§200. The author notes that texts concerning Metteyya/Maitreya seem to

Reopening the Maitreya-fi les
263
within the numeri cal context of an oral Ekottarika-āgama, neither 
the Maitreya sūtra, nor any of the other sūtras of the Ekotta rika-
āgama that also mention Mai treya, can demon strate that the col-
lection is a younger compila tion. Rather, these sūtras sig nify that 
Maitreya gained popularity at an early stage of Bud dhist develop-
ment, a proposition further attested by Mai treya’s portrayal at the 
very early stages of Buddhist art from Mathura and Gandhara.
31
A note on Maitreya in the Chinese Āgamas
Except for the Maitreya text under discussion, Maitreya appears 
an other thirty-four times in the remaining Chinese Ekottarika-
āgama. These other occurrences are found in eleven of the total 
fi fty-one scrolls of the collection. What we see in the Ekottarika-
āgama is that Maitreya is mentioned in the introduction as well as 
in twelve diff er ent sūtras. With this much data at our disposal an 
investigation on Maitreya’s role in the Ekottarika-āgama is with out 
doubt a meaning ful undertaking.
32
When searching for Maitreya in the other Chinese Āgamas it 
is easy to detect the far greater number of occurrences within the 
Ekot ta ri ka-āgama. In the Dīrgha-āgama
33
Maitreya is only men-
tioned once and this instance corresponds to Maitreya’s occur rence 
in the Pāli Cak kavatti-sīhanāda-sutta.
34
In the Madhyama-āgama 
he ap pears throughout the later part of a section called the “Sūtra 
expound ing the origin,” Shuo ben jing 説本經, that could so far 
31
Cf. the chapter “Sieben Buddhas und Maitreya” in Zin 2003, p. 457–
470, in particu lar footnote 62 and 63, p. 464. The oldest Maitreya portray-
als date from the fi rst half of the 2
nd
century AD.
32
An evaluation of each of these sūtras can yield results that may help 
to under stand the overall circumstances of how “Maitreya found his way” 
into the Ekotta rika-āgama. Such an investigation is planned as part of my 
presently ongoing Ekotta rika-āgama pro ject, for which see footnote no. 
17.
33
Cf. the Chang ahan jing 長阿含經 (T1, no. 1, expounded by Buddha-
yaśas and trans lated by Buddhasmṛti between 412 and 413).
34
Dīganikāya XXVI, PTS edition, vol. 3, section 25–26, p. 76.

264
Elsa I. Legittimo
not be traced in the Pāli Canon.
35
Further, the two extant transla-
tions of the Saṃyukta-āgama
36
do not mention Maitreya. Among 
the extant Chinese Āgamas the Ekottarika-āgama thus stands out 
as the one which is most fond of Maitreya. It goes without saying, 
however, that the Āgamas now ex tant in Chinese are of diff erent 
school affi
lia tions, and that “the responsi bility” for any particu-
larities found in the Chinese Ekottarika-āgama could lie with the 
denominational trans mis sion of this particu lar collection prior to 
its translation.
35
Cf. the Zhong a han jing 中阿含經 (T1, no. 26, scroll 13, 510b–511c). 
The extant version is said to be a translation by Saṃghadeva from the 
very end of the fourth century on the basis of a manuscript belonging 
to the Sarvāstivāda school. The collection, how ever, had been translated 
by Buddhasmṛti thirteen years earlier on the basis of Dharma nan din’s 
(appar ently oral) exposition. Saṃghadeva arrived in Chang’an immedi-
ately be fore this fi rst translation was undertaken. Due to political trou-
bles, the fi rst translation had to be fi nished in a hurry and under diffi
cult 
condi tions. In later years, when Saṃgha de va was able to read Chi nese, he 
is said to have realized how bad the translation was and that it contained 
many inac curacies. He was then able to retranslate it on the basis of the 
afore mentioned manuscript. It would have been an extreme coincidence 
had both sources, the (probably) oral transmission line on which the fi rst 
translation was based and the Sarvāsti vāda manu script that generated 
the second translation, been identical. Saṃghadeva thus might have re-
used those parts of the older translation that were not found in the newly 
ob tained manu script. Only a thorough investigation of the vocabulary 
and the linguistic fea tures can reveal whether the sūtra in question, the 
Shuoben jing 説本經, might still be part of the older transla tion or wheth-
er it was indeed translated by Saṃghadeva. Anālayo (forthcoming) has 
in vestigated the extant Chinese translation of the Madhyama-āgama and 
discov ered certain irregularities (personal communication) that might 
support this hypo the sis.
36
The Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 (T2, no. 99, translated by Guṇabhadra 
/ Qiuna batuoluo 求那跋陀羅 in the middle of the fi fth century), and the 
Bieyi za ahan jing別譯雜阿含經 (T2, no. 100, an anonymous translation 
from the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fi fth century). 

Reopening the Maitreya-fi les
265

tải về 1.27 Mb.

Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn: