|
No
|
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954.
— 404-406
|
|
Ōno discusses relations between “Sūtra on the One Thousand Buddha Names of the Present Auspicious Aeon” 現在賢劫千佛名經 T447 and two other “one-thousand Buddha” 千佛 scriptures, on the Buddhas of the past and future: the Guoqu Zhuangyan jie qian Fo ming jing 過去荘嚴劫千佛名經 T446; and the Weilai Xingxiu jie qian Fo ming jing 未來星宿劫千佛名經 T448. He notes that among these three texts, content relating to confession is least developed in the “future” sūtra T448, and further that the “past” sūtra T446 contains part of the same confession rites 懺悔法 as the “present” sūtra T447, but those in T447 are “most complete” 最も整つた.
Ōno gives a theory of five stages in the development of these three “one-thousand Buddhas” 千佛 scriptures. These texts are treated as separate in the Korean and Ming editions, while in the Yuan edition they are combined together as the San jie san qian Fo ming jing 三劫三千佛名經 in three juan. Ōno thinks the text/s developed as follows:
1. The Xianjie qian Fo ming jing 賢劫千佛名經 in one juan.
The Xianjie qian Fo ming jing賢劫千佛名經 in one juan (cf. T447a/b) was adapted from the twentieth chapter, the “Qian Fo minghao pin” 千佛名號品 of the Bhadrakalpika 賢劫經 (cf. T425, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa). Ōno maintains that T447a/b should indeed be classified as an anonymous separate translation [as in the canon], rather an excerpted text compiled in China, since the translation style 譯文 is totally different from that of Dharmarakṣa [Ōno’s logic here is apparently that if T447 was excerpted from the Bhadrakalpika in China, we should see stylistic resemlances to Dharmarakṣa; since we do not, T447 must have been made into a separate text outside China, and translated independently of T425 – MR]. In CSZJJ, Sengyou lists this title in the section of extant anonymous scriptures 失譯有本部, but he also lists the same title among the words of Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. According to Ōno, the Xianjie qian Fo ming jing has survived in the “Palace” (Kunaishō) canon 宮本 and in some exemplars 或種 of the Song edition 宋本.
2. The San qian Fo ming jing 三千佛名經 in one juan
The names of two thousand Buddhas of the past and future were added to the original form of the text [i.e. T447a/b], forming a San qian Fo ming jing 三千佛名經 in one juan. Sengyou lists this title in the section of extant anonymous scriptures 失譯有本部 of CSZJJ. This text probably featured elements of Amitabha worship, as the preface contains the phrase 生無量壽佛國、立大誓願.
3. The text was separated into three scriptures in their present form 現形
The portions of the text each listing one thousand Buddhas of each of the three times 三劫 became independent texts. The preface to the portion of the text on the Buddhas of the past 過去分 (T446) is about the three times, which is incongruent with the content of T446 alone, showing that the text was not modified when its parts were separated. The word present 現在 was probably added to the title of T447 when it was separated from the other two. The three scriptures is not listed in CSZJJ, but they are in LDSBJ, and survived in the Ming edition and in some exemplars of the Song edition 宋本. Fajing list the three titles, although classifying them as missing 缺本. Thus, the date at which the texts were separated should be between the end of the Liang 梁 period and the Sui period.
4. The three texts were (re)combined to form the San jie san qian Fo ming jing 三劫三千佛名經 in three juan
The separate three scriptures were then put together again, making the three-juan San jie san qian Fo ming jing 三劫三千佛名經. this scripture was first listed in KYL, has survived in the Yuan edition and in some exemplars of the Song edition. The title of each separate scripture is at the beginning of each juan, indicating that the three texts were put together again after they had first circulated separately for a time.
5. Contrition rites 懺悔法 were then added in the Korean edition 麗本
Contrition rites 懺悔法 were then added to T446 and T448. Ōno takes the [earliest end of] the versions of the texts in the lineage of the Three Editions (Song, Yuan, Ming) to be older than those in the Korean edition.
Ōno argues that stages 3, 4, and 5 in this development occurred in China, meaning that the resulting texts were strictly “Chinese compositions”, because:
5: the content of the added contrition rites 懺悔法 indicates that they were compiled in China.
3 and 4: The introduction 序分 uses material from the Lotus Sūtra, and the conclusion 結分 draws upon a section of 2 that Ōno refers to as the “general introduction for all three times” 三世総序 [apparently the introduce or preface preserved in T446, but referring to all three times as mentioned above].
Entry author: Atsushi Iseki
Edit
|
|