Yīnmíng rù zhèng lǐ mén lùn shù jì 因明入正理門論述記
Sub-commentary on the Treatise on the Gate of Reasoning of Hetuvidyā (Xuzangjing recension) by 神泰 (Shéntài, 述)
About the work
The Xuzangjing transmission of Shéntài 神泰’s sub-commentary on Dignāga’s Yīnmíng zhèng lǐ mén lùn běn KR6o0001. The same work is transmitted in the Taishō as Lǐmén lùn shù jì KR6o0007 (T44n1839); the two versions are textually closely related but not identical. The Xuzangjing edition’s title prefixes 因明入 (“entering into Buddhist logic”) and the Taishō version omits this; the source text within both editions begins identically with “初言因明者…” and proceeds in parallel for the bulk of their lengths, with the Xuzangjing version preserving slightly more of the original commentary at points where the Taishō transmission breaks off. The catalog meta treats the two as separate entries to reflect the separate canonical placement; the present entry should be read together with KR6o0007.
Structural Division
CANWWW does not have a separate entry for X53N0847 (the Xuzangjing texts are not in CANWWW’s div15-31 coverage); the structural relationship to KR6o0001 is the same as for KR6o0007.
Abstract
The opening colophon “理門論述記，泰法師撰” identifies the author as “Tài Fǎshī” — i.e. Shéntài 神泰, the early Cí’ēn 慈恩 commentator and translation-bureau associate of 玄奘. The Xuzangjing 卍續藏 edition transmits this text from a separate manuscript line than the Taishō recension; the textual differences between the two are small but the Xuzangjing version contains some passages absent from the Taishō and the Taishō contains some absent from the Xuzangjing. Both versions are incomplete relative to the lost full text that is known to have circulated in early Heian Japan (the original is quoted in much greater detail by Zenju 善珠 in the Inmyō ron-shō myōtō shō KR6o0009). The Xuzangjing recension’s title 因明入正理門論述記 is misleading: it should not be read as if commenting on the Rù lùn KR6o0003; the body of the text is unambiguously a commentary on the Mūla / Nyāyamukha KR6o0001. The composition window — between Xuánzàng’s translation of the Mūla (650) and Shéntài’s death — is the same as for KR6o0007.
Translations and research
- See KR6o0007; the secondary literature applies equally to the present recension.
Other points of interest
The relationship between the Taishō and Xuzangjing versions of Shéntài’s Shù jì is a textual problem of some complexity. Modern scholars (Takemura Shōhō, Shen Jianying) have used both editions together with the Japanese Hossō quotations to reconstruct as full a text as possible. The two recensions are most divergent in the analyses of fallacy types, and most closely parallel in the lexical preface.