Teiser, Stephen F. The Scripture of the Ten Kings and the Making of Purgatory in Medieval Chinese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Teiser briefly discusses Zhisheng's reasons for excising the Jing du sanmei jing from the canon. |
82-83 |
Teiser briefly discusses Zhisheng's reasons for excising the Jing du sanmei jing from the canon. Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 |
|
Teiser discusses a version of the "Buddha's Mother Sūtra" commissioned by Zhai Fengda 翟奉達, which he says is considerably longer than T2919 or S 2084, etc., and also differs in wording. [Note: Content of this text derives from T383. Teiser, however, says that its content "differs from other legends concerning Lady Māyā known in medieval China", despite the fact that he mentions T383 in his n. 34. --- MR] |
113-114 |
Teiser discusses a version of the "Buddha's Mother Sutra" commissioned by Zhai Fengda 翟奉達, which he says is considerably longer than T2919 or S 2084, etc., and also differs in wording. [Note: Content of this text derives from T383. Teiser, however, says that its content "differs from other legends concerning Lady Maya known in medieval China", despite the fact that he mentions T383 in his n. 34. --- MR] S 2084; Fo mu jing 佛母經, Dabanniepan Moye furen pin jing 大般涅槃摩耶夫人品經 |
This short scripture (in seventeen lines) derives largely from T1060 and T1064. |
110-111 and n. 25 |
This short scripture (in seventeen lines) derives largely from T1060 and T1064. Shuiyueguang Guanyin pusa jing 水月光觀音菩薩經 | |
|
Teiser discusses versions of Kumārajīva’s Vajracchedikā T235 which “contain a sixty-character interpolation the authenticity of which has been disputed...since medieval times”. This interpolation is popularly referred to as 冥司偈, “gāthās from the dark offices”. It is featured in S 5450 and S 5544 (manuscripts which also contain the "Sutra on the Ten Kings"), and also in a number of other manuscript booklets. Teiser remarks that this interpolation was probably already present in a printed version of the text from Sichuan, which is believed to be the basis for these manuscript copies. This rescension is referred to as the “true printed copy of the Guo family of Xichuan" 西川過家真印本. The same versions of the text are divided into 32 sections (other manuscripts are divided sometimes into 32, sometimes into 12 sections), and end with three dhāraṇī that are also not in transmitted canonical versions of the text. Makita suggested, after Song historiographers, that the 冥司偈 were dropped inadvertently from the earliest copies of Kumārajīva’s translation and reinserted under the Tang, i.e. that they are authentic. Teiser is here citing Makita’s “Kan’yaku Butten denshōjō no ichi mondai 漢訳仏典伝承上の一問題” 128 n. 10. |
95-98 |
Teiser discusses versions of Kumarajiva’s Vajracchedika T235 which “contain a sixty-character interpolation the authenticity of which has been disputed...since medieval times”. This interpolation is popularly referred to as 冥司偈, “gathas from the dark offices”. It is featured in S 5450 and S 5544 (manuscripts which also contain the "Sutra on the Ten Kings"), and also in a number of other manuscript booklets. Teiser remarks that this interpolation was probably already present in a printed version of the text from Sichuan, which is believed to be the basis for these manuscript copies. This rescension is referred to as the “true printed copy of the Guo family of Xichuan" 西川過家真印本. The same versions of the text are divided into 32 sections (other manuscripts are divided sometimes into 32, sometimes into 12 sections), and end with three dharani that are also not in transmitted canonical versions of the text. Makita suggested, after Song historiographers, that the 冥司偈 were dropped inadvertently from the earliest copies of Kumarajiva’s translation and reinserted under the Tang, i.e. that they are authentic. Teiser is here citing Makita’s “Kan’yaku Butten denshojo no ichi mondai 漢訳仏典伝承上の一問題” 128 n. 10. T0235; 金剛般若波羅蜜經 |
|
Teiser suggests that the "apocryphal manufacture" of this "biography" of Dizang 地藏/Kṣitigarbha, namely T412, was "roughly contemporaneous with" "his appearance in the system of the ten kings" (i.e. around the ninth century). It is a central task of Teiser's book to trace the emergence of this system of the ten kings, and related literature, liturgy, iconography, material culture, and pre- and post-mortem practices. |
6 |
Teiser suggests that the "apocryphal manufacture" of this "biography" of Dizang 地藏/Ksitigarbha, namely T412, was "roughly contemporaneous with" "his appearance in the system of the ten kings" (i.e. around the ninth century). It is a central task of Teiser's book to trace the emergence of this system of the ten kings, and related literature, liturgy, iconography, material culture, and pre- and post-mortem practices. T0412; 地藏菩薩本願經 |
|
The DZKZM declared T2881 "spurious and absurd" and excluded it from the canon. It was never included in the canon thereafter. |
114-116 |
The DZKZM declared T2881 "spurious and absurd" and excluded it from the canon. It was never included in the canon thereafter. T2881; 善惡因果經 |
|
Teiser says that the text printed in the Taisho as T2882 was "probably created in China sometime during the sixth century". It first appears in Fajing, where it is classed as apocryphal. |
111 |
Teiser says that the text printed in the Taisho as T2882 was "probably created in China sometime during the sixth century". It first appears in Fajing, where it is classed as apocryphal. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T2882; Zhoumei jing 呪魅經; Zhoumei jing 呪媚經 |
|
The Dizang pusa faxin yinyuan shi wang jing/Jizō bosatsu hosshin innen jū ō kyō X20 is modeled in part on the Chinese "Scripture on the Ten Kings". Teiser argues that X20 was "probably put together by anonymous Japanese authors sometime between 1000 and 1300". Teiser gives a list of prior studies of the text p. 58 n. 28. The text is ascribed to Zangchuan 藏川, to whom is also ascribed the Chinese source text. Contents of the Japanese text are similar to the Chinese, with various additions. Teiser suggests that the language and literary form "shows that Chinese components were revised for a Japanese-speaking audience". Three extra hymns are added in wasan 和賛 style. Such measures "add considerably to the story told in the Chinese text". The content "attempts a fascinating synthesis of Chinese and Japanese materials", "weav[ing] into the text several features of the underworld unique to medieval Japan". As further evidence of Japanese composition, scholars have also pointed to the use of Japanese vernacular words like yomi no kuni (for the city of Yama) and "details of the subterranean administration that do not appear in Chinese accounts". |
58-61 |
The Dizang pusa faxin yinyuan shi wang jing/Jizo bosatsu hosshin innen ju o kyo X20 is modeled in part on the Chinese "Scripture on the Ten Kings". Teiser argues that X20 was "probably put together by anonymous Japanese authors sometime between 1000 and 1300". Teiser gives a list of prior studies of the text p. 58 n. 28. The text is ascribed to Zangchuan 藏川, to whom is also ascribed the Chinese source text. Contents of the Japanese text are similar to the Chinese, with various additions. Teiser suggests that the language and literary form "shows that Chinese components were revised for a Japanese-speaking audience". Three extra hymns are added in wasan 和賛 style. Such measures "add considerably to the story told in the Chinese text". The content "attempts a fascinating synthesis of Chinese and Japanese materials", "weav[ing] into the text several features of the underworld unique to medieval Japan". As further evidence of Japanese composition, scholars have also pointed to the use of Japanese vernacular words like yomi no kuni (for the city of Yama) and "details of the subterranean administration that do not appear in Chinese accounts". Anonymous (Japan) X0020; 佛說地藏菩薩發心因緣十王經 |
|
Teiser argues that the Yu xiu shi wang sheng qi jing 預修十王生七經 X21 (represented by a range of Dunhuang manuscripts listed in Teiser's Appendix 10) is a Chinese composition which sits “at the nexus between Buddhism as an organized tradition and the longstanding religious practices of China.” The text was never canonised. It makes only a “weak claim” to have an Indian source; is populated by figures with “unambiguous Chinese origins”; and its message is primarily concerned with the fate of the ancestors (which Teiser sees as “the mainstay of Chinese religion”). Despite its obvious Chinese origins, the text was copied out many times and propagated by members of the Saṃgha. Teiser adds that “roughly the same text” was transmitted in a variety of forms. Three recensions survive among the Dunhuang manuscripts: long, medium and short. Teiser edits [he says critically, but his detailed description of his procedure makes it sound more like a diplomatic edition --- MR] and translates the long recension in full (196-219), using P. 2003 as his base text. This "long recension" includes illustrations, an announcement that the text is about to begin with directions to chant the name of Amitābha Buddha, the name and residence of the author, formal title of the text, thirty-four hymns, a traditional narrative opening (i.e. “Thus I have heard..”), and short unrhymed qietuo 伽陀 modelled on Sanskrit gāthās, and ends with an abbreviated title. The short version includes only “titles, narratives and chants.” The middle-length version is much the same as the short, yet its narrative is slightly longer. The text names its own author as Zangchuan 藏川 who supposedly lived at Dashengci si 大聖慈寺 in Chengdu (see esp. 69-71 on this figure). Teiser claims that some evidence suggests that he wrote the hymns, but not the narrative portion of the text. No sources, marginal or standard, have anything more to say about Zangchuan. Teiser suggests (71) that this may be circumstantial grounds to suspect that the ascription is genuine, since it is difficult to think of ulterior motives for ascribing the text to such an obscure figure. The date for the text’s composition is unknown, but the earliest surviving manuscript which can be dated was copied in 908, presumably from a master version kept in Dunhuang. Tieser argues that the text had not been written by 720 [sic, p. 9, for 730 --- MR], because Zhisheng did not include the text in his KYL, even though he did create a list of texts which had been barred from the canon. Thus Teiser places its composition at some point between 720 [read: 730] and 908. He also writes that it was "probably written...in the ninth century, based on notions that crystallized sometime in the seventh" (1). The text opens with a claim by Śākyamuni that King Yama will in the future become a Buddha named Puxian (Samantabhadra). In what follows, the Buddha explains how even someone like King Yama could atone for their actions. He then reveals that Yama and his assistants are actually “agents of compassion”. The sub-plot of the text, mostly presented in pictures, tells of the soul’s progress through purgatory. Teiser suggests that closer analysis of the linguistic and generic peculiarities of X21 will help us to understand its status as an indigenous Chinese scripture. Although it was most likely written in Chinese, its language mimics that used in translations of Indic texts. He writes that the text employs “liturgical language” and heavy transliteration, and encourages ritual and prophecy and hymns. Furthermore, by its use of "Fo shuo" 佛說 and traditional opening of “thus I have heard” the text reinforces its claim to represent an oral transmission validated by tradition. |
1-15, 80, 165-170 |
Teiser argues that the Yu xiu shi wang sheng qi jing 預修十王生七經 X21 (represented by a range of Dunhuang manuscripts listed in Teiser's Appendix 10) is a Chinese composition which sits “at the nexus between Buddhism as an organized tradition and the longstanding religious practices of China.” The text was never canonised. It makes only a “weak claim” to have an Indian source; is populated by figures with “unambiguous Chinese origins”; and its message is primarily concerned with the fate of the ancestors (which Teiser sees as “the mainstay of Chinese religion”). Despite its obvious Chinese origins, the text was copied out many times and propagated by members of the Samgha. Teiser adds that “roughly the same text” was transmitted in a variety of forms. Three recensions survive among the Dunhuang manuscripts: long, medium and short. Teiser edits [he says critically, but his detailed description of his procedure makes it sound more like a diplomatic edition --- MR] and translates the long recension in full (196-219), using P. 2003 as his base text. This "long recension" includes illustrations, an announcement that the text is about to begin with directions to chant the name of Amitabha Buddha, the name and residence of the author, formal title of the text, thirty-four hymns, a traditional narrative opening (i.e. “Thus I have heard..”), and short unrhymed qietuo 伽陀 modelled on Sanskrit gathas, and ends with an abbreviated title. The short version includes only “titles, narratives and chants.” The middle-length version is much the same as the short, yet its narrative is slightly longer. The text names its own author as Zangchuan 藏川 who supposedly lived at Dashengci si 大聖慈寺 in Chengdu (see esp. 69-71 on this figure). Teiser claims that some evidence suggests that he wrote the hymns, but not the narrative portion of the text. No sources, marginal or standard, have anything more to say about Zangchuan. Teiser suggests (71) that this may be circumstantial grounds to suspect that the ascription is genuine, since it is difficult to think of ulterior motives for ascribing the text to such an obscure figure. The date for the text’s composition is unknown, but the earliest surviving manuscript which can be dated was copied in 908, presumably from a master version kept in Dunhuang. Tieser argues that the text had not been written by 720 [sic, p. 9, for 730 --- MR], because Zhisheng did not include the text in his KYL, even though he did create a list of texts which had been barred from the canon. Thus Teiser places its composition at some point between 720 [read: 730] and 908. He also writes that it was "probably written...in the ninth century, based on notions that crystallized sometime in the seventh" (1). The text opens with a claim by Sakyamuni that King Yama will in the future become a Buddha named Puxian (Samantabhadra). In what follows, the Buddha explains how even someone like King Yama could atone for their actions. He then reveals that Yama and his assistants are actually “agents of compassion”. The sub-plot of the text, mostly presented in pictures, tells of the soul’s progress through purgatory. Teiser suggests that closer analysis of the linguistic and generic peculiarities of X21 will help us to understand its status as an indigenous Chinese scripture. Although it was most likely written in Chinese, its language mimics that used in translations of Indic texts. He writes that the text employs “liturgical language” and heavy transliteration, and encourages ritual and prophecy and hymns. Furthermore, by its use of "Fo shuo" 佛說 and traditional opening of “thus I have heard” the text reinforces its claim to represent an oral transmission validated by tradition. Zangchuan 藏川 X0021; 十王經; 閻羅王預修生七往生淨土經; 閻羅王授記四眾逆修生七往生淨土經; 佛說預修十王生七經 |
|
Teiser mentions that the Shimen zhengtong X1513 contains older material from such works as the Shimen zhongtong by Wu Keji 吳克己 (1142-1214). Teiser cites relevant studies n. 2. |
63-64 and n. 2 |
Teiser mentions that the Shimen zhengtong X1513 contains older material from such works as the Shimen zhongtong by Wu Keji 吳克己 (1142-1214). Teiser cites relevant studies n. 2. X1513; 釋門正統 |