Demiéville, Paul. “La Yogācārabhūmi de Saṅgharakṣa.” BÉFEO 44, no. 2 (1954): 339-436.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
In addition to stating that T607 is one of four texts for which the ascription to An Shigao is strongest on grounds of external evidence, Demiéville also cites several other types of internal evidence in support of the ascription: terminology, style, and translation of verse into prose. He also notes that Dao'an's preface to his own commentary provides additional external evidence in support of the ascription. “La terminologie est très archaiques, le style est gauche et chaotique au point d’être souvent presque inintelligible, les vers sanskrits sont traduits en prose; et dans la préface que vers le milieu du IVe siècle [Dao’an]...rédigea pour le commentarie qu’il avait fait de cette version, il en énumère les chapitres qui sont bien ceux de notre texte actuel.” |
343 |
|
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. |
342 n. 6 |
|
Demiéville states that the four texts T14, T602, T603 and T607 are those for which the ascription to An Shigao is strongest on the basis of external evidence. |
343 |
|
Demiéville gives the Skt. (alternate) title as Vīradatta-paripṛcchā. Another version of the same text was later translated by Bodhiruci as T310(28). In that text, the title *Bodhisattvayogācārabhūmi appears in the body of the text, 菩薩瑜伽師地; T310(28):11.543a17-18 [as is the title 勇猛授長者所問---MR]. |
396 |
|
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). |
362 n. 1 |
|
Demiéville gives the Skt. title of this and the parallel T330 as Vīradatta-paripṛcchā. In T310(28), the titles 菩薩瑜伽師地 (*Bodhisattvayogācārabhūmi) [and 勇猛授長者所問] appear in the text itself, T310(28):11.543a17-18. |
396 |
|
Demiéville says that the 師子月佛本生經 T176 can only be dated with certainty before the end of the sixth century (Fajing, LDSBJ etc.). It is not in CZSJJ. Fajing lists it among the anonymous scriptures. LDSBJ ascribes it to Dharmarakṣa, and says it gets its information on the text from the Nie Daozhen 聶道眞 catalogue, via Baochang. KYL rejects this ascription, and states that it is an anonymous translation of the Qin [the ascription that still appears in the Taishō: 新為失譯人名附三秦錄---MR]; but Demiéville says that he cannot see the grounds upon which he bases this "hypothesis". Demiéville translates the title "Jātaka du Siṃhacandra". He argues that T760 must be earlier than T176 [i.e. T176 must be later than T760]. Demiéville summarises the content of the text p. 372. |
369, 370, 372 |
|
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. |
347, 349 |
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. |
351 |
|
|
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. |
354 n. 2 |
|
Demiéville proposes that the 思惟略要法 T617 is possibly not a translation by Kumārajīva, but that it must date from nearly the same period. His reasons are: 1) T617 is only attributed to Kumārajīva from LDSBJ onward. 2) CSZJJ, on the other hand, mentions an An Shigao text by the same title. This text, moreover, is listed with an alternate title, 形疾三品風經, which Demiéville states would fit the content of T617. However, the terminology the extant T617 is not like that of An Shigao. |
359 and n. 2 |
Demiéville asserts that the Indic author was identified erroneously as Dharmatrāta by the Chinese tradition, and it is in fact by Buddhasena. |
362 |
|
|
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. |
368 |
|
Demiéville reports that the 坐禪三昧經 T614 is a digest, compiled in 402 at the request of Sengrui 僧叡. Demiéville identifies sources in Aśvaghoṣa, Kumāralāta, and Saṅgharakṣa; and the *Vasudhara T482 (which Demiéville says was already identified by Sengrui as one of the sources of the "Mahāyāna appendix" to T614). It also refers to MPPU T1509. Demiéville proposes that in T614, as in T616 on his analysis, a "syncretism" of the two vehicles was probably attempted in response to Chinese demand. |
355-357 |
|
Demiéville states that the 五門禪經要用法 T619 is based upon the Ekottarikāgama (he refers to Hōbōgirin 245b), but "with developments not found in the Āgama; it must be extracted from some literary work the identity of which escapes me." He discusses the text and summarises its content p. 360 ff. He points out that the "five entryways" 五門, which give the text its name, are presented twice; the second presentation, at 332b, follows the order of a rubric found in the 思惟略要法 T617, sometimes with literal correspondences. He suggests that it is possible that T619 proper ends already at 332a12, and that the material succeeding it was originally part of a different text. The final part shows some correspondences, sometimes literal, with T617. |
359 n. 2, 360 ff. |
|
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. |
351-352 |
|
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. |
345-346 n. 1 |
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". |
370 |
|
|
The last three chapters (28-30) of T606, Demiéville thinks, look like a later 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. This text discusses three classes of disciples, i.e. adherents of the three vehicles. Demiéville discusses this text/portion of the text and its relation to a range of other sources pp. 351-363. He suggests that the text has clear debts to certain similes in Dharmarakṣa's Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra T263. (The particular story in question in T263 is not found in any other versions of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, and tells of merchants going to the palace of a nāgarāja to obtain a cintāmaṇi; the closest relative to the story is found in Dharmarakṣa's version of the jātakas 生經 T154; even the frame is similar in the two loci.) |
349 |
|
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. |
374 n. 1 |
|
Demiéville states that the ascription to An Shigao of T604 and T605 is uncertain. |
353 n. 1 |
|
Demiéville writes that the first portion of T616, until the end of the verses (286b13-287a21) is very close to T609. The present dating of T609 to the Han period is very implausible. According to the sub-title in the Korean version, T609 is only the first chapter of a longer incomplete work. There are often literal correspondences between T609 and T616, but T609 is more developed, and introduces Mahāyāna additions. |
354 n. 3 |
|
Demiéville states that there can be no doubt that this preface (preserved at CSZJJ T2145:55.71b2-23) is by Dao'an. |
363 |