Махаяна буддизміндегі "Ояну тілегі" трактатының авторлық мәселесі

Popular Sastra in Mahāyāna Buddhism

Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (AF, , reconstructed Sanskrit title: *Mahāyāna śraddhotpāda śāstra) is an influential Mahayana Buddhist treatise for East Asian Buddhism. Though traditionally attributed to the 2nd century CE Indian master Aśvaghoṣa, no Sanskrit version is extant and it is widely regarded by many contemporary scholars as having been composed in China. The main theories of the authorship of the Awakening of Faith among contemporary scholars now point to either the 6th century Indian monk translators Paramārtha and Bodhiruci, or alternatively to one of their Chinese students. As Alex Gardner notes, there is still scholarly debate on whether the work was composed in Sanskrit by an Indian, or whether it was composed in Chinese. In comparison with other forged translations, the Qixinlun does not quote from known translations and has no known allusions to Taoist or Confucian texts. Moreover, the text is written in an extremely concise manner without literary embellishment, out of keeping with the ornate pianliti style that was popular in the sixth century. This evidence has led many scholars to conjecture that some form of the text was produced in either India or Central Asia and that the author or authors, perhaps even Paramārtha himself, rewrote the text in light of sixth century Chinese intellectual concerns. D. T. Suzuki accepted the Indian origin of the Awakening of Faith (though he did not think Aśvaghoṣa was the author). He saw the text as being "inspired by the same spirit" as the Lankavatara, Avatamsaka, and Mahayanamahaparanirvana Sutras, and regarded its identification as a Chinese text as "not well grounded". Paramārtha (; 499–569) an Indian monk who became a translator in China, was traditionally thought to have translated the text in 553 CE. This thesis was defended by Japanese scholars like Hiroo Kashiwagi Sally B. King also writes that Paramārtha may have composed the Buddha nature Treatise as well as the Awakening of Faith. Other experts dispute that it has anything to do at all with Paramārtha. Keng Ching argues that the Awakening of Faith does not show any similarities with the other works of Paramārtha, and he notes the doctrinal differences between the works of Paramārtha's the Dilun school and the Awakening of Faith. Keng Ching also argues that the attribution of the AF to Paramārtha was mainly due to the efforts of the Shelun scholar Tanqian (曇遷; 542–607). The authors of a recent translation of the AF (John Jorgensen, Dan Lusthaus, John Makeham, and Mark Strange) write that "there is now wide consensus that the author of the Treatise was strongly influenced by the terminology and language of Bodhiruci (d. ca. 535)." According to these authors, one candidate for the authorship of the Awakening of Faith is Tanlin (曇 林), who was "an amanuensis of Bodhiruci and a scholar of Tathāgatagarbha material." Fazang himself had worked with Śikṣānanda's translation team on other sutras, like the Lankavatara. When it was discovered by Westerners at the beginning of the 20th century in 1907, Welsh missionnary Timothy Richard interpreted The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana Doctrine as a crypto Christian text and new form of Buddhism.

The text is divided into five sections, and often summarized as “One Mind, Two Aspects, Three Greatnesses, Four Faiths, and Five Practices". Paul Williams explains the main teaching of the Awakening of Faith thus:The Awakening of Faith itself takes the tathagatagarbha as the substratum of samsara and nirvana. This Mind has two aspects – the Mind as Suchness or Thusness, that is, the Absolute Reality itself, and the Mind as phenomena. Between them these two aspects embrace all there is The essential nature of the Mind is unborn, imperishable, beyond language. Differentiation (i. e. phenomena) arises through illusion, fundamental ignorance of one’s true nature The Absolute Reality is empty, ‘Because from the beginning it has never been related to any defiled states of existence, it is free from all marks of individual distinction of things, and it has nothing to do with thoughts conceived by a deluded mind’. Nevertheless, to avoid misunderstandings, ‘the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self sufficient; therefore it is called “nonempty.”’

Although often omitted from lists of canonical Buddhist texts, the Awakening of Faith strongly influenced subsequent Mahayana doctrine. It reflects an important stage in the synthesis of Indian and Chinese Buddhist thought, and the elevation of the tathagatagarbha doctrine to a central place in Chinese Buddhist soteriology. It is particularly important for the Huayan school and Chan Buddhism. One of the reasons for this is the status of the influential commentator Fazang (法藏 ) as state preceptor (Guoshi) and third patriarch of the Huayan school. Fazang wrote an extensive Commentary on the Awakening of Faith (Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 44, No. 1846 大乘起信論義記 Dasheng qixinlun yiji) and placed the treatise at the highest class of his doctrinal classification system. Other figures like Guifeng Zongmi (probably written between 823 and 828) and Jingying Huiyuan (Taisho no. Vol. 44, No. 1843 大乘起信論義疏 Dasheng qixinlun yishu) also wrote commentaries on the Awakening of Faith. The Awakening of Faith thus had an key role in the teachings of the Huayan school. It is also considered to have strongly influenced the Chan doctrine of "seeing one's nature and attaining Buddhahood" (jianxing chengfo). the Awakening of Faith ended up having an unusually powerful influence in Korea, where it may be the most oft cited text in the entire tradition. It also provided much of the doctrinal basis for the original enlightenment thought found in the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment.

In Tendai, it is often used to explain the original enlightenment thought (doctrine). Medieval Tendai Original Enlightenment Thought is established. It indirectly influenced the sects of the Kamakura period.

Mou Zongsan (Chinese: 牟宗三) has used this and Tien Tai to develop his school of thought related to Confucianism, in particular about how to tie between two different aspects of the world.

The translations by Hakeda and Jorgensen et al. are based on Paramārtha's version of the Chinese text (Taisho No. 1666) while Suzuki's translation is based on Śikṣānanda's version (Taisho No. 1667). Jorgensen, John; Lusthaus, Dan; Makeham, John; Strange, Mark, trans. (2019), Treatise on Awakening Mahāyāna Faith, New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

Vorenkamp's translation of Fazang's commentary includes a translation of Paramārtha's version.