The Treatise on Awakening Mahāyāna Faith (dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論)[1] represents a classical example in the formulation of the distinctly East Asian Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature. This doctrine asserts the innate purity of mind and, on that basis, promises enlightenment or “salvation” indiscriminately to all sentient beings. It appears in the treatise as the doctrine of “inherent awakening” (benjue 本覺) and, in that form, contributes to the adaptation of the originally Indian Buddhism to the religious, philosophical, and cultural milieu in East Asia.
The treatise was first introduced to the West, as is well known, through Suzuki Daisetsu’s 鈴木大拙 English translation in 1900.[2] It was looked upon as a representative work of the Eastern thought,[3] and has since remained a well-known subject in the Western study of Buddhist and East Asian philosophy. Apart from the high-profile debates over the provenance of the treatise,[4] Western scholars have also been drawn to various other topics about or related to the treatise, such as the sinification of Buddhism in Chinese Huayan, the practical soteriology in Korean Hwaeom, the transformation of medieval Japanese Buddhism, and the debates over the nature and identity of Buddha-nature thought in the modern intellectual movement called “Critical Buddhism,” to name just a few examples.[5]
Despite such scholarly attention, however, there has not yet appeared a definitive English translation of the treatise. The best Western translation to date is actually in French (Frédéric Girard, 2004), and the most well-known and most widely used English translation (Yoshito Hakeda 羽毛田義人, 1967) is not only dated, but also filled with numerous translational infelicities.[6] Other English translations thereafter are generally not adequate introductions to the treatise.[7] There has thus long been a call for a new English translation, a call that recently received an excellent response in an Oxford Chinese Thought project under the title of Treatise on Awakening Mahāyāna Faith, which is the object of the current review.
This new translation is the work of four leading scholars in the field—John Jorgensen, Dan Lusthaus, John Makeham, and Mark Strange—who have been writing prolifically on Buddhist and East Asian philosophy and are thus ideal translators for the treatise. The translation is the product of a long process of concerted effort, starting as a workshop exercise in 2012, growing over the years to incorporate researches from various perspectives, and eventually appearing in 2019 as the second of the Oxford Chinese Thought series, a series
aimed to introduce the riches of Chinese thought to the West.
The translation is a relatively small book of 162 pages, consisting of a substantial introduction in seven sections (55 pages), a richly annotated
translation (83 pages), and a number of supplementary materials for the translation. The introduction opens with a detailed discussion of the title of the treatise in its several components, which, in itself, may also serve as a brief thematic analysis. It continues naturally from the title to the author in the second section, but the discussion transitions quickly from the author to the question of provenance. In a thorough, in-depth, and well-organized presentation of new scholarship, the third section expands the isolated issue of provenance to the much broader topic of its “historical and intellectual contexts.” Following this discussion of contexts, the introduction turns its attention to the treatise itself in section 4, focusing on its theories of the basic human problem (ignorance) and the proposed solution (practice). Section 5 takes a step further to outline the key models in which such theories are formulated. In the last two sections, the introduction shifts its attention again from the treatise itself to its classical commentaries, with section 6 introducing a few such works and section 7 comparing them in terms of their interpretations
regarding the movement of Suchness.
Like most commentaries and translations, this translation also uses the first of the two versions of the treatise.[8] There appears to be no room for the Chinese text in the book series, so the translation has created a companion website to provide such resources. It includes the apocryphal preface by Zhikai 智愷, which was often excluded in other translations,[9] and provides two maps,
two tables, and two glossaries (i.e., two-way between English and Chinese) to supplement the translation. The translation itself establishes its textual correspondence with the Chinese text by applying the Taishō serial numbers in the latter—at the beginning of each of the three columns on each page—to the English translation.[10] And, primarily in the section Xianshi Zhengyi 顯示正義, it provides some outlining in places of relatively more complex structures, delineating as much as three layers of a textual hierarchy therein. Notably, the translation is heavily annotated, with 222 footnotes for 83 pages. This new translation is marked by thorough engagement with ongoing research, comprehensive and in-depth discussions, balanced approach to the interests of both specialists and general readers, and innovative use of tradition.
The most well-known topic in the modern study of the treatise is the issue of its provenance. This topic has given rise to numerous studies in
both East and West since Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 began to question the authenticity of the treatise in the early twentieth century. Of the many proposed answers to the question, one looks at the Buddhist world in sixth-century northern China, focusing on the influence of the great translator Bodhiruci 菩提流支, his followers and rivals, their works and debates, as well as the thought of the Dilun School 地論宗.[11] This thread began to become an important topic after Takemura Makio’s 竹村牧男 1985 book, Daijōkishinron dokushaku 大乗
起信論読釈,[12] and has since attracted increasingly greater scholarly attention.[13] This new translation drew extensively on such scholarship, thoroughly absorbed them, and deftly and clearly incorporated them into its introduction, translation, and annotations.
Equipped with the current scholarship, the translation provides a comprehensive and thorough-going presentation of the theoretical issues of
the treatise unseen in previous English translations.[14] Its introduction touches upon all the important topics of the treatise, such as its provenance, concepts and theories, ways of their formulation, and their interpretations. It summarizes the major debates between the two main doctrinal approaches of the time (Tathāgatagarbha vs. Yogācāra) and among various schools or subschools derived therefrom. It delves deeply into the philosophy of mind in their various formulations, and systematically singles out for scrutiny some of the most well-known but also most difficult concepts. And, last but certainly not the least, it situates the isolated question of provenance in its larger historical and intellectual contexts, and extends its theoretical investigation from the treatise itself to its exegetical traditions.
Portrayed as the representative work of Eastern thought, the treatise has been translated in the West primarily for general readers.[15] This neglects the simple fact that the treatise is not a suitable object for such introduction, because it is made up almost completely of abstract concepts and theories, because its structure is complex and sometimes ambiguous, and because it requires too much background knowledge to achieve any degree of effective understanding. Anyone who has ever attempted teaching the treatise in an undergraduate class may readily attest to such a fact. This new English translation is clearly guided by the same principle of popularization,[16] but it
also takes great care to “strike a reasonable balance between” the two sides (p. 10). Thus we see not only introductory explanations designed to help general readers, but also scholarly discussions based on current research and traditional exegesis as well as discussions that transition from the introductory to the scholarly. Such examples are found in the introduction, but abound primarily in the footnotes.
Also, this new translation is marked by a conscious effort to innovate on the basis of tradition. Its introduction starts with the title and author of
the treatise, apparently following the format of traditional commentaries, but quickly moves on to the topics and methods in its modern studies, such as the question of authenticity, and the approaches of historical and intellectual contexts. It has been a general practice in most translations to discuss important concepts of the treatise, but the presentation in this translation is the most comprehensive, most systematic, and most skillfully designed. In its discussions of the key conceptual models of the treatise,[17] the introduction quite consciously employs the format Fazang 法藏 invented in a thematic statement he made in his commentary,[18] but freely inserts other topics to
suit the translators’ own needs of explication. And, its introduction is not the first to discuss the issue of authenticity and that of the historical and intellectual context, but it is the first to emphatically and conspicuously situate and expand the former in the latter.
There are, however, a few places in the translation where I would make different choices. The translation does not contain the Chinese text (apparently the decision of the publishers)—I would not only add it, but also correlate the two texts passage-for-passage or even line-for-line. The translation often rearranges sentence structures, sometimes merging parallel structures,[19] sometimes creating a different structure,[20] and other times inverting a structure[21]—I would prefer to maintain the original structure as much as possible. The translation tends to be literal with technical terms and thus often creates long expressions—I would choose to simplify such translations.[22]
And, in treating the structure of the treatise, the translation does not have an overall outline attached before the text,[23] nor one actually applied to the text itself, and says nothing about the internal outlines that implicitly correlate the introductory chapters[24] to the main body of the treatise[25]—I would include all of this.
There are also a few places where the translation is not sufficiently precise. The word “ding” 定, for example, is translated once as “inevitable”[26]
and another time as “absorption,”[27] but in both cases it describes the group of beings “certain to achieve awakening” (zhengding ju 正定聚).[28] The expression “faqu dao” 發趣道, for another example, consists more specifically in first “aspiring” (faxin 發心) and then “progressing towards” (quxiang 趣向) rather than merely “embarking on the way.”[29] And, faith in the Three Treasures, for still another example, is faith in the treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha, which are excellent, rather than faith in the fact that these treasures are excellent.[30]
There are also places in the treatise that require further explication in translation. For example, the word “da” 大 in the Liyi 立義chapter is the characterization of the One Mind, is used in conjunction with “cheng/sheng” 乘 in the obvious wordplay of “da-sheng” (mahā-yāna大乘),[31] and is so used with a less obvious purpose of reproducing such self-glorification discourse as the “seven aspects of greatness in nature” (qizhong da xing 七種大性)[32]—such possible usages of the word “da” have not been sufficiently explored. For another example, the word “yi” 义, also in the Liyi, refers to “purport” in the phrase “li-yi,” but may be intentionally ambiguous in “moheyan (i.e., mahā-yāna) yi” 摩訶衍義, because on the one hand it refers to the “meaning” of the word “mahāyāna,” hence the wordplay on “mahā” and “yāna,” but on the other hand also refers to “attributes” (de 德), for the “yi” of “mahāyāna” (i.e., as “great”) is eventually the characterization of the One Mind—these possible meanings of the word “yi” have not been fully teased out.[33]
Over the last half-century, English-speaking students of the treatise have been relying primarily on the Hakeda translation in their study of the text, with many complaints but without any satisfactory replacement. This Oxford translation is thus a timely and long-awaited event in the field. It is well informed with current research, and well designed in its presentation of the important issues of the treatise; it is lucid in language, and explains difficult concepts and complex background in an in-depth, well-organized, and accessible way; it is thoroughly annotated, providing detailed discussions and explanations to almost all problems in the text. Thus marked by erudition, insightfulness, and clarity, this translation—despite differences in the understanding of individual details—makes an important contribution to the study of the treatise as well as Buddhist and East Asian philosophy, and will find its place on the bookshelves
of all those in the field for years to come.
- All translations will be from the book under review unless otherwise noted.
- Aśvaghoṣa's Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana (Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 1900), though in its less well-known version, and though Timothy Richard’s 1907 translation, The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana Doctrine—The New Buddhism (Shanghai: Christian Literature Society, 1907) was, according to its cover page, actually completed in 1894.
- In the intellectual encounter between East and West in the early twentieth century, the West looked for a window into Eastern thought, and the East sought to respond to the introduction of Western thought with its own classics; hence the translation of the treatise by Suzuki at the request of Paul Carus. See Frédéric Girard’s discussion of the construction of an “Eastern philosophy” (philosophie orientale) in his 2004 French translation, Traité sur l'acte de foi dans le Grand Véhicule, Bibliothèque Izutsu de philosophie orientale 2 (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2004), xv-xvii; Gong Jun’s 龔雋 2012 study on the creation of an “East Asian concept of Mahāyāna” 東亞大乘觀念 in Suzuki’s English translations (“Lingmu dazhuo yu dongya dasheng guannian de queli: cong yingyi dashengqixinlun [1900 nian] dao dashengfojiaogangyao [1907 nian] 鈴木大拙與東亞大乘觀念的確立—從英譯《大乘起信論》[1900年] 到《大乘佛教綱要》[1907年], Taida foxue yanjiu 臺大佛學研究 23 [2012]: 75-118), and Ishii Kōsei’s 石井公成 2012 lecture on the “reception” 受容 of the treatise as an expression of the East Asian nationalism (“Kindainihon ni okeru daijōkishinron no juyō” 近代日本における大乗 起信論の受容, Ryūkokudaigaku Ajia bukkyō bunka kenkyū senta 2012-Nendo dai 10-kai zentai kenkyūkai 龍谷大学アジア仏教文化研究センター2012 年度第10回全体研究会, Kindainihon bukkyō kenkyū dai 2-kai 近代日本仏教研究・第2回).
- Western participants in the debates include, though are certainly not limited to, Paul Demiéville, “Sur l’authenticité du Ta Tch’eng K’i Sin Louen,” Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise 2, no. 2 (1929): 1-78; Walter Liebenthal, “New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra,” T’oung Pao, 2nd ser., 46, nos.3–5 (1958): 155–216; Whalen Lai 黎惠倫, “The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (Ta Ch'eng Ch'i-Hsin Lun): A Study of the Unfolding of Sinitic Mahayana Motifs” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1975); and William Grosnick, “The Categories of T'i, Hsiang, and Yung: Evidence that Paramārtha Composed the Awakening of Faith,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 12, no. 1 (1989): 65-92.
- Representative works include, respectively, Peter Gregory, Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991); Robert Buswell, The Formation of Ch'an Ide‐ ology in China and Korea: The Vajrasamadhi-Sutra, a Buddhist Apocryphon (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989); Jacqueline Stone, Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999); and Jamie Hubbard and Paul Swanson, Pruning the Boddhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997).
- See Yoshito Hakeda, The Awakening of Faith, Attributed to Aśvaghosha (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967). For a discussion of the problems in this translation, see Leon Hurvitz, “Review: The Awakening of Faith, Attributed to Aś‐ vaghosha, by Yoshito S. Hakeda,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 89, no. 2 (1969): 429-33.
