Source: Saitō 2006

Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信, “Kōshutsu Amida-butsu ge to sono yōto 『後出阿弥陀仏偈』とその用途." Bukkyō daigaku sōgō kenkyūjo kiyō bessatsu "Jōdokyō tenseki no kenkyū" 仏教大学総合研究所紀要別冊「浄土教典籍の研究」 1 (2006): 11-29.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Saitō provides a critical edition of the 後出阿彌陀佛偈 T373 (with rime groups noted at the end of even lines), consider questions of authorship and date, and studies the use and influence of the text. He lists all available versions of the text, including various editions of the canon (K, S, Y, M), a Dunhuang manuscript S. 2116, manuscripts at Ishiyama-dera, Shōsōin and Nanatsu-dera, and a full citation in the work of Jiacai 迦才 (d.u., fl. ca. 627-649). He lists commentaries on the text, mostly by very late Shinshū figures. He summarises briefly a handful of earlier secondary studies. Mochizuki Shinkō held that it is unclear whether T373 is a genuine translation or a Chinese composition, and whether it is any earlier than the Liu Song. Kajio Benkyō 梶尾弁匡 held that the wording of T373 is similar to the translation terminology of the “Lokakṣema” ( = Zhi Qian) version of the *Sukhāvatīvyūha T361.Fujita Kōtatsu held that T373 was old, but perhaps not a translation. Saitō also summarises the content of the catalogues. These do not differ greatly from one another. The text first appears in CSZJJ, i.e. it appears not to be known by Dao’an. Saitō points out in this connection that the dating to the E. Han first appears in LDSBJ, whence it was taken up by Zhisheng in KYL, and then retained through the line to the Taishō (where it still appears in the byline).

Saitō argues that the extant texts stand in three main lines of transmission. As is typical of Saitō’s work, much of his analysis hinges upon the rhyme scheme. The text contains 56 lines of 5 characters each, which makes 28 padas in second position, yielding 14 possible rhyme pairs. The rhyme, he says, is imperfect against classical canons, but distinct and deliberate nonetheless. There is an alternation of –n and –ng nasal endings. Treatment of such pairings as legitimate rhyme is confined in time to the period from the Han through to the Jin; it disappears in the N. Wei and the Liu Song (it is unattested in the Three Kingdoms period as well, but Saitō argues that this is because we simply happen to have no examples, not because the rhyme was regarded as illegitimate at that time). This allows us to conjecture that the text must date between the Han and the Jin. Other texts sporting a similar rhyme pattern are the 妙好寶車經 T2869 (a Chinese composition which Saitō dates to the N. Wei, citing one of his own prior studies), and the version of the Xulai jing 須賴經 ascribed to Bo Yan 白延 T328 [ascribed by Hayashiya to Dharmarakṣa – MR].

The text follows the *Sukhāvatīvyūha in Zhi Qian’s version (無量清淨平等覺經 T361, traditionally ascribed to *Lokakṣema) in content, and appears to largely be based upon it; indeed, he suggests that in places, T373 cannot be understood unless read alongside T361. CSZJJ reports that Zhi Qian was in the habit of writing hymns in the Indic style 梵唄 (bhāṣā) epitomising the texts that he translated, and that indeed, Sengyou lists the *Sukhāvatīvyūha among the texts upon which he is supposed to have composed such a work. This might tempt us to speculate that we have in T373 exactly Zhi Qian’s hymn.

However, T373 contains a line stating that sentient beings in the Pure Land are reborn from the womb, 有疑在胎中, T373 (XII) 364b29; whereas the two earliest Chinese versions of *Sukhāvatīvyūha, T362 and T361, say that they are born by spontaneous metamorphosis 化生 (*upapāduka). Saitō argues that this precludes the possibility that T373 is the work of Zhi Qian himself, and means the text must at least be later than the 無量壽經 T360, traditionally ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧, but thought by most modern scholars to be either by Dharmarakṣa or Baoyun.

In sum, Saitō regards T373 as a Chinese composition, dating sometime after the translation of T360, and before the fall of the Jin. In a concluding section, Saitō argues that the text was used as a liturgy (Jiacai calls it a 禮文), and that this was the main use of the 梵唄 genre. He lists a number of other exemplars of the genre in Zhi Qian and his contemporaries, and shows that such texts were used in Tang rituals. In an appendix to his paper, Saitō also provides a glossary/discussion of difficult words in the text.

Edit

 Saito provides a critical edition of the 後出阿彌陀佛偈 T373 (with rime groups noted at the end of even lines), consider questions of authorship and date, and studies the use and influence of the text. He lists all available versions of the text, including various editions of the canon (K, S, Y, M), a Dunhuang manuscript S. 2116, manuscripts at Ishiyama-dera, Shosoin and Nanatsu-dera, and a full citation in the work of Jiacai 迦才 (d.u., fl. ca. 627-649). He lists commentaries on the text, mostly by very late Shinshu figures. He summarises briefly a handful of earlier secondary studies. Mochizuki Shinko held that it is unclear whether T373 is a genuine translation or a Chinese composition, and whether it is any earlier than the Liu Song. Kajio Benkyo 梶尾弁匡 held that the wording of T373 is similar to the translation terminology of the “Lokaksema” ( = Zhi Qian) version of the *Sukhavativyuha T361.Fujita Kotatsu held that T373 was old, but perhaps not a translation. Saito also summarises the content of the catalogues. These do not differ greatly from one another. The text first appears in CSZJJ, i.e. it appears not to be known by Dao’an. Saito points out in this connection that the dating to the E. Han first appears in LDSBJ, whence it was taken up by Zhisheng in KYL, and then retained through the line to the Taisho (where it still appears in the byline). Saito argues that the extant texts stand in three main lines of transmission. As is typical of Saito’s work, much of his analysis hinges upon the rhyme scheme. The text contains 56 lines of 5 characters each, which makes 28 padas in second position, yielding 14 possible rhyme pairs. The rhyme, he says, is imperfect against classical canons, but distinct and deliberate nonetheless. There is an alternation of –n and –ng nasal endings. Treatment of such pairings as legitimate rhyme is confined in time to the period from the Han through to the Jin; it disappears in the N. Wei and the Liu Song (it is unattested in the Three Kingdoms period as well, but Saito argues that this is because we simply happen to have no examples, not because the rhyme was regarded as illegitimate at that time). This allows us to conjecture that the text must date between the Han and the Jin. Other texts sporting a similar rhyme pattern are the 妙好寶車經 T2869 (a Chinese composition which Saito dates to the N. Wei, citing one of his own prior studies), and the version of the Xulai jing 須賴經 ascribed to Bo Yan 白延 T328 [ascribed by Hayashiya to Dharmaraksa – MR]. The text follows the *Sukhavativyuha in Zhi Qian’s version (無量清淨平等覺經 T361, traditionally ascribed to *Lokaksema) in content, and appears to largely be based upon it; indeed, he suggests that in places, T373 cannot be understood unless read alongside T361. CSZJJ reports that Zhi Qian was in the habit of writing hymns in the Indic style 梵唄 (bhasa) epitomising the texts that he translated, and that indeed, Sengyou lists the *Sukhavativyuha among the texts upon which he is supposed to have composed such a work. This might tempt us to speculate that we have in T373 exactly Zhi Qian’s hymn. However, T373 contains a line stating that sentient beings in the Pure Land are reborn from the womb, 有疑在胎中, T373 (XII) 364b29; whereas the two earliest Chinese versions of *Sukhavativyuha, T362 and T361, say that they are born by spontaneous metamorphosis 化生 (*upapaduka). Saito argues that this precludes the possibility that T373 is the work of Zhi Qian himself, and means the text must at least be later than the 無量壽經 T360, traditionally ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧, but thought by most modern scholars to be either by Dharmaraksa or Baoyun. In sum, Saito regards T373 as a Chinese composition, dating sometime after the translation of T360, and before the fall of the Jin. In a concluding section, Saito argues that the text was used as a liturgy (Jiacai calls it a 禮文), and that this was the main use of the 梵唄 genre. He lists a number of other exemplars of the genre in Zhi Qian and his contemporaries, and shows that such texts were used in Tang rituals. In an appendix to his paper, Saito also provides a glossary/discussion of difficult words in the text. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0373; 後出阿彌陀佛偈