Copying the Tripitaka
From: Mike High <mike.high@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:34 AM
On the copying of the Tripitaka, I have come across some fragmentary references in relation to the Quynh Lam pagoda, an ancient Tran center in today’s Quang Ninh Province, where it is said:
"In 1319, Phap Loa called for a blood donation from Buddhist followers to print over 5,000 copies of the 'Dai Tang' (Tripitaka)."
I’m not sure exactly what this means--what is a blood donation? By “5,000 copies” do they mean that they were able to copy the entire Tripitaka on 5,000 woodblocks (compared to 80,000 in Korea)?
I’m also curious as to the significance of copying the Tripitaka at this late date. (For instance—and this is just a wild guess—could it signal a revival of interest in the earlier Theravada scriptures on the part of the Tran-supported Truc Lam sect?)
:: Mike High
Great Falls, Virginia
USA
--------
From: will pore <willpore@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Mike,
What is "blood donation" in Vietnamese? Do you know the Chinese
characters for the term? Also, I'm not sure you should consider 1319
"late," in as much as the second Korean carving of the Tripitaka was
made in 1251, I think.
Will Pore
--------
From: Mike High <mike.high@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Will,
I'm afraid that I only have the phrase "blood donation" (perhaps poorly
translated) in English, and from a relatively non-scholarly source.
The article about the history of the Quynh Lam Pagoda in Vietnamese Studies
[1993] mentions the copying of the Tripitaka, but doesn't say anything about
a "blood donation."
Perhaps I should enlarge my question about the interest in the 13th-Century
interest in the Tripitaka in Vietnam and Korea. (I see in my notes that the
copying at Quynh Lam began in the 1295, and took 24 years to complete.)
Clearly, the production of such woodblocks was a massive project--why was
the Tripitaka chosen, rather than a Mahayana text? Was there a revival of
interest in the earlier tradition, or did the Tripitaka always have a
preeminent role in Korea and Bac Bo?
>From my touring of temples in Bac Bo, the predominant text is now clearly
the Lotus Sutra, and other Mahayana works. Perhaps it was not always so.
:: Mike High
--------
From: will pore <willpore@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Mike,
"Tripitaka" is really a vague usage in the Mahayana tradition; it is
not necessarily the Pali canon. For Mahayanaists, there may have
actually been four or more 'Pitakas.' I think Buddhist canon is
probably a more accurate term. For the contents of the Korean Buddhist
canon, see Lewis Lancaster's The Korean Buddhist Canon (UC Press
1979).
Will
--------
From: T. Nguyen <nguyenthanhbl@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM
To my knowledge Tripitaka (Sanskrit) or Tipitaka (Pali) refers to the three baskets of canonical Buddhist texts both in Theravada and Mayahana traditions. The first on is the Sutra-pitaka (Vietnamese = Kinh), the second Shastra-pitaka (Vietnamese = Luan), and the last Vinaya-pitaka (Vietnamese = Luat). The contents in each baskets are different between the two traditions.
Thanh Nguyen
--------
From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Mike,
To add to what has been correctly stated so far --
You must be referring to the Dia Tang, not the Dai Tang.
The reason why this term is so elusive in meaning is that while one can argue that there is a Theravada "canon," how can one say the same for the East Asian Mahayana tradition? The Mahayana "canon" includes texts that did not exist in the original (South Asian) Mahayana traditions, not to mention the Theravada. And there are texts which one can trace back to the Indian subcontinent (e.g. the Lotus Sutra), but that were written long after the Buddha's death. These texts are not considered part of the Theravada tradition.
All of this means, as other posters have suggested, that the actual content of the "Tripitaka" that was carved is not perfectly clear, other than comprising texts fitting into certain "baskets" of texts.
Shawn McHale
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
(on leave, 2007-08, at Vietnam National University --
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam)
--------
From: Mike High <mike.high@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Shawn,
In Tran Van Giap's description of the Quynh Lam Pagoda, it is "Dai
Tang"--perhaps translated as something like "Great Treasury." (I think "Dia
Tang" would refer to the Ksitigarbha Sutra, which is relatively brief and
would probably not have received this level of attention.)
In an effort to clarify this, I came across an interesting effort to
translate the entire "Dai Tang," or "Chinese Tripitaka," into Vietnamese:
http://www.daitangvietnam.com/
The examples cited--including the Amitabha Sutra and the Diamond
Sutra--indicate that the "Chinese Tripitaka" is not the Pali Tripitaka.
(Which is consistent with Will Pore's earlier message.)
:: Mike
--------
From: T. Nguyen <nguyenthanhbl@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:47 PM
"Dai Tang" is what the Vietnamese use for Tripitaka. As of this time, there are actually 29 different versions of the Tripitakas published in the Chinese language. The one that Vietnamese Buddhists use most nowadays is the Taisho Tripitaka published between 1924 to 1934 in Japan. This version is now being translated into Vietnamese.
Best,
Thanh Nguyen
--------
From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Dear all,
Yes, what was I thinking -- Dai Tang, not Dia Tang, for the Tripitaka. . . . :)
Shawn McHale
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
(on leave, 2007-08, at Vietnam National University --
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam)
--------
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 2:34 AM
Attachments: winmail.dat
>>I'm also curious as to the significance of copying the Tripitaka at this late date. (For instance->>and this is just a wild guess-could it signal a revival of interest in the earlier Theravada scriptures >>on the part of the Tran-supported Truc Lam sect?)
As others have pointed out, all of these are related to the Mahayana sutras, not the Theravada or Pali canon.
Phap Loa is the second patriarch of the Truc Lam (Bamboo Grove) School of Buddhism, the first native product of a Vietnamese Buddhism. The Founder was King Tran Nhan Tong, of Yen Tu mountain fame, considered the cradle of Vietnamese Zen. The third patriarch is Huyen Quang Ly Dao Tai, reputedly one of the great Zen poets of the time.
It's interesting to note that this Zen chool is the source of what is today, through the work of Thich Nhat Hanh in the west, called "engaged Buddhism." In the Vietnamese tradition, Buddhism has always been "engaged" , contrary to some modern interpretation, such as that of Jerrold Schecter in "The New Faces of Budhha." Le Manh That's contributions to the early history of Vietnamese Buddhism has established this beyond any doubt.
Another interesting note is that two of the most innovative Vietnamese Buddhist leaders of today, Thich Nhat Hanh in the west and Thi'ch Thanh Tu+` in Vietnam, both claim to be spiritual descendants of the Bamboo Grove school.
The third interesting note is that Nguyen Hue Chi, the principal compiler of the massive 3-vol "Tho Van Ly Tran" (Poetry and Prose of the Ly Tran dynasties), and one of the important scholars in Buddhism in DRV since before 1975, was instrumental in arranging for Thich Nhat Hanh's 3-vol "Viet Nam Phat Giao Su Luan" to be printed in Vietnam in the postwar period. Since Thich Nhat Hanh was still considered "person nongrata" by Vietnam's cultural honchos at the time, the name "Thich Nhat Hanh" could not be used. Hence, "Nguyen Lang" came into being.
It is this threat of cultural unity that finally brought all different sides together. Thich Nhat Hanh's recent two trips to Vietnam continue that effort of finding a solution beyond the politics of the moment.
-Chung
--------
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 3:56 AM
Attachments: winmail.dat
Sorry for all the typos ! I also add a note on the Mahayana/Theravada texts.
--------