Fǎhuá jīng dàchéng yīnyì 法華經大成音義
Phonetic-and-Meaning Glossary of the Lotus Sūtra Great Consummation by 淨昇 (Jìngshēng, 集 — compiler)
About the work
A single-juan phonetic-and-meaning glossary (yīnyì 音義) accompanying the Fǎhuá jīng dàchéng tradition associated with 大義 Dàyì’s Dàchéng (KR6d0085, X32n0619). Compiled by 淨昇 Jìngshēng, with a preface by 智沖 Zhìchōng dated Kāngxī jiǎshēn 康熙甲申 (= 1704 CE).
Prefaces
The text in the X32n0620 recension carries the Dàchéng yīnyì xù 大成音義序 by Zhìchōng dated Kāngxī 1704. The body proceeds as a phonetic-and-meaning glossary covering technical Buddhist Sanskrit transliterations, obscure characters, and lexical items in the Lotus Sūtra commentarial tradition.
Abstract
The Yīnyì genre — phonetic-and-meaning glossary — is a distinctive Chinese Buddhist productive form, with major early exemplars including the Yīqièjīng yīnyì 一切經音義 (KR6s0013, T2128) of 慧琳 Huìlín (737–820) and the parallel work of 玄應 Xuányìng (KR6s0010). Jìngshēng’s Dàchéng yīnyì applies this established genre to the Fǎhuá jīng dàchéng commentarial tradition, providing the phonetic and lexical apparatus needed for proper recitation and interpretation of the dense scholastic vocabulary of the Dàchéng.
The dating problem: the Yīnyì’s 1704 preface predates the substantial portion of Dàyì’s Dàchéng compilation (1728–1735) by roughly two decades. This suggests either (1) that an earlier version of the Dàchéng tradition existed in 1704, with which Jìngshēng’s Yīnyì was associated, distinct from Dàyì’s later definitive compilation; or (2) that the Yīnyì was originally composed for a different Fǎhuá jīng dàchéng (i.e., a different commentarial tradition with the same title) and was subsequently re-attached to Dàyì’s work upon the latter’s completion. The textual-historical question requires further investigation.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located.
Other points of interest
The complex dating relationship between the Dàchéng (1728–1735) and the Yīnyì (1704) — with the supposed glossary preceding its base text by some quarter-century — is one of the more interesting textual-historical puzzles in the Manji-zoku canonical apparatus. The most plausible resolution is that “Fǎhuá jīng dàchéng” was a long-circulating commentarial tradition title (perhaps applied to multiple commentarial productions in succession) rather than the unique title of Dàyì’s specific 1735 compilation; the Yīnyì of 1704 would then attach to an earlier work in the tradition rather than to Dàyì’s later definitive synthesis.