佛教研究中心 佛光大學

Étienne Lamotte (1903-1983) is one of the greatest Buddhist scholars of the twentieth century. Based on his biographies, I discuss his exceptional achievements, his method of study, and his unrivaled works. I also touch upon his contribution as a Roman Catholic priest to the promotion of mutual understanding between Buddhists and Christians. As to his magnum opus, the annotated French translation of the Da zhidu lun 大智度論 (T1509), I introduce reviews written by Japanese scholars of this work, including discussions surrounding its authorship. Lastly, I could not help but express my wish to think about how we could best utilize the academic heritage that we have inherited from Lamotte and how we might pass it on to the next generation.

This article focuses on the relationship between the controversial late-Ming playwright Tu Long and the contemporaneous Tiantai school of Buddhism represented by Youxi Chuandeng. It aims to contribute on the one hand to studies of Tu Long, which have paid little attention to Tu's connection with Tiantai, and on the other hand to studies of Chuandeng and the late Ming Tiantai revival, which have not yet explored the nexus between Chuandeng's philosophical teachings and his social network. I argue that it is most likely through Tiantai Buddhism, rather than "mad Chan" or Yangming philosophy, that Tu justified his antinomian deeds. This case study of Tu Long indicates that the success of the Tiantai school in the late Ming may be attributed to its fulfillment of the literati appetite for reading and writing, as well as to its tolerance of their unconventional lifestyle and syncretic spirituality. Unveiling some disagreements between Tu and Yunqi Zhuhong, whom many regard as Tu's guru, this paper highlights the agency of a lay Buddhist amid the tensions between rival schools and teachers.

Michele Ruggieri, Matteo Ricci and other Jesuits were the first to present the history and teaching of Buddhism to Europeans. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the Rites Controversy was at its height, Charles Maigrot wrote a voluminous manuscript, De Sinica Religione Dissertationes quatuor, containing a short section describing the history and doctrine of Chinese Buddhism. Unlike the summary treatment of Buddhism by the Jesuits, Maigrot translated Chinese materials. However, he did not directly translate Chinese sutras, but Confucian texts of the Song and Ming dynasties that discuss Buddhism. This paper presents the materials used by Maigrot and analyzes how he accepted the radical criticism of Qing Confucianism against Buddhism, and yet, on the question of moral retribution, Maigrot stood on the side of Buddhism. His discourse shows the complexity of the Catholic position on Buddhism.

The narrative of the Buddha’s birth in Chinese translations of the Buddha’s biography can be divided into two types: 1. The Buddha came from tushita heaven, became a six-tusked white elephant, and entered the right side of Mahamaya; 2. The Buddha rode a six-tusked white elephant from tushita heaven and entered the right side of Mahamaya. This differs from people’s ordinary idea of conception, suggesting a literary poetic imagination. Therefore, its symbolic meaning can be considered through the relationship between signifier and signified. From the perspective of semiotics, people live in a created symbolic world, of which religion is also a part. Therefore, Chinese translations of the Buddha’s biography are filled with symbols of supernatural expression, understood not as original superstition or delusion, but as representing a systematic conceptual structure. The present article analyzes Chinese translations of the Buddha’s biography from the perspective of semiotics, focusing on the idea of a white elephant becoming a fetus. The analysis of the white elephant looks at its role in Indian culture and Buddhist scriptures. Biographies of the Buddha describe the symbolic significance of the Buddha’s transformation into a white elephant or riding white elephant into his mother’s right side, which is unique to Buddhism. This is a symbol representing the Buddha’s personality and doctrine. It is related to Buddhism’s interpretation of life. It can also be understood in terms of reincarnation. Only in this way can there be corresponding interpretations of the symbol, and an understanding of the subtleties of the Buddhist narrative. Through the study of the Buddhist scriptures, this article shows that the white elephant represents nobility, auspiciousness, treasure, braveness, purity, goodness, harmony, and the ability to take on all things in Indian culture. Symbolically, the white elephant or the six-tusked white elephant is used as a symbol of the Buddha’s reincarnation, indicating that the Buddha possesses these qualities. It also means that Buddhism is rare in the world. Entering Mahamaya’s right side is symbolic of right-handedness in India. It also symbolizes the solemnity and sacredness of the Buddha’s birth, which is pure, unstained, without lust, and without desire. In addition, when the Buddha rides the white elephant rather than becoming it, this may be a product of receptive hermeneutics in the translation process. Nonetheless, the two versions have the same symbolic meaning.

Multiple Chinese translations of the same sutra are helpful in collating the Buddhist scriptures and understanding the sutra’s meaning. Commentaries on sutras relied on available translations, but this was not done systematically. In the case of some difficult sutras, the failure to refer to all translations resulted in errors. Today, when we study ancient yinyi works on pronunciation and meaning, we should fully draw from this experience and refer to the different translations. Specifically, referring to the different translations is useful for correcting errors in passages quoting the sutras and errors in pronunciation and meaning, further contributing to our understanding of the texts. The author applies this method of analysis to the Daodi jing yinyi by Huilin and Kehong.

Ancient Chinese translations of Indian Buddhist scriptures provide the basic data for studying the history of Sino-Indian cultural exchange. As translated works, these texts contain many non-Chinese elements, which often led to misunderstandings. To eliminate these misunderstandings, comparative analysis should be undertaken using existing Sanskrit parallel texts. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa is an important sutra in Mahayana Buddhism. There is a paragraph in Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation which, according to the traditional reading, contains “special panduan 判斷 sentences with postpositive shi是”, a kind of ancient Chinese yes-no sentence that has a final shi. Scholars have been discussing the origins and features of this kind of sentence during the past fifteen years. Through a comparative analysis with its parallel Sanskrit original, however, we find that these sentences are the results of loan translation, the basic method of translation used by the foreign translators. Their true syntactic and semantic structures are revealed only through a comparative analysis with the source language. This paper has two findings. First, the traditional reading of some of these sentences is probably not correct. Second, in some cases, this kind of sentence in Buddhist texts may be the result of loan translation.

In both the pre-modern tradition and modern scholarship, there has been controversy over whether the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa (VKN) attributed in the present canon to Zhi Qian支謙 (fl. 223-252), the Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 T474, is in fact by Zhi Qian or by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 (fl. ca. 280-308). Using copious internal evidence discovered by computer-assisted methods developed by the author, this paper argues that our extant text is a revision of a Zhi Qian original text by Dharmarakṣa or someone very closely associated with Dharmarakṣa’s circle.

《正法華經》的譯者竺法護（Dharmarakṣa，約 233 年-310 年）祖 先出身於月氏（月支，大夏或貴霜） ，以後代代居住在敦煌。竺法護八 歲出家，師從外國沙門，後為求索方等（即大乘）經典遊歷西域，通曉 36 種外語及文字。竺法護從西域帶回為數眾多的寫本，自 266 年至 308 年在敦煌和長安翻譯了 159 部（又說 154 部）大乘、小乘經典。流傳至 今的竺法護譯經除《正法華經》以外，還有《般若経》 （ 《光讚般若經》 ） 、 《華嚴經》 （ 《漸備一切智徳經》 、 《度世品經》 ） 、 《生經》 、 《普曜經》等 七十餘部重要經典，是與二世紀末的支婁迦讖、五世紀初的鳩摩羅什、 七世紀的玄奘比肩的偉大翻譯家，被稱為「敦煌菩薩」 。竺法護譯原典 是梵語化以前的古老的型態，因此，在研究佛典，尤其是在研究大乘佛 典的變遷時是極為重要且寶貴的資料。但因鳩摩羅什譯行文流暢，膾炙 人口，所以研究者們歷來皆重視鳩摩羅什譯。竺法護譯的重要性絲毫不 劣於羅什譯，而至今研究者稀少，實甚可惜。 一、竺法護譯與梵本對比研究的必要性 竺法護譯是逐字逐句的直譯，譯文中常出現不自然的漢語表達，尤 其在偈頌部分按照原文語順翻譯，給我們造成了不參照梵本就無法理解

The present article is a preliminary study of a little known treatise called Kango hattenshō gakusoku 漢 語 八 囀 聲 學 則 (Guidelines for Studying the Eight Cases of the Chinese Language) written by Kiben (基辨, 1718-1792), a scholarly priest of the Japanese Buddhist Hossō school. The concept of "eight cases" is derived from medieval Chinese accounts of Sanskrit grammar where it refers to the patterns of noun declension. However, Kiben did not apply this category to Sanskrit, but rather to literary Chinese (kango 漢語), the language of Buddhist sutras and doctrinal treatises studied by contemporaneous Japanese monks. Whereas this idea may appear questionable from a linguistic point of view, Kiben's treatise deserves attention as the product of a well-established intellectual tradition rooted in the historical context of early modern Japan. The present article aims to make clear why someone working within this tradition decided to

Ryōō Dōkaku's 了翁道覚 (1630-1707) autobiography breaks stereotypes of Buddhism during his period in several important ways. At a time when the government was attempting to strengthen its control over Buddhism by enforcing sectarian rules, Ryōō contributed substantial funds and Buddhist canons to three schools: Zen 禅 , Tendai 天台, and Shingon 真言. In doing so, he was striving to revive a more robust form of Buddhism that he saw in the Ōbaku 黄檗 Zen tradition that was being introduced from China. Other aspects of his autobiography combine contrasting stereotypes as he engaged in severe austerities and yet was an entrepreneur and philanthropist. He established libraries, particularly one at the major Tendai monastery, Kan'eiji 寛永寺 that were open to both laity and monastics and held books from a variety of Chinese and Japanese philosophical, religious, historical, and literary traditions, foreshadowing the creation of public libraries.

何對應到也是多義的漢語詞呢？筆者首先研究《維摩詰經》中「異」的 不同語意與其相對應的梵文詞語，將之分成五類：(1)「不同的」 ：vi-， nāna；(2)「分離」 ：vi-；(3)「其他的」 ：anya, para 和 pṛthak；(4)「不好 的」 ：ku-和(5)表否定：vi-。其次， 「惡」之不同語意所相對應的梵語詞 語也可分成五類：(1)「不好的」 、 「壞的」 ：dur-, a-, ku-, pāpa, paruṣa；(2) 「罪過」 、 「罪惡」 ：pāpa, doṣa, avadya；(3) 「污穢肮髒之物」 ：gūthoḍigalla, kaṣāya, aśuci-pūti；(4)「惡人」 ：māra 和(5)「厭惡」 ：pratigha, an-abhirati。 在《維摩詰經》中有關「異」和「惡」翻譯手法，玄奘採取比較類

The Weimojie suoshuo jing 維摩詰所說經 contained in the Qianlong Tripiṭaka乾隆大藏經, which has been in general circulation for the last 25 years, bears significant differences from the versions found in the more commonly used Chinese canons. The title of this version, as recorded in the index volume of the Qianlong Tripiṭaka and on the title page of the sūtra, matches that of Kumārajīva’s translation. However, within the text itself, a different title is used: Weimojie suoshuo dasheng jing 維摩詰所說大乘經. This version has been proven to be a revision of Kumārajīva’s version, with changes based on the Tibetan version. The new revised version integrates important content from the Tibetan version into Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the formation of this new version, identify its motives and the key figures, and describe its reprints in later periods.
Although no direct evidence has yet been discovered, this article relies on related historical sources to make the following arguments. First, the emperor Qianlong (1711-1799, reigned 1736-1795), who was a devoted follower of Tibetan Buddhism, and his guoshi 國師 (national preceptor) lCang skya Rol pa'i rdo rje (1717-1786) were the initiator and the executants of the new version. Second, Weimojie suoshuo dasheng jing was completed no later than 1774, during the early period of the translation of the Manchu Tripiṭaka. Third, the motives for the revised version were closely related to the translation of the Manchu Tripiṭaka. Fourth, after the new version was completed, it was appended, along with some other texts, to the already finished Qianlong Tripiṭaka, and contained in the mo 默 case. For various human and historical reasons, this new version was later moved to the fang 方 case, and has replaced the translation of Kumārajīva.
The formation of Weimojie suoshuo dasheng jing has highlighted the interaction between Chinese, Tibetan, Manchu, and Mongolian culture in the period of Qianlong. Buddhism played a significant role and to a great extent influenced the development of culture and history at that time. Our knowledge of the Tripiṭaka completed in the Qing Dynasty and of the role of the Chinese translations of Vimalakīrtinirdeśa therein is incomplete. This study is intended to balance that deficiency.

Huiyuan, Zhiyi, and Jizang, three Buddhist masters in the Sui dynasty, studied and made their own interpretations of Kumārajīva’s translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. This article compares their works to evaluate the relationship between their interpretations of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa and the developments in Buddhist schools in the Sui and Tang dynasties. I will focus on the dates of completion for their works, the differences in their context, and their interpretations of the full title of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa (inconceivable liberation), and other topics to identify the core ideas behind their interpretations and the relational development of Chinese Buddhist scholastic thought.
Huiyuan uses “ontological true mind” as the core idea for his commentary, interpreting the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa as a text representing “true mind only.” Zhiyi focuses on the concept of inconceivability but integrates ideas from the Lotus sūtra and the Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra to interpret it from a Tiantai perspective. Jizang emphasizes the concept of non-duality (advaya) and identifies it with emptiness (śūnya), signlessness (alakṣaṇā), and non-acquisition (anupalabdha), finally identifying the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa as a prajñāpāramitā sutra.
Although “ontological true mind” is Huiyuan’s fundamental perspective, he includes ideas from the Daśabhūmika śāstra, Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra, and the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna to interpret the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. However, he does not attempt to establish his own school yet. Zhiyi’s Tiantai school was growing at the same time of his interpretation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, and he used the idea of perfect teachings and the Lotus sūtra and Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra to integrate ideas from various sūtras. Jizang inherited the tradition of the Sanlun school, taking emptiness (śūnyata) as the ultimate truth and interpreting other texts from this perspective.
There are multifaceted hermeneutic points of view toward the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. These three masters have their own explanations, although none of them is the only correct interpretation. It is just as the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: “The Buddha explains the Dharma with one sound and sentient beings each attain understanding according to their capacity.” The phenomenon of hermeneutic difference has shown this completely.

This article discusses the phenomenon of ritual Buddhism in China during the Republican period, particularly as it is addressed in Hsing Yun’s Singing With Silence, an early book written during his first visit to Taiwan (1949-1951). He wrote this book on ritual implements and musical instruments to show the corruption of Buddhism during the Republican period in China.
The present article is limited to the Republican period in mainland China. Reform-oriented Buddhists believed that a ritual-oriented Buddhism must be opposed. Ever since the Ming and Qing dynasties, Chinese Buddhism has increasingly emphasized repentance rites, superstition, and stories of ghosts, leading to criticism by society and intellectuals.
This continued into the Republican period, when the monk Taixu (1890-1947) proposed Humanistic Buddhism as a solution. Many were influenced by Taixu’s concept of Humanistic Buddhism, including Hsing Yun.
On the one hand, this article examines the phenomenon of ritual Buddhism during the Republic of China, based on Hsing Yun’s Singing with Silence. On the other hand, it discusses how Hsing Yun formed his concept of Humanistic Buddhism against the background of ritual Buddhism of that time.

The commentaries on the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra preserved in the Dunhuang manuscripts are crucial to the study of Buddhist literature. In particular, the manuscripts of the Weimo yiji (Record of Meanings of the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra), for its early dates, illustrated the popularity of this scripture in the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the doctrinal interpretations of this scripture, and the development of the Buddhist doctrinal commentaries. This paper aims to offer a comprehensive investigation of various manuscripts of the Weimo yiji in numerous Dunhuang and Turfan collections for an analysis. So far seventeen manuscripts from Dunhuang and four manuscripts from Turfan have been identified. This paper attempts to date them and categorize them into five transmission traditions based on their content, including the one from Dunhuang and another one by Huiyuan. This paper focuses on the entries in catalogues and their verifications, the commentaries and their sources, and the original commentaries and their additions. It also deals with the compilation of these five traditions, the manuscript traditions, and the colophons of the manuscripts.

The dramatic characters in the Vimalakīrti nirdeśa sūtra can be classified into three types: protagonist, supporting parts and buffoons according to the ancient Indian work on dramatic theory, the Nāṭyaśāstra. Lay Buddhist Vimalakīrti, the main character in the Vimalakīrti nirdeśa sūtra, is no doubt the protagonist, while the Buddha and Mañjuśrī are of secondary importance, and so are supporting parts. Characters such as Śāriputra are surely buffoons since they only make impromptu comic gestures and remarks. All through the sūtra, Vimalakīrti is especially described as a towering figure using such dramatic artistic methods as indirect description, spoken parts, scene changes, and spiritual power, greatly praising the ideas of the “incredible Mahāyāna state of liberation” and “the one and only way” advocated by the Vimalakīrti.

The incident of Vimalakirti manifesting illness and Bodhisattva Manjushri’s visit in the Vimalakirti Sutra reveals the “essence” of the emptiness of dharmakaya, the “form” of no-form, and the “application” of the inconceivable liberation. All three aspects can be clearly seen in the Buddhist iconographic evidences related to the Vimalakirti Sutra in early medieval China. These iconographic evidences depicting the illness of Vimalakirti illustrate the discussion of emptiness with the image of Bodhisattva Manjushri and his attendants as well as the heavenly female beings scattering flowers. The force of inconceivable liberation was illustrated by the images of borrowing seats from the Buddha Lantern King and asking for food from the Land of Buddha Fragrance Accumulation. This image, like the Lotus Sutra, illustrates the concept of non-duality of source and trace. This image also explicates the causes and conditions for pure lands in a manner similar to that of the Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra. The inconceivable liberation of Vimalakirti also leads to an understanding of the concept of dharmakaya found in the Huayan Sutra (Mahā-vaipulya-buddhâvataṃsaka-sūtra). With ideas from the Guanhe 關河 group, this image shows developments of thought toward the three major gates of expounding found in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Lotus Sutra, and the Mahā-vaipulya-buddhâvataṃsaka-sūtra. Through these iconographic evidences, we can see how Buddhist thought has been splendidly expressed and depicted in early medieval China.