Ming shanren eren duoshao fa 明善人惡人多少法 [Zhisheng 730]
Date
[None]
Assertions
Preferred?
Source
Pertains to
Argument
Details
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.
— 57
Tokuno discusses "thirty-nine texts" [sic] belonging to the Sanjie jiao that Zhisheng considered "spurious”. [Zhisheng's list at T2154:55.678b7-c27 actually lists 35 texts---MR.] He repeats the attribution of the Da Zhou lu (DZKZM) and adds his own comments. He argues “although they draw upon the scriptures, they are all fallaciously produced on the basis of the prejudiced views of his [Xinxing’s 信行] faction.” Tokuno characterises Zhisheng’s reasoning as based upon a combination of “internal evidence” and “socio-political characterisations.” Zhisheng labels the texts as “spurious” because of both their “unorthodox” messages, and the group’s controversial political status. All texts listed by Zhisheng are included in this entry.
[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.
— 207-210
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. This entry contains Zhisheng's list of thirty-five Sanjie jiao texts.