Source: Maspero 1911

Maspero, Henri. “Sur la date et l’authenticité du Fou fa tsang yin yüan tchouan.” Mélanges d’Indianisme offerts par ses éleves à M. Sylvian Levi, 129-149. Paris, 1911.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

The traditional date for the "translation" of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058, based upon CSZJJ, is 472. Various citations of the text by Tang authors match the extant text. However, Maspero was unable to find any citations earlier than the Tang. The oldest known citations from the text are found in the Yiqiejing yinyi 一切經音義 of Xuanying 玄應, dating to 649 [the work that was subsequently extended by Huilin 慧琳 under the same title, T2128].

The only information about T2058 prior to the Tang is in the catalogues. CSZJJ says it was translated in 472 by Jijiaye 吉迦夜, but also says that this text was lost in Sengyou's time. In LDSBJ, this title appears twice, once ascribed to Jijiaye 吉迦夜, and once to Tanyao 曇曜. LDSBJ refers to Daohui's 道慧 Song Qi lu 宋齊錄. Maspero states that the notices of CSZJJ and LDSBJ are clearly identical, but significantly, that CSZJJ does not mention Huilin's Song Qi lu as its source. Further, Fei Changfang says elsewhere that he was unable to obtain a copy of the Song Qi lu, and so never actually saw it. Later, Fei also says that he derives some of his information from the "catalogue of Bodhiruci", but according to Maspero, this too is a catalogue that he never directly saw [T2034:49.127c1117]. Maspero also discusses other problems in the evidence of the catalogues.

Maspero's paper centres on his identification of a Chinese sources for much of T2058, especially the Aśokāvadāna 阿育王傳 T2042, to which he traces numerous passages, but also including the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya 十誦律 T1435, 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047, and 提婆菩薩傳 T2048. Maspero states the various stories about Upagupta contained in the text were selected and copied, with slight abrigdement, from T2042, and even appear in the same order (with one exception).

Maspero considers three possible scenarios to explain this pattern in the evidence: 1. Heavy later interpolation in a genuine translation text; 2. the text was compiled in China by Jijiaye and Tanyao; 3. the original was lost and the present text is a "fake" dating to the sixth century. He prefers the theory that it was composed in the sixth century. He says that even passages for which he was unable to identify a source are nonetheless not necessarily an original translation; he argues, for instance, that a passage about Kumāralabdha was probably drawn from a lost Chinese original dating to the Jin, on the basis of an apparent interlinear gloss stranded in the main text, reading 晉言. Maspero argues that the hypothesis of a sixth-century date is supported by the presence of wording that indicates debts to a second version of the Aśokāvadāna, translated in 512, viz. the 阿育王經 T2043.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that one tradition, as reported in KYL, holds that the supposed translation by Jijiaye and Tanyao was the second translation, the first having been by Baoyun 寶雲 (付法藏經六卷(初出見李廓錄), T2154:55:5.525c3; also 649c22-23). [MR: This tradition goes back as far as the 古今譯經圖紀, T2151:55.362a16, and is also found in DZKZM.] Maspero thinks on these grounds that we must suppose that there did originally exist a translation text by this title, but that it was lost, and subsequently replaced in the canon by the present Chinese composition.

Maspero mentions that Qisong 契嵩 (1007-1072) also regarded T2058 as an apocryphon, though he had an ulterior motive, because he wanted to discredit the lineage that was propounded by a rival branch of his sect on the basis of T2058.

Edit

 The traditional date for the "translation" of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058, based upon CSZJJ, is 472. Various citations of the text by Tang authors match the extant text. However, Maspero was unable to find any citations earlier than the Tang. The oldest known citations from the text are found in the Yiqiejing yinyi 一切經音義 of Xuanying 玄應, dating to 649 [the work that was subsequently extended by Huilin 慧琳 under the same title, T2128]. The only information about T2058 prior to the Tang is in the catalogues. CSZJJ says it was translated in 472 by Jijiaye 吉迦夜, but also says that this text was lost in Sengyou's time. In LDSBJ, this title appears twice, once ascribed to Jijiaye 吉迦夜, and once to Tanyao 曇曜. LDSBJ refers to Daohui's 道慧 Song Qi lu 宋齊錄. Maspero states that the notices of CSZJJ and LDSBJ are clearly identical, but significantly, that CSZJJ does not mention Huilin's Song Qi lu as its source. Further, Fei Changfang says elsewhere that he was unable to obtain a copy of the Song Qi lu, and so never actually saw it. Later, Fei also says that he derives some of his information from the "catalogue of Bodhiruci", but according to Maspero, this too is a catalogue that he never directly saw [T2034:49.127c1117]. Maspero also discusses other problems in the evidence of the catalogues. Maspero's paper centres on his identification of a Chinese sources for much of T2058, especially the Asokavadana 阿育王傳 T2042, to which he traces numerous passages, but also including the Sarvastivada-vinaya 十誦律 T1435, 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047, and 提婆菩薩傳 T2048. Maspero states the various stories about Upagupta contained in the text were selected and copied, with slight abrigdement, from T2042, and even appear in the same order (with one exception). Maspero considers three possible scenarios to explain this pattern in the evidence: 1. Heavy later interpolation in a genuine translation text; 2. the text was compiled in China by Jijiaye and Tanyao; 3. the original was lost and the present text is a "fake" dating to the sixth century. He prefers the theory that it was composed in the sixth century. He says that even passages for which he was unable to identify a source are nonetheless not necessarily an original translation; he argues, for instance, that a passage about Kumaralabdha was probably drawn from a lost Chinese original dating to the Jin, on the basis of an apparent interlinear gloss stranded in the main text, reading 晉言. Maspero argues that the hypothesis of a sixth-century date is supported by the presence of wording that indicates debts to a second version of the Asokavadana, translated in 512, viz. the 阿育王經 T2043. The situation is further complicated by the fact that one tradition, as reported in KYL, holds that the supposed translation by Jijiaye and Tanyao was the second translation, the first having been by Baoyun 寶雲 (付法藏經六卷(初出見李廓錄), T2154:55:5.525c3; also 649c22-23). [MR: This tradition goes back as far as the 古今譯經圖紀, T2151:55.362a16, and is also found in DZKZM.] Maspero thinks on these grounds that we must suppose that there did originally exist a translation text by this title, but that it was lost, and subsequently replaced in the canon by the present Chinese composition. Maspero mentions that Qisong 契嵩 (1007-1072) also regarded T2058 as an apocryphon, though he had an ulterior motive, because he wanted to discredit the lineage that was propounded by a rival branch of his sect on the basis of T2058. T2058; 付法藏因緣傳