Text: T1096; 不空羂索陀羅尼經

Summary

Identifier	T1096 [T]
Title	不空羂索陀羅尼經 [T]
Date	[None]
Translator 譯	Li Wuchan, 李無諂 [T]

There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.

There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
No	[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014.	T1096; 不空羂索陀羅尼經	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: 不空羂索陀羅尼經 People: Li Wuchan, 李無諂 (translator 譯) Identifier: T1096
No	[Forte 1990] Forte, Antonino. “The Relativity of the Concept of Orthodoxy in Chinese Buddhism: Chiih-sheng’s Indictment of Shih-li and the Proscription of the Dharma Mirror Sūtra.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 239-250. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. — 245	T1096; 不空羂索陀羅尼經	Forte argues that Zhisheng manipulated the attribution of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing 不空羂索陀羅尼經 (Amoghapāśadhāraṇī-sūtra) T1096, in order to conceal the connection between Bodhiruci 菩提流志 and Śrīmata 室利末多. Zhisheng wished to conceal this connection because it would imply a connection between Bodhiruci and Shili 師利 (Zhisheng opposed Shili largely because he was a renowned Three Stages master, and Zhisheng regarded the Three Stages sect as heretical). The text was originally attributed to Bodhiruci and included in the canon in 700. In 730, Zhisheng challenged this attribution, and argued that the text was in fact translated by Li Wuchan 李無諂. [The attribution of the text to Li Wuchan in the Taishō almost certainly stems from this judgement by Zhisheng---MR.] Forte claims that the purpose of this attribution was excise from the canon the final chapter of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing, which had been translated by Śrīmata. If Śrīmata was shown to have worked on T1096, it would evince that Śrīmata had worked with Bodhiruci, which in turn would imply a collusion between Bodhiruci and Shili. Forte argues that if Shili and Bodhiruci were shown to be connected, it would undermine Zhisheng’s designation of Bodhiruci and Maṇicintana 寶思惟 as “guarantors of the orthodoxy.” Forte’s argument for this text’s attribution depends on his wider argument that Zhisheng labelled Shili as a heretic on the basis of his political motives. Entry author: Sophie Florence Edit

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014.

T1096; 不空羂索陀羅尼經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: 不空羂索陀羅尼經
People: Li Wuchan, 李無諂 (translator 譯)
Identifier: T1096

[Forte 1990] Forte, Antonino. “The Relativity of the Concept of Orthodoxy in Chinese Buddhism: Chiih-sheng’s Indictment of Shih-li and the Proscription of the Dharma Mirror Sūtra.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 239-250. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. — 245

T1096; 不空羂索陀羅尼經

Forte argues that Zhisheng manipulated the attribution of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing 不空羂索陀羅尼經 (Amoghapāśadhāraṇī-sūtra) T1096, in order to conceal the connection between Bodhiruci 菩提流志 and Śrīmata 室利末多. Zhisheng wished to conceal this connection because it would imply a connection between Bodhiruci and Shili 師利 (Zhisheng opposed Shili largely because he was a renowned Three Stages master, and Zhisheng regarded the Three Stages sect as heretical). The text was originally attributed to Bodhiruci and included in the canon in 700. In 730, Zhisheng challenged this attribution, and argued that the text was in fact translated by Li Wuchan 李無諂. [The attribution of the text to Li Wuchan in the Taishō almost certainly stems from this judgement by Zhisheng---MR.] Forte claims that the purpose of this attribution was excise from the canon the final chapter of the Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni jing, which had been translated by Śrīmata. If Śrīmata was shown to have worked on T1096, it would evince that Śrīmata had worked with Bodhiruci, which in turn would imply a collusion between Bodhiruci and Shili. Forte argues that if Shili and Bodhiruci were shown to be connected, it would undermine Zhisheng’s designation of Bodhiruci and Maṇicintana 寶思惟 as “guarantors of the orthodoxy.” Forte’s argument for this text’s attribution depends on his wider argument that Zhisheng labelled Shili as a heretic on the basis of his political motives.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit