Rethinking the Category of Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha

The list of deities in the opening section of the Book of Consecration was taken from dhāraṇīs in earlier translated dhāraṇī sūtras.

“the list of deities in the opening section of the Book of Consecration (Guanding qiwanerqian shenwang hubiqiu zhou jing 灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘呪經, T. 1331) was in fact taken from dhāraṇīs that had been given in dhāraṇī sūtras translated earlier from Indian sources.”

The Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras contains elements of Chinese origin intended for Chinese practitioners.

“The collection also contains elements that are undoubtedly of Chinese origin and intended for Chinese practitioners.”

The Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras was compiled in China.

“The Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras was compiled in China, yet as a work attributed to an Indian ācārya it offers the earliest known record of a crucial development in the evolution of Esoteric Buddhism in India.”

• Also stated in: § Introduction · plain

  “this collection was compiled in China, at the request of a Chinese abbot of the monastery where Atikūṭa performed the All-Gathering Maṇḍala Initiation Ceremony”

In those earlier translated dhāraṇī sūtras, the transcribed dhāraṇīs were broken up and each phrase became a deity name.

“The dhāraṇīs transcribed into Chinese characters in these translated sūtras were broken up and each phrase was turned into a name of a deity.”

At one early stage in the Chinese translations of the Agrapradīpa sūtra, the central dhāraṇī was presented as a list of deities.

“Yet, at one early stage in the evolution of its Chinese translations, the central dhāraṇī was presented as a list of deities.”

In several places, translations already existing in China or being produced elsewhere around the same time were incorporated into the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras.

“In a number of places translations that already existed in China by then or texts were in the process of being translated elsewhere around the same time were incorporated.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras was compiled in China.

In one translation of the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī sūtra, the dhāraṇī is transcribed but also broken up and given as a list of deity names.

“In one translation the dhāraṇī is transcribed, but is also broken up and given as a list of names of deities.”

In the examples discussed, the transcribed dhāraṇīs and the names of divinities match closely, almost character by character.

“In the examples discussed above the transcribed dhāraṇīs and the names of divinities match closely, almost character by character.”

The names of the second group of divinities in Book of Consecration chapter 1 reproduce parts of the three dhāraṇīs in Zhi Qian's translation of the Agrapradīpa sūtra (T.1351).

“the names of the second group of divinities in the Consecration Sūtra, chapter 1 reproduce parts of the three dhāraṇīs that appear in Zhi Qian's translation of the Agrapradīpa sūtra (T.1351).”

The names of the first seven divinities in the Book of Consecration match parts of the transcription of two mantras in the Births Sūtra.

“The names of the first seven divinities match parts of the transcription of two mantras that appear in the Births Sūtra.11”

At one point the root dhāraṇī that produces the vision of deities was rendered as a list of 48 deity names.

“At one stage the root dhāraṇī that brings about the vision of deities was rendered as a list of 48 names of deities.”

Though not identical, these texts of the dhāraṇī closely parallel the transcribed text of the 48 names in the Buddhaśānta translation (T.1015).

“Though not identical, these texts of the dhāraṇī closely parallel the transcribed text of the 48 names in the”

In the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī sūtra, the root dhāraṇī is sometimes translated rather than transcribed, losing the phonetic characteristics of the Sanskrit original.

“The root dhāraṇī of the sūtra is sometimes translated, rather than transcribed, into Chinese, thus losing the phonetic characteristics of the Sanskrit original.”

The content of the list of translated names loosely parallels the translated dhāraṇīs in Zhi Qian's and Buddhabhadra's translations.

“The content of the list of the translated”

The opening narrative of the Book of Consecration is virtually identical to the opening narrative of entry 20 of the Sūtra of the Births.

“The opening narrative of this sūtra is virtually identical to the opening narrative of the Book of Consecration.10”

The interlinear notes in the Buddhaśānta translation explain each name's meaning using the same terms as in the Guṇabhadra translation.

“These notes explain the meaning of each name, using the same terms as in the”

In later translations, the Buddha's answer begins by presenting the text of the dhāraṇī.

“In later translations the Buddha's answer begins by presenting the text of the dhāraṇī.19”

The name of divinity 8 in the Book of Consecration is taken from the spell appended to the preceding entry in the Births Sūtra.

“The name of divinity 8 is taken from the text of the spell appended to the preceding entry in the Births Sūtra (Appendix 1).”

Maṇḍala initiation ceremonies with strikingly similar ritual scenarios recur in many later works.

“the maṇḍala initiation ceremonies that follow strikingly similar ritual scenarios appear repeatedly in many later works”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Indian origins of later maṇḍala initiation ceremonies with similar ritual scenarios are not in question.

Earlier accounts of the simpler spell-recitation practice concentrate on visions and do not mention images.

“Earlier accounts of the simpler practice of reciting spells focus on such visions and do not mention images.”

Otherwise, the text of the Buddhaśānta translation (T.1015) and the Guṇabhadra translation (T.1013) are virtually identical, as noted by Inagaki.

“Otherwise, the text of the”

• cites InagakiNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

In those earlier translations, the dhāraṇī text was translated rather than transcribed.

“The text of the dhāraṇī was translated and not transcribed as in later translations and dhāraṇī sūtras.”

Later translations no longer refer to 48 names.

“The reference to 48 names disappears in later translations”

The earliest preserved translation of the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī sūtra is by Zhi Qian in the third century.

“Of the nine translations of the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī sūtra that are preserved, the earliest is by Zhi Qian 支謙 in the third century.”

Other translations of the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī sūtra appeared between the fifth and eighth centuries.

“Other translations appeared between the fifth to eighth centuries.”

The Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras provides the earliest known record of a crucial development in the evolution of Esoteric Buddhism in India.

“it offers the earliest known record of a crucial development in the evolution of Esoteric Buddhism in India.”

The author of the Book of Consecration took a key element of Indian dhāraṇī sūtras and turned it into a recognizably Chinese practice.

“The author of the Book of Consecration took a key element of Indian dhāraṇī sūtras and turned it into a recognizably Chinese practice.”

Drawing the line between translation and apocryphal composition is difficult.

“The distinction between translation and apocryphal composition is difficult to draw.”

• Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged

  “his reference to transcribed dhāraṇīs suggests that the line between translated sūtras and Buddhist apocrypha may be more difficult to draw than Buswell's statement suggested.”

Chinese translations of Indian dhāraṇī sūtras allow scholars to trace the evolution of dhāraṇī practice and the formation of Esoteric Buddhism in India.

“These translations, furthermore, enable us to trace the evolution, in India, of dhāraṇī practice and the formation of Esoteric Buddhism.8”

• cites [8] Strickmann M.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras is attributed to an Indian ācārya.

“as a work attributed to an Indian ācārya”

• Also stated in: § Introduction · plain

  “attributed to the recently arrived Indian master Atikūṭa 阿地瞿多”

The crucial elements for reconstructing Indian dhāraṇī practice and Esoteric Buddhism are found in the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras.

“The crucial elements for this reconstruction are found in the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras.”

The relationship between Indian Buddhist practices and local Chinese practices may be more ambiguous than the scholarship that stresses apocrypha's importance suggests.

“I propose that the relationship between Indian Buddhist and local Chinese practices may be more ambiguous than this analysis suggests.”

In compiling the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras, Atikūṭa and Xuankai worked together to translate and make available to Chinese practitioners the scriptural sources and the new organization of Esoteric Buddhist rituals.

“In compiling the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras, Atikūṭa and Xuankai 玄楷, the abbot of the Huirisi 慧日寺 monastery where the All-Gathering Ceremony was performed, collaborated to translate and make available to Chinese practitioners the scriptural sources and above all the new organization of Esoteric Buddhist rituals.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras was compiled in China.

The Buddhaśānta translation seems to have recognized the confusion present in the Guṇabhadra translation.

“appears to have been aware of this confusion in the “Guṇabhadra” translation (T.1013).”

Classifying dhāraṇī sūtra translations as Chinese apocrypha hides their essentially Indian character.

“treating dhāraṇī sūtra translations as Chinese apocrypha obscures their fundamentally Indian nature”

The translator of the Guṇabhadra version understood the dhāraṇī to be a magical spell.

“the author of the “Guṇabhadra” translation did”

Each translator typically produced his own transcriptions of dhāraṇīs.

“Typically each translator produced his own transcriptions of the dhāraṇīs.”

The list of 48 names in the Guṇabhadra translation appears to be a translation of the dhāraṇī.

“This list of names in fact appears to be a translation of the dhāraṇī.”

The translator of the Guṇabhadra version tried to convey this by presenting the dhāraṇī as a set of names, likely of deities or demons invoked in magic rituals.

“he attempted to capture this fact by presenting it as a set of “names,” presumably of deities or demons whose names are intoned in magic rituals.”

A text labeled apocryphal may in fact be an attempt to engage with dhāraṇīs.

“a so-called apocryphal text might actually turn out to be an effort to deal with dhāraṇīs.”

The spell text in the Sūtra of the Births served as the source for the names of the first set of divinities in Book of Consecration fascicle 1.

“The text of this spell appears to have served as the source for the names of the first set of the names of divinities that appears in the Book of Consecration, fascicle 1.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Close textual parallels between the Book of Consecration and earlier Chinese translations indicate that the compiler directly borrowed from those translations.

In the Book of Consecration, rendering dhāraṇīs as deity names seems to have contributed to the production of a Chinese text, a Buddhist apocryphon.

“in the Book of Consecration the practice of rendering dhāraṇīs as names of deities appears to have helped to produce a Chinese text, a Buddhist apocryphon”

The compiler of the Book of Consecration knew the Agrapradīpa sūtra translation attributed to Zhi Qian and adapted its dhāraṇī to form part of the list of divinities.

“The compiler of the Book of Consecration knew the translation of the Agrapradīpa sūtra attributed to Zhi Qian and formed a part of its lists of names of divinities by adapting the dhāraṇī described in it.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Close textual parallels between the Book of Consecration and earlier Chinese translations indicate that the compiler directly borrowed from those translations.

Earlier forms of these deity-focused rituals originated in India.

“Earlier forms of these rituals focused on various deities came into being in India”

In Buddhaśānta's translation of the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī sūtra, rendering dhāraṇīs as deity names was merely an attempt to translate an Indian text.

“in Buddhaśānta's translation of the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī sūtra the practice was nothing more than an effort to “translate” an Indian text.”

The boundary between compiling Chinese Buddhist apocrypha and translating Indian dhāraṇī sūtras is artificial or harder to draw than commonly supposed.

“The distinction between compiling Buddhist apocryphal literature and translating an Indian dhāraṇī sūtra into Chinese now appears to be rather artificial.”

• Also stated in: § Two approaches to the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras · plain

  “the line between translating Indian sūtras and composing Chinese apocrypha is more difficult to draw than often assumed.”

The compiler of the Book of Consecration used particular transcriptions of dhāraṇīs from given translations to form names of divinities.

“The compiler of the Book of Consecration knew the particular transcriptions of the dhāraṇīs that appear in given translations and used them to form the names of divinities.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Close textual parallels between the Book of Consecration and earlier Chinese translations indicate that the compiler directly borrowed from those translations.

Chinese translators initially failed to recognize the dhāraṇī as a spell to be recited in Sanskrit and rendered its text as a doctrinal discourse.

“Chinese translators initially failed to recognize the dhāraṇī as a spell that is to be recited in Sanskrit, and rendered the text of the dhāraṇī as a doctrinal discourse.”

At least some of the sources of the Book of Consecration are Indian texts.

“Nonetheless, at least some of its sources are Indian texts.”

The compiler of the Book of Consecration also knew Tanwulan's translation (T.1332) of the Agrapradīpa sūtra but treated it as a separate sūtra.

“Another set of names of divinities (group 7, T. 1331: 21.496a) shows that the compiler of the Book of Consecration, fascicle 1, also knew Tanwulan's translation (T.1332) of the Agrapradīpa sūtra but treated it as separate sūtra (details in Appendix 3).15”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Close textual parallels between the Book of Consecration and earlier Chinese translations indicate that the compiler directly borrowed from those translations.

Earlier translators of the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī sūtra were not familiar with the later practice of transcribing dhāraṇīs into Chinese characters.

“Earlier translators of this sūtra do not appear to have been familiar with the later practice of transcribing dhāraṇīs into Chinese characters.”

Classifying dhāraṇī sūtra translations as Chinese apocrypha deprives us of a valuable means to reconstruct Indian ritual from Chinese renderings of lost Indic texts.

“we lose an important tool to reconstruct Indian ritual from these Chinese translations of Indic texts that are no longer extant.”

The translator of the Buddhaśānta version treated the dhāraṇī text as a list of deity names.

“The author of the “Buddhaśānta” translation clearly construed the text of the dhāraṇī as a list of names of deities.”

The compiler of the Book of Consecration did not realize that Zhi Qian's and Tanwulan's translations were alternative translations of the same sūtra and treated their dhāraṇīs separately.

“though in this case the compiler of the Book of Consecration did not realize that they were alternative translations of the same sūtra and treated the dhāraṇīs separately.”

Reading the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras as an apocryphon largely ignores its importance as a record of Indian development.

“The importance of this collection from this perspective is largely ignored in a reading that treats it as an apocryphon, focusing attention on its Chinese setting.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras was compiled in China.

Many features of the All Gathering Ceremony share much with contemporary and earlier non-Buddhist, post-Vedic ritual innovations.

“many other features of this ceremony appears to have much in common with contemporary and earlier non-Buddhist, post-Vedic ritual innovations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The śānti rituals were first promoted by Atharvaveda priests and then became popular more broadly outside that circle.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: These śānti rituals drove a development that later crystallized into many distinctive features of Purāṇic Hinduism.

The All-Gathering Maṇḍala in the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras is an Indian Buddhist ritual.

“The All-Gathering Maṇḍala in the Collected Dhāraṇī Sūtras is an Indian Buddhist ritual.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Indian origins of later maṇḍala initiation ceremonies with similar ritual scenarios are not in question.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The śānti rituals were first promoted by Atharvaveda priests and then became popular more broadly outside that circle.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: These śānti rituals drove a development that later crystallized into many distinctive features of Purāṇic Hinduism.

Many features of the Esoteric Buddhist All Gathering Ceremony seem to have been shaped by these developments.

“Many features of the Esoteric Buddhist All Gathering Ceremony also appear to have been shaped by these developments.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The śānti rituals were first promoted by Atharvaveda priests and then became popular more broadly outside that circle.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: These śānti rituals drove a development that later crystallized into many distinctive features of Purāṇic Hinduism.