Text: T0845; 佛說尊那經

Summary

Identifier	T0845 [T]
Title	佛說尊那經 [T]
Date	[None]
Translator 譯	*Dharmabhadra?, 法賢 [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.	T0845; 佛說尊那經	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: 佛說尊那經 People: *Dharmabhadra?, 法賢 (translator 譯) Identifier: T0845
No	[Benn 2008] Benn, James A. “Another Look at the Pseudo-Śūraṃgama Sūtra.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 68, no. 1 (2008): 57–89. — 63-65	T0845; 佛說尊那經	Benn argues that T845 is a Chinese composition that can be considered a precis of the essential points of T945. In some places T845 appears to summarise T945, or to base its insights on the extended discussions of T945. Both sūtras employ the metaphor of "flowers in the void [or sky] (konghua 空花)” the optical illusion that interferes with one’s eyesight. This metaphor is found in Indian literature, but, according to Benn, creators of Chinese compositions particularly enjoyed experimenting with this image. External literature also suggests a connection between these two texts. Like T945, T845 is first documented in Zhisheng’s Kaiyuan shijiao lu. Benn cites Mochizuki, who notes that that the first commentator on T945 (Weique) was also the first to write a commentary on T845, although Weique's biography makes no mention of T845 (Mochizuki 1946, 229-44). Lü Cheng has noted similarities between the titles and epithets of the two scriptures, "although he implies that T845 was composed before T945." Benn adds that the Song Huiyao seems to implicate Fang Rong in the composition of T845, although “this attribution does not appear to be attested in any Buddhist source.” Lü Cheng, “Lengyan bai wei,” Zhongguo zhexue 2 (1980): 196. Entry author: Sophie Florence Edit
No	[Benn 2008] Benn, James A. “Another Look at the Pseudo-Śūraṃgama Sūtra.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 68, no. 1 (2008): 57–89.	T0237; 金剛般若波羅蜜經 T0273; 金剛三昧經 T0845; 佛說尊那經 T0945; 首楞嚴經, *Śūraṃgama-sūtra; 大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經	Benn summarises scholarship by Mochizuki, Lü Cheng, Lo Hsiang-lin [Luo Xianglin], Stael-Holstein, Demieville, Gregory, Faure, Jorgensen, and Jiang Wu that has argued that T945 is an apocryphal sūtra composed in China at the beginning of the eighth century (57 n. 2; 61 ff.). One of the notable studies Benn cites is a monograph dedicated to T945 by Kim Chin-yol. Benn notes that there is significant confusion in the external evidence, which contain a number of different accounts of how, where, and when the “translation” was made. Later historians and commentators trued to cover up these discrepancies, but only added to the confusion. In this literature “clouds of suspicion” swirl around the possibility that the text was in fact authored by Wu Zetian's minister Fang Rong and his son Fang Guan. However, Benn claims that there is no conclusive proof to connect T945 to the Fangs. Benn suggests that rather, T945 "may have been written in response to certain statements concerning matters of correct practice contained in an influential work by...Yijing.” He thus still associates the text with the milieu at the end of the reign of Wu Zetian. Benn closely examines the relation of T945 to Chinese literary sources. He demonstrates the unique way in which T945 “adopts and adapts themes found elsewhere in the literature of medieval China, Buddhist and non-Buddhist.” According to Benn, T945 incorporates indigenous Chinese elements into standard Buddhist taxonomies. The seventh fascicle contains a twelve-fold rubric that, to the best of Benn's knowledge, is not attested in any “genuine” sūtra (Lü Cheng suggests this unusual categorisation is adapted from a passage in Paramārtha’s Diamond Sūtra T237; Lü Cheng, 195). The text lists twelve types of beings that are said to exist in saṃsāra; the first four are familiar in Indian Buddhist discourse, but the next six reveal what Benn calls a “distinctly Chinese conception of the natural order.” By this he means that the imagery employed is drawn from Chinese knowledge practices. For example, we find reference to blind jellyfish (shuimu 水母) a creature otherwise unknown in Buddhist texts, but featured in the Wen xuan 文選. The text goes on to discuss wasps that forcibly adopt other creatures; cannibalistic birds; demonic owls; and a beast called broken mirror (pojing). In addition to these creatures, Benn highlights Taoist themes presented in a Buddhist frame, and the use of a distinctive Chinese demonology. The T945 teaching on the seven elements, which Benn adds “may itself be apocryphal,” uses an extended analogy of the use of mirrors to ignite moxa/mugwort, a typically Chinese method of creating fire from the sun, in order to explain tathāgathagarbha. These passages illustrate the ways in which T945 blends typically Chinese knowledge practices with Mahāyāna ideas. Benn then demonstrates that one may detect within the thought of T945 a trend towards a kind of militant Mahāyāna asceticism which explicitly condemns various practices and beliefs. For instance, an overconfident meditator leaves his unsettled mind exposed to psychic attack from demonic forces and spouts heterodoxies about destroying stūpas and statues of Buddhas. Benn interprets this as a reaction to Chan rhetoric which locates authenticity in the mind rather than sūtras and statues, as found in the “Bodhidharma anthology” from Dunhuang. Another scenario appears to be directed at those who promote sexual practices associated with esoteric Buddhism. Benn takes this to indicate the attitudes of T945's author(s) toward other religious practitioners and contemporary teachers “during the turbulent religious scene of the early eighth century.” Benn lists two other texts dating to the same period, which are closely related to T945: T845 can be seen as a precis of T945; and T273 shares several similes and metaphors with both texts. 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.

T0845; 佛說尊那經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: 佛說尊那經
People: *Dharmabhadra?, 法賢 (translator 譯)
Identifier: T0845

[Benn 2008] Benn, James A. “Another Look at the Pseudo-Śūraṃgama Sūtra.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 68, no. 1 (2008): 57–89. — 63-65

T0845; 佛說尊那經

Benn argues that T845 is a Chinese composition that can be considered a precis of the essential points of T945. In some places T845 appears to summarise T945, or to base its insights on the extended discussions of T945. Both sūtras employ the metaphor of "flowers in the void [or sky] (konghua 空花)” the optical illusion that interferes with one’s eyesight. This metaphor is found in Indian literature, but, according to Benn, creators of Chinese compositions particularly enjoyed experimenting with this image.

External literature also suggests a connection between these two texts. Like T945, T845 is first documented in Zhisheng’s Kaiyuan shijiao lu. Benn cites Mochizuki, who notes that that the first commentator on T945 (Weique) was also the first to write a commentary on T845, although Weique's biography makes no mention of T845 (Mochizuki 1946, 229-44). Lü Cheng has noted similarities between the titles and epithets of the two scriptures, "although he implies that T845 was composed before T945." Benn adds that the Song Huiyao seems to implicate Fang Rong in the composition of T845, although “this attribution does not appear to be attested in any Buddhist source.”

Lü Cheng, “Lengyan bai wei,” Zhongguo zhexue 2 (1980): 196.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

[Benn 2008] Benn, James A. “Another Look at the Pseudo-Śūraṃgama Sūtra.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 68, no. 1 (2008): 57–89.

Benn summarises scholarship by Mochizuki, Lü Cheng, Lo Hsiang-lin [Luo Xianglin], Stael-Holstein, Demieville, Gregory, Faure, Jorgensen, and Jiang Wu that has argued that T945 is an apocryphal sūtra composed in China at the beginning of the eighth century (57 n. 2; 61 ff.). One of the notable studies Benn cites is a monograph dedicated to T945 by Kim Chin-yol.

Benn notes that there is significant confusion in the external evidence, which contain a number of different accounts of how, where, and when the “translation” was made. Later historians and commentators trued to cover up these discrepancies, but only added to the confusion. In this literature “clouds of suspicion” swirl around the possibility that the text was in fact authored by Wu Zetian's minister Fang Rong and his son Fang Guan. However, Benn claims that there is no conclusive proof to connect T945 to the Fangs. Benn suggests that rather, T945 "may have been written in response to certain statements concerning matters of correct practice contained in an influential work by...Yijing.” He thus still associates the text with the milieu at the end of the reign of Wu Zetian.

Benn closely examines the relation of T945 to Chinese literary sources. He demonstrates the unique way in which T945 “adopts and adapts themes found elsewhere in the literature of medieval China, Buddhist and non-Buddhist.” According to Benn, T945 incorporates indigenous Chinese elements into standard Buddhist taxonomies.

The seventh fascicle contains a twelve-fold rubric that, to the best of Benn's knowledge, is not attested in any “genuine” sūtra (Lü Cheng suggests this unusual categorisation is adapted from a passage in Paramārtha’s Diamond Sūtra T237; Lü Cheng, 195). The text lists twelve types of beings that are said to exist in saṃsāra; the first four are familiar in Indian Buddhist discourse, but the next six reveal what Benn calls a “distinctly Chinese conception of the natural order.” By this he means that the imagery employed is drawn from Chinese knowledge practices. For example, we find reference to blind jellyfish (shuimu 水母) a creature otherwise unknown in Buddhist texts, but featured in the Wen xuan 文選. The text goes on to discuss wasps that forcibly adopt other creatures; cannibalistic birds; demonic owls; and a beast called broken mirror (pojing). In addition to these creatures, Benn highlights Taoist themes presented in a Buddhist frame, and the use of a distinctive Chinese demonology. The T945 teaching on the seven elements, which Benn adds “may itself be apocryphal,” uses an extended analogy of the use of mirrors to ignite moxa/mugwort, a typically Chinese method of creating fire from the sun, in order to explain tathāgathagarbha. These passages illustrate the ways in which T945 blends typically Chinese knowledge practices with Mahāyāna ideas.

Benn then demonstrates that one may detect within the thought of T945 a trend towards a kind of militant Mahāyāna asceticism which explicitly condemns various practices and beliefs. For instance, an overconfident meditator leaves his unsettled mind exposed to psychic attack from demonic forces and spouts heterodoxies about destroying stūpas and statues of Buddhas. Benn interprets this as a reaction to Chan rhetoric which locates authenticity in the mind rather than sūtras and statues, as found in the “Bodhidharma anthology” from Dunhuang. Another scenario appears to be directed at those who promote sexual practices associated with esoteric Buddhism. Benn takes this to indicate the attitudes of T945's author(s) toward other religious practitioners and contemporary teachers “during the turbulent religious scene of the early eighth century.”

Benn lists two other texts dating to the same period, which are closely related to T945: T845 can be seen as a precis of T945; and T273 shares several similes and metaphors with both texts.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit