| Identifier | T0839 [T] |
| Title | 占察善惡業報經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Zhiru 2007] |
| Translator 譯 | *Bodhidīpa?, 菩提燈 [T] |
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 |
[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 |
[Muller DDBe] Muller, Charles. DDB s.v. 占察善惡業報經. — Accessed April 2014. |
"This text is assumed by scholars to have been originally composed in East Asia, rather than India." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zhiru 2007] Ng, Zhiru. The Making of a Savior Bodhisattva: Dizang in Medieval China. Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism 21. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. — 84-89 |
Zhiru discusses T839 for its connections to the cult of Kṣitigarbha/Dizang, and treats the text as composed in China, in line with the scholarly consensus. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kuo 1994] Kuo Li-ying. Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du Ve au Xe siècle. (Paris: Publications de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient, 1994. |
Treated as a "Chinese apocryphon". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Lai 1990] Lai, Whalen. "The Chan-ch'a ching: Religion and Magic in Medieval China." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 175-206. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. |
Treated as a "Chinese apocryphon". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Lai 1990] Lai, Whalen. "The Chan-ch'a ching: Religion and Magic in Medieval China." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 175-206. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. — 176-179, 191-195 |
Lai concludes that the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839, which he calls “the Buddhist answer to the I-ching,” was compiled in Northern China during the late sixth century. He states that its use of divination and focus on “the final age of the Dharma (mofa)” parallels other eschatological works produced in China from this period. Furthermore, Lai notes that the monks under *Dharmakṣema did not show such a preoccupation with mofa, which suggests that the text was produced at a later stage. Lai also argues that the text was produced as part of the Northern proselytising drive in the wake of the first persecution of Buddhism. Lai suggests that the Northern Saṃgha had a “progeny mentality” which allowed for the production of new sūtras, opposed to the “recipient mentality” of their Southern counterparts. Furthermore, the CCC draws on tathāgatagarbha tradition and refers to a Liu gen ju jing 六根聚經 which is also cited in the Ratnagotravibhāgha (Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun 究竟一乘寶性論 T1611), translated by Ratnamati in Luoyang. These factors, Lai argues, make it probable that the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing was compiled in the North, and made its way South later. On the basis of his argument, Lai states that the “suggestion that the CCC [Zhancha shan'e yebao jing] borrowed from a text translated by Paramārtha (Chen-ti[=Zhendi 真諦]) in Canton may now be discounted.” Lai notes likenesses the text has with other apocryphal works, including the Kṣitigarbha corpus, where he notes especially the Dizang pusa jing 地藏菩薩經 T2909, the Dizang pusa benyuan jing 地藏菩薩本願經 T412, and the Da fangguang shi lun jing 大方廣十輪經 T410. Finally, Lai suggests mutual borrowing between T839 and the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乘起信論 T1666. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1970] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Hō Kyō roku ni tsuite 法經錄について." IBK 19, no. 1 (1970): 235-238. |
|
Naitō gives some general information about Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. It was composed in the space of two months in 594 by a commission of 22 scholars. Hayashiya argued that the catalogue was composed in preparation for the copying of the full canon. Naitō argues that there must have been some circumstances precipitating the rush. He notes that suspicious texts were also recorded and categorised as such, which would be odd if the sole purpose of the catalogue was to list works to be included in an approved version of the canon. He therefore proposes that the catalogue, and the canon connected to it, were prepared as a response to the notorious incident in Guangzhou in 593 surrounding the use of the Zhancha jing 占察經, in which practices of self-flagellation, "stupa repentance" rites, and the "mixing of the sixes" were connected with the use of a scripture that a commission of experts then declared spurious. Among the reasons they gave that the text was inauthentic was that the text was recorded in no earlier catalogues, which Naitō treats as circumstantial evidence that there was a mentality current that could see the compilation of a new catalogue as associated with a similar agenda to determine which texts were authoritative and, by implication, which were spurious, in order to forestall recurrence of like incidents. Naitō also treats the problem of the sources of Fajing's work. Determination of his sources is made difficult by the fact that the catalogue does not explicitly give its sources. Fei Zhangfang/Changfang says that Fajing had seventeen catalogues at his disposal, but then does not himself admit that so many catalogues were extant in their time. Naitō reports very briefly that he has compared the treatment of extant translations in Fajing with treatment in other sources, for a total of 79 translators and 556 works, but here gives no details, rather, promising to report his findings in another venue. He notes that a total of 428 texts were ascribed to named translators in CSZJJ, but in Fajing, that number increases to 459 for translators down to the end of the Qi (i.e. before Sengyou's time). In other words, Fajing has added at least 31 new ascriptions. As a matter of fact, there are 34 more ascriptions on which Fajing does not agree with CSZJJ, for a total of 65 new ascriptions. Naitō is unable to determine Fajing's sources for these ascriptions, but he notes that in total, they entail, among other things, the addition of nine new "translators" to the record: Tanguo 曇果 [cf. T196], Tankejialuo 曇柯迦羅 [to whom no extant texts are ascribed today], Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 [cf. T360, T1432, X11], Fajian 法堅 [cf. T495], Zhi Fadu 支法度 [cf. T17, T527], An Faqin 安法欽 [cf. T816, T2042], Fahai 法海 [cf. T1490], Xian gong 先公 [cf. T640, T641], and Xiang gong 翔公 [cf. T234]. Naitō argues that probably five catalogues were in fact extant at Fajing's (and Fei's) time, in addition to GSZ: CSZJJ, Baochang's 寶唱 catalogue, Li Kuo's 李廓 catalogue, Fashang's 法上 catalogue, and the Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄. Prior scholarship had understood that Baochang collected information from a range of older catalogues, and that Baochang was in turn the proximate source for the use of information from these older catalogues in Fei's LDSBJ (Naitō refers to Tokiwa for this view). Naitō doubts this, because he believes that Baochang only reported 226 ascriptions for sutras, and this number probably did not exceed 300 even when śāstras and vinaya works are taken into account; but this total is too few to account for the profusion of new information reported under the Sui. He notes further that comparison to CSZJJ, the only case in which we can check Fei's information against his source, shows that when LDSBJ says "see such-and-such a catalogue", it only means that the title is listed in the source, not the ascription --- CSZJJ is cited in this manner for texts that CSZJJ itself clearly treats as anonymous. Naitō also discusses Fajing's probable use of Fashang's catalogue. He notes that Fashang stopped at about 568-570, and that Fajing does the same. He takes this fact to indicate that Fajing just took Fashang's information over holus-bolus, and suggests that ascriptions to Fajian, Fahai, and Xian gong were probably added on this basis. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
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. — 365-367 |
Ōno agrees with Mochizuki (in Jōdo kyō no kigen oyobi hattatsu 淨土数 の起源及發達, Chapter 4, Section 7) that the Zhancha shan’e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839 was composed in China. Ōno mentions the following relations between T839 and other scriptures: The 53 Buddhas 五十三佛 in the phrase 一心敬禮過去七佛及五十三佛 (T839 [XVII] 903c20) are probably taken from the Guan Yaowang Yaoshang pusa jing 觀藥王藥上菩薩經 T1161 and the Guoqu wushisan Fo ming jing 過去五十三佛名經, an excerpt scripture based on T1161 and produced in China. The taking of precepts by one’s own vow 自誓受and the establishment of a sevenfold Saṅgha 七衆 are from the Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩地持經 T1581. Down to the Sui period, the term She lü yi jie 攝律儀戒 appears otherwise only in the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 [itself also a Chinese composition]. The appearance of Kṣitigarbha bodhisatva 地藏菩薩 as the preacher, and the emphasis on the ten good deeds 十善, tathāgatagarbha 如来藏, and precepts 戒 are also seen in the *Daśacakrakṣitigarbha-sūtra 大方廣十輪經 T410. The fortune-telling that features in T839 became a social problem under the Sui, and the scripture was banned because of it. According to Ōno, DZKZM records that T839 was included in the canon again in Wansui 萬歳 1 (695 CE) of the Tang period. KYL approved of this restoration of the text to the canon. Ōno lists the following reasons for regarding T839 as Chinese composition: As Mochizuki points out, most of the second juan is similar to the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith 大乗起信論 T1666; Terms 名辭 from T1485 (see above) are used for 三種戒豪. Ōno infers that T839 should date to the Sui period, before Kaihuang 開皇 13 (593), because Fajing and LDSBJ state that it was not listed in the catalogues before them. LDSBJ even claims [with a critical spirit entirely atypical of Fei Zhangfang on such matters] that the text “seems to have appeared only in recent times” 似近代出, and the scripture was banned in 開皇 13. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 829-831 |
Sakaino states that the details of the translation work of the Zhancha shan’e ye bao jing 占察善惡業報經 (T839 ascribed to *Bodhidīpa/Putideng 菩提登) are not known [implying that the ascription may be incorrect --- AI], but that judging from its content, the text itself is at least not apocryphal. Sakaino quotes LDSBJ, KYL and T839 itself, and explains that the fact that T839 teaches rites of contrition 悔過法 in combination with prognostication techniques 占法 has made some scholars suspicious, but this could be the result of the integration of Brahmanical prognostication methods into a certain part of Buddhism. It is not known who Putideng was, but Sakaino conjectures that he might have translated T839 in Guangzhou 廣州 in an early period, as a practice called the “stupa contrition rite” 塔懺法, practiced in Guangzhou 廣州, is said to have been based on T839. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034:49.106c9-10. |
Fei Changfang saw a copy of the text with a colophon claiming that the text had been translated "overseas" by one Putideng 菩提登 [> 菩提燈? *Bodhidīpa?]. [This is still the ascription borne by the text in the Taishō.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034:49.106c8-22. |
Fei Changfang's LDSBJ is the primary source for the account of the origins of the Zhancha jing 占察經 T839. Allegedly, there was a monk in the Guangzhou region who engaged in a practice called “stūpa contrition” 塔懺法, which entailed divination for the prognosis of karma, and expurgation of bad karma by self-flagellation. The activities of his group were reported to the Guangzhou officials under the charge of 妖 [pernicious magical practices? witchcraft? spirit possession?]. An investigation was conducted, and the group claimed in their own defense that their practice was based upon the Zhancha jing. Saṃgha authorities found that the catalogues contained record of the translator or place of translation, and declared that the practice was in violation of scriptural authority. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|