The Fo yi jing 佛醫經 T793, a short text, discusses physical and mental health, presenting its content as the teachings of the Buddha. The Taishō presents the text as translated by Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎 and Zhi Qian 支謙. We survey bibliographic records to propose that this attribution is unreliable. Using computer assisted analysis, we locate passages in the text possibly borrowed from early Chinese sources, among them most notably An Shigao’s 安世高 Jiu heng jing 九橫經 T150A(31). These findings indicate that (...) T793 was probably compiled in China on the basis of various sources. We also find that some basic early Buddhist teachings, such as the four nutriments (āhāra) and rules regarding the eating of meat, are misunderstood or misrepresented in T793. Taking into account some terms and phrases in T793 that occur more frequently in translations in the Western Jin period, we suggest that T793 is likely a compilation made between the late third and early fourth centuries. It is thus probably one of the earliest extant Chinese compositions of this kind. (shrink)

Four chapters survive of a supposed translation of the Suvar?a-prabh?sottama-s?tra by Param?rtha. Versions of these chapters are also found in a later Chinese version of the s?tra by Yijing. In earlier work, I have argued that these chapters were most likely composed in China, basing my argument upon extensive verbatim correspondences between these chapters and a number of earlier Chinese texts. However, a significant obstacle still stands in the way of this thesis. A Tibetan version of the s?tra also includes (...) the same chapters, and Tibetan tradition holds that this version is a translation from Sanskrit. Here, I examine evidence that suggests that these portions of Tib II might in fact be translations from Chinese, despite the reports of Tibetan bibliographers. In closing, I consider some broader implications of my findings. (shrink)

In her 2010 study of the Shi zhu duan jie jing T309, Jan Nattier found that several passages in T309 were copied from earlier Chinese Buddhist texts. She thus proposed that T309 is not a translation from an Indian text, but a “forgery” by Zhu Fonian. Extending Nattier’s analysis with the help of TACL, a tool for computational textual analysis, we conducted a more thorough analysis of Zhu Fonian’s four Mahayana texts, namely, T309, the Pusa chu tai jing T384, the (...) Zhongyin jin T385, and the Pusa yingluo jing T656, and found in T309 and T656 additional content deriving from earlier Chinese texts. On the basis of this analysis of these features of the texts, we propose that all four were likely compiled by Zhu Fonian himself. (shrink)

The catalogue entitled Lidai sanbao ji T2034, completed in 598, exerted a profound influence on the shape of the Chinese Buddhist canon. It also features a large number of new ascriptions for canonical texts. Subsequent tradition and modern scholarship have repeatedly found these ascriptions profoundly problematic. Scholarly opinion has been divided about whether the author, Fei Changfang, faithfully reported these suspect ascriptions from other sources, or was himself their originator. This study analyzes three highly suspect patterns in the treatment of (...) new ascriptions in the Lidai sanbao ji: 1) New ascriptions to the same supposed translator are arbitrarily assigned in batches to titles appearing in delimited, contiguous portions of much longer lists of anonymous texts in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji. 2) Contradictory information is repeatedly given about the same titles in different parts of the work. 3) Information about titles affected by these two problems is ascribed to an implausibly wide range of earlier catalogues. These three patterns affect numerous separate portions of the Lidai sanbao ji. The Lidai sanbao ji, and not its putative earlier sources, is therefore the common denominator―the bottleneck where these problems collect. The most economical and plausible interpretation is that Fei himself was falsifying his information, whether deliberately or by a rather extreme scholarly negligence. These findings make it all the more imperative to critically evaluate all ascriptions appearing for the first time in the Lidai sanbao ji, including a large number of ascriptions still followed in the canon as it is used today. (shrink)