Source: Qiu 2019

There are two Chinese translations of the Lumu jing 鹿母經 in the Taishō, T182a and T182b. T182b is longer, and T182a is shorter; both are ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Qiu Yunqing compares the two translations and an abridged excerpt from the Luzi jing 鹿子經 in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 (JLYX) and CSZJJ. Qiu argues that T182b is the original translation of Dharmarakṣa, and the shorter T182a is a simplified and later version of T182b, which was inaccurately ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.

Firstly, Qiu affirms on the basis of internal evidence that the ascription of the Lumu jing T182b to Dharmarakṣa is correct. His evidence is certain words in T182b, which appear only in Dharmarakṣa: xinran 忻然 and qishou sang mian 稽首顙面 (which is in fact a hapax, but Qiu relates it to 稽顙, which appears almost exclusively in Dhr texts in the Buddhist canon); as well as words frequently seen in Dharmarakṣa’s translations: baoyue 報曰, yimao 衣毛, guimei 鬼魅, laijiu 來久, fengshun 奉順, daoyu 導御, chian 癡闇, bijie 閉結, enci 恩慈, shanquan 善權.

Qiu then probes the ascription of the so-called Luzi jing, by comparing the two Lumu jing to the Luzi jing as excerpted in JLYX. Although the sequence of the episodes varies, the Lumu jing T182b and T182a describe the same story and have similar wording. The Luzi jing quoted in the JLYX has the exact same content as T182a, and the wording is largely the same. In CSZJJ, the Luzi jing was credited to Zhi Qian. Since T182a and the Luzi jing have the same content and broadly similar wording, Qiu raises the possibility that Zhi Qian could also have translated T182a.

However, Qiu proceeds to negate this hypothesis. He adduces words in the Luzi jing that Zhi Qian never used, and yet were used in Dharmarakṣa’s translations: jiaohua 狡猾, shibie 識别, xinshi 信誓, beihao 悲號, beilian 悲戀, cixin 慈信, renxing 仁行, rushen 汝身, duji 度濟, qidang 豈當. Moreover, some words are never seen in either Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa’s translations, as follows: mengmeng 矇矇, xiaotan 肅歎, shalie 殺獵, mixiu 糜朽, beilin 悲憐, mingzhi 命旨, enji 恩紀, and xiaoying huiyan 効應徵驗. [Note: 肅歎, 糜朽, 恩紀, and 効應徵驗 are in fact all hapax legomena in translation texts, and any hapax is of questionable evidential value in determining ascription – MR.] Therefore, Qiu argues that Zhi Qian could not have translated the Luzi jing, nor T182a.

In the later part of the article, Qiu also mentioned another strong piece of evidence to support his argument. Words occurring in the Luzi jing, such as fude guobao 福德果報 and sanzhong puti 三種菩提, first appear in Chinese Buddhist translations after the 4th century, and words such as xiu shanfa 修善法 and fofa sengbao 佛法僧寶 also never appear in any translation by Zhi Qian. [Note: It appears that Qiu is here not considering the possibility that some of the wording of the Luzi jing as excerpted in the JLYX could be the result of paraphrase on the part of the compilers of JLYX – MR.]

Secondly, since the text of the Luzi jing as cited in JYLX shows significant similarities with the Lumu jing T182a, Qiu examines evidence about the Luzi jing in the catalogs, and questions whether any such text ever existed. In CSZJJ, the earliest extant mention of the Luzi jing, Sengyou 僧祐 records that the Luzi jing was ascribed to Zhi Qian, as documented in Zhongjing bie lu 衆經别録. Dao’an does not mention it. By contrast, Dao’an does record a Lumu jing. However, both the Lumu jing and the Luzi jing are recorded in LDSBJ, which is somewhat less trustworthy. In KYL, Zhisheng 智昇 points out that the Luzi jing and the Lumu jing had the same content but different titles; therefore, Zhisheng notes that ascribing the Luzi jing to Zhi Qian was nonsense. Qiu argues that since the content and wording of the Lumu jing T182a are so close to the Luzi jing from JLYX, and JLYX states that this excerpt derives from the Luzi jing, the Luzi jing that Zhisheng saw was the excerpt in the JLYX. On these grounds, Qiu questions if there ever really existed a Luzi jing.

However, Qiu also mentions other evidence supporting the existence of a Luzi jing in an “Indian” sources: Dharmakṣema’s translation of the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488, produced under the Northern Liang (379-439), quotes a Luzi jing. If the information in this translation is accurate, there could have existed some text with a title translated as Luzi jing at one point in history. However, the content in this source is utterly different than that of T182a and T182b.

Finally, Qiu also argues that T182b is earlier than T182a. He reasons as follows:

Some wording in T182a appears relatively late, such as mingzhi 命旨, which is otherwise seen only in two 5th-century texts [sic: T193 and T172, the ascriptions for which Qiu takes uncritically – MR], and xiaoying 效應, see in an 8th-century text [Amoghavajra’s T990 only; MR].

Furthermore, Sanskrit atha (khalu) is often used at the beginning of a paragraph to introduce a new point of view, open a further discussion, or even introduce an opposing view. According to Qiu, Dharmarakṣa usually translated directly as shi 時 or yushi 於是. The later translators tended to omit this wording. Compared to T182b, 7 instances of this term are omitted in T182a. Therefore, Qiu believes that Dharmarakṣa translated the Lumu jing T182b in a relatively literal or faithful manner, and then later translators abridged the T182b and produced T182a.

Qiu also provided two more points to support this argument. The first one is the usage of yan 言, which is used frequently in Buddhist translation but was not common in daily usage. Therefore, the later editors changed yan 言 to a more vernacular word, yue 曰. In T182a, to where it equivalences to T182b, there are two places where yue substituted yan, and two places chose to use other words over yan. Moreover, T182b does uses xianzhe 賢者 for āyusmat, as used in addressing a Bhikkhu, but T182a omitted this word.

Edit