國立臺灣圖書館所藏敦煌文獻『成實論義記』卷中 (臺北131) について (一)

Abstract

The study of Harivarman’s *Satyasiddhiśāstra (or *Tattvasidd- hiśāstra), translated by Kumārajīva (344?―413?; the translation was completed in CE 412), flourished in the first half of the Southern and Northern Dynasties, that is, the southern Song 宋, Qi 齊, and Linag 梁 dynasties, and also the Northern Wei 北魏 dynasty. This is one of the most remarkable features of the history of Abhidharma thought in China. During this time, many Buddhist scholars focused their energies on lecturing on and studying the *Satyasiddhi―which was considered to belong to the Sautrāntikas―and seldom turned their attention to the Abhidharma treatises belonging to the Sarvāstivādins (pitan 毘曇), which were brought to China at around the same time as the *Satyasiddhi. Recent scholars explain the great influence of the *Satyasiddhi in China as follows: the translator Kumārajīva himself translated the *Satyasiddhi into Chinese and distributed it in order to criticize the doctrine of the Sarvāstivādin; the *Satyasiddhi describes “extinguishing three kinds of mind [gradually]” 三心滅, that is, “extinguishing the mind [that follows] all conceptions (prajñapti)” 假名心滅, “extinguishing the mind [that recognizes the five skandhas as] real existence” 法心滅 and “extinguishing the mind [that recognizes the five skandhas as] non-existence” 空心滅, as a path of Buddhist practice, and Chinese Buddhists adopted it as the method to realize emptiness 空 (śūnyatā) as Mahāyāna Buddhist truth. However, although these explanations are partially correct, the actual way in which *Satyasiddhi was studied at that time is still not known. In this research situation, we should pay attention to the eight remaining fragments of a commentary on the *Satyasiddhi, which were unearthed at Dunhuang and Turfan at the beginning of the preceding century. Each fragment is extremely valuable to scholars, as they show the actual way that *Satyasiddhi was studied in the period of the Southern and Northern Dynasties, but nobody has researched these fragments intensively up to this point. Therefore, in the present study, I will examine one of the fragments, the Chengshi lun yiji (the Commentary on the *Satyasiddhi) Fascicle 2 『成實論義記』卷中 (taibei 臺北 131), belonging to the National Taiwan Library, to arrange basic information about the text, and also to provide a concrete estimate of the place where the text was composed and the date of its completion. The findings of the study of this fragment are as follows:1. The text does not have a colophon. Therefore, the author and the date when the manuscript was copied are unknown. However, the text mentions phrases from the *Satyasiddhi as a subject of commentary, and the phrases is sometimes different from the current textual versions of the *Satyasiddhi which is contained in the block-printed Chinese Tripiṭakas. Therefore, we surmise that the text was completed before the text of the *Satyasiddhi that is currently in use and has been circulated. 2. In terms of the details of the textual commentary, (a) an interpretation of whether there are thought concomitants (caitta) is based on the teaching of a chapter of the Bodhisattva Kāśyapa in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra and a commentary on it written by scholars of the southern Song, Qi, and Linag dynasties, including Sengzong 僧宗 (438―496), as described in the Daban niepan jing jijie 大般涅槃經集解 (the Selected Commentaries on the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra). (b) The interpretation of the relationship between three kinds of sensation (vedanā) and three kinds of pain (duḥkha) is almost same as Sengliang 僧亮 (or Daoliang 道亮, ca. 400―468) and Baoliang’s 寶亮 (444―509) commentaries on the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, as contained in the Daban niepan jing jijie. (c) The text directly refers to the “Liang gong shu” 亮公疏 (master Liang’s Commentary [on the *Satyasiddhi]) instead of omitting the full explanation only once. This “Liang gong shu” probably refers to the lost Chengshi lun shu 成實論疏 (the Commentary on the *Satyasiddhi) composed by Sengliang (Daoliang) or Baoliang. According to these facts, I conclude that the text was composed in the south, and the date of its completion was around the same time as Baoliang’s activity, roughly at the beginning of the Liang dynasty.