Greene, Eric Matthew. “Meditation, Repentance and Visionary Experience in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” PhD dissertation, U. C. Berkeley, 2012.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
"Apocryphal". |
477 n. 2 |
|
Greene conveniently summarises various pieces of prior research. Portions of the text correspond to Aśvaghoṣa’s Sundarananda (citing Matsunami 1967, Shi Huimin 2001, Kannō 2002). Tsukinowa suggested that Sengrui wrote this text. Zacchetti has identified passages that look like earlier Chinese meditation texts. Greene himself thinks there's not enough evidence yet to exclude significant Indic origins for many portions of the content. Funayama menyions it as an example of "lecture texts", (2006): 47-48. |
41-46, 43 n. 118; see also 56-58 |
|
"This commentary, the Qing guan yin jing shu 請觀音經疏 (T.1800), has traditionally been ascribed to Zhiyi, but modern scholarship points to Guanding as the author (Andō 1968, 387–418)." Citing Andō Toshio 安藤俊雄 Tendai gaku 天台学. Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1968. |
330 n. 13 |
|
Apocryphal. |
477 n. 2 |
|
The Outlines of Chan Practice has been attributed to Zhiyi since at least the eighth century, and is listed as such in Saicho’s ninth-century catalog of the texts he brought back to Japan (Chuan jiao dashi jiang lai tai zhou lu 傳 教大師將來台州錄, T.2159:55.1055c18). However Satō Tetsuei has shown that while structurally the text appears to be a commentary on portions of the Explanation of the Sequential Path , the text presupposes the full gamut of Zhiyi’s writings, and moreover cites passages from Tiantai works such as the Si nian chu 四念處 that are now strongly suspected to have been written by Zhiyi’s disciple Guanding 灌頂 (Satō 1961, 273–276). Because the Outlines of Chan Practice has been little studied apart from Satō pioneering research, it is difficult to say more precisely from when this text might date, but it seems safe to take it as a seventh-century work." Sato Tetsuei 佐藤哲英. Tendai Daishi no kenkyu, Chigi o no chosaku ni kansuru kisoteki kenkyu 天台大師の研究; 智顗の著作に關する基礎的硏究. Kyoto: Hyakkaen, 1961. |
285 n. 84 |
|
Apocyrphal. Citing Yanagida (1999). |
78 n. 2 |
|
"Although [it was] eventually attributed to Kumārajīva, the bibliographic evidence for this is weak." "The Records of the Canon (T.2145:55.6a16) actually attributes it to the second-century translator An Shigao, clearly impossible as it uses terminology that appeared only beginning with the translations of Kumārajīva." |
64 |
|
"The Scripture on the Supremacy of Meditation was first brought to scholarly attention by Sekiguchi Shindai in 1950 (reprinted in Sekiguchi 1969, 379–395), who prepared an edition based on a single Dunhuang manuscript that was subsequently lost. More recently other copies have been found among the Dunhuang manuscripts in the Beijing library, and on their basis a new edition was prepared by Fang Guangchang 方廣錩 (1995). However the most complete edition is now that of Inosaki Jikidō 猪崎直道 (1998), who has used both the Beijing manuscripts consulted by Fang and Sekiguchi’s edition, and further suggested emendations. The Scripture on the Supremacy of Meditation has also recently been studied by Paul Magnin, who has translated Sekiguchi’s edition into French (2002)." "For introductions to the text and the question of its probable composition in China, see Sekiguchi 1969, 379–395; Inosaki 1998, 312–319; Magnin 2002, 229–271." "There is also a Tibetan translation, made from the Chinese (Tanaka and Shinohara 1980, 355)." Referring to Fang Guangchang 方廣錩, ed. 1995–2008 Zang wai fo jiao wen xian 藏外佛教文獻. 12 volumes. Beijing, Zong jiao wen hua chu ban she. Inosaki Jikidō 猪崎直道. “Saimyōshō jō kyō kō” 『最妙勝定経』考. Komazawa daigaku bukkyō gakubu ronshū 駒沢大学仏教学部論集 29 (1998): 312–328. Magnin, Paul. “L'orthodoxie en question: une étude du Soutra de la concentration la plus profounde et souveraine (Zui miaosheng ding jing).” In Bouddhisme et Lettrés dans la Chinese Médiévale, edited by Catherine Despeux, 229–300. Paris, Éditions Peeters, 2002. Tanaka Ryōshō 田中良昭 and Shinohara Hisao 篠原壽雄, ed. 1980 Tonkō butten to Zen 敦煌仏典と禅. Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha. |
240 esp. n. 115 |
|
Greene mentions Si nian chu 四念處 T1918 as an example of a text which uses the image of “wood draped in cloth” for unworthy monks wearing monastic robes. He claims that this usage is drawn from Zui sheng miao ding jing 最妙勝定經, an early sixth century Chinese composition found at Dunhuang that contains “an influential prophecy of the decline of the Dharma.” Greene cites Sekiguchi Shindai 関口真大, Tendai shikan no kenkyū 天台止觀の研究 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 1969), 401. |
541 n. 6 |
|
Greene notes that the Fo shuo fa mie jin jing 法滅盡經 T396 was listed as an anonymous translation in the Records of the Canon and thus “must have been in existence no later than the late fifth century.” This “short text of unknown origin” contains the image of “spontaneous transformation of monastic robes into lay clothing as a sign of the decay of Buddhism.” Greene adds that this passage concerning “the spontaneous whitening of monastic robes” came to be widely cited in subsequent Chinese works, for which he refers to 法苑珠林 T2122. |
540 n. 6 |
|
Greene notes that the Fo shuo fa mie jin jing 法滅盡經 T396 was listed as an anonymous translation in the Records of the Canon and thus “must have been in existence no later than the late fifth century.” This “short text of unknown origin” contains the image of “spontaneous transformation of monastic robes into lay clothing as a sign of the decay of Buddhism.” Greene adds that the passage of this text concerning “the spontaneous whitening of monastic robes” came to be widely cited in subsequent Chinese works for which he refers to 法苑珠林 T2122. |
540 n. 6 |
Greene discusses T618 at some length. He states that the text "is almost certainly an authentic translation of an Indian or Central Asian text" (49). He also refers to work by Inokuchi (1966) which showed similarities in arrangement between this text and the Sanskrit "Yogalehrbuch". |
48-63 |
|
|
"On the basis of their contents many scholars have questioned whether the texts traditionally associated with Dharmamitra are truly translations at all. In the case of the Five Gates, however, it is very difficult to reach any firm conclusions about these matters." "Although the present version of this text does seem to be the conflation of at least two distinct Chinese sources [which Greene calls "Format A" and "Format B" sections], much of its contents may well be the translation of an Indic source, or at the very least a set of notes or teachings delivered in China by an Indian chan master such as Dharmamitra. Whether Dharmamitra himself should be associated with the text is probably impossible to determine for certain. But it seems probable that it was at the least associated with someone very much like Dharmamitra, that is to say one of the numerous foreign chan masters active in south China during the early fifth century." Greene does not seem to say which scholars he has in mind as having questioned Dharmamitra's translations. Greene shows by a detailed example (tabulated, 65-66) that T619 and T617 overlap in portions of T619 that he calls for this purpose "Format B". The presentation in T617 is somewhat more extended and elaborate than in T619. He adds that T617 seems "in a general way" "indebted to the chan texts of Kumārajīva" (63), so that it seems unlikely that it dates before the first decade of the fifth century. In a separate discussion, Greene says that the "Format A" sections of T619 seem to have "few, if any, structural or stylistic parallels among known Indian or Chinese meditation texts" (67). He concludes, "Although it is not impossible that the present text of [T619] is simply the Chinese translation of an Indic text that itself had multiple layers, it seems more probable that [it] reached its present form through the combination of (at least) two discrete Chinese texts" (74-75). He cites Yamabe (1999): 84-100 on these two layers. |
63-75 |
|
126 |
|
Greene discusses 禪祕要法經 T613 and 治禪病祕要法 T620 together. Greene argues at length, with reference to reports in tradition catalogues, and to manuscripts held at the Nara Shōsōin, citations in the Fa yuan zhu lin 法苑珠林 T2122, and glosses in Xuanying’s Yiqie jing yin yi 一切經音義 T2128, that these two texts originally circulated under various titles as a single text (in this order), but were separated in transmission (see esp. Ch. 2, 109-127). He suggests that the original title of the text was Chan yao mimi zhibing jing 禪要秘密治病經 (126). Greene thinks that this text/s was/were “almost certainly Chinese compositions, not translations” (79). At the same time, he notes that they are “not blatant Chinese fabrications, and contain almost no overt traces of Chinese cosmology or other telltale signs of Chinese origin” (81). Greene argues that it is most likely that the single ancestral text behind T613/T620 was first written down (though not necessary composed) by Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 (127-132). Greene also aims to show that T613/T620 shares certain features with, and is/are closely connected to, texts in Mochizuki’s “contemplation sūtra” group (T643, T452, T277, T409, T1161, and T365)—among other things, a “welter of unusual terminology and unique turns of phrase” (82-86). This seems to refer to a list of unusual expressions and phraseology shared by T613/T620 with the Upasena narrative only in the the 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經 in T1043 and T643 (331-335). (Greene suggests, very interestingly, that “contemplation sūtras” may have been directed at lay practitioners, whereas sūtras in the fifth-century “chan group”, that is, T611-T620, including the text/s under discussion here, may have been directed at monastics; 86.) Greene discusses Tsukinowa’s (1971) theory that T613/T620 was/were composed in China. Greene finds many of Tsukinowa’s arguments unconvincing. However, he also says, "I stress these points not because Tsukinowa’s conclusions turn out to be wrong—indeed that these texts were not simply translated from Indic originals is almost certainly correct—but to show that Tsukinowa’s analysis of the texts as blatant Chinese forgeries is inaccurate." "The picture that emerges is of texts that were indeed assembled in China, by Chinese authors and editors, but which drew the majority of their inspiration from Chinese translations of Indian Buddhist texts or other similar sources." Greene also argues at length that 五門禪經要用 T619 “served as the precursor to the third sutra of the Chan Essentials", that is to say, that it is one of its sources (100-104). This is an important component of his argument that T613/T620, as we have them, must be (a) Chinese composition(s). Greene disagrees with Yamabe, who argued that T619 is a shorter distillation of material originally presented in T613 (104 n. 111); Greene argues, rather, that T613 in these portions is an expansion of T619 (104-107). Greene argues further that material preserved in S. 2585=T2914, which is also related to T619, gives us a glimpse of how this rewriting process may have looked (107-108). T613/T620 also contains borrowings from prior Chinese translations: Dharmarkṣema’s Suvarṇabhāsottama T663, Kumārajīva’s Pūrṇaparipṛcchā, and Buddhabhadra’s Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī T1012 (97-99). The version of the story of Virūdhaka’s attack on Kapilavastu contained in the frame narrative of the first sūtra also suggests that the author consulted specifically T156 [itself thought to be a Chinese composition] (319 n. 34). The narrative of Upasena featuring in the text, Greene argues, "was originally contained in (or even equal to the whole of) the Avalokitasvara Contemplation Sutra 觀世音觀經, a seventh "contemplation sūtra" thought lost; but Greene also argues that this text may survive "as a portion or even the entirety" of the 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經 T1043 (323-327 and Appendix 2). T613/T620 also features misunderstandings of Indic terms, borrowings from prior Chinese translations, and use of certain Chinese concepts (95-97). It also contains at least one reference to a concept that seems to be unique to Chinese cosmology (99-100). Greene’s Appendix 3 (342-613) gives an edition and full translation of the composite text comprising T613 and T620 combined. [Greene himself, 344, gives T615 as the Taishō number for the 治禪病祕要法, the second of these two texts, but so far as I can see, this must be in error; he gives the correct Taishō number at 78 --- MR.] For convenience, Greene creates a numbering system to indicate his analysis of the structure of the text, and in that system, §§1-4 comprise T613, and §§5-6 comprise T620. On Greene’s analysis, the portion of the text corresponding to the present T613 show signs of having been organised in keeping with two simultaneous structuring principles, which are not entirely compatible with one another. The first is a series of narratives about practitioners of meditation and the meditations they are prescribed, which “clearly sit lightly atop an underlying stratum of material” (86). These narratives are summarised in Greene’s Appendix 2, and the basis for his division of the text into his main six large sections in Appendix 3. Each of these six sections, further, is marked by the formal features of a separate sūtra. At the same time, the “underlying stratum” is a series of more numerous specific meditations, which seem (at least loosely) to comprise an organised curriculum. An especially clear indication of this second structuring principle is the division of Greene’s first three sūtras into 30 numbered meditations (87-89). Greene concludes, “Either the 30-part structure was added atop the four sutras complete with their narratives, or the four sutra narratives were used to reorganize a single text that originally outlined a complete path” (89). The portion of the text corresponding to the present T620 is organised differently, as a series of considerations relating to fending off madness and attacks by demons in meditative practice; Greene suggests it may originally have functioned as a sort of appendix (89-90). Cf. Tsukinowa Kenryū 月輪賢隆. “Butten no shijū” 仏典の始終. In Butten no hihanteki kenkyū 仏典の批判的研究. Kyoto, Hyakkaen (1971). |
92 ff., n. 57. |
|
|
323-336 |
|
Greene writes: "As far as I am aware scholars have never seriously questioned the traditional attribution holding that the Invitation Sutra [viz. the 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經 ] was translated in or near the southern capital by the Indian boat captain Nandi (難提) at the beginning of the Song dynasty (420 C.E.). However the Records of the Canon, the earliest relevant source, lists the Invitation Sutra as an anonymous translation, and Nandi, an obscure figure known from only a few other sources, is linked to this text only in later catalogs beginning from the seventh century. That initially this text indeed did not bear this attribution is confirmed in that the earliest copies of the text itself, from the Sui or early Tang, do not mention a translator while the later versions do. For some reason, however, these problems have not attracted the attention of even ordinarily suspicious scholars." Greene argues further that the present T1043 may have resulted from a merger of two sets of originally separate materials. "While there thus remain a number of questions about the nature of the Invitation Sutra and the Upasena narrative, as we have seen there are good reasons for doubting the traditional claim that the Invitation Sutra was translated in its present form by the Indian boat captain Nandi, and moreover for considering that the Upasena narrative in particular may have originally belonged to, or even constituted, the lost Avalokitasvara Contemplation." Greene argues at length in Appendix 2 (328-336) that the part or even all of the lost Avalokitasvara Contemplation may survive as part of T1043. He points out in 328 n. 6 that the transmitted versions of T1043 can be divided into two lineages. The Upasena narrative in the text (only, not other portions of the text) shares a number of unusual expressions and phraseology with T613, T620, and T643 (331-335; Greeen's terms are 心脈, 如馳流水, 苦空無常敗壞不久磨滅, 一一節間, 芭蕉, 四大定, 豁然意解, 如熱時焰如野馬行). In part on the basis of this evidence, he suggests that the present T1043 is the result of the coalescence of two originally separate texts (335). Greene also notes: "It seems possible that the version of the Invitation Sutra commented on by Guanding, and that used as the basis for the early Tiantai rituals, was somewhat different than the current version." |
328-335 and n. 6 |
|
|
Greene argues that the “translation” of the Chu yao jing probably did not take place until after Buddhabhadra’s arrival in China (i.e., after 406-8), which is significantly later than the dates of composition given in bibliographic catalogs, and a preface to the work. According to the catalog section of CSZJJ, the Chu yao jing was rendered into Chinese in Chang’an by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 sometime between 373 and 383 (T2145 [LV] 10c5–6). LDSBJ states that the Chu yao jing was completed in 374 (T2034 [XLIX] 77a12). These dates are "flatly contradicted" by Zhu Fonian’s biography in CSZJJ, which explains that Zhu Fonian first began work in China during the rule of Fujian 符堅 (r. 357–384), but the Chu yao jing was rendered into Chinese from an Indic language during a second phase of translation activity that took place during the reign of Yaoxing 姚興 (r. 399–415), after Kumārajīva and other prominent translators, including Buddhabhadra, had arrived in Chang’an (T2145 [LV] 111b21–23). [Greene's reasoning is in part based upon the existence of the term 禪師 in the text, T212 [IV] 639c25. If T212 dates before Buddhabhadra, this would be the earliest known instance of the term. Note that Greene appears not to have taken into consideration the preface by Sengrui, which dates the translation of T212 to T388-389. However, Greene himself also notes that the line mentioning 禪師 could be a later addition to the text. --- MR] Note also that a preface by Sengrui 僧叡, the 出曜經序, T212 (IV) 609b25-c14, states that work on the Chu yao jing was completed in the year 399 (during the spring of the inaugural reign year of Hongshi 弘始元年/後秦皇初六年春, 609c9). [This date is --- barely --- compatible with the information in the biography of Zhu Fonian, but not with Greene's hypothesis that portions of the text were added after Buddhabhadra's arrival --- MR] |
27, n. 50 |