| Identifier | T0245 [T] |
| Title | 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 [T] |
| Date | 五胡十六国 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Unspecified | unknown [CSZJJ] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Orzech 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 78a23-24 |
It seems likely that the received ascription of T245 to Kumārajīva was first accepted as canonical in LDSBJ, which cites a/the bie lu, and claims that the text is “only slightly different” from “that translated by Dharmarakṣa”:仁王護國般若波羅蜜經一卷(見別錄。第二出。與晉世竺法護出者文少異). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Liang Wudi preface to PP comm] Liang Wudi 梁武帝. "Zhujie da pin xu" 注解大品序. — T2145 (LV) 54b19-20 |
In a preface preserved in CSZJJ, Liang Wudi remarks of the Ren wang jing 仁王經 (cf. T245, T246), "Since it is commonly regarded as a dubious sutra, I will set it aside without further discussion": 唯仁王般若具書名部。世既以為疑經。今則置而不論. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27 |
|
In his own list of works of Kumārajīva in CSZJJ, Sengyou lists 35 works. The full list is given below, with identifications with texts extant in T (some identifications tentative). By contrast, the present T ascribes over 50 translation works to Kumārajīva (we do not count here T1775 or T1856). The ascription of the following works ascribed to Kumārajīva in T is not supported by Sengyou's list: T35, T123, T201, T245, T250, T307, T310(26), T335, T426, T484, T614, T617, T625, T703, T988, T1484, T1489, T1659, T2046, T2047, T2048. 新大品經二十四卷(偽秦姚興弘始五年四月二十二[三M]日於逍遙園譯出至六年四月二十三日訖), T223 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following titles are listed, which may correspond to extant texts (in some cases, identification is rather tentative). In contrast to some other titles, which are treated in separate CBC@ entries, these titles are listed in the Bie lu without any further accompanying information (e.g. about ascription or date). Note that the Bie lu includes interlinear notes giving such information, and the scope of application of those interlinear notes is sometimes uncertain: it can be hard to tell whether they apply only to the single title preceding the note, or to a group of titles leading up to the note; and if they apply to a group of titles, how many. Titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering in Tan (1991), given at the beginning of each line. S.2872 P.3747 Many of these same titles are treated as anonymous and extant in CSZJJ fascicle 4. The same is also true of a number of titles not listed here, because the texts in question appear not to be extant. Texts presently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and to Zhi Qian (excepting T361) are excluded from this entry, because they are treated in other CBC@ entries. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019] Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841. |
|
According to the abstract, Radich argues: "Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts." Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ): 七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19. This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
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 |
[Orzech 1998] Orzech, Charles D. Politics and Transcendent Wisdom: The Scripture for Humane Kings in the Creation of Chinese Buddhism. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. — esp. 74-76, 289-291 |
Ample evidence supports the generally accepted conclusion that this text was composed in China. Orzech gives a summary of the reasons supporting this conclusion, and a listing of prior scholarship on the question, in Appendix B, 289-291. He also surveys external evidence in catalogues and other sources, 74 ff. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[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. — 89-91 |
The Puming wang jing 普明王經 T152(41) sports the very unusual feature of four-character rhyming verse. Virtually identical verses are found in the Wunao zhiman pin 無惱指鬘品 T202(52) (IV) 426b21-c2 of the "Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish", and the Sūtra of Humane Kings T245 (VIII) 830b5-15. Tianchang surmises that in both cases, the direction of borrowing is from T152(41) to these other texts. [Note: Orzech, 1998 Appendix B, 289 notes this same overlap (following unspecified prior Japanese scholarship), but suggests further that "Some of the terminology [in these verses] is unquestionably of Chinese provenance, including terms derived from the [Yijing] and from Taoism." -- MR] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 1991] Nattier, Jan. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991. — 128-129 |
Nattier argues that the text was probably composed in China, for the following reasons: 1. The content of the prophecy of decline of the Dharma is unusual---decline is attributed to restrictions imposed on the Samgha by the government on monastic ordinations, stupa-building, and the crafting of images, which seems to jibe with concerns current in fifth-century China. 2. The term ren 仁 in the title is important in Chinese thought, but it is hard to think of an Indian antecedent. 3. The text betrays concerns atypical of Indian texts, such as mention of the "hundred families" 百家, the arrangement of a series of items in groups of nine, and reference to sutras being kept in boxes. Nattier refers to further work by Yoritomi Motohiro, Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Strickmann 1990] Strickmann, Michel. "The Consecration Sutra: A Buddhist Book of Spells" in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 75-118. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. — 78, 102-104. |
Strickmann argues that the Renwang jing 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is an “apocryphal” text which was written to support imperial authority. He makes this claim on the basis of the text’s “state-supporting” message. He also notes that it is “one of the most authoritative books in the East Asian Buddhist tradition” and it owes this success to its usefulness from the state’s point of view. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Groner 1990] Groner, Paul. "The Fan-wang ching and Monastic Discipline in Japanese Tendai: A Study of Annen's Futsū jubosatsukai kōshaku." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 251-290. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. — 254 |
Groner suggests that the Renwang jing 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is one of a series of “apocryphal” works, which include the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 and the Ying-luo jing. 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485. He notes that all three texts utilise the same technical terms, and discuss the bodhisattva path and precepts. He suggests that on “an analysis of the development of these common themes” the Renwang jing was most likely the earliest, then the Fanwang jing, followed by the Yingluo jing. However, he does not provide any more information. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Tokuno 1990 ] Tokuno, Kyoko. "The Evaluation of Indigenous Scriptures in Chinese Buddhist Bibliographical Catalogues." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 31-74. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. — 41, 47. |
Tokuno argues that the Renwang jing 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is apocryphal on the basis of external evidence. She states that Fajing’s catalogue cautiously labelled the text as “suspicious” because the text’s content and style was “ambiguous in nature.” Yancong’s later catalogue reclassified the Renwang jing as an “authentic translation,” but Tokuno suspects this was because of the influence of Fei Chang-fang’s catalogue, rather than an independent assessment. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 87-92 |
Ōno argues that the “Sūtra of Human Kings” 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 ascribed to Kumārajīva was composed in China 中國成立. Ōno states that the text contains precept 戒-related content that are not seen in the Buddhist scriptures of India and the Western territories 印度西域. Ōno agrees with Mochizuki’s view that such content was based on historical facts in the N. Wei 北魏, Latter Qin 後秦, and [Liu] Song. Ōno cites actual events that correspond to the contents of T245. Following Mochizuki, Ōno presents a list of parallels between T245, the “Brahma Net Sūtra” 梵網經 T1484, and the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 (89-90). Ōno also asserts that text contains numerous terms used only in China. He suggests further that the text is actually a “Compendium of buddhavacana compiled by Kumārajīva” 羅什撰集佛語, as stated by a note in Fajing (T2146 [LV] 126b8). Fajing’s comments overtly doubt the ascription, and he includes the text in the category of suspicious texts 疑惑部. The text was also generally regarded as apocryphal in the Liang period, as exemplified in Liang Wudi’s 武帝 preface to a commentary on the “Larger” Prajñāpāramitā 註解大品經序. Kuiji 基 states in his conspectus of the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽師地論略纂 that attempts to find a version of this text in “the West” had proven unsuccessful 西方尋訪彼經未聞有本 (T1829 [XLIII] 129c10). Sengyou lists it as extant, but anonymous. The ascription of T245 to Kumārajīva in the present canon 現藏 (the Taishō) came from KYL. However, the ascription was already given in LDSBJ, citing the Bie lu 別錄. As Fajing points out, the vocabulary of the extant version is neither that of Dharmarakṣa nor that of Kumārajīva. Paramārtha’s version was reportedly translated in Chengsheng 承聖 3 (554), which could not be true of the presently extant text, since the title Renwang banre 仁王般若 was already used in Liang Wudi’s preface. Thus, Ōno concludes that the theory that three versions existed does not have any factual basis, and that probably, spurious traditions about ”lost” versions, which never actually existed, are the results of blind efforts to give the authority of Indic provenance to a non-translated text, as in the case of the Pusa yingluo jingye ben. Ōno maintains that T245 was written at roughly the same time as the closely related “Brahma Net Sūtra” and the Pusa yingluo benye jing, both of which are also Chinese productions. T245 should date between Xuanshi 玄始 15 of the Northern Liang 北涼 (426), viz., the date of translation of the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488, which is its latest source, and the production of Liang Wudi’s abovementioned preface (512) (or of the miscellaneous catalogue of the Jin 晋世雜錄, which is supposed to have been more than sixty years earlier, if one believes LDSBJ). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Demiéville 1953] Demiéville, Paul. “Les sources chinoises.” In L’Inde classique: Manuel des études indiennes, Tome II, by Louis Renou and Jean Filliozat, 398-463. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Hanoi: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1953. — 416-417 |
|
Demiéville reports that these are the works ascribed to Kumārajīva by Sengyou, for which the ascriptions should therefore be more secure. [NOTE: As pointed out by Lin Xueni (personal communication), CSZJJ in fact ascribes to Kumārajīva at least one text not mentioned by Demiéville, viz. the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha 華首經 T657, T2145 (LV) 10c21. Demiéville's list is therefore to be used with caution. I have corrected to include T657 here --- MR] 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. — 350-358 |
|
In his discussion on Kumārajīva, Sakaino presents a list of titles newly ascribed to Kumārajīva in LDSBJ, and lists of titles that Fei took in groups for this purpose from the newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ 新集失譯錄. These new ascriptions are thus part of a very broad pattern that Sakaino traces in LDSBJ, whereby Fei gives random and baseless new ascriptions for titles treated as anonymous by Sengyou. Sakaino marks extant titles. This entry is associated with titles Sakaino marks as extant; we list all such texts in T still ascribed to Kumārajīva, the ascriptions for which thus probably derive from LDSBJ. Chan mi yao fa jing 禪祕要法經 (written 禪祕要經 in the list) T613 Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — s.v., Vol.8, 397-398 (Tajima Tokune/Tokuon 田島徳音) |
Tajima Tokune/Tokuon 田島徳音 explains that modern scholars have agreed that the "Sutra of Humane Kings" 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is apocryphal, although the text was considered one of the three "protecting the nation" sūtras 護国三部経 in the tradition of the Tiantai/Tendai school 天台宗. Tajima conjectures that T245 was a product of the combination of the doctrine of emptiness 空思想 and the social frictions that Chinese Buddhism experienced from the Wei, Wu and Shu (Three Kingdoms) 魏呉蜀三国 period down to the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, viz., the friction between Chinese Buddhism and other Chinese religions, and between Chinese Buddhist schools and political regimes. In support of this understanding, Tajima refers to T245’s emphasis on the importance of stability and prosperity of the state, and its claim that prajñāpāramitā 般若波羅蜜多 is the essence of the cause of such stability and prosperity. He also mentions the situation of the Chinese Buddhism and society at the time, and suggests that it is more reasonable to regard T245 as describing the unfavourable and unstable contemporary socio-religious situation, rather than as predicting the future. If this is the case, Tajima speculates further, it is likely that this text described the situation surrounding Buddhism in China around the time of the persecution of Buddhism under Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou dynasty 周武宗破佛. He maintains that, although the social and religious situation was unstable at the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, the vocabulary and tone of T245 are not likely to be Kumārajīva’s. Tajima claims that it is more natural to regard the text as produced in the "Sixteen Kingdoms" 五胡十六国 period. However, Tajima also says that those issues concerning the true character and ascription of T245 should be examined further. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|