| Identifier | T0590 [T] |
| Title | 佛說四天王經 [T] |
| Date | 500-600 [Sørensen 1995] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sørensen 1995] |
| Translator 譯 | Baoyun, 寶雲; Zhiyan, 智嚴 (Liu Song) [T] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. |
Abstract: "This study examines the biography of the monk Baoyun 寶雲 (376?-449) and lists all the titles of the translation projects in which Baoyun was involved. By comparing the information provided by different Buddhist catalogues, several discrepancies between the information on Baoyun provided by Buddhist bibliographer Sengyou 僧祐 (445-518) and by later accounts became evident. This study contextualizes the life of Baoyun in a broader historical perspective and presents the life of a monk who was a companion of Faxian 法顯 (336?-422) in his famous journey to the west, fluent in Indic languages, and a proficient translator." Lettere argues that we can see a gradual process by which the true scope of Baoyun's activities as a translator, originally represented rather clearly by Sengyou and the sources he collects (CSZJJ), was already diminished or undermined by Huijiao (GSZ), Fei Zhangfang (LCSBJ), and Fajing; and also seems to have suffered from being overshadowed by the reputation and legends that accrued to the personality of Faxian. In the course of her treatment of biographical and other external sources on Baoyun (CSZJJ, GSZ, and documents like prefaces), Lettere notes evidence that Baoyun might have been the principal translator for the following works: T192 (Lettere holds unequivocally that this work is "erroneously attributed to Dharmakṣema/Tan Wuchen 曇無讖", following Willemen 2009 [in error this reference is given as Chen Jinhua]: xiv-xvi); a "new Sukhāvatī" 新無量壽 [sic, for *Amitāyus] [Lettere's citation of studies by Nogami 1950, Gotō 2006, 2007, and Nattier 2003 implies that she identifies this title with T360 -- MR]; with Zhiyan, according to Sengyou's CSZJJ, three titles: the Puyao jing 普耀經, the Guangbo yanjing jing 廣博嚴淨經, and the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 [cf. for the last two titles respectively Avaivartikacakra 廣博嚴淨經 T268, and Si tianwang jing 四天王經 T590 -- MR]; the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda 勝鬘經 [T353]; the Za’ahan jing 雜阿含經 (*Saṃyuktāgama) and the Fagu jing 法鼓經 [Lettere again does not go into the problem of identification with extant texts, but cf. Saṃyuktāgama T99 and the *Mahābherīhāraka-sūtra T270 -- MR]; a Mahāparinirvāṇa in six fascicles 六卷泥洹 [cf. T7 -- MR]. [To this list we should add the Laṅkāvatāra T670; Lettere omits to list it, but cf. 後於丹陽郡譯出勝鬘楞伽經, GSZ T2059 (L) 344b3, which in fact comprises two titles, the Śrīmālādevī and the Laṅkāvatāra; cf. Lettere 265 n. 9 -- MR.] Lettere also notes evidence that Baoyun may have composed a lost travelogue of his journeys, entitled Youlü waiguo 遊履外國. In LDSBJ, two titles are added to Baoyun's credit; Fufa zang jing 付法藏經 [cf. T2058] and Jingdu sanwei jing 淨度三昧經 [cf. X15]; and an *Akṣayamatinirdeśa 無盡意菩薩 to the joint translatorship of Baoyun and Zhiyan [cf. T397(12)]. Lettere notes that the poor reputation of Fei as a cataloguer makes these ascriptions less plausible. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 12c6-9, 112c19-20 |
A notice in CSZJJ ascribes T590 to Zhiyan and Baoyun: 四天王經一卷....右三部。十一卷。宋文帝時。沙門釋智嚴。以元嘉四年。共沙門寶雲譯出. This ascription is also supported by Zhiyan’s CSZJJ biography: ...乃共沙門寶雲譯出普耀廣博嚴淨及四天王凡三部經. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 24c17 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, a title matching T590 is regarded as an anonymous translation, that is to say, it is listed in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4): 四天王經一卷(後有呪似後人所附). However, Sengyou also lists the ascription to Zhiyan and Baoyun elsewhere, and the ascription is supported by the CSZJJ biography of Zhiyan. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following titles are listed, which may correspond to extant texts (in some cases, identification is rather tentative). In contrast to some other titles, which are treated in separate CBC@ entries, these titles are listed in the Bie lu without any further accompanying information (e.g. about ascription or date). Note that the Bie lu includes interlinear notes giving such information, and the scope of application of those interlinear notes is sometimes uncertain: it can be hard to tell whether they apply only to the single title preceding the note, or to a group of titles leading up to the note; and if they apply to a group of titles, how many. Titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering in Tan (1991), given at the beginning of each line. S.2872 P.3747 Many of these same titles are treated as anonymous and extant in CSZJJ fascicle 4. The same is also true of a number of titles not listed here, because the texts in question appear not to be extant. Texts presently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and to Zhi Qian (excepting T361) are excluded from this entry, because they are treated in other CBC@ entries. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Gotō 2007] Gotō Gijō 後藤義乗. "Butsu hongyō kyō, Shi tennō kyō no Kan'yakusha 仏本行経・四天王経の漢訳者." IBK 55, no. 2 (2007): 982-978[L]. |
Gotō argues on the basis of computer-assisted stylometric analysis that it is more likely that T193, in particular, was translated by Dharmarakṣa, rather than Baoyun. Note similar work, in Gotō 2006, on the relative strength of the attribution of the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha T360 to Dharmarakṣa and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun respectively, to which the present study seems linked. One of the main reasons that scholars have thought the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha is due to Buddhabhadra & Baoyun is translation terminology. However, Gotō claims that this judgement has rested on flawed premises and benchmarks, in particular, ideas about the difference between "archaic" and "recent" (post-Kumārajīva) terminology derived from Sengyou's (CSZJJ) list of contrasting terms, the so-called Qianhou chu jing yi ji 前後出經異記 T2145:55.5a13 ff. Gotō adduces Ui Hakuju's 宇井伯寿 "Bosatsu, Butsu no onyaku ni tsuite 菩薩・仏の音訳について" to argue, first, that the supposed "recent" terminology is in fact sometimes evinced even in the oldest texts, such as *Lokakṣema’s Aṣṭa; and, second, that in "important" scriptures, we must reckon with the possibility that in the wake of the N. Zhou persecution of the 570s and the restoration of Buddhism under the early Sui, learned monks revised the texts to bring them into line with the newer terminological standards. For this reason, Gotō cautions that we cannot use the translation terminology (at least that of Sengyou's list) as a criterion in determining the likelihood of Dharmarakṣa's authorship, because these [hypothetical] revisions might have erased the traces of his actual usage. Gotō supports this suggestion by an examination of the distribution of Sengyou's "archaic" and "recent" terms in a corpus of texts reliably ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, and a (liberal, i.e. inclusive) corpus of 16 texts that he regards as due to Baoyun on the basis of external evidence in biographies, etc. (he does not provide the actual list of the texts comprised in this corpus). He shows that in many cases, it is in fact Sengyou's "recent" terms that appear in Dharmarakṣa. For him, this indicates that Sengyou saw versions of Dharmarakṣa's texts that included the "archaic" terminology, but our extant versions have been doctored, precisely in line with Ui's theory of early Sui revision. [It at least seems to show that this particular list of terms is unreliable as markers of the distinction between Dharmarakṣa's and "Baoyun's" style---MR.] Gotō then examines the question by studying the distribution of 2grams either far more frequent in Dharmarakṣa than in Buddhabhadra-Baoyun (760 such markers), or vice versa (304 such markers), in particular texts. On this basis (though space precludes him showing the detail), he argues that T193 looks more like Dharmarakṣa than Buddhabhadra-Baoyun; but he also notes that there are also markers that would seem more characteristic of the latter style [note his conclusion, in Gotō 2006, that T360 is probably a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun revision of an earlier Dharmarakṣa text---MR]. Gotō then asks whether the same phenomenon occurs with "other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun scriptures", and examines 佛所行讚 T192 [ascribed to *Dharmakṣema---not sure of his reasoning, but he says it is "strongly related to T193"---MR] and 廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 T268 [ascribed in T to Zhiyan 智嚴, but the apparatus records that SYM and Palace all say "and Baoyun"---MR], which is "the same size as [T193]". 1. T268: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 424 markers : Dharmarakṣa 54 markers Gotō interprets this evidence to mean that 佛所行讚 [=T192] is characteristic of Buddhabhadra-Baoyun [?], but "closer than T268 to Dharmarakṣa". He then suggests that "the fact that 佛所行讚 [=T192] is closer than **other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun sūtras to Dharmarakṣa** [sic, my emphasis: at this point his logic escapes me---he seems to be assuming that T192 is a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun work? upon what basis?---MR] is that translation proceeded on the basis of consultation of 佛本行經 [=T193]." Gotō concludes that it is more likely that T193, in particular, was translated by Dharmarakṣa, rather than Baoyun. [Despite the fact that he names T590 in his title, it is not clear what he intends this to imply for T590---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Chen 2005] Chen, Jinhua. "Some Aspects of the Buddhist Translation Procedure in Early Medieval China: With Special References to a Longstanding Misreading of a Keyword in the Earliest Extant Buddhist Catalogue in East Asia." Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662. — 657-661 |
|
Chen lists thirty-three texts discussed in Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji for which dates are given, but where those dates cannot be corroborated by any "translation documents" [meaning primary sources discussing circumstances etc. of translation, such as colophons]: Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等般泥洹經 T378; Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
No |
[Ziegler 2001] Ziegler, Harumi Hirano. “The Sinification of Buddhism as Found in an Early Chinese Indigenous Sūtra: A Study and Translation of the Fo-shuo Ching-tu San-mei Ching (the Samādhi-Sutra on Liberation through Purification Spoken by the Buddha).” PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 2001. — 181-182 |
Portions may have been added in China. Ziegler refers to Mochizuki, Bukkyō kyōten seiritsu shiron 佛教經典成立史論. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sørensen 1995] Sørensen, Henrik H. “Divine Scrutiny of Human Morals in an Early Chinese Buddhist Sūtra: A Study of the Si Tianwang jing (T590).” Studies in Central and East Asian Religions 8 (1995): 44-83. |
Sørensen argues that the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 T590, ascribed in the Taishō to Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲, is in fact an "apocryphon" or "forgery" (77) composed in China, and that the identity of its authors is uncertain. Sørensen's grounds are as follows. No Indic original exists. A mantra at the end "appears to have been added...later" (48). CSZJJ reports a confusing situation, in which various version of the text circulated, varying in length. Sengyou included the long version in the class of "dubious" scriptures (48-49). Sørensen also reports that he found numerous Āgama passages corresponding in content and wording to T590, particularly the 世記經 in the Dīrghāgama T1 (i.e. DĀ 30); 樓炭經 T23; 起世經 T24; 起世因本經 T25; and 齋經 T87 (61-65). Some of these correspondences even extend to details of wording. As Sørensen points out, chronology makes it impossible that some of these texts are actual sources of T590 [provided that received attributions (and therefore dates) of these questions are correct --- MR]; but he holds that it is likely that T590 was at least drawing upon some (unspecified) source similar in content to them. "Certain elements" in content, further, "are very un-Indian, not to say un-Buddhist....the scripture contains elements of early Buddhism and Daoism, as well as Confucianism" (57). Sørensen characterises some of these elements as connected to the "teachings of humans and gods" 人天教, but at the same time, he is careful to distance himself from interpretations of rentianjiao by Whalen Lai, which he regards as incorrect (58). In speaking of what is "un-Buddhist", Sørensen seems to have in mind particularly doctrines of post-mortem punishment which replace a quasi-"naturalistic" mechanism of karma with a system "administered by several external agents, including the heavenly messenger, the divine prince, the Four Heavenly Kings, the Kitchen God, and Indra," which "directly contravenes the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of cause and effect, and as such removes--or at least neutralizes--the inner logic of [T590] as an orthodox sūtra" (66-67). He also points to the Kitchen God, a Chinese deity, and concern with corrupt officials, as elements likely reflecting Chinese rather than Indic provenance (68). In addition, Sørensen detects problems with the overall internal coherence of the text (61 ff.). Sørensen suggests that the text dates before 600, and probably to the first half of the fifth century (77-78). One of his grounds for the dating is that it still stipulates actual fasting on the six "fast days", whereas "at some point during the Nanbei Chao actual fasting seems to have been given up as a common practice among the growing Buddhist laity, and was supplanted by the holding of vegetarian banquets" (60). Sørensen also gives a full translation of the text, 50-53. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Mochizuki 1946] Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨. Bukkyō kyōten seiritsu shi ron 仏教経典成立史論. Hōzōkan, 1946. — 393-400 |
Mochizuki writes that 四天王經 T590 is ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲 in the Taishō. CSZJJ only records three similar titles, all of them treated as anonymous. The text is an (abridged?) excerpt 抄出 from the Trayastriṃśā Heaven chapter 忉利天品 of the Dīrghāgama (DĀ 8 T1 [I] 131a3 ff). It also contains elements derived from Daoist thought: One’s lifespan in this life is determined by moral actions; a similar thought can already be found in the Bao pu zi 包僕子. The text also states that the four Heavenly Kings inspect the moral conduct of worldlings and then report to Indra, in order to determine how lifespan will be so meted out; but in the relevant portions of DĀ, and also in a sūtra cited in MPPU (T1509) juan 13, the theory is rather that the good discovered by such inspections increases the throng of devas, and the evil the throng of asuras. Mochizuki relates the content of T590 to ideas found in the San pin dizi jing 三品弟子經 T767 ascribe to Zhi Qian (but only from LDSBJ onwards), and to ideas found in the “Five Evils” section of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. In these texts, as in T590, the practice of the five precepts is supposed to help devotees avoid the “five evils” (五惡, 五濁, *pañcakaṣāya) characteristic of the time of decline; all three texts also propose that the gods protect those who do good. Another idea shared by T590 and T767 is that the taking of life will lead a person to be plunged directly into hell. The tentative explanation suggested by Mochizuki for this shared pattern of materials is that the “Five Evils” section was already inserted into the Sukhāvatīvyuha in the Three Kingdoms period, and when Baoyun was translating “his” version of the text he kept it more or less unchanged from that earlier version; given that T767 is also ascribed to Zhi Qian, perhaps this suggests that these ideas were characteristic of Zhi Qian himself, though “there is a view that the period would be slightly early” (for unspecified reasons). So far as I could see, Mochizuki comes to no firm conclusions about the implications of this pattern for T590. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 505-511 |
Sakaino presents a list of works ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴 in LDSBJ (14 titles), and makes the following general claims: Four should be excised, as KYL points out (three are considered byproduct/offshoot excerpts 別抄, and one apocryphal 疑); Three more were already listed in CSZJJ, among which the Guangbo yanjing jing 廣博嚴淨經 [廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 T268] is the text that can be regarded most safely as Zhiyan’s work; Five more titles are apparently taken from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄. Among them, three (菩薩瓔珞本業經, 阿那含經, and 淨度三昧經) are clustered as the beginning of Sengyou’s catalogue, hence Sakaino suspects that Fei just took those titles and arbitrarily re-ascribed them to Zhiyan; Four overlap with works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (including 2 titles, the Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186 and the Guangbo yanjing jing, for which cf. T318, already listed in CSZJJ for both Zhiyan and Dharmarakṣa). Sakaino states that, in this case, Fei might have simply been confused, partly influenced by the fact that CSZJJ did ascribe the Lalitavistara and the Guangbo zanjing jing to both Zhiyan and Dharmarakṣa. Nothing is known about the 善德優婆塞經. Although Sakaino does not explicitly say which texts other than T268 can be safely regarded as Zhiyan’s work, he implies that there are none, as the Lalitavistara ascribed to Zhiyan has been lost, and while the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 ascribed to him was listed in CSZJJ, the extant text of that title,T590, is probably apocryphal. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|