Source: Sørensen 1995

Sørensen, Henrik H. “Divine Scrutiny of Human Morals in an Early Chinese Buddhist Sūtra: A Study of the Si Tianwang jing (T590).” Studies in Central and East Asian Religions 8 (1995): 44-83.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Sørensen argues that the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 T590, ascribed in the Taishō to Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲, is in fact an "apocryphon" or "forgery" (77) composed in China, and that the identity of its authors is uncertain. Sørensen's grounds are as follows. No Indic original exists. A mantra at the end "appears to have been added...later" (48). CSZJJ reports a confusing situation, in which various version of the text circulated, varying in length. Sengyou included the long version in the class of "dubious" scriptures (48-49).

Sørensen also reports that he found numerous Āgama passages corresponding in content and wording to T590, particularly the 世記經 in the Dīrghāgama T1 (i.e. DĀ 30); 樓炭經 T23; 起世經 T24; 起世因本經 T25; and 齋經 T87 (61-65). Some of these correspondences even extend to details of wording. As Sørensen points out, chronology makes it impossible that some of these texts are actual sources of T590 [provided that received attributions (and therefore dates) of these questions are correct --- MR]; but he holds that it is likely that T590 was at least drawing upon some (unspecified) source similar in content to them.

"Certain elements" in content, further, "are very un-Indian, not to say un-Buddhist....the scripture contains elements of early Buddhism and Daoism, as well as Confucianism" (57). Sørensen characterises some of these elements as connected to the "teachings of humans and gods" 人天教, but at the same time, he is careful to distance himself from interpretations of rentianjiao by Whalen Lai, which he regards as incorrect (58). In speaking of what is "un-Buddhist", Sørensen seems to have in mind particularly doctrines of post-mortem punishment which replace a quasi-"naturalistic" mechanism of karma with a system "administered by several external agents, including the heavenly messenger, the divine prince, the Four Heavenly Kings, the Kitchen God, and Indra," which "directly contravenes the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of cause and effect, and as such removes--or at least neutralizes--the inner logic of [T590] as an orthodox sūtra" (66-67). He also points to the Kitchen God, a Chinese deity, and concern with corrupt officials, as elements likely reflecting Chinese rather than Indic provenance (68).

In addition, Sørensen detects problems with the overall internal coherence of the text (61 ff.).

Sørensen suggests that the text dates before 600, and probably to the first half of the fifth century (77-78). One of his grounds for the dating is that it still stipulates actual fasting on the six "fast days", whereas "at some point during the Nanbei Chao actual fasting seems to have been given up as a common practice among the growing Buddhist laity, and was supplanted by the holding of vegetarian banquets" (60).

Sørensen also gives a full translation of the text, 50-53.

Edit

 Sørensen argues that the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 T590, ascribed in the Taisho to Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲, is in fact an "apocryphon" or "forgery" (77) composed in China, and that the identity of its authors is uncertain. Sørensen's grounds are as follows. No Indic original exists. A mantra at the end "appears to have been added...later" (48). CSZJJ reports a confusing situation, in which various version of the text circulated, varying in length. Sengyou included the long version in the class of "dubious" scriptures (48-49). Sørensen also reports that he found numerous Agama passages corresponding in content and wording to T590, particularly the 世記經 in the Dirghagama T1 (i.e. DA 30); 樓炭經 T23; 起世經 T24; 起世因本經 T25; and 齋經 T87 (61-65). Some of these correspondences even extend to details of wording. As Sørensen points out, chronology makes it impossible that some of these texts are actual sources of T590 [provided that received attributions (and therefore dates) of these questions are correct --- MR]; but he holds that it is likely that T590 was at least drawing upon some (unspecified) source similar in content to them. "Certain elements" in content, further, "are very un-Indian, not to say un-Buddhist....the scripture contains elements of early Buddhism and Daoism, as well as Confucianism" (57). Sørensen characterises some of these elements as connected to the "teachings of humans and gods" 人天教, but at the same time, he is careful to distance himself from interpretations of rentianjiao by Whalen Lai, which he regards as incorrect (58). In speaking of what is "un-Buddhist", Sørensen seems to have in mind particularly doctrines of post-mortem punishment which replace a quasi-"naturalistic" mechanism of karma with a system "administered by several external agents, including the heavenly messenger, the divine prince, the Four Heavenly Kings, the Kitchen God, and Indra," which "directly contravenes the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of cause and effect, and as such removes--or at least neutralizes--the inner logic of [T590] as an orthodox sutra" (66-67). He also points to the Kitchen God, a Chinese deity, and concern with corrupt officials, as elements likely reflecting Chinese rather than Indic provenance (68). In addition, Sørensen detects problems with the overall internal coherence of the text (61 ff.). Sørensen suggests that the text dates before 600, and probably to the first half of the fifth century (77-78). One of his grounds for the dating is that it still stipulates actual fasting on the six "fast days", whereas "at some point during the Nanbei Chao actual fasting seems to have been given up as a common practice among the growing Buddhist laity, and was supplanted by the holding of vegetarian banquets" (60). Sørensen also gives a full translation of the text, 50-53. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0590; 佛說四天王經