Text: X0021; 十王經; 閻羅王預修生七往生淨土經; 閻羅王授記四眾逆修生七往生淨土經; 佛說預修十王生七經

No

• X0021; 十王經; 閻羅王預修生七往生淨土經; 閻羅王授記四眾逆修生七往生淨土經; 佛說預修十王生七經

Teiser argues that the Yu xiu shi wang sheng qi jing 預修十王生七經 X21 (represented by a range of Dunhuang manuscripts listed in Teiser's Appendix 10) is a Chinese composition which sits “at the nexus between Buddhism as an organized tradition and the longstanding religious practices of China.” The text was never canonised. It makes only a “weak claim” to have an Indian source; is populated by figures with “unambiguous Chinese origins”; and its message is primarily concerned with the fate of the ancestors (which Teiser sees as “the mainstay of Chinese religion”). Despite its obvious Chinese origins, the text was copied out many times and propagated by members of the Saṃgha. Teiser adds that “roughly the same text” was transmitted in a variety of forms. Three recensions survive among the Dunhuang manuscripts: long, medium and short. Teiser edits [he says critically, but his detailed description of his procedure makes it sound more like a diplomatic edition --- MR] and translates the long recension in full (196-219), using P. 2003 as his base text.

This "long recension" includes illustrations, an announcement that the text is about to begin with directions to chant the name of Amitābha Buddha, the name and residence of the author, formal title of the text, thirty-four hymns, a traditional narrative opening (i.e. “Thus I have heard..”), and short unrhymed qietuo 伽陀 modelled on Sanskrit gāthās, and ends with an abbreviated title. The short version includes only “titles, narratives and chants.” The middle-length version is much the same as the short, yet its narrative is slightly longer.

The text names its own author as Zangchuan 藏川 who supposedly lived at Dashengci si 大聖慈寺 in Chengdu (see esp. 69-71 on this figure). Teiser claims that some evidence suggests that he wrote the hymns, but not the narrative portion of the text. No sources, marginal or standard, have anything more to say about Zangchuan. Teiser suggests (71) that this may be circumstantial grounds to suspect that the ascription is genuine, since it is difficult to think of ulterior motives for ascribing the text to such an obscure figure. The date for the text’s composition is unknown, but the earliest surviving manuscript which can be dated was copied in 908, presumably from a master version kept in Dunhuang. Tieser argues that the text had not been written by 720 [sic, p. 9, for 730 --- MR], because Zhisheng did not include the text in his KYL, even though he did create a list of texts which had been barred from the canon. Thus Teiser places its composition at some point between 720 [read: 730] and 908. He also writes that it was "probably written...in the ninth century, based on notions that crystallized sometime in the seventh" (1).

The text opens with a claim by Śākyamuni that King Yama will in the future become a Buddha named Puxian (Samantabhadra). In what follows, the Buddha explains how even someone like King Yama could atone for their actions. He then reveals that Yama and his assistants are actually “agents of compassion”. The sub-plot of the text, mostly presented in pictures, tells of the soul’s progress through purgatory. Teiser suggests that closer analysis of the linguistic and generic peculiarities of X21 will help us to understand its status as an indigenous Chinese scripture. Although it was most likely written in Chinese, its language mimics that used in translations of Indic texts. He writes that the text employs “liturgical language” and heavy transliteration, and encourages ritual and prophecy and hymns. Furthermore, by its use of "Fo shuo" 佛說 and traditional opening of “thus I have heard” the text reinforces its claim to represent an oral transmission validated by tradition.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

• People: Zangchuan 藏川 (author)