Buswell, Robert. "Introduction: Prolegomenon to the Study of Buddhist Apocryphal Scriptures." In Buswell 1990, 1-30.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Buswell considers the Diwei Boli jing to be apocryphal on the basis of its incorporation of elements of Daoism and popular religion. He states that the Diwei Boli jing correlates the five elements and the five directions with the five Buddhist lay precepts. |
9-10 |
Buswell considers the Diwei Boli jing to be apocryphal on the basis of its incorporation of elements of Daoism and popular religion. He states that the Diwei Boli jing correlates the five elements and the five directions with the five Buddhist lay precepts. Diwei Boli jing 提謂波利經 |
|
Buswell argues that the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 (*Vajra-samādhi-sūtra) is a “syncretistic apocryphon.” Buswell cites his own monographic study (Buswell 1990) in order to assert that the text was written in Korea around 685 CE. He presents the anonymous author as a frustrated Sŏn missionary, who faced “an unreceptive, if not downright antagonistic audience.” Buswell proposes that the monk, "distressed over his mission's lack of progress", "resorted to textual forgery...in order to convey his new teachings". |
12, 23 |
Buswell argues that the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 (*Vajra-samadhi-sutra) is a “syncretistic apocryphon.” Buswell cites his own monographic study (Buswell 1990) in order to assert that the text was written in Korea around 685 CE. He presents the anonymous author as a frustrated Son missionary, who faced “an unreceptive, if not downright antagonistic audience.” Buswell proposes that the monk, "distressed over his mission's lack of progress", "resorted to textual forgery...in order to convey his new teachings". T0273; 金剛三昧經 |
Buswell notes in passing that the Yueguang tongzi jing (Candraprabhākumāra; in two versions, both ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, viz. 月光童子經 T534, 申日經 T535) is an apocryphon. He adds that the series of texts on Prince Moonlight “seems to have been modelled on Confucian prognostication texts (tuchen)”. |
10 |
Buswell notes in passing that the Yueguang tongzi jing (Candraprabhakumara; in two versions, both ascribed to Dharmaraksa, viz. 月光童子經 T534, 申日經 T535) is an apocryphon. He adds that the series of texts on Prince Moonlight “seems to have been modelled on Confucian prognostication texts (tuchen)”. T0534; 佛說月光童子經 T0535; 佛說申日經; Shenyue jing 申曰經 | |
|
Buswell briefly notes that the Yuanjue jing 大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經 T842 is “apocryphal,” on the basis of its association with Buddhist esotericism and tathāgatagarbha thought. |
9, 12. |
Buswell briefly notes that the Yuanjue jing 大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經 T842 is “apocryphal,” on the basis of its association with Buddhist esotericism and tathagatagarbha thought. T0842; 大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經; 圓覺經 |
|
Buswell states that that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 is an original Chinese composition which was “arbitrarily” attributed to a translator in Fei Changfang’s catalogue (LDSBJ) and this false attribution was subsequently adopted by the Tang Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL). |
8 |
Buswell states that that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 is an original Chinese composition which was “arbitrarily” attributed to a translator in Fei Changfang’s catalogue (LDSBJ) and this false attribution was subsequently adopted by the Tang Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL). T1484; 梵網經 |
Buswell states that that the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 is an original Chinese composition which was “arbitrarily” attributed to a translator in Fei Changfang’s catalogue (LDSBJ), and this false attribution was subsequently adopted by the Tang Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL). |
8 |
Buswell states that that the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 is an original Chinese composition which was “arbitrarily” attributed to a translator in Fei Changfang’s catalogue (LDSBJ), and this false attribution was subsequently adopted by the Tang Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL). T1485; 菩薩瓔珞本業經; Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經 | |
|
Buswell notes in passing that the Shih Mo-ho-yen lun 釋摩訶衍論 T1668 is an “apocryphal” śāstra falsely attributed to Nāgārjuna. He refers to Mochizuki, Bukkyō kyōten, pp. 393-694, and Makita, Gikyō kenkyū, p. 117 for this classification. |
9 |
Buswell notes in passing that the Shih Mo-ho-yen lun 釋摩訶衍論 T1668 is an “apocryphal” sastra falsely attributed to Nagarjuna. He refers to Mochizuki, Bukkyo kyoten, pp. 393-694, and Makita, Gikyo kenkyu, p. 117 for this classification. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1668; 釋摩訶衍論 |
Buswell states that the Damujianlian minjian jiu mu bianwen bing tu 大目乾連冥間救母變文并圖 is an “apocryphal composition” which he sees as part of a series of apocrypha which adopt the story of Maudgalyāyana’s journey to rescue his mother. |
19 |
Buswell states that the Damujianlian minjian jiu mu bianwen bing tu 大目乾連冥間救母變文并圖 is an “apocryphal composition” which he sees as part of a series of apocrypha which adopt the story of Maudgalyayana’s journey to rescue his mother. T2858; St. 2614; Damujianlian minjian jiu mu bianwen bing tu 大目乾連冥間救母變文并圖 | |
Buswell briefly notes that the Shouluo biqiu jing 首羅比丘經 T2873 is apocryphal, because it is a work which includes in its title “the name of a presumed living individual.” He cites Makita. |
10 |
Buswell briefly notes that the Shouluo biqiu jing 首羅比丘經 T2873 is apocryphal, because it is a work which includes in its title “the name of a presumed living individual.” He cites Makita. T2873; 首羅比丘經; Shouluo biqiu jing 首羅比丘經 | |
Buswell notes that the Fumu enzhong jing 父母恩重經 T2887 is apocryphal. He adds that the text served as the basis for a series of bianwen 變文 which focused on “filial piety.” |
19 |
Buswell notes that the Fumu enzhong jing 父母恩重經 T2887 is apocryphal. He adds that the text served as the basis for a series of bianwen 變文 which focused on “filial piety.” T2887; Fumu en zhong jing 父母恩重經 |