首 页  |  中国禅学  |  禅学三书  |  慈辉论坛  |  佛学论文  |  最新上传  |  文学频道  |  佛缘论坛  |  留言簿   |

 管理登陆        吴言生 创办              图片中心    关于本网     佛教研究所 主办


  • 作为佛弟子,你是否也经历过这[221]

  • 人生的三次觉醒[264]

  • 修行:气要和,性要缓[206]

  • 如何转化负能量的心理?[224]

  • 学佛很久了,你知道什么是“般[252]

  • 回归本来面目的生活[377]

  • 以佛渡生死,成禅悦人生[295]

  • 修楞严三昧,开显智慧光明[333]

  • 净土三经的伦理思想特色[166]

  • 不是念了几声佛号,就是念佛人[251]

  • 细节的力量[426]

  • 作恶有天收,人善有天护!别不[499]



  • 本站推荐

    寒山大士:亦僧 亦诗

    法门地宫宝藏:大唐

    迦陵频伽:从希腊女


       您现在的位置: 佛学研究网 >> ZZ期刊原文 >> [专题]zz期刊原文 >> 正文


    西藏大圆满教义跟中国禅法的融合
     
    [ 作者: 巴博   来自:期刊原文   已阅:4830   时间:2006-12-29   录入:ningguannan

    ·期刊原文

    西藏大圆满教义跟中国禅法的融合

    巴博


     

    提要

      对早期西藏佛教史而言,西藏本身的传统记载距离不偏不倚的要求仍然很远,因为它们未能正确地描绘出佛教是如何传入这一地区的历史。至于那些缘于政治、社会因素而衍生出来的讲法,其混淆的程度较之上述那些传统记载,则更难令人置信了。

      中国禅法被介绍进西藏者有三派,它们是:金和上的禅法、无住禅师的禅法和摩诃衍的禅法。自后,各种不同的中国禅法弘化方式在西藏地区的广泛流行。这可以从西藏最重要的佛教中心─bSam yas寺的第一位土生藏族住持是一位中国禅法的大师这一点看出来。

      在同一时代,印度的大圆满教义亦通过维摩密多与毘卢遮那二人而传入西藏。在教义上,大圆满跟中国禅法有极多相似的地方。维摩密多所弘扬圠大圆满教义在西藏中部非常流行,而毘卢遮那所宣化的大圆满教义则流行于中、藏交界的西藏地区。

      Nyingma派的大师Rong ZamAtisa时代的人。虽然西藏禅宗曾遭受过法难,但在他住世的两代之前,逃过法难的禅法已渐跟毘卢遮那氏所传的大圆满教义融合了。

      到了Rong Zam,他本人接受了维摩密多与毘卢遮那两人所传的全部大圆满教义,而且是第一个做到兼通两家之学的人。由于毘卢遮那所传的教理系统中本来就早已有了中国禅法的成份。再通过Rong Zam的融会贯通,这两派的大圆满之学便跟中国禅学结合了。

      以上所陈,其讯息是早期的西藏大圆满文献和各类史书所提供。而西藏编年史之一的「青史」和中国敦煌石室中的文献,则提供进一步的数据。

     

     

     

    DAO-XUAN’S COLLECTION OF MIRACLE STORIES

    ABOUT “SUPERNATURAL MONKS”

    (SHEN-SENG GAN-TONG LU):

    AN ANALYSIS OF ITS SOURCES[1][1]

    By Koichi Shinohara

     

    1. Introduction

      Toward the end of his life Vinaya Master Dao-xuan (596-667) of the Xi-ming-si temple appears to have shown an unusual interest in miracle stories.[2][2] A part of this interest crystallized in a collection of Chinese Buddhist miracle stories called the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gantong lu (“Collected reords of Three Treasure miracles in China”) completed on the 20th day of the sixth month of the first year of the Lin-de period (664). In the colophon attached to this work Dao-xuan mentions the Fa-yuan zhu-lin “recently compled” by Vinaya Master Dao-shi of the Xi-ming-si temple. Dao-shi was known as a close collaborator of Dao-xuan, and the existing version of his Buddhist encyclopedia Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains a large number of thematic collections of Chinese Buddhist miracles. In a separate article, I have compared the cotents of Dao-xuan’s miracle story collection Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu and the miracle story sections of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin.[3][3] Virtually all the stories contained in Dao-xuan’s work are found in Dao-shi’s encyclopedia; blocks of material found in the same subsection in Dao-xuan’s work are also generally found as blocks of corresponding material in different parts of the encyclopedia, though comewhat mysteriously the name of Dao-xuan’s work is not mentioned in the corresponding Fa-yuan zhu-lin passages.[4][4] The Fa-yuan zhu-lin generally mentions the sources from which the passages were excerpted in the en-cyclopedia. The evidence in this general comparison of the content of the two works pointed to the likelihood that Dao-shi had relied on Dao-xuan’s work, either in the form known to us today, or in an earlier form available to him, in compiling his encyclopedia.

      This systematic survey of the relationship between the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu and the corresponding sections of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels to other parts of the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu are found in blocks of corresponding material though untitled and unattributed, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels to the last two titled collections (ie., the Rui-jing lu [Records of Scripture Miracles”] and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu) in the third fascicle of the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu are found scattered in a number of different parts of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin Fa-yuan zhu-lin.[5][5] Furthermore, the encyclopedia notes the source from which each of the incorporated items has been taken individually, using the basic format used extensively in its numerous collections of miracle stories. This information concerning the sources from which each item in the collection has been taken enables us to reconstruct the manner in which these two collections in the third fascicle of the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu were put together by Dao-xuan. In this paper I would like to pursue this line of investigation further by focusing on the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and examining its sources through its Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels.[6][6]

    2. General observations

      An examination of the sources mentioned in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu reveals the following basic facts:

    i) By far the largest number of stories in this collection appear to have been taken from the Ming xiang ji, a collection of miracle stories compiled by Wang Yan sometime after the year 479: nos. 2-10, 15-19, 21-24, 27, 28, [30].[7][7] The case of Hui-da (no. 30) is unusual: there is a long story about Hui-da in the Ming xiang ji fragment preserved in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (juan 86, 919b-920b), but that story is different from the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story, which is paralleled closely elsewhere in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (juan 31, 516c-517a).[8][8]

    ii) The other source that is explicitly identified in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels (or, to be more precise, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin entries on the same subjects) is the Gao-seng zhuan: no.1, 3-5, 11-12, 13, 18-20, 22, 26, [30]. In the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin the story of the monk seen by He Chong (corresponding to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no.14) is said to be based on the Gao-seng zhuan, but no corresponding material is found in the Gao-seng zhuan. The story about Hui-da (the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no. 30) again is unusual: it is said to be ased on the Gao-seng zhuan in the 31st fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, but the Gao-seng zhuan story about Hui-da is obviously not the source of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story. Seven out of 13 cases mentioned here are taken from the “miracle workers” section of the Gao-seng zhuan (9th and 10th fasicles).

    iii) Comparison of cases where the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories have parallels both in the Ming xiang ji and the Gao-seng zhuan, ie., stories numbered 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 22, 30 in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, reveals the following facts:

    In cases nos. 4, 5, and 18, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels mention only the Ming xiang ji as source, though parallel stories are also told in the Gao-seng zhuan, which probably used the Ming xiang ji, an earlier work, as its source.[9][9]

      In cases nos. 3,19, and 22, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains stories paralleling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu in more than one place, and in one place the source of the story is said to be the Ming xiang ji, and in another, the Gao-seng zhuan. In two cases, nos. 19 and 22, comparison of the contents of these parallels with the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, however, indicates that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version is based on the Ming xiang ji. In the case of item no. 3, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin material that gives the source as the Gao-seng zhuan is in fact a straightforward copy of the Gao-seng zhuan biography; the passage that gives the source as the Ming xiang ji is a shorter version of the same account; the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story is an even shorter version and it is not possible to determine whether it is an abbreviated version of the Ming xiang ji or the Gao-seng zhuan account.

      The case of the story no.30 about Hui-da is an exception. As noted above, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains a passage on this monk that is explicitly said to be based on the Ming xiang ji (919b-920b) and there is also a biography of this monk in the Gao-seng zhuan. Yet, the version of the story about Hui-da that is found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu is clearly different from these stories and represents an independent tradition. Moreover, this Shen-seng gan-tong lu story is also given in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin without indicating the source (516c-517a).

      As a whole these relationships suggest that in cases where the material in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu can be shown through their Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels to be related both to the Ming xiang ji and the Gao-seng zhuan, the material appears to be more directly based on the Ming xiang ji. Only in one case, that of story no. 3, is there the remote possibility that the immediate source of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story might have been the Gao-seng zhuan rather than the Ming xiang ji.

    iv) In one case, story no.14, which is about a famous statesman He Chong and a strange monk, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin states that the story is taken from the Gao-seng zhuan, but I have so far been unable to identify this passage in that work. For its Ming xiang ji parallel see below.

      To summarize, the collection of miracle stories about “supernatural monks” that is found at the end of the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu (Shen-seng gan-tong lu) was compiled by Dao-xuan by collecting relevant stories from Wang Yen’s collection of miracle stories Ming xiang ji and supplementing it with a small number of stories taken from the Gao-seng zhuan. The subjects of the stories which were unquestionably taken from the Gao-seng zhuan and not from the Ming xiang ji are as follows: An Shi-gao (no. 1), Fo-tu-deng (no. 11), Dao-an (no. 12), Shan Dao-kai (no. 13), Bei-du (no. 20), Tan-shi (no. 26), Bao-zhi (no. 29). With only two exceptions (nos. 1 and 12) these stories were taken from the “miracle workers” (Shen yi) section of the Gao-seng zhuan and these monks were well-known figures. Since the central figures in the stories taken from the Ming xiang ji were often not very well-known, Dao-xuan might have felt that his list of “supernatural monks” taken from the latter needed to expanded by including stories about other better-known figures.

     

    3. The relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin.

      In addition to the clarification of the sources Dao-xuan must have used in compiling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, the examination of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels results in a number of complex observations concerning the relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. We have noted that in almost all cases, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallel is accompanied with a not specifying the source from which it is taken, but the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story does not indicate its source.[10][10] This fact appears to exclude the possibility that Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels were based on the Shen-seng gan-tong lu: unless there existed a version of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu which specified the sources in detail and this version was available to Dao-shi, the editor of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, he would have found it difficult to specify the sources of individual stories in detail. As I examined elsewhere, the passages in a Fa-yuan zhu-lin that parallel the main body of the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu, except the two last collections titled the Rui-jing lu and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, appear as collected bodies of material without any accompanying notes specifying their sources. This relationship, in connection with other even more unambiguous evidence, indicates that these parallels in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin were in fact dependent on the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu.[11][11] If the Fa-yuan zhu-lin material corresponding to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu was similarly dependent on the latter, it would probably have appeared in the same form as a collected body of material without the notes specifying the sources for each of the items included in it. Excluding the possibility that the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels were dependent on the Shen-seng gan-tong lu we are left with two other possibilities for explaining the relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and its Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels: either the former is directly based on the latter, or both are independently based on a third source, or, more probably, a group of sources.

      The Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu appear in the number of places scattered throughout the encyclopedia. Since we have excluded the possibility that these parallels may have been dependent on the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, we might not be far from wrong if we assume that these parallel stories existed in scattered sources and were collected into one body of work only when Dao-xuan compiled the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. Dao-xuan might have collected these stories either from the Fa-yuan zhu-lin or from the original sources from which the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels were themselves taken. It is significant that a number of these parallel stories appear together in small groups of stories in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and are found in different places in the encyclopedia. This seems to point to two possibilities: these stories may have been found together in the original sources, and both Dao-xuan and Dao-shi copied these stories together as blocks of materials into their respective works; or these small groups of stories were first collected together by Dao-shi, and Dao-xuan relied on these smaller collections in compiling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. The situation might have been a complex one. Thus, some of the parallel material might have been collected by Dao-shi as a part of his effort to compile the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, and Dao-xuan might have used these collected stories in compiling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu; other parallels between groups of stories collected in different parts of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu might have resulted accidentally by virtue of the fact that the same body of material was copied into these two works independently. If we can identify one or more groups of stories among the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels which can be shown to have served as the immediate source of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, then we may be able to throw considerable light on the manner in which collections of stories about “supernatural monks” developed and ultimately resulted in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

      These small groups of stories, consisting of stories paralleling those in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, are found in the following parts of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin: the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories nos. 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 24, 26, 27 are found in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin; nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19 in the 28th fascicle, no. 11, 20, 26, 29, 30 in the 31st fascicle, and nos. 7, 8, 9, 22 in the 42nd fascicle; no. 21 and 28 in the 17th fascicle. Thus, only in six cases, out of the thirty total stories included in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels are found in isolation: the parallel to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no. 1 is found in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, juan 57, that to no. 10 in juan 56, that to no. 12 in juans 18 and 16, that to no. 15 in juan 33, that to 16 in juan 52, and that to 16 in juan 52, and that to no. 23 in juans 5 and 13.[12][12] I will examine these groups in some detail, looking for clues that might enable us to determine their nature more precisely.

    i) Parallels in the 19th fascicle

      The largest number of stories (eight) paralleling those in the “Shen-seng gan-tong lu” are found in the miracle stories section of the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, a section that bears the title of “Paying Respect to Monks” (jing seng). The table of contents at the beginning of the miracle stories section of the 19th fascicle lists ten stories, but there seems to be some confusion in the text: the second half of the story about Fa-an, mentioned seventh in the table of contents, is a separate story about Hui-yuan of the Chang-sha-si temple in Jiangling.[13][13] Furthermore, the tenth item in the table of contents, “sacred monks in the mountains in China” (Shen-zhou zhu-shan sheng-seng), appears to be a separate list of mountain hermits consisting of at least four independent stories. Although it is not explicitly identified in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, this material is virtually identical with one section of Dao-xuan’s Shi-jia fang-zhi, which according to its colophon was compiled in the first year of the Yong-hui period (650).[14][14]

      The note attached at the end of the third story states that the three previous stories were taken from the Liang gao-seng zhuan; another note at the end of the story about Hui-quan, eighth according to the table of contents, but ninth if we count the Hui-yuan story as an independent story, states that the six preceding stories were taken from the Ming xiang ji. If we follow the manner in which the stories are itemized in the table of contents, the sixth story counting back from the story about Hui-quan will be the story about the extraordinary monk who appeared to He Chong, ie., the third story according to the table of contents, which according to the note attached at the end was taken from the Liang gao-sen zhuan; if we count the story about Hui-yuan as an independent item, the sixth story counting back from the note about the Ming xiang ji will be the fourth in the table of contents, ie., the story about the extraordinary monk who was seen in Mt. Lu. In the present form of the text, the two notes indicating the sources for the stories appear, therefore, to have followed the latter possibility and counted the story about Hui-yuan as an independent story. However, as we shall show later, the third story about the extraordinary monk seen by He Chong is not found in the Liang gao-seng zhuan; it was probably based on a story in the Ming xiang ji. It is possible, therefore, that this story (no. 3) was in fact the first of the six stories from the Ming xiang ji identified by the note after Hui-quan’s story.

      These confusions in the organization of the text indicate that the present form of the text might have evolved through editorial changes that were made on more than one occasion. It is, however, difficult to determine the earlier forms of the text precisely.

      A more general explanatory note (“shu yue”) is found at the very end of the miracle story section of the 19th fascicle, and this note mentions the Ming xiang zhuan in 30 juans, the Liang gao-seng zhuan in 15 juans (sic), the Tang gao-seng zhuan in 15 juans (sic), the Tang gao-seng zhuan in 40 juans (sic) as well as “many other historical records” as sources for stories about superior monks. The note also states that many stories of the same kind about superior monks were included in other parts of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. Thus, the sources for the main body of the material collected in this 19th fascicle collection of miracle stories are specified in detail by the notes on the Liang gao-seng zhuan and the Ming xiang ji and the long note at the end again specifies the sources, this time for the entire collection including the two last entries, in very general terms. This organization of notes appears to indicate that this group of miracle stories consisted originally of the stories taken from the Gao-seng zhuan and the Mjing xiangji, in the order in which they appear in the text. This original collection might have grown in stages, and the confusion about the number of Gao-seng zhuan and Mjing xiang ji stories might have occurred at some point in this development. It is also possible that the congusion occurred when the notes specifying the sources of these stories arranged in the present form were written at some later stage. At some further point, probably after the order of the stories was fixed and the noteson the sources were written, one more story about Hui-ming (source not mentioned) taken from the Gao-seng zhuan and a section on mountain hermits taken from the Shi-jia fang-zhi were added at the end.15 At this point a general comment intened to refer to the whole collection may have been added at the very end in the form of a long note and the present from of the collection may have been established.

      The nature of this miracle story cloolection in the 19th fascicle becomes clearer as we examine parallels between this collection and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

      The miracle stories section in the 19th fascicle begins with the story about Tan-shi that is saidto be based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography. A biography is Tan-shi appears in the “miracle workers” section of the Gao-seng zhuan (10th fascicle, 392bc), but there are some signigicant differences between the two accounts of this monk: their phraseology is quite different; the Gao-seng zhuan biography states at the end that it is unknown how he ended his life, whereas the story in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin ends with a statement that his body did not change over ten years after his death. The Gao-seng zhuan biography was faithfully reproduced elsewhere in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (juan 31, 517c-518a).16 I am not at this point convinced that the account in the 19th fascicle is in fact directly based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography. It is significant, therefore, that this short version of the story parallels closely the story of Tan-shi that is found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu (story no.26). At some points the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version is slightly more abbreviated.

      The miracle story segment of the 19th segment of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin then continues with stories about subjects that correspond to those of the stories nos. 13(Shan Dao-kai), 14(He-chong’s monk), 17 (a monk at Mt. Lu), 18(Zhu Seng-lang), 19 (Zhu-Fa-xiang) in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu in the same order.

      Again the story about Shan Dao-kai appears twice in the Fa-yuan Zhu-lin, first here in the 19th fascicle and then later in the 46th fascicle. Both passages are explicitly said to be based on the Gao-seng zhuan, but the version that appears in the 19th fascicle is an abbreviated version that parallels the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version (no.13) closely; the passage in the 46th fascicle is a direct copy of the Gao-sseng zhuan biography (“miracle workers section”,9th fascicle, 387bc)

      The same story about He Chong and a strange monk appears in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, 19th fascicle, where the source is given as the Gao-seng zhuan. But apparently there is a mistake here and the story is not found in the Gao-seng zhuan. Another version of this same story is found in the 42nd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (616ab), where its source is said to be the Mong xiang ji (note in 617a7).17) This version of the story in the 42nd fascicle contains numerous parallels in phraseology with the version in the 19th fascicle, but the two versions also diverge significantly at a number of points. 18) The version of this story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu is exactly identical to that in the 19th fascicle, and is either a copy of it, orthe two versions are based on a common unknown source which contained the text in exactly this form. Since the Ming xiang ji story is given in a different form in the 42nd fascicle, that common source was probably not the Ming xiang ji itself. 19)

      The story about a supernatural monk at the Lu-shan mountain similarly appears in both the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, taken from the Ming xiang ji. Though the two versions are obviously related with each other, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin version is slightly more detailed than the Shen-Seng gan-tong lu version (no. 17)

      The situation of the story about Seng-lang is more complex. The Fa-yuan zhu-lin version which gives the source as the Ming xiang ji parallels roughly the story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu (no. 18), but there are some significant differences: for the most part the two passages mention the same topics and describe them in a similar manner; at a number of points the same expressions are used, though at many others the same point is made with differently phrased sentences. The two versions diverge in content toward the end of the story.

      The Gao-seng zhuan contains a biography of Seng-lang (“exegetes” section, juan 5, 3546), and this biography touches upon the same topics as those mentioned in the stories in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and the Shen-sen gan-tong lu, but the wording is often quite different, the order in which the topics are mentioned is also sightly different, and the biography is longer, mentioning other topics and giving a little more detail on some of the topics. Gao-seng zhuan biographies are frequently based, either in their entirety or in parts, on Ming xiang ji stories. Thus, it is conceivable that all three versions are ultimately based on the Ming xiang ji story. The version in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, which explicitly mentions theMing xiang ji, may have reproduced the original Ming xiang ji story most faithfully; the Gao-seng zhuan version made use of other sources and expanded the Ming xiang ji story.

      There seems to be something distinct about the Shen-seng gan-tobh lu version of the story of Seng-lang. It mentions a miracle story about a well, not mentioned either in the Fa-yuan version or in the Gao-seng zhuan biography, and ends with a comment about the conemporary state of Seng-lang’s temple, giving the name of the temple as “Shen-tong si”. Both the Gao-seng zhuan biography and the version in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin mention the same location by the phrase, “Master Lang’s valley” (land gong gu). The story about the well is absent in these versions.

      Dao-xuan appears to have been well-acquainted with this temple called the Shen-tong-si. He mentions the name of this temple associated with Master Lan in Mt. Tai-shan (ref., Gao-seng zhuan, 354b8,9) in four of his Xu gao-seng zhuan biographies (Fa-zan: 506c-507a, Tan-qian: 573b, Seng-yi: 647a, Fa-an: 652a). The passage in Fa-zan’s biography gives an extended account of this temple, stating that the temple was originally called “Master Lan’s temjple (Lan-gona si)” but that in the third year of the Kai-huang period (583)Emperor Wen-di of the Sui dynasty gave it the name “Shen-tong si (miracle temple)” on account of miracles that occurred frequently there. This passage describes many of these miracles, including the story of the miraculous well mentioned in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version of the story of Seng-lang. The passage also states that although the temple was over 400 years old, the Buddha image looked brightly colourful as if it were new (507a7,8). This description suggests that Dao-xuan had visited the temple himself. Seng-yi’s biography gives a detailed description of the seven images in the temple, and states that the practice of keeping the temple gate opten was continued “up to the present” (647a10). These passages again suggest that Dao-xuan had visited the temple in person, and that he might later have shaped the story about Seng-lang in the shen-seng gan-tong lu on the basis of information obtained on his visit there. Two possibilities emerge concerning the relationship between the version of Seng-lang’s story in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and that in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu: either Dao-xuan based his account on the Fa-yuan zhu-lin version but changed its phraseology occasionally and expanded it with other information available to him, or both Dao-shi and Dao-xuan based their respective account directly on the Ming xiang ji original, Dao-shi reproducing the originally more or less faithfully and Dao-xuan revising it, using a few pieces of new information.

      The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Fa-xiang (no.19) has two jparallels in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin: the parallel passage in the 19th fascicle gives the Ming xiang ji as its source and is closer to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version; the passage in the 28th fascicle gives the Gao-seng zhuan as it source and is clearly an abbreviated copy of Fa-xiang’s biography there.

      The next entry in the miracle stories section of the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is the story about fa-an, a student of the famous Hui-yuan of Mt. Lu-shan. This entry is followed by a story about Hui-yuan of the Chang-sha-si temple of Jiang-ling. The story about Fa-an is not found in the Shen seng-gan-tong lu. The story about Hui-yuan of the Chang-sha-si temple is found the Shen-seng gan-tong lu (no.27).

      The passage about Hui-yuan of the Chang-sha-si temple in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin gives the source as the Ming xiang ji and it is identical with the corresponding passage in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. The same story appears again in the 97th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, and the source is again said to be the Ming xiang ji. Though the passage in the 97th fascicle tells unmistakably the same story, it tells the story with more details, revealing that at least in this case the Fa-yuan Zhu-lin quoted from the Ming xiang jo rather freely, depending on contexts—unless the Ming xiang ji contained two versions of the same story, or two rather divergent versions of the Ming xiang ji existed and were available to Dao-shi. Otherwise we must conclude that either the 19th fascicle version is an abbreviation of the Ming xiang ji original or, less likely, the 97th fascicle version is an elaboration of the latter. It is thus quite significant that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version is identical with the 19th fascicle version. The identity again points to a close relationship between the 19th fascicle collection of miracle stories and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

      The Fa-yuan zhu-lin continues with the story about Hui-quan that corresponds to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no.24. The Fa-yuan zhu-lin, 19th fascicle gives the Ming xiang ji as the source for its story about Hui-quan’s experience with a strange disciple. The comparison of that passage with the corresponding story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu reveals that the two stories are closely related with each other, but again the Fa-yuan zhu-lin version is more detailed. At the end of the story, for example, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin version states, “Quan was alive in the twentieth year of the Yuan-jia era (443/4) in Qiu-quan”; the Shen-seng gan-tong lu says briefly, “Toward the end of the Yuan-jia era (yuan-jia mo; around 453/4?) Quan was still alive in this world” The Gao-seng zhuan does contain a biography of Hui-quan.

      The next story that appears in the miracle story section of the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is that of Hui-ming. Though the text does not mention the source, this passage on Hui-ming is based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography of the same monk (“meditation masters section”,juan 11, 400b). The Shen-seng gan-tong lu also gives a short story about Hui-ming (no.28), but it is an entirely different story, and a rough parallel to that story exists in the 17th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, where it is said to be based on the Ming xiang ji. I suspect that a rather complex set of circumstances may lie behind this item in the miracle story section of the 19th fascicle. If the story existed in its present form when the main body of the miracle story collection in this fascicle was compiled, why was it not included in the first part of the collection listing the stories taken from the Liang gao-seng zhuan? Its location after the “six stories” from the Ming ji might indicate that in an earlier stage of this collection, e.g., in an earlier draft that must have been available to Dao-xuan as well as Dao-shi (assuming that Dao-shi used a source prepared by someone else when he prepared the present form of the miracle story collection in the 19th fascicle). The Ming xiang ji story of Hui-ming appeared at this point, and that Dao-shi or some other person who edited and produced the present form of the text replaced it with a different story about a monk of the same name taken from the Gao-seng zhuan. The reference to the source may have been omitted at this point since the Gao-seng zhuan materials were given earlier, and the editor knew that the version of Hui-ming story that he adopted was not taken from the Ming xiang ji. It may also be significant that the Hui-ming who appears in the Gao-seng zhuan story was a monk who lived in the mountain cave in Mt. Chi-cheng near Mt. Tian-tai.Mt. Chi-cheng and Mt.Tian-tai are mentioned prominently in the first story in the collection of mountain monks in the long section that follows.

      The miracle stories segment of the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin continues with several other biographies of “supernatural monks” who lived in various sacred places in China. As I have noted earlier this section appears to have been copied from the sixth section of Dao-xuan’s Shi-jia fang-zhi.

      The above review of the material in the 19th fascicle results in some further refinement of the basic hypothesis concerning the origin of this collection that I presented earlier. In my original hypothesis I suggested that the original collection consisted of the first two stories from the Gao-seng zhuan which was then followed by six or seven stories from the Ming xiang ji, with the story of Hui-ming added later. The detailed investigation of the story of Hui-ming reveals that it too may have been originally from the Ming xiang-ji. This would suggest that the original collection may have consisted of two stories taken from the Gao-seng zhuan, ie., the stories about Tan-shi and Shan Dao-kai, that were placed at the beginning of the group and then followed by eight stories taken from the Ming xiang ji, ie., stories about He Chong and a strange monk, the supernatural monk at Mt. Lu, Seng-lang, Fa-xiang, Fa-an, Hui-yuan, and Hui-quan and Hui-ming.

      The evidence examined above suggests that there probably was a close relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the parallelstories in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. For example, both in the case of the story about the strange monk who appeared to He Chong (no.3) and the story about Hui-yuan of the Chang-sha-si temple (no. 7a), the passage found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and that found in the miracle story collection of the 19th fascicle are identical, and closer examination indicates that each of these identical passages probably was an abbreviated version of a more detailed Ming xiang ji story found elsewhere in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin.

      The sequence of the stories between the second and sixth in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and the 13th and 19th inn the Shen seng gan-tong lu is also rather remarkable; the stories about Shan Dao-kai, He-chong’s monk, a , monkat Mt. Lu, Zhu Seng-lang, Zhu Fa-xiang are found one after another in the same order in both works. 20) The fact that the items included in these two parallel sections include those taken from two sources, ie., the Gao-seng zhuan and the Ming xiang ji may be very significant. The Ming xiang ji stories that constitute the main body of these parallel sections may have existed in this order in the original, and the identical order in the miracle stories collection of the 19th fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu might thus have reproduced the order in the original sources independently. Yet, this would not explain why the Shan Dao-kai story taken from a different source, ie., the Gao-seng zhuan, is placed immediately before these stories based on the Ming xiang ji both in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the 19th fascicle miracle story collection. We have seen above that the Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains two versions of stories about this monk, both of which were based on the Gao-seng zhuan and that it is the 19th fascicle version that parallels the Shen-seng gan-tong lu closely. The stories about Shan Dao-kai in these two works must have been closely related with each other. This parallel with regard to the Shan Dao-kai story, therefore, suggests that there might have been a more direct relationship between the two works. This story about Shan Dao-kai must have been grouped together along with the other stories taken from the Ming xiang ji at some point, either by Dao-shi when he compiled the 19th fascicle collection, which was then copied by Dao-xuan, or by someone who prepared the source used by Dao-shi when he compiled the 19 fascicle collection.

      Thirdly, one might also note that in five cases, ie., the stories about Tan-shi, Shan Dao-kai, the monk seen by He Chong, Fa-xiang, and Hui-yuan, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains two passages on the same subject, one in the 19th fascicle and the other scattered in many places in the encyclopedia. In all these cases, the version in the 19th fascicle is the one noticeably closer to that in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.21)

      We have suggested earlier, primarily on the basis of the fact that notes indicating the sources for each stories appear in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, that parallel stories in the miracle story sections of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin could not have been based on the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. Some of the parallel miracle stories in the 19th fascicle provide further evidence confirming this basis hypothesis. The analysis of the story about Seng-lang’s temple in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu indicated that Dao-xuan’s version incorporated information possibly by him on his visit to the temple, and that this information is not found in the version in the 19th fascicle, which otherwise parallels Dao-xuan’s version rather closely. At least in this case, it appears that the version in the 19th fascicle was composed earlier and that Dao-xuan’s Shen-seng gan-tong lu version was produced by copying it faithfully for the most part but also adding a few other pieces of information. In three cases we have noted that the version of the story found in Dao-xuan’s Shen-seng gan-tong lu is more abbreviated than that in the miracle story section of the 19th fascicle (stories about Tan-shi, the monk in Mt. Lu, and Hui-quan). In all these cases, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin versions specify the sources of these stories either as the Gao-seng zhuan or the Ming xiang ji. It would be more natural to assume at least in these cases that the Fa-yuan zhu-lin versions are more faithful reproductions of the Ming xiang ji original, and that the more abbreviated version produced by Dao-xuan resulted when Dao-xuan abbreviated these materials slightly as incorporated them into his collection.22)

      These observations suggest two possible ways in which the miracle story section in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu might have been related with each other: (1) the collection in the 19th fascicle might have been produced first, and Dao-xuan might have copied it into the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, abbreviating some of the stories and adding some detail to the Seng-lang story; or (2) there existed a common source, perhaps a draft collection of miracle stories prepared at the Xi-ming si temple, on which both the 19th fascicle collection and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu were based. In this case there was no direct relationship between two collections, and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin collection might well have come into being after Dao-xuan’s collection had been written.

      Since we have no direct access to the common source posited in the second hypothesis, it is diffcult to choose between the two hypotheses on the basis of the evidence available to us. In fact, the circumstances in which the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu were produced might have been very complex. The Fa-yuan zhu-lin must have been compiled over a long period of time, and a number of drafts must have been made for each section of the encyclopedia; as the abbot of the Xi-ming-si, Dao-xuan probably had access to these early drafts and may have made use of them in compiling his own works. Conversely, collections of historical sources and records compiled by Dao-xuan, such as the Guang hong-ming ji and the Xugao-seng zhuan, must have been prepared over a long period of time, and a large body of material must have been developed for this purpose; these material must have been used by Dao-shi in compiling the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. It is thus possible that a large collection of historical documents existed at the Xi-ming-si that was used freely both by Dao-xuan and Dao-shi. If this were the case, a collection of miracle stories might well have existed as a part of this large collection of historical materials, and Dao-xuan as well as Dao-shi might have been responsible for collecting these materials. Dao-shi might have used such a collection of miracle stories to produce his draft which later became the core of the miracle story collection in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, and Dao-xuan at some later point might have compiled the Shen-seng gan-tong lu by expanding this draft.

      Whatever the immediate circumstances that lie behind the compilation of the miracle stories in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, the above analysis of the parallels between the two collections indicates that the core of the 19th fascicle collection existed as an independent collection before Dao-xuan compiled the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and that in fact this collection can be characterized as an antecedent to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu later compiled by Dao-xuan, who expanded its contents drastically.

     

    ii) The 28th fascicle

      The miracle stories section of the 28th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (“shen yi”[supernatural and extraordinary events] begins with a table of contents that lists 18 items. According to the notes attached at the end of the 2nd, 8th, 16th, and 17th stories, the collection consists of two stories taken from the Liang gao-seng zhuan, six stories from the Ming xiang ji, eight stories from the Tang gao-seng zhuan, one story from the Ming bao ji, and one final section consisting of a variety of miracle stories taken from a number of sources. The second story in the Gao-seng zhuan section is about Fa-xiang, the subject of the Shen-seng gao-tong lu story no. 19. Stories corresponding to the Shen-seng gang-tong lu nos.2(zhu Shi-xing), 3(Qi-yu), 4(Fo-diao), 5 (Jian Tuo-le), and 6 (Di Shi-chang) are found as stories 3,4,5,6, and 7 in the miracle story section of the 28th fascicle, and constitute the main part of the six stories in that collection that had been taken from the Ming xiang ji.23)

      We have seen that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about the monk Fa-xiang is based on the Ming xiang ji version that appears in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. The story about this monk in the 28th fascicle (story no. 2in that collection) is based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography and not on the Ming xiang ji story. Thus, though this story happens to appear in the 28th fascicle immediately before the list of six Ming xiang ji stories, which contains the other five parallels with the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, it was not this version of the story of Fa-xiang in the 28th fascicle that Dao-xuan used in compiling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. The parallel materials in the 28th fascicle are thus all stories that are explicitly attributed to the Ming xiang ji.

      In two other cases, the stories of Zhu Shi-Xing (Shen-seng gan-tong lu, no. 2; the 28th fascicle no.3) and of Di Shi-chang (Shen-seng gan-tong lu, no.6; the 28th fascicle, no.7), the version in the 28th fascicle are significantly different from those of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains elsewhere versions identical (with minor differences in the case of the Zhu Shi-Xjing story) to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu versions in the 18th and 54th fascicles respectively. In both cases the 28th fascicle versions are longer than the other versions in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin.

      The story about Zhu Shi-xing in the 18tth faxcicle is found among the group of six stories that are said to have been taken from the Ling gao-seng zhuan and other miscellaneous records (418b28). Thus, the two stories about Zhu Shi-xing in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin appear to have been taken from two different sources, and unlike the case of Fa-xiang examined above, Dao-xuan made use of the Gao-seng zhuan biography rather than the Ming xiang ji story in compiling his Shen-seng gan-tong lu entry.24)

      The source of the story about Di Shi-chang in the 54th fascicle in not indicated, but since Di Shi-chang was not a monk and the Gao-seng zhuan does not include any story abou him, it may be safe to assume that both the 28th and 54th fascicle stories on this figure were ultimately based on the Ming xiamg ji. There is a possibility that Dao-shi compiled the 54th fascicle version of the story of Di Shi-chang by simply copying down Dao-xuan’s story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. That may explain why the 54th fascicle entry on Di Shi-chang lacks the note on its source.25) If this happens to be the case, it is possible that it was the 28th fascicle version of Di Shi-chang’s story that Dao-xuan had used earlier to compile his story on this figure in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. Since the original Ming xiang ji version is lost, it is not possible to determine whether the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version was an independent summary based directly on the Ming xiang ji, or it was based on the 28th fascicle version of the story, which claims to have been based on the Ming xiang ji.

      Qi-yu’s story (no.3) appears in two places in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, in the 28th and 61st fascicles. The story in the 61st fascicle is said the based on the Gao-seng zhuan and it is in fact a copy of the Gao-seng zhuan biography. The Shen-seng gan-tong lu version appears to be a summary of the 28th fascicle version or, very possibly, its source, the Ming xiang ji story of Qi-yu.

      The version of the story about Fo-diao that appears in the 28th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is for the most part identical to the Gao-seng zhuan biography. The latter must have copied this story about Fo-diao from the Ming xiang ji. The Shen –seng gan-tong lu story is an abbreviated version of the Ming xiang ji story and is shorter than the version in the 28th fascicle. Again its source could have been the 28th fascicle or the Ming xiang ji itself.

      The story of Jian Tuo-le in the 28th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is slightly more detailed than the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version of this story. Apparently, this longer version of the Ming xiang ji story also served as the basis of the Gao-seng zhuan biography, which is found in the “miracle workers” section (juan 10, 388c-389a).

      The parallel between the set of five stories that are found side by side in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and another set of five stories similarly found side by side in the same order in the 28th fascicle is rather striking. It implies either that the two passages are directly related to each other or that the two passages are drawn from a common source and reflect the organization in the source faithfully. We have shown above that the note in the 28th fascicle identifies the source for all these five stories as the Ming xiang ji. Interestingly, the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version of the first of these five stories, the story about Zhu Shi-xing, is based on the Gao-seng zhuan, while the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version of the other four stories appears to have been based on the Ming xiang ji (or possibly another work that reproduced the Ming xiang ji version of these stories).

      If we leave the question of the curious situation about the Zhu Shi-xing story aside for the moment, the possibility that the Ming xiang ji might have been the common source from which the two sets of four stories were drawn independently cannot be dismissed without careful examination.

      Since the Fa-yuan zhu-lin gives the Ming xiang ji frequently as the source for passages excerpted there, this work lmust have existed in its entirety at the time Dao-shi compiled this encyclopedia and he must have had acess to ir. An examination of the two other groups of stories attributed to the Liang gao-seng zhuan (ie., the Gao-seng zhuan compiled by Hui-zhao) and the Tang gao-seng zhuan (ie., the Xu gao-seng zhuan compiled by Dao-xuan) in the mircle stories section of the same 28th fascicle indicates that material was taken from these sources in blocks and that the order of the stories in the sources was preserved in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin quotations.26) Since the Ming xiang ji is now lost, we cannot know the order in which the Ming xiang ji stories were arranged. Yet, it is quite possible that these six stories were similarly taken from the Ming xiang ji as a block, and thus preserve the order in which these stories were found in the original work. If this was the case, then the fact that the same body of material is found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu arranged in the same order does not necessarily indicate that a direct relationship existed between the 28th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. We have seen above that by far the largest number of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories were taken from the Ming xiang ji; the majority of these stories taken from the Ming xiang ji are also found one after another forming blocks of stories taken from that source. The block of stories between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu nos. 3-10, for example, all appears to have been ultimately based on the Ming xiang ji. Each of the two texts may thus have copied the overlapping body of material from the Ming xiang ji directly, and thus independently inherited the order in which the stories were arranged in the Ming xiang ji.

      The fact that the story about Zhu Shi-xing drawn from two different sources appears in the same position in the parallel sequence of five stories in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the miracle story collection in the 28th fascicle is more difficult to explain. If we assume that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version was directly dependent on the collection in the 28th fascicle, we must also assume that Dao-xuan replaced the story there, based directly on the Ming xiang ji, with a summary of the Gao-seng zhuan biography of the same monk.27) It is also possible that Dao-xuan did not depend on the miracle story collection in the 28th fascicle when he compiled the corresponding section of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, and the parallel in the position of the Zhu Shi-xing story does not reflect direct borrowing from that source. The identical position of the Zhu Shi-xing story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu might have resulted from a different process. Dao-xuan appears to have begun his collection in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu with two stories taken from beginning sections of the Gao-seng zhuan: the An Qing story was taken from his biography in the first fascicle, the first part of the secton on “translators”, and the Zhu Shi-xing story was taken from the fourth fascicle, again the first part of the section on “exegetes”.28) We might therefore assume that Dao-xuan began his work with these Gao-seng zhuan biographies. He would also have had available to him the Ming xiang ji; now, if we assume that the Zhu Shi-xing story appeared in the Ming xiang ji in the same position as it occupies in the 28th fascicle,we have the possibility that Dao-xuan kept his version based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography and then continued with the rest of the Ming xiang ji stories.29)

      The evidence in the parallels between the 28th fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories does not enable us to state definitively whether the latter was directly dependent on the former, or the two collections were independently based on the Ming xiamg ji (and the Gao-seng zhuan in the case of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu) and the parallels were largely accidental.

     

    iii) The 31st fascicle

      The 31st fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains materials on two topics: one on hermits (“qian-dun”{hidden and withdrawn} adepts)and the other on monsters (“yao-huai”). The miracle story collection attached to the section on hermits contains a number of stories related to stories in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu:Fo-tu deng (31st fascicle no.3; Shen-seng gan-tong lu, no.11), Bei-du (no. 2; no.20), Tan-shi (no.5; no.26), Bao-zhi (no.11; no.29), and Liu Sa-he (No.1; no.30). The sources for the stories included in this collection which comprises 13 stories are indicated in the usual fashion: the first 11 stories are said to have been based on the Liang gao-seng zhuan; 30) the 12th story on the Yuan hun zhi; the 13th item, described as miscellaneolus records taken from the Sou-shen ji and other sources in the introductory table of contents (516c20, 21), contains a number of stories based on the Shen-xian zhuan, You-ming lu, Shu-yi ji, and Sou-shen yi ji. All the stories that offer parallels to the stories in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu are found among materials taken from the Gao-seng zhuan. Though three of the parallel stories are found together at the beginning of the first miracle story collection in the 31st fascicle (Liu Sa-he, Bei-du, Fo-tu-deng), the corresponding stores are found scattered in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. The other two stories found scattered in the 31st fascicle (Tan-shi and Bao-zhi) are alsoi found in positions that appear rather arbitrary in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. If there was any direct relationship between the stories in the 31st fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, the relationship must have been one between individual stories rather than between blocks of stories.

      The story of Fo-tu-deng in the 31st fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is identical to that in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. The fa-yuan zhu-lin also has another passage in the 61st fascicle, where the source is also given as the Gao-seng zhuan, and in fact the passage is a copy of the Gao-seng zhuan biography. The Fo-tu-deng story in the 31st fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu appear to be based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography, but are much shorter and the stories paralleling those in the Gao-seng zhuan biography are presented in different in different order.

      The situation is somewhat similar in the case of the story about Bei-du. The version in the 31st fascicle parallels loosely the Shen-seng gan-tong llu, though in this case the Fa-yuan zhu-lin version is considerably more detailed and the phraseology is quite different even in sentences describing the same events. As in the case of Fo-tu-deng, there is again a story about Bei-du in the 61st fascicle. Thus passage is identical with the Gao-seng zhuan biography and also is explicitly said to have been copied from the Gao-seng zhuan. The shorter Shen-seng gan-tong lu and 31st fascicle story may be ultimately based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography, though they also contain information not found in the Gao-seng zhuan biography (e.g., reference to Kumarajiba).

      The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Tan-shi is brief, and we have shown above that it probably is a slightly abbreviated version of the story about this monk in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. The story about Tan-shi in the 31st is a faithful copy of the Gao-seng zhuan biography.

      The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Bao-zhi appears to be rather different from the one in the 31st fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, which is directly based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography.

      It is probably significant that the same story about Liu Sa-he/Hui-da is found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu (no.30) and in the miracle story collection in the first half of the 31st fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (no.1). If we follow the variant reading of the note attached to Bao-zhi’s story, the editor of the miracle story collection in the 31st fascicle identified the source of this story about Liu Sa-he as the Gao-seng zhuan. But this story about Liu Sa-he included in the 31st fascicle is clearly different from his biography in the Gao-seng zhuan (“meritorious in some detail in my earlier study and suggested that this 31st fascicle/Shen-seng gan-tong lu version might have been the source that Dao-xuan used in compiling his biography of Hui-da in the Xu-gao-seng zhuan.32)

      Though all the stories examined here, except the story about Liu Sa-he/Hui-da, are probably ultimately based on Gao-seng zhuan biographies, the relationship between the two versions examined here and the original Gao-seng zhuan biographies appears to be diverse. In the case of the stories about Fo-tu-deng and Bei-du, the stories in the 31th fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu appear to have been directly related to each other.33) In the cases of Tan-shi and Bao-zhi, the version of the stories found in the 31st fascicle was directly taken from the Gao-seng zhuan, and there is no evidence suggesting any relationship with the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version. The stories of Liu Sa-he/Hui-da in these two sources are obviously related to each other: since this version of the Liu Sa-he/Hui-da story is not found anywhere else, and there were many other versions of Liu Sa-he/Hui-da stories known to Dao-xuan and Dao-shi, we may assume that the stories in the 31st fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong llu were probably intimately related to each other. Since the identification of the source of this story in the 31st fascicle as the Liang gao-seng zhuan is obviously faulty, the source for this story might well have been unknown to Dao-shi when he compiled this section of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. This would mean that in this case we need to suspend our general assumption that the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels accompanied by a source note was not based on the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. Dao-xuan appears to have been deeply interested in Liu Sa-he/Hui-da’s story, and it is quite conceivable that it was he who prepared the original version and that the 31ath fascicle version was simply a copy of that story produced by Dao-shi by Dao-shi. If this was the case, it shows that Dao-xuan played an important role in developing the common body of miracle stories that was later utilized both by Dao-xuan and Dao-shi. But there is no conclusive evidence, and the relationship could conceivably been the reverse: in that case it was Dao-shi who wrote the original, and as in the case of other parallels it was Dao-xuan who copied the story in Dao-shi’s collection.

      To summarize, in three cases there appears to have been a direct relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the miracle stories in the collection attached to the 31st fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. These are the stories about Fo-tu-deng, Bei-du, and Liu Sa-he. Except for the special case of the Liu Sa-he story, the 31st fascicle versions of the stories probably existed first, and Dao-xuan used them in compiling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

     

    iv) The 42nd fascicle

      The 42nd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin that collects passages on feasting monks is accompanied with a section on miracle stories . This collection consists of six stories that were taken from the Ming xiang ji (the story about He Chong that we have commented on in discussing the He Chong story in the 19th fascicle, followed by the stories about the nun Zhu Dao-rong, Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, Zhu Fa-jin, and Gunavarman) and one story taken from the Liang gao-seng zhuan that is appended at the end (the story about Dao Lin).34) Five of the stories taken from the Ming xiang ji appear to be related to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories: the story about Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, Fa-jin, He Chong’s monk, and Gunavarman (nos.7, 8, 9, 14, and 22 respectively in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu35). The stories about Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, Fa-jin appear side by side in the same order both in the miracle story collection in the 42nd fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

      The relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories nos.7,8, 9, and their counterparts in the 42nd fascicle is relatively simple. They tell the sa,e stories, in more or less the same words, though the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version appears to be more abbreviated, The text of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Yan-Gong-ze (given as Que Gung-ze in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin version) (no.7) has one slightly unusual lfeature: whereas the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories are generally given without noting their sources, this story states explicitly that a story on this subject appears in the Ming xiang zhuan (432a24), which I take to mean the Ming xiang ji. The parallel version in the 42nd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (616bc) which is said to have been taken from the Ming xiang ji is a good deal longer. The stories about Teng Bing (no.8) and Zhu Fa-jin in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu are closer to their again the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories are slightly shorter. Again the close relationship between these two sets of stories in the two works might indicate that they are directly related to each other; it might also indicate that these sets of stories were independently taken as blocks of stories from the Ming xiang ji.

      The case of the story about Gunavarman is somewhat more complex. The Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains three passages on this monk: two of these passages, one in the 22nd fascicle and another in the 36th fascicle, are said to be based on the Gao-seng zhuan; and the passage in the 42nd fascicle is said to be based on the Ming xiang ji. Gunavarman’s biography is preserved in the Gao-seng zhuan, and the com parison with this original revels that the Gunavarman passage in the 22nd fascicle is an abbreviated copy of the Gao-seng zhuan biography. The short passage in the 36th fascicle appears to be less directly based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography. The quotation from the verses that he left at the time of his death parallels one section of the fuller version given in the Gao-seng zhuan biography (342a27-b1), but here again there are some significant differences: the order of the second and third verses is the reverse of that in the Gao-seng zhuan version, and there are other minor differences of phraseology.36) The 42nd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin mentions the Ming xiang ji as the source of its Gunavarman stories. The relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Gunavarman and the Gunavarman story in the 42nd fascicle might be clarified, if, for example, we can show that the two versions are more closely related with each other than with the Gao-seng zhuan biogtraphy. I will here attempt to clarify the relationship between these three versions by focusing on the story about Gunavarman’s death.

      All three versions describe the death of Gunavarman by mentioning that he looked as if he had entered in to a state of meditation, that he left parting verses, that he attained the status of “once-returner”, and that a creature as long as over one pi (9m?) appeared.

      The story in the 42nd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin gives the date of Gunavarman’s death as the 18th day of the ninth month of the eighth year of the Yuan-jia period (431), and tells two stories. The first story relates that Gunavatman died in a meditative posture, and nothing in his appearance changed. Some said that he was in a state of deep concentration. Only when people found his testament (uyi shu) under the mat, which said that he had attained the rank of “once-returner” (erguo), did they know that he had ended his life. All of his disciples who were at his side smelled fragrant incense. The second story is about the extraordinary creature. Over 200 people in the capital gathered outside the temple building that night to hear the recitation of scriptures. Toward the morning, a cloud-like substance (“yun qi” appeared in the Southwestern sky, and suddenly a creature appeared, one pi in length, twisted itself around the corpse, and then disappeared. After these two stories, the passage notes that before his death Gunavarman prepared 36 verses and gave them to his disciple(s), saying that these verses should be sent to Indian monk(s). The “testament” left under the mat and the verses appear to be understood to be two separate documents here.

      The Gao-seng zhuann biography gives the date of Gunavarman’s death as the 28th day of the ninth month of the eighth year of the Yuanjia period and states that on that day, before finishing his mid-day meal, Gunavarman return to his residence. When his disciples went there later, he had unexpectedly already passed away. Before he died Gunavarman had prepared his testament (yi wen) in the form of a verse consisting of 36 lines. This document descrived the story of his life (? Yin-yuan) and certified that he had attained the rank if “once-returner”. After sealing this testament himself, he gave it to his disciple A-sha-lo, saying that after he died the disciple should show it to Indian monks, and to monks in China as well. After Gunavarman had ended his life, attendant monks placed the body in a sitting posture on a bed, and his face looked as if he were in the state of concentrated meditation. The biography gives the number of monks and laymen who gathered at the time of Gunavarman’s death as over 1,000, and says that they all smelled strong fragrance. The creature they saw is described as “something that looked like a dragon or snake” (zhuang ruo long-she), and this long creature is said to have arisen at the side of the corpse and gone up straight into the sky. Nobody could say what this creature was. The story of the cremation and funeral then follows. The text of the testament is said to have been translated by many monks into Chinese, and the translated text is at the end of the biography.

      The story of Gunavarman’s death is told in significantly different ways in the storu included in the 42nd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and in the biography in the third fascicle of the Gao-seng zhuan. It is particularly noticeable that Fa-yuan zhu-lin story states that Gunavarman died in the meditative position, and someone said that he was in state of meditation, the Gao-seng zhuan separates the story about Gunavarman’s death from the statement about the way he looked after his death. According to this biography, we do not know how he died and it was some time later, when his disciples placed him on a bed, that it was noted that from his facial expressions he looked as if he were in a state of meditation. Furthermore, whereas the “testament” which stated that Gunavatman had attained the rank of the “once returner” and the 36 verses appear to be two separate documents in the account given in the 42nd fascicle, in the Gao-seng zhuan the two are clearly identified as one document.

      The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Gunavarman describes his death as follows: he died in a meditative position, and did not rise from this position for many days. Under the mat “testamental verses” (yi jie) consisting of over 30 verses were found, which stated that he had attained the rank of the “once returner”,37) At that time over 200 people gathered, and they all saw a creature, over one pi long, twist itself around the corpse and disappear in the southwestern direction. This story is clearly closer to the story in the 42nd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and in fact appears to be an abbreviated version of that story.

      The comparison of the three versions of the Gunavarman’s story leads to the following conclusion: the story about Gunavarman in the 42nd fascicle must have been based on the Ming xiang ji note states and not on the Gao-seng zhuan biography as is the case of the two other parallel stories given elsewhere in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. In the passage in the 42nd fascicle Gunavarman’s name is transcribed slightly differently into Chinese characters, and this may have been the form in which the name was originally wrottem om the Ming xiang ji. In the Shen-seng gan-tong lu Gunvarman’s name is transcribed in the same way as in the Gao-seng zhuan biography. Nevertheless, the Shen-seng gan-tong lu appears to have been based on the Ming xiang ji itself or on the passage in the 42nd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin.

      I commented earlier on the story about the extraordinary monk seen by He Chong (no. 14), nothing that the version of this story that appears in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is identical with the Shen-seng gao-tong lu version. The 42nd fascicle version appears to be a more faithful reproduction of the original Ming xiang ji version.38)

      There is little doubt that all the stories that parallel the Shen-seng gan-tong lu in the 42nd fascicle were in fact taken from the Ming xiang ji itself as indicated in the attached note. The evidence reviewed above does not enable us to determine whether the Shen-seng gan tong lu stories corresponding to them were directly based on this material collected the 42nd fascicle, or whether they were independently taken from the original stories in the Ming xiang ji itself. The comment in Yan Gong-se’s story mentioning its source as the Ming xiang zhuan is not found tn the same form in the 42nd fascicle version, but it could have been based on the generalized note on sources in Sao-shi’s collection in the 42nd fascicle.39) He Chong’s story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu appears to be based on the 19th fascicle version and not on the 42nd verson. If this supposition is correct, then at least in this case the 42nd fascicle version and the 19th fascicle/Shen-seng gan-tong lu versions of the story might have ben independently drawn from the Ming xiang ji original. We have noted that the parallel in the sequence of the three stories about Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, and Fa-jin does not constitute a positive clue that enables us to determine the relationship between the relevant sources.

     

    v) The 17th fascicle

      The first half of the 17th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains two separate miracle storu collections, one associated with Samantbhadra and the other with Avalokitesvara.40) The collection associated with Samantabhadra consists of four stories and the first three of these stories are said to have been taken from the Ming xiang ji. The first two stories are both about ceremonies associated with Samantabhadra images held during the Da-ming period of the Song dynasty, in which a strange monk appeared. These two stories may have existed as one story in the Ming xiang ji original, and in the second story the name of the strange monk is given as Hui-ming. These two Ming xiang ji stories, either in the form in which they appeared in the Ming Liang ji or in the form in which they were excerpted from it for the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, together appear to have been the source of the story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu on Hui-ming (no.28). The third story in the Samantabhadra miracle story collection in the 17th fascicle is a story about Dao-jiong, and the first half of this story (408c28-409a10) parallels the story in the Shen-seng lu on Dao-jing (no.21,433c).41

      Since the two entries in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu appear separately as stories nos.28 and 231, the stories must have been copied separately by Dao-xuan, either from the Ming xiang ji itself or from the material prepared for the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. The fact that the material treated as two entries in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is used by Dao-xuan to tell one story about Hui-ming might indicate that it was the Ming xiang ji original that he used in preparing the abbreviated version for the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

     

    vi) Isolaed parallels

      There are six cases of stories in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu that have parallels in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin that exist as isolated stories. By this I mean that they are the only parallel stories to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu in their respective Fa-yuan zhu-lin sections. According to notes in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, two (Shen-seng gan-tong lu nos. 1 and 12) of these are based on the Gao-seng zhuan and the four others (Shen-seng gan-tong lu nos., 10, 15, 16,and 23) on the Ming xiang ji. In addition, in the two cases of Zhu Shi-xing and Di Shi-chang (Shen-seng gan-tong lu nos. 2 and 6), parallel stories appear in one of the five groups of parallel stories (the miracle story collection in the 28th fascicle), but upon closer examination, the exact parallel to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories turns out to be located elsewhere in isolation (in the 18th and 54th fascicle). The Zhu Shi-xing story in the 18th fascicle is said to have been based on either the Liang gao-seng zhuan or other miscellanceous records, and the source of the Di Shi-chang story is not indicated. These cases properly belong to the category of isolated parallels, but theyhave been discussed in some detail earlier. Zhu Shi-xing’s story appears in a group of six stories attributed to the same sources in the 19th fascicle, and since other stories in this group appear in Dao-xuan’s other collection at the end of the Ji shen-zhou sanbao gan-tong lu titled Rui-jing lu, it may have existed as a part of a group of stories prepared by Dao-shi and later used by Dao-xuan. We have suggested that Di Shi-chang’s story in the 54th fascicle that appears in isolation might in fact have been copied from the Shen-seng gan-tong lu after this work had been compiled by Dao-xuan.

      The story about An Qing in the 57th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is said to have been based on the Gao-seng zhuan, and a comparison of its contents with that of the Gao-seng zhuan biography of An Qing (“translators” section,juan 1,323a-324b) indicates that it is indeed an abbreviated version of that biography. The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about An Shi-gao (no.1) appears to be an extensively rewritten version focusing on two episodes, and since the relevant portion of the Gao-seng zhuann biography is also included in the abbreviated version in the 57th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, it could have been based on either one of the two sources.

      The story about Dao-an is found in two places in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin: in the 16th fascicle (406c-407b) where it is said to be based on the Liang gao-seng zhuan and in the 19th fascicle (418a) where it is said to have come from the Liang gao-seng zhuan or other historical records. The 18th fascicle story is a short account of a vision in which Pindola affirms the validity of Dao-an’s commentaries, and the same story is told in the long account as a part of a longer story in the 16th fascicle (407a3-8).42) The 16th fascicle story on Dao-an is abbreviated version of the Gao-seng zhuan biography.43) The Pindola story in the 18th fascicle is told here as a part of a longer passage on the same subject, which reproduces the corresponding passage in the Gao-seng zhuan faithfully (353b17-c12). The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Dao-an is also an abbreviated version of the Gao-seng zhuan, even shorter than that of the 16th fascicle. and contains passages that had also been copied into the story in the 16th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. 44) But the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story also occasionally refers to passages in the Gao-seng zhuan biography that were not copied into the 16th fascicle version.45) suggesting that Dao-xuan may have based his summary directly on the Gao-seng zhuan biography.

      The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Li Heng (no.10) is an abbreviated version of the Ming xiang ji story in the 56th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about the numhonoured by Huan-wen (no.15) is virtually identical to the parallel Ming xiang ji story in the 33rd fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (545a). The following story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, which tells the story about a monk who appeared to Du Yuan (story no.16), tells exactly the same story as the Ming xiang ji story in the 52nd fascicle (677b), but the sentences are shortened at many points. Parallels to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about the two sisters with the surname Lun (no.23) appear twice in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin in the fifth and the 22nd fascicles and in both cases the source is identified as the Ming xiang ji. The 22nd fascicle version (453b) is exactly identical to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version of the story; the fifth fascicle version (304ab) tells the same story slightly more elaborately.

      These isolated parallels provide us with a few significant pieces of evidence that are directly relevant for our investigation. The story about Dao-an in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu appears to have been prepared independently from that of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallel in the 16th fascicle. In all other cses considered here, the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories ould have ben based either on the Gao-seng zhuan or Ming xiang ji original directly or on the excerpts in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. It is notable that in the cases of the 33rd fascicle story about the nun honoured by Huan Wen and 22nd fascicle story about the two nuns with thw surname Lun, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin stories and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories are identical; in the case of the story of a monk who appeared to Du yuan, the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story is also very similar to the Fa-yuan zhu-lin story.46)In the case of the stories about the two nuns with the surname Lun, another more elaborate version of the same story attributed to the sa,e original source appears elsewhere in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. 47) We have seen earlier that this occurs with other parallel stories as well.48)

      The examples we have discussed above indicate that there is a close relationship between the two identical (or nearly identical) versions of the same stories in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin: one of these versions was dependent on the other, or they shared a common unknown source. In cases like the 19th fascicle parallels, where there are reasons to believe that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu was directly based on the Fa-yuan zhu-lin versions, these close parallels lead us to the conclusion that Dao-xuan built upon a smaller body of material that had been prepared by Dao-shi, or even by Dao-xuan himself at an earlier point. In some other cases, as in the case of the Di Shi-chang story, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin version that parallels the Shen-seng gan-tong lu closely might well have been copied from the Shen-seng gan-tong lu itself. This would be the exception to the general pattern in the isolated parallels, where, exept for the case of Dao-an, there is a distinct possibility that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version might have been directly based on the Fa-yuan zhu-lin.

     

    vii) Concluding comments

      This survey of the relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories and their Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels results in a number of tentative conclusions:

                  (a) We have noted earlier that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu was compiled by collecting a group of stories from the Ming xiang ji and adding several others from the Gao-seng zhuan. It may be significant that the majority of the paralleled stories in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin appear in groups in the small miracle story collections that are scattered throughout the different parts of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. In some cases the stories in these parall smaller collection appear in the same order as those in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. This phenomenon can be explained by either one of two basic hypotheses: either the order of these stories is derived from their order in the Ming xiang ji or there was some intimate relationshi between these groups of stories in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. In this second case, since the absence of source notes in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu suggests that Dao-shi probably did not copy from the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, we must assume that it was Dao-xuan who used the materials prepared for the miracle story sections of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. It is also possible that the body of material Dao-xuan used was prepared by both Dao-xuan and Dao-shi and later used by both in compiling their respective collection. Since the Ming xiang ji is now lost, we cannot rule out either of these two possibilities definitely. It is also possible that even if the order of these stories was ultimately based on the Ming xiang ji original, the parallel versions between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and Fa-yuan zhu-lin may nevertheless be directly related: the original order in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin might have then been copied into the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

                 (b) The evidence in the 19th fascicle suggests that the collection of stories about “supernatural monks” in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu developed in stages over a period of time. In my other study inn which I commented briefly on the nature of other collections in the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu, I noted that some of the miracle collections in the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu appear to have had a similar history, and that some of the earlier versions of these collections are preserved in a variety of works compiled by Dao-xuan. In comping the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, Dao-xuan appears to have used a small collection of miracle stories, now preserved, possibly in a revised form, in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, Dao-xuan and Dao-shi worked together in preparing a variety of collections of miracle stories, and in the case of the collection of “supermatural monks” it might have been Dao-shi who preserved the earlier form of the xollection in his encyclopedia.

               (c) The parallel stories in the 28th, 42nd, and 17th fascicles of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin are all originally Ming xiang ji stories. Since the Ming xiang ji itself is lost, it is difficult to determine whether the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories were taken directly from the Ming-xiang ji or from the Fa-yuan zhu-lin collections (or draft versions of these miracle story collections). The fact that the miracle story collections in the 28th, 42nd, and 17th fascicles do also contain a small number of stories from the Gao-seng zhuan and that those stories that are parallels to material in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu are nonetheless all from Ming-xiang ji stories seems striking.49) Since the Shen-seng gan-tong lu itself contains several stories from the Gao-seng zhuan and the parallels to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin are both from the Ming xiang ji and Gao-seng zhuan, it is not sufficient to argue that the heavy reliance of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu accounts for thefact that parallel stories in these fascicles are from the Ming-xiang ji As an alternative explanation I would suggest that it is possible that the absence of Gao-seng zhuan stories among the parallels in the 28th, 42nd, and 17th fascicle is to be explained in this fashion: the Ming xiang ji stories that appear in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin fascicles 28,42 and 17 and in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu circulated in a independent form, perhaps as an anthology of Ming xiang ji stories (what I have called the “draft version” of the miracles story collections above). This would have used this “anthology” independently of each other and come up with the same list of closely related stories.

               (d) The parallel stories in the 31st fascicle are all said to be Gao-seng zhuan stories, though in one important case about Liu Sa-he/Huida, the existing Gao-seng zhuan story is entirely different from that in the 31st fascicle, and the only parallel to it is found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. There was obviously an important direct relationship between at least this one story in the 31st fascicle and Shen-seng gan-tong lu version of the story. I have also noted that there appears to be some close relationship in two other parallel stories, those of Fo-tu-deng and Bei-du, This would suggest that Dao-xuan relied either on the 31st fascicle collection of miracle stories or an earlier draft version of this collection in compoling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

    The miracle story collection in the 31st fascicle contains excerpts from a variety of sources, but no Ming xiang ji stories are included there In the light of the fact that the parallels in the 28th, 42nd and 17th fascicles were all Ming xiang ji stories, this concentration of the parallel stories from the Gao-seng zhuan in the 31st fascicle collection suggests that many of the stories that were eventually incorporated into the Shen-seng gan-tong lu might first have circulated as two independent groups of stories: an anthology of Ming-xiang ji stories (see point c, above) and an anthology of gGao-seng zhuan stories. If Dao-xuan did not take his stories directly from the Ming xiang ji and the Gao-seng zhuan, he might have relied on two such separate summary collections of miracle stories; each of these summary collections might have some intimate relationship with the Fa-yuan zhu-lin miracle collections under examination here.

               (e) The cases where close parallels between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin appear in isolation also suggested that there might have been some direct relationship between many of these parallel stories.

      A general hypothesis emerges from the discussion here: the collection of “supernatural monks” that is found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu probably evolved gradually over a period of time. The parallel collections in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin might represent in many cases earlier stages in this development. The Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallel collections may have been prepared without the specific intention of compiling a larger collection of “supernatural monks” in the end. A similar development appears to lie behind the other collection attached at the end of the Ji Shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu, the Rui-jing lu. Thus, the effort to develop miracle story collections carried out by Dao-xuan and Dao-shi appears to have been a many sided and complex one, but the evidence indicates that they worked closely with each other, and the parallel materials in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin enable us to reconstruct some aspects of this massive project in broad outline. I have noted in my earlier article that the main part of the Ji Shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu appears to have been used by Dao-shi in ompiling the corresponding sections of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. The evidence in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, on the other hand, suggests that Dao-xuan lused lthe relevant sections of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin or possibly the materials that had been prepared earlier and are reproduced in their earlier forms in these sections. This evidence is of interest to us not only in the light it throws on the development of miracle story collections in medieval China, but also for what it can tell us about the manner in which the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, an important medieval Buddhist encyclopedia, came into being.

     

    APPENDIX I

    Content of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and their sources indicated in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin

    1.      1.      An Shi-gao. FYZL, juan 57 (719c-720b): GSZ (An Qing), Juan 1 (“translators”, 323a-724b).

    2.      2.      Zhu Shi-xing. FYZL, juan 28 (491a): Ming xiang ji. Another passages, FYAL, juan 18 (418b): “GSZ or other records” (GSZ passage: juan 4, “exegetes”, 346bc).

    3.      3.      Qi-yu. FYZL, juan 28 (419bc): Ming xiang ji. Another passage, FYZL, juan 61 (744abc): GSZ, juan 9(“miracle workers”, 388abc).

    4.      4.      Fo-diao. FYZL, juan 28 (491c-492a): Ming xiang ji. Ref., GSZ , juan 9( “miracle workers”, 387c-388a).

    5.      5.      Jian Tuo-le. FYZL, juan 28 (492c): Ming xiang ji. Ref GSZ, juan 10, “miracle workers”, 388c-389a).

    6.      6.      Di Shi-chang. FYZL, juan 28 (492ab): Ming xiang ji. Another passage, FYAL, juan 54, (694c-695a): no source indicated..

    7.      7.      Yan Gong-ze. FYZL, juan 42 (616bc): Ming xiang ji.

    8.      8.      Teng Ping. FYZL, juan 42 (616c): Ming xiang ji.

    9.      9.      Zhu Fa-jin. FYZL, juan 42 (616c): Ming xiang ji.

    10.  10.  Li Heng (Chang). FYZL, juan 56 : Ming xiang ji.

    11.  11.  Fo-tu-seng. FYZL, juan 31 (517bc): GSZ, juan 9 (“miracle workers”, 383b-387b). Another passage, FYZL, juan 61 (744c-746c): GSZ, ibid.

    12.  12.  Shi Dao-an. FYAL, juan 16 (406c): GSZ, juan 5 (“exegetes”, 351c-354a). Another passage, FYZL, juan 18 (418a): “GSZ or other records.”

    13.  13.  Shan Dao-kai. FYZL, juan 19 (428b):GSZ, jian 9 (“miracle workers”, 387bc) (this FYZLversion is abbreviated but closer to the Shen-seng gan-rong lu version). Another passage, FYZL, juan 46 (462abc): GSZ, ibid. (closer to the GSZ original).

    14.  14.  He Chong’s monk. FYZL, juan 19 (428b): “GSZ” (no parallel is found in the GSZ which mentions the name in 326a and 360c). Ref., FYZL,42 (616ab):Ming xiang ji (according to my reading of the note in 617a7).

    15.  15.  Huan Wen’s nun. FYZL, juan 33 (545a): Ming xiang ji.

    16.  16.  Du Yuan’s monk. FYZL, juan 52 (677b):Ming xiang ji.

    17.  17.  The monk at Mt Lu. FYZL, juan 19 (428b):Ming xiang ji.

    18.  18.  Zhu Seng-lang. FYZL, juan 19 (428bc):Ming xiang ji. Ref., GSZ, juan 5 (“exegetes”,354b).

    19.  19.  Liang Fa-xiang. FYZL, juan 19 (428c): Ming xiang ji. Another passage, FYZL, juan 28 (491a): GSZ, juan 7 (“reciters of scriptures”, 406c).

    20.  20.  Bei-du. FYZL, juan 31 (517b): GSZ, juan 10 (“miracle workers”, 3906b-392b). Another passage, FYZL, juan 61 (746c-748b): GSZ, ibid. (closer to the GSZ original).

    21.  21.  Shi Dao-jiong. FYZL, juan 17 (408c-505a): Ming xiang ji (parallel in the first half). Other passages, FYZL, juan 65 (784c-785a) (no source indicated). The Rui-ling also contains a story on this monk (426c).

    22.  22.  Gunavarman (Qiu-na-ba-mo).FYZL, juan 42 (616c-617a). Other passages, FYZL, juan 22 (452c)and juan 36 (571c-572a): GSZ, juan 3 (344a).

    23.  23.  The two nuns with the surname Lun. FYZL, juan 22 (453b):Ming xiang ji. Another passage, FYZL, juan 5 (304ab):Ming xiang ji.

    24.  24.  Shi Hui-quan. FYZL, juan 19 (429ab):Ming xiang ji.

    25.  25.  Liu Ning-zhi. No parallel story. The Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu, juan 1 (411b9-15) contains another unrelated story on this figure. The FYZL parallel to this Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu story is found in juan 40 (601c). Another unrelated story about him in the FYZL, juan 91 (956a).

    26.  26.  Shi Tan-shi. FYZL, juan 19 (428ab):GSZ, juan 10 (“miracle worker “,392bc). Another passage , FYZL, juan 31 (517c-518a) (closer to the GSZ original).

    27.  27.  Shi Hui-yuan. FYZL, juan 19 (428c-429a):Ming xiang ji. Another passage, FYZL, juan 97 (1003c-1004): Ming xiang ji.

    28.  28.  Shi Hui-ming,FYZL, juan 17 (408c-8, 12-18): Ming xiang ji. Ref. FYZL, juan 19 (429b):GSZ, juan 10 (“meditators”, 400b) (source not mentioned in the FYZL passage).

    29.  29.  Shi Bao-zhi. FYZL, juan 31 (516c-520a): GSZ, juan 10 (“miracle workers”, 394a-395a).

    30.  30.  Shi Hui-da. FYZL, juan 31 (516c-517a). Another passage, FYZL, 86 (919b-920b): Ming xiang ji. Ref. GSZ, juan 13 (“meritorious works”, 409b-410a).

     

    APPENDIX II: The sequence of the Ming xiang ji stories

      If we follow the notes in the corresponding Fa-yuan zhu-lin passages, the Shen-seng gan-tong lu depended directly or indirectly on the Ming xiang ji for the following stories: nos. 2-10; nos. 14-19;nos. 21-24; nos. 27-28. Some of these stories are found side by side in the same order in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin: nos. 2-6 in the juan 28, nos. 2-7; nos., 7-9 in juan, 42, nos., 3-5; nos., 14, 17-19, 24 in juan 19,nos., 2-7, 8. These parallels might indicate that the two sources were directly related to each other, that is, that Dao-xuan may have had access to the corresponding Fa-yuan zhu-lin materials, either in the present form or in the form of earlier drafts. There is, however, another possibility.

      The order in each of the corresponding passages in the two works may simply reflect the order in which these materials appeared in the Ming xiang ji independently. If Dao-xuan based his collection directly on the Ming xiang ji and took the materials in blocke os stories, the order in which these stories appear in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, at least in the sections where the Ming xiang ji stories are listed in sequence, may preserve the order in the Ming xiang ji faithfully. If Dao-shi also copied the Ming xiang ji materials in discrete units of stories and reproduced them in the miracle story sections of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, the order of the stories in these units would again reproduce the order in the Ming xiang ji original. If both Dao-xuan and Dao-shi, who appear to have worked closely together, excerpted materials from the Ming xiang ji the manner described above, the parallels in the order of stories in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin would not constitute meaningful evidence indicating a direct relationship between these two works. The parallels in the order, on the other hand, would constitute a valuable piece of evidence that might enable us to reconstruct the order in which the fragments of the stories from the Ming xiang ji, now preserved in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, appeared in the original text.

      In each of the 19th, 28th and 42nd fascicles, the section of the Ming xiang ji stories contain a few additional stories beyond those that have parallels in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. In some cases these stories are about figures other than monks, and therefore it could naturally be assumed that their absence in the Sheen-seng gan-tong lu simply means that they might have been dropped from the body of material Dao-xuan was collecting when he compiled that works on “supernatural monks”. A closer examination of the sequence of these stories might throw some light on the relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, its Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels, and the Ming xiang ji.

      The first block of stories, nos. 2-10, consists of the five stories that are paralleled in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, fascicle 28 (Zhu Shi-xing, Qi-yu, Fo-siao, Jian Duo-le, Di Shi-chang), followed by three stories paralleled in the 42nd fascicle (Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, Zhu Fa-jin) and one final story whose parallel is found in the 56th fascicle (Li Heng). In the 28th fascicle the sequence of stories from the Ming xiang ji begins with the story of Zhu Shi-xing and ends with that of Song Cheng-de, which follows the story about Di Shi-chang. In the 42nd fascicle the set of stories from the Ming xiang ji begins with that of He Chong, followed by the story about Dao-rong, and that story is then followed by the stories about Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, and Gunavarman. If the stories in the set of Ming xiang ji in the 28th fascicle miracle stories were followed by that in the 42nd fascicle in the original Ming xing ji, as the organization of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu suggests, the story about Song Cheng-de must have appeared in the Ming xiang ji original at the end of the section reproduced elsewhere in the 28th fascicle set, but since Dao-xuan was collecting stories about monks, he must have disregarded this story. Similarly the section of the Ming xiang ji stories in the 42nd fascicle begins with the stories about He Chong and the nun Dao-rong and then continues with the series of stories that parallel those in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. These stories about He Chong and the nun Dao-rong may have appeared in the Ming xiang ji original in this position. It is again understandable why Dao-xuang dropped the story about the nun Dao-rong.

      But the story about He Chong is a story about an extraordinary monk, and in fact Dao-xuan included this story in his collection later (story no.14). We have noted earlier that the Fa-yuan zhu-lin storythat parallels the Shen-seng gan-tong lu is found in the 19th fascicle where it is explicitly is said to have been taken from the Gao-seng zhuan. Perhaps there is more truth in this note than we suspected, and in fact there existed a shorter version of the story about He Chong in a source other than the Ming xiang ji, though we have not been able to identify t in the Gao-seng zhuan itself. If this was the case, it is possible that Dao-xuan did not copy this story in the Ming xiang ji when he prepared the materiald to be taken from there into the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, He might not have done so simply vecause the story centers around a secular figure He Chong. Later, on a different occasion, he might have collected a different version of this storu from another source, and placed it at a different point in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu from tjat pf the Ming xiang ji material that stood close to this story in that source.

      Li Heng’s story appears in isolation as the only Ming xiang ji story in the miracle story collection in the 56th fascicle. Thus, it is possible that the story might have appeared immediately after that of Fa-jin in the original Ming xiang ji in the same place as in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, but that the story was copied as a single story by Dao-shi and placed in the 56th fascicle by Dao-shi, leaving no clues as to its original location.

      The Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels to the second group of the Ming xiang ji stories that appear side by side in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu (nos., 14-19) are all found in the 19th fascicle. The story about He Chong in the 19th fascicle is said to have been based on the Liang gao-seng zhuan, and is followed by a series of six Ming xiang ji stories (stories about the monk at Mt. Lu, Seng-lang, Fa-xiang, Fa-an, Hui-yuan, Hui-quan). The corresponding section of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu begins with the story of He Chong, is followed by the two stories not paralleled in the 19th fascicle, the stories of the nun worshipped by Huan Wen, and of the monk seen by Du Yuan, and then continurs with the stories about the monk at Mt. Lu, Seng-lang, and Fa-xiang that are paralleled in the 19th fascicle collection. It is possible that the original Ming xiang ji passage began with the story about He Chong, contained the stories about Huan Wen;s nun and Du Yuan’s monk included only in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu passage, and ended with the stories about Fa-an, Hui-yuan, and Hui-quan, which appear only in the 19th fascicle collection. The 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is devoted to the section of “playing respect to monks” (jing seng). Thus, the avsence of the passage about Huan Wen’s nun in this section of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin poses no difficulty. Even if the story were there in the original Ming xiang ji passage, it would have been natural for Dao-shi to have dropped it from the material he was copying as being unsuitable for his purposes. The story about Du Yuan’s monk is about a miraculous appearance of a monk, and it would be more difficult to explain its absence in the 19th fascicle if it were a part of the original Ming xiang ji text. The same story about Du Yuan from the Ming xiang ji is given in slightly more detailed form in the 52nd fascicle. Here the Du Yuan story is given as the first of four stories about lay Buddhists. It is thus possible that the story about Du Yuan was known as a story about lay believers, and that was the reason why Dao-shi excluded it from his list of miracle stories related to the topic of “playing respect to monks”.

      The story about Fa-an is missing from the Shen-seng gan-tong lu; those about Hui-yuan and Hui-quan are found at later points separately and in the reverse order in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu (stories nos. 27 and no.24 respectively). If the stories of Hui-yuan and Hui-quan had appeared in the Ming xiang ji original at the position in which they appear in the 19th fascicle, at the end of the series of stories copied into the Shen-seng gan-tong lu from this source, it would be difficult to explain why they were placed elsewhere in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. The stories may have appeared later and separately in the original Ming xiang ji, and the 19th fascicle collection might have added these stories to a body of stories taken together from an earlier part of the Ming xiang ji. This is a speculative hypothesis, but the relative positions of the stories about Hui-yuan and Hui-quan suggest that Ming xiang ji stories found together in various miracle story collections in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin may not necessarily have come from the same passage in the Ming xiang ji. At least in compiling the collection in the 19th fascicle Dao-shi, or the author of the material he used, appears to have collected stories from different parts of the Ming xiang ji and may have placed some of them in a sequence not necessarily paralleling that of the original. There is also the other possibility that it was the Shen-seng gan-tong lu that changed the order of stories from the Ming xiang ji original. For our purposes, however, the important conclusion is that the order of the stories in the two collections could not have been entirely dependent on the order on the original. If the order of stories in these collections did not simply reflect that in the Ming xiang ji original in every case, then the existing parallels in many cases might suggest a direct relationship between the two works.

      Parallel stories to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu stories nos. 21-24 are found in fascicles 17 (Dao-jiong), 42(Gunavarman), 22(two sisters with the surname Lun), 19(Hui-quan). The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no.25 about Liu Ning-zhi was probably taken from the Ming xiang ji, but the Fa-yuan zhu-lin does not contain its exact parallel. The Dao-jiong passage in the 17th fascicles is preceded by two other stories from the Ming xiang ji. The Gunavarman story in the 42nd fascicles is preceded by five Ming xiang ji stories, the stories about He Chong, the nun Zhu Dao-rong, Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, Fa-jin.50) We have seen that the stories about Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, and Fa-jin appear in a sewquence of Ming xiang ji stories that are found together in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. In the Shen-seng gan-tong lu this sequence is then-interrupted with three stories from the Gao-seng zhuan (Fo-tu-deng, Dao-an, Shan Dao-kai) and then followed by the sequence of the Ming xiang ji stories found in the 19th fascicle. If the stories about Yan Gong-ze, Teng Bing, Fa-jin and Gunavarman were found together in the same sequence in the Ming xiang ji original as in the 42nd fascicle, and if Dao-xuan based his collection directly on the Ming xiang ji and preserved the original sequence of the stories in this work, then why did Dao-xuan insert the series of other Ming xiang ji stories found elsewhere, in the 19th fascicle, between the Fa-jin and Gunavarman stories?

      The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no.27 is about Hui-yuan and the story no. 28 is about Hui-ming. I have pointed out elsewhere that the Hui-ming story in the present form of the 19th fascicle is based on the Gao-seng zhuan, but that it might originalljy have been a Ming xiang ji story similar in form to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version of the story.51) In the 19th fascicle the story about Hui-yuan is followed by one about Hui-quan and then by one about Hui-ming. In the Shen-seng gan-tong lu the story about Hui-quan appears earlier (no.24), and the story about Hui-yuan (no.27) is followered by that about Hui-ming (no.28). At least one of these collections must have departed from the order of these stories in the original Ming xiang Ji.

      The evidence reviewed above showed significant discrepancies in the order in which the Ming xiang ji stories appear in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. Thus, it would be inappropriate to attempt to reconstruct the original order in which these stories appeared in the Ming xiang ji, and conversely parallels in the order of stories may in some cases indicarte that Dao-xuan copied the stories from the Fa-yuan zhu-lin or its immediate source. It is, however, also possible that some of the groups of the stories that appear side by side in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin preserved the original grouping and order of stories in the Ming xiang ji. In the absence of the original Ming xiang ji, it appears to be impossible to determine whether this was in fact the case and furthermore to identify which of the groups does in fact preserve the original form more faithfully.

      Since both the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin are both thematic collections of miracle stories, it might be more appropriate to assume that Dao-xuan and Dao-shi collected stories from each source ratherfreely and that the order of stories from the same source was not generally preserved in their collections. If we follow this assumption, then the extensive parallel in the grouping and ordering of the Ming xiang ji stories in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin indicates that the former was heavily dependent on the latter. Smaller collections of parallel stories in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin could then be interpreted as representing the earlier stages of the project that collected similar stories about “supernatural monks” that eventually culminated in the compilation of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu. Under this assumption, Dao-xuan and Dao-shi will be shown to have been even closer collaborators than was suggested to be the case under a more conservative assumption adopted in the main body of the paper. A large set of small groups of miracle stories taken from the Ming xiang ji and the Gao-seng zhuan may have been prepared by Dao-xuan and Dao-shi, and they may have used these groups of stories freely in compiling their respective collections.

     

    LIST OF CHINESE CHARACTERS

    An Qing 安清

    A-sha-lo 阿沙罗

    An Shi-gao 安世高

    Bao-zhi 宝志

    Bei-du 杯度

    Bu xin fo-fa, xing-hai seng-ni 不信佛法刑害僧尼

    Chang-sha-su 长沙寺

    Cheng De du 程德度

    Chi-cheng 赤城

    Da-ming 大明

    Da-tang nei-dian lu 大唐内典录

    Dao-an 道安

    Dao-jiong *

    Dao-lin 道琳

    Dao-shi 道世

    Dao-xuan 道宣

    Di Shi-chang 抵世常

    Du Yuan 杜愿

    er-guo 二果 

    Fa-an 法安

    Fa-hsiang 法相

    Fa-jin 法进

    Fa-yuan zhu-lin 法苑珠林

    Fa-zan 法瓒

    Fo-diao 佛调

    Fo-tu-deng 佛图澄

    Fu Jian 符坚

    Fukui hakushi soju kinen touobunka ronshu 福井博士颂寿纪念东洋文化论集

    Gao-seng zhuan 高僧传

    He Chong 何充

    Huan-wen 恒温

    Hui-da 慧达

    Hui-ming 慧明

    Hui-quan慧全

    Hui-yuan 慧远

    Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu 集神洲三宝感通录

    Jian Tuo-le 牺陀勒

    Jiang-ling 江陵

    Jing fo 敬佛

    Jing seng 敬僧

    Jiu-quan 酒泉

    Juan

    Kai-huang 开皇

    Kunaicho 官内厅

    Lan

    Lan-gong si 兰公寺

    Lan-gong gu 兰公谷Li-sai zhong-jing ying-gan xiang-jing lu 历代众经应感兴敬录

    Li Heng 李桓Liang gao-seng zhuan 梁高僧传

    Lin-de 麟德

    Liu Ning-zhi 刘凝之

    Liu Sa-he 刘萨河

    Lu

    Lun

    Lu-shan 卢山

    Ming

    Ming xiang ji 冥祥记

    Ming xiang zhuan 冥祥传

    Ming bao ji 冥报记

    Ming-seng zhuan 名僧传

    pi

    Qi-yu 耆城

    qian-dun 潜道

    Qin

    Quan

    Que Gung-ze 阙公则

    Rui-jing lu 瑞经录

    Ryukogu shidan 龙谷史坛

    San-bao gan-tong lu 三宝感通录

    Seng-lang 僧朗

    Seng-yi 僧意

    Shan Dao-kai 单道开

    shen-zhou zhu-shan sheng-seng 神州诸山圣僧

    shen yi 神异

    Shen-seng gan-tong lu 神僧感通录

    Shen-tong-si神通寺

    Shen-xian zhuan 神仙传

    Shi-jia fang-zhi 释迦方志

    Shih Tao-sun 释道逊

    Shu-yi ji 述异记

    Shu yue 述曰

    Song

    Sou-shen ji 搜神记

    Sou-shen yi ji 搜神异记

    Sui

    Tai-shan 泰山

    Taisho 大正

    Taisho Daizokyo 大正大藏经

    Takao Giken 高雄义坚

    Tan-qian 昙迁

    Tan-shi 昙始

    Tang gao-seng zhuan 唐高僧传

    Teng Bing 滕并

    Tsukamoto hakushi soju kinen bukkyoshigaku ronshu 冢本博士颂寿纪念佛教史学论集

    Wang Yan 王谈

    Wen-di 文帝

    Xi-ming-si西明寺

    Yamazaki Hiroshi 山崎宏

    Yan Gong-ze 阎公则

    yao-quai妖怪

    yi shu 遗书

    yi wen 遗文

    yi wen yi juan遗文一卷

    yin-yuan 因缘

    Yong-hui 永徽

    You-ming lu 幽冥录

    Yuan hun zhi 冤魂志

    Yuan-jia 元嘉

    yuan-jia mo 元嘉末

    yun qi 云气

    zhan-lu wu-shu, shi shi yi yu-hai 斩戮无数,时始亦遇害

    Zhu Dao-rong 竺道容

    Zhu Fa-jin 竺法进

    Zhu Fa-xiang 竺法相

    Zhu Seng-lang 竺僧朗

    Zhu Shi-xing 朱士行

    Zhuang ruo long-she 状若龙蛇

     

    NOTES

    1)      1)      The research for this paper was carried out with the assistance of a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    2)      2)      Dao-xuan’s works on miracles are discussed in Tamazaki Hiroshi, “Toseimeiji dosen risshiko”, Fukui hakushi soju kinen toyobunka ronshu, 1960, pp. 694-707; “To no dosen no kantsu nitsuite”, Tsukamoto hakushi soju kinen bukkyoshigaku ronshu, 1961, pp. 895-906; Takao Giken,,”Kantsu setsuwashu to shite mitaru sampokantsuroku, “Ryukoku shidan, 26 (1940), pp. 1-12.

    3)      3)      Dao-xuan’s Collected Records of Three Treasure Miracles in China (Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu): Some Exploratory Notes”, to be published in the festschrift for Hajime Nakamura edited by V.N.Jha, Poona University (Indian Book Centre, Delhi).

    4)      4)      The only exception is the material corresponding to the five stories in 428abc and 429c-430a in Dao-xuan’s work. The source for Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels to these stories is given as the San-bao gan-tong lu, obviously an abbreviated form of Dao-xuan’s work, the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu (421abc).

    5)      5)      The Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains, though in this fragmentary manner, parallel materials to virtually all items thar are found in these two collections. There are only a few exceptions: no. 27 “Shin Tao-sun” in the Rui-jing lu; no.25 “Liu Ning-zhi” in the Shen seng gan-tong lu. This fact that even in the case of these two collections at the end of the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu parallel materials are found scattered in a number of places in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin appears to support the basic hypothesis that both Dao-xuan and Dao-shi drew from the same basic body of sources in compiling the respective sections of their work.

    6)      6)      The Rui-jing lu was also incorporated into Dao-xuan;s catalogue of Buddhist works, Da-tang nei-dian lu, with a different title Li-dai zhong-jing ying-gan xing-jing lu. In another paper tentatively titled “The Source Analysis of the Rui-jing lu”, I am examining this collection, following the same basic procedure of identifying the sources through Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels.

    7)      7)      Although the items included in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu are not numbered in the original text I have given each story a number based on the order in which it appears. For further comments on the Ming xiang ji, see my “Two sources of Chinese Buddhist biographies: stupa inscriptions and miracle stories”, in Minks and Magicians: Religious Biographies in Asia, edited by myself and Phylis Granoff, Oakvile, Ontario: Mosaic Press, 1988, p. 205, n., 56. Although the Fa-yuan zhu-lin does not appear to have preserved the parallel to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Liu Ning-zhi (no. 25), it contains two passages that mention this name in 40th and 91st fascicles (601c and 956a respectively). The 40th fascicle story is a part of a longer text, reproduced in the first fascicle of the Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu with the title, Zhen-dan shen-zhou fo she-li gan-tong lu (the parallel passage is found in 411b9-15). The 91st fascicle contains a story about Guo Quan, taken from the ming xiang ji. Guo Quan was the father-in –law of Liu Ning-zhi, and the story is about an apparition of Guo Quan, which appeared and requested that a feast involving thirty monks be held for him. This story may have been in some way relarted to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Liu Ning-zhi; this story is about a strange monk, to be shown later to have been Pindola, who appeared to Liu Ning-zhi and predicted that he would have a severe illness. If the two stories are related and taken from the same source, it would mean that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no.25 was also taken from the Ming xiang ji.

    8)      8)      I have discussed the case of Hui-da in some detail in my article, “Two sources of Chinese Buddhist biographies: stupa inscriptions and miracle stories”, cited avove.

    9)      9)      I am excluding the material on Seng-lang from this calculation. Seng-lang is the subject of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no.18 and in the 51st fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin an entireluy different storu about him is given with a note indicating that the story is based on the Gao-seng zhuan. I have not been able to idemify the source of this different story in the Gao-seng zhuan. The Gao-seng zhuan (354b) tells a story paralleling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story no.18, but the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallel (juan 19,428bc) to this Shen-seng gan-tong lu material mentions the Ming xiang ji and not the Gao-seng zhuan as its source (429a29).

    10)  10)  The Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Yan Gong-ze specifies its source as the Ming axing zhuan (432a24).

    11)  11)  For further details see my article, Dao-xuan’s Collected Records of three Treasure Miracles in China (Ji shen-zhou san-bao gan-tong lu): Some Exploratory Notes” to be published in the Nakamura festschrift.

    12)  12)  One of the parallel stories about Dao-an (no.12) is found in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, juan 18. We shall see below that a story about Zhu Shi-xing is also found in there in juan 18, though of the two stories about Zhu Shi-xing that are found in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, this story in the 18th fascicle appears to be less directly related to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version. The miracle story collection attached to the 18th fascicle contains a number of stories that parallel the materials found in the Rui-jing lu.

    13)  13)  According to the note given in the Taisho edition, the Ming edition listed the story about Hui-yuan as a separate item in the table of contents.

    14)  14)  The parallel passage is found in T.V01. 51, 972c20-973a18. As I shall comment lbriefly below this final lsection in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is followed by a long note mentioning the Ming-seng zhuan, the Liang gao-seng zhuan, and the Tang gao-seng zhuanand numerous historical records as sources. Since the section to which this note is attached was in fact taken from a work not mentioned in this note, and since the note appears at the end of the entire section of miracle stories lin the 19th fascicle, I interpret it as a generalized description of relevant sources for miracle stories of the kind listed in this section.

    15)  15)  As we shall discuss in some detail below, the story about Hui-ming might originally have been a Ming xiang ji story. In that case the editor of the present form of the 19th fascicle miracle story collection replaced it with the Gao-seng zhuan story about a monk with the same name.

    16)  16)  There is some confusion in the notes identifying the sources for the miracle story collection in the first half on the 31st fascicle. The Fa-yuan zhu-lin in the Korean edition of the canon, reproduced in the Taisho Daizokyo, leaves the sources for the first tenn stories in this section unidentified; all other editions used for listing variant readings in the Taisho edition appear to give the correct reading, identifying the source for these stories as the Gao-seng zhuan. Further details on this point are given below in the discussion of parallel marerials in the 31st fascuckes.

    17)  17)  There appears to be some confusion conmcerning the context of the miracle story section of the 42nd fascicle. The story about He Chong appears at the beginning of the collection, and it is possible that the later note after the story about Gunavarman, indicating that the precedubg fuve stirues were taken from the Ming xiang ji, may not apply to the He Chong’s story. As I shall discuss in greater detail below, when I examine the parallel material in the 42nd fascicle, I have tentatively concluded that there has been a mistake in the counting of the stories, and that in fact all six stories preceding the Gunavarman stories must have come from the Ming xiang ji.

    18)  18)  One hypothesis concerning the source of this story in the 19th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin is that it was based on the Ming xiang ji story reproduced more faithfully in the 46th fascicle; the note at the end giving the source of this and the two preceding stories as the Gao-seng zhuan should have been placed at the end of the preceding story about Shan Dao-kai; the”six stories mentioned at the end of the story about Hui-quan should have included this story about Ho Chong’s encounter with an extraordinary monk (Perhaps the story about Hui-yuan of the Chang-sha-si temple was added by someone later).

    19)  19)  I shall comment further on the relationship between different versions of the story of the monk who appeared to He Chong later in discussing the parallel materials in the 42nd fascicle.

    20)  20)  There may also be some significance in the fact that all except one (Hui-quan’s story) of the other parallel stories are found in the same order in the two works: Tan-shi’s story (no.1 in the 19th fascicle; no.26 in Shen-seng gan-tong lu), Hui-yuan’s story (no. 7a; no.27), Hui-ming’s story (though the stories are different they are found as no. 9 and no.28 in the two works). Hui-quan’s story is found as no.8 and no.24 in the two sources.

    21)  21)  The others stories about Tan-shi, Shan Dao-kai, and Fa-xiang are more faithful reproductions of the Gao-seng zhuan biographies; those about the monk seen by He Chong and Hui-yuan are based on the Ming xiang ji.

    22)  22)  In the case of the story about Tan-shi, the original Gao-seng zhuan story is found in the 10th juan of the biographical collection (392bc). The story about Tan-shi in the 19th fascicle for the most part is identical to that in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu (no.26). Though this story is drastically abbreviated and is also quite different in phraseology from the Gao-seng zhuan original, one sentence in the 19th fascicle version that is not found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu (bu xin fo-fa, xing-hai seng-ni[“He did not believe in Buddhist teaching and harmed monks and nuns”], 428a28) may have been a restatement of the corresponding sentence in the Gao-seng zhuan original (zhan-lu wu-shu, shi shi yi yu-hai (“He massacred numerous people. At that time Tan-shi also was captured for execution”),392b13). If this is the case, it would probably mean that it was the 19th fascicle version that first abbreviated the Gao-seng zhuan biography and that Dao-xuan further abbreviated that version slightly in producing the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version. Since the otherwise virtually identical versions written by Dao-xuan and Dao-shi are so clearly different from the Gao-seng zhuan original, it is unlikely that the two versions weree produced independently by rewriting the Gao-seng zhuan original.

    23)  23)  One last story in the section of the stories taken from the Ming xiang ji in the 28th fascicle is about Cheng De-du of Song.

    24)  24)  The Gao-seng zhuan biography of Zhu Shi-xiang is found in the 3rd fascicle of that work (346bc). The comparison of the 18th fascicle story with the Gao-seng zhuan original indicates that the former was an extensively abbreviated and rewritten version, but the sentence that the people uttered when they saw the corpsethat remained whole after cremation and that then caused the corpse to shatter into small fragments is called in the same way “a spell” (zhou) in the 18th fascicle version as in the Gao-seng zhuan biography (Fa-yuan zhu-lin, 418b10; Gao-seng zhuan, 346c11). As we shall examine in detail elsewhere, the 18th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin contains a number of stories that parallel stories jincluded in the Rui-jinglu. This might mean that the 19th fascicle had existed as an earlier collection, and that Dao-xuan used the abbreviated version of the Zhu Shi-xing story found in that collection in compiling the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story about Dao-an (no.12) is different and more detailed than the 18th fascicle version of the story on the same monk (418a).

    There are extensive parallels in content between the Ming xiang ji version tn the 28th fascicle and the Gao-seng zhuan version, indicating that Hui-zhao relied on the Ming xiang ji version heavily in compiling the Gao-seng zhuan biography, but the sentence that caused the relic to shatter is not called a spell (zhou) in the Ming xiang ji version preserved in the 28th fascicle of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin (491b4). This word might have been added by Hui-zhao when he compiled the Gao-seng zhuan biography. If this was the case, its presence in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu version (431c2) points again to its close relationship with the 18th fascicle and Gao-seng zhuan versions.

    25)  25)  This example may be offered as a minor piece of evidence indicating that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu was known to Dao-shi and that the work even at theis stage lacked notes indicating the sources of the stories included. If this was the case, then our initial hypoothesis that the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels that indicate their sources in detail could not have been based on the Shen-seng gan-tong lu is strengthened.

    26)  26)  The two stories that are grouped together at the beginning of the 28th fascicle as stories taken from the Liang gao-seng zhuan are found side by side in the seventh faqscicle of the Gao-seng zhuan (“reciters of scriptures”, nos.1 and2). The eight stories attributed to the Tang gao-seng zhuan are found in the following places in the sources: Hong-ming (Gao-seng zhuan, 12th fascicle, no.14,408a); Fa-xian (Gao-seng zhuan, 13th fascicle, no. 12, 411b); Pu-an (Xu gao-seng zhuan, 27th fascicle [“self-immolators”], no. 5, 681a-682b), Fa-an (Xu gao-seng zhuan, 25th fascicle, no.25th fascicle, no.25, 651c-652b); Hui-kan (Xu gao-seng zhuan, 25th fascicle, no,26, 652bc); Zhuan-ming (Xu gao-seng zhuan, 25th fascicle, no. 27,652c-653a); Gu-yi (Xu gao-seng zhuan, 25th fascicle, no. 29, 653ab); Fa-shun (Xu gao-seng zhuan, 653b-654a). There appears to have been some confusion about the first two stories in this list which were in fact taken from the Gao-seng zhuan and not from the Xu gao-seng zhuan as the note at the end of the eight stories indicates. But the other six stories weree actually taken from the latter source and they weree taken as a block from the 25th fascicle of that work.

    27)  27)  We have seen above in the discussion of parallels in the 19th fascicle that the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story of Hui-ming is based on the Ming xiang ji, but that the story about the same monk in the 19th fascicle that appears immediately after the body of six stories taken from the Ming xiang ji is based on the Gao-seng zhuan. In this cases, we weere inclined to believe that the Ming xiang ji story about Hui-ming may originally have been found immediately after the body of six stories taken from the same source in the matrerial that Dao-shi used in compiling the miracle story collection in the 19th fascicle, but that for a reason unknown to us Dao-shi must have replaced that story with a different story based on the Gao-seng zhuan biography.

    28)  28)  The Zhu Shi-xing story is in fact the first story in the section on “exegetes”. Except for the story about Dao-zn (no. 12 and based on the 5th fascicle of the Gao-seng zhuan), the stories in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu that are based on the Gao-seng zhuan appear in the same basic order as they appear in the Gao-seng zhuan: the Fo-tu-deng and Shan Dao-kai stories (nos. 11 and 13) appear side by side in that order at the beginning of the 9th fascicle of the Gao-seng zhuan (“miracle workeers” section, part1); the Bei-du story (no. 20) appears in the tenth fascicle of the Gao-seng zhuan (“miracle workers” section, part 2). It might also be significant that the biographies of An-qing, Zhu Shi-xing, and Fo-tu-deng occupy the first position in the respective sections of thecollection, “translators”, “exegetes”, and “miracle workers”. The biography of Hui-da, though its content is different from that of the Hui-da story in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, also occupies the first position in the “promoters of meritorious works” section.

    29)  29)  Earlier in discussing the case of the Shan Dao-kai story in the 19th fascicle, I argued that the fact that stories from two different sources are found side by side in the same order in the 19th fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu suggested that the Shen-seng gan-tong lju was directly dependent on the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. In that case, the relationship between the two Shan Dao-kai stories was clear: they were both from the Gao-seng zhuan and clearly related with each other In the case of the Zhu Shi-xing story under examinatin here, the two stories about Zhu Shi-xing in the two works are clearly different and drawn from two different sources. Thus, the parallel in the order of the stories does not necessarily indicate a direct relationship between the 28th fascicle collection and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

    30)  30)  I have followed the reading of the note attached to story no. 11 on Bao-zhi that according to the note 5, p. 520a of the Taisho edition was found in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and the Kunaicho library editions. The note reads “the above 11 stories were taken from the Liang gao-seng zhuan”. The text reproduced in full in the Taisho edition is based on the Korean edition. According to this text, the note attached to Bao-zhi’s stories reads “this one story was taken from the Liang gao-seng zhuan”, indicating that only the story about Bao-zhi was taken from this source, This would leave the source for the first ten stories in this miracle story collection unidentified. Although the notes concerning the sources are frequently confused and leave the sources for some stories unidentified, I believe that the variant reading in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and the Kunaicho library editions is more likely to have preserved the original form of thet text.

    31)  31)  The subject is there identified as monk Hui-da.

    32)  32)  “Two sources of Chinese Buddhist Biographies: stupa inscriptions and miracle stories”, ibid., 173-176.

    33)  33)  Or, the two versions were related to each other through a common source. The fact that they are more similar to each other than to the corresponding Gao-seng zhuan biographies indicates that their common source, if it existed, could not have been these biographies. It must have contained the versions of the these stories much closer to thiose in the 31st fascicle and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

    34)  34)  The table of contents at the beginning of the miracle story collection in the 42nd fascicle mentions six stories altogether, but there are actually seven stories in the collection: for some reason the story about Fa-jin (616c) is not mentioned in the table of contents. The notes that is found ast the end of the story about Gunavarman states that “the above fives stories were taken from the Ming xiang ji”. Thus, if we follow the main text of the collection and count the story about Fa-jin as one independent story, there are in fact six stories in the miracle story section ahead of the note attached to the Gunavarman story and none of these stories is accompanied with an independent note specifying the sources. If we follow the note after the Gunavarman story and the present form of the entire text strictly, the first story in the miracle story section, the story about He Chong, will be left unidentified as to its source. If we follow the list given in the table of contents, on the other hand, and count five stories from the Gunavarman story, the story about He Chong will be included in the list of stories taken from the Ming xiang ji. The notes in the miracle stories sections of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin generally identify the sources of the stories included in a thorough manner, though there are frequent confusions regarding the number of stories to which these notes refer. It is possible that these notes may have been prepared at the same time as the initial table of contents, and in the case of the miracle story collection in the 42nd fascicle, the editor who prepared the table of contents and the notes on sources may have miscalculated the number of stories included in this collection. It is also possible that the story about Fa-jin was inserted into the text after the table of contents and the notes on the sources were completed (though the parallel with the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story to be commented on below makes this a less likely possibility.) I have here assumed tentatively that all the six stories preceding the Gunavarman story must have been based on the Ming xiang ji.

    35)  35)  The name of Gunavarman is transcribed differently in the two works.

    36)  36)  There appear to have been different versions of the verse, called “yi wen”, in Gao-seng zhuan, 348c8, 341b25; “yiwen, yi juan” in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, juan 36, 571c29; and yi shu, in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, juan 42, 617a2; the Gao-seng zhuan biography itself gives a variant version of the two verses 342b7 in an earlier quotation in 340c9.

    37)  37)  I am adjusting the punctuation of this passage (433c13) in the Taisho edition in the light of the parallel passage in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin story (617a2)

    38)  38)  There is some room from complex speculation concerning the relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the 42nd fascicle story about the monk seen by He Chong. It is conceivable, at least in theory, that the shorter version of the story about the monk seen by He Chong in the 19th fascicle was based on the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, which in turn produced this shorter version on the basis of the 42nd fascicle version of the story. We have proposed a similar hypothesis in the case of the story about Di Shi-chang earlier. In the case of the Di Shi-chang story, the longer version in the 28th fascicle is explicitly said to have been taken from the Ming xiang ji and it is the shorter version in the 54th fascicle that is identical with the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and lacks the source note in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin. In the case of the monk seen by He Chong, again the longer version in the 42nd fascicle is identified as based on the Ming xiang ji, if our assumption about the mistake in the note after the Gunavarman story is correct. We have pointed out earlier that there is some confusion in the source notes in the 19th fascicle collection of miracle stories and that although the note after the 19th fascicle story about He Chong states that the story was taken from the Gao-seng zhuan, that story is not found in the Gao-seng zhuan, and is more likely to have been based on the Ming xiang ji. We can speculate that the confusion concerning the source of the He Chong story in the 19th fascicle might have started because the version included there was in fact a copy of the Shen-seng gan-tong lu story which had originally been inserted there without any indication of its source. As the case of 54th fascicle story on the Di Shi-chang suggests, the Shen-seng gan-tong lu original which Dao-shi used might not have indicated the sources of the stories included there. If this was the case, the Shen-seng gan-tong lu summary of the story about the monk who appeared to He Chong migfht first have been compiled by summarizing either the 42nd fascicle version of this story or the original Ming xiang ji story.

    Other evidence examined above, however, suggests rather strongly that the miracle story coillection in the 19th fascicle must have existed, at least in its skeleton, earlier than the Shen-seng gan-tong lu, and that the latter must have copied the parallel stories from the 19th fascicle collection. In the case of the story about Hui-yuan of the Chang-sha-si temple, for example, the 19th and 97th fascicle versions of the story are both identified as being based on the ming xiang ji (though the 19th fascicle version is not mentioned in the table of contents and the exact identity of the “six stories” taken from the Ming xiang ji mentioned in the note after Hui-quan’s story remains somewhat unclear). Dao-shi appears to have made occasionally two different summaries of the same Ming xiang ji stories, and the 19th and 42nd fascicle versions of the story oif the monk seen by He Chong might also have been produced in the same manner. This is the assumption I adopted in my discussion of the 19th fascicle parallels, and this assumption enables us to explain the relationship between the parallel stories in the 19th fascicle more coherently. The other possibility, however, cannot be conclusively excluded from consideration.

    39)  39)  At an earlier stage in the compilation of the material for the miracle story collection in the 42nd fascicle these notes might have existed in a more cumbersome form as notes attached to each story, and the Yan Gong-ze passage in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu might have accidentally preserved this earlier form of the note.

    40)  40)  These collections form the last part of the section on “paying respect to the Buddha” (jing fo, 381b-411c). The second half of this long section is divided into subsections on Amitabha worship, Maitreya worship, Samantabhadra worship, and Avalokitesvara worship. In the Taisho edition of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, the first two of these subsections, those on Amitabha and Maitreya worship, are made up of a segment consisting of quotations from scriptures and another on miracle stories. The Amitabha subsection is found 397b-401c, and the first segment from 397b-399b contains general comments and passages quoted from scriptures; the second segment is found in 399b-401c and it is a collection of Chinese Buddhist miracle stories. The Maitreya subsection similarly consists of the general segment found in 402a-406a and the Chinese Buddhist miracle story segment in 406a-408b. The subsection on Samantabhadra and Avalokitesvara worship, however, curiously consist only of the miracle story segment, 408b-409b and 409b-411c respectively. The heading for the Samantabhadra subsection is accompanied by a note stating that since the present time has entered the Age of the Declined Teaching, there rarely are any who contemplate this bodhisattva and that for this reason scriptural passages are not recorded in this subsection and only four miracle stories are given. No such note is found in the beginning of the Avalokitesvara subsection.

    41)  41)  I discussed the relationship between the Gao-seng zhuan biography of Dao-jing and the Ming xiang ji story on this monk which appears to have been used as its source in some detail in my earlier article, “Two sources of Chinese Buddhist biographies: stupa inscription and miracle stories”, ibid., 136-139.

    42)  42)  This passage in the 18th fascicle is identical with the passage on Dao-an in the Rui-jing lu, 426b27-c6.

    43)  43)  The beginning section of the fascicle 16 story (406c2-8) is an abbreviated version of the beginning section of the Gao-seng zhuan biography (351c3-21). The Fa-yuan zhu-lin, 406c9-14 reproduces the Gao-seng zhuan, 352a15-20; Fa-yuan zhu-lin, 406c15-407a3, the Gao-seng zhuan, 352b17-c6; the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, 407a3-27 the Gao-seng zhuan, 353b17-c12; and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin 407a27-b13 the Gao-seng zhuan, 354a-18.

    44)  44)  E.g. 432c14-17 corresponds to Fa-yuan zhu-lin, 406c10-14, which reproduced the Gao-seng zhuan, 351c16-20; 432c17-18 to the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, 407a29-c1 and the Gao-seng zhuan, 354a3-6; 432c20-26 to the Fa-yuan zhu-lin 407a15-24 and the Gao-seng zhuan, 353b29-c9.

    45)  45)  The story refers to Mt. Wang-wu (432c13; ref., Gao-seng zhuan, 352a9) and the incident in which Dao-an advised the Former Qin ruler Fu Jian (reign: 357-385) against the excursion into the South (432c8; ref Gao-seng zhuan, 353a27-17).

    46)  46)  The case of the exact parallel between the Dao-an story in the Rui-jing lu (no.2) and the 18th fascicle version of the story about this monk is relevant to this point.

    47)  47)  In the case of the story about Dao-an, another version of the Gao-seng zhuan also appears elsewhere in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin in the 16th fascicle.

    48)  48)  There are four unambiguous examples in the 19th fascicle: Tan-shi (no.26, the other version in juan 31, both from the Gao-seng zhuan); Shan Dao-kai (no.13, the other version in juan 46, both from the Gao-seng zhuan ); He Chong’s monk (no.14, the other version in juan 97, both from the Ming xiang ji), Hui-yuan (no.27, the other vesion in juan 97, both from the Ming xiang ji). In the 31st fascicle there are two such examplesL Fo-tu-deng (no.11, fascicle 31 and 61, both from the Gao-seng zhuan ) and Bei-su (no.20, though here there are some differences between fascicle 31 and the Shen-seng gan-tong lu versions; the other version is found in the 61st fascicle; both versions are based on the Gao-seng zhuan).

    49)  49)  The first two stories in the 28th fascicle collection and the last storu in the first 42nd fascicle collection are based on the Gao-seng zhuan. The last story in the 17th fascicle collection, the story about Pu-ming, is said to be based on the Tang gao-seng zhuan, but there appears to have been a mistake here, and the story is found in the 7th fascicle of the Gao-seng zhuan, 497b The 28th fascicle collection also contains eight stories from the Xu gao-seng zhuan.

    50)  50)  As noted above, the fact that the note after the Gunavarman story states that the five preceding stories were taken from the Ming xiang ji suggests that one of the six stories before the note, possibly the first story about He Chong, was not from the Ming xiang ji.

    51) 51) This in turn may have been an abbreviated version of the longer Ming xiang ji version now preserved more faithfully in the 17th fascicle.


     

    DAO-XUAN’S COLLECTION OF MORACLE STORIES ABOUT “SUPERNATRUAL MONKS” (SHEN-SENG GANTONG LU): AN ANALYSIS OF ITS SOURCES

     

    By Koichi Shinohara

     

    Summary

      Toward the end of his life, Vinaya Master Dao-xuan (596-667) showed great interest in miracle stories. This maniferted in a collection of Chinese Buddhist pieces of this genre called the Ji shen-zhou sanbao gan-tong lu the last fascicle of which contains “The Recards of Supernatural Monks Miracles” (Shen-seng gan-tong lu). In the present paper, the author aims at examining the sources of those “Records” through the parallel found in Vinaye Master Qao-shi’s encyclopedia Fa-yuan zhu-lin.

      An analysis of the sources mentioned in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin parallels to the Shen-seng gan-tong lu leads to the general conclusion that Dao-xuan compiled his miracle stories about “supernatural monks” by collection relevant stories from Wang Yen’s Ming xiang ji and supplemently it with a small number of stories taken from the Gao-seng zhuan. It furthermore results in a number of complex observations concerning the relationship between the Shen-seng gan-tong lu and the Fa-yuan zhu-lin.

      Detailed comparative examination of the Fa-yuan zhu-lin fascicles 19,28,31,42 and 17 corroborates the hypothesis that the collection of “supernatural monks” found in the Shen-seng gan-tong lu has evolved gradually over a period of time. Parrallel collections in the Fa-yuan zhu-lin, poobabely prepared without the specific intention of compiling a larger collection of “supernatural monks” in the end, might represent in many cases earlier stages in this development. The effort to develop literary collections carried out by Dao-Xuan and Dao-shi appears to have been a many sided and complex one, but the evidence indicates that they worked closely with each other.

      An enquity into the sequence of Ming xiang ji stories (Appendix II) shows even more clearly that they may have had prepared a large set of small groups of miracles stories taken from the Ming xiang ji and the Gao-seng zhuan, and used these groups of stories feely in compiling their respective collections, the Fa-yuan zhu-lin and Shen-seng gan-tong lu.

     


     



     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     【关闭窗口
    相关文章:
  • 略论通明观禅法[630]

  • 南岳怀让禅法简析[835]

  • 隐于山谷,悬于峭壁,藏于云间:十座西藏最寂静的寺院[3309]

  • 六祖慧能大师禅法中的无念、无相、无住[1072]

  • 风马、经幡背后的故事,你知道吗?[1737]

  • 丛林及禅法[1123]

  • 马祖道一的禅法[1272]

  • 佛教史第十四课:西藏佛教史[2079]

  • 佛源老和尚的禅法初探[1238]

  • 为什么听了这么多佛法道理,却依然过不好这一生?[1612]

  • 西藏本教中的孔子形象[2077]

  • 净慧长老:“三无”,是六祖禅法的核心[2026]

  • 三种“止观”对六朝禅法的引申,你了解吗?[1541]

  • 西藏发现神秘观音碑 成功改写佛教东传历史[1826]

  • 西藏当代艺术中的佛法精神 [张俊彦][2461]

  • 禅宗祖师的禅理禅法[1995]

  • 禅宗六祖师的禅学及禅法 [卢忠仁][2500]

  • 西藏百年老寺迎来跳神佛事活动[3007]

  • 西藏少年活佛的“修行路”[1845]

  • 浅谈马祖道一的禅法 [佛修][1745]

  •  
    设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 联系站长 | 友情链接 | 版权申明 | 管理登录 | 
    版权所有 Copyright© 2005 佛学研究        站长:wuys
    Powered by:Great Tang Hua Wei & XaWebs.com 2.0(2006)