Source: Zhiru 2007

Ng, Zhiru. The Making of a Savior Bodhisattva: Dizang in Medieval China. Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism 21. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Zhiru reports that Françoise Wang-Toutain has "questioned the attribution" of T411 to Xuanzang [Zhiru's characterisation of Wang-Toutain's position is not very precise --- MR]. "[Wang-Toutain] argues that Xuanzang, with his erudition in Buddhist philosophy, could not have been associated with [T411], which reflects popular Buddhist developments of the period. She proposes that it was more likely that his followers (perhaps someone like Sinbang [神昉]) were behind the new translation, which was subsequently attributed to [Xuanzang]. In further support of his argument, [Wang] points to the connections that Xuanzang's followers must have had with Sanjie jiao..." Zhiru is critical of this "argument", which she holds presupposes a problematic division between doctrinal Buddhism and popular Buddhism. Zhiru cites Wang-Toutain, Le bodhisattva Ksitigarbha en Chine du VIe siècle au XIIIe siècle, Paris, EFEO (PEFEO, 185): 116-117 [sic! in fact 114-115 --- MR].

Edit

62 n. 38

 Zhiru reports that Francoise Wang-Toutain has "questioned the attribution" of T411 to Xuanzang [Zhiru's characterisation of Wang-Toutain's position is not very precise --- MR]. "[Wang-Toutain] argues that Xuanzang, with his erudition in Buddhist philosophy, could not have been associated with [T411], which reflects popular Buddhist developments of the period. She proposes that it was more likely that his followers (perhaps someone like Sinbang [神昉]) were behind the new translation, which was subsequently attributed to [Xuanzang]. In further support of his argument, [Wang] points to the connections that Xuanzang's followers must have had with Sanjie jiao..." Zhiru is critical of this "argument", which she holds presupposes a problematic division between doctrinal Buddhism and popular Buddhism. Zhiru cites Wang-Toutain, Le bodhisattva Ksitigarbha en Chine du VIe siecle au XIIIe siecle, Paris, EFEO (PEFEO, 185): 116-117 [sic! in fact 114-115 --- MR]. T0411; 大乘大集地藏十輪經

Zhiru states that scholars have argued variously that T412 was composed in China, or in Khotan (citing Elverskog, Zhang Zong, 107 n. 110). It was only incorporated into the canon during the Ming, probably due to the revival of the Dizang/Kṣitigarbha cult precipitated in part by Zhixu 智旭. The text is already mentioned in a stele of 932. It is also referred to in a text of 988. Thus, it should already have been circulating by the early 10th century. Fragments exist in Uyghur and Tangut, but they could be translations from Chinese, rather than independent evidence of the existence of versions of the text outside China. Zhiru herself argues that even if there is something to theories that the text was composed in Khotan, parts at least must have been added in China, because of the appearance of "distinctly Chinese" motifs (108).

Edit

82-83, 107-115, esp. 107-108

 Zhiru states that scholars have argued variously that T412 was composed in China, or in Khotan (citing Elverskog, Zhang Zong, 107 n. 110). It was only incorporated into the canon during the Ming, probably due to the revival of the Dizang/Ksitigarbha cult precipitated in part by Zhixu 智旭. The text is already mentioned in a stele of 932. It is also referred to in a text of 988. Thus, it should already have been circulating by the early 10th century. Fragments exist in Uyghur and Tangut, but they could be translations from Chinese, rather than independent evidence of the existence of versions of the text outside China. Zhiru herself argues that even if there is something to theories that the text was composed in Khotan, parts at least must have been added in China, because of the appearance of "distinctly Chinese" motifs (108). T0412; 地藏菩薩本願經

According to Zhiru, T1158 was recovered from Japanese manuscripts and added into the canon in the twentieth century. It is ascribed to *Śubhakara 輸婆迦羅, but as early as the Kamakura, Kakuzen 覺禪 questioned its origins. Modern Japanese scholarship for a time regarded the text as composed in Japan (citing Manabe 1960, Ōsabe 1982). More recently Osabe and others have concluded that it includes at least some material that goes back to Tang China, but the consensus is still that it was composed in China, rather than comprising an authentic translation. Ōmura Seigai points to terminology derived from the Sarvatattvasaṃgraha, and on this basis argues that it was composed after the introduction of that text to China in 720; most likely in the second half of the Tang, whereupon it was posthumously ascribed to *Śubhakara .

Edit

81-82, 97-101, esp. 97-98

 According to Zhiru, T1158 was recovered from Japanese manuscripts and added into the canon in the twentieth century. It is ascribed to *Subhakara 輸婆迦羅, but as early as the Kamakura, Kakuzen 覺禪 questioned its origins. Modern Japanese scholarship for a time regarded the text as composed in Japan (citing Manabe 1960, Osabe 1982). More recently Osabe and others have concluded that it includes at least some material that goes back to Tang China, but the consensus is still that it was composed in China, rather than comprising an authentic translation. Omura Seigai points to terminology derived from the Sarvatattvasamgraha, and on this basis argues that it was composed after the introduction of that text to China in 720; most likely in the second half of the Tang, whereupon it was posthumously ascribed to *Subhakara . T1158; 地藏菩薩儀軌

Zhiru considers various evidence bearing on the complex question of the origins and composition of T410. In the present Taishō, the text bears a note saying it is anonymous, but dates to the N. Liang 失譯人名今附北涼錄. In fact this dating may be problematic. The title first appears only in LDSBJ (i.e. it does not appear in CSZJJ, or Fajing). However, we also have reports that Xinxing 信行 (540–594), the founder of Sanjie jiao 三階教, made great use of T410 and composed two commentaries upon it. This makes Fajing's silence all the more remarkable. Meanwhile, T893, the "Divination Sutra", also features centrally Dizang/Kṣitigarbha, and also appears for the first time in LDSBJ. This suggests that T410 appeared as part of a surge of interest in the cult of Dizang/Kṣitigarbha in the mid sixth century.

The same title then appears in other catalogues, through Jingmai, Jingtai, Mingquan etc. Mingquan, oddly enough, ascribes this title to *Dharmakṣema, saying he got the information from LDSBJ, even though our extant LDSBJ says nothing of the sort. The dating of T410 to the N. Liang seems to be a judgement of the Tang bibliographers, enshrined by Zhisheng in KYL.

The Tibetan version of the text has a colophon stating that it was translated from Chinese (8 n. 20). Hadani has indicated that an Iranian version of the text may exist, "but we know almost nothing about this source" (236-237 n. 33, citing Hadani　羽渓了諦, Chūa Bukkyōkai no tokuisō 中亜仏教会の特異相. Bukkyō kenkyū , 1, no. 1, 1937: 38).

Thus far, it might appear that we are confronted with a text composed in China. However, matters are complicated by the existence of a supposed alternate translation of the text, ascribed to Xuanzang, T411. [The ascription of T411 has been questioned by Wang-Toutain; see separate CBC@ record.] In addition, Zhiru notes that passages in Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya (Bendall and Rouse 1922: 14, 72, 90, 102, 171) bear evident similarities to the content of T410/T411; Śāntideva cites these passages under the title Āryakṣitigarbha-sūtra.

Zhiru mentions that according to Soper, portions of T410 on Dizang/Kṣitigarbha appear to have no intrinsic connection with other content of the text, and could therefore have been added to the text later; Soper has therefore proposed that the text may have been composed at least in part in China (236, citing Soper 1959: 210). Zhiru herself claims that because Śāntideva is much later than the "Northern Liang Chinese translation", it "cannot qualify as verification of the text's pre-Chinese origin" (236 n. 33).

[Unfortunately, Zhiru does not identify portions of T410/T411 corresponding to the Śāntideva citations. Nor, frustratingly, does she say whether the portions of T410/T411 found in the Śāntideva citations overlap with the Dizang/Kṣitigarbha materials that Soper suggests could have been added in China. However, If we are to hold that the text was composed outright in China, we must hold that it was somehow transmitted back to India in time for Śāntideva to be aware of it; and if the Dizang passages were supposed to be added in China, one would also have to ask why Śāntideva would have known the text under the title Āryakṣitigarbha-sūtra. Alternatively, we must admit at least that the composers of the Chinese version had access to authentic Indic materials reflected in at least the passages overlapping with Śāntideva --- MR.]

Edit

225-238, 8 n. 20

 Zhiru considers various evidence bearing on the complex question of the origins and composition of T410. In the present Taisho, the text bears a note saying it is anonymous, but dates to the N. Liang 失譯人名今附北涼錄. In fact this dating may be problematic. The title first appears only in LDSBJ (i.e. it does not appear in CSZJJ, or Fajing). However, we also have reports that Xinxing 信行 (540–594), the founder of Sanjie jiao 三階教, made great use of T410 and composed two commentaries upon it. This makes Fajing's silence all the more remarkable. Meanwhile, T893, the "Divination Sutra", also features centrally Dizang/Ksitigarbha, and also appears for the first time in LDSBJ. This suggests that T410 appeared as part of a surge of interest in the cult of Dizang/Ksitigarbha in the mid sixth century. The same title then appears in other catalogues, through Jingmai, Jingtai, Mingquan etc. Mingquan, oddly enough, ascribes this title to *Dharmaksema, saying he got the information from LDSBJ, even though our extant LDSBJ says nothing of the sort. The dating of T410 to the N. Liang seems to be a judgement of the Tang bibliographers, enshrined by Zhisheng in KYL. The Tibetan version of the text has a colophon stating that it was translated from Chinese (8 n. 20). Hadani has indicated that an Iranian version of the text may exist, "but we know almost nothing about this source" (236-237 n. 33, citing Hadani 羽渓了諦, Chua Bukkyokai no tokuiso 中亜仏教会の特異相. Bukkyo kenkyu , 1, no. 1, 1937: 38). Thus far, it might appear that we are confronted with a text composed in China. However, matters are complicated by the existence of a supposed alternate translation of the text, ascribed to Xuanzang, T411. [The ascription of T411 has been questioned by Wang-Toutain; see separate CBC@ record.] In addition, Zhiru notes that passages in Santideva’s Siksasamuccaya (Bendall and Rouse 1922: 14, 72, 90, 102, 171) bear evident similarities to the content of T410/T411; Santideva cites these passages under the title Aryaksitigarbha-sutra. Zhiru mentions that according to Soper, portions of T410 on Dizang/Ksitigarbha appear to have no intrinsic connection with other content of the text, and could therefore have been added to the text later; Soper has therefore proposed that the text may have been composed at least in part in China (236, citing Soper 1959: 210). Zhiru herself claims that because Santideva is much later than the "Northern Liang Chinese translation", it "cannot qualify as verification of the text's pre-Chinese origin" (236 n. 33). [Unfortunately, Zhiru does not identify portions of T410/T411 corresponding to the Santideva citations. Nor, frustratingly, does she say whether the portions of T410/T411 found in the Santideva citations overlap with the Dizang/Ksitigarbha materials that Soper suggests could have been added in China. However, If we are to hold that the text was composed outright in China, we must hold that it was somehow transmitted back to India in time for Santideva to be aware of it; and if the Dizang passages were supposed to be added in China, one would also have to ask why Santideva would have known the text under the title Aryaksitigarbha-sutra. Alternatively, we must admit at least that the composers of the Chinese version had access to authentic Indic materials reflected in at least the passages overlapping with Santideva --- MR.] T0410; 大方廣十輪經

Zhiru states that this is an "indigenous Chinese composition", recovered at Dunhuang and incorporated into the canon with the publication of the Taishō. 22 copies exist worldwide in collections of Dunhuang texts. Broadly speaking, there exist shorter and longer versions of the text. Zhiru reports work by Wang-Toutain that identifies and corrects an error in the note at T2909 (LXXXV) 1145 n. 1, which states that the text used as a base was S. 197; it was in fact S. 6257. Zhiru cites Wang-Toutain, Le bodhisattva Ksitigarbha en Chine du VIe siècle au XIIIe siècle, Paris, EFEO (PEFEO, 185): 146 n. 581.

Edit

81-82, 101-107, esp. 101-102

 Zhiru states that this is an "indigenous Chinese composition", recovered at Dunhuang and incorporated into the canon with the publication of the Taisho. 22 copies exist worldwide in collections of Dunhuang texts. Broadly speaking, there exist shorter and longer versions of the text. Zhiru reports work by Wang-Toutain that identifies and corrects an error in the note at T2909 (LXXXV) 1145 n. 1, which states that the text used as a base was S. 197; it was in fact S. 6257. Zhiru cites Wang-Toutain, Le bodhisattva Ksitigarbha en Chine du VIe siecle au XIIIe siecle, Paris, EFEO (PEFEO, 185): 146 n. 581. T2909; 地藏菩薩經

Zhiru notes that the Xumizang fen 須彌藏分 ("*Sumerugarbha portion") of the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大方等大集經, viz. T397(15), has close relationships with the Candragarbha portion T397(14), both ascribed to Narendrayaśas. (Zhiru discusses the content of T397[15], with special connection to Dizang/Kṣitigarbha, pp. 36-41.) The Candragarbha portion, T397(14), is thought to be a text of mixed provenance at best, containing elements added in China. Further, T397(15) is a "sole exemplar" (no parallels exist); and it contains "exhortations against intervention in sangha affairs" which "might also have been accreted during the translation process in China". The text also contains the term 五穀, but Zhiru does not regard this term as sufficient to show "Chinese interpolation", and can find "no other obvious Chinese interpolation". [The relation to T397(14), the absence of parallels, and the relation to themes of current concern in 6th-century China may be indications that this text should be investigated further, however --- MR.]

Edit

47 n. 72

 Zhiru notes that the Xumizang fen 須彌藏分 ("*Sumerugarbha portion") of the Mahasamnipata 大方等大集經, viz. T397(15), has close relationships with the Candragarbha portion T397(14), both ascribed to Narendrayasas. (Zhiru discusses the content of T397[15], with special connection to Dizang/Ksitigarbha, pp. 36-41.) The Candragarbha portion, T397(14), is thought to be a text of mixed provenance at best, containing elements added in China. Further, T397(15) is a "sole exemplar" (no parallels exist); and it contains "exhortations against intervention in sangha affairs" which "might also have been accreted during the translation process in China". The text also contains the term 五穀, but Zhiru does not regard this term as sufficient to show "Chinese interpolation", and can find "no other obvious Chinese interpolation". [The relation to T397(14), the absence of parallels, and the relation to themes of current concern in 6th-century China may be indications that this text should be investigated further, however --- MR.] T397(15); Xumizang fen 須彌藏分, "*Sumerugarbha portion"

Zhiru discusses T839 for its connections to the cult of Kṣitigarbha/Dizang, and treats the text as composed in China, in line with the scholarly consensus.

Edit

84-89

 Zhiru discusses T839 for its connections to the cult of Ksitigarbha/Dizang, and treats the text as composed in China, in line with the scholarly consensus. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0839; 占察善惡業報經

Zhiru reports that scholars agree that T1159A was composed in China around the mid-Tang. She states that the date of its composition is uncertain. A colophon appended to "the extant version" [apparently referring to this: 寬治元年七月二十五日未時書了, T1159A (XX) 655a22] indicates it was circulating in Japan by 1087. The text is cited in a text compiled by Feizhuo 非濁 before his death in 1063, story no. 35 in the 三寶感應要略錄, entitled 地藏菩薩救喬提長者家惡鬼難感應, T2084 (LI) 855a1 ff. "The text also reveals patently Daoist elements." Manabe and Ōsabe have disagreed about the date, Manabe more cautiously placing it after the Wu Zhao period (Wu Zetian's reign), whereas Ōsabe places it during that period.

[NB: The title of this text features "Dizang", i.e. Kṣitigarbha, in the special characters invented under Wu Zetian. Zhiru gives a translation of the text in her Appendix 3.]

Edit

81-82, 89-97, esp. 89-90

 Zhiru reports that scholars agree that T1159A was composed in China around the mid-Tang. She states that the date of its composition is uncertain. A colophon appended to "the extant version" [apparently referring to this: 寬治元年七月二十五日未時書了, T1159A (XX) 655a22] indicates it was circulating in Japan by 1087. The text is cited in a text compiled by Feizhuo 非濁 before his death in 1063, story no. 35 in the 三寶感應要略錄, entitled 地藏菩薩救喬提長者家惡鬼難感應, T2084 (LI) 855a1 ff. "The text also reveals patently Daoist elements." Manabe and Osabe have disagreed about the date, Manabe more cautiously placing it after the Wu Zhao period (Wu Zetian's reign), whereas Osabe places it during that period. [NB: The title of this text features "Dizang", i.e. Ksitigarbha, in the special characters invented under Wu Zetian. Zhiru gives a translation of the text in her Appendix 3.] T1159A; [峚-大+(企-止)]𡇪大道心驅策法;