杏雨書屋所藏敦煌文獻 <大乘起信論疏> (擬題, 羽333V) について

Abstract

As is well known, there exist four early commentaries on the Awakening of Faith in the Great Vehicle (AF), written in China (also in Korea): Tanyan’s 曇延 (516-588) Dasheng qixin lun yishu 大乘起信論義疏; Jingying Huiyuan’s 淨影慧遠 (523-592) Dasheng qixin lun yishu 大乘起信論義疏; Wŏnhyo’s 元曉 (617-686) Qixin lun shu 起信論疏; and Fazang’s 法藏 (643-712) Dasheng qixin lun yiji 大乘起信論義記. Among the four texts, Tanyan’s commentary has been considered the oldest one. However, I found another commentary on the AF, which precedes Tanyan’s one in the recently published Dunhuang manuscripts belonging to the Kyō’u 杏雨 Library in Japan. In this article, I intend to examine the entire nature of this newly identified Dasheng qixin lun shu 大乘起信論疏 (provisional title; hane 羽 333 verso) (羽333V) in comparison with Tanyan’s commentary, and make clear the following points: 1. By comparing and contrasting the 羽333V with Tanyan’s commentary, we can find some cases that the latter summarizes comments of the former, and the latter added some explanations which are not in the former. We therefore, conclude that the 羽333V precedes Tanyan’s commentary. 2. The 羽333V cites some paragraphs from Paramārtha’s translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (MSBh), and precedes Tanyan’s commentary as mentioned above. Therefore, the 羽333V was composed after 564 C.E. when Paramārtha completed translating the MSBh into Chinese, and before 588 C.E. when Tanyan was dead. 3. In the 羽333V, we can find a number of comments based on the doctrines of the Jiu shi zhang 九識章 composed by Paramārtha, and of the MSBh and the Foxing lun 佛性論 translated by him. Compared with Tanyan’s commentary, the 羽333V closes to the works of Paramārtha much more. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the author of the 羽333V was familiar with the translations and various compositions of Paramārtha, and had a close relationship with him. 4. In the extant manuscript of the 羽333V, there are some traces of modifications probably by the author himself, but on the other hand, there are also the omission of the transcription which suggests that the manuscript was organized by some other editor as well. Also, among these traces of modifications, a part of it was possibly known by Tanyan, but others may not. We therefore, assume that the 羽333V is probably a text whose type is a record of lecture co-produced by an author (i.e. a master) and an editor (i.e. a disciples), and it is possible that more than one text had existed in those days, and there were variant versions of compilations which have different types of editing while reflected the author’s modifications. 5. It is unknown whether Huiyuan and Wŏnhyo knew the 羽333V, but in Fazang’s commentary, we can find some evidence that Fazang referred to it. We therefore, can assume that the 羽333V had existed in central China, at least until the 7th century.