Text: T1694; 陰持入經註

No

• T1694; 陰持入經註

T1694 is an interlinear commentary on the Yin chu ru jing T603. Citing Ui and Zürcher, Zacchetti states that a "broad consensus" regards the text as having been compiled in the third century, under the Wu (142). (Zacchetti also notes dissenting opinions by Zhou Shujia and Gao Mingdao, n. 3.)

Zacchetti surveys the transmission history of the text, building on earlier work (Zacchetti 2002) (144-147).

Zacchetti characterises the authorship of T1694 as a "tangled question" (148), and suggests that there may be several hands behind the work. All additions ascribe the work (in a byline) to a "Master Chen" 陳氏注. Nothing is known about this figure, but Zacchetti suggests that this very paucity of information speaks in favour of the authenticity of this information: "Generally, texts are ascribed to celebrated masters ... not to an unknown" (148). Some indications may associate this personage with a Chen Hui of Wu 吳陳慧, who is known from a mention in Kang Senghui's preface to the Anban shouyi jing, which states that with two others, he had annotated the Anban shouyi jing; Kang Senghui seems to evince a very deferential attitude to this person, whom he calls "the master" 師. However, Zacchetti suggests that the identification of "Master Chen" with this Chen Hui may be problematic (151).

In the preface to T1694 itself (which Zacchetti translates in full in an Appendix), the author of the preface (probably) calls himself Mi 密. The preface also seems to indicate clearly that he is the author of a commentary on the Yin chi ru jing, most likely T1694 (151-152). The preface strikes an unusually autobiographical tone. Zacchetti suggests that its author was most likely a layman. The elaborate style suggests a cultivated author. Zacchetti suggests that the self-identification of this author as Mi poses problems for the ascription of the text to Chen Hui (153). Against Tang Yongtong, who thought that the author of the preface was describing An Shigao's translation activities as an eye witness, Zacchetti points to certain details that he believe suggest some distance in time (153-154).

The preface would seem to indicate that the preface author was solely responsible for the content of the commentary, but the commentary itself feature remarks of the "master" 師云. These glosses appear only in the first fascicle. Zacchetti summarises the quality of the comments in question: "There is little doubt that this figure was not an occasional or marginal source of information, but was deeply involved in the composition of at least part of [the commentary], and, what is more, played a key role in shaping its peculiar ideology" (154).

Zacchetti summarises three hypotheses that have been advanced about the identity of this "master":

(1) He is An Shigao (Tang Yongtong). Against this idea, Zacchetti urges that the remarks of this master are not in keeping with An Shigao's known commentarial style (e.g. from T1508); the appearance of "ideas and terms ... utterly foreign to" An Shigao; and the fact that the commentary presumes a finished translation, not a translation in progress. Indeed, the commentator is sometimes misled by An Shigao's translation terminology and technique (155-158).

(2) He is Zhi Qian (Ui, followed by Lai). Zacchetti finds little evidence in support of this hypothesis, even in Ui's own work advancing it (158-159).

(3) He is Kang Senghui (also Ui; Zürcher). Zürcher argued this mainly on the grounds that T1694 cites some sort of commentary on the Anpan [shouyi jing], which Zürcher identifies with a known Kang Senghui commentary on the text. Zacchetti too prefers this hypothesis, but adduces additional reasons. A phrase in T1694 is paralleled almost exactly in Kang Senghui's preface to the Anban (159). Another T1694 phrase is paralleled in the preface to Kang Senghui's lost commentary on T322. These parallels do not yet show that Kang Senghui is "the master", but they at least show "that the commentary was composed in a circle deeply familiar with Kang Senghui's works" (161-162). Zacchetti notes other parallels in T1694 to Kang Senghui's works, esp. to T152(90) [note that this point may be somewhat problematised by the tricky question of the provenance of T152(90) itself, in relation to the rest of T152 ---- MR] (162-163). Zacchetti concludes that the "master" of the first fascicle is most likely Kang Senghui (163).

Zacchetti notes that despite the rich set of sources cited in the commentary, no work by Kang Senghui himself is cited (163-164), and suggests that this might mean it was composed relatively early in Kang Senghui's career. He also cites evidence relating to historical circumstances (in part following Tang Yongtong), also connected to the composition of the Anban commentary and Kang Senghui's preface, suggesting that those texts (and perhaps T1694 itself) was composed before 229 (164-165). Dao'an also places the composition of the Anban commentary at the "beginning of the Wei" (166). On the basis of detailed analysis of other historical evidence, Zacchetti argues that Kang Senghui may well have already been active as a commentary before 247 (when many scholars habitually date the start of his activity).

Zacchetti summarises his findings by arguing that the commentary was most likely composed sometime during the first half of the third century; and that Kang Senghui himself helped in the composition of the text (168-169). He argues that this finding strengthens the likelihood that "Master Chen" is indeed Chen Hui (since he is known to have been associated with Kang Senghui).Another circumstantial detail supporting this conclusion is that the preface to T1694 favourably compares this commentary to that on the Anban, in which Kang Senghui and Chen Hui are known to have collaborated. Zacchetti closes this section of his discussion by returning to some lingering problems for this hypothesis posed by the use of the name Mi (170-171).

In an attempt to gain further traction on the problem of authorship, Zacchetti then considers the doctrinal and conceptual content of T1694. A particular problem is that the Anban commentary --- on the above hypothesis, the product of the same team of Kang Senghui and Chen Hui --- never features "soul" language (神 etc.), whereas it features quite strikingly in T1694 (172-179). Zacchetti proposes to resolve this conundrum in part by recourse to the theory that for Anban, the authors had the advantage of glosses from An Shigao himself (like some rediscovered in the Kongōji manuscript), whereas for the Yin chi ru jing, they were "essentially on their own" (179-180).

In sum, Zacchetti proposes that T1694 was the product of a group associated with Kang Senghui, and more specifically, of a "Master Chen" probably to be identified with Chen Hui; that the text was also produced with the collaboration of Kang Senghui himself, who is the "master" identified in comments in the first fascicle; and that the text was most likely produced in the first half of the third century.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (author); Chen Hui 陳慧 (author)

No

• T1694; 陰持入經註

Zürcher notes that the “Commentary on the Yinchiru jing” 陰持入經註 T1694 is attributed to “Master Chen” 陳氏 in the canon, yet the author refers to himself as Mi 密 in the preface. Many of the glosses are headed by the phrase “the Master says”; according to Zürcher, nothing is known of Mi 密 or his master.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit