Text: T2870; 像法決疑經

No

• T2870; 像法決疑經

Lewis writes that the Xiangfa jue yi jing 像法決疑經 T2870 is an “officially apocryphal text” that was accepted by the Sanjie jiao sect and frequently quoted in their writings. Lewis argues that the text “obliterated the distinction between monk and layman” by providing a single “true mode” of religious practice common to both. The text conveys its message in three main ways: it emphasises that the object of dāna (giving) should be to support those who are suffering, rather than the saṃgha; it argues that all men, monks, laymen, rich and poor, should give dāna; and it claims that dāna is the only road to salvation, and the highest of the pāramitās (perfections). According to Lewis, all of the texts belonging to the Sanjie jiao sect were “denied legitimacy” and labelled as “apocrypha” because they challenged the efficiency of all government, the supremacy of the saṃgha, orthodox doctrine, and conventional Buddhist practice.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

• T2870; 像法決疑經

This article is part of a larger study which uses the Xiangfa jue yi jing 像法決疑經 T2870 to reconstruct a page in the history of the Chinese saṅgha roughly from the fifth to the eighth century, focusing on the relationship between religious ideals and economic behavior. It also makes a larger methodological argument in favor of using “apocryphal texts” produced in China as sources for studying the historical setting of the time. Lai aims to narrow down the date of production of T2870 and its specific historical setting by identifying references to other texts as well as historical events.

Lai places T2870 in Luoyang in the early sixth century. While he recognizes that the text seems to be by a single author, rather than a composite, he identifies two tiers in the text, the first including the preamble and main body of the text, the second covering the concluding sermon. He argues that the first tier draws on the Liangzhou 涼州 legacy of Dharmakṣema in the North, based both on other texts that this section refers to, as well as its general message. The central message he explains to be the promulgation of doing charitable deeds (dāna), particularly the donation of material goods. He argues that this is a lay practice and therefore concludes that this part of the text seems to target a lay audience. He calls this kammatic dānavāda realism. In the second tier, on the other hand, he identifies references to what he describes as a Southern legacy, namely works ascribed to Kumārajīva, and the Fanwang jing 梵網經. He describes this passage as representing a Mahāyānist prajñāvāda, as the Buddha now shifts to praising the ultimate truth of Mahāyāna emptiness and wisdom, and karmic rewards are declared illusions. This “hybrid” nature of T2870 is explained by him to be a result of the confluence in Luoyang after 494 of Kumārajīva’s legacy with the earlier tradition of Dharmakṣema. Lai also notes that the eschatological woes expressed in the text do not seem to follow any standard list as found in other texts concerning the Age of the Semblance Dharma (xiangfa 像法), but rather seem to refer to specific concerns of the time. Thus, by comparing the content of the text to historical events at the time, he places the text in the setting of a discourse on the perceived deficiencies in temple piety in early sixth century Luoyang.

Lai further narrows down the dates of the text to between 517 and 520 CE. Before Lai, the sūtra was already understood as having been produced in the sixth century, as it is listed in the Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 but is not mentioned in the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集. He arrives at this terminus post quem through a passage of the sūtra which he argues paraphrases certain lines from a memorial submitted to the throne by Prince Cheng in 517. This would also suggest, according to Lai, that the author might have had ties to the court. He argues the terminus ante quem to be 520 in light of various important events in that year, most significant of which the debate surrounding the date of the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. Lai explains that the text dates itself to the beginning of the Age of the Semblance Dharma , which the text understands to be 1000 years after the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha. In 520, debates surrounding the dating of the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa were settled in favor of the earlier date of 949 BCE. Assuming this date, would place T2870 in the first century rather than the sixth. Lai therefore argues that the sūtra assumes a later date for the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha and therefore should be placed before the debate in 520. To fortify his claim, Lai also points to several other fateful events in 520 that he argues would have been relevant to the content of the text but are not referred to in any way.

Entry author: Merijn ter Haar

Edit