Kuo, Li-ying. “La Récitation des noms de Buddha en Chine et au Japon.” T’oung Pao 81 (1995): 230-268.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
Kuo discusses the Fo ming jing 佛名經 T440 in 12 fascicles, ascribed to Bodhiruci (of the N. Wei). Citing prior work by Shioiri, Shibata and Inokuchi, she argues that it was probably composed in China. The main reasons for this judgement are that some of the Buddha names included are clearly calques comprising elements from Buddha names already existing in Chinese, including alternate names for “the same” Buddha (e.g. Dīpaṃkara = 燃燈, 定光). According to Inokuchi, some of the Buddha names would also be impossible in Central Asian or Indian languages. Kuo also gives a summary of some of the content of the text (246). Cf. Shibata Tōru 柴田泰, “Bodairushi yaku Bustumyō-kyō no kōsei ni tsuite 菩提流支.” IBK 24, no. 1 (1975): 246-249. |
244-246 |
|
Kuo summarises accounts of a Fo ming jing 佛名經 in sixteen fascicles that existed under the Tang. It is first mentioned in KYL, where it is listed among texts of uncertain authenticity. Zhisheng says that it also went by the popular title Matou luocha fo ming jing 馬頭羅剎佛名經, which Kuo renders "(Sūtra) des noms de buddha du rakṣasa Hayagrīva". Zhisheng states that the text mixes the sacred word of the sage with words of profane origin, and contains an extract from an apocryphal scripture, the Matou luocha jing 馬頭羅剎經. It incorporates various texts in a confused order, including biographies in the list of sutras, repetitions of the same name, and various other "flagrant errors". According to the Zhenyuan lu 貞元錄 of 800, the text was excluded from various editions of the canon, but in 799, an expurgated version was made at the order of the emperor, and the resulting version of the text was admitted to the canon. This text was thought lost, and Inokuchi attempted to reconstruct it on the basis of Dunhuang documents. Subsequently, a manuscript version was discovered at Nanatsudera (Kuo cites Ochiai 1990, 1991 and Nagara 1993). The Buddha names contained in this version of the text are almost identical to those in T441, which are also those found in T440. Thus, the longer versions of the Fo ming jing are expanded not by the addition of more Buddha names, as one might expect, but by the addition of names of bodhisattvas, sutras, holy persons, etc. The sixteen-fascicle version includes thirteen confession texts followed by vows, which are identical to the first thirteen such texts in the thirty-fascicle version (T441). It appears that the Nanatsu-dera text appears not to include the Baoda sutra 寶達經, but close examination shows that it comprises numerous fragments thereof, incorporated into the body of the text. |
246-250 |
|
Sugi, who was the editor of the Korean version upon which T441 is based, explains that there existed a version of the Fo ming jing in eighteen fascicles which did not differ in content from T441, which has thirty fasicicles. The same confession texts were repeated twice in the 30-juan version and three times in the 18-juan version (sic). The 18-juan version did not contain the apocryphal Baoda sutra 寶達偽經. Sugi lists various alternate titles: 大乘蓮華馬頭羅剎經, 大乘蓮華寶達普薩問答報應經. The names of the Buddhas in this text are the same as those in the 12-juan (T440) and 16-juan version (the latter known from a manuscript recovered at Nanatsu-dera). The greater extent of the longer "Buddha name" sutras is thus achieved not by the addition of extra Buddha names, but by the inclusion of names of bodhisattvas, scriptures, and saintly persons. T441 includes 15 confession texts, of which each is repeated in a separate fascicle (15 x 2 = 30). At the end of the text, the Baoda jing 寶達經 is followed by two other texts: a reproduction of two-thirds of another scripture on the hells, 罪業報應教化地獄經, ascribed to An Shigao [various modern scholars regard this ascription as unreliable --- MR]; and another passage from a text in a similar style, describing the tortures of the inhabitants of hells, in which features Maudgalyāyana 目連. The title of this text is not given, but Kuo identifies it with a portion of the Saṃyuktāgama T99, and notes that according to CSZJJ, two other texts, virtually identical, also existed, which were extracted from SĀ. It is implicit from the context and content of this discussion, though Kuo does not overtly specify it for T441 itself, that T441 (like T440) was most likely composed in China. |
247-252 |
|
Kuo discusses a rite described in this text, which was practiced under Emperor Wu of the Chen. The text was originally lost, but was recovered at Dunhuang, and entered in the Taishō as 大通方廣懺悔滅罪莊嚴成佛經 T2871 (Kuo has T2807 in error in her fn. 26). After the publication of the Taishō, other Dunhuang manuscripts were also identified as part of the same text, including S. 4553, which is dated 603. |
238-239 |