Source: Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936

In his article about the *Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雲經 T658, Sakurabe Bunkyō 櫻部文鏡 explains that there are several Chinese texts similar to T658 (in 7 juan 巻), such as the *Mahāyānaratnamegha-sūtra 大乗寶雲經 (7 juan) T659 ascribed to Mandra[sena] 曼陀羅仙 and others, the *Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雨經 (10 juan) T660 translated by Dharmaruci 達磨流支, the Chu gaizhang pusa suowen jing 除蓋障菩薩所問經 (20 juan) T489 translated by Dharmapāla 法護 of the Song 宋, and the *Mahāyānaratnamegha-sūtra 大乗寶雲經 (8 juan) translated by *Subhūti 須菩提 of the Chen 陳. *Subhūti’s translation is regarded as lost, but the other four are extant.

T658 is in the Korean 麗, Yuan 元, and Ming 明 canons, and T659 is in the Song 宋 canon. Sakurabe maintains that, although these two are both ascribed to Mandra[sena], they must have been translated by different scholars from different texts, since there are significant differences in the vocabulary and content between these two. Also, there is no record in the catalogues or in the biographies 僧傳 that Mandra[sena] translated two *Ratnamegha-sūtra.

Sakurabe also conjectures that it is reasonable to regard the *Mahāyānaratnamegha-sūtra 大乗寶雲經 T659 in the Song 宋 canon as *Subhūti's "lost" version. Sakurabe shows two facts to support this possibility: that the Liang 梁 and Chen 陳 periods are chronologically adjacent to each other; and that both Mandra[sena] and *Subhūti were from Funan 扶南.

Edit

s.v., Vol.10, 136 (Sakurabe Bunkyō 櫻部文鏡)

Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元 summarizes the content of the catalogues on this title and a related one as follows:

Before the Chu kong zaihuan jing 除恐災患經 T744, there existed a Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 translated by Bo Yan 白延 of the Wei 魏. CSZJJ 出三藏記集 recorded that this Chu zaihuan jing was lost. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 shows a Chu kong zaihuan jing translated by Bo Yan as extant, with the character kong 恐 added to the title. Shengjian's 聖堅 T744 first appears in Fei Changfang (LDSBJ), in which Bo Yan ’s version appears without 恐 in the title, and these two versions are said to be largely the same 大同小異. However, LDSBJ states merely that Bo Yan ’s version is recorded in CSZJJ, suggesting that that version was lost at the time of LDSBJ.

Mizuno conjectures that the Chu zaihuan jing translated by Bo Yan became lost early, and that what Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 listed as the extant Bo Yan’s text was actually Shengjian’s T744. This mistake was made probably because there was a record of Bo Yan’s version in CSZJJ.

Edit

s.v., Vol.5, 288-289 (Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元)

Tachibana Shundō 立花俊道 explains that there were two translations of the Madhyamāgama (MĀ) 中阿含經, one of which is lost.

The lost version is recorded in juan 巻 13 of CSZJJ 出三藏記集 as translated by Dhammandi 曇摩難堤 as part of the translation project of SĀ and MĀ from 384-391. Juan 3 of CSZJJ says that Dhammandi recited the original text and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 translated it. GSZ 高僧傳 records that Dhammandi did not manage to complete the whole of MĀ. Little is known about the content of this text since it has been lost.

The extant version was translated by Saṅghadeva 僧伽提婆. He was supported by and worked together with Dao’an. However, since Dao’an died in 385 CE, the translated text remained unchecked. Saṅghadeva completed the process in 398. The biographies of Saṅghadeva in CSZJJ, GSZ and KYL 開元錄, and the preface to MĀ by Daoci 道慈 outline the translation process also as follows: Saṅgharakṣa 僧伽羅叉 (var. 衆護) recited the original text, Saṅghadeva translated it, with Daoci 道慈 acting as amanuensis, and the text was then hand-copied 書 by Li Bao 李寶 and Tang Hua 唐化 (or Kang Hua 康化). The entire process including proofreading and circulating was completed in as late as 401 CE, due to the social instability caused by war.

Although there are hardly any substantial issues or disagreements regarding the facts in the translation process of MĀ, Tachibana argues that it is not completely accurate to list Saṅghadeva as the translator, as most catalogues do. In the translation process of the text, Saṅgharakṣa dealt with the Sanskrit text and Saṅghadeva translated it. This being so, according to Tachibana, Saṅgharakṣa should be ascribed the role of chief translator 譯主 or "text-holder" 執本, while Saṅghadeva’s role should be described as "translator"/"interpreter" 譯語, 傳語. Thus, it is Saṅgharakṣa who should be recorded as the translator. Tachibana speculates that the reason that Saṅghadeva was named as "translator" was that Saṅghadeva was well-known through a detailed biography, while Saṅgharakṣa was not, and thus Saṅghadeva alone was considered important due to the amount of information available.

Edit

s.v., Vol.8, 20-23 (Tachibana Shundō 立花俊道)

Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄 explain that there were four alternate translations of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka, including 悲華經 T157. Akanuma and Nishio describe the characteristics and problems of each of them as follows.

The first version is the Xian ju jing 閑居經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. Akanuma and Nishio find this title peculiar, since it cannot have come from the original title (Karuṇā-puṇḍarīka-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra), and is not related to any other alternate titles. Also, the length of the Xuan ju jing 閑居經 shown in KYL 開元錄, 1 juan, is too short. Akanuma and Nishio identifies the original word behind 閑居 as araṇya (dgon-pa), which is usually transliterated as 阿蘭若, and translated as 閑靜處. Then they look for similar words in the content of T157, and find that the name of the protagonist of the story in juan 2 and 3, 無諍念轉輪王 (離諍王 in the Qin 秦 version), viz., Aranemī (rTsibs-kyimu-khyud) could well be the source of the title given to the Xian ju jing 閑居經. Akanuma and Nishio infer that *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 and the translator of the Qin 秦 version took 無諍念 and 離諍 respectively from Sanskrit a + raṇa, and Dharmarakṣa took 閑居 from araṇemya and used it as the title.

The above consideration and solution of the problem of the title 閑居經 suggest that this first version of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka 悲華經 was not a complete version, but probably only part of it, corresponding to the story in juan 2 and 3, where 無諍念轉輪王 appears as the protagonist. Thus, the length of the text, 1 juan, makes sense as well.

Then, Akanuma and Nishio conjecture that probably the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka was produced after the Xian ju jing, taking the content of 無諍念轉輪王’s story as one part, rather than the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka already existing in full at the time when the Xian ju jing was translated.

The second version is entitled 大乘悲分陀利經 T158 and is an anonymous scripture. It has been said that the translator lived under the Qin 秦時 (384-417), but according to Akanuma and Nishio it can be said with certainty that the text was translated about twenty to thirty years before *Dharmakṣema's version.

The third version was the Bei hua jing 悲華經 translated by Daogong 道龔 of 北凉. This text has been lost and Akanuma and Nishio suspect that it might not have existed in the first place.

The fourth version is the Bei hua jing 悲華經 T157 translated by *Dharmakṣema in 419, in ten juan.

Edit

s.v., Vol.9, 125-129 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄)

Tokiwa Daijō's 常盤大定 decription of T189 includes the following pieces of information:

T189 shares a number of core elements with the Buddhacarita 佛所行讃 T192 written by Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴. Probably the text of T189 was written before that of T192, because T192 has an extra 本生 portion, prior to the birth of the Buddha.

T189 has certain similarities to some other scriptures as well, such as: Shanhui 善慧, the name of buddha's past incarnation in T189, probably came from Shansi 善思 in the 佛本行經 T193; Shengshanbai 聖善白 in T189 should correspond to an incarnation who appears in the Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186 and the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā 大莊嚴經 T201, named Jingchuang 淨幢 in the latter. The 34 auspicious signs 瑞應 that attend the Buddha’s birth are similar to the 32 such signs T186 and T201; the notion of the three fruits from the three continents 三洲三果 as a means of converting Uruvilvā-Kāśyapa 優樓頻螺迦葉 is seen exclusively in T189, T186, T201 and the 中本起經 T196.

The similarities between T189, T192 and T186 suggest that T189 was influenced by both of the others, adding a Māhāyāna-oriented portion, influenced by T186, to an older core part something like T192.

T189 is very well written and became highly popular among the biographies of the Buddha. There is even a similarly-titled apocryphal text, the Shan'e yinguo jing 善惡因果經 T2881.

Edit

vol. 2, pp. 18-19

According to Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善, the "Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish" 賢愚經 T202 has some connection with the 撰集百縁經 T200, as seven of the stories in T202 are also found in T200.

Edit

vol. 3, pp. 210-211

Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 provides the following information in his article about the "Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish" 賢愚經 T202: The title Xian yu jing was not the translation of a Sanskrit original, but invented by Huilang 慧朗. “Huijue and others” 慧覚等 in the ascription means Huijue 慧覚, Huide 慧徳, Tanjue 曇覚, and other scholar-monks (eight in total), each of whom independently gathered the stories included in this scripture, and translated them in Khotan 于闐. They were then compiled into the present form of the scripture in Karakhodjo 髙昌. (This information is recorded in the 賢愚經記 in CSZJJ, according to Akanuma.) T202 has some connection with the 撰集百縁經 T200, as seven of the stories in T202 are also found in T200. A Tibetan version of T202 is also extant.

Edit

vol. 3, pp. 210-211

According to Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順, there are considerable differences between this text in the Korean version, titled 雜譬喻經 (cf. T204), and the Song 宋, Yuan 元, and Ming 明 versions (entitled 衆經撰雜譬喩), and hence they should be regarded as different texts.

T208 consists of thirty nine fables and legends, quite a few of which are closely paralleled in Kumārajīva’s works. Mino maintains that, although the Taishō records that T208 was composed by Kumārajīva and compiled by Daolüe 道略, it is in fact more likely that it was simply compliled by Daolüe, taking only the stories from Kumārajīva’s works.

Edit

Vol.7, 68-69

Watanabe Baiyu 渡辺楳雄 notes that a number of catalogues (KYL, DTNDL 内典録, the Zhenyuan lu 貞元録 and others) list this Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經 as translated by *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜱 [*Dharmapriya?] with 佛護 [sic]=佛圖羅剎 (*Dharmarakṣa [sic! for *Buddharakṣa? -- MR]) acting as 傳譯. However, modern scholars have pointed out that what *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜱 translated was the Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄, which is totally different from this Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經. Scholars have not agreed about who translated the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經, while it is widely accepted that the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經 is an alternate translation of the Xiao pin banre boluomi jing 小品般若波羅蜜經.

Edit

v.10, 268-269

Watanabe Baiyū 渡辺楳雄 describes the background of the 文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經 T232 as follows: T232 is recorded as having been translated by *Mandra 曼陀羅 in 503 CE, the year when he arrived in China. As Mandra did not know Chinese then, *Saṅghapāla(?) 僧伽婆羅 worked with him in the translation process. As such, catalogues point out that the meaning of the text is not clearly presented in this T232 故所出経文句隠質, but, according to Watanabe, T232 is written much more clearly than Saṅghapāla’s own version of the same text, the 文殊師利所説般若波羅蜜經 T233.

Edit

vol. 11, pp. 28-29

Tajima Tokune/Tokuon 田島徳音 explains that modern scholars have agreed that the "Sutra of Humane Kings" 仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245 is apocryphal, although the text was considered one of the three "protecting the nation" sūtras 護国三部経 in the tradition of the Tiantai/Tendai school 天台宗. Tajima conjectures that T245 was a product of the combination of the doctrine of emptiness 空思想 and the social frictions that Chinese Buddhism experienced from the Wei, Wu and Shu (Three Kingdoms) 魏呉蜀三国 period down to the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, viz., the friction between Chinese Buddhism and other Chinese religions, and between Chinese Buddhist schools and political regimes. In support of this understanding, Tajima refers to T245’s emphasis on the importance of stability and prosperity of the state, and its claim that prajñāpāramitā 般若波羅蜜多 is the essence of the cause of such stability and prosperity. He also mentions the situation of the Chinese Buddhism and society at the time, and suggests that it is more reasonable to regard T245 as describing the unfavourable and unstable contemporary socio-religious situation, rather than as predicting the future. If this is the case, Tajima speculates further, it is likely that this text described the situation surrounding Buddhism in China around the time of the persecution of Buddhism under Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou dynasty 周武宗破佛. He maintains that, although the social and religious situation was unstable at the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, the vocabulary and tone of T245 are not likely to be Kumārajīva’s. Tajima claims that it is more natural to regard the text as produced in the "Sixteen Kingdoms" 五胡十六国 period. However, Tajima also says that those issues concerning the true character and ascription of T245 should be examined further.

Edit

s.v., Vol.8, 397-398 (Tajima Tokune/Tokuon 田島徳音)

Umada Gyōkei 馬田行啓’s rejects the view that the 菩薩行方便境界神通變化經 T271 is an alternative translation of T270, since the contents of the two are quite different; T270 belongs to the Lotus section of the canon 法華部; and no Chinese commentary on T270 is known.

Edit

vol. 7, pp. 488-489

Umada Gyōkei 馬田行啓 states that 無量義經 T276 ascribed to *Dharmagatayaśas 曇摩伽陀耶 (法稱) is one of two alternate translations, but the other one, ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 (徳賢), has been lost. T276 was produced in 481 CE and has survived with a preface by Liu Qiu 劉虬 who was a contemporary of Dharmagatayaśas.

Edit

vol. 10, pp. 424-425

According to Wada Tetsujō 和田徹城, the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 is an alternate translation 異出 of the Pusa shi zhu jing 菩薩十住經 T284 ascribed to *Gītamitra 祇多蜜 (with minor differences), and an alternate version 別本 of the Shi di pin disan 十地品第三 of the Pusa benye jing 菩薩本業經 T281 translated by Zhi Qian. Thus the content of T283 corresponds to Daśabhūmika chapter of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka in sixty juan 六十華厳十住品 (juan 巻 8) and the Daśabhūmika chapter of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka in eighty juan 八十華厳十住品 (juan 16). Wada thinks that the three texts, viz., T284, T283 and the Shi di pin disan of T281, show an earlier stage of the development of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 華厳經, since the contents of practices in the ten bhūmis 住地 in the three texts are quite different from those in the two versions of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka. Also, the three texts have many differences from one another in their contents. Based on those observations, Wada claims that, although the catalogues ascribe T284 to *Gītamitra as a second translation or "re-issue" 第二出 of T283, they should not be treated as alternate translations of the same text.

Edit

s.v., Vol.9, 401-402 (Wada Tetsujō 和田徹城)

The content of the Daśabhūmika 十住經 T286 corresponds to the Daśabhūmika chapter of the Buddhāvataṃsaka 華厳十地品. Harada Reidō 原田靈道 explains that, although T286 is said to be a break-away sutra 別行經 from the Daśabhūmika chapter 十地品, it is more appropriate to see it as an independent text. He even suggests the possibility that T286 was extended into the Buddhāvataṃsaka 華厳経. Harada also claims that, although many catalogues record this text as co-translated by Kumārajīva 羅什 and Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舎, it was Buddhayaśas who played the central role. This is because, according to the biography of Buddhayaśas in GSZ 高僧傳, Kumārajīva had problems in translating the original, and then Buddhayaśas came and solved those problems in an admirable manner. Harada speculates that because Kumārajīva belonged to Nāgārjuna’s tradition, he might not have known very much about "Huayan" (Buddhāvataṃsaka) 華厳 ideas.

Edit

s.v., Vol.5, 168-169 (Harada Reidō 原田靈道)

Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順 explains that there are two transmissions 傳 of this Ba yiqie yazhang genben de sheng jingtu shenzhou 拔一切業障根本得生淨土神呪 T368: the one survived only in the Korean 麗 version, with the title Amituo Fo shou zhou 阿彌陀佛説呪; and the other is the current version 今本in the Song 宋, Yuan 元, and Ming 明 canons. These two titles have been traditionally considered different texts, but are probably just two different transmission lineages 傳 of the same text. As for the latter version, the Taishō 現藏 states that it was translated by Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, but there is no such record in the catalogues. The Taishō also records that the text was taken from the smaller Amitābha sūtra 小無量壽經 translated by Guṇabhadra (a copy of the text dating to the Tang period, marked as lost). However, Mino points out that in content, T368 is apparently a shortened version of the Wuliangshou rulai genben tuoluoni 無量壽如来根本陀羅尼 in the Wuliangshou rulai guan xing gongyang yigui 無量壽如来觀行供養儀軌 T930 translated by Amoghavajra 不空. Mino argues that since this dhāraṇī 呪 appeared under different titles since the Tang 唐 period, the ascription to Guṇabhadra is probably a later addition, made simply because Guṇabhadra’s text was lost. He infers that T368 was composed in the Tang 唐 period, after KYL 開元錄.

Edit

s.v., Vol. 9, 46 (Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順)

Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順 summarizes the issues surrounding ascription of 大雲無想經第九 T388 and his views on the question as follows:

The text of T388 was found in early modern times 近世. It is difficult to determine certain details about this text, due to the fact that parts are missing. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists a Da yun wuxiang jing 大雲無想經 translated by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, but Mino claims that this entry is unlikely to refer to T388, because LDSBJ states that this text was in four or five juan 巻.

Considering the content, T388 is related to the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 涅槃經 T374 translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖. The content also has some elements that pose issues that have remained unsolved, such as why the Fanshi 梵士 has a Chinese name [viz. 直道--MR], or what is meant by 五大身説. Mino conjectures that there is a possibility that T388 was written based on T374 涅槃經 and the Da fangdeng wuxiang jing 大方等無想經 T387, both translated by *Dharmakṣema, taking the title from the fact that T387 might be incomplete, since a note attached to T387 states that the text is the first part of the *Mahāmegha-sutra 大雲經 (大雲經初分). Although the title of T388 identifies it as the ninth (juan) 第九, Mino maintains that in form and content, it can stand as an independent text. He does not say explicitly that the text should be classified as an anonymous scripture, but he clearly implies that he regards the text as anonymous.

Edit

s.v., Vol.7, 213-214 (Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順)

Tsujimori Yōshū 辻森要修 claims that the 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經 T452 was produced after the 下生經 [佛説彌勒下生經 T453? --- AI] since T452 contains the expression 如彌勒下生經説.

Edit

vol. 2, pp. 182-183

According to Ōno Hōdō 大野法道, the 清淨毘尼方廣經 T1489 ascribed to Kumārajīva, the 寂調音所問經 T1490 ascribed to Fahai 法海 and the 文殊師利淨律經 T460 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa are alternate translations of the same text. However, Ōno also points out that there is a disagreement among catalogues as to the ascription of T1489: the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, KYL, the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄, etc., state that it is Kumārajīva’s work, while Fajing, Jingtai and DTNDL claim that it is Dharmarakṣa’s. Ōno himself argues that since Dharmarakṣa translated T460, T1489 should be Kumārajīva’s work. [However, this may require us to consider the possibility that T1489 is in fact by Dharmarakṣa, and therefore also question the ascription of T460 --- MR.]

Edit

vol. 5, pp. 349-350

Tajima Tokuon 田島徳音 presents the following information about the Wenshushili wen puti jing 文殊師利問菩提經 T464 ascribed to Kumārajīva and other closely related texts:

The Zhenyuan lu 貞元錄 T2156 states that the following four scriptures are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯: T464 (the first translation), the 伽耶山頂經 T465 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提流支 of the N. Wei (the second translation), the 象頭精舍經 T466 ascribed to *Vinītaruci 毘尼多流支 of the Sui (the third translation) and 大乘伽耶山頂經 T467 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提流志 of the Tang (the fourth translation). DTNDL classifies three of those four texts except for T467 as 同本別出. Fajing categorizes T464 and T465 as alternate translations. According to Tajima, there is no reason to doubt the ascriptions of those four scriptures.

Edit

vol.11, p. 36

Tajima Tokuon 田島徳音 presents the following information about the Wenshushili wen puti jing 文殊師利問菩提經 T464 ascribed to Kumārajīva and other closely related texts:

The Zhenyuan lu 貞元錄 T2156 states that the following four scriptures are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯: T464 (the first translation), the 伽耶山頂經 T465 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提流支 of the N. Wei (the second translation), the 象頭精舍經 T466 ascribed to *Vinītaruci 毘尼多流支 of the Sui (the third translation) and 大乘伽耶山頂經 T467 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提流志 of the Tang (the fourth translation). DTNDL classifies three of those four texts except for T467 as 同本別出. Fajing categorizes T464 and T465 as alternate translations. According to Tajima, there is no reason to doubt the ascriptions of those four scriptures.

Edit

vol. 11, p. 36

Satō Ryōchi 佐藤良智 points out that the 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa share the same contents, and that T536 should be the oldest of the three, since it has the simplest story and wording. Satō also claims that some parts of T535 suggest that the text is an apocryphon that was created by re-writing 改作 T536. He adds that 兒 in the title 申日兒本經 is written 兜 in CSZJJ and some other catalogues, and that those three scriptures are a clear example of the development of a group of scriptures over time.

Edit

vol. 6, pp. 163-164

Izumi Hōkei writes, without further arguments, that the ascription of T535 to Dharmarakṣa is probably mistaken, and the text should instead be ascribed to Zhi Qian.

Edit

vol. 2 p. 76

Satō Taishun 佐藤泰舜 argues that the title of 達摩多羅禪經 T618 [*Yogācārabhūmi?] does not express the content correctly, inasmuch as the text does not include any part produced by Dharmatara 達摩多羅.

When the original text was translated by Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅, it was called by two different titles: Xiuxing fangbian chan jing 修行方便禪經 and Xiuxing di bu jing guan jing 修行地不浄観經. The title 達摩多羅禪經 was first used in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, followed by LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄. Satō points out that the text was co-authored by Dharmatara and 佛大先 (Buddhasena 佛陀斯那), referring to Huiyuan's 慧遠 preface to the text, and that T618 contains only the part by Buddhasena, not that by Dharmatara. Satō also infers that Dharmatara’s part of the text is the Yuqie sanmosi jing 庾伽三摩斯經 recorded in CSZJJ 出三藏記集 and several other catalogues. He thinks that although CSZJJ lists the Yuqie sanmosi jing as an anonymous scripture of the Han 漢 period, it would make good sense if the date of translation is incorrect and the text was actually translated in the E. Jin 東晋 period, as LDSBJ 三寶記 records (Satō seems to be supposing that Tuqie sanmosi jing was Buddhabhadra’s translation, not an anonymous scripture, and hence the date of translation must be Buddhabhadra’s time). Satō refers to Vol.1 of Nukariya’s Zengaku shisōshi 禪学思想史 and Vol.1 of Sakaiya’s Shina Bukkyō shi kōwa 支那佛教史講話 for further details of the issues surrounding T618.

Edit

s.v., Vol.7, 526-529 (Satō Taishun 佐藤泰舜)

According to Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲, the 月燈三昧經 T641 ascribed to Xian gong 先公 is included only in the Korean edition, not in SYM.

Hayashi asserts that T641 should be reascribed to An Shigao. According to him, this work of An Shigao was long lost, and when it was found it was mistaken for Xian gong’s version, since the two had the same title and length (1 fascicle).

According to Hayashi, different scriptural catalogues state that T641 is a shortened version 抄訳 of part 7 of the full version 大本 of the same text. However, Hayashi argues that T641 is only slightly similar to the latter half of the part 5 of the extant ten-fascicle Narendrayaśas 耶連提耶舍 version, while differing greatly in content from it. Hayashi infers that as T641 does not have the introductory and closing sections required by the proper structure of a scripture, it is probably an excerpt text from the Liu zhong fa men pin 六種法門品 of the 大本.

Edit

vol. 2, pp. 77-78

According to Inaba Bunkai 稲葉文海, the Zhufa wuxing jing 諸法無行經 T650 ascribed to Kumārajīva is one of four alternate translations of the same text [the Sarvadharmāpravṛtti-nirdeśa --- MR], the other three of which are: the Zhufa benwu jing 諸法本無經 T651 ascribed to *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta 闍那崛多; the Zhufa wuxing jing 諸法無行經 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 (lost); and the Dasheng suizhuang xuanshuo zhufa jing 大乘隨轉宣説諸法經 T652 ascribed to Shaode 紹徳 et al.

Edit

Volume 5, p.281

Miyoshi Shikao 三好鹿雄 points out that the 摩訶剎頭經 T696 ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅 is the same text as the 灌洗佛形像經 T695 ascribed to Faju 法炬. He also points out that there is a note in S 宋藏 that states that it found some confusion in KYL 開元錄 and hence re-identified T695 as the same text as T696.

Edit

s.v., Vol.10, 261 (Miyoshi Shikao 三好鹿雄)

According to Shimizudani Kyōjun 清水谷恭順, the 分別業報略經 T723 is also called the 大勇菩薩分別業報略 by scriptural catalogues. The original Indic text is said to have been compiled 撰 by *Āryaśūra 大勇, about whom nothing else is known.

Edit

vol. 9, pp. 350-351

Kuno Hōryū 久野芳隆 states that the 孔雀王呪經 T988 is an excerpt from the 佛母大孔雀明王經 T982 ascribed to Amoghavajra 不空, and that Huilin's 慧琳 Yiqie jing yin yi 音義 claims that the very first part of the text is a later addition.

Edit

vol. 2, p. 326

Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 briefly discusses some issues surrounding the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 T1428. He states that the text is thought to have been translated by Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舎. Nonetheless, GSZ 高僧傳 says that this text was translated by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, with Daonian 道念 [sic! for Daohan 道含 --- AI/MR] acting as amanuensis. In addition, KYL 開元錄 records that the text was actually translated by Huibian 惠辯 (that is to say, Huibian acted as the oral interpreter). Huibian was a disciple of Zhi Faling 支法領, who was a disciple of Lushan Huiyuan 慧遠. The preface to T1428 says that Zhi Faling searched for and found the original text of the Si fen lü 四分律 in obedience to instructions from his master Huiyuan. The introduction also states that Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舎, who is also regarded as having translated the text, was brought to China from Khotan 于闐 by Zhi Faling. However, it is also recorded elsewhere that Buddhayaśas was from Kucha 龜玆, Kumārajīva's home, and that Buddhayaśas came to China in the wake of Kumārajīva. Sakaino states that it is difficult to determine which of these two background stories for Buddhayaśas is correct, but claims that the former, from the preface to T1428, is slightly more plausible, without giving any reasons. Sakaino does not discuss any further the ascription of T1428.

Edit

Vol.4, 220

Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 explains the translation process of this *Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya 十誦律 T1435 (the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya)as follows: Puṇyatāra 弗若多羅 recited the original text in its entirety from memory; probably Kumārajīva 羅什 translated it; but 弗若多羅 passed away due to illness and the translation work discontinued. Later, Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 came to China with the original text of the *Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya. Huiyuan 惠遠, who had found it a shame that the translation of thsi *Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya was incomplete, heard the news and requested Kumārajīva to continue the project with Dharmaruci 曇摩流支, and Kumārajīva completed the translation accordingly. Thus, this text was translated with two chief translators 譯主, Puṇyatāra and Dharmaruci 曇摩流支.

Edit

s.v., Vol.5, 167 (Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋)

Sakaino Kōyō's 境野黄洋 description of 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本 T1437 includes the following pieces of information:

The Taishō byline recording that the 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本 T1437 was compiled 集出 by Faxian 法顯 is incorrect. It was in fact Faying 法頴 who did the compilation work. This mistake was probably caused by taking the character 頴 in 法頴 as 顯. According to GSZ, Faying became an overseer of the Sangha 僧主 by imperial order in the Xiao Qi 蕭齊 period. The 十誦戒本 and 羯磨 mentioned in GSZ as compiled by Faying should refer to the 十誦比丘尼戒本 and 十誦律羯磨雜事 listed in CSZJJ as his works.

[In fact, Taishō vol. 23 p. 479 n. 9 records a variant reading in YMP that gives the ascription to Faying --- MR.]

Edit

vol. 5, p. 166

Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 points out that although the 優波離問佛經 T1466 (*Upāliparipṛcchā?) is ascribed to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩, this ascription is not recorded in any catalogue. He claims that T1466 is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier, because KYL says 失譯在後漢錄單本, and its vocabulary includes old terms, including 劍暮, 棄捐法, 土羅遮 and 六法尼.

Edit

Volume 1, p. 222

Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 lists different attributions given to this title as follows:

Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and some other catalogues classify this text as translated by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. However, CSZJJ 出三藏記集 did not include this title in Zhu Fonian’s translations, but rather classified it as an anonymous scripture and listed it in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. LDSBJ 三寶記 offers the view that there is an alternate translation of Zhu Fonian’s text, translated by Zhiyan 智嚴. Some modern scholars think that the text was composed in China, since no record of this text has been found in India, no translator has been reliably identified, and the content of the text suggests that this is the case.

Edit

s.v., Vol.9, 413-415 (Ōno Hōdō 大野法道)

According to Ōno Hōdō 大野法道, the 清淨毘尼方廣經 T1489 ascribed to Kumārajīva, the 寂調音所問經 T1490 ascribed to Fahai 法海 and the 文殊師利淨律經 T460 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa are alternate translations of the same text. Ōno points out that there is a disagreement among catalogues as to the ascription of T1489: the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, KYL, the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄, etc., state that it is Kumārajīva’s work, while Fajing, Jingtai and DTNDL claim that it is Dharmarakṣa’s. Ōno argues that since Dharmarakṣa translated T460, T1489 should be Kumārajīva’s work.

Edit

vol. 5, pp. 349-350

Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順 explains that in the process of translation (done in Jianyuan 符秦建元 18 = 382), Kumārabuddhi 鳩摩羅佛提 "held the original text in his hands"; Zhu Fonian 佛念and Zhu Fohu 佛護 translated it; Sengdao 僧導, Tanjiu 曇究, and Sengrui 僧叡 recorded the translation. *Vasubhadra 婆素跋陀 compiled the original text. According to Mino, although this text is supposed to be an excerpt from the four Āgamas 阿含 with commentary, it should be regarded as a kind of śāstra 論書.

Edit

Vol 4, 168-169

According to Tajima Tokuon 田島徳音, the 妙法蓮華經憂波提舍 T1519 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提留支 and Tanlin 曇林, and the 妙法蓮華經論憂波提舍 T1520 ascribed to Ratnamati 勒那摩提 and Senglang 僧朗 are alternate translations of the same text. Only Bodhiruci’s version has a fourteen-line verse at the beginning. Other than that, the two scriptures differ only in wording and details.

Tajima explains the context in which those two were produced almost at the same time as follows (summarizing XGSZ and other materials): Ratnamati and Bodhiruci (as well as *Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多) were engaged in scriptural translations in Luoyang 洛陽 in the same period (the early sixth century), but they worked separately without cooperating with one another due to the difference of lineage 師傳. Bodhiruci produced T1519 after Ratnamati’s T1520, adding the preface to the text. Tanlin 曇林 is generally regarded as having worked with Bodhiruci, but XGSZ states that he worked with *Prajñāruci 般若流支, not Bodhiruci 菩提留支.

Edit

vol. 10, pp. 367-369

Fuse Kōgaku 布施浩岳 argues that it is likely that this Niepan lun 涅槃論 is apocryphal, but there is no decisive evidence for that. His strong reason is the content of the text. He thinks that the substance of the text is panjiao 教判思想. Especially, there is a claim that the root text, the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大涅槃經, teaches both Sudden Teaching 頓教 and the Gradual Teaching (漸教). If this text was really written by Vasbandhu, then it would be a significant problem in the history of the classification of Buddhist thought, since then it must have been the case that the classification into Sudden Teaching 頓教 and Gradual Teaching 漸教 already existed in India. Fuse has not seen any texts produced in India that mention the Niepan lun 涅槃論. However, he also states that nobody would be able to claim that the Niepan lun 涅槃論 could not possibly be cited anywhere in Indian texts, and therefore must certainly be a Chinese composition. Thus, Fuse thinks that the Niepan lun 涅槃論 is likely to be apocryphal, even without decisive evidence. Fuse also discusses evidence adduced by Sakaino that the Niepan lun 涅槃論 is apocryphal, but rejects them as too weak.

Edit

v.8, 410-412

In the course of discussing T1634, Sakamoto Yukio 坂本幸男 notes that there were two conflicting traditions about the date of T1546 (which was translated by the same group). According to the preface by Daoting 道挺, translation of the Vibhāṣā commenced in 425 CE and was completed in 427 CE. On the other hand, the GSZ 高僧傳 biography of *Buddhavarman 浮陀跋摩, who co-translated 毘婆沙論 with Daotai, shows the as 437 CE (completed in 439 CE), as do KYL, DTNDL 内典錄, and LDSBJ 三寶記.

Edit

8:352-353

Watanabe Baiyū 渡辺楳雄 writes that the preface 序 of 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論 T1549 includes the following information:

Saṅghabhūti 僧伽跋澄/衆現 arrived in Chang'an 長安 with the original Indic text of the 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論 in 384, and the translation was produced in the same year. Saṅgabhūti, Gautama Saṅghadeva 瞿曇僧伽禘婆/衆天 (according to Watanabe, "of Kubhā") and Dharmanandi 曇摩難提/法喜 [also 曇摩難陀] (according to Watanabe, "of Tokhāra") handled the original text 胡本. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 made the oral translation 譯傳. Huisong 慧崇 served as amanuensis 筆受. The original had as many as 12,000 ślokas.

Edit

Volume 7, p. 108-109

Watanabe Baiyū 渡辺楳雄 describes the background of the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya 雜阿毘曇心論 T1552, written by *Dharmatrāta 法救 and with the translation ascribed to *Saṅghavarman 僧伽跋摩 and others, as follows:

The original text of the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya in 600 stanzas was produced by *Dharmatrāta 法救/達磨多羅, by adding 350 stanzas to the *Abhidharmahṛdaya 阿毘曇心論 (cf. T1550) by *Dharmaśri(?) 法勝. Dharmaśri wrote the *Abhidharmahṛdaya in 250 stanzas in the fourth century to summarize the *Mahāvibhāṣā 大毘婆沙, since the latter was excessively long (200 fascicles in Xuanzang's 玄奘 translation). Dharmatrāta added 350 stanzas, thinking that *Dharmaśri’s summary was too terse. The *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya T1552 is thought to have been the most important Abhidharma source for Vasbandhu when he wrote the Abhidharmakośa 倶舎論.

Watanabe states that translation of T1552 started in 434 CE and completed in the following year. Saṅghavarman was the head of the project, with the actual translation 譯語 done by Baoyun 寶雲, and Huiguan 慧觀 serving as amanuensis 筆受.

This text was very popular until Xuanzang translated more Abhidharma texts, as there were two alternate translations of the same source text (both have been lost), and about twenty prominent scholar monks studied or wrote commentaries to it. GSZ also records that while still in India, Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 decided to become a monk after reading the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya as a young man. However, once Xuanzang produced his fresh translations of other Abhidharma texts, T1552 and alternate translations of the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya, as well as commentaries on them, waned in popularity and were virtually forgotten in China.

Edit

Volume 7, p. 62-63

Hatani Ryōtai 羽渓了諦 argues that the author of this text is Āryadeva. He discusses two issue in identifying the author as such. Firstly, two names appear in traditional catalogues: 提婆羅 and 提婆 (a third name, 提波羅, is just a misspelt version of 提婆羅). Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 and some other catalogues show the author of the present text as 提婆, while KYL and some others show the text as written by 提婆羅. KYL’s source for claiming that the author was 提婆羅 is the Gujin yijing tuji (GJYJTJ) 古今譯經圖紀, but Hatani points out that the author is not noted in surviving version of GJYJTJ. He speculates that the name 提婆羅 was added by the translator Daotai 道秦, while 羅 was added by mistake when the text was copied. Zhisheng may have seen a version with a note to this effect added to the end of text. Hatani also shows that Zhisheng did not have a high opinion of GJYJTJ. This makes it all the more mysterious that Zhisheng followed GJYJTJ in this case. In any case, Hatani concludes that 提婆 should be taken as the name of the author, because 1) the older and reliable catalogues use 提婆; 2) even catalogues after KYL, such as 大周刊定眾經目錄, show 提婆 as the author; and 3) 提婆羅 appears only as the author of this text, and not in any other record in this history of Buddhism. The second issue that Hatani discusses is the content of the text. The text emphasizes the merit of giving, which may not appear to fit with the emphasis on wisdom in the Madhyamaka system. However, Hatani argues, it is often emphasized by Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva that both wisdom and compassion are necessary for the Madhyamaka path, and Nāgārjuna wrote some texts that rather focus on the latter. Hence, there is nothing problematic in assuming that Āryadeva did the same as Nāgārjuna, by writing a text emphasizing the merit of giving such as the Da zhangfu lun 大丈夫論. Thus, Hatani concludes that it is safe to identify the author of this text as Āryadeva.

Edit

v.7, 275-277

According to Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲, there is a disagreement about the relation between the Bodhisattvabhūmi 菩薩善戒經 T1582 ascribed to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 and the Bodhisattvabhūmi 菩薩地持經 T1581 ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖. Hayashi quotes and supports Zhisheng’s view that the contents of T1582 are largely identical to those of T1581, and asserts that T1582 is an extensive excerpt from T1581, with an opening 序文 and ending 流通分 added later.

Edit

vol. 9, pp. 404-405

According to Nishi Yoshio 西義雄, although the Taishō ascribes the Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa 業成就論 T1608 only to *Vimokṣaprajñāṛṣi 毘目智仙, a note entitlted 業成就論飜譯之記 [T1608 (XXXI) 777b7-18] records that 毘目智仙 translated the text together with *Gautama Prajñāruci 瞿曇流支 and Shi Tanlin 釋曇林, at Jinhua si 金華寺 in Xinghe 興和 3 (541 CE).

Edit

Volume 3, p. 406

Sakamoto Yukio 坂本幸男 gives the following summary of the issue in the attribution and dating of the Ru dasheng lun 入大乘論 *Mahāyānāvatāra(?) T1634:

The date of composition:
This text was translated by Daotai 道泰 of the N. Liang 北凉 period, so its date of composition should be sometime between 397 and 439 CE. Now, according to KYL 開元錄 and the Zhenyuan lu 貞元録, the *Mahāyānāvatāra 入大乘論 was translated after the Vibhāṣā 毘婆沙論. According to the preface by Daoting 道挺, translation of the Vibhāṣā commenced in 425 CE and was completed in 427 CE. Thus, following this line of reasoning, the date of translation of T1634 would have to fall between 425 (or 427) CE and 439 CE. On the other hand, there are records that show a different date of composition for the Vibhāṣā. The GSZ 高僧傳 biography of *Buddhavarman 浮陀跋摩, who co-translated 毘婆沙論 with Daotai, shows the date of composition of the Vibhāṣā as 437 CE (completed in 439 CE). A number of catalogues, including KYL, DTNDL 内典錄, and LDSBJ 三寶記 also show the same date. In this view of the composition date of the Vibhāṣā, T1634 has to be a composition of between 437 and 439 CE, or simply 439 CE.

Sakamoto maintain that it is difficult to determine which of the above two dates of composition for the Vibhāṣā (and the resulting two possible dates of composition for T1634) is correct. Normally, the earliest record is more important than later records, but in this case, there remains a possibility that there was some good reason for GZS to offer the new date of composition, in full awareness of what Daoting 道挺 had said. KYL mentions the two dates, noting that the reason for the difference was unknown.

The author *Sāramati(?) 堅意:
According to Sakamoto, the author of the text, *Sāramati(?) 堅意, was probably active around 350 CE – 400 CE, conjecturing from the dates of persons and texts cited by him, although there is no decisive evidence for this date. Although T1634 is the only text that is certainly ascribed to Jianyi [MR: Note that some scholars think that the Jianhui 堅慧 to whom T1626/T1627 is ascribed may also have been a *Sāramati, though his dates would probably be different], the Fahua zhuan 法華傳 mentions that Paramārtha 眞諦 had said that Jianyi 堅意 had written a Fahua lun 法華論 as well. Sakamoto states that it is fairly reasonable to assume that Jianyi 堅意 might also have written such a text, because in T1634, the Lotus 法華經 is cited more than ten times.

Edit

Vol.8, 352-353

Tokiwa Daijo 常盤大定 argues that although LDSBJ states that T2045 was translated in Jianchu 建初 2, it should correctly be Jianchu 6, as stated in to the preface to the text. The byline in the Taishō dates the text to the Fu Qin 符秦 period, but the Jianchu reign era was in fact in the Later Qin 後秦 period.

Edit

v.1, 2

Hasuzawa Seijun 蓮澤成淳 reports that according to Sengyou, *Dharmakṣema's version of the Saṃnipāta 大集經 (=T397) did not include the Rizang fen 日密分 (Sūryagarbhavaipulya-sūtra). The catalogues do not show the ascription of this part of the collection, although KYL suggests that Zhisheng regarded the text as *Dharmakṣema's translation. Hasuzawa claims that Zhisheng’s view is in this regard is groundless, because the Rizang fen was not in the “old catalogue” 舊錄 that Sengyou referred to, was not included in the version he actually saw, and was not listed properly with the translator in the other catalogues. The Korean Tripiṭaka and the Song, Yuan and Ming and editions ascribe the first two juan of the Rizang fen 日密分 to *Dharmakṣema 無讖 and the rest, viz., the third juan, to Narendrayaśas 那連提耶舍, but Hasuzawa states that the ground for this claim is not known.

Hasuzawa infers that, since the Rizang fen was not in *Dharmakṣema’s version of the Saṃnipāta and not translated by Narendrayaśas 耶舍, either, the text was added sometime between the Liang 梁 and the Sui 隋 periods (implying that the text is indeed anonymous). Hasuzawa thinks that one plausible reason for this addition was that it is said that the Rizang fen 日密分 is to be taught after the 虚空目安邦般那甘露門, and there is a Xukong mu fen 虚空目分 in the Saṃnipāta (T397(10)).

Edit

s.v., Vol. 7, 477-483 (Hasuzawa Seijun 蓮澤成淳)

The Xukong zang pin 虚空藏品 is missing in the 24-juan alternate version of the Saṃnipāta-sūtra 大集經 T397 recorded by Sengyou in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. It is included in all the other versions in the catalogues. The Xukong zang pin was also part of another older version Sengyou listed based on the "old catalogue" 舊錄, so Hasuzawa infers that the early version of the Xukong zang pin was indeed translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖, together with the other parts of the Saṃnipāta-sūtra. However, it had been lost by the Liang 梁 period, and Sengyou was aware of that – he claims that the text titled Da xukong zang jing 大虚空藏經/Fangdeng wang xukong zang jing 方等王虚空藏經 is an alternate translation of the missing Xukong zang pin 虚空藏品 of the Saṃnipāta. Hasuzawa points out that this claim by Sengyou requires justification.

Hasuzawa shows that there was a view mentioned in CSZJJ, which claimed that the Da xukong zang jing 大虚空藏經 was translated by Shengjian 聖堅, not *Dharmakṣema. He also points out that there are two more alternate versions recorded in CSZJJ, in addition to *Dharmakṣema's and Shengjian's. Hasuzawa maintains that it is natural to ascribe this Da xukong zang jing to Shengjian, for the following reasons: it is unlikely that *Dharmakṣema produced such a text, separate from the entirety of his 29-juan translation of the Saṃnipāta; Sengyou’s claim that the Da xukong zang jing is the same text as the Xukong jing pin of the Saṃnipāta is unreliable, because the version of the Saṃnipāta that he saw directly, in 24 juan, did not include the Xukong zang jing; and Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and other catalogues following it show the existence of Shengjian's version of the Da xukong zang jing.

However, Hasuzawa claims that if the Xukong zang pin was missing from the Saṃnipāta at the time of Sengyou, and then recorded as extant in the catalogues after CSZJJ, then that Xukong zang pin is likely to have been added later, and it might well have been Shengjian's version of the Da xukong zang jing. Hasuzawa compares the Xukong zang pin 虚空藏品 part of T397 with the other parts, and indeed identifies several notable differences. For example, while all the other parts often use the term 大集經, the Xukong zang pin does not, using instead other similar terms, such as 大普集經. Hasuzawa also point out the fact that the Xukong zang pin is entered in two different places in the text as a whole, depending upon the version. The Saṃnipāta is an anthology of largely independent texts, and so in principle, the order of the texts means little. However, in this case of the Xukong zang pin, since it was lost at the time of Sengyou and it is the only part that has been put in different places, this variation of location supports Hasuzawa’s view that the Xukong zang pin was added later, and is not *Dharmakṣema’s translation, but Shengjian’s.

Edit

s.v., Vol. 7, 477-483 (Hasuzawa Seijun 蓮澤成淳)

Satō Taishun 佐藤泰舜 argues that the title of 達摩多羅禪經 T618 [*Yogācārabhūmi?] does not express the content correctly, inasmuch as the text does not include any part produced by Dharmatara 達摩多羅.

When the original text was translated by Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅, it was called by two different titles: Xiuxing fangbian chan jing 修行方便禪經 and Xiuxing di bu jing guan jing 修行地不浄観經. The title 達摩多羅禪經 was first used in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, followed by LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄. Satō points out that the text was co-authored by Dharmatara and 佛大先 (Buddhasena 佛陀斯那), referring to Huiyuan's 慧遠 preface to the text, and that T618 contains only the part by Buddhasena, not that by Dharmatara. Satō also infers that Dharmatara’s part of the text is the Yuqie sanmosi jing 庾伽三摩斯經 recorded in CSZJJ 出三藏記集 and several other catalogues. He thinks that although CSZJJ lists the Yuqie sanmosi jing as an anonymous scripture of the Han 漢 period, it would make good sense if the date of translation is incorrect and the text was actually translated in the E. Jin 東晋 period, as LDSBJ 三寶記 records (Satō seems to be supposing that Tuqie sanmosi jing was Buddhabhadra’s translation, not an anonymous scripture, and hence the date of translation must be Buddhabhadra’s time). Satō refers to Vol.1 of Nukariya’s Zengaku shisōshi 禪学思想史 and Vol.1 of Sakaiya’s Shina Bukkyō shi kōwa 支那佛教史講話 for further details of the issues surrounding T618.

Edit

s.v., Vol.7, 526-529 (Satō Taishun 佐藤泰舜)