Source: Yamabe 1999

Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. “The Sutra on the Ocean-like Samadhi of the Visualization of the Buddha: The Interfusion of the Chinese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected in a Fifth Century Apocryphal Sutra.” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1999.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

The “Sutra on the Ocean-Like Samādhi of the Visualization of the Buddha” 觀佛三昧海經 T643 is one of a group of "contemplation" sūtras 觀經, appearing around the same time in China, which share certain conditions: apparent debts to earlier texts in the Chinese tradition; the absence of parallel texts in other Buddhist languages, etc. Yamabe also shows that the text is related to another class of problematic sūtras from nearly the same period, the 禪經 or "meditation sūtras" ("meditation manuals", Yamabe, 59–114). A Sogdian version is known, but is probably a translation from T643, and so does not constitute an independent witness (30). A Dunhuang text was once reported by Jiang Liangfu to constitute a variant translation, but Yamabe says it "is probably a chanting manual excerpted from [T643] and should not be considered as a separate translation" (30). The ascription to Buddhabhadra is supported by CSZJJ and GSZ, but Yamabe notes that neither gives "a specific date, place or occasion" for the translation of the text (31). Such details are added by Fajing.

Yamabe states that "there are serious reasons to doubt Buddhabhadra's involvement [with T643]" (32). "The attribution of [T643] to Buddhabhadra seems to be almost impossible in spite of the testimonies of [CSZJJ] and GSZ" (54). At the end of a lengthy and detailed discussion of the portion of the text that treats the "Buddha Shadow Cave" in Gandhāra, Yamabe writes, "Everything taken together, it is difficult for me to believe that the Buddha Image Cave portion...was written by somebody who have first-hand knowledge of the site. This observation makes it unlikely that [T643] was composed in Gandhāra, or that the Buddha Image Cave portion was inserted by Buddhabhadra himself. Since Buddhabhadra was from the area around Nagarahāra, he must have had accurate knowledge of the site. I believe, therefore, that until some strong counter-evidence is found, we should not assum Buddhabhadra's involvement in the formation or transmission of [T643]. [T643] should rather be treated as a purely apocryphal work" (296-297).

On the basis of his careful full-length study of the text against a number of relevant contexts, Yamabe has concluded that it is a "cross-cultural product compiled in Central Asia" (2). That is to say, it includes some information which was probably only available in the Indian cultural sphere at the time of its composition, but on the other hand, it also may have been written in Chinese and shows debts to earlier Chinese texts. Yamabe's study of the sūtra thus shows that this text defies treatment by an "either Indian or Chinese" approach to textual history and associated questions of "authenticity" and "apocrypha".

Yamabe summarizes theories advanced by scholars preceding him, arguing variously for the origin of the text in Gandhāra, China, and Central Asia, or that the text was gradually compiled over a period of time through a combination of such circumstances. Important figures in this debate include Ono Genmyō, Alexander Soper, Tsukinowa Kenryū, Kasugai Shin'ya, Fujita Kōtatsu, Shikii Shūjō and Kuwayama Shōshin (Yamabe diss. 115–124).

The main evidence Yamabe adduces to show that the author(s) must also have been drawing upon Chinese sources are: terminological and stylistic peculiarities (186–215); strange lists of hells seemingly unknown in Indian sources, but with Chinese analogues; strange lists of marks found on the bodies of Buddhas (216–262); a questionable story about the "Cave of the Buddha's Shadow/Image" 佛影窟 in Gandhāra; and borrowings from other Chinese texts. Yamabe considers that the text was probably composed in Chinese, and not translated from any other language (213). The account of the “Buddha-Shadow Cave” has sometimes been used to argue a Gandhāran origin for the text, but Yamabe argues on the basis of comparison with other descriptions that it is incorrect in important details, suggesting that the authors of the text could not have been physically familiar with the actual site (263–298, esp. 280 ff.).

The main evidence Yamabe adduces for the claim that the text shows knowledge of the Indian tradition not available in the China of the day is: striking parallels in unusual content (images etc.) with visualization meditations described in the Sanskrit "Yogalehrbuch" found at Qizil and Shorchuq (300–352); parallels between the unusual description of the Buddha's cosmically magnificent penis and Śaivite liṇga-worship motifs (377–426), and other materials also resonant of Śaivism, such as the motifs of extremely prolonged copulation and of a corpse sticking to the body; parallels between the content of some of the meditations described in the text and cave art at Toyok near Turfan (427–497); and the fact that knowledge of the "Buddha-Shadow Cave" is too detailed for it to have been based on what was known in China at the time. [As summarised in Radich and Muller, DDB s.v. 觀佛三昧海經]

Edit

 The “Sutra on the Ocean-Like Samadhi of the Visualization of the Buddha” 觀佛三昧海經 T643 is one of a group of "contemplation" sutras 觀經, appearing around the same time in China, which share certain conditions: apparent debts to earlier texts in the Chinese tradition; the absence of parallel texts in other Buddhist languages, etc. Yamabe also shows that the text is related to another class of problematic sutras from nearly the same period, the 禪經 or "meditation sutras" ("meditation manuals", Yamabe, 59–114). A Sogdian version is known, but is probably a translation from T643, and so does not constitute an independent witness (30). A Dunhuang text was once reported by Jiang Liangfu to constitute a variant translation, but Yamabe says it "is probably a chanting manual excerpted from [T643] and should not be considered as a separate translation" (30). The ascription to Buddhabhadra is supported by CSZJJ and GSZ, but Yamabe notes that neither gives "a specific date, place or occasion" for the translation of the text (31). Such details are added by Fajing. Yamabe states that "there are serious reasons to doubt Buddhabhadra's involvement [with T643]" (32). "The attribution of [T643] to Buddhabhadra seems to be almost impossible in spite of the testimonies of [CSZJJ] and GSZ" (54). At the end of a lengthy and detailed discussion of the portion of the text that treats the "Buddha Shadow Cave" in Gandhara, Yamabe writes, "Everything taken together, it is difficult for me to believe that the Buddha Image Cave portion...was written by somebody who have first-hand knowledge of the site. This observation makes it unlikely that [T643] was composed in Gandhara, or that the Buddha Image Cave portion was inserted by Buddhabhadra himself. Since Buddhabhadra was from the area around Nagarahara, he must have had accurate knowledge of the site. I believe, therefore, that until some strong counter-evidence is found, we should not assum Buddhabhadra's involvement in the formation or transmission of [T643]. [T643] should rather be treated as a purely apocryphal work" (296-297). On the basis of his careful full-length study of the text against a number of relevant contexts, Yamabe has concluded that it is a "cross-cultural product compiled in Central Asia" (2). That is to say, it includes some information which was probably only available in the Indian cultural sphere at the time of its composition, but on the other hand, it also may have been written in Chinese and shows debts to earlier Chinese texts. Yamabe's study of the sutra thus shows that this text defies treatment by an "either Indian or Chinese" approach to textual history and associated questions of "authenticity" and "apocrypha". Yamabe summarizes theories advanced by scholars preceding him, arguing variously for the origin of the text in Gandhara, China, and Central Asia, or that the text was gradually compiled over a period of time through a combination of such circumstances. Important figures in this debate include Ono Genmyo, Alexander Soper, Tsukinowa Kenryu, Kasugai Shin'ya, Fujita Kotatsu, Shikii Shujo and Kuwayama Shoshin (Yamabe diss. 115–124). The main evidence Yamabe adduces to show that the author(s) must also have been drawing upon Chinese sources are: terminological and stylistic peculiarities (186–215); strange lists of hells seemingly unknown in Indian sources, but with Chinese analogues; strange lists of marks found on the bodies of Buddhas (216–262); a questionable story about the "Cave of the Buddha's Shadow/Image" 佛影窟 in Gandhara; and borrowings from other Chinese texts. Yamabe considers that the text was probably composed in Chinese, and not translated from any other language (213). The account of the “Buddha-Shadow Cave” has sometimes been used to argue a Gandharan origin for the text, but Yamabe argues on the basis of comparison with other descriptions that it is incorrect in important details, suggesting that the authors of the text could not have been physically familiar with the actual site (263–298, esp. 280 ff.). The main evidence Yamabe adduces for the claim that the text shows knowledge of the Indian tradition not available in the China of the day is: striking parallels in unusual content (images etc.) with visualization meditations described in the Sanskrit "Yogalehrbuch" found at Qizil and Shorchuq (300–352); parallels between the unusual description of the Buddha's cosmically magnificent penis and Saivite linga-worship motifs (377–426), and other materials also resonant of Saivism, such as the motifs of extremely prolonged copulation and of a corpse sticking to the body; parallels between the content of some of the meditations described in the text and cave art at Toyok near Turfan (427–497); and the fact that knowledge of the "Buddha-Shadow Cave" is too detailed for it to have been based on what was known in China at the time. [As summarised in Radich and Muller, DDB s.v. 觀佛三昧海經] T0643; 佛說觀佛三昧海經

Yamabe notes that the Mongolian manual of dhyāna and samādhi described by Pozdneyev in 1887 contains content corresponding closely to T619. On this basis, he argues that "there cannot be any doubt there is a close relationship between these two texts".

Yamabe refers for his knowledge of the Mongolian materials to Pozdneyev, Aleksei M. Dhyāna and Samādhi im Mongolischen Lamaismus, translated by W. A. Unkrig. Hannover: Heiny Lafaire, 1927. Religion and Ritual in Society: Lamaist Buddhism in Late 19th-Century Mongolia, translated by Alo Raun and Linda Raun. Bloomington: The Mongolia Society, 1978.

See also Yamabe 2010.

[Acknowledgement: I am grateful to Chen Ruixuan for bringing this section of Yamabe's study to my attention --- MR.]

Edit

71, 95-98

 Yamabe notes that the Mongolian manual of dhyana and samadhi described by Pozdneyev in 1887 contains content corresponding closely to T619. On this basis, he argues that "there cannot be any doubt there is a close relationship between these two texts". Yamabe refers for his knowledge of the Mongolian materials to Pozdneyev, Aleksei M. Dhyana and Samadhi im Mongolischen Lamaismus, translated by W. A. Unkrig. Hannover: Heiny Lafaire, 1927. Religion and Ritual in Society: Lamaist Buddhism in Late 19th-Century Mongolia, translated by Alo Raun and Linda Raun. Bloomington: The Mongolia Society, 1978. See also Yamabe 2010. [Acknowledgement: I am grateful to Chen Ruixuan for bringing this section of Yamabe's study to my attention --- MR.] Diyan-u δoul udqa kiged, bisil-δalqu-yin jang uile-zi uneger ujugulugci kemegdeku oruisibai; "Herein is [a text] which correctly teaches the ritual of meditation..and the quintessence of dhyana" T0619; 五門禪經要用法

Yamabe draws his knowledge of this text from

Pozdneyev, Aleksei M. Dhyāna and Samādhi im Mongolischen Lamaismus, translated by W. A. Unkrig. Hannover: Heiny Lafaire, 1927. Religion and Ritual in Society: Lamaist Buddhism in Late 19th-Century Mongolia, translated by Alo Raun and Linda Raun. Bloomington: The Mongolia Society, 1978.

Edit

94

 Yamabe draws his knowledge of this text from Pozdneyev, Aleksei M. Dhyana and Samadhi im Mongolischen Lamaismus, translated by W. A. Unkrig. Hannover: Heiny Lafaire, 1927. Religion and Ritual in Society: Lamaist Buddhism in Late 19th-Century Mongolia, translated by Alo Raun and Linda Raun. Bloomington: The Mongolia Society, 1978. Diyan-u δoul udqa kiged, bisil-δalqu-yin jang uile-zi uneger ujugulugci kemegdeku oruisibai; "Herein is [a text] which correctly teaches the ritual of meditation..and the quintessence of dhyana"