Source: Young 2008

Young, Stuart H. "Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China." PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 2008.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T2058; 付法藏因緣傳	Young claims that the 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 represents a “radical shift” in Chinese understandings of Buddhist history and the function of Indian patriarchs. The text is the “earliest full blown Chinese Buddhist history of the Indian patriarchate” which recounts the transmission of the Dharma along a line of patriarchs extending from Śākyamuni. It also introduced the role of counsellor and subjugator of Indian kings to three of the patriarchs: Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva (this connection to pious kingship betraying a strong affinity with 阿育王傳 T2042). Young opines that while their changes of roles and subsequent extensions of their biographies cannot be attested in prior sources, we cannot prove that they originated entirely with this text. T2058 was first mentioned by Sengyou in 515, where it was attributed to *Kiṅkara 吉迦夜. However, Young notes [as Maspero had already pointed out before him] that the content of the text is not verified in other sources until the mid-seventh century. This, among other discrepancies, led Maspero to doubt that the extant text is the same as that listed by Sengyou, and to argue that the extant text is a Chinese composition dated “around the middle or end of the sixth century” (Maspero 1911, 149). Young critiques Maspero’s claim, but suggests that his work demonstrates that even the Buddhist cataloguers were confused by the conflicting evidence, and thus warns that we must be cautious regarding the provenance of the text. Young goes on to criticise prior attempts to associate the text with the 446 persecution of Buddhism. He cites Strickmann who wrote: “There is no need to search for contemporary incidents to explain the content of … Buddhist apocalyptic writings” (Strickmann 1990, 88). Furthermore, Young challenges the designation of T2059 as an “apocalyptic text.” He concludes that while the biographies of Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva contained in the text do not allow us to clearly date the text, “we can see that this portion of the text was not derived from the canonical biographies later ascribed to Kumārajīva, as scholars commonly assume.” Edit	109-116	Young claims that the 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 represents a “radical shift” in Chinese understandings of Buddhist history and the function of Indian patriarchs. The text is the “earliest full blown Chinese Buddhist history of the Indian patriarchate” which recounts the transmission of the Dharma along a line of patriarchs extending from Sakyamuni. It also introduced the role of counsellor and subjugator of Indian kings to three of the patriarchs: Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna and Aryadeva (this connection to pious kingship betraying a strong affinity with 阿育王傳 T2042). Young opines that while their changes of roles and subsequent extensions of their biographies cannot be attested in prior sources, we cannot prove that they originated entirely with this text. T2058 was first mentioned by Sengyou in 515, where it was attributed to *Kinkara 吉迦夜. However, Young notes [as Maspero had already pointed out before him] that the content of the text is not verified in other sources until the mid-seventh century. This, among other discrepancies, led Maspero to doubt that the extant text is the same as that listed by Sengyou, and to argue that the extant text is a Chinese composition dated “around the middle or end of the sixth century” (Maspero 1911, 149). Young critiques Maspero’s claim, but suggests that his work demonstrates that even the Buddhist cataloguers were confused by the conflicting evidence, and thus warns that we must be cautious regarding the provenance of the text. Young goes on to criticise prior attempts to associate the text with the 446 persecution of Buddhism. He cites Strickmann who wrote: “There is no need to search for contemporary incidents to explain the content of ... Buddhist apocalyptic writings” (Strickmann 1990, 88). Furthermore, Young challenges the designation of T2059 as an “apocalyptic text.” He concludes that while the biographies of Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna and Aryadeva contained in the text do not allow us to clearly date the text, “we can see that this portion of the text was not derived from the canonical biographies later ascribed to Kumarajiva, as scholars commonly assume.” T2058; 付法藏因緣傳

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T2058; 付法藏因緣傳

T2058 was first mentioned by Sengyou in 515, where it was attributed to *Kiṅkara 吉迦夜. However, Young notes [as Maspero had already pointed out before him] that the content of the text is not verified in other sources until the mid-seventh century. This, among other discrepancies, led Maspero to doubt that the extant text is the same as that listed by Sengyou, and to argue that the extant text is a Chinese composition dated “around the middle or end of the sixth century” (Maspero 1911, 149). Young critiques Maspero’s claim, but suggests that his work demonstrates that even the Buddhist cataloguers were confused by the conflicting evidence, and thus warns that we must be cautious regarding the provenance of the text.

Young goes on to criticise prior attempts to associate the text with the 446 persecution of Buddhism. He cites Strickmann who wrote: “There is no need to search for contemporary incidents to explain the content of … Buddhist apocalyptic writings” (Strickmann 1990, 88). Furthermore, Young challenges the designation of T2059 as an “apocalyptic text.” He concludes that while the biographies of Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva contained in the text do not allow us to clearly date the text, “we can see that this portion of the text was not derived from the canonical biographies later ascribed to Kumārajīva, as scholars commonly assume.”

Edit

109-116

Young claims that the 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 represents a “radical shift” in Chinese understandings of Buddhist history and the function of Indian patriarchs. The text is the “earliest full blown Chinese Buddhist history of the Indian patriarchate” which recounts the transmission of the Dharma along a line of patriarchs extending from Sakyamuni. It also introduced the role of counsellor and subjugator of Indian kings to three of the patriarchs: Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna and Aryadeva (this connection to pious kingship betraying a strong affinity with 阿育王傳 T2042). Young opines that while their changes of roles and subsequent extensions of their biographies cannot be attested in prior sources, we cannot prove that they originated entirely with this text. T2058 was first mentioned by Sengyou in 515, where it was attributed to *Kinkara 吉迦夜. However, Young notes [as Maspero had already pointed out before him] that the content of the text is not verified in other sources until the mid-seventh century. This, among other discrepancies, led Maspero to doubt that the extant text is the same as that listed by Sengyou, and to argue that the extant text is a Chinese composition dated “around the middle or end of the sixth century” (Maspero 1911, 149). Young critiques Maspero’s claim, but suggests that his work demonstrates that even the Buddhist cataloguers were confused by the conflicting evidence, and thus warns that we must be cautious regarding the provenance of the text. Young goes on to criticise prior attempts to associate the text with the 446 persecution of Buddhism. He cites Strickmann who wrote: “There is no need to search for contemporary incidents to explain the content of ... Buddhist apocalyptic writings” (Strickmann 1990, 88). Furthermore, Young challenges the designation of T2059 as an “apocalyptic text.” He concludes that while the biographies of Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna and Aryadeva contained in the text do not allow us to clearly date the text, “we can see that this portion of the text was not derived from the canonical biographies later ascribed to Kumarajiva, as scholars commonly assume.” T2058; 付法藏因緣傳