Source: Strickmann 1990

Strickmann comments on the Diwei Boli jing in passing. He sees it as connected to the Renwang jing 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245, Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484, and Guanding jing 佛說灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘咒經 T1331, and suggests that these texts are part of an era where apocryphal texts were produced “happily, without interference from either secular or religious authorities.”

Edit

104

Strickmann mentions that "a century and a half" after his time, Huijian was credited with "a list of works", referring to LDSBJ T2034:49.93b7-c7 [also followed by DTNDL T2149:55.260c22-261a2].

[These catalogues mention 25 works that were supposedly translated by Huijian 慧簡 at Luye-si 鹿野寺: 1. 藥師琉璃光經; 2. 商人求財經; 3. 僧王五天使經; 4. 善生王子經; 5. 懈怠耕者經; 6. 釋迦畢罪經; 7. 貧窮老公經; 8. 殺身濟賈經; 9. 舍衛城中人喪子發狂經; 10. 譬喻經; 11. 請賓頭盧法經; 12. 阿難見水光瑞經; 13. 呪願經; 14. 瞿曇彌記果經; 15. 學人亂意經; 16. 竊為沙門經; 17. 佛母般泥洹經; 18. 長者子六過出家經; 19. 獵師捨家學道事經; 20. 瞿曇彌經; 21. 栴闍摩暴志謗佛事經; 22. 二老男子見佛出家得道經; 23. 真偽沙門經; 24. 佛涅槃後諸比丘經; 25. 大力士出家得道經; . Of these, the correspondence to extant works would seem to be as follows:
3 = 閻羅王五天使者經 T43;
7 = 貧窮老公經 T797(a,b);
11 = 請賓頭盧法 T1689;
17 = 佛母般泥洹經 T145;
18 = 長者子六過出家經 T134;
20 = 瞿曇彌記果經 T60;
---MR.]

Strickmann points out that the "sources" for these texts, viz. MĀ T26, EĀ T125, had already been translated into Chinese by Huijian's time. "Thus [Huijian] , or whoever was responsible for these brief independent versions, was obviously rewriting and adapting on the basis of prior Chinese translations." For Strickmann, this is consistent with the types of content and likely working method of T1331. Sengyou also ascribed T1331(12) to Huijian, and Strickmann suspects that this is a clue to the likelihood that actually, the entirety of T1331 was actually compiled and/or composed (in part) by Huijian. This leads him to note some material and tendencies common to T1331 and the present group of texts: the Fo bannihuan hou bian ji 佛般泥洹後變記, which is appended as a postface to T145, "accords perfectly with the parallel information included in [T1331]"; T1331 also includes "adaptations of tales from the Āgamas (like those in the independent little sūtras attributed to [Huijian]), and so on. Strickmann therefore suggests that "whether or not we are justified in retaining Huijian's name on any of these works, we must note that [LDSBJ] has effectively brought together a body of cognate literature, and one that appears to represent an important current in fifth-century writing and practice."

Edit

91-92

Strickmann claims that the Fo miedu hou guan lian zangsong jing 佛滅度後棺斂葬送經 T392 is a fifth century Chinese “apocryphon” which is part of a genre of texts that record the predictions made by the Buddha while on his deathbed. This particular text relates a story which was told to Faxian on his travels through Ceylon. The story tells of the Buddha’s almsbowl, which, throughout the centuries following the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, was destined to travel to “Tocharia, Khotan, Qarashahr, China, and eventually back to Ceylon and India” before ascending to Maitreya’s heaven. After the bowl had gone, the Dharma would disappear and the world would descend into chaos until the arrival of Maitraya. Faxian admits that the Indian monk who related this story provided an exact timetable for this, but he did not record it. Faxian is said to have requested to make a copy of the text, and the monk told him “there is no scripture; I was simply reciting the tradition.” Thus, there is no Indic record of this text.

Edit

113-114 n. 33

The Śrīgupta-sūtra 德護長者經 T545 contains an interpolation which, according to Strickmann, is an example of “scriptural tampering” in the service of an emperor. The passage states that Candraprabhā-kumāra will be reborn as Daxing, a pious ruler of the Sui dynasty devoted to the worship of the Buddha’s almsbowl, which will arrive in China during his reign. While he is in power, all in his kingdom will have faith in the Dharma. After half a century, in an act of great inspiration to all of his subjects, Daxing will become a monk. For more information Strickmann cites: Forte, Political Propaganda, and Forte, Mingtang and Buddhist Utopias in the History of the Astronomical Clock: The Tower Statue and Armillary Sphere Constructed by Empress Wu.

Edit

103

Strickmann argues that the Guanding jing 佛說灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘咒經 T1331 is a composite “apocryphon.” While it is attributed in the Taishō to Śrīmitra, Strickmann argues that if this were the case, the text “would [evince] a different type of interest”. The attribution to Śrīmitra, like many false attributions, is first found in LDSBJ (115 n. 40). Strickmann notes that Sengyou considered the first eleven of the sūtra’s twelve sections as genuine but anonymous translations. He thought that the collection originally only comprised the first nine books, but books ten and eleven were added later, while twelve was an entirely separate type of text.

Strickmann identifies various possible sources for the text. In discussing the endtimes doctrine of the text, he identifies Faxian's Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra T376 as a possible "source" or "analogue" [glossing over important differences of detail---MR]; he regards the anonymous Fa miejing jing 法滅盡經 T396 as another such source or analogue, mentioning in passing that this text is also a Chinese composition. The eighth "book", T1331(8), derives from the Maṇiratna-sūtra 摩尼羅亶經 T1393 ascribed to Tanwulan 曇無蘭. Book twelve, the Guanding bachu zui'e shengsi de du jing 灌頂拔除過罪生死得度經 T1331(12), is a special case, “a version of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra made in 457”. Sengyou treated this work in a category apart, and regarded it as an apocryphon in its own right. Sengyou held that this text had been composed by Huijian 慧簡 in 457, on the basis of an earlier, authentic translation of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (90-91). Strickmann suggests that although Sengyou only took Huijian for the author of this single book, "it seems probable...[that] Sengyou has really named, dated and localized the author-compiler of the whole work [viz. T1331]" (91).

Strickmann discusses the possibility that some of the spirit names, which present themselves as transcriptions from an Indian language but "do not lend themselves easily to...reconstruction", might be "simply free variations upon Sanskrit vocables...a kind of pseudo-Sanskrit". If this were this case, it would obviously be further evidence for the "apocryphal" nature of the text. However, Strickmann cautions, "Most of these complex spirit-names prove to be wholesale adaptations of syllabic compounds appearing in dhāraṇī formulae found in translated works of Indian origin", giving the example of a transcription that is close to on in Tanwulan, with only slight variations. On the other hand, he notes an extensive "purely Chinese demonological repertory" that features in the text alongside spiritual forces familiar from Indic texts.

Another body of evidence discussed by Strickmann in support of the contention that T1331 was composed in China consists of reactions against Daoism (93): for instance, it makes scathing references to heretics who make recipients of their texts swear oaths of secrecy and give pledges of valuables and silk. At the same time, the work also shows traces of Daoist influence, such as opening with a catalogue of gods (94). Strickmann further suggests that these formal analogies betray similarities in function to Daoist works: to serve as talismans, and "guarantee the believer's physical security in a turbulent age", etc. Another trace of such influence by, or relationship to, Daoist materials can be seen in a preoccupation also found in Daoist works with discrediting the trappings of ordinary Chinese folk religion, such as "frenzied drumming and dancing and...ruinous and defiling rites of animal sacrifice" (97 ff.).

Sengyou labelled the sūtra as a whole as “fabricated” on the basis of translated texts. Strickmann argues that the text is composed from elements drawn from prior Buddhist texts, along with original material, and contains traces of the major types of religion present in the fifth century. Strickmann concludes that the most satisfactory hypothesis is that the text was authored by Huijian sometime around 457. He suggests that certain indications within the text suggest that "the man responsible for our sūtra was one of a group of younger monks, dissatisfied with existing clerical and social conditions, who drew inspiration from the eschatological message that echoed widely throughout fifth-century China" (89). Strickmann points out that Huijian was credited with "a list of works" in LDSBJ T2034:49.93b7-c7 [also followed by DTNDL T2149:55.260c22-261a2], including the extant independent Āgama-derived 閻羅王五天使者經 T43, 瞿曇彌記果經 T60, 長者子六過出家經 T134, 佛母般泥洹經 T145, 貧窮老公經 T797(a,b), and 請賓頭盧法 T1689, and these texts include some material arguably related to T1331: the Fo bannihuan hou bian ji 佛般泥洹後變記, which is appended as a postface to T145, "accords perfectly with the parallel information included in [T1331]"; and T1331 also includes "adaptations of tales from the Āgamas (like those in the independent little sūtras attributed to [Huijian]). Strickmann therefore suggests that "whether or not we are justified in retaining Huijian's name on any of these works, we must note that [LDSBJ] has effectively brought together a body of cognate literature, and one that appears to represent an important current in fifth-century writing and practice." On the whole, this supports Strickmann's contention that in identifying Huijian as the author of T1331(12), he may have identified the author of the whole collection.

Edit

77-86, 88-101, 104-105 etc.

Strickmann claims that the Puxian pusa shuo zhengming jing 普賢菩薩說證明經 T2879 is a Chinese apocalyptic composition which dates from the late sixth century. The sūtra refers to the “white-robed religious and laymen” which relates to the whitening of religious robes characteristic of later Maitreyan movements. For more on this text, Strickmann refers to Forte, Political Propaganda, pp. 271-280.

Edit

114 n. 35