| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | 牟子理惑論, Mouzi li huo lun [Palumbo 2003] |
| Date | mid-5th century [Palumbo 2003] |
| Author | Huitong of Zhicheng si 治城寺惠通 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Palumbo 2003] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2003] Palumbo, Antonello. “Dharmarakṣa and Kaṇṭhaka: White Horse Monasteries in Early Medieval China.” In Buddhist Asia: Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples in May 2001, 168-216. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian, Studies, 2003. — 174 n. 21 |
"I will argue elsewhere my perception that the book is a forgery dating from the middle of the fifth cent., nevertheless consisting for the most part of Han and Three Kingdoms material; this was apparently woven together with great care in order to give the treatise a late Han appearance and serve its rhetorical purpose, which belongs wholly in the religious arguments of 5th-cent. southern China." Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2003] Palumbo, Antonello. “Dharmarakṣa and Kaṇṭhaka: White Horse Monasteries in Early Medieval China.” In Buddhist Asia: Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples in May 2001, 168-216. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian, Studies, 2003. — 174 n. 21 |
"I will argue elsewhere my perception that the [Mouzi lihuo lun] is a forgery dating from shortly after the middle of the 5th cent., nevertheless consisting for the most part of Han and Three Kingdoms material; this was apparently woven together with great care in order to give the treatise a late Han appearance and serve its rhetorical purpose, which belongs wholly in the religious argument of 5th-cent. southern China." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 236-243 |
Kamata surveys a range of historical sources pertaining to the problem of the date, authorship and nature of the Mouzi li huo lun. He discusses a number of historical personages who have been identified with the "Master Mou" supposed to have authored the text. He also surveys a range of views in modern scholarship about the author and date of the text, citing principally Tokiwa and Liang Qichao: The text was written by Hui Tong 慧通 of the Liu Song (Tokiwa); or by an unknown author in the Jin-Song 晉宋 period (Liang). Kamata himself maintains that it is most likely that the text was written during the Three Kingdoms period, citing factual information in the text that closely matches known historical events from that time. He points out that the biography of the Buddha contained in the first part of the text was taken from the Taizi ruiying benyi jing 太子瑞應本起經 T185 of Zhi Qian. He also considers the possibility that the text was revised even after the Three Kingdoms period. Kamata cites: 常盤大定『支那における仏教と儒教・道教』（東洋文庫、昭和5年）, 89-100. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 13-14 |
According to Zürcher, the Mouzi li huo [lun ] 牟子理惑 (preserved in Hong ming ji 弘明集 T2102) is a “Chinese Buddhist apology” and is likely to be a “polemic treatise.” Its preface states that it was composed at the end of the second century by a Chinese scholar official in the South (Cangwu in Jiaozhou). Zürcher notes that the early history is almost completely obscure; it is neither quoted nor mentioned anywhere before Lu Cheng included it in his Falun (compiled after 465). Historically, scholars have labelled it a “spurious work”, including Liang Qichao, who saw the text as “a forgery made by someone of the Eastern Jin or Liu-Song period;” Tokiwa Daijō, who opined that “the treatise has been composed by the monk Huitong 慧通 (ca 426-ca. 478);” and Hu Yinglin 胡應麟 (b. 1551), who wrote in his Sibu zhengwei that it was a “forgery made by a scholar of the Six Dynasties, the Jin or the Song.” However, Zürcher notes that “far more” scholars have identified this text as genuine. Thus Zürcher admits that the authenticity of the text is a complicated problem, and scholars have convincingly argued for both conclusions. He cites particularly Hu Shi, Tang Yongtong, Sun Yirang, Yu Jiaxi and Henri Maspero, who discovered a correspondence between the story of the Buddha’s life in the Mouzi, and that of the Taizi ruiying benqi jing (T185, trsl. in 222-229). Pelliot pleads for the authenticity of the text on the basis of the historical information contained in the preface, which agrees with that of the Hou-Han shu and the Sanguo zhi. However, Zürcher argues this is not conclusive evidence, and Pelliot’s arguments only hold for “clumsy forgeries”. There is no reason that a scholar could not have formed a narrative to agree with the Hou-Han shu and Sanguo zhi. However, he concludes that “the final verdict on its authenticity should be left to other investigators.” Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 981-987 |
The Mouzi li huo lun 牟子理惑論 (transmitted in the Hong ming ji 弘明集, T2102 [LII] 1a28-7a22) has been one of the most studied materials in the context of the relation between Daoism and Buddhism. According to Sakaino, some scholars think that the text was written not in the Latter Han period, but in the (Liu) Song period, and therefore, that Mouzi 牟子 was not the real author. The main evidence for this claim is external, namely, the fact that the work was first recorded in the list in the Fa lun 法論 by Lu Zheng 陸澄, which was compiled under the order of Emperor Ming 明 of the Song Dynasty. Sakaino also introduces internal evidence, adduced by Tokiwa Daijō, in support of the hypothesis that the text was written under the Song. In as many as seven passages, the Bo Gu daoshi Yi Xia lun 駁顧道士夷夏論 by Huitong of Zhicheng si 治城寺惠通 (T2102 [LII] 45b26-47a8), also transmitted in the Hong ming ji, features virtually identical parallels to the Mouzi li huo lun. According to Sakaino, this indicates that the Mouzi li huo lun was written after the Bo Gu daoshi Yi Xia lun, which was written in the Taishi 泰始 era (465-571) of the reign of Emperor Ming 明 of the Liu Song (as recorded in the Fa lun 法論). Since it would have been unacceptable for any other author to borrow sentences from the work of Huitong in his own time, this suggests further that probably Huitong himself wrote the Mouzi li huo lun 牟子理惑論 to promote his view further. Sakaino agrees with Tokiwa, stating that the fact that the two texts share the basic position of accepting the essential ideas 理 of Daoism while rejecting its doctrine of "immortals" 神仙説 also supports the possibility that the two were written by the same person. Sakaino quotes the seven parallel passages from each of the two texts (984-986). Sakaino adds that, since the Bo Go daoshi Yi Xian lun is an extremely short text, such extensive overlaps justify Tokiwa’s view. This means that Mouzi himself is a fabrication, and did not exist. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|