Zürcher, Erik. “Eschatology and Messianism in Early Chinese Buddhism.” In Leyden Studies in Sinology: Papers Presented at the conference Held in Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Sinological Institute of Leyden University, December 8-12, 1980, edited by Wilt L. Idema, 34-56. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Zürcher argues that the Fa miejin jing 法滅盡經 T396, is an “apocryphon,” and suggests it can be dated to the fifth century. This “short but highly interesting apocryphal text” warns of the coming of Māra’s “satanic clergy” who will break the rules of monastic life, wear fine clothing, drink wine and eat meat, be unkind and jealous, ridicule and slander the few decent people who remain, destroy all truly religious values, and generally wreak havoc. Zürcher notes that various bibliographies have dealt with this text in “real or imaginary” versions, variously titled Fa miejin jing, Fa mojin jing 法沒盡經 and Kongji pusa suo wen jing 空寂菩薩所問經. The text was first listed in Sengyou’s Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145, as a single anonymous scripture with no variant titles. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146 deemed the text “spurious;” and the later Tang bibliographies, from Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154 onwards, listed two texts, an anonymous “authentic” text, and another listed as “spurious.” Zürcher suggests that the inclusion of two texts in later catalogues is a case of “double listing,” and Fajing’s “spurious” text is in fact the same as Sengyou’s “genuine” one. Zürcher adds that the bibliographies mention “lost” versions of the text and attribute them to famous translators such as Zhi Qian, Dharmarakṣa, and Gītamitra. However, Zürcher proposes that “these entries probably are false attributions of the same text(s)” given the Chinese bibliographers’ tendency to ascribe anonymous texts to well-known translators. The text listed in Sengyou’s bibliography, however, we can be certain is the one currently listed in the canon because Sengyou reproduced almost the entire text in Shija pu 釋迦譜 T2040. Therefore, Zürcher argues, the text must have “already been in existence by the end of the fifth century.” |
48-49 |
Zurcher argues that the Fa miejin jing 法滅盡經 T396, is an “apocryphon,” and suggests it can be dated to the fifth century. This “short but highly interesting apocryphal text” warns of the coming of Mara’s “satanic clergy” who will break the rules of monastic life, wear fine clothing, drink wine and eat meat, be unkind and jealous, ridicule and slander the few decent people who remain, destroy all truly religious values, and generally wreak havoc. Zurcher notes that various bibliographies have dealt with this text in “real or imaginary” versions, variously titled Fa miejin jing, Fa mojin jing 法沒盡經 and Kongji pusa suo wen jing 空寂菩薩所問經. The text was first listed in Sengyou’s Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145, as a single anonymous scripture with no variant titles. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146 deemed the text “spurious;” and the later Tang bibliographies, from Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154 onwards, listed two texts, an anonymous “authentic” text, and another listed as “spurious.” Zurcher suggests that the inclusion of two texts in later catalogues is a case of “double listing,” and Fajing’s “spurious” text is in fact the same as Sengyou’s “genuine” one. Zurcher adds that the bibliographies mention “lost” versions of the text and attribute them to famous translators such as Zhi Qian, Dharmaraksa, and Gitamitra. However, Zurcher proposes that “these entries probably are false attributions of the same text(s)” given the Chinese bibliographers’ tendency to ascribe anonymous texts to well-known translators. The text listed in Sengyou’s bibliography, however, we can be certain is the one currently listed in the canon because Sengyou reproduced almost the entire text in Shija pu 釋迦譜 T2040. Therefore, Zurcher argues, the text must have “already been in existence by the end of the fifth century.” Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0396; 佛說法滅盡經 |
|
Zürcher argues that Narendrayaśas’s 583 version of the Dehu zhangzhe jing 德護長者經 T545 appropriates the story of Bodhisattva Yueguang tongzhi in in order to legitimate the position of the Sui emperor Wen. Ch.2, p. 849b-c of T545 features a passage which serves to exalt Wen: “In the final era of the doctrine, in the country of Great Sui on the continent of Jambudvīpa, he will be a great king called Daxing 大行, who will be able to make all beings in the country of great Sui have faith in the Buddha’s doctrine and plant all roots of goodness.” Zürcher argues that the passage goes on to allude to Wen’s large-scale support of Buddhism: “He will have innumerable hundreds of thousands of Buddha-images made, and he will establish innumerable hundreds and thousands of Buddhist sanctuaries.” Zürcher says the earliest recorded passage in which Yueguang is associated with China is contained in the Shenrijing 德護長者經 T535 (although he adds that belief in the bodhisattva as “a saintly reviver of the Doctrine in China” is found earlier, and is referred to in a letter from Xi Zuochi to Dao’an in 365 AD); he notes that several later texts manipulated the figure in the service of religious propaganda. Zürcher adds that the Sui emperor Wen is known to have manipulated Buddhist belief towards his own political ends. |
47-48 |
Zurcher argues that Narendrayasas’s 583 version of the Dehu zhangzhe jing 德護長者經 T545 appropriates the story of Bodhisattva Yueguang tongzhi in in order to legitimate the position of the Sui emperor Wen. Ch.2, p. 849b-c of T545 features a passage which serves to exalt Wen: “In the final era of the doctrine, in the country of Great Sui on the continent of Jambudvipa, he will be a great king called Daxing 大行, who will be able to make all beings in the country of great Sui have faith in the Buddha’s doctrine and plant all roots of goodness.” Zurcher argues that the passage goes on to allude to Wen’s large-scale support of Buddhism: “He will have innumerable hundreds of thousands of Buddha-images made, and he will establish innumerable hundreds and thousands of Buddhist sanctuaries.” Zurcher says the earliest recorded passage in which Yueguang is associated with China is contained in the Shenrijing 德護長者經 T535 (although he adds that belief in the bodhisattva as “a saintly reviver of the Doctrine in China” is found earlier, and is referred to in a letter from Xi Zuochi to Dao’an in 365 AD); he notes that several later texts manipulated the figure in the service of religious propaganda. Zurcher adds that the Sui emperor Wen is known to have manipulated Buddhist belief towards his own political ends. T0545; 佛說德護長者經 |
|
Zürcher argues that the passage concerning Yueguang tongzi (ch. 1, p. 284a.) is an apocryphal insertion in the “undoubtedly authentic” Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雨經 T660. In this passage, the Buddha foretells that Yuegang will be reborn as a “powerful female ruler" in Great China (Mahācīna) who “will bless her inhabitants with her wisdom and kindness, and make Buddhism flourish both spiritually and materially.” After her long and successful rule, she will be reborn in Tuṣita heaven and join Maitreya. He argues that this insertion is “Buddhist propaganda” at the service of Emperor Wu [Zetian], in order to legitimate her position. Zürcher cites Antonino Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh Century, Naples, 1976, pp. 125-135. |
48 |
Zurcher argues that the passage concerning Yueguang tongzi (ch. 1, p. 284a.) is an apocryphal insertion in the “undoubtedly authentic” Ratnamegha-sutra 寶雨經 T660. In this passage, the Buddha foretells that Yuegang will be reborn as a “powerful female ruler" in Great China (Mahacina) who “will bless her inhabitants with her wisdom and kindness, and make Buddhism flourish both spiritually and materially.” After her long and successful rule, she will be reborn in Tusita heaven and join Maitreya. He argues that this insertion is “Buddhist propaganda” at the service of Emperor Wu [Zetian], in order to legitimate her position. Zurcher cites Antonino Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh Century, Naples, 1976, pp. 125-135. T0660; 佛說寶雨經 |
|
Zürcher discusses the “extremely curious apocryphal text” the Shouluo biqui jing 首羅比丘經 (cf. T2873). He suggests that the text can be dated between 518, the year when Sengyou completed the Chu sanzang jiji (which does not discuss the Shouluo biqui jing), and 589, the year when it was first mentioned in Fajing's Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. Zürcher adds that the text is prophetic, contains “cryptic sayings,” often defies understanding, and belongs to the “earliest known phase of sectarian Buddhism.” Zürcher claims that this text marks Yueguang Tongzhi’s “transformation from an obscure Bodhisattva to a full-fledged messiah.” He refers to a more detailed analysis of this text in his own article “Prince Moonlight: Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Buddhism.” T'oung-pao 68 (1982): 1–59. Zürcher studies the texts on the basis of five Dunhuang manuscripts: Peking ms. 292:8247, Peking 292:8275, S 2697, S6881, S1811. |
51-52 |
Zurcher discusses the “extremely curious apocryphal text” the Shouluo biqui jing 首羅比丘經 (cf. T2873). He suggests that the text can be dated between 518, the year when Sengyou completed the Chu sanzang jiji (which does not discuss the Shouluo biqui jing), and 589, the year when it was first mentioned in Fajing's Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. Zurcher adds that the text is prophetic, contains “cryptic sayings,” often defies understanding, and belongs to the “earliest known phase of sectarian Buddhism.” Zurcher claims that this text marks Yueguang Tongzhi’s “transformation from an obscure Bodhisattva to a full-fledged messiah.” He refers to a more detailed analysis of this text in his own article “Prince Moonlight: Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Buddhism.” T'oung-pao 68 (1982): 1–59. Zurcher studies the texts on the basis of five Dunhuang manuscripts: Peking ms. 292:8247, Peking 292:8275, S 2697, S6881, S1811. T2873; 首羅比丘經; Shouluo biqiu jing 首羅比丘經 |