Personal notes on
Personal note 1:
There is at least one text representative of this apocalyptic Maitreyanism which has survived until now. It is the Puxianpusa-shuoming-jing 普賢菩薩説証明経 (or rather, its second part, named Foshuo-zhengxianghuo-benyin-jing di-er 仏説証香火本因経第二), of which there are many manuscripts of Dunhuang, and an edition in Taisho LXXXV 2879. This text was used as an ideological foundation of the revolution by the Empress Wu 武后 at the end of the 7th century and beginning of the 8th century; there is an extensive study by Antonino Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh Century. Inquiry into the nature, authors and function of the Tunhuang document S. 6502, followed by an annotated translation, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici, Napoli, 1976; see also my Kannon hen’yō-tan 觀音變容譚, Kyoto, Hōzō-kan, 2002, p. 653-658.
Personal note 2:
Nichiren refers to the Mohe-shiguan 摩訶止観 of Zhiyi 智顗 Taisho T. XLVI 1911 x.2 137c25-28:
T46n1911_p0137c25‖……夫佛法兩
T46n1911_p0137c26‖説一攝二折。如安樂行不稱長短是攝義。
T46n1911_p0137c27‖大經執持刀仗乃至斬首是折義。雖與奪
T46n1911_p0137c28‖殊途倶令利益。……
its commentary by Zhanran 湛然 Taisho XLVI 1912 x.2 444a16-b2:
T46n1912_p0444a16‖……夫佛下引佛化爲例。
T46n1912_p0444a17‖兩説等者。謂攝及折。攝謂養見研心。折謂
T46n1912_p0444a18‖破無遺芥。故引二經以證折攝。大經執持
T46n1912_p0444a19‖刀仗等者。第三云。善男子。護正法者不受
T46n1912_p0444a20‖五戒不修威儀。應持刀劍弓箭矛槊。護於
T46n1912_p0444a21‖清淨持戒比丘。文中廣説覺徳比丘昔縁。於
T46n1912_p0444a22‖過去歡喜如来滅後。此比丘廣説九部制諸
T46n1912_p0444a23‖比丘。不許畜八不淨物。爲破戒者執持刀
T46n1912_p0444a24‖劍之所逼切。爾時有王名曰有徳。往説法
T46n1912_p0444a25‖所共破戒者極生鬥戰。命終生於阿閦佛
T46n1912_p0444a26‖國。覺徳亦同生於彼國。而爲彼佛聲聞弟
T46n1912_p0444a27‖子。下文又云。護法優婆塞應持刀仗。擁護
T46n1912_p0444a28‖如是持戒比丘。若有受持五戒不得名爲
T46n1912_p0444a29‖大乘人也。不受五戒執持刀仗爲護正
T46n1912_p0444b01‖法。乃名大乘。乃至下文仙豫國王等文。又新
T46n1912_p0444b02‖醫禁乳云。若有更爲當斷其首。如是等
T46n1912_p0444b03‖文並是折伏破法之人。一切經論不出此
T46n1912_p0444b04‖二。……
Miaofalianhua-jing Wenju 妙法蓮華経文句 by Zhiyi 智顗
T34n1718_p0118c18‖……問。大經明親附國王持弓帶箭摧
T34n1718_p0118c19‖伏惡人。此經遠離豪勢謙下慈善。剛柔碩乖
T34n1718_p0118c20‖云何不異。答。大經偏論折伏住一子地。何
T34n1718_p0118c21‖曾無攝受。此經偏明攝受。頭破七分非無
T34n1718_p0118c22‖折伏。各舉一端適時而已。……
Commentary of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經疏 by Guanding 灌頂, Taisho XXXVIII 1767 viii 84c12-24:
T38n1767_p0084c12‖……次我於往昔是略引證。從善男子護
T38n1767_p0084c13‖持正法去廣答。又二。初廣明護法。次廣引證。
T38n1767_p0084c14‖初又二。一在家。二出家。在家護法取其元心
T38n1767_p0084c15‖所爲。棄事存理匡弘大教。故言護持正法。不
T38n1767_p0084c16‖拘小節故言不修威儀。護法有四句。出家在
T38n1767_p0084c17‖家共不能護者無名行比丘。無勢力俗人是
T38n1767_p0084c18‖也。在家出家獨不能護者還是兩種各各不
T38n1767_p0084c19‖能。出家在家獨能護者佛及仙豫是也。出家
T38n1767_p0084c20‖在家共能護者今文是也。昔是爲今非。今非
T38n1767_p0084c21‖爲昔是。今昔倶非。今昔倶是。昔時平而法弘
T38n1767_p0084c22‖應持戒勿持仗。今時險而法翳應持仗勿持
T38n1767_p0084c23‖戒。今昔倶險應倶持仗。今昔倶平應倶持戒。
T38n1767_p0084c24‖取捨得宜不可一向。……
Personal note 3:
I would like to note here that this use of the word “Mahāyāna,” “daijō 大乗” seems to have played an important role in Japan, particularly just before the war and during the war-time. While “Hīnayāna” is strict in ethical behavior, “Mahāyāna” would allow any moral deviations, even the murder or the war, as long as the final goal is a right one... The connotation of the word “daijō” in Japanese history is an interesting object of studies.
Personal note 4:
The original text of the last sentences of this passage is:
Taisho XXX 1579 xli 517b15-17‖於彼衆生、或以善心或無記心知此事已、爲當来故、深生慚愧、以憐愍心而斷彼命。由是因縁於菩薩戒無所違犯生多功徳。
Demiéville translates or summarizes: “Et, attendant le moment où le bandit aura une bonne pensée ou, tout au moins, une pensée neutre au point de vue moral, le Bodhisattva le tuera, plein à la fois d’horreur pour le péché et de pitié pour le pécheur. Ce faisant, non seulement il ne commet pas de faute, mais il gagne beaucoup de mérite” (p. 379 and n. 4).
I think this translation should be corrected: it is not the “bandit” who has “une bonne pensée ou une pensée neutre...”, but rather the bodhisattva, who must examine the situation with a good, or neutral thought.
According to Ishii Kōsei 石井公成, Kegon-shisō no kenkyū 華厳思想の研究 (Tokyo, Shunjū-sha 春秋社, 1996, p. 343-344), this passage was quoted by some Buddhist thinkers of the Tang period, for example Ue cok 義寂 of Silla 新羅, in his commentary on the Fanwang-jing 梵網経:
Taisho XL 1814 i 664b12-26:
菩薩戒本疏
T40n1814_p0664b12‖……然大小乘不全同也。一輕重異。聲聞唯人
T40n1814_p0664b13‖是重。餘皆爲輕。大士三境倶重。二開遮異。聲
T40n1814_p0664b14‖聞唯遮無開。大士有益便開。菩薩地云。若諸
T40n1814_p0664b15‖菩薩安住菩薩淨戒律儀。善權方便爲利他
T40n1814_p0664b16‖故於諸性罪小分現行。由是因縁於菩薩戒
T40n1814_p0664b17‖無所違犯生多功徳。謂如菩薩見劫盗賊爲
T40n1814_p0664b18‖貪財故欲殺多生。或後欲害大徳聲聞獨覺
T40n1814_p0664b19‖菩薩。或復欲造多無間業。見是事已發心思
T40n1814_p0664b20‖惟。我若斷彼惡衆生命當墮地獄。如其不斷
T40n1814_p0664b21‖無間業成當受大苦。我寧殺彼墮那落迦。終
T40n1814_p0664b22‖不令其受無間苦。如是菩薩意樂思惟。於彼
T40n1814_p0664b23‖衆生或以善心或無記心知此事已。爲當来
T40n1814_p0664b24‖故深生慚愧。以憐愍心而斷彼命。由是因縁
T40n1814_p0664b25‖於菩薩戒無所違犯生多功徳。如仙誉王害
T40n1814_p0664b26‖五百婆羅門。即其事也。……
In the last sentence, the King Xianyu 仙誉王 who killed five hundred brahmans must be an allusion to the passage of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra where it is related that the King 仙預 (or 仙豫) killed brahmans.
In the same way, Shengzhuang 勝荘 of the school of Faxiang 法相宗 writes in his commentary on the Fanwang-jing:
梵網經菩薩戒本述記 上末
續藏経 I-LX-2, 117ver˚ b5-18:
殺者謂奪彼命、名爲殺生。如是殺生。通大小乘。少有差別。謂聲聞教。斷若見利若不見利。必不許殺。菩薩戒中。若見利益。亦許殺生。故瑜伽論四十一云。若諸菩薩安住菩薩淨戒律儀。善權方便爲利他故。於諸性罪少分現行。由是因縁於菩薩戒無所違犯生多功徳。謂如菩薩見劫盗賊爲貪財故欲殺多生。或復欲害大徳聲聞獨覺菩薩。或復欲造多無間業。見是事已發心思惟。我若斷彼惡衆生命當墮地獄。如是其不斷無間業。成當受大苦。我寧殺彼墮於那落迦。終不令其受無間苦。如是菩薩意樂思惟。於彼衆生或以善心或無記心。知此事已。爲當来故。深生慚愧。以憐愍心。而斷彼命。由是此因縁於菩薩戒。無所違犯生多功徳。
Thus, these authors emphasize the difference between the Hīnayāna Rules and the Mahāyāna Rules, and quote the passage of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra where the murder is allowed to bodhisattvas in certain circumstances; on the contrary, Fazang 法藏 says that even if one kills beings with neutral thought, one may be liable for terrible retributions...
Taisho XL 1813 i 611b13-20:
梵網経菩薩戒本疏
T40n1813_p0611b13‖……三無記心者。或不
T40n1813_p0611b14‖成犯。以無記不成業故。或亦有業。以還得報
T40n1813_p0611b15‖故。如山居比丘推石殺蟻。蟻受豬身亦還推
T40n1813_p0611b16‖石害彼比丘。各無記心冥然受報。此即於戒
T40n1813_p0611b17‖雖爲不犯。然殺業如茲不亡故不可輕也。世
T40n1813_p0611b18‖有愚人飲用虫水曰。云我但用水本不害虫。
T40n1813_p0611b19‖虫若自亡固非我咎。此不識業道不見聖教。
T40n1813_p0611b20‖深可悲。一愚矣……
Personal note 5:
John Donne, in one of his postings to the Buddha-L mailing list (subject: “Re: Killing Hitler”, Thu, 21 Mar 1996), mentioned this passage of the Śikṣā-samuccaya. I quote:
One of the most telling examples of Śāntideva’s instrumentalism is the following snippet that appears not long after the chastity example. After quoting a passage from the Upāyakauśalya in which the use of skilfull means can nullify the effect of the four root downfalls (mūlāpatti), he remarks:
spuṭaṃ cāryaratnameghe ānantaryacikīrṣupuruṣamāraṇānujñānāt |
śrāvakavinaye 'pi mūlāpattisthāna eva kāruṇyān mṛgâdimokṣaṇe 'nāpattir ukta[i]va. [Vaidya edition, p. 93].«This (idea) is clearly stated in the Ratnamegha (“Gem-cloud sūtra”) because (it says that one is) permitted to kill a person who intends to commit (one of the five negative deeds that leads to) immediate (birth in hell). Even the Śrāvakas’ monastic code in the section on the root downfalls says that releasing deer and so on out of compassion is not a downfall.»
Note that “releasing (mokṣaṇa)” is a common uphemism for killing, and Śāntideva clearly takes it in that sense here.
Mail to Nobumi Iyanaga
This page was last built with Frontier on a Macintosh on Fri Mar 7, 2003, at 00:44:12. Thanks for checking it out! Nobumi Iyanaga