Introduction
The scripture known as Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith has been attributed to the Indian master Aśvaghoṣa for a long time. However, no Sanskrit original of the text could be found, and the current opinion is inclined to believe that the work has been produced by a different person in China. To support this argument, it is possible to read through the Awakening and note the parts that might have been influenced by the situation in China at the time. Such an analysis, as well as the resulting conclusions, will be the purpose of this essay.
The Purpose of the Work
Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith was written with the purpose of resolving a conflict that arose between two religious doctrines practiced by the school. According to Aśvaghoṣa, it is the master’s principal work that establishes his essential position in the development of Mahayana ideas (37). It proposes that people do not need to seek salvation, as they are already saved, and what they have to do instead is find their path. Awakening has strongly influenced Buddhism in China as well as other countries, although it is sometimes not included among the canonical works.
Establishment of Buddhism in China
As can be seen from the name of the work discussed in this essay, it is primarily relevant to the Mahayana school of Buddhism. This tendency is consistent with the nature of Chinese Buddhism, as, according to Huynh, while schools inspired by both Hinayana and Mahayana arose after the fall of the Han dynasty, the one that aligned with the latter became dominant (43). The two traditions in India and China grew closer as a result. It is, therefore, possible that by the time of Awakening’s writing, either Chinese Buddhists decided to enter religious discourse or Indian monks, such as Paramârtha, were influenced by Chinese ideas in their work.
Nature of the Work
One matter that makes the determination of the text’s origins challenging is the contents, which mostly deal with spiritual and religious practices. One can strive towards a specific state of mind in China as well as India, and the influence of either land’s ideas would be difficult to discern, primarily because the beliefs of the two schools are closely aligned. Suzuki noted in his translation of Aśvaghoṣa’s work that he believed that the original was written in Sanskrit and lost due to historical events (38). As such, the inquiry into the Chinese influence on the Awakening has to be limited to a study of its alleged Chinese translations and their origins.
Cultural Context
The Chinese schools of Buddhism were considerably similar to their Indian predecessors, but they incorporated native influences in both religion and culture. According to Huynh, Chinese Buddhist clergy and literati adopted the Laozi and Zhuangzi schools of Daoism. A parallel can be drawn between the concept of Dao as the natural order and the acceptance of the universe and its suffering proposed by Aśvaghoṣa (142). It is possible that the study of Daoism helped to create the alternative that reconciled the concerns present in Buddhism at the time of its writing. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the work never deviates from descriptions of Indian Buddhism and does not specify Daoism or any events or locations.
It should be noted that Chinese culture has not adopted Buddhism as much as incorporated it. According to Huynh, due to the signification of the religion, Chinese Buddhism developed independently from the Indian version and incorporated Daoism and Confucian teachings while assimilating Buddha into a set of Sages (24-25). Furthermore, a work attributed to Aśvaghoṣa, one of the greatest Indian poets, received far more recognition in China than in India. This fact may be seen as an indication of the Chinese origins of the Awakening. The work might have been written in China and appealed to the local Buddhists without significantly spreading its influence into India, in part due to the false authorship claim.
Paramârtha’s Influence
Paramârtha was a well-known translator of Sanskrit texts into Chinese who spent the last part of his life in China and worked there. According to Aśvaghoṣa, the monk came to China A. D. 546 and produced the Chinese version of the Awakening in A. D. 554 (39). Since Paramârtha’s version is the earliest known variant of the text, a theory can be formulated that claims that the monk wrote the treatise and attributed its creation to Aśvaghoṣa. Between his studies and activities, Paramârtha can be considered to have been significantly influenced by Chinese culture and beliefs, which would be reflected in the writings he produced.
The theory is consistent with the context surrounding the appearance of the alleged translation and its subsequent influence. It is possible that Paramârtha, being aware of the religious concerns present in Chinese Buddhism at the time, formed an opinion and wanted to express it. However, he may have not believed himself to be a sufficient authority on the matter, as he was primarily known for his translations of others’ works. On the other hand, his occupation provided him with an excellent opportunity to attribute the ultimate authorship to a more respected scholar. The resulting work was appropriate to the situation in China at the time and greatly influenced the religious development in the country as a consequence.
Çikshânanda’s Version
Another somewhat different version exists, written by Çikshânanda of Khoten. Nevertheless, according to Aśvaghoṣa, the writer was in China at the time and died there ten years after beginning the translation (39). Çikshânanda cannot have been the author, as his contribution happened a century and a half after Paramârtha’s. However, he claimed to have obtained his source material from a Sanskrit version of the work that was older than Paramârtha’s translation. Aśvaghoṣa notes that the claim is supported by the catalogs of the time, which list the same Sanskrit text as the origin of both adaptations (40). While this claim contradicts the theory in which Paramârtha is the author, it is not necessarily true.
It is possible that the text written Paramârtha was translated into Sanskrit, with the copy then being discovered by Çikshânanda and presumed to be the original. Furthermore, as the Sanskrit version is not available and the current discussion primarily concerns China, the Chinese version provided by Paramârtha would still be relevant. The translation process could be influenced by the time the monk spent in China and incorporate subtle influences that then propagated through the local school of Buddhism and affected the development of Chinese philosophy.
The Popularity of the Versions
While both translations are accepted and used, Paramârtha’s version tends to be the more popular of the two. According to Aśvaghoṣa, this is primarily because Fa-Tsang, an essential figure in Chinese Buddhism, wrote an often-studied commentary on the older variant, although he helped Çikshânanda with his work as well (40-41). As such, even though the degree of the faithfulness of either version can be disputed, Paramârtha’s translation of the treatise should be the primary subject of consideration. It provided the principal influence on the development of Chinese Buddhism, and therefore the factors that influenced its own writing are particularly relevant.
The Case for Indian Origins
It is possible that the Awakening was written by Aśvaghoṣa, as the allegations claim. In this situation, it is unlikely that Chinese Buddhism would have influenced the author. According to Huynh, during Aśvaghoṣa’s life in the 1st and 2nd centuries Buddhism was only beginning its spread into China (29). In such a case, the ideas that are similar to those formulated in China may have been coincidentally similar evolution of religion. On the other hand, the existence of the solution by a well-known master four centuries before Paramârtha chose to translate it to resolve a dispute raises questions. Such an essential part of Buddhist doctrine should have been incorporated into the basis of religious teachings that were brought to China.
Conclusion
Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith, an influential treatise for Chinese Buddhism, was initially attributed to the sage Aśvaghoṣa. However, modern scholars believe the composition to be of Chinese origin, usually citing Paramârtha as the most likely author due to his authorship of the earliest known version. The notion is supported by the ideas in the work, which reflect those expressed in Daoism, and the fact that the dispute arose in the first place despite the supposed existence of the answer four centuries prior. It is highly likely that the work was produced in China and influenced by its culture and religious development.
Works Cited
Aśvaghoṣa. Acvaghosha’s Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana. Translated by Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki, Wentworth Press, 2016.
Huynh, Trung. The Early Development of Buddhism in the Red River Delta Basin, Jiaozhi, and Southern China: The Case of a Sogdian-Jiaozhi Buddhist Monk Kang Senghui. Dissertation, University of the West, 2016. UotW, 2016.