Harvard-Yenching Institute

Notes on The Fan Wang Ching

Author(s): James R. Ware
Source: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Apr., 1936), pp. 156-161
Published by: Harvard-Yenching Institute
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

Harvard-Yenching Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 NOTES ON THE FAN WANG CHiING
JAMES R. WARE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

The Chinese Buddhist canon contains three texts which, because of the
similarity 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-han
Ching 2 AJA or DLrghagamca,is the equivalent of the well known
Pdli Brahmajdlasuttanta.3 The Fan Wang Liu-shih-erh-chien Ching4
gow+~ 5#, is a second equivalent of the same Phli suttc which
was translated into Chinese long before the complete Dirghagama. The
third siatra is known briefly as the Fan Wang Ching I09, but its
complete title is Fan Wang Ching Lu-she-na Po Shuo P'u-sa Hsin-ti
Chieh P'in Ti-shih5 "+ which may
be translated " Of the Fan Wang Ching, part ten where the Buddha
Vairocana declares the cittabhftmi's and the sala's of a Bodhisattva."
The content of this last text has nothing whatsoever in common with
the other two. While these and their Pdli equivalent are known for
a list of religious and philosophical views, the last one, on which I
am presenting here a few notes, belongs to the vinaya category. It is
known 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 to
read something like *Brahmacalao, for he translates the second word of the
Sanskrit 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, The Dighanikaya I, 1-17,

London, 1890, and translated by the former in Sacred Books of the Buddhists
2, 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 additional
preface 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 likely
to be the distortion of an original 120 >t > Et or -f tf- > ij
i+=
156
 NOTES ON THE FAN WANG CHING 157

or Pdli equivalent has yet been found, was issued in an abbreviated

edition and translation by De Groot 6 forty-two years ago. At that time
it was very popular 7 among the Chinese monks, but today, according to
an informant at the Buddhist Institute in Nanking, it is held in little
esteem.
Since the time that De Groot published his translation the study of
Buddhism has broadened its base by drawing into its purview not only
the catalogs and historical works contained in the Chinese tripitalcc,
but also the Tibetan Kanjutr and Tanjur which have become available
in both Europe and America. These additional sources show our text
in a much different light, and give us reason to doubt that, as we now
know 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 our
text. The Chinese could be reconstructed as Brahmaajalasfttra,but the

6 J. J. M. DE GROOT,Le Code du Mahdaifyna en Chine, son influence sur la vie

Monacale et sur le monde laique, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van
Wetenschappen 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 dans
l'Picole du Dhyana le code reconnu du clerge, et les moines lors de leur consecration
s'engagent solennellement a s'y conformer; et pourtant, deux ou trois jours apr&s
la ceremonie, ils recoivent une nouvelle ordination, lors de laquelle ils promettent
de vivre selon les prescriptions d'un code specialement mahayaniste, conduisant,
si l'on s'y conforme fidelement, a la dignite de Bodhisatwa, tandisque le Pratimoksha
ne 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 code
le plus important de l'Eglise, et qu'il a exerce une plus grande influence que tout
autre ecrit, tant sur les laiques que sur les religieux.... Quand a nos preuves,
nous les tirerons avant tout de faits recueillis par nos recherches personnelles
dans l'empire du Milieu. Nous y avons fait de longs sejours dans des monasteres
buddhistes de premier ordre, dans le but expres de prendre note de tout ce que
nous parviendrions a voir des observances religieuses et de la vie d'interieur des
moines, et de nous en rendre compte methodiquement."
8 The Tibetan title is Chos-kyi Rgya-mo Sais-rgyas Rnam-par-snanr-mdsad-kyis
byaih-chub-sems-dpahi Sems-kyi gnas bqad-pa lehu bcu (-pa). Cf. A Comparative
Analytical Catalogue of the Kanjur Division of the Tibetan Tripitaka, published
by the otani University, Kyoto, 1930, p. 357 (No. 922); and A Complete Catalogue
of 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 chapter
of the Chinese treats of the cittabhflmi's and the second chapter of the gila's, the
title of the Tibetan, which contains only the section on the gila's, has retained
the cittabhfimi and omitted the word gila.
158 JAMES R. WARE

Tibetan title, beginning with Chos-lcyi rgya-mo,9 must be translated

DharmajalaP, and, the evidence being of equal weight, it is impossible
to choose between the two. Looking behind the evidence one might
argue that Brahmajala' was a clerical error somewhere in our text's
tradition for an original Dharma' which would certainly associate itself
in 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 means
of obviating ambiguity. The present writer, therefore, refuses to choose
between 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 omitting
the whole first half 10 of it. The significance of this fact is hard to
determine, because the Tibetan text itself, lacking the usual colophon to
indicate the names of the translator and his helpers, is not the unim-
peachable witness that we would desire. Since other evidence points
clearly to the existence of a Chinese edition of our text without its present
first half or chapter, either the original text was in one chapter, or the
Tibetan is a translation from the smaller Chinese text. The following
evidence 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 was
translated into Chinese by Kumdrajiva. His biography 11 (519), how.
ever, while mentioning a Pu-sa Chieh Pen *kg*, which the Li Tai
San-pao Chi 12 (597) describes as consisting of one chiian, fails to men-
tion the work which we are discussing. Furthermore, the Ch'u San-tsang
Chi Chi 1 (ca. 500) contains no reference to our text when listing
9 The second of the catalogs mentioned in note 8 translates the Tibetan rgya-mo
syllable for syllable by *X. Once again, however, a monosyllabic language
proves 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 confronted
here with a compound rgya-mo meaning " net." This catalog would seem to have
too many authors.
According to the otani University catalog (v. note 8) the Peking or Red
Kanjur reads rgya-mcho. Since this has no meaning, the compiler of the Chinese
catalog 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.
"I Kao S6ng Chuan Ott, Taisho 50. 330A-333A; TP 30. 125 (note 9) to
which 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.
 NOTES ON THE FAN WANG CHING 159

Kumdrajiva's translations, and it is the Li Tati San-pao Chi 14 which

first mentions it as a work of Kumdrajiva's in two chiian and at the
same time attributes to him the Pu-sa Chieh Pen in one chian. The
present 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. Since
they are both attributed to a Maitreya,18it is probable that they are two
translations of the same work. If there were a P'u-sa Chieh Pen by
Kumdrajiva, one would expect it to have survived for his translations
have always enjoyed a high renown. It is my belief that the second
chapter of the present Fan Wang Ching may be that work of 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 portion
of the first chapter. Four groups 18 of ten stages along the road to saint-
hood are clearly mentioned, but, while some of the forty qualifications
are found elsewhere, as groups they are unique to this text. Once these
four are mentioned, it is clear that the remainder of the chapter is given
to an analysis of the forty items which make up the four groups, but
this analysis has proved sufficiently incomprehensible both for De Groot
and for the present writer to render a translation impossible. It may
be 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 our
text by S~ng-chao.
15 Nos. 1500 and 1501 in Taish6 24. T'an-mo-ch'an was contemporary with
Kumarajiva; cf. TP 30. 133, note 4. Hsuan-tsang AM is the famous T'ang
dynasty pilgrim.
"6No. 1500 reads Tz'u Shih P'u-sa t j and no. 1501 reads Mi-lo P'u-sa

17 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 present
writer was forced to join the ranks of the usually undaunted DEsGROOT,op. cit.
22-23: "Ici vient dans le Suitra une longue strie de commentaires sur chacun
des 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~rdment
obscur, qu'il est tout au plus possible de se rendre compte tres en gros de la
marche de la pensde et qu'il faut renoncer a donner une traduction exacte du
tout... . Les quarante commentaires explicatifs passent dans l'Eglise pour des
adjunctions faites au Suitra par quelqu'un d'autre que l'auteur, et post erieures C
lui. Aussi plusieurs des meilleures Mditions declarent-elles ouvertement qu'ils ne
font pas partie intAgrante du code. . . . Passons A la seconde partie de notre
Sultra... ."
18 V. DE
GnooT, op. cit. 17-19.
 160 JAMES R. WARE

Fa-ching (ca. 594) in his Chung Ching Mu-lu19 to list our text as
doubtful while remarking that most of the older catalogs do the same.
In addition, it might be noted as significant that ilui-lin (817) in his
I-ch'ieh Ching Yin 120 comments upon only the second chapter and
remarks that there are no notes for the first chapter.
That our text has existed in its present form since the Sui dynasty
is proved not only by the above reference from the Li Tai San-pao Chi
but also from a commentary compiled by Chih-i and Kuan-ting.21 It
is notable, however, that although these commentators knew the first
chapter of our text their detailed notes are given only for the second
chapter. To this same category belong also the commentaries by I-chi 22
and Ming-k'uang.23 With the exception of the Fan-wang-ching Ku-chi
Chi by T'ai-hsien 24 the five other commentaries 25 dating from the T'ang

19 - +-*a El 5, Taisho 55. 140A. I have not found any additional

"
n
information 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 t
in 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 the
Hsii 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 monk
of the Hsin-lo V* kingdom, but I have been unable to find any biography
for 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 ~kX
in 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, both
forms 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 event
in his life is dated 753. The commentary is No. 1815 in Taisho 40, and is also
found in H"s Ta Tsang I. 60. 3.
26 (1) Fa-hsien's Fan Wang Ching P'u-sa Chieh Su Am ;3tVWJNMR
in four ch. of which only the first is preserved and published in Hsi! Ta Tsang
I. 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
 NOTES ON THE FAN WANG CHING 161

dynasty restrict their notes to the second chapter. Is it possible that

they too found the first chapter incomprehensible? It is not until the
Ming 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 writer
would suggest as a working hypothesis that the second chapter of our
text, beginning on p. 1004 B"1of the Taish6 edition, is the P'u-sa Chieh
Pen of Kumdrajiva, whereas the first chapter is a text of unknown pro-
venience which was attached to the work of the famous translator. A
similar explanation has also been offered by Chih-sheng 26 t4, author
of the K'ai-yiian Shih-chiao Lu (730) 7CtRf, in ch. 4, Taish6
55. 513B, of his catalog, where he states his suspicion that the P'u-sa
Chieh Pen is to be identified with the second chapter of the Fan Wang
Ching, 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{%4145, Taishd 50. 732A, the author flourished ca. 700.
(4) Chih-chou's Fan Wang Ching Su At- (or ;) ) J,4 in five ch.
of which only the second and fourth are preserved. It is published in Hsi! Ta
Tsang I. 60. 2. The author is said to have been born in 679, but I have found
no further information regarding him.
(5) Sheng-chuang's Fan Wang Ching P'u-sa Chieh Pe'n Shu Chi Papa
in four ch. It is published in Hsii Ta Tsang I. 60. 2.
A
I have no further information on the author.
26 Chih-shAng has a short biography in Sung Kao S6ng Chuan 5, Taishd 50. 733C.