Source: Groner 1990

Groner, Paul. "The Fan-wang ching and Monastic Discipline in Japanese Tendai: A Study of Annen's Futsū jubosatsukai kōshaku." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 251-290. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Groner suggests that the Renwang jing 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is one of a series of “apocryphal” works, which include the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 and the Ying-luo jing. 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485. He notes that all three texts utilise the same technical terms, and discuss the bodhisattva path and precepts. He suggests that on “an analysis of the development of these common themes” the Renwang jing was most likely the earliest, then the Fanwang jing, followed by the Yingluo jing. However, he does not provide any more information.

Edit

254

 Groner suggests that the Renwang jing 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is one of a series of “apocryphal” works, which include the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 and the Ying-luo jing. 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485. He notes that all three texts utilise the same technical terms, and discuss the bodhisattva path and precepts. He suggests that on “an analysis of the development of these common themes” the Renwang jing was most likely the earliest, then the Fanwang jing, followed by the Yingluo jing. However, he does not provide any more information. T0245; 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經

Groner notes in passing that the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 is apocryphal. He says that the text is closely related to an earlier apocryphal text, the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484. Both of these texts discuss the same set of ten bodhisattva precepts. He cites Satō Tetsuei and his discussion in Zoku Tendai Daishi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hyakken, 1981), 72-112.

Edit

253-254, 280

 Groner notes in passing that the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 is apocryphal. He says that the text is closely related to an earlier apocryphal text, the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484. Both of these texts discuss the same set of ten bodhisattva precepts. He cites Sato Tetsuei and his discussion in Zoku Tendai Daishi no kenkyu (Kyoto: Hyakken, 1981), 72-112. T1485; 菩薩瓔珞本業經; Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經

Groner concludes that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 is “apocryphal.” He notes that the text is traditionally considered to be a small section (two fascicles) of a much longer Sanskrit text (122 or 120 fascicles). However, Groner argues that there is no evidence that such a text ever existed, and the Tibetan version [D256/Q922] was “almost certainly” translated from Chinese. Traditionally the text is said to have been translated by Kumārajīva in 406, but this attribution has been questioned from an early stage. Groner cites Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which noted that many earlier catalogues had listed the text as of “questionable authenticity.” The attribution to Kumārajīva is recorded in three primary sources: A postface to the sūtra, recorded in the Chu sanzang ji ji; and two prefaces, one attributed to Kumārajīva’s disciple Sengzhao, and the other from the Korean canon. Groner argues that each of these accounts differ in key details and suggests that they were attempts to “conform with what was known about Kumārajīva’s translation techniques.” Furthermore, the text is not mentioned in Kumārajīva’s early biographies. The Fanwang jing is closely related to other apocryphal sūtras, such as the Renwang jing 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 and the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485. The Fanwang jing has gone on to influence later apocrypha which discuss the bodhisattva path, such as the Pusa yingluo benye jing. Groner states that the text borrowed from several Indian sources, the last of which – the Shanjie jing [= 菩薩善戒經 T1582/1583?—MR] – was translated in 431. The earliest copy of the Fanwang jing 梵網經 records a date of 479-480. Thus, Groner places the text’s composition at some point between 440 and 480.

Edit

252-255

 Groner concludes that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 is “apocryphal.” He notes that the text is traditionally considered to be a small section (two fascicles) of a much longer Sanskrit text (122 or 120 fascicles). However, Groner argues that there is no evidence that such a text ever existed, and the Tibetan version [D256/Q922] was “almost certainly” translated from Chinese. Traditionally the text is said to have been translated by Kumarajiva in 406, but this attribution has been questioned from an early stage. Groner cites Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which noted that many earlier catalogues had listed the text as of “questionable authenticity.” The attribution to Kumarajiva is recorded in three primary sources: A postface to the sutra, recorded in the Chu sanzang ji ji; and two prefaces, one attributed to Kumarajiva’s disciple Sengzhao, and the other from the Korean canon. Groner argues that each of these accounts differ in key details and suggests that they were attempts to “conform with what was known about Kumarajiva’s translation techniques.” Furthermore, the text is not mentioned in Kumarajiva’s early biographies. The Fanwang jing is closely related to other apocryphal sutras, such as the Renwang jing 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 and the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485. The Fanwang jing has gone on to influence later apocrypha which discuss the bodhisattva path, such as the Pusa yingluo benye jing. Groner states that the text borrowed from several Indian sources, the last of which – the Shanjie jing [= 菩薩善戒經 T1582/1583?—MR] – was translated in 431. The earliest copy of the Fanwang jing 梵網經 records a date of 479-480. Thus, Groner places the text’s composition at some point between 440 and 480. T1484; 梵網經