Text: Han catalogue of Buddhist scriptures 漢時佛經目錄

No

• Han catalogue of Buddhist scriptures 漢時佛經目錄
• T0784; 四十二章經

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

Edit