| Identifier | T0784 [T] |
| Title | 四十二章經 [T] |
| Date | E. Jin - Southern dynasties [Kamata 1982] |
| Translator 譯 | *Kāśyapa Mātaṅga, 迦葉摩騰; Falan, 法蘭 [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 |
[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 |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 314 |
LDSBJ lists the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 (T784) in both the catalogue of the Eastern Han 後漢録 and the Wu catalogue 呉録, ascribing it to Kāśyapa Mātaṅga [迦葉]摩騰 and Zhi Qian respectively. Further, Fei Changfang states in the ascription to Zhi Qian that the two texts are not very different, sounding as if he actually compared the two. Sakaino points out that Fei was either deliberately fabricating information here, or was ignorant enough to see two transcriptions of the same text and judge that they were alternate translations. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Funayama 2006] Funayama Tōru 船山徹. "Masquerading as Translation: Examples of Chinese Lectures by Indian Scholar-Monks in the Six Dynasties Period," Asia Major 19, no. 1-2 (2006): 39-55. |
Text also contains matches to to T152, T211 (15). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Muller DDBc] Muller, Charles. DDB s.v. 佛經, 四十二章經. — Accessed April 2014. |
Muller DDB s.v. 佛經: "Maspero in B.E.F.E.O. ascribes it to the second century CE." But elsewhere, s.v. 四十二章經: "Although it was originally considered to be the first sūtra to be translated into Chinese, later research indicates that it was probably produced in China during the Jin 晉 dynasty. There are various editions and commentaries." Referring to Maspero in BEFEO X, 1910. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 29-30 |
Zürcher states that Shishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 it is very old, because it is quoted in Xiang Kai's memorial of 166 AD. Nonetheless, the authenticity of the text has been repeatedly questioned and it remains under discussion whether it is a Chinese composition or derived from a Sanskrit text. For this he cites Liang Qichao, op cit. vol. 1, pp. 5-7; Tokigawa Daiiō in “Kan-mei kyūhō-setsu no kenkyū,” Tōyōgakuhō X, 1920, pp 25-41 and in Yakkyō sōroku, pp. 481-485; Mochizuki Shinkō in Bukkyō daijiten p. 1811.1; Sakaino in Shina bukkyō seishi p. 57. Zürcher goes on to note that, stylistically, the Shishi'er zhang jing appears to be modelled on the Xiaojing or the Daode jing. The Shishi'er zhang jing’s similarity to the Xiaojing is discussed in LDSBJ T2034 (ch. IV p. 49.3) and Liang Qichao (loc. cit.) notices its similarities to the Daode jing. Zürcher also draws comparison to the style of Lunyu, due to the text’s “short independent paragraphs” which tend to begin “The Buddha said…” He also notes that Tang Yongtong (op. cit. p. 31.) has noted that early sources (“the ‘preface’ in CSZJJ VI 42.3.22”) referred to it as “the forty-two sections of (=extracted from?) Buddhist sūtras” and “the forty-two sections of emperor Xiaoming.” Referring to Liang Qichao, "op. cit."(??), vol. I, 5–7. Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. “Kanmei kyū hō setsu no kenkyū.” 漢明求法説の研究. Tōyō gakuhō 10 (1920): 25–41. Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定, Yakkyō sōroku 訳経総録, 481–485. Mochizuki Shinko 望月信亨 in Bukkyo daijiten p. 1811.1. Sakaino in Shina bukkyo seishi p. 57. 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. — 324-329 |
Sakaino lists all titles for which Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, cited the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 (324-325): - a Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 ascribed to Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰; - a Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭; - thirteen titles, including a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra 内藏經, ascribed to An Shigao (cf. T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema); - Five titles, including a Dun zhen tuoluoni [sic!] jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, ascribed to *Lokakṣema; - an Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行經 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛; - the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 [成具光明定意經] T630, (still today) ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜; - a Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨; and - a Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 古維摩經 ascribed to Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調. Sakaino then discusses each title in detail. T784, Sakaino holds, is already known to be an apocryphon. The Shi di duan jie jing is not listed in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, so it would be odd if it were later rediscovered in the Zhu Shixing catalogue, as Fei claims. The name Zhu Falan does not appear in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, but LDSBJ ascribes a variety of titles to him, such as this Shi di duan jie jing, a Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, a Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經, a Fo bensheng jing 佛本生經, and an Erbailiushi juan [sic] heyi 二百六十卷 合異. Sakaino claims that Fei, who did not have enough knowledge to analyse and evaluate scriptures, just gathered those titles and ascribed them to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 without any basis in evidence. The Erbailiushi juan heyi , for instance, should be an erroneous record of the Erbailiushi jie sanbu heyi 二百六十戒三部合異 ascribed to Tanwulan 曇無蘭. This scripture compared three different versions of the 260 prohibitions of the Prātimokṣa, so could not have been produced when no version of the Prātimokṣa rules were yet available. It is clear that Fei Changfang made this ascription due to confusion between the names Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (Sakaino sees a possible reason for this error in the fact that, as he surmises, both represent *Dharmarakṣa). The Fo bensheng jing and Fo benxing jing are probably the same text listed twice; some catalogue probably mis-transcribed 本行 as 本生, and Fei then took the resulting title to be a different text. The Fo benxing jing is likely to actually refer to the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 ascribed to Tanwulan, another mistake resulting from the same confusion of names. Sakaino also suspects that the entry on the Shi di duan jie jing is based upon the ascription of a Shi di yiqie zhi de jing 十地一切智德經 ascribed to another Dharmarakṣa, viz., 竺法護, and thus also be based upon a similar confusion of names. Likewise, Sakaino speculates that the Fo fa hai zang jing could be an error for the Bao zang jing寶藏經 [文殊師利現寶藏經 T461] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. The ascription of a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra to An Shigao is odd, as this is a Mahāyāna text while all the works of An Shigao are “hīnayāna.” Sakaino suspects that this record actually refers to内藏百寶經 T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema. The other twelve titles ascribed to An Shigao are all listed as “hīnayāna” texts in Sengyou’s catalogue, and are hence less problematic. Four of the five titles ascribed to *Lokakṣema, except for the so-called Dun zhen tuoluoni jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, were already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. In CSZJJ, Sengyou first listed the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā 伅眞陀羅經 T624, citing the Jiu lu 舊錄. However, Dun zhentuoluo 伅眞陀羅 is a transliteration of Druma-kinnara[raja], and has nothing to do with *dhāraṇī 陀羅尼, as Fei’s record of this title would appear to suggest. According to Sakaino, it is not known at which point the title was mistaken for 伅眞陀羅尼 --- in the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue, in LDSBJ, or by a later scribal error. Sakaino states that he explained earlier that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā ascribed to Zhu Shuofo is probably the result of a misunderstanding on Sengyou’s part [see separate note on 253-257]. T630 is listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. The Wen diyu shi jing ascribed to Kang Ju appears first in GSZ, but too little is known about Kang Ju to make discussion worthwhile. The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa ascribed to Yan Fotiao does not appear in CSZJJ. It was not included among the three versions of the text (ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, and Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭) referred to by Zhi Mindu, when he compiled the his synoptic Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩經. [Sakaino apparently implies that hence the version ascribed to to Yan Fotiao is spurious --- AI.] In sum, Sakaino maintains that most of the major entries for which Fei Changfang claims the support of the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue are problematic, and that it is clear that his reports about the content of this catalogue are not reliable. Sakaino infers that the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 was composed sometime in the 550s or 560s, between the end of the Liang 梁 and the beginning of the Sui. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1990] Zürcher, Erik. “Han Buddhism and the Western Region.” In Thought and Law in Qin and Han China: Studies Dedicated to Anthony Hulsewé on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, edited by W. L. Idema and E. Zurcher, 158–182. Leiden: Brill, 1990. — 161-162 |
Zürcher notes that the Sishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 is quoted in a memorial submitted by Xiang Kai in 166 AD, and in the Feng fa yao 奉法要 by Xi Chao. Early quotations show that "even the most primitive extant version is rather different from the Han original." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Funayama 2013] Funayama Tōru 船山徹. Butten wa dō Kan’yaku sareta no ka: sūtora ga kyōten ni naru toki 仏典はどう漢訳されたのか スートラが経典になるとき. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten: 2013. — 23, 152 |
Briefly surveying prior scholarship on the Sishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784, Funayama opines that "at least in the form of the presently extant text, it certainly must have been finalised in the early fifth century or thereafter," because it includes phrasing very similar to that of the Ekottarikāgama T125 ascribed to Saṃghadeva, the Saṃyuktāgama T99 of Guṇabhadra, and the Daoist Zhen gao 真誥, which were therefore among the sources of the Sishi’er zhang jing. Other sources mentioned by Funayama include the Liu di ji jing 六度集經 T152 and the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喻經 T211. Funayama cites Okabe (1972). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tang 1936] T’ang Yung-t’ung (Tang Yongtong) 湯用彤. “The Editions of the Ssǔ-shih-êrh-chang-ching.” Translated by J. R. Ware. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1, no. 1 (1936): 147-155. |
Tang studies an interesting later edition of the Shishier zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 as annotated by Shousui 守遂 under the Song. He argues that this version of the text contains Mahāyāna ideas interpolated into the text after the Tang. The “Zhen ming shou” chapter 甄命授篇 of the Zhen gao 真誥 compiled by Tao Hongjing 陶宏璟 under Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty 梁武帝 contains twenty sections taken from the 四十二章經 T784, and can thus be used as a relatively early independent witness of the state of T784 itself. These sections agree with the Korean and Song editions of the T784, but not with the Shousui edition. Tang believes that these portions were added to the text by “Zen writers”, and that it “must be a forgery of an adherent of this school”. The stone engraved version of T784 at Liuhe ta 六合塔 in Hangzhou largely agrees with the Shousui edition. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 233-235 |
According to Hayashiya, LDSBJ reports a “catalogue of Buddhist scriptures of the Han era” 漢時佛經目錄 in 1 juan (hereafter “Han catalogue”), stating that it lists the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 translated by *Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰: 漢時佛經目錄一卷(似是伽葉摩騰創譯四十二章經目即撰錄), T2034 (XLIX) 127b25. Daoxuan 道宣, Zhisheng, and Yuanzhao 圓照 follow LDSBJ in reporting the existence of this catalogue. Hayashiya conjectures that the entry on the Han catalogue in LDSBJ came from the description of the Sishi’er zhang jing that it presents, which says that *Kāśyapa Mātaṅga “translated and issued this scripture at Baima si, [and?] edited it on the basis of the catalogue(s)(?) 於白馬寺翻出此經, 依錄而編, T2034 (XLIX) 49d15 [according to Hayashiya, this Han catalogue is to be distinguished from the supposed Zhu Shixing catalogue of Han scriptures 朱士行漢錄 —MR.] Nonetheless, Hayashiya maintains that the Han catalogue is one of the “legendary” catalogues, and never existed. His argument can be summarised as follows. Hayashiya points out that the existence of a Han catalogue is denied by many modern scholars, who do not believe that Buddhism was officially brought to China at the time of Emperor Ming 明帝of the latter Han period, as legend claims. The Han catalogue is supposed to be a catalogue of scriptures that arrived at that time. Hayashiya claims that he himself is not so dismissive about the existence of the catalogue, and maintains that it is plausible that Buddhism was introduced to China in the time of Emperor Ming. However, Hayashiya denies the possibility that the Sishi’er zhang jing was translated in or around that time (Hayashiya refers to his own Bukkyō no Shina tōzen nendai no kenkyū 佛教の支那東漸年代の研究 for details of his examination of the introduction of Buddhism to China). Hayashiya points out that the “record on the Sishi’er zhang jing” 四十二章經記, viz., the oldest material that gives information about the Sishi’er zhang jing, does not mention its translation at all, but states, rather, that the scripture was put in a sealed box immediately after its arrival in China. On this basis, Hayashiya maintains that there is no ground for believing that a translation of the Sishe’er zhang jing was made immediately when it was first brought to China (referring to his own “Matō, Hōran no yakukyō to iwaruru shokyō no kenkyū 摩騰・法蘭の譯經といはるる諸經の研究”). Even if a translation was made, he adds, it is highly unlikely that a catalogue was then compiled only to record one text. Hayashiya also considers the possibility that the Han catalogue recorded more scriptures, such as those ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 by LDSBJ and other catalogues following it (viz., the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十地斷結經 in 4 juan, the Fo benxing jing 佛本行經 in 5 juan, the Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經 in 3 juan, the Fo bensheng jing 佛本生經 in 2 juan, and the Erbailiushi jie he yi 二百六十戒合異 in 2 juan (KYL lists the last text as a selection 撰 by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭). It would be preferable if the Han catalogue had thus recorded multiple texts. However, Hayashiya claims that all of those ascriptions to Falan by LDSBJ are incorrect and must be rejected (referring again to his “Matō, Hōran...”). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there is no evidence that positively establishes the existence of the Han catalogue. Hayashiya concludes that there is no historical evidence for the existence of the Gu lu, the Jiu lu and the “Han catalogue”, and that these should therefore be regarded as “legendary” catalogues, although LDSBJ and catalogues following it presented them as if they existed. 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. — 36-61 |
Sakaino points out that catalogues often disagree as to the characteristics of the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784. The disagreements include: a) LDSBJ and other catalogues state that the scripture was translated at Baima si 白馬寺, while CSZJJ claims that it was in the Yuezhi territory 月支; and b) LDSBJ and other catalogues including DTNDL ascribe the scripture to (Zhu) Falan 法蘭 and Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰 (like the present T), but catalogues such as CSZJJ and Fajing mention Falan 法蘭 only. LDSBJ lists a Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 ascribed to Zhi Qian as the second translation 第二出. Sakaino dismisses this entry as baseless and states that there was no such text. He suggests that that entry may reflect a situation in which the text was kept someplace in southern China, and some may have thought that it was Zhi Qian’s work because of that (38). Sakaino points that the contents of T784 were taken from a number of other scriptures, and demonstrates how it uses them by comparing actual passages in it with those in the original scriptures. Sakaino identifies the following sources : *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125 and Udānavarga 出曜經 T212 (39-45); *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26 (45-48); the Rui ying ben qi jing 瑞應本起經 T185 (48-49); the Fa ju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 T211 (49-51); the Dharmapada 法句經 T210 (51-52); and the Chu chu jing 處處經 T730 and the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa 大智度論 [T1509] (52-56). Sakaino maintains that, although a similarity with one or two texts may be a coincidence, similarities with such a variety of texts would not occur accidentally, and hence it has to be the case that T784 was composed in China using those texts as source materials (56). Sakaino claims that the year of production of T784 is likely to be sometime under the (Liu) Song, as that is the time between the latest material the text uses, namely T1509, and CSZJJ, which first recorded the existence of the text (56-57). Sakaino states that the extant T784 is the version revised later by Suishou 守遂. The original version is the one in the Korean edition (57-58). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 223-224 |
Kamata holds that the Sishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 was probably composed sometime between the E. Jin and the Southern Dynasty period, but its archetypical elements might well have been developed already in the end of the Latter Han and the Three Kingdom period (in the form of excerpt texts, etc.) Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 5c17 |
Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 四十二章經, and notes that the text is not found in Dao'an's catalogues: 四十二章經一卷(舊錄云孝明皇帝四十二章安法師所撰錄闕此經) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|