Guang Xing. “A Study of the Apocryphal Sūtra: Fumu Enzhong Jing.” International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture 11 (2008): 105-146.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
Guang argues that 父母恩難報經 T684 is "authentic" (106). He refers to CSZJJ, which listed it in the 新集續撰失譯雜經, and says that it is an extract from the Madhyamāgama (父母恩難報經一卷(抄中阿含, T2145:55.29c3). Zhisheng (KYL) disputed the claim that it was from the Madhyamāgama, since no parallel could be found in that text (父母恩難報經一卷(亦云勤[var. 難]報見長房錄房云出中阿含檢無), T2154:55.480a18). Elsewhere, Zhisheng mentions the same title, ascribed to An Shigao (父母恩難報經一卷(亦云懃報)後漢安息三藏安世高譯(拾遺編入), 618a1-2), and again says that it was not possible to find a counterpart in the Madhyamāgama. Guang suspects that this is because the versions of the Madhyamāgama consulted by Sengyou and Zhisheng differed. Guang finds equivalents in the Pali Kataññu-sutta (AN) and the Chinese Ekottarikāgama. One item of doctrine in T684 that is not found in those parallels is paralleled in Xuanzang's 本事經 T765. Guang notes that the attribution to An Shigao is first found in LDSBJ. He examines the translation terminology of the text, and states that much of it is "archaic". He pays particular attention to four of the ten epithets of the Tathāgata (116-117). These four terms, he says, fell into disuse when they were replaced by Kumārajīva coinages, but continued in use in "fringe areas such as Liangzhou". Guang concludes that it is likely that T684 was translated before Kumārajīva, "but the translator is difficult to establish". |
Guang argues that 父母恩難報經 T684 is "authentic" (106). He refers to CSZJJ, which listed it in the 新集續撰失譯雜經, and says that it is an extract from the Madhyamagama (父母恩難報經一卷(抄中阿含, T2145:55.29c3). Zhisheng (KYL) disputed the claim that it was from the Madhyamagama, since no parallel could be found in that text (父母恩難報經一卷(亦云勤[var. 難]報見長房錄房云出中阿含檢無), T2154:55.480a18). Elsewhere, Zhisheng mentions the same title, ascribed to An Shigao (父母恩難報經一卷(亦云懃報)後漢安息三藏安世高譯(拾遺編入), 618a1-2), and again says that it was not possible to find a counterpart in the Madhyamagama. Guang suspects that this is because the versions of the Madhyamagama consulted by Sengyou and Zhisheng differed. Guang finds equivalents in the Pali Katannu-sutta (AN) and the Chinese Ekottarikagama. One item of doctrine in T684 that is not found in those parallels is paralleled in Xuanzang's 本事經 T765. Guang notes that the attribution to An Shigao is first found in LDSBJ. He examines the translation terminology of the text, and states that much of it is "archaic". He pays particular attention to four of the ten epithets of the Tathagata (116-117). These four terms, he says, fell into disuse when they were replaced by Kumarajiva coinages, but continued in use in "fringe areas such as Liangzhou". Guang concludes that it is likely that T684 was translated before Kumarajiva, "but the translator is difficult to establish". T0684; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說父母恩難報經 | ||
|
Guang regards the 父母恩重經 T2887 as apocryphal (though he regards the 父母恩難報經 T684 as genuine). He notes that the first mention of the text is found in Mingquan's DZKZM (佛說父母恩重經一卷, T2153:55.474a15) in his list of apocrypha 偽經目錄. Zhisheng (KYL) concurred, and said that the text should be considered apocryphal because it mentions Chinese paragons of filial piety (父母恩重經一卷(經引丁蘭董黯郭巨等故知人造三紙), T2154:55.673a7). According to Guang, this judgement has been followed by almost all traditional and modern scholars. The version of the text found in the Taishō was edited upon the basis of British Library S.2048 and the Fusetsu Nakamura Collection manuscript S.190. Zongmi 宗密 (780-841) cites the text at length, and Guang compares his quotations with the extant text to show that they correspond quite closely; thus, Guang argues, the text must date before Zongmi. Guang reprises studies by Ogawa, who identified sources of T2887 in the 大乘本生心地觀經 T159, the 淨土五會念佛略法事儀讚 T1983, and even the Shi jing 詩經. Guang, however, argues that T2887 is "not entirely a Chinese creation, but a revised and modified version of the authentic [T684] and later enlarged with many additions". He speculates about the motives for which the scripture might have been created, and identifies other sources in the 盂蘭盆經 T685, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 大般涅槃經 T374, and the *Antarābhava-sūtra 中陰經 T385. On this basis, he disputes Ogawa's claim that the text owes anything to the Shi jing. [Guang's foil here is Ogawa (1984).] |
Guang regards the 父母恩重經 T2887 as apocryphal (though he regards the 父母恩難報經 T684 as genuine). He notes that the first mention of the text is found in Mingquan's DZKZM (佛說父母恩重經一卷, T2153:55.474a15) in his list of apocrypha 偽經目錄. Zhisheng (KYL) concurred, and said that the text should be considered apocryphal because it mentions Chinese paragons of filial piety (父母恩重經一卷(經引丁蘭董黯郭巨等故知人造三紙), T2154:55.673a7). According to Guang, this judgement has been followed by almost all traditional and modern scholars. The version of the text found in the Taisho was edited upon the basis of British Library S.2048 and the Fusetsu Nakamura Collection manuscript S.190. Zongmi 宗密 (780-841) cites the text at length, and Guang compares his quotations with the extant text to show that they correspond quite closely; thus, Guang argues, the text must date before Zongmi. Guang reprises studies by Ogawa, who identified sources of T2887 in the 大乘本生心地觀經 T159, the 淨土五會念佛略法事儀讚 T1983, and even the Shi jing 詩經. Guang, however, argues that T2887 is "not entirely a Chinese creation, but a revised and modified version of the authentic [T684] and later enlarged with many additions". He speculates about the motives for which the scripture might have been created, and identifies other sources in the 盂蘭盆經 T685, the Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra 大般涅槃經 T374, and the *Antarabhava-sutra 中陰經 T385. On this basis, he disputes Ogawa's claim that the text owes anything to the Shi jing. [Guang's foil here is Ogawa (1984).] T2887; Fumu en zhong jing 父母恩重經 |