Tracing the Incorporation of the Bimo shi Mulian jing into the Chinese Tripitaka and the Attribution of Its Translators: A Study Based on Buddhist Catalogs

The reliable corpus of Buddhist sutras translated by Zhi Qian 支謙 serves as an important reference benchmark for determining the authenticity of Buddhist sutras from the Three Kingdoms 三國 period to the pre-Jin period (220–265 CE). The Bimo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 (The Sūtra of Māra Testing Maudgalyāyana) is currently included in the Taishō Tripiṭaka as an individual sutra. Since the start of block-printing of Buddhist canons, this sutra has been attributed to Zhi Qian of the Wu 吳 State in the Three Kingdoms period and included in the ruzangmu 入藏目 (“list [of texts] admitted to the canon”) of various editions of the Tripitaka. However, historical investigation reveals significant complexity and controversy surrounding its title, attributed translator, and its entries in different ancient catalogs. A systematic examination of historical Buddhist catalogs (jinglu 經錄) demonstrates that, during the times of Dao’an 道安 and Sengyou 僧祐, the sutra was given different names and recorded as a scripture with an unknown translator. During the time of Fajing 法經 in the Sui 隋 Dynasty, the sutra first appeared in the annotations of the sutra catalog under the name Bimo shi Mulian jing, and the translator was not recorded. By the time of Fei Zhangfang 費長房 in the Sui Dynasty, the sutra was first attributed to Zhi Qian, yet it was not included in the ruzangmu 入藏目. Finally, Zhisheng 智昇 in the Tang 唐 Dynasty integrated a great deal of information and attributed the sutra to Zhi Qian under the name Bimo shi Mulian jing and included it in the ruzangmu of Hinayana sutras 小乘入藏目 (List of Hinayana Sutras Admitted to the Canon). Zhisheng’s record has been followed to the present day. Furthermore, critical analysis of Fei Zhangfang’s methodology in attributing this sutra to Zhi Qian, when combined with linguistic evidence, confirms that this sutra was neither translated by Zhi Qian of the Three Kingdoms period nor produced earlier than the Western Jin 西晉 Dynasty (265-316 CE). This study’s analysis of both the canonical inclusion process and the attributed translator of the Bimo shi Mulian jing demonstrates how Buddhist catalogs—exemplified by Fei Zhangfang’s Lidai sanbao ji 曆代三寶紀 (Records of the Three Treasures Throughout the Successive Dynasties)—systematically constructed false translator attributions, while simultaneously underscoring the imperative to re-evaluate so-called “authoritative records” within the Chinese Buddhist canon through integrated multidisciplinary methodologies combining Buddhist catalog criticism with linguistic analysis.