāna dialectic.
Pacific World, 2021
The use of Chinese tradition bhikṣuṇī ordinations to revitalize female monastic lineages in other... more The use of Chinese tradition bhikṣuṇī ordinations to revitalize female monastic lineages in other traditions has led to disputes as to their Mahāyāna status. Here we examine the Chinese Buddhist triple platform ordination in terms of its Mahāyānic features using a polythetic rather than monothetic definition of what constitutes Mahāyāna Buddhism. Our examination of these ordinations' organizational structures, preceptors and preceptees, and daily lifestyle, as well as the rites themselves for each of the three ordinations and the instructive lectures that accompany the rites, reveals that the Mahāyāna spirit pervades and embraces the entirety of these ordinations.
While the *Mahāprajñāparamitā Upadeśa ( Dàzhìdù lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃśat... more While the *Mahāprajñāparamitā Upadeśa ( Dàzhìdù lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā sūtra and traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, is encyclopedic in its scope, it is perhaps the teachings on emptiness (śūnyatā) that have been most commonly seen as its philosophical focal point. The accurate presentation of this core doctrine is fraught with the perils of the audience falling to the two extremes of eternalism and annihilism, as has been the case since the formation of the Buddha’s own teachings on not self (anātman). The author of the *Upadeśa, following the tra itself, thus chooses the rhetorical strategy of exegesis through metaphor, arguing that: “Although all dharmas are empty, there are distinctions between emptiness which is difficult to comprehend and emptiness which is easy to comprehend. We now use easily comprehended emptiness metaphors [to comprehend] difficultly comprehended emptiness.” The sūtra and *Upadeśa give ten metaphors for emptiness: illusion, mi...
Journal of Buddhist Philosophy
The Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, often translated into English as the “Perfection of Wisdom,” have ofte... more The Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, often translated into English as the “Perfection of Wisdom,” have often been raised as representatives of the literature of the Mahāyāna movement as a whole within modern Buddhist studies. While not the first Western scholar to study the Prajñāpāramitā, Edward Conze spent many decades in the second half of the twentieth century devoted to translation and research on the genre, rightly earning himself the reputation of being the foremost Western spokesperson for this body of literature. His translations from Sanskrit, with reference to the Tibetan, include the core texts of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, its verse summary the Ratnaguṇasamcaya Gāthā (hereafter “Rgs”), an eclectic version of the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā cum Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā based on a hodgepodge of various texts combined together, the Vajracchedikā “Diamond” and Hṛdaya “Heart,” as well as a number of lesser known smaller texts.1 In an article on “Mahāyāna Buddhism,” Conze gave much weight to the Prajñāpāramitā material in introducing the Mahāyāna as a whole.2 In explaining the notion of “Skill in Means” (upāya), and “the goal of
Journal of the Oxford Centre For Buddhist Studies, May 27, 2014
Conze's critical editions, translations and commentary on the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra indicated thre... more Conze's critical editions, translations and commentary on the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra indicated three problematic statements: . "no attainment and no non-attainment" (§.); . "because of non-attainment(ness)" (§.); and . "without thought coverings" (§.). Utilizing Nattier's theory of the text's history (§.), we trace back these three phrases from the Chinese Heart Sūtra, to the Chinese larger Prajñāpāramitā texts, to the Sanskrit Pañcavi. mśati (§.). Subsequently, we generate new readings and incidentally a new structure for these three phrases, distinct from the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra, which is possibly apocryphal. Our new readings are: . "no attainment" as no realization (§). . "due to engagement in non-apprehension" (§). . "the mind does not hang on anything" (§). e new structure ties the usage of the second phrase back to the first phrase within the Sūtra context of "erefore, in emptiness there is no form, … no attainment; due to engagement in non-appre-hension", rather than at the start of the next section. e third phrase indicates the mind which does not take any object, a synonym for non-apprehension. While the readings and overall structure are new, they still reflect the core notions, i.e. the heart, of the A. s. tasāhasrikā and Pañcavi. mśatisāhasrikā, the key Perfection of Wisdom texts (§). . Conze's Heart Sūtra Problems Many years ago, Edward Conze established himself as the leading Western authority on the Prajñāpāramitā in the th century. is was achieved through . (): -.
Asian Literature and Translation
Pacific World, 2021
The use of Chinese tradition bhikṣuṇī ordinations to revitalize female monastic lineages in other... more The use of Chinese tradition bhikṣuṇī ordinations to revitalize female monastic lineages in other traditions has led to disputes as to their Mahāyāna status. Here we examine the Chinese Buddhist triple platform ordination in terms of its Mahāyānic features using a polythetic rather than monothetic definition of what constitutes Mahāyāna Buddhism. Our examination of these ordinations' organizational structures, preceptors and preceptees, and daily lifestyle, as well as the rites themselves for each of the three ordinations and the instructive lectures that accompany the rites, reveals that the Mahāyāna spirit pervades and embraces the entirety of these ordinations.
Asian Literature and Translation, 2021
This paper on the Sadāprarudita Avadāna in Kumārajīva’s Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經 ) ha... more This paper on the Sadāprarudita Avadāna in Kumārajīva’s Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經 ) has two aims. Firstly, to provide the first English translation of this Avadāna story as it appears in Kumārajīva’s text, a version which is distinctly different from the earlier recensions of the sūtra such as the Dàoxíng, including the Sanskrit which has already been translated by Conze. Secondly, to highlight the chiasmic structure of the Avadāna and demonstrate how important understanding that structure is in understanding both the entirety and elements of its content.
Kumārajīva’s early 5th century translation entitled the Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經 ), i.e. the Small Text Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, is the fourth of seven Chinese translations of the early Mahāyāna text commonly known by its Sanskrit name the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, or in English the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines. Within the text as a whole, the penultimate two chapters concerning the Avadāna of Sadāprarudita have long been of interest due to being written in a different style to the reminder of the text. While this has led many text-historical studies to conclude that it is either a later addition to the text, or is in fact the original ur-text, other studies have also largely been in the text-historical mode, attempting to work out various historical strata, inter-textual sourcing and borrowing, and the like. Leaving aside diachronic studies, it is noteworthy that the structure of the story displays chiasmus or inverted parallelism. These forms, with paired literary elements in the form A-B-C-…-X-…-C’-B’-A’, are important in reading and understanding of the content.
Before the translation proper, the Introduction discusses the source and its editions, provides an overview of the content of these two chapters, and discusses the voice and policy of my translation. The English translation is not an attempt to return to some now unknown Sanskrit original, nor a reading of it through later Chinese traditions, but as close as I can understand to Kumārajīva’s own understanding and translation technique. The entire English translation is critically annotated, marking significant points of interest both internally within the text, but also externally when compared to the other Chinese translations and later Sanskrit recensions. This translation complements an earlier translation of the first two chapters of the same text.
Key words: Prajñāpāramitā, Avadāna, Sadāprarudita, Dharmodgata, Kumārajīva, translation, chiasmus
HKU PhD Dissertation, 2012
Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in... more Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in an Early Mahāyāna Sūtra
Shì Hùifēng (釋慧峰) / M B Orsborn
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong in December 2011
Abstract
This study examines the early Prajñāpāramitā sūtras through the theory of “chiasmus”. Chiasmic methodology analyses a text into two parallel halves, identifying complementary “prologue” (A) and “conclusion” (A’), and highlighting the critical “central point” (X), with sub-themes paralleled in the two halves (A-B-C-D…X…D’-C’-B’-A’). Through chiasmus theory, many ancient texts formerly considered fragmentary and incoherent have been shown to be structurally sophisticated wholes. The modern text-critical approach has re-written the traditional account of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Several scholars have proposed theories regarding a pre-textual “ur-sūtra”, though with little consensus on this. In general, most agree that after the formation of an “ur-sūtra” the main body of the text was then chaotically compiled from various fragmentary sub-texts, with the Sadāprarudita Avadāna finally appended at the end. The result is the presently extant smaller sūtra. This modern scholarship then claims gradual growth through expansion into the medium and larger sūtras. The modern academic “discourse on emptiness” portrays the Prajñāpāramitā as focusing on the doctrine of “emptiness” (śūnyatā). This study challenges many of these claims. On analysis, primary and secondary chiasmi were identified in the first two chapters of the sūtra. Their scope is the authority of teaching and training in the Prajñāpāramitā, and maintenance of the lineage of the Buddhas. Their central climax is definitions of “bodhisattva”, “mahāsattva” and “mahāyāna”, in the rhetorical formula “XY is ~Y”. Clearly paralleled sub-themes include “samādhi”, “the illusory”, “Māra” and “entrance into certitude”. A second chiasmus comprising the entire Avadāna at the end of the sūtra was also identified. The scope is Sadāprarudita’s quest for Prajñāpāramitā, “to see and hear the Tathāgatas”. The central climax is his seeing and hearing the “Tathāgata” as one who has realized “suchness” (tathatā) or “dependent origination” (pratītyasaṃutpāda), again expressed in the form “XY is ~Y”. Paralleled sub-themes include “samādhi”, “Māra” and “giving”. These two chiasmi are similar in scope, centers which define key terms through the rhetorical formula “XY is ~Y”, and sub-themes. This suggests a larger chiasmus which spans the entire text, with these chiasmi as prologue and conclusion respectively. While not conclusive, there is evidence for a central climax centered at “suchness” (tathatā), attainment of which results in the bodhisattva’s status of irreversibility. This connects the prologue and concluding chiasmi, “bodhisattvas” to “Tathāgatas”, respectively. Numerous paralleled sub-themes are more or less salient. There are major implications from the discovery of chiasmus in the Prajñāpāramitā. Critically, it suggests that the sūtra was initially composed as a complete chiasmic whole, rather than from accumulated fragmentary parts. Hermeneutically, the core message may be understood more systematically than earlier methods. It proposes “suchness” (tathatā) as the central theme, rather than “emptiness” (śūnyatā). It also rejects the genre designation of the Prajñāpāramitā as a “philosophical” rather than “religious” text. This study also offers direction for uncovering other cases of chiasmus in early Mahāyāna and Buddhist literature in general, with examples. If a range of chiasmi can be analyzed, a general theory of Buddhist chiasmus can be established for use as a standard Buddhological tool.
Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 2018
While the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù Lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃ... more While the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù Lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Sūtra and traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, is encyclopedic in its scope, it is perhaps the teachings on emptiness (śūnyatā) that have been most commonly seen as its philosophical focal point. The accurate presentation of this core doctrine is fraught with the perils of the audience falling to the two extremes of eternalism and annihilism, as has been the case since the formation of the Buddha’s own teachings on not self (anātman).
The author of the Upadeśa, following the Sūtra itself, thus chooses the rhetorical strategy of exegesis through metaphor, arguing that: “Although all dharmas are empty, there are distinctions between emptiness which is difficult to comprehend and emptiness which is easy to comprehend. We now use easily comprehended emptiness metaphors [to comprehend] difficultly comprehended emptiness”. The Sūtra and Upadeśa give ten metaphors for emptiness: illusion, mirage, moon [reflected] in the water, empty space, echo, city of the gandharvas, dream, shadow, image in a mirror, and magical creation. In the Upadeśa, each metaphor is explicated and tailored into its general interpretative strategy of applying Madhyamaka dialectic to interpret and defend the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra against all manner of Ābhidharmika (generic “Hīnayāna”) and non-Buddhist views of realism and nihilism.
A deeper examination of not only the metaphors so employed, but also how metaphors function in general, reveals that the matter is perhaps not quite so “easily” resolved. I will draw upon theories of “cognitive metaphor” from modern philosophy of language, in particular from Kittay’s acclaimed Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By, Ricœur’s classic The Rule of Metaphor (La Métaphore Vive), and other writings. Kittay’s “perspectival” approach utilizes analysis of both the semantic fields and syntagmatic structures of the two sides of metaphor, i.e. the topic (or tenor) and vehicle, to reveal that “the critical feature of metaphor can be seen as a process in which the structure of one semantic field induces a structure on another content domain.” With respect to syntagmatic analysis, due attention will be given to the fact that our present text of the Upadeśa is a Chinese translation of an original Sanskrit, both languages having radically different grammatical syntax.
The “cognitive” or “conceptual” approach is the most appropriate theory of metaphor for our study here, because this is exactly what the author of the Upadeśa claims when explaining the use of easy vehicle metaphors to “comprehend” the difficult topic content of emptiness. A syntagmatic analysis of the Upadeśa’s metaphors enables us to group the text’s ten metaphors in several ways, as it appears that several of the metaphors are possibly merely sub-categories of another metaphor, thus providing little new conceptual comprehension of the topic of emptiness. Furthermore, more thorough analysis reveals that all ten can be divided into quite distinctive categories, distinctions which may have serious implications for the Upadeśa’s interpretation of emptiness of which the author themselves was perhaps unaware. One distinction concerns the issue of external agency, as some metaphors have structures involving active intentional agency, whereas others lack this. A second distinction relates to the presence or absence of an underlying ultimate real beyond the empty in the metaphor in question. Both agency and real ultimates are key issues for the Upadeśa’s Madhyamaka methodology and interpretative standpoint.
While such critical distinctions may possibly be discovered through a very thorough reading of the Upadeśa itself, Kittay and others’ analytic and synthetic methods for the understanding of cognitive metaphors allows us to very quickly and clearly make such issues both apparent and accessible for critical interpretation. Final reflections will be made on the matter of applying kataphatic metaphor vehicles for apophatic empty topics, i.e. how to make nothing out of something.
Keywords: Prajñāpāramitā, Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa, emptiness, cognitive metaphor, metaphor
傳統中，龍樹為詮釋《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》所撰寫的《大智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa），雖然有廣博的範疇，然而一般是以其有關空性（śūnyatā）的教義作為哲學上的焦點。當準確地展現此核心教法時，聽聞者會有落入恆常與滅無二邊極端的風險，就如佛陀教授無我（anātman）教法也是如此。
《論》的作者順著經文本身採取了十則隱喻來解經的修辭策略，認為：「諸法雖空而有分別，有難解空，有易解空；今以易解空喻難解空。」《經》與《論》列出十種空性的隱喻：「解了諸法：幻、如焰、如水中月、如虛空、如響、如犍闥婆城、如夢、如影、如鏡中像、如化。」在《論》當中，每則隱喻被闡明與運用到其通用的解釋策略，就是運用中觀辯證方式來解釋與捍衛《般若波羅蜜經》反對阿毗達摩系統（所謂的「小乘」）與非佛教的實有與滅無論說的攻擊。
透過隱喻以及隱喻作用的深入研究，會發現這個議題可能不是那麼「容易」解決的。我們透過現代語言哲學的「認知隱喻」（cognitive metaphor）理論，以Kittay的《Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure》，Lakoff與Johnson的《Metaphor’s We Live By》，Ricœur的經典《The Rule of Metaphor》（原法文《La Métaphore Vive》）和其他著作來探究《論》的十則隱喻。Kittay的「視角」（perspectival）方法是運用隱喻之「喻體」（topic）和「喻依」（vehicle），進行兩種分析，即語義場（semantic field）和語言結構（syntagmatic structure）分析，揭示「可以看到隱喻的關鍵特徵是一個過程，一個語義場的結構會導致另一個現實域的結構。」在句法結構分析方面，我們注意到並且克服的事實匙：現存《論》的文本是原由梵文翻成中文，此兩種語言有著截然不同的文法與句法。
「認知」或「理解」方法是最適合本研究的隱喻理論，正如《論》的作者所言，用簡易的隱喻喻依來「理解」難懂的空性內容。透過《論》的隱喻句型分析，我們將文中的十則隱喻分類成幾種組別，由於有些隱喻似乎只是另一個隱喻的子類型，對空性議題幾乎沒有提供新的概念性理解。此外，徹底的分析顯示，十個隱喻皆可分為獨特的類型，這些類型對空性的理解產生出《論》的作者本身未曾想到的重大義含。其中一個類型涉及到外在造作者的問題，因為一些隱喻含有造作者的結構，而其他的則缺乏此類結構。第二個類型是有關該隱喻中是否存在著某種空外的實體。對於《論》使用的中觀方法和解釋立場來說，造作者與實體現象都是關鍵議題。
雖然或許此批判性的類型可以通過深入閱讀《論》本身而發現，不過Kittay和其他學者的認知隱喻分析和綜合方法與理解，可使我們更迅速且明確地檢視這些問題，也更易於達到批判性解釋。最後是省思關於應用「肯定式」（kataphatic）隱喻喻依在「否定式」（apophatic）空性喻體上，即是如何「以有為無」的探討。
關鍵詞: 《般若經》、《大智度論》、空性、認知隱喻、隱喻
KUMĀRAJĪVA’s early 5th century translation entitled the Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經), i.... more KUMĀRAJĪVA’s early 5th century translation entitled the Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經), i.e. the Small Section Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, is the fourth of seven Chinese translations of the early Mahāyāna text commonly known by its Sanskrit name the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, or in English the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines. While this text has generated great interest among scholars of Budhism, many have relied on the Sanskrit recensions, which are considerably later than the Xiaŏpĭn, representing an earlier source. Even within the text as a whole, the first two chapters (of the Sanskrit) have been a focus of numerous philological attempts to ascertain a possible ur-text. As such, the translation here is of the corresponding Chinese content of the Xiaŏpĭn, namely chapters one, two, and the start of chapter three. Before the translation proper, the Introduction discusses the source and its editions, provides an overview of the doctrinal content of these two chapters, and discusses the voice and policy of our translation. The English translation is not an attempt to return to its now unknown Sanskrit original, nor by reading it through later Chinese traditions, but as close as we can understand to KUMĀRAJĪVA’s own understanding and translation technique. The entire English translation is critically annotated, marking significant points of interest both internally within the text, but also externally when compared to the other Chinese translations and later Sanskrit recensions.
While the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù Lùn ), the extensive commentary of the Pañcav... more While the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù Lùn ), the extensive commentary of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Sūtra and traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, is encyclopedic in its scope, it is perhaps the teachings on emptiness (śūnyatā) that have been most commonly seen as its philosophical focal point. The accurate presentation of this core doctrine is fraught with the perils of the audience falling to the two extremes of eternalism and annihilism, as has been the case since the formation of the Buddha’s own teachings on not self (anātman).
The author of the Upadeśa, following the Sūtra itself, thus chooses the rhetorical strategy of exegesis through metaphor, arguing that: “Although all dharmas are empty, there are distinctions between emptiness which is difficult to comprehend and emptiness which is easy to comprehend. We now use easily comprehended emptiness metaphors [to comprehend] difficultly comprehended emptiness”. The Sūtra and Upadeśa give ten metaphors for emptiness: illusion, mirage, moon [reflected] in the water, empty space, echo, city of the gandharvas, dream, shadow, image in a mirror, and magical creation. In the Upadeśa, each metaphor is explicated and tailored into its general interpretative strategy of applying Madhyamaka dialectic to interpret and defend the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra against all manner of Ābhidharmika (generic “Hīnayāna”) and non-Buddhist views of realism and nihilism.
A deeper examination of not only the metaphors so employed, but also how metaphors function in general, reveals that the matter is perhaps not quite so “easily” resolved. I will draw upon theories of “cognitive metaphor” from modern philosophy of language, in particular from Kittay’s acclaimed Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By, Ricœur’s classic The Rule of Metaphor (La Métaphore Vive), and other writings. Kittay’s “perspectival” approach utilizes analysis of both the semantic fields and syntagmatic structures of the two sides of metaphor, i.e. the topic (or tenor) and vehicle, to reveal that “the critical feature of metaphor can be seen as a process in which the structure of one semantic field induces a structure on another content domain.” With respect to syntagmatic analysis, due attention will be given to the fact that our present text of the Upadeśa is a Chinese translation of an original Sanskrit, both languages having radically different grammatical syntax.
The “cognitive” or “conceptual” approach is the most appropriate theory of metaphor for our study here, because this is exactly what the author of the Upadeśa claims when explaining the use of easy vehicle metaphors to “comprehend” the difficult topic content of emptiness. A syntagmatic analysis of the Upadeśa’s metaphors enables us to group the text’s ten metaphors in several ways, as it appears that several of the metaphors are possibly merely sub-categories of another metaphor, thus providing little new conceptual comprehension of the topic of emptiness. Furthermore, more thorough analysis reveals that all ten can be divided into quite distinctive categories, distinctions which may have serious implications for the Upadeśa’s interpretation of emptiness of which the author themselves himself was perhaps unaware. One distinction concerns the issue of external agency, as some metaphors have structures involving active intentional agency, whereas others lack this. A second distinction relates to the presence or absence of an underlying ultimate real beyond the empty in the metaphor in question. Both agency and real ultimates are key issues for the Upadeśa’s Madhyamaka methodology and interpretative standpoint.
While such critical distinctions may possibly be discovered through a very thorough reading of the Upadeśa itself, Kittay and others’ analytic and synthetic methods for the understanding of cognitive metaphors allows us to very quickly and clearly make such issues both apparent and accessible for critical interpretation. Final reflections will be made on the matter of applying kataphatic metaphor vehicles for apophatic empty topics, i.e. how to make nothing out of something.
Keywords:
Prajñāpāramitā, Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa, emptiness, cognitive metaphor, metaphor
中文摘要 本研究考察《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrtinirdeśa）中的難題悖論（aporiaparadox），運用兩種方法：「交錯結構」（chiasticstructures）與「否定性的... more 中文摘要
本研究考察《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrtinirdeśa）中的難題悖論（aporiaparadox），運用兩種方法：「交錯結構」（chiasticstructures）與「否定性的修辭論述」（apophaticrhetoricaldiscourse），來探究本經中的三對重要文段。
在本經的〈第一品〉中，一則文段解釋佛陀為舍利弗示現其佛國（淨土），以及在〈第二品〉與〈第三品〉中，另一則文段描述主角維摩詰居士，此文段常被學者引用來支持本經大乘佛教居士身分勝過於小乘佛教出家角色的宣稱立場。於兩則文段之間也有一段內容描述如來身。但是，從此部經的整體立場來看，在經的末端另有一段描述示現阿閦佛的妙喜佛國，緊接著這段就是如上所說的維摩詰身分與如來身的描述。而在詮釋整部經的學說上，將這些全出自於〈第十一品〉的內容與頭兩品相比較，〈第十一品〉所受到的研究關注相對較少。
為了對本經有整體性的瞭解，我們主張前後兩部份需要同時被考量。若將〈第一品〉、〈第二品〉與〈第十一品〉的相關文段來比對，可看出本經具有倒轉騈行的「交錯結構」（chiasmus），有彼此呼應的兩半，是需要對觀式（synoptic）的解讀。還有，兩則中的修辭論述方式又在前文與後文之間是倒過來的。前半採用並列肯定性（affirmative）的陳述，是合乎主流部派佛教思想體系；後半反而透過一種否定性（apophatic）的「意義事件」（meaningevent）來否定（negate）前面的並列體系，是直接對抗前半所論教理之原有難題悖論（aporiaparadox）。
因此，本經交錯結構的倒轉駢行性是相對於其否定性修辭方式論述的倒轉駢行性。這兩種方法可被視為經文結構與其教理內容的兩個互相支持的文本批評與教理詮釋方法。對於《維摩詰經》主旨之全面性理解而言，這意味著挑戰維摩詰只是居士身分以及佛國就是內在性的這兩個學說。最後，我們依於已確認的交錯與否定性的駢行而提出待研究的經典中段部分之一些假說想法。
關鍵詞：《維摩詰經》，交錯結構，否定論述，佛國，維摩詰，如來身體
Several scholars have cited the statement, “Even nirvāṇa is like an illusion, like a dream?” from... more Several scholars have cited the statement, “Even nirvāṇa is like an illusion, like a dream?” from the early Prajñāpāramitā as evidence of a “shocking” and “novel” Mahāyāna ontology (§1). This paper examines three phases of historical development of the Buddhist metaphor of “illusion” (māyā) through Kittay’s perspectival approach and semantic field theory (§1.1). An analysis of the metaphor in pre- and early Buddhism uncovers its birth in Vedic sources and its adoption by the Buddhists as the absence of a substantial Self in all phenomena without exception (§2). In mainstream Buddhism, the mature metaphor took on a more cognicentric role due to its application specifically to the mind, but excluded the unconditioned, including nirvāṇa (§3). By the early Prajñāpāramitā, the “illusion” metaphor was reestablished as both applying to the conditioned and unconditioned, but it also highlighted the cognitive error of perceiving a Self in what is Selfless, a position more epistemological than ontological (§4). We conclude that “Even nirvāṇa is like an illusion, like a dream?” was thus not a “shocking” or “novel” Prajñāpāramitā creation. We also reflect on the later literal doctrine of illusion, concluding that it was a transformation into common parlance of a now “dead metaphor” (§5).
Keywords: illusion (māyā), metaphor, Buddhism, Prajñāpāramitā, semantic fields
ABSTRACT This study examines aporia paradox in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. We apply two methodologic... more ABSTRACT
This study examines aporia paradox in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. We apply two methodological approaches, chiastic structures and apophatic rhetorical discourse, to examine three pairs of key passages in the text.
The Buddha’s revelation of His Buddha field (pure land) to Śāriputra in Chp. 1 of the text, and descriptions of the layman lead character Vimalakīrti in Chp. 2-3, have often been used to support claims of lay over renunciant roles in early Mahāyāna Buddhism vis-à-vis Hīnayāna Buddhism. Amidst these is a description of the Tathāgata’s body. Taking the text as a whole, however, reveals another display of Akṣobhya’s field Abhirati at the end of the text, immediately following a radically different description of Vimalakīrti’s identity and the Tathāgata’s body. This latter material, all in Chp. 11, has received much less attention than the aforementioned in the text’s interpretation.
In order to understand the text as a whole, we propose that both of these portions be simultaneously taken into consideration. Comparing the relevant passages in Chp. 1-2 and Chp. 11 reveals chiastic inverted parallelism, formed in two opposing and complementary halves, which we shall read synoptically. Moreover, the mode of rhetorical discourse in these passages also shifts between the two halves of the text. The former half utilizes juxtaposed affirmative statements which accord with traditional Buddhism systems of thought. The latter half then negates these juxtaposed systems through performance of an apophatic “meaning event”, which directly confronts the original aporia paradox of the doctrines in question.
The inverted parallelism of the text’s chiastic structure is thus matched by the inverted parallelism of its apophatic rhetorical mode of discourse. The two methodological approaches can be seen as complementary critical and hermeneutical methods for such a text and its teachings. The implications for an overall interpretation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa’s key themes include a challenge to the readings of Vimalakīrti’s layman status, and the immanence of the Buddha field. We end with a hypothesis of what the remaining center of the text should hold on the basis of our ascertained chiastic and apophatic parallelism.
Key Words: Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, chiasmus, apophasis, Buddha field, Vimalakīrti, Tathāgata body
Buddhist Studies Review, 2015
ABSTRACT The Vessantara Jātaka is not only the most popular of all the Buddhist Jātaka tales, bu... more ABSTRACT
The Vessantara Jātaka is not only the most popular of all the Buddhist Jātaka tales, but is important in the tradition as a whole, generally considered by the Theravādin tradition to display the epitome of the Bodhisatta’s perfection of giving (dānapāramī). While most studies have focused on philological approaches, numerous questions as to the text’s structure and how to interpret individual parts within that structure have remained unresolved (§1. The received tradition of the Vessantara Jātaka). My study shall employ the theory of “chiasmus” (inverted parallelism) to shed new light on both the key message of the story and also the sub-themes within it (§2. Chiastic structures as textual approach). In terms of textual criticism, I shall first elucidate the chiastic structure of the text and discuss how this structure can provide insights on text-critical readings (§3. Textual criticism: Chiastic units and structure). In terms of interpretation, I shall then see how the structure clearly demarcates the text’s scope through its prologue and conclusion with surrounding framework, its paired parallel sub-themes, and its central climax point, all in the light of its chiastic structure (§4. Interpretation: A chiastic reading). Finally, considering broader implications, on comparison with other recently discovered Buddhist textual chiasmi I shall present a tentative hypothesis as to the origins of such structures in the “bodhisatt(v)a” literary genre (§5. Conclusions: Critical and interpretive implications).
Keywords: Vessantara, jātaka, chiasmus, structure
It is claimed that one of the innovative contributions of Nāgārjuna in his Madhyamaka thought was... more It is claimed that one of the innovative contributions of Nāgārjuna in his Madhyamaka thought was establishing the equivalence of emptiness (P: suññatā, Skt: śūnyatā; kōng 空, kōngxìng 空性) and dependent origination (P: paṭicca-samuppāda, Skt: pratītyasamutpāda; Ch: yīnyüán 因緣, yüánqĭ 緣起). This present study pre-Nāgārjunian Buddhist textual sources what relationship or equivalence between emptiness and dependent origination was already established.
In Part 1, we broadly outline the near paradigmatic modern Buddhist studies discourse on the teachings of emptiness. We then focus on the role of Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka within this discourse. Lastly, this study rounds off with a literature review of studies on emptiness and dependent origination before Nāgārjuna.
Part 2 covers the early teachings found in the Pāli Nikāyas and (Chinese translations of) the Āgamas. It finds that the term emptiness was sometimes used independently to refer to the process of dependent arising as saṃsāric dissatisfaction and cause, and also as dependent cessation into nirvāṇa. Emptiness as the profound also described these two complementary processes as a whole.
Part 3 continues with the broad range of mainstream sectarian sūtra and śāstra literature. Here, the previous relationships are made more firm and explicit. There is greater association with the two doctrines as rejection of extreme views based on a “self”. The two are also brought within the Abhidharma methodology of analysis into conventional or ultimate truths, and classification as conditioned or unconditioned phenomena.
Part 4 concludes, that while already nascent in the early literature, the relation or equation of emptiness with dependent origination, along with related terms, was quite well developed in pre-Nāgārjunian sectarian literature, and is strongest in the Sarvāstivādin literature. We recommend that aspects of the academic discourse on emptiness should be rectified as a result or these findings.
Conze’s critical editions, translations and commentary on the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra indicated thre... more Conze’s critical editions, translations and commentary on the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra indicated three problematic statements: 1. “no attainment and no non-attain¬ment” (§1.1); 2. “because of non-attainment(ness)” (§1.2); and 3. “without thought coverings” (§1.3). Utilizing Nattier’s theory of the text’s history (§1.4), we trace back these three phrases from the Chinese Heart Sūtra, to the Chinese larger Prajñāpāramitā texts, to the Sanskrit Pañcaviṃśati (§1.5). Subsequently, we generate new readings and incidentally a new structure for these three phrases, distinct from the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra, which is possibly apocryphal. Our new readings are: 1. “no attainment” as no realization (§2). 2. “due to engagement in non-apprehension” (§3). 3. “the mind does not hang on anything” (§4). The new structure ties the usage of the second phrase back to the first phrase within the Sūtra context of “Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, … no attainment; due to engagement in non-apprehension”, rather than at the start of the next section. The third phrase indicates the mind which does not take any object, a synonym for non-apprehension. While the readings and overall structure are new, it still reflects the core notions, i.e. the heart, of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā and Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, the key Perfection of Wisdom texts (§5).
Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in... more Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in an Early Mahāyāna Sūtra
Shì Hùifēng (釋慧峰) / M B Orsborn
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong in December 2011
Abstract
This study examines the early Prajñāpāramitā sūtras through the theory of “chiasmus”. Chiasmic methodology analyses a text into two parallel halves, identifying complementary “prologue” (A) and “conclusion” (A’), and highlighting the critical “central point” (X), with sub-themes paralleled in the two halves (A-B-C-D…X…D’-C’-B’-A’). Through chiasmus theory, many ancient texts formerly considered fragmentary and incoherent have been shown to be structurally sophisticated wholes.
The modern text-critical approach has re-written the traditional account of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Several scholars have proposed theories regarding a pre-textual “ur-sūtra”, though with little consensus on this. In general, most agree that after the formation of an “ur-sūtra” the main body of the text was then chaotically compiled from various fragmentary sub-texts, with the Sadāprarudita Avadāna finally appended at the end. The result is the presently extant smaller sūtra. This modern scholarship then claims gradual growth through expansion into the medium and larger sūtras. The modern academic “discourse on emptiness” portrays the Prajñāpāramitā as focusing on the doctrine of “emptiness” (śūnyatā). This study challenges many of these claims.
On analysis, primary and secondary chiasmi were identified in the first two chapters of the sūtra. Their scope is the authority of teaching and training in the Prajñāpāramitā, and maintenance of the lineage of the Buddhas. Their central climax is definitions of “bodhisattva”, “mahāsattva” and “mahāyāna”, in the rhetorical formula “XY is ~Y”. Clearly paralleled sub-themes include “samādhi”, “the illusory”, “Māra” and “entrance into certitude”.
A second chiasmus comprising the entire Avadāna at the end of the sūtra was also identified. The scope is Sadāprarudita’s quest for Prajñāpāramitā, “to see and hear the Tathāgatas”. The central climax is his seeing and hearing the “Tathāgata” as one who has realized “suchness” (tathatā) or “dependent origination” (pratītyasaṃutpāda), again expressed in the form “XY is ~Y”. Paralleled sub-themes include “samādhi”, “Māra” and “giving”.
These two chiasmi are similar in scope, centers which define key terms through the rhetorical formula “XY is ~Y”, and sub-themes. This suggests a larger chiasmus which spans the entire text, with these chiasmi as prologue and conclusion respectively. While not conclusive, there is evidence for a central climax centered at “suchness” (tathatā), attainment of which results in the bodhisattva’s status of irreversibility. This connects the prologue and concluding chiasmi, “bodhisattvas” to “Tathāgatas”, respectively. Numerous paralleled sub-themes are more or less salient.
There are major implications from the discovery of chiasmus in the Prajñāpāramitā. Critically, it suggests that the sūtra was initially composed as a complete chiasmic whole, rather than from accumulated fragmentary parts. Hermeneutically, the core message may be understood more systematically than earlier methods. It proposes “suchness” (tathatā) as the central theme, rather than “emptiness” (śūnyatā). It also rejects the genre designation of the Prajñāpāramitā as a “philosophical” rather than “religious” text. This study also offers direction for uncovering other cases of chiasmus in early Mahāyāna and Buddhist literature in general, with examples. If a range of chiasmi can be analyzed, a general theory of Buddhist chiasmus can be established for use as a standard Buddhological tool.
The Prajñāpāramitā genre is well known for its generic rhetorical formula “X is not X”, i.e. an a... more The Prajñāpāramitā genre is well known for its generic rhetorical formula “X is not X”, i.e. an affirmation followed immediately by a negation. Often the text proceeds to claim that the ultimate is inexpressible, non-dual, emptiness (śūnyatā). The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa displays a similar rhetoric and philosophy.
Despite this general consensus on Prajñāpāramitā philosophy and rhetoric, modern scholarship largely considers that these texts were random compilations, leading to their chaotic lack of structure. The plot of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa is often considered inconsequential to its philosophy. There thus remains the problem of structured philosophy in a chaotic text.
This paper will argue that the Prajñāpāramitā and the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa are not structurally random, but chiastic in form. This inverted parallelism takes the form A-B-C-…-X-…-C’-B’-A’. This literary form is the ideal vehicle for contrasting the two complementary sides of an apparent paradox (A-A’, B-B’, etc.), while situating an ultimately transcendent solution at its unique core (X).
Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics ... more Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā:
Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism
& Hermeneutics in an Early Mahāyāna Sūtra
原始般若經的交錯結構：
早期大乘經典中的貫通批判與詮釋之文獻平行結構
PhD Dissertation,
University of Hong Kong.
2012
ORSBORN, Matthew Bryan
SHÌ Hùifēng 釋慧峰
Contents 目錄
1 Introduction & Methodology 引言與硏究方法
1.1 Hermeneutics & Criticism 詮釋與批評
1.1.1 The Hermeneutical Circle: Whole & Parts 詮釋循環: 全部與部份
1.1.2 The Hermeneutical Circle in Prajñāpāramitā Studies :般若波羅蜜硏究中的詮釋循環
1.1.3 Textual Criticism in Prajñāpāramitā Studies 般若波羅蜜硏究中的批評
1.2 Theory of Chiasmic Structure & Composition 交錯結構與集成之理論
1.2.1 Chiasmus as Connecting Whole & Part 交錯結構能連接全部與部份
1.2.2 Chiasmus as Critical & Hermeneutical Tool 交錯結構能作為評論與註解之工具
1.3 Methodology & Procedure 硏究方法與步驟
1.3.1 Identification of Literary Sections 文獻章節的確認
1.3.2 Arrangement of Literary Sections 文獻章節的組織
1.3.3 From Structure to Meaning 由結構(批評)至含義(詮釋)
2 The Prajñāpāramitā Literature 般若波羅蜜文獻
2.1 The Corpus of Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra Literature 般若波羅蜜經典典籍
2.1.1 Classical Scholarship on the Prajñāpāramitā Literature 般若波羅蜜典籍的傳統學術成果
2.1.2 Modern Scholarship on Prajñāpāramitā Literature 般若波羅蜜典籍的現代學術成果
2.1.3 The Expansion of the Prajñāpāramitā Texts 般若波羅蜜典籍的擴張
2.2 Primary Witnesses of the Smaller Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra 小本般若經之第一手文獻
2.2.1 《道行般若經》 Dàoxíng Bōrĕ Jīng (T224)
2.2.2 《大明度經》 Dàmíngdù Jīng (T225)
2.2.3 《般若鈔經》 Bōrĕ Chāojīng (T226)
2.2.4 《小品般若經》 Xiăopĭn Bōrĕ Jīng (T227)
2.2.5 《大般若波羅蜜經》 Dàbōrĕbōluómìduō Jīng (4) & (5) (T220)
2.2.6 《佛母出生三法藏般若波羅蜜經》 Fómŭ Chūshēng Jīng (T228)
2.2.7 Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra 八千頌般若波羅蜜經
2.3 Primary Witnesses of the Ratnaguṇasaṃcaya-Gāthā 般若波羅蜜寶德藏偈頌之第一手文獻
2.3.1 《佛母寶德藏般若波羅蜜經》 Fómŭ Băodézàng Jīng (T229)
2.3.2 Prajñāpāramitā-ratnaguṇasaṃcaya-gāthā 般若波羅蜜寶德藏伽他
2.4 Weighing & Application of the Primary Witnesses 第一手文獻之權衡與應用
2.5 Structure of the Smaller Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras 小本般若經之結構
2.5.1 Previous Scholarship on the Structure of the Prajñāpāramitā Texts 小本般若經結構的前學術成果
2.5.2 Theories of an Original “Ur-Sūtra” 原始「初經」諸理論
2.5.2.1 HIKATA’s Ur-Sūtra Theory HIKATA的原始「初經」理論
2.5.2.2 VAIDYA’s Ur-Sūtra Theory VAIDYA的原始「初經」理論
2.5.2.3 CONZE’s Ur-Sūtra Theory CONZE的原始「初經」理論
2.5.2.4 SCHMITHAUSEN’s Ur-Sūtra Theory SCHMITHAUSEN的原始「初經」理論
2.5.2.5 YÌN SHÙN’s Ur-Sūtra Theory YÌN SHÙN的原始「初經」理論
2.5.2.6 Weighing Up the Various Ur-Sūtra Theories 多種原始「初經」理論之權衡
2.6 Doctrinal Content of the Prajñāpāramitā 般若波羅蜜的教義內容
2.6.1 The Modern Academic “Discourse of Emptiness” 現代學術的「空性之講述」
2.6.2 “Emptiness” as Central Message of the Prajñāpāramitā 以「空性」為般若波羅蜜的核心思想
3 Chiasmus in the Sūtra Prologue 經前部份中的交錯法
3.1 Identifying Chiasmus in the Sūtra Prologue 確認經前部份中的交錯法
3.1.1 Chiasmus in the Sūtra Prologue in the Rgs 偈頌前部份中的交錯法
3.1.2 Chiasmus in the Sūtra Prologue in the Sūtra Witnesses 經典文獻前部份中的交錯法
3.2 Prologue to the Sūtra Prologue 經前部份的前主題
3.2.1 Teaching in Conformity with Dharmatā 隨順法性的敎學
3.2.2 Not Self of the Bodhisattva (and Prajñāpāramitā?) 菩薩(與般若波羅蜜?)的無我
3.2.3 Subhūti as “Foremost of Those Who Dwell in Non-Dispute” 「無諍住第一」之須菩提
3.3 (Primary) Conclusion to the Sūtra Prologue 經前部份的(一層)後主題
3.3.1 Subhūti’s Deep Teaching 須菩提的甚深敎學
3.3.2 Not Standing on Any Dharma 不住於任何法
3.4 (Secondary) Conclusion to the Sūtra Prologue 經前部份的(二層)後主題
3.4.1 Śākyamuni’s Prediction From Dīpaṃkara 然燈佛為釋迦牟尼授記
3.5 Central Climax Point in the Sūtra Prologue 經前部份中的核心樞紐主題
3.5.1 Definition of “Bodhisattva” 「菩薩」的定義
3.5.2 Definition of “Mahāsattva” 「摩訶薩」的定義
3.5.3 Definition of “Mahāyāna” 「摩訶衍」的定義
3.5.4 Significance of the Three Definitions 三個定義的含義
3.6 Secondary Features of the Sūtra Prologue Chiasmus 經前部份交錯中的次要主題
3.6.1 Śūnyatā & Samādhi, Śreṇika & Signs 空性與三摩地，先尼梵志與相
3.6.2 Illusory Dharmas & Conceptualization 如幻法與分別
3.6.3 Māra Versus the Good Friend 魔王與善知識
3.6.4 Entrance into Certitude, Prediction & Receptivity 入正位、授記與忍
3.7 Chiasmic Reading of the Sūtra Prologue 對經前部份之交錯法解讀
4 Chiasmus in the Avadāna 經後「譬喻」中的交錯法
4.1 Identifying Chiasmus in the Avadāna 確認經後「譬喻」中的交錯法
4.1.1 Other Early Sources & Parallels to the Avadāna 「譬喻」之其他文獻與類似資料
4.1.2 Two Textual Versions of the Avadāna 「譬喻」情節的兩個版本
4.1.3 Campbell’s “Hero Myth” & the Avadāna Campbell的“千面英雄”神話學與「譬喻」
4.1.4 Chiasmic Structure in the Avadāna Versions 「譬喻」兩個版本中的交錯結構
4.2 Prologue & Conclusion of the Avadāna 經後「譬喻」中的前與後主題
4.2.1 Exhortation to Seek Prajñāpāramitā & Vision of the Buddhas 權學般若波羅蜜與見佛聞法
4.3 Central Climax Point in the Avadāna 經後「譬喻」中的核心樞紐主題
4.3.1 Sermon on Suchness & Seeing and Hearing the Buddha 真如開示，見佛聞法
4.4 Secondary Features of the Avadāna Chiasmus 經後「譬喻」交錯中的次要主題
4.4.1 Hearing Prajñāpāramitā from the Teacher & Entering Samādhi 從師聞般若波羅蜜而入種種三摩地
4.4.2 Māra’s Interference, Blood Sacrifice & Śakra’s Intervention 魔事干擾、血祭與帝釋協助
4.4.3 The Merchant’s Daughter & the Giving of Gifts 商人女與贈送禮物
4.5 Chiasmic Reading of the Avadāna 對經後「譬喻」之交錯法解讀
5 Chiasmus in the Whole Sūtra 全經的交錯法
5.1 Identifying Chiasmus in the Whole Sūtra 確認全經中的交錯法
5.1.1 Identifying the Prologue & Conclusion 確認前部與後部兩個主題
5.1.1.1 Structure and Function of the Two 兩者的結構與作用
5.1.2 Identifying the Central Climax Point 確認核心樞紐主題
5.1.3 Identifying the Two Parallel Halves of the Chiasmus 確認交錯法中的兩個平行部份
5.2 Central Climax Point of the Whole Sūtra 全經的核心樞紐主題
5.2.1 Realization of Suchness (tathatā) 體證真如
5.3 Secondary Features of the Whole Sūtra Chiasmus 全經交錯中的次要主題
5.3.1 Transformation of Merit, Rejoicing & Worldly Benefits 迴逈、隨喜與世間功德
5.3.1.1 Benefits in the Present Life 現世功德
5.3.1.2 Merit from Prajñāpāramitā & Transformation 隨喜般若波羅蜜福德與其回向
5.3.2 Māra Versus the Good Friend 魔王與善知識
5.3.3 Worthy of Offerings & More Present Life Benefits 應供福田與更多現世功德
5.3.4 (The Pearl &) the Interference of Māra (寶珠與)魔事干擾
5.3.5 The Femine with Emptiness, Dependent Origination, the Deep & Suchness
女性與空性、緣起、甚深、真如
5.3.5.1 Feminine Imagery 女性的象徵
5.3.5.2 Emptiness, the Deep, Dependent Origination & Suchness 空性、甚深、緣起與真如
5.3.5.3 Structure & Summary 結構與摘要
5.3.6 Status of Bodhisattvas, Absence of Doubt & Irreversibility 菩薩位、無疑與不退
5.4 Chiasmic Reading of the Whole Sūtra 對全經之交錯法解讀
6 Conclusion: Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā 總結：早期般若波羅蜜的交錯法
6.1 Critical Reappraisal of the Sūtra 對經典的新批評核價
6.1.1 Textual History & Composition 文本的歷史與組織
6.1.2 “Philosophical” Versus “Religious” Sūtras 「哲理性」與「宗教性」經典
6.2 Hermeneutical Reappraisal of the Sūtra 對經典的新詮釋核價
6.2.1 Core Message: From Bodhisattva to Tathāgata via Realization of Tathatā
核心思想：菩薩由證真如而成如來
6.2.2 The Centralization of Emptiness in the Prajñāpāramitā
在般若波羅蜜中的「空性」核心化
6.3 Future Direction and Research 未來的研究與方向
6.4 Final Words 結語
Bibliography 參考文獻
論文摘要： 原始般若經的交錯結構： 早期大乘經典中的貫通批判與詮釋之文獻平行結構 著者： Orsborn, Matthew Bryan 釋慧峰 為 香港大學 哲學博士 二○一二年一月 本論文... more 論文摘要：
原始般若經的交錯結構：
早期大乘經典中的貫通批判與詮釋之文獻平行結構
著者：
Orsborn, Matthew Bryan 釋慧峰
為
香港大學 哲學博士
二○一二年一月
本論文藉以「交錯配列」（chiasmus）理論來研究早期般若波羅蜜經（Prajñāpāramitā sūtra）。交錯方法將文本分析成平行的兩半，認定其相對的「前段」（A）與「後段」（A’），強調其關鍵的「中樞」（X），以及兩半平行的副主題（A-B-C-D…X…D’-C’-B’-A’）。透過交錯結構理論，許多之前被看為瑣碎與非貫通的古典文獻，可獲證明為具有系統性的整體文獻作品。
今代文獻批判的方法完全改變了般若波羅蜜經的傳統解釋。一些學者曾經提出過有關文本前「原始經」（ur-sūtra）的理論，但對此理論未有一致的說法。一般說，大部分的學者同意了「原始經」的形成之後，該經的中體是由許多小瑣碎文獻所沒有系統地構成的中體，最終「常啼菩薩」（Sadāprarudita）的譬喻（Avadāna）加於經之後面。結果即是現存的小本般若經。此類今代的研究接著就說中本與大本的般若經是由此小本所擴張。今代學術界針對「空性」（śūnyatā）的說法也常解釋般若經是以空性之理為其中心。本論文對於以上的學界說法提出異議。
經過分析後，主要與次要的交錯被發現於小本經的前兩品。其範圍為般若波羅蜜教說與學練的權力，以及維持佛種之傳承。其中樞為針對「菩薩」（bodhisattva）、「摩訶薩」（mahāsattva）與「摩訶衍」（mahāyāna）而給予定義，且採用「XY即非Y」的語調形式。明確平行的副主題有「三昧」、「如幻」、「魔」與「正位」等。
在經的後方，整體「譬喻」的交錯結構也得認定了。其範圍為常啼菩薩為了「見、聞如來」（tathāgata）而尋求般若波羅蜜的過程。其中樞為所見、聞的如來其實是體證「（真）如」（tathatā）或「緣起法」者，且一樣是用「XY即非Y」的文字表達模式。副主題包含「三昧」、「魔」與「布施」等。
以上所發現的兩則交錯結構有類似的範圍、中樞採用「XY即非Y」形式來作定義的主題、以及相同的副主題。此同類的現象又意味著整體經本的大形交錯結構，從前兩品為其前段至常啼譬喻為其後段。目前雖未結定論，卻有不少根據暗示「大如品」（Tathatā）為其中樞，菩薩一得即入不退轉位。這也能貫穿前段與後段兩則小交錯，即是由「菩薩」（bodhisattva）達成「如來」（tathāgata）的過程。整體經文的交錯中也或多或少具有明確的副主題。
於般若波羅蜜經中發現交錯結構，具有重要的關聯。在文獻批判方面，它意味著該經原來是整體交錯結構所集成，而並非瑣碎殘本所合造的。在詮釋學方面，能夠較有具體理論與系統性地認識其核心思想：就是以「（真）如」（tathatā）而不是「空性」（śūnyatā）為其核心。此結論也否定了般若經被列為「哲學」（philosophical）而非「宗教信仰」（religious）經典之說。此研究提供了對於其他早期大乘經與佛教文獻發現其他交錯結構的方向與方式。如果可以分析出一系列的佛教交錯案子，就可以建立一套佛教交錯概論，並且作為標準的佛學研究工具。
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 81, No. 1, February 2018. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018
which he deals with this, and also with the spread of Brahmanism to Southeast Asia, is disappoint... more which he deals with this, and also with the spread of Brahmanism to Southeast Asia, is disappointing in its brevity. I grant that this is a good question that is hard to answer, but, having introduced the issue in the very title, one wishes that it had been discussed in greater detail. One solution he proposes is storieshow the creation of stories can propagate ideas and "render social phenomena permanent, predictable, and commonsensical" (p. 409). That is certainly true. But the Buddhists also told stories, as evidenced in the Jātakas. Why did those stories have a lesser impact than the Brahmanical ones?