中觀論疏 1.9

1.9

"It is said that in the various countries of India..." is fifth, narrating the commentators on the treatise. This also divides into two parts: first, praising this treatise for being esteemed by various lands; second, separately recounting the commentators. This text says "It is said" to relate [the accounts of] two people: first, what Master Kumārajīva said, hence it says "It is said"; second, in the seventh year of the Hongshi era of the Qin, a kṣatriya of India sailed by boat to Chang'an, and hearing that Kumārajīva's three thousand disciples understood the Mahāyāna teaching, tested and verified them with the two treatises, the Madhyamaka-śāstra and Śata-śāstra. Kumārajīva analyzed and unraveled them for him, whereupon the kṣatriya bowed his head in receipt, endlessly marveling. He then said, "Bhadra-ācārya, you ought to illuminate and shine in India with this brilliance; why conceal this maṇi-jewel away in an outlying borderland?" He also said, "For Xihe's phoenix-drawn reins to conceal their light in a land of the sightless is truly regrettable. For the jewel that shines by night to hawk its treasure to rustic peasants is truly pitiful." This kṣatriya recounted Indian treatise masters reprimanding various Hīnayāna followers, and in praise of Kumārajīva said, "When I was in India, I heard various treatise masters deeply wonder that the Hīnayāna scholars of Jibin praised their own master, comparing him to the shining of the bright moon. Their master was Kumāralāta, who composed the Rīchū-lùn (*Sūryodaya-śāstra). Since Mitrāni's time, there have been few to match him, yet Indian treatise masters scolded [them], saying this was a biased understanding and minor talent, not deserving of this metaphor. But if applied to Master Kumārajīva of the country of Kuci, he would have no cause for shame. Why? Kumārajīva is worthy of comparison to the shining of the bright moon without shame, because he skillfully understands the Madhyamaka-śāstra and Śata-śāstra." "None among those who dare to study the Mahāyāna in India do not savor this treatise": "dare" means certainly, decidedly. "Throat and collar" refer to essential points of doctrine: the throat is essential inside and the collar is essential outside, so they are borrowed as a metaphor. "Those who have dipped their brushes to elucidate and explain it are likewise not few": this reveals that the commentators on the treatise were not just a single master. Master Tanying said, "There were several dozen schools." [Master Dao]lang of Hexi said, "There were seventy schools." As for "brush", the ancients used rooster wing feathers to make pens, hence it is called a brush. Piṅgala is not Vasubandhu: the Fu fazang jing says, "Vasubandhu skillfully understood the meanings of all sūtras, but Piṅgala's commentary on this treatise contains errors and discrepancies." Hence we know he is not [Vasubandhu]. "Where it contains discrepancies, omissions, verbosity, and repetition": briefly, the prose commentary on the verses has four faults: first, the prose commentary contradicts the meaning of the verse; second, the explanation of the verse is insufficient, which is called an omission; third, a few words could clarify the text, yet the prose is repetitive and verbose; fourth, having already explained it in a previous section, it needlessly repeats it later, hence called repetition. Dharma Master Tanying, in his Commentary on the Madhyamaka-śāstra, recounts Piṅgala's faults in four places: first, regarding the verse establishing the four conditions in the "Examination of Causes and Conditions", he says, "This verse was posed as an inquiry; it was merely where Piṅgala overplayed his ingenuity." Second, regarding the explanation of the four conditions having extensive and brief forms, Master Tanying says, "It was merely that Piṅgala was eager to draw analogies but deficient in examining the text." Third, regarding the explanation of the verse in the "Examination of Karma", which says "Though empty, it is not annihilated", Piṅgala says, "'Empty' means there is nothing that can be annihilated"; this is not an explanation. Fourth, regarding the prose commentary in the "Examination of Erroneous Views", he says, "The tangled strings here merely add to the clamor; Nāgārjuna himself had verses to explain it." Now the text says "The Dharma Master edited and supplemented it": the Dharma Master is Kumārajīva. He trimmed its verbosity and repetition, and supplemented its discrepancies and omissions. "Conveying the principle of the sūtra to the utmost": "sūtra" refers to the Madhyamaka-śāstra; foreign countries designate treatises as sūtras. The Fu fazang jing says, "Āryadeva composed the Śata-śāstra-sūtra"; the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, "Kātyāyana composed the Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra." Hence we know treatises are designated sūtras; he conveyed the principle of the treatise to the utmost. "Though in literary form and phrasing it was not yet completely flawless": as Master Tanying recounted in four places.