Fang Guangchang 方广锠. "Yaoshi Fo tanyuan: dui 'Yaoshi Fo' Hanyi Fodian de wenxianxue kaocha 药师佛探源——对"药师佛"汉译佛典的文献学考察" Zongjiaoxue yanjiu 宗教学研究 2014, no. 4, 90-100.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
Fang argues that the 不思議功德諸佛所護念經 T445 is not a translation, and cannot be as early as the Three Kingdoms period. This is a text in the "Buddha names" genre, without the introductory and closing sections usual for a sūtra, and a note at the end identifying sources such as the *Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha 華手經 T657. Fang notes that the text was first entered into the canon(? see below on LDJSB) with the KYL, and that Zhisheng treats it as an "excerpted sūtra" 抄經, while at the same time, inconsistently, assigning the "translation" of the text to the Cao Wei period. The Cao Wei date first appears in LDSBJ. On the basis of the language, and sources, Fang suggests that T445 should in fact date to after Dao'an but before Sengyou. |
91 |
|
Fang argues against the canonical ascription of the 八吉祥神呪經 T427 to Zhi Qian. Two titles that might be identified with this text appear in CSZJJ. Sengyou treats one as anonymous, and ascribes the other to Guṇabhadra. Fajing follows Sengyou. LDSBJ lists three titles, ascribing them to Zhi Qian, Guṇabhadra, and *Saṅghabhara. Thus, the claim that Zhi Qian produced a text with this title originates with Fei Zhangfang. Yancong follows LCSBJ. Jingtai lists three such titles: anonymous, Guṇabhadra, and *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta. Daoxuan's DTNDL combines Jingtai and LDSBJ to produce (the appearance of) five versions. In KYL, Zhisheng likewise lists five versions, ascribed to Zhi Qian, Guṇabhadra, Saṅghabhara, Jñānagupta, and Dharmarakṣa(!). In other words, Zhisheng simply mechanically followed DTNDL in all details, except that he reassigned the "anonymous" version to Dharmarakṣa. However, Zhisheng provides details showing he himself actually only saw four versions (he regarded the "Guṇabhadra" version as lost). Fang tabulates the names of the eight Buddhas of the eastern direction in these texts, and shows that only T427 mentions Bhaiṣajyaguru. Fang thus argues: there is no sound basis to believe that T427 should be ascribed to Zhi Qian, or is so early; it is in any case odd that only this version of the text mentions this Buddha; the meagre details about Bhaiṣajyaguru in T445 and T427 are similar, so that they may be close in date to one another. |
91-92 |
|
Fang Guangchang argues against the ascription of the Mahāmāyūrī vidyārājñī 孔雀王呪經 T988 to Kumārajīva. CSZJJ does not ascribe any such title to Kumārajīva, and only lists two versions of the text. Fajing also has no report of a Kumārajīva version. Thus, a supposed Kumārajīva version first appears in LDSBJ. KYL follows LDSBJ in this ascription (among five versions in total discussed by Zhisheng, as summarised by Fang 94-95). Fang notes that Bhaiṣajyaguru appears in no other text solidly ascribed to Kumārajīva. He also cites Kehong's criticism of the notion that this text could be buddhavacana, K1257 (XXXIV) 878b10-c8. Fang also states that elements in the content of T988 that are close to that of the apocryphal Tian gong jing 天公經. |
94-95 |
|
Fang Guangchang argues that T1331(12) is the first solidly datable text in China to mention Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddha. He argues further that this text is the origin of the image of this Buddha, and his cult. He claims that Sanskrit versions of the text originate from "back-translation" of this Chinese text into Sanskrit in the Western regions. Fang first sets aside a handful of supposedly earlier texts that mention Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddha, arguing that each is in fact later than its canonical ascription would suggest, and/or a Chinese composition. See these separate CBC@ entries: https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/text/695/ Fang then supports his argument by citing CSZJJ, which states that the text was composed by Huijian 惠簡 in 457. Fang argues that Sengyou is too close to Huijian in time, and too good a bibliographer, for this information to be doubted. He also notes that manuscript evidence from Dunhuang shows that T1331(12) circulated independently before it was later incorporated into the longer, twelve-fascicle Guanding jing that we see today. Here Fang refers to the PhD dissertation of Wu Xiaojie 伍小劼, who has studied the formation of the text and argued that it was the crucible in which the character of Bhaiṣajyaguru was shaped. Wu reportedly discerns Chinese cultural elements in the text. Fang examines a handful of texts in which Baiṣajyaguru is mentioned in passing between Huijian and the Sui, to suggest that by the time of the Sui, this Buddha was still a shadowy or marginal figure in various dubious texts, with the sole exception of T1331(12). Fang cites from the Sixi canon the preface to Dharmagupta's 達摩笈多 translation in T616, 藥師如來本願功德經 T449. He argues that the wording of this preface implies that the translation team were aware that the tradition that Huijian had composed rather than translated the earlier version of the text cast it in disrepute, and notes a passage that also emphasises the "terrible sin" incurred if one doubts the authenticity of the text. The preface also claims that the translators were working from two separate manuscripts, and had hesitated to undertake their translation work until they had assembled this rigorous basis for a correct version. Fang also discusses briefly the versions ascribed to Xuanzang, 藥師琉璃光如來本願功德經 T450, and Yijing, 藥師琉璃光七佛本願功德經 T451. He voices no doubts about the authenticity of these texts. Fang does not dispute that T449, T450 and T451 were translated into Chinese from Sanskrit. His thesis, rather, is that the Sanskrit from which these translations was produced must have been a "back translation" from T1331(12), produced in the "Western regions" 西域 between Huijian and Dharmagupta. Fang bases his argument in part on generalisations and a priori assumptions. For instance, he states that Buddhism aims at "not being born" 不生, whereas Daoism aims at "not dying" 不死, so that the cult of Bhaiṣajyaguru is more explicable if it emerges in a Chinese context, rather than an Indic context. He is also convinced that traffic along the Silk Roads cannot have been one-way, and thinks it more plausible that "reverse" traffic existed. Apparently his study of this text is part of a larger programme to substantiate this hunch. He also cites an anecdote from the Luoyang qielan ji about Bodhiruci translating a Dasheng yi zhang 大乘義章 by Tanmozui 曇摩最 into "Hu" 胡 as (circumstantial) evidence that such "reverse" transmission indeed took place. In a follow-up, shorter article: Fang Guangchang 方广锠. "Guanyu Han, Fan Yaoshi jing de ruogan wenti 关于汉、梵《药师经》的若干问题." Zongjiaoxue yanjiu 宗教学研究 2015, no. 2, 80-84. Fang responds to criticisms from Yang Weizhong 楊維中, and an editorial note appended to his first article, which stated that the thesis of the Chinese origin of both Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddha and T1331(12) had been "fundamentally disproven" by the discovery of the Sanskrit in Gilgit and subsequent work by Western and Japanese scholars on that basis. This discussion adds nothing of substance to the arguments summarised above. In neither article does Fang attempt to determine whether the content of Sanskrit versions of the text corroborates his thesis. Neither does he directly address or give examples of supposed "Chinese cultural content" in T1331(12) (referring for such matters to Wu Xiaojie), nor whether T1331(12) can be shown to have earlier Chinese textual sources. |