Text: T0245; 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經

Summary

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).

Assertions

Preferred? Source Pertains to Argument Details

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

Edit

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

Edit

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

Edit

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

Edit

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

Edit
  • Date: 五胡十六国

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

Edit

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.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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

Edit

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

Edit

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

Edit

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.

According to Ōno, LDSBJ lists two alternate translations of the Sūtra of Humane Kings, one ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, citing the miscellaneous catalogue of the Jin era 晋世雜錄, and another ascribed to Paramārtha, citing a biography of Paramārtha 眞諦傳. KYL accepts those entries and classified the texts in question as missing 缺本. However, Ōno points out that there is no evidence for the existence of these two versions. Ōno states that LDSBJ is careless 杜撰 in stating that both Kumārajīva’s and Paramārtha’s translations are the “second” translation of the text 第二出. Further, LSDBJ comments that both are slightly different from Dharmarakṣa’s translation 與晉世法護出者少異, but this assertion is groundless – in adding this note, Fei Changfang is probably trying to give the false impression that he actually compared the different versions.

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

Edit

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
Drumakinnararāja-sūtra 大樹緊那羅王所問經 (written 大樹緊那羅經 in Sakaino’s list) T625
the “Brahma Net Sūtra” 梵網經 T1484
a Da shanquanjing 大善權經 (not extant, cf. 慧上菩薩問大善權經 T345 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa)
the “Sūtra of Humane Kings” 仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經 T245
Sumatidārikā-paripṛccha 須摩提菩薩經 T335
Acintyaprabhāsa-nirdeśa 不思議光菩薩所說經 T484 (written 無思議光孩童菩薩經 in the list)
Mahāmāyūrī 大金色孔雀王經 T988 (cf. the anonymous 大金色孔雀王呪經 T986 and佛説大金色孔雀王呪經 T987)
Zhuangyan puti xin jing 莊嚴菩提心經 T307
Fang niu jing 放牛經123 (written 牧牛經 in the list)
Dengzhi yinyuan jing 燈指因縁經 T703
Siwei lüe yao fa 思惟畧要法 (written 思惟要略法經 in the list) T617
Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā 大莊嚴論經 (written 大莊嚴論 in the list) T201
Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046
Longshu pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047
and Puti pusa zhuan 提婆菩薩傳 T2048

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

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.
尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16, An Shigao 安世高, 52a15.
善生子經 T17, Zhi Fadu 支法度, 68a17-18.
開解梵志阿颰經 T20, Zhi Qian 支謙, 57c22.
寂志果經 T22, Tanwulan 曇無蘭, 69c5.
頂生王故事經 T39, Faju 法炬, 67a19.
鐵城泥犁經 T42, Tanwulan, 70a14.
閻羅王五天使者經 T43, Huijian 慧簡, 93b10.
離睡經 T47, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 64b21.
求欲經 T49, Faju, 67a2.
受歲經 T50, Dharmarakṣa, 64a23.
苦陰經 T53, Anon., E. Han 東漢, 55a25.
苦陰因事經 T55, Faju, 67c18.
樂想經 T56, Dharmarakṣa, 64b25.
阿耨風經 T58, Tanwulan, 69c9.
瞿曇彌記果經 T60, Huijian, 93b19.
瞻婆比丘經 T64, Faju, 67b16.
伏婬經 T65, Faju, 66c26.
魔嬈亂經 T66, Anon., E. Han, 55a2.
弊魔試目連經/魔嬈亂經 T67, Zhi Qian, 58b23.
數經 T70, Faju, 66c20.
尊上經 T77, Dharmarakṣa, 64b25.
鸚鵡經 T79, Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, 91c13.
意經 T82, Dharmarakṣa, 64a21.
應法經 T83, Dharmarakṣa, 64a22.
泥犁經 T86, Tanwulan, 70a15.
八關齋經 T89, Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲, 92c23.
鞞摩肅經 T90, Guṇabhadra, 91c13.
婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 T91, An Shigao, 51b19.
十支居士八城人經 T92, An Shigao, 50c19.
相應相可經 T111, Faju, 67c15.
難提釋經 T113, Faju, 67c3.
波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 T122, Faju, 67b2.
放牛經 = T123, Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 78c5.
四人出現世間經 T127, Guṇabhadra, 91c7.
婆羅門避死經 T131, An Shigao, 51b24.
頻毘[v.l. 婆 SY]娑羅王詣佛供養經 T133, Faju, 67a26.
長者子六過出家經 T134, Huijian, 93b23.
四未曾有法經 T136, Dharmarakṣa, 64b3.
四泥犁經 T139, Tanwulan, 70a8.
阿那邠邸化七子經 T140, An Shigao, 50c18.
佛母般泥洹經 T145, Huijian, 93b22.
阿難同學經 T149, An Shigao, 52a12.
阿含正行經 T151, An Shigao, 52a24.
大方便佛報恩經 T156, Anon., E. Han, 54b18.
大意經 T177, Guṇabhadra, 91c18.
前世三轉經 T178, Faju, 67c16.
異出菩薩本起經 T188, Nie Daozhen 聶道真, 66a20.
十二遊經 T195, *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽, 70b27-c2.
興起行經 T197, Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, 54b2.
雜譬喻經 T205, Anon., E. Han, 54b25.
猘狗經 T214, Zhi Qian, 58c7.
群牛譬經 T215, Faju, 67a6.
大魚事經 T216, Tanwulan, 69c5.
仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245, Kumārajīva, 78a23-24.
法華三昧經 T269, Zhiyan 智嚴, 112c27.
諸菩薩求佛本業經 T282, Nie Daozhen, 65c19.
無垢施菩薩應辯會 T310(33), Nie Daozhen, 66a2.
菩薩修行經 T330, Bo Fazu 白法祖, 66b4.
優填王經 T332, Faju, 67b3.
大乘方等要慧經 T348, An Shigao, 52b17.
寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 T356, An Shigao, 52b10-11.
出阿彌陀佛偈 T373, Anon., E. Han, 55b24-25.
般泥洹後灌臘經 T391, Dharmarakṣa, 64a24.
迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T393, Tanwulan, 70a19.
八吉祥神呪經 T427, Zhi Qian, 58b8.
八陽神呪經 T428, Dharmarakṣa, 64b4.
文殊師利般涅槃經 T463, Nie Daozhen, 65c7.
三曼陀跋陀羅菩薩經 T483, Nie Daozhen, 66a1.
六菩薩亦當誦持經 T491, Anon., E. Han, 54c19.
阿難問事佛吉凶經 T492, An Shigao, 51c22.
摩訶迦葉度貧母經 T497, Guṇabhadra, 91c26.
羅云忍辱經 T500, Faju, 66c22.
沙曷比丘功德經 T501, Faju, 67c13.
佛為年少比丘說正事經 T502, Faju, 67b24.
比丘避女惡名欲自殺經 T503, Faju, 67c10.
犍陀國王經 T506, An Shigao, 52b5.
阿闍世王問五逆經 T508, Faju, 67a24.
阿闍世王授決經 T509, Faju, 67a2.
採花違王上佛授決號妙花經 T510, Tanwulan, 69c12.
長者子懊惱三處經 T525, An Shigao, 50c13.
越難經 T537, Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠, 65b21.
樹提伽經 T540a/b, Guṇabhadra, 91c17.
摩鄧女經 T551, An Shigao, 52a6.
內身觀章句經 T610, Anon., E. Han, 55b4.
法觀經 T611, Dharmarakṣa, 64a21.
身觀經 T612, Dharmarakṣa, 64a20.
佛印三昧經 T621, An Shigao, 52b15.
自誓三昧經 T622, An Shigao, 51b5.
父母恩難報經 T684, An Shigao, 51a13.
盂蘭盆經 T685, Dharmarakṣa, 64a27.
未曾有經 T688, Anon., E. Han, 55a28.
作佛形像經 T692, Anon., E. Han, 54c2.
摩訶剎頭經 T696, Shengjian 聖堅, 83c9.
罪業應報教化地獄經 T724, An Shigao, 51c18.
分別善惡所起經 T729, An Shigao, 51a23.
處處經 T730, An Shigao, 51b9.
十八泥犁經 T731, An Shigao, 51c16.
罵意經 T732, An Shigao, 51b8.
堅意經 T733, An Shigao, 52a2.
鬼問目連經 T734, An Shigao, 51c15.
分別經 T738, Dharmarakṣa, 64a28.
慢法經 T739, Faju, 66c20.
忠心經 T743, Tanwulan, 70a6.
罪福報應經 T747b, Guṇabhadra, 91c5.
十二品生死經 T753, Guṇabhadra, 91c4.
四輩經 T769, Dharmarakṣa, 64a24.
四品學法經 T771, Guṇabhadra, 91c8.
賢者五福德經 T777, Bo Fazu, 66b14.
十二頭陀經 T783, Guṇabhadra, 91b25.
出家緣經 T791, An Shigao, 51a8.
貧窮老公經 T797a/b, Huijian, 93b14.
弟子死復生經 T826, Juqu Jingsheng, 93a3.
懈怠耕者經 T827, Huijian, 93b12.
阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 T1013, Guṇabhadra, 92a8.
呪齒經 T1327, Tanwulan, 70b11.
華積陀羅尼神呪經 T1356, Zhi Qian, 58b7.
玄師颰陀所說神呪經 T1378b, Tanwulan, 70b9.
檀特羅麻油述經 T1391, Tanwulan, 70b3-70b4.
摩尼羅亶經 T1393, Tanwulan, 70a24, 70b1.
犯戒罪報輕重經 T1467, An Shigao, 51b1.
大比丘三千威儀 T1470, An Shigao, 50a23-24.
沙彌尼戒經 T1474, Anon., E. Han, 54c27.
戒消災經 T1477, Zhi Qian, 58a11.
菩薩受齋經 T1502, Nie Daozhen, 65c18.
分別功德論 T1507, Anon., E. Han, 54b19.
阿毘曇甘露味論 T1553, Anon., Cao Wei 曹魏, 60b18.
請賓頭盧法 T1689, Huijian, 93b17.
迦葉結經 T2027, An Shigao, 52b16.

This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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
新小品經七卷(弘始十年二月六日譯出至四月二十日訖), T227
新法華經七卷(弘始八年夏於長安大寺譯出), T262
新賢劫經七卷(今闕), lost?
華首經十卷(一名攝諸[稱S]善根經), cf. 華手[v.l.SP首]經 T657
新維摩詰經三卷(弘始八年於長安大寺出), T475
新首楞嚴經二卷, T642
十住經五卷(或四卷定五卷什與佛駄耶舍共譯出), T286
思益義經四卷(或云思益梵天問經), T586
持世經四卷(或三卷), T482
自在王經二卷(弘始九[元SYM]年出), T420
佛藏經三卷(一名選擇諸法或為二卷), T653
菩薩藏經三卷(一名富樓那問亦名大悲心或為二卷), T310(17)
稱揚諸佛功德經三卷(一名集華), ?, T382?
無量壽經一卷(或云阿彌陀經), T366
彌勒下生經一卷, T454?
彌勒成佛經一卷, T456?
金剛般若經一卷(或云金剛般若波羅蜜經), T235
諸法無行經一卷, T650
菩提經一卷(或云文殊師利問菩提[薩SYM]經), T464
遺教經一卷(或云佛垂般泥洹略說教戒經), T389
十二因緣觀經一卷(闕[＋本SYM]), ???
菩薩呵色欲[＋經YM]一卷, T615
禪法要解二卷(或云禪要經), T616?
禪經三卷(一名菩薩禪法經與坐禪三昧經問), T613?
雜譬喻經一卷(比丘道略所集), T208?
大智論百卷(於逍遙園譯出或分為七十卷), T1509
成[誠SYM]實論十六卷, T1646
十住論十卷, T1521
中論四卷, T1564
十二門論一卷, T1568
百論二卷(弘始六年譯出), T1569
十誦律六十一卷(已入律錄), T1435
十誦比丘戒本一卷, T1436
禪法要三卷(弘始九年𨳝月五日重校正), T616?

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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

Edit

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
8 察微王經一卷 T152(90)
9 佛說一切施王所行檀波羅蜜經一卷 T152(13)
10 佛說薩羅國經一卷 T520
11 佛說長壽王經一卷 T161

P.3747
12 佛說道神足無極變化經四卷 T816
16 無量清浄經二卷 T361
18 阿育王息壞目因緣經一卷 T2045
21 藥王藥上菩薩觀經 T1161
24 千佛因[囙]緣住經一卷 T426
26 八部佛名一卷 T429
28 賢劫千佛名一卷 T447ab
30 滅罪得福成佛經 T2871?
32 三慧經一卷 T768
37 未曾有因緣經二卷 T754
40 佛說四天王經 T590?
43 樂瓔珞莊嚴方便經一卷 T566
45 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經一卷 T245
46 佛說遺日摩尼寶經一卷 T350
47 分別業報略經一卷 T723
48 勸發諸王要偈一卷 T1673
49 佛說淨除業障經一卷 T1494
54 觀世樓炭經一卷 T23?
55 雜阿鋡經五十卷 T99
56 雜譬喻經六卷 ?? cf. T204-T208
57 法尚住經 T819
58 婆須蜜菩薩 T1549
60 三歸五戒厭離經一卷 T72
61 分別功德經 T1507
64 權方便經 T565
68 優婆塞戒經七卷 T1488
70 後出阿彌陀佛偈一卷 T373
76 僧伽羅刹經三卷 T194
78 密迹金剛力士經五卷 T310(3)

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

Edit