Source: Funayama 2013

Funayama mentions this text as part of a list of texts composed in China designed to "stimulate a certain type of doctrinal belief" 特定の教義信仰を鼓吹するもの, in this case referring to beliefs about the endtimes of the Dharma.

Edit

130

Funayama treats the Fan Fan yu 翻梵語 T2130 as a work of the Liang dynasty. He refers to prior studies, especially by Ono Genmyō, whom he says was the first to notice the importance of the work. Funayama himself points out that a section of the text on monastic robes (*kaṭhina) called Jiaxina yi fa 迦絺那衣法 (fascicle 3) is entirely a reproduction of the lost Chu yao lü yi 出要律儀, which slightly predates Fan Fan yu. The format of this section is clearly different from other parts of T2130. The Chu yao lü yi has been variously regarded as a work of Baochang 寶唱, or an imperial commission. It was highly regarded and frequently quoted by Vinaya masters of subsequent generations. In the Chu yao lü yi, a figure referred to as the "shenglunzhe" 聲論者 is often cited as a source of information; Funayama speculates that this was probably a Chinese scholar-monk of the Liang. Funayama gives as an example an entry on Rājagr̥ha 羅閱城 (1006a22).

Edit

188-192

Funayama mentions this text as part of a list of texts composed in China designed to "stimulate a certain type of doctrinal belief" 特定の教義信仰を鼓吹するもの. This text expounds the miraculous powers of Avalokiteśvara, while mentioning the name of a known historical individual of the N. Wei 北魏, Gao Huan 高歡 (later Emperor Shenwu 神武 of the N. Qi 北齊).

Edit

130-131

Funayama mentions this text as part of a list of texts composed in China designed to "stimulate a certain type of doctrinal belief" 特定の教義信仰を鼓吹するもの, "reflecting the actual state of the Avalokiteśvara cult in China" 中国における観世音信仰の実態反映する.

Edit

130

Funayama discusses the evidence that has led scholars to regard the text as apocryphal, including mention of Laozi and Confucius, classical Chinese texts, and mention of China 真丹.

Edit

127-130

Funayama discusses some of the evidence that has led scholars to conclude that the text is apocryphal, including five phases 五行 thinking.

Edit

125-127

Funayama summarises prior scholarship which argues that the 法句譬喻經 T211 is not a full and direct translation of a single source. Sources have been identified in earlier Chinese works such as the Zhong benqi jing 中本起經 T196, which has itself been shown in turn to have portions that possible date later than the original Han translation by Tanguo 曇果 and Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, perhaps dating as late as the Jin 晉. T211 has also been shown to have relations to the Zi'ai jing 自愛經 T742, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 佛般泥洹經 T5, and the *Udānavarga 出曜經 T212. Funayama refers to Enomoto (1994), Tanabe (2000), and Kamitsuka (2001).

Edit

151

Citing the preface by Huiguan 慧觀 preserved in CSZJJ, Funayama argues that the actual "translator, in the literal sense" of T353 was Baoyun (譯為宋語). Funayama also notes that Guṇabhadra’s biography records that he had worries about not being able to speak Chinese.

Edit

72

Briefly surveying prior scholarship on the Sishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784, Funayama opines that "at least in the form of the presently extant text, it certainly must have been finalised in the early fifth century or thereafter," because it includes phrasing very similar to that of the Ekottarikāgama T125 ascribed to Saṃghadeva, the Saṃyuktāgama T99 of Guṇabhadra, and the Daoist Zhen gao 真誥, which were therefore among the sources of the Sishi’er zhang jing. Other sources mentioned by Funayama include the Liu di ji jing 六度集經 T152 and the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喻經 T211. Funayama cites Okabe (1972).

Edit

23, 152

Reprising earlier scholarship, Funayama says of the Dasheng yuqie jingangxing hai manshushili qian bei qian bo ta jiao wang jing 大乘瑜伽金剛性海曼殊室利千臂千缽大教王經 T1177A that "both the preface placed at the head and the sūtra alike are apocryphal". Part of the evidence is that the text claims that 毘廬遮那 is the dharmakāya, whereas 廬遮那 is the sāṃbhogikakāya; it is not possible to distinguish between these “two Buddhas” Indic contexts [both are alternate transcriptions for the name of the same Buddha, Vairocana]. The text also speaks of the fourpart rubric of 見分, 相分, 自證分, and 證自證分, but these terms (especially the fourth) are characteristic of the doctrine of Xuanzang as based upon the ideas of Dharmapāla, and it does not make sense for them to come up in a sūtra context. The text also contains copious use of expressions typical of the "Brahma Net Sūtra". Funayama cites Ono (1920), Nagabe (1971), Gonda (1925), and Mochizuki (1946).

Edit

139-140

Funayama mentions in passing that the 北斗七星延命經 T1307 is an apocryphon, which contains discussion of birth year in relation to the twelve "[earthly] branches" 十二支, and folk belief accompanied by Daoist zhoufu 呪符.

Edit

140

Funayama very briefly reports that Hirakawa concluded that the Jiemo 羯磨 T1433 ascribed to Tandi 曇諦 could not possibly be from the Wei, and is a digest of the Dharmagupta-vinaya 四分律 T1428, which was translated in the first half of the fifth century. He cites Hirakawa (1960).

Edit

166

T1566 was taken down by two different amanuenses 筆受: According to a second preface by Falin 法琳, preserved in Falin's Bian zheng lun, for Ch 1-16 (juan 1-9) it was Huiyi 慧賾, and for Ch. 17-27 (juan 10-15) was Falin. Funayama notes that differences can be detected between the two portions, for example in the formula used to introduce gāthās: 如偈曰/論者偈曰 vs. 故論偈言/如論偈說. This implies that amanuenses were possibly often those who bishou were probably often the people who decided translation terms, wording etc. [This has obvious implications for studies of ascription on stylistic grounds---whose style are we finding?----MR]

Edit

75, 92-94

The "biography of Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046, ascribed to Kumārajīva, is extant in two main versions, belonging to print and manuscript canons. The woodblock transmission lineages show signs of revision under the Tang or N. Song, as is revealed by comparison with the manuscript versions preserved at Nanatsu-dera. This manuscript version, however, is possibly also not a translation, but rather, something that Sengrui 僧叡 compiled on the basis of teachings from Kumārajīva. Funayama cites Ochiai (2000).

Edit

167

In 490 the Devadatta chapter was translated by Fayi 法意 from a text acquired by Faxian while he was in Khotan; CSZJJ 13b, GSZ 411c.

Edit

29

Funayama mentions the Baoche jing 寶車經 as part of a list of texts identified by Sengyou (CSZJJ) as "apocrypha" for which the author was known. In this case, the claim was that it was compiled by the monk Tanbian 曇辨, and revised by the monk Daoshi 道侍 under the N. Wei 北魏 (北國淮州比丘曇辯撰。青州比丘道侍改治, T2145:55.39a27-28. Manuscripts of the text have been recovered from Dunhuang. Funayama refers to Lin [Mei] (2005) and Cao (2011).

Edit

133

Funayama mentions this text an example of a category of "apocrypha" identified by Makita, namely texts "resembling simple superstition, for the purpose of curing illness, attracting good fortune, etc." 療病、迎福などのために単なる迷信に類するもの.

Edit

131