| Identifier | T1484 [T] |
| Title | 梵網經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Ōno 1954] |
| Unspecified | unknown [CSZJJ] |
| Translator 譯 | Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 [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 and Cho DDB] Muller, Charles and Eunsu Cho. DDB s.v. 梵網經. — Accessed July 28 2014. |
"Considered by scholars to be an apocryphal work." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Buswell 1990b] Buswell, Robert. "Introduction: Prolegomenon to the Study of Buddhist Apocryphal Scriptures." In Buswell 1990, 1-30. — 8 |
Buswell states that that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 is an original Chinese composition which was “arbitrarily” attributed to a translator in Fei Changfang’s catalogue (LDSBJ) and this false attribution was subsequently adopted by the Tang Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL). 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. — 47 |
Tokuno notes that Fajing’s catalogue classified the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 as suspicious. She says that the second Zhongjing mulu, compiled under the Sui dynasty (Yancong), re-catalogued the Fanwang jing 梵網經 (among others) as genuine. However, she suggests that this reclassification was due to the influence of Fei Changfang’s catalogue, rather than independent assessment. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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. — 102-104 |
Strickmann suggests, in passing, that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 was written in China in order to support imperial authority; in particular, to bring “regulation into religious life.” 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. — 252-255 |
Groner concludes that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 is “apocryphal.” He notes that the text is traditionally considered to be a small section (two fascicles) of a much longer Sanskrit text (122 or 120 fascicles). However, Groner argues that there is no evidence that such a text ever existed, and the Tibetan version [D256/Q922] was “almost certainly” translated from Chinese. Traditionally the text is said to have been translated by Kumārajīva in 406, but this attribution has been questioned from an early stage. Groner cites Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which noted that many earlier catalogues had listed the text as of “questionable authenticity.” The attribution to Kumārajīva is recorded in three primary sources: A postface to the sūtra, recorded in the Chu sanzang ji ji; and two prefaces, one attributed to Kumārajīva’s disciple Sengzhao, and the other from the Korean canon. Groner argues that each of these accounts differ in key details and suggests that they were attempts to “conform with what was known about Kumārajīva’s translation techniques.” Furthermore, the text is not mentioned in Kumārajīva’s early biographies. The Fanwang jing is closely related to other apocryphal sūtras, such as the Renwang jing 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 and the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485. The Fanwang jing has gone on to influence later apocrypha which discuss the bodhisattva path, such as the Pusa yingluo benye jing. Groner states that the text borrowed from several Indian sources, the last of which – the Shanjie jing [= 菩薩善戒經 T1582/1583?—MR] – was translated in 431. The earliest copy of the Fanwang jing 梵網經 records a date of 479-480. Thus, Groner places the text’s composition at some point between 440 and 480. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Funayama 2004] Funayama Tōru. "The Acceptance of Buddhist Precepts by the Chinese in the Fifth Century." Journal of Asian History 38, no. 2 (2004): 97-120. — 110-111 |
Funayama summarises the findings of previous studies on the Fan wang jing 梵網經 T1484 as follows. It is closely connected with the Ren wang jing 仁王經 T245. The terminus post quem is 431, with Guṇavarman’s translation of the Pusa shanjie jing 菩薩善戒經 (T1582, T1583), and the terminus ante quem is the composition of the 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 on the basis of T1484 (second fascicle). Both T1484 and T1485 are mentioned in CSZJJ (before 518), and in the 出家人受菩薩戒法卷第一 P.2196, which "was hand-copied following Wudi's edict in 519". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Funayama 2013] Funayama Tōru 船山徹. Butten wa dō Kan’yaku sareta no ka: sūtora ga kyōten ni naru toki 仏典はどう漢訳されたのか スートラが経典になるとき. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten: 2013. — 85 |
Briefly summarising prior scholarship, Funayama mentions, among the identified prior Chinese sources of the text, *Dharmakṣema’s MPNMS T374 and Bodhisattvabhūmi T1581, Kumārajīva’s Zhong lun 中論 T1564, Guṇabhadra’s Bodhisattvabhūmi 菩薩善戒經 T1582/T1583, and the equally “apocryphal” Sūtra of Humane Kings T245. Funayama cites Ōno (1954) and Mochizuki (1946). 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. — 201 n. 36 |
Lai mentions in passing that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 and the Fo chui banniepan lüe shuo jiao jie jing 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經T389 are examples of the rejection of divination in Chinese “apocryphal sūtras.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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. — 415-416 |
|
Demiéville lists and discusses texts ascribed to Kumārajīva by Sengyou, namely T201 T223 T227 T235 T245(!) T262 T366 T456 T475 T613 T614 T616 T617 T1435 T1509 T1564 T1568 T1569 T1646. This implies that the ascription of all other texts ascribed to Kumārajīva in the Taishō is less secure than those ascriptions, on at least this count. This entry lists all such texts (all "Kumārajīva" texts EXCEPT those listed by Demiéville/Sengyou). [NOTE: Demiéville's list is to be used with caution. For example, as Lin Xueni points out (personal communication), he omits the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha 華首經 T657, even though it is in fact listed by Sengyou, CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 10c21. I have therefore corrected, and do NOT include T657 in this list of possibly dubious ascriptions.] 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. — 396-397 |
Sakaino defends the traditional attribution of T1484 to Kumārajīva, and argues that it is a genuine translation text. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 252-284 |
Ōno asserts that the “Brahma Net Sūtra” 梵網經 T1484 was composed in China, based upon source texts including the *Buddhāvataṃsaka, Pusa nei jie jing 菩薩内戒經 T1487, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, the Bodhisatvabhūmi, the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488, the “Sūtra of Human Kings”, and Kumārajīva’s *Madhyama-śāstra 中論 T1564. Ōno discusses four main sets of evidence indicating further that T1484 is a Chinese composition rather than a translation: a. Internal inconsistencies, including the title of the text as a whole, and some chapter titles; the aforementioned insubstantiable claims that the text is part of a larger text; and vocabulary or terminology. b. Peculiar vocabulary 用語奇異 (not seen in any other scriptures), e.g. 爾眞焰俗; chapter titles possibly influenced by Daoism (玄道定品, 日月道品,無相天王品); a peculiar list of the twelvefold sūtras 十二部經 (called 十二法品名味句):重誦, 記別, 直語, 偈, 不請説, 律戒, 譬喩, 佛界, 昔事, 方正, 未曾有, and 談説) which differs from the usual order, and includes many items not seen elsewhere; 十種力生品 for the ten powers of a Buddha; 十八聖人智品 for the eighteen āveṇikadharmas; names of the ten bodhisatva stages or “grounds” 十地; and 光光 instead of 光. c. Chinese concepts 中國思想: 1. 三智, 2. 親靈の追善供養3. 大乗布薩, 4. 立法排拒, 5. 三千學士, 6. 讃戒偈. d. The fact that the external evidence about the text is unreliable 史料不信, in which context Ōno attempts to explain the process by which the text came to be ascribed to Kumārajīva (279-280), and speculates about the date and circumstances of composition of the postface and the two prefaces (274-283). On the basis of several pieces of external evidence, Ōno infers that T1484 was composed sometime between 431 CE and the late fifth century (281-283). The text itself claims that it is the end part of a larger text 大本, the structure of which, as here presented, resembles that of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka. However, Ōno maintains that this larger text probably never existed (252-254). Juan 1 expounds the path of the bodhisatva, and juan 2 the theory of precepts 戒. Ōno points out that such a structure was traditionally used in other sūtras (e.g., the Pusa benye jing 菩薩本業經 T281 by Zhi Qian, itself a kind of “proto-*Buddhāvataṃsaka” or early text in the larger *Buddhāvataṃsaka genre), especially in those composed in China (e.g., the section of T1487 on the bodhisatva path, and the Rulai du zheng zi shi sanmei jing 如來獨證自誓三昧經 T623). According to Ōno, the content of the ten precepts against grave infractions 十重戒 in T1484 is a mixture of the eight precepts against grave infractions for renunciants 出家八重戒 from the Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩善戒經 (T1582) and the six precepts against grave infractions 在家六重戒 from the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488 (善生経). He adds that the exposition of this same rubric is probably related to the four precepts against grave infractions 四重戒 from the Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩地持經 (T1581), the “four essential precepts against grave infractions”(?) 性重戒 from the Mahāparinirvāna-mahāsūtra [in portions of the text unique to *Dharmakṣema’s T374 and versions of the text derived therefrom --- MR], and the four precepts against grave infractions 四重禁 of the so-called Lü fa 律法 (a table of these ten items and corresponding elements in other materials is presented on 267). However, the ten precepts against grave infractions as presented in T1484 are richer in detail than in those other materials. The forty-eight precepts against minor infractions 四十八輕戒 is called qinggouzui 輕垢罪 in T1484. According to Ōno, this term is used only in T1484 and the so-called Pusa yaoyi jing 菩薩要義 經 [perhaps referring to the [Pusa] Youposai wi jie weiyi jing [菩薩]優婆塞五戒威儀經 T1503? which is the only text besides shown by a CBETA search to contain 輕垢罪 --- MR]. These forty-eight precepts against minor infractions are based on the precepts to forestall derision from the world(?) 息世譏嫌戒 of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra [once again unique sections of *Dharmakṣema’s T374 and derived texts, in the same passage as the four precepts mentioned above --- MR], the 42 infractions 四十二犯事 from the T1581, the 28 misdemeanours of lapses of mind(?) 二十八失意罪 from T1488, the 47 precepts 四十七戒 from T1487, the “Sūtra of Humane Kings”, and the Lü fa 律法. Part of the contents are also unique to T1484. A table of relations between those elements is given on 271-273. 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. — 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 |
[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 |
[Tomomatsu 1931] Tomomatsu, Entai. "Sûtrâlaṃkâra et Kalpanâmaṇḍitikâ. 1re Partie." Journal Asiatique 219 (1931): 135-174. — 151-152 |
Tomomatsu points out that a Prātimokṣasūtra is ascribed to Kumārajīva in an anonymous postface known to Sengyou (in CSZJJ, 菩薩波羅提木叉後記 [T2145 (LV) 79b26-c8]), but that Sengyou himself does not attribute the same text to Kumārajīva (in his catalogue of Kumārajīva's translations, [T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27]). He points out further that though we might easily assume that this text has been lost, Zhisheng, in KYL, identified the second [sic?] fascicle [actually, Zhisheng states that the text is in two fascicles --- MR] of the Fangwang jing 梵網經 T1484 as a translation by Kumārajīva [presumably he refers to T2154 (LV) 606a21-22 --- MR]. He also points out that T1484 is preceded by two prefaces, one anonymous, and the other ascribed to Kumārajīva's disciple Sengzhao 僧肇. The anonymous preface is virtually identical with that found in CSZJJ. The Sengzhao preface is suspect for the fact that Sengyou does not mention it, though he is aware of several other Sengzhao prefaces. The Sengzhao preface also mentions the number of 50 translations by Kumārajīva, which means that if we regard the attribution of the preface to him, we have to accept that this tradition of so many translations was more or less contemporary to Kumārajīva himself. Even Huijiao, who accepts the attribution of T1484 to Kumārajīva, counts only 33 works in his corpus overall. Thus, Tomomatsu argues that the preface is not by Sengzhao, and should be regarded as anonymous. Tomomatsu points out that Huijiao was the author of a lost commentary on T1484, and that this was probably what motivated him to accept the attribution of the text to Kumārajīva, despite his otherwise cautious attitude to the corpus of Kumārajīva as a whole. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|