Shì Móhēyǎn lùn juéyí pò’nán huìshì chāo 釋摩訶衍論決疑破難會釋抄
A Digest That Resolves Doubts, Refutes Objections, and Brings Together the Interpretation of the Mahāyāna Commentary by 濟暹 (Jìxiān / Saisen, 撰)
About the work
A one-fascicle apologetic digest by the late-Heian Ono-ryū 小野流 Shingon scholar 濟暹 (Saisen, 1025–1115), defending the authenticity of KR6o0084 Shì móhēyǎn lùn 釋摩訶衍論 (T1668) against the principal medieval Japanese critique of the text. Preserved in Taishō vol. 69 (no. 2286). The Japanese title is Shaku Makaen-ron ketsugi-hanan kaishaku-shō. The work is a polemical defence-piece rather than a lemmatic commentary.
Prefaces
The work has no formal authorial preface; it opens directly with a sceptical query and Saisen’s defence:
問。上古有明徳等言。釋摩訶衍論者。非龍樹菩薩之所造也。所以不可爲眞實論藏聖教規模也。所以爲僞論者。是説如何。
答。是説最不可也。敢不可信受之也
問。誰人成如是疑難耶 答。且叡山最澄和上所造守護國界章云。釋摩訶衍論翻譯不分明故。隨諸目録不載故。其眞言字不相似梵字故。其理相違本論故。姚興在秦。眞諦在梁。秦代筏提譯。已同梁家論。
“Q: In ancient times there were figures of 明徳 (illuminated virtue) who said: the Shì móhēyǎn lùn was not composed by Nāgārjuna; therefore it cannot serve as a true treasury-of-treatise standard-of-the-holy-teaching, and is a counterfeit treatise. What is the truth of this view? A: This view is most untenable; one must by no means accept it. Q: Who made this objection? A: The principal objection is in the Defense of the Kingdom (Shǒuhù guójiè zhāng 守護國界章) composed by the Hieizan Saichō: he said: (a) the translation is unclear; (b) it is not recorded in the various sūtra-catalogues; (c) its mantra-characters do not resemble Sanskrit; (d) its principle contradicts the Awakening of Faith; (e) chronologically Yao-Qin and Liang dates conflict — Yao-Qin’s [Faddha]-translator and Liang’s Paramārtha-period works…”
The work is structured as a series of question-answer responses to specific challenges, in the manner of late-Heian scholastic apologetic literature.
A transmission colophon records: “永治二壬戌六月十五日於奧州書寫了信延” — “Copied on the 15th day of the 6th month of Eiji 2 (1142) in Ōshū, by Shin’en 信延.” A second colophon dated Enpō 5 (延寶五年, 1677) records re-copying at the Kenju-in 賢首院, and a third dated Enpō 6 (1678) records a collation.
Abstract
The Juéyí pò’nán huìshì chāo is the principal scholarly defence of the authenticity of the Shì móhēyǎn lùn in the Japanese tradition. The text’s authenticity as an actual Nāgārjuna composition was already disputed in early-medieval Japan: 最澄 (Saichō, 767–822), the founder of the Japanese Tendai school, had argued in his Shǒuhù guójiè zhāng (T2362) against the text’s authenticity on philological-historical grounds. Saisen’s work systematically rebuts each of Saichō’s objections, defending the Shingon school’s position that the Shakuron is an authentic Nāgārjuna treatise transmitting the Esoteric dimension of the Awakening of Faith’s doctrine.
Saisen’s defences include: (1) on the translation-record problem, citing alternative catalogues that list the work; (2) on the mantra-character problem, arguing that the transliterations represent an old Sanskrit variant; (3) on the doctrinal-contradiction problem, distinguishing exoteric and esoteric levels; (4) on the chronological problem, marshalling biographical evidence about Nāgārjuna, Faddha (筏提摩多), and the relevant intermediary figures.
Composition window: c. 1075–1115, Saisen’s mature scholarly period at Daigo-ji 醍醐寺.
Translations and research
- Kushida Ryōkō 櫛田良洪. Shingon mikkyō seiritsu katei no kenkyū 真言密教成立過程の研究. Tokyo: Sankibō, 1964.
- Stone, Jacqueline I. Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1999. — Useful background on the medieval Japanese Shakuron controversy and its bearing on the hongaku tradition.
Other points of interest
Modern scholarship overwhelmingly accepts Saichō’s verdict — the Shì móhēyǎn lùn is now generally regarded as a sixth- or seventh-century Korean or Chinese composition rather than an actual Nāgārjuna work. Saisen’s apologetic, while consequently mistaken on the principal historical issue, is invaluable as a documentary witness to medieval Japanese scholarly practice on text-authenticity questions and to the institutional stakes of the controversy. The Shingon school’s doctrinal program depended substantially on the Shakuron, and Saisen’s defence is the principal scholastic articulation of the school’s position.
Links
- CBETA
- DILA Person Authority (Saisen): A001857