Lai, Whalen. "The Chan-ch'a ching: Religion and Magic in Medieval China." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 175-206. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Lai briefly mentions the Diwei Boli jing as related to what he sees as the proselytising movement which followed the first persecution of Buddhism in the North (446-452). Lai argues that the leaders of this Buddhist revival were actively involved in producing new sūtras, including the Diwei Boli jing. |
177 |
Lai briefly mentions the Diwei Boli jing as related to what he sees as the proselytising movement which followed the first persecution of Buddhism in the North (446-452). Lai argues that the leaders of this Buddhist revival were actively involved in producing new sutras, including the Diwei Boli jing. Diwei Boli jing 提謂波利經 |
|
Lai mentions in passing that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 and the Fo chui banniepan lüe shuo jiao jie jing 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經T389 are examples of the rejection of divination in Chinese “apocryphal sūtras.” |
201 n. 36 |
Lai mentions in passing that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 and the Fo chui banniepan lue shuo jiao jie jing 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經T389 are examples of the rejection of divination in Chinese “apocryphal sutras.” T0389; 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 T1484; 梵網經 |
|
Treated as a "Chinese apocryphon". |
Treated as a "Chinese apocryphon". T0839; 占察善惡業報經 | |
|
Lai concludes that the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839, which he calls “the Buddhist answer to the I-ching,” was compiled in Northern China during the late sixth century. He states that its use of divination and focus on “the final age of the Dharma (mofa)” parallels other eschatological works produced in China from this period. Furthermore, Lai notes that the monks under *Dharmakṣema did not show such a preoccupation with mofa, which suggests that the text was produced at a later stage. Lai also argues that the text was produced as part of the Northern proselytising drive in the wake of the first persecution of Buddhism. Lai suggests that the Northern Saṃgha had a “progeny mentality” which allowed for the production of new sūtras, opposed to the “recipient mentality” of their Southern counterparts. Furthermore, the CCC draws on tathāgatagarbha tradition and refers to a Liu gen ju jing 六根聚經 which is also cited in the Ratnagotravibhāgha (Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun 究竟一乘寶性論 T1611), translated by Ratnamati in Luoyang. These factors, Lai argues, make it probable that the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing was compiled in the North, and made its way South later. On the basis of his argument, Lai states that the “suggestion that the CCC [Zhancha shan'e yebao jing] borrowed from a text translated by Paramārtha (Chen-ti[=Zhendi 真諦]) in Canton may now be discounted.” Lai notes likenesses the text has with other apocryphal works, including the Kṣitigarbha corpus, where he notes especially the Dizang pusa jing 地藏菩薩經 T2909, the Dizang pusa benyuan jing 地藏菩薩本願經 T412, and the Da fangguang shi lun jing 大方廣十輪經 T410. Finally, Lai suggests mutual borrowing between T839 and the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乘起信論 T1666. |
176-179, 191-195 |
Lai concludes that the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839, which he calls “the Buddhist answer to the I-ching,” was compiled in Northern China during the late sixth century. He states that its use of divination and focus on “the final age of the Dharma (mofa)” parallels other eschatological works produced in China from this period. Furthermore, Lai notes that the monks under *Dharmaksema did not show such a preoccupation with mofa, which suggests that the text was produced at a later stage. Lai also argues that the text was produced as part of the Northern proselytising drive in the wake of the first persecution of Buddhism. Lai suggests that the Northern Samgha had a “progeny mentality” which allowed for the production of new sutras, opposed to the “recipient mentality” of their Southern counterparts. Furthermore, the CCC draws on tathagatagarbha tradition and refers to a Liu gen ju jing 六根聚經 which is also cited in the Ratnagotravibhagha (Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun 究竟一乘寶性論 T1611), translated by Ratnamati in Luoyang. These factors, Lai argues, make it probable that the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing was compiled in the North, and made its way South later. On the basis of his argument, Lai states that the “suggestion that the CCC [Zhancha shan'e yebao jing] borrowed from a text translated by Paramartha (Chen-ti[=Zhendi 真諦]) in Canton may now be discounted.” Lai notes likenesses the text has with other apocryphal works, including the Ksitigarbha corpus, where he notes especially the Dizang pusa jing 地藏菩薩經 T2909, the Dizang pusa benyuan jing 地藏菩薩本願經 T412, and the Da fangguang shi lun jing 大方廣十輪經 T410. Finally, Lai suggests mutual borrowing between T839 and the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乘起信論 T1666. T0839; 占察善惡業報經 |
|
Lai suggests that the “stūpa confessional” of the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 (Upāsakaśīla-sūtra) T1488 shows “plausible ties” with the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839 (which Lai argued was composed in China), and is related to what he sees as the proselytising movement which followed the first persecution of Buddhism in the North (446-452). |
177 |
Lai suggests that the “stupa confessional” of the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 (Upasakasila-sutra) T1488 shows “plausible ties” with the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839 (which Lai argued was composed in China), and is related to what he sees as the proselytising movement which followed the first persecution of Buddhism in the North (446-452). T1488; 優婆塞戒經 |
|
Lai states that the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乘起信論 T1666 is an “apocryphon.” He notes that it was originally thought to be the work of Aśvaghoṣa and translated by Paramārtha around 550 in Canton, “but confirmation of that is lacking.” He notes that none of Paramārtha’s students show any knowledge of the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乘起信論 T1666, and the text is now recognised by most scholars as an apocryphal composition. Here, Lai refers to Kashiwagi Hiroo’s Daijō kishinron. Lai argues that there was mutual borrowing between the Dasheng qi xin lun and the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839. Lai notes that the Dasheng qi xin lun contains elements which complicate a simple assignation to India or Central Asia and concludes that the text’s structure can best be explained by recognising the influence of “the Chinese cosmology of the One, ying-yang theory, three six numerology, and the progression into the five processes.” |
175, 186-191 |
Lai states that the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乘起信論 T1666 is an “apocryphon.” He notes that it was originally thought to be the work of Asvaghosa and translated by Paramartha around 550 in Canton, “but confirmation of that is lacking.” He notes that none of Paramartha’s students show any knowledge of the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乘起信論 T1666, and the text is now recognised by most scholars as an apocryphal composition. Here, Lai refers to Kashiwagi Hiroo’s Daijo kishinron. Lai argues that there was mutual borrowing between the Dasheng qi xin lun and the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839. Lai notes that the Dasheng qi xin lun contains elements which complicate a simple assignation to India or Central Asia and concludes that the text’s structure can best be explained by recognising the influence of “the Chinese cosmology of the One, ying-yang theory, three six numerology, and the progression into the five processes.” T1666; 大乘起信論 |
|
Lai cites Henri Maspero, who argues that the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 is an “apocryphon.” Lai adds that the text was composed in China after the persecution of Buddhism under the N. Wei, in response to Cui Hao’s accusation that there was “no record to verify that there was a Buddha or living Buddhist tradition in India.” The text lists patriarchs who have been terminated by persecution, which Lai suggests “may have some basis in history;” citing Maspero 1911. Lai also argues that the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan contains a legend which is “the most specific archetype” of the divination practice of the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839 (which Lai argues is a Chinese composition). The legend explains a practice where one marks every intention with white or black stones signifying good or bad mental intent. The aim of this exercise is to purify the mind by physically changing the ratio of colours. Lai cites Morita Ryūsen to claim that this practice is suggestive of a similar practice among Neo-Confucians, using beans. Morita Ryūsen, Shaku makaenron no kenkyū (Kyoto: Bunseido, 1935), 728-729. |
184, 200 n. 40-41. |
Lai cites Henri Maspero, who argues that the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 is an “apocryphon.” Lai adds that the text was composed in China after the persecution of Buddhism under the N. Wei, in response to Cui Hao’s accusation that there was “no record to verify that there was a Buddha or living Buddhist tradition in India.” The text lists patriarchs who have been terminated by persecution, which Lai suggests “may have some basis in history;” citing Maspero 1911. Lai also argues that the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan contains a legend which is “the most specific archetype” of the divination practice of the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839 (which Lai argues is a Chinese composition). The legend explains a practice where one marks every intention with white or black stones signifying good or bad mental intent. The aim of this exercise is to purify the mind by physically changing the ratio of colours. Lai cites Morita Ryusen to claim that this practice is suggestive of a similar practice among Neo-Confucians, using beans. Morita Ryusen, Shaku makaenron no kenkyu (Kyoto: Bunseido, 1935), 728-729. T2058; 付法藏因緣傳 |