Source: Utsuo 1954

Utsuo Shōshin 撫尾正信. "Makamaya kyō kan'yaku ni kansuru gigi 摩訶摩耶経漢訳に関する疑義." Saga Ryūkoku gakkai kiyō 佐賀龍谷学会紀要 2 (1954): 1-28[L].

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Utsuo argues that the Mahāmāyā was composed in China, and dates between 443 and 479 CE. Utsuo’s main grounds for this claim are as follows. 1. T383 is ascribed to Tanjing 曇景 (fl. 479–502) from Fajing’s 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146 onward, but the wording does not match Tanjing's supposed other translation, the Weicengyou yinyuan jing 未曾有因緣經 T754. 2. The circumstances of the supposed translation are vague. Tanjing is an almost perfectly obscure figure, and neither of the two historical person that can be identified with that name could plausibly have translated this text. The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154 rejects as spurious some of the supposed details attaching to the translation. 3. The text makes a mistake in the identification and placement of two of the four “heavenly kings”: it puts Virūḍhaka in the West, and Virūpākṣa in the South, but the reverse is the norm. 4. A passage speaks of China 振旦, and briefly sketches the spread of Buddhism to that region. 5. We find close matches in content and specific phrasing to the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra大般涅槃經 T7 ascribed to Faxian 法顯. 6. The wording sometimes has a “Chinese tang”, and the wording of different parts of the text is inconsistent. 7. The text features a timetable for the disappearance of the Dharma which Utsuo analyses as a digest of similar sources available in China at this time. In particular, Utsuo thinks that he finds telling matches with T396. 8. The text has a whiff of “Chinese ethics”, particularly in emphases on filial relations between mother and son, and the requital of maternal love. 9. The third title given internally for the text, 佛昇忉利天為母說法經, is taken from an older Chinese text, Dharmarakṣa’s T815, which has entirely different content.

Edit

25

 Utsuo argues that the Mahamaya was composed in China, and dates between 443 and 479 CE. Utsuo’s main grounds for this claim are as follows. 1. T383 is ascribed to Tanjing 曇景 (fl. 479–502) from Fajing’s 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146 onward, but the wording does not match Tanjing's supposed other translation, the Weicengyou yinyuan jing 未曾有因緣經 T754. 2. The circumstances of the supposed translation are vague. Tanjing is an almost perfectly obscure figure, and neither of the two historical person that can be identified with that name could plausibly have translated this text. The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154 rejects as spurious some of the supposed details attaching to the translation. 3. The text makes a mistake in the identification and placement of two of the four “heavenly kings”: it puts Virudhaka in the West, and Virupaksa in the South, but the reverse is the norm. 4. A passage speaks of China 振旦, and briefly sketches the spread of Buddhism to that region. 5. We find close matches in content and specific phrasing to the Mahaparinirvana-sutra大般涅槃經 T7 ascribed to Faxian 法顯. 6. The wording sometimes has a “Chinese tang”, and the wording of different parts of the text is inconsistent. 7. The text features a timetable for the disappearance of the Dharma which Utsuo analyses as a digest of similar sources available in China at this time. In particular, Utsuo thinks that he finds telling matches with T396. 8. The text has a whiff of “Chinese ethics”, particularly in emphases on filial relations between mother and son, and the requital of maternal love. 9. The third title given internally for the text, 佛昇忉利天為母說法經, is taken from an older Chinese text, Dharmaraksa’s T815, which has entirely different content. T0383; 摩訶摩耶經; Moye jing 摩耶經