Source: Bagchi 1927

Bagchi, Prabodh Chandra. Le canon bouddhique en Chine: Les traducteurs et les traductions. Sino-Indica: Publications de l’Université de Calcutta, Tome 1er. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1927.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Bagchi notes that Zhisheng's KYL mentions this text on the basis of an "unknown catalogue", the Zhenji si lu 真寂寺錄, and otherwise lists no information from it from catalogues earlier than KYL.

Edit

200

 Bagchi notes that Zhisheng's KYL mentions this text on the basis of an "unknown catalogue", the Zhenji si lu 真寂寺錄, and otherwise lists no information from it from catalogues earlier than KYL. T0382; 集一切福德三昧經; *Sarvapunyasamuccayasamadhi-sutra

LDSBJ and catalogues following it list a Hui zheng lun 迴諍論 among the works of *Gautama Prajñāruci, but Bagchi notes that KYL refutes this ascription, stating that the preface to the same work says the translator was *Vimokṣaprajñārṣi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimokṣasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55.543a6-7: 迴諍論一卷。業成就論一卷(已上二論長房等錄皆云瞿曇流支譯今按經初本譯序記乃云毘目智仙今依經記為正).

Edit

263

 LDSBJ and catalogues following it list a Hui zheng lun 迴諍論 among the works of *Gautama Prajnaruci, but Bagchi notes that KYL refutes this ascription, stating that the preface to the same work says the translator was *Vimoksaprajnarsi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimoksasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55.543a6-7: 迴諍論一卷。業成就論一卷(已上二論長房等錄皆云瞿曇流支譯今按經初本譯序記乃云毘目智仙今依經記為正). *Vimoksaprajnarsi, 毘目智仙 Hui zheng lun 迴諍論

A text by the title Fangguang banre boluomi jing 方廣般若波羅蜜經 is ascribed to Kumārajīva in LDSBJ, DTNDL and Gujin yijing tuji; KYL does not mention it. Bagchi considers this title to "certainly" be an alternate title for 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 T223, so that notion that refers to a separate tranlation is an error.

Edit

185-186

 A text by the title Fangguang banre boluomi jing 方廣般若波羅蜜經 is ascribed to Kumarajiva in LDSBJ, DTNDL and Gujin yijing tuji; KYL does not mention it. Bagchi considers this title to "certainly" be an alternate title for 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 T223, so that notion that refers to a separate tranlation is an error. Fangguang banre boluomi jing 方廣般若波羅蜜經 T0223; 摩訶般若波羅蜜經; Fangguang banre boluomi jing 方廣般若波羅蜜經

Bagchi notes that a Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka 悲華經 is ascribed to Daogong in LDSBJ, DTNDL, Gujin yijing tuji and KYL; KYL states that perhaps the translation ascribed to Daogong is in fact that by *Dharmakṣema (the extant T157). Referring to KYL: 悲華經十卷(第三出與法護閑居經及大悲分陀利曇無讖悲華經等同本房云見古錄似是先譯龔更刪改今疑即無讖出者是), T2154:55.519b20-21.

Edit

211, 217-218

 Bagchi notes that a Karunapundarika 悲華經 is ascribed to Daogong in LDSBJ, DTNDL, Gujin yijing tuji and KYL; KYL states that perhaps the translation ascribed to Daogong is in fact that by *Dharmaksema (the extant T157). Referring to KYL: 悲華經十卷(第三出與法護閑居經及大悲分陀利曇無讖悲華經等同本房云見古錄似是先譯龔更刪改今疑即無讖出者是), T2154:55.519b20-21. Daogong 道龔 T0157; 悲華經

Bagchi notes that this title is listed as a work of Ratnamati 勒那摩提 in LDSBY, DTNDL, Gujin yijing tuji; but KYL notes that the preface relates a different scenario, and that the work is in fact by *Gautama Prajñāruci 瞿曇流支. Referring to KYL T2154:55.587c26-588a3.

Edit

248-249

 Bagchi notes that this title is listed as a work of Ratnamati 勒那摩提 in LDSBY, DTNDL, Gujin yijing tuji; but KYL notes that the preface relates a different scenario, and that the work is in fact by *Gautama Prajnaruci 瞿曇流支. Referring to KYL T2154:55.587c26-588a3. *(Gautama) Prajnaruci, 般若流支, 瞿曇般若流支, 瞿曇流支, 瞿曇般若留支 Piyesha wen jing 毘耶娑問經

Bagchi notes that KYL disputes earlier catalogues (LDSBJ and followers) who ascribe a work by the title 三具足經論 San juzu jing lun to Bodhiruci, saying that it is in fact the work of *Vimokṣaprajñārṣi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimokṣasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55.607c14-18.

Edit

259

 Bagchi notes that KYL disputes earlier catalogues (LDSBJ and followers) who ascribe a work by the title 三具足經論 San juzu jing lun to Bodhiruci, saying that it is in fact the work of *Vimoksaprajnarsi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimoksasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55.607c14-18. *Vimoksaprajnarsi, 毘目智仙 San juzu jing lun 三具足經論

Bagchi notes that KYL disputes earlier catalogues (LDSBJ and followers) who ascribe a work by the title Zhuan falun jing lun 轉法輪經論 to Bodhiruci, saying that it is in fact the work of *Vimokṣaprajñārṣi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimokṣasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55. 607c19-23.

Edit

259

 Bagchi notes that KYL disputes earlier catalogues (LDSBJ and followers) who ascribe a work by the title Zhuan falun jing lun 轉法輪經論 to Bodhiruci, saying that it is in fact the work of *Vimoksaprajnarsi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimoksasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55. 607c19-23. *Vimoksaprajnarsi, 毘目智仙 Zhuan falun jing lun 轉法輪經論

Bagchi notes that KYL disputes earlier catalogues (LDSBJ and followers) who ascribe a work by the title Baoji pusa si falun jing lun 寶髻菩薩四法經論 to Bodhiruci, saying that it is in fact the work of *Vimokṣaprajñārṣi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimokṣasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55. 607a23-28.

Edit

259

 Bagchi notes that KYL disputes earlier catalogues (LDSBJ and followers) who ascribe a work by the title Baoji pusa si falun jing lun 寶髻菩薩四法經論 to Bodhiruci, saying that it is in fact the work of *Vimoksaprajnarsi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimoksasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55. 607a23-28. *Vimoksaprajnarsi, 毘目智仙 Baoji pusa si falun jing lun 寶髻菩薩四法經論

Bagchi notes that CSZJJ only listed two works under the name of Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 [the two works in question are: 三十七品經; 賢劫千佛名經; see T2145:55.10b17-20 [note, however, that CSZJJ also preserves a preface to a third text, entitled 大比丘二百六十戒三部合異, by Tanwulan himself]. Bagchi suggests that this circumstance is not odd, because Sengyou was working in the South, and this meant that his information was always incomplete. This makes it all the more striking, however, that LDSBJ and catalogues following attributed a huge number of works to Tanwulan, e.g. 110 in LDSBJ. Zhisheng (KYL) only speaks of 61 works, of which he stated that 48 of those works were either "fake" or extracts from longer works. In Bagchi's individualised list of texts, those regarded as suspect by Zhisheng are placed in square brackets.

Zhisheng's suspicions extended to one of the works listed by Sengyou, the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, which he took to be an extract from a Vinaya. The [Da biqiu] erbailiushi jie san bu he yi [大比丘]二百六十戒三部合異 was lost by the time of Zhisheng (Bagchi 323). Zhisheng also remarked of the 賢劫千佛名經 that it appeared to be the work of someone other than Tanwulan (Bagchi 324).

[Note that this means, in fact, that none of the works ascribed to Tanwulan by Sengyou was extant in Zhisheng's time, and regarded by him as beyond suspicion---which might make us question the benchmark against which Zhisheng arrived at judgements about the authenticity of the other works he did admit as genuine, as noted below. In addition, none of these three works is now extant. This means that Sengyou is silent on ALL extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan, which in and of itself, and regardless of other mitigating factors, warrants caution in accepting all of those ascriptions---MR]

The extant texts NOT regarded as suspect by Zhisheng [which would perhaps, on these grounds, be prima facae among the most potentially reliable ascriptions---MR] are: Śrāmaṇyaphala 寂志果經 T22; 鐵城泥犁經 T42; 阿耨風經 T58; Pravāraṇa-sūtra 新歳經 T62; 梵志頞波羅延問種尊經 T71; 泥犁經 T86; 水沫所漂經 T106; 戒德香經 T116; 四泥犁經 T139; 玉耶經 T143; 國王不梨先泥十夢經 T148; 大魚事經 T216; 迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T393; 阿難七夢經 T494; 比丘聽施經 T504; 採花違王上佛授決號妙花經 T510; 呵鵰阿那鋡經T538; 五苦章句經 T741; 自愛經 T742; 忠心經 T743; 見正經 T796; 陀鄰尼鉢經 T1352; 檀特羅麻油述經 T1391; 摩尼羅亶經 T1393.

The following work is not mentioned in KYL, even though it is extant (Bagchi 333): 元師颰所說神咒經 T1378a. The following works are mentioned as lost in KYL, even though they are extant (Bagchi 333): 咒時氣病經 T1326 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō]; 咒齒經 T1327; 咒目經 T1328 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō]; and 咒小兒經 T1329 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō].

[Note: With the exception of T1326, T1328 and T1329, which carry no ascription in the Taishō, the above list coincides perfectly with the Taishō ascriptions to Tanwulan, showing that the Taishō version of Tanwulan's corpus is entirely due to Zhisheng---MR.]

Edit

322-334

 Bagchi notes that CSZJJ only listed two works under the name of Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 [the two works in question are: 三十七品經; 賢劫千佛名經; see T2145:55.10b17-20 [note, however, that CSZJJ also preserves a preface to a third text, entitled 大比丘二百六十戒三部合異, by Tanwulan himself]. Bagchi suggests that this circumstance is not odd, because Sengyou was working in the South, and this meant that his information was always incomplete. This makes it all the more striking, however, that LDSBJ and catalogues following attributed a huge number of works to Tanwulan, e.g. 110 in LDSBJ. Zhisheng (KYL) only speaks of 61 works, of which he stated that 48 of those works were either "fake" or extracts from longer works. In Bagchi's individualised list of texts, those regarded as suspect by Zhisheng are placed in square brackets. Zhisheng's suspicions extended to one of the works listed by Sengyou, the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, which he took to be an extract from a Vinaya. The [Da biqiu] erbailiushi jie san bu he yi [大比丘]二百六十戒三部合異 was lost by the time of Zhisheng (Bagchi 323). Zhisheng also remarked of the 賢劫千佛名經 that it appeared to be the work of someone other than Tanwulan (Bagchi 324). [Note that this means, in fact, that none of the works ascribed to Tanwulan by Sengyou was extant in Zhisheng's time, and regarded by him as beyond suspicion---which might make us question the benchmark against which Zhisheng arrived at judgements about the authenticity of the other works he did admit as genuine, as noted below. In addition, none of these three works is now extant. This means that Sengyou is silent on ALL extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan, which in and of itself, and regardless of other mitigating factors, warrants caution in accepting all of those ascriptions---MR] The extant texts NOT regarded as suspect by Zhisheng [which would perhaps, on these grounds, be prima facae among the most potentially reliable ascriptions---MR] are: Sramanyaphala 寂志果經 T22; 鐵城泥犁經 T42; 阿耨風經 T58; Pravarana-sutra 新歳經 T62; 梵志頞波羅延問種尊經 T71; 泥犁經 T86; 水沫所漂經 T106; 戒德香經 T116; 四泥犁經 T139; 玉耶經 T143; 國王不梨先泥十夢經 T148; 大魚事經 T216; 迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T393; 阿難七夢經 T494; 比丘聽施經 T504; 採花違王上佛授決號妙花經 T510; 呵鵰阿那鋡經T538; 五苦章句經 T741; 自愛經 T742; 忠心經 T743; 見正經 T796; 陀鄰尼鉢經 T1352; 檀特羅麻油述經 T1391; 摩尼羅亶經 T1393. The following work is not mentioned in KYL, even though it is extant (Bagchi 333): 元師颰所說神咒經 T1378a. The following works are mentioned as lost in KYL, even though they are extant (Bagchi 333): 咒時氣病經 T1326 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taisho]; 咒齒經 T1327; 咒目經 T1328 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taisho]; and 咒小兒經 T1329 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taisho]. [Note: With the exception of T1326, T1328 and T1329, which carry no ascription in the Taisho, the above list coincides perfectly with the Taisho ascriptions to Tanwulan, showing that the Taisho version of Tanwulan's corpus is entirely due to Zhisheng---MR.] Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 (*Dharmaratna?) T0022; 寂志果經 T0042; 鐵城泥犁經 T0058; 阿耨風經 T0062; 新歲經; 婆惒羅經 T0071; 梵志頗波羅延問尊種經; 梵志頗羅延問種尊經; 梵志阿羅延問種尊經; 梵志頞羅延問種尊經; 梵志頞波羅延問種尊經 T0086; 泥犁經; 凡人有三事愚癡不足經; Zhong ahan nili jing 中阿含泥犁經; 勤苦泥犁經 T0106; 佛說水沫所漂經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0116; 佛說戒德香經; 戒徳經 T0139; 佛說四泥犁經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0143; 玉耶經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 T0148; 國王不梨先泥十夢經 T0216; 大魚事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0393; Fo bannihuan shi Jiaye fu Fo jing 佛般泥洹時迦葉赴佛經; 迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T0494; 阿難七夢經; 阿難八夢經, 七夢經 T0504; 比丘聽施經; 聽施比丘經 T0510; 採花違王上佛授決號妙花經; Cai hua wei wang jing 採華違王經 T0538; 阿調阿那含經, 荷鵰阿那含經; 佛說呵雕阿那鋡經 T0741; 五苦章句經; 諸天五苦經, 五道章句經, 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經, 五苦經 T0742; 佛說自愛經; 自愛不自愛經 T0743; 忠心正行經; 忠心政行經 ; Zhongxin jing 忠心經; 佛說忠心經 T0796; 佛說見正經; Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經, Shengsi bainshi jing 生死變識經, Jianzheng biqiu jing 見正比丘經 T1327; 佛說呪齒經; Zhou chong chi 呪虫齒; Zhou chi 呪齒 T1352; 佛說陀隣尼鉢經 T1378; 幻師颰陀神呪經; 佛說玄師颰陀所說神呪經 T1391; 佛說檀特羅麻油述經 T1393; 佛說摩尼羅亶經

CSZJJ knows only one work ascribed to *Gītamitra, viz. a Pu men pin jing 普門品經, which is lost [T2145:55.12a18-20]. This means that for both of the extant works ascribed to *Gītamitra, viz. 寶如來三昧經 T637 and 菩薩十住經 T284, the ascription is first found in LDSBJ.

Edit

349-351

 CSZJJ knows only one work ascribed to *Gitamitra, viz. a Pu men pin jing 普門品經, which is lost [T2145:55.12a18-20]. This means that for both of the extant works ascribed to *Gitamitra, viz. 寶如來三昧經 T637 and 菩薩十住經 T284, the ascription is first found in LDSBJ. T0284; 佛說菩薩十住經 T0637; 佛說寶如來三昧經

Bagchi notes that CSZJJ states that the 十誦羯磨比丘要用 T1439 is an abridgement of the principle points of the Karmavācā.

Edit

402

 Bagchi notes that CSZJJ states that the 十誦羯磨比丘要用 T1439 is an abridgement of the principle points of the Karmavaca. T1439; 十誦羯磨比丘要用

LDSBJ and catalogues following it list a *Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa 業成就論 among the works of *Gautama Prajñāruci, but Bagchi notes that KYL refutes this ascription, stating that the preface to the same work says the translator was *Vimokṣaprajñārṣi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimokṣasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55.543a6-7: 迴諍論一卷。業成就論一卷(已上二論長房等錄皆云瞿曇流支譯今按經初本譯序記乃云毘目智仙今依經記為正).

Edit

263

 LDSBJ and catalogues following it list a *Karmasiddhiprakarana 業成就論 among the works of *Gautama Prajnaruci, but Bagchi notes that KYL refutes this ascription, stating that the preface to the same work says the translator was *Vimoksaprajnarsi (whom Bagchi calls *Vimoksasena) 毘目智仙; referring to KYL T2154:55.543a6-7: 迴諍論一卷。業成就論一卷(已上二論長房等錄皆云瞿曇流支譯今按經初本譯序記乃云毘目智仙今依經記為正). *Vimoksaprajnarsi, 毘目智仙 *Karmasiddhiprakarana 業成就論

Bagchi points out that the ascription of T1466 to *Guṇavarman dates no earlier than KYL [T2154 (LV) 526a11-12], which refers to the Baochang catalogue as its source.

Edit

375

 Bagchi points out that the ascription of T1466 to *Gunavarman dates no earlier than KYL [T2154 (LV) 526a11-12], which refers to the Baochang catalogue as its source. Gunavarman, 求那跋摩 T1466; 優波離問佛經

Bagchi points out that the ascription of T1672 to Guṇavarman (still carried in T) dates back no further than Zhisheng [T2154 (LV) 526a20], who refers to a "Tang old catalogue" 唐舊錄 as his source.

Edit

375

 Bagchi points out that the ascription of T1672 to Gunavarman (still carried in T) dates back no further than Zhisheng [T2154 (LV) 526a20], who refers to a "Tang old catalogue" 唐舊錄 as his source. Gunavarman, 求那跋摩 T1672; 龍樹菩薩為禪陀迦王說法要偈

Bagchi expresses doubts about the ascription of a second translation of the Ekottarikāgama to Saṅghadeva, and suggests that rather than preparing a fresh and independent translation, Saṅghadeva did no more than check the translation of "Dharmanandi" [= Zhu Fonian's translation, in effect].

Edit

337-338

 Bagchi expresses doubts about the ascription of a second translation of the Ekottarikagama to Sanghadeva, and suggests that rather than preparing a fresh and independent translation, Sanghadeva did no more than check the translation of "Dharmanandi" [= Zhu Fonian's translation, in effect]. Ekottarikagama