Part II:
Extant Texts
Stein #2446, Giles #4590; Pao-tsang 19.509a-538b. Edited by Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyō no kenkyū, 109-152.
This text, together with the San chieh fo fa, is one of the most important sources among the surviving texts of the San-chieh. Its centrality is reflected in many ways. For example, the title of the text, Tui ken ch’i hsing fa, loosely translated as "teaching of the practices which arise in relation to the capacity" means that because the dharma is taught for the benefit of sentient beings it must correspond to their capacity to receive and understand if it is to be effective. In combination with the doctrine that sentient beings were bereft of the capacity for the practice of the Ekayana or Triyana path this doctrine entailed a practice radically different from that which had been appropriate for the sages. The teaching that was deemed uniquely suited to the sattvas of the present degenerate age was that of the Universal Dharma. This phrase, then, embodies the rationale underlying the teaching of the Universal Dharma of the San-chieh.
The central importance of the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa is further witnessed by the fact that this was the first title given to a collection of over thirty chüan of San-chieh literature. This collection is recorded in the Li tai san pao chi as the Tui ken ch’i hsing tsa lu[2] in thirty-two chüan and in the Ta t'ang nei tien lu as the Tui ken ch’i hsing tsa lu chi.[3] In time the various texts of this collection were cataloged separately, but we still find a text which bears this title recorded in the K'ai yüan shih chiao lu, though in only one chüan.[4] The note appended to the title states "clarifies the teachings of the practices which arise in relation to the inferior and superior roots of sentient beings in five chapters."[5] The same entry (including the note) is found in the Ryūkoku MS of the Chen yüan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu with the additional information "9 pages."[6] The entry in the Jen chi lu tu mu incorporates the note from the K'ai yüan shih chiao lu into the title, "Ming i ch'ieh chung sheng tui gen shang hsia chi hsing fa wu nei yu wu tuan, 9 pages."[7]
There are three extant manuscript copies of the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa, one in the Stein collection and another kept in the Ryūkoku University Library, and a short fragment in the Stein collection.[8] Although both of the former mss preserve the five sections described in the catalogues the Stein ms is part of a much longer work, altogether 3 times the length of the Ryūkoku ms. The Stein version includes the tail end of a work titled "The Difference Between the Universal Ekayana and the Particularized Triyana;" the five chapters of the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa, and a fairly long section on the "Arousing of Bodhicitta and the Meditation on and Practice of the Dharma." The content of this third section reminds one of several San-chieh works, in particular the Dharma of Arousing Bodhicitta in Relation to the Deep and Shallow Capacity, a text recorded in many of the catalogs but no longer extant.[9]
Because the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa portion of the Stein MS is so close to the Ryūkoku ms (which clearly preserves the title at the end of the text) it seems probable that the Stein ms represents an earlier textual tradition, when the five sections of the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa were only one part of the “miscellaneous collection” described above, the Tui ken ch’i hsing tsa lu. Further testimonium which would aid a source‑critical study of the two texts to clarify this relationship may be found in the Hua yen wu shih yao wen ta (T.45.532b ff.)[10]
The five sections of the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa with the page numbers of the Yabuki edition are:
The manuscript as described in Giles catalog:
4590 *‑‑* Left unfd. (?). Begin. mtd. Good bold MS. of 7th cent. Soft whitish paper. The final portion, consisting of questions and answers, is in a different hand and on different paper. 65 ft. Stein 2446.[12]
The complete Stein MS is edited and included in Yabuki, appendix, pp. 110‑152.
These texts represent a type of "confession and prayer" which were widespread in T'ang China. The practice for which this or a similar text was used as the base seems to have been particularly popular among the San-chieh followers, as many different examples of this kind of text were recovered from Tun-huang.
Two texts of this name were recorded in the K'ai yüan lu: the Kuang chi chieh fo ming ching (the "extensive" teaching) and the Lüeh chi chieh fo ming ching (the "abridged" teaching), both in one chüan. Under the former entry the catalog gives the alternate title Kuan yo wang yo shang p'u sa ching fo ming, which is the title under which this text is recorded in the Jen chi lu tu mu, which adds "31 pages." The Jen chi lu tu mu also records the "abridged teaching" with the note "5 pages." Both texts are also recorded in the Chen yüan lu.
The sutra of the alternate title mentioned above, the Kuan yo wang yo shang p'u sa ching, probably corresponds to a meditation text translated in the early fifth century (T 20, no. 660). Given this relationship and coupled with the apparent popularity of this text among San-chieh followers this textual tradition becomes a valuable source for the study of the practice of the sect.
Many versions of this text were recovered from Tun-huang, some dating from as late as the latter half of the tenth century. Although Yabuki only included one of them in his book (Stein #59), both Giles[14] and more recently Hirokawa Akitoshi[15] have identified many more texts as belonging to this tradition.
This text, its title taken from the middle of the work itself, does not appear in any of the catalogues of San-chieh materials. It is badly damaged in both the beginning and the end, but does preserve several references to the duration of the dharma, a "nine-fold" meditation practice, and the differences between the Mahayana and Hinayana paths. The other work on the roll contains many interesting questions and answers about San-chieh doctrines, such as the "dharma of no name, no mark, and no knowledge," etc., but due to the damage this section is not complete. The Catalog lists it as:
"5858. Commentary on a sutra, of the Three Levels sect, in two parts: (1) *Wei hsin kuan, 1 ch. (2) Hsin-hsing k'ou chi chen ju shih kuan ch'i hsu* ch. 1. Ends of chüan mtd. Fairly good, well spaced MS of 7th cent. Buff paper. 10 1/2 ft. Stein 212."
Edited by Yabuki Keiki and included in Sangaikyō no kenkyū, appendix, pp. 190-199.
This fragment explains the San-chieh doctrine of the four-fold refuge of the Universal Buddha. This is in effect their teaching on tathagatagarbha and Buddha-nature. Because this text preserves no title (Dr. Yabuki took the title from the content of the MS), we cannot trace it in any of the various catalogues. However, we do know it to be a later composition because it quotes the Ghanavyūha-sūtra, a text translated in 765.[16] The text also quotes from other standard texts of the tathagatagarbha tradition such as the Lankāvatāra, the Śrīmālādevī, etc. It further mentions several of the contemporary theories of Buddha-nature, and is thus important for contextualizing the doctrine of the San-chieh.
The fragment published by Yabuki (and reproduced here) is a section of a longer work discovered in a somewhat mixed-up order (Yabuki’s edited text, based on his articles in Tetsugaku Zasshi,[17] is included in Yabuki, Sangaikyō no kenkyū, appendix, pp. 201-206. See also ibid, pp. 373-427, pp. 682-684). More recently Nishimoto re-investigated the original manuscript in its larger context, straightened out the order, and has proposed the title *Ti san chieh fo fa kuang shih 第三階仏法廣釋; Nishimoto, Sangaikyō, 205-216; an edition of the full text of Stein #5668 is included in Nishimoto, Sangaikyō 609–22; see also Hubbard, “Perfect Buddhahood, Absolute Delusion,” and “A Heretical Chinese Buddhist Text.”
Hsin‑hsing i wen is the title given to a short text containing epistolary testaments of Hsin‑hsing.[18] This text places Hsin‑hsing in the Kuang‑yen ssu in the year 583 and 587 as well as doctrinal claims which, if actually written or transmitted orally by Hsin‑hsing, are extremely valuable for understanding the early doctrines of the San‑chieh movement Perhaps most important in this text is the section on the sixteen practices:
The last part of a text with the title Wu chin tsang fa lüeh chi is also on the same roll as the Hsin‑hsing i wen, which is described in Giles as follows:
"4589. *---- [i.e., damaged at the beginning; same title as the previous work, Commentary on a sutra, of the Three Stages sect] Fragment of a work of the Three Stages School. Mtd. along bottom. Containing many prayers, categories, numbered vows, etc. Perhaps an extract from the writings of Hsin‑hsing, the founder of the Three Stages Sect, who was born A.D. 540. The dates 583 and 587 appear in this chüan. Bold, rather cursive MS. of late 6th. cent. Thin, soft paper. 5 1/2 ft. . . . Stein 2137."[19]
This MS was edited by Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyō no Kenkyū , appendix, pp. 2‑7; cf. ibid., pp. 10‑17, p. 190.
This MS is part of Stein collection (Giles #6617) and a fragment of the last part is also on the same roll as the Hsin‑hsing i wen. A text titled Ta ch'eng wu chin tsang fa in one chüan is listed among Hsin-hsing's works in the Ta chou k'an ting chung ching mu lu,[20] and a Ming ta cheng wu chin tsang is recorded in the K'ai yüan lu,[21] the Chen yüan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu,[22] and the Jen chi lu tu mu[23] The latter two catalogues add the information "four pages" and "six pages" respectively, and the first three catalogs attribute the work to Hsin‑hsing. As it is partially contained on the same roll as the Hsin‑hsing i wen and contains the same list of "sixteen eternal, joyous, self, and pure practices of the Inexhaustible Storehouse," if Hsin‑hsing did not actually compose this text we can at least assume that it belongs to the early strata of San‑chieh literature.
Theoretically based on the idea of the Inexhaustible Storehouse as taught in such texts as the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa‑sūtra and the Avataṛṃsaka‑sūtra, the concrete articulation of the Inexhaustible Storehouse at the Hua‑tu ssu also found sanction in the Vinaya literature of the Dharmagupta, Sarvāstivādins, etc.[24] The San-chieh teaching of the Inexhaustible Storehouse is especially interesting because it provides a new direction for the traditional model of alms-for-merit which historically governed the relationship between the monks and the laity. In the teaching of the Inexhaustible Storehouse, not only is the distinction between monk and laity removed, but the merit was believed to be shared by all who engage in the same practice, even if their spiritual achievement was not equal.
The first part of the text itself is damaged, and thus only six of eleven sections are preserved (sections six through eleven). The first five sections are preserved, however, in a commentary to this work, the Ta ch'eng fa chiai wu chin tsang fa shih, and together with the Hsin‑hsing i wen we are able to get a good picture of this important practice. Unfortunately, portions of the text, in particular the eleventh section, are very terse (as the title forewarns) and do not easily yield to interpretation. The content of the extant portion is as follows:
[p. 155]
[p. 157]
The text is described in Giles as follows:
6617. *[beginning damaged] Rules of monastic training. A work of the Three Stages sect. Very good MS. of 7th cent. Good, bright yellow paper. On a chüaner. 6 ft. S. 190.[25]
The Wu chin tsang fa lüeh chi is edited by Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyō no kenkyū, appendix, pp. 154‑159; see also Yabuki, pp. 619‑637.
This text is a commentary on the Ta ch'eng wu chin tsang fa lüeh chi, described above. The text is divided into four sections, the first of which is largely lost. The extant portion consists of:
Although only the first eight of the eleven sections are preserved, we can restore the remaining three sections from the Wu chin tsang lüeh chi. The text was used to piece together a chüan for a commentary on the Diamond S tra (contained on the other side of this MS) which is dated July 8, 764. Giles' Catalog simply says "(4) Fragment of the Three Stages teaching. End mutilated."[26]
This ms is a very short fragment of a text, part of the Stein collection. Though the beginning is missing, the title (Ju lai shen tsang lun, one chüan) is preserved at the end. This title does not appear in any of the catalogues of San-chieh literature. Nonetheless, the fragment contains a discussion of Buddha-nature and the important San-chieh doctrines of universal respect of others and recognizing one's own evil nature. From Giles' catalog:
5919. Ju lai shen tsang lun, 1 ch. (2 non-consecutive fragments) Composition by a Chinese monk, probably forming part of the Three Stages teaching. Mediocre MS. Soft buff paper. 1 + 1.75 ft. Stein 4658.[27]
This ms has been edited by Yabuki and is included in Sangaikyō no Kenkyū , appendix, pp. 208-211.
A short fragment mentioned by Yabuki (p. 188) but not included in the section of San-chieh texts. Yabuki gives "Case 83, chüan 11, no. 5" as the only identification for this text.[28] Nishimoto has identified this fragment as a portion of the same text as Pelliot 2849R1 (#32, below).
As with the preceding fragment, this text is mentioned by Yabuki but not edited with the other San-chieh texts. Yabuki gives "Case 72" as the only identification for the fragment.[29] See the comments for #1, above.
A very short fragment dealing with karmic retribution that Yabuki feels was composed by a follower of the San-chieh. The beginning and end of the fragment are missing, and it is written in the so-called "Empress Wu characters," which tells us that if it is a San-chieh composition it is from a later period.
Although Yabuki gives "Stein 526" as the MS number, the text listed under this number in Giles' catalogue is a dated letter from a "Lady Yin" and thus could not correspond to the fragment described by Yabuki. The text of the MS is included in Yabuki, Sangaikyō no Kenkyū , appendix, pp. 213-215.
This interesting ms is a fragment of an apocryphal sutra penned by the San-chieh monk Shih-li in the year 707. Although the beginning of the ms is missing, the title and a colophon are preserved at the end. The colophon also states "translated in the first year of Ching-lung (707). . . by the Tripitika Master of the Dharma Shih-li mo-to at the Ch'ung fu monastery. The text was copied and linked together by the Ven. translator Sramana Shih-li of the Ta-hsing shan Monastery."
The apocryphal section of the K'ai yüan lu (compiled 730) states that this text was composed by adding two p'in or chapters to the beginning of the Hsiang fa chüeh i ching, a text which was recorded in the apocryphal section of previous catalogs.[30] A ms of this text was discovered at Tun-huang and is included in the Taishō (T.85 no. 1355). As the K'ai yüan lu states, this text was first recorded in the apocryphal section of the Chung ching mu lu in 593[31] and again in the apocryphal section of the Chung ching mu lu of 602.[32]
The K'ai yüan lu goes on to state that the first of the two added chapters, the Fo lin nieh p'an wei a nan shuo fa chu mieh p'in, is taken from the Hsuan-tsang translation of the Fo lin nieh p'an chi fa chu ching (T.12 no. 1112). To this, it is claimed, the forgers added the Ti tsang p'u sa tsan t'an fa shen kuan hsing p'in. Although the K'ai yüan lu doesn't specify where this chapter was taken from, Yabuki speculates[33] that is is from the tantric text Pai ch'ien sung ta chi ching ti tsang p'u sa ch'ing men fa shen t'an, translated by Amoghavajra.[34] Finally, appended to this was the Ch'ang shih p'u sa so wen p'in, which corresponds to the previously mentioned Hsiang fa chüeh i ching.
The K'ai yüan lu also adds that this text was "falsely composed" by the San-chieh (Three Levels) monk Shih li, in the year 707. After again noting that the Hsiang fa chüeh i ching was previously recorded as an apocryphal sutra, Chih-sheng adds the damning judgement "deception upon deception."
Because of the damaged condition of the MS, the entire first chapter and almost all of the second chapter is missing, leaving only the third chapter intact. Part of the Stein collection, the ms is described in Giles' as follows:
"5407. *Fo shuo shih so fan che yu ch'ieh fa ching ching, 1 ch. P'in 2, 3. With tabulated colophon, beginning. . . "Translated by the San-tsang Master of the Law Shih-li-mo-to [S`rimata] (meaning in Chinese 'wonderful loyalty') in the Ch'ung fu Monastery on the 23rd of the 12th moon of the ping-wu year, the 1st of Ching-lung (20 Jan. 708, or 31 Jan. 707 according to the cyclical date). The text was linked together by Shih-li of the Ta-hsing shan Monastery, the meaning verified by Tao-an and others of the Ta-tz'u-en Monastery, and phrases translated by the General Director An-ta-mo. A memorial was submitted on 5 April 711 and the work was formally presented to the throne by Chan Ch'i-hsien and others in May-June 712. In obedience to Imperial command it was also examined and approved by Cheng Hsi-yu and nine other scholars. On 28 July 712 it was entered in the list of sutras, and issued for circulation. (The title of this spurious work first appears in K'ai yüan lu, A.D. 730, where it is said to be the same as Hsiang fa chüeh i ching, Stein 5345, with two new p'in prefixed to it to make up the whole sutra. But p'in 3 of the present text, though somewhat similar, does not agree with Stein 5345.) Very good MS. Rich yellow paper. 30.5 ft. Stein 2423."
Note that the monasteries mentioned, the Ta-hsing-shan ssu and the Ta-tz'u-en ssu were both San-chieh monasteries.
This text, and the Hsueh fa chüeh i ching which constitutes a major portion of it, have been the subject of several studies.[35] The most complete study of the Hsiang fa chüeh i ching is that of Kyoko Tokuno, who has shown that the doctrinal content of the work lies within the mainstream of Chinese Mahayana thought and also that the work was quite popular during the Sui-T'ang periods (quoted by Chi-tsang, Chih-I, etc.),[36] although she concluded that it is indeed a work of native Chinese composition and characterized it as a "'popular', 'social', or even 'political.'"[37] The close relationship between many of the San-chieh doctrines and those of the Hsueh fa chüeh i ching (emphasis on dāna, the precepts, repairing the old before constructing new, etc.) is extremely interesting and bears further scrutiny.
Professor Forte's study speculates that even though Chih-sheng states in his catalog of 730 that Bodhiruci, the alleged translator of the Sanskrit original, denied having translated it, it is not inconceivable that in 707 "the situation having evolved in a certain way, Bodhiruci felt it necessary to certify the authenticity of a work such as the Law Mirror Sutra."[38] This thesis is strengthened by Dr. Forte's discussion of the other collaborations between Shih-li, Bodhiruci, Srimata, and Manicintana. Finally, as Dr. Forte has noted, all of those involved in the "translation" were of the highest social, ecclesiastical, and bureaucratic ranks of the T'ang dynasty, thus again showing that the oft-stated relation between doctrines of the decline of the dharma and the "masses" or "small traditions" is far too facile. At many points the San-chieh enjoyed favor at the very highest levels, a fact which may also have been their undoing on several occasions.[39]
Although there is no mention of this text in any of the sutra catalogs contained in the Taishō, it is recorded in the Lung lu nui wu ming ching lun lu, a catalogue discovered at Tun‑huang (see below). Therein it states "San chieh fo fa mi chi, first, second, and third. Three chüan."[40] The present ms corresponds to the first chüan.
The first line of the text tells us that it is a commentary on the four chüan San chieh fo fa in four parts:
1) Clarifying the name;
2) Explaining the divisions;
3) Interpreting the meaning;
4) Presenting the text.[41]
Within this fourth section there is an outline of the content of the San chieh fo fa which may be used as a comparison with the extant mss. Yabuki has also extracted this outline in his Sangaikyō no Kenkyū , pp. 293 ff. As a commentary on the San chieh fo fa, this text is invaluable for the study of basic San-chieh doctrine.
This text is described in the Catalogue as:
2412. (1) San chieh fo fa mi chi.
First chüan, complete. A work of the three Stages sect.
Under the initial title, it states: Shih pen ti i chüan chin.
Edited by Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyō no Kenkyū , II, pp. 73‑108; cf. Ibid., p. 192, n. 15. On leaves 1 to 21, columns 1 to 782.
Writing and calligraphy is close and regular. Some characters erased and rewritten. 38 columns to a leaf, 19 to 24 characters to a column. Notes and commentaries in small characters in double columns. Upper margins 3 to 3.6 cm. Ruled.
There are 11 notes on the text verso on leaves 3, 4, 7, 8, and 18 to 21, between the columns of the text and to the left of the final title (very small cursive writing, same hand as the verso.)[42]
In addition to this ms, the Pelliot Catalogue lists two other MS as possible fragments of the same work:
2268. Work of the Buddhist sect of the Third Stage.
Beginning and end missing. Perhaps a fragment of the middle or final chüan of the San chieh fo fa mi chi of which the first chüan (#2412) has been edited by Yabuki Keiki in Sangaikyō no Kenkyū , Part II, pp. 73‑108. Apocryphal sutra.
Cf. #2283 recto, same hand (?) and perhaps a fragment of the same copy (?).
Good writing, fairly large characters. Punctuation here and there on leaves 1 to 24. Some additions and corrections. 937 columns in all. 28 columns per leaf, 14 to 21 characters per column. Commentary in very small characters and some notes in small characters in double columns. Top margin 3 to 3.8 cm., bottom 2.7 to 3.4 cm. Ruled.
Scroll of 34 leaves of which 33 are 45.3 cm to 46.1 cm (the first leaf is damaged: 40.8 cm, right edge torn). Good paper, even consistency, slightly thick, very light brown. Some oil and mildew stains. [24.8 to 26.8 x 1,550.8 cm]
2283. Work of the Buddhist sect of the Third Stage.
Beginning and end missing. Perhaps a fragment of the middle or final chüan of the San chieh fo fa mi chi of which the first chüan (#2412 recto 1) has been edited by Yabuki Keiki in Sangaikyō no Kenkyū, Part II, pp. 73‑108. Apocryphal sutra.
Cf. #2268, same hand (?) and perhaps a fragment of the same copy (?).
Good writing, strokes loosely connected. Dark ink. 122 columns in all. 28 columns per leaf, 16 to 20 characters per column. Top margin 2.2 to 3.4 cm., bottom 1.8 to 3.7 cm. Ruled.
Scroll of 6 leaves of which 4 are 46.3 cm (the first leaf is damaged: 9.1 cm; bottom left corner of leaf 5 is missing; leaf 6 is partially damaged: 8.6 cm). Good paper, even consistency, slightly thick, very light brown. Some oil, mildew, and moisture stains. Cracks (leaf 4). [24.5 to 26.3 x 204.7 cm]
A very short fragment from the Pelliot collection of Tun-huang texts which discusses the infinite nature of our karmic relations and the future retribution to be expected.
This catalogue of San-chieh texts from the Pelliot collection of Tun‑huang MSS is on the same roll as the San chieh fo fa mi chi (see above). This catalogue lists thirty-five works in forty-four chüan, which, excepting slight differences in the arrangement of the titles and the number of leaves given for the various works, are identical to the San-chieh works listed in the K'ai yüan lu. The only real difference is that the final entry of the Jen chi lu tu mu, the Jen chi lu tu mu itself, is not found in the K'ai yüan shih chiao lu and the Ming ch'i shih pa men fa found in the K'ai yüan shih chiao lu is not in the Jen chi lu tu mu. One of the interesting things about this list of San-chieh works is that it doesn't list the San chieh fo fa mi chi, in spite of being on the same roll. Is this because the San chieh fo fa mi chi is a commentary and this catalogue is a list of works composed by Hsin‑hsing?
The Pelliot catalogue describes this text as follows:
2412
1. San chieh fo fa mi chi. . . (see above???).
2. Jen chi lu tu mu. Complete in 1 chüan. A list of the works of the Sect of the Three Stages. End title: Tu mu i chuan. Same hand and same writing as the preceding text. 37 columns (22nd leaf), 17‑20 characters per column. Indication of the number of pages of the works in small characters in single columns. Upper margin 3.5‑3.8 cm., lower margins 3.2‑3.5 cm. Ruled.[43]
One of the more interesting aspects of this fragment recovered from Tun‑huang, a list of San-chieh works, is that several of the titles are not mentioned in any other catalogues. On the other hand, this is the only catalogue that lists the San chieh fo fa mi chi, the first roll of which is extant today (see above). Again, of the seventeen titles recorded, six can be tentatively identified with San-chieh works recorded in other catalogues, one is the San chieh fo fa mi chi, and three more may be safely identified as works of the San-chieh. Of the remaining seven works, only four may be identified with extant works, of which one, the Shou lo pi ch'iu ching (#12) is an apocryphal work recovered from Tun‑huang,[44] and another, the Ta ch'eng ch'i hsin lun lüeh liao shu (#17) composed in 774, is a text not recorded in any of the catalogues and also recovered from Tun‑huang.[45] Of the other two texts, the Yu fo chung tu ching (#13), was translated in 705 or 710, depending on if it corresponds to Taishō #697 or Taishō #698. Interestingly, Pao Ssu‑wei did the former translation at the Ta fu‑hsien ssu in Loyang, the site of a San‑chieh Inexhaustible Storehouse. Text #14, the Sui ch'iu t'o lo ni ching, was translated by Amoghavajra (705‑774). Thus this catalogue may be dated sometime after 774, which in turn gives us the latest possible date for the composition of the San chieh fo fa mi chi.
The Catalogue gives the following description:
Lung lu nui wu ming ching lun lu
End missing? List of Buddhist works of the San-chieh sect belonging to the Lung[-hsing] monastery. Three of the 17 titles cited are squared [?] and followed by the character ch'ung. The titles are abridged and several are unknown.
Edited by Yabuki Keiki in Sangaiky no Kenky , appendix, pp. 225-226; see also idem, pp. 176-177, 190.
Hsing is handwritten. The character ch'ung is in a different hand. Black ink. 18 columns. Top margin 1.3 cm., bottom 0.1 cm.[46]
This fragment from Tun-huang is reportedly in the collection of a Tomioka family in Kyoto, Japan. Although not mentioned in any of the catalogues, based on the terminology and the content Dr. Yabuki ascertained that it is a commentary on the Hua yen ching by a follower of the San-chieh. At the time his book was published, Yabuki hadn't been able to obtain a copy of the text for inclusion with the other MSS (his original copy having been destroyed in the Tokyo earthquake of 1924) but from his notes he was able to produce a summary of its content and this is included in Sangaikyō no kenkyū, pp. 676-682. See also Ibid., p. 188.
NOTE: What follows are comments on all of the various extant mss of the San chieh fo fa, primarily reproduced from .
The San chieh fo fa, is the longest and one of the most important texts of the San‑chieh movement; manuscript remains have been discovered at Tun-huang as well as in Japan, most recently at the Nantsu-dera in Nagoya.[47] One cannot help but be struck by the existence of this text in downtown Nagoya, Japan, long after it had been excised from the official canon as heretical and subsequently lost in China, the birthplace of the San-chieh movement. The San chieh fo fa, or a work of the same textual lineage, is recorded in every catalogue that recorded San-chieh texts from the Li tai san pao chi 歴代三寶紀 (compiled 597) onward. Its importance is also underscored by the fact that in this early period the San chieh [fo fa] was the only work of Hsin-hsing, the founder of the San-chieh movement, to be given a separate name, his other works being grouped together in a "miscellaneous collection" (tsa lu 雑録). In addition to the complete manuscript of the San chieh fo fa in five chüan preserved at the Nanatasu-dera several other manuscripts have also been preserved in Japan and two more fragments were discovered at Tun‑huang. There remain, however, numerous problems with the identification of these various manuscripts. Let me begin with the records of the San chieh fo fa in the sutra catalogs.
Even before the Nanatsu-dera discovery of San-chieh manuscripts, copies of the San chieh fo fa had been discovered in Japan, and Yabuki identified these Japanese manuscripts as copies of the San chieh fa in four chüan. A San chieh fa in four chüan 三階法四卷 is first mentioned in the ming pao chi (ca 650), [48] and a San chieh fo fa in four chüan 三階佛法四卷 is recorded in the K'ai yüan shih chiao lu 開元釋教録 compiled by Chih‑sheng 智昇 in 730. Chih‑sheng notes that this text is the same as that recorded in the Ta T’ang nei tien lu 大唐内典録 as the San chieh pieh chi in four chüan 三階別集四卷.[49] By the San chieh pieh chi, Chih‑sheng meant the Ta T’ang nei tien lu record of the four chüan San chieh wei pieh lu chi 三階位別録集四卷.[50] Tao‑hsuan 道宣, the author of the Ta T'ang nei tien lu, like Chih‑sheng, states that this work was composed by the śramaṇa Shih Hsin‑hsing of the Chen‑chi ssu 眞寂寺沙門釋信行. The Chen yüan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu 貞元新定釋經目録 (compiled in 800) also records the San chieh fo fa in four chüan and 160 pages, and a catalogue of San-chieh materials recovered from Tun‑huang, the Jen chi lu tu mu 人集録都目, records a "San chieh fo fa, four chüan, 138 pages."[51] Although the Li tai san pao chi 歴代三寶紀, the earliest catalogue to record San‑chieh texts, does not record any work in four chüan, it does have a work in three chüan, the San chieh wei pieh chi lu三階位別集録, which Chih‑sheng calls a "three chüan San chieh [fo fa]."[52] Another reference to a San chieh fo fa in four chüan can be found in a memorial stele for Hsin‑hsing, the Ku ta Hsin‑hsing ch’an shih ming t'a pei 故大信行禪師銘塔碑, which some scholars believe to have been erected in 594, the year of Hsin-hsing's death.[53] In addition, a San chieh chi lu 三階集録 in four chüan was recorded in both the Ta Chou k'an ting chung ching mu lu 大周刊定衆經目録 (compiled in 695) and the Sinp'yŏn chejong kyojang ch'ongnok 新編諸 宗教藏總録 (compiled in 1090).[54] In sum we have the following records (the number in brackets represents the order of catalog entry):
1. Ku ta Hsin‑hsing chan shih ming t'a pei 故大信行禪師銘塔碑 (594?)
1.1.[2] San chieh fo fa, 三階佛法, 4 chüan[55]
2. Li tai san pao chi 歴 代 三 寶 紀 (597)
2.1.[1] Tui ken ch'i hsing tsa lu 對根起行雑録, 32 chüan
2.2.[2] San chieh wei pieh chi lu, 三 階位別録集, 3 chüan[56]
3. ming pao chi (ca 650)
3.1.San chieh fa三階法, 4 chüan[57]
4. Hsü kao seng chüan (654??)
4.1.San chieh chi lu 三 階録集[58]
5. Ta t'ang nei tien lu 大唐内典録 (664)
5.1.[2] San chieh wei pieh lu chi 三階位別録集, 4 chüan[59]
6. Ta chou k'an ting chung ching mu lu 大周刊定衆經目録 (695)
6.1.[1] San chieh chi lu 三階集録, 4 chüan
6.2.[18] Shih ta tuan ming i 十大段明義, 2 chüan (or 3 chüan in variant mss)
6.3.[2] San chieh chi lu 三階集録, 2 chüan
6.4.[17] Ken chi p’u yao fa 根機不薬法 in 2 chüan
6.5.[16] San shih lueh chung tui mieh pu chih his fa 三十六種対面不識錯法, 1 chüan.[60]
7. K'ai yüan shih chiao lu 開元釋教録 (730)
7.1.[1] San chieh fo fa 三階佛法, 4 chüan; the Nei tien lu refers to this as the San chieh pieh chi in 4 chüan.
7.2.[2] Shih ta tuan ming i 十大段明義, 3 chüan; the Chang fang lu [Li tai san pao chi] refers to this as the San chieh pieh lu in 3 chüan
7.3.[3] Ken ch’i p’u yao fa 根機不薬法 in 2 chüan; in addition to this the Ta chou lu also lists a San chieh chi lu in 2 chüan which is a mistake [for this text]
7.4.[4] San shih lueh chung tui mieh pu chih hsi fa 三十六種対面不識錯法, 1 chüan.
“[Note:] Of the above four works of the San-chieh teachings, the first is the San chieh in four chüan, the next is the San chieh in three chüan, the third is the San chieh in two chüan, and the last is the San chieh in one chüan; the latter three texts are counted within the Chi lu.”[61]
8. Chen yüan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu 貞元新定釋經目録 (800)
8.1.[1] San chieh fo fa 三階佛法, 4 chüan, 160 pages
8.2.[2] Shih ta tuan ming i 十大段明義, 3 chüan, 67 pages.
8.3.[3] Ken chi p’u yao fa 根機不薬法 in 2 chüan, 135 pages
8.4.[4] San shih lueh chung tui mieh pu chih hsi fa 三十六種対面不識錯法, 1 chüan, 19 pages.[62]
9. Jen chi lu tu mu 人集録部目 (unknown compilation date)
9.1.[33] San chieh fo fa, 三階佛法, 4 chüan, 138 pages
9.2.[34] Jen chi lu ming shih chung wu chu tsu jen yeh cheng to shao chi hsing hsing fan ch’i fa 人 集 録 明十種惡具足人邪正多少及行行分齊法, 3 chüan
9.3.[31] Ken chi p’u yao fa 根機不薬法 in 2 chüan, 91 pages
9.4.[30] Ming i ch’ieh san shih lueh chung tui mieh pu chih hsi fa 明 一切 三 十 六 種対面不識 錯法, 1 chüan, 20 pages.[63]
10. Sinp'yŏn chejong kyojang ch'ongnok 新編諸 宗教藏總録 (1090)
10.1. [2] San chieh chi lu 三階集録, 4 chüan.[64]
As mentioned above, there are several different manuscripts of this text extant today, two of which were recovered from Tun‑huang. The first was brought to light by the famed explorer Aurel Stein during his 1907 expedition, and the second shortly after by Paul Pelliot.[65]
Although the first text (Stein no. 2684, Giles no. 5859) preserves no title (both the beginning and end of the ms are damaged), as Professor Yabuki pointed out long ago, it clearly corresponds to a part of the 2nd chüan of the San chieh fo fa. First of all, the manuscript contains many references to the second chüan which are always qualified as "this second chüan 此第二巻." The MS also contains many references to the "first chüan" or "chüan three and four," indicating that this fragment is part of the second chüan of a work in at least four chüan. In addition to the fact that the San chieh fo fa is the only known work of Hsin‑hsing in four chüan, when we compare the content of this fragment and the references it makes to other chüan with the outline of the San chieh fo fa as preserved in a commentary recovered from Tun-huang, the San chieh fo fa mi chi 三階佛法密記, we can see that they are in complete agreement. For example, near the beginning of the fragment it states "Section two 第二段 explains the reasons for the differences, light and heavy, in the rewards and punishments of the monks and laymen in [each of] the three levels." [66] The text then proceeds to clarify this topic with regards the sattva of the first level,[67] the sattva of the second level,[68] and those of the third level.[69] This corresponds to the contents of the three sub‑sections of the second section of the second chapter of the second chüan of the San chieh fo fa as described in the San chieh fo fa mi chi.[70] From this we can see that this manuscript corresponds to the last part of the first section (第一段) and first part of the second section (第二段) of the second major section (第二大段). References made in this fragment (e.g., Yabuki, p. 14) to the first chüan and to the 3rd and 4th chüan (e.g., Yabuki, p. 12) likewise correspond to the outline of the four chüan San chieh fo fa as given in the San chieh fo fa mi chi. Finally, the description of the contents of the four chüan San chieh [fo fa] contained in the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa 對根起行法 (Yabuki, p. 127) also corresponds roughly to the outline of the San chieh fo fa mi chi, giving further evidence that this fragment, Stein 2684, is part of a textual tradition of a four chüan San chieh fo fa known to the author(s) of the San chieh fo fa mi chi and the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa. Finally, as noted by Nishimoto, the manuscript contains material that would date it from when Hsin-hsing was fifty-four, that is, 593, the year before his death: “According to the scriptures it is taught that those whose faith is incomplete are called icchantikas. From the time I was twenty and heard of the Mahāyāna scriptures until my fifty-fourth year, all those that I have met of the way and of the world [i.e., monks/nuns and laity] that have the capacity to understand the Buddha-dharma believe in the highest virtue taught in the Mahaparnirvana Sutra and have therefore thought to themselves, `I believe in the Nirvana [Sutra], I believe in Buddha-nature, and therefore I know that I am not an icchantika.’”[71] This would thus establish that this text corresponds to the earliest tradition of the San chieh fo fa, and by inference that the Tun-huang manuscripts of the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa and the San chieh fo fa mi chi were aware of this early text.
This fragment contains numerous references to other canonical sources, a feature of San-chieh literature noted by Fei ch'ang‑fang in the Li tai san pao chi.[72] Within the 30 leaves of the fragment (approximately 10 Taishō pages) there are over 130 references to 35 different canonical sources, including the Mahāparinirvāna-sūtra (31 references), Daśacakrakṣitigarbha-sūtra (16 references), the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka‑sūtra (17 references), as well as the Hua yen ching, Kaśyapaparivarta‑sutra, Srīmaladevī-sūtra, Ekottarāgama, Daśabhūmika-sūtra, and numerous other sutras and sastras.
The fragment is described in Giles catalog as follows:
"#5859 *‑‑‑‑* [Giles' notation, meaning that the title is the same as that of the preceding text, namely "Commentary on a sutra, of the Three Stages sect", and that the beginning and ends of the MS are incomplete] containing references to the Lotus Sutra and many others. Mediocre MS....Soft buff paper. 42 ft. S.2684."[73]
The second fragment of the San chieh fo fa discovered at Tun-huang is in the Pelliot collection. Although the beginning of the manuscript is missing, this fragment preserves the title "San chieh fo fa, chüan no. three 三階佛法卷第三" at the end. On internal evidence this fragment can be seen to comprise the first half of the third sub‑section of the second section of the third chapter, the content of which again agrees with what is given in the San chieh fo fa mi chi. As with the Stein ms described above, this fragment makes many references to other sections and other chüan (presumably other parts of the San chieh fo fa) which also fit the outline given in the San chieh fo fa mi chi. In addition, the references made to the third chüan of the San chieh fo fa in Stein 2684, (chüan two of the San chieh fo fa), fit the actual content of this fragment; likewise, the references to the second chüan of the San chieh fo fa made in this fragment—Pelliot 2059—correspond to the actual content as found in Stein 2684, all of which indicates that both are fragments of the same text. As with the Stein ms, this manuscript too makes many references to canonical sources, a total of sixty-nine references to some twenty-three different texts.
This text is described in the Catalogue des manuscrits chinois de Touen‑houang as:
2059. San chieh fo fa Chüan 3, beginning missing. Apocryphal text.
Edited by Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyō no Kenkyå , II, pp. 51‑70 (excepting the first three columns). Cf. ibid, I, p. 186 (4).
Excellent writing, dark ink. Several passages erased and re‑written. 422 columns, 28 columns to a leaf, 19‑23 characters to a column. Notes in small characters in double columns. Upper margins 3.4 to 3.8 cm., lower margins 3.4 to 3.7 cm. Ruled.
Roll of 16 leaves of which 14 are from 46.3 cm. to 46.5 cm [long] (1st leaf: 8.1 cm., right edge torn; 16th leaf: 45.6 cm.). Good paper, thickness varying with the leaves, very fine wire marks, very light brown. Moisture and mildew stains (upper edge, leaves 1 to 5), oil stains (leaf 16). 27 to 27.5 cm. x 703.6 cm.[74]
An outline of the San chieh fo fa, following the San chieh fo fa mi chi, is included in Yabuki, pp. 294 ff.
The most complete mss of the San chieh fo fa are those which were preserved in Japan. From records in the Shōsō‑in bunsho 正倉院文書 we know that San‑chieh texts had been transmitted to Japan by 743, and possibly as early as the mid- 600's.[75] Although only four works of the San-chieh are mentioned in the Shōsō‑Bunsho , the Ming San chieh fo fa 明三階佛法 is recorded over fifteen times.[76] In addition to the complete manuscript discovered at Nanatsu-dera there are three partial manuscripts of this text preserved in temples in the Nara area.
1. Nanatsu-dera mss
a) chüan one: title at beginning and end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. one (first book) 三階佛法巻第一上夲; Scribe: Rokuryōbō; collated by Eishun 筆 師 六 良 坊; 一校了榮俊”[77]
b) chüan two: title at beginning: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. two (end of the first [book]) 三階佛法巻第 二 上 末;” same title at end with addition of “of five chuan 五 巻 内;” Scribe: Rokuryōbō; collated by Eishun 筆 師 六 良坊; 一校了榮俊”
c) chüan three: beginning slightly damaged; title at end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. three of five chüan (beginning of the last [book]) 三階佛法巻第 三 下上 五 巻 内; copied and established (?) by Rokuryōbō; collated by Eishun筆 師 定 六 良坊; 一校了榮俊”
d) chüan four: title at beginning and end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. four (middle of the last [book]) 三階佛法巻第 四 下 中;” colophon: “Scribe: Enjun Rokuryōbō; collated by Eishun 筆 師 圓順六 即坊; 一校了榮俊”[78]
e) chüan five: beginning slightly damaged, starts from approximately line 32 of the Kōshōji ms; no title; colophon: “Compiled in K’ai-huang 12 [of the Great Sui] at the Chen-chi ssu in the capital [ 大 隋]開皇 十二 年 在 京師 真 寂寺撰; Scribe: Enjun Rokuryobō; collated by Eishun 筆 師 圓順六 即坊; [一校了]榮俊”[79]
2. Kōshōji 興聖寺 mss (folded book)
a) chüan one: beginning damaged, text starts from approximately line 232 of the 1st chüan of the Nanatsu-dera ms (from line 239 of the Hōryū-ji ms); title at end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. one (first book) 三階佛法巻第一上夲”
b) chüan two: beginning damaged, text begins from approximately line 34 of the Nanatsu-dera mss (line 30 of the Shōgozō and Hōryū-ji mss); title at end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. two of five chüan (end of the first [book]) 三階佛法巻第 二 上 末 五 巻 内”
c) chüan three: beginning damaged, starts from approximately line 92 of the Nanatsu-dera ms; title at end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. three of five chüan (beginning of the last [book]) 三階佛法巻第 三 下上 五 巻 内”
d) chüan four: title at beginning: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. four 三階佛法巻第 四;” title at end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. four (middle of the last [book]) 三階佛法巻第 四 下 中”[80]
e) chüan five: title at beginning: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. five (last of the last [book]) 三階佛法巻第五下下;” no title at end; colophon: “Compiled in K’ai-huang 12 of the Great Sui at the Chen-chi ssu in the capital 大 隋開皇 十二 年 在 京師 真 寂 寺 撰”[81]
3. Shōgozō 聖語蔵 mss
a) chüan two: title at beginning: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. two 三階佛法巻第二;” title at end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. two 三階佛法巻第 二”
b) chüan three: beginning damaged; includes chüan three and app. 30% of chüan four of the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji mss; title at end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. three 三階佛法巻第三”
c) chüan four: includes the latter part of chüan four and all of chüan 5 of the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji mss; title at beginning: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. four 三階佛法巻第 四;” title at end: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. four 三階佛法巻第 四”
4. Hōryūji 法隆寺 mss
a) chüan one: title at beginning: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. one 三階佛法巻第一”
b) chüan two: title at beginning: “San chieh fo fa, chüan no. two 三階佛法巻第二”
Although each of the mss is damaged in places or incomplete, Ōya Tokujō published a colotype edition of the Nara texts arranged in two chüan and Yabuki used all three Nara mss and testimonium from the Shaku Jōdo Gungiron Tanyōki 釋浄土群疑論探要記 in order to construct a four chüan version of the text.[82] Yabuki's edition was constructed as follows:
1. Chüan One: base text, Hōryūji MS; text critical comments based on the Kōshōji MS and quotes from the Shaku Jōdo Gungiron Tanyōki.
2. Chüan Two: base text, Hōryåji MS; text critical comments based on the Shōgozō MS, the Kōshōji MS and quotes from the Shaku Jōdo Gungiron Tanyōki.
3. Chüan Three: base text, Shōgozō MS (portions of the damaged beginning emended according to the Kōshōji MS); text critical comments based on the Kōshōji MS and quotes from the Shaku Jōdo Gungiron Tanyōki.
4. Chüan Four: base text, Shōgozō MS; text critical comments based on the Kōshōji MS and quotes from the Shaku Jōdo Gungiron Tanyōki.
There are many interesting aspects to these texts. First, with the exception of scribal differences in individual characters, the content of all four sets of mss matches in spite of two being comprised of four chüan and two of five chüan.[83] However, these mss do not match the texts of the San chieh fo fa discovered at Tun‑huang, nor do they match the outline of the San chieh fo fa as preserved in the San chieh fo fa mi chi. There are good reasons to believe, however, that while the Tun-huang mss are fragments of the four chüan San chieh fo fa, the Japanese texts are from a two chüan tradition.
First of all, the records of the Shōsō-in describe not a four chüan but a two chüan San chieh fo fa (二巻上下, also given as 二歇), variously listed as being made up of 105, 108, and 83 sheets (where both chüan are present).[84] As described above there is indeed a tradition of a San chieh work in two chüan in the Chinese sutra catalogues: the Ta chou k'an ting chung ching mu lu records a San chieh chi lu in two chüan (in addition to a four, three, and one chüan San chieh chi lu),[85] which the K'ai yüan shih chiao lu states is a mistake for the Ken chi p’u yao fa 根機普薬法 in two chüan.[86] The Ken chi p’u yao fa is also recorded in the Ryūkoku ms of the Chen yüan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu with the additional information of 135 sheets,[87] and in the Jen chi lu tu mu in 91 sheets.[88]
Now, though the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji mss are actually made up of five chüan, as Ōya pointed out long ago regarding the Kōshōji ms, chüan one (of both mss) is marked as the "first book (巻第一上夲)," chüan two as the "end of the first [book] (巻第 二 上 末)," chüan three as the "beginning of the last [book] 巻第 三 下上," chüan four as the "middle of the last [book] 巻第 四 下 中," and chüan five as the "end of the last [book] 巻第五下下."[89] Thus it is possible that both the four and five chüan versions of the Japanese mss represent a two book version of the San chieh fo fa, with chüan one and two corresponding to the first book and chüan three-five corresponding to the second book, as is the case with the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji texts. There is also internal evidence that indicates that the Japanese mss are part of a two-book textual lineage: as with the Tun-huang mss, the Japanese mss make regular reference to other parts of the same text, and in a fashion similar to the English use of supra and infra, always indicate where in the text these references are to be found. One area of the text oft-referred to in this fashion is that containing 16 sub-sections (十六子段) describing the commonality of the sentient beings of the third level; these sixteen sub-sections are found in chüan three and four of the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji mss and in chüan three of the Shōgozō ms, which is thus in the second “book” as divided by the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji mss. And so in fact we do find that whenever any of the manuscripts makes reference to these sub-sections from within chüan 1 or two it always refers to them as in “the other chüan 餘巻” whereas references from within chüan three-five refer simply to “as above 如上 ” or “as below 如下,” eliminating the reference to “the other” chüan. For example:
Chüan one:
如餘卷第一大段第十五子段内五部經等説[90]
Chüan two:
如餘卷第一大段第九子段内十三部經等説[91]
如餘卷第一大段第九乃至第十四六子段末説[92]
如餘卷第一大段第九子段内十三部經等説[93]
Chüan three:
如下第十六子段内大方廣十輪經具足廣説[94]
等如下第十五子段内五部經等説[95]
如下十六子段内所説經等説[96]
The sixteen sub-sections start at end of Yabuki, p. 335 and run to p. 372; in a reference made from within the sixteen subsections we find, as expected:
如下第十五子段内五部經等説 . . . 如上第一 子段内説[97]
Chüan four (Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji ms) chüan three (Shōgozō MS):
又明於上一切十六子段等内[98]
如上第十五第十六兩子段内五部經等説[99]
Chüan five (Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji ms) chüan four (Shōgozō MS):
如上第一大段第十五子段内五部經等説[100]
如餘卷第一大段第十五子段内五部經等説[101]
如餘卷第一大段内八部經此卷上第一大段第九子段内十三部經等説[102]
Hence the Nanatsu-dera text strengthens my original impression that the Japanese mss represent a two chüan tradition of the San chieh fo fa rather than the four chüan text as edited by Yabuki.[103] If the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji colophons are accepted and this text was indeed compiled in K’ai-huang 12 (592), then at that time it would have been part of what the Li tai san pao chi called “Miscellaneous Records,” that is, the Tui ken ch’i hsing tsa lu 對根起行雑録, a large number of works grouped together in thirty-two chüan.[104] These “Miscellaneous Records” were only later enumerated separately, and so perhaps the Japanese manuscripts titled San chieh fo fa correspond to what Chih-sheng called the “San chieh in two chüan ,” that is to say, the Ken chi p’u yao fa 根機不薬法, also recorded in the Ta chou lu (see above, A.6.3-4, A.7.3 and note, A.8.3, and A.9.3); the number of sheets recorded for the Ken chi p’u yao fa in the Chen yüan lu and the Jen chi lu tu mu (135 and 91, respectively) also fit well with the length of the Japanese manuscripts.
Still, there are other parts of the text that give the impression that its form was perhaps even more variable, as we read towards the end of the manuscript:
Again, the Jen chi lu 人集録 is also called the Yen i ch'ieh ti san chieh fo fa te t'ung so yu fa 驗一切第三階佛法得通所由法 in one chüan. The first item clarifies that this is because the two chüan are put together and made into one chüan . . .[105]
Further, within the scriptural citations in this one chüan Jen chi lu, with the exception of fifty words of the commentator (又明此一巻人集録經文内唯除減 五十字是人語已外), all of the rest are scriptural citations. . .[106]
It is hard to know what to make of this—on the one hand, as with the “San chieh in two chüan” there is also a record of a “one chüan San chieh” (also called the San shih lueh chung tui mieh pu chih his fa 三十六種対面不識錯法; see above, 6.5, 7.4, 8.4, and 9.4) in 19 or 20 sheets; on the other hand, it apparently was not unusual that several different texts would be put together in the same “wrapper” (帙), as, for example, the Chen yüan lu reports the San shih lueh chung tui mieh pu chih his fa in one chüan and the Ken chi p’u yao fa in two chüan (together with four other “collected records 集録”).[107] Thus, it is also possible that the Japanese mss of the San chieh fo fa are variants of a textual tradition of “miscellaneous records” of which the titles were "not clearly defined" from the beginning, as the Li tai san pao chi puts it: “These records quote the accurate words of the sutras and śāstras, but the different titles are not clearly defined 此録並引經論正文而其外題無定准的.”[108] This lack of structural delineation is no doubt related to the fact that Hsin-hsing’s teachings were originally not written but oral teachings. According to Tao-hsüan’s biography of Hsin-hsing’s disciple Pen-chi, before Hsin-hsing came to the capital, when he was “east of the mountains” (present day Honan and Hopei provinces, near the area of Hsin-hsing's early life) he had orally transmitted a Chi lu for Pen-chi though there was no written text.[109] The Hsü kao seng chuan 續高僧傳 biography of Hsin-hsing also records that his early teachings were all written down by his close disciple P'ei Hsüan-cheng 裴玄證.[110] Thus the record of the Li tai san pao chi simply records the “Miscellaneous collection of the Tui ken ch’i hsing” in thirty-two chüan and the San chieh wei pieh chi lu in three chüan, all of which together likely constitutes the thirty-five works in forty-four chüan enumerated individually in the later catalogs. This lack of textual definition was likely exacerbated as the movement experienced frequent persecutions and was unable to establish a strong commentarial continuity.[111]
The structure and content of the Nanatsu-dera San chieh fo fa reinforces the impression that this text was transcribed from a lecture or otherwise composed in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Structurally, for example, we have the unusual arrangement of chüan as described above. Further, although the text is made up of an introduction and four major sections (大段), between the second major section (pp. 265-330) and the third major sections (pp. 399-402) the text circles back to give scriptural references for the first and second major sections; similarly, in the middle of the fourth major section the text circles back to give scriptural references for the second major section.[112] There is also no balance to the length of each section, with the first, third and fourth major sections proper comprising approximately 10% of the total text while the second major section alone takes up approximately 45% of the total text.
In terms of content, the Nanatsu-dera San chieh fo fa has much in common with other San-chieh works—extensive scriptural citations buttressing its descriptions of the sentient beings clinging to views of emptiness and existence (一切利根空見有見衆生), references to the “sangha of mute sheep 覲羊僧,” the four universal Buddhas (如來藏佛, 佛性佛, 當來佛, and 佛想佛), and the like. Again, however, the handling of these ideas does not seem to be as organized as in other texts. The four Buddhas, for example, are treated as a group within the fragments of the Tun-huang San chieh fo fa (e.g., pp. 22, 23, 25, passim), whereas in the Japanese texts they are broken up and treated less systematically (e.g., pp. 294, p. 305, passim). There is no mention of the Inexhaustible Storehouse 無盡藏 nor of “recognizing evil 認惡” (though the companion concept of “universal respect 普敬” is found, e.g., p. 286, 288). One area of the text that deserves further study is the long description of retribution for various categories of practitioners, including the sovereign (pp. 273 ff). No doubt a sustained study of the content of the San chieh fo fa would yield many interesting insights into their doctrines.
Finally, there is the question of how a text banned and subsequently lost in China continued to be copied as late as the twelfth century in Japan. Although the details of this investigation must await another time, the simple conclusion is likely that the Nanatsu-dera canon, as with other Japanese collections of the time, follows the Chen-yüan lu, a catalog in which the San-chieh texts were restored to canonical status.[113] Indeed, the thirty-five titles of San-chieh texts as listed in the Chen-yüan lu are recorded on the inside cover of one of the chests in which the Nanatsu-dera texts were stored.[114] Hence the existence of the San chieh fo fa in the Nanatsu-dera underscores the importance of the Chinese catalogs in the study of Buddhist notions of heretical and canonical, and it is to be hoped that in the future more research will be undertaken in this area.
The last roll (33 leaves, 528 lines) of a text comprised of a series of questions and answers covering a range of issues such as recognizing evil, universal respect, and a number of other core San-chieh doctrines; see Nishimoto, Sangaikyō no kenkyū, pp. 223-24.
Described in the Catalougue (p. 76) as:
Ch’iung cha pien huo lun窮詐辯惑論, a response to the King mi louen CHARS
Last roll complete. A polemic work of the Sect of the Three Stages, San chieh tsung 三階
Good writing, variable size characters. More or less black ink. Some characters canceled with red ink. Additions and corrections. 528 columns in total. 16 or 18 columns per sheet, 15-20 characters per column; 2 notes in small characters in double characters. Top margins 1.4 to 1.8 cm, lower margins 1.3 to 1.6 cm.
[1] See also Nishimoto, Sangaikyō no kenkyū, 172-181; Nishimoto also gives a new edition and contemporary Japanese translation in Sangaikyō no kenkyū, 476-570.
[2]T.49.105b.
[3]T.55.277c.
[4]T.55.678c.
[5]Idem.
[6]Yabuki, appendix, p. 229.
[7]Yabuki, appendix, p. 222.
[8]Stein 2446, Giles 4590. The Ryūkoku MS. is described in the Seiiki Bunka Kenkyū, Dai‑ichi, Tonkō Bukkyō Shiryō (Kyoto: H z kan, 1958), pp. 39‑40, as comprising the latter part of the section on "arousing bodhicitta." The fragment (identified by Yabuki, p. 186) is Stein #832 (Giles #4585, p. 134‑135).
[9]K'ai yüan shih chiao lu, T.55.678b, Ta chou k'an ting chung ching mu lu, T.55.474c.
[10]Yabuki has identified several of these passages in the Hua yen wu shih yao wen ta (T.45.532b‑534c), a work of the early 7th century, a fact which would help in the dating of the work (Yabuki, appendix, p. 110).
[11]The six dharmas are defined as "1) the same practices; 2) the object; 3) length; 4) depth; 5) never‑retreating; 6) continuity." Yabuki, appendix, p. 126. The seven dharmas probably refer to the seven items under each of the three stages in section 1, above. A detailed outline of the three sections of the Stein MS is given in Yabuki, pp. 305‑337. See also pp. 170‑192.
[12]Giles, p. 135.
[13] See Hirokawa Akitoshi, "Tonkō Shutsudo Nanakai Butsumyō kyō ni tsuite" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, no. 251 (March, 1982).
[14]All of the texts identified by Giles (Giles' numbers 4669, 4672, 6444, 6466, 6470, 6587, and 1525) are also mentioned in Hirokawa's article.
[15]See Hirokawa Akitoshi, "Tonkō Shutsudo Nanakai Butsumyō kyō ni tsuite" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, no. 251 (March, 1982) for a list of 127 MSS. See also Tokuno, op. cit., pp. 25-26 for a general discussion of this practice.
[16]T 16, nos. 681-682 (the latter was translated by Amoghavajra).
[17]"Fuhō ni tsuite," Tetsugaku Zasshi, vol. 32, no. 369 and vol. 33, nos. 373-374.
[18]Yabuki, pp. 10-11.
[19]Lionel Giles, Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tun-huang in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1957), p. 135.
[20]T 55.475a.
[21]T 55.678c.
[22]Yabuki, p. 228.
[23]Ibid., p. 221.
[24] See Hubbard, Absolute Delusion, ch. 7.
[25]Giles, p. 209.
[26]Giles, p. 169.
[27]Giles, p. 184.
[28]Yabuki, p. 192, n. 17.
[29]Yabuki, p. 189, n. 18.
[30]T.55.672b-c.
[31]T.55.126b.
[32]T.55.172c. But in the Li tai san pao chi (ca. 597) it is listed simply as "translator unknown" (T.49.112c).
[33]Yabuki, p. 670.
[34]T.13 no. 790.
[35]Kimura Kiyotaka, "Zohō Ketsugikyō no Shisō teki seikaku" in Nanto Bukkyō, no. 33 (1974); Tokuno Kyoko, “The Book of Resolving Doubts Concerning the Semblance Dharma.” In Donald S. Lopez, Jr., ed., Buddhism in Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); Tokuno, Kyoko, A Case Study of Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha: The "Hsiang fa ch"ueh-i ching", unpublished M.A. thesis, UC-Berkeley, 1974; Forte, Antonino, "The Relativity of the Concept of Orthodoxy in Chinese Buddhism: Chih-sheng’s Indictment of Shih-li and the Proscription of the Dharma Mirror Sūtra" in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, ed. Robert Buswell. This latter article includes a translation of Chih-sheng's "accusation" of the text in the K'ai-yuan lu.
[36]Tokuno, p. 69.
[37]Ibid., p. 75.
[38]Forte, "Chih-sheng's Accusation," manuscript, p. 12.
[39]Just as the San-chieh incurred the wrath of the authorities one short year after their influential patron, Kao-chiung, was censured, so too after Hsüan-tsung assumed the throne he banned the activities of the San-chieh-chiao, not unreasonable if a follower of the San-chieh had attempted to poison him (i.e., Hsueh-chi, who participated in the forging of this text and also did the calligraphy for a memorial for Hsin-hsing) see below, Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions and the San-chieh Movement.
[40]Yabuki Keiki, Sangaiky no Kenky , appendix, p. 325.
[41]Yabuki, appendix, p. 73.
[42]Catalogue, op. cit., p. 259.
[43]Catalogue, op. cit., p. 259.
[44]Cf. Bussho Kaisetsu Daijiten, vol. 5, p. 52; Yabuki Keiki, Meisha Y in, pp. 220‑226; and T.85.1356.
[45]Cf. Bussho Kaisetsu Daijiten, vol. 7, p. 296.
[46]Catalogue, vol. III, p. 155.
[47]This section on the Japanese mss of the San chieh fo fa was originally published as “The Teaching of the Three Levels and the Manuscript Texts of the San chieh fo fa,” in七寺古逸經典研究叢書第五巻：中国日本撰述經典 Nanatsudera koitsu kyōten kenkyū sōsho Vol. 5: Chūgoku Nippon senjutsu kyōten (Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha, 2000); see also Nishimoto Teruma, “”’Sangaibuppō’ shobon no seiritsu to denpa ni tsuite” in 七寺古逸經典研究叢書第五巻：中国日本撰述經典 Nanatsudera koitsu kyōten kenkyū sōsho Vol. 5: Chūgoku Nippon senjutsu kyōten (Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha, 2000); see also Nishimoto, Sangaikyō no kenkyū, 181-190. For the San-chieh texts in the catalog of the Nanatsu-dera canon see Owari shiryō: Nanatsu-dera issaikyō mokuroku (Nagoya: Nanatsu-dera issaikyō hozon-kai, 1968), p. 126 (in the catalog of extant texts) and p. 162 (a catalog reconstructed from the lists in the storage chests themselves); for general comments on the Nanatsu-dera canon and its discovery see Ochiai Toshinori, The Manuscripts of Nanatsu-dera: A Recently Discovered Treasure-House in Downtown Nagoya. With related remarks by Makita Tairyō and Antonino Forte. Translated and edited by Silvio Vita (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, Occasional Papers Series no. 3, 1991) and Ochiai Toshinori, “Nanatsu-dera issaikyō to koitsukyōten” in Ochiai Toshinori and Makita Tairyō, eds., Nanatsudera koitsu kyōten kenkyū sōsho, vol. 1: Chūgoku senjutsu kyōten (sono ichi), 433-477.
[48]T no. 2082, 51.788b.
[49]T no. 2154, 55.678b.
[50]Ta T'ang nei tien lu, T no. 2149, 55.277c.
[51]Yabuki, Sangaikyō no Kenkyū (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1927; reprint 1974), appendix, 227 and 224, respectively; unless otherwise noted, all references to Yabuki indicate the separately numbered pages in the appendix. As a convenience to the reader not in possession of copies of the Nanatsu-dera manuscripts (and because the content of the Japanese mss are so nearly identical) I have given reference to Yabuki’s edition of the Japanese San chieh fo fa wherever possible.
[52]Li tai san pao chi, T no. 2034, 49.105b; K'ai yüan shih chiao lu, T no. 2154, 55.678b. As the Ta t'ang nei tien lu, which follows the Li tai san pao chi almost to the letter, recorded this work in four chuan but made no note of it not being the same text, there remain questions about whether the text in the Li tai san pao chi corresponds to a "three chuan San chieh fo fa" or to the four chuan San chieh fo fa.
[53]Ku ta Hsin‑hsing chan shih ming t'a pei, included in Yabuki, p. 8; see also Hubbard, Jamie, “Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions And The San-Chieh-Chiao” In The Journal Of The International Association Of Buddhist Studies 14/2, December, 1991.
[54]T no. 2153, 55.474c and T no. 2184, 55.1178b, respectively.
[55]Hubbard, Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions,” 259-261; see also Nishimoto Teruma, Sangaikyō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1998), 26-32.
[56]T no. 2034, 49.105b
[57]T no. 2082, 51.788b.
[58]T no. 2060, 50.560a.
[59]Ta t'ang nei tien lu, T no. 2149, 55.277c.
[60]T no. 2153, 55.474c.
[61]T no. 2154, 55. 678b.
[62]Yabuki, appendix, p. 227.
[63]Yabuki, appendix, p. 223-224.
[64]T no. 2184, 55.1178b.
[65]San-chieh fo fa chüan 2, Stein 2684, included in Tun-huang pao-tsang, 22.229b-248a and edited by Yabuki, appendix, 9-47; San-chieh fo fa chüan 3, Pelliot 2059, included in Tun-huang pao-tsang 113.313a-321a and edited by Yabuki, appendix pp, 49-70.
[66]Yabuki, p. 12.
[67]Yabuki, pp. 12‑17.
[68]Yabuki, pp. 17‑22.
[69]Yabuki, pp. 22 ff..
[70]Yabuki, appendix, p. 77.
[71]San chieh fo fa, Yabuki edition, 41; Pao tsang, 22.245b; Nishimoto, 183.
[72]T no. 2034, 49.105c.
[73]Giles, p. 182; this fragment has been edited by Yabuki Keiki and is included in his Sangaikyō no Kenkyū , appendix, pp. 10‑47.
[74]Jaques Gernet and Wu Chi‑yu, Catalogue des manuscrits chinois de Touen‑houang (Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, 1970), pp. 43‑44.
[75]Ōya Tokujō, "Shōgozō no Shakyō ni tsuite," in Nara, no. 12 (Shōwa 4), p. 73; see also Ōya Tokujō, Sangaibuppō (collotype edition, Ryūkoku University Library), pp. 15-23. Ōya speculates that the San-chieh texts were brought to Japan by Dōshō 道昭 (d. 700), who had traveled to China in 653 (Ōya, “Shōgozō,” p. 73), though he also notes that it is quite possible that San-chieh texts were carried to Japan on more than one occasion—another candidate is Genbō (d. 746), who traveled to the T’ang court in 716 and brought back more than five-thousand chüan of texts when he returned to Japan in 735.
[76]In Tempyō 15 (743) it is recorded once (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensanjo, ed., Dai Nihon komonjo: Tokyo, Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai 1901-1940 [1987 reprint], vol. 24, p. 253); in Tempyō 19 (747) it is recorded eight times (Dai Nihon komonjo, vol. 2, pp. 709, 717, 729; vol. 9, pp. 589, 592, 594, 630, 631; vol. 24, p. 446), in Tempyō 20 (748) twice (Dai Nihon komonjo, vol. 3, p. 155, vol. 10, p. 415), in Tempyō Shōhō 1 (749) once (Dai Nihon komonjo, vol. 3, p. 313), in Tempyō Shōhō 2 (750) once (Dai Nihon komonjo, vol. 11, p. 422), in Tempyō Shōhō 5 (753) once (Dai Nihon komonjo, vol. 12, p. 534), and in the first year of Jingokeiun (767) twice (Dai Nihon komonjo, vol. 17, pp. 90, 93); see also Ōya, “Shōgozō,” 71-72; the length, where given, is variously recorded as 65, 69, or 70 sheets for the first book and 35, 38, or 48 sheets for the second (the record of 750 gives 83 sheets for both books).
[77]Rokuryōbō and Eishun are listed as collator and scribe for many of the Nanatsu-dera texts.
[78]Begins from page 352 of Yabuki’s edition.
[79]Begins from page 388 of Yabuki’s edition.
[80]Begins from page 352 of Yabuki’s edition.
[81]Begins from page 388 of Yabuki’s edition.
[82]Ōya Tokujō, Sangaibuppō, op. cit.; San chieh fo fa, ed. Yabuki Keiki, included in Sangaikyō no Kenkyū (Tokyo, 1927), appendix, pp. 257‑415; Because of damage to chüan 3 in the Kōshōji ms neither editor was able to completely reconstruct this part of the text; the Nanatsu-dera ms now allows us this reconstruction.
[83]As described under C.3 above, chüan 3 of the Shōgozō ms corresponds to chüan 3 and the first part of chüan 4 of the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji mss; chüan 4 of the Shōgozō ms corresponds to the latter part of chüan 4 and all of chüan 5 of the Nanatsu-dera and Kōshōji mss.
[84]Ōya, “Shōgozō,” 71-72.
[85]T no. 2153, 55.474c.
[86]T no. 2154, 55.678b.
[87]Yabuki, appendix, p. 227.
[88]Yabuki., p. 223. The Shōsō-in Bunsho variously gives 83, 105, and 118 pages for the two chüan work.
[89]Ōya Tokujō, “Shōgozō,” p. 75;mention of a San chieh chi lu in five chüan is found in Gyōnen’s Kegon gokyōshō tsuroki 華厳五教章通路記 (T no. 2339, 72.384a).
[90]Yabuki, p. 272.
[91]Yabuki, p. 314.
[92]Yabuki, p. 315.
[93]Yabuki, p. 317.
[94]Yabuki, p. 333.
[95]Yabuki, p. 334.
[96]Yabuki, p. 335:
[97]Yabuki, p. 343.
[98]Yabuki, p. 372.
[99]Yabuki, p. 373.
[100]Yabuki, p. 406.
[101]Yabuki, p. 407; this obviously presents a problem, as it refers to the fifteenth sub-section of the first major section of “the other chüan” and both the Nanatsu-dera and the Kōshōji mss have this reading; as there are no other examples of a fifteenth sub-section in the “other” chüan, at the moment I take this to be a simple mistake for “as in the above fifteenth sub-section of the first major section 如上第一大段第十五子段.”
[102]Yabuki, p. 414; this refers to eight texts cited in the first major section (第一大段) of the the first “book” (卷上) in chüan 1 (Yabuki, p. 262 ff); in the complicated structure of the Japanese San chieh fo fa there is a “first major section” in the first book (pp. 261-265) as well as in the second book (卷下, pp. 330ff).
[103]Hubbard, Salvation in the Final Period of the Dharma, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (University of Madison-Wisconsin, 1986), p. 201; see also Yabuki, p. 162; Ōya (“Shōgozō,” 75-76 and his edition in two chüan); Nishimoto (Sangaikyō, 186).
[104]T no. 2034, 49.105b; the fact that the colophon puts the compilation at the Chen-chi ssu lends an aura of authenticity to its 592 date of compilation, as the name of the temple was changed to Hua-tu ssu in 620.
[105]Yabuki, p. 414; the 人集録 is a general name for Hsin-hsing’s works, appearing in several catalogs as well as here.
[106]Yabuki, p. 415.
[107]Yabuki, p. 227; that this is actually the case is seen in the extant fragment of the Hsin-hsing i wen which also contains a portion of the Wu chin tsang lüeh chi ((Stein #2137, Tun-huang pao tsang 16.188b).
[108]T no. 2034, 49.105c.
[109]T no. 2060, 50.578a.
[110]T. no. 2060, 50.560a.
[111]Cf. Kimura Kiyotaka, "Shingyō no Jikikan to sono igi" (Nippon Bukkyō Gakkai Nenpo), No. 49, pp. 173‑174, who argues that the Tun‑huang MSS correspond to the original compositions of Hsin‑hsing.
[112]For an outline based on the Nara mss see Nishimoto, Sangaikyō, 184-185.
[113]Hubbard, Salvation in the Final Period, 180-187; Yabuki, Sangaikyō, 227-230; on the Chen-yüan lu and the Nanatsu-dera canon, see the Catalogue, pp. 210-212; Ochiai, “Nanatsu-dera issaikyō to koitsukyōten,” pp. 437 ff and Ochiai, The Manuscripts of Nanatsu-dera, pp. 47-48.
[114]Catalogue, p. 162. Although the team that compiled the Catalogue thought that this must mean that at one time the texts themselves were contained in the Nanatsu-dera canon (p. 211), I find this highly doubtful as two other records of the 13th century note that the majority of the San-chieh texts had already been lost: the Kōzanji engi 高山寺縁起 records that the San chieh fo fa and forty-four chüan of other texts of Hsin-hsing are missing though a portion (一部) was re-copied on the occasion of Myoei’s 13th memorial (1244; Dai Nippon Bukkyō Zensho, no. 629, vol. 11, p. 279); the Shaku Jōdo Gungiron Tanyōki釋浄土群疑論探要記of Dōchū (d. 1281) notes that other than the San chieh chi lu in four chüan and the Fa chiai chung sheng ken chi ch’ien shen fa法界衆生根機浅深法 in one chüan the other 39 chüan of San chieh texts have not been seen (Shaku Jōdo Gungiron Tanyōki, cited in Yabuki, Sangaikyō, part 1, p. 152).
[115] Giles, Catalog, 135.