Rénwáng bōrě shíxiàng lùn juàn dì-èr 仁王般若實相論卷第二
“True-Characteristic Treatise” on the Rénwáng Prajñā, Fascicle Two (anonymous; Dūnhuáng manuscript)
About the work
A one-fascicle anonymous Dūnhuáng-only fragment of a Rénwáng-jīng shíxiàng lùn 仁王般若實相論 (True-Characteristic Treatise on the Rénwáng Prajñā), preserved as the second fascicle (no other fascicles surviving in this state). Admitted to the Taishō as T2744 (Vol. 85). The Taishō head-note “[cf. No. 245]” cross-references the parent Rénwáng jīng (KR6c0202). Anonymous; substantially fragmentary (extensive □ damage markers in the digital text).
The genre marker — shíxiàng lùn “true-characteristic treatise” — places the work in the Mahāyāna Prajñāpāramitā doctrinal-treatise tradition, paralleling other xíng / xiàng / lùn literature on the Hṛdaya and Vajracchedikā.
Abstract
T2744 is a Dūnhuáng-only Tang-period treatise on the Rénwáng-jīng’s shíxiàng doctrine, surviving only as fascicle 2 with substantial textual damage. The work appears to discuss the Hundred Lands’ Hundred Buddhas (百佛百土) doctrine and the modes of dharma-offering (法供養) characteristic of the Rénwáng-jīng, but the fragmentary state of the witness prevents detailed doctrinal reconstruction.
For the wider history, T2744 is significant as: (i) one of the few Dūnhuáng Rénwáng-jīng commentary witnesses; (ii) evidence of a multi-fascicle Tang-period Rénwáng-jīng shíxiàng lùn tradition that has otherwise not survived; and (iii) part of the small but historically valuable cluster of Dūnhuáng-only Mahāyāna doctrinal treatises (alongside the Heart Sūtra commentaries T2746, T2747).
Composition date: no internal dating; provenance is the Dūnhuáng caves. The bracket notBefore 600 / notAfter 900 is conservative; the work most likely belongs to the Tang period proper.
Translations and research
- No substantial Western-language translation located of T2744 specifically.
- For the Dūnhuáng Rénwáng-jīng materials, see the broader Dūnhuáng catalogue literature.
- For the Rénwáng-jīng tradition, Charles D. Orzech (1998).
Other points of interest
The survival of only fascicle 2 (with the title “卷第二” / “fascicle two” marked in the title) suggests that the original was a multi-fascicle work, the rest of which has been lost from the Dūnhuáng deposit or was never deposited in the same cave-cluster. The substantial textual damage (extensive □ markers) further limits what can be reconstructed.