On the Fen-bie-gong-de-lun
(分別 功 徳 論)
SodO Mori
In the 25th volume of the Taisho Tripitaka Series (No. 1507, pp. 30-52), we find the Chinese translation of a commentary on the Ekottarika Agama
of the Northern Buddhism. This is entitled the Fen-bie-gong -de-Zun (分別 功
徳論) consisting of five Chinese fascicles. It is a verbatim commentary on some notable words and phrases from the opening verses of the Agama to the half of its 4th chapter 'Disciples'. This article will discuss various philological problems of the text.
We consider, at first, some Chinese affairs of the work.
According to the title-page of the present text in the Taisho Edition1), its translator is unknown, but it was translated in the later Han Dynasty (25-220 A. D.). In this respect we have to investigate the records in the
Chinese catalogues of the Tripitaka. The 僧 祐 録, the oldest catalogue avai-lable today compiled between 495 and 4982), registers the 分 別 功 徳 論 in its
chapter of the New Collection of the Various Texts of Unknown
Transla-torship3). Of the later catalogues, the 法 経 録 edited in 5944), the 彦 珠 録 in 6035) and the 静 泰 録 in 6646) equally record the work as a 'text of unknown translatorship' on the basis of the above 僧 祐 録. But as the 歴 代 三 宝 紀
composed in 5977) judged the work to be a translation by an unknown
1) Taisho, vol. 25, p. 30a.
2) According to the 歴 代 三 宝 紀 (Taisho, vol. 49, P. 125c) the date of its com-pilation is during the Jian-wu (建 武) era of Zhai (斉) f. 6. 495-498. But as
the present catalogue contains some information in 515 and 518, we must judge that there were some additions to the catalogue (Taisho, vol. 49, pp. 126b & 127b). 3) Taisho, vol. 55, p. 21c. 4) ibid., p. 142c. 5) ibid., p. 156a. 6) ibid., p. 188c. 7) Taisho, vol. 49, p. 54b.
person in the later Han Dynasty, some later catalogues such as the 大 周 録 compiled, in 6958), the 開 元 録 in 7309), the 貞 元 録 in 79910) and the like followed this judgement. And this is finally recorded in the Taisho Edition as stated above.
We have to pay, however, our attention to the record in the 僧 祐 録. As
already mentioned, this catalogue classified the work in the chapter of the New Collection of the Various Texts of Unknown Translators hip. This collection contains only the texts which were translated after the compilation
of the 綜 理 衆 経 目 録, the oldest Chinese catalogue lost today edited by 道 安
(313-85 A. D.). Therefore it is obvious that the work was translated after the
compilation of the catalogue of 道 安11). In addition to it, as explained later, the 分 別 功 徳 論 was translated after the translation of the. Ekottarika
Agama which was done from 384 to 85. With the above inquiry, it is cleared up that the work was translated some time between 385 and 498.
Next the relations of the 分 別 功 徳 論 to the 増 一 阿 含 経, the translation of
the Ekottarika Agama will be thought over. On the whole, the commented
passages of the Agama found in the 分 別 功 徳 論 are in concord with those inthe 増 一 阿 含 itself. But a few of them express same meanings by
differ-ent but similar words, or show difference in both word and meaning. In case of enumerating some items or man's names, these two texts also concur each other in their order as a whole. The unconcurred parts are assumed to be mainly based on the difference of the originals themselves.
As things are such, the 開 元 録 had already suggested in this respect that the translator of the 分 別 功 徳 論 might be the same as that of the 増 一 阿 含 経12). Though we have no corroboratory proof in this matter, it is quite possible to think that the translative work of the 分 別 功 徳 論 had very close
8) Taisho, vol. 55, p. 438b. 9) ibid., pp. 483c & 621b. 10) ibid., p. 781a.
11) As the date of its compilation is unknown, the year of the death of 道 安
(385) can be regarded as its latest limit. 12) Taisho, vol. 55, p. 621b.
relations with that of the 増 一 阿 含.
By the way, in connection with the order of translation of these comment-ary and sutra, it is judged that the sutra was translated earlier than the commentary. For example, there is a phrase 持 心 護 戒 如 杯 瓶 of the sutra13), of which the latter half 戒 如 圷 瓶 only is found in the commentary as a commen. ted phrase14). In this case, if the commentary had deen tran. slated earlier than the sutra, the translation of 戒 如 杯 瓶 in the commentary would have been fixed first, and the full phrase of 持 心 護 戒 如 杯 瓶 would have been done next without changing the already translated phrase 戒 如 杯 瓶 in order to make its own phrase concur With the translation of its com-mentary. This process of translation seems to be quite unnatural. On the contrary it is far and away natural and reasonable to think that the sutra was translated earlier, and the commentary was done later consulting the former's translation already made for their mutual concord. Some other instances of the same sort are found there. Incidently I may remark that according to the Preface by 道 安 for the 増 一 阿 含 経15), this sutra was trans-lated between 384 and 385. In the very latter year, 道 安 himself died. There never exists, therefore, any contradiction between this view and the fact that his 綜 理 衆 経 目 録 (compiled just before his death)seems to have conta-ined no information on the 功 徳 論 as already stated. It must have been translated after his death in 385. By this external point, it is indirectly proved that the translation of the 功 徳 論 was done after that of the 増 一
阿 含.
Now let's think about the original text in India. As it disappears today, its original title, language and author are not exactly confirmed. If we try to restore the Original title from its Chinese one into Sanskrit, it can be
done literally as the Vibhanga-guna-sastra or something like that. Regard-ing its original language, we find in the text some transliterated words
which can be restored to Pali or a Prakrit i. e. 摩 坤 提 (Mahinda?, Skt. 摩
13) Taisho, vol. 2, p. 550a. 14) Taisho, vol. 25, p. 32c.
醸 因 陀 羅 Mahendra), 羅 悦 祇 (Rajagaha, Skt. 羅 闇 掲 梨 醸, etc. Rajagrha), 質 多 (Citta, Skt. 質 多 羅 Citra), 倫 婆 (thupa, Skt. 翠 堵 波, etc. stupa). But we also find
some words which are restorable to Sanskrit or a hybrid Sanskrit i. e.
摩 坤 提 利 (Mahindra or Mahendra?) and so on. Such beipg the case, it is
impossibleto judge the original language of the text through its trans-literation. The school belonged by the work had been considered as the Mahasanghika, but recently Prof. A. Hirakawa insisted on, in his A Study on Early Mahayana Buddhism (in Japanese)16), that its school is impossible to conclude. No objection to his view has appeared yet. It is certain, anyhow, that this commentary has no direct connection with the Manorathapurani, the Anguttaranikaya Atthakatha in Pali. Because in comparison of the
Anguttaranikaya with the first four chapters of the 増 一 阿 含, on which the 功 徳 論 comments, there is no parallel content between them except the
explanation of 'dasdnussati'. In this case the Pali sutra is lacking in the parallel passages17). Even of the dasanussati, the explanation itself in the
功 徳 論 is not same as that in the-Manorathapurani18).
As regards the origina1 authorship, the 僧 祐 録 records the names of
Kas-yapa and Ananda, two of the Buddha's disciples19). But it is clearly untrue. For the work seems to have been written about the reign of King Kaniska or after that as explained next.
Now referring to the place and date of writing of the original, there re-mains no reliable record. But through internal investigation on its trans-lation, it is supposed to have been written in North India in a brood sense with the following three reasons :
(1) There are two separate descriptions about the 外 国 師 (Foreign Monk) and the 薩 婆 多 家20). Needless to say, the former means the Sarvastivada
16) 平 川 彰 『初 期 大 乗 仏 教 の 研 究 』Tokyo, 1968, pp. 47-52. 17) 赤 沼 智 善 『漢 巴 四 部 四 阿 含 互 照 録 』Nagoya, 1929, p. 120.
18) Taisho, vol. 25, pp. 35c-40b; Manorathapuranu, vol. 2, pp. 20-22 (PTS Edi-tion).
19) Taisho, vol. 55, p. 21c.
of Gandhara that was also called the 西 方 師 (Pascatya, Pascattya) and that
was regarded as a heretic by the Sarvastivada of Kasmira in those, days, while the latter literally means the Sarvastivada and in this case, it can be considered what is called the Orthodox Sarvastivada of Kasmira itself. These descriptions show that the author of the original had some intimate knowledge of the two sub-schools of the Sarvastivada in North India.
(2) There exists the following explanation on the three kinds of robe21): In winter the heavy robe should be weared, in summer the light one and in spring and autumn the middle one. For these three seasons these three kinds
of robe are used…… When it is terribly cold (大 寒), all the three should be
put one over another for keeping out the cold.
Such a cold as to be expressed 'terribly cold' cannot be experienced in South India and Ceylon.
(3) There appears at two places22) a legend that Madhyantika (摩 禅 提) was dispatched to Kasmira (鵜 賓) as a Buddhist propagator and Mahendra
(摩 陣 提(利)) to Silpha-dvipa (師 子 渚 国, Ceylon). This Mahendra is not
des-cribed to be such a son of King Asoka as the Dipavamsa, the Mahavamsa and other documents of Ceylon say23), but he is a mere monk. According to Dr. Gen'ichi Yamazaki's article, The Mahinda Legend: Comparative Study (in Japanese)24), this is one of the legends of the Northern Buddhism
and is considered more primitive than the one found in the Ceylon's his-torical books, and this Mahendra comes from West India. And West India was the very starting place in India for Buddhist mission to Ceylon, which began in the reign of King Asoka or thereabouts. Furthermore this legend
in the 功 徳 論 follows an information on Ceylon of the days25):
People of that country (=Ceylon) had a close contact with 羅 刹 (raksasa).
The people first requested literary materials and then kept company with them.
21) ibid., p. 44c. 22) ibid., pp. 37b & 48b.
23) Dipavamsa, chaps. 12-15; Mahavamsa, chaps. 13-20; Samantapasadika, vol. 1, pp. 61, 69ff., 79ff., 83ff., 90ff. (PTS), etc.
24) 山 崎 元 一 「マ ヒ ン ダ 伝 説 考 」(『東 洋 学 報 』vol. 48, pp. 183-211).
25) Taisho, vol. 25, p. 48b.
-454-Sixty kinds of books were sold in their market. Among them there was a devil
book named 阿 浮 or 阿 羅. Obtaining the Dharma, Mahendra went there and
preached it greatly. Since then Buddhism has been existing there.
Judging from this statement, the legend of dispatching Mahendra, a monk from West India, to Ceylon must have been originated in West India itself, which had the most frequent interchanges with Ceylon among all Indian
areas in those days. The 分 別 功 徳 論, therefore, which contains this legend
together with that of Madhyantika's mission to Kasmira is probably origi-nated somewhere in North Inda, but not so far away from West India.
As regards the date of appearance of the original, it is reasonable to regard the period of King Kaniska (129-153 A. D.) as its earliest limit and the time of its Chinese translation (385-498) as its latest one. Because, as already said, the text really recognizes the coexistence of the Sarvastivada of Kasmira and that of Gandhara, and it was in the reign of King Kaniska that the school became split into these two.
Lastly a few noticeable philological focts found in the present 功 徳 論 of
the Taisho Edition will be poined out. It is that the present text includes some additional passages as its body, which must have been inserted either on translating or on later copying its manuscript. That is to say, there are four commenting passages in smaller letters in its 1st facicle, which are
inserted in the body26). They are of course based on the 高 麗 Edition, the
basic one for the Taisho. While all these four in the four other collated vessions equally become the body itself with the characters of the same
size as that of the body. This fact does not mean that the 高 麗 Edition
never made such a mistake. On the contrary it means that the Edition also had the same possidility as inserting in error some comments as its body. This presumption can be proved by the content of the text. That is to say,
as an explanation on a word 舎 羅 (salaka), the following passage is seen27): It is 壽 in Chinese that is the equivalent for 舎 羅 in an Indian language. It
26) ibid., pp. 31c & 32bc and their footnotes. The note of this kind is called 割 註 or 細 註.
means 'destruction'.
Aname of 般 馳 (Panthaka), moreover, is commented as follows28):
Nobody could give him any monk-name. Then he named himself 道 生. It is the equivalent for 般 馳 in a northern savage's language (胡).
These are obviously additional comments intermixed later by Chinese. Again examining the already touched four comments in the 1st fascicle
of the text, we find among them the following explanation. on 一 法 (eka-dha-rmna)29):
一 法 is 空 法 (sunyata-dharma). It has no form (形) and no appearance (像)
and cannot be grasped.
This is clearly of the same sort as what is called the Mahayanistic thoughts or expressions which are found here and these in the text, and with which it is regarded to be Mahayanistic to a certain degree.
This f act arouses in our minds a question that at least a few of such Mahayanistic thoughts or expressions might be added later in China, too.
28) ibid., p. 51c. 29) ibid., p. 32b.
