Source: Rhodes 2006

Rhodes, Robert F. "The Beginning of Pure Land Buddhism in Japan: From Its Introduction through the Nara Period." Japanese Religions 31, no 1 (2006): 1-22.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Rhodes summarises some scholarly controversy over the composition of the "three commentaries" ascribed to Shōtoku Taishi 聖德太子:

"In 1956, Fukui Kōjun created a sensation when he argued that the Yuimakyō gisho could not have been written by Prince Shōtoku. The Yuimakyō gisho quotes a Chinese text called the Pai hsing 百行, which, according to Fukui, refers to the Paihsing chang 百行章 by Tu Cheng-lun 杜正倫 of the T’ang dynasty. Since Tu died in 658, 36 years after Prince Shotoku’s death, Fukui concluded that the Yuimakyō gisho could not have been written by the prince. Although the version of the Pai-hsing chang which Fukui consulted was incomplete, he believed that the passage quoted in the Yuimakyō gisho was to be found in the missing sections. (Fukui, 1956: 312-313) Subsequently, Naitō Tatsuo discovered a complete version of the Pai-hsing chang among the Tun-huang manuscripts, and found that the passage in question did not exist within the text at all. As a result, Naitō concluded that the Pai hsing quoted in the Yuimagyō gisho was not the Pai-hsing chang, but the Pai-hsing chen 百行箴 by Taoheng 道恒. (345-417; Naitō 1957: 16-18) Furthermore, Fujieda Akira discovered among the Tun-huang mansucripts a text upon which the Shōmangyo gisho was apparently based, making it highly unlikely that the latter commentary was an original creation by Prince Shōtoku. (Fujieda 1975: 487-9).

"Through such arguments, scholars became increasingly convinced that none of the three commentaries can be attributed directly to Prince Shotoku. Inoue Mitsusada has been the foremost proponent of this view in recent years. Expanding on Ogura’s study, Inoue argued that the commentaries were not written by Prince Shotoku himself but became identified with the prince sometime between 720 (when the Nihon shoki was composed) and 747."

Referring to:

Fujieda Akira 藤枝晃. 1975. “Shōmangyō gisho 勝鬘経義疏” (On the Shōmangyō gisho), in: Ienaga et. al. eds., Shōtoku Taishi sh¨. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten: 484-544.

Fukui Kōjun 福井康順. 1956. “Sangyō gisho no seiritsu wo utagau 三経義疏の成立を疑う” (Doubt concerning the origins of the Sangyō gisho). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenky¨ 印度学仏教学研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies), 4 (2): 1-13.

Naitō Tatsuo. 1957. “Yuima-kyō gisho ni okeru Hyakugyō no mondai 維摩経義疏における「百行」の問題” (The Problem of Hyakugyō in the Yuima-kyō gisho). Nihon rekishi 日本歴史(Japanese History), 113: 15-20.

and several studies by Inoue.

Edit

8

 Rhodes summarises some scholarly controversy over the composition of the "three commentaries" ascribed to Shotoku Taishi 聖德太子: "In 1956, Fukui Kojun created a sensation when he argued that the Yuimakyo gisho could not have been written by Prince Shotoku. The Yuimakyo gisho quotes a Chinese text called the Pai hsing 百行, which, according to Fukui, refers to the Paihsing chang 百行章 by Tu Cheng-lun 杜正倫 of the T’ang dynasty. Since Tu died in 658, 36 years after Prince Shotoku’s death, Fukui concluded that the Yuimakyo gisho could not have been written by the prince. Although the version of the Pai-hsing chang which Fukui consulted was incomplete, he believed that the passage quoted in the Yuimakyo gisho was to be found in the missing sections. (Fukui, 1956: 312-313) Subsequently, Naito Tatsuo discovered a complete version of the Pai-hsing chang among the Tun-huang manuscripts, and found that the passage in question did not exist within the text at all. As a result, Naito concluded that the Pai hsing quoted in the Yuimagyo gisho was not the Pai-hsing chang, but the Pai-hsing chen 百行箴 by Taoheng 道恒. (345-417; Naito 1957: 16-18) Furthermore, Fujieda Akira discovered among the Tun-huang mansucripts a text upon which the Shomangyo gisho was apparently based, making it highly unlikely that the latter commentary was an original creation by Prince Shotoku. (Fujieda 1975: 487-9). "Through such arguments, scholars became increasingly convinced that none of the three commentaries can be attributed directly to Prince Shotoku. Inoue Mitsusada has been the foremost proponent of this view in recent years. Expanding on Ogura’s study, Inoue argued that the commentaries were not written by Prince Shotoku himself but became identified with the prince sometime between 720 (when the Nihon shoki was composed) and 747." Referring to: Fujieda Akira 藤枝晃. 1975. “Shomangyo gisho 勝鬘経義疏” (On the Shomangyo gisho), in: Ienaga et. al. eds., Shotoku Taishi sh . Tokyo: Iwanami shoten: 484-544. Fukui Kojun 福井康順. 1956. “Sangyo gisho no seiritsu wo utagau 三経義疏の成立を疑う” (Doubt concerning the origins of the Sangyo gisho). Indogaku Bukkyogaku kenky 印度学仏教学研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies), 4 (2): 1-13. Naito Tatsuo. 1957. “Yuima-kyo gisho ni okeru Hyakugyo no mondai 維摩経義疏における「百行」の問題” (The Problem of Hyakugyo in the Yuima-kyo gisho). Nihon rekishi 日本歴史(Japanese History), 113: 15-20. and several studies by Inoue. X0353; 勝鬘經疏義私鈔 Yuima gyo gisho 維摩經義疏

Edit

8

 Shotoku Taishi 聖德太子 Yuima gyo gisho 維摩經義疏