Text: T0184; 修行本起經

No

• T0184; 修行本起經

Nattier notes that T184 features "unacknowledged citations" from T210: T184, T184 3.467a18–21, from T210 4.574a12–15; and T184 3.467a22–23 from T210 4.559b6–7.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0184; 修行本起經

In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起經 T184 follows the Faju jing 法句經 T210. They refer to

Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院 (2020): 216–220.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

No

• T0184; 修行本起經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 修行本起經
• People: Kang Mengxiang, 康孟詳 (translator 譯); Zhu Dali, 竺大力 (translator 譯)
• Identifier: T0184

Yes

• T0184; 修行本起經

Four texts are ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in the present Taishō. Sengyou only lists a title probably corresponding to 中本起經 T196. Zürcher, however, who usually follows Sengyou's reports of Dao'an's catalogue, in this case accepts the additional ascription to Kang Mengxiang of the 修行本起經 T184. This is because T184 and T196 together comprise a continuous narrative, with the last paragraph of T184 repeated verbatim at the beginning of T196. Further, the 太子瑞應本起經 T185, by Zhi Qian, contains a revised version of both T184 and T196, and Zürcher believes this means that Zhi Qian knew both as a single text. Zürcher is also swayed by the presence of glosses in T184 reading 漢言, and the fact that T184 is ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in the Gao seng zhuan. Nattier, however, argues that in their present form, the two texts have had different histories, even if a single text corresponding to both was originally produced by Kang Mengxiang.

Nattier reviews "extraordinarily complicated" testimony in the early catalogues on titles corresponding to that of T184 (105-106). Some of those catalogues ascribed the text to Kang Mengxiang, but not all.

Because T184 is sometimes ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in early catalogues, scholars have often assumed that T184 was used by Zhi Qian in preparing T185. However, Nattier summarises arguments by Kawano Satoshi, who has shown that T184 is often more expansive and elegant that T185. This violates the normal pattern usually seen when Zhi QIan is revising works by others: "that Zhi Qian adheres quite closely to both the content and much of the wording of the older version, while 'upgrading' some of its Buddhist terminology and recasting it in a more polished and elegant style". Further, T184 has passages in verse which in T185 are entirely in prose, but there is no known case in which Zhi Qian replaces verse with prose; "on the contrary, the use of a wide variety of metric forms is one of the hallmarks of Zhi Qian's style." Nattier summarises: "It is impossible to explain the content and style of [T185] as the result of a revision by Zhi Qian of [T184] as we know it today." Kawano proposes, on the basis of Daoan's remarks, that T184 is an E. Jin version of the earlier text reported by Dao'an under the title 小本起經, and that in composing T185, Zhi Qian drew on an older (now lost) version of the same Xiao benqi jing.

[Note: On p. 108, Nattier in fact writes, "Kawano proposes that the present [T184] *is a revision of* an Eastern Jin .... version of the Xiao benqi jing..." The words "is a revision of" might give the mistaken impression that Kawano argues for a revision process in two steps: (1) Xiao benqi jing > E. Jin version; (2) E. Jin version > (via "revision") T184. However, these words are a typo in Nattier, and Kawano simply argues that T184 is a revision made under the E. Jin of the earlier Xiao benqi jing. --- MR]

Nattier further examines internal evidence (formulae, ordinary verbs, Buddhist terms) which "confirm Kawano's contention that these two texts as we have them cannot be the product of the same hand. She concludes that although the two texts, as Zürcher noted, form a single narrative unit, "it now seems quite clear that these two texts are products of a different milieu." She accepts the ascription of T196 to Kang Mengxiang, but suggests that T184 "appears to be the product of a different time and place. If Kawano's reasoning is correct, it may be significantly younger, produced a century or more after his time."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0184; 修行本起經

Zürcher argues that the “authenticity” of the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起經 T184 as a late Han translation is “beyond all doubt”, although it is not listed in Sengyou's Chu Sanzang ji ji. Zürcher's argument consists of three main steps: first, he states that the text forms a continuous whole with the Zhong benqi jing 中本起經 T196, such that the last paragraph of T184 is “repeated verbatim” in the beginning of T196; second, the text's early date is secured by the fact that several passages were incorporated in the 太子瑞應本起經 T185; finally, the text introduces a number of glosses with the words “Han yan...” 漢言 which Zürcher claims points to a date before 220. T184 one of a group of twenty-nine texts which Zürcher argues can be considered a “genuine” Han translation.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

• T0184; 修行本起經
• T0185; 太子瑞應本起經
• T0186; 普曜大方等典; *Vaitulya-nidāna; Fangdeng yuanqi 方等本起; *Lalitavistara-mahāvaitulya-dharmaparyāya; 普曜經
• T0187; 方廣大莊嚴經
• T0188; 異出菩薩本起經

Matsuda studies the interrelations between various version of the Buddha’s biography, especially in Chinese: the 修行本起經 T184 (ascribed in the Taishō to Zhu Dali 竺大力 and Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, 太子瑞應本起經 T185 (ascribed in the Taishō to Zhi Qian), Pu yao jing 普曜經 T186 (ascribed in the Taishō to Dharmarakṣa), 方廣大莊嚴經 T187 (ascribed in the Taishō to*Divākara 地婆訶羅), 異出菩薩本起經 T188 (ascribed in the Taishō to Nie Daozhen聶道真), and the Sanskrit Lalitavistara. While it is a cornerstone of Matsuda’s own methodology to accept the canonical ascriptions for most of these texts (27), several of her observations could have important implications for consideration of ascription.

1) T186 and T187 incorporate similar material which is not found elsewhere. In T186:十八變品 Ch. 25, 佛至摩竭國品 Ch. 26, 化舍利弗目連品 Ch. 27, 優陀耶品 Ch. 28第二十五, i.e. T186 (III) 530c21-536c24. In T187, these portions are included in the “*Dharmacakrapravartana” chapter轉法輪品: T187 (III) 611b18-616a17 (the chapter itself begins at 605b9). Matsuda also states that T185 and T186 resemble one another more closely in these passages than elsewhere.

2) As Tokiwa Daijō had already observed, T186 contains some passages that are identical with passages in T184 and T185. Matsuda tabulates these correspondences between T185 and T186 (33).

Matsuda’s views on the interrelations between some of these texts are conveniently summarised in diagrammatic form (32), as follows (assuming traditional ascriptions of Chinese texts and attendant dating):

3) T185 has its sources in T184 and two hypothetical texts that Matsuda finds it necessary to posit to account for all the materials, “X” and “Y”.

4) T186 has its sources in T185, “Y”, and the older Indic Lalitavistara.

5) T188 has among its sources “X” (which means that T188 can be used to explain material in T185, for which sources otherwise cannot be found; and the combination of T185 and T188, in turn, warrants the posit of the onetime existence of “X”).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0184; 修行本起經

Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳 played the role of the “interpreter/oral translator” 傳語/度語 for the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起經 T184. Sakaino quotes LDSBJ stating that Dao’an commended Kang Mengxiang’s translation of this text 亦是曇果與康孟詳。於迦維羅衛國齎梵本來。沙門竺大力。以建安二年三月。於雒陽譯。孟詳度為漢文。釋道安云。孟詳所翻弈弈流便足騰玄趣矣 (T2034 [XLIX], 54b14-17). However, Sakaino points out that Kang Mengxiang probably came to China before Tanguo 曇果, so the veracity of the above passage is suspect.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

• People: Zhu Dali, 竺大力 (unspecified); Kang Mengxiang, 康孟詳 ([orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語)