Source: Demiéville 1954

Demiéville states that there can be no doubt that this preface (preserved at CSZJJ T2145:55.71b2-23) is by Dao'an.

Edit

363

Demiéville shows that the attribution to “Dharmanandin” [i.e. to the group that included Zhu Fonian] was championed as far back as Nanjio’s catalogue; Nanjio (1883): 133-134. Demiéville summarises subsequent opinions in support of the same attribution from such scholars as Lévi and Chavannes (in 1916), Sakaino (in 1927) and Ono Genmyō (in 1936). By contrast, Demiéville himself sides with the canonical ascription to Saṃghadeva, and shows that this ascription was also supported by such scholars as Matsumoto (in 1914), Hayashi (in 1928), and Hayashiya. The reasons Demiéville gives for his support of the canonical ascription are that he is impressed by the "detail" given by LDSBJ, which was derived from Baochang and from Daozu 竺道租 (cited by Fei via Baochang). However, Demiéville does give the caveat that he is not basing his opinion upon an examination of the terminology and style of the text.

Edit

374 n. 1

This version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka was translated n 286. However, LDSBJ says that after his arrival in 265, Dharmarakṣa translated a shorter version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Demiéville believes that this is "certainly an error", due to a distinction between the translation title and the transcription title; he notes that Zhisheng already spotted the mistake. [Fei Changfang's original note: 薩芸分陀利經六卷(太始元年譯。見竺道祖晉世雜錄, T2034:49.62a15; Zhisheng: 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), T2154:55.628c23-26.

Edit

351

Demiéville notes that 現在賢劫千佛名經 T447 is supposed to date to the Liang [闕譯人名，今附梁錄], and says that at the very least, it must be later than the 不思議功德諸佛所護念經 T445.

Edit

368

On the strength of the colophon to the text, Demiéville regards the ascription of this text as one of the most secure in the Dharmarakṣa corpus. The last three chapters (28-30), however, he thinks look like an addition, and probably originally were a separate text. The preface and colophon say that the text is in 27 chapters, 6 juan, but the present text is 30 chapters, 7 juan. Dao'an speaks of a separate text "recently joined" to T606 [original note in CSZJJ: 三品修行經一卷(安公云近人合大修行經), T2145:55.9a10]. These three chapters Demiéville characterises as a "Mahāyāna complement" to the other parts of this YBh. It discusses three classes of disciples, i.e. adherents of the three vehicles.

Edit

347, 349

Demiéville notes that the title T608 bears in the present canon, “Smaller Daodi jing” 小道地經, derives from a notice in CSZJJ which relates to a text in Dao'an's catalogue that was entitled "Essential words extracted from the Daodi jing" [道地經中要語章一卷(或云小道地經今有此經自此以下不稱有者並闕本), T2145:55.15b21]. From Fajing onwards, the two titles identified in Dao'an/Sengyou were distinguished, and treated as two separate works. In LDSBJ, and then in catalogues following it like DTNDL, the translation of a "Smaller Daodi jing" was ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜 [the ascription still borne by T608 in the Taishō]. From KYL, both titles were ascribed to Zhi Yao. Demiéville states that T608 bears no certain relation to the Yogācārabhūmi T606 (of Dharmarakṣa) which is his primary object of study.

Edit

342 n. 6

Although the translation of this text is ascribed to Kumārajīva in the present canon, Demiéville mentions "some authors" who have thought it was actually produced by Dharmamitra. He cites Sakaino, "Cours d'histoire du bouddhisme chinois", Tokyo 1927, 1:544 [presumably referering to 境野黄洋, 支那仏教史講話 (共立社, 1927)]. Demiéville himself opines that the confused state of the information given in the catalogues makes it virtually impossible to decide between these two attributions. Demiéville also states that this text in fact comprises four separate sūtras, and summarises the content of each. The second contains a diatribe against women similar to content of 菩薩訶色欲法經 T615, which in turn is a copy ("démarquage”) from the Saundarananda 8:31 ff. (identified by Johnston in his introduction to the Buddhacarita, but by error, in connection with T611 instead of T615).

Edit

362 n. 1

Demiéville notes that according to a preface by Sengrui 僧叡 preserved in CSZJJ, namely the 關中出禪經序, this text was authored 撰 by Kumārajīva, rather than translated. [The note that Demiéville has in mind is apparently this one: 後更依持世經益十二因緣一卷要解二卷。別時撰出, T2145:55.65b5-6.] Demiéville suggests that T616 was composed as a kind of complement to 坐禪三昧經 T614, between 402 and 405, and that in the text, Kumārajīva frequently refers to MPPU T1509. Demiéville also notes that there are frequent close and even literal correspondences between T616 and the 禪要經 T609 (which is presented as an anonymous Han text in the present Taishō, and concludes from this evidence that "Kumārajīva clearly made use of this text in compiling the first part of his [T616]." Demiéville proposes that in T616, as in T614 on his analysis, a "syncretism" of the two vehicles was probably attempted in response to Chinese demand.

Edit

354 n. 2

Demiéville asserts that the Indic author was identified erroneously as Dharmatrāta by the Chinese tradition, and it is in fact by Buddhasena.

Edit

362

Demiéville argues that the 惟日雜難經 T760 must at least be older than the 師子月佛本生經 T176 [but note that all he will say with confidence of T176 itself is that it must date before the end of the sixth century, i.e. before its first appearance in the catalogues with Fajing and LDSBJ---MR]. He translates the title "Sūtra des apories sur les avaivartika". In CSZJJ T760 is treated as anonymous, and Sengyou reports that it was not listed at all by Dao'an. LDSBJ erroneously splits it into two texts/records on the basis of an error in the title; it treats one of these "texts" as anonymous, and the other it ascribes to Zhi Qian. KYL follows the ascription to Zhi Qian, which Zhisheng derives from LDSBJ. Demiéville himself rejects this ascription. He stats that T176 is "old", and looks like a text of the 3-4 century. It is sometimes listed among the "extracts" [抄?], and indeed, Demiéville states that it has the nature of a "compilation".

Edit

370

Some catalogues ascribe to An Shigao a second version of the *Yogācārabhūmi (separate from T607), entitled 修行[道地]經 and supposedly in six or seven juan. Demiéville declares that this tradition is certainly based upon a mistake. This tradition begins with Fajing, and is also found in KYL. Demiéville rejects it for several reasons: There is no apparent reason that An Shigao would have produced two versions of the same text; Dao’an, who wrote a commentary on T607, would have mentioned another version of the text if it existed; the term xiuxing 修行, which features in the title, is not in An Shigao’s lexicon. LDSBJ gives “impressive details about this pseudo-version”, for which it refers to the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄and the Bie lu 別錄. Fei usually uses Bie lu 別錄 for the (Liu Song) Zhongjing bie lu 眾經別錄, but it can also refer on occasion to the catalogue of Zhi Mindu 支愍度. Demiéville suspects that in this case, it is the latter catalogue. However, this is odd, because in all other cases where LDSBJ gives dates etc. about An Shigao catalogues, it refers to the [supposed] catalogue of Zhu Shixing 朱士行. In fact, Fei frequently cites Zhi Mindu for Dharmarakṣa, and Demiéville suggests that possibly, this means that details in fact applied to the Dharmarakṣa text, with due allowance for a confusion of date (年號): for Yongkang 永康 = 167 read Yongjia . This would mean that the Zhi Mindu should also in fact apply to the Dharmarakṣa text. As a result of all this confusion, Zhisheng "did not hesitate" in KYL to declare that the Dharmarakṣa version "lost" and the An Shigao pseudo-text extant.

Edit

345-346 n. 1

T263, Dharmarakṣa's version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, was translated n 286. However, LDSBJ says that after his arrival in Chang'an in 265, Dharmarakṣa also translated a shorter version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Demiéville believes that this is "certainly an error", due to a distinction between the translation title and the transcription title; he notes that Zhisheng already spotted the mistake. [Fei Changfang's original note: 薩芸分陀利經六卷(太始元年譯。見竺道祖晉世雜錄, T2034:49.62a15; Zhisheng: 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), T2154:55.628c23-26.

Demiéville also notes that T263 contains a story not in any other versions of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, about merchants going to the palace of a nāgarāja to obtain a cintāmaṇi; the closest relative the story is found in Dharmarakṣa's version of the jātakas 生經 T154; even the frame is similar in the two loci.

Edit

351-352