Kajiyoshi (1944/1980) – Kajiyoshi Kōun 梶芳光運. Genshi hannya kyō no kenkyū, sono ichi: Daijō Bukkyō no seiritsushiteki kenkyū原始般若経の研究 その一 大乗仏教の成立史的研究. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin 1980 [1944].
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
As the upshot of a complex discussion, Kajiyoshi concludes that the most satisfactory hypothesis is that this is in fact a translation by Dharmarakṣa (as had apparently been suggested earlier by Suzuki Munetada 鈴木宗忠, though so far as I could determine, Kajiyoshi does not give a reference to the publication where Suzuki made this suggestion). In sum, the reasoning that leads him to this conclusion is as follows. 1. A preface by Dao'an, preserved in CSZJJ, to a text with the very similar title of Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 states that text was translated in 382 by Dharmamitra 曇摩蜱 [*Dharmapriya?], who "handled the [foreign] text"; Fohu 佛護, who made the translation; and Huijin 慧進 was the amanuensis 筆受. However, this text is not extant, as was shown by Zhisheng in KYL. 2. Kajiyoshi then shows that despite the similarity in their names, Fohu and [Zhu] Fonian, to whom the translation is attributed alongside Dharmamitra [*Dharmapriya?] in the later record and present canon, are in fact different figures. He cites to this end an account of the translation of the *Abhidharmavibhāṣā (i.e. 鞞婆沙論 T1547 translated by *Saṃghabhūti/Saṃghabhadra 僧伽跋澄 et al. in 383) from the end of the CSZJJ biography of Samghabhadra, which states that two separate translations were made of the text, the first with Fohu acting as the actual translator 宣譯, and the second one with Zhu Fonian acting in the same capacity 宣譯. Thus, the same note handles these two figures as separate individuals; T2145:55.99a25-b5. (The same note states that not much more is known about Fohu/*Buddharakṣa; 99b7-9.) Dao'an's preface to the same text, preserved in CSZJJ, echoes this information; T2145:55.73c3-8. In fact, in an anonymous preface to the 四阿鋡暮抄 T1505 preserved in CSZJJ, Fohu and Zhu Fonian are even mentioned as having worked together on the translation of the text 鳩摩羅佛提執胡]本佛念佛護為譯; T2145:55.64c11-15. Thus, the ascription of T226 to Zhu Fonian cannot be because the Fohu of Dao’an’s 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 is an alternate name for Zhu Fonian, and the identification of the translator as Zhu Fonian is likely to be an error. Thus, in its specific title, the actual identify of the translator, and content, the Mohe buluore boluomi jing chao to which Dao'an wrote his preface was clearly a different text from the extant T226. The confusion between Fohu and Zhu Fonian seems to start with Sengyou. Elsewhere in CSZJJ, in the 新集經論錄, Sengyou writes: 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄五卷(一名長安品經或云摩訶般若波羅蜜經偽秦符堅建元十八年出)...天竺沙門曇摩蜱執胡大品本。竺佛念譯出; T2145:55.10b1-4. Subsequent catalogues (Fajing, LDSBJ, Jingtai, DTNDL, KYL) gradually conflate various items of information about several texts into a single notice, which is taken by most bibliographers (with the partial exception of Zhisheng) as referring to T226. Key moments are: 1. In Fajing, and then from Jingtai onwards, the old and distinctive transcription 鉢羅若[波羅蜜] is dropped from the title in favour of the more "standardised" 般若[波羅蜜] (the only exception to this trend is Fei Changfang's LDSBJ). 2. From Jingtai onward, a new alternate title is associated with the text, namely Xupti pin 須菩提品 (“Subhūti chapter/version”). 3. In some of the titles reported for the text, the character chao 鈔/抄 is dropped. 4. The number of juan ascribed to the text varies between 7 juan and 10 juan. As a result of these various shifts, by the time of Zhisheng's KYL, the text reported in Dao'an's notice had been completely conflated with the extant T226, an error which Zhisheng makes a partial attempt to correct. Having thus set aside our extant T226 as the text referred to in Dao'an's notice, Kajiyoshi then attempts to determine what text it might refer to instead. 3. Sengyou's list of alternate translations of Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, T2145:55.14a1-4, contains two successive items: a) 朱士行出放光經二十卷一名舊小品; b) 竺法護更出小品經七卷. Kajiyoshi points out that because notice of the item attributed to Dharmarakṣa follows immediately upon the preceding notice about the 放光經, in which the phrase xiaopin 小品 (≈ "shorter version") clearly refers to the Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, we might naturally take that phrase in the Dharmarakṣa notice to also refer to Dharmarakṣa's (extant) Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, 光讚經 T222. However, he shows that in fact, Fajing refers to an Aṣṭasāhasrikā by Dharmarakṣa as a "new xiaopin 小品": 新道行經十卷(一名新小品經或七卷)(晉太始年竺法護譯, T2146:55.119b4. LDSBJ then treats 新道行經 and the 小品 as two separate texts by Dharmarakṣa, T2034:49.109c7. Zhisheng corrects this error: 新道行經十卷(亦名小品或七卷祐云更出小品太始八年譯第四出與舊道行等同本房錄更載小品七卷誤也), T2154:55.495b6-7. Kajiyoshi notes that with regard to the number of juan, "seven" 七 is graphically easily confused with "ten" 十. He also notes that strictly speaking, it is chronologically impossible that in the Sengyou notice above, 竺法護更出小品 could mean that Dharmarakṣa could have "retranslated" "Zhu Shixing's" 朱士行 (*Mokṣala’s) Fangguang jing 放光經, since that translation actually postdates Dharmarakṣa's. He points out, further, that if the "xiaopin" ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in Sengyou's notice indeed referred to the Guangzan jing 光讚經 T222, it would be odd that Zhisheng would have said that it was lost. Kajiyoshi then notes that Dao'an's list of alternate translations from the Liang 涼土異經 includes a "Xuputi pin" in 7 juan, which a note states is an alternate version of Dharmarakṣa's Daoxing jing = Aṣṭa: 須菩提品經七卷(一本云法護出道行經同本異出也), T2145:55.19a18. Finally, he shows that in Fajing, the title Xuputi pin 須菩提品 (“Subhūti chapter/version”) gets detached from Dharmarakṣa's "New Daoxing" 新道行 = Aṣṭa, and in Jingtai, it then gets attached instead to the (now modified) title derived from Dao'an's old notice about the Mohe buluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄. On this basis, Kajiyoshi suggests that a) Sengyou's 竺法護更出小品 refers to the re-translation of the Aṣṭa by Dharmarakṣa; and b) that this is probably the text that has come down to us as the extant T226, under the guise of a different title and translator attribution. |
68-76 |
As the upshot of a complex discussion, Kajiyoshi concludes that the most satisfactory hypothesis is that this is in fact a translation by Dharmaraksa (as had apparently been suggested earlier by Suzuki Munetada 鈴木宗忠, though so far as I could determine, Kajiyoshi does not give a reference to the publication where Suzuki made this suggestion). In sum, the reasoning that leads him to this conclusion is as follows. 1. A preface by Dao'an, preserved in CSZJJ, to a text with the very similar title of Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 states that text was translated in 382 by Dharmamitra 曇摩蜱 [*Dharmapriya?], who "handled the [foreign] text"; Fohu 佛護, who made the translation; and Huijin 慧進 was the amanuensis 筆受. However, this text is not extant, as was shown by Zhisheng in KYL. 2. Kajiyoshi then shows that despite the similarity in their names, Fohu and [Zhu] Fonian, to whom the translation is attributed alongside Dharmamitra [*Dharmapriya?] in the later record and present canon, are in fact different figures. He cites to this end an account of the translation of the *Abhidharmavibhasa (i.e. 鞞婆沙論 T1547 translated by *Samghabhuti/Samghabhadra 僧伽跋澄 et al. in 383) from the end of the CSZJJ biography of Samghabhadra, which states that two separate translations were made of the text, the first with Fohu acting as the actual translator 宣譯, and the second one with Zhu Fonian acting in the same capacity 宣譯. Thus, the same note handles these two figures as separate individuals; T2145:55.99a25-b5. (The same note states that not much more is known about Fohu/*Buddharaksa; 99b7-9.) Dao'an's preface to the same text, preserved in CSZJJ, echoes this information; T2145:55.73c3-8. In fact, in an anonymous preface to the 四阿鋡暮抄 T1505 preserved in CSZJJ, Fohu and Zhu Fonian are even mentioned as having worked together on the translation of the text 鳩摩羅佛提執胡]本佛念佛護為譯; T2145:55.64c11-15. Thus, the ascription of T226 to Zhu Fonian cannot be because the Fohu of Dao’an’s 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 is an alternate name for Zhu Fonian, and the identification of the translator as Zhu Fonian is likely to be an error. Thus, in its specific title, the actual identify of the translator, and content, the Mohe buluore boluomi jing chao to which Dao'an wrote his preface was clearly a different text from the extant T226. The confusion between Fohu and Zhu Fonian seems to start with Sengyou. Elsewhere in CSZJJ, in the 新集經論錄, Sengyou writes: 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄五卷(一名長安品經或云摩訶般若波羅蜜經偽秦符堅建元十八年出)...天竺沙門曇摩蜱執胡大品本。竺佛念譯出; T2145:55.10b1-4. Subsequent catalogues (Fajing, LDSBJ, Jingtai, DTNDL, KYL) gradually conflate various items of information about several texts into a single notice, which is taken by most bibliographers (with the partial exception of Zhisheng) as referring to T226. Key moments are: 1. In Fajing, and then from Jingtai onwards, the old and distinctive transcription 鉢羅若[波羅蜜] is dropped from the title in favour of the more "standardised" 般若[波羅蜜] (the only exception to this trend is Fei Changfang's LDSBJ). 2. From Jingtai onward, a new alternate title is associated with the text, namely Xupti pin 須菩提品 (“Subhuti chapter/version”). 3. In some of the titles reported for the text, the character chao 鈔/抄 is dropped. 4. The number of juan ascribed to the text varies between 7 juan and 10 juan. As a result of these various shifts, by the time of Zhisheng's KYL, the text reported in Dao'an's notice had been completely conflated with the extant T226, an error which Zhisheng makes a partial attempt to correct. Having thus set aside our extant T226 as the text referred to in Dao'an's notice, Kajiyoshi then attempts to determine what text it might refer to instead. 3. Sengyou's list of alternate translations of Prajnaparamita sutras, T2145:55.14a1-4, contains two successive items: a) 朱士行出放光經二十卷一名舊小品; b) 竺法護更出小品經七卷. Kajiyoshi points out that because notice of the item attributed to Dharmaraksa follows immediately upon the preceding notice about the 放光經, in which the phrase xiaopin 小品 (≈ "shorter version") clearly refers to the Pancavimsatikasahasrika prajnaparamita, we might naturally take that phrase in the Dharmaraksa notice to also refer to Dharmaraksa's (extant) Pancavimsatikasahasrika prajnaparamita, 光讚經 T222. However, he shows that in fact, Fajing refers to an Astasahasrika by Dharmaraksa as a "new xiaopin 小品": 新道行經十卷(一名新小品經或七卷)(晉太始年竺法護譯, T2146:55.119b4. LDSBJ then treats 新道行經 and the 小品 as two separate texts by Dharmaraksa, T2034:49.109c7. Zhisheng corrects this error: 新道行經十卷(亦名小品或七卷祐云更出小品太始八年譯第四出與舊道行等同本房錄更載小品七卷誤也), T2154:55.495b6-7. Kajiyoshi notes that with regard to the number of juan, "seven" 七 is graphically easily confused with "ten" 十. He also notes that strictly speaking, it is chronologically impossible that in the Sengyou notice above, 竺法護更出小品 could mean that Dharmaraksa could have "retranslated" "Zhu Shixing's" 朱士行 (*Moksala’s) Fangguang jing 放光經, since that translation actually postdates Dharmaraksa's. He points out, further, that if the "xiaopin" ascribed to Dharmaraksa in Sengyou's notice indeed referred to the Guangzan jing 光讚經 T222, it would be odd that Zhisheng would have said that it was lost. Kajiyoshi then notes that Dao'an's list of alternate translations from the Liang 涼土異經 includes a "Xuputi pin" in 7 juan, which a note states is an alternate version of Dharmaraksa's Daoxing jing = Asta: 須菩提品經七卷(一本云法護出道行經同本異出也), T2145:55.19a18. Finally, he shows that in Fajing, the title Xuputi pin 須菩提品 (“Subhuti chapter/version”) gets detached from Dharmaraksa's "New Daoxing" 新道行 = Asta, and in Jingtai, it then gets attached instead to the (now modified) title derived from Dao'an's old notice about the Mohe buluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄. On this basis, Kajiyoshi suggests that a) Sengyou's 竺法護更出小品 refers to the re-translation of the Asta by Dharmaraksa; and b) that this is probably the text that has come down to us as the extant T226, under the guise of a different title and translator attribution. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0226; 摩訶般若鈔經; Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 |