On the Influence of Buddhism on Chinese Taoism and the Question of the Authenticity of Buddhist Scriptures

The question of the authenticity of Buddhist scriptures is often asked. Many people believe that scriptures influenced by Taoism are apocryphal, while those not influenced are authentic; those with Sanskrit originals are authentic, while those without are apocryphal; those written by Indian monks are authentic, while those written by Chinese Buddhist monks are apocryphal. However, these methods of judging scriptures inevitably lead to controversy; let us analyze them below: 1. According to the definition of the authenticity of books -- written personally by the author is authentic, otherwise it is fake The so-called authenticity and falsity of books, as described by Song Lian in "Zhu Zi Bian" (Ming Dynasty), Hu Yinglin in "Si Bu Zheng Zai" (Ming Dynasty), Yao Jiheng in "Gu Jin Wei Shu Kao" (Qing Dynasty), Liang Qichao in "Gu Shu Zhen Wei Ji Qi Nian Dai" (Republic of China), and Zhang Xincheng in "Wei Shu Tong Kao" (Republic of China), refers to whether the book was personally written by its author. However, even if a book is written by the author himself, if it has been in existence for a long time and has passed through many dynasties, it is inevitable that later generations have added, supplemented, or edited it. In such cases, there is falsity within authenticity. Conversely, some books, although not written by the purported author and are forgeries by later generations, such as many books written in the name of the Yellow Emperor during the Han Dynasty, are of this type. However, in such books, in order to gain the trust of readers, there are often many quotations and citations of the words and writings of the purported author. For example, the apocryphal "Guwen Shangshu" (Old Text Book of History) preserves a considerable amount of historical data. In such books, there is often authenticity within falsity. This is the definition of authenticity and falsity in secular classics; while the authenticity and falsity of Buddhist scriptures should also be defined in this way, in reality, it is more complex than the above. If we measure Buddhist scriptures by the criterion of being personally written by the author, then no Buddhist scripture can be considered authentic. All Buddhist scriptures are marked with "Thus have I heard," indicating that the content described was heard, not written. Since it was heard rather than handwritten, it cannot be said to be the work of that person. Furthermore, if the standard is relaxed to say that personally hearing what the author said can also count as authentic, then only the very few Hinayana scriptures from the First Council, which occurred closest to the death of Shakyamuni, can be considered authentic, while the rest are apocryphal. In particular, the Mahayana scriptures that were formed long after Shakyamuni's death, specifically after the 1st century AD, and the Vajrayana scriptures formed in the 8th century, cannot be considered authentic. At that time, it had been a long time since the Buddha, yet they still claimed "Thus have I heard." This situation is like people at the end of the Western Han and the beginning of the Eastern Han writing apocryphal texts and falsely claiming they were said by Confucius; they cannot be regarded as Confucius truly having such sayings. Confucius's era was close to Shakyamuni's; the beginning of the Eastern Han was the 1st century AD. By analogy, it is natural to know that the Mahayana and Vajrayana scriptures of Buddhism cannot be considered authentic. But later scriptures are not necessarily inferior to earlier ones; scriptures written in China are not necessarily inferior to those written in India; and scriptures written in India are not necessarily all earlier than those written by Chinese Buddhist monks. Let us discuss this further below: 2. People believe: Written by Indians is authentic, written by Chinese monks is apocryphal Since Buddhist scriptures were not written by Shakyamuni, and Mahayana scriptures were a thought movement that arose in India during the Eastern Han Dynasty in China, there is no longer a question of authenticity. However, people often regard Buddhist scriptures transmitted from India, supported by Sanskrit originals and translated from them, as authentic; while those written by Chinese monks with high learning and far-sightedness are considered apocryphal. This mindset is essentially a form of fawning on foreign things and abandoning oneself. Indian Buddhist scriptures often changed with the changes of the times; moreover, they even incorporated the terminology and ideas of heterodox schools into the scriptures, and even added Indian literary works to Buddhist teachings, turning them into Jataka tales of the Buddha. For example, the ancient Indian poem "Ramayana" narrates the story of a prince who was exiled by his stepmother, lived in the forest with his wife, and later his wife was kidnapped and rescued by the monkey king. In Wu Kangshenghui's "Liudu Ji Jing" (Sutra of the Six Perfections) and "Za Bao Jing" (Miscellaneous Treasures Sutra), this story is divided into two parts for narration. Furthermore, not only Indian literature and heterodox theories were introduced into Buddhist scriptures, but even more so, Chinese terminology, customs, and Taoist rituals are often seen in Buddhist scriptures, as mentioned earlier in this article. These places where Chinese terminology is mixed in may have been added by Indian monks themselves when they came to China to propagate Buddhism, or some may have been influenced by Chinese culture even in India itself. Even without these deficiencies, the creative work of Indians in Buddhist scriptures was not necessarily superior to that of China. For example, the "Awakening of Faith in Mahayana" written by Chinese monks had a profound influence on various schools of Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty. This book was even translated into Sanskrit by Xuanzang. And Zangchuan's "Sutra of the Ten Kings" made the doctrine of the Ten Kings of Hell (Note 10) become the representative hell doctrine for various religions in China. Huineng's Chinese Chan was far superior to the Indian Chan transmitted by Bodhidharma to China. And although there is a distinction between Indian Chan and Chinese Chan in terms of chronology, no one argues about their authenticity, nor does anyone look down on Chinese Chan because it was forged by Chinese people and refuse to study it. Moreover, the Indian doctrine of hell is still preserved in Buddhist scriptures, but it cannot compete with Zangchuan's doctrine of the Ten Kings of Hell. All of this shows that scriptures written in China are not necessarily inferior to those written in India. 3. The issue of Sanskrit vs. Non-Sanskrit originals Chinese books have always had issues of editions. The same book may have Dunhuang manuscripts from the Six Dynasties and Tang Dynasty, Song imprints, Yuan imprints, Ming imprints, Qing imprints, and even printed editions after the Republic of China. Buddhist scriptures are the same. Those written in Sanskrit also have issues of copying dates and editions. One should not be as ecstatic as a drowning person seeing a piece of driftwood just because they see a Sanskrit manuscript. One must first explore the copying date of this Sanskrit manuscript, which century it was copied in, the 10th century? The 8th century? Or earlier; and it must be investigated whether this manuscript has already been added to or deleted from the original Buddhist canon. Furthermore, one must explore the date of composition of the original scripture and its circulation situation, so as to restore its original appearance. 4. The issue of later forgeries vs. earlier forgeries Some people believe that Han Chinese writings are later, and Indian writings are earlier; earlier writings are authentic, later writings are apocryphal. In fact, this is again untrue. The writing dates of "Awakening of Faith in Mahayana," Zangchuan's two "Sutras of the Ten Kings," etc., are not necessarily later than the Buddhist scriptures translated by Tang and Song people. The "Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo" (Taisho Revised Tripitaka) Volumes 18 to Volume 21 include many Buddhist scriptures translated by Indians who came to China during the Tang Dynasty and later. The writing dates of these scriptures are not necessarily earlier than "Awakening of Faith" and "Sutras of the Ten Kings"; a large number of Vajrayana scriptures appeared even later than these two sutras. Therefore, judging superiority and authenticity based on the chronological order of composition is adding illusion to illusion and saying falsehood about falsehood. 5. The issue of detailed vs. abbreviated versions Chinese Buddhists often refer to a scripture of the same nature with fewer volumes as an abbreviated version and one with more volumes as a detailed version. And they believe that the two coexisted at the same time, both originating from the Buddha's teachings, with the abbreviated version being an excerpt of the detailed version, not produced sequentially, but only differing in the timing of their transmission to China. In fact, this statement is not necessarily correct. Evidence from the development process of books shows that the same scripture is often simple first and complex later, and often continues to be added to or deleted from with the changes of times. Therefore, detailed and abbreviated versions do not appear simultaneously. For example, in Buddhist scriptures, the "Vajra Top All Tathagata True Absorption Mahayana Realization Great Teaching King Sutra" translated by Amoghavajra in the Tang Dynasty originally had only three volumes; when Shihu translated "All Tathagata True Absorption Mahayana Realization Samhita Great Teaching King Sutra" in the Song Dynasty, it was expanded to thirty volumes; and comparing the "Sutra of the Buddha's Blessing on the House Deities" translated by the anonymous translator in the Han Dynasty with the "Sutra of the Most Superior Lamp King Dharani of the East" translated by Jnanagupta in the Sui Dynasty, the latter has more text; also, the "Sutra of the Buddha's Secret Dharani of Amitabha Buddha" translated by Bodhiruci in the Tang Dynasty has many more mantras and scriptures than the "Sutra of Amitabha" translated by Kumārajīva in the Yao Qin Dynasty; the "Sutra of Marici Dharani" translated by the anonymous translator in the Liang Dynasty, the "Sutra of Marici Bodhisattva Dharani" translated by Amoghavajra in the Tang Dynasty, and the "Sutra of Marici" translated by Amoghavajra are all one-volume editions, but when Tianxizai translated "Sutra of Great Marici Bodhisattva" in the Song Dynasty, it was expanded to seven volumes. Buddhism is like this, and Taoist scriptures are also like this. For example, the "Lingbao Wuliang Duren Shangpin Miaojing" (Scripture of the Lingbao Infinite Deliverance of Beings of the Highest Excellence) originally started as a one-volume edition in the Jin Dynasty, and later rapidly expanded to sixty-one volumes. Not only religion is like this, but the works of Confucian scholars, such as "Yupian" and "Shiwu Jiyuan," also have more existing volumes than recorded in old bibliographies. Of course, in the development process of books after their composition, there may also be phenomena where the original number of volumes is large, but later generations deleted them, resulting in fewer volumes, or even the loss of some chapters and volumes; but all of this can illustrate that detailed and abbreviated versions do not coexist simultaneously, but are the result of a long evolution of books. Based on this, when people often call the more primitive version the abbreviated version and the later version the detailed version, believing they coexist and both originate from the Buddha's teachings; they are instead ignorant of the cognition of the evolution of books.   Chinese Taoism and ideological customs not only influenced Buddhism in China, causing it to localize, but also influenced India itself. Buddhist Vajrayana is the product of the integration of Chinese Taoism and Indian Buddhism. The combination of the Indian rabbit attaining enlightenment and the moon rabbit, the five Buddhas, five colors, and five directions configuration of Indian Vajrayana, and the Sanskrit translation of the Chinese "Awakening of Faith in Mahayana" are all sufficient to prove that India itself was indeed influenced by Chinese Taoism and thought. Therefore, the influence on Buddhism in China is even more beyond doubt. As for the authenticity of Buddhist scriptures, if personal writing is considered authentic, then all Buddhist scriptures start with "Thus have I heard," so there are no authentic scriptures; if what is heard can also be considered authentic, then the First Council, closest to Shakyamuni, is authentic, while the rest of the majority of Hinayana scriptures, and the Mahayana that arose in the 1st century AD, and the Vajrayana that arose in the 8th century, should all be considered apocryphal. But later scriptures are not necessarily inferior to earlier ones; scriptures written in China are not necessarily inferior to those written in India; on the contrary, there are often works that become more refined as they are produced later. Moreover, Chinese Buddhist monks' writings can make up for the deficiencies of India with Chinese thought, often having unique features. Therefore, many scriptures written by Chinese Buddhist monks are far superior to Indian Buddhist scriptures in terms of both chronological order and philosophy. For example, the writing date of "Awakening of Faith in Mahayana" is earlier than most Vajrayana scriptures, and philosophically it is far more harmonious than the Hinayana doctrine that Ichinen cannot attain Buddhahood. The "Awakening of Faith in Mahayana" written by Chinese Buddhist monks laid the foundation for the Mahayana sects of Chinese Buddhism in the Sui and Tang Dynasties; its importance is self-evident. Furthermore, Chinese Chan, which emphasizes realization and practice, is not necessarily inferior to Indian Chan, which emphasizes precepts and meditation; and Zangchuan's "Sutra of the Ten Kings" made the Ten Kings of Hell a common belief of various religions among the Chinese people, with a huge influence, far surpassing the Indian Yama Hell doctrine. Therefore, Buddhist scriptures only have differences in quality and depth, and there is no need to argue about the authenticity of Sanskrit and Chinese. Therefore, people do not necessarily need to argue about the authenticity of Sanskrit and Chinese; and scholars, instead of studying the authenticity of Buddhist scriptures, would be more helpful if they studied the writing date of the scriptures and their lineage and influence.   (Note1) Indian astrology and calendar were early inherited from Babylon, and later, after Alexander the Great ruled India, new astrological theories were introduced. For details on the Indian calendar, please refer to Derek & Julia Parker's "THE COMPLEAT ASTROLOGER" translated by Xu Shuzhen as "Xingxiang Daguan" (Grand View of Celestial Phenomena) and Lin Gengqun's translation of "Babylonian Astrology". (Note2) In India, a month is divided into dark and light halves. This is mentioned in Tang Xuanzang's "Great Tang Records on the Western Regions" Volume 2, Tang Amoghavajra's translation "Sutra of the Auspicious and Inauspicious Times and Good and Evil Constellations Said by Manjushri Bodhisattva and Various Immortals", and Sui Narendrayasha's translation "Mahavastu Avadana" Volume 42 "Chapter on Constellations in the Sun Storage Section". (Note3) There are also teachings in Buddhist scriptures about offering to the Buddha and high monks, such as the story of Yushu offering to the Buddha and the monastic community in Volume ? of the "Sutra of the Buddha's Nirvana" translated by Baifazu in the Western Jin Dynasty. But the belief that this method can eliminate disasters, pray for blessings, and recommend salvation should be influenced by the Taoist idea of "feeding the virtuous". Moreover, the offering described in the aforementioned "Sutra of the Buddha's Nirvana" translated by Baifazu does not involve eliminating disasters or recommending salvation, indicating it is an old Indian custom unrelated to China. However, there is the phrase "feeding virtuous and good monks," which still carries the suspicion of following the Taoist terminology of "feeding the virtuous". (Note4) Ren Jiyu's "History of Chinese Buddhism" Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section 8 states: ""Awakening of Faith in Mahayana"...... is the treatise that has had the greatest influence on Sui and Tang Buddhism. Its philosophical thought represents the direction of the development of Chinese Buddhism thereafter and has become the theoretical basis for the mutual integration of various sects." Lao Siguang's "History of Chinese Philosophy" Volume 2 Chapter 3 page 306 states: "The doctrines of the later three Chinese sects (Tiantai, Huayan, Chan) are all close to this treatise in their basic positions. If this treatise was indeed created by Chinese Buddhists, it can be said to be the precursor of the three Chinese sects; if it originated from India, it should be regarded as a work circulated after the Shelun school. Because its thought actually collects the concepts of Faxing and Faxiang into a single 'True Constant Mind', it is definitely not an early work." (Note5) Modern scholars, such as Matsumoto Sanshiro, Mochizuki Shintei, Murakami Kanzo from Japan, and Liang Qichao from our country, have all written special articles, proving from the evolution of academic theory and from the traces of figures such as Zhen Di that "Awakening of Faith in Mahayana" did not originate from India, but was written by Chinese Buddhist monks. And regarding the "Awakening" treatise, the text comes from Asanga, and the monks of that land thought to inherit its origin, Xuanzang translated it from Tang to Sanskrit, spreading it throughout the Five Indias. Thus, the缘 (conditions) of Dharma propagation, east and west, are mutually举 (raised). (Note6) There are several different theories about the birth and death years of Qu Yuan. This adopts the theory of the modern scholar Jiang Liangfu in "General Table of Years and Birthplaces of Famous People in Successive Dynasties". Note 7)See Japanese scholar Fujita Toyohachi's "Study of Chinese Myths". (Note8) The writing date of Huilin's book is recorded in the preface "New Collected Index of All Canon Pronunciations" by the recluse Gu Qizhi attached to the front of "Yiqie Jing Yiyi". This preface was written in the fifth year of Kaiyuan (840 AD). (Note9) Vajrayana was brewing in the 7th century AD and rose during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong of Tang in the 8th century AD. Most of the Vajrayana scriptures are products of the 8th century and later. The configuration of five Buddhas, five colors, and five directions is similar to the Chinese Five Elements theory, which should be Vajrayana being influenced by China, rather than China being influenced by Vajrayana scriptures such as "Mahavairocana Sutra". (Note10)The "Sutra of the Ten Kings" currently seen has two versions, one is "Sutra of the Buddha's Teaching on the Causes and Conditions of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva's Aspiration for the Ten Kings" and the other is "Sutra of the Buddha's Teaching on Preparing for the Ten Kings' Seven Days of Life". Both are attributed to Zangchuan, a monk from Sichuan in the Tang Dynasty. The author has determined based on literature that these two books were indeed written by Zangchuan, and Zangchuan should be a person from the early Tang Dynasty. For detailed discussion, please see the author's "Collection of Studies on Dunhuang Folk Literature" published by Commercial Press and "Taoist and Buddhist Sutras of the Ten Kings" published by Xinwenfeng Publishing House.