|
|
Zhisheng claims that the expanded version of the Fo ming jing 佛名經 in sixteen juan expands upon Bodhiruci’s twelve-juan translation of the same name. Tokuno notes that Zhisheng considered the version in sixteen juan to be a mix of “lewd, vulgar language with sacred words”. Tokuno adds that Zhiusheng cited but a few out of what he considered to be innumerable absurd errors, such as the reference to Faxian’s travelogue as a canonical sūtra (fabao) entitled Faxian zhuan jing 法顯傳經; and incorrect division of Sanskrit words.
Edit
|
56 |
Zhisheng claims that the expanded version of the Fo ming jing 佛名經 in sixteen juan expands upon Bodhiruci’s twelve-juan translation of the same name. Tokuno notes that Zhisheng considered the version in sixteen juan to be a mix of “lewd, vulgar language with sacred words”. Tokuno adds that Zhiusheng cited but a few out of what he considered to be innumerable absurd errors, such as the reference to Faxian’s travelogue as a canonical sutra (fabao) entitled Faxian zhuan jing 法顯傳經; and incorrect division of Sanskrit words. Fo ming jing 佛名經 (16 juan) |
|
|
Tokuno notes that Zhisheng 智昇 refuted the attribution of the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 to Bodhiruci on the basis of its composition from prior textual sources. Zhisheng identified the text as an “apocryphon” authored by Shili 師利.
Edit
|
55 |
Tokuno notes that Zhisheng 智昇 refuted the attribution of the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 to Bodhiruci on the basis of its composition from prior textual sources. Zhisheng identified the text as an “apocryphon” authored by Shili 師利. Shili, 師利 T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 |
|
|
Tokuno notes that Fajing’s catalogue classified the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 as suspicious. She says that the second Zhongjing mulu, compiled under the Sui dynasty (Yancong), re-catalogued the Fanwang jing 梵網經 (among others) as genuine. However, she suggests that this reclassification was due to the influence of Fei Changfang’s catalogue, rather than independent assessment.
Edit
|
47 |
Tokuno notes that Fajing’s catalogue classified the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 as suspicious. She says that the second Zhongjing mulu, compiled under the Sui dynasty (Yancong), re-catalogued the Fanwang jing 梵網經 (among others) as genuine. However, she suggests that this reclassification was due to the influence of Fei Changfang’s catalogue, rather than independent assessment. T1484; 梵網經 |
|
|
Tokuno argues that the Renwang jing 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is apocryphal on the basis of external evidence. She states that Fajing’s catalogue cautiously labelled the text as “suspicious” because the text’s content and style was “ambiguous in nature.” Yancong’s later catalogue reclassified the Renwang jing as an “authentic translation,” but Tokuno suspects this was because of the influence of Fei Chang-fang’s catalogue, rather than an independent assessment.
Edit
|
41, 47. |
Tokuno argues that the Renwang jing 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is apocryphal on the basis of external evidence. She states that Fajing’s catalogue cautiously labelled the text as “suspicious” because the text’s content and style was “ambiguous in nature.” Yancong’s later catalogue reclassified the Renwang jing as an “authentic translation,” but Tokuno suspects this was because of the influence of Fei Chang-fang’s catalogue, rather than an independent assessment. T0245; 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 |
|
|
Tokuno relates the story, recorded by Sengyou, of the Saporetuo juanshu zhuangyan jing 薩婆若陀眷屬莊嚴經 was authored by Miaoguang 妙光 in 510 who claimed sainthood and composed this text (supposedly coated in “dazzling vermillion gauze”) in the pursuit of fame and wealth. His plan worked, initially, and the text attracted throngs of followers. However, the imperial court was threatened by Miaoguang’s popularity and the Emperor personally sent Sengyou, Huichao and twenty other monks to interrogate him. Miaoguang admitted his crime, which spared him the death penalty. The monks expelled him from the order, sentenced him to a long imprisonment and destroyed all copies of his sūtra. Sengyou’s attribution of this text was later repeated by Fei Changfang, who listed this text among the three scriptures he regarded as “apocryphal” and noted that the author, Miaoguang, “deceived the masses” and was thus expelled from the order.
Edit
|
38-39, 43-44 |
Tokuno relates the story, recorded by Sengyou, of the Saporetuo juanshu zhuangyan jing 薩婆若陀眷屬莊嚴經 was authored by Miaoguang 妙光 in 510 who claimed sainthood and composed this text (supposedly coated in “dazzling vermillion gauze”) in the pursuit of fame and wealth. His plan worked, initially, and the text attracted throngs of followers. However, the imperial court was threatened by Miaoguang’s popularity and the Emperor personally sent Sengyou, Huichao and twenty other monks to interrogate him. Miaoguang admitted his crime, which spared him the death penalty. The monks expelled him from the order, sentenced him to a long imprisonment and destroyed all copies of his sutra. Sengyou’s attribution of this text was later repeated by Fei Changfang, who listed this text among the three scriptures he regarded as “apocryphal” and noted that the author, Miaoguang, “deceived the masses” and was thus expelled from the order. Miaoguang 妙光 Saporetuo juanshu zhuangyan jing 薩婆若陀眷屬莊嚴經 |
|
|
Tokuno notes that the Diwei Boli jing is one of only three texts which Fei Changfang judged to be apocryphal. Fei regarded the text as an “apocryphon” because of its appropriation of the Chinese concepts of the “five directions (wufang)” and “five phases (wuxing).” Tokuno suggests that Fei simply followed the classifications of Sengyou who had marked this text as apocryphal in CSZJJ. Tokuno also cites Daoxuan's preface to his section on indigenous scriptures, which mentions the Diwei Boli jing in particular.
Edit
|
43-44, 48 |
Tokuno notes that the Diwei Boli jing is one of only three texts which Fei Changfang judged to be apocryphal. Fei regarded the text as an “apocryphon” because of its appropriation of the Chinese concepts of the “five directions (wufang)” and “five phases (wuxing).” Tokuno suggests that Fei simply followed the classifications of Sengyou who had marked this text as apocryphal in CSZJJ. Tokuno also cites Daoxuan's preface to his section on indigenous scriptures, which mentions the Diwei Boli jing in particular. Diwei Boli jing 提謂波利經 |
|
|
The Gaowang Guanshiyin jing 高王觀世音經 was branded “spurious” by Zhisheng. According to Tokuno, Zhisheng makes this judgement on the basis of the text’s known authorship and its annotation, which features a detailed account of the text’s origin. Zhisheng writes that the author of this text was a soldier by the name of Sun Jingde 孫敬德, who was sentenced to death for “petty theft” during the Northern Wei period. The night before his execution, he had a vision of a monk who taught him to recite the Jiu sheng Guanshiyin jing 救生觀世音經. The monk told Sun that the text would shield him from harm if recited one thousand times. The next day, as he was told, Sun recited the text and was protected from the executioner’s blows. Once the chief minister heard of this event, he exonerated Sun and the text was “circulated throughout the world.”
Edit
|
55 |
The Gaowang Guanshiyin jing 高王觀世音經 was branded “spurious” by Zhisheng. According to Tokuno, Zhisheng makes this judgement on the basis of the text’s known authorship and its annotation, which features a detailed account of the text’s origin. Zhisheng writes that the author of this text was a soldier by the name of Sun Jingde 孫敬德, who was sentenced to death for “petty theft” during the Northern Wei period. The night before his execution, he had a vision of a monk who taught him to recite the Jiu sheng Guanshiyin jing 救生觀世音經. The monk told Sun that the text would shield him from harm if recited one thousand times. The next day, as he was told, Sun recited the text and was protected from the executioner’s blows. Once the chief minister heard of this event, he exonerated Sun and the text was “circulated throughout the world.” Sun Jingde 孫敬德 Gaowang Guanshiyin jing 高王觀世音經 |
|
|
Zhisheng deems the ascription of the Yaoxing sheshen jing 要行捨身經 T2891 to Xuanzang “clearly fallacious.” Tokuno notes that Zhisheng considered the text “apocryphal” because it deviated from “orthodox scripture” in four ways: first, the text uses an outdated transcription of “Vulture Peak" in the Indian Kingdom of Magadha, which had fallen out of use by Xuanzang's time; second, the text mentions a charnel ground situated inside Rājagṛha (impossible due to purity regulations); third, against traditional accounts, the text dictates that the Buddha committed ritual suicide while a disciple of Dīpaṃkara; finally, the text claims that even the worst moral offenses can be “redeemed by the practice of she-cen.”
Edit
|
56 |
Zhisheng deems the ascription of the Yaoxing sheshen jing 要行捨身經 T2891 to Xuanzang “clearly fallacious.” Tokuno notes that Zhisheng considered the text “apocryphal” because it deviated from “orthodox scripture” in four ways: first, the text uses an outdated transcription of “Vulture Peak" in the Indian Kingdom of Magadha, which had fallen out of use by Xuanzang's time; second, the text mentions a charnel ground situated inside Rajagrha (impossible due to purity regulations); third, against traditional accounts, the text dictates that the Buddha committed ritual suicide while a disciple of Dipamkara; finally, the text claims that even the worst moral offenses can be “redeemed by the practice of she-cen.” T2891; Shanhaihui pusa jing 山海慧菩薩經 |
|
|
Tokuno discusses "thirty-nine texts" [sic] belonging to the Sanjie jiao that Zhisheng considered "spurious”. [Zhisheng's list at T2154:55.678b7-c27 actually lists 35 texts---MR.] He repeats the attribution of the Da Zhou lu (DZKZM) and adds his own comments. He argues “although they draw upon the scriptures, they are all fallaciously produced on the basis of the prejudiced views of his [Xinxing’s 信行] faction.” Tokuno characterises Zhisheng’s reasoning as based upon a combination of “internal evidence” and “socio-political characterisations.” Zhisheng labels the texts as “spurious” because of both their “unorthodox” messages, and the group’s controversial political status. All texts listed by Zhisheng are included in this entry.
Edit
|
57 |
Tokuno discusses "thirty-nine texts" [sic] belonging to the Sanjie jiao that Zhisheng considered "spurious”. [Zhisheng's list at T2154:55.678b7-c27 actually lists 35 texts---MR.] He repeats the attribution of the Da Zhou lu (DZKZM) and adds his own comments. He argues “although they draw upon the scriptures, they are all fallaciously produced on the basis of the prejudiced views of his [Xinxing’s 信行] faction.” Tokuno characterises Zhisheng’s reasoning as based upon a combination of “internal evidence” and “socio-political characterisations.” Zhisheng labels the texts as “spurious” because of both their “unorthodox” messages, and the group’s controversial political status. All texts listed by Zhisheng are included in this entry. Daji Yuezang fen chao 大集月藏分抄 Daji Yuezang fen yi yi li ming 大集月藏分依義立名 Dang genqi suoxing fa 當根器所行法 Dasheng yan ru tong xing fa 大乘驗人通行法 Dazhong zhi fa 大眾制法 Dui gen qi xing fa 對根起行法 Dui gen qianshen fa putixin fa 對根淺深發菩提心法 Dui gen qianshen tongyi fa 對根淺深同異法 Genji pu yao fa 根機普藥法 Guang ming fajie zhongsheng genji fa 廣明法界眾生根機法 Guang qi jie Fo ming 廣七階佛名 Jiaye Fo zang chao 迦葉佛藏抄 Jing sanbao fa 敬三寶法 Jiu Fofa nei ming yiqie Fofa yiqie liushi waidao fa 就佛法內明一切佛法一切六師外道法 Lue fayuan fa 略發願法 Lue ming fajie zhongsheng genji fa 略明法界眾生根機法 Lue qi jie Fo ming 略七階佛名 Ming dasheng wujinzang fa 明大乘無盡藏法 Ming qishi ba men fa 明乞食八門法 Ming renqing xing fa 明人情行法 Ming shanren eren duoshao fa 明善人惡人多少法 Ming zhujing zhong fayuan fa 明諸經中發願法 Mofa zhongsheng yu Fofa neifei yu suoyou fa 末法眾生於佛法內廢興所由法 San jie Fofa 三階佛法 Sanshiliu zhong duimian bu shi cuo fa 三十六種對面不識錯法 Shi da duan ming yi 十大段明義 Shi lun lue chao 十輪略抄 Shi lun yi yi li ming 十輪依義立名 Shijian chushijian liang jie ren fa putixin fa 世間出世間兩階人發菩提心法 Shijian shi zhong e juzu ren hui xin ru dao fa 世間十種惡具足人迴心入道法 Toutuo qishi fa 頭陀乞食法 Xing xing tongyi fa 行行同異法 Xueqiu shanzhishi fa putixin fa 學求善知識發菩提心法 Yuedeng jing yao lue 月燈經要略 Zhujing yao ji 諸經要集 |