Source: Dao'an T226 Preface

Dao'an 道安. Preface to the Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄序.

Preserved in CSZJJ T2145:55.52b8-52c26.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

*Dharmapriya(?) 曇摩蜱 "held the [foreign] text"; Fohu 佛護 (*Buddharakṣ[it]a?) made the translation; 慧進 was the amanuensis 筆受. Places in which the text was the same as Mokṣala's Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 放光般若經 T221 and Dharmarakṣa’s Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 光讚經 T222 were not re-translated. Where those earlier translations were mistaken, they were corrected, and portions that were missing were supplemented. In places where there was more than one possible interpretation and it was not possible to decide what was correct, both were kept.

天竺沙門曇摩蜱執本。佛護為譯。對而撿之。慧進筆受。與放光光讚同者。無所更出也。其二經譯人所漏者。隨其失處稱而正焉。其義異不知孰是者。輒併而兩存之。往往為訓其下。凡四卷。其一紙二紙異者出別為一卷合五卷也。

Edit

via CSZJJ. Also cited and discussed in Kajiyoshi (1944/1980): 68.

 *Dharmapriya(?) 曇摩蜱 "held the [foreign] text"; Fohu 佛護 (*Buddharaks[it]a?) made the translation; 慧進 was the amanuensis 筆受. Places in which the text was the same as Moksala's Pancavimsatikasahasrika prajnaparamita 放光般若經 T221 and Dharmaraksa’s Pancavimsatikasahasrika prajnaparamita 光讚經 T222 were not re-translated. Where those earlier translations were mistaken, they were corrected, and portions that were missing were supplemented. In places where there was more than one possible interpretation and it was not possible to decide what was correct, both were kept. 天竺沙門曇摩蜱執本。佛護為譯。對而撿之。慧進筆受。與放光光讚同者。無所更出也。其二經譯人所漏者。隨其失處稱而正焉。其義異不知孰是者。輒併而兩存之。往往為訓其下。凡四卷。其一紙二紙異者出別為一卷合五卷也。 *Dharmamitra, 曇摩蜜多 Fohu 佛護, Fotuluocha 佛圖羅剎, *Buddharaksa? T0226; 摩訶般若鈔經; Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄