![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
The Tang dynasty monk Yijing who went abroad to India for the Dharma was a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures. After returning home from the southern seas he successively presided over four Buddhist translation centers. His work of translating Buddhist scriptures is summarized as ‘comprehensively translating the Tripiṭaka with particular contributions to the vinaya division.’ Some of Yijing’s translations of vinaya works have not yet undergone a final examination. The extant texts present problems such as textual errors with some also having been lost. However, these Chinese translations of vinaya works did not at all exist largely uncirculated. Some were excerpted and others became popular in the form of excerpted scriptures given the touching stories included in them. From the eighth to the early eleventh century, Yijing’s translations were also copied in regions such as Dunhuang and Xinjiang, the farthest they spread to being the region of the northern Caucasus. The characteristics of Yijing’s translations and the important value of his translated vinaya works await thorough research.
Acknowledgements
This article is a result of a subject covering Sanskrit and Chinese (Fanhan duikan yu zhonggu hanyi fojiao lüdian ciyu yanjiu 梵漢對勘與中古漢譯佛教律典詞語研究) on the part of the National Social Sciences Foundation (10BYY068). Part of the contents of this article benefited from when in the spring and summer of 2013, I was in Taipei and on numerous occasions had discussions with Professor Wan Chin-chuan 萬金川, to whom I wish to express my thanks. The manuscript was read at the international conference in Hangzhou (August 20–23, 2013) on ‘Buddhist Vinaya Documents and History (佛教戒律文獻與歷史) where I received comments from the conference participants, to whom I am especially thankful. I also would thank the anonymous reviewer of Wenshi 文史 for their opinions. Whatever errors exist in the paper are completely my own responsibility.
Notes
1. Ji Xianlin 季羡林 early on noted the value of Yijing’s translations. See Ji, “Ji ‘Genben shuo yiqie you bu lü’ Fanwen yuanben de faxian”. At present, the academic world primarily discusses the value of Yijing’s translation and language from the angle of the history of the Middle Chinese language. For example, Tan, Yijing yijing shenti yundong gainian chang cihui xitong ji qi yanbian yanjiu. However, the newest work translating and commenting on Yijing’s translations is Yao, Konpon setsuissaiubu ritsu yakuji.
2. See Wang Bangwei’s commentary on Yijing’s work (Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiaozhu).
3. Wang, Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiaozhu, 17–38.
4. Kaiyuan shijiao lu, T no. 2124, 55: 9.568.
5. With respect to the translation of the Śatapañcaśatikastotra, Jin Kemu 金克木 has some comments. See Jin, “Zhi Shen Congwen”, 214–215.
6. T no. 1459, 24: 657b20-22.
7. Zhisheng states, ‘Longshu pusa quanjie wang song 龍樹菩薩勸誡王頌, 1 fasc.: third release, same version as the Quanfa zhuwang yaoji 勸發諸王要偈. Translated in the country of Tāmralipti in eastern India. Reworked in the capital [Chang’an].’ (Kaiyuan shijiao lu, T no. 2124, 55: 9.568a23-24).
8. See Wang, Datang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan jiaozhu, 208–211.
9. Duan, “Yijing yu Shichanantuo”, 1109–1120; this paper included in Duan, Yutian · Fojiao · Gujuan, 169–184.
10. For an analysis of the functions of differing roles among the participants in the translation center, see Wan, “Fodian hanyi liuchengli ‘guoduxing wenti’ de yuwen jingguan [di yi bu] yijing wenti, yichang zuzhi yu yijing liucheng”.
11. Zhang, Han Tang fosi wenhua shi, vol. 1: 405–409. Liang and Zhu, “Cong xiejuan tiji kan Tangdai fodian fanyi”.
12. In the Russian Дх.05533, the name of Baosiwei 寶思惟 was copied as Tianzhu Sanzang Baosimoduo 天竺三藏寶思末多. It is possible that ‘Baosiwei’ was mixed up with another member of the translation center Shilimoduo 尸利末多. It seems inappropriate to solely see it as the latter error. Here it should be read as Tianzhu Sanzang Baosi[wei] 天竺三藏寶思[惟], [Shili]moduo [尸利]末多.
13. Those present at the translation center as noted in fasc. 100 of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (Yujia shidi lun 瑜伽師地論) stored at Fushū Kokyōdō 武州古經堂 included eight śramaṇa-s responsible for verifying Sanskrit at Xuanzang’s center (Xuanmo 玄謨, Wenbei 文備, Shentai 神泰, Daoshen 道深, Faxiang 法祥, Huigui 慧貴, Mingyan 明琰 and Daohong 道洪), all of whom came from the local area. Among those present at the translation center as noted in fasc. 100 of the Taishō version of the Yujia shidi lun瑜伽師地論 (Skt. Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra), it was only Xuanmo who ‘verified the Sanskrit’ (zheng Fanyu 證梵語) while the other seven ‘verified the meaning’ (zhengyi 證義). It is clear that the Kokyōdō version has an error. However, regardless of the one individual, the eight of them still were all śramaṇa-s from that local area and not one came from outside. This was the actual situation at the time when Xuanzang translated the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. See Ikeda, Chūgoku kodai shahon shikigo shūroku, 189–190.
14. Zanning’s 贊寧 (919?-1001?) Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 (fasc. 1) – Tang Jingzhao Dajianfu si Yijing zhuan 唐京兆大薦福寺義淨傳 – also uses this figure.
15. T no. 2157, 55: 871c17-19.
16. Huijiao 慧皎 (495-554), Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳, T no. 2059, 50: 4.337c4-5: 常慨經律舛闕, 誓志尋求.
17. Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan 南海寄歸内法傳, T no. 2125, 54: 205c20.
18. Ibid, 205c21: 講說撰錄之家，遂乃章鈔繁雜.
19. Kaiyuan shijiao lu, T no. 2154, 55: 9.569.a29-b1: 雖遍翻三藏，而偏功律部。譯綴之暇，曲授學徒。凡所行事，皆尚其急。
20. Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄, T no. 2157, 55: 23.953a17118.
21. Kaiyuan shijiao lu, T no. 2154, 55: 9.569a23-24: 又出說一切有部跋窣堵即諸律中揵度、跋渠之類也，梵音有楚夏耳約七八十卷。但出其本，未遑刪綴。遽入泥洹，其文遂寢。Cf. Fasc. 13 of the Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu, which records the same contents. Only qi ben 其本 is written zhi ben 直本. However, the Song, Yuan and Ming versions took either and inscribed zhen ben 真本.
22. See French National Library, Faguo Guojia Tushuguan zang Dunhuang Xiyu wenxian, vol. 22: 49: 又古來翻譯之者，莫不先出梵文，後資漢譯。蹠（踈）詞方憑扵學者，詮義則稟扵僧徒。今茲法師不如是矣。既閑五天竺語，又[詳]二諦幽宗。譯義綴文，咸由扵己出；指詞定理，匪假扵傍求。超漢代之摩騰，跨秦年之羅什。
23. S.1177 is the Sūtra of Golden Light copied when making a vow for a lost son by the mother of the Zhangs (the daughter of Zhang Yichao 張議潮 and wife of Li Mingzhen 李明振) during the period of the Guiyi Army 義軍時期. The year at the end of the text is Guanghua 光化 3 (900) of the Da Tang 大唐. See Hao and Jin, Yingcang Dunhuang shehui lishi wenxian shilu, vol. 5: 270–271.
24. See Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan lishi yanjiusuo et al, Yingcang Dunhuang wenxian, vol. 11: 137: 卓哉大士，道跡隨機。應物懷念，濟世含悲。飛錫西邁，白馬東歸。語窮五印，行盡四維。譯經九部，定教三時。皇上同輩，群下承規。該通內外，欝為國師. See also the French P.4597-14 – Yijing Sanzang zan 義淨三藏讚, French National Library, Fazang Dunhuang Xiyu wenxian, vol. 32: 133.
25. Liu 2009.
26. According to Wan Jinchuan, part of the difference in the amount of fascicles is not necessarily omission of related fascicle content. It is also possibly related to the paper formatting. One must compare the amount of paper used to find differences in the formatting before then inferring the real form of the differences in fascicles.
27. Xu Yiqie jing yinyi 續一切經音義, T no. 2129, 54: 9.975b23-24: 右上所音有部雜律文字多有差誤者，蓋以翻譯之時執筆者隨聞便上，不根其義也。
28. T no. 2129, 54: 9.975c4: 恐後覽者不知元始，返恠希麟。
29. The Nihon genzon hachishu issai kyō taishō mokuroku 日本現存八種一切經對照目錄 only indicates three Dunhuang manuscripts: Genben shuo yiqie you bu pinaiye 根本說一切有部毘奈耶, Genben shuo yiqie you bu pinaiye za shi 根本說一切有部毘奈耶雜事 and Genben sapoduo bu lü she 根本薩婆多部律攝. See Kokusai Bukkyōgaku Daigakuin Daigaku Gakujutsu Funontea Jikkō IInkai 2006, 325.
30. See Hao et al., Yincang Dunhuang shehui lishi wenxian shi lu, vol. 10: 376. P.3807 is the same manuscript as S.2079. For relevant text see Fang, Ba zhi shi shiji fojiao dazangjing shi, 391. Fang, Dunhuang fojiao jinglu jijiao, vol. 1: 474.
31. For photographs and text see Li, Dunhuang Xiyu wenxian jiu zhaopian hejiao, 375.
32. Rong, “Zhongguo guojia tushuguan shanben bu zang deguo tulufan wenxian jiu zhaopian de xueshu jiazhi”, 274.
33. T no. 1454, 24: 500c2-7.
34. For instance, the differences between chunshi 春時 and xiashi 夏時, erxu 爾許 and ruxu 如許.
35. T no. 1458, 24: 546c21.
36. This is a viewpoint presented by Prof. Karashima Seishi 辛嶋靜志 in August 2013 at the international conference ‘Fojiao jielü wenxian yu lishi’ 佛教戒律文獻與歷史 held in Hangzhou.
37. T no. 2149, 55: 9.333b26-29.
38. T no. 2154, 55: 16.660a18-23.
39. Hirata, “Tōdai shōsetsushi ni okeru konpon setsu issaiu bu ritsu”.
40. Makita and Ochiai, Nanatsu-dera koitsu kyōten kenkyū sōsho, 448. I thank Professor Ochiai Toshinori for telling me about this material.
41. Gansu zang Dunhuang wenxian bian weihui, Gansu zang Dunhuang wenxian, 83–85. For the colophon see page 85.
42. Yang, “Dunhuang yishu ‘Foshuo dayao shanqiao fangbian jing juan shang’ zhaji”.
43. Huang and Zhang, Zhe cang Dunhuang wenxian jiaolu zhengli, vol. 2: 445–446.
44. T no. 2154, 55: 9.567c26.
45. T no. 2155, 55: 3.741b22-23.
46. Fasc. 13 of the Kaiyuan shijiao lu states, ‘Liao zhibing jing 療痔病經, 1 fasc.: also called Zhilou 痔瘻. Translated by Great Tang Tripiṭaka Master Yijing. The above Liao zhibing jing and fasc. 2 of the *Mūlasarvāstivāda-nidāna also have this spell. Some have it [say it is?] compiled as a retranslation. Now this is not so. It states, “… said to the bhikṣus: this Zhibing jing I have already taught in another place, but it is repeated. Elsewhere it also differs.” Here it has been restated and not retranslated.’ (T no. 2154, 55: 13.618b1-3). The original text of fasc. 2 of the *Mūlasarvāstivāda-nidāna states, ‘At that time the World Honored One said unto the bhikṣus, “This Zhibing jing I have already taught in another place. Now I will again teach it to you.”’ (T no. 1452, 24: 2.420b21-22). This illustrates that Zhisheng had a clear recognition of the relationship between the two Buddhist texts.
47. Huang and Zhang, Zhe cang Dunhuang wenxian jiaolu zhengli, 637–641.
48. Han, “Zhebozang ‘Genben shuo yiqie you bu pinaiye za shi’ xianyi”.
49. Kyōu Shooku, Tonkō hikyū, vol. 7: 278–283. For the colophon see page 283.
50. The text of the manuscript can be found in Kyōu Shooku, Tonkō hikyū, vol. 9: 140–141：
：根本說一切有部毗柰耶雜事卷苐卅九 明分仏舍利及結集事
：分舍利人婆羅門名突路拏，在於眾內，見此諸人欲爭舍利，共相戰伐，恐
：有損傷，違害佛教。自執長幡，以麾大眾。告拘尸那諸壯士等曰：仁等且止。
：今欲為君陳其損益。我比曾聞此大沙門喬答摩氏，憐愍一切諸有情故，扵
：無數劫熾然精勤，忍怨害事。長時苦已，讚行忍辱，由是因緣，成无上覺。
：心行平等，猶若虛空。扵諸有情，普皆濟度。眾生福盡，捨棄涅槃。息化已來，
：纔經七日，即興兵戰。誠是相違！唯願諸人勿為鬪競。我為平分，必令歡喜。
：佛身舍利分為八分，各將供養，饒益群生。量舍利瓶，願同惠我。持還本國，建
：窣覩波。時拘尸那城壯士聞此已，報言：可尒。然大師世尊長夜修忍，不為煞
：害，廣如前說。仁今順教，為我平分，斯為善事。其婆羅門既蒙許可，即分
：舍利而為八分。苐一分與拘尸那城諸壯士等廣興供養。苐二分與波波邑
：壯士。苐三分與遮羅博邑。苐四分與阿羅嚤處。苐五分與吠率奴邑。苐六
：分與劫毗羅城諸釋迦子。苐七分與吠舍離城栗姑毗子。苐八分與摩
：伽陀國行雨大臣。此等諸人，既分得已，各還本處，起窣覩波，恭敬尊重。
：伎樂香花，盛興供養。時突路拏婆羅門將量舍利瓶，扵本聚落起塔供
：養。有摩納婆名畢鉢羅，亦在眾中，告諸人曰：釋迦如來恩無不普，
：扵仁聚落而般涅槃。世尊舍利非我有分，其餘炭燼幸願與我。扵畢
：鉢羅處起塔供養。時贍部洲世尊舍利乃有八塔，第九瓶塔、第十炭塔。如來
：舍利惣有一石六斗，分為八分。七分在贍部洲。其苐四分阿羅摩處所得
：之者，在龍宮供養。又佛有四牙舍利。一在天帝釋處，一在健陁羅國，一在羯陵
：伽國，一在阿羅摩邑海龍王宮，各起塔供養。時波吒離邑無憂王便開七
：塔取其舍利，扵贍部洲，廣興靈塔八万四千，周遍供養。由塔威德，莊嚴世
：間。天龍藥叉諸人神等，咸皆恭敬尊重供養，能令正法光顯不滅，有所願求
：無不遂意。 大迦葉呵阿難苐一度尼罪 苐二魔王波旬請佛涅槃
：苐三仏說譬喻汝對仏前別說其事 苐四世尊曾以黃金洗裙，令汝浣濯，汝以脚
：蹋捩 苐五世尊欲去雙林涅般 聖武元年八月寫畢
51. Tong, “Beigaojiasuo de sichou zhi lu”. See specifically the third section on Moshchevaya Balka, 107– 112.
52. T no. 1443, 23: 15.990c18-21. Tong, “Beigaojiasuo de sichou zhi lu”, 110–111, 113.
53. T no. 1442, 23: 41.850c24-28.
54. Jiang, Dunhuang Tulufan wenshu yu sichou zhi lu; Tong, “Beigaojiasuo de sichou zhi lu”, 111.
55. He, “Tang dai qiufa seng xiedai hanben fodian xixing kao lüe”.
56. The excavations never provided a definite corresponding relationship concerning these relics, texts and the tomb, which is why it is quite difficult to clarify the true identity of the owner of these items.
57. Wei, Dunhuang xieben fojing tiji yanjiu – yi Tangsong xiejing wei zhongxin.
58. National Palace Museum, Tang Guo Quan shu shanjianlü.
59. Kaiyuan shijiao lu, T no. 2154, 55: 9.567a19-568a23.
60. Rong, Turfan wenshu zongmu: Oumei shoucang juan, 268.
61. Ibid 107. This work determines this manuscript’s era to be ‘around the mid-seventh to late eighth centuries’ which is clearly untrue. The scripture was translated in Chang’an 3 (703), which is why there could not have been a Turfan manuscript in the mid-seventh century. Here at the very least it should be revised as ‘around the start of the eighth century to the late eighth.’
62. Ibid 474.
63. Ibid 464.
64. Ibid 357.
65. Ibid 257.
66. These verses might also come from fasc. 1 of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-bhikṣuṇī-vinaya. See Isobe, Taitō Kuritsu Shodō Hakubutsukan shozō Nakamura Fusetsu kyūzō Uiki bokusho shūsei, 114.
67. The present text corresponds to T 24: 1.525c28–526a5. In the manuscript there are some words inserted between the columns. It is a manuscript from the ninth to tenth centuries (Guiyijun 歸義軍 period). The information in this table regarding surviving sections stored in the China National Library is from Prof. Fang Guangchang方廣錩, ‘Dunhuang yishu shujuku’ 敦煌遺書數據庫 – I am especially thankful to him.
68. 87 lines and beginning extant. Manuscript from the eighth to ninth centuries under Tibetan rule. The text corresponds to T 24: 2.530c16-532b11.
69. Xinjiang weiwuer zizhiqu Turfan xue yanjiuyuan, et al., Turfan Bezeklik shiku chutu hanwen fojiao dianji, 243–244. For the photographs see Guojia tushuguan, et al., Xiyu yizhen: Xinjiang lishi wenxian ji guji bohu chengguozhan tulu, 145. Also see p. 293 where it is thought ‘to be a record of Chinese Buddhist scriptures recited by Uighur monks in Gaochang.’ However, both titles are erroneously Genben pusaduo bu lüshe根本菩薩多部律攝.
70. 454 lines, 19 pages, and beginning and end extant. Manuscript from the eighth to ninth centuries under Tibetan rules. Belongs to the Jingtu si 淨土寺 collection of Dunhuang. Corresponds to T 24: 12.591b18-597b10.
71. P. 2175 Genben sapoduo bu lüshe根本薩婆多部律攝, vocabulary of fasc. 13. See Zhang, Dunhuang jingbu wenxian heji, vol.11: 5557–5558.
72. The text is at the front of S. 2516<2>. See Huang and Zhang, Zhe cang Dunhuang wenxian jiaolu zhengli, vol.2: 445–446.
73. Ch/U6598r has 4 lines. Ch/U6599r has 2 lines. See Rong, Turfan wenshu zongmu: Oumei shoucang juan, 379.
74. Ch/U6407 has 2 lines. Between each line there is inserted Uighur text. Ibid. 365.
75. Xinjiang weiwuer zizhiqu Turfan xue yanjiuyuan, et al., Turfan Bezeklik shiku chutu hanwen fojiao dianji, vol.1: 229-231; vol.2, linked plate 46, 367.
76. Ren, Guojia tushuguancang dunhuang yishu, 338–339. This is a manuscript from the ninth to tenth centuries (Guiyijun period). In Guojia tushuguancang dunhuang yishu國家圖書館藏敦煌遺書, the editors determined the front text of BD 03328 to be the *Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye zashi chao根本說一切有部毗奈耶雜事鈔. This fragment has 22 lines, copied into two sections. The first section is lines 01–08, copying fasc. 34 of the Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye zashi根本說一切有部毗奈耶雜事. The text corresponds to T 24: 34.377b28–c8. The second section is lines 9–21, copying fasc. 35 of the Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye zashi根本說一切有部毗奈耶雜事. The text corresponds to T 24: 35.382a1–19. In Guojia tushuguancang dunhuang yishu國家圖書館藏敦煌遺書, the editors determined that the reverse side of BD 03328 to be the *Youbu lunlü zachao有部論律雜鈔(擬). The back of BD 03328 preserves 24 lines of text. Lines 1–20 copy content from the Apidamo da piposha lun 阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論 (Abhidharma-mahā-vibhāṣā-śāstra). Lines 21 – 24 copy fasc. 34 of the Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye zashi根本說一切有部毗奈耶雜事. The text corresponds to T 24: 34.377b23–28. Based on the ordering of the Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye zashi, the reverse side copy of BD 03328 is ahead while the front side copy is behind. Hence the presently determined order should be inverted.
77. Rong, Guojia tushuguancang dunhuang yishu, 467.
78. This is one photograph of a document excavated from Central Asia in the German collection taken by Xiang Da 向達. The original serial number is unclear.
79. St. Petersburg Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of Russia, Ecang Dunhuang wenxian, vol. 11: 137. For the title reconstruction, see Zeng, Dunhuang fojiao zici yu jiaokan yanjiu, 216.