| Identifier | T0441 [T] |
| Title | 佛說佛名經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Zacchetti 2016a] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Buswell 2004] Buswell, Robert E., Jr. "Sugi's Collation Notes to the Koryŏ Buddhist Canon and Their Significance for Buddhist Textual Criticism." The Journal of Korean Studies 9, no. 1 (2004): 129-184. — 149-150, 173-174 |
KYL and Zhenyuan lu both dismissed this text as apocryphal and excluded it from the canon. KYL rejected it in strong terms. "Sugi finally relents, however, and, because of the text's popularity in Korea, is willing to include the thirty-quan [sic! > juan] scripture in the canon....Sugi's conclusion to this section indicates that a controversy must have raged among the editors of the canon as to whether or not to include this text in the canon. Sugi clearly is disposed to removing the text, but considerable pressure must have been brought to bear on him and his associates to include the text in the canon in order to placate popular sentiment." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zacchetti 2016a] Zacchetti, Stefano. “The Catalog of All Canonical Scriptures.” In Sichuan Province, Volume 3: Wofoyuan Section C, edited by Claudia Wenzel and Sun Hua, 65-76 (Chinese), 77-96 (English). Buddhist Stone Sutras in China, edited by Lothar Ledderose on behalf of Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag/Hanzhou: China Academy of Art Press, 2016. — 93-95 |
Zacchetti notes, principally following work by Kuo Liying, that prior scholarship has already concluded that T441 is probably a Chinese composition. The first 16 juan of the text have embedded within them [as the Dharma portion of a repeated, highly elaborate "three refuges" liturgical format] lists of sūtra titles. In the course of an examination of a version of Jingtai's ZJML T2148 carved in Cave 46 at Wofoyuan 臥佛院, a site in modern Sichuan, Zacchetti shows that "if we extract the various lists of scripture titles from the first 16 scrolls...[of T441] and assemble them in sequence, we contain a catalog almost identical to that carved in cave 46 at Wofoyuan. Indeed, there is little doubt that the compilers of [T441] based these portions of the text on a catalogue [sic spelling variation] very close, from the point of view of general structure, content, and sequence of listed scriptures, to....T2147 and T2148 [viz. Fajing and Jingtai's catalogues respectively]." Zacchetti even finds a "smoking gun", referring to an item towards the end of the embedded lists in juan 16, 南無賢聖集傳, T441 (XIV) 248a8. "Owing to what appears to be a curious error, [the compilers of T441] wrongly took the name of this last section of the ruzang lu in both [T2147 and T2148] as the title of a scripture, and so listed it preceded by the usual formula 'homage to'..." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kuo 1995] Kuo, Li-ying. “La Récitation des noms de Buddha en Chine et au Japon.” T’oung Pao 81 (1995): 230-268. — 247-252 |
Sugi, who was the editor of the Korean version upon which T441 is based, explains that there existed a version of the Fo ming jing in eighteen fascicles which did not differ in content from T441, which has thirty fasicicles. The same confession texts were repeated twice in the 30-juan version and three times in the 18-juan version (sic). The 18-juan version did not contain the apocryphal Baoda sutra 寶達偽經. Sugi lists various alternate titles: 大乘蓮華馬頭羅剎經, 大乘蓮華寶達普薩問答報應經. The names of the Buddhas in this text are the same as those in the 12-juan (T440) and 16-juan version (the latter known from a manuscript recovered at Nanatsu-dera). The greater extent of the longer "Buddha name" sutras is thus achieved not by the addition of extra Buddha names, but by the inclusion of names of bodhisattvas, scriptures, and saintly persons. T441 includes 15 confession texts, of which each is repeated in a separate fascicle (15 x 2 = 30). At the end of the text, the Baoda jing 寶達經 is followed by two other texts: a reproduction of two-thirds of another scripture on the hells, 罪業報應教化地獄經, ascribed to An Shigao [various modern scholars regard this ascription as unreliable --- MR]; and another passage from a text in a similar style, describing the tortures of the inhabitants of hells, in which features Maudgalyāyana 目連. The title of this text is not given, but Kuo identifies it with a portion of the Saṃyuktāgama T99, and notes that according to CSZJJ, two other texts, virtually identical, also existed, which were extracted from SĀ. It is implicit from the context and content of this discussion, though Kuo does not overtly specify it for T441 itself, that T441 (like T440) was most likely composed in China. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 407-408 |
Ōno states that the Fo ming jing 佛名經 T441 was compiled in China in the early Tang period, based on the Fo ming jing 佛名經 T440 (which Ōno regards as a genuine translation text). Each juan of T441 (thirty juan in total) has the following structure: a) the names of three treasures三寶; In sections on the three treasures 三寶, the names of Buddhas are the same as those in the twelve-juan version T440, except for in the last two juan. By contrast, the names of the Dharma(s) 法 (i.e. titles of texts) are unique. A substantial part of the names of 信(?) are the names of the Bodhisatvas listed at the end of T440. That last two juan of T441 are largely the same as the Xianzai Xian jie qian Fo ming jing 現在賢劫千佛名經 T447 (the Korean edition), with their format adjusted to the preceding juan. The contrition liturgy 懺悔文of the previous juan has some elements common with the Guoqu Zhuangyan jie qian Fo ming jing 過去莊嚴劫千佛名經 T446. T441 was listed in the section of KYL treating spurious and false works 僞妄亂真錄, and was developed from Chinese "folk beliefs" 俚俗信仰. The proof-reader 校合者 of the Korean edition records the existence of an eighteen-juan version of T441, without the sections corresponding to the 大乘蓮華寶達問答報應沙門品. The thirty-juan version was called the Matou luocha Fo ming 馬頭羅刹佛名 due to the later addition of the Dasheng Lianhuamatou luocha jing 大乘蓮華馬頭羅刹經, which is extant in the Korean edition only. The same text was regarded by Zhisheng as apocryphal. Ōno states that T441 nearly went missing due to this later interpolation of Chinese-derived text, but now it can be valued as a historical record of contrition practices and thought 懺悔 in China. The titles of scriptures listed under the head of the “Dharma Jewel” 法寶 in the thirty juan version of T441 represents scriptures extant at the time the text was composed. Xuanzang’s Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi) T1585 is included, so the text must have been produced after the early Tang. The contrition liturgy 懺悔文 in juan 29 is mostly the same as the one appears in the Wangsheng lizan 往生禮讃 by Shandao 善導. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|