Text: Bie yu jing 鼈喻經

No

• Bie yu jing 鼈喻經
• Hemo wang jing 和默王經
• Ma wang jing 馬王經
• Mingduwuji jing 明度無極經
• Pusa wei lu wang jing 菩薩為鹿王經
• T0152; Liu du ji 六度集; 六度集經
• T152(10); [no title given in source]
• T152(15); [no title given in source]
• T152(18); [no title given in source]
• T152(28); [no title given in source]
• T152(49); [no title given in source]
• T152(57); [no title given in source]
• T152(58); [no title given in source]
• T152(59); [no title given in source]
• T152(81); [no title given in source]
• T152(87); Modiao wang jing 摩調王經
• T152(88); Alinianmi jing 阿離念彌經
• T152(89); Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經
• T154(35); Bie yu jing 鼈喻經
• T154(36); Pusa ceng wei bie wang jing 菩薩曾為鼈王經
• T198(1); Jietan wang jing 桀貪王經

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

Edit