Source: Buswell 2004

Buswell, Robert E., Jr. "Sugi's Collation Notes to the Koryŏ Buddhist Canon and Their Significance for Buddhist Textual Criticism." The Journal of Korean Studies 9, no. 1 (2004): 129-184.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Buswell reports that Sugi was confronted by two versions of this text [the *Agrapradīpadhāraṇīvidyārāja], both alike ascribed to *Jinagupta/*Jñānagupta 闍那崛多 (as in the present Taishō); the present text T1353 (from the Kaibao), and the 東方最勝燈王如來經 T1354 (from the Khitan). Sugi thought that the "invocation" to the Khitan indicated that it was the real *Jinagupta/*Jñānagupta version. The "archaic language and structure" of T1353 made Sugi think that it could not be by *Jinagupta/*Jñānagupta, but he deferred to "later sages" for final judgement.

Edit

158

 Buswell reports that Sugi was confronted by two versions of this text [the *Agrapradipadharanividyaraja], both alike ascribed to *Jinagupta/*Jnanagupta 闍那崛多 (as in the present Taisho); the present text T1353 (from the Kaibao), and the 東方最勝燈王如來經 T1354 (from the Khitan). Sugi thought that the "invocation" to the Khitan indicated that it was the real *Jinagupta/*Jnanagupta version. The "archaic language and structure" of T1353 made Sugi think that it could not be by *Jinagupta/*Jnanagupta, but he deferred to "later sages" for final judgement. T1353; 東方最勝燈王陀羅尼經

Buswell reports that Sugi found no evidence in the catalogues that Dharmarakṣa had ever made such a translation. Sugi also cited "structural evidence" [Buswell uses this phrase to mean reports about the number of pages, sections, juan etc. in a text] to prove that T453 could not be any of three non-extant works possibly matching this title. Sugi arrives at no firm conclusion about the ascription of T453.

Edit

146, 156

 Buswell reports that Sugi found no evidence in the catalogues that Dharmaraksa had ever made such a translation. Sugi also cited "structural evidence" [Buswell uses this phrase to mean reports about the number of pages, sections, juan etc. in a text] to prove that T453 could not be any of three non-extant works possibly matching this title. Sugi arrives at no firm conclusion about the ascription of T453. T0453; 佛說彌勒下生經

The ascription of this text to Dharmarakṣa was problematised by the fact that the Kaibao canon already included an alternate *Candraprabhakumāra-sūtra also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, viz. 月光童子經 T534. Buswell reports that Sugi noted that earlier catalogues had included a translation by Zhi Qian of a 申日經 which was missing from canons known to him, and therefore suggested that T535 might be Zhi Qian's version. Sugi notes that his suggestions are tentative (he "leaves it for 'later sages' to decide").

Edit

146, 157

 The ascription of this text to Dharmaraksa was problematised by the fact that the Kaibao canon already included an alternate *Candraprabhakumara-sutra also ascribed to Dharmaraksa, viz. 月光童子經 T534. Buswell reports that Sugi noted that earlier catalogues had included a translation by Zhi Qian of a 申日經 which was missing from canons known to him, and therefore suggested that T535 might be Zhi Qian's version. Sugi notes that his suggestions are tentative (he "leaves it for 'later sages' to decide"). Zhi Qian 支謙 T0535; 佛說申日經; Shenyue jing 申曰經

KYL and Zhenyuan lu both dismissed this text as apocryphal and excluded it from the canon. KYL rejected it in strong terms. "Sugi finally relents, however, and, because of the text's popularity in Korea, is willing to include the thirty-quan [sic! > juan] scripture in the canon....Sugi's conclusion to this section indicates that a controversy must have raged among the editors of the canon as to whether or not to include this text in the canon. Sugi clearly is disposed to removing the text, but considerable pressure must have been brought to bear on him and his associates to include the text in the canon in order to placate popular sentiment."

Edit

149-150, 173-174

 KYL and Zhenyuan lu both dismissed this text as apocryphal and excluded it from the canon. KYL rejected it in strong terms. "Sugi finally relents, however, and, because of the text's popularity in Korea, is willing to include the thirty-quan [sic! > juan] scripture in the canon....Sugi's conclusion to this section indicates that a controversy must have raged among the editors of the canon as to whether or not to include this text in the canon. Sugi clearly is disposed to removing the text, but considerable pressure must have been brought to bear on him and his associates to include the text in the canon in order to placate popular sentiment." T0441; 大乘蓮華寶達普薩問答報應經; 佛說佛名經; 大乘蓮華馬頭羅剎經

Buswell reports that Sugi doubted the attribution of this version of the text to Devendraprajña. Faang cited T1626 (in his T1838), which was the Khitan version of the text, and this made him think that T1626 was more likely to be the genuine Devendraprajña version. Sugi had no concrete idea who might have made the alternate version, or when. T1627 was taken from the Kaibao and Koryŏ versions.
Sugi's note appears at the end of T1627: 此是國宋藏。所謂法界無差別論。提雲般若譯者。今按開元錄及賢首疏。則彼丹本五言二十四頌者。真是提雲般若所譯。而賢首疏所譯者。又此論。錄及疏中並為單譯。而國宋兩本與彼丹本。文雖有異義則無殊。必是開元之後。後代重譯。但未知何代何人之譯。此須待勘。而二藏直以此為提雲般若譯者錯也; T1627:31.896b13-20.

Edit

161

 Buswell reports that Sugi doubted the attribution of this version of the text to Devendraprajna. Faang cited T1626 (in his T1838), which was the Khitan version of the text, and this made him think that T1626 was more likely to be the genuine Devendraprajna version. Sugi had no concrete idea who might have made the alternate version, or when. T1627 was taken from the Kaibao and Koryo versions. Sugi's note appears at the end of T1627: 此是國宋藏。所謂法界無差別論。提雲般若譯者。今按開元錄及賢首疏。則彼丹本五言二十四頌者。真是提雲般若所譯。而賢首疏所譯者。又此論。錄及疏中並為單譯。而國宋兩本與彼丹本。文雖有異義則無殊。必是開元之後。後代重譯。但未知何代何人之譯。此須待勘。而二藏直以此為提雲般若譯者錯也; T1627:31.896b13-20. T1627; 大乘法界無差別論

The Kaibao/Koryŏ canons ascribed the text to Jñānagupta, whereas the Khitan ascribed it to Dharmagupta. Sugi follows the Khitan (and KYL).

Edit

163

 The Kaibao/Koryo canons ascribed the text to Jnanagupta, whereas the Khitan ascribed it to Dharmagupta. Sugi follows the Khitan (and KYL). Dharmagupta, 笈多, 達摩笈多, 達磨笈多 T0025; 起世因本經

"Based upon both information in the preface to this sūtra and an examination of the actual text itself, Sugi suspects that a copyist has incorrectly entered the interlinear notes to the scripture into the main body of the text, thereby producing many sections that are difficult to construe. As he cannot resolve the problems with the text based upon his collation, he leaves them for later sages to solve."
Sugi's note is included in the Taishō text: 此經按經首序及見經文，似是書者之錯，經注不分而連書者也。義當節而注之，然往往多有不可分處，故不敢擅節，以遺後賢焉, T602:15.173a25-28.

Edit

165

 "Based upon both information in the preface to this sutra and an examination of the actual text itself, Sugi suspects that a copyist has incorrectly entered the interlinear notes to the scripture into the main body of the text, thereby producing many sections that are difficult to construe. As he cannot resolve the problems with the text based upon his collation, he leaves them for later sages to solve." Sugi's note is included in the Taisho text: 此經按經首序及見經文,似是書者之錯,經注不分而連書者也。義當節而注之,然往往多有不可分處,故不敢擅節,以遺後賢焉, T602:15.173a25-28. T0602; 佛說大安般守意經

The Kaibao canon attributed this text to Buddhajīva, and the attribution was corrected by Sugi.

Edit

166

 The Kaibao canon attributed this text to Buddhajiva, and the attribution was corrected by Sugi. T1436; 十誦比丘波羅提木叉戒本

Buswell reports that Sugi disputed the ascription of this text to Kumārajīva. KYL recorded four versions of the text, three extant (a Bodhiruci translation was already lost). Two translations were ascribed to Dharmarakṣa(!). Sugi found the supposed Kumārajīva version (=T335) in the Khitan canon was virtually identical to the Dharmarakṣa translation (T334) of the Koryŏ and Kaibao canons, concluded that the so-called Kumārajīva version was redundant and excised it from the canon accordingly. The present Taishō text is taken from the Chongning (Song) edition. Buswell confirms that T334 and T335 are "indistinguishable".

Edit

144-145, 153

 Buswell reports that Sugi disputed the ascription of this text to Kumarajiva. KYL recorded four versions of the text, three extant (a Bodhiruci translation was already lost). Two translations were ascribed to Dharmaraksa(!). Sugi found the supposed Kumarajiva version (=T335) in the Khitan canon was virtually identical to the Dharmaraksa translation (T334) of the Koryo and Kaibao canons, concluded that the so-called Kumarajiva version was redundant and excised it from the canon accordingly. The present Taisho text is taken from the Chongning (Song) edition. Buswell confirms that T334 and T335 are "indistinguishable". Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0335; *Sumatidarikapariprccha; 佛說須摩提菩薩經

The Kaibao had copied the 部執異論 T2033 [K975; Buswell mistakenly gives K973] under the present title. Sugi therefore admits the Koryŏ version into the canon in its place.

Sugi discusses the attribution of the text to Paramārtha, noting that the citation of the the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā 文殊師利問經 T468 at includes a phrase saying that the text was "compiled by Kumārajīva 羅什法師集, 17c29 [this is weird: the line appears in the middle of a string of verse as formatted in CBETA---MR]; but that in fact, the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā had not yet been translated at Kumārajīva's time. He also notes that the text includes Qin phraseology deriving from [or typical of] Kumārajīva. "After showing that similar problems would remain even if the text were the product of an anonymous translator, Sugi then explores whether Wenshu wen jing [T468] might have been a retranslation by Paramārtha, which was then included in the Shibabu lun [T2032]." [MR: I believe Buswell has misread this line, and Sugi is saying "If [T2032] was a second translation [of the same text as T2033, also ascribed to Paramārtha] by Paramārtha, then it would not make sense that the interlinear notes within the text say 'in the language of Qin...'"]

"Sugi finally cannot resolve the issues and leaves the problem for later scholars to resolve."

Sugi's note is included in the text as it appears in the Taishō: 按此論者宋藏中錯重寫。彼部異執論。名為十八部論故今取此國本為正。開元錄云右十八部論群錄並云。梁代三藏真諦所譯。今詳真諦三藏已譯十八部論。不合更譯部異執論。其十八部論初首引文殊問經分別部品。後次云羅什法師集後方是論。若是羅什所翻。秦時未有文殊問經。不合引之置於初也。或可準別錄中文殊問經編為失譯。秦時引證此亦無疑。若是真諦再譯。論中子注不合有秦言之字。詳其文理多是秦時羅什譯出。諸錄脫編致有疑焉。其真諦十八部疏。即部異執疏是雖有斯理未敢指南。後諸博聞請求實錄; T2032:49.19c15-28.

Edit

148, 170-171

 The Kaibao had copied the 部執異論 T2033 [K975; Buswell mistakenly gives K973] under the present title. Sugi therefore admits the Koryo version into the canon in its place. Sugi discusses the attribution of the text to Paramartha, noting that the citation of the the Manjusripariprccha 文殊師利問經 T468 at includes a phrase saying that the text was "compiled by Kumarajiva 羅什法師集, 17c29 [this is weird: the line appears in the middle of a string of verse as formatted in CBETA---MR]; but that in fact, the Manjusripariprccha had not yet been translated at Kumarajiva's time. He also notes that the text includes Qin phraseology deriving from [or typical of] Kumarajiva. "After showing that similar problems would remain even if the text were the product of an anonymous translator, Sugi then explores whether Wenshu wen jing [T468] might have been a retranslation by Paramartha, which was then included in the Shibabu lun [T2032]." [MR: I believe Buswell has misread this line, and Sugi is saying "If [T2032] was a second translation [of the same text as T2033, also ascribed to Paramartha] by Paramartha, then it would not make sense that the interlinear notes within the text say 'in the language of Qin...'"] "Sugi finally cannot resolve the issues and leaves the problem for later scholars to resolve." Sugi's note is included in the text as it appears in the Taisho: 按此論者宋藏中錯重寫。彼部異執論。名為十八部論故今取此國本為正。開元錄云右十八部論群錄並云。梁代三藏真諦所譯。今詳真諦三藏已譯十八部論。不合更譯部異執論。其十八部論初首引文殊問經分別部品。後次云羅什法師集後方是論。若是羅什所翻。秦時未有文殊問經。不合引之置於初也。或可準別錄中文殊問經編為失譯。秦時引證此亦無疑。若是真諦再譯。論中子注不合有秦言之字。詳其文理多是秦時羅什譯出。諸錄脫編致有疑焉。其真諦十八部疏。即部異執疏是雖有斯理未敢指南。後諸博聞請求實錄; T2032:49.19c15-28. T2032; 十八部論; *Samayabhedoparacanacakra

The Kaibao/Koryŏ ascribes this text to Jñānagupta and Dharmagupta together, whereas the Khitan ascribes it to Jñānagupta alone. Sugi follows the Khitan (and KYL).

Edit

163

 The Kaibao/Koryo ascribes this text to Jnanagupta and Dharmagupta together, whereas the Khitan ascribes it to Jnanagupta alone. Sugi follows the Khitan (and KYL). *Jnanagupta, *Jinagupta, 闍那崛多, 豆那掘多 T0024; 起世經

Buswell reports that Sugi was confronted by two versions of the *Samādhirājacandrapradīpa-sūtra (as is still the case in the present Taishō, viz. T640 and T641), both of which were ascribed to Xiangong 先公. Sugi accepted that T640 was the authentic Xiangong translation, because "the structure and size of the Khitan recension matched the information on the text given in the headnote to the sūtra...cited in KYL". KYL had reported that there were originally two separate versions of the text, another by An Shigao. "Since [T641] does not include the alternate title of Xian'gong's [sic] translation and as its size is nearly double that given for the text in KYL, Sugi concludes that the attribution here cannot be correct. Sugi suspects that this Kaibao edition [Sugi's source for T641 was the Kaibao/Koryŏ version] was actually An Shigao's translation, which KYL had presumed lost."

Edit

145, 155-156

 Buswell reports that Sugi was confronted by two versions of the *Samadhirajacandrapradipa-sutra (as is still the case in the present Taisho, viz. T640 and T641), both of which were ascribed to Xiangong 先公. Sugi accepted that T640 was the authentic Xiangong translation, because "the structure and size of the Khitan recension matched the information on the text given in the headnote to the sutra...cited in KYL". KYL had reported that there were originally two separate versions of the text, another by An Shigao. "Since [T641] does not include the alternate title of Xian'gong's [sic] translation and as its size is nearly double that given for the text in KYL, Sugi concludes that the attribution here cannot be correct. Sugi suspects that this Kaibao edition [Sugi's source for T641 was the Kaibao/Koryo version] was actually An Shigao's translation, which KYL had presumed lost." An Shigao, 安世高 T0641; 佛說月燈三昧經

Buswell reports that Sugi rejected the ascription to Bodhiruci and excised the text from the canon. He did so because the Kaibao and Koryŏ canons included two versions of the text, both with the same ascription. The second translation was absent from the Khitan canon, however. Sugi corroborated the conclusion of KYL that this second translation was an alternate translation of 1. the Wenshushuli pusa zhoufan [sic---viz. the 文殊師利菩薩法印呪? MR] in juan 6 of the Dhāraṇīsamuccaya 陀羅尼集經 T901 and 2. the Liu zi tuoluoni 六字陀羅尼 included in the 咒五首 T1034. Sugi concluded that the Kaibao editors must have added the ascription to Bodhiruci on the basis of their own surmise, but that it was without any basis. [Buswell also mentions a parallel text, viz. the *Saḍakṣaravidyāmantra 六字咒王經 T1044, as another factor in Sugi's reasoning, but I cannot follow Buswell's summary at this point---MR.]

Edit

147, 157-158

 Buswell reports that Sugi rejected the ascription to Bodhiruci and excised the text from the canon. He did so because the Kaibao and Koryo canons included two versions of the text, both with the same ascription. The second translation was absent from the Khitan canon, however. Sugi corroborated the conclusion of KYL that this second translation was an alternate translation of 1. the Wenshushuli pusa zhoufan [sic---viz. the 文殊師利菩薩法印呪? MR] in juan 6 of the Dharanisamuccaya 陀羅尼集經 T901 and 2. the Liu zi tuoluoni 六字陀羅尼 included in the 咒五首 T1034. Sugi concluded that the Kaibao editors must have added the ascription to Bodhiruci on the basis of their own surmise, but that it was without any basis. [Buswell also mentions a parallel text, viz. the *Sadaksaravidyamantra 六字咒王經 T1044, as another factor in Sugi's reasoning, but I cannot follow Buswell's summary at this point---MR.] Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1180; 六字神呪經

A note appended to the end of T146, carried only in K (missing in SYM) reads:

按此經，與《增一阿含經》第五十一卷〈大愛道般涅槃品〉，同本異譯，今國、宋二本文義相同，此本與宋義同文異，似非一譯，而未知是非、不敢去取。然此丹本詳悉，今且雙存，以待賢哲.

This note is from Sugi's "collation notes" to the canon, K1402 (XXXVIII) 638b19-23. Buswell summarises:

"K. 735 [= T147] is the Khitan edition of this text and is a variant translation of a sūtra appearing in the Zengyi ahan jing, [j]uan 51 (T.125.2:829b–830b) [= EĀ 52.9]. The Koryŏ I and Kaibao editions of this text (K. 734 = T146) are virtually identical but their wording differs greatly from the Khitan recension. Since he cannot decide which of the two recensions is legitimate, Sugi retains both and leaves it to “later sages” to determine which is authentic."

Edit

T146 (II) 872a11-15
K1402 (XXXVIII) 638b19-23
Buswell 164

 A note appended to the end of T146, carried only in K (missing in SYM) reads: 按此經,與《增一阿含經》第五十一卷〈大愛道般涅槃品〉,同本異譯,今國、宋二本文義相同,此本與宋義同文異,似非一譯,而未知是非、不敢去取。然此丹本詳悉,今且雙存,以待賢哲. This note is from Sugi's "collation notes" to the canon, K1402 (XXXVIII) 638b19-23. Buswell summarises: "K. 735 [= T147] is the Khitan edition of this text and is a variant translation of a sutra appearing in the Zengyi ahan jing, [j]uan 51 (T.125.2:829b–830b) [= EA 52.9]. The Koryo I and Kaibao editions of this text (K. 734 = T146) are virtually identical but their wording differs greatly from the Khitan recension. Since he cannot decide which of the two recensions is legitimate, Sugi retains both and leaves it to “later sages” to determine which is authentic." T0146; 舍衛國王夢見十事經 T0147; 佛說舍衛國王十夢經