|
|
Kotyk summarises views in modern scholarship about the authorship of the 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 T1796 aka 大日經疏, ascribed in T to Yixing 一行. "Osabe Kazuo 長部和雄 questioned Yixing’s authorship of the commentary on the basis that it is not mentioned
in Tang catalogs and biographies, and other issues such as its complex history of recensions in China and Japan." "A revised version ... called Dari jing yishi 大日經義釋 (X 23) ... in Japan has traditionally been attributed to Zhiyan 智儼 (d.u.) and Wengu 溫古 (fl. 723), but this attribution has also been called into question by Shimizu Akisumi 清水明澄 due to problematic statements in the preface." Kotyk himself argues, however, on the basis of elements of content, that there is no reason to doubt the traditional ascription.
Edit
|
30-31 |
Kotyk summarises views in modern scholarship about the authorship of the 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 T1796 aka 大日經疏, ascribed in T to Yixing 一行. "Osabe Kazuo 長部和雄 questioned Yixing’s authorship of the commentary on the basis that it is not mentioned
in Tang catalogs and biographies, and other issues such as its complex history of recensions in China and Japan." "A revised version ... called Dari jing yishi 大日經義釋 (X 23) ... in Japan has traditionally been attributed to Zhiyan 智儼 (d.u.) and Wengu 溫古 (fl. 723), but this attribution has also been called into question by Shimizu Akisumi 清水明澄 due to problematic statements in the preface." Kotyk himself argues, however, on the basis of elements of content, that there is no reason to doubt the traditional ascription. T1796; 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 X0023; 大藏正教血盆經 |
|
|
Kotyk argues that the Qi yao rang zai jue 七曜攘災決 T1308 is a Chinese compilation. It "build[s] on the earlier tradition of Indian astrology introduced into China in the mid-eighth century, yet ... incorporat[es] Chinese features and ... many Iranian elements". Kotyk gives reasons for doubting the traditional ascription to Jinjuzha 金俱吒, arguing that he was more likely a literary invention than a historical person (38-39). His main treatment of the mixed Chinese and foreign elements that he discerns in the text is at 39-55. He dates the text "between 806, when its ephemeris for Rāhu commences, and 865, when Shūei 宗叡 brought it to Japan". Kotyk does not provide any positive alternative suggestion of who might have composed or compiled the text.
Edit
|
|
Kotyk argues that the Qi yao rang zai jue 七曜攘災決 T1308 is a Chinese compilation. It "build[s] on the earlier tradition of Indian astrology introduced into China in the mid-eighth century, yet ... incorporat[es] Chinese features and ... many Iranian elements". Kotyk gives reasons for doubting the traditional ascription to Jinjuzha 金俱吒, arguing that he was more likely a literary invention than a historical person (38-39). His main treatment of the mixed Chinese and foreign elements that he discerns in the text is at 39-55. He dates the text "between 806, when its ephemeris for Rahu commences, and 865, when Shuei 宗叡 brought it to Japan". Kotyk does not provide any positive alternative suggestion of who might have composed or compiled the text. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1308; 七曜攘災決 |