Source: Moretti 2016

Moretti, Costantino. Genèse d'un apocryphe bouddhique: Le Sūtra de la pure délivrance. Mémoires de l'Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises XLI. Paris: Collège de France, Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, 2016.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Moretti shows in a table that a chunk of a verse and a half (six four-syllable feet) is rather closely paralleled (with slight variations in wording) between the Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 (cf. X15), the Dhammapada T210 ascribed to Weiqinan 維祇難 but probably by Zhi Qian (see Nattier 2008), the Dhammapada T211 ascribed to Faju 法炬 and Fali 法立, and the Si zi qin jing 四自侵經 T736 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa,

T210 (IV) 559b3-5; T211 (IV) 593a9-10; T736 (XVII) 538a6-7; X15 (I) 369b15-17.

Edit

131-132

 Moretti shows in a table that a chunk of a verse and a half (six four-syllable feet) is rather closely paralleled (with slight variations in wording) between the Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 (cf. X15), the Dhammapada T210 ascribed to Weiqinan 維祇難 but probably by Zhi Qian (see Nattier 2008), the Dhammapada T211 ascribed to Faju 法炬 and Fali 法立, and the Si zi qin jing 四自侵經 T736 ascribed to Dharmaraksa, T210 (IV) 559b3-5; T211 (IV) 593a9-10; T736 (XVII) 538a6-7; X15 (I) 369b15-17. T0210; 法句經; Dharmapada T0211; 法句譬喻經 T0738; 佛說分別經 X0015; Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經; Jing du jing 淨度經; 淨度三昧經

In the course of his monographic study of the Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 (cf. X15), Moretti surveys evidence in catalogues, bracketing out those for which he surmises that the bibliographers had not in fact seen the texts they list. On this basis, he notes that the text was treated at first treated as authentic by Sengyou, followed by Fei Zhangfang and Fajing. Yancong was the first to express suspicion about its authenticity. It was definitively excluded from the canon by Zhisheng in KYL (45 ff.). In the early tradition, the text was treated as the product of an anonymous "translator", but subsequently, various bibliographers advanced four different attributions, to Baoyun 寶雲, a collaboration between Baoyun and Zhiyan 智嚴, a collaboration between Guṇabhadra and Baoyun, and to Tanyao 曇曜. The attribution to Tanyao was first seen in LDSBJ. Tsukamoto and Makita argued on the basis of various items of evidence that the text was produced in the North, under the N. Wei, in the atmosphere that prevailed after the persecution of Buddhism by Taiwudi and its subsequent restitution. Against this theory, Ziegler proposed that the text was produced later, in the South (67 n. 175). Moretti himself, following arguments by Ōuichi Fumio showing a close philological relation between this text and the "Sūtra of Trapuṣa and Bhallika", favours a theory close to Tsukamoto and Makita, but confines himself to saying that Tanwei was a figurehead in the production of the text, rather than its actual compiler (see summary p. 66-67, summarising much of Chapter 1).

Among the evidence of intertextual relations (probable sources of the Jing du sanmei jing) that Moretti studies are the following: a gloss on 留日三, the name of a medicine, which is close to a passage in the Kongzi jiayu 孔子家語 (127-128); a passage paralleld in the Dhammapada T210 (ascribed to Weiqinan, probably by Zhi Qian) and also in T736 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (131-132); a passage which echoes T196 and T212 (133-134); further passages in T210 (133, 135-136, 137); another passage shared with T736 (150); and a passage shared with Dharmarakṣa's T154 (151).

Edit

 In the course of his monographic study of the Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 (cf. X15), Moretti surveys evidence in catalogues, bracketing out those for which he surmises that the bibliographers had not in fact seen the texts they list. On this basis, he notes that the text was treated at first treated as authentic by Sengyou, followed by Fei Zhangfang and Fajing. Yancong was the first to express suspicion about its authenticity. It was definitively excluded from the canon by Zhisheng in KYL (45 ff.). In the early tradition, the text was treated as the product of an anonymous "translator", but subsequently, various bibliographers advanced four different attributions, to Baoyun 寶雲, a collaboration between Baoyun and Zhiyan 智嚴, a collaboration between Gunabhadra and Baoyun, and to Tanyao 曇曜. The attribution to Tanyao was first seen in LDSBJ. Tsukamoto and Makita argued on the basis of various items of evidence that the text was produced in the North, under the N. Wei, in the atmosphere that prevailed after the persecution of Buddhism by Taiwudi and its subsequent restitution. Against this theory, Ziegler proposed that the text was produced later, in the South (67 n. 175). Moretti himself, following arguments by Ouichi Fumio showing a close philological relation between this text and the "Sutra of Trapusa and Bhallika", favours a theory close to Tsukamoto and Makita, but confines himself to saying that Tanwei was a figurehead in the production of the text, rather than its actual compiler (see summary p. 66-67, summarising much of Chapter 1). Among the evidence of intertextual relations (probable sources of the Jing du sanmei jing) that Moretti studies are the following: a gloss on 留日三, the name of a medicine, which is close to a passage in the Kongzi jiayu 孔子家語 (127-128); a passage paralleld in the Dhammapada T210 (ascribed to Weiqinan, probably by Zhi Qian) and also in T736 ascribed to Dharmaraksa (131-132); a passage which echoes T196 and T212 (133-134); further passages in T210 (133, 135-136, 137); another passage shared with T736 (150); and a passage shared with Dharmaraksa's T154 (151). Tanyao, 曇曜 X0015; Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經; Jing du jing 淨度經; 淨度三昧經