|
|
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 |
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 Taisho 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. T2045; 阿育王息壞目因緣經 |
|
|
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
|
Hatani Ryotai 羽渓了諦 argues that the author of this text is Aryadeva. 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 Nagarjuna and Aryadeva that both wisdom and compassion are necessary for the Madhyamaka path, and Nagarjuna wrote some texts that rather focus on the latter. Hence, there is nothing problematic in assuming that Aryadeva did the same as Nagarjuna, 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 Aryadeva. 提婆 Aryadeva T1577; 大丈夫論 |
|
|
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) |
Mizuno Kogen 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. Shengjian, 聖堅, Fajian, 法堅 T0744; 佛說除恐災患經 |
|
|
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 |
Mino Kojun 美濃晃順 explains that in the process of translation (done in Jianyuan 符秦建元 18 = 382), Kumarabuddhi 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 Agamas 阿含 with commentary, it should be regarded as a kind of sastra 論書. Fohu 佛護, Fotuluocha 佛圖羅剎, *Buddharaksa? Kumarabuddhi, 鳩摩羅佛提 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T1505; 四阿鋡暮抄解 |
|
|
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 |
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 Vibhasa 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. T1546; 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 |
|
|
According to Nishimoto Ryūzan 西本龍山, although the date of composition of this text is often shown as 382 CE, the date that Dao’an’s preface of the text indicates is actually 383 CE. Thus, the dating of 382 CE needs to be changed to 383 CE.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.9, 149-150 (Nishimoto Ryūzan 西本龍山)
|
According to Nishimoto Ryuzan 西本龍山, although the date of composition of this text is often shown as 382 CE, the date that Dao’an’s preface of the text indicates is actually 383 CE. Thus, the dating of 382 CE needs to be changed to 383 CE.
T1464; 鼻奈耶 |
|
|
According to Kanbayashi Ryūjō 神林隆浄, the Tuolinni bo jing 陀隣尼鉢經 T1352 and the Tuolinni bo jinig 陀隣尼鉢經 in juan 9 巻 of the Tuoluoni za ji 陀羅尼雜集 T1336 are the same text 同本. The Chiju shenzhou jing 持句神呪經 T1351 translated by Zhi Qian is an alternate translation of the same text as the Tuolinni bo jing. Kanbayashi also lists a number of texts that have a similar content to T1352.
Edit
|
s.v., vol. 7, 122 (Kanbayashi Ryūjō 神林隆浄)
|
According to Kanbayashi Ryujo 神林隆浄, the Tuolinni bo jing 陀隣尼鉢經 T1352 and the Tuolinni bo jinig 陀隣尼鉢經 in juan 9 巻 of the Tuoluoni za ji 陀羅尼雜集 T1336 are the same text 同本. The Chiju shenzhou jing 持句神呪經 T1351 translated by Zhi Qian is an alternate translation of the same text as the Tuolinni bo jing. Kanbayashi also lists a number of texts that have a similar content to T1352.
Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 (*Dharmaratna?) T1352; 佛說陀隣尼鉢經 |
|
|
Although 大般涅槃經 T7 is recorded as translated by Faxian 法顯, according to Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 there is a view that regards this same T7 as recorded as lost in the catalogues. He refers to Matsumoto’s Nehan gyō ron 涅槃經論 in Shūkyō Kenkyū 宗教研究.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.7, 425 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善) |
Although 大般涅槃經 T7 is recorded as translated by Faxian 法顯, according to Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 there is a view that regards this same T7 as recorded as lost in the catalogues. He refers to Matsumoto’s Nehan gyo ron 涅槃經論 in Shukyo Kenkyu 宗教研究. T0007; 大般涅槃經 |
|
|
Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文 states that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 小品般若波羅蜜經 T227 was translated by Kumārajīva 羅什 in 408 CE, referring to the preface to the text by Sengrui 僧叡, a disciple of Kumārajīva.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.5, 294-297 (Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文) |
Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文 states that the Astasahasrika prajnaparamita 小品般若波羅蜜經 T227 was translated by Kumarajiva 羅什 in 408 CE, referring to the preface to the text by Sengrui 僧叡, a disciple of Kumarajiva. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0227; 小品般若波羅蜜經 |
|
|
Watanabe Baiyū 渡辺楳雄 explains that the original text of the Pañcaviṃśatikā prajñāpāramitā 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 T223 (which is extant and called 二萬八千頌般若波羅蜜多經) was brought to China in 403 CE, and Kumārajīva 羅什 examined and translated the text with five hundred other scholar-monks. The translation was completed in 404 CE. The section titles of T223 were imposed upon the text by Kumārajīva, and were not in the original text.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.10, 270-272 (Watanabe Baiyū 渡辺楳雄) |
Watanabe Baiyu 渡辺楳雄 explains that the original text of the Pancavimsatika prajnaparamita 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 T223 (which is extant and called 二萬八千頌般若波羅蜜多經) was brought to China in 403 CE, and Kumarajiva 羅什 examined and translated the text with five hundred other scholar-monks. The translation was completed in 404 CE. The section titles of T223 were imposed upon the text by Kumarajiva, and were not in the original text. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0223; Fangguang banre boluomi jing 方廣般若波羅蜜經; 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 |
|
|
Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 maintains that the Hai ba de jing 海八德經 T35 was translated by Zhu Falan 竺法蘭, not by Kumārajīva 羅什.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.2, 35 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善) |
Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 maintains that the Hai ba de jing 海八德經 T35 was translated by Zhu Falan 竺法蘭, not by Kumarajiva 羅什. Falan, 法蘭 T0035; 八徳經; 海八德經 |
|
|
Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 explains that the full version 広本 of the Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya 十誦律 T1435 was translated by *Puṇyatāra [弗若羅??] and some others, and Kumārajīva 羅什 joined and helped them. The Sarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa 十誦比丘波羅提木叉戒本 T1436 came out of that larger work. Sakaino conjectures that probably Kumārajīva brought the original to China. There is a record that Kumārajīva learned the the Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya 十誦 before he came to China, which explains why this text was composed relatively early in his career.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.5, 166-167 (Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋) |
Sakaino Koyo 境野黄洋 explains that the full version 広本 of the Dasa-bhanavara-vinaya 十誦律 T1435 was translated by *Punyatara [弗若羅??] and some others, and Kumarajiva 羅什 joined and helped them. The Sarvastivada Pratimoksa 十誦比丘波羅提木叉戒本 T1436 came out of that larger work. Sakaino conjectures that probably Kumarajiva brought the original to China. There is a record that Kumarajiva learned the the Dasa-bhanavara-vinaya 十誦 before he came to China, which explains why this text was composed relatively early in his career. *Punyatara, 弗若多羅 Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T1436; 十誦比丘波羅提木叉戒本 |
|
|
Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 explains that the Si fen buqiuni jie ben 四分比丘尼戒本 T1431 was compiled by Huaisu 懐素 using a source text translated by Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舎. The Sifen lü biqiu jie ben 四分律比丘戒本 T1429 was produced in the same manner as well. The original Buddhayaśas translation of the Sifen biuqiuni jieben 四分比丘尼戒本 by 佛陀耶舎 is lost, while that of the Sifen lü biqiu jie ben 四分律比丘戒本 is extant today. Sakaino maintains that in the Sifen biqiuni jie ben, Huaisu probably made only minor changes in the wording of Buddhayaśas's original, because that is how Huaisu treated Buddhayaśas's original in producing the SSifen lü biqiu jie ben (Sakaino compared T1429 with Buddhayaśas's original). The extant T1431 is our only evidence that shows the existence of the lost "Ni jie ben" 尼戒本 translated by Buddhayaśas.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.4, 219 (Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋) |
Sakaino Koyo 境野黄洋 explains that the Si fen buqiuni jie ben 四分比丘尼戒本 T1431 was compiled by Huaisu 懐素 using a source text translated by Buddhayasas 佛陀耶舎. The Sifen lu biqiu jie ben 四分律比丘戒本 T1429 was produced in the same manner as well. The original Buddhayasas translation of the Sifen biuqiuni jieben 四分比丘尼戒本 by 佛陀耶舎 is lost, while that of the Sifen lu biqiu jie ben 四分律比丘戒本 is extant today. Sakaino maintains that in the Sifen biqiuni jie ben, Huaisu probably made only minor changes in the wording of Buddhayasas's original, because that is how Huaisu treated Buddhayasas's original in producing the SSifen lu biqiu jie ben (Sakaino compared T1429 with Buddhayasas's original). The extant T1431 is our only evidence that shows the existence of the lost "Ni jie ben" 尼戒本 translated by Buddhayasas. Buddhayasas, 佛陀耶舍 Huaisu 懷素, Dongta Huaisu 東塔懷素 T1431; Si fen buqiuni jie ben; 四分比丘尼戒本 |
|
|
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. Among them is a text entitled 大乘悲分陀利經 T158, 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.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.9, 125-129 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄) |
Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyoo 西尾京雄 explain that there were four alternate translations of the Karunapundarika, including 悲華經 T157. Among them is a text entitled 大乘悲分陀利經 T158, 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 *Dharmaksema's version. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0158; 大乘悲分陀利經 |
|
|
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) |
According to Wada Tetsujo 和田徹城, the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護 is an alternate translation 異出 of the Pusa shi zhu jing 菩薩十住經 T284 ascribed to *Gitamitra 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 Dasabhumika chapter of the *Buddhavatamsaka in sixty juan 六十華厳十住品 (juan 巻 8) and the Dasabhumika chapter of the *Buddhavatamsaka 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 *Buddhavatamsaka 華厳經, since the contents of practices in the ten bhumis 住地 in the three texts are quite different from those in the two versions of the *Buddhavatamsaka. 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 *Gitamitra as a second translation or "re-issue" 第二出 of T283, they should not be treated as alternate translations of the same text. *Gitamitra, 祇多蜜, 祇多羅 T0284; 佛說菩薩十住經 |
|
|
The Wujinyi pin 無盡意品 (Akṣayamati-nirdeśa) is shown in the Taishō as translated by Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲. The text was not included in the version of the Saṃnipāta 大集經 (= T397) that Sengyou actually saw. However, Sengyou does lists a Wujinyi pin 無盡意品 as the twelfth part 十二分 of the Saṃnipāta, and so *Dharmakṣema's 曇無讖 version of the Wujinyi pin must have existed, become lost, and been replaced by a different version. Hasuzawa maintains that it is questionable that this added version was Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun's 寶雲 translation. In order to make this claim, Hasuzawa summarizes the content of the catalogues on this title and a related one as follows:
CSZJJ 出三藏記集:
CSZJJ lists the Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 (4 juan) and an Achamo jing 阿差末經 (4 juan) as translations by Dharmarakṣa 法護. It also lists the Wujinyi jing and the Achamo jing separately in its Recompilation of the Catalogue of Alternate Sūtra Translations 新集異出經錄 as follows:
Wujinyi jing 無盡意經:
Wujinyi 無盡意, Dharmarakṣa’s translation (4 juan)
Wujinyi 無盡意, Zhu Fajuan's 竺法眷 translation (10 juan)
Daji hou Wujinyi 大集後無盡意, *Dharmakṣema's 曇無讖 translation (4 juan).
Sengyou states that these are alternate tranalations of the same text.
Amocha jing 阿差末經:
Amocha 阿差末, Zhi Qian's 支謙 translation (2 juan)
Amocha 阿差末, Dharmarakṣa’s translation (4 juan)
Hasuzawa points out that it is clear that Sengyou thought that Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 and Amocha jing 阿差末經 are different texts.
Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu:
Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 and Amocha jing 阿差末經 as alternate titles of the same text. Both are shown as Dharmarakṣa’s translations. Fajing also shows that there was a Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 translated by Fajuan 法眷 (10 juan).
KYL 開元錄:
KYL also regards Wujinyin jing 無盡意經 and Amocha jing 阿差末經 as alternate titles of the same text. It lists the different versions as follows:
Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 (6 juan): also called Amocha jing 阿差末經, from the Saṃnipāta 大集經, translated by Zhiyan and Baoyun 智嚴 and 寶雲, the fourth translation
Amocha jing 阿差末經: also called Wujinyi jing 無盡意經, 4 or 5 juan, translated by Dharmarakṣa, the third translation
KYL states that there were five alternate translations of this text, three of which were lost by Zhisheng's time. Those three versions are listed as:
Amocha jing 阿差末經 (4 juan): translated by *Vighna of the Wu 呉維祇難
Amocha jing 阿差末經 (4 juan): translated by Zhi Qian
Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 (10 juan): translated by Fajuan 法眷
Hasuzawa claims that it is thus clear that CSZJJ is incorrect in listing the Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 and the Amocha jing 阿差末經 as different texts.
Hasuzawa also points out that there are a numbere of the alternate translations of this text, as it is supposed to have been translated by Dharmarakṣa, Fajuan, *Dharmakṣema, Zhi Qian, Zhiyan and Baoyun, and *Vighna. Among these translations, Hasuzawa states that *Dharmakṣema's and *Vighna's are not relevant in considering the issue of the Wujinyi pin of the Saṃnipāta. This is because *Dharmakṣema’s translation is mentioned only in CSZJJ and it is unlikely that *Dharmakṣema translated the same text twice, once as part of the Saṃnipāta again as an independent text. Regarding *Vighna's translation, that text has been lost for a long time.
Hasuzawa maintains that it is doubtful if the record of Zhiyan and Baoyun's translation is reliable, because it is not listed in CSZJJ and other catalogues of the Sui 隋 period, although it appears in LDSBJ 三寶記, DTNDL 内典錄, GJYJTJ 古今譯經圖紀, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and others. In contrast, Fajuan's translation is listed in CSZJJ, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and also in DTNDL. The text is recorded as lost in Yancong 彦悰錄, Jingtai 靜泰錄 and KYL. Dharmarakṣa’s translation is extant today as an independent text, and so we know that it is not the Wujinyi pin of T397. Thus, Hasuzawa maintains that the Wujinyi pin in T397 is probably Fajuan's translation. He infers that when Fajuan's translation appears in the catalogues as a separate text from T397, it was probably because the ascription was not recorded clearly.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol. 7, 477-483 (Hasuzawa Seijun 蓮澤成淳) |
The Wujinyi pin 無盡意品 (Aksayamati-nirdesa) is shown in the Taisho as translated by Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲. The text was not included in the version of the Samnipata 大集經 (= T397) that Sengyou actually saw. However, Sengyou does lists a Wujinyi pin 無盡意品 as the twelfth part 十二分 of the Samnipata, and so *Dharmaksema's 曇無讖 version of the Wujinyi pin must have existed, become lost, and been replaced by a different version. Hasuzawa maintains that it is questionable that this added version was Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun's 寶雲 translation. In order to make this claim, Hasuzawa summarizes the content of the catalogues on this title and a related one as follows:
CSZJJ 出三藏記集:
CSZJJ lists the Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 (4 juan) and an Achamo jing 阿差末經 (4 juan) as translations by Dharmaraksa 法護. It also lists the Wujinyi jing and the Achamo jing separately in its Recompilation of the Catalogue of Alternate Sutra Translations 新集異出經錄 as follows:
Wujinyi jing 無盡意經:
Wujinyi 無盡意, Dharmaraksa’s translation (4 juan)
Wujinyi 無盡意, Zhu Fajuan's 竺法眷 translation (10 juan)
Daji hou Wujinyi 大集後無盡意, *Dharmaksema's 曇無讖 translation (4 juan).
Sengyou states that these are alternate tranalations of the same text.
Amocha jing 阿差末經:
Amocha 阿差末, Zhi Qian's 支謙 translation (2 juan)
Amocha 阿差末, Dharmaraksa’s translation (4 juan)
Hasuzawa points out that it is clear that Sengyou thought that Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 and Amocha jing 阿差末經 are different texts.
Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu:
Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 and Amocha jing 阿差末經 as alternate titles of the same text. Both are shown as Dharmaraksa’s translations. Fajing also shows that there was a Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 translated by Fajuan 法眷 (10 juan).
KYL 開元錄:
KYL also regards Wujinyin jing 無盡意經 and Amocha jing 阿差末經 as alternate titles of the same text. It lists the different versions as follows:
Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 (6 juan): also called Amocha jing 阿差末經, from the Samnipata 大集經, translated by Zhiyan and Baoyun 智嚴 and 寶雲, the fourth translation
Amocha jing 阿差末經: also called Wujinyi jing 無盡意經, 4 or 5 juan, translated by Dharmaraksa, the third translation
KYL states that there were five alternate translations of this text, three of which were lost by Zhisheng's time. Those three versions are listed as:
Amocha jing 阿差末經 (4 juan): translated by *Vighna of the Wu 呉維祇難
Amocha jing 阿差末經 (4 juan): translated by Zhi Qian
Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 (10 juan): translated by Fajuan 法眷
Hasuzawa claims that it is thus clear that CSZJJ is incorrect in listing the Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 and the Amocha jing 阿差末經 as different texts.
Hasuzawa also points out that there are a numbere of the alternate translations of this text, as it is supposed to have been translated by Dharmaraksa, Fajuan, *Dharmaksema, Zhi Qian, Zhiyan and Baoyun, and *Vighna. Among these translations, Hasuzawa states that *Dharmaksema's and *Vighna's are not relevant in considering the issue of the Wujinyi pin of the Samnipata. This is because *Dharmaksema’s translation is mentioned only in CSZJJ and it is unlikely that *Dharmaksema translated the same text twice, once as part of the Samnipata again as an independent text. Regarding *Vighna's translation, that text has been lost for a long time.
Hasuzawa maintains that it is doubtful if the record of Zhiyan and Baoyun's translation is reliable, because it is not listed in CSZJJ and other catalogues of the Sui 隋 period, although it appears in LDSBJ 三寶記, DTNDL 内典錄, GJYJTJ 古今譯經圖紀, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and others. In contrast, Fajuan's translation is listed in CSZJJ, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and also in DTNDL. The text is recorded as lost in Yancong 彦悰錄, Jingtai 靜泰錄 and KYL. Dharmaraksa’s translation is extant today as an independent text, and so we know that it is not the Wujinyi pin of T397. Thus, Hasuzawa maintains that the Wujinyi pin in T397 is probably Fajuan's translation. He infers that when Fajuan's translation appears in the catalogues as a separate text from T397, it was probably because the ascription was not recorded clearly. Fajuan 法眷 T397(12); 無盡意品; Aksayamati-nirdesa |
|
|
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) |
The Xukong zang pin 虚空藏品 is missing in the 24-juan alternate version of the Samnipata-sutra 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 *Dharmaksema 曇無讖, together with the other parts of the Samnipata-sutra. 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 Samnipata. 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 *Dharmaksema. He also points out that there are two more alternate versions recorded in CSZJJ, in addition to *Dharmaksema'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 *Dharmaksema produced such a text, separate from the entirety of his 29-juan translation of the Samnipata; Sengyou’s claim that the Da xukong zang jing is the same text as the Xukong jing pin of the Samnipata is unreliable, because the version of the Samnipata 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 Samnipata 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 Samnipata 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 *Dharmaksema’s translation, but Shengjian’s. Shengjian, 聖堅, Fajian, 法堅 T397(8); 虚空藏品; Gaganaganjapariprccha; Da puji jing 大普集經; Dabao ji jing 大寶集經 |
|
|
Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文 states that the Rushou pusa wushang qingjing fenwei jing 濡首菩薩無上清淨分衛經 T234 was translated probably by Xiang gong 翔公 in the Liu Song 劉宋 period, as shown in the Taishō. He also describes the various attributions given to this text by the catalogues. His descriptions can be summarized as follows: CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists the text as anonymous. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu states that the text was translated by Xiang gong in the South Seas 南海, and the catalogues after Fajing followed that account. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists this text and another text with the same title translated by Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調. This description is also taken up by the later catalogues. Fukaura claims that it is dubious whether this version by Yan Fotiao ever existed. In addition to those titles, LDSBJ records a text entitled Fuzhou pusa jing 濡首菩薩經. According to CSZJJ, this should be the same text as the Rushou pusa wushang qingjing fenwei jing, but Fajing and the catalogues after him considered it an independent alternate translation. LDSBJ adds that this Fushou pusa jing was translated in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the Han 漢 period. Fukaura states that it is likely that Rushou pusa jing is just an alternate title for the Rushou pusa wushang qingjing fenwei jing, as CSZJJ suggested. He speculates that due to wars and the persecution of Buddhism under the Song, many translation works were produced in the rural areas, and remained anonymous. Those texts were often given different attributions by the catalogues compiled in later times (this insight of Fukaura might suggest that T234 is anonymous, as CSZJJ says; he does not explain why he thinks that the text was probably translated by Xiang gong in this article). The exact year of composition of this text is unknown. The content of the text corresponds to the Eighth Cycle 第八會, *Nāgaśrī portion 那伽室利分 in of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra 大般若經 translated by Xuanzang 玄奘.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.9, 302-305 (Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文)
|
Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文 states that the Rushou pusa wushang qingjing fenwei jing 濡首菩薩無上清淨分衛經 T234 was translated probably by Xiang gong 翔公 in the Liu Song 劉宋 period, as shown in the Taisho. He also describes the various attributions given to this text by the catalogues. His descriptions can be summarized as follows: CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists the text as anonymous. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu states that the text was translated by Xiang gong in the South Seas 南海, and the catalogues after Fajing followed that account. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists this text and another text with the same title translated by Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調. This description is also taken up by the later catalogues. Fukaura claims that it is dubious whether this version by Yan Fotiao ever existed. In addition to those titles, LDSBJ records a text entitled Fuzhou pusa jing 濡首菩薩經. According to CSZJJ, this should be the same text as the Rushou pusa wushang qingjing fenwei jing, but Fajing and the catalogues after him considered it an independent alternate translation. LDSBJ adds that this Fushou pusa jing was translated in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the Han 漢 period. Fukaura states that it is likely that Rushou pusa jing is just an alternate title for the Rushou pusa wushang qingjing fenwei jing, as CSZJJ suggested. He speculates that due to wars and the persecution of Buddhism under the Song, many translation works were produced in the rural areas, and remained anonymous. Those texts were often given different attributions by the catalogues compiled in later times (this insight of Fukaura might suggest that T234 is anonymous, as CSZJJ says; he does not explain why he thinks that the text was probably translated by Xiang gong in this article). The exact year of composition of this text is unknown. The content of the text corresponds to the Eighth Cycle 第八會, *Nagasri portion 那伽室利分 in of the *Mahaprajnaparamita-sutra 大般若經 translated by Xuanzang 玄奘. Xiang gong, 翔公 T0234; 佛說濡首菩薩無上清淨分衛經; Jueliao zhufa ru huanhua sanmei jing 決了諸法如幻化三昧經 |
|
|
According to Sakurabe Bunkyō 櫻部文鏡, the Sanskrit text of the *Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雲經 T658 is lost, but part of it is quoted in the Sanskrit text of the Śikṣāsamuccaya 梵本集菩薩學論. There are Chinese texts that have similarities 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.
Regarding the Chu gaizhang pusa suowen jing 除蓋障菩薩所問經, Sakurabe points out that, although it is recorded that the text was 20 juan long, and the Zhiyuan catalogue 至元錄 [of the Yuan dynasty] says that that text is the full version of the same text as the Fabao jing 寶雲經 and the Fayu jing 寶雨經, as a matter of fact the length is about the same as that of the Fayun jing 寶雲經, because the length of each juan in the Chu gaizhang... is shorter than that of the Fayun jing.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.10, 136 (Sakurabe Bunkyō 櫻部文鏡)
|
According to Sakurabe Bunkyo 櫻部文鏡, the Sanskrit text of the *Ratnamegha-sutra 寶雲經 T658 is lost, but part of it is quoted in the Sanskrit text of the Siksasamuccaya 梵本集菩薩學論. There are Chinese texts that have similarities to T658 (in 7 juan 巻), such as the *Mahayanaratnamegha-sutra 大乗寶雲經 (7 juan) T659 ascribed to Mandra[sena] 曼陀羅仙 and others, the *Ratnamegha-sutra 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 Dharmapala 法護 of the Song 宋, and the *Mahayanaratnamegha-sutra 大乗寶雲經 (8 juan) translated by *Subhuti 須菩提 of the Chen 陳. *Subhuti’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-sutra.
Sakurabe also conjectures that it is reasonable to regard the *Mahayanaratnamegha-sutra 大乗寶雲經 T659 in the Song 宋 canon as *Subhuti'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 *Subhuti were from Funan 扶南.
Regarding the Chu gaizhang pusa suowen jing 除蓋障菩薩所問經, Sakurabe points out that, although it is recorded that the text was 20 juan long, and the Zhiyuan catalogue 至元錄 [of the Yuan dynasty] says that that text is the full version of the same text as the Fabao jing 寶雲經 and the Fayu jing 寶雨經, as a matter of fact the length is about the same as that of the Fayun jing 寶雲經, because the length of each juan in the Chu gaizhang... is shorter than that of the Fayun jing. *Mandra[sena?], 曼陀羅仙 T0658; 寶雲經 |
|
|
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 Kojun 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 Taisho 現藏 states that it was translated by Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅, but there is no such record in the catalogues. The Taisho also records that the text was taken from the smaller Amitabha sutra 小無量壽經 translated by Gunabhadra (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 dharani 呪 appeared under different titles since the Tang 唐 period, the ascription to Gunabhadra is probably a later addition, made simply because Gunabhadra’s text was lost. He infers that T368 was composed in the Tang 唐 period, after KYL 開元錄. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0368; 拔一切業障根本得生淨土神呪 |
|
|
Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 explains that LDSBJ 三寶記 regarded the Jidiaoyin suowen jing 寂調音所問經 T1490 as translated by Fahai 法海, basing itself upon the Shixing catalogue 始興錄 and Fashang's catalogue 法上録. Subsequently, KYL 開元錄 and other catalogues after LDSBJ reproduced these same details. Also, the Wu Zhou catalogue 武周録 (DZKZM) states that this title is recorded in the *Dharmottara catalogue 達磨鬱多羅錄 [= alternate name for Fashang's catalogue?---MR]. Ōno points out, however, that the 新集續撰 of the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 in CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists this title as an anonymous.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol. 5, 44 (Ōno Hōdō 大野法道) |
Ono Hodo 大野法道 explains that LDSBJ 三寶記 regarded the Jidiaoyin suowen jing 寂調音所問經 T1490 as translated by Fahai 法海, basing itself upon the Shixing catalogue 始興錄 and Fashang's catalogue 法上録. Subsequently, KYL 開元錄 and other catalogues after LDSBJ reproduced these same details. Also, the Wu Zhou catalogue 武周録 (DZKZM) states that this title is recorded in the *Dharmottara catalogue 達磨鬱多羅錄 [= alternate name for Fashang's catalogue?---MR]. Ono points out, however, that the 新集續撰 of the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 in CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists this title as an anonymous. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1490; Rulai suoshuo qingjing tiaofu 如來所說清淨調伏; 寂調音所問經 |
|
|
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) |
Hasuzawa Seijun 蓮澤成淳 reports that according to Sengyou, *Dharmaksema's version of the Samnipata 大集經 (=T397) did not include the Rizang fen 日密分 (Suryagarbhavaipulya-sutra). The catalogues do not show the ascription of this part of the collection, although KYL suggests that Zhisheng regarded the text as *Dharmaksema'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 Tripitaka and the Song, Yuan and Ming and editions ascribe the first two juan of the Rizang fen 日密分 to *Dharmaksema 無讖 and the rest, viz., the third juan, to Narendrayasas 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 *Dharmaksema’s version of the Samnipata and not translated by Narendrayasas 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 Samnipata (T397(10)). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T397(14); Suryagarbhavaipulya-sutra; Suryagarbha-sutra; Dasheng dafangdeng Rizang jing 大乗大方等日藏經; Rizang fen 日藏分 |
|
|
Terasaki Shūichi 寺崎修一 summarizes the content of the catalogues on this title as follows:
CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists two Shi'er you jing 十二遊經 (one juan 巻 each) and classifies both of them as anonymous scriptures.
LDSBJ 三寶記 lists three alternate translations, referring to the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 and some other older catalogues. The attributions of those three LDSBJ provides are as follows: the first was supposedly translated by *Kālaruci 彊梁婁至 in 266 or 281 CE; the second version was translated by *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽 in 392 CE; and the third version was translated by Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in the [Liu] Song 宋 Period. LDSBJ states that there were only minor differences between these three versions.
Later catalogues such as DTNDL 内典錄, GJYJTJ 古今譯經圖紀, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄 followed LDSBJ in listing three alternate versions. Terasaki accepts that there were three versions, but points out that only the second of the versions listed above, by *Kālodaka, translation is extant.
The alleged existence of three versions should mean that there did indeed exist an Indic original text, but Terasaki suggests that there is a possibility that *Kālodaka himself wrote the text, rather than translating it. Even if he did translate the original, it must have been done in a rather loose manner: because, for example, it contains some names of Chinese dynasty. The text also contains certain claims that are not seen in any other texts.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.5, 187-188 (Terasaki Shūichi 寺崎修一)
|
Terasaki Shuichi 寺崎修一 summarizes the content of the catalogues on this title as follows:
CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists two Shi'er you jing 十二遊經 (one juan 巻 each) and classifies both of them as anonymous scriptures.
LDSBJ 三寶記 lists three alternate translations, referring to the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 and some other older catalogues. The attributions of those three LDSBJ provides are as follows: the first was supposedly translated by *Kalaruci 彊梁婁至 in 266 or 281 CE; the second version was translated by *Kalodaka 迦留陀伽 in 392 CE; and the third version was translated by Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in the [Liu] Song 宋 Period. LDSBJ states that there were only minor differences between these three versions.
Later catalogues such as DTNDL 内典錄, GJYJTJ 古今譯經圖紀, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄 followed LDSBJ in listing three alternate versions. Terasaki accepts that there were three versions, but points out that only the second of the versions listed above, by *Kalodaka, translation is extant.
The alleged existence of three versions should mean that there did indeed exist an Indic original text, but Terasaki suggests that there is a possibility that *Kalodaka himself wrote the text, rather than translating it. Even if he did translate the original, it must have been done in a rather loose manner: because, for example, it contains some names of Chinese dynasty. The text also contains certain claims that are not seen in any other texts. *Kalodaka, 迦留陀伽 T0195; Shi'er you jing 十二由經; 佛說十二遊經 |
|
|
It is recorded that Sengjiu 僧就 of the Sui 隋 period added additional texts to *Dharmakṣema's 曇無讖 version of the Saṃnipāta. Sengjiu's edition is called the 58-juan or the 60-juan Saṃnipāta. Hasuzawa specifies the texts added newly later as
日藏經 T397(14)
月藏經 T397(15)
須彌藏分 T397(16)
十方菩薩品 (明度五十校經) T397(17)
They are classified as Narendrayaśas's 那連提耶舍 translation in the earlier version of the Korean Tripiṭaka, but after proofreading 校正, T397(17) was re-classified as An Shigao's translation in the same canon. CSZJJ and some other major catalogues also record the same text as An Shigao's translation, while not listing the text as one of the alternate translations of the Saṃnipāta. Thus, Hasuzawa claims that it is safe to see the T397(17) as An Shigao's translation, and that this indicates that at least part of the Saṃnipāta was translated as early as in the second century.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol. 7, 477-483 (Hasuzawa Seijun 蓮澤成淳) |
It is recorded that Sengjiu 僧就 of the Sui 隋 period added additional texts to *Dharmaksema's 曇無讖 version of the Samnipata. Sengjiu's edition is called the 58-juan or the 60-juan Samnipata. Hasuzawa specifies the texts added newly later as
日藏經 T397(14)
月藏經 T397(15)
須彌藏分 T397(16)
十方菩薩品 (明度五十校經) T397(17)
They are classified as Narendrayasas's 那連提耶舍 translation in the earlier version of the Korean Tripitaka, but after proofreading 校正, T397(17) was re-classified as An Shigao's translation in the same canon. CSZJJ and some other major catalogues also record the same text as An Shigao's translation, while not listing the text as one of the alternate translations of the Samnipata. Thus, Hasuzawa claims that it is safe to see the T397(17) as An Shigao's translation, and that this indicates that at least part of the Samnipata was translated as early as in the second century. An Shigao, 安世高 T397(17); Jiaoji jing 校計經; Mingdu wushi jiaoji jing 明度五十校計經; 十方菩薩品; 十方菩薩品, 五十校計經 |
|
|
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 |
Fuse Kogaku 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 *Mahaparinirvana-sutra 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.
T1527; 涅槃論 |
|
|
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) |
The content of the Dasabhumika 十住經 T286 corresponds to the Dasabhumika chapter of the Buddhavatamsaka 華厳十地品. Harada Reido 原田靈道 explains that, although T286 is said to be a break-away sutra 別行經 from the Dasabhumika 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 Buddhavatamsaka 華厳経. Harada also claims that, although many catalogues record this text as co-translated by Kumarajiva 羅什 and Buddhayasas 佛陀耶舎, it was Buddhayasas who played the central role. This is because, according to the biography of Buddhayasas in GSZ 高僧傳, Kumarajiva had problems in translating the original, and then Buddhayasas came and solved those problems in an admirable manner. Harada speculates that because Kumarajiva belonged to Nagarjuna’s tradition, he might not have known very much about "Huayan" (Buddhavatamsaka) 華厳 ideas. Buddhayasas, 佛陀耶舍 Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0286; 十住經 |
|
|
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) |
Mizuno Kogen 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. Bai Yan, 白延 Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 |
|
|
Tachibana Shundō 立花俊道 explains that there are two translations of 中阿含經, one of which is lost.
The lost one 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 増一阿含 and 中阿含 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 entire 中阿含. Little is known about the content of this text since it has been lost.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.8, 20-23 (Tachibana Shundō 立花俊道) |
Tachibana Shundo 立花俊道 explains that there are two translations of 中阿含經, one of which is lost.
The lost one 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 増一阿含 and 中阿含 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 entire 中阿含. Little is known about the content of this text since it has been lost.
*Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 中阿含經 |
|
|
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)
|
In his article about the *Ratnamegha-sutra 寶雲經 T658, Sakurabe Bunkyo 櫻部文鏡 explains that there are several Chinese texts similar to T658 (in 7 juan 巻), such as the *Mahayanaratnamegha-sutra 大乗寶雲經 (7 juan) T659 ascribed to Mandra[sena] 曼陀羅仙 and others, the *Ratnamegha-sutra 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 Dharmapala 法護 of the Song 宋, and the *Mahayanaratnamegha-sutra 大乗寶雲經 (8 juan) translated by *Subhuti 須菩提 of the Chen 陳. *Subhuti’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-sutra.
Sakurabe also conjectures that it is reasonable to regard the *Mahayanaratnamegha-sutra 大乗寶雲經 T659 in the Song 宋 canon as *Subhuti'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 *Subhuti were from Funan 扶南. *Subhuti 須菩提 *Mahayanaratnamegha-sutra; 大乗寶雲經 |
|
|
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 Koyo 境野黄洋 explains the translation process of this *Dasa-bhanavara-vinaya 十誦律 T1435 (the Sarvastivada Vinaya)as follows: Punyatara 弗若多羅 recited the original text in its entirety from memory; probably Kumarajiva 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 *Dasa-bhanavara-vinaya. Huiyuan 惠遠, who had found it a shame that the translation of thsi *Dasa-bhanavara-vinaya was incomplete, heard the news and requested Kumarajiva to continue the project with Dharmaruci 曇摩流支, and Kumarajiva completed the translation accordingly. Thus, this text was translated with two chief translators 譯主, Punyatara and Dharmaruci 曇摩流支. *Punyatara, 弗若多羅 Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T1435; 十誦律 |
|
|
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) |
Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyoo 西尾京雄 explain that there were four alternate translations of the Karunapundarika, 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 Dharmaraksa 竺法護. Akanuma and Nishio find this title peculiar, since it cannot have come from the original title (Karuna-pundarika-nama-mahayana-sutra), 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 aranya (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., Aranemi (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 *Dharmaksema 曇無讖 and the translator of the Qin 秦 version took 無諍念 and 離諍 respectively from Sanskrit a + rana, and Dharmaraksa took 閑居 from aranemya 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 Karunapundarika 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 Karunapundarika 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 Karunapundarika 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 *Dharmaksema'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 *Dharmaksema in 419, in ten juan. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 Xianju jing 閑居經 |
|
|
Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順 explains that, although the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā 大莊嚴論經 T201 is not listed in Sengyou’s CSZJJ 出三藏記集 (including Dao'an's work), which is the most reliable catalogue, it is shown in most of the catalogues as translated by Kumārajīva 羅什. This being the case, Mino suggests that the attribution of T201 to Kumārajīva should be accepted. However, he also argues that the text must have been translated shortly after Kumārajīva came to China, because the translation is not so good as to be regarded naturally as Kumārajīva’s. Thus, Mino infers the date of translation as between 384 and 401, or, at the very latest, in 402 or 403.
Mino also mentions the variation of the titles of this text in the catalogues, and shows that the 經 in the title 大莊嚴論經 has been added to the title since KYL 開元錄, and was not in the titles in the earlier title or in the original. Further, he discusses the issue of authorship of the text and argues that the text is more likely to have been produced by Ārya-Ku(au)marālāta (阿梨耶鳩摩羅邏多/聖童受), with an alternate name 喩鬘論 , rather than by Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴 as recorded in the catalogues. Mino says that space is insufficient to argue his view in full, and just briefly mentions some of his reasons, such as that the content of the text often indicates a connection with North India, while Aśvaghoṣa lived in South India.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.7, 269-270 (Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順)
|
Mino Kojun 美濃晃順 explains that, although the Kalpanamanditika 大莊嚴論經 T201 is not listed in Sengyou’s CSZJJ 出三藏記集 (including Dao'an's work), which is the most reliable catalogue, it is shown in most of the catalogues as translated by Kumarajiva 羅什. This being the case, Mino suggests that the attribution of T201 to Kumarajiva should be accepted. However, he also argues that the text must have been translated shortly after Kumarajiva came to China, because the translation is not so good as to be regarded naturally as Kumarajiva’s. Thus, Mino infers the date of translation as between 384 and 401, or, at the very latest, in 402 or 403.
Mino also mentions the variation of the titles of this text in the catalogues, and shows that the 經 in the title 大莊嚴論經 has been added to the title since KYL 開元錄, and was not in the titles in the earlier title or in the original. Further, he discusses the issue of authorship of the text and argues that the text is more likely to have been produced by Arya-Ku(au)maralata (阿梨耶鳩摩羅邏多/聖童受), with an alternate name 喩鬘論 , rather than by Asvaghosa 馬鳴 as recorded in the catalogues. Mino says that space is insufficient to argue his view in full, and just briefly mentions some of his reasons, such as that the content of the text often indicates a connection with North India, while Asvaghosa lived in South India. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0201; 大莊嚴論經 |
|
|
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) |
Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyoo 西尾京雄 explain that there were four alternate translations of the Karunapundarika, 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 Dharmaraksa 竺法護. Akanuma and Nishio find this title peculiar, since it cannot have come from the original title (Karuna-pundarika-nama-mahayana-sutra), 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 aranya (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., Aranemi (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 *Dharmaksema 曇無讖 and the translator of the Qin 秦 version took 無諍念 and 離諍 respectively from Sanskrit a + rana, and Dharmaraksa took 閑居 from aranemya 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 Karunapundarika 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 Karunapundarika 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 Karunapundarika 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 *Dharmaksema'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 *Dharmaksema in 419, in ten juan. *Dharmaksema, 曇無讖 T0157; 悲華經 |
|
|
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) |
According to Wada Tetsujo 和田徹城, the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護 is an alternate translation 異出 of the Pusa shi zhu jing 菩薩十住經 T284 ascribed to *Gitamitra 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 Dasabhumika chapter of the *Buddhavatamsaka in sixty juan 六十華厳十住品 (juan 巻 8) and the Dasabhumika chapter of the *Buddhavatamsaka 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 *Buddhavatamsaka 華厳經, since the contents of practices in the ten bhumis 住地 in the three texts are quite different from those in the two versions of the *Buddhavatamsaka. 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 *Gitamitra as a second translation or "re-issue" 第二出 of T283, they should not be treated as alternate translations of the same text. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0283; 菩薩十住行道品 |
|
|
The Taishō records that this version of the *Vibhāṣā 鞞婆沙論 was translated by *Saṃghabhadra 僧伽跋澄. However, Nishi Giyū 西義雄 points out that Dao’an records the text differently as follows: *Saṃghabhadra arrived in Chang'an 長安 in 382 (Jianyuan 建元 19), with the original of this text in his memory. The text was written down by Dharmanandin 曇無難堤, translated by Buddharakṣa 佛圖羅刹 into Chinese, the translation was written down by Minzhi 敏智, and checked 正義 by Zhao Lang 趙郎. Thus, Nishi maintains that in light of Dao’an's record, Buddharakṣa should be regarded as the translator, not *Saṃghabhadra. Nishi refers to juan 10 of CSZJJ 出三藏記集.
[Note: the actual title to which this note attaches in CSZJJ is 雜阿毘曇毘婆沙十四卷...或云雜阿毘曇心, T2145:55.10b5-6; the correspondence between this and T1547 strikes me as uncertain at best---MR.]
Edit
|
Vol.9, 151-152 |
The Taisho records that this version of the *Vibhasa 鞞婆沙論 was translated by *Samghabhadra 僧伽跋澄. However, Nishi Giyu 西義雄 points out that Dao’an records the text differently as follows: *Samghabhadra arrived in Chang'an 長安 in 382 (Jianyuan 建元 19), with the original of this text in his memory. The text was written down by Dharmanandin 曇無難堤, translated by Buddharaksa 佛圖羅刹 into Chinese, the translation was written down by Minzhi 敏智, and checked 正義 by Zhao Lang 趙郎. Thus, Nishi maintains that in light of Dao’an's record, Buddharaksa should be regarded as the translator, not *Samghabhadra. Nishi refers to juan 10 of CSZJJ 出三藏記集.
[Note: the actual title to which this note attaches in CSZJJ is 雜阿毘曇毘婆沙十四卷...或云雜阿毘曇心, T2145:55.10b5-6; the correspondence between this and T1547 strikes me as uncertain at best---MR.] Fohu 佛護, Fotuluocha 佛圖羅剎, *Buddharaksa? T1547; 鞞婆沙論 |
|
|
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) |
Sato Taishun 佐藤泰舜 argues that the title of 達摩多羅禪經 T618 [*Yogacarabhumi?] 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. Sato 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. Sato 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 (Sato 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). Sato refers to Vol.1 of Nukariya’s Zengaku shisoshi 禪学思想史 and Vol.1 of Sakaiya’s Shina Bukkyo shi kowa 支那佛教史講話 for further details of the issues surrounding T618. Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 Dharmatara 達摩多羅 Yuqie sanmosi jing 庾伽三摩斯經 |
|
|
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)
|
Sato Taishun 佐藤泰舜 argues that the title of 達摩多羅禪經 T618 [*Yogacarabhumi?] 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. Sato 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. Sato 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 (Sato 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). Sato refers to Vol.1 of Nukariya’s Zengaku shisoshi 禪学思想史 and Vol.1 of Sakaiya’s Shina Bukkyo shi kowa 支那佛教史講話 for further details of the issues surrounding T618. Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 Dharmasena, 達磨栖那 T0618; Damotuoluo pusa zhuan chan jing yaoji 達磨多羅菩薩撰禪經要集; 達摩多羅禪經; Yiqie sanmosi jing 庾伽三摩斯經 |
|
|
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)
|
Ono Hodo 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. T1485; 菩薩瓔珞本業經; Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經 |
|
|
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)
|
Mino Kojun 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 Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra 涅槃經 T374 translated by *Dharmaksema 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 *Dharmaksema, 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 *Mahamegha-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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0388; 大雲無想經卷第九 |
|
|
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) |
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" sutras 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 prajnaparamita 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 Kumarajiva 羅什, the vocabulary and tone of T245 are not likely to be Kumarajiva’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. T0245; 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 |
|
|
According to Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文,the Fo chui banniepan lüe shuo jiao jie jing 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 T389 has a number of alternate titles, all of which indicate precisely the content of the text, which is the Buddha’s last sermon shortly before his death. The original text became lost early and hence the original title is not known. Kumārajīva 羅什 translated this text, but the exact date of composition is unknown.
Fukaura mentions a couple of views regarding the nature of this text: one view claims that probably T389 is a prose translation of a text that is supposed to have originally been written in verse form. This is because T389 has a very similar content and structure to the Parinirvāṇa chapter 大般涅槃品 in the Buddhacarita 佛所行讃, which is written in verse, and because the text of T389 is very well written, being among the most beautiful Chinese prose in the entire Chinese canon (which suggests the possibility that it was not a literal translation of the original). No alternate translations of this text is known to exist. Fukaura refers to Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡邉海旭’s article (in Shinbukkyō 10.6) as the source of this view.
The other views goes further by claiming that the Parinirvāṇa chapter in the Buddhacarita, and a certain part of another text, the Fo ben xing jing 佛本行經 T193, were written upon the basis of T389. This is because the part that describes Buddha’s last sermon in the Parinirvāṇa chapter 大滅品 of T193, translated by Baoyun 寶雲, also corresponds closely to T389. Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 presented this view in an article in Shisō 79. Fukaura agrees that there are some connections between T389, the Parinirvāṇa chapter in the Buddhacarita, and the Parinirvāṇa chapter in T193, but also points out that since those three were produced in the same period, further evidence is needed to determine which one is the origin of the others, if any.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.9, 302-305 (Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文) |
According to Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文,the Fo chui banniepan lue shuo jiao jie jing 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 T389 has a number of alternate titles, all of which indicate precisely the content of the text, which is the Buddha’s last sermon shortly before his death. The original text became lost early and hence the original title is not known. Kumarajiva 羅什 translated this text, but the exact date of composition is unknown.
Fukaura mentions a couple of views regarding the nature of this text: one view claims that probably T389 is a prose translation of a text that is supposed to have originally been written in verse form. This is because T389 has a very similar content and structure to the Parinirvana chapter 大般涅槃品 in the Buddhacarita 佛所行讃, which is written in verse, and because the text of T389 is very well written, being among the most beautiful Chinese prose in the entire Chinese canon (which suggests the possibility that it was not a literal translation of the original). No alternate translations of this text is known to exist. Fukaura refers to Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡邉海旭’s article (in Shinbukkyo 10.6) as the source of this view.
The other views goes further by claiming that the Parinirvana chapter in the Buddhacarita, and a certain part of another text, the Fo ben xing jing 佛本行經 T193, were written upon the basis of T389. This is because the part that describes Buddha’s last sermon in the Parinirvana chapter 大滅品 of T193, translated by Baoyun 寶雲, also corresponds closely to T389. Sakaino Koyo 境野黄洋 presented this view in an article in Shiso 79. Fukaura agrees that there are some connections between T389, the Parinirvana chapter in the Buddhacarita, and the Parinirvana chapter in T193, but also points out that since those three were produced in the same period, further evidence is needed to determine which one is the origin of the others, if any.
Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0389; 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 |
|
|
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 Koyo 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 Buddhayasas 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 lu 四分律 in obedience to instructions from his master Huiyuan. The introduction also states that Buddhayasas 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 Buddhayasas was from Kucha 龜玆, Kumarajiva's home, and that Buddhayasas came to China in the wake of Kumarajiva. Sakaino states that it is difficult to determine which of these two background stories for Buddhayasas 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. Buddhayasas, 佛陀耶舍 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T1428; 四分律; 曇無德律 |
|
|
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) |
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. Faju 法炬 Shengjian, 聖堅, Fajian, 法堅 T0695; 佛說灌洗佛形像經 T0696; 佛說摩訶剎頭經 |
|
|
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 |
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 *Mahayanavatara(?) 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 *Mahayanavatara 入大乘論 was translated after the Vibhasa 毘婆沙論. According to the preface by Daoting 道挺, translation of the Vibhasa 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 Vibhasa. 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 Vibhasa 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 Vibhasa, 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 Vibhasa (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 *Saramati(?) 堅意:
According to Sakamoto, the author of the text, *Saramati(?) 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 *Saramati, though his dates would probably be different], the Fahua zhuan 法華傳 mentions that Paramartha 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. Daotai, 道泰 Jianyi 堅意 T1634; 入大乘論 |
|
|
Watanabe Baiyū 渡辺楳雄 describes the Apitan xin lun 阿毘曇心論 T1550 (*Abhidharmahṛdaya?) as follows:
Records do not agree as to when Fasheng 法勝 (*Dharmaśreṣṭhī? *Dharmaśrī?), the author of the *Abhidharmahṛdaya, was active. However, a record states that 景柯羅 (*Dharmakāla?), who came to China around 250 CE, reported that he had seen the text in India 本国. Thus, *Dharmaśreṣṭhī must have been active by that time. *Saṅghadeva 僧伽提婆 translated the text in 384, and edited it in four fascicles seven years later in cooperation with Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠. According to the Yuan catalogue entitled Zhiyuan fabao kantong zonglu 至元法寶勘同總錄, the *Abhidharmahṛdaya? was known in Tibet as well.
Edit
|
Volume 1, p. 37 |
Watanabe Baiyu 渡辺楳雄 describes the Apitan xin lun 阿毘曇心論 T1550 (*Abhidharmahrdaya?) as follows:
Records do not agree as to when Fasheng 法勝 (*Dharmasresthi? *Dharmasri?), the author of the *Abhidharmahrdaya, was active. However, a record states that 景柯羅 (*Dharmakala?), who came to China around 250 CE, reported that he had seen the text in India 本国. Thus, *Dharmasresthi must have been active by that time. *Sanghadeva 僧伽提婆 translated the text in 384, and edited it in four fascicles seven years later in cooperation with Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠. According to the Yuan catalogue entitled Zhiyuan fabao kantong zonglu 至元法寶勘同總錄, the *Abhidharmahrdaya? was known in Tibet as well. *Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 Lushan Huiyuan, 慧遠, 廬山慧遠 T1550; 阿毘曇心論 |
|
|
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 |
Watanabe Baiyu 渡辺楳雄 describes the background of the *Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya 雜阿毘曇心論 T1552, written by *Dharmatrata 法救 and with the translation ascribed to *Sanghavarman 僧伽跋摩 and others, as follows:
The original text of the Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya in 600 stanzas was produced by *Dharmatrata 法救/達磨多羅, by adding 350 stanzas to the *Abhidharmahrdaya 阿毘曇心論 (cf. T1550) by *Dharmasri(?) 法勝. Dharmasri wrote the *Abhidharmahrdaya in 250 stanzas in the fourth century to summarize the *Mahavibhasa 大毘婆沙, since the latter was excessively long (200 fascicles in Xuanzang's 玄奘 translation). Dharmatrata added 350 stanzas, thinking that *Dharmasri’s summary was too terse. The *Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya T1552 is thought to have been the most important Abhidharma source for Vasbandhu when he wrote the Abhidharmakosa 倶舎論.
Watanabe states that translation of T1552 started in 434 CE and completed in the following year. Sanghavarman 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, Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 decided to become a monk after reading the Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya as a young man. However, once Xuanzang produced his fresh translations of other Abhidharma texts, T1552 and alternate translations of the Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya, as well as commentaries on them, waned in popularity and were virtually forgotten in China. *Samghavarman?, 僧伽跋摩 Baoyun, 寶雲 Huiguan 慧觀 T1552; 雜阿毘曇心論 |
- Texts:
T1549; 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論
- People:
*Saṃghadeva, *Gautama Saṃghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 ("handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本]);
*Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? ("handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本]);
Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (translator 譯);
Huichong 慧崇 (amanuensis 筆受);
Saṅghabhūti, 僧伽跋澄, 僧伽䟦澄, 衆現 ("handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本])
- Dates:
384 C.E.
|
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 Baiyu 渡辺楳雄 writes that the preface 序 of 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論 T1549 includes the following information:
Sanghabhuti 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. Sangabhuti, Gautama Sanghadeva 瞿曇僧伽禘婆/衆天 (according to Watanabe, "of Kubha") and Dharmanandi 曇摩難提/法喜 [also 曇摩難陀] (according to Watanabe, "of Tokhara") 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 slokas. *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? *Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 Huichong 慧崇 Sanghabhuti, 僧伽跋澄, 僧伽䟦澄, 衆現 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T1549; 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論 |
|
|
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 Kumarajiva 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 *Vinitaruci 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. Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支 T0465; 伽耶山頂經 |
|
|
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 |
Sakaino Koyo'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 Taisho 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, Taisho vol. 23 p. 479 n. 9 records a variant reading in YMP that gives the ascription to Faying --- MR.] Faying, 法頴 T1437; 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本 |
|
|
Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 argues that the vocabulary used in the 菩薩内戒經 T1487 is old, probably that of the W. Jin period, and hence that the ascription to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 is incorrect, and the text should be reclassified as anonymous.
The ascription to *Guṇavarman was first given by DZKZM, followed by KYL. However, older catalogues such as Yancong 彦琮錄, Jingtai, and DTNDL classified the text as anonymous. CSZJJ records the text as missing 缺本.
Ōno makes the following points about the relation between T1487 and other texts:
T1487 was composed by expanding the content of the 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 T778 and using part of the 菩薩本業經 T281. The "ten grounds/stages" 十住 part of T1487 was later made into the 菩薩十住經 T284. Some sentences in T1487 also match closely with those in 菩薩十住行道品 T283. This suggests two possibilities: 1) T283 was produced by expanding T281, using sentences in T1487 (assuming that T1487 took its version of the "ten[fold?] categories" 十数の形式 from T281, because this version is the one most commonly used in so-called Huayan 華厳 scriptures); or 2) T283 was produced directly from T281 before T1487, and T1487 was made based on T283. [Ōno claims that in this scenario T1487 must be based on T283, not on T281, because 内戒経は彼れの或る部の文を缺いている, but it was difficult for me to determine if 彼れ in this refers to T281 or T283 --- AI].
Edit
|
Volume 9, p. 407-408 |
Ono Hodo 大野法道 argues that the vocabulary used in the 菩薩内戒經 T1487 is old, probably that of the W. Jin period, and hence that the ascription to *Gunavarman 求那跋摩 is incorrect, and the text should be reclassified as anonymous.
The ascription to *Gunavarman was first given by DZKZM, followed by KYL. However, older catalogues such as Yancong 彦琮錄, Jingtai, and DTNDL classified the text as anonymous. CSZJJ records the text as missing 缺本.
Ono makes the following points about the relation between T1487 and other texts:
T1487 was composed by expanding the content of the 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 T778 and using part of the 菩薩本業經 T281. The "ten grounds/stages" 十住 part of T1487 was later made into the 菩薩十住經 T284. Some sentences in T1487 also match closely with those in 菩薩十住行道品 T283. This suggests two possibilities: 1) T283 was produced by expanding T281, using sentences in T1487 (assuming that T1487 took its version of the "ten[fold?] categories" 十数の形式 from T281, because this version is the one most commonly used in so-called Huayan 華厳 scriptures); or 2) T283 was produced directly from T281 before T1487, and T1487 was made based on T283. [Ono claims that in this scenario T1487 must be based on T283, not on T281, because 内戒経は彼れの或る部の文を缺いている, but it was difficult for me to determine if 彼れ in this refers to T281 or T283 --- AI]. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1487; Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經; 佛說菩薩內戒經; Pusa jie jing 菩薩誡經 |
|
|
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 |
According to Nishi Yoshio 西義雄, although the Taisho ascribes the Karmasiddhiprakarana 業成就論 T1608 only to *Vimoksaprajnarsi 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 Prajnaruci 瞿曇流支 and Shi Tanlin 釋曇林, at Jinhua si 金華寺 in Xinghe 興和 3 (541 CE). *(Gautama) Prajnaruci, 般若流支, 瞿曇般若流支, 瞿曇流支, 瞿曇般若留支 *Vimoksaprajnarsi, 毘目智仙 Tanlin, 曇林 T1608; 業成就論 |
|
|
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 |
Watanabe Baiyu 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, *Sanghapala(?) 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 Sanghapala’s own version of the same text, the 文殊師利所説般若波羅蜜經 T233. *Mandra[sena?], 曼陀羅仙 *Samghabhara?, *Samghavara?, *Samghavarman? *Simha-??, 僧伽婆羅 T0232; 文殊師利所説般若波羅蜜經; 文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經 |
|
|
Iida Junyū 飯田順雄 summarizes views about the ascription and date of the 方便心論 T1632 (*Upāyahṛdaya?) as follows:
SYM and some other editions, as well as Vidyabhusana and Ui, ascribe T1632 to Jijiaye 吉迦夜 and Tanyao 曇曜, while the Taishō and the Shukusatsu 縮蔵 ascribe it to Jijiaye 吉迦夜 alone. Vidyabhusana claims that the translation work of T1632 was done by Jijiaye and Tanyao in 472 CE, and Ui thinks the same. Iida points out that Jijiaye and Tanyao are recorded as also having translated texts other than T1632 in the same year, including the Za baozang jing 雜寶藏經 T203 in ten fascicles and the
Fo fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058 in six fascicles.
Iida adds that the date of the original *Upāyahṛdaya is likely to be around 100 CE, assuming that Ui is correct in claiming that it was written by a "hīnayāna" 小乗 Buddhist before Nāgārjuna’s time. Iida explains that it is likely to be around 100 CE because Nāgārjuna is thought to have been around 150-250 CE, and the Carakasaṁhitā, a text that heavily influenced the *Upāyahṛdaya, was probably written around 0 CE.
Edit
|
Volume 9, p. 437-439 |
Iida Junyu 飯田順雄 summarizes views about the ascription and date of the 方便心論 T1632 (*Upayahrdaya?) as follows:
SYM and some other editions, as well as Vidyabhusana and Ui, ascribe T1632 to Jijiaye 吉迦夜 and Tanyao 曇曜, while the Taisho and the Shukusatsu 縮蔵 ascribe it to Jijiaye 吉迦夜 alone. Vidyabhusana claims that the translation work of T1632 was done by Jijiaye and Tanyao in 472 CE, and Ui thinks the same. Iida points out that Jijiaye and Tanyao are recorded as also having translated texts other than T1632 in the same year, including the Za baozang jing 雜寶藏經 T203 in ten fascicles and the
Fo fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058 in six fascicles.
Iida adds that the date of the original *Upayahrdaya is likely to be around 100 CE, assuming that Ui is correct in claiming that it was written by a "hinayana" 小乗 Buddhist before Nagarjuna’s time. Iida explains that it is likely to be around 100 CE because Nagarjuna is thought to have been around 150-250 CE, and the Carakasamhita, a text that heavily influenced the *Upayahrdaya, was probably written around 0 CE. Jijiaye, 吉迦夜, *Kivkara?, *Kimkara?, *Kimkarya? Tanyao, 曇曜 T1632; 方便心論 |
|
|
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 |
Ono Hodo 大野法道 points out that although the 優波離問佛經 T1466 (*Upalipariprccha?) is ascribed to *Gunavarman 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1466; 優波離問佛經 |
|
|
In the course of discussing T1487, Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 notes that the "ten grounds/stages" 十住 part of T1487 was later made into the 菩薩十住經 T284. Some sentences in T1487 also match closely with those in 菩薩十住行道品 T283. This suggests two possibilities: 1) T283 was produced by expanding T281, using sentences in T1487 (assuming that T1487 took its version of the "ten[fold?] categories" 十数の形式 from T281, because this version is the one most commonly used in so-called Huayan 華厳 scriptures); or 2) T283 was produced directly from T281 before T1487, and T1487 was made based on T283. [Ōno claims that in this scenario T1487 must be based on T283, not on T281, because 内戒経は彼れの或る部の文を缺いている, but it was difficult for me to determine if 彼れ in this refers to T281 or T283 --- AI].
Edit
|
Volume 9, p. 407-408 |
In the course of discussing T1487, Ono Hodo 大野法道 notes that the "ten grounds/stages" 十住 part of T1487 was later made into the 菩薩十住經 T284. Some sentences in T1487 also match closely with those in 菩薩十住行道品 T283. This suggests two possibilities: 1) T283 was produced by expanding T281, using sentences in T1487 (assuming that T1487 took its version of the "ten[fold?] categories" 十数の形式 from T281, because this version is the one most commonly used in so-called Huayan 華厳 scriptures); or 2) T283 was produced directly from T281 before T1487, and T1487 was made based on T283. [Ono claims that in this scenario T1487 must be based on T283, not on T281, because 内戒経は彼れの或る部の文を缺いている, but it was difficult for me to determine if 彼れ in this refers to T281 or T283 --- AI]. T0281; 佛說菩薩本業經 T0283; 菩薩十住行道品 |
|
|
According to Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 , the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda-sūtra 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經 T353 ascribed to Guṇabhadra
求那跋陀羅 was produced in the year following his arrival in China. Sakaino maintains that the actual translation work of this text was done by Baoyun 寶雲, while Guṇabhadra played the role of "head of translation" 譯主, reciting and summarizing the original, as he had not yet had enough time to learn Chinese.
Edit
|
Volume 5, p. 362 |
According to Sakaino Koyo 境野黄洋 , the Srimaladevisimhanada-sutra 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經 T353 ascribed to Gunabhadra
求那跋陀羅 was produced in the year following his arrival in China. Sakaino maintains that the actual translation work of this text was done by Baoyun 寶雲, while Gunabhadra played the role of "head of translation" 譯主, reciting and summarizing the original, as he had not yet had enough time to learn Chinese. Baoyun, 寶雲 Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 T0353; 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經 |
|
|
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 |
Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 provides the following information in his article about the "Sutra 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. Huide, 慧德 Huijue, 慧覺 Tanjue, 曇覺 T0202; 賢愚經 |
|
|
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 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 Narendrayasas 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. An Shigao, 安世高 T0641; 佛說月燈三昧經 |
|
|
According to Tsujimori Yōshū(?) 辻森要修, the Jingang xian lun 金剛仙論 T1512 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提流支 is not a translation of a Sanskrit original text in a proper sense, since it contains a number of passages that cannot be translated from another language. Tsujimori states that T1512 is probably Bodhiruci’s own work explaining what Jingangxian = *Vajrārṣi 金剛仙 taught, which is why T1512 is not included in the scriptural catalogues, despite its apparent popularity. Tsujimori demonstrates these points by quoing KYL and the 金剛般若經贊述 T1700.
He also points out that T1512 is probably not the original version of Bodhiruci's text, since it has some oddities, such as a theory of the "eight wisdoms" 八般若 that is different from Bodhiruci’s own theory as reported by Jizang 吉藏; and the lack of terminological unity.
Edit
|
vol. 3, pp. 475-476 |
According to Tsujimori Yoshu(?) 辻森要修, the Jingang xian lun 金剛仙論 T1512 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提流支 is not a translation of a Sanskrit original text in a proper sense, since it contains a number of passages that cannot be translated from another language. Tsujimori states that T1512 is probably Bodhiruci’s own work explaining what Jingangxian = *Vajrarsi 金剛仙 taught, which is why T1512 is not included in the scriptural catalogues, despite its apparent popularity. Tsujimori demonstrates these points by quoing KYL and the 金剛般若經贊述 T1700.
He also points out that T1512 is probably not the original version of Bodhiruci's text, since it has some oddities, such as a theory of the "eight wisdoms" 八般若 that is different from Bodhiruci’s own theory as reported by Jizang 吉藏; and the lack of terminological unity. Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支 T1512; 金剛仙論 |
|
|
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 |
According to Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善, the "Sutra 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. T0200; 撰集百緣經 |
|
|
According to Hukaura Seibun 深浦正文, the Zhi chan bing miyao fa 治禪病祕要法 T620 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 was produced earlier than it is often thought, viz., in September 455, when Juqu Jingsheng wrote the text down as recorded in the postface 後序 to the text. Hukaura points out that the biography of Juqu Jingsheng in CSZJJ records that he made the translation immediately after he came back to 河西, and in 455 CE he just transcribed the text upon the request of the nun Huijun 慧濬.
Edit
|
vol. 4, p. 294 |
According to Hukaura Seibun 深浦正文, the Zhi chan bing miyao fa 治禪病祕要法 T620 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 was produced earlier than it is often thought, viz., in September 455, when Juqu Jingsheng wrote the text down as recorded in the postface 後序 to the text. Hukaura points out that the biography of Juqu Jingsheng in CSZJJ records that he made the translation immediately after he came back to 河西, and in 455 CE he just transcribed the text upon the request of the nun Huijun 慧濬. Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 T0620; 治禪病祕要法 |
|
|
Wada Tetsujō 和田徹城 points out that scriptural catalogues record that the Mile da cheng Fo jing 彌勒大成佛經 T456 ascribed to Kumārajīva was the second translation of the text, and the first was the Cheng Fo jing 成佛經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. The Cheng Fo jing has been lost since probably as early as the Tang period. Wada claims that DZKZM should be correct in stating that T456 and the lost Cheng Fo jing differed only in details 大同小異, since their recorded lengths are similar (seventeen sheets for T456 and nineteen for the Cheng Fo jing).
Edit
|
vol. 10, pp. 326-327 |
Wada Tetsujo 和田徹城 points out that scriptural catalogues record that the Mile da cheng Fo jing 彌勒大成佛經 T456 ascribed to Kumarajiva was the second translation of the text, and the first was the Cheng Fo jing 成佛經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa. The Cheng Fo jing has been lost since probably as early as the Tang period. Wada claims that DZKZM should be correct in stating that T456 and the lost Cheng Fo jing differed only in details 大同小異, since their recorded lengths are similar (seventeen sheets for T456 and nineteen for the Cheng Fo jing). Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0456; 佛說彌勒大成佛經 |
|
|
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 |
Kuno Horyu 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. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0988; *Mahamayuri-[vidyarajni]-sutra; 孔雀王呪經 |
|
|
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 Gyokei 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. T0270; 大法鼓經 T0271; 佛說菩薩行方便境界神通變化經 |
|
|
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 Kumarajiva 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 *Vinitaruci 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. Vinitaruci, 毘尼多流支 T0466; 佛說象頭精舍經 |
|
|
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 Kumarajiva 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 *Vinitaruci 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. Bodhiruci, 菩提流志, 達摩流支 T0467; 大乘伽耶山頂經 |
|
|
According to Inaba Bunkai 稲葉文海, the 諸法無行經 T650 ascribed to Kumārajīva is one of four alternate translations of the same text, the other three of which are: the 諸法本無經 T651 ascribed to *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta 闍那崛多; the 諸法無行經 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 (lost); and the 大乘隨轉宣説諸法經 T652 ascribed to Shaode 紹徳 and others.
Edit
|
vol 5, p. 281 |
According to Inaba Bunkai 稲葉文海, the 諸法無行經 T650 ascribed to Kumarajiva is one of four alternate translations of the same text, the other three of which are: the 諸法本無經 T651 ascribed to *Jnanagupta/Jinagupta 闍那崛多; the 諸法無行經 ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 (lost); and the 大乘隨轉宣説諸法經 T652 ascribed to Shaode 紹徳 and others. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0650; 諸法無行經 |
|
|
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 |
According to Shimizudani Kyojun 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 *Aryasura 大勇, about whom nothing else is known. *Samghavarman?, 僧伽跋摩 *Aryasura , 大勇 T0723; 分別業報略經 |
|
|
Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順’s description of 大方等無想經 T387 includes the following information:
LDSBJ’s claim that there was an alternate translation of T387 with the same title ascribed to Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 may well be incorrect, because CSZJJ does not record any such work. There is a Tibetan translation of the same text as T387.
Although T387 may appear to be a partial translation of a larger text called the *Mahāmegha-sūtra 大雲經, the real situation was more likely that the original text was still incomplete when Dharmakṣema brought it to China, but that eventually, even in India, composition stopped there and was never completed.
Edit
|
vol. 7, pp. 486-487 |
Mino Kojun 美濃晃順’s description of 大方等無想經 T387 includes the following information:
LDSBJ’s claim that there was an alternate translation of T387 with the same title ascribed to Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 may well be incorrect, because CSZJJ does not record any such work. There is a Tibetan translation of the same text as T387.
Although T387 may appear to be a partial translation of a larger text called the *Mahamegha-sutra 大雲經, the real situation was more likely that the original text was still incomplete when Dharmaksema brought it to China, but that eventually, even in India, composition stopped there and was never completed. *Dharmaksema, 曇無讖 T0387; 大方等無想經 |
|
|
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 Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲, there is a disagreement about the relation between the Bodhisattvabhumi 菩薩善戒經 T1582 ascribed to *Gunavarman 求那跋摩 and the Bodhisattvabhumi 菩薩地持經 T1581 ascribed to *Dharmaksema 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. Gunavarman, 求那跋摩 T1581; 菩薩地持經; Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經 T1582; 菩薩善戒經 |
|
|
Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲 states that the 菩薩善戒經 T1583 in one fascicle and the 菩薩善戒經 T1582 in nine fascicles were originally one text, but became separated as the part that now appears as T1583 was used so often in North China.
Edit
|
vol. 9, p. 405 |
Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲 states that the 菩薩善戒經 T1583 in one fascicle and the 菩薩善戒經 T1582 in nine fascicles were originally one text, but became separated as the part that now appears as T1583 was used so often in North China. T1582; 菩薩善戒經 T1583; 菩薩善戒經 |
|
|
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 |
Tsujimori Yoshu 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. T0452; 佛說觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經; Fo cong Doushuai jiang zhongyin jing 佛從兜率降中陰經 T0453; 佛說彌勒下生經 |
|
|
Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 argues that the ascription of the 請賓頭盧法 T1689 to An Shigao, given by Fajing, Jingtai and other catalogues, is incorrect, since the vocabulary of the text is not likely to be that of the Latter Han, and CSZJJ does not include it in the works of An Shigao. Ōno maintains that T1689 is in fact Huijian's 慧簡 work, as it is presented in the Taishō and some other catalogues.
Edit
|
vol. 5, p. 399 |
Ono Hodo 大野法道 argues that the ascription of the 請賓頭盧法 T1689 to An Shigao, given by Fajing, Jingtai and other catalogues, is incorrect, since the vocabulary of the text is not likely to be that of the Latter Han, and CSZJJ does not include it in the works of An Shigao. Ono maintains that T1689 is in fact Huijian's 慧簡 work, as it is presented in the Taisho and some other catalogues. Huijian, 慧簡, 惠簡 T1689; 請賓頭盧法 |
|
|
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 |
According to Ono Hodo 大野法道, the 清淨毘尼方廣經 T1489 ascribed to Kumarajiva, 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 Dharmaraksa are alternate translations of the same text. However, Ono 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 Kumarajiva’s work, while Fajing, Jingtai and DTNDL claim that it is Dharmaraksa’s. Ono himself argues that since Dharmaraksa translated T460, T1489 should be Kumarajiva’s work. [However, this may require us to consider the possibility that T1489 is in fact by Dharmaraksa, and therefore also question the ascription of T460 --- MR.] Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0460; 佛說文殊師利淨律經 |
|
|
According to Izumi Hōkei 泉芳璟, the preface of 坐禪三昧經 T614 (by Sengrui 僧叡, 55.65ab, in CSZJJ) provides the details of the authorship/sources of the original (Indic) scripture. For example, the first forty-three stanzas were written by Kumaralāta 究摩羅羅陀, while the following twenty-three stanzas were by Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴.
Edit
|
vol. 4, p. 7 |
According to Izumi Hokei 泉芳璟, the preface of 坐禪三昧經 T614 (by Sengrui 僧叡, 55.65ab, in CSZJJ) provides the details of the authorship/sources of the original (Indic) scripture. For example, the first forty-three stanzas were written by Kumaralata 究摩羅羅陀, while the following twenty-three stanzas were by Asvaghosa 馬鳴. Asvaghosa, 馬鳴 Kumaralata, 究摩羅羅陀 T0614; 坐禪三昧經 |
|
|
Watanabe Baiyū 渡辺楳雄 notes that the Prakaraṇapāda 衆事分阿毘曇論 T1541 is an older alternate translation of the same text as the 阿毘達磨品類足論 T1542 ascribed to Xuanzang 玄奘. T1541 was produced by Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in cooperation with Bodhiyaśas 菩提耶舍 in Yangdu 揚都 in 435 CE. As is usually the case between alternate translations, the contents of T1541 and those of T1542 differ in a number of places (Watanabe presents several examples, citing his own work for details).
Edit
|
vol. 5, p. 98 |
Watanabe Baiyu 渡辺楳雄 notes that the Prakaranapada 衆事分阿毘曇論 T1541 is an older alternate translation of the same text as the 阿毘達磨品類足論 T1542 ascribed to Xuanzang 玄奘. T1541 was produced by Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in cooperation with Bodhiyasas 菩提耶舍 in Yangdu 揚都 in 435 CE. As is usually the case between alternate translations, the contents of T1541 and those of T1542 differ in a number of places (Watanabe presents several examples, citing his own work for details). Bodhiyasas, 菩提耶舍 Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 T1541; 眾事分阿毘曇論 T1542; 阿毘達磨品類足論 |
|
|
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 |
Sato Ryochi 佐藤良智 points out that the 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmaraksa and the 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmaraksa share the same contents, and that T536 should be the oldest of the three, since it has the simplest story and wording. Sato 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. Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 T0534; 佛說月光童子經 T0535; 佛說申日經; Shenyue jing 申曰經 T0536; Shenri'er jing 申日兒經; Shenridou ben jing 申日兜本經; Shenridou jing 申日兜經; 申日兒本經; Shenyuedou ben jing 申曰兜本經 |
|
|
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 |
Tokiwa Daijo'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 Asvaghosa 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 Kalpanamanditika 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 Uruvilva-Kasyapa 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 Mahayana-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. T0189; 過去現在因果經 |
|
|
Fuse Kōgaku 布施浩岳 points out that the 菩薩行方便境界神通變化經 T271 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 and the 大薩遮尼乾子所説經 T272 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提留支 are alternate translations of the same text, but T271 should be the older, since it is about one third the length of T272.
Edit
|
vol. 9, p. 396 |
Fuse Kogaku 布施浩岳 points out that the 菩薩行方便境界神通變化經 T271 ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 and the 大薩遮尼乾子所説經 T272 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提留支 are alternate translations of the same text, but T271 should be the older, since it is about one third the length of T272. T0271; 佛說菩薩行方便境界神通變化經 T0272; 大薩遮尼乾子所說經 |
|
|
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 Kumarajiva 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 *Vinitaruci 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. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0464; 文殊師利問菩提經 |
|
|
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 |
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 *Buddhasanta 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 *Prajnaruci 般若流支, not Bodhiruci 菩提留支. Ratnamati, 勒那摩提 Senglang, 僧朗 T1520; 妙法蓮華經論優波提舍 |
|
|
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 |
Umada Gyokei 馬田行啓 states that 無量義經 T276 ascribed to *Dharmagatayasas 曇摩伽陀耶 (法稱) is one of two alternate translations, but the other one, ascribed to Gunabhadra 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 Dharmagatayasas. *Dharmagatayasas, 曇摩伽陀耶舍 T0276; 無量義經 |
|
|
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 |
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 *Buddhasanta 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 *Prajnaruci 般若流支, not Bodhiruci 菩提留支. Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支 Tanlin, 曇林 T1519; 妙法蓮華經憂波提舍 |
|
|
Yamabe Shūgaku 山邊習學 points out that scriptural catalogues disagree whether the 正法念處經 T721 is a work of *Gautama Prajnāruci 瞿曇般若流支 or Bodhiruci 菩提流支. KYL suggests Gautama Prajnāruci as the translator, stating that that ascription is yet to be confirmed. According to Yamabe, the ascription of T721 to Gautama Prajnāruci in the Taishō and the Zhenyuan lu 貞元錄 is based on KYL. [Yamabe does not say which view he supports ---AI.]
Edit
|
vol. 5, pp. 329-330 |
Yamabe Shugaku 山邊習學 points out that scriptural catalogues disagree whether the 正法念處經 T721 is a work of *Gautama Prajnaruci 瞿曇般若流支 or Bodhiruci 菩提流支. KYL suggests Gautama Prajnaruci as the translator, stating that that ascription is yet to be confirmed. According to Yamabe, the ascription of T721 to Gautama Prajnaruci in the Taisho and the Zhenyuan lu 貞元錄 is based on KYL. [Yamabe does not say which view he supports ---AI.]
T0721; 正法念處經 |
|
|
Watanabe Baiyū 渡辺楳雄 points out that the ascription of the 摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪經 T250 to Kumārajīva was first given by KYL. According to Watanabe, Shii 椎尾 claims that the ascription to Kumārajīva is correct, since not only are the tone and vocabulary of T250 Kumārajīva’s, but also a substantial part of it is identical to part of the Xiying chapter 習應品 of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā 大品般若 T223, translated by Kumārajīva.
Watanabe also lists alternate translations to T250, which are:
般若波羅蜜多心經 T251 ascribed to Xuanzang 玄奘;
般若波羅蜜多那經 ascribed to Bodhiruci 流志;
摩訶般若隨心經 ascribed to Śikṣānanda 實叉難陀;
般若波羅蜜多心經 T253 ascribed to Prajña 般若, Liyan 利言 and others;
普遍智藏般若波羅蜜多心經 T252 ascribed to Fa Yuechong 法月重,
般若心經 ascribed to *Prajñācakra 智慧輪;
and 聖佛母般若波羅蜜多經 T257 ascribed to *Dānapāla 施護.
Watanabe mentions Shiba’s 榛葉 works as a source for the same text in other languages.
Edit
|
vol. 10, p. 274 |
Watanabe Baiyu 渡辺楳雄 points out that the ascription of the 摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪經 T250 to Kumarajiva was first given by KYL. According to Watanabe, Shii 椎尾 claims that the ascription to Kumarajiva is correct, since not only are the tone and vocabulary of T250 Kumarajiva’s, but also a substantial part of it is identical to part of the Xiying chapter 習應品 of the Larger Prajnaparamita 大品般若 T223, translated by Kumarajiva.
Watanabe also lists alternate translations to T250, which are:
般若波羅蜜多心經 T251 ascribed to Xuanzang 玄奘;
般若波羅蜜多那經 ascribed to Bodhiruci 流志;
摩訶般若隨心經 ascribed to Siksananda 實叉難陀;
般若波羅蜜多心經 T253 ascribed to Prajna 般若, Liyan 利言 and others;
普遍智藏般若波羅蜜多心經 T252 ascribed to Fa Yuechong 法月重,
般若心經 ascribed to *Prajnacakra 智慧輪;
and 聖佛母般若波羅蜜多經 T257 ascribed to *Danapala 施護.
Watanabe mentions Shiba’s 榛葉 works as a source for the same text in other languages. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0250; 摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪經 |
|
|
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 |
According to Ono Hodo 大野法道, the 清淨毘尼方廣經 T1489 ascribed to Kumarajiva, 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 Dharmaraksa are alternate translations of the same text. Ono 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 Kumarajiva’s work, while Fajing, Jingtai and DTNDL claim that it is Dharmaraksa’s. Ono argues that since Dharmaraksa translated T460, T1489 should be Kumarajiva’s work. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T1489; 清淨毘尼方廣經 |
|
|
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 |
According to Inaba Bunkai 稲葉文海, the Zhufa wuxing jing 諸法無行經 T650 ascribed to Kumarajiva is one of four alternate translations of the same text [the Sarvadharmapravrtti-nirdesa --- MR], the other three of which are: the Zhufa benwu jing 諸法本無經 T651 ascribed to *Jnanagupta/Jinagupta 闍那崛多; the Zhufa wuxing jing 諸法無行經 ascribed to Gunabhadra 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. T0650; 諸法無行經 T0651; 佛說諸法本無經 T0652; 佛說大乘隨轉宣說諸法經 |
|
|
According to Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲, there is a disagreement about the relation between the Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩善戒經 T1582 ascribed to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 and the Bodhisatvabhūmi 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 excerpt from the more extensive T1581 with, the prefatory part 序文 and the ending 流通分 added later.
Edit
|
Volume 9, p. 404-405 |
According to Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲, there is a disagreement about the relation between the Bodhisatvabhumi 菩薩善戒經 T1582 ascribed to *Gunavarman 求那跋摩 and the Bodhisatvabhumi 菩薩地持經 T1581 ascribed to *Dharmaksema 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 excerpt from the more extensive T1581 with, the prefatory part 序文 and the ending 流通分 added later. *Dharmaksema, 曇無讖 T1581; 菩薩地持經; Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經 |
|
|
Ryōchi Satō 佐藤良智 points out that the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa share the same contents [all are regarded loosely as alternate versions of the Candraprabhakumāra-sūtra], 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 apocryphal, created by re-writing 改作 T536.
Edit
|
Volume 6, p.163-164 |
Ryochi Sato 佐藤良智 points out that the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmaraksa and the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmaraksa share the same contents [all are regarded loosely as alternate versions of the Candraprabhakumara-sutra], and that T536 should be the oldest of the three since it has the simplest story and wording. Sato also claims that some parts of T535 suggest that the text is apocryphal, created by re-writing 改作 T536. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0535; 佛說申日經; Shenyue jing 申曰經 |
|
|
Satō Ryōchi 佐藤良智 points out that the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa share the same contents [all are regarded loosely as alternate versions of the Candraprabhakumāra-sūtra], 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 apocryphal, created by re-writing 改作 T536.
Edit
|
Volume 6, p.163-164 |
Sato Ryochi 佐藤良智 points out that the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmaraksa and the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmaraksa share the same contents [all are regarded loosely as alternate versions of the Candraprabhakumara-sutra], and that T536 should be the oldest of the three since it has the simplest story and wording. Sato also claims that some parts of T535 suggest that the text is apocryphal, created by re-writing 改作 T536. T0534; 佛說月光童子經 T0535; 佛說申日經; Shenyue jing 申曰經 T0536; Shenri'er jing 申日兒經; Shenridou ben jing 申日兜本經; Shenridou jing 申日兜經; 申日兒本經; Shenyuedou ben jing 申曰兜本經 |
|
|
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. One was the Bei hua jing 悲華經, recorded as translated by Daogong 道龔 of the N. Liang 北凉. This text has been lost, and Akanuma and Nishio suspect that it might not have even existed in the first place.
Edit
|
s.v., Vol.9, 125-129 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄) |
Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyoo 西尾京雄 explain that there were four alternate translations of the Karunapundarika, including 悲華經 T157. One was the Bei hua jing 悲華經, recorded as translated by Daogong 道龔 of the N. Liang 北凉. This text has been lost, and Akanuma and Nishio suspect that it might not have even existed in the first place. Daogong 道龔 Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karunapundarika |
|
|
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 |
According to Mino Kojun 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 Kumarajiva’s works. Mino maintains that, although the Taisho records that T208 was composed by Kumarajiva and compiled by Daolue 道略, it is in fact more likely that it was simply compliled by Daolue, taking only the stories from Kumarajiva’s works. Daolue, 道略 Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0208; 眾經撰雜譬喻 |
|
|
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.
[T207 is also said in T to have been compiled by Daolüe, and so it is possible that some of this information pertains to T207 as well --- MR.]
Edit
|
Vol.7, 68-69 |
According to Mino Kojun 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 Kumarajiva’s works. Mino maintains that, although the Taisho records that T208 was composed by Kumarajiva and compiled by Daolue 道略, it is in fact more likely that it was simply compliled by Daolue, taking only the stories from Kumarajiva’s works.
[T207 is also said in T to have been compiled by Daolue, and so it is possible that some of this information pertains to T207 as well --- MR.] Daolue, 道略 Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0207; 雜譬喻經 |
|
|
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 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 (*Dharmaraksa [sic! for *Buddharaksa? -- 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0226; 摩訶般若鈔經; Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 |
|
|
Hatani Ryōtai 羽渓了諦’s description of the 大丈夫論 T1577 includes the following pieces of information:
Not much is known about Daotai 道泰, the translator of T1577. The only sources that give any information about him are GSZ and KYL. According to them, Daotai had been to different countries west of the Pamirs 葱嶺 and brought scriptures back to the capital of the N. Liang 北涼. Daotai asked *Buddhavarman 浮陀跋摩 to translate the (Mahā)Vibhāṣā 毗婆沙論 (cf. T1546), one of the scriptures he brought back, and played the role of amanuensis 筆受 himself. He later himself translated T1577 and 入大乘論 T1634 by *Sthiramati 堅意 [or *Sāramati? as HBGR? --- MR].
Although 提婆羅 is recorded as the author of T1577, this name appears only in relation to this scripture. T1577, the Chinese translation, is the only version of the text that has been survived, and neither an Indic original nor a Tibetan translation has been found. The majority of catalogues, such as Fajing ascribe T1577 to 提婆, while only KYL and two other catalogues that followed it ascribe it to 提婆羅. Hatani speculates that 提婆羅 might well have been a transcription error in the source material that Zhisheng referred to (viz. a certain copy of the 古今譯經圖記 T2151), and thus argues that the author of T1577 is (*Ārya)deva 提婆 (the disciple of Nāgārjuna, who wrote the Śata-śāstra 百論), as recorded in Fajing and other catalogues.
Edit
|
vol. 7, pp. 275-277 |
Hatani Ryotai 羽渓了諦’s description of the 大丈夫論 T1577 includes the following pieces of information:
Not much is known about Daotai 道泰, the translator of T1577. The only sources that give any information about him are GSZ and KYL. According to them, Daotai had been to different countries west of the Pamirs 葱嶺 and brought scriptures back to the capital of the N. Liang 北涼. Daotai asked *Buddhavarman 浮陀跋摩 to translate the (Maha)Vibhasa 毗婆沙論 (cf. T1546), one of the scriptures he brought back, and played the role of amanuensis 筆受 himself. He later himself translated T1577 and 入大乘論 T1634 by *Sthiramati 堅意 [or *Saramati? as HBGR? --- MR].
Although 提婆羅 is recorded as the author of T1577, this name appears only in relation to this scripture. T1577, the Chinese translation, is the only version of the text that has been survived, and neither an Indic original nor a Tibetan translation has been found. The majority of catalogues, such as Fajing ascribe T1577 to 提婆, while only KYL and two other catalogues that followed it ascribe it to 提婆羅. Hatani speculates that 提婆羅 might well have been a transcription error in the source material that Zhisheng referred to (viz. a certain copy of the 古今譯經圖記 T2151), and thus argues that the author of T1577 is (*Arya)deva 提婆 (the disciple of Nagarjuna, who wrote the Sata-sastra 百論), as recorded in Fajing and other catalogues. *Deva, *Aryadeva(?), 提婆, 提婆羅 Daotai, 道泰 T1577; 大丈夫論 |
|
|
Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 points out that the 沙彌威儀 T1472 is an excerpt from the weiyi 威儀 section of the 沙彌十戒并威儀 T1471, and that the last sections of T1472 were added later, probably in China. The ascription of T1472 to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 was first given by LDSBJ, followed by Fajing and other catalogues thereafter. Ōno argues that this ascription should be rejected, since 1) CSZJJ classified the text as anonymous; 2) LDSBJ also lists an anonymous text with nearly the same title, 沙彌威儀經, and; 3) the source text, T1471, is classified as anonymous.
Edit
|
Volume 4, p. 363 |
Ono Hodo 大野法道 points out that the 沙彌威儀 T1472 is an excerpt from the weiyi 威儀 section of the 沙彌十戒并威儀 T1471, and that the last sections of T1472 were added later, probably in China. The ascription of T1472 to *Gunavarman 求那跋摩 was first given by LDSBJ, followed by Fajing and other catalogues thereafter. Ono argues that this ascription should be rejected, since 1) CSZJJ classified the text as anonymous; 2) LDSBJ also lists an anonymous text with nearly the same title, 沙彌威儀經, and; 3) the source text, T1471, is classified as anonymous. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1471; Shami jie 沙彌戒; 沙彌十戒法并威儀; Shami shi jie jing 沙彌十戒經 T1472; 沙彌威儀 |
|
|
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) |
Tachibana Shundo 立花俊道 explains that there were two translations of the Madhyamagama (MA) 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 SA and MA 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 MA. Little is known about the content of this text since it has been lost.
The extant version was translated by Sanghadeva 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. Sanghadeva completed the process in 398. The biographies of Sanghadeva in CSZJJ, GSZ and KYL 開元錄, and the preface to MA by Daoci 道慈 outline the translation process also as follows: Sangharaksa 僧伽羅叉 (var. 衆護) recited the original text, Sanghadeva 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 MA, Tachibana argues that it is not completely accurate to list Sanghadeva as the translator, as most catalogues do. In the translation process of the text, Sangharaksa dealt with the Sanskrit text and Sanghadeva translated it. This being so, according to Tachibana, Sangharaksa should be ascribed the role of chief translator 譯主 or "text-holder" 執本, while Sanghadeva’s role should be described as "translator"/"interpreter" 譯語, 傳語. Thus, it is Sangharaksa who should be recorded as the translator. Tachibana speculates that the reason that Sanghadeva was named as "translator" was that Sanghadeva was well-known through a detailed biography, while Sangharaksa was not, and thus Sanghadeva alone was considered important due to the amount of information available. *Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 Sangharaksa, 僧伽羅叉, 衆護 T0026; 中阿含經; Madhyama-agama |
|
|
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 |
Izumi Hokei writes, without further arguments, that the ascription of T535 to Dharmaraksa is probably mistaken, and the text should instead be ascribed to Zhi Qian. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0535; 佛說申日經; Shenyue jing 申曰經 |