Liebenthal, W.

Walter Liebenthal(1886/06/12 - 1982/11/15)

Walter Liebenthal (12 June 1886 – 15 November 1982), was a German philosopher and sinologist who specialized in Chinese Buddhism. He translated many philosophical works from Pali, Sanskrit and specially from Chinese into German. Based upon his extensive research in Indian Buddhism and Chinese religion, one of his main conclusions was that early Chinese Buddhism through Ch'an (Zen-) was not a Chinese version of Indian Buddhism, but rather, that it developed from Taoism, a Chinese religion. Indian concepts are present, but at the core it represents a Chinese perspective. (Source Accessed March 31, 2020)

Library Items

Article

New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra

The study of the Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra[1] has a long history. French, Chinese and Japanese scholars have participated in the discussion, some of them great authorities in the field of Sino-Indian Studies, as P. Demieville, Ui Hakuju, Tokiwa Daijō, and Mochizuki Shinkō.[2] That I dare to add my grain to the store of knowledge already collected, though not even fully acquainted with the earlier efforts , demands an explanation. When studying Chinese Buddhism and slowly progressing through the centuries I came before the stumbling block of this text and found that without more definite knowledge about the Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda Śāstra a clear picture of Medieval Buddhism could not be attained. As no answer has yet been given to this problem acceptable to all the debaters I had to look into it myself. Unfortunately, the Indian libraries in my reach are very incomplete with respect to Japanese and Chinese books and periodicals. So I was confronted with a dilemma which worries many scholars to-day, namely, whether I should continue my studies in spite of this handicap or stop altogether. Finally I decided that I would try to get a result by using what was available to me and adding material which I collected myself. This led to what I consider as a result worth while to be submitted as a basis of discussion. The professors Matsunami Seiren and Hayashi Kemmyō kindly sent me reprints of their papers.
The present state of the discussion may in short be characterized as follows. The traditional view that (1) the Śāstra is a translation of a Sanskrit original and (2) that the translator is Paramārtha, is now generally abandoned.[3] It is also known that the lntroduction is forged.[4] It is further known that the Sanskrit text translated by Śikṣānanda was itself a translation from the extant Chinese version.[5] If so much is accepted, early doubts of Chinese Buddhists concerning the Śāstra gain weight.[6]
Hui-chün, an early seventh century witness, in the passage quoted above p. 156 note 4, speaks of "former" Dāśabhūmikas who forged the Śraddhotpāda. Chi-tsang (549-623) blames Dāśabhūmikas "of a former generation"

that they mistook the eighth vijñāna for Buddha-nature (T. vol. 34 380 b 20 f.). In another place he speaks of "old" Dāśabhūmikas (T. vol. 42 104 c 7). This implies that we have to distinguish between late Dāśabhūmikas (after the arrival of the Mahāyāna-saṁgraha) and early ones (the first and second generations after the translators of the Daśabhūmika Śāstra).[7] Among them, those who belonged to the early generation are said to have forged the Śraddhotpāda Śāstra.[8]
      Tokiwa believes in a Chinese author who mainly relied on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra both translations of which (Sung and Wei) he amalgamated. This may be correct though I could not find allusions peculiar to Guṇabhadra's (Sung) translation.
      Mochizuki has proved that the Chinese author was acquainted not only with the Laṅkāvatāra but with several other texts. He proposes as author T'an-tsun, a disciple of Fa-shang who dictated the Śāstra to his disciple T'an -ch'ien. See below p. 160.
      Hayashi Kemmyō, has traced material in Liang Wu-ti's writings and the Pao-tsang lun. Liang Wu-ti believed in immortal souls.[9] The Śraddhotpāda Śāstra contains nothing of that sort. Though influence from that side cannot be excluded, I do not feel this material to be significant enough to permit us to place the author in the South.
      Matsunami Seiren believes in Aśvaghoṣa if not as author yet as the spiritual father of the Śraddhotpāda. I have compared his quotations from the Sauṇdarānanda Kāvya etc . which are interesting. But I think we might consider as established that the author of the Śraddhotpāda Śāstra was a Chinese and work upon that assumption.[10] Besides, the main tenets of the Śāstra have not been found in the Kāvya.
      I pass by other theories of which I have only heard . Scholars are searching in all directions and undoubtedly will find material unknown to me which will throw even more light on the intricate problem of our text. Meanwhile I shall consider as established that the Śāstra was composed by an early Dāśabhūmika and limit my investigation to the question who this person was. (Liebenthal, "New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra," 155–58)

Notes

T. 1666. I have compared the photos of manuscripts mentioned in Giles, Chinese Manuscripts from Tunhuang, nos. 4318-20, 5771-84. But I found no interesting versions. (No. 5783 seems to be a commentary of the Samyuktābhidharma-sāra!)
Of this literature I had at my disposal : P. Demiéville: Sur l'authenlicité du Ta Tch'eng K'i Sin Louen. Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise, tome II, no. 2 , Tokyo 1929, reprint pp. 1-78 (Demiéville, Authenticité).
      Mochizuki Shinkō: Bukkyo daijüen (1935} (Mochizuki, Dictionary).
      Same : Daijo Kishinron no Kenkyū (1922) (Mochizuki , Study) .
      Same: Kōjutsu Daijō Kishinron (1938} (Mochizuki, Kishinron).
      Same : Kokuyaku Issaikyō, Ronshu-bu 5 (1953}. A translation with a detailed outline.
      Same : Bukkyō kyōten. seiritsu shiron (1949}, pp. 532–624.
      Ui Hakuju: Daijō Kishinron. Tokyo 1936.
      Matsunami Seiren: Yugagyoha no taikei lo nendai (Nippon bukkyō gakkai nempō, No. 22) . 1957.
      Same: Yugagyoha. no so lo shite no Memyō (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 39). 1954
      Same: Kishinron-shisō no taikei to nendai {Nippon bukkyō gakkai nempō, No. 22) . 1957.
      Same: Tensei naru Nanda (Taishō Daigaku kenkyū kiyō, No. 42). 1957.
      Hayashi Kemmyō: Kishinron no shin Kenkyū. 1945.
      Suzuki D. Teitarō: Awakening of Faith. Chicago 1900.
Also by Demiéville, see Le Concile de Lhasa (Bibliothèque de l'lnstitut des Hautes Études Chinoises, t. vii, Paris 1952), part 1 p. 57.
Though old.
Tao-hsüan's note following upon the biography of Hsüan-tsang in Hsü kao-seng chuan T. vol. 50 428 b 27.
Cf. Mochizuki, Dictionary 3256b, also Ching-lu T. vol. 55 142a; Chinkai, Sanron gensho Mongiyō [Chinese characters not available] ch. ii (T . 2299 vol. 70 228c) quotes two passages from the Ta-ch'eng ssu-lun hsüan-i [Chinese characters not available] ch. 5 and 10 which, however, are not found in the extant fragmentary version (Hsü-tsang ching I. 74/I). It looks as if ch. 10 of that edition should more correctly be labelled ch. 12. I am translating these quotations: Ch. 5. '"The Śraddotpāda is made by a prisoner-of-war who borrowed the name of Aśvaghoṣa." Ch. 10. "Śraddotpāda. Some say that it is made by Dāśabhūmikas of the North . . . It is not by Aśvaghoṣa Bodhisattva. Former [Chinese characters not available] Dāśabhumikas made it. They borrowed the name (of Aśvaghoṣa) for the headline". The "prisoner -of-war" is perhaps imagination. The "former" Dāśabhūmikas seem to be correct.
Cf. my "Notes on the Vajrasamādhi." T'oung Pao vol. xliv, 4-5, pp, 378-382 . I have in this paper discussed several allusions which l had found in the Vajrasamādhi and wish to add one more which I had overlooked. It is the famous half gāthā for which the rākṣasa gives away his body. Cf. T. vol. 9, 733b, c and Nirvāṇa Sūtra, Sheng -hsing p'in [Chinese not available], T. vol. 12 xiv 450a-451b.
To say that the Śraddhotpāda Śāstra was forged is perhaps not correct. Aśvaghoṣa may appear in the title as spiritual author as he appears in the biography of T'an-yen dictating, in the shape of a horse, a commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. He and Nāgārjuna were worshipped as bodhisattvas under the Wei (Daśabhūmika, Introduction). He seems to have a function of inspirator similar to Maitreya. See Demiéville, La Yogācārabhūmi de Saṅgharakṣa, B.E.F.E.O. XLIV, 2. {1954) pp. 377-387, anti cf. T. vol. 50 334c 10 and vol. 8 530b 25 seq.
Cf. Mon. nipponica Vlll I–2 pp. 376 seq.
Cf. Mon. nipponica Vlll I–2 pp. 376 seq.

Liebenthal, Walter. "New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra." T'oung Pao 46, no. 3/5 (1958): 155–216.

Liebenthal, Walter. "New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra." T'oung Pao 46, no. 3/5 (1958): 155–216.;New Light on the Mahāyāna-Śraddhotpāda Śāstra;Textual study;Dasheng qixin lun;Walter Liebenthal;&nbsp

Article

Notes on the "Vajrasamādhi"

Interest in the Vajrasamādhi has been roused by a paper of Lin Tai-yün published in 1932[1]). In the Vajrasamādhi Lin had found a quotation from what is generally supposed to be a Bodhidharma text[2]), and thus the problem was set of the relation between these bits of material and the bearing which an investigation into this matter might have on the riddle of Bodhidharma. Suzuki Daisetsu has dealt with this problem in 1936[3]), Paul Demiéville in 1952[4]) and Dr. Mizuno in I955 [5]). I shall in this note confine myself to the text itself.
       The texts in question are:
1. Chin-kang san-mei ching (Vajrasamādhi) T. 273 vol. 9. (Quoted in the following as Samādhi.) It has three commentaries:
  a. The Chin-kang san-mei ching lun, T. 1730 vol. 37 composed by Yüan-hsiao, a Korean, in the second half of the seventh century. This is the only commentary which I have used for this paper in order to correct the original. A very good modern edition has been published by Chou Shu-chia in Peking 1936.
  b. Zokuzōkyō A 55/2-3. Ming.
  c. Zokuzōkyō A 55/3. Ch'ing.
2. Chin-kang shang-wei t'o-lo-ni ching, T. 1344 vol. 21. Transl. Buddhaśānta (?). Yüan Wei.
3. Chin-kang ch'ang t'o-lo-ni ching, T. 1345 vol. 21. Transl. Jinagupta (?) (527-604). A second translation of the preceding. These two texts have no relation to the Samādhi.
4. Chin-kang san-nei pen-hsing ch'ing-ching pu-huai pu-mieh ching, T. 644 vol. 15. A probably genuine text, containing 100 samādhis . . . (Liebenthal, opening remarks, 347–48)

[ . . . ]

      It seems to me established that
      The Samādhi is an agglomeration of several texts, of which we have distinguished:
      1. A frame (Text A), probably derived from a sūtra translated in the fifth century or earlier in the North, perhaps in Liang-chou. This seems to have been a Hīnayāna text.
      2. A text (B), which contains the verses and part of the prose, composed between 565 and 590 by a teacher of the North, Yeh or P'eng-ch'eng. The author might have been Ching-sung.
      It is difficult to say how Text B originally looked. Was it a pamphlet or a collection of gleanings from other texts? Was it written to counteract the propaganda of Hui-ssu?
      In order to further clarify these points I propose for study: (1) a careful investigation of the northern tradition from Bodhiruci and Buddhaśānta on to about 590 A.D., (2) searching the Tun-huang fragments for parts of the original Text B, (3) further search for quotations in the texts studied by the teachers of the Northern Ch'i. (Liebenthal, conclusion, 383–86).

(*Chinese characters in the original text and notes unavailable)

Notes

Hayashi Taiun: "Bodaidaruma-den no kenkyū", Shūkyō kenkyū IX.iii, Tokyo, May 1932, pp. 62-76.
(Chinese text unavailable) A number of versions exist. See below.
Daruma no zen-bo to shisō oyobi sono ta, Tokyo 1936 (Suzuki II), a complement to the same author's Shōshitsu isho, Osaka 1935 (Suzuki I).
Le Concile de Lhasa (Bibl. de l'Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises vol. VII), Paris 1952, p. 54 n. 2 (Demiéville).
Mizuno Kōgen: "On the Relation between Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and Four Practices and the Vairasamādhi Sūtra" (Bodaidaruma no ninyū shigyō setsu to Kongōzanmai-kyō, Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū, III.2, Tokyo, March 1955, pp. 621-626 (Mizuno I). Same: same title, Komazawa daigaku kenkyū kiyō No. I3, Tokyo 1955 (Mizuno II). Cf. also Ono Hōdō: Daijō kaikyō no kenkyū, Tokyo 1954, p. I25/6.

Liebenthal, Walter. "Notes on the 'Vajrasamādhi'." T'oung Pao 44, no. 4/5 (1956): 347–86.

Liebenthal, Walter. "Notes on the 'Vajrasamādhi'." T'oung Pao 44, no. 4/5 (1956): 347–86.;Notes on the "Vajrasamādhi";Vajrasamādhisūtra;Walter Liebenthal;&nbsp

Affiliations & relations

Sino-Indian Institute, Yenching University of Peking, China, research fellow, 1934–36 · secondary affiliation
Peking University, China, lecturer in Sanskrit and German, 1937 · secondary affiliation
Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan, India, senior research fellow 1952–54, visiting professor of Sino-Indian Studies 1955–59 · secondary affiliation
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, visiting professor, 1959 · secondary affiliation
Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, Sorbonne, Paris, France, 1960 · secondary affiliation
University of Tübingen, Germany, honorary professor, 1962 · secondary affiliation
Dr. Johannes Nobel · teacher
Max Walleser · teacher
Otto Strauss. · teacher