Reception History and Limits of Interpretation: The Belgian Étienne Lamotte, Japanese Buddhologists, the Chinese monk Yinshun 印順 and the Formation of a Global ‘ Da zhidu lun 大智度論 Scholarship ’

: One of the most well-known accomplishments of Étienne Lamotte (1903–1983) was the unfinished French translation of Da zhidu lun 大智度論 . Da zhidu lun is also a very popular text in East Asia, because it is attributed to Nāgārjuna, the so-called ‘patriarch of the eight schools’ ( bazong zhi zu 八宗之祖 ) in East Asian Buddhism. Lamotte, however, claimed that Nāgārjuna might not have written Da zhidu lun . Lamotte’s argument led to various debates that gave rise to a wide array of hypotheses on who the author of Da zhidu lun could have been. The theory that Da zhidu lun could have been a text not (or not only) written by Nāgārjuna reached Chinese Buddhist monks and scholars as well, including the monk Yinshun 印順 (1906–2005). This paper will show the impact of Western scholarship on East Asian Buddhism, highlight the (pluri)directionality of knowledge

transfer, and demonstrate relevance and potentiality of the dialogue between East and West for the advancement of Buddhist learning. Finally, Umberto Eco's concepts of 'empirical reader' and 'model reader' will serve to understand this Buddhist textual debate from the wider perspective of textual interpretation and reception history.

Introduction: Academic Networks and the Limits of Interpretation
The twentieth century witnessed the creation and development of the academic field of Buddhist studies in the West. Within the Western world, Europeans were the first to begin defining the initial steps in this domain. In fact, during the first half of the twentieth-century, Europe recorded the production of translations, monographs on history and culture, and manuals on disciplinary approaches that were intended to form the first Western library on Buddhism, including the East Asian tradition. All of these works provided an interpretation of the Buddhist East Asia that was crucial not only for the development of the field in Europe, but also for the tension and further exchange with East Asian scholarship.
To begin with, we cannot really talk of an 'European' scholarship, but rather of single scholars who created schools and lineages around themselves, each a patriarch of a scholarly network. These scholarly networks have evolved, either independently or through communication and mutual influence. Scholarship identity should be conceived as person-based rather than region-based. Moreover, some of these scholarly networks went beyond the European borders and reached the very East Asian areas they were interpreting. In other words, the literature produced by certain Europe-based circles also came to affect secondary literature produced in the context of East Asia. This is the point where scholarly networks pass from being isolated and regional to converge and create patterns of integration, form new cross-border networks, and thus complete the full cycle of knowledge transfer.
Within this process of exchange, tension and fusion among scholarly networks, we detect a game between interpretations. Those interpretation endeavours may be, by nature, problematic. Important to understanding this is Umberto Eco's extensive argumentation on tex-1 See Eco,'Interpretation and history','Overinterpreting texts',[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] the first chapter of The limits of Interpretation. 2 This chapter will use the Chinese title of the text, Da zhidu lun (T no. 1509, 25), throughout the text, since at the present time we have only the Chinese version in hand, and it is to the Chinese version that the textual discourses highlighted in this chapter refer to. 3 Da zhidu lun has been often regarded as the Chinese translation of a lost manuscript that was titled in Sanskrit as either Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra or Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa. In case of reference to the possible Sanskrit original, this study chose to adopt the latter instead of the former title, in line with the recent tendency in Buddhist studies. tual interpretation, its limits and dangers of 'overinterpretation', and the (often) difficult relations between author, text and reader in the making of the interpretations. Eco's distinction between 'empirical reader' and 'model reader' is a good reference point for this analysis of a range of interpretations of the same text or context, and helps to rearrange those from an analytical perspective. 1 This study will focus on these endeavours of interpretation and trans-regional scholarly networks by focusing on the case study of Étienne Lamotte's writings on Buddhist history, especially his translation and interpretation of Da zhidu lun 大智度論 [The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom], 2 and the reception and responses that Lamotte's work received in East Asia, particularly in Taiwan.
Étienne Lamotte (1903Lamotte ( -1983) was a Belgian Catholic priest, an expert of Greek philology and, at the same time, an eminent scholar of history and scriptures of Indian Buddhism. One of his most wellknown accomplishments, which was unfortunately left unfinished, is the French translation of Da zhidu lun. This scripture is supposedly the Chinese version of a (lost) Sanskrit version, Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa. 3 Da zhidu lun is a very popular text in East Asia because it is attributed to Nāgārjuna, the so-called 'patriarch of the eight schools' (bazong zhi zu 八宗之祖) in East Asian Buddhism. Lamotte, however, claimed that Nāgārjuna might not have written Da zhidu lun.
Lamotte's theory received attention, and consensus, from other 4 Lamotte studied with several teachers, authoritative figures for separate scholarly networks: de La Vallée-Poussin was his mentor for Indology, while Paul Western Buddhist scholars like Conze. It also influenced contemporary Japanese Buddhologists, who then came to represent Lamotte's legacy in the far East and turned Lamotte's school into a transnational scholarly network. Lamotte's claim led to various debates that eventually gave rise to a wide array of hypotheses and claims concerning the true author of Da zhidu lun. The theory that Da zhidu lun was a text not (or not only) written by the very authoritative Nāgārjuna created several debates among Chinese Buddhist monks and scholars as well, including the monk Yinshun 印順 (1906-2005), and thus sparked further responses to Lamotte and the Japanese. This paper will utilize the example of Da zhidu lun studies to show the impact of Western scholarship on East Asian Buddhology, highlight effects of the (pluri)directionality of knowledge transfer and integration, and demonstrate relevance and potentiality of the dialogue between East and West for the advancement of Buddhist learning. It will then explore the interaction between scholarly networks, clash between authorities in the field, and a study on contributions and limits of translations/interpretations and patterns of integration.

I. Lamotte's Contribution to Buddhist Studies: Interpretation of History and Texts
Étienne Lamotte was, first of all, a philologist, a linguist, and an Indologist. His major interest and concern focused on the Indian tradition of Buddhism. As a consequence, even his studies of Chinese texts were conducted from the perspective of Indian Buddhism. Chinese translations were seen mostly as translations of Indian Sanskrit texts and were often studied in order to retrieve and assess the possible Indian original. This specific angle marks a distance between Lamotte's scholarship on Chinese Buddhism and the works of two other eminent scholars more or less contemporary to him: the Sinologists Paul Demiéville (1894) 4 and Erik Zürcher (1928-2008 5 , who were authoritative voices in other scholarly 'lineages' and networks. Lamotte's works that more accurately represent his own perspective and style are Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien (1958) and the five-volume Le traité de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nāgārjuna (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra) . Richness of chronological and historical references, accuracy in linguistic and geographical details, and inclusion of textual and iconographical material are all features of Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien that made it an unprecedented, and still unsurpassed, achievement. This paper will look closely at his other work, Le traité, in comparative and cross-cultural perspective with other scholarship on Da zhidu lun produced by Western and Asian figures (and scholarly networks). Chinese scholars and, to borrow Taddei's words, 'the large public of Chinese students of Buddhism'. In those same years, that same Taiwanese team translated more publications on Indian Buddhismespecially Mādhyamika-authored by Western, Indian and Japanese scholars. This facilitated a further circulation of ideas and fostered local debates, which will be discussed in the final part of this paper. Local Taiwanese responses to Lamotte's 'foreign' position on this crucial text for East Asian Buddhism took shape through various stages. Today, finally, the academic reading of Da zhidu lun in Taiwan is conducted with cross-reference to both the (mostly adopted) comments by the local Chinese Buddhist monk Yinshun and Lamotte's foreign analysis. Two authorities and two scholarly networks have finally merged. Therefore, the circle of knowledge transfer is complete and shows results at its best: Chinese Buddhist wisdom was studied and analysed in the West, eventually the Western results came under scrutiny of the Chinese Buddhist academia itself, and finally we have new investigations structured along both Western and Chinese perspectives.

II. Lamotte's
The following sections summarise special features of Le traité, the main positions in the debate on authorship and translation of the text, and the real scholarly exchanges that have animated the last two decades in the Taiwanese academic world.

II.1 Lamotte's Le traité: Distinctive Features
Le traité should not be conceived as just a Western translation of a Chinese text. The real value of Lamotte's efforts certainly lays in the work he did to reconstruct the history of the text and assess the doctrinal debates articulated throughout the text, including the extensive and precise footnotes on terminologies and naming practices and the attempt to match Chinese and Sanskrit notions. It is this richness produced by Lamotte that takes Da zhidu lun's epithet of 'Buddhist encyclopaedia' to a whole new level. 7 7 For a short summary of Lamotte's contribution see also Durt, 'Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse et l'Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien', 1-16.
The critical essays at the beginning of each volume are another important aspect of Le traité, and probably the most debated and read part of the entire oeuvre. Volume I commences with a short preface on the text, which is defined as an utmost product of Buddhist scholasticism, and continues with a detailed narrative on the biography of-and legends around-the supposed author of the text, Nāgārjuna. Volume II starts with an assessment of the six pāramitā, as well as a critical discussion of the pre-Mahāyāna and Mahāyāna doctrines presented in the text. The long introduction of Volume III is probably the best-known-and more controversial-part of Le traité and includes Lamotte's discussion on authorship and translation of the text. The translation of Volume IV is preceded by a short piece that contextualises the doctrinal elements present in Chapters 42 to 48, provides a detailed list of figures and texts that those chapters refer to or just mention, and finally adds more material on the identity of the author of the text in response to criticisms and debates that arose after the publication of Volume III.
What emerges in the introductions to each volume of Le traité is a precise attention to textual authenticity and interpretation, two cardinal foci of Lamotte's scholarship that find full articulation in two earlier articles of his. These features also show his purist attitude of evaluation of early Buddhism. 8 Textual authenticity and interpretation were also highly debated topics by the Asian counterparts of Lamotte.

II. 2 Da zhidu lun 'Global Scholarship' in the Twentieth Century
Lamotte's Le traité is one of several attempts in twentieth-century Europe, as well as China and Japan, to make sense of Da zhidu lun. Thus, it is one of the several voices in a still-open global debate. The most debated issues were the authenticity of the text, the role of the translator Kumārajīva, and the connection with the auctoritas Nāgārjuna-at least in the East Asian Mahāyāna context. 8 Lamotte, 'La critique d'authenticité dans le bouddhisme', 213-22; and Lamotte, 'La critique d'interprétation dans le bouddhisme', 341-61.
In fact, from the 1930s to the present, several voices shaped the debate on authorship, composition and translation of the text. Linguistic elements, cultural references, quotations from certain scriptures, relations to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Zhonglun 中 論 [Treatise on the Middle], 9 and attitudes towards pre-Mahāyāna doctrine became major reasons for discrepancy among the various positions. The two major recurring arguments in most of those debates are (1) an Indian, but probably post-Nāgārjuna, origin of the text (if we consider Nāgārjuna as author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), and (2) a Chinese origin of the text, thus probably authored by its apparent translator(s).
This section will provide a brief overview of this on-going debate on the authorship and translation of the text. According to Lamotte's position, the text had an Indian origin, but the author was a Sarvāstivādin who then converted to Mahāyāna from North Western India (while the Nāgārjuna author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is said to be from the South) and who certainly post-dated the Nāgārjuna author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. This view was shared-completely or mostly-by many Western and Asian scholars, including his teacher Paul Demiéville (1971), 10 A. K. Warder (1970) 11 , Kajiyama Yūichi 梶山雄一 (1989) 12 , Ramchandra Pandeya (1977) 13 , David Seyfurt Ruegg (1981) 14 . The latter proposed the possibility that the authorship of the text was a cooperative effort of several hands, and that Kumārajīva was part of that team. In line with this theory, Hikata Ryūsho 干潟 龍祥 (1958) 15 and a student of Lamotte's, Katō Junshō 加藤純章 9 T no. 1564, 30. 10 Demiéville, 'Review of Lamotte's Le traité tome III', 144-47. 11 Warder,Indian Buddhism, Kajiyama, Daichidoron. 13 Pandeya, Indian Studies in Philosophy. 14 Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School, 32-33. 15 Hikata, 'Dai chido ron no kyosha ni tsuite'. The same article was originally part of Hikata's English book Suvikravikrami-Pariprccha Prajñāpāramitā-Sutra, lii-lxxv. This article was translated into Chinese by Lai Xianbang 賴顯邦 as Lun (1988) 16 , argued the presence of several additions to the original text, and, further, that those additions were certainly authored by Kumārajīva. Kumārajīva's partial authorship of the text was also the opinion of Leon Hurvitz (1957). 17 Edward Conze (1978) went beyond this argument and asserted that Kumārajīva was the sole author of the text. 18 Chinese authorship of the text was supported by Miyaji Kakue 宮地廓慧 (1932), 19 who believed that certain descriptions of Indian customs and the use of language could have not been understood by Indian readership. Therefore, the text could have not been authored by an Indian. Very recently, Chou Po-kan 周伯戡 (2004) (1977), 30 and the non-Chinese Venkata Ramanan (1966), 31 and J. W. de Jong (1971). 32 These scholars also more or less agreed that Nāgārjuna wrote the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā in an earlier stage of his career and the Sanskrit of Da zhidu lun in a later stage.
It is important to remember that only some of these voices actually encountered and evolved into real debates within European and North American academia, as well as between Western scholarship and Japanese Buddhology. However, a number of the positions listed above remained as isolated arguments that did not have the opportunity for mutual communication, and thus did not develop into a pluri-directional (and inter-network) discussion. Chinese views, especially, were not included in this mutual exchange, and remained mostly detached from the ongoing textual diatribe. The sit- uation changed as Lamotte became available to Chinese readership and the monk Yinshun, who was the Chinese authority on the topic, expressed his own response. This was the turning point where scholarly networks met and evolved. Unfortunately, Yinshun's response was published a few years after the passing of Lamotte, therefore he could not counter-argue with Yinshun and Chinese/Taiwanese scholarship. Fortunately, members of the following generations of the scholarly networks rooted into Lamotte's and Yinshun's authorities were able to continue this exchange and unfold a 'global dialogue' on the relations between Da zhidu lun and the figure of Nāgārjuna.
In terms of quantity of writing and scholarly influence, Lamotte's Le traité only has one parallel in the East: the work of the monk Yinshun. Lamotte and Yinshun compiled their studies around the same time, but in different regions, both of which went through difficulties and changes in the 1940s (WWII in Europe and the Communists' conquest of China in 1949). Lamotte made an annotated translation of Da zhidu lun, while Yinshun made extensive notes in a forty-year period and created a new punctuated edition of the text. Yinshun and Lamotte both debated issues of authenticity, authorship and translation of the text, which started from different perspectives and ended with consequently opposing conclusive remarks. The high reputation and authority these two Buddhist figures held in their respective regions and scholarly networks made their disagreement, and especially Yinshun's response and the effect of that response in East Asia, part of this study. It was the Taiwanese reaction to Yinshun's response to Lamotte that brought a significant change to the Chinese scholarship on Da zhidu lun. na enters the early stages of Mahāyāna that Yinshun individualised the 'correct Dharma'. That was the time of Nāgārjuna, and, in fact, Nāgārjuna's writings came to represent 'real' Buddhism in Yinshun's mind. Nāgārjuna's writings are defined as crucial texts because they encompass both the pre-Mahāyāna (Āgama) and the early Mahāyāna. 'Zhonglun is the thorough restatement of the Āgamas' (Zhonglun shi Ahanjing de tonglun《中論》是《阿含經》的通論) was a key statement of Yinshun's and also one of the most controversial from the perspective of Chinese Mahāyāna. For Yinshun, Nāgārjuna's restatement of the Āgama represented the correct Dharma. In short, Yinshun was a Chinese Buddhist monk who emphasised the Indian tradition, but at the same time remained clearly Chinese-focused through his attention to certain scriptures and authoritative figures.

II. 3 Yinshun's study on
Yinshun envisioned a precise scriptural identity of this Mādhyamika, using Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Zhonglun 中論), Daśabhūmika vibhāsā śāstra (Shizhu piposha lun 十住毘婆沙論), and Da zhidu lun as the key texts of the school. He chose these three because they were, according to Yinshun (but not to Lamotte and other mostly non-Chinese scholars), authored by Nāgārjuna, and together embedded the theoretical tenets (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā/Zhonglun) and practice (Daśabhūmika vibhāsā śāstra/Shizhu piposha lun and Da zhidu lun) of the school.
Yinshun certainly did an extensive study on Da zhidu lun throughout his entire career, from the early 1940s (as he was in mainland China) until mid 1990s (when he was in Taiwan). Besides several references to the text in most of his writings, Yinshun also compiled 388 pages of notes. These notes were made from the 1940s until the 1980s but, unfortunately, he never managed to edit and arrange them into a coherent book. Yinshun's notes were made available to the public in 2005 (Da zhidu lun biji 大智度論筆記). 36 Secondly, under invitation of the monk Miaolian 妙蓮, abbot of the Pure Land temple Fo cijing si 佛慈淨寺 in Hong Kong, he produced his own punctuated edition of Da zhidu lun, which was published 36 See the conference paper by Shi Changci, 'Yinshun daoshi Da zhidu lun biji', and Travagnin, 'The Mādhyamika Dimension of Yinshun ', 283-318. in December 1979 (Da zhidu lun biaodian ben 大智度論標點本). 37 Finally, and more relevant for this paper, Yinshun wrote a response to Lamotte and some Japanese scholars, to confute their position on the text's authorship and translation.
This last short work, titled Da zhidu lun zhi zuozhe jiqi fanyi 大智 度論之作者及其翻譯, published in Taiwan first as an article and then as a short book, was eventually translated into Japanese. Actually, this was the first book by Yinshun to be fully translated and published in a foreign language. 38 The translation of this book into Japanese made Japanese scholarship aware of Yinshun's response and provoked reactions by the same authors that Yinshun provided commentary on. For instance, see the following works on the text by Katō Junsho, 39 but also the still influential volume on Da zhidu lun by Takeda Kōgaku 武田浩学. 40

II. 4 Lamotte vs. Yinshun: a Cross-Analysis of Distant Arguments 41
Yinshun's edition can be analysed in parallel to Lamotte's work, the latter being the author of a similar project, which can be regarded as the Western counterpart to the scholar-monk. 42 Besides a discrepancy in background and religious affiliation, the main differences between the two authors are the sources they adopted and the aim of their work. Yinshun used the Taishō Yinshun's meticulous attention to Chinese linguistic details can be explained by his simultaneous additional study of a Chinese text for a Chinese readership and his project of recreation of Chinese Buddhism. Most of Yinshun's changes clearly addressed a Chinese readership, in fact they were aimed to make the text more understandable and tried to create consistency with the previous and following sections. On the other hand, Lamotte was not addressing a Chinese audience and conceived his translation as part of his study of Indian Buddhism. This can explain why Lamotte overlooked certain expressions that Yinshun questioned and contested in details, and why Lamotte sometimes did not translate certain sentences that appeared in the Taishō Canon. Yinshun aimed to highlight a consistency between Da zhidu lun and the other works attributed to Nāgārjuna as well; this modus operandi also conveys the main differences in background and aim between Lamotte and Yinshun. The former was pursuing the study of Indian Buddhism and trying to reconstruct a text belonging, according to him, to the Sarvastivada tradition which was then converted to Mahāyāna (and not authored by Nāgārjuna). Meanwhile, the latter was pursuing a negotiation between the Indian and Chinese Buddhist traditions and trying to reconfirm the authority of Nāgārjuna; this was conceived in his overall project of creating a new Chinese Buddhism for the twentieth century China. Another important difference concerns the religious affiliation of both the authors: Yinshun was a Buddhist monk, an 'insider' who was 43 Yinshun used the edition included in the Jiaxing Canon (Jiaxing zang 嘉 興藏), from the Ming dynasty, as master (and therefore, according to Yinshun, most reliable) copy. See Yinshun, 'Da zhidu lun jiaokan ji', 53; Travagnin, 'The Mādhyamika Dimension of Yinshun', studying the text as basis for his Buddhist practice and the issue of practice informed the entire research process; Lamotte, on the other hand, was a Christian priest, an 'outsider' (of Buddhism, but 'insider' in Catholicism) whose work was detached from personal religious/ spiritual cultivation.
Their disagreements in respect to doctrinal issues (such as the Sarvastivada pattern of the text), linguistic matters (the presence of glosses in Qin 秦 and a difference in the style of writing between Da zhidu lun and Zhonglun), and generational overlapping (the quotations from the works by Nāgārjuna's disciples in Da zhidu lun) are a result of Lamotte's and Yinshun's different understanding of the development of Buddhism in India. 44

III. Lamotte in (Chinese) Translation: Knowledge Transfer,
Reception and Reaction in Taiwan (1980s and1990s) In the second half of the twentieth century, Chinese Buddhist scholarship came to terms with the non-Chinese study of Mādhyamika, and especially of Da zhidu lun. According to my research, Lamotte's Le Traité was already available in Taiwan in the 1980s. The fact that not only Lamotte was aware of the Japanese scholar Ryūsho Hikata's theories on Kumārajīva's intervention in the text, but also that the latter was aware of the first two volumes of Lamotte's work in 1958, is sign of the general awareness in Japan of some Western scholarship on Mādhyamika. Katō Junsho was a student of Lamotte and, therefore, familiar with Lamotte's work and conclusions on the authorship of the text. We should also not forget the presence in Japan of Hubert Durt, a 'disciple' of Lamotte, and the trips that Lamotte himself made to Japan. Furthermore, several young Japanese researchers studied in Europe in those same decades, and were exposed to Western ideas and analyses, including those by Lamotte. 45 Again, the frequent and productive Dharma and Sangha exchanges between the two islands also facilitated the arrival of Lamotte's works in Taiwan via Japan. 46 Translations and knowledge transfer between East Asia and the West has a long history with many accomplishments from the late Qing onwards. The first decades of the twentieth century was a key period for the Japanese translation of primary literature from Tibetan Mādhyamika, the 1940s was the phase of the Chinese translations of Tibetan Mādhyamika primary sources, and the 1980s signalled the beginning of the Chinese translations of non-Chinese Mādhyamika secondary literature. Finally, the beginning of the twenty-first century marked the Chinese synthesis of previous and international debates and, eventually, the production of a new exegesis as a starting point for renewed and re-shaped San-lun/Mādhyamika scholarship. As stated previously, this is how the circle of knowledge transfer achieved closure.
Japan played an important role in circulating Western scholarship within the Chinese community, but we should also acknowledge the importance of the Chinese translations of those works and the efforts of the main institutions and figures who made the non-Chinese (i.e., Japanese and Western) publications available to the Chinese readership. Among the protagonists of this new mission of translation in the 1980s and 1990s, there is the Buddhist journal Diguan zazhi 諦 觀雜誌, which was founded in 1983 by a small Buddhist association and published mostly translations of Japanese and Western works on Mādhyamika, and the Taiwanese lay Buddhist Guo Zhongsheng 郭忠生, who was the main translator of those Mādhyamika studies. 47 Published by the Beiguang wenjiao jijinhui 悲廣文教基金會 (Beiguang Cultural Foundation) at Lingshan monastery 靈山寺, Diguan was first distributed as a monthly (1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987) and later as a quarterly journal (1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996). The publication of the journal was interrupted in 1996 for financial reasons. In 1997, it was replaced by the quarterly Zhengguan zazhi 正觀雜誌, which did not focus on translations of only Mādhyamika related works, but also published research articles on any aspect of Buddhism, including Mādhyamika.
From 1990 to 1992, Diguan published the translation of eight sections from Lamotte's Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse (tome I and III), each authored by Guo Zhongsheng. 55 The translation of other works by Lamotte and even the publication of a short biography of his, demonstrates that Lamotte was held in high esteem within the recent Chinese Buddhist scholarship. 56 This is one of the very first Western scholars who received serious attention within the Buddhist 'insider' community and not with the purpose of defaming 'outsider' scholarship.
Lamotte translated the Taishō version of the text and we also know that he had no opportunity to confront that text with the Dunhuang version. All the non-Taishō elements he knew came from the notes included in the Taishō. 57 Guo Zhongsheng, for his translation of the Traité, used both the Taishō and Yinshun's edition of the text. 58 This fact reveals the Chinese attempt to confront the two authorities of Lamotte with Yinshun and, from a different perspective, the aim to put Yinshun's and the Taishō editions side by side. Guo also added some (though not many) annotations himself, which include linguistic and historic observations and references to sources (by Yinshun and others) that either Lamotte had not written or were published after Lamotte's publications.

IV. A New Global 'Da zhidu lun Scholarship' Made in Taiwan: the Post-Lamotte and Post-Yinshun Era
Following what has been argued so far, we can see three phases of development in the history of the Da zhidu lun scholarship, a history that started with the presence of a few regional schools and evolved into the production of a more global and interactive school. A first phase, with its apex in the 1970s, consisted of the creation of a few streams, or even 'schools', which evolved in relative isolation and without mutual confrontation. Overall, the differences in doctrinal and textual approaches and discrepancies in defining authorship and translation of the text gave birth to two major groups. The first half of the second section (II.1 and II.2) of this article analysed this first phase. 57 Demiéville, 'Review of E. Lamotte, Le traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de. Nagarjuna, Tome II'. 58 In the 'notes from the translator' (yizhe shuoming 譯者說明) that were added before all the translations, Guo Zhongsheng stated that his translation was based on a cross-check of three editions of the scripture: (1) Lamotte's French version (la ben 拉本); (2) Taishō text (dazheng 大正); (3) Yinshun's new edition (yin ben 印本).
In the 1980s and 1990s a second phase of Da zhidu lun scholarship began. This is the first point of encounter and constructive confrontation, on Chinese soil, among all those (mostly) isolated voices. This is also the time when Western and Japanese voices were translated into Chinese, and the time of the first Chinese reactions and partial translation of those reactions. During this phase, non-Chinese academia made a serious impact on Chinese scholarship. We also see the emergence and enshrinement of authorities, somehow leading figures from those 'schools' that developed in the first phase. Lamotte and Yinshun became two important, yet discrepant, reference points for the study of Da zhidu lun during this time. The second half of the second section (II.3 and II.4) and the third section (III) of this article concerns this second phase.
The Chinese translation of Western works on Da zhidu lun completed in Taiwan in 1980s and 1990s, and the response by Yinshun to Lamotte and Japanese scholars on authorship and translation of Da zhidu lun in the same years, were the roots of a third new stage of study on the text in question. This new, third phase produced the first achievements and written results in the late 1990s, and especially later in the early twenty-first century. These accomplishments rely not only on the Taishō or previous canonical editions of the text, but also consider those canonical editions in parallel with Lamotte's and Yinshun's works. This third phase, then, involves the almost 'canonisation' of the leading figures that were already enshrined as such in the second phase of the Da zhidu lun scholarship. Only a few years ago, the same monk Houguan conducted a new doctrinal and philological study of the text on the basis of the Taishō and Yinshun's edition, with critical cross-reference to both Yinshun's and Lamotte's annotations and previous canonical editions. Houguan's efforts are now published in the seven-volume Chinese oeuvre Da zhidu lun jiangyi 大智度論講義. 59 These volumes structure and propose Da zhidu lun according to Yinshun's notes and edition. However, footnotes refer to Lamotte and all the voices that emerged in the first phase of the history of Da zhidu lun scholarship. As it stands, this work is the ultimate result of the merging of the European and East Asian scholarship on the text, the closure of the cycle of knowledge transfer, and definitely shows the impact of European Buddhist studies on Chinese Buddhology, as well as its integration in the Chinese academic arena.
Finally, the cross-reference to previous works resulted not only into new philological editions of the text, but also in new doctrinal and historical discussion on it. For instance, see Chou Po-kan's article and his new conclusions on authorship and the Chinese intellectual background of the scripture. Regardless, the unsolved debate on authorship and translation of the text still continues.

Conclusion: Translation and Interpretation Patterns in the Development of Buddhist Studies
This chapter outlined the history of how the study of a Buddhist text and related doctrines developed in different regions, produced by varying authorities and carried out by those authorities-based scholarly networks. The overall global 'Da zhidu lun scholarship' developed through three phases. Each phase is defined by a more or less mutual engagement among those scholarly networks and a different degree of emphasis and authority placed on the figures at the roots of those scholarly networks.
The history of this textual, translational and doctrinal study can be read as a discourse of interpretations, which developed first in parallel and later in mutual exchange and cross-reference. The distance between the various positions and the claims made by the different voices all converge in the tension between the 'model reader' and the 'empirical reader' that Eco discussed in his work. In fact, although each of those voices claim to be 'model reader' and analyse the text in a way that was 'faithful' to the text per se, they were all 'empirical readers' in that they were driven by their own specific contexts. For example, Lamotte was translating Da zhidu lun to understand the context of Indian Buddhism, which was his main interest. Whereas, Yinshun was reading Da zhidu lun to understand a particular phase of Indian Buddhism, the one of early Mādhyamika, which was the focus of his work. At the same time, Lamotte was also influenced by the European academic context he was in and the local understanding of Nāgārjuna, while Yinshun was a Chinese Buddhist monk proposing the traditional Chinese view on Nāgārjuna's authorship of the text. The other voices involved in the Da zhidu lun scholarship all play into this pressure, between their claim of being 'model readers' and the reality of acting as 'empirical readers'. Here we can detect the limits of their interpretations. However, the increased improvement of encounter and constructive dialogue between those scholarly networks will gradually blur these limits and create a more advanced type of reader who can merge and resolve the tensions experienced so far.