Text: T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Yes

[Hubbard DDB]  Hubbard, Jamie. DDB s.v. 師利 — Accessed April 2014

• T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Says of the author, "(ca. Early 8th century—Tang); monk of the Sanjie jiao 三階教 movement involved in the production of the apocryphal Foshuo shi suofanzhe yuqie fajing jing 佛說示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經
• People: Shili, 師利 (author)
• Identifier: T2896

No

[T2896 preface]  Preface to Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 (lost). — T2154:55.672b29-c14

• T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Cited by Zhisheng in KYL (in the process of vehemently refuting the attribution it reports): 三藏菩提流志三藏寶思惟等於崇福寺同譯.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Bodhiruci, 菩提流志, 達摩流支 (translator 譯); *Maṇicinta, *Maṇicintana, 寶思惟 (translator 譯)

No

[Zhisheng 730]  Zhisheng 智昇. Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL) 開元釋教錄 T2154 — T2154:55.672b29-c14

• T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Zhisheng says that the text is accompanied by a "forged preface" 兼有偽序. He says that the text was actually "forged" 偽造 by the "Three Stages" monk Shili 師利 in the year Jinglong 1 景龍元年 (707). "The preface claims, baselessly, that [the text] was translated by...the Trepiṭaka Bodhiruci, the Trepiṭaka *Maṇicinta et al. ....Note from the author of the present catalogue: I myself once asked the Trepiṭaka Bodhiruci directly about this matter, and the Trepiṭaka replied, 'There never was any such Sanskrit text in my possession, and I never translated this sūtra..."
右一經。即舊偽錄中像法決疑經前文增加二品共成一經。初云佛臨涅槃為阿難說法住滅品。此品乃取奘法師所譯佛臨涅槃記法住經。改換增減置之於首。次是地藏菩薩讚歎法身觀行品。後是常施菩薩所問品。此品即是舊經。據其文勢次第不相聯貫。景龍元年三階僧師利偽造。序中妄云。三藏菩提流志三藏寶思惟等於崇福寺同譯。師利云有梵夾流志曾不見聞。以舊編入偽中。再造望蠲疑錄。偽上加偽訛舛尤多。目閱可知不勞廣敘(撰錄者曰余曾以此事親問流志三藏三藏□云吾邊元無梵夾不曾翻譯此經三藏弟子般若丘多識量明敏具委其事恐時代綿遠謬濫真詮故此指明以誡於後其僧師利因少鬪訟聖躬親慮特令還俗豈非上天不祐降罰斯人又臨終之時腹大如瓮惡徵遄及可不懼歟).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Shili, 師利 (author)
• Date: 707

No

[Tokuno 1990 ]  Tokuno, Kyoko. "The Evaluation of Indigenous Scriptures in Chinese Buddhist Bibliographical Catalogues." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 31-74. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. — 55

• T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Tokuno notes that Zhisheng 智昇 refuted the attribution of the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 to Bodhiruci on the basis of its composition from prior textual sources. Zhisheng identified the text as an “apocryphon” authored by Shili 師利.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

• People: Shili, 師利 (author)

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. — 240-246

• T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Forte examines Zhisheng’s treatment of the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896 to demonstrate the relativity of what is considered to be an “apocryphal work” in the Chinese context. Forte notes that the text was granted canonical status by a commission in 712 which was formed to examine the Sanskrit texts brought to China by Maṇicintana. However, in 730 Zhisheng pronounced the text as “apocryphal” in the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu (KYL). Forte acknowledges that Zhisheng is considered to be a reliable bibliographer whose attribution of the sūtra to Shili is likely to be credible, but cites Zhisheng’s lengthy note on Shili and the Shi suofanzhe yuqie fa jing jing, in which he says: “How could it be that Shangtian would shield this man from punishment? Moreover, approaching the time of his end, his paunch became swollen like a jar.” Forte argues that Zhisheng’s vitriolic attitude towards the dead or dying man discredits his reliability by demonstrating that Zhisheng’s objective standards were compromised by the pressure on the bibliographer to obey the accepted orthodoxy of his time. Forte sees this as symptomatic of the harsh censorship of Xuanzong’s reign. However, Forte does not claim that the text should now be considered “authentic”, but rather, aims to draw attention to the relativity of the Chinese conceptions of ‘orthodox’ and ‘apocryphal,’ “as the definitions adapt to the vicissitudes of time and the vagaries of politics.”

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

[Lewis 1990]  Lewis, Mark Edward. "The Suppression of the Three Stages Sect: Apocrypha as a Political Issue." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 207-238. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. — 228

• T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Lewis cites Kaneko Hidetoshi to claim that monks of the Sanjie sect added to the Xiangfa jue yi jing passages which “explicitly denounced monks who became adherents to civil officials”, in order to compose the Fo shuo shi suofanzhe yuqie fajing jing 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經 T2896. Kaneko Hidetoshi, “Sangai-kyō no fuse kan,” Bukkyō shigaku 7:4 (1959): p. 49.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit