Wu Weilin

The Citrakarmaśāstra preserved in Sri Lanka is the only śilpa text so far discovered among Sanskrit, Pāli and Chinese Buddhist texts, which most comprehensively deals with the process, the art and the ritual of modelling clay images. The process begins with fixing the clue on the wooden armature, then fixing veins around the armature. Next is the preparation of the clay and the lime-stone paste, finally the preparation of the paint. It is a highly anthropomorphic process. The comparative study on various religious texts indicates that as far as the chapters and contents on the technique of clay modelling is concerned, the Citrakarmaśāstra, which has to date later than 12th century A.D., is a compilation based on various South Indian Hindu śaiva texts which are more detailed. The śaiva śilpa tradition has exerted a great influence on it.

In both Pāli and Chinese vinaya literature, there are various patriarchal lineages of vinaya transmission in which Upāli is honored as the first patriarch. These lineages that start with Upāli can be categorized into two types. The first type is found mainly in Indian vinaya texts, including two groups of texts: the Mohe sengqi lü 摩訶僧祇律 (Skt. Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya), and the Samantapāsādikā, a Pāli Vinaya commentary, as well as its parallel Chinese version, the Shanjianlü piposha 善見律毗婆沙. The second type was constructed by Chinese Vinaya school masters in the Northern Song dynasty, who aimed to establish an orthodox Indian origin for the Vinaya school. After their introduction into China and Japan, the first type of lineages experienced transformation in later Vinaya school works composed by medieval Chinese and Japanese Buddhist monks. A comparative philological study on the Samantapāsādikā and Shanjianlü piposha shows a “mistranslated” Tanwude 曇無德 (Skt. Dharmagupta) in the patriarchal...

In both Pāli and Chinese vinaya literature, there are various patriarchal lineages of vinaya trans-mission in which Upāli is honored as the first patriarch. These lineages that start with Upāli can be categorized into two types. The first type is found mainly in Indian vinaya texts, including two groups of texts: the Mohe sengqi lü 摩訶僧祇律 (Skt. Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya), and the Samantapāsādikā, a Pāli Vinaya commentary, as well as its parallel Chinese version, the Shanjianlü piposha 善見律毗婆沙. The second type was constructed by Chinese Vinaya school masters in the Northern Song dynasty, who aimed to establish an orthodox Indian origin for the Vinaya school. After their in-troduction into China and Japan, the first type of lineages experienced transformation in later Vinaya school works composed by medieval Chinese and Japanese Buddhist monks. A comparative phil-ological study on the Samantapāsādikā and Shanjianlü piposha shows a “mistranslated” Tanwude 曇無德 (Skt. Dharmagupta) in the patriarchal lineage of vinaya transmission in the Shanjianlü piposha, the parallel of which is “Buddharakkhita” in the Pāli sources. Further investigation on the Vinaya school reveals that both Dingbin 定賓 and Gyōnen 凝然, monks from the Vinaya school in later periods, identified the Shanjianlü piposha as a commentary on the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, and they consequently considered the patriarchal lineage in the Shanjianlü piposha as the patriarchal genealogy of the Dharmaguptaka school, with the purpose of establishing an orthodoxy of the Vinaya school that could be traced back to Upāli. Furthermore, in the genealogy in the Mohe sengqi lü, Gyōnen associated the master Fahu 法護with the Dharmaguptaka school. Yuanzhao 元照, an eminent Vinaya school monk, criticized the second type of lineages as false construction. Instead, he estab-lished a patriarchal lineage that starts with Tanwude, the editor and compiler of the Dhar-maguptaka-vinaya, for the Chinese Vinaya school.

“毗尼四法（catubbidha vinaya）”这一概念出自巴利语律藏注释书Samantapāsādikā（公元4—5世纪成书），是研读上座部律典的四重法，包括巴利律本（“本”）、巴利律本的补充（“随本”）、五百结集中法师的注释（“法师语”）、习律者的解读（“自意”）四个方面，体现了以巴利律本为权威和独尊上座部的原则。《善见律毗婆沙》（489年译出）是巴利Samantapāsādikā的可对照汉译本。译者却对不同部派采取包容的态度。因此，《善见律毗婆沙》中“毗尼四法”的上座部色彩大大弱化。到了唐代，四分律宗南山律师道宣把“毗尼四法”化用为解释法藏部《四分律》的方法。他不再以律本为权威，融合不同部派律典和大乘经论，强调以佛教三藏之意方便度用来阐释《四分律》。他的法嗣大觉、景霄、元照都继承这一“自我做主”的释律方法。从巴利Samantapāsādikā到《善见律毗婆沙》、再到南山律疏，“毗尼四法”历经了上座部涵义式微和披上汉传佛教律学外衣的流变过程，反映了汉传佛教依律义不依部派、依法脉不依原典的释律传统，体现了上座部律学与汉传律学融合的中国化历程。
“Catubbidha vinaya” is a Theravādin concept from Pāli Vinaya commentary Samantapāsādikā, which is a fourfold discipline for studying Theravādin Vinaya. It contains sutta (Vinaya texts), suttānuloma (addition to the Vinaya texts), ācāryavāda (interpretation of arahats in the first Buddhist Council), attanomati (one’s own understanding). “Catubbidha vinaya” in the Samantapāsādikā reflects the domination of Pāli Vinaya. However, in the Shanjian lü piposha, the Chinese version of the Samantapāsādikā, the translators show an inclusive attitude to different nikāyas. Therefore, the Theravādin definition of “Catubbidha vinaya” is weakened in the Shanjian lü piposha. In Tang Dynasty, the Nanshan school vinaya teacher Daoxuan changed “Catubbidha vinaya” into the method to interpret the Sifenlü. Different from the author of the Samantapāsādikā, he did not consider the “sutta” as orthodox. Otherwise, he blended ideas from different nikāyas as well as Mahāyāna texts and focused on explaining the “sutta” with various ideas from tripitaka. Later, Dajue, Jingxiao and Yuanzhao attributed to his school all carried on his method for further understanding on the Sifenlü. From the Samantapāsādikā to the Shanjian lü piposha then to the Nanshan school vinaya commentaries, “Catubbidha vinaya” gradually lost its original Theravādin definition and was converted into a concept featured with Chinese vinaya tradition. Such a variation has implies that Chinese vinaya is explained according to the ideas of interpretators and their lineage other than the school affiliation of the commented vinaya and the original canon. It is also a convergence of Chinese vinaya tradition and Theravādin vinaya traditon which dates back to ancient India.

The Samantapāsādikā is a Pāli vinaya commentary composed around the 5th century, whose author is attributed to Buddhaghosa, the most important commentator in Theravādin Buddhism. The Shanjian lü piposha (T.1462), translated in 489, is a parallel Chinese version of the Samantapāsādikā. However, the Shanjian lü piposha was misconsidered as a commentary on the Dharmagupta vinaya Sifenlü by Chinese Buddhist monks in ancient times. For, during its translation, many contents borrowed from the Sifenlü were added. Such a misinterpretation originated from Ding Bin, a vinaya master attributed to Xiangbu sub-school of the Dharmagupta vinaya in Kaiyuan period in Tang Dynasty. Vinaya masters attributed to Nanshan sub-school of the Dharmagupta vinaya such as Jing Xiao (？—927), Yun Kan (？—1061), Yuan Zhao (1048—1116) all followed this misinterpretation, consequently exerted a great influence on Gyōnen (1240—1321), an important Japanese Buddhist monk. These ancient Chinese and Japanese Buddhist monks’ understandings on the relationship between the Shanjian lü piposha and the Sifenlü reflects the historical development of Pāli Buddhist disciplines in Chinese Buddhism. Up to 1896, the Japanese scholar Takakusu Junjirō denied this misinterpretation after his comparative studies on the Samantapāsādikā and the Shanjian lü piposha.