brahmajala sutra fa wang ching

8/9/2019 Brahmajala Sutra Fa Wang Ching

1/7

Harvard-Yenching Institute

Notes on The Fan Wang ChingAuthor(s): James R. WareSource: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Apr., 1936), pp. 156-161Published by: Harvard-Yenching InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2718046

Accessed: 19/11/2009 01:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hyi.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Harvard-Yenching Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHarvard

Journal of Asiatic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2718046?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hyihttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hyihttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2718046?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/7

NOTES ON THE FAN WANG CHiINGJAMES R. WARE

HARVARD UNIVERSITYThe Chinese Buddhist canon contains three texts which, because of thesimilarity of their titles, are often confused. The Fan Tung Ching 1

TIJ*go forming sfitra number 21 and ch. 14 of the Ch'ang-a-hanChing 2 AJA or DLrghagamca,s the equivalent of the well knownPdli Brahmajdlasuttanta.3 The Fan Wang Liu-shih-erh-chien Ching4gow+~ 5#, is a second equivalent of the same Phli suttc whichwas translated into Chinese long before the complete Dirghagama. Thethird siatra is known briefly as the Fan Wang Ching I09, but itscomplete title is Fan Wang Ching Lu-she-na Po Shuo P'u-sa Hsin-tiChieh P'in Ti-shih5 "+ which maybe translated " Of the Fan Wang Ching, part ten where the BuddhaVairocana declares the cittabhftmi's and the sala's of a Bodhisattva."The content of this last text has nothing whatsoever in common withthe other two. While these and their Pdli equivalent are known fora list of religious and philosophical views, the last one, on which Iam presenting here a few notes, belongs to the vinaya category. It isknown for its list of commandments. This text, for which no Sanskrit

1 In Taishd 1 (No. 1), 88-94. The translator here understood the original toread something like *Brahmacalao, for he translates the second word of theSanskrit compound by tung, which signifies "to move." Cf. NANJIO, col. 137.

2 No. 1 in Taish5 1; NANJIO 545.3 Edited by T. W. Rnys DAVIDSand J. E. CARPENTER,he Dighanikaya I, 1-17,London, 1890, and translated by the former in Sacred Books of the Buddhists2, 1-55, London, 1899.4No. 21 in Taishd 1; NAxJIo 554. The Brahmajadla-sixty-two'-views-saftra.6 No. 1484 in Taishd 24. 997-1010; NANJIO 1087. There are varying descrip-tions of the size of the original composition of which our text is only a part.The preface attributed to S~ng-chao If, Kumnrajiva's contemporary and co-worker, says that it contained 120 chlian divided into 61 parts. An additionalpreface of unknown provenience changes the 120 to 112. Ming-k'uang's com-mentary (v. note 23) speaks of 152 chulan in 61 parts. These variants are likelyto be the distortion of an original 120 >t> Et or -f tf > iji+= 156


3/7

NOTES ON THE FAN WANG CHING 157or Pdli equivalent has yet been found, was issued in an abbreviatededition and translation by De Groot 6 forty-two years ago. At that timeit was very popular 7 among the Chinese monks, but today, according toan informant at the Buddhist Institute in Nanking, it is held in littleesteem.Since the time that De Groot published his translation the study ofBuddhism has broadened its base by drawing into its purview not onlythe catalogs and historical works contained in the Chinese tripitalcc,but also the Tibetan Kanjutr and Tanjur which have become availablein both Europe and America. These additional sources show our textin a much different light, and give us reason to doubt that, as we nowknow it, it was translated into Chinese by Kumdrajiva in 406 A. D.In fact, the Tibetan 8 begins by throwing doubt even on the title of ourtext. The Chinese could be reconstructed as Brahmaajalasfttra, ut the

6 J. J. M. DE GROOT, e Code du Mahdaifyna en Chine, son influence sur la vieMonacale et sur le monde laique, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie vanWetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Deel I. No. 2. Amsterdam,1893.

7 Op. cit. 7-8. " A l'heure qu'il est le Pratimoksha de 250 articles est dansl'Picoledu Dhyana le code reconnu du clerge, et les moines lors de leur consecrations'engagent solennellement a s'y conformer; et pourtant, deux ou trois jours apr&sla ceremonie, ils recoivent une nouvelle ordination, lors de laquelle ils promettentde vivre selon les prescriptions d'un code specialement mahayaniste, conduisant,si l'on s'y conforme fidelement, a la dignite de Bodhisatwa, tandisque le Pratimokshane peut elever qu'a celle d'Arhat. C'est de ce code que cette etude s'occupera."Op. cit. 12-13: ". . . le fait subsiste que le Suitra du filet de Brahma a e le codele plus important de l'Eglise, et qu'il a exerce une plus grande influence que toutautre ecrit, tant sur les laiques que sur les religieux.... Quand a nos preuves,nous les tirerons avant tout de faits recueillis par nos recherches personnellesdans l'empire du Milieu. Nous y avons fait de longs sejours dans des monasteresbuddhistes de premier ordre, dans le but expres de prendre note de tout ce quenous parviendrions a voir des observances religieuses et de la vie d'interieur desmoines, et de nous en rendre compte methodiquement."

8 The Tibetan title is Chos-kyi Rgya-mo Sais-rgyas Rnam-par-snanr-mdsad-kyisbyaih-chub-sems-dpahi Sems-kyi gnas bqad-pa lehu bcu (-pa). Cf. A ComparativeAnalytical Catalogue of the Kanjur Division of the Tibetan Tripitaka, publishedby the otani University, Kyoto, 1930, p. 357 (No. 922); and A Complete Catalogueof the Tibetan Buddhist Canon by H. Ui, M. Suzuki, Y. Kanakura, and T. Toda,T6kyo, 1934, p. 50 (No. 256). It might be noticed that while the first chapterof the Chinese treats of the cittabhflmi's and the second chapter of the gila's, thetitle of the Tibetan, which contains only the section on the gila's, has retainedthe cittabhfimi and omitted the word gila.


4/7

158 JAMES R. WARETibetan title, beginning with Chos-lcyi rgya-mo,9 must be translatedDharmajalaP, and, the evidence being of equal weight, it is impossibleto choose between the two. Looking behind the evidence one mightargue that Brahmajala' was a clerical error somewhere in our text'stradition for an original Dharma' which would certainly associate itselfin the minds of all Buddhists with the well-known title Brahma'. Again,one might argue that the Tibetan is a lectio facilior, chosen as a meansof obviating ambiguity. The present writer, therefore, refuses to choosebetween these alternatives for a name.Having thrown doubt upon the Chinese title, the Tibetan then pro-ceeds to inflict a still stronger blow upon the Chinese text by omittingthe whole first half 10 of it. The significance of this fact is hard todetermine, because the Tibetan text itself, lacking the usual colophon toindicate the names of the translator and his helpers, is not the unim-peachable witness that we would desire. Since other evidence pointsclearlyto the existence of a Chinese edition of our text without its presentfirst half or chapter, either the original text was in one chapter, or theTibetan is a translation from the smaller Chinese text. The followingevidence will, I believe, render the former explanation a tenable solution,while leaving the latter to be determined by later research.Tradition since the end of the sixth century has it that our text wastranslated into Chinese by Kumdrajiva. His biography11 (519), how.ever, while mentioning a Pu-sa Chieh Pen *kg*, which the Li TaiSan-pao Chi 12 (597) describes as consisting of one chiian, fails to men-tion the workwhich we are discussing. Furthermore, the Ch'u San-tsangChi Chi 1 (ca. 500) contains no reference to our text when listing

9The second of the catalogs mentioned in note 8 translates the Tibetan rgya-mosyllable for syllable by *X. Once again, however, a monosyllabic languageproves to be polysyllabic. No one will question that an isolated rgya might mean" big " or that an isolated mo might be a feminine suffix, but we are confrontedhere with a compound rgya-mo meaning " net." This catalog would seem to havetoo many authors.According to the otani University catalog (v. note 8) the Peking or RedKanjur reads rgya-mcho. Since this has no meaning, the compiler of the Chinesecatalog to this edition changed mentally the expression to rgyal-mo and trans-lated by )"-1*.

10 Cf. the reference to the first catalog mentioned in note 8."IKao S6ng Chuan Ott, Taisho 50. 330A-333A; TP 30. 125 (note 9) towhich must be added LTSPC 8. 79, and J. NOBEL, Kumarajiva, SBAW 1927, 206-233.12 ch. 8, Taisho 49. 78C.18 - ch. 2, Taisho 55. 11A.


5/7

NOTES ON THE FAN WANG CHING 159Kumdrajiva's translations, and it is the Li Tati San-pao Chi 14 whichfirst mentions it as a work of Kumdrajiva's in two chiian and at thesame time attributes to him the Pu-sa Chieh Pen in one chian. Thepresent Chinese tripitakcacontains two P'u-sa Chieh Pn ,'5 one trans-lated by T'an-mo-ch'an, and the other the work of Hsiian-tsang. Sincethey are both attributed to a Maitreya,18 t is probable that they are twotranslations of the same work. If there were a P'u-sa Chieh Pen byKumdrajiva, one would expect it to have survived for his translationshave always enjoyed a high renown. It is my belief that the secondchapterof the presentFan Wang Ching may be that workof Kumdrajiva's.Any present-day translator of our text is, after the first few columns,very much embarrassed'7 to find a meaning in the remaining portionof the first chapter. Four groups 18 of ten stages along the road to saint-hood are clearly mentioned, but, while some of the forty qualificationsare found elsewhere, as groups they are unique to this text. Once thesefour are mentioned, it is clear that the remainder of the chapter is givento an analysis of the forty items which make up the four groups, butthis analysis has proved sufficiently incomprehensibleboth for De Grootand for the present writer to render a translation impossible. It maybe that it is just this incomprehensibility of the first chapter that caused

14P. 78A. At the same time it would seem to be quoting the preface to ourtext by S~ng-chao.15 Nos. 1500 and 1501 in Taish6 24. T'an-mo-ch'an was contemporary withKumarajiva; cf. TP 30. 133, note 4. Hsuan-tsang AM is the famous T'angdynasty pilgrim."6No. 1500 reads Tz'u Shih P'u-sa t j and no. 1501 reads Mi-lo P'u-sa17 After many hours spent with the late Professor J. H. Woods during the

summer of 1934 in an attempt to translate this first half of the text, the presentwriter was forced to join the ranks of the usually undaunted DEsGROOT, p. cit.22-23: "Ici vient dans le Suitra une longue strie de commentaires sur chacundes quarante points qui composent la voie du salut, et l'auteur s'enfonce continuelle-ment dans un monde d'abstractions exprimees en un langage si desesp~rdmentobscur, qu'il est tout au plus possible de se rendre compte tres en gros de lamarche de la pensde et qu'il faut renoncer a donner une traduction exacte dutout... . Les quarante commentaires explicatifs passent dans l'Eglise pour desadjunctions faites au Suitra par quelqu'un d'autre que l'auteur, et post erieures Clui. Aussi plusieurs des meilleures Mditions declarent-elles ouvertement qu'ils nefont pas partie intAgrante du code. . . . Passons A la seconde partie de notreSultra... ."

18 V. DE GnooT, op. cit. 17-19.


6/7

160 JAMES R. WAREFa-ching (ca. 594) in his Chung Ching Mu-lu19 to list our text asdoubtful while remarking that most of the older catalogs do the same.In addition, it might be noted as significant that ilui-lin (817) in hisI-ch'ieh Ching Yin 120 comments upon only the second chapter andremarks that there are no notes for the first chapter.That our text has existed in its present form since the Sui dynastyis proved not only by the above reference from the Li Tai San-pao Chibut also from a commentary compiled by Chih-i and Kuan-ting.21 Itis notable, however, that although these commentators knew the firstchapter of our text their detailed notes are given only for the secondchapter. To this same category belong also the commentariesby I-chi 22and Ming-k'uang.23 With the exception of the Fan-wang-ching Ku-chiChi by T'ai-hsien 24 the five other commentaries 5 dating from the T'ang

19 -+-*a " Eln 5, Taisho 55. 140A. I have not found any additionalinformation regarding Fa-ching.20 9; -Aj a ch. 45, Taisho 54. 607AB.21-t and &Ji , Fan Wang P'u-sa Chieh Ching I Su tin two ch. Chih-i is the reputed founder of the T'ien-t'ai Xkftschool of

Buddhism, better known to us under the name Tendai. His biography is in theHsii Kao Seng Chuan #,*Afff 17, Taisho 50. 564A-568A; his dates, 531-598.Kuan-ting's biography is in the Hsi! Kao Seng Chuan 19, Taisho 50. 584A-585C.The commentary is published in the EHli!Ta Tsang DECO (Kyoto) I. 59. 3.22 f , Fan Wang Ching Su Itag in three ch. I-chi is a Korean monkof the Hsin-lo V* kingdom, but I have been unable to find any biographyfor him. His commentary is published in the Hsi! Ta Tsang I. 60. 1.23 "Mad Fan Wang P'u-sa Chieh Ching Su Shan Pu ~tM ~kXin three ch. I have found no dates for this author, but the Fo Tsu T'ung Chi

OJNjE#.e 10, Taisho 49. 202A mentions him as associated with Kuan-ting(v. note 21). The commentary is in Hsil Ta Tsang I. 59. 3.24 i (or *c) A, p in three ch. T'ai-hsien or Ta-hsien, bothforms are found, was a Korean monk of the Hsin-lo period. He is mentioned at

the end of the San lKuo I Shih Ma, 4, Taishd 49. 1009C, where an eventin his life is dated 753. The commentary is No. 1815 in Taisho 40, and is alsofound in H"s Ta Tsang I. 60. 3.26 (1) Fa-hsien's Fan Wang Ching P'u-sa Chieh Su Am ;3tVWJNMRin four ch. of which only the first is preserved and published in Hsi! Ta TsangI. 60. 3. I have found no further information regarding Fa-hsien.

(2) Ch'uan-ao's Fan Wang Ching Chi %t 7 It4g M in two chlan,published in Hsil Ta Tsang I. 59. 5. No further information on Ch'uan-ao.(3) Fa-tsang's Fan Wang Ching P'u-sa Chieh Pen Su jji

Pi)jRf6 in six ch. It is published as No. 1813 in Taisho 40 and also in


7/7

NOTES ON THE FAN WANG CHING 161dynasty restrict their notes to the second chapter. Is it possible thatthey too found the first chapter incomprehensible? It is not until theMing dynasty and later and in Japan that we find a series of com-mentaries which attempt to explain the text as a whole.Without claiming to have proved his point at all, the present writerwould suggest as a working hypothesis that the second chapter of ourtext, beginning on p. 1004 B"1of the Taish6 edition, is the P'u-sa ChiehPen of Kumdrajiva, whereas the first chapter is a text of unknown pro-venience which was attached to the work of the famous translator. Asimilar explanation has also been offered by Chih-sheng 26 t4, authorof the K'ai-yiian Shih-chiao Lu (730) 7CtRf, in ch. 4, Taish655. 513B, of his catalog, where he states his suspicion that the P'u-saChieh Pen is to be identified with the second chapter of the Fan WangChing, and shows thereby that the P'u-sa Chieh Pen was no longer cur-rent under that title in the eighth century.

Hsil Ta Tsang I. 50. 1. According to his biography in the Sung Kao 86ng Chuan$I-j{%414, Taishd 50. 732A, the author flourishedca. 700.(4) Chih-chou's Fan Wang Ching Su At- (or ;) ) J, in five ch.of which only the second and fourth are preserved. It is published in Hsi! TaTsang I. 60. 2. The author is said to have been born in 679, but I have foundno further information regarding him.(5) Sheng-chuang's Fan Wang Ching P'u-sa Chieh Pe'n Shu Chi Papa Ain four ch. It is published in Hsii Ta Tsang I. 60. 2.I have no further information on the author.

26 Chih-shAng has a short biography in Sung Kao S6ng Chuan 5, Taishd 50. 733C.

brahmajala sutra fa wang ching

Documents