Source: Forte 1990

Forte, Antonino. “The Relativity of the Concept of Orthodoxy in Chinese Buddhism: Chiih-sheng’s Indictment of Shih-li and the Proscription of the Dharma Mirror Sūtra.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 239-250. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T2870; 像法決疑經	Forte mentions in passing that the Xiang fa jue jing 像法決疑經 T2870 is a known “apocryphon.” In the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu (KYL) Zhisheng argued that the Xiangfa jue yi jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 was “spuriously fabricated” by Shili 師利 partly on the basis of its inclusion of both sections from the Xiangfa jue jing, a text which Zhishang claimed was already labelled as “apocryphal.” Edit	241-242	Forte mentions in passing that the Xiang fa jue jing 像法決疑經 T2870 is a known “apocryphon.” In the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu (KYL) Zhisheng argued that the Xiangfa jue yi jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 was “spuriously fabricated” by Shili 師利 partly on the basis of its inclusion of both sections from the Xiangfa jue jing, a text which Zhishang claimed was already labelled as “apocryphal.” T2870; 像法決疑經
Texts: T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經	Forte examines Zhisheng’s treatment of the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 to demonstrate the relativity of what is considered to be an “apocryphal work” in the Chinese context. Forte notes that the text was granted canonical status by a commission in 712 which was formed to examine the Sanskrit texts brought to China by Maṇicintana. However, in 730 Zhisheng pronounced the text as “apocryphal” in the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu (KYL). Forte acknowledges that Zhisheng is considered to be a reliable bibliographer whose attribution of the sūtra to Shili is likely to be credible, but cites Zhisheng’s lengthy note on Shili and the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing, in which he says: “How could it be that Shangtian would shield this man from punishment? Moreover, approaching the time of his end, his paunch became swollen like a jar.” Forte argues that Zhisheng’s vitriolic attitude towards the dead or dying man discredits his reliability by demonstrating that Zhisheng’s objective standards were compromised by the pressure on the bibliographer to obey the accepted orthodoxy of his time. Forte sees this as symptomatic of the harsh censorship of Xuanzong’s reign. However, Forte does not claim that the text should now be considered “authentic”, but rather, aims to draw attention to the relativity of the Chinese conceptions of ‘orthodox’ and ‘apocryphal,’ “as the definitions adapt to the vicissitudes of time and the vagaries of politics.” Edit	240-246	Forte examines Zhisheng’s treatment of the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 to demonstrate the relativity of what is considered to be an “apocryphal work” in the Chinese context. Forte notes that the text was granted canonical status by a commission in 712 which was formed to examine the Sanskrit texts brought to China by Manicintana. However, in 730 Zhisheng pronounced the text as “apocryphal” in the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu (KYL). Forte acknowledges that Zhisheng is considered to be a reliable bibliographer whose attribution of the sutra to Shili is likely to be credible, but cites Zhisheng’s lengthy note on Shili and the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing, in which he says: “How could it be that Shangtian would shield this man from punishment? Moreover, approaching the time of his end, his paunch became swollen like a jar.” Forte argues that Zhisheng’s vitriolic attitude towards the dead or dying man discredits his reliability by demonstrating that Zhisheng’s objective standards were compromised by the pressure on the bibliographer to obey the accepted orthodoxy of his time. Forte sees this as symptomatic of the harsh censorship of Xuanzong’s reign. However, Forte does not claim that the text should now be considered “authentic”, but rather, aims to draw attention to the relativity of the Chinese conceptions of ‘orthodox’ and ‘apocryphal,’ “as the definitions adapt to the vicissitudes of time and the vagaries of politics.” T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經
Texts: T1096; 不空羂索陀羅尼經	Forte argues that Zhisheng manipulated the attribution of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing 不空羂索陀羅尼經 (Amoghapāśadhāraṇī-sūtra) T1096, in order to conceal the connection between Bodhiruci 菩提流志 and Śrīmata 室利末多. Zhisheng wished to conceal this connection because it would imply a connection between Bodhiruci and Shili 師利 (Zhisheng opposed Shili largely because he was a renowned Three Stages master, and Zhisheng regarded the Three Stages sect as heretical). The text was originally attributed to Bodhiruci and included in the canon in 700. In 730, Zhisheng challenged this attribution, and argued that the text was in fact translated by Li Wuchan 李無諂. [The attribution of the text to Li Wuchan in the Taishō almost certainly stems from this judgement by Zhisheng---MR.] Forte claims that the purpose of this attribution was excise from the canon the final chapter of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing, which had been translated by Śrīmata. If Śrīmata was shown to have worked on T1096, it would evince that Śrīmata had worked with Bodhiruci, which in turn would imply a collusion between Bodhiruci and Shili. Forte argues that if Shili and Bodhiruci were shown to be connected, it would undermine Zhisheng’s designation of Bodhiruci and Maṇicintana 寶思惟 as “guarantors of the orthodoxy.” Forte’s argument for this text’s attribution depends on his wider argument that Zhisheng labelled Shili as a heretic on the basis of his political motives. Edit	245	Forte argues that Zhisheng manipulated the attribution of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing 不空羂索陀羅尼經 (Amoghapasadharani-sutra) T1096, in order to conceal the connection between Bodhiruci 菩提流志 and Srimata 室利末多. Zhisheng wished to conceal this connection because it would imply a connection between Bodhiruci and Shili 師利 (Zhisheng opposed Shili largely because he was a renowned Three Stages master, and Zhisheng regarded the Three Stages sect as heretical). The text was originally attributed to Bodhiruci and included in the canon in 700. In 730, Zhisheng challenged this attribution, and argued that the text was in fact translated by Li Wuchan 李無諂. [The attribution of the text to Li Wuchan in the Taisho almost certainly stems from this judgement by Zhisheng---MR.] Forte claims that the purpose of this attribution was excise from the canon the final chapter of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing, which had been translated by Srimata. If Srimata was shown to have worked on T1096, it would evince that Srimata had worked with Bodhiruci, which in turn would imply a collusion between Bodhiruci and Shili. Forte argues that if Shili and Bodhiruci were shown to be connected, it would undermine Zhisheng’s designation of Bodhiruci and Manicintana 寶思惟 as “guarantors of the orthodoxy.” Forte’s argument for this text’s attribution depends on his wider argument that Zhisheng labelled Shili as a heretic on the basis of his political motives. T1096; 不空羂索陀羅尼經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T2870; 像法決疑經

Forte mentions in passing that the Xiang fa jue jing 像法決疑經 T2870 is a known “apocryphon.” In the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu (KYL) Zhisheng argued that the Xiangfa jue yi jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 was “spuriously fabricated” by Shili 師利 partly on the basis of its inclusion of both sections from the Xiangfa jue jing, a text which Zhishang claimed was already labelled as “apocryphal.”

Edit

241-242

Texts: T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Forte examines Zhisheng’s treatment of the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 to demonstrate the relativity of what is considered to be an “apocryphal work” in the Chinese context. Forte notes that the text was granted canonical status by a commission in 712 which was formed to examine the Sanskrit texts brought to China by Maṇicintana. However, in 730 Zhisheng pronounced the text as “apocryphal” in the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu (KYL). Forte acknowledges that Zhisheng is considered to be a reliable bibliographer whose attribution of the sūtra to Shili is likely to be credible, but cites Zhisheng’s lengthy note on Shili and the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing, in which he says: “How could it be that Shangtian would shield this man from punishment? Moreover, approaching the time of his end, his paunch became swollen like a jar.” Forte argues that Zhisheng’s vitriolic attitude towards the dead or dying man discredits his reliability by demonstrating that Zhisheng’s objective standards were compromised by the pressure on the bibliographer to obey the accepted orthodoxy of his time. Forte sees this as symptomatic of the harsh censorship of Xuanzong’s reign. However, Forte does not claim that the text should now be considered “authentic”, but rather, aims to draw attention to the relativity of the Chinese conceptions of ‘orthodox’ and ‘apocryphal,’ “as the definitions adapt to the vicissitudes of time and the vagaries of politics.”

Edit

240-246

Texts: T1096; 不空羂索陀羅尼經

Forte argues that Zhisheng manipulated the attribution of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing 不空羂索陀羅尼經 (Amoghapāśadhāraṇī-sūtra) T1096, in order to conceal the connection between Bodhiruci 菩提流志 and Śrīmata 室利末多. Zhisheng wished to conceal this connection because it would imply a connection between Bodhiruci and Shili 師利 (Zhisheng opposed Shili largely because he was a renowned Three Stages master, and Zhisheng regarded the Three Stages sect as heretical). The text was originally attributed to Bodhiruci and included in the canon in 700. In 730, Zhisheng challenged this attribution, and argued that the text was in fact translated by Li Wuchan 李無諂. [The attribution of the text to Li Wuchan in the Taishō almost certainly stems from this judgement by Zhisheng---MR.] Forte claims that the purpose of this attribution was excise from the canon the final chapter of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing, which had been translated by Śrīmata. If Śrīmata was shown to have worked on T1096, it would evince that Śrīmata had worked with Bodhiruci, which in turn would imply a collusion between Bodhiruci and Shili. Forte argues that if Shili and Bodhiruci were shown to be connected, it would undermine Zhisheng’s designation of Bodhiruci and Maṇicintana 寶思惟 as “guarantors of the orthodoxy.” Forte’s argument for this text’s attribution depends on his wider argument that Zhisheng labelled Shili as a heretic on the basis of his political motives.

Edit

245