Source: Zhisheng 730

Zhisheng 智昇. Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL) 開元釋教錄 T2154

ToC in Storch (2016): 132.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Lue qi jie Fo ming 略七階佛名

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Ming shanren eren duoshao fa 明善人惡人多少法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Toutuo qishi fa 頭陀乞食法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Ming qishi ba men fa 明乞食八門法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Zhujing yao ji 諸經要集

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Shi lun lue chao 十輪略抄

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Daji Yuezang fen yi yi li ming 大集月藏分依義立名

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Yuedeng jing yao lue 月燈經要略

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Jiaye Fo zang chao 迦葉佛藏抄

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Guang qi jie Fo ming 廣七階佛名

Zhisheng identified these thirty-five Sanjie jiao texts as spurious, and states directly that they were authored by Xinxing 隋真寂寺沙門信行撰.

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Zhisheng identified these thirty-five Sanjie jiao texts as spurious, and states directly that they were authored by Xinxing 隋真寂寺沙門信行撰. Xinxing 信行 Daji Yuezang fen chao 大集月藏分抄 Daji Yuezang fen yi yi li ming 大集月藏分依義立名 Dasheng yan ru tong xing fa 大乘驗人通行法 Dazhong zhi fa 大眾制法 Dui gen qi xing fa 對根起行法 Dui gen qianshen fa putixin fa 對根淺深發菩提心法 Dui gen qianshen tongyi fa 對根淺深同異法 Genji pu yao fa 根機普藥法 Guang ming fajie zhongsheng genji fa 廣明法界眾生根機法 Guang qi jie Fo ming 廣七階佛名 Jiaye Fo zang chao 迦葉佛藏抄 Jing sanbao fa 敬三寶法 Jiu Fofa nei ming yiqie Fofa yiqie liushi waidao fa 就佛法內明一切佛法一切六師外道法 Lue fayuan fa 略發願法 Lue ming fajie zhongsheng genji fa 略明法界眾生根機法 Lue qi jie Fo ming 略七階佛名 Ming dasheng wujinzang fa 明大乘無盡藏法 Ming qishi ba men fa 明乞食八門法 Ming renqing xing fa 明人情行法 Ming zhujing zhong fayuan fa 明諸經中發願法 Mofa zhongsheng yu Fofa neifei yu suoyou fa 末法眾生於佛法內廢興所由法 San jie Fofa 三階佛法 Sanshiliu zhong duimian bu shi cuo fa 三十六種對面不識錯法 Shi da duan ming yi 十大段明義 Shi lun lue chao 十輪略抄 Shi lun yi yi li ming 十輪依義立名 Shijian chushijian liang jie ren fa putixin fa 世間出世間兩階人發菩提心法 Shijian shi zhong e juzu ren hui xin ru dao fa 世間十種惡具足人迴心入道法 Toutuo qishi fa 頭陀乞食法 Xing xing tongyi fa 行行同異法 Xueqiu shanzhishi fa putixin fa 學求善知識發菩提心法 Yuedeng jing yao lue 月燈經要略 Zhujing yao ji 諸經要集

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Dasheng yan ru tong xing fa 大乘驗人通行法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 San jie Fofa 三階佛法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Shi da duan ming yi 十大段明義

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Genji pu yao fa 根機普藥法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Sanshiliu zhong duimian bu shi cuo fa 三十六種對面不識錯法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Dui gen qianshen fa putixin fa 對根淺深發菩提心法

KYL lists this text in the section on the translations of Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍, but says that the actual work of translation 傳譯 was done by Huibian 慧辯.
四分律六十卷(亦云曇無德律本譯四十五卷或云四十卷或云四十四卷今亦有七十卷者弘始十[var.七SYM]年於寺中[var.中寺YM]出慧辯傳譯見晉世雜錄及祐錄僧傳等.

Edit

T2154:55.516b25-26.

 KYL lists this text in the section on the translations of Buddhayasas 佛陀耶舍, but says that the actual work of translation 傳譯 was done by Huibian 慧辯. 四分律六十卷(亦云曇無德律本譯四十五卷或云四十卷或云四十四卷今亦有七十卷者弘始十[var.七SYM]年於寺中[var.中寺YM]出慧辯傳譯見晉世雜錄及祐錄僧傳等. Huibian 慧辯, 惠辯 T1428; 四分律; 曇無德律

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Dui gen qianshen tongyi fa 對根淺深同異法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Mofa zhongsheng yu Fofa neifei yu suoyou fa 末法眾生於佛法內廢興所由法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Xueqiu shanzhishi fa putixin fa 學求善知識發菩提心法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Lue ming fajie zhongsheng genji fa 略明法界眾生根機法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Xing xing tongyi fa 行行同異法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Shijian chushijian liang jie ren fa putixin fa 世間出世間兩階人發菩提心法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Shijian shi zhong e juzu ren hui xin ru dao fa 世間十種惡具足人迴心入道法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Dang genqi suoxing fa 當根器所行法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Jiu Fofa nei ming yiqie Fofa yiqie liushi waidao fa 就佛法內明一切佛法一切六師外道法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Ming dasheng wujinzang fa 明大乘無盡藏法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Ming zhujing zhong fayuan fa 明諸經中發願法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Lue fayuan fa 略發願法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Ming renqing xing fa 明人情行法

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Dazhong zhi fa 大眾制法

Edit

T2154:55.550b22-24

 Yi shi jing 移識經

Edit

T2154:55.550b22-24

 Da fangdeng da yun qing yu jing 大方等大雲請雨經

Edit

T2154:55.550b22-24

 Huguo pusa jing 護國菩薩經

DTNDL ascribe these six texts to *Jñānagupta, but Jingmai to Dharmagupta. Zhisheng follows DTNDL.
護國菩薩經
佛華嚴入如來德智經
大方等大雲請雨經 (cf. T992, T993)
東方最勝燈王如來經
無所有菩薩經
大乘三聚懺悔經
已上六部內典錄云崛多所譯靖邁經圖云笈多出今依內典為正.

Edit

T2154:55.550b22-24; cf. Wang (1999/2005): 130-131.

 DTNDL ascribe these six texts to *Jnanagupta, but Jingmai to Dharmagupta. Zhisheng follows DTNDL. 護國菩薩經 佛華嚴入如來德智經 大方等大雲請雨經 (cf. T992, T993) 東方最勝燈王如來經 無所有菩薩經 大乘三聚懺悔經 已上六部內典錄云崛多所譯靖邁經圖云笈多出今依內典為正. *Jnanagupta, *Jinagupta, 闍那崛多, 豆那掘多 Da fangdeng da yun qing yu jing 大方等大雲請雨經 Huguo pusa jing 護國菩薩經 T0303; 佛華嚴入如來德智不思議境界經 T0485; 無所有菩薩經 T1354; 東方最勝燈王如來經 T1493; 大乘三聚懺悔經

Jingmai recorded these three texts under the names of both Dharmagupta and *Jñānagupta. Zhisheng regarded this as an error, and removed the ascription to Dharmagupta.
大集譬喻王經
移識經
法炬陀羅尼經
已上三部經圖之中崛多笈多二錄俱載者誤也今並載崛多之錄笈多錄內除之.

Edit

T2154:55.550b22-24; cf. Wang (1999/2005): 130-131.

 Jingmai recorded these three texts under the names of both Dharmagupta and *Jnanagupta. Zhisheng regarded this as an error, and removed the ascription to Dharmagupta. 大集譬喻王經 移識經 法炬陀羅尼經 已上三部經圖之中崛多笈多二錄俱載者誤也今並載崛多之錄笈多錄內除之. T0422; 大集譬喻王經 T1340; 大法炬陀羅尼經 Yi shi jing 移識經

Translated by *Saṃghabhadra 僧伽跋陀羅 and Sengyi 僧禕 in 488-489 永明六年 in the Veṇuvana monastery 竹林寺 in Canton 廣州. Cf. Pinte (2010): 435 n. 1. In fact, this ascription (including other details) is first seen in LDSBJ.
以律藏付弟子僧伽跋陀羅。跋陀以武帝永明六年戊辰(房云己巳)共沙門僧禕。於廣州竹林寺譯出。名為善見律毘婆沙.

Edit

T2154:55.535c21-23

 Translated by *Samghabhadra 僧伽跋陀羅 and Sengyi 僧禕 in 488-489 永明六年 in the Venuvana monastery 竹林寺 in Canton 廣州. Cf. Pinte (2010): 435 n. 1. In fact, this ascription (including other details) is first seen in LDSBJ. 以律藏付弟子僧伽跋陀羅。跋陀以武帝永明六年戊辰(房云己巳)共沙門僧禕。於廣州竹林寺譯出。名為善見律毘婆沙. Samghabhadra, 僧伽跋陀羅 Sengyi 僧禕, 僧猗 T1462; 善見律毘婆沙; 毘婆沙律; 善見毘婆沙律

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Shi lun yi yi li ming 十輪依義立名

LDSBJ says that after his arrival in Chang'an in 265, Dharmarakṣa translated a first, shorter version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka by this title. However, Zhisheng regards this as an error produced by treating the transcribed title and the translated title as separate texts. 薩芸芬陀利經六卷. 西晉三藏竺法護太始年譯(第二譯。謹按長房等錄。其正法華是竺法護。太康七年譯。見聶道真錄復云太始元年譯。薩芸芬陀利經六卷。出竺道祖錄同是一經不合再出。名目既殊本復存沒。未詳所以。或可薩芸芬陀利是梵語。正法華是晉名。梵晉俱存。錄家誤也).

Edit

T2154:55.628c23-26

 LDSBJ says that after his arrival in Chang'an in 265, Dharmaraksa translated a first, shorter version of the Saddharmapundarika by this title. However, Zhisheng regards this as an error produced by treating the transcribed title and the translated title as separate texts. 薩芸芬陀利經六卷. 西晉三藏竺法護太始年譯(第二譯。謹按長房等錄。其正法華是竺法護。太康七年譯。見聶道真錄復云太始元年譯。薩芸芬陀利經六卷。出竺道祖錄同是一經不合再出。名目既殊本復存沒。未詳所以。或可薩芸芬陀利是梵語。正法華是晉名。梵晉俱存。錄家誤也). 薩芸分陀利經 Saddharmapundarika-sutra

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Daji Yuezang fen chao 大集月藏分抄

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Dui gen qi xing fa 對根起行法

Zhisheng ascribes the text to Kumārajīva, and cites the authority of the Zhenji si lu 真寂寺錄. In doing so, he is probably merely following Mingquan. (It is in fact clear from a remark Zhisheng makes that he never himself saw the Zhenji si lu; 574b3-5.)

集一切福德三昧經三卷(與竺法護等集眾德經等同本異出第三譯見真寂寺錄).

集一切福德三昧經三卷 姚秦三藏鳩摩羅什譯(出真寂寺錄第三譯).

Edit

T2154:55.512c3-4, 592c2-3

 Zhisheng ascribes the text to Kumarajiva, and cites the authority of the Zhenji si lu 真寂寺錄. In doing so, he is probably merely following Mingquan. (It is in fact clear from a remark Zhisheng makes that he never himself saw the Zhenji si lu; 574b3-5.) 集一切福德三昧經三卷(與竺法護等集眾德經等同本異出第三譯見真寂寺錄). 集一切福德三昧經三卷 姚秦三藏鳩摩羅什譯(出真寂寺錄第三譯). Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0382; 集一切福德三昧經; *Sarvapunyasamuccayasamadhi-sutra

This note is discussed in Kajiyoshi (1944/1980) 68-69. The text had been confused by bibliographers between Dao'an and Zhisheng with 摩訶般若鈔經 T226, ascribed to Dharmamitra and Zhu Fonian, but Zhisheng shows that he is clearly aware that it was in fact a version of the Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, and was no longer extant by his time. It therefore differs in content from T226, which is, in fact, an alternate translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā.
沙門曇摩蜱。秦言法愛。印度人。器宇明敏志存弘喻。以符堅建元十八年壬午。譯般若鈔經一部。佛護譯傳(佛護即佛圖羅剎也)慧進筆受。安公校定。共傳云。與大品放光光讚同本者。或恐尋之未審也。

Edit

T2154:55.511a22-26

 This note is discussed in Kajiyoshi (1944/1980) 68-69. The text had been confused by bibliographers between Dao'an and Zhisheng with 摩訶般若鈔經 T226, ascribed to Dharmamitra and Zhu Fonian, but Zhisheng shows that he is clearly aware that it was in fact a version of the Pancavimsatikasahasrika prajnaparamita, and was no longer extant by his time. It therefore differs in content from T226, which is, in fact, an alternate translation of the Astasahasrika prajnaparamita. 沙門曇摩蜱。秦言法愛。印度人。器宇明敏志存弘喻。以符堅建元十八年壬午。譯般若鈔經一部。佛護譯傳(佛護即佛圖羅剎也)慧進筆受。安公校定。共傳云。與大品放光光讚同本者。或恐尋之未審也。 Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄

Zhisheng says that four translations of this text are supposed to have been produced at various times, of which only T1551 was extant by his time. The four are:
阿毘曇心, Saṃghadeva 僧伽提婆;
雜阿毘曇心, Faxian and 法顯 Buddhabhadra 覺賢;
雜阿毘曇心十, Īśvara 伊葉波羅 "et al." 等 [including Guṇavarman 求那跋摩];
"雜心", Saṃghavarman 僧伽䟦摩.
Dessein (1999) discusses this information (1:lxxi, 3:25 n. 360). He remarks, after Willemen, that it is unlikely that the Saṃghadeva text was the same work as T1551.

Edit

T2154:55.649b23-c6

 Zhisheng says that four translations of this text are supposed to have been produced at various times, of which only T1551 was extant by his time. The four are: 阿毘曇心, Samghadeva 僧伽提婆; 雜阿毘曇心, Faxian and 法顯 Buddhabhadra 覺賢; 雜阿毘曇心十, Isvara 伊葉波羅 "et al." 等 [including Gunavarman 求那跋摩]; "雜心", Samghavarman 僧伽䟦摩. Dessein (1999) discusses this information (1:lxxi, 3:25 n. 360). He remarks, after Willemen, that it is unlikely that the Samghadeva text was the same work as T1551. T1551; 阿毘曇心論經

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Guang ming fajie zhongsheng genji fa 廣明法界眾生根機法

Zhisheng says that the text is accompanied by a "forged preface" 兼有偽序. He says that the text was actually "forged" 偽造 by the "Three Stages" monk Shili 師利 in the year Jinglong 1 景龍元年 (707). "The preface claims, baselessly, that [the text] was translated by...the Trepiṭaka Bodhiruci, the Trepiṭaka *Maṇicinta et al. ....Note from the author of the present catalogue: I myself once asked the Trepiṭaka Bodhiruci directly about this matter, and the Trepiṭaka replied, 'There never was any such Sanskrit text in my possession, and I never translated this sūtra..."
右一經。即舊偽錄中像法決疑經前文增加二品共成一經。初云佛臨涅槃為阿難說法住滅品。此品乃取奘法師所譯佛臨涅槃記法住經。改換增減置之於首。次是地藏菩薩讚歎法身觀行品。後是常施菩薩所問品。此品即是舊經。據其文勢次第不相聯貫。景龍元年三階僧師利偽造。序中妄云。三藏菩提流志三藏寶思惟等於崇福寺同譯。師利云有梵夾流志曾不見聞。以舊編入偽中。再造望蠲疑錄。偽上加偽訛舛尤多。目閱可知不勞廣敘(撰錄者曰余曾以此事親問流志三藏三藏□云吾邊元無梵夾不曾翻譯此經三藏弟子般若丘多識量明敏具委其事恐時代綿遠謬濫真詮故此指明以誡於後其僧師利因少鬪訟聖躬親慮特令還俗豈非上天不祐降罰斯人又臨終之時腹大如瓮惡徵遄及可不懼歟).

Edit

T2154:55.672b29-c14

 Zhisheng says that the text is accompanied by a "forged preface" 兼有偽序. He says that the text was actually "forged" 偽造 by the "Three Stages" monk Shili 師利 in the year Jinglong 1 景龍元年 (707). "The preface claims, baselessly, that [the text] was translated by...the Trepitaka Bodhiruci, the Trepitaka *Manicinta et al. ....Note from the author of the present catalogue: I myself once asked the Trepitaka Bodhiruci directly about this matter, and the Trepitaka replied, 'There never was any such Sanskrit text in my possession, and I never translated this sutra..." 右一經。即舊偽錄中像法決疑經前文增加二品共成一經。初云佛臨涅槃為阿難說法住滅品。此品乃取奘法師所譯佛臨涅槃記法住經。改換增減置之於首。次是地藏菩薩讚歎法身觀行品。後是常施菩薩所問品。此品即是舊經。據其文勢次第不相聯貫。景龍元年三階僧師利偽造。序中妄云。三藏菩提流志三藏寶思惟等於崇福寺同譯。師利云有梵夾流志曾不見聞。以舊編入偽中。再造望蠲疑錄。偽上加偽訛舛尤多。目閱可知不勞廣敘(撰錄者曰余曾以此事親問流志三藏三藏□云吾邊元無梵夾不曾翻譯此經三藏弟子般若丘多識量明敏具委其事恐時代綿遠謬濫真詮故此指明以誡於後其僧師利因少鬪訟聖躬親慮特令還俗豈非上天不祐降罰斯人又臨終之時腹大如瓮惡徵遄及可不懼歟). Shili, 師利 T2896; 示所犯者瑜伽法鏡經

Edit

T2154:55.678b7-c27

 Jing sanbao fa 敬三寶法

The ascription of T794 to Ruoluoyan found in the present canon (the Taishō) appears to date back to KYL. Zhisheng cites a postface to the text which is supposed to describe the circumstances of the translation. Zhisheng ascribes only this text to Ruoluoyan.

Edit

T2154 (LV) 501b18-24

 The ascription of T794 to Ruoluoyan found in the present canon (the Taisho) appears to date back to KYL. Zhisheng cites a postface to the text which is supposed to describe the circumstances of the translation. Zhisheng ascribes only this text to Ruoluoyan. Ruoluoyan, 若羅嚴 T0794; 佛說時非時經; Shi jing 時經

The ascription of T1466 to *Guṇavarman appears to only date back to KYL, which also gives the alternate title Pusa shan jie jing 菩薩善戒經, and refers to the Baochang catalogue as his source:

菩薩善戒經一卷(優波離問菩薩受戒法見寶唱錄若准祐記將此為初卷兼前九卷共成十卷然北地經本離之已久不可合之且[v.l. 宜 SYM]依舊定).

Edit

T2154 (LV) 526a11-12

 The ascription of T1466 to *Gunavarman appears to only date back to KYL, which also gives the alternate title Pusa shan jie jing 菩薩善戒經, and refers to the Baochang catalogue as his source: 菩薩善戒經一卷(優波離問菩薩受戒法見寶唱錄若准祐記將此為初卷兼前九卷共成十卷然北地經本離之已久不可合之且[v.l. 宜 SYM]依舊定). Gunavarman, 求那跋摩 T1466; 優波離問佛經

Zhisheng is the first bibliographer to ascribe T1672 to Guṇavarman (the ascription still carried in T), referring to the "Tang old catalogue" 唐舊錄 as his source:

龍樹菩薩為禪陀迦王說法要偈一卷(見唐舊錄).

Edit

T2154 (LV) 526a20

 Zhisheng is the first bibliographer to ascribe T1672 to Gunavarman (the ascription still carried in T), referring to the "Tang old catalogue" 唐舊錄 as his source: 龍樹菩薩為禪陀迦王說法要偈一卷(見唐舊錄). *Buddhavarman, 浮陀跋摩 T1672; 龍樹菩薩為禪陀迦王說法要偈

Zhisheng points out that in CSZJJ and LDSBJ, the title 新微密持經 is treated as a separate text, but argues that in fact, it is an alternate title for T1012 [so that this treatment creates a "ghost text"]. Cf. Bagchi (1927): 345.

出生無量門持經一卷(或云新微密持經於廬山譯第五出與支經無量門微密持經等同本見祖祐二錄祐房等錄別存新微密持經誤也).

Edit

T2154 (LV) 505b22-23

 Zhisheng points out that in CSZJJ and LDSBJ, the title 新微密持經 is treated as a separate text, but argues that in fact, it is an alternate title for T1012 [so that this treatment creates a "ghost text"]. Cf. Bagchi (1927): 345. 出生無量門持經一卷(或云新微密持經於廬山譯第五出與支經無量門微密持經等同本見祖祐二錄祐房等錄別存新微密持經誤也). T1012; 佛說出生無量門持經; Cheng dao xiang mo de yiqiezhi 成道降魔得一切智; Yi sheng bu chu dao xing 一生補處道行; Chu wuliang men chi 出生無量門持; Xin weimi chi jing 新微密持經

A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭.

Edit

T2154 (LV) 649a9-15

 A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭. Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 (*Dharmaratna?) Erbailiushi jie heyi 二百六十戒合異

The ascription of the Lu zi jing/Lu mu jing to Zhi Qian was overturned by Zhisheng in KYL: 鹿子經一卷: 右一經。與鹿母經文同名異。據其文義合從母立名。長房錄云。鹿子經吳代優婆塞支謙譯者謬也, T2154 (LV) 664b6-9 (cf. also T2154 [LV] 604b22-23). This led to the ascription of T182a/b to Dharmarakṣa, as currently carried in the Taishō.

Edit

 The ascription of the Lu zi jing/Lu mu jing to Zhi Qian was overturned by Zhisheng in KYL: 鹿子經一卷: 右一經。與鹿母經文同名異。據其文義合從母立名。長房錄云。鹿子經吳代優婆塞支謙譯者謬也, T2154 (LV) 664b6-9 (cf. also T2154 [LV] 604b22-23). This led to the ascription of T182a/b to Dharmaraksa, as currently carried in the Taisho. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0182; 鹿母經

In Juan 1 (catalog of translations from the Han and Wei dynasties), Zhisheng lists a Xulai jing in a list of five translations which he attributes to Bai Yan 白延 (487a16). Following LJSBJ, he gives the title with the character cha 叉 in front: 叉須賴經, correcting Sengyou’s you~ 又須賴. Zhisheng reproduces verbatim (and apparently, with approval) a note from LDSBJ claiming that this information relies on Sengyou and Zhu Daozu’s catalog (見竺道祖及僧祐錄; cf. LDSBJ T2034 [XLIX] 56c11). Zhisheng claims that all five texts are lost 其本並闕 (487a21).

In Juan 2 (catalog of translations from Wu and Jin dynasties) Zhisheng lists a Xulai jing in the catalog of eighty-eight translations attributed to Zhi Qian (488c21). He points out that an alternative title of this text is Xulai pusa jing 須賴菩薩經. He refers to this version as ‘the third’ translation of this scripture, and cites the Bielu and Zhu Daozu catalogs, as well as the CSZJJ, as his sources.

Also in Juan 2, in the section on translators from the Jin dynasty, Zhisheng gives a list of 55 anonymous texts (essentially copying content from Dao’an’s catalog of 142 anonymous texts, and claiming that for 87 out of 142 items in this catalog new attributions have become known since Dao’an’s time). Among the 55 texts that are still anonymous, Zhisheng lists 36 as lost. In this category he places a ‘small’ Xulai jing 小須賴經一卷 (502a13).

In Juan 4, in the section on translations from the Former Liang regime, Zhisheng lists a Xulai jing in the entry on four translations attributed to Zhi Shilun 支施崙. He calls this Zhi Shilun translation the third translation of the Xulai jing, after Bai Yan and Zhi Qian, and before Guṇabhadra.

This entry in KYL copies verbatim most of the content of the anonymous postface to the Shoulengyan translation preserved in the CSZJJ (519a23-b2; cf. T2145 [LV] 49b18-29 ). One remarkable difference is that at the end of this entry, Zhisheng asserts that this entry was composed based on a ‘colophon to the Xulai jing and colophon to the Shoulengyan jing’ 出須賴經後記及首楞嚴經後記. We have no evidence that would corroborate the existence at any point in time of an independent colophon to the Xulai jing.

Here Zhisheng also asserts that of Zhi Shilun’s four translations, the Xulai jing is the only one that survives, or ‘was seen’ 見在 by Zhisheng (519a22), while the other three are ‘missing’ 闕本. This is the text he will list in the Ruzang lu section (see below).
The entry on Zhi Shilun is followed by a parenthetical note: ‘These were all re-translations done in the Former Liang. They were presented at a later time [?], and [I] was fortunate enough to be able to list them here in an appendix’ 前涼之代 應更出經 後進遇之 幸續編附 (519b3).

In Juan 5, in the catalog of translations from the (Liu) Song dynasty, Zhisheng attributes one Pinzi Xulai jing 貧子須賴經 to Guṇabhadra, in a list of 52 texts (in the 26 lost texts subcategory), citing ‘Li Kuo's catalog,’ and evidently relying on LDSBJ, which was the first bibliographic work to make this assertion. Zhisheng calls this the fourth translation (528b25).

In Juan 12, in a listing of all extant and non-anonymous works from the ‘Bodhisattva canon,’ Zhisheng asserts that out of the four Xulai jing translations listed above, only the ‘Zhi Shilun’ translation still survives (601a18-20).

In Juan 14, In the section on non-anonymous ‘Mahāyāna’ translations that are missing 闕本, Zhisheng reiterates the claim that three of the four Xulai jing texts are lost (this calculation does not include the ‘small’ Xulai jing mentioned before), which implies that the only surviving one is the ‘Zhi Shilun translation’ (631a7-13).

In Juan 19 and 20, being the Ruzang lu section (list of texts to be included in the zang), only one Xulai jing is listed: the ‘Zhi Shilun’ translation in 18 sheets 紙 (686b9, 709a18).

Edit

T2154 (LV) 487a16, 487a21, 488c21, 502a13, 519a23-b2, 519a22, 519b3, 528b25, 601a18-20, 631a7-13, 686b9, 709a18

 In Juan 1 (catalog of translations from the Han and Wei dynasties), Zhisheng lists a Xulai jing in a list of five translations which he attributes to Bai Yan 白延 (487a16). Following LJSBJ, he gives the title with the character cha 叉 in front: 叉須賴經, correcting Sengyou’s you~ 又須賴. Zhisheng reproduces verbatim (and apparently, with approval) a note from LDSBJ claiming that this information relies on Sengyou and Zhu Daozu’s catalog (見竺道祖及僧祐錄; cf. LDSBJ T2034 [XLIX] 56c11). Zhisheng claims that all five texts are lost 其本並闕 (487a21). In Juan 2 (catalog of translations from Wu and Jin dynasties) Zhisheng lists a Xulai jing in the catalog of eighty-eight translations attributed to Zhi Qian (488c21). He points out that an alternative title of this text is Xulai pusa jing 須賴菩薩經. He refers to this version as ‘the third’ translation of this scripture, and cites the Bielu and Zhu Daozu catalogs, as well as the CSZJJ, as his sources. Also in Juan 2, in the section on translators from the Jin dynasty, Zhisheng gives a list of 55 anonymous texts (essentially copying content from Dao’an’s catalog of 142 anonymous texts, and claiming that for 87 out of 142 items in this catalog new attributions have become known since Dao’an’s time). Among the 55 texts that are still anonymous, Zhisheng lists 36 as lost. In this category he places a ‘small’ Xulai jing 小須賴經一卷 (502a13). In Juan 4, in the section on translations from the Former Liang regime, Zhisheng lists a Xulai jing in the entry on four translations attributed to Zhi Shilun 支施崙. He calls this Zhi Shilun translation the third translation of the Xulai jing, after Bai Yan and Zhi Qian, and before Gunabhadra. This entry in KYL copies verbatim most of the content of the anonymous postface to the Shoulengyan translation preserved in the CSZJJ (519a23-b2; cf. T2145 [LV] 49b18-29 ). One remarkable difference is that at the end of this entry, Zhisheng asserts that this entry was composed based on a ‘colophon to the Xulai jing and colophon to the Shoulengyan jing’ 出須賴經後記及首楞嚴經後記. We have no evidence that would corroborate the existence at any point in time of an independent colophon to the Xulai jing. Here Zhisheng also asserts that of Zhi Shilun’s four translations, the Xulai jing is the only one that survives, or ‘was seen’ 見在 by Zhisheng (519a22), while the other three are ‘missing’ 闕本. This is the text he will list in the Ruzang lu section (see below). The entry on Zhi Shilun is followed by a parenthetical note: ‘These were all re-translations done in the Former Liang. They were presented at a later time [?], and [I] was fortunate enough to be able to list them here in an appendix’ 前涼之代 應更出經 後進遇之 幸續編附 (519b3). In Juan 5, in the catalog of translations from the (Liu) Song dynasty, Zhisheng attributes one Pinzi Xulai jing 貧子須賴經 to Gunabhadra, in a list of 52 texts (in the 26 lost texts subcategory), citing ‘Li Kuo's catalog,’ and evidently relying on LDSBJ, which was the first bibliographic work to make this assertion. Zhisheng calls this the fourth translation (528b25). In Juan 12, in a listing of all extant and non-anonymous works from the ‘Bodhisattva canon,’ Zhisheng asserts that out of the four Xulai jing translations listed above, only the ‘Zhi Shilun’ translation still survives (601a18-20). In Juan 14, In the section on non-anonymous ‘Mahayana’ translations that are missing 闕本, Zhisheng reiterates the claim that three of the four Xulai jing texts are lost (this calculation does not include the ‘small’ Xulai jing mentioned before), which implies that the only surviving one is the ‘Zhi Shilun translation’ (631a7-13). In Juan 19 and 20, being the Ruzang lu section (list of texts to be included in the zang), only one Xulai jing is listed: the ‘Zhi Shilun’ translation in 18 sheets 紙 (686b9, 709a18). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Bai Yan, 白延 Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 Zhi Qian 支謙 Zhi Shilun, 支施崙 T0328; Xulai pusa jing 須賴菩薩經; 佛說須賴經 T0329; Xulai pusa jing 須賴菩薩經; 佛說須賴經

Edit

T2154 (LV) 653c4

 Pusa wei lu wang jing 菩薩為鹿王經

Edit

T2154 (LV) 653b15-16

 Hemo wang jing 和默王經

Edit

T2154 (LV) 654a5

 Mingduwuji jing 明度無極經

Edit

T2154 (LV) 653b18

 Xiang wang jing 象王經

Chen Hong cites remarks in the treatment of Liu du ji jing by Zhisheng in KYL, which Chen holds indicate that Zhisheng undertook text-critical work to restore parts of the collection. These remarks pertain to the Pusa wei lu wang jing 菩薩為鹿王經 [cf. T152(18), (57), (58)], the Ma wang jing 馬王經 [cf. T152(59)], the Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經 T152(89) and the Mingduwuji jing 明度無極經 [cf. T152(81)? or all of T152 Ch. 6?]. In each case, an interlinear note states that the text was added back into the compilation(?) 新編上; a summary comment by Zhisheng states further that five texts—the Hemo wang jing 和默王經 [cf. T152(15)], the Xiang wang jing 象王經 [cf. T152(28)] (these two not affected by the aforementioned interlinear notes), along with the Pusa wei lu wang jing, the Ma wang jing, and the Jingmian wang jing were “recorded in the various catalogues, with titles the same as these, and [I have] therefore added them back [into the collection]”(?) 此之五經雖載群錄名與此同並新編上; T2154 (LV) 653c4-654a9.

Edit

Chen 12-13
T2154 (LV) 653c4-654a9

 Chen Hong cites remarks in the treatment of Liu du ji jing by Zhisheng in KYL, which Chen holds indicate that Zhisheng undertook text-critical work to restore parts of the collection. These remarks pertain to the Pusa wei lu wang jing 菩薩為鹿王經 [cf. T152(18), (57), (58)], the Ma wang jing 馬王經 [cf. T152(59)], the Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經 T152(89) and the Mingduwuji jing 明度無極經 [cf. T152(81)? or all of T152 Ch. 6?]. In each case, an interlinear note states that the text was added back into the compilation(?) 新編上; a summary comment by Zhisheng states further that five texts—the Hemo wang jing 和默王經 [cf. T152(15)], the Xiang wang jing 象王經 [cf. T152(28)] (these two not affected by the aforementioned interlinear notes), along with the Pusa wei lu wang jing, the Ma wang jing, and the Jingmian wang jing were “recorded in the various catalogues, with titles the same as these, and [I have] therefore added them back [into the collection]”(?) 此之五經雖載群錄名與此同並新編上; T2154 (LV) 653c4-654a9. Hemo wang jing 和默王經 Ma wang jing 馬王經 Mingduwuji jing 明度無極經 Pusa wei lu wang jing 菩薩為鹿王經 T152(15); [no title given in source] T152(18); [no title given in source] T152(28); [no title given in source] T152(57); [no title given in source] T152(58); [no title given in source] T152(59); [no title given in source] T152(81); [no title given in source] T152(89); Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經 Xiang wang jing 象王經