|
|
The Taishō attributes the Lüelun anle jingtu yi 略論安樂淨土義 T1957 to Tanluan 曇鸞 (476–554). However, according to Tani, scholars have proposed the following main theories about ascription of the text: the Tanluan theory; the Kumārajīva theory; the theory of Japanese authorship; or the theory of a disciple of Daochuo 道綽 (562–645).
The issue of authorship began to attract attention with the Edo period Tendai monk Reikū 霊空 (1652–1739). Reikū […] proposed that T1957 was a Japanese forgery, which sparked off a lively debate. Reikū ultimately developed the theory that T1957 composed in China was written by Kumārajīva, while the “Lüelun” that had been circulated in Japan was a Japanese forgery. Later, in his Anraku shū kōroku 安楽集講録 (Shinsō 真叢 5:442), the Jōdo Shinshū monk Sōboku 僧樸 (1719–1762) argued that the Lüelun was written by a disciple of Daochuo, based on the fact that expressions in the Lüelun were more similar to those in Daochuo’s Anle ji 安樂集 T1958 than to Tanluan’s Commentary on the Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa 無量壽經優婆提舍願生偈註 T1819, and because the title 略論安樂淨土義 was thought to be derived from the Anle ji 安楽集.
In modern times, in 1923, Itō Yoshikata 伊藤義賢 asserted the theory that, after Jizang 吉藏 wrote his Commentary on the Sutra of Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life [觀無量壽經疏 T1746? — I think this is a typo for T1752 觀無量壽經義疏, KHR], the Lüelun was forged in the name of Tanluan, using the teachings of Tanluan’s Commentary on the Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa T1819. In 1928, Mōri Kenmei 毛利賢明 provided a detailed refutation of the various theories, arguing for Tanluan’s authorship. Furthermore, prior to the works of Itō and Mōri, in 1917, Yabuki Keiki 矢吹慶輝 (1879–1939) introduced a manuscript excavated from Dunhuang, which became a strong source of evidence for the Tanluan theory.
Works cited:
Itō Yoshikata 伊藤義賢. Shina Bukkyō Seishi 支那仏教正史, vol. 1 (上巻). Takeshita Gakuryō Shuppan-bu 竹下学寮出版部, 1923.
Mōri Kenmei 毛利憲明 (1928):
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyū (ichi) 略論作者の研究（一）, Shinshū Kenkyū 真宗研究 vol. 14.
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyū (ni) 略論作者の研究（二）, Shinshū Kenkyū 真宗研究 vol. 15.
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyū (san) 略論作者の研究（三）, Shinshū Kenkyū 真宗研究 vol. 16.
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyū (yon) 略論作者の研究（四）, Shinshū Kenkyū 真宗研究 vol. 17.
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyū (go) 略論作者の研究（五）, Shinshū Kenkyū 真宗研究 vol. 18.
[No information given for Yabuki.]
Edit
|
|
The Taisho attributes the Luelun anle jingtu yi 略論安樂淨土義 T1957 to Tanluan 曇鸞 (476–554). However, according to Tani, scholars have proposed the following main theories about ascription of the text: the Tanluan theory; the Kumarajiva theory; the theory of Japanese authorship; or the theory of a disciple of Daochuo 道綽 (562–645).
The issue of authorship began to attract attention with the Edo period Tendai monk Reiku 霊空 (1652–1739). Reiku [...] proposed that T1957 was a Japanese forgery, which sparked off a lively debate. Reiku ultimately developed the theory that T1957 composed in China was written by Kumarajiva, while the “Luelun” that had been circulated in Japan was a Japanese forgery. Later, in his Anraku shu koroku 安楽集講録 (Shinso 真叢 5:442), the Jodo Shinshu monk Soboku 僧樸 (1719–1762) argued that the Luelun was written by a disciple of Daochuo, based on the fact that expressions in the Luelun were more similar to those in Daochuo’s Anle ji 安樂集 T1958 than to Tanluan’s Commentary on the Sukhavativyuhopadesa 無量壽經優婆提舍願生偈註 T1819, and because the title 略論安樂淨土義 was thought to be derived from the Anle ji 安楽集.
In modern times, in 1923, Ito Yoshikata 伊藤義賢 asserted the theory that, after Jizang 吉藏 wrote his Commentary on the Sutra of Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life [觀無量壽經疏 T1746? — I think this is a typo for T1752 觀無量壽經義疏, KHR], the Luelun was forged in the name of Tanluan, using the teachings of Tanluan’s Commentary on the Sukhavativyuhopadesa T1819. In 1928, Mori Kenmei 毛利賢明 provided a detailed refutation of the various theories, arguing for Tanluan’s authorship. Furthermore, prior to the works of Ito and Mori, in 1917, Yabuki Keiki 矢吹慶輝 (1879–1939) introduced a manuscript excavated from Dunhuang, which became a strong source of evidence for the Tanluan theory.
Works cited:
Ito Yoshikata 伊藤義賢. Shina Bukkyo Seishi 支那仏教正史, vol. 1 (上巻). Takeshita Gakuryo Shuppan-bu 竹下学寮出版部, 1923.
Mori Kenmei 毛利憲明 (1928):
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyu (ichi) 略論作者の研究(一), Shinshu Kenkyu 真宗研究 vol. 14.
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyu (ni) 略論作者の研究(二), Shinshu Kenkyu 真宗研究 vol. 15.
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyu (san) 略論作者の研究(三), Shinshu Kenkyu 真宗研究 vol. 16.
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyu (yon) 略論作者の研究(四), Shinshu Kenkyu 真宗研究 vol. 17.
o Ryakuron sakusha no kenkyu (go) 略論作者の研究(五), Shinshu Kenkyu 真宗研究 vol. 18.
[No information given for Yabuki.] T1957; 略論安樂淨土義 |