Source: Yoritomi 1979

• Texts: T397(12); 無盡意品; Akṣayamati-nirdeśa

Yoritomi regards the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa 無盡意菩薩品/無盡意菩薩經 T397(12) as the source text for portions of the Dasheng liqu liu poluomiduo jing 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經 T261 (e.g., Chapter 10, the Banre boluomiduo pin 般若波羅蜜多品, etc.).

Edit

41-53.

• Texts: T0261; 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經

Yoritomi introduces a claim by Tsukinowa Kenryū 月輪賢隆 that the Dasheng liqu liu poluomiduo jing 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經 T261 is apocryphal (Tsukinowa Kenryū, “Hannya sanzō no honkyō ni taisuru higi 般若三藏の翻經に對する批議,” in Butten no hihanteki kenkyū 仏典の批判的研究). In support of this claim, Tsukinowa adduces the following evidence: inconsistent use of terms; misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrines; [problematic] quotations from other scriptures; etc. Tsukinowa maintains that T261 is the result of an effort on the part of the Chinese Buddhist community 佛教界to establish a comprehensive system of teaching integrating new elements such as the six perfections 六波羅蜜 and “protection of the state” ideology 護國思想, in order to regain momentum after Buddhism became more or less stagnant following the death of Amoghavajra 不空. Yoritomi states that he does not entirely agree with Tsukinowa’s theory is (42).

Yoritomi claims that, in order to clarify the issues surrounding T261, it is helpful to take the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大方等大集經 collection (T397) into consideration, especially the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa 無盡意菩薩品/無盡意菩薩經 T397(12) ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲 (43).

Yoritomi notes that Fascicle 4 to Fascicle 10 of T261 are about the six perfections 六波羅蜜 (six chapters), while Fascicle 1 to Fascicle 3 consist of four chapters including a chapter on taking refuge in the Three Jewels 帰依三宝品 (43-44). He gives a list of speakers and listeners, and other major characteristics of each chapter, in order to illustrate that the basic settings within each of these two groups are are different (44-45). In most chapters, the Bhavagan 薄伽梵 is the speaker, and Maitreya bodhisatva 慈氏菩薩 the listener, but Chapter 2, Tuoluoni huchi guojie pin 陀羅尼護持國界品, Chapter 7, Anren boluomiduo pin 安忍波羅蜜多品, and Chapter 10, Banre boluomiduo pin 般若波羅蜜多品, are slightly different. Thus, special attention should be paid to those three Chapters (45).

Tuoluoni huchi guojie pin 陀羅尼護持國界品

The structure of the Tuoluoni huchi guojie pin Ch 2 is complex, and Maitreya bodhisatva 慈氏菩薩 does not appear in it. Yoritomi summarizes the content of that chapter (45-46), and states that it can divided into two parts: the first part is about the *Aniṃiṣa(?) world 不眴世界, and in the second part, the dhāraṇī 真言陀羅尼 is preached. Yoritomi points out that the content of the first section is the same as that of T397(12). The so-called Wujinzang bodhisatva 無盡藏菩薩 of T261 is actually Akṣayamati bodhisatva 無盡意菩薩. That section is followed in T261 by the dhāranī 真言, while in T397(12) it is followed by an explanation of the six perfections (45-46).

According to Yoritomi, it is quite common for an early Māhāyāna text to have a dhāraṇī 陀羅尼 chapter. Scriptures included in the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經 T397 or the Ratnakūṭa 寶積經 T310 are good examples. However, in contrast with the dhāraṇī 陀羅尼 used in T397, whose forms are relatively simple and primitive, those used in T261 are better organized 整備された, including Oṃ 唵 and 南謨三曼駄没駄南namaḥ samantabuddhānāṃ) etc. In addition, T261 uses dhāraṇī 真言 in fairly developed forms, such as “root” dhāraṇī 根 本真言, “heart” dhāraṇī 心真言, etc. Furthermore, the text features specific terms such as the names of the thirty-two deities 三十二尊 of the *Vajradhātu 金剛界, and a specific dhāraṇī 真言named the “seed” dhāraṇī 種子陀羅尼 (46-47).

Yoritomi maintains that it is clear that the person who compiled the latter part of the Tuoluoni huchi guojie pin was intimately familiar with the esoteric teachings of the highly developed Jingangding jing 金剛頂經 lineage. Related to this, the latter part of Chapter 2 emphasizes the protection of the state or nation 國界, in addition to the protection of those who appreciate and respect the scripture, sometimes even promoting the protection of kings and ministers. Yoritomi points out that the scriptures ascribed to Prajñā 般若 emphasize the idea of the protection of the state 護國的な思想, and that such emphases seem to be later additions. Yoritomi suggests that the title Tuoluoni huchi guojie pin is peculiar [apparently alluding to the fact that the title also indicates the portion of the text emphasising protection of the state, which was added in China ---AI], and mentions also that Prajñā 般若 translated a scripture entitled "Protection sūtra" 守護經 (T997), which is likewise closely related to the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經 (47).

Anren boluomiduo pin 安忍波羅蜜多品

In Chapter 7 of T261, the Anren boluomiduo pin 安忍波羅蜜多品, Wujinzang bodhisatva 無盡藏菩薩 appears abruptly at the end and asks a question about the “samādhi of all rūpakāyas” 一切色身三昧. Yoritomi points out that a similar setting appears in T397(12), in which Akṣayamati is asked about the same samādhi. Yoritomi claims that the Wujinzang portion of Ch 7 was probably taken from T397(12), with the role of the bodhisatva changed from the person answering the question to the one asking it (47).

Banre boluomiduo pin 般若波羅蜜多品

At the end of Chapter 10, the Banre boluomiduo pin 般若波羅蜜多品, the Buddha recommends to Śāriputra 舎利弗 and Ānanda 阿難陀 that they retain and protect 受持 the scripture. Yoritomi points out that this section is almost identical with a section in T397(12).

Thus, Yoritomi states, all the figures who appear in T261, apart from the Bhagavan 薄伽梵 and Maitreya bodhisatva 慈氏菩薩, are related to T397(12) (47-48).

Next, Yoritomi compares the contents of T261 and T397(12) in further detail. He mentions Ōno as a previous study of the same sort (Ōno Hōdō, Daijō kaikyō no kenkyū 大乘戒經の研究, 305-313). He presents a list comparing numbered lists of doctrinal concepts 法数 and major teachings (49-50). Based on this comparison, Yoritomi claims that the numbered lists and names of samādhis 三昧 in the two texts coincide to a significant extent 両者の内容はかなり一致していると言える (48-50).

Yoritomi suggests that despite the general resemblance of the two texts, a development in ideas can be seen between T397(12) and T261. As an example, he refers to the sixty-five pure precepts 六十五種淨戒 in the Jing jie boluomiduo pin 淨戒波羅蜜多品 of T261 and the sixty-seven precepts 六十七戒 in T397(12). Yoritomi states that Ōno already made a detailed comparison between the two. Overall, he reports, T261 apparently modified the sixty-seven precepts, and added a clause that requires obedience to parents and the ācārya 阿闍梨. According to Yoritomi, the idea of moral indebtedness 恩 often appears in the translation works of Prajñā. Yoritomi also quotes the endings of T261 and T397(12) to illustrate the similarity between the two (and the development from the former to the latter) (quotations on 51) (50-51).

Yoritomi summarizes the relation between T261, T397(12), and other texts as follows:

1) The original form 原型 of T261 was probably the first half of the Tuoluoni huchi guojie pin 陀羅尼護持國界品 and the last six chapters starting with the Bushi boluomiduo pin 布施波羅蜜多品. Chapter 1, 2 (second half), 3, and 4 were added later. Those chapters do not have strong connection with other scriptures, and mostly presented ideas that Prajñā particularly emphasized.

2) Yoritomi maintains that it is difficult to determine where the development from T397(12) to T261 occurred, in China or in India. Still, he conjectures that, since T261 is much more detailed than T397(12), there probably was an original text related to T397(12), and T261 is a work based on that text, with many new elements added. Yoritomi states that further analyses and definite conclusions about T261 should be the subject of future research (51-52).

At the end of the article, Yoritomi summarises his views on the question of whether T261 is apocryphal: It would be a little far-fetched to classify the entire text of T261 as apocryphal, since there probably did exist an original underlying Indic text. However, Yoritomi asserts, substantial additions were made in China – related to which Yoritomi states the following: Chinese terms are often used in the exposition of the six perfections, such as 孝子, 宗親, 卿相, and 陰陽; as Tsukinowa points out, there are inconsistencies in the use of terms – in some places, even within several lines, synonymous terms [of different vintages in the Chinese translation lexicon --- MR] such as 世尊 and 薄伽賛, 衆生 and 有情, or 慈氏 and 弥勒 are used together; and a good number of sections in T261 seem to be influenced by other scriptures, especially by the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka 法華經 (53).

Edit

41-53.