Text: T152(81); [no title given in source]


Identifier T152(81) [T]
Title [no title given in source] [T]
Date [None]
Author Kang Senghui, 康僧會 [Shi Tianchang 1998]

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


[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. — T152 (III) 43a13-c20

Entry author: Michael Radich


  • Title: [no title given in source]
  • Identifier: T152(81)


[Karashima 2013b]  Karashima Seishi 辛島静志. “Was the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Compiled in Gandhāra in Gāndhārī?” ARIRIAB 16 (2013): 171-188.

T152(81), which bears no title, is a version of the story of the bodhisatva Sadāprarudita 常悲菩薩, which is also found at the end of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā.

Entry author: Michael Radich



[Zhisheng 730]  Zhisheng 智昇. Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL) 開元釋教錄 T2154
[Chen Hong 2003]  Chen Hong 陈洪. “Liu du ji jing wenben de xingzhi yu xingtai” 《六度集经》文本的性质与形态. Xuzhou shifan daxue xuebao 徐州师範大学学报 29, no. 4 (2003): 11-17. — Chen 12-13 T2154 (LV) 653c4-654a9

Chen Hong cites remarks in the treatment of Liu du ji jing by Zhisheng in KYL, which Chen holds indicate that Zhisheng undertook text-critical work to restore parts of the collection. These remarks pertain to the Pusa wei lu wang jing 菩薩為鹿王經 [cf. T152(18), (57), (58)], the Ma wang jing 馬王經 [cf. T152(59)], the Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經 T152(89) and the Mingduwuji jing 明度無極經 [cf. T152(81)? or all of T152 Ch. 6?]. In each case, an interlinear note states that the text was added back into the compilation(?) 新編上; a summary comment by Zhisheng states further that five texts—the Hemo wang jing 和默王經 [cf. T152(15)], the Xiang wang jing 象王經 [cf. T152(28)] (these two not affected by the aforementioned interlinear notes), along with the Pusa wei lu wang jing, the Ma wang jing, and the Jingmian wang jing were “recorded in the various catalogues, with titles the same as these, and [I have] therefore added them back [into the collection]”(?) 此之五經雖載群錄名與此同並新編上; T2154 (LV) 653c4-654a9.

Entry author: Michael Radich



[Chen Hong 2003]  Chen Hong 陈洪. “Liu du ji jing wenben de xingzhi yu xingtai” 《六度集经》文本的性质与形态. Xuzhou shifan daxue xuebao 徐州师範大学学报 29, no. 4 (2003): 11-17.

Chen studies the formation, history and characteristics of the Liu du ji jing T152. (To distinguish between the extant T152 and the broader range of versions of the collection, whose history Chen aims to reconstruct, we refer to the latter below as LDJJ; by contrast, “T152” refers to the extant text.) Chen characterises LDJJ as a whole as an “edited translation” 編譯 or “compilation-translation” 撰譯.

Chen notes that all external evidence ascribes LDJJ to Kang Senghui, and treats it as a “translation” 譯. However, he notes that the meaning of yi 譯 (which we usually treat as meaning “translate”) appears in fact to be rather broad, so that its precise connotation in any given case must be investigated more closely.

Chen suggests that there are in fact three different types of sources for LDJJ as a whole: Indic sūtras; other non-Buddhist Indic classics; and earlier translations (from the later Han). As an example of texts dervied from Indic sūtras, he gives T152(87), which is paralleled in MĀ 67 [and a number of other sources like the Nimi jātaka and the Makhādeva jātaka --- MR]. Further examples are T152(21) and T152(36), which Chen sees as having been “taken from” the Jātaka. Examples of texts sourced in other Indic classics are T152(43) and (46), which are paralleled in the Rāmāyana. As examples of texts from earlier Chinese translations, Chen cites T152(89) and T152(10), which he sees as deriving from Zhi Qian’s T198.

Chen divides the history of LDJJ into three phases: (1) the production of the original text; (2) a “revised version” 改編本 which he believes circulated under the Southern Dynasties; (3) a “recompilation” 新編本 produced under the Sui-Tang. He bases his argument on evidence in the historical catalogues, and excerpts from the text in later collectanea such as the Jing lü yi xiang (JLYX) and the Fa yuan zhu lin (FYZL), including notes in those collections stating the source(s) of excerpted text, and its location (by juan number) in the source. Chen argues in reverse chronological order, but we here summarise in chronological order.

(1) Kang Senghui’s original collection
Chen follows and supplements Shi Tianchang (1998) in trying to determine the shape and content of Kang Senghui’s original LDJJ. According to Chen’s summary, Ven. Tianchang had already argued that nos. 38, 39, 64, and 79-83 were not in Kang Senghui’s original collection; no. 41 may have been taken by Kang Senghui from T198; nos. 74-76 are original Kang Senghui compositions, and possibly the same is true of nos. 77-78; and the collection probably underwent a round of revision after it left Kang Senghui’s hands.

Ven. Tianchang had also pointed out that the tradition reports chapters of LDJJ that are no longer included in the extant T152. Tianchang’s example was the 忠心政行經. Chen supplements this point with discussion of two other instances.

The 桀貪王經 [cf. T198(1)] is listed in CSZJJ as from LDJJ, but in LDSBJ, KYL and JLYX as from T198. Chen takes this as evidence that, like T152(89), this text was incorporated into LDJJ by Kang Senghui from T198. A very interesting item of information pertaining to this text is that the Shi shi liu tie 釋氏六帖 of 義楚 Yichu, writing under the Five Dynasties, still lists the text as coming from LDJJ; Chen speculates that this might be because Yichu had available to him a version of LDJJ that still included it, i.e., for Chen, a version stemming from the Liang.

The 鼈喻經 is presented in CSZJJ as stemming from LDJJ, but in Fajing as by Fasui 法邃, and in KYL and JLYX as from Dharmarakṣa’s Sheng jing T154; the content in JLYX matches T154(36). Chen argues that this indicates that the Dharmarakṣa tale was incorporated into LDJJ at the stage of the “Southern Dynasties revision” (discussed further below).

Chen also discusses the problem of nos. 88, 89, 90, 91, which has been known since Tang Yongtong: In CSZJJ, the juan 2 list of Kang Senghui’s works only gives two titles, but the biography, in juan 13, gives six titles—each of these works is listed as an independent text. The possibility that T152(89) is taken from T198 was already treated by Shi Tianchang (see above).

Chen suggests that the 阿離念彌經 T152(88) is “very likely” an E. Jin translation. It is recorded in two places in CSZJJ: in the aforementioned biography of Kang Senghui, and in Dao’an’s catalogue, where an interlinear note says that it is “from the Madhyamāgama”. (Chen also takes into consideration the report of LDSBJ that the text was translated by Tanwulan under the E. Jin.) Chen interprets the entry in the Dao’an catalogue as a hint that the text came from one of the Madhyamāgamas translated in the late fourth century, and was then incorporated into LDJJ. Chen also investigates the text of the tale itself. He also compares the extant text with the text as excerpted in JLYX. He notes that the text in T152 is simpler than that in JLYX, whereas the reverse is normally true. He suggests that this indicates that the extant T152 is not identical with the pre-Liang LDJJ.

Chen also notes that JLYX says, curiously, that its excerpt of T152(88) is from the Saṃyuktāgama (SĀ) . It is important to note here that the relevant interlinear note is subject to a variant reading. [Chen’s treatment of these variant readings is somewhat confusing: he merely says that the note is carried in the Qisha version, while the Korean and Taishō versions read 出阿難念彌經 (sic; according to CBETA, they in fact read 出阿難念經). According to CBETA, the actual readings in the T apparatus are: 出阿難念經 T(K), 出雜阿含經 SYMP (to which we can add Chen’s citation of the Qisha) --- MR.] FYZL also excerpts a matching text, and likewise says it is from SĀ. Chen thus proposes that the v.l. in the interlinear note in the Northern line (through K) represents a “correction” of the older note referring to SĀ, produced by identifying the source in T152(88).

The content of the text is relatively unusual—it tells of a tree with five kinds of fruit, each suited to a different class of being—and Chen indeed finds a text with approximately matching content (but not wording) not in SĀ but in MĀ 130, T26(130) (I) 619a8-15. Chen concludes that the compilers of JLYX and later texts were correct in identifying the text as from some Āgama, but erred in identifying the source as SĀ rather than MĀ; and that it is most likely that the text was added to T152 sometime after the Sui. He also speculates that the reason that the text as excerpted in JLYX and FYZL does not match the extant MĀ T26 in details of wording is that their text was excerpted from the lost, alternative translation of MĀ.

[Later in his paper, at the conclusion of his section discussing the form of Kang Senghui’s original LDJJ (17), Chen says that the collection might have originally contained as few as 60 tales.]

(2) Southern Dynasties “revised version” 改編本
An important starting point for Chen’s arguments about the later history of LDJJ is the evidence of CSZJJ. Chen notes that Sengyou lists the LDJJ alongside a "Wu pin" in 5 fascicles, and specifies that the latter is “missing”: 吳品五卷(凡有十品今闕), T2145 (LV) 7a26. From this, he deduces that Sengyou did indeed see the LDJJ that he lists. Chen also notes that Sengyou states that the LDJJ he lists was in 9 fascicles. However, from Fajing onwards, LDJJ is recorded as comprising 8 fascicles, as does the extant T152.

Chen holds that this is one hint, among others, that the version of LDJJ that circulated under the Southern Dynasties was different from the extant T152. He holds that a similar problem is glimpsed in the location of passages excerpted in JLYX, as indicated by fascicle number. Chen reports that these fascicle locations in fact mostly match the extant T152; however, the excerpt entitled 獨母見沙門神足願後生百兒 in JLYX, T2121 (LIII) 235a23-b26, corresponding to T152(23), is said to come from juan 2, but is presently found in juan 3.

Chen also notes that JLYX generally matches T152 in wording, apart from typical paraphrasing for stylistic purposes, but again with some exceptions.

In the JLYX excerpt of T152(9), some key numbers differ from the extant T152; T2121 (LIII) 47b25-48a22.

For one story, T152(15), JLYX T2121 (LIII) 140c8-141a18 gives two different sources for the first part of the story: 出慈仁法句譬喻經第二卷,又出大乘方便經上卷; then it gives LDJJ for the second part of the story: 出度無極集經第三卷. Chen determines that the wording of the former part indeed matches T211(7) 慈仁品. JLYX takes from this text an episode in which the protagonist king, Hemo 和默, engages in a blood sacrifice in the hope of curing an illness of his mother. This episode is not found in the T152 version of the story of the same king. Chen considers two possibilities—that the episode was added into the story in JLYX, or that it was present in the version of LDJJ that Baochang (the compiler of JLYX) was using. Chen holds that this episode was in the LDJJ available to Baochang, so that the JLYX excerpt serves as additional evidence that LDJJ was revised under the Southern Dynasties. [I cannot follow his reasoning at this point: he says that if the LDJJ Baochang saw did not have these two episodes together, there would have been no need to add the 大乘方便經 as a second source for the first passage, and that Baochang was therefore trying to show that there really was a basis for this excerpt. --- MR]

As further evidence for his hypothesis, Chen notes that JLYX normally states if an excerpt comes from LDJJ, but there are several cases where content clearly matches the extant T152, but Baochang does not give LDJJ as the source. He suggests that this is because these texts were not yet included in LDJJ (implying that they only found their way into the collection in the Sui-Tang version[s]; see below). However, he also adds [seemingly confusing the issue somewhat --- MR] that some such texts may have been circulating both in independent versions, and as part of LDJJ, and cites some cases where CSZJJ indicates that this was indeed true for some parts of LDJJ.

Chen also butresses his theory of a Southern Dynasties revision of LDJJ by pointing out a notice in CSZJJ stating that the 摩調王經 (cf. T152[87]) was translated in Tai’an 3 = 302-303 CE 太安三年正月十八日出; T2145 (LV) 8b24. [Chen does not note that this date is carried only in SYM --- MR.] Chen holds that this indicates that this tale, as found in T152, is in fact a later text, which was edited into LDJJ as part of the supposed Southern Dynasties revision.

Chen also cites in support of his theory a JLYX excerpt from a 摩[+日SYM]國經 , T2121 (LIII) 142b20-143a17. He shows that the text excerpted agrees with T152(49), which is about a king Nan 難 of a country called Motianluo 摩天羅. He then cites a report in LDSBJ that Tanwulan translated a text of this title between 373 and 396; T2034 (XLIX) 69c1. Chen uses this evidence to argue, as for the prior case, that the present T152(49) was in fact a text of the late fourth century, which was subsequently incorporated into LDJJ in the course of the supposed Southern Dynasties revision.

On the basis of this evidence taken in concert, Chen holds that a distinct version of LDJJ circulated under the Southern Dynasties, which was compiled sometime between the E. Jin and the Liang. Chen also argues that there are only approximately 38 tales that we can determine with confidence were present in this supposed version of the text (listed 15 n. 2; apparently, the texts excerpted in JLYX).

[Note: So far as I was able to determine, Chen never accounts for the fact that this supposed Southern Dynasties version of LDJJ should surely have been shorter than the extant T152, since he argues that certain tales were missing from it—and yet, on the other hand, Sengyou states in CSZJJ that the text he saw was 9 fascicles, longer (if anything) than the extant T152 --- MR.]

(3) Sui-Tang “recompilation” 新編本
Chen argues for the Tang recompilation of LDJJ on the basis of evidence in catalogues, lexicons (like the Yiqiejing yin yi, YQJYY) and text-critical remarks. Fajing reports locations of various texts that circulated as individual “excerpted sūtras” 抄經, and the fascicle locations correspond to the extant T152. Chen thus holds that the sequence and arrangement of the 91-story T152 (the extant collection) basically goes back to the Sui. However, he also cites minor differences in the information given by Fajing to support the idea that the text was later recompiled. Chen also examines the location (again by fascicle number) of words glossed in YQJYY, and of passages excerpted in FYZL, stating they they also match our extant T152 exactly.

More substantially, Chen cites remarks in the treatment of LDJJ by Zhisheng in KYL, which Chen holds indicate that Zhisheng undertook text-critical work to restore parts of the collection. These remarks pertain to the Pusa wei lu wang jing 菩薩為鹿王經, the Ma wang jing 馬王經, the Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經 and the Mingduwuji jing 明度無極經. In each case, an interlinear note states that the text was added back into the compilation(?) 新編上; a summary comment by Zhisheng states further that five texts—the Hemo wang jing 和默王經, the Xiang wang jing 象王經, the Pusa wei lu wang jing, the Ma wang jing, and the Jingmian wang jing (two not affected by the aforementioned interlinear notes) were “recorded in the various catalogues, with titles the same as these, and [I have] therefore added them back [into the collection]”(?) 此之五經雖載群錄名與此同並新編上; T2154 (LV) 653c4-654a9.

Entry author: Michael Radich



[Shi Tianchang 1998]  Shi Tianchang 釋天常. "Liu di ji yanjiu" 六度集研究. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies 中華佛學研究 2 (1998): 75-104. — 96-100

In treating the texts found in the chapter on dhyānapāramitā in the Liu du ji jing T152, Tianchang notes, like prior scholars (e.g. Link, Zürcher) that T152(74) is actually the preface to the chapter, not a tale like those comprising the typical content of the Liu du ji. However, he demurs from predecessors like Link and Zürcher by holding that T152(75) and T152(76) and not part of this same preface. Tianchang argues that T152(74) and T152(75) share a common topic, namely, the control required for entry into dhyāna and the description of states ensuing upon its attainment. He aims to demonstrate this claim by listing a series of parallels in phrasing between the two. He holds that it would not make sense for such content to be repeated at such length in a single document like a preface, and therefore, that the common passages represent the author of the preface anticipating and echoing the content of the first proper text in the chapter. He then argues that T152(76), by contrast, is closely related to T152(77) and T152(78). No. 76 describes 26 thoughts that conduce to entry into dhyāna. Nos. 77 and 78 rehearse the narrative of the Prince Siddhartha making his excursions from the palace and seeing the "sights" of age, sickness, and death—whereupon he is depicted as returning to the palace and practicing dhyāna. In light of this grouping, Tianchang believes that No. 76 belongs with 77 and 78, and it is therefore inappropriate to treat it as part of the Introduction. By this process of elimination, he concludes that only T152(74) represents Kang Senghui's preface to the chapter.

However, Tianchang also concludes that T152(75) and T152(76) do not fit the general content and structure of the Liu du ji. Tianchang believes that the general mode of presentation of meditation here matches the content of An Shigao's texts, and is compatible with Kang Senghui's authorship, since Senghui is said to have continued Shigao's practices. They feature general instructions on meditation, and do not feature the deeds of Śākyamuni when he was a bodhisattva, or present the six perfections as bodhisattva practice. For Tianchang, these texts should therefore not have been part of any Indic Vorlage for the Liu du ji.

T152(77) presents episodes from Śākyamuni's "present" life like his excursions from the palace, and the episode in which he watches the ploughing; T152(78) presents his birth, marriage, and disillusion with the world. These texts therefore appear more at home in a Buddha biography. However, they also differ from more usual Buddha biographies in some details: the episodes are presented out of chronological order, and when the prince sees the "slights", he reacts by going back to the palace and meditating. These details lead Tianchang to conclude that T152(77) and T152(78) could not have been in an Indic source text for the Liu du ji, and might be Kang Senghui's original works.

Continuing the Buddha-biography theme, T152(79) presents Śākyamuni as a bodhisattva (in his last lifetime) achieving the three superknowledges through his meditative practice, and T152(80) presents the episode in which he was oblivious to a thunderstorm because he was absorbed in meditation. Tianchang holds that these texts, too, do not fit with the usual structure of the Liu du ji, and should not have been part of its Indic original text.

Tianchang also lays out striking matches in wording in passages treating the same episodes in T152(78) and Zhi Qian's Taizi ruiying benqi jing 太子瑞應本起經 T185; and, similarly, between T152(79) and the Yichu pusa benqi jing 異出菩薩本起經 T188 ascribed to Daozhen (98-99). On this basis, he proposes that in composing these texts, Kang Senghui consulted earlier works.

T152(81) presents a version of the Sadāprarudita story, better known from its occurrence in some members of the family of Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Tianchang notes that this version of the story deviates in some details from the Prajñāpāramitā versions of the same story. In particular, other versions of the story do not present Sadāprarudita as a prior life of Śākyamuni. Tianchang also opines that the story, which he interprets as promoting or praising the perfection of wisdom, sits oddly in a section of the Liu du ji ostensibly devoted to the perfection of dhyāna. He notes further that this is the only example in all of T152 where we encounter the idea of a Mahāyāna bodhisattva. For all these reasons, he holds that it is unlikely that the text was part of any Indic Vorlage for the Liu du ji. He claims further that there are echoes of Kang Senghui's ideas, as attested in other texts, in this version of the story, and that the style is highly consonant with that of Kang Senghui. On this basis, he argues that it is very probable that the story was added to the collection by Senghui himself.

Entry author: Michael Radich