There are two texts with the theme on the profundity of parents` filial love to their children found in the Taisho Tripitaka: the Fumuen Nanbao Jing attributed to An Shigao`s translation and the Fumuenzhong Jing collected from Dunhuang caves. The latter version is considered nearly by all scholars as apocryphal while the former is virtuously left without scholarly studies. After a study, I consider the Fumuen Nanbao Jing as translated by An Shigao the authentic text from India but it is forgotten by people in the long history. But on the other hand, the apocryphal text Fumuenzhong Jing became quite popular amongst the ordinary Chinese people. Then many questions arise: How can there be an apocryphal text even though there is an authentic one? Why the authentic version is forgotten while the apocryphal version became popular? What is the relationship between the two versions? How the apocryphal text came into being? In my opinion, the appearance of the apocryphal version is due to the fact that in the authentic version, there is a paragraph on how to repay parents` debts in five ways, particularly the way to establish immoral parents in morality, which is not in conformity with the Confucian concept of filial piety. According to Confucianism, in filial piety children`s respect and reverence to parents are essential; otherwise it is not different from dogs and horses if parents are only provided with material and service. So as a result, the authentic version could not be preached and taught in Chinese society in order to show the Confucian critics that Buddhism also teaches filial piety. Therefore, the Chinese Buddhists created another version by collecting ideas and paragraphs from other Mahayana sutras translated earlier such as the Mahaparinirvanasutra, and the Ullambana on how to repay parents` kindness. Thus, the filial ideas in the apocryphal text are in consistency with the Chinese culture that is centered on Confucian ideology. This explains all the questions mentioned above.
