Text: T1331; 佛說灌頂經

No

• T1331; 佛說灌頂經

"According to Sengyou, this sutra was composed by Huijian 惠簡 under the Liu Song. See Makita, Gikyō kenkyū: 14....Partly corresponds to Tibetan translations [To.503, 504]."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Huijian, 慧簡, 惠簡 (translator 譯)

No

• T1331; 佛說灌頂經

"This text can easily be recognised as an apocryphon (for a convenient discussion see Strickmann 1990)."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T1331; 佛說灌頂經

Strickmann argues that the Guanding jing 佛說灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘咒經 T1331 is a composite “apocryphon.” While it is attributed in the Taishō to Śrīmitra, Strickmann argues that if this were the case, the text “would [evince] a different type of interest”. The attribution to Śrīmitra, like many false attributions, is first found in LDSBJ (115 n. 40). Strickmann notes that Sengyou considered the first eleven of the sūtra’s twelve sections as genuine but anonymous translations. He thought that the collection originally only comprised the first nine books, but books ten and eleven were added later, while twelve was an entirely separate type of text.

Strickmann identifies various possible sources for the text. In discussing the endtimes doctrine of the text, he identifies Faxian's Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra T376 as a possible "source" or "analogue" [glossing over important differences of detail---MR]; he regards the anonymous Fa miejing jing 法滅盡經 T396 as another such source or analogue, mentioning in passing that this text is also a Chinese composition. The eighth "book", T1331(8), derives from the Maṇiratna-sūtra 摩尼羅亶經 T1393 ascribed to Tanwulan 曇無蘭. Book twelve, the Guanding bachu zui'e shengsi de du jing 灌頂拔除過罪生死得度經 T1331(12), is a special case, “a version of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra made in 457”. Sengyou treated this work in a category apart, and regarded it as an apocryphon in its own right. Sengyou held that this text had been composed by Huijian 慧簡 in 457, on the basis of an earlier, authentic translation of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (90-91). Strickmann suggests that although Sengyou only took Huijian for the author of this single book, "it seems probable...[that] Sengyou has really named, dated and localized the author-compiler of the whole work [viz. T1331]" (91).

Strickmann discusses the possibility that some of the spirit names, which present themselves as transcriptions from an Indian language but "do not lend themselves easily to...reconstruction", might be "simply free variations upon Sanskrit vocables...a kind of pseudo-Sanskrit". If this were this case, it would obviously be further evidence for the "apocryphal" nature of the text. However, Strickmann cautions, "Most of these complex spirit-names prove to be wholesale adaptations of syllabic compounds appearing in dhāraṇī formulae found in translated works of Indian origin", giving the example of a transcription that is close to on in Tanwulan, with only slight variations. On the other hand, he notes an extensive "purely Chinese demonological repertory" that features in the text alongside spiritual forces familiar from Indic texts.

Another body of evidence discussed by Strickmann in support of the contention that T1331 was composed in China consists of reactions against Daoism (93): for instance, it makes scathing references to heretics who make recipients of their texts swear oaths of secrecy and give pledges of valuables and silk. At the same time, the work also shows traces of Daoist influence, such as opening with a catalogue of gods (94). Strickmann further suggests that these formal analogies betray similarities in function to Daoist works: to serve as talismans, and "guarantee the believer's physical security in a turbulent age", etc. Another trace of such influence by, or relationship to, Daoist materials can be seen in a preoccupation also found in Daoist works with discrediting the trappings of ordinary Chinese folk religion, such as "frenzied drumming and dancing and...ruinous and defiling rites of animal sacrifice" (97 ff.).

Sengyou labelled the sūtra as a whole as “fabricated” on the basis of translated texts. Strickmann argues that the text is composed from elements drawn from prior Buddhist texts, along with original material, and contains traces of the major types of religion present in the fifth century. Strickmann concludes that the most satisfactory hypothesis is that the text was authored by Huijian sometime around 457. He suggests that certain indications within the text suggest that "the man responsible for our sūtra was one of a group of younger monks, dissatisfied with existing clerical and social conditions, who drew inspiration from the eschatological message that echoed widely throughout fifth-century China" (89). Strickmann points out that Huijian was credited with "a list of works" in LDSBJ T2034:49.93b7-c7 [also followed by DTNDL T2149:55.260c22-261a2], including the extant independent Āgama-derived 閻羅王五天使者經 T43, 瞿曇彌記果經 T60, 長者子六過出家經 T134, 佛母般泥洹經 T145, 貧窮老公經 T797(a,b), and 請賓頭盧法 T1689, and these texts include some material arguably related to T1331: the Fo bannihuan hou bian ji 佛般泥洹後變記, which is appended as a postface to T145, "accords perfectly with the parallel information included in [T1331]"; and T1331 also includes "adaptations of tales from the Āgamas (like those in the independent little sūtras attributed to [Huijian]). Strickmann therefore suggests that "whether or not we are justified in retaining Huijian's name on any of these works, we must note that [LDSBJ] has effectively brought together a body of cognate literature, and one that appears to represent an important current in fifth-century writing and practice." On the whole, this supports Strickmann's contention that in identifying Huijian as the author of T1331(12), he may have identified the author of the whole collection.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

• People: Huijian, 慧簡, 惠簡 (author)
• Date: 457

No

• T1331; 佛說灌頂經

Sengyou lists the titles Da kongque wang shenzhou 大孔雀王神咒 (1 juan) and the Kongque wang za shenzhou 孔雀王雜神咒 (1 juan), ascribing both of them to *Śīlamitra 尸梨蜜 (沙門尸梨蜜所出) [Sakaino in effect suggests these are the only works legitimately ascribed to *Śīlamitra]. LDSBJ added a new ascription to *Śīlamitra, the Da guandjing jing 大灌頂經 (9 juan), making [the work of *Śīlamitra] 3 titles in 11 juan. KYL changed this to a single title Da guanding jing 大灌頂經 in 12 juan (T1331). However, Sakaino points out that the ascription of T1331 to *Śīlamitra is baseless. Sakaino quotes a list of 11 titles including the word guanding 灌頂 from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” (T2145 [LV] 31a24-b6) Sakaino also quotes Sengyou’s note on the 灌頂普廣經 stating 從七萬二千神王呪至召五方龍王呪凡九經是舊集灌頂總名大灌頂經從梵天神策及普廣經拔除過罪經凡三卷是後人所集足大灌頂為十二卷其拔除過罪經一卷摘入疑經錄中故不兩載 (T2145 [LV] 31b6-8). Based on this note, Sakaino points out that what CSZJJ recorded was that the title Da guanding jing 大灌頂經 in fact referred to 9 titles in Sengyou’s list (from 灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘呪經 to 灌頂召五方龍王攝疫毒神呪經), while each of the 9 was known and used separately as well. Sakaino asserts that ascribing those titles to *Śīlamitra is utterly baseless, in line with Fei’s common practice of fabricating new ascriptions by re-using existing titles from CSZJJ. Later, the Guanding Fantian shence jing 灌頂梵天神策經 and Guanding puguang jing 灌頂普廣經 were added to the same collection, and the 大灌頂經 reached 12 juan, also including the Bachu guozui jing 拔除過罪經 1 juan, even though the Bachu guozui jing was originally listed separately by Sengyou, since it was regarded as apocryphal 僞經 (it is listed as such in the “catalogue of fake scriptures” 僞經錄, T2145 [LV] 39a21, with a note stating: 一名藥師琉璃光經或名灌頂拔除過罪生死度脱經). Thus, Sakaino asserts that T1331 has no relation with *Śīlamitra. Moreover, Fei also double-lists the twelve titles from Sengyou’s anonymous list as anonymous scriptures, while at the same time ascribing 9 of them to *Śīlamitra. KYL ascribed 13 titles [Sakaino does not say which 13 ---AI] to *Śīlamitra, but at the same time, stated that the Guanding jing was listed as 9 fascicles in the catalogues for reasons he found unclear 錄云九卷未詳. This clearly shows that for this item, Zhisheng did not even see CSZJJ.

Sakaino agrees with the view that all of the scriptures included in T1331 are apocryphal 僞妄, as stated in Jōdo kyō no kigen oyobi hattatsu 淨土教の起源及發達 by Mochizuku Shinkō 望月信亭.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit